What powers do inclusion officers have

[Sally44]

Don't want to go into too much detail as it involves my approaching Appeal.

But if professionals recommend something for a child, whether that is specific provision or a certain placement, can an inclusion officer refuse to take that recommendation on board and say that they are not going to provide it?

To my understanding Inclusion Officers are not suitably qualified to refuse what has been recommended by the professionals that make those decisions?

If a certain placement is recommended and a place is available, can an inclusion officer both lie and say that no professional has recommended it, and then additionally lie and say there is no place.

If it then goes to a tribunal can the LA continue that lie and say a place is not available, when actually there was one? Is there no duty at all to tell the truth at a Tribual hearing?

 

If you find out about any of the above after the event. Can you do anything about it?

[Yossarian]

Hi Sally

 

If by inclusion officer you mean SEN officer, then yes. The decisions are made by SEN officers, and professional opinion is advice. Generally profs do not recommend provision (even though they can specify following the CoP) they like to keep it vague. Profs assess need, and the LA have to (should) meet need with an appropriate placement (part 4 should follow from 2 and 3)

 

Do members of a LA lie? Yes. All the time in my experience. Do they have expertise/ suitable qualification when it comes to our children? No. They carry out LA policy, whatever that may be

 

On what grounds can an SEN officer directly contradict, say, an ed psych? None, but it happens.

 

A tribunal can compel the LA to make a place available I believe.

 

There is no duty to tell the truth at tribunal. You can request people give evidence under oath, and the tribunal can consider that request, but that has to be done at the time.

 

A tribunal decision can only be appealed on a point of law, I believe. Not sure if you can do anything. I would try the usual helplines.

[Sally44]

Thanks, just wondered what powers they had.

It appears the inclusion officer did over rule the EP and AAT who told me verbally (which was later denied), but who also wrote it in file notes (as did the inclusion officer himself). So their advice was over ruled.

Inclusion Officer also lied and said there were no places when "technically" his file notes say there was, but that he was not going to give it to my son.

He has also written in internal emails that he has worded the Statement in such a way that they will not have to provide the provision contained within it.

The LAs Case Statement therefore contained deliberate lies and inaccuracies.

I know that lies do go on. But what my data search has made me aware is that EVERYONE was in on it. And I thought that I had a good relationship with some of those people and now I feel they were all doing everything they could to ensure they did not have to provide the funding or placement that some of their professionals recommended.

They've also thrown alot of mud at my name, which is on file, and mud tends to stick, or at least accusations are read by all future employees and their opinon about me and my family is tainted from the outset.

Just so annoyed by all of this.

If I had any shred of belief that this system was anything about actually identifying and meeting needs, that has all evaporated over the last 24 hours.

At the moment I feel like I don't want to have to see any of them face to face again. If I could move house into a different area it would mean a new start, but I'm sure its pretty much the same wherever. Sad really.

[Sally44]

What my husband and I have been talking about as well, is that if this Tribunal does not find in our favour we are going to have to give up. By that I mean we cannot keep up this level of continuing striving with nothing happening. What is worrying and sad is that we now have our child out of school, unwell, and I doubt he will agree to return to his old school. No idea what inpt he will get. I don't feel at all able to home teach because his needs are way beyond my teaching him. I just feel it will all be such a waste of his life. But I have a husband andn other child and myself to consider and at some point I feel I almost have to make the decision to sacrife him for the rest of the family. I feel so horrible at the moment thinking about that.

[dm2010]

The whole process around local authority intervention on AS is very sad to witness.

Matters drag on for months or years with an awful lot of people involved who only exist it seems to pass pieces of paper between each other.

 

The interests of the child are supposed to be paramount. From what I can see here the interests of procedural and legal process are most important, the children's interests come a long way down the list.

 

Does it need to be so difficult ? Surely if AS is a recognised condition, then it should be diagnosed by doctors with special help prescribed and monitored by local GPs (after training) as part of the NHS. The involvement of all and sundry does not seem to help matters.

Edited April 3, 2011 by dm2010

[coolblue]

What my husband and I have been talking about as well, is that if this Tribunal does not find in our favour we are going to have to give up. By that I mean we cannot keep up this level of continuing striving with nothing happening. What is worrying and sad is that we now have our child out of school, unwell, and I doubt he will agree to return to his old school. No idea what inpt he will get. I don't feel at all able to home teach because his needs are way beyond my teaching him.

