Getting specific wording on statement

[bluekangaroo]

Any ideas anyone? Ds's proposed statement outlines needs pretty well in part two (only needs minor tweaking). Part three lists lots of provision which if provided would meet needs fairly well (or as well as could be expected in primary mainstream and ds isn't really a candidate for special school). However the problem is all the provision is in vague terms 'Adult support to help X improve organisational skills' 'Pre learning of vocabulary and content of a lesson may be a useful strategy.'

I think school will do their best to implement the provision, but they have only been allocated 15 hours (and ds needs 5 hours of that for non-curriculum support at start of day, break and lunch.)

As the provision almost always just specifies 'adult support for xyz' it is very open to interpretation and I wouldn't have a hope of even knowing exactly what support is needed, let alone whether it had been provided.

 

I spoke to Parent partnership who said LA officer can only lift directly from reports, so if they are vague you need to go back to the authors. So I duly contacted ed psych whose reply was ' I've never been asked to tweak my report and I don't think it is necessary.' 'Statements do not usually specify in detail for each objective in the provision. This allows for flexibility so that support is used where it is most needed.' 'A pot of time is allocated and the IEP and support timetable will provide the detail as to how time is being used.'

 

I was under the impression that with a Statement the LA is supposed to have determined what support is needed and for a statement to be worth the paper it is written on it there needs to be no doubt about exactly what is being provided.

 

We've asked for a meeting with LA, but all advice seems to be I'll need to go to Tribunal. We can just about afford one independent report, but not any legal representation. Anyone have any experience of representing themselves? I fear I will get lost in case law being quoted from the other side (although I do have the standard lists of case law that I've found from IPSEA etc about strength of our argument.)

 

Any advice appreciated

[Sally44]

Yours is the most common problem ever. I had exactly the same myself.

 

What you need to do is go onto www.ace-ed.org.uk and have a look at their SEN link on the left, which takes you to "how to get the Statement right".

 

You are absolutely right. The LA is trying to fob you off. If you go to a Tribunal the Panel will ask those professionals involved to specify in terms or hours.

 

Also have a look on www.ipsea.org.uk and look at their case law examples, where judges have clearly stated that Statements MUST quantify of specify. And because this is "case law" all other Tribunal panels will make the same decision because it is "law".

 

What the LA EP has told you is what the LA tells the EP to do and to tell parents.

 

The LA may not quantify and specify until you go to a Tribunal. Unfortunately Tribunals cannot fine LAs for behaving like this. And the reason LAs do this is that only a small percentage of parents take it to a Tribunal. So it saves the LA money and those parents are left with a weak Statement that is not worth the paper it is written on.

 

Just stick to your ground. Find the case law studies on IPSEA and send a copy of it to the EP and ask her to quantify and specify in terms of hours of support, staffing arrangements and professional input.

 

My son's Statement is VERY specific. As well as quantifying the hours everyone has to provide, it also states that all professionals involved will attend IEPs and the Annual Review and will also produce up to date reports using standardised assessments so that progress can be monitored.

 

It is true that the Statement is basically a cut and paste job of the reports. That is why the LA and NHS provide woolly reports.

 

If the LA does not amend the Statement [and make sure you put all your requests in writing and type up any telephone calls or meetings], then ask them to finalise the Statement so that you can lodge an appeal. Then make sure you do lodge an appeal within the timescale required. The LA can decide to amend the Statement right up to the start of the actual Tribunal hearing. However, it may still be useful for you to attend the Tribunal to see how things work incase you need to go to another one some years later. It is all a learning curve.

 

The best reports are independent ones using professionals that have experience of writing reports for Tribunals [because those professionals will quantify and specify] and who also have experience of attending as expert witnesses [incase you need them to attend to back up their report]. But they are costly, and IF you are going to spend money, the best time is in preparation for the transfer to secondary school - so that you can secure the right kind of school.

 

If your child is mainstream and not MLD, then you may find that she does not cope in the mainstream environment and may need to go to an independent ASD specific school. They are out there, and most LA's are paying fees for a number of children to go to them. Our son is now placed at such a school, but he had to deteriorate to such an extent that he was out of school for 11 months, diagnosed with a further anxiety disorder and OCD [as well as dyslexia, ASD, Dyspraxia and Sensory processing Disorder].

