Has anyone here successfully fought changes to language unit provision within an LEA?

[arses]

I am a SALT who works in language units (primary and secondary, ASD and SLI). We have just been told that the language units in the borough are increasing but provision will remain the same.

In essence, this means that in one of the language units where I work where there used to be 2 and a half days of S and L input there will now be only one.

We have been told this is the 'best deal' available because we keep our jobs due to a redistribution of sessions. However, professionally and clinically, we all feel it is not good enough and will represent a serious watering down of the service to our clients.

Has anyone managed to fight this? We think it is possibly the first step towards rationalising as we now have to provide 'accountability' reports where we never did before.. the progress of children in the S and L units is, thankfully, very well documented but we are expected to prove we can make the same progress on far less hours next year e.g. literally, if 2 children with dyspraxia returned to mainstream with speech within normal limits this year, 2 will be expected to return next year (despite differences in individual progress etc). The atmosphere has turned very hostile towards SLT with the LEA saying we are not to go to annual review/do transition meetings/be present at parent meetings.

I despair. Just give me some hope that we can fight this?

As a parent with ds about to go to unit I would be shouting loudly and would insist that salt and or teachers are present at reviews and meetings .

Think lot could depend on statements ds states that he will have twice weekly sessions with salt of least 30 mins a session.

I don't know what your options to fight are in the work context, but as parents we can add to the fight I think (if we are not all written out with letters already).

I am interested in this because I am confused by the cross-over between LEA and PCT - maybe this varies from area to area. Who provides what? If S & L is in a statement, does the LEA pay the PCT for it? Or is it different in a specific unit?

Where I live S & L pulled out of a multi-disciplinary meeting about DS1 because they were 'not commissioned' by the PCT to be involved in ASC diagnosis. A few letters to high places and things are possibly changing.

I think one of the key things is to make parents aware of proposed changes as early as possible so they can get involved (I know it should not all be down to us, but as you can see from MN we are prepared to fight and fight ). Maybe this is something that should have had a formal consultation (maybe there is one, but it has not been widely promoted - it happens!!).

Ampers. Ds is statemented for speech and La pay as it is educational need because without placement can not access curriculm ditto Ot me thinks but his physio will come under health needs so nhs willbe expected to cough up for that

Checks your not one in North herts are you ?

rtb - I thought as much - that's why I was interested because as you say if the provision is on the statement I am not sure how they are going to be able to reduce it, except I suppose for those whose statements are not specific enough.

Yes I know lot of parents and La have got speech units on placements don't worry what the salt is on statement .I just don't trust the LA so insisted was in his statement

think lot will depend on how much parents are prepared to fight for it,

Do the children who attend the unit need a statement to attend?

If so you need to tell the parents to insist they ask for a specified amount of direct S&L and also put the same in your reports for SA

You could ask your professional body to support you. Look for press coverage. Contact your MP and Councillors and any parent groups.

You aren't going to be popular but if you cause enough fuss and parents are aware of the changes you can shame people into changing things. However if its done behind closed doors and parents aren't aware of the dilution in service then its unlikely you can stop it.

It has to be political pressure.

You could try ICAN etc and national bodies.

Isn't there a national Communication Champion? Perhaps you could organise a petition?

There is a financial argument in that less help now means more expensive and long term help later.

It is a hard fight - our autism services are so diluted that no-one who works with my son has the faintest idea what they are doing and as you say it becomes so dilute as to be pointless.

They are all statemented but the statements are not now, nor have they ever been, suitably specific. I have argued about this in the past but to no avail and have always been clear with parents that their rights are best protected by quantified provision in part 3. And yet it still goes in part 6.

Our units are totally integrated, esp the S and L ones.. we are an interdisciplinary team, we don't just pay lip service to joint working.. we all sing from the same hymn sheet.

I don't suppose it is entirely accidental that this decision comes just before the long holiday. In terms of the 'closed door' thing, well.. the negotiations were held behind such doors between high level managers and the first we were aware of what was afoot was after the deal had been done. So now we must try to fight.. but I don't know the potential ramifications of that within a PCT context when the contract has been done.

Sigh. Good ideas there Agnes, I will rally the troops at an upcoming meeting.