17 and a half hours in statement

[PinkSapphireAngel]

DH has just recieved a fax of the proposed statement and says they are allocating 17 and a half hours a week

is this good or bad?

Edited September 23, 2006 by PinkSapphireAngel

[smiley]

Depends what he needs hun.....

 

Does he have any support now?? Which parts of the day does he struggle with.....?

 

That seems to be the 'standard' anount that most people get thrown at them. M's prop stat says the same - yet he's already recieving full-time 1-2-1............

 

Just a case of saying what he needs - and backing it up with as much paperwork as poss.

 

I'll PM you some fab links.....

 

Oh, by the way -

 

 

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Better late than never.........

 

[PinkSapphireAngel]

From what dh says it has a lot of "would benefit froms" and MAY NEEDS

 

Will have to wait till I see it

[helenl53]

In my experience, the 17.5 hours relates to funding and unless it says 'dedicated' support, then it means that school will be expected to fund support from their budget allocated for SEN 5 hours (some lea's say 15 hours) and then the LEA will provide the balance of money - i.e. 2.5 hours or 12.5 hours worth of funding at TA rate which is approximately �9 per hour (not that TA's get this!) So �25 or �112.50 per week is what the LEA will give to the school as additional funding.

 

You need to get the wording 'dedicated' into the statement. But excuse me - was this not the child that didn't even need SA!!!! - how come he has now turned into this child who needs a statement!!!!! It is a damn joke isn't it!!!!

 

Best wishes

 

HelenL

[Karen A]

PSA When we got draft I worked out whether funding was adequate by looking at what times support was not needed.I then deducted that time from total school hours.I argued a case that as funding for TA support did not cover enough hours and I could not find areas where Ben could cope without suppport it was inadequate.We did not get any more TA hours though.

The main area to look at is whether your son can cope at lunch and break time.If not then see what is in the draft to support an argument for cover then.Karen

[LKS]

PSA at last nearly there now <'> Will you be asking for the school you want Luke to go to to be named on the statement? You know my ds has a statement for AS, he receives 15 hours of L.S.A. support per week. The senco, myself and ds have sort of agreed where he will receive this now. In some lessons he needs someone there all of the time in others he manages quite well. This is usually dependant on how understanding and supportive the teacher is. It is going to be hard for you to work out how much support Luke needs as I suppose it will have to be based on his c****y primary school. In which case it should be full time

[PinkSapphireAngel]

The wording seriously needs changing in it from what I can see,

there are a lot of "would benefit from and mays

also regarding the LSA time it says "to be used FLEXIBLY by school to meet the needs"

that sounds a bit vague to me.

 

They also don't specifically say how some of his needs will be met.

It says it will be reviewed after 6 months but does not say whether this will involve LEA (I get the impression its the school.

 

There is no list or anything about schools, they just say I can contact them for a list.

The other annoying thing for me was there was NO letter from THAT WOMAN but instead it was from the so called casework support officer who IGNORED all my emails throughout the entire assessment !!

[darky]

arghhhh i hate ambigious wording, it can mean anything. i mean "i would benifit" from �100000 but it dont mean im going to get it. this kind of wording should be banned full stop.

 

well done for getting this far though. x

[Flora]

PSA.

 

Fantastic that you've got this far considering they were refusing to assess in the first place . Hopefully you'll be able to hammer it out without going to tribunal to get the statement your son needs.

 

It's amazing the ambiguity that LEA's manage to come up with. In August when I was discussing Ben's needs at a meeting with our LEA, the officer told me that very few children need more than 15 hours a week and even with a statement most kids won't get more than that. Funny then how Bill, WITHOUT a statement is getting 22 and a half hours! Same LEA, same officer, just a different school.

 

Good luck PSA, you've come this far you can go the extra mile, just a pity you have had to go through all this torture to get what your son so obviously needs and deserves.

 

Flora

[UltraMum]

The wording seriously needs changing in it from what I can see,

....

It says it will be reviewed after 6 months but does not say whether this will involve LEA (I get the impression its the school.

If this refers to any of the actual provision then get them to take this out

... we are really up against it because of allowing similar wording in our statement that gave a timeframe for support. They then reviewed it and decided to maintain the statement ... which they say means that the support has now come to an end as it was time limited.

