Annual review up the creek

[UltraMum]

I'll try to be concise ... Bear with me

 

J's annual review was on 15th May - He had SALT written into his statement after a long battle last year and has had three terms. This was what was recomended in the report by the NHS SALT - three terms in the first instance, and then to be reviewed.

 

Statement reads as follows:

 

The Local Education Authority will fund a Speech and Language Therapist to work with a teacher from the Service for Pupils with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder to design and monitor a Social Use of Language Programme tailored and implemented to meet Jonathan?s very specific needs. Jonathan will receive a total of six visits per term to monitor and review his progress with this Programme. The Service for Pupils with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder will provide support to plan the transfer of Jonathan?s newly learnt social skills into a small group and classroom situation. This provision will be made for a period of three terms in accordance with the recommendations of the Speech and Language Therapist.

 

At the meeting the school, the EP, ourselves, an independent SALT and the autism family support worker all said that it was necessary to continue this provision. The SALT who gad been working with him suggested to contnue in a consultative role with implementation of the programme by LSA's - which is basically what has been happening anyway and J has made great progress

 

The school wrote their report and recommended that SALT be continued.

 

Got a letter from the LEA 20th June saying that they will maintain the statement - great - has J's Birthday party and didn't think much more about it ... then thought twice and sent this letter:

 

Thank you for your letter dated 20th June 2006, indicating that the LEA do not consider it necessary to make any changes to J's statement of SEN at this time after considering the Statutory Review report from the school. This report, however, only notes the LSA provision on the first page and makes no reference to level of Speech and Language provision.

 

We should appreciate confirmation that the Speech and Language therapy provision from the original statement will be continued as J moves into Year 6. Both we and the school wish to see the support continued into Year 6. We are concerned that there is no misunderstanding about this as the original Statement (page 6) reads:

 

The Local Education Authority will fund a Speech and Language Therapist to work with a teacher from the Service for Pupils with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder to design and monitor a Social Use of Language Programme tailored and implemented to meet J's very specific needs. Jonathan will receive a total of six visits per term to monitor and review his progress with this Programme. The Service for Pupils with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder will provide support to plan the transfer of J's newly learnt social skills into a small group and classroom situation. This provision will be made for a period of three terms in accordance with the recommendations of the Speech and Language Therapist.

 

We are concerned that the Statement, read in conjunction with your letter, could imply that the Speech and Language Therapy will cease at the end of the three terms (i.e. the end of Year 5) and not be continued into Year 6.

Thank you for your time. We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Got a letter this morning - not going to continue with the SALT despite the recommendations

 

So ... sorry this is so long - WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

 

The statement hasn't been amended so we can't appeal to SENDIST

We could ask for a re-assessment - but by the time that's been dragged out then J will be nearly at the end of Y6

 

Anyone any ideas???

 

I'm ringing IPSEA once I've delivered him to his Autism Youth Club

Edited July 19, 2006 by MotherEve

[phasmid]

Ask them for an explanation!

 

Why have they bothered to employ or consult experts in ASDs as a part of the statement review procedure if they are simply going to ignore what said experts advise? Depending on the answer either, thank them for the continuation of the SALT or, tell them you are appealing the statement provision in light of the experts recommended course of action. If you don't get through to IPSEA first time....keep trying until you do!

[UltraMum]

Thanks Phas - got through to IPSEA eventually - one strongly worded letter to the LEA coming up!

 

The snag is that we cannot appeal to SENDIST - as I thought may be the case - as the statement was finalised in July 2005 and the LEA have made no alterations but maintained it. The snag is thah the wording didn't include "in the first instance" or "initially"

 

Parents can't ask for amendments ... - got to look at 'duty of care' and the LEA deciding to ignore all the expert advice.

 

Off to compose the letter now - may wait till the promised phone call from the LEA to send it or may strike while the iron's hot - probably the latter

[lisa]

I'm sure you must be able to appeal the content as the LEA are effectively changing the statement by refusing to continue SALT provision despite professional advice. The LEA are basically saying that although he needs SALT they're not going to pay for it and that's illegal. At the review you can ask for changes and if the LEA refuse you have the right of appeal surely??

