bed32

M also has a problem with chronic soiling - and we are getting very little help from anyone - we've been round the clinical route twice and got nowhere so we are back at square one. I think toiletting can easily be seen as an educational issue - in Ms case the impact of this on his education is significant in terms of time lost, let alone the self-care and social issues that are also part of education in the broadest sense. You certainly need to get this moved from Part 6 to Part 3 with the appropriate need identified in Part 2. Without knowing the details it seems that your statement is inadequate (10 hours sounds way too low) so you should consider appealing and getting it in front of a tribunal - people like IPSEA give good advice and I think may be able to give you a lot of help if your income is such as to qualify for legal aid as your posting suggests. As to actual strategies - I wish I knew. The only option seems to be an incentive/reward system but finding one that works consistently is hard. We have had some success on a couple of occasions with this, but as soon as the incentive is obtained, or his attention switches so that he is no longer motivated by the reward then we end up back at square one with things as bad as they were before.

As you may know from other posts, we are frustrated because we don't really like any of the options we can find at the moment. His present MS school is a waste of time - he is getting nothing out of it at all and is having a negative impact on other pupils. There is what appears to be a good ASD unit in a mainstream secondary school but that is two years away and we have no attractive options before then - unless the statemented provision does produce a marked improvement. We aren't yet at the stage that the placement has broken down totally although his behaviour is such that the school would be justified in excluding him, and he also might start refusing to go at all any day (it breaks my heart to force him to go when I know it is doing no one any good). But on the present trajectory it will break down before Yr 6 - and if that is inevitable then it would seem better to acknowledge that now and move him early into a specialist school where he can stay until 16. There is a good MS secondary school just a couple of miles away with an ASD unit that seems to be pretty good but he can't go there for another two years.

It is a hard situation. In terms of qualification I have noticed that in many areas if you are outstanding at what you do then you can get away with a lack of social skills that would be an impossible handicap in other circumstances. What I don't like about the way we are thinking now is that we are categorising M by his disability rather than his ability. He has the ability to be very good in certain areas and if he can fulfill his potential in those areas then he stands a much greater chance of happiness and independence than if he just drifts. The problem of course is managing the transition from when he finds work enjoyable and easy to when he has to start stretching himself. So far it appears that his most significant problem is fear of failure - so he won't attempt anything that he might struggle to complete; so as school becomes more challenging he just opts out of those parts he doesn't find easy. The problem is that by opting out of mainstream before providing the help he needs in social/communication you are assuming that that help won't actually achieve enough (unfortunately probably correct as it is hard to see how it can be provided effectively in a mainstream environment)

Just at the moment M (Yr 4) is really struggling in mainstreamfor a variety of reasons - some sensory, some social and some emotional. Also he has not got as good a relationship with his class teacher or TA as he has in earlier years. We feel that a lot of this is due to a lack of a proper understanding by the teachers, and a lack of specialised support in school and we hope that with experienced 1-1 support the situation will improve significantly. But is it realistic to hope that things will improve enough for him to remain in mainstream after Yr 7 - in the sense of either a mainstream school or an ASD unit where a significant part of the teaching is delivered in mainstream. I think accademic side of his education would be better in a good mainstream school than in a specialised school - but only if he can access the teaching in a mainstream environment. As a parent I hope that the barriers to mainstream are minor and that good support on the social and emotional side should help he get over these but the impression I get is that things are more likely to get worse rather than better. Taking him out of mainstream is a major decision as it will impact the rest of his life - probably the single most important decision we will ever take on his behalf. We don't want to do so unnecessarily, but if it is inevitable then probably the sooner the better.

I think the repeated need to go to tribunal is also a scandal. On our initial request for assessment the LA turned us down - twice- without even bothering to read the paper work. In Ms case the need for a statement was absolutely obvious - it wasn't a borderline case. We then had to apply to Tribunal to assess. The LA then gave up the day the Tribunal was about to rule them out. Net result 6 months delays, cost to us of thousands, M loses vital support at a critical time. Cost to LA - nil - savings to LA - 6 months provision. Come back on LA - None. At present forcing parents to go to tribunal is a net saving to LA - and can end in years of battle to get the provision the child is entitled to. That is years of wasted opportunity for the child that he can never get back. What we need is for the LAs to be penalised for their blatant flouting of the Law and Code of Practice.