 

Have a look at the top two paragraphs on p 104 of the CoP ...

c the third sub-section (of Part 3) should describe the arrangements to be made for setting shorter-term educational and developmental targets for the child. The targets themselves should not be part of the statement but should form an integral part of their IEP. By their nature such targets will require regular review and revision while the longer-term objectives in sub-section 1 will not. The child?s school should devise the first IEP, in consultation with their parents and, where appropriate the child, within two months of placement at a different school, or immediately the statement is finalised if the child remains in the same school. The child?s achievements, in the light of the IEP, should be reviewed at least twice a year by the school, and fully considered at the first annual review of the statement when further targets can be set.

 

8:40 This sub-section should also identify any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement and recognise the need for the school to monitor and evaluate the child?s progress during the course of the year. LEAs must review a child?s statement at least once a year. The review should consider the child?s progress towards the objectives in sub section 1 and in relation to the shorter-term objectives and targets set out by the school in the child?s Individual Education Plan (IEP). It should also consider whether any changes are needed to the provision with reference to the child?s progress.

 

So they should say what arrangements the school needs to make to make and review his IEP and then mention the annual review. The CoP says that "Although LEAs have the power to arrange a review of a statement at any time during the year, LEAs should aim to secure the agreement of the school and the child?s parents before exercising that power." They can always call for an earlier review but you can make the case that they are pre-empting themselves by deciding that the support will need changing in 6 months.

 

Have you got a copy of 'SENT Ahead' the IPSEA guide to the SEN Tribunal? There's an excellent piece in there about bad wording of statements ... let me know if you haven't and I'll type it in!

 

Keep on trucking!

[PinkSapphireAngel]

I don't have a copy of SENTahead

 

In the monitoring section of provision in the proposed statement it says...

 

THE SCHOOL WILL MONITOR LUKE'S PROGRESS IN MEETING THE OBJECTIVES SET OUT ABPOVE. WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE FINAL STATEMENT THE SENCO, IN CONSULTATION WITH PARENTS AND THE APPROPRIATE PROFFESSIONAL(S) WILL ESTABLISH SHORT TERM EDUCATIONAL TARGETS AND THE STRATERGY TO MEET THEM.

THESE WILL BE SET OUT IN AN INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLAN.

 

 

THE FIRST REVIEW SHOULD BE AFTER 6 MONTHS TO MONITOR THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROVISION. LUKE SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN SETTING THE TARGETS AND MONITORING THEM IF HE IS ABLE.

[UltraMum]

Here you go PSA

 

 

The wording of Part 3

 

It is vital to make sure that the wording of the special educational provision you are seeking is entirely clear and unambiguous. This way you can be sure that the help is guaranteed and that if it is not provided you will be able to take the necessary steps to ensure that the LEA puts it in place. Some LEAs habitually use wording that is vague, unspecific and likely to lead to confusion. Ask the tribunal to order any such wording to be amended and cheek also that any wording you are seeking is sufficiently specific and clear as to leave no room for doubt.

 

The following are common examples of lack of clarity:

 

Ambiguity over who is to do what. For example: "two sessions of speech therapy weekly" A parent might expect a therapist to attend while the LEA intended learning support assistants to provide the therapy. Ask for speech therapy to be carried out by speech therapists if this is what you believe is necessary for your child.

 

Ambiguity over frequency of provision. For example "regular" speech therapy could be once a year or even less.

 

Ambiguity over the amount of provision. For example: "up to 15 hours help from a learning support assistant". This doesn't guarantee any level of help at all for the child. Ask for the exact amount or at least the minimum to be specified.

 

"Access to." This does not make clear whether the provision is always s available to the child or only occasionally. If your child needs a laptop computer to record work. access to one may not be sufficient. Ask for the statement to say 'John needs a laptop computer to be available to him at all times in school for his personal use in recording his work." Similarly if your child needs a learning support assistant in the classroom instead of "access to" one ask for the statement to say "Alison needs the support of a learning support assistant in the classroom at all times (25 hours) to assist her in understanding instructions and in carrying out her individual learning programmes" as the case may be. The same difficulty with the use of the phrase "opportunities for.'

