Fwd: [senco-forum] would this wording put you off?

Subject: Re: [senco-forum] would this wording put you off?

Hi Iks

?

Personally speakiing, if it were my child, I would insist that, as a minimum,?the same level and type of support remained as my child transferred form Primary to Secondary phase in September 08.?

Note that the statement has?to be amended to name the new school in Part 4?by Feb 15 08 -- and the whole statement can be amended and appealed against at that time -- this is so any disagreements and appeals can be?processed and resolved before end of July 08.

If?my child has been receiving 1:1 TA support, I would?insist that quantified 1:1 specification remained as a maximum protection -- particularly through the very stresssful transition into a secondary setting.

The child will have to cope with many changes -- and have to find its way around the school to many different classes --?and cope with many different subjects and teaching styles. As far as the wrong message is concerned -- I would want the message?to be that my?child has a high level of need and requiress 1:1 support from a designated TA?(or TA's)?experienced / trained / qualified in providing for my child's type of special needs.

I would argue that it is precipitate to water down the level and type of provision at this crucail phase -- and that no one can safely predict the amount of support the child will require. So it is not safe to lower the level of support before the child even enters the school. 

I'm afraid the "independance" argument is routinely used by some LA officers (and some teachers / SENCOs) to precipitately reduce provision without clear evidence that it can be?so reduced or changed without disadvantaging the child. LA officers may suggest a vaguer form of wording to reduce responsiibilty of arranging, and / or providing for?cost of, the TA?provision. And school staff often use the "independance2 argumEnt?to enable them to use the provision for the school system as a whole -- rather than the individual child -- which is not the purpose of statemented provision.

If the statement remains strongly worded to state 1:1 support from designated TAs -- then if the parent finds that it is not being implemented within the school -- and the child is floundering as a result -- s/he can immediately point out that the statement provisions are being breached and insist (by going to law if neccessary) that the full 1:1 TA provision is restored. But if parent has agreed to a form of wording that allows the TA to be used as a distance support / arms length support -- and implicitly for other children as well -- it will not be possible to object if this happens to the detriment of the childs needs being fully and sufficiently met.

There will be a stautory review in a years time (which can be called earlier if required) and the type and level of support can be reviewed then, when the child has fully settled into mainstream (one would hope) and the school staff and professional advisors are able to advise?with evidence based upon the child and school experience -- rarher than speculation before transfer. 

If The LA do insist on watering down the statement into vague terms at the 15th Feb amendment dealine stage?-- I would appeal to the SENDIST. I would remind all concerned of the wise judge's words in a crucial High Court judgement -- "that the statement must leave no doubt as to exactly what the child will receive in terms of provision and how that provision is to be arranged" (or words very similar).?Any vauge terminology as regards TA support leaves doubt and may lead to arguments about provision between school and parents -- which can be avoided by keeping the current clear specification.

That is my personal view -- Brendan King

________________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE AOL Email account with 2GB of storage.  Plus, share and store photos and experience exclusively recorded live music Sessions from your favourite artists. Find out more at http://info.aol.co.uk/joinnow/?ncid=548.