Part 5 of the Statement

[Sally44]

In my sons Statement section 5 contains the following diagnoses:-

 

Autism Spectrum Disorder, Auditory Processing Disorder, Speech Disorder, Sensory Processing Disorder, Visual Dysgraphia, Specific Learning Difficulties and Visual Perception Disorder.

 

Should these be listed in section 5?

 

What concerns me is that section 3 does not specify and says things like "local NHS services will be responsible for meeting this need".

 

Am I right in thinking that it is okay for it to be detailed in section 5 as long as it is also covered in section 3?

[Kazzen161]

The LA have no power over the NHS, so they cannot make them provide any services. Anything in Section 5 is not guaranteeed to happen.

[coolblue]

"Part 5 Non-Educational Needs: All relevant non-educational needs of the child as

agreed between the health services, social services or other agencies and

the LEA.

Part 6 Non-Educational Provision: Details of relevant non-educational provision

required to meet the non-educational needs of the child as agreed between

the health services and/or social services and the LEA, including the agreed

arrangements for its provision."

 

Part 3 is supposed to have full details of *educational* needs and provision.

 

cb

[Kathryn]

Am I right in thinking that it is okay for it to be detailed in section 5 as long as it is also covered in section 3?

 

I've seen a few statements where information in part 2 is repeated in part 5 - that's fine. If it bothers you, you could ask the LEA to remove it from part 5, but it makes no difference legally whether it's there or not. What is important, as I'm sure you know, is that all the diagnoses are in part 2 and there's corresponding provision for each of them in part 3. The LEA has to decide what's required : "local NHS services will be responsible for meeting this need". is a cop - out.

 

K x

[Janey]

I have quoted this piece from the Education Act several times to my LA:

 

“S324 (5) (a) (i) states that unless the child's parent has made suitable arrangements, the authority shall arrange that the special educational provision specified in the statement is made for the child.”

 

Anything specified in section 2 as educational provision should be provided by the LA regardless of if it comes from the NHS. In practice this doesn't seem to work as I continually have the argument every year that SALT has not complied. To put intervention in part 5 as non educational seems to relinquish a LA of it's responsibility.

 

Jane

[Kathryn]

There are a couple of bits of caselaw relating to this issue i.e. Statement must make provision for all the special educational provision in part 3 and the LEA cannot leave it up to other bodies.

 

T - v - Hertfordshire CC [2004] EWCA Civ 927 30/6/2004

 

FJ - v - Cambridgeshire CC [2002] EWHC 2391 (Admin)

 

Too lazy to look them up now but I'll have a go if you need them.

 

K x

[Sally44]

Thanks everyone, that is what I thought.

 

As this list is a list of 'medical diagnosis', can I realistically ask for them to be removed from section 5?

 

They are all diagnoses that would impact on his learning and education, so I want to argue that they should all be itemised in section 2 (which they are) with provision on how to meet those needs in section 3 (which they aren't presently).

 

What they have put in section 3 is that professional input in terms of therapy, hours and reviews should be reviewed in line with MEP process and provision of the individual services. That does not fit my interpretation or what you have posted here. It sounds like the LEA is saying that at any time the SALT or OT can decide to reduce hours or even halt the programme altogether.

 

"I have said that I am happy for the content of the therapy programme to be altered as agreed between professionals/school and parents in line with the MEP process, however the actual professional input stated in termly hours of therapy and reviews should only be re-evaluated at the Annual Review as a child with such complex needs is not going to change overnight and there needs to be a consistent programme for the duration of the academic year."

[Karen A]

Thanks everyone, that is what I thought.

 

As this list is a list of 'medical diagnosis', can I realistically ask for them to be removed from section 5?

 

They are all diagnoses that would impact on his learning and education, so I want to argue that they should all be itemised in section 2 (which they are) with provision on how to meet those needs in section 3 (which they aren't presently).

 

What they have put in section 3 is that professional input in terms of therapy, hours and reviews should be reviewed in line with MEP process and provision of the individual services. That does not fit my interpretation or what you have posted here. It sounds like the LEA is saying that at any time the SALT or OT can decide to reduce hours or even halt the programme altogether.

 

"I have said that I am happy for the content of the therapy programme to be altered as agreed between professionals/school and parents in line with the MEP process, however the actual professional input stated in termly hours of therapy and reviews should only be re-evaluated at the Annual Review as a child with such complex needs is not going to change overnight and there needs to be a consistent programme for the duration of the academic year."

 

Hi.

 

They do not need to be removed from 5.We were in a similar situation to yourself.We insisted that provision was included in part three and it was left in part five as well.The main thing is that it is in part three.....in our case it has not stopped the OT attempting to discharge Ben every time we meet,but at least she can't carry out her wish.

.