 

Use of the term "subject to review." There is a view that this term allows the provision to be changed without an amendment of the statement, you do not need this wording since statements can be changed by amendment with or without a review at any time and it is best avoided.

 

Ambiguity over the size of a setting. For example: "a small group." Where the staff student ratio is crucial to your child spell out what the maximum size should be.

 

Provision that is limited in time despite the fact that the child's needs will continue. For example, "10 sessions of speech therapy" or ‑ 20 hours learning support assistant help for the first term", without saying what should happen afterwards. If the provision is likely to change fairly soon the statement can say "There should be an early review to consider whether an amendment should be made to change ' reduce the provision." That way the current help stays in place until a decision is made. It also means that you can appeal against any changes with which you are unhappy.

 

Wording that allows someone else to decide about provision. For example a statement should not say "Speech therapy as advised by the speech therapist". The person writing the statement is meant to decide on provision not leave it to someone else. The same problem arises with "as appropriate," "at the discretion of the professionals involved and "on the advice of those teaching." Of course the current advice of professionals should be considered but it is for the LEA to make a decision about provision or amendment of provision in the light of that advice.

 

Ambiguity about qualifications. For example, if a specialist teacher is required, make clear what specialism is required.

 

Wish we'd taken more notice of "Provision that is limited in time despite the fact that the child's needs will continue." We were so delighted to get SALT into part 3 we didn't spot the time bomb!

Edited September 13, 2006 by UltraMum

[LKS]

Thanks for that ultramum that is going straight in my favourites. PSA you know I have been fighting to have speech and language maintained on my dd's statement. Although it is in part 3 they wrote

*** will have access to a speech and language therapist at least twice a term. This level of support will continue until her needs are reviewed by the therapist. Well the Salt has discharged her despite the fact that myself, school and the specialists at GOSH don't agree. The ever caring borough have told me that if I think she still needs Salt then I should take it up with the therapist myself All of the bits you have mentioned so far seem to be standard for their statements, actually apart from the hours they are EXACTLY the same.

[PinkSapphireAngel]

Well I have made 4 A4 pages of notes/changes so far!

 

They have put ASD and gross and fine motor skills difficulties as NON EDUCATIONAL NEEDS ???

[Karen A]

PSA If they have put ASD as none educational need-what SEN have they identified ?Had to ask as I could not believe what I was reading.We are all deluded then-better tell the mods to take education section off the forum-our children obviously don't have educational needs. Ben must find learning difficult for some other reason.Sorry needed a rant Karen

[PinkSapphireAngel]

PSA If they have put ASD as none educational need-what SEN have they identified ?Had to ask as I could not believe what I was reading.We are all deluded then-better tell the mods to take education section off the forum-our children obviously don't have educational needs. Ben must find learning difficult for some other reason.Sorry needed a rant Karen

 

 

Hun you are spot on and I WILL be making them explain that to me.

[helenl53]

Hi Guys

 

I think they put it there because it could also be a medical need (eg medication) and so long as it is in Part 2 then you are OK - it is when SLT is deemed to be a health need and there is no reference to it at all in Part 2 that you have a problem.

 

Best wishes

 

HelenL

[PinkSapphireAngel]

Hi Guys

 

I think they put it there because it could also be a medical need (eg medication) and so long as it is in Part 2 then you are OK - it is when SLT is deemed to be a health need and there is no reference to it at all in Part 2 that you have a problem.

 

Best wishes

 

HelenL

 

 

They totally ignored what the EP said about needing Luke's language needs clarofied and up to date advice given by SALT, both when they issued the note in lieu in July and now with the proposed statement.

[PinkSapphireAngel]

This morning I finally emailed THAT WOMAN (ie the LEA officer we have had nightmares with) and also cc her line manager and also the director of education at the LEA so they see it too,

askng her to explain why so many points were left out of the wrongly issued note in lieu,

I pointed out that they were NOT NEW evidence and that she already had all the information when she decided NOT to issue the proposed statememt back in July

 

I sent it first theing this morning and now just have to decide how long we are willing to let her try to ignore it for?

[UltraMum]

I sent it first theing this morning and now just have to decide how long we are willing to let her try to ignore it for?

 

I've started asking for a reply within 7 days - cos otherwise they take this to the limit every time ...

