Help EHCP draft - LA declined SLT

[samarcanda]

We met with the LA person to discuss my daughter s draft EHCP and I’m so sad. Everything meaningful that we asked was basically declined, they just left a bunch of fluffy provisions that cannot be tracked. :(((
The one thing that I would really like to put my foot down on is her weekly Speech and language therapy sessions. They helped so much, she’s autistic and a school refuser and the only way for her to communicate her problems was through these weekly 1:1 classes.
the LA is saying that because her SLT report advises therapy for emotional and social challenges, this is not enough and the boroughs schools all have been trained in zones of regulation (pretty useless smily faces board).
What argument should I get back to? I have 10 days to do so and can’t afford to wait times of charities or pay a lawyer 😩
thanks
xx

Push the LA to finalise and appeal. Provision in F is taken from the reports so does the SALT report detail, specify and quantify ongoing direct 1:1 SALT? Or is it woolly and vague.

I do think you should appeal but Zones of Regulation is far more than a “pretty useless smily faces board”.

yes you are right, thanks - they are… but they are not effective with children that cannot unpack and communicate emotions. Neither of my children have been able to pull any of their issues with the school day out of those zones of regulation.

her Provision of Speech and Language Therapy says

▪ Periods of direct therapy support from a Speech and Language Therapist
▪ Monitoring & regular re-assessment of her attention and social communication skills
▪ Periods of support via programmes of activities and strategies to be followed by school staff and parents
▪ Support for school staff in the form of advice and supervision
▪ Liaison with parents/carers
▪ Liaison with other professionals
▪ Contribution to target setting
▪ Contribution to the EHCP monitoring and review process as appropriate
▪ Preparation, resource making and record keeping

point 1 should cover direct SLT.
is the process of appeal the same as the one I had to do for the EHCA?

thanks x

Unfortunately that is too woolly to be of use. For example, point 1 doesn’t say how frequently sessions will be, how long sessions will be or whether it will be 1:1… “Periods of” is far too vague. If you appeal and want direct SALT you will need an independent assessment. Even if you got that wording in F it wouldn’t be enforceable. For example, neither is “regular” or “as appropriate”.

The appeal process is similar to a refusal to assess appeal, it is a form 35 rather than 35a you need to submit, and the waits are longer as most refusal to assess appeals are paper based where many B&F appeals aren’t.

If delivered and supported correctly Zones of Regulation can help those who struggle with emotional literacy and communication. It isn’t a quick fix and obviously other support is needed too, but if delivered right you shouldn’t discount it.

I have found a more detailed and measurable breakdown of that advice in another section of the SLT report:
This is the wording:
"Access to Speech and Language intervention. SLT work carried out with a small group, run jointly with a TA. TA to continue programme of work prepared by the SLT in half terms when no SLT contact. 6 sessions per term (Autumn/Spring/Summer)"
Also:
"Access to Speech and Language intervention aimed at developing strategies that Isabella can use when feeling in the yellow zone (Zones of Regulation). 6 sessions per term (Autumn/Spring/Summer).
Visual support to be designed and provided by the Speech and Language Therapist for home and school. 2 hours (to create resources and then model to appropriate adults)."

Basically the above states that she should have a SLT for a one 1:1 session and a group session per week for 6 weeks each term.
Should I go to appeal with this?

Many thanks! xx

Basically the above states that she should have a SLT for a one 1:1 session and a group session per week for 6 weeks each term.

Unfortunately that isn’t what it states and isn’t any better. For example, “access to” is too vague and woolly, is not enforceable and does not mean a pupil will receive the provision. “Small group” needs defining, as does “appropriate adults”. It does not state 1:1 or how long sessions should be. Nor does it state the sessions should be “per week for 6 weeks each term”, even without the woolly ‘access to’ wording the 6 sessions could e.g. be 5 mins each all provided within 1 week of the term.

If you want to appeal for detailed, specified and quantified SALT provision that is enforceable you will need a better report.

Try to have a phone call with IPSEA - they can offer free guidance.

The wording you've provided could be improved to make it more specific and quantifiable. Here's a detailed breakdown:

1. *"Access to Speech and Language intervention. SLT work carried out with a small group, run jointly with a TA. TA to continue programme of work prepared by the SLT in half terms when no SLT contact. 6 sessions per term (Autumn/Spring/Summer)"*

• "Access to Speech and Language intervention" is vague. It should specify the nature and focus of the intervention, and the qualifications of the person delivering it.

• "SLT work carried out with a small group" is not specific enough. It should specify the size of the group, the duration and frequency of the sessions, and the content or focus of the work.

• "Run jointly with a TA" is not clear. It should specify the role of the TA in the sessions, and the qualifications or training the TA has to support this work.

• "TA to continue programme of work prepared by the SLT in half terms when no SLT contact" is not specific enough. It should specify the nature of the work the TA will be continuing, how often and for how long, and how the TA will be supported or supervised in this work.

• "6 sessions per term" is quantifiable, but it should also specify the duration of each session.

1. *"Access to Speech and Language intervention aimed at developing strategies that Isabella can use when feeling in the yellow zone (Zones of Regulation). 6 sessions per term (Autumn/Spring/Summer). Visual support to be designed and provided by the Speech and Language Therapist for home and school. 2 hours (to create resources and then model to appropriate adults)."*

• "Access to Speech and Language intervention aimed at developing strategies that Isabella can use when feeling in the yellow zone (Zones of Regulation)" is not specific enough. It should specify the nature and focus of the intervention, the qualifications of the person delivering it, and the specific strategies that will be developed.

• "6 sessions per term" is quantifiable, but it should also specify the duration of each session.

• "Visual support to be designed and provided by the Speech and Language Therapist for home and school" is not specific enough. It should specify the nature of the visual support, how it will be used, and how often.

• "2 hours (to create resources and then model to appropriate adults)" is quantifiable, but it should also specify who the "appropriate adults" are, and what the modelling will involve.

Remember, the aim is to make the provision in the EHC plan as clear and specific as possible, so there can be no ambiguity about what must be provided. This will make it easier to enforce the provision if necessary.

I cannot stress the importance of getting support properly quantified and specified.
I recently had a call from one of the specialists who comes into my DC's school to give him therapies as part of his EHCP. They said that they wouldn't be coming into school next year on a weekly basis anymore and were switching to a termly visit. (I suspect this is due to funding.)

I emailed them back quoting the line in Section F of his EHCP that said DC 'must attend a weekly session (x40mins) of X therapy delivered by a qualified therapist'.

The therapist then replied that they were 'sorry they'd missed that in the EHCP' and that the therapy would be continuing next year.

If there is any room for ambiguity, sadly it can come back to bite us at some point - especially in these days of really tight budgets. My friend's DC who's at the same school and didn't have that wording in her DS's EHCP has had the therapy removed and she's now facing a battle to try and get it reinstated.

she's now facing a battle to try and get it reinstated.

This is a really important point. It is easier to get the EHCP right from the start even if you have to appeal than it is to tighten it up at a later date, potentially when DC isn’t coping/the placement is at risk of breakdown.