|
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.
|