Don't have much time but just wanted to respond briefly to Lougle's question about expectations.
In terms of the /l/ question specifically, well if it's not generalised we could do some sort of focused work on it.. but having said that, it may be that its developing.. in the sequence of how these things go, if she's pretty (even if not consistently) intelligible and you can work it out in context and she can do it in a single sound, at cv and cvcv level (la, lala), then maybe word finally.. it's coming along, just delayed.
On the other hand, a simple way of working out if it needs therapy is this: do they give therapy for it in the US? A lot of the later developing sounds are not worked on in UK contexts - r, th, l etc. But they do in the States... so to me, this says that there is an underlying resource issue. There is some sense to this. /r/, for example, takes forever to "therap" and functionally makes minimal difference.. So really, the problem here is one of professional-parent communication.. your daughter could have therapy and it would probably resolve the /l/ issues and this would generalise and there are valid reasons why this might be a good thing to consider. However, it would require (perhaps) a few blocks of therapy (maybe 18-24 weeks for some?) so it is not a priority in the NHS as it's not particularly disabling for her at this point in time? We're not allowed to say that.. we should be allowed to say that, I think.. they can say it for breast cancer drugs, why can't we?
Your question about delay vs disorder is a very pertinent one, too. One we talk about as professionals a lot because of the expectation it creates of "catch up". A lot of children with speech and language delay do catch up but where there are other issues andit is in the context of LD or ASD or other more permanent "difference", no. So it is a term that has different meanings and is, in many ways, unhelpful. At present, it is simply used to indicate a difference between disordered features (that are never present in typical development) and language that is following a "normal sequence" at a different rate. However, there are kids in the secondary schools I work with who have a "delayed" presentation but the gap between their abilities and the abilities of typically developing peers is massive, so actually, it can be quite disabling for them in the context of the demands around them. Our pathways in my department reflect this - if after a certain number of cycles of "targets" for delay it's not resolving, it begins to look more disordered and so direct therapeutic investigation is warranted and/or a referral to a Paed to get a formal diagnosis of learning difficulties that might explain the lack of progress.
A lot of the time "delay" isn't delay, it's difference.. but there are degrees of difference that are more or less disabling and "disorder" is usually applied to those differences that are likely to create more lasting disability.
Really, it all needs to be thrown up in the air and parents and professionals need to come up with a way of being able to communicate clearly and without - forgive the phrase - the bullshit.
Davros's advice hits the nail on the head:
"At each stage my guiding principle has been to make my case, it often does not work the first time so to keep making my case calmly and persistently within the correct channels. If your case is good them it becomes very hard for them to refuse. Very often the people we see do not make the decisions, so get to know those who do. Volunteer to be a parent rep or whatever on local groups, take an interest in local developments - that has really stood me in good stead, even though time is tight it is worth it. Basically, work out what you want, why you want it , make your case politely and clearly and keep at it and they will usually have to agree, modify the request with your help or give good grounds officially for refusing. "
Challenge the local policy rather than the individual - what's the evidence base for only seeing x child y no's of times? Where's that pathway? Who wrote it? Can they justify it to you? Always speak to a manager. If you have complained that a SALT has made an inaccurate diagnosis/given an inappropriate intervention, just don't accept the apology - what is the Trust going to do about training staff in the specialism etc so that it doesn't happen again?
Managers have a very clever way of making it about feelings - how did you feel about that Mrs Johnson etc? and then basically acting as if the therapist didn't do what was right. I have seen it that the manager has okayed extra therapy sessions (against the pathway!) when a parent is unhappy which makes the parent think that the SALT wasn't following procedure etc.. when really the manager is just trying to prevent further action.
In our trust, a group of parents complained calmly and consistently about appalling SALT provision in special schools via the highest levels of the LEA/NHS. There was one therapist covering about 10-15 schools. There are now a team of 7-9, thanks to parent pressure (giving range to prevent identification!). Parents can and do make a massive real difference.