October 2012
October 2012
October 2012
If you have been to a SEND Tribunal within the last two years, or if your case fell through in the two weeks before the Tribunal we would very much like to hear from you.
The purpose of this research is to provide information that may be used to improve the SEND process for all concerned. The views of parents like you are crucial. You have the knowledge and experience that can help to improve the current system.
We will be holding a series of focus groups at various locations around the UK, and we would very much like you to come to one of these discussion groups if possible. The discussion will take about an hour, and you will be with other parents who also have experience of the SEND tribunal system.
Please feel free to pass this information on to your friends who may be interested and have the relevant tribunal experience.
Information about the location of the discussion groups, and information about other ways that you can participate in our research project will shortly be available on the SOS!SEN website. Meanwhile we would really like to hear from you about taking part, and more information can be sent on to you.
Please let Martin Dean at martind@sossen.org.uk or Leonie Kindness at leoniek@sossen.org.uk know if you will be able to take part in this very useful project to help all parents.
November 2011
If you anticipate that your local authority will name an unsuitable school in Part 4, and that they may amend Parts 2 and 3 of the statement in order to justify their choice, be ready to act NOW.
The system used by the SENDIS Tribunal last year to expedite hearings left a lot of parents without time to get the evidence they needed because professionals were already so much in demand. If you leave things until mid February, you will face difficulties. Book your expert witnesses now, and make sure you are well prepared to run your case yourself.
Also watch out for any local authority that goes over the 15 February deadline or sends out a proposed rather than a final amended statement. We had one case earlier this year when the authority did nothing until the end of March, and the parents then had great difficulty in getting expert witnesses and preparing their case for a June hearing at Tribunal.
Our advice is this: NEVER APPEAL JUST PART 4. Part 2 informs Part 3, and Part 3 informs Part 4. We have little doubt that independent assessments will show flaws in Parts 2 and 3, and so it is always best to get the whole statement reviewed and amended.
July 2011
The results of our findings will be sent to the Tribunals Service, as we are sure that the information will be welcomed and regarded as helpful. The survey will be headed by Leonie Kindness.
Please see later article above for more details.
June 2011
Read the full details HERE.
June 2011
None of this helps the poor child, of course, but because the case was heard in the Civil Division of the High Court it sets an important legal precedent - one that local authorities must take on board.
Read more about the case on the Law Society Gazette website.
June 2011
This is extremely useful since it should ensure that the views of parents regarding the proposed statement are not only properly recorded but also available to the child’s school and to anyone else who refers to the statement. Parental views may also form invaluable evidence in the event of an appeal to the Tribunal or to mediation - showing not just what parents wrote but just how much or how little the local authority acted upon parental views.
If your child’s final statement does not include your response to the proposed version in Appendix A, write to your child’s case officer and request that it be added even at this late stage.
May 2011
This practice is both morally and legally indefensible, and it is the responsibility of the local authority to pay the fees for the school named in Part 4 of the child’s statement of SEN.
If Surrey or any other authority has any doubt about this it should turn to Section 348(2) of the 1996 Education Act which states that:
...the local education authority shall pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the education provided for the child at the school and if
a) board and lodging are provided for him at the school, and
b) the authority are satisfied that the necessary special educational provision cannot be provided for him at the school unless the board and lodgings are also provided, the authority shall pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the board and lodging.
Any parent or school facing such outrageous behaviour by Surrey or any other authority may contact SOS!SEN via the Helpline and/or email (admin@sossen.org.uk) so that we are informed.
Any child whose place at school is threatened by such a move would normally have the right to have this matter dealt with by a Legal Aid lawyer under Legal Aid in his or her own name, and the authority be subject to Judicial Review.
Update (7th June 2011)
Following very helpful responses from parents and schools, SOS!SEN has joined forces with a number of parents to take action against Surrey over their refusal to pay increases in school fees. An initial solicitor’s letter has been sent, followed by a reminder. In the event that no satisfactory response arrives, a pre-action protocol letter will be sent, and, if this produces no action, then parents will enter into a claim for Judicial Review against the local authority.
