Happy with statement but solicitor not 1 month away from tribunal

[Lesley25]

So, in summary we had our meeting with school and la rep and we have the full 1:1 support for whole school day inc lunch and breaks with clear work time interventions which take half of the school day but can be moulded around the daily school curriculum, we have the appointed ta with the experience and qualifications we asked for and the school will let me use our salt and ot to come into school and train the ta as well as the specialist asd teachers hours increase who will direct the cognitive aspect of the curriculum and support the ta with strategies.

Phew.

But the solicitor wants a caveat in the statement saying that the lea should fund the salt and OT ( my ds's grandparents actually fund this privately from a trust- no chance it would be stopped), if we couldn't and also remove wordings such as "opportunities for"- which I don't think the lea will dispute, but I don't want to go to tribunal for the salt and OT because:
a) cost
b)I don't think we would win weekly salt and ot anyway- the la have a nhs salt that comes into school at a maximum of 3times per term,
c) I don't want to piss the new mainstream school off as they've been so good so far and the statement does say that the OT and salt will continue to come in weekly but on a private basis so the school cannot suddenly revoke this, and to be fair they've been v supportive.

So, I respect the solicitors judgement regarding wording- and I've asked that the wording is changed to reflect the legal way these things should be set out to avoid any "confusion" as the lea haven't put anywhere in the statement about the banding or hours a ta will spend with my ds - this goes on a separate letter I'm told.. But smells like BS so the solicitor will write a paragraph within the necessary part(s) to say that.

If all that is done, I would be happy with that but solicitor says let's push for salt and OT - which I don't think we would get for reasons above.
Sen mums would you agree with my thinking? Nothing I've missed is there?

You're the client.

Look honestly, if salt and OT are not in the statement then it as if your child doesn't have those needs, because if Ds DID have those needs the LA MUST fund them iyswim. The school are also at liberty to refuse any intervention not listed in the statement as and when.

This all might cause problems further down the road and I imagine the legal team want it all specified properly and nothing left to 'good will'

However, a truly cooperative school is hard to find. If you are certain you have a model now that works for your Ds then personally I would go with that. The future is hardly secure now for any of us regardless of specified statement or not and relationships are key. You can evaluate at the Annual Review and have the battle then if you need to and if you're happy to take the risk.

There are lots of parents who come on here saying the school have promised all sorts and they'd be advised not to believe a word of it, but they are way behind where you are in your journey. You have researched and negotiated and got advice. I'm sure you're capable of the evaluation task presented here.

In practical terms if they put SLT and OT in it would be the SLT or OT attached to school - so they would only see your child when they would be in school anyway. You may get termly SLT and OT but not what you are asking for. You would have to go to tribunal for that and pay legal fees, SLT, OT fees to attend. Chances are that will be more costly than carrying on as you are. I would personally pay money not to have our NHS Slts anywhere near DS as they caused more harm than good. So if you are happy to fund then I would leave it. I cannot tell you how many people I know who tolerate NHS input because they have to as it's the statement but then pay for private SLT on top. When you get to first AR and your OT and SLT come along or write a report you can always push for it then - by then direct payments etc should be more established so you may get a contribution to private SLT etc and NHS will be well out of the picture.

I must say, if the LA accept that it is necessary for a SALT and OT to come in, I really can't see why they shouldn't pay for them.

However, I do see your point about the expense and risk involved in taking this to the tribunal. But how about leaving it a bit longer to see if the threat of the tribunal makes the LA more sensible?

"But the solicitor wants a caveat in the statement saying that the lea should fund the salt and OT ( my ds's grandparents actually fund this privately from a trust- no chance it would be stopped), if we couldn't and also remove wordings such as "opportunities for"- which I don't think the lea will dispute, but I don't want to go to tribunal for the salt and OT because:
a) cost
b)I don't think we would win weekly salt and ot anyway- the la have a nhs salt that comes into school at a maximum of 3times per term,
c) I don't want to piss the new mainstream school off as they've been so good so far and the statement does say that the OT and salt will continue to come in weekly but on a private basis so the school cannot suddenly revoke this, and to be fair they've been v supportive"

Re point a, never ever accept a statement which states opportunites for... etc.

Point b is supposition on your part and you may well be wrong. NHS SALT can be withdrawn all too easily.

Point c is irrelevant; treat the school as a business and do not worry about being your child's advocate. Infact you are this person's best - and only - advocate here. School attitudes can and do change very quickly.

"I respect the solicitors judgement regarding wording- and I've asked that the wording is changed to reflect the legal way these things should be set out to avoid any "confusion" as the lea haven't put anywhere in the statement about the banding or hours a ta will spend with my ds - this goes on a separate letter I'm told.. But smells like BS so the solicitor will write a paragraph within the necessary part(s) to say that"

The important point within the above is that the LEA have not put anywhere in the statement about the banding (less important) or hours a TA will spend with your DS - that's the clincher. Statements have to be both specified and quantified as per case law; if the statement as it stands is neither then it is unlawful and should never be accepted in its current form.

I think therefore your Solicitor could well be correct but I would run this past IPSEA as well because they could advise you.

Am sure the LEA are well happy that the SALT and OT are being funded privately mainly because they do not have to pay for it. However, how long are the grandparents prepared to fund SALT and OT for?. BTW is SALT provision in Part 2 as well as 3, it needs to be in both parts of the statement document.

Thank you all for taking time to reply.

I am going to change the wording as per the solicitors advice and make sure we have a paragraph in the necessary sections regarding the 1:1 hours.

Even though my child undoubtedly needs weekly salt and ot- and I'd like to use ours, I'm not going to push these points on the statement, and do what everyone says - bring it up at the annual review stage when direct payments could well benefit our situation. The reason for this also is that my ds takes a while to get like to know adults so fighting for an Nhs salt and nhs ot might mean that they pull my therapists who have been with my ds for years, which would be a disaster.

Thank you all again for thrashing out the thinking with me x

Would your private SALT and OT be amenable to working with your DS at home if it got to the point where they were debarred from working in school, or would they be wary of treading on too many toes?