tribunal question - attendance of witnesses

[bjkmummy]

had the form through earlier and the LA are calling the ed psych and the OT. what has confused me is that as LA representative is names a solicitor but nowhere on teh form does it state which LA officer is attending - is this normal? do they usually have to be down as a witness? or is it like us as parents that its assumed we will be there so not listed seperately on the form?

 

they have a legal person working on the case who has sent this paperwork through - she says she is an education lawyer but then goes on to ask my permission to sit in on the tribunal as an observer as she wants to gain experience of tribunal which seems odd is shes an education solicitor but then it names another lawyer as the one attending the tribunal.

 

i want to refuse her permission to sit in - its hard enough especailly when we are going to be unrepresented and have no support there except our witnesses - i dont want the hearing to be a goldfish bowl and i am being totally honest when i say it will make me feel very intimidated!

[Sally44]

The list of witnesses should include everyone who is attending. If there is no-one from the LA attending you can supena them to attend. Afterall, the solicitor acting for the LA will presumably be arguing that the LA can meet your son's needs. So you, and the Tribunal Panel, need to be able to ask the LA representative if they can provide what the solicitor is stating can be provided.

 

If you want to supena the LA Inclusion Officer [and that is usually the Senior Inclusion Officer who has been negotiating the Statement with you], then phone SEND and ask them how to do it. I think you need to complete a "request for changes form", which would ask that SEND put your request infront of one of their Judges, who - if they agree that the Inclusion Officer needs to attend - will issue a Supena to the named LA Inclusion Officer that you would deliver to them. You would be asking for this Supena so that the Panel can ask the Inclusion Officer questions about your child's needs and the provision that can be provided by the Local Authority [as the solicitor will not necessarily know that. He will just know the points of law].

 

I know it feels intimidating. But the SEND Panel will understand that. And often an honest, dedicated parent, who is simply seeking a school placement and provision so that their child can access education impresses the SEND panel more than any solicitor could. Remember that you are there for your child. The solicitor is there as their paid job. And if there is anything being argued that you do not understand, ask the Panel to explain it to you.

 

What are the LA reasons for opposing your parental choice of placement? Do you have a copy of their case statement yet?

 

Are you taking any independent professionals with you as attendees?

Edited October 30, 2012 by Sally44

[Sally44]

And yes you can say that you do not agree to this trainee attending as it would make you feel comfortable with a trainee sitting in to observe, and that as you are acting for yourself you already feel under considerable stress without there being additional people sitting in on the day.

[Sally44]

I would also recommend that if you can see from the Bundle/Case Statement that the LA are arguing that they can provide certain support, therapy, professional input etc, that you write to the heads of those departments BEFORE the tribunal date to ask them if they can provide it - because often the LA is not open and honest about what facilities, staff, professionals etc they have and what those professionals qualifications are.

 

For example, if the LA is saying that your son will get input from an OT trained and experienced in working with children with an ASD and sensory issues - that sounds great. But if your reports say your child needs "a Sensory Integration Therapy of xx hours of 1:1 direct therapy by an OT who is suitably qualified to deiver such a programme", then you need to get in writing, from the NHS OT Community service that they can deliver that. Because I am 100% sure they can't. The NHS does not fund pure Sensory Integration Therapy. They do not do 1:1 therapy with children in school for sensory processing disorder or dyspraxia and they don't go into mainstream or special schools. They may offer advice or give the school a programme to be delivered by a TA, but that is not the same thing.

 

If you have reports that state your child needs small class sizes of no more than 8 pupils - you again need in writing that the LA school does not have class sizes that small, and that they typically contain 30 pupils etc.

 

Try to find out all this minute detail before the Tribunal because on the day you need all those facts. So that if the Solicitor says "xx school can provide xx", you can prove that they cannot. If you don't have that evidence in writing on the day, you cannot prove that what the solicitor is saying is rubbish. And LA know that - and that maybe why they are not sending an inclusion officer - so that they cannot be asked any uncomfortable questions by the Panel.

 

For example - a friend of mine was at an educational tribunal for their son and the Panel asked the Inclusion Officer how many Joint Team Planning Meetings they had had which had included CAHMS. The Inclusion offier said "I'm sorry but I don't have that information to hand". So the parent said "actually there have been none". Which surprised the Panel because this was a child with serious mental health issues spanning more than 5 years. So the lack of any Joint Planning between Education and Health professionals proved that his needs could not have been met in school as Education had no advice from those Health professionals the child was seeing out of school hours.

 

But for the LA to say "we don't have that information to hand" is a deliberate way of trying to mislead the Panel to think that there have been such meetings, but that the LA inclusion officer does not have the times and dates of those meetings. It gives the impression that there has been joint planning when actually there was nothing at all and the LA was trying to cover up that fact.

 

They did then immediately promise to set up such a meeting immediately, but the Panel said that if the LA had not found that such a meeting was necessary over the last 5 years that they had serious doubts that such meetings would be held on a regular basis. So they found in favour of the parents.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Sally44

[Sally44]

As you probably know if you've read my posts leading up to our Tribunal, the LA were stating that they did have specialist teachers to meet his dyslexia needs. Yet he had never met such a specialist teacher in all the 6 years he was in school. And when I wrote to the specialist teaching services and asked them what additional qualifications they had, over a teaching qualification, to teach children with autism and dyslexia, they replied that they did not have any such qualifications because it was not a legal requirement that they had such qualifications.

