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

From: Astryngia <astryngia at googlemail.com>

A. I am so terribly sorry to hear your news and my thoughts are with you and 
your family.

>From: Astryngia <astryngia at googlemail.com>
>To: "lk s" <lks1985 at hotmail.com>, senco-forum 
><senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
>Subject: Re: Fwd: [senco-forum] would this wording put you off?
>Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:45:15 +0100
>
>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.
> >
> >

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