UltraMum Report post Posted August 22, 2006 (edited) The LEA are still not budging regarding the time limited timebomb in our son's statement so ... here's the next letter: any advice/comments gratefully received Ta Dear Mrs R, We are in receipt of your letter dated 2nd August 2006. Thank you for your apology. Our understanding is that the LEA expects Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) to be at the level of 6 visits per year at the discretion of the local Primary Care Trust. Our position remains as detailed in the appendix to this letter. We are now writing to ask you to re-assess the educational needs of our son J under section 323 of the 1996 Education Act. We make this request under Section 328 of the Act for the reasons detailed below. We believe that J's special educational needs are not being met by the special educational provision in his present statement. J's special educational needs in the areas of communication, interaction, emotional and social development are identified in Part 2 of his statement: "J ? has a significant social impairment as a result of his autistic spectrum disorder. His difficulties in functioning in group situations and understanding the subtle rules of human communication, both verbal and non‑verbal present a barrier to J's learning and a significant obstacle to the development of mutually satisfying friendships and inclusion in the social fabric of the class." There is no special educational provision specified from a Speech and Language Therapist in Part 3 of J's statement to meet his special educational needs in this area, despite the recommendations of those attending his last annual review and also the report of an independent specialist in this area. We had hoped that the continued educational provision of SALT for J in his final year of primary school would go some considerable way towards obviating the need for more and expensive interventions in later years, as highlighted by Dr A in her reports: J's remaining two years at primary school are critical in ensuring he has the pre-requisite social communication skills to cope with an integrated secondary school. Unless J receives substantial one-to-one support and regular intervention from a specialist teacher and speech and language therapist with expertise in supporting children with autism, he is unlikely to cope in a mainstream secondary school environment. If J does not receive regular speech and language therapy, this will inevitably lead to increased manifestations of his social communication impairment, increased anxiety and lead to restricted life skills and high dependency in later life His current level of support has been highly effective; his progress can only be maintained if J continues with this current level of support. We would hope that J will be able to continue in mainstream education during his secondary education, as this would be the most cost effective route for all concerned. However, without the support detailed above, it may become necessary for J to attend a special school which has the facilities to help him with both his autism and his high intelligence ? clearly a more costly route for the LEA. We understand the LEA's position regarding resources as highlighted in your letter. We should prefer not to have to take this route at the cost of considerable time and resources to both the LEA and ourselves; however as parents J's welfare is first and foremost. Yours sincerely Appendix We have made you aware in previous correspondence of the legal advice we have been given regarding the practice of the LEA in specifying speech and language (S&L) provision in Part 6 (Special Educational Provision) of its statements of special educational needs (SEN) even when S&L difficulties are specified in Part 2 (Special Educational Needs) of a statement and even when appropriate professional advice indicating a level and type of S&L provision is available. The LEA appears to us to have returned to their policy of SALT being a health need and not an educational need. (Meeting held at School, April 2005) This policy is directly in contravention of the ruling made in: R ?v- Secretary of State for Education ex parte E [1992] 1 FLR 377, CA that each special educational need specified in Part 2 must be met by provision specified in Part 3. It is also in clear violation of Paragraph 8:49 of the SEN Code of Practice 2001. This paragraph relies on established case law, and the key phrase that the LEA is violating is: '... However, since communication is so fundamental in learning and progression, addressing speech and language impairment should normally be recorded as educational provision unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so.' Section 322 of the Education Act 1996 places a duty upon the LEA to arrange and provide S&L even when the usual agencies of provision are unable or unwilling to provide it pursuant to S324 Education Act 1996. The LEA's actions, in specifying provision of S&L in Part 6 of J's statement, however, effectively sidestep the carrying out of that duty. In addition to the legal grounds for objection to the LEA's policy, it can also be criticised for the following key practical reasons, which demonstrate the purpose and importance of the legal framework for the distribution of provision between Parts 3 and 6: If we, as a family, move house after the statement is in force, and a new NHS provider cannot or will not provide the level and type of S&L provision agreed by the Doncaster NHS SALT service, we will have no enforcement powers to ensure that the new LEA will arrange to continue the former level and type of S&L provision. If the designated Speech and Language Therapist, provided by the local NHS service for a J, falls ill, or is on leave for a prolonged period