Annual Review

[Sally44]

Just come back from the AR.

Got to wait for the report from school.

 

We had some quite strong debates. But I kept my xxxx together and did not budge an inch.

 

After I managed to corner the EP to confirm that she can diagnose dyslexia and legally cannot refuse to assess. The EP has said that she will assess my son in May towards a diagnosis of Dyslexia. I put on the record that my son has been known by the EP department since reception year and that it is unacceptable that his continued difficulties with literacy have not been assessed or formally diagnosed.

 

EP said that it is only recently (the Learn to Read Programme, since November) that my son has had the intensive input needed to help ascertain if he has dyslexia! And school only received access to the Learn to Read Programme because I kicked up a stink about his Statement not being fulfilled because he did not have a 'individualised literacy programme, he receives the government programme of phonics."

 

EP did rather concern me about what her criteria for Dyslexia was. At one point she seemed to be saying that a child making no progress would indicate Dyslexia. However I pointed out that Dyslexia is on a continuim, as it ASD. So it varies from mild to severe. If a child has to undergo an intensive form of literacy intervention BEFORE they can be assessed for dyslexia, then that is something others should know - as the Learn to Read Programme was only introduced after I wrote a letter of non-compliance to the LEA regarding his Statement. Then the EP said that his literacy difficulties were consistent with his other diagnosis. So I asked if having a diagnosis of ASD meant definate literacy difficulties, as my understanding is that ASD may or may not be a contributing factor to any learning difficulties.

 

The EP also said she will send me a DVD of a software programme that uses both auditory and visual pictures (called Funics??) to help the child retain information by associating visual and verbal information. Again that is only happening due to evidence I produced at Annual Review that his auditory system is not a reliable system for teaching literacy skills and that he needs something extra. EP said she was happy for us to trial that at home and see how he goes with that.

 

I also made it very clear to EP that she has been involved with my son for some years now, and that there is a huge delay between difficulties being picked up and supports put in place. I mentioned an email in which I specifically asked her to tell me what my son's 'individualised literacy programme would be', as I did not want his new school to take some time 'getting to know him' before they recommended any such programme. She did not do that. And I pointed out that it took 15 months from then to my son receiving the Learn to Read Programme - that delay is unacceptable.

 

There have been some wording changes to the Statement - so I have to wait to see them again in the report by school to the LEA. I am also waiting for the SALT to send me her proposed wording as her report gives evidence of both age appropriate language skills, and also the severely affected skills (<1 percentile) as well. So I would not concede the removal of the word 'severe', as he remains severe in some aspects. However 'age appropriate' in others also proves that with intensive professional input he makes progress.

 

Does anyone know how long it should be before a child is assessed by EP for dyslexia?[/b] I stated that my son fulfilled our LEA's criteria for assessment of Dyslexia - which put her out a bit - infact I may email it to her. Along with a section from the Jim Rose report into Dyslexia which states that EPs and Specialist teachers should diagnose and that private diagnosis should not be disregarded.

 

Regarding EP hours specified in the Statement. LEA said that they don't quantify EP hours. I said that according to the CoP all professional input should be specified, otherwise [according to case law] you have no way of knowing if the Statement is being fulfilled. I also said as well as saying that professional input must be specified and quantified it also does not say that EPs are excluded from this. So we'll have to see what they suggest. The EP said that she had no objection in principle to the Statement saying that my son would be reviewed in May of each academic year. She also said that she had no objection to attend annual reviews and produce a report towards this. (again I am not counting my chickens until I see the amended Statement).

 

The SALT talked about 'how often' she has to go into school. I firstly ascertained that she was not making any case for a reduction of salt hours (6 per term direct therapy and 9 per term in administrative work). Therefore I said I was prepared to look at wording regarding this and that I was flexible on how those hours were delivered. SALT argued that she wants to move input from one to one therapy and assessments (although TA will continue to give 1:1 daily SALT input) to functional situations and have some input with his Social Interaction in the Playground, SULP group, SCERTS etc.

 

Again. I don't want to celebrate yet, until I have seen the report - so I may come back in tears again in 10 days! But I think I proved my case.

 

The SENCO did ask the EP what the benefit of a diagnosis of dyslexia would mean for my son and the implications for school. The EP said that obviously they were mindful that a diagnosis would mean that I would be asking for specialist teaching input to be included in the Statement. QED.

 

The only thing I am mindful about is that the EP has said she will formally assess for Dyslexia in May. That means that by that time I will not have the opportunity to have that diagnosis included in the Statement this year, as my right to appeal to any amendments is a two month period. Not sure how I feel about that. I really do not trust them as far as I can throw them.

 

EP also said they had no objection for the software programme Lucid Memory to be put in the Statement for help with working memory.

 

AND, as they are making some amendments to the Statement, I have a right of appeal to SEND if they don't include what I want. So, I won't have to go to appeal.

 

The only thing that could completely mess it all up is if the LEA decide not to change anything.

[julie1]

well done you, you sound like you did a great job. I need to take you with me when i go to my childrens AR,

[JsMum]

SALT argued that she wants to move input from one to one therapy and assessments (although TA will continue to give 1:1 daily SALT input) to functional situations and have some input with his Social Interaction in the Playground, SULP group, SCERTS etc.

 

I would still insist on at least one session of one to one SALT with a qualified SAL Therapist once a week, and ensure they spesify how long the session is.

 

JsMumxxx

 

[Sally44]

well done you, you sound like you did a great job. I need to take you with me when i go to my childrens AR,

 

 

Just try to cover all your basis. Make sure you have all relevant documents about quantifying and specifying (mainly downloaded from the IPSEA Website). Search your own LEAs SEN criteria for documents.