Surrey is not the only authority adopting the strategy of refusing to pay increases in school fees. Others include Wigan, Central Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and the partnership which represents Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay. Similar parental action could, if necessary, spread to them too.
The implication of this is that schools which have not made inflationary increases in their fees this year because of local authority “policy” are inevitably themselves being forced to make cuts in their provision - at the expense of the children. If local authorities are allowed to get away with this behaviour, and fees are likewise frozen for 2012 and 2013, the impact is clear: many schools will find themselves and their pupils sadly disadvantaged. In effect, authorities are treating schools as they would treat suppliers of paper or ink jet cartridges.
We will keep you posted. Meanwhile, we look forward to receiving any further news from parents and schools on this issue (see above).
May 2011
Our advice:
April 2011
April 2011
For example, a child whose statement was sent to his school had it “summarized” by the local authority in an accompanying letter as defining his main need as “behavioural, emotional and social difficulties”. Nowhere in the statement is the child described as BESD; instead, he is described as having complex needs.
The impact of such a document is evident. Because it accompanies the statement, it is, after all, the first description the headteacher or the SENCO sees. Such a description tends to stick, even if inaccurate, and as a result a child may be generally thought to have a special need that he or she does not have.
The problem probably arises from the convenience some authorities find in grouping statements into categories with funding implications also attached. However, this is far from convenient for a mislabelled child.
Our advice is to check with your child’s school that if it has received a new or amended statement from your local authority, nothing has been added by way of a covering document. We see no reason why schools would not be happy to do this and, indeed, be happy to be warned about it. If an accompanying letter or document was sent, request a copy from the school or local authority so that you can check what it says. Invoke the Data Protection Act if necessary.
February 2011
Click HERE to read our full response (21 pages)
November 2010
Parents of children in independent specialist schools arecoming to us with the information that suddenly their child’s provision in Part 3 of the statement is vanishing without explanation. In one case, the parents were not even given the full 14 days to submit their response to the proposed change before an amended statement was finalized.
The annual review findings that there should be no reduction to the provision in a statement are being ignored - and local authorities are simply making reductions anyway.
Some parents have not realized the potential consequence of this, particularly if they feel confident that their child’s school will maintain the therapy provision outlined in the original statement as part of its integrated approach.
BUT PARENTS BEWARE! THERE IS DANGER HERE.
Consider this: let’s say that, as a parent, you do not appeal the change to the statement because your child gets the stipulated provision anyway in his/her school. You decide not to oppose the decision and simply let the matter go. Bingo! In a year or two, your local authority may very well claim that your child has made so much progress that the statement can cease or he/she can go back into mainstream.
A child in Year 9 could be at risk well before starting Year 10 - on the grounds that because so much progress has been made it is now possible to remove, say, speech and language or occupational therapy a year earlier. Moreover, this would be deemed to be with parental consent, since the parents did not oppose the change to the statement. It’s clear how this trick might be used a year or so before phase transfer: a child who now appears fine and apparently no longer needs the therapies detailed in his original statement, can easily be sent off into a quite unsuitable post-11 or post-16 placement. And the unwitting parents will have no defence.
It seems that some local authorities are sinking to new depths in order to “save” money.
Complaints are now on their way to the Local Government Ombudsman and appeals to the SENDIS Tribunal are being prepared. It is vital to check most carefully any proposed amended or final amended statements to ensure that this miserable strategy is not being used against your child.
September 2010
A recent amendment to section 328 of the Education Act 1996 provides parents with a new right of appeal to the SENDIS Tribunal. Parents will now be allowed to appeal to the Tribunal if their local authority does not amend their child’s SEN statement following an annual or interim review.
The legislation for this was passed in the last days of the former government, based on a recommendation from the Lamb Enquiry Report. However, it was not brought into force until 1st September 2010. There is still a slight area of doubt concerning reviews held during the few months before 1st September.