We find this very frustrating - there appears to be a gap in provision (state or independent) for ASD children of average or above cognative ability during KS2. Particularly those, like our son, who struggle to cope in a class of 30 owning to sensory problems and social/emotional difficulties. In our area the specialised units all seem to be MLD, so inappropriate for an able child. The specialist schools we have seen are more targetted at children with more typical SALT needs - e.g. little or no language at all - rather than the social and pragmatic language difficulties of an ASD child. FInding a school that teaches cognatively average or above children in small groups at KS2 seems very difficult

I am not sure how "mainstream with unit" works at primary level - we haven't seen one in our area we would send M to. Once you get to Yr7 some of the ASD units in mainstream seem pretty good - but that leaves a gap of 2-4 years (basically the Junior years) where provision for AsD children of average or above cognitive skills seems pretty patchy. We seem to be looking more at schools that take children from Y4 right the way up to GCSE (all independent I think) but we still hope to stay in MS for a bit longer - the longer we stay the more options we'll have. However as I've said before we are very aware that the situation in his present school could deteriorate very quickly and we may need to get him out quickly- as you are having to. If school will support you in saying he is too disruptive for mainstream then it seems that LA will have no alternative but to put him in a special school - the issue then will be fighting any inappropriate placements. For that you need a good working knowledge of the options for schools, and probably an independent EP to show why the LAs choice is not appropriate,and yours is the only place for him. With our school we have even discussed excluding M - they would be justified in doing so and that would force the LA to act - but hope we don't get to that stage

You have my sympathy - we are hoping to keep M in mainstream for the present but we are very aware that it could all fall apart any time with very little notice. Do you know what school you want him to attend? Given the timescales I think you should already be engaging with your preferred placement to ensure they are on side. You would hope that if you can go to the LA with both the MS school saying it can't cope, and an alternative saying they can help him, then the placement should be easier - it seems to me that many people in LA take the path of least resistance - so if you do their job for them then you are more likely to get what you want. As I read the Code of Practice (9:40) you have the right to apply directly for a change to the placement without having to go through the review process - so you could make the request direcly to LA as soon as you know which school you want him to attend even before the emergency review is completed I think it is key to this for the school to say that having him in the school is detrimental to the other children (which of course it is) - the LA will struggle to argue with that I am not sure you will get much from an NHS SALT - round here they are more used to assessing children with language problems rather than social/communication issues. Anyway the more serious problems seem to be those that fall within the scope of an Ed Psych rather than SALT. A private SALT could help but I would have thought a private EP would be a higher priority.

My thread was as much about the concept of trying to combine EBD and HFA - which I found strange, as much about this particular instance. In this case the school (30 places) is to open on a site that previously held a pre school day care centre for SEN children (I think it closed in that role several years ago). The more I look at education the more I feel that for people like M the best approach is a unit with its own space - the mainstream environment is just too busy and overwhelming for him to be in full time. But having such a unit alongside a mainstream school could give the best of both worlds and allow genuinely personalised provision where.

Googling produces nothing - I am not even sure of the name. The original strategy document gave it one name 12 months ago, but the LA person thought it was called something completely different - that has no Google presence at all. All of this would seem to make it highly unlikely that the school will be starting in September - but the nature of such a school is that it is almost certain to have a "soft start" - it would be very difficult for it to start up on day one with a full role. What is surprising/shocking is that the LA inclusion officer doesn't know - she just thinks that it is still on track. Surely they should know - this is a major initiative in primary SEN provision in the borough. If it were really starting they should be at the forefront of identifying candidates. All of which suggests that this won't happen immediately - and is unlikely to be impact us - they couldn't send him there without out agreeing either. When it actually exists we can look at it in more detail.

The odd thing is that the strategy is for EBD and HFA - sounds like an impossible mixture. However I am sure the parents of most of the children in M's class would say that he is very loud and aggressive The difference being of course that in a quiet environment the ASD child will settle immediately and cease to be loud and aggressive

So frustrating that teachers seem to think getting angry and shouting at an ASD child is going to do any good. Almost whenever we are called into see the school about something M has done it has been either caused or made much worse by ill-considered "interventions" by people who should know better. Perhaps we should specify an anger management programme for the teachers on the statement !

Asdinit Your case sounds very close to ours - although our M (same name too) is Yr 4 he has very similar problems, and we should have been doing this 6-12 months ago had the school been more on the ball. In our case the inclusion officer has already agreed to put the case back in front of the panel in a couple of weeks time - making a stronger case for full time support - so in our case at least there is a chance to get significant changes to the provision on the draft statement before finalisation. If in your LA won't do that then talking them is a waste of time and you might as well get the statement finalised and go straight to appeal! As we only have just over 2 years left in primary we are a little reluctant to move M now - so trying to get the provision in Mainstream but the LA was pretty definite that it is very difficult to get that level of work on SALT, OT that he needs in Mainstream - but also that there are no better options available in borough. Do you actually have a special school in mind? I would be interested to know which you have considered

At present it is very hard to find anything out about the school. It is mentioned in the LAs published strategy which was distributed to us by PP - with a target start date of Sept 2012 - our named SEN inclusion officer knows nothing more about it but says that it is still "on track" and they are looking to identify candidates. Looking at the range of therapies we would like for M (SALT, OT, Social Communication, Behaviour...) it is very difficult to see how they can provided properly in his current mainstream environment even if we get them all added to the statement. What has impressed us about specialised schools is that these are built into the day-to-day life of the school in a way that can't happen for an individual pupil in a mainstream setting.