 

Lisa

[UltraMum]

I'm sure you must be able to appeal the content as the LEA are effectively changing the statement by refusing to continue SALT provision despite professional advice. The LEA are basically saying that although he needs SALT they're not going to pay for it and that's illegal. At the review you can ask for changes and if the LEA refuse you have the right of appeal surely??

 

That's the problem with the sneaky wording ... - they are not changing the statement and so the 'three terms' bit means that that's it - it finishes - we can only appeal if they amend the statement. No right of appeal if they don't do as you ask - the school etc makes a recommendation based on the review meeting but the LEA can blatantly ignore it if they feel like doing so ...

 

They didn't reckon they'd be tangling with me though - - I'm raring to go and battle it out with them . This is my son they're doing the dirty on ....

[bramblebrae]

That's the problem with the sneaky wording ... - they are not changing the statement and so the 'three terms' bit means that that's it - it finishes - we can only appeal if they amend the statement. No right of appeal if they don't do as you ask - the school etc makes a recommendation based on the review meeting but the LEA can blatantly ignore it if they feel like doing so ...

 

They didn't reckon they'd be tangling with me though - - I'm raring to go and battle it out with them . This is my son they're doing the dirty on ....

 

 

I'm confused it dosen't make any sense that there is no right to appeal if they don't alter statement - for instance say a child has statement and parents school everyone is happy with it and its set in motion so to speak then 1 year on for whatever reasons said childs needs are far greater at end of the year - can the lea just leave statement as is and not provide the obviously much needed higher resourced statement - surely if this were to happen the parents or school even can go to somewhere other than the LEA to appeal - oh that is where whole new application would come in maybe I just realised but still if everyone can see its needed having to reapply is just a waste of everyones time and money not to mention the child going without the adequate support- thats an appauling(sp?) situation.

 

I hope the school or someone can make the LEA see sense and not put you through the whole statementing thing again!

 

good luck

Lorraine

[phasmid]

They ARE NOT maintianing the statement though. They have altered it from the moment they have removed the SALT provision specified in last years review. That IS a change.

 

Challenge it. On this occasion I beleive IPSEA may be wrong.

[smallworld]

Hi Eve,

It's very sneaky and the sneakiness starts with the statement not the review, I am really cynical for thinking that the LEA deliberately missed mentioning a review of the SALT provision after the 3 months in this statement ? ( a review was recommended by the NHS Salt according to your post ? )

 

After our own experience of something far minor following our son's last review, I really do think that the LEA will try to weedle out of anything they possibly can

 

I hope you get a result,

 

wac

Edited July 5, 2006 by waccoe

[UltraMum]

I'm confused it dosen't make any sense that there is no right to appeal if they don't alter statement - for instance say a child has statement and parents school everyone is happy with it and its set in motion so to speak then 1 year on for whatever reasons said childs needs are far greater at end of the year - can the lea just leave statement as is and not provide the obviously much needed higher resourced statement - surely if this were to happen the parents or school even can go to somewhere other than the LEA to appeal - oh that is where whole new application would come in maybe I just realised blink.gif but still if everyone can see its needed having to reapply is just a waste of everyones time and money not to mention the child going without the adequate support- thats an appauling(sp?) situation.

 

I hope the school or someone can make the LEA see sense and not put you through the whole statementing thing again!

 

good luck

Lorraine

 

 

It looks like this is a very handy loophole for LEAs - I checked this out at ACE too:

http://www.ace-ed.org.uk/advice/booklets/AnnualReview.html

 

The headteacher must make a report to the LEA. This may recommend changes. The report must say if the views of anyone at the meeting were not the same as the Head?s views. The SEN Code says changes to the statement are likely to be recommended if:

 

• important new evidence has come out and this is not on the statement
• major difficulties described in the statement are no longer present
• different help is needed to meet your child's changing needs and new targets
• your child should change school.

You will receive a copy of the recommendations the headteacher makes to the LEA. The headteacher should tell the LEA if there were different views at the meeting. If you disagree with the recommendations or you want to add further information or views, you could write to the LEA giving full reasons for your views. You could also ask for an interim review to check the help being given if you are unsure about it. (See page 2.)

 

 

Step 11: the LEA decides

 

 

The LEA will decide whether to make any changes to the statement after reading the head?s report. The LEA can decide to:

 

• amend(change) the statement
• leave the statement unchanged
• cease to maintain (end) a statement.