 

I know you feel like this Sally, but you'd be surprised. I've come across a large number of parents who have taken their child out of school in desperation - we took ours out for his own safety - and then found that after the kid had collected his or her wits, that actually helping them learn at home was not only possible, but a positive pleasure. I'm talking about children with significant learning difficulties and serious disabilities. Some of them have then gone back into school two or three years later when it's been appropriate. I'll PM you.

[Sally44]

Thanks. I need a little hope and a Plan B.

[cyberbarn]

Hi Sally,

 

I don't feel at all able to home teach because his needs are way beyond my teaching him. I just feel it will all be such a waste of his life.

 

I know that many people feel that they can't home educate but often when they do in desperation, like you are at the moment, they find that things are a lot easier than they thought. Which would be more of a waste of his life, being in this terrible situation where you, he and the rest of the family are very stressed, or waving goodbye to all that and home educating. Don't forget it doesn't mean that you have to do it forever, it might just be for a few years, or even less, until either he matures or you find a better school, or you might find that it suits you so well that you carry on.

 

 

But I have a husband andn other child and myself to consider and at some point I feel I almost have to make the decision to sacrife him for the rest of the family. I feel so horrible at the moment thinking about that.

 

But it might not be the sacrifice you think it is. It may turn out to be just the thing for you and the family.

 

Have you heard of he-special.org.uk? They have an email list and I can't remember the last time someone said that de-registering their child was a mistake, but there are plenty of people that say that they had wished they did it sooner. As one of the moderators there used to say, come on in, the water's fine!

[Kathryn]

Of course there's a duty to tell the truth at tribunal - what would be the point otherwise? There is a duty for the tribunal to deal with proceedings fairly and justly and for both parties to cooperate with the tribunal(see HESC rule 2). There's also recent caselaw which makes clear that the LEA should put all its cards on the table - i.e. not deliberately withold information. I can dig it out if you want it.

 

The LEA can make whatever decision about provision they see fit but they should be able to justify it or they're on shaky ground. If they've ve gone against professional advice, they must be able to say why they chose to do this.

 

A Tribunal decision can be looked at again only in very limited circumstances where there was an error in law or procedural irregularity.

 

If something dodgy is going on Sally, especially if the LEA are witholding important stuff consider asking the tribunal for a telephone case management hearing.

 

K x

[Yossarian]

Indeed - what would be the point? It doesn't seem to make sense that you are under oath in a court of law, but not in a tribunal. Not wanting to derail Sally's thread, but do you know why that is Kathryn?

[Kathryn]

Actually there is now provision for the Tribunal to administer oaths - this was one of the many changes to the system in 2008. I don't know if anyone's actually tried to use this power yet - i know IPSEA is interested to see if it can be used to parents' advantage. It would be interesting to see if a LEA who has not played fair would be prepared to lie under oath at Tribunal!

 

See this link: it's rule 15 (3)

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2699/article/15/made

 

K x

[Sally44]

Of course there's a duty to tell the truth at tribunal - what would be the point otherwise? There is a duty for the tribunal to deal with proceedings fairly and justly and for both parties to cooperate with the tribunal(see HESC rule 2). There's also recent caselaw which makes clear that the LEA should put all its cards on the table - i.e. not deliberately withold information. I can dig it out if you want it.

 

The LEA can make whatever decision about provision they see fit but they should be able to justify it or they're on shaky ground. If they've ve gone against professional advice, they must be able to say why they chose to do this.

 

A Tribunal decision can be looked at again only in very limited circumstances where there was an error in law or procedural irregularity.

 

If something dodgy is going on Sally, especially if the LEA are witholding important stuff consider asking the tribunal for a telephone case management hearing.

 

K x

 

What exactly is a telephone case management hearing, and how would that help?

 

Also what is the specific legal jargon I should quote at them about putting all the information on the table (rather than sweeping it under the rug).

[coolblue]

Have a look at this thread

 

http://www.asd-forum.org.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/24333-sendist-telephone-case-management/

 

cb

[Sally44]

Have a look at this thread

 

http://www.asd-forum.org.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/24333-sendist-telephone-case-management/

 

cb

 

 

I've had a look at it, and I maybe being dense, but I don't see what I would be asking for a telephone meeting for?