 

The biggest issue is getting any new dx into the Statement. This part really annoys me because the EP said that "it doesn't matter if xxx does or does not have dyslexia. The important thing is making him functional." That gives the impression that his 'dyslexia' needs will be met without a dx. That simply is not the case. When I argued that he needed specialist input she immediately said "but you don't have a diagnosis to prove he needs this." So I then pulled out all my documentation which identifies that he fulfills all the criteria (Educational Psychologists criteria, LEA criteria, Jim Rose report on Dyslexia criteria - and that she is qualified to dx him (as is a specialist teacher for dyslexia).

 

And the reason you need a dx to get the support is because of the CoP. Once the dx is in section 2, then support has to be quantified and specified in section 3. That is exactly what the EP was referring to when the SENCO asked her "what is the benefit for XXX to have a dx of dyslexia?" EP answered "because with a dx Mrs xxx will be seeking professional support to be quantified and specified."

[Kathryn]

The only thing I am mindful about is that the EP has said she will formally assess for Dyslexia in May. That means that by that time I will not have the opportunity to have that diagnosis included in the Statement this year, as my right to appeal to any amendments is a two month period. Not sure how I feel about that. I really do not trust them as far as I can throw them.

 

As you haven't got the amended statement yet, and it's nearly March, the assessment may happen before your deadline for appeal, if you're lucky. Even if it doesn't, you can appeal 2 & 3 anyway (you'll probably find something you're not happy with!) and submit the dyslexia assessment as evidence when you get it.

 

The cynic in me says the LEA may decide not to change anything, thereby avoiding the obligation to provide further specialist support - I hope I'm wrong. Well done for getting through what must have been a tough meeting.

 

K x

 

 

[Sally44]

As you haven't got the amended statement yet, and it's nearly March, the assessment may happen before your deadline for appeal, if you're lucky. Even if it doesn't, you can appeal 2 & 3 anyway (you'll probably find something you're not happy with!) and submit the dyslexia assessment as evidence when you get it.

 

The cynic in me says the LEA may decide not to change anything, thereby avoiding the obligation to provide further specialist support - I hope I'm wrong. Well done for getting through what must have been a tough meeting.

 

K x

 

 

That is what I am thinking.

But, if they refuse to amend I will proceed and ask for a re-assessment. And surely it will not look good on them that they have deliberately gone against everyones advice and agreement in the meeting. I am also looking forward to getting the PP minutes of the meeting to see what they got down. I made it very clear that my son should have received a dx of dyslexia a long time ago. This same EP has been involved with my son since approx year 1. He has continued to have the same difficulties throughout. This is not something new. It is something she is qualified to dx, and which the Jim Rose report to the government specifically says that LEA EPs and SPLD teachers can and should dx and also says that 'outside' diagnosis are not to be disregarded.

LEAs must spend alot of time on training their staff on how to proceed to avoid the least amount of input. How can they say a dx is not needed on the one hand, and then refuse input because there is no dx, and then refuse to do a dx themselves and then refuse to recognise an outside dx. That position would not stand up at tribunal. I am quite happy to go there again if that is what it takes.

I know that I am right in what I am asking for. At least that is what all the advice from sources such as IPSEA/NAS are saying and that also follows the CoP, the Education Act and the letter from the DfES to all LEAs. So if they refuse to amend it is just a delaying tactic.

That will push me into a position where I will also challenge the placement. I would have nothing to lose and everything to gain because by the time we get to that stage, it will be at the time when we will be looking at transition anyway.

I'm even wondering if she would assess him and say he does not have dyslexia. She made some mention of 'other reasons' for not making good academic progress ie. MLD. But all his reports so far says he is bright, attentive, high functioning etc. But I don't trust her at all. It is horrible to feel like that about a professional.

It even annoyed me that when the meeting had finished ie. no more note taking, then she actually talked to me about my concerns and talked about what she thought and what she could do. But she wasn't prepared to say any of that on the record. And because of that (and past promises not being fulfilled), I don't believe anything she says. I want everything on paper.

If they do amend and I get the assessment done by then, then all well and good. That will give me a breathing space to start looking at secondary schools and preparing for when I get further reports.

[Mandapanda]

Hi Sally44

 

 

I wish you the strength to continue, as you are doing a marvellous job for your son.

 

 

 

 

[Sally44]

I'm just pumped full of adreneline at the moment!

And I've been looking through my paperwork and emails and have all the documentation that the Autism Outreach Teacher send in forms for his previous school to complete regarding a dx, and the teacher lost them.

The SPLD teacher (who can also dx), then went off sick for over a year and when she returned her 'role' had changed and she no longer dx'd (illegal), or assessed (illegal). Infact she just gives a telephone advice service.

 

It appeared quite obvious at the meeting yesterday that the school did not appear to understand the implications of a dx and the CoP. So, when a school keeps saying the child "is doing okay and making progress", they may actually cause the child not to get the input they need. Unfortunately whatever any professional or LEA says about "not wanting to give the child a label/everything your child needs will be provided etc", input is either not given, or not given to the level it should be simply because there is no dx. The EP said straight away that to 'justify' input from a SPLD teacher (or additional software) my son would need to have a dx!

 

I also quoted the Matthews effect (thanks Grace for that one!). Which clearly states that those who are good get better and that those who are poor get poor (at reading/writing). And that remediation is needed - something that tries to help the child catch up. There is evidence (see the Jim Rose Report) that input is most effective before aged 8. And that if a child goes to secondary school with severe reading/writing skills it is going to have a detrimental effect on their academic attainment and future life choices.