LEA want to amend DS2's statement re: SALT, need views/help

[starfish71]

Just had a letter from LEA with notice to amend DS2's statement. DS had a speech and Lang review earlier this month, lots of ongoing receptive and expressive Lang difficulties.

They want to delete :

Speech & Lang therapy targets to be provided by a qualified SALT and integrated daily into all aspects of the national curriculum through the IEP and implemented in small group/individual work with teaching /support staff.

Twice termly monitoring to determine ongoing needs and updating speech and language targets accordingly.

Etc

TO -

A programme of activities reviewed at least twice termly with discussion with the class teacher, special education needs co ordinator or supporting teacher assistant.

A review of IEP targets following this discussion.

Verbal or written contribution to the annual review.

I am not too happy, it sounds as if DS won't see a speech and Lang therapist at all and it will be all down to the ASD unit to set the targets etc.

Any experience of this?

No experience of this, but have they explained why they want to take the expert out of the picture and how they think it will be effective?

And just to add, in some areas, there's a move to take SALT and OT out of the public sector and give the roles to charities or private companies. I wonder if this is anything to do with this.

Hi ouryve, I feel it is to save money, know the Local authority are really struggling with lack of speech therapists. I have been struggling to get any reviews for DS, this review was first one in a year! If its not even in the statement then it's never going happen us it.

Sounds like they are removing input from a salt I wouldn't be happy with that.

Yes, you are correct- the change will mean that your ds need not be seen by a SALT at all.

Fight it, it sounds like you have a good case for it to continue. Have you given IPSEA a call for advice?

thanks, am really upset by this. Have rang SNAP and waiting for them to get back to me. Will ring IPSEA too.

I assume it was put there because your son needed it.

If they are removing the provision because your ds has made such progress so that he no longer needs it or if it is not working and therefore not needed, ask them to show you the evidence for their reason for removing it.

The latest speech and Lang report shows DS scored 2nd percentile on recalling sentences, 0.1st percentile for formulated sentences, he needs help to develop the concepts ' before' and 'after'. This is just a brief part of his report. DS is 9.

another fight.

No, do not accept any such amendments under any circumstances.
Also they have provided no evidence to state that his current level of SALT support is no longer necessary.

It was not done at annual review either and this sounds like this is being done to save them money.

I would certainly call IPSEA in such circumstances, they now offer a call back service.

SALT provision should ideally be in Part 2 as well as 3 of the statement doc.

Thanks Attila, will keep trying IPSEA. DS's annual review is not until June.

Should I wait till I speak to them or email LA and tell them I don't accept the proposed changes?

you can book appointments with IPSEA now so they ring at a time to suit you see here saves ringing and ringing and never getting through, you just book it online

Starfish, I am a lurker more than a poster, but my understanding was that the LA can only amend the statement: if the Sec of State orders them to, if the Tribunal orders them to, or in accordance with the EA 1996 (Sched 27 I think) which is basically after a stat reassessment or after annual review (or e.g. if you asked for a change of school etc). In which case I am not sure what they are trying to do right now. Perhaps email them to say the above and ask them under which heading they are proposing to alter the statement? Are they proposing the bring forward the annual review or are they going to carry out a full reassessment? They need to do it in accordance with the law otherwise your rights to meet, make representations and/or appeal etc won't apply and what would the deadlines etc be? I would also point out that you have seen no professional evidence to warrant a reduction in the SALT support your child receives in any event. However, you have fair warning of what they will want to do in June.

Thank you eatyourveg have booked a call back,for next tues morn.

Thanks loulou for that info will send an email now. Really unhappy about this and getting tearful. Also had an amendment for DS1 ( we did ask for that one to include his recent Aspergers diagnosis). doesn't look like they changing anything with that one just adding it on, not even sure that is right either.

LA officer emailed back - it is covered by 8:126 (welsh code of practice) - where the LEA propose to amend a statement following an annual review or at any other time. Spoke to DS teacher she was surprised I have received this prior to an annual review.

I had a look at the education SEN welsh regs 2002 and I can't see anything in them that disapplies Schedule 27 in Wales. Also the sencop can't disapply the schedule either. So the LA is either making a change subsequent to a reassessment (a formal procedure) or a periodic (I.e. annual) review....again a formal procedure. Or they are making it up as they go? IN any event, you should be given the chance to respond etc to the new amended statement and you have the evidence to demonstrate that what they are proposing neither meets need nor is detailed enough for the statement. But I would be interested in knowing what they have done...my own LA seems to have a flexible view of what constitutes a "periodic review" and just do it according to their own policies like the Act doesn't exist!

Have also emailed speech therapist so will see what she says. Meeting isn't until near end of April but will give me chance to speak to IPSEA, salt and do some more reading!

Thanks Lou, your info has helped and will get clued up on schedule 27.

When I spoke to the salt after having the report, I even asked if it was possible for DS to be seen more regularly as his statement stated. Suppose it's my fault for not complaining last year when I realised salt hadn't been in to see him at the unit.