Lying S&LT - it's predictable but annoying

[appropriatelytrained]

Received the S&LT report for DS for Tribunal. It tries to make out he has been getting half-termly visits all year using the SA visit as the first intervention. What a pile of crap.

S&LT refused to see DS under a referral post diagnosis (they don't do ASD) but were directed to offer an appointment for the Stat Assessment. This is the only reason they became involved. This occurred in October 2010. No targets were received and school confirmed this in January 2011 by email.

Yet S&LT state they received the referral and went in and saw him and then drafted targets which were implemented and reviewed in January.

However, the S&LT was only asked to come in again in January as part of the statementing process to reconsider the support required as DS and S&LT was in dispute and hsi statement was due to be issued at the end of Jan.

WE actually did not receive targets until April 2011 and DS programme did not start until May 2011. These targets are the only ones that have ever been worked on

There is an attempt to backdate everything to suggest a year of intervention. This is really untruthful and unfair on DS who has not had the benefit of this. I made a complaint to the LGO about the delay in S&LT programme starting and I am sure this had something to do with the need to join the dots. But it is really disgraceful for them to suggest that DS has been having half-termly visits and support over the last year.

Really I am disgusted but there is nothing I can do: blanket vexatious plan all round and by all accounts the TRibunal isn't bothered by stuff like this.

Surely half termly visits would mean your ds should have received six by now? Ask for dates of visits from SALT and from school. If they don't come up with them, I would bring this up at tribunal. Ours was interested in whether he had received therapy. My ds had a gap in his provision and the LEA tried to get round this by informing us the day before the tribunal that they had sourced therapy for him. The tribunal saw through this and asked questions as to why he had been three months without any.

Oh ours did that too. In fact I received a recent SALT report stating that ds had received regular SALT during preschool, despite me having challenged this in the past and getting an apology for the misleading nature of their reporting, - and yet still it appears in susequent reports

See my thread "SALT - help please!" for problems with DDs SALT. I don't know how some of these people sleep at night, I really don't! She is recommending drastically reducing DD's whilst telling me her progress has plateaued.
I am going to look out Dds previous assessments - I think that it was CELF? And ask for her recent levels.

Yes same here. Our outreach did lots of visits - but all for SA and 'collecting evidence' (she even wrote this on one visit in her notes silly woman). She claimed to have visited 13 times. We counted about 6 of which several were meetings for SA. I think one was actual intervention (although no intervention or interaction with DS actually occurred)
She managed at least 4 'secret' meetings with SEN officers (found out via FOI as emails arranging all these meetings we were unaware of)
Just put the SALT notes in the tribunal file if you still have time, or bring them along on the day and read from them
We had a great laugh reading out the outreach notes
She then had to back track and say "well intervention doesn't have to be face to face it could be a letter or a phone call" - by which time I was sitting on my hands to stop myself punching the air.
You can spin it either way - if tribunal accept she came why were the targets in Jan and May the same - had she achieved no progress? If she didn't come until May then why was that?
Not long to go-was thinking I had not seen you on here!
Good luck and keep going.