Email #9
Dear Mr Caseworker
Further to our telephone conversation today:
I accept that, on the email version of the original letter announcing intent to issue a note in lieu, it does appear to say that a copy was included. I do remember a list of suggested provisions but nothing that appeared to be definite or cast in stone. I would be grateful to see that list of provisions again. Your letter gave me to the 15th December to express disagreement and up to now I had taken that to mean that there was a period of grace and negotiation before things were formalised.
When I went to the meeting at School, on January 9th 2005, I was given to understand that the Note in Lieu had still NOT formally been issued, that the Educational Psychologist had no copy and so I was further led to understand that the list you originally provided was of intended points and not a 'final' official piece of paper (trying to avoid using the word 'statement' there!).
This was underlined by ongoing communications between ESCC and the SENCO asking for clarification on certain points, which again I was led to believe had been requested IN ORDER to formalise the note in lieu, the finalising of which had been delayed following the need for certain extra or more complete evidences.
Have I been thoroughly misled/confused?
It is worth pointing out that, if the note in lieu was issued that long ago, Lewis has already been suspended for three days since then for uncontrollable behaviour in the playground.
I am completely confused here and would appreciate hard copy, through the post, of everything you now say has been sent to me, so that I can start to understand and I look forward to the formal response you mentioned in your email of this morning.
Gratefully
Cheryl
Further to our telephone conversation today:
I accept that, on the email version of the original letter announcing intent to issue a note in lieu, it does appear to say that a copy was included. I do remember a list of suggested provisions but nothing that appeared to be definite or cast in stone. I would be grateful to see that list of provisions again. Your letter gave me to the 15th December to express disagreement and up to now I had taken that to mean that there was a period of grace and negotiation before things were formalised.
When I went to the meeting at School, on January 9th 2005, I was given to understand that the Note in Lieu had still NOT formally been issued, that the Educational Psychologist had no copy and so I was further led to understand that the list you originally provided was of intended points and not a 'final' official piece of paper (trying to avoid using the word 'statement' there!).
This was underlined by ongoing communications between ESCC and the SENCO asking for clarification on certain points, which again I was led to believe had been requested IN ORDER to formalise the note in lieu, the finalising of which had been delayed following the need for certain extra or more complete evidences.
Have I been thoroughly misled/confused?
It is worth pointing out that, if the note in lieu was issued that long ago, Lewis has already been suspended for three days since then for uncontrollable behaviour in the playground.
I am completely confused here and would appreciate hard copy, through the post, of everything you now say has been sent to me, so that I can start to understand and I look forward to the formal response you mentioned in your email of this morning.
Gratefully
Cheryl
posted by Cheryl at 9:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home