[senco-forum] Access fund for computers

From: kngbrndn at aol.com

Hi iks

The unlawful failure, by LAs, to quantify provision in statements is so widespread that very many parents and schools (and even juniour SEN officers) believe this is the way it should be done! This is why the DfES sent out the very important letter last November clarifying the LA duty to specify provision in quantified terms. Even though the Ian Coats letter is, in effect, the Secretary of State warning all LAs to stop breaking the law and potentially (effectively) robbing children of the vital provision they require to make progress and to develop educationally and socially to full potential, LAs still continue to ignore such warnings and sidestep their legal duties. Even before the Coats letter -- there was so much case law on this that LAs had no excuse about lying to parents and robbing children, by continuing to issue vague, meaningless, statements that offer no protection in respect of ongoing, uninterrupted, provision.

The SENCo's comment (backed up by the LA officer) that it is "impossible" to know how much (ICT) provision a particular child will require (into the near future) is flawed on a number of counts.

1) The 6 month period of multidisciplinary assessment (pre-proposed statement) is designed to give time to find out what type and level of additional provision a child will require (as a sufficient minimum) over, at least, the next 12 months (at which point all aspects of the statement wil be reviewed including level and type of provision). So an ICT assessment team could (should) have been brought in to ascertain (with a dyslexic specialist teacher) what the child needed. Very many dyslexic/dysgraphic/dyspraxic/Motor Skills difficulty children are known to benefit hugely from having their own laptop for home and school use. If the child has difficulty writing clearly and efficiently, in all aspects of written and graphic skills tasks, then the minimum sufficient level and type of ICT provision is most likely to be a laptop with appropriate software (may be voice activated for home use for a bright dyspraxic student doing GCSE's, or an alpha smart for a primary child developing basiic skills, etc.).
2) A statement can/must specify a minimum, sufficient, level of different types of required provision. So, if a parent is told (as they often are) "If we quantify hours of TA, or just a particular type of equipment, if the child needs more of a certain type of provision for a period -- or a changed type -- we won't be able to do this -- it is too inflexible", s/he can reply " if it is stated as a minimum level -- there is nothing to stop the school (with LA funding additionally if neccessary) to arrange an increase of provision over and above the statemented level -- or final statement can quantify a level of additional staffing over a term, or a year -- allowing week-by-week flexibility over the period"... and, if the type or level of provision requires significant change, an early review can be called and urgent amendments to statement be implemented. Even accounting for full statutory procedures and time limits, a statement can be amended in a matter of six weeks, if the will is there". These standard IPSEA replies to these standard LA blandishments are now hard-wired into my brain -- I've repeated them so many times at meetings. And I've never received a reply that is able to overrride my (parents) position on this.

So, it is very rarely "impossible" to quantify level and type of provision, and it is virtually always possible to do this, whilst retaining sufficient flexibility to meet the child's varying needs. The truth is, the flexibility schools  want is flexibility for the school as a whole, to use TAs as they want on a daily basis for all children, and as cover for absences, etc. For statemented children, building in flexibility to meet the needs of 'the system' is expressly ruled out in case law judgement. As far as LAs are concerned, the flexibility they want is the flexibility not to commit to any level and type of provision for which they cannot cap, and reduce at will, the cost and capacity demands of that provision. That, also, is unlawful.

So, parents battlewatch is largely one of fighting/policing the providers, funders and deliverers of a system that is fundamentally at odds with the system that the providers, funders and deliverers would desire. There are honourable exceptions amongst many school staff/advisers/therapists (and even amongst some SEN officers) who understand and support parents / child's rights to a needs-led resourcing of provision related entirely to the child's individual needs -- no matter how inconvenient it may be for system mangement. Many such honourable persons contribute regularly to this forum. Brendan    

-----Original Message-----
From: lks1985 at hotmail.com
To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Sent: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 6.45AM
Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Access fund for computers

Brendan I wish I had seen what you have written before I had my childrens statements. I had no idea then that they had to be quantified and specified, and what a surprse nobody told me! Re ICT in my daughters statement it says *** will have frequent opportunities to access appropriate IT resources in order to reinforce exisiting verbal and non verbal skills and allow her to access the curriculum. At the annual review school refused to specify how much time she was allowed or how often and said it is impossible to know. LA bod sat and nodded in agreement! 

>From: kngbrndn at aol.com 
>To: daphnedriver at yahoo.co.uk, senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk 
>Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Access fund for computers 
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:08:40 -0500 
> 
>Dapne -- the specification -- "access to relevant ICT" is too vague and >guarantees nothing -- it is an unlawful, unquantified, wording. It also >delegates responsibilty to arrange provision to another agency -- which is >unlawful. See Ian Coats letter to LAs written last November warning LAs >(quoting primary law, the CoP and Case Law) that statements must make clear >exactly what the child will be provided with. You can find it on IPSEAs >website for downloading. Parents should not accept this kind of vague >wording as it sidesteps the LAs legal duties -- and does not provide the >protection a statemented child is entitled to. Parents can object to vague >specification at proposed statement stage, and appeal a finalised statement >that is not specific and quantified, within 2 months of issue. Parents can >also appeal an amended statement within 2 months of amendment -- even if it >was not concerning the disagreed wording (e.g., When Part 4 is amended at >primary-secondary transfer -- parents can appeal on Parts 2 and 3 -- even >if they agree with the Part 4 change of named school for the next >September). BTW all phase transfer statements must be amended by 12 Feb of >the year of transfer to name the forthcoming school. Good opportunity to >tighten up unlawfuly written vague statements. Brendan 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: daphnedriver at yahoo.co.uk 
>To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk 
>Sent: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 6.12PM 
>Subject: [senco-forum] Access fund for computers 
> 
> 
>Hi Everybody - I lead a team who support the inclusion (full time) of 
>SLD/Complex needs pupils in their local mainstream school. Using the Access >fund 
>I've been able to buy computers to support my pupils - they need switches >and 
>specialist software not usually found on mainstream networks and need a 
>dedicated computer to support their learning and in some cases their 
>communication. I have now been told that this fund will no longer be used >to 
>provide computers but I can buy specialist software and switches with it. >The 
>reason I have been given is that schools have plenty of laptops!!! and my >pupils 
>should have one of those.Most of the pupils statements say access to >relevant 
>ICT. Can anybody help Thanks Daphne 
> 
>--------------------------------- 
> All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and >ease 
>of use." - PC Magazine 

_________________________________________________________________ 
Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb 