[senco-forum] Part 2 of arranging provision and funding statements (was transfer)

 
Part  2: 
There is often a  mix up/confusion about the mechanism of how provision is 
funded  -- and the amount -- and the fact that sufficient provision must be  
arranged for the statemented child whatever the mechanism of funding. The  
provision responsibility is the duty of the LA who must arrange (and  fund if 
necessary) all of the provision specified in a statement. If a school  agrees to 
fund all (or a proportion) of the specified  provision from normal delegated 
(matrix) funding -- because the amount  delegated is sufficient to fund that 
provision without taking provision  away from other children -- that is fine and is 
clearly stated in the CoP  as ok. But if the school cannot fund all of the 
provision because the amount  delegated in the matrix estimation of required 
funding is insufficient (which is  often reported to be the case) then the LA 
must additionally fund this  shortfall no matter what the amount of advanced 
delegated (matrix) funding  has been previously provided for statemented children. 
If the school is not able  to fund all of the facilities, equipment and 
staffing provision  -- specified clearly in quantified terms within a statement -- 
the  parent merely has to write to the LA informing them that they are failing 
in  there legal duty to sufficiently arrange all of the specified provision 
-- and  the LA must additionally fund that provision. 
Naturally, if LAs are  delegating more and more of their SEN funding to 
schools in a matrix  formulae of funding -- it will expect the school to fund 
statemented provision  from that matrix if it believes that is sufficient. And if 
the school says it  cannot -- because the delegated funding calculated through 
a matrix  formulae is insufficient -- there will be a discussion between the 
school and LA  -- with the LA requesting the school to show that it is using 
all of its  targeted SEN funding for the sole purpose of its SA and statemented 
children.  This discussion should be of no concern to the parent -- it is 
merely an  administrative aspect of ensuring sufficient funding is available to 
meet  all of a child's statemented needs. 
I am not  "campaigning" for a return to an "old system" of arranging SEN  
provision. There is no "new system" that has left an "old system" behind. What  
you are describing is a not uncommon/unusual/extraordinary local policy for  
devolving sufficient funding to your school to meet all of your SEN children's  
needs -- including statemented children. It seems that the new system of  
arranging funding (the matrix) in your area is working better than the old.  I 
would not campaign to seeek to interfere with an improved, more  efficient, 
system of arranging funding in a particular area. Nor would a  tribunal panel 
interfere in any way -- funding arrangements is outside of  its jurisdiction. The 
law says nothing that impedes LA's in terms of funding  arrangements with 
schools. And the Government has pressed for increased  delegation of funds to 
individual schools. But this does not in any way preclude  quantification of 
provision within a statement. The two aspects are entirely  separate in law although 
linked in practice.  
If an increased level  of funding for each SEN child has occurred in your 
school, coincidentally  with the introduction of the matrix approach in your area 
 -- great --  but if your LA applies the law and, therefore, specifies 
provision in  quantified terms in all of its statements -- this would not mean that 
it would  interfere with your current arrangements and amounts of funding 
(only other than  being likely to increase funding if it was ever  insufficient). 
I am not campaigning  for any change in the law -- merely advising parents 
(and SENCo's on this forum)  of the law as it stands. Whenever I have these 
discussions with SEN  officers (or school staff) who dislike the law concerning  
specific statements -- I find the underlying dislike is not the funding  
arrangements but, in fact, I find it is the accountability to  each parent, 
concerning the sufficiency of the statemented  child's provision. Funding arrangements 
and added bureaucracy are  used as reasons to cover the real issue -- that 
parents can be sure that their  child receives a sufficiency and continuity of 
provision to meet all of its  needs -- and can enforce that provision legally 
-- when they have a clear  and specific statement that quantifies all of the 
required provision. Some LA's  and schools do not enjoy this parental power. 
Vague statements side-step this  parental and child entitlement. 
I'm glad things have  improved for you and your children, Sue, at the same 
time as the new  matrix funding arrangements in your area -- and that your SEN 
funding  seems to have increased -- but that should not prevent a parent on 
insisting  that all that their child is currently receiving, or needs, is written 
 in specific terms in its statement. Best of luck to you and your  children.  
Brendan King.