 

I also asked them if those specialist teachers went into any of the mainstream schools [they didn't], and I asked them how many specialist teachers there were [and there was one]. I also asked about the autism outreach teacher. She had about 200 children on her caseload and she worked alone. So that immediately gives the Panel a good indication of how many hours each year she would be able to dedicate to each child. It works out at about 5 hours per child per year. Which is obviously ridiculous. But when the LA says "the school have access to the autism outreach teacher whenever they need their advice" that sounds brilliant. But get it down to facts and figures and it becomes obvious that the child's needs will not be met.

 

That is true. There is no "legal requirement" that certain LA staff are qualified to such a level. HOWEVER if a child has such needs, the LA has to detail in the Statement how each and every need will be met. And for some difficulties you need suitably qualified professionals involved.

 

So I could prove that our tribunal that the LA did not have anyone appropriate to meet his SpLD needs. Even the independent school did not have anyone, and so the Panel awarded that the independent school also had to buy in the 1:1 teaching time from a specialist teacher for dyslexia and dyscalculia who was qualified to both teach and assess for dyslexia [because they have to be able to assess to find out what the specific difficulties are that cause dyslexia in that pupil, and also have to be able to assess so that they can prove progress.]

Edited October 30, 2012 by Sally44

[bjkmummy]

If I supena the sen officer does that count as one of my witnesses ie one of my 3? I've not had the full response yet, it's coming tomorrow special delivery. I was going to call OT, the head of my school choice and someone from current school. However now they are calling ed psych will have to call mine as well. The LA ed psych saw him in may for the emergency review. Report really wishy washy but made a few recommendations which the LA completely rejected so they don't even listen to him. The NHS OT report highlighted more difficulties than ours plus she's only qualified to level 1. It just seems odd they are using someone from another LA to do the paperwork but then at the hearing having someone who will be hired for the day. I would love to call the LA officer as it will be very uncomfortable for them.

 

Deadline for LA response to tribunal is 5 pm tomorrow. On Monday I got an email asking for to me agree for the statementing officer to see joe to get his views. She is the worst possible person to send to see an anxious kid plus she is the one who has made us go down this path. I said that I wanted someone independent of the LA to see him plus any questions need to be visual and also I wanted to see the questions beforehand. They have not responded back yet!

[Sally44]

Out of interest, why aren't they calling the NHS SALT for the LA attendees?

[bjkmummy]

They aren't calling the NHS salt because he has not been seen since he was 5 - he's now 9. No salt report was done for the statement - they seem to be going along the path if 'done see it, don't have to provide it' I have a salt report which recommends 45 mins therapy per week by a salt experienced with autism plus 45 mins social skills group per week. He has social communication disorder and a moderate delay in his expressive language.

 

Re the OT - she herself is only qualified to level 1 - she has recommended therapy which needs to be done by someone level 2/3 when she knows there is no one in county with that qualification. Their OT is lovely - its hard she is against us as she is also my elder sons OT. She has never been to tribunal before. My OT coming back to do a follow up report. I'm still shocked that they are not bringing someone from the LA

[Sally44]

If the NHS OT has recommended therapy by an OT that is has completed the Sensory Modules, and you have in writing that the NHS don't provide Sensory Integration Therapy, and your recommend recommends that kind of therapy delivered by a suitably qualified OT, then you are covered.

 

If you don't have it in writing, try to get it, because the LA side may say they will provide it. But if the NHS don't provide it, how will they do that. They would have to buy in a private OT.

 

Is there any reason you can think of as to why the LA is not sending an inclusion officer to the tribunal? If they thought it was in their interests they would do so.

 

As i've said, you can ask SEND to supena a specific person. It is an easy form to complete. Then SEND will put that request infront of one of their Judges [who are looking at requests for changes all the time], and the Judge will decide if it is in the interests of the child/Tribunal for the inclusion officer to be there. If the Judge agrees, he will issue an Order stating his agreement, as well as a Supena which you can take to your local council house and serve on the inclusion officer.

 

If you know exactly what the LA can and cannot provide, then it maybe worth you getting a supena.

 

I think that firstly you have to contact them and ask them to attend, so that when they refuse you get the Supena. I got a Supena for the NHS SALT so that she could explain why she was recommending reducing SALT therapy whilst admitting that the current Statement contained less hours than she actually used to meet his needs.

 

The attendees for the LA are not supposed to be "on their side". The LA usually calls them to back up their case, but they are supposed to neutral and be concerned with the needs of the child.