 

If you decide to go to Tribunal now [which is advisable]. You can ask the LA EP and the NHS SALT to attend as your expert witnesses [or if the LA asks them to be their witnesses the Tribunal Panel can still ask them questions about the level of support your child needs]. You would need to support all documentary evidence of your child's needs from any correspondence or meetings, SALT or EP reports or programmes or targets, IEP targets and School Reports.

 

It would be helpful to get something in writing from the school stating that she needs support during breaktimes, as well as during lessons. If you have a SALT report that shows the level of speech and communication difficulties that would also suggest that if they are significant [and they usually have to be to even get a diagnosis in the first place] this would mean she would need support during lessons because she isn't automatically going to get it as the other kids do. Her work may need differentiating to a higher degree, it may need ASD friendly approaches such as TEACCH, the SALT may need to advise the class teacher and train the TA and liaise with family and home. This should all be detained in the Statement. If it isn't in the Statement it won't happen.

 

Any wording such as "access to" "opportunities for" "as necessary" "when required" "significantly more" "regular" mean nothing. My son's first Statement said that he needed access to the specialist teaching service when required. He was never referred to them because his school said they had no concerns [eventhough he has ASD and dyslexia/dyscalculia]. And I could do nothing about it due to the wording. The new Statement now details that a specialist dyslexia teacher, qualified to level 7 [to both teach and assess] will deliver one hour of 1:1 teaching 3 times a week in school. She will advise the teacher on how to deliver ALL his work in a way that is accessible to him. She will laising and co-teach with the class teacher. She will train the TA. She will keep weekly contact with parents to laise with them. She will attend all meetings related to my son [school meetings, IEPs, Annual Review] and she will assess him using standardised assessments to monitor progress. If that does not happen I can use Judicial Review.

 

Those two links i've posted should also have alot of advice.

 

Do you also have a copy of the SEN Code of Practice and the SEN Tool Kit? If not you can download it from the top of the Educational Forum page under educational publications.

 

Please don't doubt that you are absolutely right. Try to get those professionals to quantify and specify.

 

On the ipsea website it very clearly states that "flexibility" is supposed to be for the benefit of the child, not the benefit of the school. Ie. it SHOULD specify. To make a Statement specific, yet flexible it could state something like "xxxxx will receive 9 hours per term of 1:1 direct therapy from a suitably qualified SALT who has experience of working with children with a diagnosis of ASD." The fact that you have detailed the hours "per term" allows for flexibility of either the SALT or your child being ill or not engaging. Those hours could then be carried forward to the next session and in that way your child does not lose any input due to absenses.

 

You can also ask the SALT what amount of time they would need per term to laise with school and home, train the TA, observe and take notes, adjust the SALT targets, attend IEPs, oversee a social communication group in school [i bet she hasn't even assessed her social communication/interaction skills?] etc.

 

Ideally you also need baseline assessments using standardised assessments. Did the SALT or EP use them? If you have these baseline assessments you can measure progress more accurately because skills are measured using percentiles or standard scores. And the reason measurable progress is SO important is because when you can demonstrate that progress is not being made you can see further professional input/remediation or a different type of school that can meet those needs and can produce progress. And progress is academic, social, communication, emotional, behavioural, sensory etc.

 

Remember that the LA will just keep saying black is white until you are blue in the face. So look again at the reports you have, then speak to each individual professional. Then follow that up with a letter to them detailing what you said and what they said and ask them to quantify and specify as per the SEN Code of Practice and case law. Then lodge your appeal and decide if you are going to ask for those professionals to attend the Tribunal [and if they refuse you can ask SEND to supena them]. Or whether you think it is worth getting professional reports at this stage. If you do decide to do that, find out who you are going to use; and their reports should be submitted to send just before the deadline for submitting evidence for the Tribunal. The reason for that is that IF you have reports done now, it allows the LA enough time to have your child re-assessed again before the Tribunal which would make their reports the most up to date ones. You don't want that. You want your independent reports to be the most indepth and up to date reports when going to Tribunal because the Tribunal Panel will pay most attention to the most recent reports.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Sally44

[Sally44]

The Parent Partnership are also being very 'vague'. What they are saying is true. But the LA can ask the EP to quantify and specify - and they should do that anyway.

 

The problem with the PP is that they are not independent. They are employed by the LA - the same people you are trying to get to provide support for your child, which costs the LA money. The PP know that the Statement should quantify and specify. Ask them if they have a copy of the SEN Code of Practice. They will have. And it states that in the Code of Practice.

