Proposed Ammended statement arrived....

[StarlightMcKenzie]

And what do you know? It is rather good.

Needs some tweaking on the specificity around the SALT and 1:1, so LA, if you are reading as I know you do sometimes (thanks to your self-appointed spy), here's the heads-up about what the parent's comments will be for the final.

But still, a pleasant surprise that I don't have to spend a week with a toothcomb.

Great news. Well done.

Yes. I'm in a bit of shock tbh.

YAy!

wow star, good news!!

to stars stalker, just in case you know anyone at my lea, tell them I want the specified salt time put back in dds statement, ta muchly

Great news!!

LOL, We're not there yet. Specificity for SALT and 1:1 needs work for sure, and to be fair that is a potential tribunal, - but the rest of the statement looks very reasonable and it is clear that they have paid more than lip service to the parents views.

Great news :)

Fab! Excellent news

That's great. The thing that costs the most money is the 1:1, as you know. I bet they're trying to look all sensitive and generous, putting in lots of your requirements, but the 1:1 is the sticking point. Go get 'em, gal!

It's nice to hear that sometimes children get the majority of what they need, well done to the LA involved and to starlight and her spy:)

Star

Would ensure that SALT is in Part 2 as well as 3; if its not in Part 2 it must be in there as well.

If 1 to 1 is neither specified nor quantified that is more than good enough reasoin to reject the statement.

Well done STAR

• please can I ask a question of Attila ?:In Ds's proposed amended statement salt is in P.3 - It is mentioned in Part 2 only as 'advice from SALT'

ie:what he has been doing- does it need more ?...and is it the same for OT and Physio....thanks

Attila, I'll post here exactly what is written later. As you will see it is very cleverly specified and not specified at the same time.

Good point about section 2. I've only had a flick through section 3 so far but you're right part 2 needs to specify need.

intothewest

Would think that what has been written in Part 2 is not specific enough. I would suggest you run Parts 2 and 3 past one of the charitable organisations like for example IPSEA or SOSSEN and see what they have to say about it. I don't think they'll be best pleased.

Starlight - naughty LEA for not being totally transparent here re actual specification. Again I would read Parts 2 and 3 verbatim past IPSEA or some such organisation to see what they have to say about it as they have far more knowledge than I have.

Congratulations Starlight - that is great.

Got my ds's final statement through this week myself, I still can't quite believe it!

Thanks - I am trying to get advice ; I keep thinking it's better,but not there yet- I'm speaking to someone tomorrow,so I may be on with a list of queries !

That's good news Starlight

I'd like to get a salary for reading talk boards when I should be serving the interest of taxpayers.

The spy isn't an full-time LA employee, but has children with SNs who does some work for the LA and helpfully points them to my posts when she fancies it!

I don't want to be a killjoy but my LA have specified following a tribunal, both OT and SALT input and have still failed to provide it - that was almost a year ago and I am still battling for it.

I went to see my sons file and found an email from the education officer to the aiming high lady asking for funding but pointing out that the therapists could recommend a reduction at the next review so only to approve the funding for a short period (not even the length of the review period). No guesses for what's going to happen at his review in a couple of weeks! Sendist here we come........ again!

LOL, my LA won't do that. I'm not saying they do things by the book, but they care very much about their 'timescales' etc. and 'orders'. If his statement says it I believe they will provide, but then, like yours, probably plan for the removal at the very next opportunity.

And if a parent was this manipulative they would be made out to be the worst person in the world and this would be used to justify further poor behaviour by the LA! imagine a swear word here - any you like I'm that cross!