My feed

to access all these features

Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on special needs.

SN children

SALT statement provision bands anyone?

14 replies

geekgrrl · 18/07/2005 09:42

I've just been on the phone to my (v. naughty) LEA about dd's statement. They told me that her SALT report indicated that provision should be 'band 4'. What does this mean? I didn't want to ask them - do any of you know?

If I don't agree with the band, what can I do about it? Our SALT tries very hard to please the LEA so I'm not feeling very hopeful about this band business. If I get an independent report, do they LEA have to provide what the independent SALT recommends?

OP posts:
Jimjams · 18/07/2005 09:56

something dreamed up by your LEA. Ask them- and ask for it to be in parts 2 and 3 (very important)

geekgrrl · 18/07/2005 09:59

LOL jimjams. sounds about right.

my chat with them was in response to my sh*tty letter they'd got regarding putting SALT in non-educational and being totally vague about it. I can't believe they do this routinely, with it being illegal and all.

I think I'll have to ring the SALT.

OP posts:
Jimjams · 18/07/2005 10:01

My LEA refused to put it in parts 2 and 3 until we met with them and gave them a copy of the court ruling from the ipsea website. good job we did as the SALT went on maternity leave-so they had to pay for our private salt to go in.

geekgrrl · 18/07/2005 10:09

aargh, our SALT's on honeymoon. Oh well, guess she is allowed to have a life.

Were you happy with the provision quantified for your ds, jimjams? I've tried to nail our SALT down before and the best she'd agreed to was 2 visits per term, which is just totally, utterly laughable (considering dd says about 5 words at age 4, her 1.5 yr old brother overtook her ages ago speech-wise).

I don't know what to do if she doesn't cooperate.

OP posts:
Jimjams · 18/07/2005 10:15

no- I wasn't- we asked for 8 visits a term- SALT said the request was reasonable, but impossible. He did get more than any other child in m/s- which worked out at her aiming for about 4 or 5 visits and making about 2 or 3!

The statement said that the LSA had to provide SALT activities daily- which was about the best we could hope for. Honestly it was hopeless. In fact am about to contact the LEA and HA about it. Problem is its the LEA or a liable and the HA who provide the SALTS (but do not have to provide them).

Irony is - this term he's been given weekly SALT and won't walk in the bloody room. Grrrrr. (but to be honest he doesn't need it now as such as alll his work is on communication).

MotherEve · 18/07/2005 12:59

Our LEA doesn't use bandings so I can't really help there but ... according to IPSEA and their summary of case law LEA's should no longer be using banding for statement provision.

SALT provision needs to be written into part 3 of the statement - we've just had a long battle with our LEA to get it there.

If it's in part 6 then it's down to the HA to provide and fund it - we were offered 2 visits a term that way.

If it's in part 3 the HA can still provide it but if they can't fund it then the LEA have to cough up. We now have provision of 6 visits per term in part 3 which works out roughly once a fortnight.

We did get a report from an independent SALT, which was quite different from the NHS SaLT's report. We then queried the NHS report with the result that J was re-assessed by them and they then concurred that he had an educational need for SaLT.

Actually the key phrase there was 'educational need' - we kept spouting that it was an 'educational need' and quoting the Lancashire judgement from the IPSEA website at them.

geekgrrl · 18/07/2005 13:14

thanks mothereve.

my LEA try to move SALT from 3 to 6 every time my dd's statement is revised, and every time I write to them quoting Lancashire and the SEN Code of Practice and they move it back. Doesn't seem to stop them from trying it on, though.

They won't quantify the SALT provision unless the SALT quantifies it in her report, which she'll probably only do under duress - last time I had to threaten that I would take it to a tribunal and she agreed to putting 'two visits per term', which is just sh*t, and apparently in the latest report it isn't quantified but the wording at the end means its a band 4 provision.

Our SALT is very young (mid-twenties) and strikes me as someone who is easily intimidated, particularly by her superiors and the LEA. The thing is though, she is not the one who will be providing SALT for dd come September.

Maybe I should wait until we've met the SALT who does the mainstream primary work and get her to do a report.

The LEA have said that I need to agree to the statement as it is now (with unquantified SALT in section 3) or else the school won't get any funding for dd's TA in September.
They said to sort out the quantification (is that the right word?) issue out later.

OP posts:
heartinthecountry · 18/07/2005 17:03

Hah! Interesting. Had a meeting today with our SEN officer about dd's statement and asked for quanitified number of hours of SALT per week in Part 3. Response was "well we don't have the resources to provide that so we won't put it in". I am pushing them. Will look up that Lancashire ruling maybe that will help.

A very timely thread!

geekgrrl - they also told me they had to finalise dd's statement next week or she wouldn't get a place in the nursery for Sept. But - they did say if I still wasn't happy with the statement it could still be changed - not sure if they are trying to pull a fast one there?

geekgrrl · 18/07/2005 17:14

hitc - I just heard from someone on a DS mailing list I'm on that you can ask them to issue the final statement but say that you disagree with something in it and then indeed sort it out later.

They have to provide SALT if your daughter needs it - the Lancashire judgement and the SEN Code of Practice both state this, it is illegal not to put SALT into section 3 if it is an educational requirement.

God it's all such a pain in the neck. As if there isn't enough other cr*p going on without the LEA trying to be shifty.

OP posts:
heartinthecountry · 18/07/2005 17:20

Oh gawd I know! Thanks for that info.

They have put SALT in part 3 but are not agreeing to quantify it - which practically renders it meaningless as far as I'm concerned. But - the SALTs all seem well versed in not committing to how much SALT a child needs - I'm sure their hands are tied by lack of resources - so we may need to get a private report to get it quantified I guess. I think the LEA has to at least consider an independent report.

geekgrrl · 18/07/2005 17:26

oh, sounds like you're in exactly the same place as us then. I think I'll ring IPSEA tomorrow, will let you know what they say.

OP posts:
maddiemo · 18/07/2005 21:40

My LEA now does matrix funding for statements, which I am also not sure is entirely legal, have not heard of it for SALT.

We also have problem with SALT wanting to keep peace with LEA.

Hope you get a good level quantified.

geekgrrl · 21/07/2005 12:04

right, have just come off the phone to ipsea. They're marvellous and the chap was so, so helpful. He said that in some cases the LEA doesn't have to quantify the SALT, but felt it was totally unreasonably not to do so in my dd's case, as her needs are so high, and told me what to do from here.
He also thought it was outrageous that the LEA are threatening to withold the TA funding until I agree to have the statement finalised, and he is going to talk to me again about it tomorrow and is going to in a formal complaint to the secretary of state.
HITC, I suggest you ring them to talk through your SALT problem.

OP posts:
heartinthecountry · 21/07/2005 20:24

Thanks geekgrrl - definitely will if they carry on refusing to quantify.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.