Can the LA name an alternative mainstream pre-school nursery on a statement?

[Yossarian]

My son is in a private pre-school nursery for 3 mornings a week, and presently gets 75% 1:1 funding on top of his nursery funded hours. He has a diagnosis of ASD and is 3 years old. He's due to get a final statement next week. We have named the nursery in our response to the LA (wanting to do ABA partly at home, partly at nursery). First question is:

 

Is the private nursery by definition a "maintained school" under the education act / Code of Practice?

 

The LA have informed us they are consulting with other pre-school nurseries attached to local schools (presumably these are "maintained schools"), probably with an eye to naming one of them in Part 4 of his statement. For a number of reasons we consider these unsuitable. Question 2:

 

Can the LA name one of these schools in Part 4 against our wishes? If they do, and we disagree, does anyone know where this will leave his provision whilst we get to tribunal?

 

From the COP:

Parents may express a preference for the maintained school ( but not a PRU or

hospital special school) they wish their child to attend, or make representations

for a placement in any other school. LEAs must comply with a parental

preference unless the school is unsuitable to the child’s age, ability, aptitude or

special educational needs, or the placement would be incompatible with the

efficient education of the other children with whom the child would be educated,

or with the efficient use of resources. LEAs must consider parental

representations and arrange any meeting(s) with LEA advisers orofficers the

parents seek, before issuing the final statement.

 

 

 

[Kathryn]

My son is in a private pre-school nursery for 3 mornings a week, and presently gets 75% 1:1 funding on top of his nursery funded hours. He has a diagnosis of ASD and is 3 years old. He's due to get a final statement next week. We have named the nursery in our response to the LA (wanting to do ABA partly at home, partly at nursery). First question is:

 

Is the private nursery by definition a "maintained school" under the education act / Code of Practice?

 

No, - a maintained school is an LA funded school so the bit you quoted from the COP about expressing a preference, wouldn't apply.

 

The LA have informed us they are consulting with other pre-school nurseries attached to local schools (presumably these are "maintained schools"), probably with an eye to naming one of them in Part 4 of his statement. For a number of reasons we consider these unsuitable. Question 2:

 

Can the LA name one of these schools in Part 4 against our wishes?

Yes possibly on the grounds that it would be a more "efficient use of resources" than funding a private school. You would have to come up with reasons why only the private school is suitable. have a look at the COP 4:45

 

As to your last question I'm not really sure how early years funding works - sorry, so I don't know what would happen here.

 

K x

[Yossarian]

Thanks Kathryn

 

Looking at COP 4:45, that leaves us "making representations" for the private nursery. That would seem to be a weaker position. The LA have written to the nursery to get their view as to whether the setting agrees with my child attending (has been there for 18+ mths). Their response is yes - but need more support (the autism outreach service has done very little since its involvement).

 

So I suppose the LA could name a maintained nursery because the nursery 'cannot cope with existing support'

Edited February 5, 2010 by Yossarian

[Kathryn]

It is a weaker position - the LA don't have a duty to comply with your request for private provision.

 

You would probably be in a better position of the private nursery could meet all his needs already. Presumably a maintained nursery would also need additional support though (?) If both are judged to be equally suitable so it would come down to a comparision between the cost of the two placements. The LA will always look at their own schools first as it's the cheaper option.

 

K x

[Yossarian]

To be honest, the autism outreach service can't provide what my child needs in any setting. The reports we have from the statementing process support our approach (ABA in mainstream and home) or special school. The Ed Psych report states my child needs direct specialist teaching. The outreach service is indirect (they train the mainstream staff or offer specialist teaching assistant support). So naming another setting doesn't get them round the issue(s). The LA have delegated a great deal of their budget directly to schools, so I take your point about the cheapest option. But surely it would be a matter of moving funding from one setting to another. Costs can't be that much different?

[Kathryn]

You may be right, if the difference is just the cost of the nursery hours.

 

K x

[baranigirl]

private nursery sessions are generally 8-1.30 and 1.30 - 6 or close to those times, whereas a preschool or nursery attached to a school is likely to offer 9-11.30 or 9-12 kind of times, therefore the shortfall in costs would need to be met by the parents for the difference between funding and fees (am sure you are already doing this) however where you are needing 1:1 provision the LEA may opt for the 'shorter hours' sessions and offer 100% 1:1 in those rather than 100% 1:1 in the nursery as that means they would need to fund for longer sessions

 

Does that make sense? I know what I am saying lol

[Yossarian]

Thanks baranigirl

 

Our child only attends for funded hours, but the nursery allows us to join some of the sessions, so we get longer coverage for two of the three days he attends. If the LA name a different pre-school we would be offered the vanilla 2 1/2 hr sessions 5 days per week, mornings or afternoons. This would have a big impact on work (one of us may need to stop) the potential logistical difficulty of dropping off and picking up, and our other children being at a different school. The setting of my child won't affect the number of 1:1 hours funded.