[Kathryn]

Here's the case law I was referring to:

 

JF –v‐ Croydon [2006] EWHC 2368 (Admin) 

“[As for] the role of a Local Education Authority in hearings before the Tribunal.  Although the proceedings are 

in part adversarial because the Authority will be responding to the parents' appeal, the role of an education 

authority as a public body at such a hearing is to assist the Tribunal by making all relevant information 

available.  Its role is not to provide only so much information as will assist its own case.  At the hearing, the 

Local Education Authority should be placing all of its cards on the table, including those which might assist the 

parents' case.  It is not an adequate answer to a failure to disclose information to the Tribunal for a Local 

Education Authority to say that the parents could have unearthed the information for themselves if they had 

dug deep enough.” 

 

And regarding telephone case management, it may not be necessary in your case but it can be helpful if the LEA need a rap over the knuckles from a judge for not playing straight by providing all the information they've been asked for in preparation for a hearing.

 

K x

[Grace]

I've had a look at it, and I maybe being dense, but I don't see what I would be asking for a telephone meeting for?

 

You could ask for one to submit late evidence that has only just come into your possession?x

[Sally44]

Here's the case law I was referring to:

 

JF –v‐ Croydon [2006] EWHC 2368 (Admin) 

“[As for] the role of a Local Education Authority in hearings before the Tribunal.  Although the proceedings are 

in part adversarial because the Authority will be responding to the parents' appeal, the role of an education 

authority as a public body at such a hearing is to assist the Tribunal by making all relevant information 

available.  Its role is not to provide only so much information as will assist its own case.  At the hearing, the 

Local Education Authority should be placing all of its cards on the table, including those which might assist the 

parents' case.  It is not an adequate answer to a failure to disclose information to the Tribunal for a Local 

Education Authority to say that the parents could have unearthed the information for themselves if they had 

dug deep enough.” 

 

And regarding telephone case management, it may not be necessary in your case but it can be helpful if the LEA need a rap over the knuckles from a judge for not playing straight by providing all the information they've been asked for in preparation for a hearing.

 

K x

 

Thanks for this.

 

I phoned SEND and they said they hadn't come across this often before, but that I can send in a request, with evidence. I don't want to appear like an absolute pain to the Tribunal Panel, but at the same time they have not done what the above legal comment says, and which was my interpretation of how things should be handled. I have no problem with other people/professionals having a different opinion. But as the above says "all the cards should be on the table". Instead of that, in my own particular case, we were left with only one persons view, which was that my son could and should remain mainstream. And I was painted as an overbearing parent 'pushing' for provision my son did not need. And when I said that other professionals had told me that, and had said he needed the autism unit, the inclusion officer said I was lying and that there was no evidence and it was all heresay. Well now I have all those file notes by the people themselves. And from all the emails between all those involved behind the scenes, they were all in on it. Even the LA Case Statement for the Tribunal is untruthful (and that is being kind). It says the autism unit was never recommended by any professional (and it was), and it says that there are no places available (when there were).

I'll make a decision tomorrow on whether i'm going to do it. It might be worth it just to draw the Panels attention to these documents and the fact that the LA were not honest in their handling of the case last time.

But I think it is just as bad, or even worse, that the LA inclusion officer has told another department not to worry about whether they can provide any quantified provision or not, because he has worded the Statement in such a way that it will never have to be provided. So please, don't anyone think that LAs do not know exactly what they are doing. But surely this is totally illegal and makes the whole process a fiasco.

In all my dealings I have tried to be honest and give an honest and clear picture of my son. I don't see the point of doing it any other way. If he was able to cope and make progress in a mainstream school that is where I would be keeping him.

[coolblue]

Since you have evidence that the LA representative wasn't accurate, you could just present what he said, side by side with evidence that he was incorrect. You don't have to make any comment on his conduct - the facts should speak for themselves.

 

 

cb

[Grace]

Since you have evidence that the LA representative wasn't accurate, you could just present what he said, side by side with evidence that he was incorrect. You don't have to make any comment on his conduct - the facts should speak for themselves.

 

 

cb

 

Yes, and remember, no matter how tempting it is, do not say directly that they 'lied'. If you need to, say the information was 'inaccurate' or 'factually incorrect' or 'not the full picture', 'they were mistaken' etc.

 

Don't worry, they'll know you mean 'lie', but it's considered pretty risky to actually call someone a liar/x

[Sally44]

I know you shouldn't say that, but I have already written that in the margin!

And I haven't tried to blank it out because then the document would look tampered with.

 

So I'm just avoiding the same type of language in my covering email, and if challenged I will simply say that that was my first impression having found documents that I had been told did not exist and that I was very emotional and angry.