The new legislation effectively allows for a statement to be organic, and so ends the sense of powerlessness parents have experienced when local authorities have simply refused to make changes. Following annual reviews and interim reviews, parents will now be able to appeal rather than have to go through the extremely daunting and potentially lengthy process of requesting statutory reassessment.
The SENDIS Tribunal booklet How to appeal against a SEN decision: A guide for parents has been amended (available for download HERE). Section 5 of the appeal form – which you will find included in the booklet – asks you to give your reasons for appeal and to say what you are appealing against. It now reads as follows:
So – if you have an upcoming annual review, interim review, or even an emergency one - go for it! Don’t be too surprised, however, if you are told by your child’s school that everything is absolutely fine. The pressure on schools to toe the local authority line is ever increasing, whether via threats of “well, you won’t get any more funding, you know, even if the statement is changed” or “if this child’s case goes to appeal we shall expect you to be a witness on our side”. Teaching staff, in other words, may be prompted not to forget “who pays your salary?”;
There will no doubt be a number of questions about the detail and interpretation of all this, and as matters clarify we will keep parents informed.
Further advice can be found by telephoning the SOS!SEN Helpline.
September 2010
Parents should make it clear to their LA that they will appeal to the SENDIS Tribunal any such amendment of statements. They should refer to sections 8:49–8:51 of the Code of Practice, and to the case of R v Lancashire County Council 1989. The Court of Appeal confirmed that in most cases, speech and language therapy constitutes special educational provision so as to require LAs to arrange it in accordance with Section 324 (5)(a)(i) of the Education Act 1996. It is now well established that the same also applies to OT.
Parents receiving proposed statements of SEN should watch out for the “Part 6 trick” and remember that they can do nothing if therapies placed under Part 6 are not provided. Under Part 3, failure by an LA to provide therapies prescribed can be subject to Judicial Review.
Our message to parents: fight this danger. Don’t let LAs get away with it .
August 2010
“That the Government has removed this basic safeguard for children without any explanation or public announcement is simply unacceptable. Parents will undoubtedly be shocked to hear that they have no right to be notified if a member of staff uses force on their child. The implications could be extremely serious, especially for very young children and some young disabled people who rely on teachers to share information with parents”.
The implications for so many of our children are evident and tragic.
Click HERE to read more.
Hampshire County Council restricting the rights of children and professionals
Thanks to a few parents this document has been brought to
our attention. It has been sent to schools but not to parents, of course. It is a clear attempt to restrict the work of professionals going into schools to
assess and observe a child during an appeal to Tribunal and thus restrict the evidence a parent can bring to Tribunal. At its best it shows the lack of
understanding of the complexity of special educational needs and at its worst is a clear attempt to interfere with a child's educational rights and the right of a
professional to conduct assessments unfettered by Local Authority “policing”.
We marvel at the sad kind of mind that can think up such a set of rules but fear that many schools will meekly follow the “party line”. Presumably this reflects the poor success record of Hampshire at Tribunal and the panic to do better at no matter what cost to the child.
Parents do not have to allow their children to be treated in such a way. Once an appeal is registered they do have the right to request the Tribunal to order additional time and freedom to speak with teachers and seek views on the child - all unfettered by Local Authority intrusion. This can be done by the use of the Request for Changes form.
Click HERE to read the HCC document mentioned above
We marvel at the sad kind of mind that can think up such a set of rules but fear that many schools will meekly follow the “party line”. Presumably this reflects the poor success record of Hampshire at Tribunal and the panic to do better at no matter what cost to the child.
Parents do not have to allow their children to be treated in such a way. Once an appeal is registered they do have the right to request the Tribunal to order additional time and freedom to speak with teachers and seek views on the child - all unfettered by Local Authority intrusion. This can be done by the use of the Request for Changes form.
Click HERE to read the HCC document mentioned above
October 2012
SOS!SEN concerned about the White Paper - Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
PARENTS NEED TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS NOW
The details in the White Paper issued in September are very worrying, because they considerably reduce parents' rights.
Click HERE for the full version.