[bjkmummy]

i dont understand why the inclusion officer wont attend - my guess is that they know they will be asked some very uncomfortable questions such as they have put it in writing that the current school cannot meet his needs and another school placement needs to be sought and yet are making us go to tribunal to get the school place. they also put in writing joe would get everything that he needs and to date have again done nothing except to send outreach in to say he is fine and needs no help yet their Ot report which was done the very next day completely contradicts it. The NHS OT report is a mirror image of ours although she would not comment on school placement as the LA told her not to as they feel that an OT cannot make the recommendations and yet off the record the NHS OT told the head she could compltely understand why Joe needs specialist provision. The LA also know they have no other suitabe school. at various points i have asked for schools to be considered -t hey have ignored my requests. they finally look at my school choice mainly due to pressure from my Mp - they wrote a letter to him stating that they were actively considering a place at the school for him, they then visited and have refused to speak to me so i have no idea if they even liked the school. they are now hiding behind the tribunal saying that they have to follow procedures which is laughable as to date they have basically done nothing. they are not calling anyone to dispute that the school cannot meet his needs so they seem to be accepting that - hopefully when the paperwork comes in the next hour it may become clearer

[Sally44]

Firstly the LA have to go with the parental choice of school UNLESS they can prove it is not suitable, or that they have a school that could provide what he needs, in that case they would say your choice of school was not a good use of their resources [ie. money].

 

Why are they sending a solicitor?

 

Do you have the complete bundle send to you by SEND yet [which should include the LA's Case Statement ie. what they are going to tribunal about].

 

I would highlight at the tribunal the contradiction regarding autism outreach and both the NHS and private OT. I would suggest you get in writing from her manager or head of department, what qualifications the autism outreach person has. Are they qualified as a teacher? Do they have any ASD specific qualifications. Have they carried out any standardised assessments. What level of input in terms of hours of 1:1 work with your son they could provide. How many autism outreach staff they are and what their roles are.

 

Remember AO have said 'no problems', so what are their qualifications? If they have none, then the opinion of the NHS and independent OT are in agreement, which you need to state.

 

Unless you can think of any specific reason why, I would ask the Inclusion Officer to attend. Send themm an email asking them to attend the Tribunal, and ask them to reply within 48 hours to state if they are attending or not. If they say they are not going, I would complete a Request for Changes form, and I would ask SEND to supena them.

 

If any educational psychologist going to be there for you. Also is your parental choice of school sending someone ie. Deputy Head or SENCO?

[bjkmummy]

just an update - my choice of school isnt sending someone yet but i can speak to them closer to the time - the issue is that it is in the school holdiays and the head has booked a holiday. he will provide me with as much written info that i need which is good. i got a phone call from one of the vice principals from our schools sister secondary - she has taken over the role of senco whilst my current head on maternity leave. the vice principal has asked me to name her for the tribunal to give evidence so i am going to have the current school on my side - the school state again they cannot meet his needs and want him to move on so now i have a vice principal from the current school, private OT and private ed psych. they have NHS OT and their ed psych. My ed psych commented when she came last week that she cannot understand why the LA are calling the NHS OT when she is against them so that just leaves their ed psych. Part of me want to ask the tribunal to throw the LA out on the basis that their reponse does not give clear reasons why they are objecting = just that they need more time to consider a report that they have now had for 2 months but i dont know how sucessful i would be or to just leave it and let the tribunal draw their own conclusions. in their response they state they got the OT report on 24/9 however in their response to my MP they state on 1/10 they are yet to receive it so somewhere they are lying - either to the MP or the tribunal

Edited November 19, 2012 by bjkmummy

[Sally44]

I would let the Tribunal go ahead.

 

You could write to the Inclusion Officer and ask if they accept your parental choice of school and the changes to the Statement so that the cost of the Tribunal can be avoided. But they are unlikely to agree. This is all about money, and if they can delay paying for an independent placement for just one week that has saved them that week's fees.

 

You could also complete a "Request for Changes" form and send that to SEND, who would put it infront of a Judge for them to issue an Order. Your request could be something like.

 

"Parents would like the LA to identify the major issues of this Tribunal regarding provision, therapy and placement, as the parental and LA professional evidence are in agreement that xxxxxx is not mainstream material."

 

And see what the Judge Orders. We submitted something like that and the Judge Ordered both the LA and parents to outline what the major issues in the case were.

 

We did this because we wanted to know what the issues were that we would have to fight about at the Tribunal.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Sally44

[bjkmummy]

My problem is that I am still awaiting my ed psych report to come in. Also although the NHS OT matches ours she was to,d in no uncertain terms she could not discuss placement but the conclusions re therapy are exactly the same and she talks about underlying issues not being addressed which is clearly a nod towards his placement. I am also sitting on a salt report the LA are unaware that I have which recommends therapy etc. the LA have not commissioned a salt report and their response states a decision at the original statementing process was that it was needed. No idea who made that decision but am slowly digging at that one.

[Sally44]

Don't push them to get a SALT report. If they don't commission one, and don't have a SALT as an attendee [which would be difficult for them if no SALT has ever met or assessed your son because they would not be able to say anything about him as they never met or assessed him would they], the Panel will go on your independent one and you can raise the point at the Tribunal that eventhough your child is diagnosed with an ASD which means HE MUST HAVE SPEECH AND LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL COMMUNICATION DIFFICULTIES TO A CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT LEVEL TO GET THAT DIAGNOSIS, the LA did not feel an assessment was needed and that he receives no SALT input at all.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Sally44