Lack of quantification of therapy in Part 3 of statement urgent help please

[supermum98]

Have u heard of this one ? No quantification needed at special or resource setting as it's all in ? Can u give me arguments against this please oh and been hit by the movement of provision to part 6, where it is not enforceable.

What do the proffs state should be delivered in their reports? That is what should be in part 3.

I was told that the only specified and quantified detail inpart 3 would be services provided by third parties that are not part of the school, like OT and SALT.

However, I do think it should be specified even if its an inclusive service at the school to ensure what the proffs have advised is dekivered.

School will refer to the statement , that is what they are expected to comply with , not the content of reports in the appendices.

Include the info and see what they say. If the proffs have not specified what level of support is needed, go back and request this information.

My LA tried to place my son into a mainstream school with a speech and language unit. Originally nothing at all was quantified and specified in my DS's Final Statement (nor was it q & s in the proposed Statement long before they decided to unlawfully place him in this unit).

My lawyer and my indie SALT expert told me even the SALT had to be q & s - even though he was being placed in a SALT unit.

On the morning of the Tribunal, the LA q & s everything - including all SALT required - but then zero costed the SALT because it was all included in the £500 per year they said it cost to place my son in this school (they didn't even use the AWPU ).

It must be q & s in your DC's Statement - otherwise they can do whatever they like.

It should all be quantified and specified as the satement is attached to the child and not the school.

If the LEA say right going into unit so it's all already done, that may be fine at that particular school, but what then happens if you need to move? Yiu need this things clearly set out so you can identify a school in the new area and also for the new school to be able to say yes or no as if if they can meet that child's needs. If nothing is specified or quantified they are simply guessing and hoping for the best.

Part 6?!?! I've heard it all now.

Don't accept it, makes the statement illegal. All should be quantified and specified.

I fell for it when DS was 4 and desperate to grab a place at the unit and let them finalise it as it was.

I was lucky provision was there in 2 years out of 3.

My salt report says DS should receive 15mis a day direct salt then his targets should be furthe incorporated in at least 30 mins group and class teaching and at least 3 opportunities during unstructured play.

There is case law that says there is less need to quantify for children in special schools - I suppose the idea is that they don't need to have everything spelt out to them, and might need more flexibility. However, it seems to me that that must depend on the school. If, say, it's a general MLD school and the child has something like ASD then there's a case for saying they need more guidance. Also, I was at a talk recently where it was suggested that schools generally, including special schools, are actually asking for more detail because they can use that to apply for more top-up funding.

There is still an argument for having it quantified and specified in a SS too - what if they have SALT on site usually and lots of kids there need SALT, but none of them have specified SALT in their statements. If the SALT then goes off sick for 8 weeks what happens then? No obligation for provision and no guarantee it will happen though it would be reasonable to expect it might. Nothing you can do though if for any reason it doesn't.

If the SALT then goes off sick for 8 weeks what happens then? No obligation for provision and no guarantee it will happen though it would be reasonable to expect it might.

My FOI to the LA's named school speech & language unit showed up that for a full month prior to the date of the FOI, no SALT had been onsite at the school . The FOI also showed up that by the end of Spring Term 2013, an OT had only been on site once in the entire academic year.

Also, what if this happened (is sick SALT) and the ss or unit contains one or more children with fully qualified and specified statements? Because the provision in these statements are legally binding, these children would get first dibs on the limited resource of a sick SALT. The non q & s Statemented children would be the last in the queue.