In response to asking for DS' draft statement to be more specific, LA says...

[Ahhhcantthinkofagoodname]

..."The objectives in the statement should all be made more specific through [DS' name] Individual Education Plan. The statement is more general because it remains in force for some time. The IEP is when each objective is made more specific, time-framed, measurable and can state who will be completing the objectives with [DS' name]."

I am guessing I should respond by saying I disagree with this, reiterate our requirement all provision points are specified and quantified and maybe pasting some of the references to court decisions and the SENCOP from here:
www.ipsea.org.uk/AssetLibrary/How%20we%20can%20help/Taking%20Action/Case%2022%20updated%20final.pdf

Do people agree or have any other advice?

Unfortunately while the SLT made some specific recommendations, the EP wrote a very vague report with none of her recommendations for provision specified or quantified. So I know exactly what we need in the bit of part 3 that relates to language skills but I am less sure of what should be in the sub sections of part 3 on early learning and play skills and attention and concentration skills.

Bit of background: DS is starting school in sept at a speech and language unit and he has verbal dyspraxia and ASD diagnoses, plus hyper mobility of his joints.

Thanks very much in advance for any advice.

That's what I would do. It's impossible to write meaningful IEPs without all the background information - and that's all supposed to be in the statement. Freddy has needs A, B and C with the consequence that D and E (part 2). The provision required to meet these needs is W, X, Y and Z. The IEP then needs to use this knowledge and current in classroom assessments to set necessary, achievable & measurable targets for the child's learning with the aid of this provision.

So if A is, for example, handwriting difficulties of a particular nature, W needs to be accommodations and interventions required to improve it/avoid it being a problem, as necessary, eg type long bits of work, carry out hand gym and pencil work exercises with a TA aimed at improving fluency or stamina, for 5 minutes daily. The IEP would then concentrate on the actual progress being made, eg able to print 50 words legibly in 10 minutes, without fatigue, each day, or whatever is deemed appropriate at a realistic.

that should read: at a realistic rate of progress.

Agree the LA is trying to bullshit you and they need it made clear to them that you know what the law is.

Can you suggest to them that they should go back to the EP and ask for more precise advice to enable them to meet their legal obligations?

But I think you will ultimately have to go to the tribunal if you want something properly specific that provides for DS properly, and you will need to get at least your own independent EP report.

The statement is reviewed each year and can be reviewed more frequently if necessary ffs.

tbh, woolly objectives work in your favour. It is the provision in part 3 that you need to be specific.

So say, that you are happy for the IEPs to specify the actual daily targets but you need the provision clearly identified in order to ensure your child has the overall resources required to meet the targets that will be set by the IEPs.

Personally, if he's going to a SLT unit, I wouldn't worry too much about the statement content, but that's just from my personal experience of having a child in a specialist environment. The statement is just her 'ticket' for a special school place. It's the school who knows her inside out and makes sure that she's getting everything she needs.

If they say the EP hasn't specified, simply tell them that commissioning reports is their responsibility not yours and that if their staff aren't up to the job perhaps they should outsource.

my LA have said exactly the same about the IEP. sadly we are off to tribunal in a few weeks and have had to obtain independent ep, salt and ot reports that specify provision.
LA EPs dont like to be specific within their reports as they know the LA are responsible to provide the provision.

Thanks a lot for the advice, will lift some of the above into our response.

Lougle, that's interesting what you say, to be honest our main focus was initially getting SLT unit in part 4 but now we've got that I feel I want to get part 3 as good as possible.

Nennypops, oramum, what's the lead time for arranging independent EP if we do end up going down tribunal route?

Really appreciate the replies, thanks again

The problem with the Statement not being specific - even tho it's a SALT unit - is that these units vary from unit to unit. Some are good and others, well, aren't.

The SALT unit the (same?) LA wanted my DS to go to looked perfect on the surface, but then when I did the Freedom of Information searches showed that the school was far from perfect and couldn't meet my DS's needs at all.

For example, at the time of the FOI request (March 2013) an OT hadn't been into the school since the previous September. A qualified SALT hadn't been on site for the previous 4 weeks etc etc. The point being that if this was happening for a child with an unquantified/unspecified Statement, then this would be ok - ie no support from qualified therapists is fine because not in a Statement. Absolutely nothing the parents would be able to do about it. But if the Statement is properly q&s, then this lack of OT/SALT would matter a great deal and the LA would be failing in their duty towards that Statemented child unless they provided it to the letter.

Also, I felt that if this lack of OT/SALT was happening for whatever reason (eg sickness), if they were then getting back-up/replacement staff to cover, then I wanted my child to be the one to get the scarce help - hence wanting my DS's Statement to be totally quantified and specified so he would be first in the queue for any scarce therapy.

However, having said all that, I do think you need to weigh up how much it would cost you in indie reports to get it properly specified and quantified; against whether you think the unit would be up to correctly providing without the Statement being quantified and specified?

Have they definitely stated in writing that DS is going to the school you want? knowing these trickery bastards they'll name another school

Thanks a lot TOWIE. Will pm you!