[senco-forum] An apology in advance regarding any potential emails from apduk org

Hi All

We at APDUK have become aware of a flood bogus emails proclaiming to
originate from and apduk.org email address. We are being overloaded by those
returned by various postmaster type security systems.

For General information, members of the APDUK Executive Committee, never use
their APDUK email facilities to send emails only to receive incoming emails
regarding requests for information or support etc. 

I can only apologies for any inconvenience caused but this is outside of our
control as spammers are always able to be creative in their use of email
addresses.

Best wishes

Dolfrog
Vice Chairman APDUK

-----Original Message-----
From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
[mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of
kngbrndn at aol.com
Sent: 26 February 2007 14:38
To: SEN at tringham.net; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: Re: [SENco-forum] Toe by Toe/Specialist Dyslexia trained staff

Sharon -- likewise you are correct as always.

My most recent dyslaexia case, involved a newly issued (first-time)
statement for a secondary phase boy who had been on Action+ during primary,
but he'd started failing big time when hitting the pace and demands of
secondary -- plus losing a competent LSA at transition.

The first hurdle was a refusal to assess. But when an appeal was lodged --
pointing out that no EP or specialist advice was sought when arriving at the
decision not to assess -- the LA agreed to assess.

The Primary School had bought in the provision of a very good dyslexia
adviser (BDA recognised degree trained in Dyslexia teaching) who had done a
terrific assessment and a very comprehensive range of advices on programmes
and strategies which had sustained him in the later stages of primary.

But this had been 9 months ago. When parents lodged a 2nd appeal, this time
on lack of specialist advice and monitoring specified within the new
statement, the secondary school bought in a similar quality of advice --
which produced valuable additional evidence we required for the 2nd appeal.
With the LA now agreeing to immediately provide 20 hrs LSA, plus the new
specialist advice now available, the lad started making dramitically
improved progress (and became a happy chappie as well). On the basis of this
evidence the parents requested specilaist input to be specified in Part 3.

This request -- for termly specialist monitoring, of similar depth and
quality as had been bought in - to be specified in the statement (meaning
the speciailist monitoring provision would have to be additionally funded by
the LA unless school agreed to continue buying in -- which it wisely stated
it would not do) was refused on the grounds that there 'was no evidence
recommending this in the assessment advices to the statement'. This was
true, as the EPs report was very shallow and purposefully vague about
required provision.

We lodged an appeal on the grounds that the evidence was clear that
specialist input was required as the school had no established expertise and
were already buying in such speciailst monitoring and advice which was
proving invaluable. And we argued that more than once a year was required to
match with the termly reviews and annual review as set out in the monitoring
section of the statement.

At case statement stage, despite the EP refusing our written request to be
clearer on description of the lad's needs and likely provision requirements,
the LA conceeded. So this satisfactory outcome was achieved without ever
actually going to appeal -- or having to commission very expensive
independent EP assessments to produce further evidence of needs and required
provision -- and despite a very inadequate statutory assessment.

But parents, throughout the land, would have absolutely no power to press
effectively for this sufficient level of provision -- that dramatically
changes and improves dyslexia childrens educational and life chances --
without the SENDIST being there to make LAs accountable. Without the the
judicial, independant, trbunal system, very many LAs would undoubtedly ride
roughshod over many more childrens entitlements to special educational
provision, than they already do so, in those cases where parents decide not
to request this essential provision where it is evidenced and appeal if
unreasonably refused. Brendan King  

-----Original Message-----
From: SEN at tringham.net
To: kngbrndn at aol.com; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Sent: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 8.48AM
Subject: RE: [SENco-forum] Toe by Toe/Specialist Dyslexia trained staff

Correct as always that LEA's can be made to stipulate Specialist dyslexia
teachers.  What has to be watched is what kind.  We asked for, and got at
Tribunal, an AMBDA dyslexia diploma holding teacher.  This means the person
meets BDA requirements including a minimum of 2 years teaching + 30 hours
1:1 tuition with SpLD children. Some dyslexia qualifications are not worth
the paper they are written on and others, while sound, are theory based
only.

Access to external 'specialists' also needs to be monitored as it becomes a
very muddy area especially for those without statements.  Schools with
devolved budgets can buy in visits by dyslexia trained staff to assess and
'set & monitor' programmes for LSA's to administer.  While these are usually
termly  some schools have not had visits for 18 months due to sickness,
staff shortages or re-clustering etc etc.

Sharon Tringham

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/702 - Release Date: 25/02/2007
15:16