[senco-forum] variations in LEA statementing policy, how to cope!

From: kngbrndn at aol.com

Hi Brendan, It seems one of Kate's problems is the arrival of a year 6 pupil 
currently not statemented but receiving 27 hours of support from the LA in 
which he is attending school at the moment. Any child that requires 27 hours 
of support should be statemented, no matter how much funding is already 
delegated to the school! If Kate's LA refuse to Stat. Ass. because this boys 
needs are already being met, then unfortunately it seems Kate will have to 
take him in and watch him fail. A friend of mine whose child transferred to 
a different LA had much the same problem once. With the help of the previous 
HT and senco, they compiled a detailed spreadsheet of exactly how much 
support this child would need and I mean to the minute. It was then fully 
costed. This was passed on to the HT of the school that child was going to 
go to for them to do a similar exercise of why they couldn't meet these 
needs,  but would be willing to with additional funding. Still didn't work 
though and the child entered the school without sufficient support and 
floundered in the way everyone expected him to.

>From: kngbrndn at aol.com
>To: kate.senrab at btinternet.com, senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
>Subject: Re: [senco-forum] variations in LEA statementing policy, how to 
>cope!
>Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:43:47 -0400
>
>
>Hi Kate
>
>?
>
>LAs should only amend statements after a review --? with a lowering or 
>removal of quantified staffing provision -- if the professional advice is 
>that one or more of the objectives in the statement have been so 
>sufficiently met as to justfy this amendment. It would be 
>unlawful/unreasonable to do so to fit a cost led policy of the LA. And the 
>same principle must apply when a new statement is issued. It?must be wrtten 
>in accordance with the legal / CoP / framework (and be entirely needs led) 
>and not be influenced by delegated /devolved /formulaic / funding criteria 
>in such away as to fetter childrens' entitlements under the legal 
>framework.
>
>The fact that your LA is forcing you to 'run dual systems' indicates that 
>the LA policy dominated one (fettering the child's entitlement to resources 
>reflecting needs in Part 2 of the statement) is unlawful or unreasonable 
>where it obstructs the duties of the LA under statementing, legal framework 
>law and CoP statutory guidances.
>
>Parents must be informed of their right to appeal to the SENDIST if they 
>disagree with needs and provision as set out in a new or newly amended 
>statement. The Appeal panel will always rule in accordance with the 1996 
>Education Act, subsequent Case Law and the SEN Code of Practice 2001. They 
>will not rule in accordance with LA delegation / devolved funding policy 
>and practices -- although they will show an interest in it -- and not be 
>hostile to those aspects that do not infringe childrens' entitlements -- 
>and are reasonably and lawfully trying to further Govt. delegation and 
>devolved funding strategies.
>
>So all of the children negatively affected by your LAs policy (i.e., are 
>losing their entitlements as evidenced by the huge disparity in their 
>provision as compared to those still unaffected by the LAs restrictive 
>delagation / devolved funding policy) should be protected by the SENDIST 
>appeal system.
>?
>Parents could also complain under Section 496 /7 of the Eduction Act to the 
>Secretary of State -- for the effect of the LAs unreasonable / unlawful 
>policy on their child --?and for it effect to be?to be stopped. And even 
>for the policy as it breaces / potentially breaches the legal framework to 
>be changed so that it's stopped in respect of its negative effect on all? 
>SEN / statemented children in the LA area.
>
>If you look on IPSEAs Website -- you will see that IPSEA has a complaint 
>against Northumberland for operating similar policies -- and is doing this 
>jointly with the Downs Syndrome Asociation and a Northumberland Secondary 
>School.
>
>I suggest you inform any parents of affected chidren at you school to ring 
>IPSEA -- particularly if they are in a right to appeal situation. Brendan 
>King (speaking in a personal capacity).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kate <kate.senrab at btinternet.com>
>To: 'senco-forum' <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
>Sent: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 7.18pm
>Subject: [senco-forum] variations in LEA statementing policy, how to cope!
>
>
>
>In my LEAwe have a similair system in practice, although it is not so 
>clearly laid down.?
>One of the hardest parts about the system for me as a SENCO in a school 
>with a very high turnover of pupils is that I am running three systems at 
>once, both within my school and across the country. In my LEA Childen with 
>a Statement over 20 hours - TA support ring fenced set and paid for by LEA, 
>Statements under 20 hours, first 10 hours paid for by school from devolved 
>funding any additional funded by LEA again ring fenced. Children at SAPlus 
>who I am supposed to support from devolved funding, and not Statement - TA 
>support dependent on school budget, needs of cohort and class teachers 
>approach to SEN. All the TAs are on differnt pay and conditions (although I 
>am trying to regularise this) In addition advisory teaching services are 
>only available for those with 20 hours plus (except EP/behaviour support) 
>All this leads to very differing levels of support for chidren with the 
>similair levels of need, but who have come into the system at different 
>times and thru differnt routes. Devolved funding can be great for the 
>SCHOOL, because it allows for flexibility and early intervention. But it 
>provides no protection for the INDIVIDUAL CHILD who is at the mercy of 
>budgets, policies, Ofsted recommendations etc, which may all suggest that 
>priorities lie elsewhere. We have a large number of children transfer in 
>and out.If they arrive with a statement it is funded for 3 months until a 
>review is held, when the statement is rewritten and funded under my LEAs 
>policy.?
>For example We are expecting a Y6 child in Sept, from an LEA who has 
>devolved all fundng. This child has been perm excluded from one school, but 
>is doing well at his current school with full time TA support. He has twice 
>been refused a statement on the grounds that the school is providing 
>appropriate provision form delegated funding. Which they are, BUT, in my 
>LEA we are only funded for 10 hours not 27!! If he had a Statement my LEA 
>would fund it for 3 months , during which time the child would have a good 
>chance of successfully transferring. Instaed, either this child receives 
>the same support as others with BESD at SAP in our school - roughly 10 
>hours a week in class gp support, plus some 1:1 or gp sessions 3 times a 
>week. Or we treat him as if he had a statement and I take 10 hours away 
>from other children and put it with him.... either of these is still a huge 
>reduction on his current 27 hours , and just when he will need it most in a 
>new setting. We have been talking with his cureent school to try and manage 
>the situation... but I feel this is a good example of where a vulnerable 
>child should have had the protection of a Statement ...any ideas. I have 
>already spoken with both LEAs and our reintegration service, but got 
>nowhere.?
>Kate?
>?
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Get a FREE AOL Email account with 2GB of storage.  Plus, share and store 
>photos and experience exclusively recorded live music Sessions from your 
>favourite artists. Find out more at 
>http://info.aol.co.uk/joinnow/?ncid=548.

_________________________________________________________________
Get Pimped! FREE emoticon packs from Windows Live -  
http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk