Life of a Statement - how easy is it to get it changed?

[bed32]

How important is it to get the statement right first time?

 

We have a proposed statement from the LA that is pretty much useless. While I am sure we can significant improvements through negotiation there is little chance of getting the perfect statement, or even a good one, without going through the tribunal. It seems to be expected by everyone we speak to (at least those who know the LA) that we will be appealing the wording almost as a matter of course.

 

My question is - if I accept the final statement without appealing - does that make it harder to get it amended (on appeal if necessary) at the first annual review.

 

We don't really know yet what all his needs are still less what interventions would be effective, so I have a feeling that I would rather concentrate on the top 3 or 4 needs over the next year rather than try to get everything at once. Then take stock once we could see how he responds to the increased support and decide what are the next priorities

 

But if I leave the less important aspects this time would that make it harder to get them added (on appeal) in a year's time? After the annual review can we only appeal on changes to his needs, or can we go back to any points we didn't challenge at the initial statement stage?

[Sally44]

Try to get it as close as you can, ie. all needs identified in part 2 and quantified and specified in part 3.

 

If you are expecting to end up at the Tribunal over the wording, why not try to get all the needs included in part 2. Because if the Panel agrees that there is evidence of those needs, then there must be provision quantified and specified in part 3 to meet each and every need.

 

To answer your question, there are lots of children whose difficulties become more apparent over time, with additional diagnoses etc. When a new need becomes known, the school and professionals SHOULD meet that need, although there is no legal requirement to do so because it is not identified in the Statement, and there is no provision detailed to meet that need, which if not provided you could use Judicial Review for.

 

So at the Annual Review [or rather before it], you could talk to the school/professionals about your concerns that you think your child has additional needs. Whether they listen or do anything about it is another matter.

 

After the AR is your concerns are not listened to, and needs not included, you can appeal. Infact you can appeal if changes are made to the Statement or if changes are NOT made to the Statement when you think there should have been.

 

But the thing to remember is that the SEN process is a graduated approach. IF you get needs identified and into the Statement NOW, that gives you a whole year to see if the school/LA/NHS meet that need with the provision required to do so. If that does not happen you can complain. If they do try to meet that/those needs and progress is not made, or there is a deterioration, then you have that evidence.

 

For example, consider dyslexia. If not identified as a need the child just continues not making good progress - no provision, professional input or specialist teaching will be provided, because it is not identified as a need. Which, as you say, you could concentrate on over the following year. BUT you lose that year. During that year the LA may have included in the Statement that the child will have 1:1 support for literacy, and that the EP will review his progress twice a year. If progress has not been made over that year you would be able to request that the LA appoint a specialist teacher, qualified with a dyslexia qualification, to deliver a literacy programme in school [of x hours a week]. That will have taken you two years to get that in place. And if the amount of dyslexia specific teaching again does not produce progress, you may find yourselves able to prove that your child has severe dyslexia and requires a specific dyslexia school where all the children are dyslexic, and dyslexia is supported throughout each and every day. And to get to that stage it has taken you maybe 3 years of amending the Statement, and then proving that that level of provision was not enough.

 

If you never even have dyslexia as being on the radar for the next 2-3 years, that means that overall it will take you 4-6 years to get to the same place. Does that make sense?

 

All you can do is prove as much as you can. But I would say try to get as much as you can included now.

[bed32]

Thanks for the helpful advice (as always).

 

The underlying question is whether we should be planning to go to tribunal over parts 2 & 3 this time around. If we intend to do so we should spend what time we have face-to-face negotiating on Part 2 on the assumption that if a need is stated in Part 2 it should be pretty easy to win the case that there should be provision in Part 3.

 

If we don't want to go to tribunal this time we would put more effort into getting provision agreed in Part 3 - and maybe spend more time negotiating rather than getting the statement finalised as soon as possible.

 

The underlying issue being that I am not keen to go to tribunal - with all the stress and expense - on Parts 2 & 3 if we are going to have to do it all a year later over Part 4 at transition. Of course if we end up going to tribunal over Part 4 that become moot.

[Sally44]

Local Authorities know the system inside out. If you miss the timescale to appeal they know there is no way you can get them to amend the Statement. So they just won't do it.

 

I would say appeal. You can withdraw your appeal at any time.

 

And you can go to the appeal with the reports you have. You don't HAVE to have independent reports. But they do make it much easier to get the provision the child needs because independent reports DO quantify and specify.

 

Also, going to Tribunal is nerve racking the first time. So why not go now, with the documentation you have, and see what the process is like. So that at transfer year you will have a much better idea of what to expect.

 

So try to get the Statement as tight as you can. Submit the evidence you have. You can ask whatever professionals you want to attend as your expert witnesses [so the Panel can question them], and the Panel will question them. So if the documentation suggests your child has a SpLD, you get the LA EP to attend [and if they refuse you can ask SEND to Supena them], so that the Panel can ask them those specific questions as to what is the SpLD and why isn't it in part 2, and where is the provision to meet that need in part 3.

 

Many LAs don't agree to amend anything at all, then minutes into the Tribunal they may suddenly agree to do everything! But even if that happens [as it did to us in 2009], still go through the Tribunal because you want the Panel to word the Statement [put that in your appeal too that you want the Panel to word the Statement so that it is not vague or ambiguous]. Because when the Panel have worded it, the LA are more inclined to abide by it, because if they don't they are going against the SEND Tribunal wording, rather than just the parents wording.

 

There is no way you can make the Statement worse by going to Tribunal. And if you don't get needs or provision you wanted into the Statement you will understand why from the Tribunal day and the Decision, and that will help you for the next time to get it right.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Sally44