[bluekangaroo]

Are the LA likely to argue that they have 'detailed provision' for each need as per code of practice 8.36 - because for each need it does say 'adult support for.....' and then they've given an overall total of 15 hours of provision. Will that meet requirement of 8.37 'Provision should be quantified'

 

Or at least is that what they are going to tell me when I quote the code of practice at them?

 

In a way I'm quite looking forward to challenging them - to get provision that ds needs, but also to make the point that it is wrong that the LA thinks they can get away with vague statements and fobbing parents off with loose interpretations of the law.

[Sally44]

15 hours of total overall provision is not specific enough.

 

In my son's Statement it says how many hours are dedicated for:

 

1:1 speech and language therapy of xxx hours a week.

The Social Communication Group which is run by the SALT for a group session [states size of group of no more than 3 other children] of 45 mins a week.

It also states where and how the SALT will be involved eg. in 1:1 sessions, in class, co-teach, train, liaise, school trips, playground, breaktimes and dinnertimes. It also states she will attend school meetings, IEPs [and provide targets for IEPs], Annual Review [and will provide up to date report using standardised assessments].

[This level of provision was quantified and specified in my independent SALT report].

1:1 direct OT Sensory Integration Programme of xxx hours a week delivered by a suitably qualified OT.

A motor co-ordination programme devised and reviewed/monitored by the OT but delivered by a trained TA in both the classroom, PE lessons, playtimes etc. The OT also accompanies the class for swimming lessons.

Sensory Diet, use of OT equipment which is also loaned to home.

Again the same requirements of attending all meetings etc.

1:1 direct teaching from a level 7 dyslexia teacher for 1 hour 3 times a week [which is actually very little, but we felt this could realistically be provided as at the time of the Tribunal he was not even in school - and he will be attending each day until after dinnertime after the half term break.

Teacher has to liaise and co-teach with teacher, train TA, and all the other admin side and attending meetings etc.

The school has to have provision of pscyhology or mental health professional. Which they do, and who will be involved and laise directly with CAHMS [who will provide a programme for both home and school].

 

The LA may say they have detailed provison. But the Tribunal Panel will not be happy with that. Look on ipsea website for specific case law. If it is a general "15 hours" how will you know that any of the provision in the Statement has been provided eg. how many hours are for SALT therapy? When it is all quantified and specified, it may become very clear that 15 hours is not enough.

 

I would ask each professional "how much time", but it is not just 15 hours of TA support in school. What about direct 1:1 speech therapy. Has the SALT said your child needs this? [What did her report say your child's needs were and are her difficulties moderate, severe etc. The more complex and severe the more a "suitable professional" should deliver the programme and not just a TA. How will the TA be trained? How will the SALT monitor progress [termly in school reviews and also standardised assessments to produce an up to date Annual Review report? How will SALT targets for IEPs be decided?

 

What you really need, as well as the provision to be quantified and specified, is to know from where we are measuring progress from. If you have no idea, how can you prove that no progress has been made. Lack of progress is one of the "major" arguments at Tribunal when you are seeking extra input or a different placement.

 

We argued that my son had not made progress. We had had independent reports in 2006 that detailed he knew 20 high frequency words. In 2011 his school report said he previously knew 4 and now knew 10. We argued that that demonstrated that after 5 years in school he now knew half the words he knew in reception year. The school could not argue against that because it is FACT. If we did not have that information I could not have made that argument.

 

The same for his speech disorder. In 2009 my son was assessed independently using standardised assessments which stated he had a "moderate/severe" speech disorder. The NHS cherry picked certain assessments and came with scores of 14 and 15 [where 8-13 is average]. So I asked the same SALT to use the same assessments again in 2011. These showed that in 2 years he had deteriorated/not made progress and now had a severe/profound speech disorder and was totally unsuitable for a mainstream school.

 

The independent EP also carried out standardised assessments that proved he had severe dyslexia/dyscalculia. That he was around average cognitive ability, but with severe specific learning difficulties, a severe/profound speech disorder, Sensory Processing Disorder, Dyspraxia, Dysgraphia etc etc. He also visited my sons current placement [eventhough he wasn't even attending at that stage], and stated that he agreed that our parental choice of school was the ONLY one that could meet his needs.

