[SENco-forum] Ruth Kelly case

Sharon T -- you seem to be looking over my shoulder and describing exactly the pattern of events in my current dyslexia and similar cases. Your advice should be printed off for every parent of a dyslexic/language/motor skills affected child failing to acieve in basic skills. It is filled with vast personal, parental, experience and commonsense.

In advising parents -- often starting off with a refusal to assess and failure by all concerned to recognise the extent of the child's difficulties, and underestimating the acumen and underlying abilities of the SpLD/language/motor affected child -- I always advise parents to 'get the school and SENCo on side' unless parent wants to move child to a different school because she is so critical of, and has lost patience with, the staff of the current school. So, any letters/verbal communications to LA/representations at meetings, always has warm words (usually substantially genuine) for the efforts and professionalism of the staff -- but stressing that additional TA support/specialsit tuition/therapy is urgently required to support school as well as the child.

When doubtful staff, who initially don't believe parent will succeed in getting an assessment and specific statement, see what a determined parent can achieve in a quiet, determined, unflagging way -- they will most often have come around in total support -- when (without appeal) parent has got the LA to fund 1:1 support, a new laptop, etc. If all has not been achieved (often regular external specialist teacher/therapy input) the SENCo will often, by then, be so supportive as to be willing to attend an appeal hearing to speak professionally on the need for specialist input or whatever else the parent is justifiably appealing for.

The important advice from you Sharon, is for parents to constantly 'take stock' and to avoid getting caught up in insisting on obtaining every aspect of parental rights no matter what (the endless fight syndrome). Always, the question is "what do I as parent, acting in the best interests of my child, now want at this stage -- and is it reasonable -- and is there sufficient evidence and professional support for my continued requests? Because -- almost out of the blue sometimes and without having fully realised it -- parents come to realise that they have succeeded in getting sufficient support and specialist input/materials and equipment-- and the fight is virtually over (for now at least) and it's time to open the bubbly.

And, even if there are legal avenues that could justify continuing with a particular process, it may be time to close the issues and get on with 'life'. Many cases are successfully settled pre-hearing - always the best sort of success from my point of view. Good stuff Sharon. Brendan

-----Original Message-----
From: SEN at tringham.net
To: Philip.Garner at northampton.Ac.Uk; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Sent: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 9.22AM
Subject: RE: [SENco-forum] Ruth Kelly case

Brendan is best with legal but....

I have no problem with schools allowing in resources that they have not had
to pay for -specialist teacher training or equipment.

As a parent I have gone all the way from fighting the school and stupid LEA
'criteria', then through the Statementing process, via a Tribunal and back
( with some frankly unsupportive letters from Charles Clarke!) and now
support children at same school with handwriting/learning differences due in
the most part to the same thing my own children have - SpLD (dyslexia).

So it is possible to do it the correct way, upset many members of staff and
still end up on speaking terms some over a 5 year period!

There are shortcuts - pay for own EP report (£185). The Dyslexia Institute
do a comprehensive & easy to understand one with lots of statistics and
little 'reading between the lines'. You may have to read it 4 or 5 times to
get the full impact of what it says and what it meant for your child.

It is not a golden key and does not automatically open doors although at 10
pages it is nice to roll up and dream about hitting people with it. You have
to understand that the school will not necessarily be able to understand all
the implications of what it says and often the EP will have a quick word
with the school if you ask.

Before of after this stage you should define for yourself what you want your
child to have.  See what is, or could be provided by the school. Sometimes
differences in these can be due to poor communication on one or both sides.
The child might have what you want ( a staged reading scheme or extra
computer time) but it has been poorly explained.

Or you may want something, but have not asked ( such as a laptop) because
you know the school do not have the resources or you ( or the school) do not
think the child fits a certain 'criteria'- such as bringing in specialist
advice or support.

What you want may be something that the school has not even thought about
never mind considered so it never hurts to ask. It is better if staff &
parents are on the same side.

Many groups supply 'befrienders' to help with these discussions when ( or
before) they go wrong or LEA provide teams such as 'Partnership with
Parents' to give advice.

If you do not want to Statement you can just ask if you can pay for missing
provision - a laptop with specialist software, a vesting tutor to support a
small group of children or run an INSET day on how to support x child
better.  Anything is possible and when desperate some schools say YES.
Again unfair to those children whose parents cannot pay, but does take some
strain off the system for those who have no option but to have to Statement.

I have a laptop via a statement, and another without.  Prior to my daughters
statement I bought dyslexia friendly books, software, typing tutors, and
'style' resources, provided 2nd hand computers all so that my child can
access stuff without looking different. Finally it was best to Statement her
as I had an LEA that did not believe in supporting high IQ children with
dyslexia even when it was severe, and she was a the point of expressing that
there was no point living if everything was going to be this hard, aged 9.

At the end of the day you have to take whichever course best suits the
child, while also taking into account your own sanity.

Sharon T

-----Original Message-----
From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
[mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk]On Behalf Of Garner
Philip
Sent: 08 January 2007 21:57
To: K Wedell; senco-forum
Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Ruth Kelly case

The 'Kelly Case' raises interesting questions - it nicely incorporates
mainstream versus separate specialist settings, as well as private versus
State-funded provision. Hours of endless debating here - our MA students
will have a field day...

On a related matter, let me pose a question:

Supposing a child/young person has a learning need which the parents/carers
feel is not being adequately addressed by the school at Action or
Action-Plus levels. This has been an ongoing situation for at least 18
months and has been discussed at a variety of levels in the school and in
the LA. The case does not involve a Statement. The question: is there a
legal (as opposed to ethical/moral) problem in the school concerned agreeing
to accept some form of covenant which allows it to employ a specialist
teacher or specialist TA to attend to the child/young person's need (and to
those of other youngsters who may need similar support?)?

I'd be interested in the views of the Forum on this matter.

Thanks

Philip Garner

-----Original Message-----
From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk on behalf of K Wedell
Sent: Mon 1/8/2007 6:01 PM
To: senco-forum
Subject: [senco-forum] Ruth Kelly case

I think the interesting point about the Ruth Kelly case, is that there has
not been a decision that the boy requires a Statement in order to have his
needs met. The implication is that the LA has not come to the conclusion
that its existing provision makes it impossible to meet  his needs
adequately in his present school with or without any available additional
resourcing.

Consequently, one presumes that she does not agree - and this is her
assessment of the quality of the available provision for children in
general.

Klaus Wedell

This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended
recipient only.  If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly
prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this
e-mail or any information contained in it.

We virus scan all E-mails leaving The University of Northampton but no
warranty is given that this E-mail and any attachments are virus free.  You
should undertake your own virus checking.  The right to monitor E-mail
communications through our networks is reserved by us.

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/619 - Release Date: 07/01/2007
18:29

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/619 - Release Date: 07/01/2007
18:29

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/620 - Release Date: 08/01/2007
16:12