Appeal Working Document

[Sally44]

At the last appeal my solicitor did this, so I am not sure what I need to do.

 

I have written to my LEA asking them to name the officer dealing with this appeal and have asked them to put together the working document with any amendments they make and to detail the areas of disagreement between the parties. Is that it? Do I now wait for them to do that, or should I write my own working document too?

 

I am expecting the working document is basically the Statement with maybe additions/amendments underlined and then a separate sheet detailing the areas of disagreement?

[Kathryn]

Basically it's an electronic copy of the statement. which the LEA are responsible for sending to you. You then insert your own amendments and it can go bck and forwards as you negotiate changes. The LEA shouldn't be putting any amendments on of their own, unless you have agreed them - it's your appeal, not theirs - they shouldn't be amending their own final statement because they've changed their minds!

 

Don't delete any wording from the original: if you want things deleted, use strikeout.

 

Use other fonts to distinguish your own suggested amendments from those agreed between you and the LEA, for example bold for parent's amendments, italics for amendments agreed by both parties. It doesn't matter which convention you use as long as the key is clear and you keep to it. However SEND can't make colour copies, so don't use colour.

 

The LEA are responsible for sending the working document to the Tribunal about a week before the hearing. Make sure you see it before they do this, so that you know the panel has in front of them the agreed version and the LEA doesn't try to sneak anything in there. Not that I'm cynical but...

 

Hope this helps

 

K x

[Sally44]

Many of the changes are about 'how' the provision will be delivered, by whom and how will it be monitored.

 

For example, I put in a previous topic that one of the aims is "to improve xxxx sensory integration", the LEA have said they will achieve this in section 3 by the use of a "multi sensory learning approach". To me those are two different things.

 

So would my requested amendment for this be for the LEA to include in section 3 that "a suitably qualified OT will put togther a written programme of sensory integration and sensory diet to be delivered in school (how often?) by (whom). This programme will be detailed in his daily timetable and monitored by the OT using termly reviews and targets can be set using the IEP process. The OT will also give advice and training to school and home on how to help xxxx regulate himself and strategies to use on xxxx when he is disregulated.

 

For xxxx to have sensory breaks and opportunities to bounce, push, stamp, pull during the day and for the OT to train staff working with Yiannis, and home, on how to use these techniques."

 

Most of the above is in reports that the LEA have excluded, and which I have submitted again. But if there is any aspect of the above that is NOT included in any report, can the LEA simply say there is no proof that he needs that?

[Sally44]

Also how do you use "strike out".

[Karen A]

Many of the changes are about 'how' the provision will be delivered, by whom and how will it be monitored.

 

For example, I put in a previous topic that one of the aims is "to improve xxxx sensory integration", the LEA have said they will achieve this in section 3 by the use of a "multi sensory learning approach". To me those are two different things.

 

So would my requested amendment for this be for the LEA to include in section 3 that "a suitably qualified OT will put togther a written programme of sensory integration and sensory diet to be delivered in school (how often?) by (whom). This programme will be detailed in his daily timetable and monitored by the OT using termly reviews and targets can be set using the IEP process. The OT will also give advice and training to school and home on how to help xxxx regulate himself and strategies to use on xxxx when he is disregulated.

 

For xxxx to have sensory breaks and opportunities to bounce, push, stamp, pull during the day and for the OT to train staff working with Yiannis, and home, on how to use these techniques."

 

Most of the above is in reports that the LEA have excluded, and which I have submitted again. But if there is any aspect of the above that is NOT included in any report, can the LEA simply say there is no proof that he needs that?

 

 

Hi.

So would my requested amendment for this be for the LEA to include in section 3 that "a suitably qualified OT will put togther a written programme of sensory integration and sensory diet to be delivered in school (how often?) by (whom). This programme will be detailed in his daily timetable and monitored by the OT using termly reviews and targets can be set using the IEP process. The OT will also give advice and training to school and home on how to help xxxx regulate himself and strategies to use on xxxx when he is disregulated

 

It is my understanding that Sensory Integration Therapy cannot be delivered by anyone other than an OT trained in that approach.An OT who supports Ben told me she could not do it because she is not trained in it.In my area any Sensory Integration Therapy is provided in individual one to one sessions with a specific OT in blocks.Schools may use other approaches in fact a lot of the support for Ben is to do with Sensory Integration in the broadest sense.However this is not Sensory Integration Therapy.

My advice would be to word it something like ''An OT will carry out a programme of ....''.

[Kathryn]

Most of the above is in reports that the LEA have excluded, and which I have submitted again. But if there is any aspect of the above that is NOT included in any report, can the LEA simply say there is no proof that he needs that?

 

This is likely, so you will need to think what supporting evidence you can produce to support what you're asking for.

 

Also how do you use "strike out".

 

It should be part of the word processing programme that you use. I use MS office word and it's up on the toolbar alongside the bold and italics functions: the icon looks like this abc. If you use strikethrough it is clear that this is a suggested deletion, but you can still see the original text, which is important. The Tribunal need to be able to see which is the original wording and what changes you want. Not sure if that answers your question - please ask again if you're not sure.

 

K x