Statement Question - Core Subjects?

[KezT]

So we've finally got the draft Statement through and what a load of non-compiant, woolly rubbish it is!!!!!

 

I will be re-writing it pretty much start to finish over half term so I'm afraid I am going to have many questions fort he wise and old hands at this on here

 

First off, before we even get into the Statement itself, it says that DS is performing at appropriate levels in his core subjects, and the only issue it mentions is with his literacy/handwriting. I assumed "core subjects" meant Literacy, maths, science, ICT at the least? Or does it also include RE & PE - which are compulsory NC subjects?

 

DS certainly needs more support than just handwriting But want to make sure I put all the relevant info in the correct place!

 

thanks

[Mumble]

Well I'm not wise and old, but I do know the answer...

 

The core subjects of the NC in England and Wales are English, maths and science (and Welsh if you're in Wales).

 

The other subjects are called foundation subjects.

 

RE is not included in the NC but is covered by statutory guidance from the LA.

[Sally44]

I think rather than worrying about the words 'core' subjects, it is the 'appropriate' bit that is not useful.

 

What my son's Statement contains is his assessed levels eg. 1b for maths, 1C for english and P8 for writing etc.

You need the actual assessment level from which you measure 'progress'. Because there is a big difference in the range of what is considered appropriate eg. from a level 3a-5c etc.

 

You want as much specific measured data in there as possible. So any reports (EP or SALT, or from IEP targets) which states he has a reading age of xx, or the ACE assessment for comprehension gave a standard score of xxx etc, need to be in the Statement and the report appended to the Statement. Or he may have had an IEP target to do something and that was not met, or was met - but be careful with IEP targets because they must be SMART and most of them are not, so the targets achieved are not really achieved IYSWIM. For example my son had a target to "initiate conversation", and this was recorded by the midday supervisor ticking a card every time they saw him go up to another child and open and close his mouth. They had no idea what he said, or whether it was appropriate, whether he joined in on topic or interrupted with what he wanted to say etc. So although school said this target was met. I argued (and am still arguing) that it was not met, especially when the SALT is setting targets some two years later such as "joining in on topic", and "asking a question". It is totally inappropriate to say he met that target when they have no real evidence of what he actually said. Does that make sense.

 

You need to go through each report and highlight all the needs in one highlighter pen and then how those needs are to be met in a different highlighter pen. Then cross reference them by number. If any professional has not quantified and specified how they will achieve that provision or meet that need, then write to them and ask them "how" the need they identified of xxxxx will be met in school. Ask them to quantify and specify as per the Code of Practice. And see what they reply. If you are not happy you to go tribunal, and if the LEA or you ask them to attend the panel themselves can ask them to quantify and specify.

 

Please check any answers you are given. For example my LEA said that the identified aim of "improving xxxxx's sensory integration" would be met by "multi sensory learning". That is two totally different things. Sensory Integration is improved by OT input and sensory integration therapy, sensory diets, sensory modulation programmes, specified time in a sensory integration facility (with all the equipment that would hold - not just an oil lamp and a couple of soft cushions!), and needs to be carried out by an OT suitably qualified to deliver a SI programme.

 

If you have any professional input specified, check in writing with that professional that they can provide it. I have just received a letter from our OT service saying that due to cuts, education will not be funding any OT into any schools from next March - so that means the LEA will have to find and fund any quantified and specified OT programme by brining in outside OT professionals. Don't be fobbed of with "but we just don't have it". That is what the Statement is for. If the child needs it, the child MUST have it. And NEED is in the SEN meaning and not just WANTING. It is an SEN NEED.

[KezT]

Sally - there is not one single specific point in the whole Statement. Not one, anywhere. At no point are no of hours mentioned, nor who will do what, when or how No professionals are specified, no times quantified and no procedures identified. I realy is the worst piece of non-compliant, badly written, lazy rubbish you can imagine!

 

When it is finally finished I am seriously considering putting in a formal complaint against the SEN officer -even though on the whole I really dislike making any complaint personal, in this case she seems either completely incaperableof doing her job correctly or unwilling to do so!

[Sally44]

Sally - there is not one single specific point in the whole Statement. Not one, anywhere. At no point are no of hours mentioned, nor who will do what, when or how No professionals are specified, no times quantified and no procedures identified. I realy is the worst piece of non-compliant, badly written, lazy rubbish you can imagine!

 

When it is finally finished I am seriously considering putting in a formal complaint against the SEN officer -even though on the whole I really dislike making any complaint personal, in this case she seems either completely incaperableof doing her job correctly or unwilling to do so!

