SALT in part 2 of statement?

[Jimjams]

Hi- question for anyone with speech therapy specified in the statement (Davros??)

Have just discovered that my local LEA will not put SALT in part 2 as they say it is Health. Obviously this contravenes the Lancashire judgment made in 1989, but despite this a friend has been told she will have to go to tribunal. We have meetings coming up on this soon. I am keen to avoid a tribunal as although we would clearly win it will delay the statementing. I have written to the LEA this morning referring them to the judgment. Just wondered whether anyone else had been through this and how easy was it to get the LEA to back down?

I dont know if this will help but our dds say nothing about SALT in part2 but in part 3-special educational provision- specifically relating to speech it says:

The objectives of this programme is for dd to-further develop communication skills
-and a programme to promote the further development of communication skills which will take into account of the advice and support of the Speech and Language therapty service.

Then in part6:non educational provision- it states the district health authority advise on the need for speech and language therapy support.

Does this help? It most probably sounds like a load of garbled nonsense.

unfortunately fio2 that makes perfect sense (I've obvioulsy been in this game for too long, and I've only just started!) Thanks for that!

JimJams, you know me so well after such a short acquaintanace! I have a document from IPSEA about a precedent getting SLT in the Educational section of statement. The link is www.ipsea.org.uk/caselaw.htm#LancashireJudgement I can't work out how to do that impressive function so better to cut and paste rather than get it wrong. Good luck. If it doesn't work, can I send it to you privately? I think there's a contact anotehr mumsnetter option somewhere, let me know.

Thanks Davros that's the one I've written to them about today even the rather mainstream NAS says SALT belongs in part 2 ....... Grrrrr @ the LEA

does that mean ours does too then?

depends fio- check out that link by davros. For most children with statements it belongs in part 2. The LEA's try to get around it by saying it's health but usually it isn't. The Lancashire judgement involved a court of appeal case so unless the LEA wants to take it to the house of lords- they're stuffed really. Doesn't stop them trying though. The beauty of having it in part 2 is that they are then legally obliged to provide it (even if the health authority don't- also on the IPSEA site there is "the harrow judgement" which determines that).

I dont know, I have read davros' link but although it doesnt actually specify in dds part2 about SALT it does stress that she has developmental delay particually in relation to language and then it goes on to descirbe her current difficulties.

I will have to look into this because we will be moving area within the next few months and obviously I want her to go to a similar kind of education base that she is at, at the moment.

The reason LEAs put SLT in the Health section is because SLT is paid for by the Health Dept. BUT, as the statement is supposed to reflect ONLY a child's needs it hardly makes sense that they can get anywhere with, or access education if they have speech & language, communication problems and therefore it impacts completely on their education. Howver, I didn't pursue getting it in section 2 of our statement because, at the time, we home programmed and went to a private SLT and I just sent them the bill with all the other bills! I thought that, if I got it in part 2 they would make me use their service which is as good as non-existent and woefully inadequate. So it really depends on whether its a battle worth fighting, our situation was unusual so it may well be worth it for you. We had a statement that I was otherwise very happy with as our home prog was paid for and we were left in peace to do what we wanted, then they agreed to fund ABA school so I didn't want to rock the boat. Sometimes though it needs a good ol' rocking, especially when you are getting your very first statement sorted out.

To be honest davros I was very grateful they gave dd a statement at all, they were very reluctant to do so. Also the edcation base she goes to at the moment is brilliant, all facilities and professionals-full time. I must admit though they were also reluctant to put her in this education base, it was only really because me and dh pushed for it(and the headteacher joined in) that they took us seriously.

Agreed Davros your way sounds better!! As you say the NHS service is crap (and non-existent). We are going for weekly visits from a SALT for half a term whilst DS1's speech problem is properly investigated and the LSA is trained, daily SALT from the LSA and then a visit from a SALT once every half term. The sticking point will be the weekly visits for half a term, but they are essential in our view (and tbh I don't see why it's such a problem - I know children with dysfluency who have been given this level of NHS service) Obviously without that being in part 2 we don't have a hope.

I have realised with some horror that every single word that ds knows has been taught to him by me. In other words he hasn't picked up any language at all.

