[senco-forum] Can anyone define this term please?

It could mean the same as Service level Agreement....  which is when a
central service like one run by the local authority is bought in by a school
which has had its budget devolved so it controls lots more of its budget
than it used to..

e.g. a learning support service e.g. a specialist teacher is bought in by a
school because they don't employ this type of teacher directly and only want
one temporarily.

When schools have control of their own budgets, they can buy in services,
anything from teachers to personell or payroll,  from anywhere they like.
they could buy from the LA, or they could even buy from another neighboring
LA.

In my LA, some services are central, some have been disbanded and the school
employ their own.
If we go foundation, then we have even more control of the budget and will
probably go elsewhere for some services.

Do you think that's it?

Claire
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Colston's LSU" <colstonLSU at lwight.eclipse.co.uk>
To: "Judith Stansfield" <stass at onyxnet.co.uk>; "'K Wedell'"
<k.wedell at btinternet.com>; "'senco-forum'" <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:24 PM
Subject: [senco-forum] Can anyone define this term please?

>
> Hi all,
>
> Reading an LEA report today I came across the term "Traded Service".  (The
> report was from a Learning Support LEA Service). Can anyone explain what
> this means as it is a new term to me...
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Lindsay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk]On Behalf Of Judith
> Stansfield
> Sent: 09 January 2007 20:37
> To: 'K Wedell'; 'senco-forum'
> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] private funding for support in school
>
>
> I know of child who was severely disabled in a car accident some ears
> ago who had his own TA funded by the insurance payout - it caused quite
> a lot of problems as she would only work with the child, not a small
> group and it was in her interests to keep him dependent on her, both
> physically and academically
> Cheers
> Judith
>
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Judith Stansfield
> SEN ICT Consultant
> BDANTC (Associate member)
> Farm Cottage, 24 East Road, Melsonby,Richmond DL10 5NF
> stass at onyxnet.co.uk
> 01325 718139   07990572365
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of K Wedell
> Sent: 09 January 2007 18:18
> To: senco-forum
> Subject: Fw: [senco-forum] private funding for support in school
>
>
> RE: [senco-forum] Ruth Kelly case
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: K Wedell
> To: Garner Philip
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Ruth Kelly case
>
>
> Dear Philip,
>
> Re your specific question as to whether a school could legally employ
> someone to act in support of one or more pupils who have certain spec
> needs with funding from a private source, independently of the LA. I'm
> of course no expert on this, but as an ex-chair of governors I think
> there would immediately be questions about the whole gamut of employment
> conditions etc. By definition, this issue doesn't appear to apply to
> anyone who works voluntarily in a school (as I do), other than the
> standard requirement for a CRB check.
>
> I think that any individual who wishes to offer finance for such support
> provision in a school would be faced with the moral issue about whether
> such a support person should only be employed for a particular child -
> eg instead of for any child in the school who had the relevant needs.
>
> It will be interesting to see how the recommendation in last week's
> Gilbert Report that there should be an entitlement to support for
> children who are 'stuck' in their progress will be interpreted -if
> implemented!
>
> Klaus Wedell.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Garner Philip
>   To: K Wedell ; senco-forum
>   Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:56 PM
>   Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Ruth Kelly case
>
>
>   The 'Kelly Case' raises interesting questions - it nicely incorporates
> mainstream versus separate specialist settings, as well as private
> versus State-funded provision. Hours of endless debating here - our MA
> students will have a field day...
>
>   On a related matter, let me pose a question:
>
>   Supposing a child/young person has a learning need which the
> parents/carers feel is not being adequately addressed by the school at
> Action or Action-Plus levels. This has been an ongoing situation for at
> least 18 months and has been discussed at a variety of levels in the
> school and in the LA. The case does not involve a Statement. The
> question: is there a legal (as opposed to ethical/moral) problem in the
> school concerned agreeing to accept some form of covenant which allows
> it to employ a specialist teacher or specialist TA to attend to the
> child/young person's need (and to those of other youngsters who may need
> similar support?)?
>
>   I'd be interested in the views of the Forum on this matter.
>
>   Thanks
>
>   Philip Garner
>
>
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk on behalf of K Wedell
>   Sent: Mon 1/8/2007 6:01 PM
>   To: senco-forum
>   Subject: [senco-forum] Ruth Kelly case
>
>   I think the interesting point about the Ruth Kelly case, is that there
> has not been a decision that the boy requires a Statement in order to
> have his needs met. The implication is that the LA has not come to the
> conclusion that its existing provision makes it impossible to meet  his
> needs adequately in his present school with or without any available
> additional resourcing.
>
>
>
>   Consequently, one presumes that she does not agree - and this is her
> assessment of the quality of the available provision for children in
> general.
>
>
>
>   Klaus Wedell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended
> recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly
> prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating
> this e-mail or any information contained in it.
>
>
>   We virus scan all E-mails leaving The University of Northampton but no
> warranty is given that this E-mail and any attachments are virus free.
> You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor
> E-mail communications through our networks is reserved by us.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/620 - Release Date: 1/8/2007
4:12 PM
>
>