Moondog or SALT advice

[debs40]

I have just had contact from the SALT team. They have drafted someone in from out of area to assess DS as part of the SA process.

The local hospital SALT team is now part of a county wide team so this is the reason given. They say she is an expert in ASD.

She has just contacted me to say she will see DS in class on Thursday and then assess him 1:1. He has already had CELF assessments by our private SALT. She hasn't said what she would be doing.

She then says she will see me at school after the appointment.

She hasn't told me I have a right to be there or asked whether I would like to be present for the 1:1.

Is this good practice? I would have thought, given her ASD expertise, and DS's well-documented problems with initiating communication and anxiety etc that she might at least ask!

I don't trust these folks at the best of times but it really gets my back up when they say - we're seeing your son at x on x and will talk to you after. I mean you wouldn't have a SALT appointment at the hospital conducted in that way would you?

I have always been given the oppurtunity to be present but I choose not to be as he performs very differently when I am there.

I would ring and ask to be present if you think that is best for your ds.

I would want to meet and introduce my ds to a stranger.

for school based appointments (which usually involved some element of assessment) I was always told by SALT it was better for me not to be present, as it would affect how DS performed.

I know they say that Total (the EP tried that one too) but they seem to base it on the fact that the children are actually being 'put up' to different behaviour by their parents.

For example, the EP told me that she met one boy with AS who was sunshine and delight with her and very cooperative, and then, with a parent, he decided to refuse to cooperate and wouldn't focus etc. Her suggestion was that the parents had encouraged him to act this way.

There is NO SALT in this area in schools at all without a statement and there is a local protocol between LA and NHS to discharge these children for TA's to implement the LA's ASD toolkit and that's it.

I can't understand why:

(a) they don't say - you have a right to attend but we'd rather you didn't because of x,y,or z

(b) how a parent can make any difference to a 1:1 assessment - otherwise why would you want parents present during ADOS tests etc.

I think this sort of thing is said too easily without proper thought or justification as people don't like to feel 'watched' or to have judgements questioned

What is your view on these things though Star? Did you always insist on being present?

It seems to me that the correct way of dealing with these things should not be the assumption that parents will get in the way, but firstlt to rell parents they have a right to be there, and then to explain why it is thought that it would be better for them not to attend.

I suppose part of me feels that DS will be more anxious and be at his worst (in the sense that he will be at his most uncommunicative) but then I don't really trust these people to reflect that in their reports as they will be looking for any reason to say 'he looked ok to me'.

Absolutely SALT - v.good point!

Another angle here, debs40.

What do you feel is the impact on your DS of you presence? Do you feel thst you help him to communicate?

Why would a SALT want to see your DS bolstered by your support? He won't have you to help him through the school day. They need to see the DS that is at school, despite that being a child who is struggling, because if you are there, they can't decide what is him and what is him with your support.

The Ed psych wrote in DD1's report "I couldn't assess DD1 from a distance because she kept engaging me!" If I has been there, she might have written "I couldn't assess DD1 from distance because she kept engaging Lougle", which would have masked the fact that DD1 will dominate anyone's attention, stranger or mother.

Lougle, I completely understand what you are saying but this is where it comes down to trust.

I would be happier acception that angle if I really believed that the purpose of assessment is to discover how a child really functions/fails to function. However, I'm not sure that it is and I have little faith that the assessment process is anything other than a patch it altogether job with the aim of providing evidence of how little help a child actually requires.

I wish I could believe that they were really interested in assessing DS truthfully. However, I would feel more inclined to feel that way if they were open enough to tell me I had a right to attend but that their view was it was better that I didn't because then they can see DS warts and all. The fact that they don't say that makes me assume that it is not the warts and all they are interested in, but rather in gathering evidence of as little need as possible.

Sorry to be ranty but I've had a bad day!

and I'm just always ranty......

Your perogative debs, but you did ask. Sorry you've had a bad day.

Maybe you hsve had a better experience with impartial and objective experts Lougle. I wish I could believe that would be the case here!

Maybe you hsve had a better experience with impartial and objective experts Lougle. I wish I could believe that would be the case here!

It's always better said twice.....

I attended and glad I did because I then challenged the report that the SALT submitted because it was total codswallop. Ed psych and SSSEN agreed with my observations and SALT report was withdrawn.
I now have a different SALT who asks me to read her reports before submission so that we can agree they are an accurate interpretation of dd's difficulties
Mind you SALT provision around here is particularly poor. LEA rung to ask if I wanted to press a formal complaint against the SALT as they would support it I declined the offer saying so long as she didn't see dd again I had enough battles to fight.

I really don't know to be honest, debs40. DD1 is on the 5th percentile for speech and language, expressive and comprehensive. Her report says 'no specific concerns about speech clarity' - people don't understand her. The SALT said "well what I meant is she is so delayed in everything else, you wouldn't expect her speech to be clear"

Ed psych "there are far worse children than your DD at mainstream; school will just have to accomodate her"

But as you say, it is a trust issue. I didn't trust the experts, so I didn't expect usefulness from them. I wasn't disappointed

What goes in my favour, is that DD1 is anything but passive, which I think is why it really didn't matter what the reports said in the detail, because the crude message was "She will need 1:1 at all times from the second she steps in the grounds to the second she leaves, just to keep her in the building, in MS school" - so we got the SS place we wanted.

I feel for you that you have to prove not only that your DS is struggling, but that his struggling actually matters because of his needs, not just because it will disrupt the rest of the class

So I don't blame you for being cynical, I would be. I do think there are times when they aren't just trying to keep us out for no reason. And I think they would be very hard pushed to stop you observing.

Oh, and I put in a complaint about DD1's SALT, so probably not her best client