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

From: kngbrndn at aol.com

Put what you want in writing and say that this is what you will be taking to
Tribunal and ask for the Finalised statement.  There are time limits for
every stage of the Statementing process, except this one. Until the
finalised statement is in your hand time is suspended.

My LEA strung me along for 9 months at this stage refusing my offers of
mediation.  At tribunal they were castigated for leaving her so long with no
support and gave the 1:1 support with an AMBDA registered dyslexia teacher
that we had asked for and the first statement in the country to do so.

Trust your judgement.  You are all your daughter has to get her a fair crack
at accessing education.  The statement is there to level the playing field
for her - no more and no less.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
[mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk]On Behalf Of lk s
Sent: 21 August 2007 14:40
To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: RE: Fwd: [senco-forum] would this wording put you off?

Thankyou all so much for your replies. Biff as ever your comments were very
helpful and your typing beautiful! Also Brendan and others who have replied,
you have given me much to think about. I personally think my LA are spinning
me a line and laying a guilt trip on me, which they do on a regular basis.
They have implied that if I insist on the wording 1:1 designated support, it
will in some way reflect badly on my daughter. When you think that the
annual review was held in April and we are still not in agreement, you can
understand I'm sure how tired I am of it all. I have in fact 'written' a
large chunk of this proposed ammended statement myself, as the original
proposals were dire. But still the LA continue to be unable/unwilling to
specify. They say that in statements they always put that children will have
access to specialist teachers and do not specify how often etc. because it
is up to the school to call on this support when needed. I wanted to check
on forum mainly to see if a statement that specifies 1:1 support in class
would in some way be detrimental to my daughter. The statement states quite
clearly what support would need to be provided and by whom in class. This is
expected to be by an L.S.A. whose primary role would be to ensure that
daughter accesses all lessons and reaches her learning potential. I'm not a
fool and of course I want to see her become a more independent learner and
take more responsibility for herself but realistically in some lessons this
is unlikely to happen. I know the pressure schools are under to support all
children with sen, but the support in her statement is for her and it has
been a long and very upsetting process getting it! I am tempted now to ask
the LA to finalise the statement and then go to tribunal where they can put
forward why they think using phrases such as opportunities to, will have
frequent access to, should be given opportunities to etc are acceptable.

>From: kngbrndn at aol.com
>To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk, iks1985 at hotmail.com
>Subject: Fwd: [senco-forum] would this wording put you off?
>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:40:23 -0400
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: kngbrndn at aol.com
>To: mike at green43.demon.co.uk
>Sent: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 8.11pm
>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
>
>
>----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Boyd <mike at green43.demon.co.uk>
>To: lk s <lks1985 at hotmail.com>; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
><senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
>Sent: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 5.36pm
>Subject: Re: [senco-forum] would this wording put you off?
>
>
>
>
>On 20/08/07 16:27, "lk s" <lks1985 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been going through the draining process of having my daughter's
> > statement ammended. We were trying to get an effective one together to
>aid
> > the transition to secondary school next year.
>
>It is worth considering seeking advice on what you might be able to do.
>Here's how to contact ACE, IPSEA and AFASIC. (Acronyms explained below).
>
>First, consider getting these free publications if you are not already
>familiar with them (N.B. the printed copies can be read anywhere and you
>can
>write on them - a helpful feature!):
>
>'Special Educational Needs Code of Practice' ref. 581/2001, a Department
>for
>Education and Skills (DfES) publication. Ring the DfES publications unit on
>0845 602 2260 and ask them to send you a copy - it's free.
>You can also see the Code of Practice on the web at
><http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=3724>
>
>'Inclusive Schooling - Children with Special Educational Needs'
>ref. 0774/2001, also free from DfES publications on 0845 602 2260.
>It contains several lists of the kinds of reasonable steps that schools
>should consider taking to better ensure appropriate inclusion.
>Good food for thought.
>On the web at <http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=4621>
>
>
>
>The Advisory Centre for Education (ACE) has a general advice line:
>FREEPHONE 0808 800 5793.
>
>ACE web-site <http://www.ace-ed.org.uk>
>
>ACE Special Education Handbook
><http://www.ace-ed.org.uk/publications/shop/SENHand.html>
>(Costs money, but is highly recommended especially for parents starting out
>on a relationship with the education system.)
>
>Also the ACE booklet 'Getting the Statement Right'. Downloadable free at:
><http://www.ace-ed.org.uk/advice/booklets/GettingStatement.html>
>
>
>
>The advice line of the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice
>(IPSEA) can be contacted  on 0800 018 4016.
>Their usual advice line hours are Mon-Thu 10-4 & 7-9 and Fri 10-4.
>
>The IPSEA website is at <www.ipsea.org.uk>
>
>
>
>The Afasic (Action For All Speech Impaired Children) helpline provides
>information about all areas of speech and language impairment and about
>speech and language therapy, education and benefits.
>
>Afasic web-site : <http://www.afasic.org.uk>
>
>FREE - The Afasic leaflet on analysing your draft/proposed statement:
><http://www.afasic.org.uk/pub.htm#getting>
>Look at the bottom of the screen for " The Proposed Statement" and click on
>"free PDF".
>
> > Whilst the communication difficulties expertise of Afasic might not be
> > relevant to your situation, this leaflet is a wonderful guide to help
> > you analyse the reports that go into the making of a statement and
> > identify the needs and provision that ought to be included.
> > Read it and you'll be writing 'highlighter pens' on your
> > shopping list before you know it!
>
>
>Regards, Mike
>--
>Mike Boyd <mike at green43.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>
>
>
>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. Click Here for more information.
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>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.

_________________________________________________________________
Get Pimped! FREE emoticon packs from Windows Live -
http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.1/963 - Release Date: 20/08/2007
17:44

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.1/963 - Release Date: 20/08/2007
17:44

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.1/963 - Release Date: 20/08/2007
17:44