Guest guest Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 At review LEA person said, we usually give x hours. I said - I believe the law says we need to look at the child's needs. She replied - but the law also says we have to use resources wisely. Is that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 they have to use them efficiently. This is not the same as cheaply. There is no " But " looking at the child's needs and using resources efficiently do not conflict. Whereever she is she is not following good practice which is to tailor the package to the child's needs. Sally wrote: > > At review LEA person said, we usually give x hours. I said - I believe > the law says we need to look at the child's needs. She replied - but > the law also says we have to use resources wisely. Is that correct? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 28/05/2008 17:33 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Margaret when we were having 's tribunal they went through all the costing's expenses etc at the end and it seemed of great importance to the panel. It must be relevant somewhere as it was all taken into consideration, in fact oodles of time was spent on this issue. Vicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Thanks Margaret, so does that mean if the tribunal is rightly or wrongly musing over whether LEA school can meet the needs then cost would swing it? I didn't see much in the report about all the time spent on costs but to be honest I had already lost the will to live by the time I got near the end. Sorry to hijack thread, just seems a very contentious issue this costs business. Vicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 I understand what your saying Sally, good point about making the case against cheapest at tribunal situation at least. I recently phoned various parent help lines about LEA's statementing, tribunals etc and their advice was so way off the mark of what really happens in those situations. Can't say ISPSEA because I just couldn't get through to them but local AS group was very inaccurate and the lady didn't seem to like being corrected, maybe it's the way I say it lol. NAS didn't have anyone available to help at all with up coming tribunal, if it weren't for lists like this parents would be shockingly unprepared for what might happen and often does. Vicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Hello I'm not sure that the law says LEAs have to use resources wisely but LEAs certainly need to work within budgetary constraints. However, this does not mean they can use 'we have to use resources wisely' as an excuse not to meet a child's needs. I would be inclined to ask how meeting a child's needs as specified in a statement is not a wise use of resources. Were you asking for more hours than the LEA usually gives? What was the outcome of the review meeting re the hours allocated? Zoe > > At review LEA person said, we usually give x hours. I said - I believe the law says we need to look at the child's needs. She replied - but the law also says we have to use resources wisely. Is that correct? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Just stay out of the resources area all together and focus on YOUR child's needs and the statutory duty of LAs to identify and meet a child's SEN under the Education Acts. It's unlawful for them to say " Well they can only have x hours a term otherwise other children will get less " . What they must do is identify and quantify what an individual child NEEDS and then, once it's in a Statement, you can enforce it if they don't provide it. Margaret > > > > At review LEA person said, we usually give x hours. I said - I > believe the law says we need to look at the child's needs. She > replied - but the law also says we have to use resources wisely. Is > that correct? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 I think it's only relavent (for practical purposes) as far as the parent's concerned in the specific situation of a Tribunal hearing where part 4 - Placement - is being argued over. There, unless you can show the LA's choice of school cannot meet the child's needs, the question of comparative costs comes in and the LA will win if their chosen school is cheaper. It's not relevent re eg how much speech therapy or how many TA hours a child should get. Margaret > > Margaret when we were having 's tribunal they went through all the > costing's expenses etc at the end and it seemed of great importance to the panel. > It must be relevant somewhere as it was all taken into consideration, in > fact oodles of time was spent on this issue. > Vicky > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 It was the only issue at our tribunal (which we lost). The lea's offer was cheapest -- bingo, they win. With hindsight the way to argue against this is the cheap doesn't equal efficient line ie if it's cheap and useless it can't be efficient. Sally MaddiganV@... wrote: > > Thanks Margaret, so does that mean if the tribunal is rightly or > wrongly musing over whether LEA school can meet the needs then cost > would swing it? > I didn't see much in the report about all the time spent on costs but > to be honest I had already lost the will to live by the time I got > near the end. > Sorry to hijack thread, just seems a very contentious issue this costs > business. > Vicky > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1473 - Release Date: 29/05/2008 19:53 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 Sorry for butting in but you really do need to be prepared for this when you go to Tribunal. You have to look really closely at the cheaper option and find everything you can to say that it cannot meet the needs of your child otherwise you are b*gg*r*d (excuse my language everyone!) We sent our private ed psych into the school our ds was at, which we wanted to get him out of, and she found loads of good reasons as to why it was not suitable. Professional opinion carrys more weight at tribunal than that of parents unfortunately :+(( Nikki In Autism-Biomedical-Europe , Eva family wrote: > > It was the only issue at our tribunal (which we lost). The lea's offer > was cheapest -- bingo, they win. With hindsight the way to argue against > this is the cheap doesn't equal efficient line ie if it's cheap and > useless it can't be efficient. > Sally > > MaddiganV@... wrote: > > > > Thanks Margaret, so does that mean if the tribunal is rightly or > > wrongly musing over whether LEA school can meet the needs then cost > > would swing it? > > I didn't see much in the report about all the time spent on costs but > > to be honest I had already lost the will to live by the time I got > > near the end. > > Sorry to hijack thread, just seems a very contentious issue this costs > > business. > > Vicky > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG. > > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1473 - Release Date: 29/05/2008 19:53 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 I wasn't prepared for anything properly at Tribunal. Sally Nikki wrote: > > > Sorry for butting in but you really do need to be prepared for this > when you go to Tribunal. You have to look really closely at the > cheaper option and find everything you can to say that it cannot meet > the needs of your child otherwise you are b*gg*r*d (excuse my > language everyone!) > > We sent our private ed psych into the school our ds was at, which we > wanted to get him out of, and she found loads of good reasons as to > why it was not suitable. Professional opinion carrys more weight at > tribunal than that of parents unfortunately :+(( > > Nikki > > In Autism-Biomedical-Europe > <mailto:Autism-Biomedical-Europe%40yahoogroups.com>, Eva family > wrote: > > > > It was the only issue at our tribunal (which we lost). The lea's > offer > > was cheapest -- bingo, they win. With hindsight the way to argue > against > > this is the cheap doesn't equal efficient line ie if it's cheap and > > useless it can't be efficient. > > Sally > > > > MaddiganV@... wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Margaret, so does that mean if the tribunal is rightly or > > > wrongly musing over whether LEA school can meet the needs then > cost > > > would swing it? > > > I didn't see much in the report about all the time spent on costs > but > > > to be honest I had already lost the will to live by the time I > got > > > near the end. > > > Sorry to hijack thread, just seems a very contentious issue this > costs > > > business. > > > Vicky > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG. > > > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1473 - Release Date: > 29/05/2008 19:53 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1475 - Release Date: 30/05/2008 14:53 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 On the other hand.............we knew instinctively that the placement the LEA were suggesting would not suit Philip (we could tell just by meeting the Head of the Unit) and so we sent our 'expert' Ed Psych and SaLT (supposedly 2 of the best in the country) to look at the school and do a report as to how and why it wouldnt meet his needs. They came back saying that 'professionally, they couldnt hand on heart say it wouldnt meet his needs'...........they had been fed a line by the Head of the Unit and had fallen for it hook line and sinker. So, that meant we couldnt go to tribunal challenging the placement - we would look ridiculous arguing against our own 'experts' and it would play straight into the hands of the LEA. We still went to tribunal (to get RDI paid for - the tribunal ruled that the LEA should pay for it for a year) but then poor old Philip had to go through the trauma of trying out a school that we knew was totally inappropriate. On the second visit he refused point blank to return and when the Autism Advisory Teacher came to chaperone him for another trial visit, he ran upstairs and barracaded himself in behind a big rocking chair. He didnt need to go through all that if people had just been able to rely on the testimony and evidence of the real experts - parents - but we are 'just' parents in the eyes of the 'professionals'. I have learned not to trust anyone and the bottom line is, if you want something doing properly, do it yourself. We represented ourselves at tribunal and I would have no qualms doing that again. I know that is not within the scope of all parents as it can feel complicated and intimidating but if you do your homework thoroughly beforehand it is possible. Zoe > > > > > > Thanks Margaret, so does that mean if the tribunal is rightly or > > > wrongly musing over whether LEA school can meet the needs then > cost > > > would swing it? > > > I didn't see much in the report about all the time spent on costs > but > > > to be honest I had already lost the will to live by the time I > got > > > near the end. > > > Sorry to hijack thread, just seems a very contentious issue this > costs > > > business. > > > Vicky > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- --- > ------ > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG. > > > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1473 - Release Date: > 29/05/2008 19:53 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 Couldn't agree more Zoe, we paid for very expensive everything, the ed psyche felt obliged to be nice about the school for no reason other than she didn't want to put them down and also over lunch she told us we should be aware of tax payers money when it comes to funding our kids! Shame she didn't make that clear when we employed her, I thought it was funny when she asked me if our car was motability which it wasn't, she didn't ask if either of us worked, think she assumed we didn't wrong again. I am representing myself at tribunal in October, if I lose at least it wont be financially as well, I believe no one should ever bet more than they can afford to lose and my experience of SENDIST is no more than a bet at the bookies with unfavourable odds, depending on what the stakes are of course. Vicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.