Statement Wording - does this mean anything

[bed32]

In our recent tribunal we got most of the provision we were seeking, but the tribunal rather mangled the words in a couple of places. We have ended up with the statement:

 

X requires 47.5 hours dedicated Teaching

Assistant support per week delivered by Teaching

Assistants who have a knowledge of the needs of a

very high functioning Autistic child as well as having

attended some courses/training in general child

development.

 

Clearly the hours are specific - but do the rest of the words mean anything at all? It seems to me that the requirements could be satisfied with a couple of one day courses (or even one hour courses).

 

I think the LA are likely to try to get away with the most junior possible, totally unqualified (and therefore inappropriate) TAs and there will be little we can do to challenge them.

[Sally44]

You can ask what the qualifications are of the TA and what training they have completed so far which is ASD specific and what courses they will be attending over the coming year. "Knowledge of" means nothing really. I have knowledge of space travel from having seen sci fi movies. And "having attended some" again is not specific and it mentions 'child development courses', which are not ASD specific.

 

What is the 47.5 hours of dedicated teaching Assistant support? Does that mean 1:1? Is this a mainstream school?

 

Is there any mention of the teacher needing ASD qualifications on top of teaching qualifications. Or specific number of pupils per class ie. no more than 8. Any specific ASD teaching approaches such as TEACCH. Any Therapy from OT or SALT quantified in hours per week/term.

[bed32]

You can ask what the qualifications are of the TA and what training they have completed so far which is ASD specific and what courses they will be attending over the coming year. "Knowledge of" means nothing really. I have knowledge of space travel from having seen sci fi movies. And "having attended some" again is not specific and it mentions 'child development courses', which are not ASD specific.

 

What is the 47.5 hours of dedicated teaching Assistant support? Does that mean 1:1? Is this a mainstream school?

 

Is there any mention of the teacher needing ASD qualifications on top of teaching qualifications. Or specific number of pupils per class ie. no more than 8. Any specific ASD teaching approaches such as TEACCH. Any Therapy from OT or SALT quantified in hours per week/term.

The statement is aimed at mainstream because we could not identify any better alternative for him at this stage - most people think that mainstream is not the right solution but there really is no provision for HFA at the primary level anywhere within reach of us. As he is in yr5 now we felt it best to keep him where he is. Specifying teaching qualifications is clearly inappropriate in that setting (and we are happy with the teachers anyway).

 

The statement also provides for a Psychologist, SALT, OT which are adequately specified (roughly a couple of hours of each per week) although the tribunal trimmed the time on the Psychologist a little. So the TAs will be required to deliver some of the programme overseen by the psychologist.

 

The 47.5 hours is a figure we dreamed up. It accounts for the fact that there is significant preparation and hand over work on top of being with him all day. As it is more than a full time job then it will need two TAs then there are coordination and planning issues. There are also times when he may genuinely need 2 people with him (when he is not with the rest of the school). In the pre-appeal statement we had 1:1 but it was amazing how often when he needed help there was no one there - particularly in the unstructured time when he needed help the most. Having two appropriate TAs also provides cover for training, absences and so on.

 

Unfortunately the wording comes from the tribunal so we can't really challenge it at this stage, and given where we are in his school career this wording will really need to do until he gets to his next placement - probably in 18 months time. It is a bit frustrating that the way the tribunal works means that we can't make representations about their proposed wording before it is finalised - had we been able to then we could have got this clarified.

 

The only point to having those phrases in there is to define the required experience the TAs much have and it seems that they are so badly worded that they have no meaning As a result they could just give us totally inexperienced TAs without the necessary skills and there is nothing we can do even though that is clearly not the intention of the tribunal.

 

I wondered if there was any case law at all on the interpretation of such vague wording.

[Sally44]

Have a look on the IPSEA website, there is nothing about interpretation of vague wording, but there is case law which says the statement must not be vague or ambiguous and that everyone should be absolutely clear on what the Statement is providing, otherwise how can you challenge whether the Statement is being met or not.