I've taken further advice, and the LA can arbitrarily insist my child attends another mainstream setting from the day his statement is issued. We can ask nicely that they maintain the current setting until we get to tribunal, but the LA are under no obligation!

[call me jaded]

AIUI the funding formula for free places is the same whether it's private or LA nursery. In my LA this gives parents more flexibility on naming placements as the LA is unlikely to disagree on the efficient use of resources caveat.

 

In fact the SEN dept are more likely to come down hard on an independent provider who isn't providing the 12.5 hour guarantee than one of their own nurseries.

[purplehaze]

Hi I actually work in a charity run pre-school which is classed as private (not LA run) and we have always had children with autism with statements-what are the reasons the LA are saying for not accepting this place (sorry if i've missed it-I have only read quickly) -unless the pre-school have said they can't meet his needs?????

[Karen A]

4:45 LEAs should note that parents of children under five and over two may express a

preference for a maintained school to be named in their child’s statement. The LEA must

name the school the parents name so long as it meets the criteria set out in Schedule 27

of the Education Act 1996. (See 8:58). A key issue is likely to be whether a school is

suitable for the child’s age. The parents may also make representations in favour of an

independent, private or voluntary early education setting for their child. If the LEA

considers such provision appropriate, it is entitled to specify this in the statement and if

it does, must fund the provision There is, however, no point in doing this for settings

outside the maintained sector unless the setting agrees as the LEA cannot require an

independent or voluntary setting to admit a child. The LEA should ensure that parents

have full information on the range of provision available within the authority and may wish

to offer parents the opportunity to visit such provision and discuss any aspect of the

provision with the Named LEA Officer (see Glossary).

 

Hi.

I do not know if you are aware of the information above from the COP.It specifically applies to children of pre-school age.See especially the information in italics.

Just realised you have quoted from it so must know.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Karen A

[Yossarian]

Thanks for the replies. Nursery are happy to have my son, but have raised concerns over the amount of support from outreach services. Way back in October nursery raised concerns over how my son would cope with stairs - using this as support for him needing 1:1. It was a minor point amongst a whole host of other issues. The LA said nothing on this. They were happy for him to stay there, and provided (and are continuing to provide) additional funding on top of his core hours.

 

Today we received the final statement. His currently nursery is not considered suitable because it cannot meet the provisions set out in the statement without making physical adjustments to the building. Suddenly the nursery is not OK. They have said he must go to a maintained LA pre-school, and provided us with a list. This is what they have stipulated in Part 4 of the statement. So they expect us to visit them and choose. If we do not do so, they will not implement the statement. They will continue to fund him in the present setting at 75% until we get a tribunal direction. This implies they think his current nursery is unsafe (they have known this since October and done nothing about it), are happy to continue funding current placement, but feel he doesn't need continual support whilst he's there.

 

I can't imagine this has anything to do with us pushing an ABA programme at home and nursery.

[purplehaze]

 

Hi, are you completely certain that when requested to do so the pre-school told the LA that they could meet your sons needs-if they have said in the past or when the statement was proposed that they couldn't meet his needs-due to stairs or anything else-then they really must have had to prove this because usually the LA (unless cost is invloved) listen to parents choice and tell the pre-schools or schools they can meet the child's needs (if the think they can) and the school has to acept the child. I know a school with a DSP that has said they can't meet a child's needs but it is parents choice and the LA are questioning why they can't meet the child's needs and might tell them to accept them!!! They will have specific reasons why they believe the pre-school can't meet his needs-have you asked what exactly the reasons are?

[Yossarian]

Yes - we have a good relationship with the nursery, I believe them. They always said they could meet need given enough support. The LA didn't do anything about the building issue it at the time it was raised, and were happy for my son to continue going to the nursery, funding 75% 1:1. We asked the outreach team to specifically identify the problem, which they could not do. Have to try the SEN dept next.

 

To give a bit more background, the LA at first tried to dismiss our son as needing any support, refused to assess for statement, capitulated when we had a tribunal date, and have ignored most of the important expert evidence collected during statementing. It's not out of character......