 

I also did alot of research into what the school/LA could provide because at the Tribunal the LA will turn up with the Head or SENCO, and maybe the EP and they will all state that they will meet your child's needs. I wrote to the specialist teaching department and asked "how many specialist teachers do you have, and how many of them have an additional qualification over the standard teaching qualification for ASD, and are any of them trained to level 7 to teach and assess children with Dyslexia.

 

The Head of the department wrote back and said that "NONE" of the staff had any additional qualifications. She also stated that her staff did not even go into my son's school because they were supposed to have that expertise on site. So I wrote to the school, asking the same questions, and they too confirmed they had no-one with these qualifications.

 

At theTribunal the Panel are looking for "suitably qualified" people to be meeting the needs of the child. The LA again said that they would meet his dyslexia needs. I had submitted all this evidence in the Bundle, and reminded the Panel that "pages xx and xx of the bundle confirm that both the school and the LA do not have anyone suitably qualified to meet his needs." So the Panel asked for clarification, and the LA then confirmed that to meet those needs they would have to "buy it in". That led onto my further argument that his needs were not being delivered in a cohesive way. That there was no multi team meetings or joint planning that was essential for my child who needed those professionals on site and employed by the school so that they COULD DELIVER HIS PROVISION FLEXIBLY." Professionals never met eachother, did not dovetail approaches or strategies. They often contradicted eachother, and certain recommendations were never met even years later. And I had specific evidence of all of this.

 

If all the provision is "add-on" how can it be delivered flexibly. If the SALT drives for 45 minutes to the school to find my son is not at all cooperative, she has to leave and come again next week. Also what happens if one of the staff is off ill, what if my son is having a bad day and needs extra time with the OT, what if the specialist teacher wants to work with the class teacher to deliver a lesson that is longer than the required 1 hour etc. What if the SALT comes into school and the TA is not there and she needs to train the TA on the next part of the programme. If those professionals are all employed and on site, this is where the provision is flexible FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD. My son was already out of school. If he had a bad day and that was not addressed at that time he could become extremely anxious again and refuse school. It could take months to get him back into school. Where he is now, they can remove him from the class. Allow him time in the swing/sensory room. He has a specific TA that could take him for a walk, or give him 15 minutes on his Nintendo or playing with Lego to help him calm down. That kind of flexibility cannot be delivered in a mainstream placement.

 

My independent SALT also told me that the Tribunal Panel will NEVER recommend that a child is placed in a school that they are currently refusing to attend. And that is what the Panel decided in our case. They said that after 11 months it was not realistic to consider that he would suddenly agree to attend that school. He was now in year 6 and if he remained at that mainstream primary school, it would mean a further change in 9 months to a much larger maintained secondary school. And if he was not coping with the primary version, he definately would not cope with the larger and more demanding secondary version.

 

Try to get as much specific information as you can. How much support does the TA have to provide currently. How is your child supported during breaktimes etc. How much time is specifically for SALT therapy or targets. Do they include a Social Communication and emotional literacy programme [if not they have not identified all her needs]. etc etc.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Sally44

[Sally44]

Another thing that I used was the Freedom of Information Act. I asked the school, each LA department, the NHS SALT and OT and Clinical Psychology and my GP to provide me with all paper and electronic records they had about my son.

 

I timed it so that I got all this information about 10 months before the actual tribunal date. I found some very interesting documents and file notes there that I submitted as part of my evidence. You do have to word the letter correctly, and you do have to pay £50 for each search. So £50 each to the school, LA, and each different hospital or NHS trust you have to write to.

 

Just don't forewarn anyone that you may use this as they will start being very careful what they write down or email eachother.

[bluekangaroo]

Thanks Sally44 - It sounds like you are very familiar with fighting the system.

We do have quite a lot of standardised test results (done by NHS neuropsych late last year) and when LA have done the standard brief SALT assessment in school we'll get our own report done.

At the moment we're not arguing for a change of school - we're saving that argument for secondary transfer (and most of our financial resources for then.)

Hopefully with all the advice I've managed to gather up we should be able to make the case quite well ourselves.

Unfortunately we're short on professional advice re quantified provision. None of LA /NHS people made any quantified suggestions and ed psych has refused to do that even though I asked. No doubt if now forced to quantify will say ds only needs very limited support although as the final line of her report did get as far as 'x needs a high level of adult support' that might look a bit fishy!!

