[senco-forum] arranging and funding statemented provision (was transfer)

Hi Susie -- I consider you detailed reply so important -- I have made an  
even more detailed response -- sorry it is long -- but I consider will be of  
interest to you and other forum subscribers. But I have tried to post it 3 times  
and it has not seemed to get through -- and I have not had a rejection 
notice.  So it may be so long that it is being scrutinised by the great people who  
monitor the site. So I'm trying again splitting the posting into 2 parts to 
see  if it comes on line that way -- here is Part 1 (Brendan King)

Susie -- I respect  you, your views, and your experience -- I have the 
greatest respect for the  majority of SEN teachers -- I was one myself. I am not 
campaigning for any  return to an "old way" of arranging SEN provision. My 
organisation and  myself are putting our energies into maintaining the present law 
on  provision as it stands currently. There is no "new way", in law, on  
provision -- and the right to quantification of provision has not changed. You  
state that, under the previous funding approach of your LA, it did not  provide 
sufficient funding to back up stated hours of staffing -- that was  unlawful. 
You mention that it did not take account of preparation time, and  training 
days, and accompaniment by staff on trips. This could, and should, have  been 
included in the quantification of TA hrs -- as non-contact and extra  curricular 
provision -- within the statement. 
I recently obtained a  tribunal order for the number of hours of a speech 
therapist to be  quantified in Part 3 of a statement -- and this was based upon 
the SALT's own  forward estimation of all aspects of how her time would be used 
-- including  phoning/meeting parents, training/consulting with school staff, 
writing  reports/new programmes, attending IEP and annual reviews, as well as 
sessions of  therapy with the child (mainly for assessment) and the tribunal 
ordered that  this list of activities be included in Part 3 of the statement 
-- with the  amount of hours -- so flexibility and non-contact time was built 
into the  specification. The same could be done for TA time if the will was 
there to make  the current law on provision work in practice. 
You mention musical  and other equipment essential / beneficial for the child 
-- which is funded  from your devolved funded matrix -- and indicate this was 
not available under  the individual funding of quantification approach. But 
the schedule  (2) to reg. 16 to the Act states under (a) a specification of 
"any  appropriate facilities and equipment, staffing arrangements and 
curriculum". So  the LA, basing writing of the statement upon yours and other 
professional  advice, should have specified (and funded) any equipment your pupils needed 
 and to be funded additionally. 
The fact that the LA  did not fulfil its legal duties to arrange sufficient 
provision, or there  was a failure (during the assessment process) by 
professionals to  advise fully concerning all of the needs of the child, does not make 
the  legal specification and quantification requirement flawed. It is  simply 
that either (or both of) the assessment and writing of  statements processes 
as carried out by your LA was flawed -- or that the LA  failed to arrange all 
of the specified provision as the law requires following  issue of statement. 
All of the benefits of your LA's current funding approach  (increased amounts 
of advance delegated matrix funding) can be achieved in a way  which includes 
specification and quantification of all provision into a  statement. In fact, 
if the increased delegated funding matrix approach works --  there will be less 
need for statemented provision at all. Statements are only  required where 
the school does not have sufficient funds to provide sufficiently  for all of a 
child's needs. 
My view is that the  will to make the statementing system work, in terms of 
specific statements,  is often not there, as LA's (and often schools) do not 
like added the parental  and child entitlements that goes with implementation  
of the law on quantification. This includes the parents right to  disagree if 
provision is deemed by them to be insufficient, or is reduced  or withdrawn 
prematurely. And for the parents ability to lodge an appeal for  continuation or 
increase in provision whenever a statement is first issued  or amended. 
Part 2 to  follow 