The school is being set up and run by the LA - and you have to praise them for at least making an attempt to plug a gaping hole in their provision - but whether I want M to be a guinea-pig is a different matter. The strategy stoates that it will hold 50 pupils but there is very little information available. The LA SEN person we spoke to today says that it was still supposed to be opening in September but couldn't give any details at all - they have been trying to identify possible pupils - and had identified a few - so not going to be oversubscribed. The LA has a very poor record with SEN, so there is no track record either in that school or any other they control - and the person we spoke to was unable to give any information about the staff or anything else for that matter - all of which makes me think while it MAY open in September, it won't be Sept 2012. Superficially M does have behavioural problems - it is there on the (draft) statement - however what is clear - and also stated explicitly in the diagnosis. is that these are symptoms of the ASD. I am not convinced that the approach required for an ASD child is the same as that for one whose emotional/behavioural problems. There are specific and clearly identified issues with his thought processes that need to be addressed - strategies that focus on the behaviour rather than the thought patterns are bound to fail. Clearly they can't impose a placement there on us - but once it is running it could make it harder for us to argue for other specialist provision.

We had a meeting with the LA about our son's draft statement -- including discussion about his placement. They agree that there is not really any appropriate placement for him within the borough but did mention a new school that is supposed to be up and running in September to cater for primary children with "Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties" - including HFA, and said that M might be a suitable candidate for the school. Does anyone know what sort of provision the school is likely to make and whether it is likely to be appropriate for a gifted ASD child? Our experience is that most specialist provision at the primary level is more focussed at MLD/SpLD and really not appropriate for AS(D). It seems very difficult for parents if a placement is suggested at a school that doesn't even exist, let alone have an established track record. Makes it virtually impossible to argue against a placement there!

Thanks for the helpful advice (as always). The underlying question is whether we should be planning to go to tribunal over parts 2 & 3 this time around. If we intend to do so we should spend what time we have face-to-face negotiating on Part 2 on the assumption that if a need is stated in Part 2 it should be pretty easy to win the case that there should be provision in Part 3. If we don't want to go to tribunal this time we would put more effort into getting provision agreed in Part 3 - and maybe spend more time negotiating rather than getting the statement finalised as soon as possible. The underlying issue being that I am not keen to go to tribunal - with all the stress and expense - on Parts 2 & 3 if we are going to have to do it all a year later over Part 4 at transition. Of course if we end up going to tribunal over Part 4 that become moot.

How important is it to get the statement right first time? We have a proposed statement from the LA that is pretty much useless. While I am sure we can significant improvements through negotiation there is little chance of getting the perfect statement, or even a good one, without going through the tribunal. It seems to be expected by everyone we speak to (at least those who know the LA) that we will be appealing the wording almost as a matter of course. My question is - if I accept the final statement without appealing - does that make it harder to get it amended (on appeal if necessary) at the first annual review. We don't really know yet what all his needs are still less what interventions would be effective, so I have a feeling that I would rather concentrate on the top 3 or 4 needs over the next year rather than try to get everything at once. Then take stock once we could see how he responds to the increased support and decide what are the next priorities But if I leave the less important aspects this time would that make it harder to get them added (on appeal) in a year's time? After the annual review can we only appeal on changes to his needs, or can we go back to any points we didn't challenge at the initial statement stage?

Surely there was an observation in school by an Ed Psych? And a report from the school itself? In our case the "clinical" assessments are probably more important than those in school because they can throw light onto the cause of the problem, rather than the symptoms. If you just observed our son in school you would say he has a behaviour problem - it is the clinical assessments that show that this is just a symptom of his ASD needs not being met. Interventions aimed purely at managing his behaviour will fail if they don't take into account the underlying issues (anxiety, stress and sensory problems).