[PinkSapphireAngel]

I have sent it again (as I had no response anyway) this time saying we await your reply (within 7 days please)

[UltraMum]

 

That'll teach them not to acknowledge it!!!!

 

Don't know about your email program but I can set mine up to inform me when an email is read ....

Edited September 14, 2006 by UltraMum

[PinkSapphireAngel]

 

That'll teach them not to acknowledge it!!!!

 

Don't know about your email program but I can set mine up to inform me when an email is read ....

 

 

I think mine asks the person if they want to send a reciept on reading the mail.

 

Not sure what will we do if they choose not to reply (any of them) yet.

[lil_me]

Like others have said depends what his needs are, quite suprised how detailed it is, my sons just states between 50 and 100% support.

[CarerQuie]

Have you been asked to name a school for Luke?xx

[PinkSapphireAngel]

In the accompanying letter it says...

 

Part 4 will name the school Luke will attend, but at this stage it has been left blank.

For most children the school named in the statement will be the school they are already attending, but you have the opportunity at this stage to express a preference for another school or another educational setting if you wish.

 

There is no list or anything, but they say I can ask for a list of mainstream and special schools.

[PinkSapphireAngel]

Apparently the LEA are happy to put in the changes we have asked for

Also they say they want the school (If and when he has one of course) to review it after 6 months to see whether the 17 and a half hours is enough to meeet all the needs

 

PP are going to give the LEA the go ahead to re write the new proposed statement.

[Bagpuss]

So pleased for you PSA....hope it all goes ok <'>

[smiley]

[Kathrynh]

As I understand it, all SEN funding for LSA support is now delegated to the school and it is up to them to find the money to pay for the LSA. This sometimes results in statemented children sharing an LSA so that they are both getting their allocated hours but it saves the school money. How much the school does this can depend on their budget and how many special needs children they have to cope with. The money delegated does not increase if the number of statemented children goes up. How well sharing an LSA works depends on the needs of the children. Some benefit from working closely with other children but some really do need 1 to 1. You will need to check with the school how they are going to allocate the hours.

[Karen A]

<'> <'> <'> PSA looks to me like you are almost there.Don't know what happened at the LEA to get such helpful action.Perhaps they decided they had taken on too much in challenging you.

Congratulations.Hope you are able to get the school you want.Karen

[PinkSapphireAngel]

HELP!!!!!!

 

We have just recieved the amended proposed statement and this time the accompanying letter names a school he is supposedly at now and it has a number next to it which I assume is his number on their register?

 

BUT HE IS NOT AT ANY SCHOOL (I am home educating him) AND THE SECONDARY SCHOOL THEY SAY IS THE ONE WE FIERCELY REFUSED (with the backing of primary school SENCO and LEA ASD Outreach Team)

This was even a massive issue at tribunal in March

 

I am so upset and angry as I feel this will now be the school they will try and name in Part 4 no matter what we say!

[Karen A]

So sorry PSA just when it looked like things were sorted.Don't give up now.I hope others are able to give you some advice.You probably need to get as much evidence as you can regarding why the school they named would be unsuitable for meeting your son's needs and the one you wish to name would be more appropriate-and prepare for another fight with the LEA.Karen

[UltraMum]

 

OK - find as much evidence as you can about this from last time and get them to tell you on which fresh evidence they are making this suggestion ...

[LKS]

PSA. Good God do they never give up You know the Dfes sent a letter to all directors of education in Nov 2005 (copy on the Ipsea website) it says something about naming a school

 

 

Naming a school in a child's statement

Recent correspondence we have received has highlighted some misunderstandings about the processes to be followed prior to naming a school in Part 4 of a statement. I hope the following will clarify the position.

Where a local authority, having made a first statutory assessment of a child or at the time of amending a statement, sends a copy of a proposed statement or a proposed amended statement or a copy of the existing statement and an amendment notice to the parent, the written notice which must accompany these documents must contain the information as specified in Schedule 1 to the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001, by virtue of regulations 14 and 15 respectively of those Regulations (a copy of which is to be found in the back of the SEN Code of Practice 2001).

This information must include a list of all primary or secondary schools, as appropriate. This list should include all maintained schools (including special schools) within the area and all non-maintained special schools approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 of the Education Act 1996 and all independent schools approved by the Secretary of State under section 347 of the Act.