The next step is to write to as many MPs as possible and alert them to parents' concerns.
Click HERE for some suggested text of a letter you could use to write to your local MP. If you don't know who that is, you can find their details by clicking HERE.
Please click HERE to read the full submission on the draft legislation which SOS!SEN has made to the Select Committee.
The next step is to write to as many MPs as possible and alert them to parents' concerns.
Click HERE for some suggested text of a letter you could use to write to your local MP. If you don't know who that is, you can find their details by clicking HERE.
Please click HERE to read the full submission on the draft legislation which SOS!SEN has made to the Select Committee.
October 2012
SOS!SEN research into the parent experiences of the SEND tribunal - invitation to participate.
SOS!SEN is currently undertaking some research into the experiences of parents who have participated in the SEND Tribunal system.If you have been to a SEND Tribunal within the last two years, or if your case fell through in the two weeks before the Tribunal we would very much like to hear from you.
The purpose of this research is to provide information that may be used to improve the SEND process for all concerned. The views of parents like you are crucial. You have the knowledge and experience that can help to improve the current system.
We will be holding a series of focus groups at various locations around the UK, and we would very much like you to come to one of these discussion groups if possible. The discussion will take about an hour, and you will be with other parents who also have experience of the SEND tribunal system.
Please feel free to pass this information on to your friends who may be interested and have the relevant tribunal experience.
Information about the location of the discussion groups, and information about other ways that you can participate in our research project will shortly be available on the SOS!SEN website. Meanwhile we would really like to hear from you about taking part, and more information can be sent on to you.
Please let Martin Dean at martind@sossen.org.uk or Leonie Kindness at leoniek@sossen.org.uk know if you will be able to take part in this very useful project to help all parents.
November 2011
Secondary transfer - ACT NOW
Remember that the final amended statement for your child's transfer to secondary education next September must by law be with you by 15 February 2012.If you anticipate that your local authority will name an unsuitable school in Part 4, and that they may amend Parts 2 and 3 of the statement in order to justify their choice, be ready to act NOW.
The system used by the SENDIS Tribunal last year to expedite hearings left a lot of parents without time to get the evidence they needed because professionals were already so much in demand. If you leave things until mid February, you will face difficulties. Book your expert witnesses now, and make sure you are well prepared to run your case yourself.
Also watch out for any local authority that goes over the 15 February deadline or sends out a proposed rather than a final amended statement. We had one case earlier this year when the authority did nothing until the end of March, and the parents then had great difficulty in getting expert witnesses and preparing their case for a June hearing at Tribunal.
Our advice is this: NEVER APPEAL JUST PART 4. Part 2 informs Part 3, and Part 3 informs Part 4. We have little doubt that independent assessments will show flaws in Parts 2 and 3, and so it is always best to get the whole statement reviewed and amended.
July 2011
SENDIS Tribunal: our survey of parents’ views
SOS!SEN plans to undertake an extensive and structured survey of the views of parents who have attended tribunal hearings over the past 3 years. Our aim is to find out if parents feel that their hearings were fairly, kindly and efficiently conducted, if the results were published within reasonable time limits, and if backup directions and administration helped to minimize the stress of the appeal process. Clear evidence will be requested. The survey will not be a complaints forum for cases where parents were not given the result they hoped for or for issues of costs.The results of our findings will be sent to the Tribunals Service, as we are sure that the information will be welcomed and regarded as helpful. The survey will be headed by Leonie Kindness.
Please see later article above for more details.
June 2011
Legal aid update
In February this year, SOS!SEN responded to the Ministry of Justice’s proposals to reform legal aid. We are delighted that Kenneth Clarke, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, has recently confirmed that legal aid for special educational needs is to continue.Read the full details HERE.
June 2011
Local authority guilty of negligence
A teacher at a special school for children with learning difficulties who was injured by a pupil with undiagnosed autism recently took her case to the appeal court. The judge decided that the local authority (London Borough of Havering) was negligent in not having identified the fact that the child was autistic and not having informed or trained the school staff accordingly. The local authority will now have to pay damages to the teacher.None of this helps the poor child, of course, but because the case was heard in the Civil Division of the High Court it sets an important legal precedent - one that local authorities must take on board.
