proposed statement - salt and ot in part 5 and 6

[armani]

...

sorry posted too soon
in dds proposed statement salt and ot are in parts 5 and 6, am I correct in believing the lea are not responsible for the provision if they are in 5 and 6? what can I do about this? shall I write and ask for it to be moved?
since SA dd has already been discharged from nhs ot, despite delayed motor skills (0.5 centile).
any advice greatly recieved.

You're correct. In the event of NHS SALT not providing the therapy stated, the LA would be under no obligation to arrange SALT. If the provision were in Part 2/3 then the LA would have to step in and provide it. Even if it meant employing a Private SALT.

thanks lougle. the proposed statement is actually really confusing as in part 2 it does mention communication issues and states that dd has been known to salt for 3 years previously. but it doesnt state her diagnosis nor mention future provision.

Yes, ask them to move it to part 3 and make sure the issues are detailed in part 2 correctly too. If the LA refuse to make these changes then take it to tribunal. They will have a hard time explaining why it needs to be in parts 5 and 6 instead of part 2 and 3!

This will get you started.

Also here Scroll down to 2010 for the 'part 6 trick'

Don't take it personally. This is the usual way the SEN poker game works, you just need to learn the unwritten rules fast, and watch out for cheating.

great thankyou will check links now. should ot be in part 2 and 3 aswell?

Yes, armani. There's more here
www.ipsea.org.uk/apps/content/HTML/?id=123

Also look at the section on duty to specify on the ipsea site.

www.ipsea.org.uk/apps/content/HTML/?id=123

brilliant thanks for all of the fab links. dds OT needs are described in part 2, including percentiles. however in part 3 there are only recommendations for school to practise motor activities, none of the 1:1 as recommended by the ot is listed, and instead ot is named in part 5 and 6.

yes its a favourite tactic of LAs to put it in part 5/6 and hope parents don't notice. I ended up at tribunal and my LA put it all in part 5/6 = morning of tribunal they conceded the lot as they knew the panel would not be impressed but they tried every trick on the book to try and get me to leave it in parts 5/6 but I dug my heels in

Reject this statement out of hand.

SALT needs to be in Parts 2 as well as 3. Quote the "Lancashire Agreement" at them. Did your heels in on this one.

The statement needs to be right, they were not right at all in putting SALT in parts 5 and 6.

Talk to IPSEA www.ipsea.org.uk as well

There is plenty of case law that speech and OT support has to be in part 3. David Wolfe (a highly respected SEN barrister) has examples in his Noddy's Guide to SEN law (if you click the link, a pdf will download - page 3 discusses what should be in Part 3)

thankyou I will not budge on this and take it to tribunal if needed. the whole statement is a let down if im honest. its not specicied or quantified in any way

the la ep who assessed dd seems to have completely disregarded her learning difficulties and instead concentrated on dds behaviour at home and recomended a parenting course!! ffs! despite having written evidence from pead stating dds meltdowns at home are due to her frustrations with learning, the ep seems to think I can prevent this by setting clear boundaries!!!
im actually fuming, I woke up this morning sobbing as im finding this so hard to cope with. the ep has tried to make out that im some kind of crap mother who cant discipline her child if only it was that easy. dd does not respond to boundaries nor rewards, once she is having a melt down nothing I can say or do will stop it, even once she has calmed down she still wont be reasoned with that her behaviour was unacceptable.
sorry just needed to vent.