for some other reason, and the NHS service is unable to provide an immediate replacement, we will have no power to require the LEA to arrange, and provide from its own resources, that provision. Similarly, if for financial reasons, the local NHS SALT service has to limit the sufficiency of provision required to meet a child's S&L needs, we will be unable to require the LEA to take over any shortfall of professionally advised provision. And finally, if we disagree with the level and type of S&L provision advised by the local NHS SLT service, and obtain an independent 2nd opinion which advises a higher level or quality of S&L provision, the practice of specifying S&L provision in Part 6 would allow the LEA to sidestep its duty to resolve differences of professional opinion in terms of necessary provision, due to its policy of specifying such provision in Part 6 of a statement. Edited September 22, 2006 by UltraMum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
summertime Report post Posted August 22, 2006 no advice and my only comment is well done, you go girl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daisydot Report post Posted August 22, 2006 Sounds like a blinding letter - hope it works, good luck. Daisydot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
helenl53 Report post Posted August 22, 2006 Fantastic!!!! Excellent letter. Why the hell are we having to become experts though!!! Beggars 'kin belief. HelenL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UltraMum Report post Posted August 22, 2006 D (not very D at the moment )H won't let me send it - thinks it's a waste of time ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
summertime Report post Posted August 22, 2006 well the way i see it, it cant do any harm, but it sure could do some good Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bramblebrae Report post Posted August 22, 2006 Hi, I'm confused, apologises if I upset your DH I'm sure he's jsut rightly fed up with the whole LEA and rightly so, but surely the waste of time would be if you didn't send it. You must have gone to alot of time and trouble to write the letter, it sounds really professional and logical to me btw, and it's done now. What's the harm in posting it? I hope you do send it and I hope get positive results soon. take care Lorraine Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UltraMum Report post Posted August 23, 2006 DH thinks that 'they' at the LEA won't take a blind bit of notice of it - now on second draft which mentions judicial review, Ombudsman and Secretary of State Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smallworld Report post Posted August 27, 2006 Sorry, I have only just come across this thread E ( too many holidays have dulled my senses, ie. I got too chilled out ) I think this is a fantastically succint letter, I trust it was going to come from you ? I deal with all the educational issues in our house, I don't see that you have to appear to be a united front to these bods, do they even care/notice whether they get letters from couples or single parents ? I really would go ahead and send it, if it makes no difference than you've lost nothing, or it does and ........who knows... On the subject of special schools, any ideas ? looks might we might be needing one in sept 2007 for our youngest Our 10 yr old is now in the system too waiting for appt. with cahms who can't even give us an idea of when he'll be seen, even though we're at our wit's end. Aaarrgh, send that letter, I've been told 'unofficially' of course, that the LEA are caving in on anything approaching a tribunal. wac Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UltraMum Report post Posted August 28, 2006 I really would go ahead and send it, if it makes no difference than you've lost nothing, or it does and ........who knows... Sent the second draft so they got it in time to stew over the weekend ... mentions us taking legal advice on the next step and reserves our right to: 1) request re-assessment 2) request a judicial review 3) complain to the Local Government Ombudsman 4) complain to the Secretary of State for Education Will keep you informed ... On the subject of special schools, any ideas ? looks might we might be needing one in sept 2007 for our youngest Will PM you I've been told 'unofficially' of course, that the LEA are caving in on anything approaching a tribunal. Unfortunately that's the only option we don't have ... I don't think they like us .... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smallworld Report post Posted August 29, 2006 <'> <'> I'm sure you're not alone..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UltraMum Report post Posted September 22, 2006 UPDATE Sent the letter reserving our rights to the various options - got a letter back saying they were consulting their legal dept and would reply in 28 days ... We consulted IPSEA and then a specialist SEN legal firm - culminating in us sending a letter saying 28 days was too long in light of the nearing deadline for a judicial review and that we required a reply by today ... Needless to say there was no letter this morning however I have just had a phone call to say that they are faxing a letter to the school which will then be given to J to bring home for us ... watch this space ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smallworld Report post Posted September 24, 2006 The plot thickens, now if it was my son who was expected to bring home a letter from school......... .............in reality, after going and retreiving it myself from the black hole that must be his desk fancy entrusting a child to bring home such a vital document (we hope!) J may well be capable of this, lots of children wouldn't. wac Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