Read more about the case on the Law Society Gazette website.
June 2011
Parents’ response to a proposed statement
All parents are reminded that according to the Code of Practice it is a requirement that the parental response to the proposed statement is included in the final statement as part of Appendix A. (See page 101, paragraph 8:30, footnote 57.)This is extremely useful since it should ensure that the views of parents regarding the proposed statement are not only properly recorded but also available to the child’s school and to anyone else who refers to the statement. Parental views may also form invaluable evidence in the event of an appeal to the Tribunal or to mediation - showing not just what parents wrote but just how much or how little the local authority acted upon parental views.
If your child’s final statement does not include your response to the proposed version in Appendix A, write to your child’s case officer and request that it be added even at this late stage.
May 2011
Refusal to pay increases in school fees
SOS!SEN is receiving calls from parents and independent specialist schools in Surrey complaining that the county is refusing to pay any increases in fees in independent specialist schools. Indeed some schools have become so worried that they are asking parents to pay the difference! SOS!SEN is also collecting written evidence on this matter.This practice is both morally and legally indefensible, and it is the responsibility of the local authority to pay the fees for the school named in Part 4 of the child’s statement of SEN.
If Surrey or any other authority has any doubt about this it should turn to Section 348(2) of the 1996 Education Act which states that:
...the local education authority shall pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the education provided for the child at the school and if
a) board and lodging are provided for him at the school, and
b) the authority are satisfied that the necessary special educational provision cannot be provided for him at the school unless the board and lodgings are also provided, the authority shall pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the board and lodging.
Any parent or school facing such outrageous behaviour by Surrey or any other authority may contact SOS!SEN via the Helpline and/or email (admin@sossen.org.uk) so that we are informed.
Any child whose place at school is threatened by such a move would normally have the right to have this matter dealt with by a Legal Aid lawyer under Legal Aid in his or her own name, and the authority be subject to Judicial Review.
Update (7th June 2011)
Following very helpful responses from parents and schools, SOS!SEN has joined forces with a number of parents to take action against Surrey over their refusal to pay increases in school fees. An initial solicitor’s letter has been sent, followed by a reminder. In the event that no satisfactory response arrives, a pre-action protocol letter will be sent, and, if this produces no action, then parents will enter into a claim for Judicial Review against the local authority.
Surrey is not the only authority adopting the strategy of refusing to pay increases in school fees. Others include Wigan, Central Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and the partnership which represents Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay. Similar parental action could, if necessary, spread to them too.
The implication of this is that schools which have not made inflationary increases in their fees this year because of local authority “policy” are inevitably themselves being forced to make cuts in their provision - at the expense of the children. If local authorities are allowed to get away with this behaviour, and fees are likewise frozen for 2012 and 2013, the impact is clear: many schools will find themselves and their pupils sadly disadvantaged. In effect, authorities are treating schools as they would treat suppliers of paper or ink jet cartridges.
We will keep you posted. Meanwhile, we look forward to receiving any further news from parents and schools on this issue (see above).
May 2011
School transport: dangerous practices
Parents have raised with us concerns about the dangerous way in which some cab and minibus drivers are handling the picking up and setting down of children on journeys to and from school. For example, there is evidence that children are leaving the vehicle on the road side and being left to go round the back of the vehicle to reach the pavement. In some cases the drivers and even escorts are not ensuring that they open the doors for the children and check for safety before letting them get out. Some do not leave their driving seats when collecting and delivering. There are also issues about safety when school buses are delivering or collecting children within school grounds. As one observer put it, “At our school it seemed to be total chaos. I didn’t dare look.” In fact, space outside schools is often limited, and careful driving and safe passenger handling are essential.Our advice:
- Watch carefully and mention your concerns to the driver (or escort if there is one) immediately.
