1. The College of
Occupational Therapists do not feel the definitions of ALD and ALP
adequately set out the discrepancy required for a child or young
person to be classified as having an additional learning need.
It could also create a situation where children and young
people are left without support until they are ‘severe’
enough to meet that threshold, rather than focusing on prevention
and early intervention.
2. While the
College of Occupational Therapists supports the intentions of a
unified planning process and increased participation of children
and young people, we do not feel that this has been adequately
undertaken by the current draft Bill. In particular, the draft Bill
does not improves the context for children and young people
sufficiently beyond the existing legislation.
3. The College of
Occupational Therapists welcomes the high aspirations and improved
outcomes promoted as intentions within this draft Bill. To
strengthen this within the document it is recommended
that:
*
Throughout the document it refers to children, young people and
their parents. Should this read parents/carers? (e.g. point
6)
*
Point 29.1: The wishes of the child/young person should also be
taken into consideration in the school placement.
4. The Bill
separates educational needs from health and social care needs which
is likely to promote disagreements between the funding
organisations. For example, if a child is challenged with
toileting and this means they cannot access their classes, would
this be considered a health or education issue? There are
many other examples of where the distinction between a health need
and an education need are unclear and this is particularly
unhelpful for children, young people and their families accessing
services. This does not appear to support other public
service policy to increase and improve integration for a seamless
service for citizens in Wales
5.
The College of
Occupational Therapists commends the intention for avoiding
disagreements, earlier disagreement resolution and clear and
consistent rights of appeal. We do not feel, however, that
the draft Bill will promote this within its current form. Specific
areas which are remain unclear include:
*
Point 9: The governing body decides if a child has ALN and
secure provision. Would governing bodies have the skills and
capacity to do this? Would there be a conflict of interest?
(e.g. budget implications)
*
Point 11.5: Who decides if it is beyond the capability of the
governing body to determine a child's ALN?
*
It is unclear throughout the document how a child's health needs
might be met or if it is just the education needs which would be
documented in the child's plan. If this is the case then it
may be confusing for families if they require separate documents
depending on the classification of their child's need as either
health or education. It is likely to cause conflict if the
Local Health Board does not agree any provision (as is specified in
Point 14.1).
*
Point 14.2: Funding conflicts may pressurise occupational
therapists to not specify the involvement required for a child if
there is no provision to meet that need.
* Point 40.1:
The provisions for appeals for health needs are
unclear.
|