What happens when you want all the bloody useless LA provision of your statement???

[inappropriatelyemployed]

DS has had trouble with useless SLT and social skills groups and won't now do them at school so we are paying our SLT so he can do this out of school. I'm having to ask him to stop these groups and do something different and altogether more useful.

We haven't seen an OT for a year. Lodge a Tribunal appeal and she suddenly appears. She has now produced a bloody ridiculous report saying all the usual crap - he ties his laces (when he has never tied his laces in his life) oh and of course the usual, he is fine when dad picks him up. Mmmm, what could that mean? What me? Mum, a problem? It is a coincidence that blaming mum is so much cheaper too.

The real cheek is not only that it has taken her two months to write this 2 pages of crap so it is now out of date but her useless declarations like ' it would be good for DS to be more independent' and 'what we are aiming for is independence'.

It's like saying what we are aiming for is world peace. Would she like to suggest how this is achieved? Now, I shook the report upside down and no strategies came out!!

No, of course, just hit and run. I will be left to sort out him becoming independent.

But she must be a bloody good OT as just by looking at him she said his muscle tone has improved! yet she failed to mention the daily physio I have been doing with him for a year, physio she dismissed until Gt Ormond St said it was needed. Fatigue, he's playing you up. Six months later, oh, GOSH says he has Hypermobility Syndrome. Well I wouldn't bother with exercises, there's no point and you'll just ruin his childhood.

Thankfully, this wonderful head of paediatric occupational therapy will now be back in 4 months: interestingly, just before the Tribunal.

I have instructed our own OT. Can I tell this awful woman to sod off? She isn't on the statement to deliver anything in particular. Why do we need her around? If we didn't proceed to Tribunal, who would care? What could the LA say?

not with DPs. Also not if not appropriately qualified i.e in sensory integration, and in accordance with dsm5

What I meant was that the school are delegated by the LEA to provide the support in the statement and so often the school have the authority to look elsewhere if they want if the provision is in part 3 of the statement and not part 5. At least this is what the head OT told DS's school when he was emphasising to them that what is in part 3 is over and above the normal NHS provision in part 5.
I should remember that you are a lawyer and be more precise

This is not how it works. LAs have responsibility to arrange the provision in the statement and have service level agreements with the local NHS to provide OT, SLT etc, often under block contracts.

Schools are not given cash to buy in these services and have no choice about who is sent in as they would be duplicating existing arrangements.

This is why many parents are keen on SEN direct payments so they can get some control

Well I am very confused as the OT very definitely told DS's school while I was there, and me separately that if it was in part 3 of the statement then any EDUCATIONAL provision was over and above what they are expected to provide on the NHS - ie in the health part of the statement. He clearly said that yes the school could on behalf of the LEA contract this provsion via them or that they could choose someone else if they liked. The school said "erm, we will talk to the LEA" and he said" the LEA have delegated the responsibility to you to arrange this when you agreed to take on this child with a statement it has to be done and he left them under the impression they must provide it.
I know that technically the LEA must "arrange" this , but it seems that this can be delegated to the school to do and then if the school choose someone else within their budget for the SEN why not? I don't see the issue if it is in the Education part of the SEN not the health part.
Yes I understand what you are saying but am trying to make the distinction between normal OT and additional OT as per part 3 of a statement.

What your OT is saying is that your local NHS service does not have an agreement to provide statementing Part 3 support to the LA. This does not automatically mean schools have a right to choose that provision unless the LA allow them to do so.

The duty to provide this service is the LA's. The could fulfil this duty by allowing a school to select their own OT but this would mean that they may be funding a variety of different OTs all around the county all with varying levels of cost and at the possible risk of duplication of services.

It would also mean that they lose control over the provision being implemented. LAs tend to like their own set of people offering standardised provision across the county and they usually lean on the NHS to provide this. They like to do what is cheap so this would be unusual.

I would check with your LA.

In our county, the LA would rather deprive a child of provision and breach the terms of the statement while they wait for crap NHS provision then allow a school to choose their own therapist. We have had this before with SLT.

Star we are still battling for DPs for SLT. It will be very difficult to get one for OT. They will argue against any specificity of appropriate qualification and the OT would not admit she is not qualified in sensory integration.

There is no way this LA will give money out for any service.

DS's statement is currently being breached as he has no OT programme but I am still fighting the LGO after the last one.

Yes, inappropriately, for you and for most of us .

It's just ridiculous that things have deteriorated so far. How did we get here?

Systematic failure over years and years with no accountability and challlenge. As I have said before, I sat in the HoC with a bunch of people who were at the frontline of SEN law and we all just shrugged our shoulders acknowledging it was all terrible.

But how did it GET terrible?

Money - or the perception that it will cost more money to do things differently.

Lack of leadership - frontline staff wheeled out to bear the brunt of our frustrations while the senior staff with fat paychecks won't even talk to parents or allow access to them.

Lack of transparent processes.

No effective oversight. LGO are overstretched and unlikely to rock the boat.

Lack of political leadership or interest at local level. Councillors leave it to LA staff and don't consider themselves responsible for things that go wrong.

I wrote to my councillor recently because I had discovered that council officials only report back formal LGO judgments to them. It is extremely rare to get a formal judgment. No local settlements are reported despite the fact that they involve determinations of maladministration and the council paying out sums of taxpayers' cash.

Response: nothing. Zilch. Not even an acknowledgement.

With this level of disregard from electorally accountable representatives, it is little wonder LAs feel they can act as they want.