- Ask the driver whether his or her firm is properly ensured against this approach to delivering or collecting a child.
- Send a written complaint to the transport department and to your child’s SEN case officer (go higher if there is still no action), and to the taxi firm if you know it, enquiring about their risk insurance coverage on this type of issue. You may need to use firm but polite words of warning.
- Speak to the school to see if they can be more vigilant about vehicles in the school grounds, and remind them about their duty of care.
April 2011
Intimidating letters
Parents have been showing us letters from local authorities requesting – or at least firmly implying – that parents should notify the authority if they are intending to appeal against a Note in Lieu. Such letters are along the lines of “If we do not hear from you within the next two weeks we shall assume you are happy and shall issue the Note in Lieu”. Whether you are going to appeal or not is up to you, and you are not required to tell your local authority in advance. If you are going to appeal, just remember that there is a two-month deadline for sending in your appeal to SENDIST. It is no business of the local authority to try and intimidate you into revealing your intentions. Our advice: don’t be pushed around, simply ignore such letters.April 2011
Misleading descriptions of statements
Parents have recently drawn our attention to local authorities sending dangerously misleading covering letters or documents to schools when they issue a statement or amended statement.For example, a child whose statement was sent to his school had it “summarized” by the local authority in an accompanying letter as defining his main need as “behavioural, emotional and social difficulties”. Nowhere in the statement is the child described as BESD; instead, he is described as having complex needs.
The impact of such a document is evident. Because it accompanies the statement, it is, after all, the first description the headteacher or the SENCO sees. Such a description tends to stick, even if inaccurate, and as a result a child may be generally thought to have a special need that he or she does not have.
The problem probably arises from the convenience some authorities find in grouping statements into categories with funding implications also attached. However, this is far from convenient for a mislabelled child.
Our advice is to check with your child’s school that if it has received a new or amended statement from your local authority, nothing has been added by way of a covering document. We see no reason why schools would not be happy to do this and, indeed, be happy to be warned about it. If an accompanying letter or document was sent, request a copy from the school or local authority so that you can check what it says. Invoke the Data Protection Act if necessary.
February 2011
SOS!SEN responds to the proposals to reform legal aid
SOS!SEN is strongly against the proposals to severely limit the availability of legal aid in education cases. The evidence from our experience is that basic assumptions behind the Ministry of Justice document are wrong: that the majority of parents cannot effectively represent themselves. What is particularly reprehensible is the disregard for the rights of all strata in society to equal access to justice.Click HERE to read our full response (21 pages)
November 2010
Danger! The “great vanishing act”
You’ve heard of the infamous “Part 6 trick” (below)… Now, beware of the even more scurrilous “great vanishing act”.Parents of children in independent specialist schools arecoming to us with the information that suddenly their child’s provision in Part 3 of the statement is vanishing without explanation. In one case, the parents were not even given the full 14 days to submit their response to the proposed change before an amended statement was finalized.
The annual review findings that there should be no reduction to the provision in a statement are being ignored - and local authorities are simply making reductions anyway.
Some parents have not realized the potential consequence of this, particularly if they feel confident that their child’s school will maintain the therapy provision outlined in the original statement as part of its integrated approach.
BUT PARENTS BEWARE! THERE IS DANGER HERE.
Consider this: let’s say that, as a parent, you do not appeal the change to the statement because your child gets the stipulated provision anyway in his/her school. You decide not to oppose the decision and simply let the matter go. Bingo! In a year or two, your local authority may very well claim that your child has made so much progress that the statement can cease or he/she can go back into mainstream.
A child in Year 9 could be at risk well before starting Year 10 - on the grounds that because so much progress has been made it is now possible to remove, say, speech and language or occupational therapy a year earlier. Moreover, this would be deemed to be with parental consent, since the parents did not oppose the change to the statement. It’s clear how this trick might be used a year or so before phase transfer: a child who now appears fine and apparently no longer needs the therapies detailed in his original statement, can easily be sent off into a quite unsuitable post-11 or post-16 placement. And the unwitting parents will have no defence.