[Sally44]

Then I would just get the case law examples from the ipsea website about local authorities having to quantify and specify [there was one local authority where they were ordered to amend ALL the Statements they had made because they had not quantified or specified in them. Also case law about ambiguity and having to be specific to know if the provision within the Statement is being provided. Case law about flexibility etc.

 

Check the wording of the Statement to highlight all the vague and ambiguous wording it contains. Photocopy the page from the SEN Code of Practice that states the Statement must quantify and specify.

 

Negotiate with the LA by writing to them and asking them to amend. You can ask for a meeting with them too if you want [but be careful what you say because they will be fishing for information. Don't agree to anything. If they suggest anything say you will think about it. If they ask you "what do you want", say "it is not about what we want, it is about the Statement containing all our child's needs in part 2 and for provision to meet each of those needs to be quantified and specified in the Statement. If you are unsure as to how to do that you can contact your own EP and the NHS SALT and ask them to specify so that you can include it in the Statement." Always bat the ball back to them. They know what they are doing.

 

Then if it comes back and is still not watertight, then ask the LA to finalise the Statement so that you can lodge an appeal with SEND.

 

Then start preparing your case.

 

If you do end up at the Tribunal, it will be a good experience for you to see what you achieve with the information you have, and if you don't get everything into the Statement you will know why that was, and will be able to cover yourself for the next time.

 

In 2009 the LA bought the Deputy Head and the LA EP and they all stated that they would do whatever it took to meet my son's needs. They agreed [5 minutes into the actual Tribunal], with all our findings and recommendations in our reports. The Tribunal Panel asked me if I would be happy to go into a separate room and finalise the wording as they said the provision would be put in place sooner than going through the whole Tribunal and then waiting for the Decision. I agreed to do that.

 

That was a huge mistake. I agreed to wording that was ambiguous because I did not think that the school would refuse to refer him and yet still claim he had "access to" professionals if and when needed - but they never thought he needed it and so was never referred!

 

I also did not think that the LA or school or EP would lie. But they did. They said they would do things that they never provided.

 

So, even if the LA do concede at the beginning of your Tribunal [if you have one], I would recommend that you say to the Panel that the wording in the Statement is not specific and is not legally binding and does not quantify and specify [that should be stated when you lodge your appeal], and that want the Tribunal Panel to decide the wording of the Statement.

 

You're on the right track.

[Sally44]

This is just a sample from the ipsea website.

 

Remember that once there has been a Judgement on a set question, all other SEN Tribunals have to fall in line with that Judgement until that judgement is challenged. And the outcome of that challenge/appeal will be either to continue with the same interpretation of the law or agree a different interpretation. And if there is a different interpretation of the law that can be counter challenged etc. So whatever is case law at the time is what SEND Tribunals use.

 

http://www.ipsea.org...nt/html/?fid=47

 

The judgement i've pasted below is VERY important because many LA's argue that they don't need to specify so that they can allow flexibility. This case is very specific in saying that the flexibility is supposed to be for the benefit of the child and not the system [ie. the school/LA/NHS etc].

 

For example one of my son's SALT wanted to change the weekly 1:1 therapy she delivered for an hour, to become once a fortnight because she said "it is not a good use of the LA's resources for me to have to travel this distance every week." I asked her to put that request in writing and to tell me how this flexibility was benefitting my son? I said it was unlikely that he would benefit from a fortnightly 2 hour session with the SALT. She dropped my son from her caseload, and another SALT took over and continued the weekly hourly 1:1 sessions. So flexibility is for the CHILD.

 

E v Newham London Borough Council and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal [2003] EWCA Civ 09

EAs often seek to rely on that decision to argue generally that provision for a child at a special school should not be specified or quantified. However, the obligation still remains to specify and quantify provision, except where there are good reasons not to do so. Merely attending a special school is not a sufficient reason not to specify provision and "flexibility" must be something that the child needs. As the Court of Appeal said in a case brought by IPSEA, (R (on the application of IPSEA Ltd) v Secretary of State for Education and Skills) [2003] ELR 393): "any flexibility built into the statement must be there to meet the needs of the child, and not the needs of the system."

Edited February 16, 2012 by Sally44

[Sally44]

I would still put your request in writing to each professional asking them to quantify and specify as per the code of practice.

