Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

SN children

Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on special needs.

Flip

Original poster

Feel like banging my head up a brick wall ....

13 replies

nappyaddict · 07/02/2011 09:52

OK I thought I had managed to compromise with the LA and got them to agree to:

When groups are organised by SALT that are appropiate for X's language or speech sound development level and age, he will be included. This will be a minimum of 6 hours per academic year. This will be in addition to three termly reviews and provision specified in u). In addition, X will attend regular language groups run by school staff.

What they have sent back in the statement is:

When groups are organised by SALT that are appropiate for X's language or speech sound development level and age, he will be included. This will be a minimum of 6 hours for this academic year. This will be in addition to three termly reviews specified in u). In addition, X will have access to language groups run by school staff. These recommendations are for 12 months only and may change at the next annual review.

I thought I was only asking for minor word changes so does anyone know why they won't agree to them (even though they said they would )

OP posts:

ArthurPewty · 07/02/2011 10:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster

nappyaddict · 07/02/2011 10:03

Apart from changing it to per academic year to just this academic year though which obviously is about money, what about the rest? They don't seem that different to me, just my wording is better, naturally

OP posts:

Peachy · 07/02/2011 10:07

Clearly leonie is right LOL

With the first part I wouldnt worry too much in that a statement is normally changeable at the review anyway- it means you have to argue your case annually which is a PITA but otoh you can gather evidence of improvements from the SLT (hopefully) that should back you up.

The second is more worrying: what do they eman by 'have access to' over attend? Clearly omitting the word regular is intentional as well- .

If they said they would make the changes, I would be inclined to send a note saying ever so sorry but following your letter / our discussion etc on X date I note the changes agreed on have not been amde to this statement; if you could just do that and get it back to me....

Worth a shot at least?

tabulahrasa · 07/02/2011 10:07

well have access to rather than attend means that if he doesn't co-operate or isn't able to go (absence or whatever) then they aren't responsible for his attendance

I'd say it's them covering their own backs, lol

Original poster

nappyaddict · 07/02/2011 10:18

Absence on his part or the SALTs though? Obviously if he is absent from school I don't expect them to come in especially just for him.

I definitely want regular in but is attend any better than access to or not? I'm sure I remember someone saying that access to wasn't as good wording but I can't remember why.

OP posts:

tabulahrasa · 07/02/2011 10:26

probably SALTs as well (isn't at all cynical)

access to doesn't mean they have to send him, it's there so he has access to it if you see what I mean...

Original poster

nappyaddict · 07/02/2011 16:16

Right I see. Why wouldn't they send him though apart from absence or uncooperation?

OP posts:

bullet234 · 07/02/2011 17:18

It does sound like they are covering their backs. For example, if the person undertakign the class was ill and they couldn't get a replacement in time then he couldn't attend then.

tabulahrasa · 07/02/2011 18:05

why might they not send him?

the class teacher had something else planned, there's no-one available to walk him down to it, someone else suddenly needs his place more than him... any number of ridiculous reasons really, lol

I mean you'd hope they would send him, but some schools are spectacularly pants

chickchickchicken · 08/02/2011 00:45

'access to' should be avoided as it is too vague. 'regular' is slightly better but i would back it up with 'regular, not less than x amount per term'
all sorts of reasons why they may try to wriggle out of it (unofficially of course and under the cover of x had access to it but he/she chose not to attend)

Original poster

nappyaddict · 08/02/2011 12:11

Do I need to get them to change for this academic year to per academic year or not? Would there be any benefit to it or not really?

OP posts:

Original poster

nappyaddict · 08/02/2011 23:09

LA's response:

Firstly, I can confirm that during the meeting we held a few weeks ago PK made it clear that she would agree to "6 hours for this academic year" - but that this may change at the next Annual Review as his clinical need changes, and therefore could not commit to this for more than this academic year.

(She did not!)

Secondly, as the groups arranged in school are not regular and are at school's discretion it would not be appropriate to write "will attend regular language groups." This does not form part of X's clinical need as specified in his Speech and Language Therapy report, and is put in place by school as an addition to his clinical need.

(She did say they were regular but she wasn't sure how regular. This was what made me agree to compromising on less direct SALT time)

OP posts:

Original poster

nappyaddict · 09/02/2011 17:20

I have spoken to DS' class teacher and she says that language work in class goes on all day sometimes in groups, sometimes in pairs and other times on an individual basis so I would say that is pretty regular.

When groups are organised by the Speech and Language therapist and/or Speech and Language Therapy Assistant, that are appropriate for Toby-Jack's language or speech sound development levels and age, he will be included. This will be a minimum of 6 hours for this academic year. This will be in addition to the three termly reviews and provision specified in (u). In addition, X will take part in specific language work run by school staff on a daily basis.

Is take part OK or is it too vague cos I didn't think will attend really made sense in that sentence?

OP posts:

Flip