 

There is so much evidence that I don't think they could even complain that it wasn't a lie. They've denied everything and then emailed eachother about it and all wrote it in file notes!

 

They have emailed eachother about how the wording is such that they will not be held accountable to provide that provision. It was all done with their full knowledge and intention of what they were doing.

 

I've not sent it yet. I'm letting someone look over it to make sure it is worded correctly.

 

What I want is for everyone to look at this case from the honest factual viewpoint. It was argued last time that he was mainstream material. Whilst in their file notes they admitted he wasn't. He was never mainstream material.

 

Last time the LA made the case look like a pushy parent trying to force a LA to provide provision that was not needed. We did manage to win everything we were asking for at the last Tribunal, but not the placement because we did not have enough evidence that he needed that placement (which the LA did have), and the LA convinced the Panel that they would fulfill the Statement. Now we know they never had any intention of doing that.

 

Everything I said was labelled heresay, and that there was no evidence. It becomes a totally different picture when you find documents that the LAs two professionals were saying he needed a specialist placement with class sizes of around 7 pupils. I suppose these professionals felt unable to go against their employers, although one of them did write me a useful document which I can use this time.

 

If we start this Appeal from that stand point - and now I have more additional LA and NHS professionals who have also all lined up behind our recommendations - it will mean that it is just school and the LA saying his current placement is fine.

 

As the Case Law supplied by Kathryn says, all the cards should be on the table. The LA should not try to hide or withhold information relevent to a Tribunal even if that evidence is not in their favour. That definately did not happen last time.

 

I've also found that there are alot of documents missing now that I have cross referenced them. So i've asked them to check and see if they can find those documents.

 

I've also spoken to the LGO who are also interested to look into this, but first advised that we get the Tribunal over with. Don't know if I can be bothered to go through that again. You would think it is a cut and dry case, but I thought that last time.

 

This DPA search has also prooved that some of the documentation they used for the original LGO complaint was dated incorrectly so that it appeared they had complied. When you get all the paperwork in and file it sequentially in date order it becomes very obvious when something is placed in the wrong date sequence. They've done that a couple of times and I have no idea to what extent that would have affected the original complaint. But it is the evidence they used to counter my claims of maladministration.

 

I feel like there are so many angles to this Appeal now, that I'm finding it hard to be succinct and concentrate because everything is so interweaved.

 

Anyways, would like to thank you all for your really brilliant advice and information. I will keep you posted - and if I go missing from this forum you will know the LA have nobbled me!

 

Feeling alot better today than a couple of days ago.

[bid]

You go Sally!!

 

As to LAs lying...well, Kathryn and I live in the same LA, although come under different quadrant teams. She was told categorically that our LA didn't have any children with autism placed in out of county schools...funny that...

 

Very best of luck. I think you are completely right to approach this in a painstakingly methodical and logical manner. I would love to see their faces...

 

Bid

[Kathryn]

Go Sally, but try and focus on what your son needs in the future and only bring up history if it's directly relevant, as the tribunal can only look at making changes to the Statement. Let the Ombudsman rake over the past failings of the LEA when the tribunal is over.

 

K x

[Sally44]

Yes I understand what you are saying Kathryn.

What I am going to do is to quote the case law you detailed about the cards should be on the table and the LA should present all information regardless of whether it benefits the parents case or not - it is supposed to be truthful.

 

I'm also going to quote the Statutory Instrument, because, although these incidents are in the past, they meant that his case was not dealt with in a fair or just way. His case was prejudiced because the evidence of how severe and complex his needs were were withheld by the LA.

 

And the fact that they intentionally worded the Statement so that they did not have to provide it meant that my son did not have the provision detailed in the Statement, that caused me to complaint, and that gave them a reason to re-assess and remove even more specified provision!

 

And I think it is best to present it now, before the actual Tribunal date, so that everyone is aware of the past and so we can concentrate on the present issues. But we need to know about the previous documents otherwise we will again go into a tribunal with alot of information missing - if that makes sense.

 

Fortunately i've also got a number of other NHS and LA departments now backing up what i've been saying and they are all stating a need for a specialist placement.

 

Update: I've had a letter today saying that the hearing has been postponed and they want to set another date for the Tribunal and they want it over 3 days! And they want it to be held miles away from where we are. Three days! I don't think i've heard of one taking so long - is that good or bad??

