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

Thankyou all so much for your replies. Biff as ever your comments were very

You're right to go for the max at this stage. It is much easier to
adapt to growing lesser needs than it is to tighten up and get more -
and Year 7 is *always* an abysmal time for these kids.  You want the
max at least for that first year.  Once she's settled in, it can be
reviewed.  I don't think it reflects badly on your daughter. How can
it??!  Schools can't refuse you a place just because of the level of
support needed - they have a policy of inclusion.

And LAs have LA speak.  Mostly it goes on the lines of 'there's only
one pot of money' and you (parent) are very bad if you want to snaffle
some of it for your child'.  It was only when I heard someone from
another LA say exactly almost word for word what I'd heard from my own
that I realised there's a script.  (I'm joking - there's no script,
just the same 'hymn sheet'.)

I have wondered, if there's only one pot, who all this money in the
pot is for when the message seems to be the same for all parents ie
it's not for YOU, no matter how challenged your child is.  They seem
so frightened that if they give an inch, you'll take it all that
there's very little cooperation.  That makes it into an adversarial
situation from the start. And nobody puts the child in the centre so
you can work from what would be perfect to what would be possible -
you have to chip away with a great deal of uncertainty and the
'professionals' causing further confusion.

But what happens when we can no longer fight for our children.  I have
given up in despair.  After a couple of years of politely fighting a
crazy (beyond comprehension) situation which caused our whole family a
great deal of distress, I find myself now fighting cancer.  And while
I fight to stay alive, my son is dispensed with, out of the system.
At least his mental health is stable, he's happy enough and I pray
that it is true that he'll take to FE when the time comes. I am
outraged at the damage that has been done to my family by 'the
system'. Keep fighting - yes, even the LA told us that what we have to
do.  But at what cost?
A

On 21/08/07, lk s <lks1985 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>