I know there is an ABA tutor who has just moved down here I thinkI may contact her. I don't realy want to set up a programme as such but I wondered whether she could do some intensive language work. I know that may contravene ABA philosophy but obviously he needs some realy intensive language work quickly and not this stupid business of everyone passing the buck all the time. Do yo know of any books that would be worth getting?

jimjams how do you find private SALT, we will be moving soon and if we dont get one I may consider going private(will have to pay out the DLA money-suppose thats what its for)

Jimjams - Pt2 of the statement is usually a description of the child's difficulties and it is Pt3 which is the provision that the LEA is comitted to providing - which I think it what you are after with relation to SALT provision. Not trying to be picky, but I think that your argument needs to center around Pt3 rather than Pt2.

This is a notoriously difficult area of dispute between health and education and the subject of many SEN Tribunals. The Speech and Language Therapists are employed by the Health Service so it is difficult for LEA's to determine the amount of provision. It's a bit of a nightmare for LEAs to be comitted to something that is provided by another service and outside of their control. They therefore have to put in pretty bland phrases like "a language development programme devised and monitored by a Speech and Language Therapist" thus including SALT in the statement, but not committing to the frequency of SALT input. Also quite a lot of SALT reports that I've come across have a line at the bottom which says something along the lines of "this is a reflection a child's need, and not necessarily of the level of input that will be available" which must be totally frustrating for parents.

The barriers between health, education and social services drive me mad - some boroughs are moving towards 'children's departments' usually joining up education and social services to try and break down some of the barriers and stop some of the responsibility (and financial) buck passing, but I don't know whether health authorities have joined in with this yet.

Unfortunately, I think it's unlikely that you will be able to get the LEA to agree to specifying the exact frequency of the SALT input unless they manage to get an agreement from the Health Authority. Keep trying though, but I would advise that you lodge the Tribunal so that it can proceed concurrently whilst you try and resolve the issues with the LEA.

Hope this is useful

Sorry Jimjams - have just re-read my message and I'm not sure I was clear.

There should definately be some mention of SALT in Pt3 (but it might be a bland-ish phrase) and not just Pt6, and this is well establised in SEN case history. What you might have more difficulties with is getting exact amounts of SALT input specified as I explained before. Hope it wasn't too confusing.

but kyliliebump (glad you replied btw- was hoping you would see this) there is case law for both these points. The Lancashire judgment says it is educational therefore needs to be in part 2 with provision specified in part 3, and also the harrow judgment which says that it is the LEA's responsibility to provide those services sepcified whether or not Health has the resources. You see something like the bland phrase you mentioned isn't really worth the piece of paper it's written on as he won't get the help he needs in our case. The bibic report makes it quite clear that to date his his speech and language problems haven't even been investigated properly. I do sympathise a bit with the LEA's predicament on this, but on the other hand a statement is there to provide for the child not reflect the local postcode lottery.

Also once it is part 2 then there has to be specific help mentioned in part 3 (and case law suuggests this will often mean specifying hours). Surely if we don't get it mentioned as an education need in part 2 then we are stuffed?

I will check up on the case law further though as I think there is a case saying that the number of hours needs to be specified so I'll make sure I have that one at my fingertips before the meeting. Yep quick flick and I've got it- R vs Secretary of state for education and science ex parte E, and also L vs Calrke and Somerset County council. Hmmmm

Thanks for the tip about the tribunal. We have a meeting with SALT next week and I have sent them a copy of my letter to the LEA and also the BIBIC reports so I'll see what they say. Pity really as most of it is going through smoothly (they've agreed to 0.8, school will make up 0.2, they've agreed to phased transition with support from nursery) Just bloody SALT again! If I could sling some law at SALT I would but unfortunately our only recourse is via the LEA iyswim. I lknow SALT will provide 6-8 weeks worth of therapy for dysfluency so they should have the resources to provide it for autism - they just won't.

my dd has quite alot of communication difficulties and I just cant beleive the SALT provide 6-8weeks for dysfluency and havent been,for the last 18 months anyway, bothered with my dd. I am not meaning to offend anyone I just dont know how they justify this.

It's because it's easier to fix fio2. I now know of two cases like this - one was 6 sessions for being unable to pronounce certain sounds and one was 6 or 8 sessions for dysfluency (these are first hand reports so reliable). It does annoy me- I accept we won't get OT as Plymouth and West Devon has one - yes one- part time OT- and there are obviously children who need it far more than ds1, but SALT! Agghhh! I don't know af any child who needs it more than him and yet I get made to feel as if I am a mother from hell for suggesting that he has half a term of SALT once a week. Grrrrrrrrrrrr. I don't know how they justify it either - cost I guess.

