[senco-forum] Part 2 of arranging provision and funding statements (was t...

I understand entirely Kate -- you are the best judge -- and your first  
concern is your own position of course. I agree with everything you say on that.  
But I was mainly concerned that the LAs policy of insisting that all  schools 
fund the first 10 hours of TA support be challenged. This is an  unlawful 
blanket policy in my view. Each child's needs has to be considered  individually -- 
and LAs cannot block delegate statementing responsibilities  concerning 
provision onto schools (case law has confirmed this). So bear that in  mind if you 
have an opportunity to raise this discreetly in the right  quarters.

Another approach could be -- wherever you are being pressured  to fund in the 
first 10 hours of specified support for statemented  children at the expense 
of SA+ kids (and I'm sure you seek to find ways to  provide them with as much 
as you can) but it results in the SA+ kids not making  "expected" progress 
(proved by measurable and achievable targets not being  sufficiently or 
satisfactorily met over a period of 3 or 4 IEP reviews) then you  could discreetly 
suggest that the parents of the affected children write to the  LA chief officer 
requesting a statutory assessment. If you are able to support  their request by 
agreeing that the school's normal resources cannot fully meet  all of their 
needs -- this is all the evidence required (in terms of CoP  criteria) to show 
that a statutory assessment is necessary. If refused, a  tribunal panel would 
order an assessment with that evidence and, unless more  provision was 
provided at Action+, a statement would also be deemed necessary --  and give access 
to specific levels of enhanced provision. I know LAs are placing  huge criteria 
based obstacles in the way of schools making SA requests -- but  they cannot 
impose such criteria upon parents (IPSEAs website has a model letter  for 
requesting an SA).

I am making the case for statementing to be a positive platform for  ensuring 
that sufficient funding is made available for all SEN children -- I  consider 
the negative view that statemented kids get all the goodies can be  dispelled 
and statementing can be seen as beneficial for all SEN kids -- a  "trickle 
up" effect based upon effective use of the legal framework. 

Best of luck Kate