If the LEA decides to change the statement they must send you a copy of that decision within one week of the end of the review.

 

You have the right of appeal if the LEA amends the statement and you disagree with any part of it (not only the amendments), or if the LEA decides to cease to maintain the statement. You cannot appeal if the LEA decides to make no changes. In that situation you may need to ask for a reassessment of your child?s needs if you think your child?s needs have changed.

 

 

Catch 22 - J's needs haven't changed

 

However it goes on to say:

It might also be worth getting legal advice to see if the LEA?s lack of action could be challenged in the courts if, for example everyone at the review meeting thought a change was needed.

 

 

They ARE NOT maintaining the statement though. They have altered it from the moment they have removed the SALT provision specified in last years review. That IS a change.

 

Challenge it. On this occasion I beleive IPSEA may be wrong.

 

I think Waccoe's right .. the sneakiness stems from the original statement - they are actually maintaining the original statement ... just that the SALT provision stops after three terms... and they haven't followed the recommendations

 

Hi Eve,

It's very sneaky and the sneakiness starts with the statement not the review, I am really cynical for thinking that the LEA deliberately missed mentioning a review of the SALT provision after the 3 months in this statement ? ( a review was recommended by the NHS Salt according to your post ? )

 

After our own experience of something far minor following our son's last review, I really do think that the LEA will try to weedle out of anything they possibly can

 

I hope you get a result,

 

wac

 

Bet they're rubbing their hands with glee soon be smiling on the other side of their face - who knows it may become a famous case!

Edited July 5, 2006 by MotherEve

[smallworld]

I reckon the review after 3 months should have been written into the statement.

"and they haven't followed the recommendations" - there's a surprise

Get writing and let us know when you're in the paper !

Go get em,

 

wac

[UltraMum]

just checking my 'notes' from the meeting - still feel like swinging for the ASD team member ... then remembering how I informed the LEA officer that they were legally required to issue the transition statement by 15th February next year ... she didn't know! - that rearranged the whole review cycle!

[UltraMum]

Here's the first draft of the letter ... any comments/recommendations greatfully accepted!

 

 

Dear Mrs xxxxxxxxx,

 

We are in receipt of your letter dated 3rd July 2006 informing us that the LEA will not be extending J's Social Use of Language Programme beyond the end of this term.

 

The recommendation of the Speech and Language Therapist (report of Mrs xxxxxx dated 25-04-06) was that J was likely to need this level of support for at least three terms, followed by a review of the situation and new recommendations as necessary.

 

J's needs, as identified in the Statement have not changed. He has made some progress towards his objectives with the support that has been in place but has yet to achieve any major social goals. We see no evidence that any of his major difficulties, described in the statement, which necessitated the provision of Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) in the first place, are no longer present. All the professionals present at the Annual Review meeting were of the opinion that provision of SALT had benefited J and that for his progress to continue this provision also needed to be continued. The level of provision was reviewed at the end of the meeting and all agreed that it remained appropriate.

 

Please could you identify for us in what way you consider Js needs have materially changed so that Speech and Language Therapy provision is no longer required. We fail to understand how the LEA has judged J's needs have altered.

 

One of the targets agreed at Jonathan's Annual review was for him to "continue with his Speech and Language Programme" (Target 4). All the professionals concerned at the meeting, including the Council's own Educational Psychologist, strongly supported this target. We fail to understand how it can be construed as reasonable that the LEA appears to be ignoring the advice of its own Educational Psychologist by effectively withdrawing the provision to meet this target.

 

We have sought legal advice from IPSEA on this matter. We are concerned that the Council may have breached its common law duty of care to J by failing to make the necessary provision for his identified Special Educational Needs. It is possible that the Statement may require amendment to clarify the issue of provision.

 

Every Child Matters - got to stick something in about this somewhere and the 'aims'

 

J's Annual Review meeting was held on May 17th 2006. You stated in your letter of 20th June 2006 that the LEA considered whether any changes to the Statement were needed as a result of the review report from the school. We fail to understand how the LEA can receive a report that states that the current level of provision is still appropriate to meet J's needs and then remove part of that provision. We should appreciate an explanation of how this decision was arrived at.