Chris - it sounds as if you are lucky. We should be entitled to good local provision for our children's education but in many places that does not happen, Organisations like Cambian Group and Priory would not need to exist if the LAs were doing their job. The fact that tribunals will send children to very expensive independent placements is the clearest evidence that LAs are failing to provide that themselves. I believe that mainstream (maintained) with an ASD unit is the ideal situation for our son (at least at secondary). Unfortunately no such place exists in my LA. I am lucky to be the corner of the LA so I have 3 other LAs close by and there is one mainstream school (that moved to new premises a couple of months ago) that does have an ASD unit (in fact they have two) but that is not a particularly good school (I wouldn't send our NT son there) and I don't know yet whether they are set up to deal with children like M - many ASD units seem to cater more for Moderate ASD rather than the more AS-like issues he has. I actually feel angry about this - it is ridiculous that I should even have to consider an independent placement for my son - it is not perfect for him and would cost the LA several times what it would cost them to make as good or better provision within the maintained (probably mainstream) sector. But I can't force the LA to build the ASD units. My LA is reputed to send more than 50% of its ASD children out of the borough - many of them to independent schools. I am not saying people ought to move to get their children into certain schools - but many do for NT children so I was pointing out that it remains a possibility. It is certainly easier for me to move nearer a good school than to move a good school nearer to me.

You have the right to ask for any maintained school on part 4 of the statement and in general they have to give you your choice - with a couple of provisos. If a school is so far away as require (expensive) transport arrangements then they can argue that that is not an efficient use of resources. Also if the school is so full that taking an additional pupil will have a serious impact on the other pupils in the school then they can also refuse. In practice I think that if the school says the special needs unit is full - and can give a reasonable argument - then you are unlikely to be able to win that one either in negotiations or on appeal. As far as changing your mind is concerned - that should be fine up until the statement is finalised. Probably best to tell the LA the schools you are thinking about - they may even have genuinely useful advice. Even after the statement is finalised you can always appeal (within 2 months) to change the school named in part 4 even if you originally agreed. LA ought to respect that and concede without it going to SENDDIST In terms of looking for an ASD unit - I think you are taking the right approach in trying ASD units before secondary - provided that you are happy with the unit, but if you move him now you probably won't want to move again before the transition to secondary school. You could also take the approach to trying one year within MS with the additional support you can get on the statement and see how that works, if that wasn;t satisfactory you could still move him to a unit for the last couple of years of primary after his first annual review.

Hi djkacy and welcome to the forum. The great thing about this place is that you find people facing the same problems as you - there is a wealth of experience and advice, not to mention sympathy. A diagnosis will help a lot - and even the fact that you now have a provisional diagnosis puts you in a stronger position. The main point to remember is that it is the responsibility of the school / LA to educate you son - not you. If behavioural problems arise out of ASD then they need to address them You need to meet with the SENCO at school - make sure he as at least on School Action Plus

All I was trying to point out is that it is very rare that there are genuinely no options - although in many cases the options may involved unacceptable compromises for other members of the family. There are few people for whom moving 100 miles is a realistic option - but many for whom a move of 20 is realistic. Education for ASD children is a nightmare for parents - especially round here. The Local Authorities are very poor in providing any SEN provision, let alone that appropriate for AS children. From other posts you have made I guess that you are fortunately enough to be in a situation where your child can cope in the local Mainstream school. Many of those of us on this forum are not so lucky. I imagine most parents would prefer their children to be suitably supported in a Mainstream environment than having to consider special schools with all the disadvantages they bring

Why not? I can't see any downside in keeping the SENCO fully informed. Even if it doesn't actually help I would say that it is worth it just to keep the SENCO on your side. We are actually to see the SENCO before we see the LA - and we will be encouraging the school to respond to the proposed statement to back up what we say. In particular we are going to suggest that they state that they don't think the hours offered are adequate (they aren't) and that to keep him there without full time 1-1 will be detrimental to the other pupils. I

Okay - let me qualify that a bit. From other posts it seems that OPs son is very similar to ours, and has similar issues in school. I have no doubt that to succeed in mainstream school our son needs full time support - and in fact that is not enough as there is so much more he needs to be taught above and beyond the usual curriculum in a mainstream school. In our case I have do doubt at all that we would get full time support from a tribunal - and I hope we will get the LA to agree to that at least without having to go to tribunal. Every child's circumstances are different but I think the comparison is pretty valid. As for not having any options - there are always options, it is just a matter of what compromises you have to make. Earlier this week we drove over 2 hours each way to see a possible school for our son. Obviously it would require a major upheaval to get him there but if we think it is the perfect place for him we will make it happen. Many ASD children manage well in MS primary schools, if your's is in one that works then you are lucky. For our son, and I imagine the OP's, mainstream is just not working today. The real issue for us (whether or not LA agree) is not whether he should get 15hrs or full time support on MS but whether even with the best possible help he will be able to continue in Mainstream even at primary level - let alone at secondary