School SALT has declined to make any changes to provision

[coffeeNpie]

My DS is 8 and attends a special school where he is currently seen by a speech therapist every other term. We recently had his annual review and I truly feel the current SALT provision is not meeting his needs. DS made some progress towards his outcomes, but he needs more direct speech support to reach his full potential.

The school has their own speech therapist and I raised all my concerns with her, but she still feels there is no change required as DS is making progress and speech targets are incorporated in all classroom activities. I also explained them that Ehc plan goes with the child and if DS moves to a different school, he would struggle. The SLT and his class teacher and senco all saying the current provision is enough.

I know I can still get a second opinion through a private assessment. And get his provision amended through tribunal. But does this generally happen? I mean the school should not have a problem if the LA agree to fund the additional hours? I always thought the school is supportive of parents seeking more help for their child. Why they seem to be so reluctant? Does anyone has been in a similar situation?

Unfortunately, for a multitude of reasons, it isn’t uncommon for schools to disagree. Tribunal is the route to challenge the content of the EHCP and more often than not it is successful.

In specialist schools they tend to train all staff to support SALT, usually through ELKLAN. So when they say incorporated in to lessons they really mean it as the staff will be trained to continue the support required throughout the day every day rather than 1 session every couple of weeks like a mainstream would.
What is his current targets?

That doesn’t negate the need for SALT to be detailed, specified and quantified in F. And for many it doesn’t mean they don’t also need direct SALT input either.

@BrumToTheRescue Yes, tribunal is the route to challenge. But then I ask myself if it is really worth all the effort? I mean this might increase a few hours in his provision, and he will be seen 30 minutes weekly each term, but would that make a massive difference?

I was not happy with the current SLT anyways and I felt she won't do much with the few extra hours. I only recently found out she is leaving. But then I will not know who the new SLT is and how she is like until September, depending if they hire someone by then. Which makes me think if this is the reason why the school is reluctant to support change in SALT?

If DS reasonably requires more provision than is currently in the EHCP (whether that is 30 mins a week or more direct provision) then, IMO, appealing is worth it.

These targets are definitely ones we would implement throughout the day. The SALT session would simply be to assess any progress and adapt if needed. Staff in the classroom will have to provide evidence every week of your child working towards the targets, this isn't something you would see but is a requirement.

Only poor direct SALT provision would only assess progress and review provison. That should be on top of actual direct provision.

@BrumToTheRescue I agree. Or else there is no point of any direct speech therapy at all.

@coffeeNpie I think the problem is many EHCPs are poorly written without all the provision DC reasonably require. So when a parent pursues amendments some see it as overprovision or ‘that’s not how we do things here’.

We are trained up to provide the speech therapy, that's not poor speech therapy that's continuous therapy that proves more effective given by people trained to provide it

Speech and language support is not simply 1 person doing 1 ocasional session. It's a specialist team providing continuous support to help a child succeed.

Provision embedded into the school day delivered by teachers and TAs or even provision delivered by a speech and language therapy assistant is not the same as direct provision delivered by a SALT.

I didn’t say provision delivered by teachers and TAs was poor provision. What I actually said was direct provision that only assesses progress and reviews provision is poor provision. Assessing progress and reviewing provision should be on top of direct provision rather than instead of direct provision.

However, provision embedded in the school day shouldn’t be instead of direct provision. It should be as well as. Direct SALT doesn’t have to be occasional - this is where many EHCPs are poor.

@BrumToTheRescue exactly what I feel and understand how it should be.

The school is emphasizing on the indirect support, but one cannot deny how hugely important 1:1 therapy is. Considering my child's needs, I am sure the private assessment will suggest additional hours of direct therapy input. And if it makes it to the Ehc plan, the school has to provide. I just don't understand the point of making parents go through so much stress.