It seems that some local authorities are sinking to new depths in order to “save” money.
Complaints are now on their way to the Local Government Ombudsman and appeals to the SENDIS Tribunal are being prepared. It is vital to check most carefully any proposed amended or final amended statements to ensure that this miserable strategy is not being used against your child.
September 2010
New right to appeal following an annual review
A change in the law – and a real breakthrough for parentsA recent amendment to section 328 of the Education Act 1996 provides parents with a new right of appeal to the SENDIS Tribunal. Parents will now be allowed to appeal to the Tribunal if their local authority does not amend their child’s SEN statement following an annual or interim review.
The legislation for this was passed in the last days of the former government, based on a recommendation from the Lamb Enquiry Report. However, it was not brought into force until 1st September 2010. There is still a slight area of doubt concerning reviews held during the few months before 1st September.
The new legislation effectively allows for a statement to be organic, and so ends the sense of powerlessness parents have experienced when local authorities have simply refused to make changes. Following annual reviews and interim reviews, parents will now be able to appeal rather than have to go through the extremely daunting and potentially lengthy process of requesting statutory reassessment.
The SENDIS Tribunal booklet How to appeal against a SEN decision: A guide for parents has been amended (available for download HERE). Section 5 of the appeal form – which you will find included in the booklet – asks you to give your reasons for appeal and to say what you are appealing against. It now reads as follows:
-
5B. Refusal to amend the statement following a review.
The LEA has reviewed my child’s statement and decided not to amend it.
-
Refusal to amend the statement following a review -
Please tell us what amendments you would like to the statement
So – if you have an upcoming annual review, interim review, or even an emergency one - go for it! Don’t be too surprised, however, if you are told by your child’s school that everything is absolutely fine. The pressure on schools to toe the local authority line is ever increasing, whether via threats of “well, you won’t get any more funding, you know, even if the statement is changed” or “if this child’s case goes to appeal we shall expect you to be a witness on our side”. Teaching staff, in other words, may be prompted not to forget “who pays your salary?”;
There will no doubt be a number of questions about the detail and interpretation of all this, and as matters clarify we will keep parents informed.
Further advice can be found by telephoning the SOS!SEN Helpline.
September 2010
The “Part 6 trick”
The statement “Part 6 trick” is back with us. There is clear evidence from parents that local authorities - in their scrabble to reduce costs at the expense of children - are increasingly trying, often without the legally required consultation with parents, to remove occupational therapy from Part 3 of a statement. Their dishonest grounds for justification are that OT can be placed in Part 6, which covers non-educational provision. This is one big weasel act because LAs know that, unlike provision in Part 3, provision in Part 6 of a statement is unenforceable.Parents should make it clear to their LA that they will appeal to the SENDIS Tribunal any such amendment of statements. They should refer to sections 8:49–8:51 of the Code of Practice, and to the case of R v Lancashire County Council 1989. The Court of Appeal confirmed that in most cases, speech and language therapy constitutes special educational provision so as to require LAs to arrange it in accordance with Section 324 (5)(a)(i) of the Education Act 1996. It is now well established that the same also applies to OT.
Parents receiving proposed statements of SEN should watch out for the “Part 6 trick” and remember that they can do nothing if therapies placed under Part 6 are not provided. Under Part 3, failure by an LA to provide therapies prescribed can be subject to Judicial Review.
Our message to parents: fight this danger. Don’t let LAs get away with it .
August 2010
Informing parents when force is used on children
The Government has recently dropped the requirement for schools to record, and inform parents, of incidents where staff members use force on children. Carolyne Willow, national coordinator at the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, said:“That the Government has removed this basic safeguard for children without any explanation or public announcement is simply unacceptable. Parents will undoubtedly be shocked to hear that they have no right to be notified if a member of staff uses force on their child. The implications could be extremely serious, especially for very young children and some young disabled people who rely on teachers to share information with parents”.
The implications for so many of our children are evident and tragic.
Click HERE to read more.