SALT removed early from EHCP

[ThisFastOrca]

Hi All,

any advice will be appreciated. So my youngest child is diagnosed with Autism and I got his EHCP done by end of nusery his in y2 summer born his meant to be in y3 but thought keeping him back one year would give him chance to catch up with his peers. He has difficulties with expressive language, understanding language, writing comprehension understanding comprehension, if you ask him out of context he will not always understand. He also has OT in his privation and this is a very long list which they support him with dressing , feeding , toilet training and cleaning himself, he has weack motor skills which have improved a bit and we have a long way to go.

so in Dec of last the report from speech therapist said he will be discharged as he met his 3 targets which it’s taken him nearly 2 years to complete. So you would think right more targets need to be made nope they insted removed it.

I had no contact from his SENCO the therapist says they tryed contacting me I was in hospital and have had a lot going on with my health hence why I’ve not been on ball. So when I’m told a few months later this is no more I was shocked and his OT agrees that it should not been removed.

I’ve been asking SENCO what grade and bujut my son gets and it’s confusing the case worker said much hight then the SENCO.

I was meant for annual review last week but I had not been givien 2 weeks before which law states you need to have so you can paper for the annual meeting. So I contacted WIASS which a group who help and advice and run by volunteers that I can reschedule the meeting it’s my right and then they may be able to have someone to advercate for me.

his needs over night did not go so how do I go about getting this back anyone who’s been though like me. And I’m worried this will impact him going forward that it’s been removed way too early. I also have two older children with special needs who had there EHCP in place till 6th form and by having early intervention it’s been a fight the last 20 years to get both children into good universities and getting support they need to be able to complete there degrees and have opportunities like everybody else.

I had no contact from SENCO the whole year so communication between home and school is non existent.

were with my orther children I had excellent communication and took on board my concerns.

sorry in advance the long text

So sorry but as an SLT we do this all the time.
Therapy towards goals. Goals met therapy ended. Goals not met, care passed to school staff to carry on. We write goals that we can achieve. Finite goals.
Also we say we are no longer needed when the children would still benefit but not quickly. That sort of care is almost always passed to another professional or assistant. The OTs opinion is not going to influence anything.
If we don't prescribe the therapy we are not commissioned to provide it. You may if you kick up an absolute storm be able to get it funded and we might be funded to provide it, in which case we would but it wouldn't be from our budget.
None of this is out of spite of course but because of resources and we have to use the limited resources we have were we can make a quick and effective change.
I do appreciate its rubbish for families

Op I would suggest two things. Call sossen who are a charity with a helpline. They will be able to advise you on what to do. Also call ICan the speech therapy charity who have a helpline.

If your ds still has speech needs either in or which should be in Section B then there needs to be provision to meet those needs in Section F.

You may need to appeal to get this reinstated for him.

@Nevertrustacop the situation you describe is awful for families but untold damage is being done to children left without provision.

Has the LA actually amended the EHCP to remove provision? And gone through the correct procedure to do so? It doesn’t sound like it. It sounds like the provision may still be in F but isn’t being provided.

If the SALT provision is currently detailed, specified and quantified in F of the EHCP then it must be provided. The LA is ultimately responsible for ensuring it is provided and it can be enforced. Lack of resources or not benefitting quickly are not lawful excuses for breach of section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014. Email the Director of Children’s Services using one of IPSEA’s model letters. If that doesn’t work, post back on MN for the next steps on how to enforce provision.

However, if the SALT is not currently detailed, specified and quantified in F (e.g. it has wording such as ‘access to’, ‘would benefit from’, ‘opportunities for’, ‘regular’…) it can’t be enforced. You should try to tighten the wording up as part of the AR process (and appeal following it if necessary).

Amending EHCPs is down to the LA. The SENCO &/or the SALT can’t just remove provision from the EHCP - they may state on the paperwork it isn’t required but they can’t amend the EHCP itself.

Following the AR, if the LA propose to amend, you will get the opportunity to make representations. If the LA finalises the amends EHCP and in doing so removes the SALT provision, you should appeal to SENDIST.