is this correct, can lea provide salt and ot in a statement

[billiejeanbob]

I am currently appealing parts 2&3 of my ds' statement through sendist. the lea have sent me a letter saying they have recieved notification of my appeal and have no other option but to contest it as they cannot provide salt or ot in part 3 as they would be commiting the resources of nhs services, which it is not possible for them to determine.
is this correct? thanks

No its not correct.

If NHS cannot provide, then the LA have to provide it (pay for it privately). If its written into a statement, then its legally binding.

There is firm established case law that SALT and OT provision is an educational need. Therefore if your DC needs SALT and OT, then it has to be written into Part 3. My DS has both SALT and OT fully quantified and specified in his part 3 (after Tribunal ordered it)

thanks, as I thought they are just trying to wriggle out of funding it. they have even had the nerve to send a copy of this tripe to the tribunal!

they have included salt in part 3 but put that discharge is at the therapists discretion as it is a clinical decision. hence salt discharging him within a month.

Towie do you mind if I ask who provides the salt that is written into the statement, nhs or independent salt?

My son is now in an indie special school so the school provides all that's in his Statement. If he'd gone to the school the LA wanted, then it would have been NHS SALT and, in my county, OT is outsourced to a 3rd party provider - so the OT would have been done by this 3rd party.

"R vs. The Secretary of State for Education and Science ex parte E [1992] 1 FLR 377, the Court of Appeal ruled that Part 2 of a statement (?special educational needs‘) must set out all of a child‘s special educational needs identified during an assessment. In addition, Part 3(b) of a statement must specify the provision required to meet each of the needs identified in Part 2, whether that provision was to be made by the LA or by the child‘s own school"

SEN COP states "“Part 2 of the statement should describe all of the child‘s learning difficulties identified during the statutory assessment. It should also include a description of the child‘s current functioning – what the child can and cannot do. The description in Part 2 should draw on and may refer to the professional advice attached in the appendices. Where the LEA adopt that advice in their description of the child‘s learning difficulties, they should say that they have done so. But merely stating that they are adopting the advice in the appendices is not sufficient. The appendices may contain conflicting opinions or opinions open to interpretation, which the LEA must resolve, giving reasons for the conclusions they have reached. Part 2 should be set out in a fashion which can relate directly to the description of provision set out in Part 3(b)"

Personally i would write to the director of education (enclosing a copy of the LA letter), stating you are writing to request that they amend the proposed statement of special educational needs on the grounds that it is not written in accordance with the law or SEN COP.
?
Will they agree to amend the proposed statement in order to list your child's special educational needs with regard to SALT and OT difficulties in Part 2 and to specify the provision necessary to meet these needs under Part 3 as a special educational provision.

If not then to finalise the statement so you can appeal.

I am assuming you have reports from SALT and OT.

Sorry just realised you are already appealing.

thanks for replying Towie. claw2 I should probably have added the statement has already been finalised and we are now appealing through tribunal.
despite me writing to the lea numerous times asking for specification etc and for them to not ignore their own advice (lea ot rec full time 30 hrs 1:1in her SA report) they would not make the amendments. they then finalised and I appealed. now they write to me saying they are disappointed that I didnt contact them directly with my concerns!

yes have lea salt and ot reports stating ds needs direct 1:1 salt and full time 30 hrs 1:1.
they have included direct 1:1 salt in part 3 but put that the therapist can discharge as and when its needed based on a clinical decision.
they refused to accept the lea ots advice (30 hrs 1:1) and I have it in writing from them that they will not accept her recomendations as it is not the ots decision to decide how many hours 1:1, it was the EPs. EP report states that he had only met my ds briefly so his report was based on a snapshot of my ds needs whereas ot had previously been involved with ds for 6 months and had results of assessment s etc.

I am currently waiting for indi salt and ot to assess next month.

I don't think OT can advise on how many hours of 1:1 your ds will need in the classroom, its not their remit, they should advise on what OT input is needed, which can include 1:1 from an OT or 1:1 from TA implementing OT input.