[Kathryn]

Blimey - yes this is quite rare I think - even for complex parts 2,3 and 4 cases. Why is it being postponed and why can't it be held near you? it's supposed to be.

 

K x

[Sally44]

The Judge has postponed it because there is so much evidence.

I'm frustrated in some ways because I just want it over with - my nerves are in tatters.

But I do really need the time because I haven't finalised the working document yet - someones helping me with that.

[Sally44]

Okay, I know i've PM'd this to a couple of you, but i'll put it on the forum.

 

A couple of weeks ago we had a team meeting (about 10 people) to talk about "the plan" to get my son back into school. The Inclusion Officer and Educational Psychologist came up with a plan. The IO said that she needed about 2 weeks to get the papers together, so that they were "immaculate" so that there was less of a chance that they would be bounced back due to seeking more information etc.

 

By chance, I phoned the PP and asked if they would be in attendance, and they said they would. I told her that there sould be a package of funding put before the Panel for them to agree the funding.

 

Got a message from PP that this had not been passed at the Panel meeting.

 

So I phoned her and asked "who was on the panel". Apparently there were 3 people. The IO that put the package together, her boss, and an someone from the specialist teaching services.

 

So I emailed the senior IO and asked "why" it had not gone through. She has refused to reply and has referred me to the Data Controller.

 

I phoned PP again and they said that on the day my son's name was not on the List. And that non of the paperwork included his name. Apparently this application was covered under "any other business".

 

Went back to Data Controller to tell her this. She informed me that she had asked for all paperwork and was told that there was none.

 

So it appears that two IO put together an application (but not on paper!) and then presented it to themselves at the Panel meeting they prepared and sit on. They then decided to refuse their own application because they had more questions to ask themselves. But they have not recorded this anywhere. There is no paperwork whatsoever.

 

Amazing isn't it.

 

I think I have to write to the senior IO about this. She is dealing with our Tribunal case, and will be attending on behalf of the LA.

[Sally44]

There is going to be a telephone case management conference.

 

The Judge has refused the LA more witnesses (they were up to a total of 7!)

And the Judge has refused the LAs request to refuse all evidence before a certain date (wonder why they wanted to exclude older evidence - could it be because that is the evidence that proves they lied and withheld evidence???). And if they do want to exclude evidence the Judge has Directed that they detail which documents they are and give their reasons why they wish it to be excluded - and it is very clear that the grounds of 'being old' is "misconceived".

 

The LA has got to provide a 2 page document detailing what they think are the issues, and which attendees are relevent to those issues. We then have 7 days to produce a similar document, and to comment on the LA's document.

 

This is supposed to limit the witnesses by reducing the amount of disputed evidence. And to allow us to set a new hearing date, and hopefully reduce the hearing from the proposed 3 days.

 

I'm very happy with that Direction because it means that my belief at the beginning of this re-assessment was that it was not needed. The LAs grounds for the re-assessment was that documents were old, and they excluded all my reports etc. Those are all now included and the argument by the LA is wrong. The Judge said that documents should be viewed regarding their content rather than age. Which is exactly what I said in my case statement.

 

Still not heard from the LA about the funding they were supposed to be seeking for someone to take my son out. So he's not received any education since he refused school. But i'm not surprised.

[Sally44]

Another question I have is about file notes by the various departments.

Since doing my Data Protection Act search, it is very apparent that since a certain date there is nothing on file about my son. Eventhough departments are saying they had meetings about him, and I have a covering file note which details a list of about 10 people who had a meeting about my son - there is nothing on paper.

The EP and SpLD departments having nothing at all on paper eventhough they say they met and discussed my son with school etc.

Isn't this illegal? In the NHS you have to document everything you say and everything you did. But these departments have nothing on file - as per the Panel meeting about funding. Even the supposed "application for funding", which must have been some kind of document??? is no where to be found - as confirmed by the Data Controller.

I presume that at Tribunal they will not be able to say they did x, y and z, when they have not produced any evidence that that happened?? And I also presume that they cannot produce documents for the Tribunal that they did not produce as part of the Data Protection Act search.

I do have all the file notes from the OT and SALT. But nothing from the school, EP or SpLD departments. The EP has said that my son was regularly discussed as Planning meetings in school - but again nothing on paper.

Since he joined the school in 2008 there appears to be only 1 email from the SENCO and 1 file note from the EP service and the school's report for the Annual Review.

What about assessment documentation - surely schools have that on record?