I have heard of tripartite funding (Educ, health, Soc Svs) BUT was advised by experienced SEN solicitor to be very careful about joint funding as ONLY the Education Dept part is legally binding. While no-one would suggest that the other depts would set out to avoid meeting their agreement, if relations break down, finances are bad or there are new personnel, it could be a problem.
Jimjams - for books recommend you look at www.difflearn.com/ which is baed in USA but some books also available on Amazon.co.uk.

Sorry Jimjams, I may have misunderstood a bit I think. There should definately be a description of your child's needs in Pt2 ie specifying his speech, language and communication difficulties (surely they would have to as your DS is autistic - how could they plan to write a statement and not mention these difficulties?), and then should specify the provision to meet his needs in Pt3. PT2 would not normally specify the provision required. If you only had SALT mentioned in Pt2 then there wouldn't be the same comitment for it to be provided.

What is possible in PT2 is to put something in like XXX has significant difficulties with language and communication and has received Speech and Language Therapy input (to show that that service is involved). There should then be a discription of what exactly the difficulties are (summerised, of course!).

You are doing the right thing for fighting for SALT and if you can get SALT and the LEA together to try and avoid a tribunal then you may well be able to get them to specify the hours - SALT can say what they will provide and the LEA can put that in the statement. If the LEA and SALT won't talk or agree then the LEA would be very unlikely to specify hours and it is in that kind of situation that you would almost certainly have to go to Tribunal. Not sure what would happen if the SALT service says that they don't feel that the level of input that you want is required, as the LEA would call them as a witness. You would then have to call your private SALT as a witness and let them argue it out I guess?

This is such a difficult area - don't even get me started on OT provision - sometimes I thnk it woudl be easier if LEAs employed their own SALTs and OTs!!

Thanks Davros - that's helpful I'll have a nose. I'm thinking of trying to do some intensive language work over the summer, but need ideas on how to go about it!

Dh has come back from work with some legal stuff from some law journals (sometimes being a solicitor is useful ) Apparently the courts have decided that a) SALT can be educational (and in his case is) and b) part 3 should be specific and should mention hours. They've referenced all the relevant cases as well.

As usual SALT is the problem. They've been invited to the meeting with myself, dh, the school, the nursery, the ed psych and the LEA. The plan is to hash out the funding etc there- but SALT haven't said yet whether they will be attending- surprise surprise.

I hadnt thought about the local SALT service disagreeing with number of hours- so thanks for that. I think it would be hard for them to do that at the independent SALT has made it clear that his difficulties haven't even been identified. For example she says that it is important to establish whether or not he has verbal dyspraxia. She says that given that he has difficulties with oro-motor ativities such as blowing it is quite likely, although he could have just developed his own language. She says that in that half term of weekly sessions his speech needs to be investigated with resepct to whether it is verbal dyspraxia or not (if it is then it will require a very high level of intensive SALT) but given that no-one in the NHS has even considered it (despite me banging on about it for 2 years) it would surely be hard to dismiss? I suppose they could try. I do feel that if we went to tribunal we would have a pretty strong case and so it would be a complete waste of everyone's time.

Very interesting to read ladies and very informative - many thanks. I can not contribute at all to this except to say that I already dread the statementing process for my ds

oh don't MABS. I always kind of dreaded it, but in a kind of "it won't happen to me" type of way. It is so much worse than I expected. I'm having to be all determined and bolshy with the LEA and that really isn't me at all. Ended up sobbing on the nursery manager's shoulders AGAIN today (first day back from holidays for god's sake) all over some minor confusion with the school (really nothing). She ended up ringing the school for me (she is the greatest person alive). Then I got back from Tesco to find a really nice message from the school on the phone- I think they suspect I am cracking up (which I probably am!). Honestly we get higher rate DLA becuase autism is supposedly so hard to deal with, but the LEA and SALT'S are 100 times worse. We should get DSA (dealing with the (non-existent) services allowance) as well

It's crazy these people are meant to be there to HELP not keep us awake at night. All I want is some SALT for a child who can't talk (but is trying to) Agggghhhhhhh

jimjams that is so funny DSA-gonna have to tell dh that one

Just rewritten statement- and have indigestion I want to lie down. We have an appointment with the statementing officer tomorow. Luckily I rang her to check where it was as I was going to go inot town and the meeting is in an out of town office!

Wish us luck!

Good luck Jimjams. I someone going with you? Don't know what advice to give really, let us know how it goes.

dh I made sure the statementing officer left the last meeting knowing he's a lawyer