Why did EP only meet your ds briefly? EP is suppose to do an assessment for the purpose of SA.

because I req SA and the EP assigned to the school only had time to meet my ds for an hr.

the OT rec the 1:1 as ds' motor skills, visual perception and dexterity are below the 1st centile. also that ds cant follow instructions even with visual clues and it is affecting his confidence.

Doesn't really matter who requested SA, part of the SA is an assessment by EP and EP is required to assess by Law, unless there is very good reason not to assess. Not having time to assess isn't a good enough reason.

So your ds needs 30 hours of 1:1 from TA to implement OT strategies to help with motor skills, visual perception etc? Has OT specified what the 30 hours should be used for?

What a weird lot your council are. It's utter nonsense to say they can't accept the OT's advice unless it's endorsed by an EP. The EP doesn't have the necessary expertise to say what is needed by way of OT. They're also absolutely wrong to say they can't include stuff which involves committing NHS resources. In the first place, they have to write part 3 according to what ds needs, not what they are able to provide; and in the second place, it's up to them to make the necessary requisitioning arrangements to ensure he gets what's in part 3 - if they can get it through the NHS, fine, but if they can't they'll have to pay for private therapists.

Can I ask what actual input/training for TA etc the OT is stating she will provide for motor skills, visual perception and dexterity etc?

I could be totally wrong, but it seems she might be trying to pass the buck to untrained TA and school.

ot havent specified any training for a ta. the report says ds will need full time 30 hrs of 1:1, to provide opportunities to practice very simple motor activities eg throwing and catching a ball. supervision is also needed to ensure ds can understand and process instructions whilst remaining focused and engaged with the task. supervision is also needed during unstructured hours, primarily break and lunch periods, to ensure that ds is able to interact with peers and prevent further decline in confidence.

They have put that in writing?

Good.

It's bollocks. If they can't commit the services of the NHS they must do it privately.

But you have to prove that these are educational needs, not medical, and that without them your child won't be able to access an education.

billie, write to them with a list of dates of letters and phonecalls proving that you have tried to negotiate with them and been ignored.

Yes, it's nonsense to say they can't put SALT and OT in part 3 (my ds has SALT in part 3), and they know it. They know they have to provide funds to school to buy in these services, as nennypops said. It's a key point about part 3 being based on need, not based on what they ridiculously say they can or can't provide. Outrageous attempt at trying to hoodwink you.

It's also not up to the LEA to decide if and when this support finishes, and how can they anticipate in advance that he won't need any SALT? Changes to provision can only be made at annual review, following another thorough assessment by the professionals involved.

If they're ignoring the advice from their own professionals they're going to look pretty foolish at tribunal. What did the LEA EP recommend?

yes starlight I have it in writing from them twice. the first letter was when statement was still in draft form and I had requested that the ots advice from her SA report was to be included in part 2 and 3 of statement. they wrote to me saying that they were not accepting the ots advice, instead they were following the EPs (which is vague and crap).
the second letter I have is from the head of sen saying they cannot name salt and ot in part 3 as they cannot commit nhs resources. this letter they have also sent to my solicitor, school and the tribunal.

I wonder if your LA's solicitor is a certain BS firm of lawyers? It sounds like the rubbish they come out with. For my DS's Tribunal, BS stated in my LA's papers that no provision has to be quantified and specified in a Statement!

the LA EPs report is very vague and has no actual results of assessments, it is purely based on his judgement of ds based on schools opinion. EP recomends that ds has further assessment to check for gaps in learning (not happened!), a parenting course for me to attend to help me manage ds' behaviour at home as this is a parenting issue (FFS!!!!, also not happened), social skills group (not happened), discussion with ds to manage risky behaviours(not happened!!), a job to do in mornings to prevent school refusal (not happend), a warm welcoming and trustable member of staff to welcome him into classroom in mornings. all of the above tripe is written into part 3 of statement.

Yes BS do make a mockery of the tribunal system. When the LA's case is weak they go batshit and focus on intimidating the parents with nonsence.

Are you getting an indie EP to assess for you?