Edited April 29, 2011 by Sally44

[Mandapanda]

Hi Sally

 

I don't know anything about the legal proceedings etc. We never got that far! However in my experience, my MP was extremely helpful when things got really bad for us and we were being threatened with prosecution (only by the school - The Education Welfare Officer never thought that was appropriate). He got a letter from Education stating clearly that they new my son was off on medical grounds (depression and school phobia), and would therefore not prosecute. This shut the school up.

 

It sounds like the Judge is doing everything properly which should mean the IO has to do everything properly. However if you have any further trouble, do consider contacting your MP. The (any) Government sets the laws and the Every Child Matters thing, they probably have no idea how far away from this some education authorities and schools are in their actual behaviour and procedures, so it is useful to put them in the picture. He/she may be able to push for some education whilst he's at home - there can be waiting lists for this.

 

If all else fails, home education is the most wonderful secret! It allows a child freedom to learn what they want when they want in the way they are able to cope with. My son teaches himself mostly, I just ensure a supply of websites, books, dvds, etc, and discuss what he's learning every so often. He likes 'teaching' me what he's learned!

 

Good luck.

[Sally44]

Hi Sally

 

I don't know anything about the legal proceedings etc. We never got that far! However in my experience, my MP was extremely helpful when things got really bad for us and we were being threatened with prosecution (only by the school - The Education Welfare Officer never thought that was appropriate). He got a letter from Education stating clearly that they new my son was off on medical grounds (depression and school phobia), and would therefore not prosecute. This shut the school up.

 

It sounds like the Judge is doing everything properly which should mean the IO has to do everything properly. However if you have any further trouble, do consider contacting your MP. The (any) Government sets the laws and the Every Child Matters thing, they probably have no idea how far away from this some education authorities and schools are in their actual behaviour and procedures, so it is useful to put them in the picture. He/she may be able to push for some education whilst he's at home - there can be waiting lists for this.

 

If all else fails, home education is the most wonderful secret! It allows a child freedom to learn what they want when they want in the way they are able to cope with. My son teaches himself mostly, I just ensure a supply of websites, books, dvds, etc, and discuss what he's learning every so often. He likes 'teaching' me what he's learned!

 

Good luck.

 

That is an option.

I did contact my MP before back in 2008. He wrote to the LEA and they responded to my MP and lied to him. I have the file notes that prove it. The LEA said that for some reason I was under the impression that my son needed a place in the autism unit - but that that was totally unfounded. I had said that because that is what the EP and Autism Advisory Teacher had told me. The LEA denied that had happened and must have put pressure on those employees to tow the line. But now I have all the file notes which proves they did tell me that their professional opinion was that he needed to be placed in an autism unit. Absolutely unbelieveable really. But they did it. If they were happy to lie to my MP, the LGO and the Tribunal Panel via their Case Statement, it makes you wonder how much further they could go!

 

I have spoken to the EWO so that he is in the picture. I don't think the school would cause trouble, but the LEA did initially threaten the EWO - and apparently their only role is regarding parents who are negligent in not sending their children into school. Their roles have changed and apparently their numbers reduced, so that is the only thing they do now.

 

I have written to CAHMS and my GP making them aware that I need a letter from them otherwise I am liable to prosecution and the LEA is not obliged to provide any education for my son.

[Sally44]

I know home ed is an option. But because my son is severely dyslexic (and has dyscalculia too), he isn't able to read and write and I just don't feel able to meet all his needs at home. If he were able to read and write that would make it so much easier. But he can't.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Sally44

[Mandapanda]

Hi Sally

 

It's a very upsetting situation to be in.

 

There are forums and groups for home edding children with special needs - you may find some advice on those for little things you can be doing with him in the meantime. If there is anything you can do to help him enjoy any sort of learning while he's at home it will be good for you both.

 

We used to have a game called Speedy Delivery - it was a sort of maze and you had little lorries and the dice only had colours on it with matching colours on the arches of the maze. You threw the dice and went through the arch with the matching colour, and if there were boxes in that section you put them on your lorry. The one who got the most boxes home was the winner - some arches weren't high enough for your pile of boxes so some got knocked off. It was really good fun and a good starter game.

 

Sorry can't offer any further help. Thinking of you and wishing you luck x

[Sally44]

Thanks for the advice.

I'm just so focused on the forthcoming tribunal, and have daily paperwork to do as the LA keep making requests that I have to respond to, that I am only managing to keep him fed and watered at the moment!

I'll have to face the Home Educating hurdle if and when it arises.