 

Submit those letters and their response, if any, [always end your letters asking for a response within 14 days] as part of your evidence for the Appeal. Those letters prove that you asked them to specify and they refused. That makes the Panel suspicious of the LA and it's intensions and it makes the Panel aware that the LA are trying to get out of quantifying and specifying provision.

 

You cannot rely on any 'verbal' evidence. Only on what you have on paper. So from now on always make sure you write notes, send letters asking for information and always send in a clarification letter after a telephone call eg. Thank you for your telephone call today when you informed me that the LA does not need to quantify and specify the SALT input in terms of hours because you stated it is not an educational need." etc

Edited February 16, 2012 by Sally44

[Sally44]

Did the NHS Neuropsych write a report that identified all the needs, and did they quantify and specify provision to meet those needs?

 

The problem with any professional that works for the NHS is that they may not be experienced in Tribunals and writing reports for them. As you have said yourself. The EP and maybe NHS SALT have not quantified and specified. That is what you need in the report.

 

The reason this is often not done is because IF the provision is over what is typically delivered then the LA has to fund it either by buying it in from the NHS or from an independent professional.

 

Many NHS professionals don't even know this. They don't know about the legal requirements of a Statement. They don't quantify and specify to the NEEDS OF THE CHILD. They often quantify and specify TO WHAT THEIR SERVICE CAN DELIVER. Which is not the same thing.

 

There is no monetary limit on what a Statement can provide. So when the LA/School/NHS say xxxx is not possible, we don't have the speech therapists, we don't deliver this type of programme or approach etc it is irrelevant. If that is detailed as a provision to meet a need in a professionals report, that is what SEND is looking to get included in the Statement.

 

If there are disagreements about what the child needs, then that is when you need your independent witnesses with you at the Tribunal to give evidence on their report.

 

At our Tribunal the Panel called the expert witnesses together eg. my EP and the LA EP to both give evidence. As it turned out all the professionals were in agreement. It was simply the LA and school that were arguing that we had over exaggerated his difficulties. But I had recordings, DVD evidence, the Clinical Psychologist and the CAHMS psychiatrist all on our side - as well as my independent SALT, OT and EP.

 

I had a CAHMS psychiatrist who wrote some brilliant reports/letters about my child. However she had no understanding that only the Statement is a legally binding document. She kept saying "I am a healthcare consultant. If I say a child needs x, y and z, they will get it." No they don't. The Consultant can't make the NHS or the LA or the school do what she recommends. For example she said he needed a sensory programme. But the NHS OT service said they do not provide it. Which they don't. But the fact that she had recommended that, and my independent OT had also recommended a Sensory Integration Programme for his Sensory Processing Disorder, and also a programme for his Dyspraxia meant that those recommendations were incorporated by the Tribunal Panel into the Statement. So whatever is recommended must be in a report that is then submitted as part of an Appeal, then her recommendations can be included in the Statement and then they become legally binding on the LA to provide it and fund it.

 

I had to put quite alot of pressure on this consultant to write a letter stating that my son had an Anxiety Disorder. She thought that to have it on his medical records was enough. It wasn't. Getting that diagnosis in writing was the final nail in the coffin for the LA and school who kept on stating that he was making progress. They said it again at the Tribunal. My SALT pointed out that he had not made any academic progress [infact knew less words than in reception year]; that he had deteriorated from a moderate/severe to severe/profound speech disorder. The SENCO then stated "but progress does not just have to be academic progress." Which I agreed, but then pointed out that he had been out of school for 11 months due to extreme anxiety and serious self harm behaviours and now had been diagnosed with an Anxiety Disorder. So there was no progress at all, not academic, speech, social, sensory, emotional. Even the Tribunal Panel asked the SENCO to clarify where she thought he had made progress. And the SENCO could not produce anything to demonstrate progress.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Sally44

[wasuup]

Hiya

 

I have been following this topic have an upcoming tribunal re wording in a couple of weeks. I did write to the NHS professionals asking for more specific/quantified advice. Both the SALT and the OT seemed to think their advice was non educational (obviously I know it's not - however I am just a parent and they haven't listened to me explaining this to them) and basically have written it for part 5 and don't seem to think they need to adjust it for the educational part of the statement? Any advice anyone to anything I can say to the tribunal in regard to this as all evidence is now in apart from the LEA's working document. Also if I don't recieve the LEA's working document within the 10 working days before the tribunal date, can I ask the tribunal to strike the LEA's oppossing arguments out and to go along with ordering that my working document be put in place?