[senco-forum] statementing and block funding

Part 2:

Remember, the issuing LA must "arrange" all of the provision  specified in a 
statement. So, to fund the hours of TA, it has to provide your  school with 
the cash to appoint a TA for the 15 hours specified. But if you  state that a 
sufficient level of block devolved funding from the issuing LA  has reached your 
school and that your school can therefore fund all of the  specified 
provision from your own resources, then no additional funding  would be required so 
long as your school appointed the TA hours on an ongoing  basis. But! The 
question of the need to continue to maintain the statement  would then come into 
question. The Oxford case law judgement makes it clear  that the LA must reach 
agreement with a school if the school is to  fund the specified provision. If 
the school states that it does not have the  resources to fund the 15 hours 
specified, the LA must fund that provision by  means of a statement.

But, as I say, the statement is not fundamentally about funding  arrangements 
-- it is about specifying needs and provision. So, a great  deal of power 
lies with parents and school in ensuring a statement is continued  to be 
maintained over a long term period. With the parents, it is the right to  appeal to 
the SENDIST whenever a statement is amended or withdrawn. If an LA  decides to 
cease to maintain a statement, and the parents lodge an appeal, that  statement 
must continue in force until the hearing has taken place and a  tribunal 
decision is made. If a statement was withdrawn purely on grounds  of changed 
funding arrangements (which may or may not be reaching the  school) and not to do 
with the fact the child's SEN no longer occurrs, or  is remedied sufficiently 
to no longer require additional statemented provision,  the panel would order 
the LA to continue to maintain the statement.

If the LA amend the statement so as to no longer specify provision in  
quantified terms, this would also be unlawful. Suffolk were taken  to task for 
having a blanket policy not to specify provision in  quantified terms at secondary 
level, because of devolved funding arrangements.  This was by the Ombudsman 
who declared their policy unlawful.

Schools' powers to ensure an LA does not withdraw a statement prematurely  or 
unjustifiably (or to unjustifiably amend to reduce provision ) are  strong in 
relation to evidence submitted to annual review. If the evidence  is that a 
child, despite making progress with the support of the additional  statemented 
provision, still requires that provision, and that withdrawal or  reduction of 
provision would cause a halt or reversal of progress, then the  
recommendation must be continuation of the statement without amendment. These  are 
questions always required to be considered at each annual review and if  'continuation 
of statement' and 'no amendments' boxes are ticked by the  head teacher or 
delegated representative in the summary report to the LA, the LA  will have to 
act very carefully if it decides to withdraw the statement.

The parent must be provided with a copy of the summary annual review report  
and the LA must inform the parents of their right to appeal if they notify  
them of a decision to withdraw or amend the statement. The appeal panel rely on  
qualitative and quantitative evidence of a child's performance over the 
period  that the statement has been in force, and the written and oral evidence of  
professionals responsible for the child. Besides the school staff (very  
important -- SENCo most of all) they will also be interested in the evidence of  
the EP. But the EP evidence they will be interested in will not be to do with  
funding arrangements, but as to the assessment of the child's progress and  
current functioning. And, casting funding arrangements out of his or her head,  
does the EP consider that child still requires the level and type of  support 
as set out within the statement? Of course, given the appeal  opportunity, the 
parent may make a case for increased statemented provision  instead of 
withdrawal of statement, if the child has not made expected progress  since starting 
secondary school -- even with the 15 hrs.  This is why  the LA must be very 
careful before opening up the parents appeal rights after a  period in 
secondary school.

Continued in Part 3