Review of a Statement.

[Karen A]

Hi.

 

I wanted to check this out.

I don't know if it has happened before but think it could.

If a Statement comes to the attention of the LA and they decide to call an emergency review.

If at the review the LA decide that the level of provision is no longer needed in their opinion or that the Statement is no longer required because schools can provide support from delegated funding then they can withdraw the Statement or amend it downwards.

 

Am I right ?

 

I am aware that for most LAs in the current financial climate Statements are being issued much less readily than a few years ago.

I wondered what implications that might have for Statements written in previous years that are reviewed ?

Karen.

[BusyLizzie100]

Hi Karen,

 

I can tell you what happened to my friend's son when his Statement was rewritten for secondary school after his Y5 review -

 

Her son had had a Statement since Reception, with hours of 1:1 specified etc. The new Statement, finalised at the beginning of Y6, has no hours specified on it, because such specification 'is no longer needed', ie, the school should be able to accommodate the needs in Part 2 through their delegated funding. The provision in Part 3 is now much more woolly and general.

 

What tends to happen under delegated funding, especially at secondary school, is that Teaching Assistants are 'shared' across a number of children, to cut costs and for 'greater flexibility', apparently. In practice, as in my own son's case, it is often the more disruptive or more demanding children that get the TA's attention and therefore input, while he sits and stresses on his own.

 

My friend started an appeal to get specified hours back on her son's Statement because she know he wouldn't cope without 1:1; meanwhile she spoke to the intended secondary school who said: 'We currently prefer Statements to be as unspecified as possible because, when they are tightly specified, we know we can't fulfil them with our delegated funding. So please don't appeal!'

 

In the end my friend has sent her son to an independent school, so the appeal ended, but it would've been very interesting to see the SEND view on that situation! And SEND may still, because my son attends the same school and we are having difficulties with non-compliance of his Statement...

 

Back to your query, I think an LA would have to be particularly ######-minded to take out specified provision at a 'regular' annual review; I think any parent/carer would have a very strong argument for getting specified provision put back in if the needs hadn't changed - although, of course, the LA might try that tactic, too, by changing Part 2...

 

I think SEND would take a very dim view of such practice. IPSEA may have a view on it too, and would probably very much like to hear about any LA that does so it can take action against them.

 

Lizzie x

[Kathryn]

I think Case law is relevant here, surely? R vs Oxfordshire and R vs Hillingdon: the statement should describe all the provision a child should be getting even if some of it can be provided by the school. The LEA remains ultimately responsible for making the provision if the school fails to do so.

 

Of course the LEA can always decide that the provision is no longer necessary and take it away, but the child's progress should be the starting point to determine that and they should be compelled to produce the evidence for ceasing or reducing the support. If it can be shown that the child still needs the support, I would think there was a strong case for maintaining the statement at the current level. Interesting one! I think it would be harder to threaten a statement already in place than to refuse to issue one in the first place.

But in the straitened economic times we live in, who can tell what may happen in the future.

 

K x

[Karen A]

I think Case law is relevant here, surely? R vs Oxfordshire and R vs Hillingdon: the statement should describe all the provision a child should be getting even if some of it can be provided by the school. The LEA remains ultimately responsible for making the provision if the school fails to do so.

 

Of course the LEA can always decide that the provision is no longer necessary and take it away, but the child's progress should be the starting point to determine that and they should be compelled to produce the evidence for ceasing or reducing the support. If it can be shown that the child still needs the support, I would think there was a strong case for maintaining the statement at the current level. Interesting one! I think it would be harder to threaten a statement already in place than to refuse to issue one in the first place.

But in the straitened economic times we live in, who can tell what may happen in the future.

 

K x

 

Thanks that does help but perhaps it is worth my while to be more specific.

Ben has made very good progress academically in the last year.

He is doing pretty well in school in other respects.

 

I think this is partly because he holds things together at school and we get grief at home,partly because he is very bright and currently everything except maths is mixed ability and he can currently cope,partly because support was in place last year , partly because we work extremely hard at home and partly because the SENCO who was in post previously was excellent.

 

 

An annual review is not due until next Spring.

However I am aware that since return to school no support has been in place.

I am debating very carefully how to respond to this situation.

 

My thinking is this.

Previously when I have contacted the LA about provision not being in place as per the Statement they have looked at the Statement very carefully before talking with school or called an urgent review of the Statement.

So could they in theory review the Statement and decide that in the light of current Statements not being issued it is no longer needed ?

My LA has always been excellent but I have no wish to become an example in Case Law or the first case of many.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Karen A

[Sally44]

My understanding is that changes to the Statement can only happen at Annual Reviews, Emergency Reviews or after a total re-assessment. I think both parties (parents or LEA) can ask for an emergency review or re-assessment. And there are legitimate times when either party may wish or need to do so.

The problem lies with current Statements not being fulfilled. Unfortunately not all LEAs are working for the benefit of SEN children. Some are motivated to reduce provision to reduce costs.

I think if provision is not being put in place, the longer it is left, the more evidence the school or LEA might use that the child coped without it anyway and therefore it was not needed.

As Kathryn says, provision is always measured against progress and that is academic, social, emotional, behavioural, sensory, and physical etc. So they cannot remove provision just because he is doing well academically. However if some of the provison in the Statement does relate to TA support etc and your son no longer needs it, or needs less of it, or needs support in a different way, then at Annual Review (or any other type of review) the school/LEA can recommend reductions in provision or cease that type of provision entirely.

So keeping records of progress and targets is very important.

 

My son's new proposed statement has had all the quantified and specified provision removed from it. When I spoke with SEND they said I could include his former Statement in the documents I submitted so it would be evident to the Panel what level of support he had previously and what was being proposed now. Any LEA would have to justify drastic changes.

 

In your case I would meet with the school. Tell them that your son is showing some behaviours at home that are worrying you because you know that support in his Statement is not currently in place and you feel this deterioration is due to anxiety and stress around coping in school. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask when it will be provided and by whom. It is common for children to show behaviour at home that they do not in school. And remember that any 'flexibility' built into the Statement has to be for the benefit of the child and not the system (ie. school staffing problems etc). That is case law.

 

So you need to use a gentle but firm hand. Meet with school first and get some timescales from them. If support and provision does not materialise in their timescales (and only you can decide if you accept them, you don't have to because the Statement is a legally binding document) write into school saying you want a response from them within 7 days stating when provision/support will be in place as previously agreed timescales have now passed. If nothing happens write to the LEA about non-compliance issues. Yes it could all go belly up and the LEA could re-assess and remove everything. But equally you could do nothing and your son deteriorates and you take 5 steps backwards in terms of academic and social progress.

 

I waited a whole academic year for certain provision to be put in place because I was given a reasonable explanation for why it was not provided. Then I found out that I had been lied to. So I complained to the LGO and they received a totally different explanation to the one I had in writing from the LEA! I have now found out that this second excuse is also a lie and have written to the LGO for them to follow it up. I have no idea what the outcome will be! It is very frustrating because there are certain professionals involved with my son who are brilliant. But there are also others who are determined to keep funding down. In the Proposed Statement this provision is not even included. So he needed it nearly two years ago, did not receive it, and now miraculously does not need it anymore. How convenient.

[Karen A]

My understanding is that changes to the Statement can only happen at Annual Reviews, Emergency Reviews or after a total re-assessment. I think both parties (parents or LEA) can ask for an emergency review or re-assessment. And there are legitimate times when either party may wish or need to do so.

 

 

It is also my understanding that changes to the Statement can only happen after a Review or Re-assessment.

However I think the LA may call an emergency review if I draw their attention to provision not being put in place.

There would be a legitimate reason to have one but it may still be better to wait and see.

I think that after the emergency review the LA could then reduce the provision or withdraw the Statement in a similar way to what they did after the Re-assessment in your case.[i think ]

 

School do tend to want to be positive and may well emphasise how well Ben is doing.

The SENCO is new and may well not have done a review before .

The previous SENCO was very experienced.

 

School would never suggest a reduction in provision when Ben has a funded Statement and I think some of the current year sevens may not.

From previous experience at primary school school will not admit that provision is not in place when the LA are funding excellent provision because that would be to admit missuse of resources....

even when in this case everyone knows the maths does not add up because there are more children with Statements and the same amount of funding.

 

 

However they could present a very positive situation at a Review such that the LA decide that provision can be reduced.

 

The LA always have a very experienced representative at reviews and from what I here schools,NAS locally and other professionals have not had a lot of success in ensuring current new Statements are as tight as they should be.

 

I am very reluctant to contact the LA if a review could leave us worse off.

Although Ben is coping now he will find it more difficult as he moves up the school.

The classes are mixed ability and Ben is currently coping.

He says he has never had to write an essay yet.

However he will soon increasingly need to use ICT because he cannot write for long at all without pain and his handwriting being awful.

I would hate to have to fight to get provision put back in place.

Current Statements are no where near as detailed as they were.

 

We have an excellent relationship with the school and the vast majority of staff which I am reluctant to put at risk when we have no other school option so it is a difficult balance.

Karen.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Karen A

[Sally44]

As the support is not in place what are you thinking of doing?

I think only writing to the LEA about non-compliance is going to involve the LEA.

Just talking to the school SENCO should not cause such waves.

[Karen A]

As the support is not in place what are you thinking of doing?

I think only writing to the LEA about non-compliance is going to involve the LEA.

Just talking to the school SENCO should not cause such waves.

 

Thanks.

Yes I think I will Email the SENCO as a first step.

However Ben is collecting an award for diligence for the year last year at an award ceremony this evening.

We plan to enjoy the evening and so I may take some action in a few days.