 

That is why you need to pick out those details from the reports (or school reports or IEPs) and ask that they are included. Any standardised assessments carried out, you need the results in full in the Statement.

 

You can download the DfES letter from IPSEA or Network 81 website which is a letter from government to ALL LEAS telling them of their duty to quantify and specify and send that to them.

 

You can write to each professional with a copy of that letter and ask them the same thing.

 

You can go to appeal and you can ask SEND to supina each individual to attend the tribunal so that they can be asked those questions. You need to think if having any of them present would help or hinder your case.

 

But definately appeal.

 

Get help from IPSEA or Network 81 or any of the other organisations to go through the Statement and help you get the wording right.

 

Try not to feel too victimised. It is just the process that all LEAs go through. Just go to tribunal, and go with evidence that the LEA and all professionals had been made aware (as if they don't already know!) that it is their LEGAL DUTY to quantify and specify.

 

I know it's pants - but you are moving closer to the end goal.

[KezT]

GRRRR! I sent the draft SM to my sister to look oer as she is an EP specialising in ASD (in Northern Ireland unfortunately). She agreed that it was total rubbish, with no actal provision specified within and had the followin coment:

 

"There's also the glaring omission that no one's actually mentioned mentioned social communication difficulties!"

 

 

This is supposed to be a Statement for an child with an ASD - defined by the fact that they have S&C difficulties

 

 

 

 

Anyway - We have given up trying to amend it, and have instead just re-written Part 2 by following advice here and quoting from the various professionals reports. Will be re-writing Part 3 over the next few days, and will wait for the mneeting with the SEN officer to tell her EXACTLY why she had better make the changes we require or her job could be on the line!

[bonbons]

Hi..... I hope you don't think I'm hijacking your thread kezt, but I have a quick question along the same lines. My proposed statement was equally vague and we were also unhappy with the ASD provision they suggested so I returned the form stating that we were confident that only the specialist out of area school we had asked for, could meet DD's needs and why, and requested a meeting as we felt that the wording of the statement would need to be changed as provision has not been quantified and specified etc..... Didn't go into too much detail as I expected to highlight such points at the meeting, however, within a couple of weeks we got a phone call to say that they had decided to grant the place we had asked for amazingly!! Does anyone know what will happen next? Will we still need to meet with LEA regarding the changes to the statement before the final one is drafted? Does it matter any way since she will be at a specialist school which we already know her needs will be fully met all of the time?

Thanks all.... And good luck to you kezT. X

[Sally44]

Bonbons. Get it in writing.

 

Get the Statement to specify in part 4 that her placement is at a special school for children with x, y and z. and for the name of the school to be inserted.

 

Has this special school given you details of what is included in their package? Does this meet the needs of your child? Get a copy of that appended to the Statement.

 

Have a look on IPSEA website about quantifying and specifying. It does say that although a placement at a special school may mean you don't need to specify to such a degree, that being placed at a special school does not mean the LEA is no longer obliged to specify the provision. I would get the provision in the Statement now.

 

If the therapies provided by the school changed, and what they covered, you could find yourselves in a difficult situation because your daughter might need something not covered in the fees. That would leave you in a position where your child not not getting x, y or z and you either left it so she did not get it, or you would approach the LEA to pay the extra to get the need met. If you went to the LEA to seek an amendment to the Statement that gives them an opportunity to seek a total re-assessment and decide that your child no longer needed her current placement or they might another placement that was a better use of their resources.

 

Sometimes placements can swing on seemingly insignificant wording. For example the need for a child to have OT input from an OT trained in sensory integration techniques and delivered in facilities using equipment involving swings etc will mean that no NHS OT could meet that in a mainstream school. The sensory room in mainstream schools tends to have a couple of soft balls and a lava lamp - that is not integration therapy.

 

The same applies for SALT. If the SALT needs to work with the teacher to deliver the curriculum then no mainstream school can meet that because the SALT is not on site.

 

If you mention team meetings and joint planning then it becomes harder and harder. Most of the professionals working with my son have not met eachother. That means that approaches are not cohesive or co-ordinated.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sally44

[Kathryn]

Will be re-writing Part 3 over the next few days, and will wait for the mneeting with the SEN officer to tell her EXACTLY why she had better make the changes we require or her job could be on the line!

 

Her job is probably on the line anyway given the way things are going.. Good luck with rewriting the statment and I hope you end up with a final statement that you're happy with.

 

Bonbons, it's great that you've got what you wanted but it's always worth trying to get as much specification into the statement as possible, even for a special school, particularly in these uncertain times with LEA's looking to save a smuch money as possible. A vague statement which doesn't particularly describe special school provision is always an open invitation to the LEA to change their minds later on, in my opinion.

 

K x