Maintained schools

Parents must be invited to name the maintained school they would like their child to attend. Where a parent expresses a preference for a particular maintained school (mainstream or special school), the local authority must consult the school concerned, and in the case of a school maintained by another authority that local authority as well. When consulting, the Authority must send a copy of the proposed statement, amended statement, or existing statement and an amendment notice. In all cases the appendices to the statement must be included. As part of the consultation process the Authority should write to the school and other authority to ask them whether, in their opinion:

? the school is unsuitable to the child's age, ability or aptitude or to his special educational needs;

? the child's attendance would be incompatible with the efficient education of the children with whom he would be educated, or

? the child's attendance would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources.

These criteria are set out in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 27 to the Education Act 1996.

If the school or local authority opposes the naming of the parent's preferred school on any of the grounds specified above, the "home" authority should consider very carefully their reasons for doing so, before deciding whether or not to name the school, not least because once a local authority names a particular maintained school in a child's statement, that school must admit the child,

Don't know whether any of that helps. I am going to a meeting on Wednesday about the LEA's plan of re-designation of special schools and how they plan to lump all sen in together

[PinkSapphireAngel]

Thanks, have printed that off incase I need to quote it at them.

 

Annoying thing is this is still only a Amended Proposed Statement so they are not even naming it in Part 4.

 

BUT they have it down on the accompanying letter as being the school hew is CURRENTLY attending and have also sent them copies of the proposed statement when we REFUSED the school when the normal secondary school offers were made in March and he has NEVER and will NEVER attend there so should NOT be on their register.

 

BTW Does that then mean the school will have been claiming money for Luke when he should NOT even be on their register at all?

 

Today DH is ringing that school to confirm whether Luke is DEFINATELY on their register and is then phoning the named officer who wrote the accompanying letter to have it out with her, as she has NEVER once replied to any of my emails I am also backing his call up with an email and a letter today!

[PinkSapphireAngel]

UPDATE!!

 

My DH spoke to the school we refused and they said Luke is NOT on their registers,

but when DH then spoke to our named officer she told him she was given the name of the school by the SEN officer (known as THAT WOMAN in my previous posts)

She said Luke IS on that school's roll she claimed NO ONE in her office is aware Luke is NOT attending ANY school at all right now (LIES LIES LIES!!!)

 

She then asked for it all to be set out to her in an email (AGAIN!!! I have done this ad also said it needs serious investigation, DH will ring her again later to confir, she has recieved the email (as she has always ignored every email I have sent her before)

 

I am so angry!! I am contacting the director of education again (as I have been cc him on everything) to ask for a copy of the LEAs official complaints procceedure

[bramblebrae]

It's sheer incompetence that! Seems like they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. I'm amazed by your ability to keep going with all this though I know there is no other choice really but I think I'd be in a hospital with a breakdown by now I can't control my rage inside when people make such mistakes and especially the downright lies they've told in the past, I'd have exploded. I suppose if trying to find a silver lining it is all more evidence of there inability to get anything right which is why everything needs queried.

 

I think watchdog or someone could do a whole hour episode on your case alone!!

 

I hope this bit gets sorted quick at least - you think it would be easy to check a register?! The mind boggles!

 

good luck

Lorraine

[PinkSapphireAngel]

Unbeleievable aren't they?

God knows how some of these people even got their jobs in the first place.

 

This morning DH has spoken to our so called casework support officer to find out what happens now as no one has bothered to explain it to us.

Apparently they recieved our acceptance form yesterday as we know, they have now sent the amended proposed statement to the school we want and they have 15 days to tell the LEA whether or not they can meet Luke's needs, if they say yes then the LEA will name them on the finalised statement.

 

What does my head in is they have been sending copies of everything to the WRONG school all this time = the same one we REFUSED a place at in March!!!

 

So now we are back to waiting as I doubt the school will have even recieved the paperwork yet as the LEA use internal mail.

[Karen A]

PSA when we looked at the school for Ben we talked to them again at the stage you are at to discuss how they felt about Ben's needs.If you have not spoken to the school you want on the statement for a while it may be worth giving them a call.Flag up again who you are.You never know you may get the school to move things along a bit.Karen