[senco-forum] query

I think the problem is that we really don't know what would happen if it
did go to tribunal.  The parents sent in a claim - they were cross with
the LEA but the claim concerned admission, which is a school matter, and
so the tribunal named the school.  We could have held out and gone to
tribunal, but it's hard to get tough with the LA otherwise.  In the
meantime the school, parents and child get caught in the crossfire.  We
wanted to support them, and decided the best way was to make provision
ourselves and fight the battle in other ways - which we are still
pursuing!!  Not that we have much hope of success, but we believe we are
right.  
My understanding is that it is unlawful not to provide 'more favourable
treatment' if that;s what is needed in order to meet the needs of a
disabled child, but as yet there is no case law.

Beth

-----Original Message-----
From: Biff Crabbe [mailto:ba at biffc.vispa.com] 
Sent: 01 October 2007 20:08
To: bhuke; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: Re: [senco-forum] query - where does the buck stop?

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
>
>

--
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