 

As he is in primary and also getting some therapy I would monitor his progress with that, as well as the teaching and TA support. And any difficulties you have under this statement can be addressed at any future AR or appeal.

 

It is much harder to get everything so specific in mainstream, because mainstream is not geared up for it. At an ASD specific secondary school all the teachers have post grad qualifications in ASD and many of the TAs have degrees in psychology and ASD and in-house and external training which is planned each year. All the therapy staff are on site, and all the children are a similar peer group. So you don't need to tie everything down so much because it is all provided as standard.

[bed32]

The statement is almost trying to put the sort of skills that would be there in a special school around him in a mainstream situation - it is only for 18 months as he will need more specialised provision. The tribunal gave us almost everything but took out the need for a psychology degree for one of the main support staff leaving the brunt of implementing a complex programme on the TAs

 

The success of the statement will largely depend on the TAs and their qualities, but the LA is likely to put anyone in as cheaply as possible, hence trying to see if the wording of the statement gives us any control at all.

[Sally44]

This example of case law is relevant to your situation. What I would suggest is that any vague or ambiguous wording around needs and provision is dealt with when you are looking at the AR or transition. Sometimes you need to prove that a badly worded Statement has not met the needs of the child or provided the support and provision they required or which was thought to be detailed in the Statement. By doing that you are more likely to get a more specific Statement next time.

 

We had a number of provision details that the school and LA kept getting round, totally illegally, and the only way you can challenge that is back at Tribunal because the Local Governments Ombudsman will not deal with any matter that is under the jurisdiction of SEND. They only deal with maladministration.

 

http://www.ipsea.org...ion/case22.aspx

 

http://www.ipsea.org...nt/html/?fid=47

 

The above also confirms that Statement provision or needs cannot be changed outside of the AR or emergency review process. Any amendment must be done so that the parents have the right to appeal.

 

So, in our case, my son's Statement said that the OT would draft an OT programme to be delivered in school. That never materialised. The OT said that was because school told her they had no concerns and so she decided he did not need the OT programme!. But the OT cannot just decide not to provide the written programme of OT the Statement details. It must be provided because a Statement is legally binding. And to make matters worse, when I wrote to the school asking them why they had told the OT that they had no concerns, the school denied having said it!

 

[No OT programme, no emotional literacy programme, no adult support during breaktimes, no social communication group, no investigation into whether he had dyslexia etc all did not happen. We detailed all these things in our Case Statement for our second appeal to SEND].

 

The above links to IPSEA clearly says that provision cannot be amended, at all outside of the Review process and parental right to appeal. So any provision in the Statement is potentially safe for a year. If the LA do try to reduce provision you appeal, and the LA had better have had professionals carry out standardised assessments and make recommendations that such provision can be reduced or cease because without it SEND are just as likely to ask that it is reinstated. Everything has to go on 'evidence'.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Sally44

[bed32]

For the most part the statement is good - minimum hours and experience specified - includes provision for training the school staff in various aspects and so on. This one area is weak, and I imagine that had that been pointed out to the Tribunal they would have changed the wording to make it more explicit.

 

There is plenty of provision in the statement to be getting on with - but unfortunately the most important aspect is that he feels secure and happy in the school environment which is the primary responsibilities of the TAs, so if they are not up to the job much of the rest of the programme may be less effective.

[Sally44]

If you look at those links it gives case law interpretation of how specific a Statement should be. That will be your guide for next time.

 

Personally I think that "experience" is hard to prove. Qualifications are better if possible, and in a placement where all the kids are ASD is going to be much better than "experienced TA's" because you cannot define what they means.

[bed32]

If you look at those links it gives case law interpretation of how specific a Statement should be. That will be your guide for next time.

 

Personally I think that "experience" is hard to prove. Qualifications are better if possible, and in a placement where all the kids are ASD is going to be much better than "experienced TA's" because you cannot define what they means.

Yes - as I said had we had any chance to challenge the wording we would have done so but the process does not seem to allow us to do so.

 

Still at the very least we can rule out people with absolutely no knowledge and we'll see what we end up with