[senco-forum] query

One small but important?correction Beth. It is against the DDA to provide "less favourable treatment". That is quite different than your statement that it is against the law not to provide "more favourable treatement". You seem to have been misinformed -- so I'm not blaming you as messenger.

?

Tthe aim of the law is to provide "equality of treatment" and this may require "different" forms of treatment,?as your LEA officer / team leader informant should have known quite well. It is this weaseling with words that makes disabled persons like me (I'm a w/chair user) annoyed and frustrated. It indicates a lack of will, and even perhaps a certain hostiltiy, towards any person that has to have a different form of treatment in order for them to obtain equallity of outcome. I'm sure this is not the case with you -- but you inadvertantly gave this impression -- and this has no doubt been caused by misinformation provided to you and your colleagues.

?

In my view, the law is not too strong for disabled persons -- it is far too weak and confusing. Disability discrimination is far more widespread than any other form of discrimination -- and the DDA?is light years behind gender and race law. 

?

The hurdles for a parent to have a DD claim accepted by the Tribunal are very high -- and pursuing a claim is immensly costly in time, stress and money -- which is why -- all in all -- there has been relatively few claims and so little case law.? And the teeth are a slap on the wrist for the school and / or LEA and a bit of retraining -- and as the ruling inevitably comes well after the discrimination occurred -- the harn has already been done.

?

One hopes that the existence of the law, and the moderate exemplers of what is set as?measures of reasonable adjustments, will?lessen the widespread inequaltities suffered daily by disabled pupils -- happening despite the best efforts of many dedicated teacherrs such as yourself who bravely provided the required provision against all odds.?

?

I?only wish?the seemingly revealed views of those who advised you?were not so widespread. At least you have been honest with?situation you found yourself in and?in expressing the vital?wrong fact you were given. But the views seemingly prevelant in your area?are?outdated and have to change. And if?I have misinterpreted any fact as given -- I apologise ureservedly in advance to anyone I may have inadvetantly and unfairly crtiscised.

?

In the end,?all of your school's funding?funding is provided by the LEA, however the routing and formulation is arranged.?So the ultimate responsibility for funding shortfalls invariably lies with them?-- so long?the school's budget is managed equitably and?efficiently. And, of course, the LEAs funding?is obtained from the taxpayer initially. Ask the taxpayer if they want disabled school pupils to be treated equally and the answer will virtually always be yes -- so the money implicitly voted for by the tax payer has to be found. Funding is not the root issue in my view -- alhough it is always the LEA defence --?it is attitiude I'm sad to say. 

Best wishes -- Brendan King?

-----Original Message-----

From: bhuke 

To: 'Cannon - Miss J' ; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk

Sent: Mon, Oct 1 2:28 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         

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com