[SENco-forum] delegated funding for SEN fears

Hi Sharon -- What you have said is very interesting to me -- thank you giving such a detailed account of your various situations.

As I have repeatedly said -- and the BBC article makes reference to -- statements should continue to be written, even with increased devolved funding -- the law has not changed. What is often overlooked (and such overlooking is implied in your details) is that statements must be specific and quantify clearly the type and amount of individual human resource the child must receive as a minimum. And, that if school's own resources (including additional devolved funding notionally to fund statemented provision as well as SA & SA+ provision) is insufficient to resource any part of the statemented provision shown in Part 3 (sub-section 2) then the LA must additionally fund that statemented provision -- even where it has supposedly delegated a formulae funded block amount for statemented children in each school in its area -- and even where it has stated in Part 3 of a child's statement that it has devolved an amount of funding -- or block of funding for a group of statemented children -- for the school to use to deliver that statemented provision. And, even where a statement states something like "10 hours of TA provision will be provided from the schools delegated block SEN funding and 10 hours will additionally be funded from central LA funds.

The fact is, that whatever additional amount of funding is devolved to a school, notionally for all SEN children at the school with SEN, the LA cannot legally enforce how that funding is then used. The law allows each school to "vire" funding devolved under seperate categories to be used for other categories -- i.e. for other purposes. This law has not changed either as far as I am aware. So devolved funding for SEN cannot be 'ring fenced' unless Govt changes the law -- and it is most unlikely that it will.

The other fact is, that the CoP in interpreting the law, states that an LA can only rely upon a school, from it own resources, to fund statemented provision (or a part of statemented provision) with the specific prior agreement of the school in each case (I'm paraphrasing but that is the gist). And, even if the school has agreed to fund -- say 5 or 10 hrs per week of a TA -- from its own resources (that means all delegated funding including whatever additional amount was notionally for statemented children en-block) but at some later stage finds the funding cannot be made without unreasonably underproviding for other SEN children within the school -- then the LA must immediately take over funding that provision from its central funds. This is the case whatever the statement may say about such funding arrangments.

A statement is, in fact, not a document that needs to, or should, state anything about funding arrangements. It only has to state clearly, and leaving no room for doubt, what the child will receive in terms of staffing (including external specialists/therapists as well as designated TA support) materials and equipment. That has been clarified by Case Law precedent. The type and amount of human resource has to be 'arranged' by the LA -- and this means it must fund that provision directly from its own central funds if neccessary -- and to arrange/fund all of this provision, even if an 'agency' that normally provides (or has been providing) and delivering that provision for any reason states that it is unable (or no longer able) to provide/fund and / or deliver that provision. This 'agency' may be the child's school or it may be the local Primary Health Care Trust that normally provides a schools therapy service. The LA cannot devolve its ultimate duty to arrange, and fund directly if neccessary, statemented provision to other agencies. It may enter into working arrangements with other agencies, such as schools and PHCTs, and which may involve formulae's for block funding, etc., but if these arrangements (which can only be entered into by voluntarily agreement in respect of the agency) are not able to be made or sustained -- then the LA must take over the funding of the statemented provision from its central funds immediately -- whatever is specified about these working arrangements within the statement. And it does not require a special statutory review and statement amendment procedure to cause the LA to take over direct responsibility for any funding / delivery of provision arrangments. It must, from the start and finish of statemented provision, ensure that the provision specified within a statement actually happens with no lapses or reductions/fluctuations whatsoever in that provision.

As statements must, also, specify all of a child's SEN in detail, and specify and quantify sufficient provison to meet all of those needs -- then a "statement heavy on beurocracy and light on provision" is a weak, probably unlawfully written, statement. It is probaly a vague satement that, again, relies on a formulated, capped, and insufficient, level of delegated/devolved funding -- which would make it an unlawful statement.

As you imply Sharon -- in your own personal case -- provision that is not fully protected by a sound, lawfully written, statement gets chipped away at and erroded. In other words the child is not receiving the protected provision to which he is entilted and which the statutory framework is intended to provide. As for 'heaviness of beurocracy' most of the time and work is to do with assessment and report writing. Much is made of EP time -- but surely a child that is so vulnerable in respect of failure to learn and and make progeress -- and so should attract a significant amount of legally protected additionaly funded provision -- should require an in-depth multidisciplinary assessment to reveal clearly and beyond doubt all of its special educational needs. And so that it is clear exactly the type and level of additional support and specialist help / materials and equipment, is required to turn the failure into success. This is not beurocracy gone mad -- it is neccessary assessment. 

Very many LAs may not favour in-depth, multidisciplinary, assessment -- as it reveals so much need in relation to a particular child -- that they are fearful of the subsequent costs of provision that may arise -- and the expectation and demands of the parent that may be generated. So they may try to limit depth and range of assesment and recommendations from EPs and specialist advisers/therapists about what they draw from their assessment and what provision the assessors advising the LA recommend. The LA may drag out the procedures and the liason with parents (endless drafts of proposed statements -- meeting after meeting) so 'over-beurocracy' and conflict seems to be being caused by the assessment and statementing process. My long experience is that all of this so called unecessary conflict and beurocracy is (seemngly purposefuly) created by the activities of LAs and which reveals to me, a lack of will and good faith to carry out statutory assessment and statementing procedure transparently, speedily and with the best of due dilligence.

So, my advice to a parent of a non-statemented SEN child, is not to be rebuffed if their child is failing to make sufficient, expected, progress over an extended perid, by any advice about not having any chance of  getting an assessment or statement because of the LA, acting in accordance with Govt strategy, is now directly devolving all of its SEN funding to schools instead. Nor should those parents of significantly failing SEN children, already with statements, but who are told that their child only receives a capped amount of provision, based upon a formulated block fund, and which is why their child's statement is not specific about type and/or quantity of provision, accept this unlawful and unacceptable position. In both cases there is positive action within the law that the parent can take to rectify matters. But they will virtually always require expert advice or guidance. But this is available and parents actions can save SEN childrens' unacceptable levels of educational and social failure, and instead create the prospects of real sucess for any SEN child -- if they know what they are doing. Brendan King

-----Original Message-----
From: SEN at tringham.net
To: kngbrndn at aol.com; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Sent: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 8.01AM
Subject: RE: [SENco-forum] delegated funding for SEN fears

We have had devolved budgets for a long time now.

It did not work in the beginning as the switchover was calculated on a lot
of things but including areas of deprivation, free school meals, and
existing statements.

So being sandwiched between two wealthy areas didn't help, low take up of
free meals even though eligible and only 2 Statemented children due to poor
management and no real SENco was a disaster.

The then official 30% SEN is now about 46% ( with more not identified) 5
children were Statemented post devolution - all of which had to come out of
very little money due to the calculations.

The school is good about not only ring fencing SEN money but adding to it
from its own budget to ensure a TA in every class (woo!).  With nearly 1/2
the class requiring huge differentiation and a large amount of SEBD/& AD(H)D
this is a must.

Does it work now?  No, but this is because there just is not enough money.
I don't like the Statement process as it is weighted against the child, too
bureaucracy heavy and support light, but they are needed to protect
vulnerable children.

My own are constantly having their support nibbled at purely because the
school is always saying they have children that are worse off............Not
my problem.

Management should be supporting or Statementing these children, but avoid it
to save 'their' money.  If the parent does not make a fuss it is never
mentioned as an option, or in my friends case being fobbed off with reasons
why the school can support their child just as well without Statementing.  I
agree that schools should be able to do this, but the reality is that the
child is often short-changed and there is no monitoring and come back system
in place when this happens.

Sharon