[senco-forum] query

This isn't intended to be critical of your school's stance or actions Beth,
but if the legal advice was that that the Authority didn't have strong
chances of defending the case at Tribunal, why did the school 'cave in'?  If
you had a similar case again, I'd suggest that the school should say to the
LA, 'tough, get on with it,' not the other way round.

Brendan has highlighted the legal duty on the Authority to provide the
necessary additional funding, if the school cannot (and there is case law
which supports this) - and it sounds as if the LA didn't amend the statement
to incorporate the new provision.  (I may be inventing an entirely
inaccurate scenario.)

(I'm still glad that the school made the provision, though.)

My understanding is that it is unlawful to treat those who fall within the
definitions less favourably, but I don't think that it is 'unlawful not to
provide more favourable treatment'.  (And I don't think that these are the
same, at all.)

Regards

Biff

----- Original Message -----
From: "bhuke" <beth at bhuke.plus.com>
To: "'Cannon - Miss J'" <JCannon at sus.suffolk.sch.uk>;
<senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: RE: [senco-forum] query - where does the buck stop?

>
> And things are changing all the time.  The DDA makes it clear that we
> HAVE to meet the needs of disabled students, even if that means they get
> special treatment - in this case additional funding from the school over
> and above what would normally be in your budget.  This is a very current
> issue with us.  In the summer term we 'gave in' and thus averted an SEN
> tribunal by employing an extra, full time, TA.  This for a statemented
> child who already has quite a lot of additional support.   We felt, and
> so did parents, that the additional funding needed to keep him at our
> school should have come from the LEA because of the exceptional
> circumstances.  LEA said tough, get on with it.   We held out, and then
> 'found' additional money because legal advice said we would not win the
> tribunal.  The DDA is new law, with teeth, and no case law to provide
> guidance.  So it is unlawful not to make 'reasonable adjustments' (and
> what you or I might consider reasonable isn't necessarily so in law),
> and it is unlawful not to provide 'more favourable treatment'.   It may
> save your head much long term grief if the money is found.   Good luck.
>
> Beth
>
> WARNING!
> Slightly rambling hastily written email!
>
> A hypothetical situation
>
> SEN funding (100% of it derived via Audit) all spent up! Some heated
> discussion between SENCo and Head about what it 'should' be spent on and
> what it is spent on. Yr 9 Student - BESD Statement quantifying 15hrs TA
> support. SEN dept can only provide 2.5! (If we re-direct support, it
> would leave a 'support class' with 3 statemented students without any
> support).  BESD student very much at risk of permanent exclusion. SENCo
> highlights dilemma to Head. Also points out high likelihood of any
> exclusion being overturned because of the school failing to meet his
> Special Ed Needs.
> Head moans..."I can't magic money from no-where...."
> SENCo replies "fine - just to alert you and 'pass the buck'; I can only
> work with the resources I'm given." Head replies "we share the buck - we
> are jointly responsible" Heads suggestion was to move BESD student
> (average ability) into support groups to access support. SENCo declined
> suggestion!
>
> Questions
> 1. Is there anything stronger than 'should' in any guidance about where
> SENCos / admin support is funded from? 2. Any ideas on how to support
> this young man - to make his life chances a bit more positive and to
> avoid perm. excl.? 3. Anyone found any effective ways to squeeze money
> and put it back where it belongs? 4. Am I legally / professionally
> responsible for the failure to meet this students needs?
>
> Any equally rambling advice appreciated!
> Thanks
> Jess
>
>
>
> --
> This email has been verified as Virus free
> Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1040 - Release Date:
> 30/09/2007 21:01
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1040 - Release Date:
> 30/09/2007 21:01
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1040 - Release Date:
30/09/2007 21:01
>
>