[phasmid]

Flat out busy tonight with parents evening, if you can bear with me I'll comment later or poddibly in the morning. In the meantime I'm sure others will chip in with suggestions for you.

[phasmid]

Hi MotherEve, letter is brilliant. I would suggest one minor change from this:

 

Please could you identify for us in what way you consider Js needs have materially changed so that Speech and Language Therapy provision is no longer required. We fail to understand how the LEA has judged J's needs have altered.

 

One of the targets agreed at Jonathan's Annual review was for him to "continue with his Speech and Language Programme" (Target 4). All the professionals concerned at the meeting, including the Council's own Educational Psychologist, strongly supported this target. We fail to understand how it can be construed as reasonable that the LEA appears to be ignoring the advice of its own Educational Psychologist by effectively withdrawing the provision to meet this target.

 

To this

 

One of the targets agreed at Jonathan's Annual review was for him to "continue with his Speech and Language Programme" (Target 4). All the professionals in attendence at the meeting, including the your own Educational Psychologist, strongly supported this target. We fail to understand how, therefore, that the LEA can construe as reasonable that the LEA appears to be ignoring the advice of its own Educational Psychologist by withdrawing the provision to meet this target. Please could you identify for us in what way you consider Js needs have materially changed so that Speech and Language Therapy provision is no longer required. We fail to understand how the LEA has judged J's needs have altered.

[UltraMum]

Hi MotherEve, letter is brilliant. I would suggest one minor change

 

Wow Phas - that's excellent! Thanks a lot

 

Here's the text of the final draft - D's just reading over it...

Dear Mrs Xxxxxxxx,

 

We are in receipt of your letter dated 3rd July 2006 informing us that the LEA will not be extending J's Social Use of Language Programme beyond the end of this term. We have sought legal advice from IPSEA on this issue. We have several points that we wish to raise regarding this matter.

 

� We are concerned that the Council may have breached its common law duty of care to J by failing to make the necessary provision for his identified Special Educational Needs.

 

� It is probable that the Statement requires amendment to clarify the issue of provision.

 

� The lack of Speech and Language Therapy is likely to cause injustice to J because it will restrict his progress in education and mean that one of his most significant special needs is not properly addressed and provided for by the LEA.

 

We address these points in greater detail below:

 

• The recommendation of the Speech and Language Therapist (report of Mrs Xxxxxxxx dated 25-04-06) was that J was likely to need this level of support for at least three terms, followed by a review of the situation and new recommendations as necessary. The situation was reviewed at the Annual Review and the recommendation was made that the provision continue. The LEA seems to have ignored this recommendation.

J's Annual Review meeting was held on May 17th 2006. You stated in your letter of 20th June 2006 that the LEA had considered whether any changes to the Statement were needed as a result of the review report from the school. We fail to understand how the LEA can receive a report that states that the current level of provision is still appropriate to meet J's needs and then remove part of that provision. We should appreciate an explanation of how this decision was arrived at.

 

• J's Special Educational Needs, as identified in the Statement have not changed. He has made some progress towards his objectives with the support that has been in place but has yet to achieve any key social objectives. We see no evidence that any of his major difficulties described in the statement, which necessitated the provision of Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) in the first place, are no longer present. All those present at the Annual Review meeting were of the opinion that provision of SALT had benefited J and that for his progress to continue this provision also needed to be continued. The level of provision was reviewed towards the end of the meeting and all present agreed that it remained appropriate. A Special Needs Officer from the LEA was present at this meeting and did not disagree with this conclusion during the meeting, nor did she raise any concerns about the targets that were set at this review (see 4 below), which involved the continuation of the Social Use of Language Programme.

We fail to understand how the LEA has judged J's educational needs have altered. Please could you identify for us in what way you consider J's educational needs have materially changed so that Speech and Language Therapy provision is no longer required.

 

• We understand from Mrs Xxxxxxxx's conversation with Mrs T on Thursday 6th July that the LEA anticipate that the Speech and Language Therapist (Mrs Xxxxxxxx) will act in a consultative role for the teachers and LSA's at xxxxxx School.

This should be included as part of the educational provision in J's Statement, in the same way that the provision of "monitoring, support and advice from the service for Children with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder" is specified in the Statement. The Statement needs amending to include this provision in accordance with the Code of Practice (8:34b).

 

Mrs Xxxxxxxx advised Mrs T that she needed to contact Mrs Xxxxxxxx to discuss the issue. On reflection we fail to see why this is necessary. It is for the LEA to make the decision about provision or amendment of provision in the light of the advice already received.

 

• One of the targets agreed at J's Annual review was for him to "continue with his Speech and Language Programme" (Target 4). All the professionals in attendance at the meeting, including your own Educational Psychologist, strongly supported this target. We fail to understand how, therefore, the LEA can construe as reasonable that the LEA appears to be ignoring the advice of its own Educational Psychologist by withdrawing the provision to meet this target. As noted above, please could you identify for us in what way you consider J's needs have materially changed so that Speech and Language Therapy provision is no longer required.

The Special Needs Officer from the LEA was present at this meeting but did not raise any concerns about the targets that were set. This target obviously involves the continuation of the Social Use of Language Programme yet she raised no objections or concerns to this being set as a target at the time of the review. Why was this issue not discussed further at that time? There will be no educational provision for J to meet this target if the Social Use of Language Programme is withdrawn.

 

As parents our concern is for J to have the same opportunities as a child without his disabilities to achieve every outcome outlined by the 'Every Child Matters' green paper. We believe that to discontinue the Social Use of Language Programme at this critical stage of his education will make it likely that he will fail to do so.

 

Thank you for your time. We should like to resolve this issue before J returns to school in September. We look forward to hearing from you shortly.

 

Yours sincerely,

[LKS]

Mothereve. Great letter, and there are some good ones being written at the moment by forum members to the professionals My dd's SaLt has recommended that dd be discharged from speech and language despite being on the 1st percentile for several tests. She wanted to work in a purely consultative manner if needed. Well as has been pointed out to me neither dd's teacher or LSAs are qualified to devise programmes for her and evaluate her progress. This seems to be what they want to do for your son and to me serves no purpose but to save money. I tried to get in dd's statement that all staff that work with her are suitably qualified in SaLT, but they would have none of it Good luck with this.

[UltraMum]

Thanks LKS - I'm sure that ????'s are at the bottom of all this too ...

[Guest hallyscomet]

Hi Mothereve,

 

Just noticed the trouble you have been having here.

 

Can I suggest until this sorts itself out you consult a Speech Therapist out of school hours. Thats what I had to do to keep B up with his peers they usually charge around $50 that AUD of course, for an hour.

 

If this is going to drag out your child really needs the ongoing support to keep up. This may be an alternative for the sake of your child. Nothing like one on one support. They will give you some back up work to support them at home too.

 

Just as a backup. Hope this helps, hopefully it wont drag on for too long. They dont make it easy for us do they.

 

Kind regards

H.

[UltraMum]

Hi Mothereve,

 

Just noticed the trouble you have been having here.

 

Can I suggest until this sorts itself out you consult a Speech Therapist out of school hours. Thats what I had to do to keep B up with his peers they usually charge around $50 that AUD of course, for an hour.

 

If this is going to drag out your child really needs the ongoing support to keep up. This may be an alternative for the sake of your child. Nothing like one on one support. They will give you some back up work to support them at home too.

 

Just as a backup. Hope this helps, hopefully it wont drag on for too long. They dont make it easy for us do they.

 

Thanks Hayley

 

We will probably do this but then there is a loophole in the Code of Practice that allows the LEA to basically say 'well the parents have arranged this so we don't need to do anything about it' so we need to make it really clear that we will be providing this as an interim measure and expect the LEA to pay us back once the issue is resolved in our favour. (Ever the optimist!)

[UltraMum]

Result!

SALT is back in J's provision and we have it in writing!

 

 

LEA had to back track after Director of Education got involved!

 

[marshmallow]

Well done, thats great news!!

[phasmid]

Way to go you. Well done.

[Karen A]

Great news.Give yourself a treat.Karen

[CarerQuie]

What fantastic news.xx

[LKS]

Mothereve. Brilliant news well done for seeing it through

[UltraMum]

Umm - saw SALT today for last visit of term - she is quoted by the SEN officer as saying that there will be SALT provision but the SALT knows nothing about it and it isn't even her decision to make .. it's her boss's.

 

Someone is giving us the run around here ... another letter coming up.