resourced provision within mainstream

[phoebe]

Can anyone help me out here.

 

DS is currently in mainstream and we have been going through the statementing procedure..........the proposed statement allows for 10 hours 1-1 and after meeting with the school, we both returned the forms, reflecting a request that DS be allowed to continue his education at said mainstream but in the "resourced provision."

 

At the same time, we were given the impression by the school that DS would in fact not be treated any differently and that they are already making provision for him (although, apart from careful selection of his teacher and peer group every year, this is mainly of the firefighting kind). So we requested a meeting with the LEA to firm up the wording and to gain their understanding of what this statement would provide ....etc .....etc.

 

Having not heard anything for the past 2 weeks I called them to see about this meeting and during the conversation I said that DS was having a really tough time of it at the moment (see other recent posts) and that apart from anything else, we didn't think that 10 hours was going to be enough for him. I didn't expect her to discuss this or really want her to ( that is the purpose of requesting to see them). Anyway, she said that since he was being considered for the resourced provision (RP), if he were to be accepted, it would be like him going to a special school and as such, statement's weren't provided as the funding was from a different source, so it would become irrelevant how many hours were in the proposed statement.

 

So........

 

can anyone shed any light on this statement from the LEA?

 

Is there a time scale by which they have to have conducted this meeting that we requested to go over the proposed statement?

 

Doesn't there seem to be a contradiction between the schools comments that they will not in fact do anything differently and the leas statement that being in the RP would be like him being in a special school?

 

Any tips from anyone who has a child within a RP in a mainstream primary?

 

Thank you - sorry for length of post!!

 

Phoebe

[Kathryn]

What???

 

The statement should set out all the provision your son needs. It doesn't matter where the funding is coming from - that's for the LEA to sort out. Being in resourced provision doesn't remove a child from the system - case law has established that even special schools must quantify and specify a minimum level of provision in the statement.

 

K x

[Suze]

My son is in High school resourced provision.When he was at primary he had 15 hrs quantified on his statement.When he moved to HS his statement was changed and now has"education provided in a resourced setting".With no quantified hours.He is infact supported all the time within the provision.

[Kazzen161]

>>statement's weren't provided

 

here, a child can't get into a special school or resourced provision unless he has a statement.

 

Karen

[JsMum]

Well I didnt even know anything about resourced provision but J is in primary so might not of come across it I have just googled it and its a bit clearer what Resourced provision is, so just letting you know I didnt even know anything about this.

 

from what I have read about Resourced Provision it did mentions Statemented SEN mostly, so its a real concern if you can only access this if on a statement.

 

JsMum

[pumpkinpie]

In our area a child cant get extra help ie dsp without a statement - it sounds a bit odd to me.

[annie]

Hi Phoebe,

 

My son had a placement in an ASD unit attached to a mainstream school which my LEA tried to wriggle out of putting on his statement, we did get the statement amended in the end though. As kathryn has said "The statement should set out all the provision your son needs".

 

This is a snippet taken from IPSEA's website IPSEA. You could always give their helpine a ring if you are having problems with the school/LEA, the phone number's are on their homepage. If they are busy, keep trying, it's worth it

 

Annie

xx

[julieann]

Can anyone help me out here.

 

DS is currently in mainstream and we have been going through the statementing procedure..........the proposed statement allows for 10 hours 1-1 and after meeting with the school, we both returned the forms, reflecting a request that DS be allowed to continue his education at said mainstream but in the "resourced provision."

 

At the same time, we were given the impression by the school that DS would in fact not be treated any differently and that they are already making provision for him (although, apart from careful selection of his teacher and peer group every year, this is mainly of the firefighting kind). So we requested a meeting with the LEA to firm up the wording and to gain their understanding of what this statement would provide ....etc .....etc.

 

Having not heard anything for the past 2 weeks I called them to see about this meeting and during the conversation I said that DS was having a really tough time of it at the moment (see other recent posts) and that apart from anything else, we didn't think that 10 hours was going to be enough for him. I didn't expect her to discuss this or really want her to ( that is the purpose of requesting to see them). Anyway, she said that since he was being considered for the resourced provision (RP), if he were to be accepted, it would be like him going to a special school and as such, statement's weren't provided as the funding was from a different source, so it would become irrelevant how many hours were in the proposed statement.

 

So........

 

can anyone shed any light on this statement from the LEA?

 

Is there a time scale by which they have to have conducted this meeting that we requested to go over the proposed statement?

 

Doesn't there seem to be a contradiction between the schools comments that they will not in fact do anything differently and the leas statement that being in the RP would be like him being in a special school?

 

Any tips from anyone who has a child within a RP in a mainstream primary?

 

Thank you - sorry for length of post!!

 

Phoebe

 

Hi Phoebe,

Speaking with ASD LSA head. Supporting year 8 pupil statemented in mainstream secondary 10 hours.

10 hours are not nearly enough in secondary school. Thats only two hours a day how does DS cope for rest of day.

Our pupils have seven lessons a day(45 mins) = 35 lessons a week. All practical lessons have to be covered.

At least 1/2 hr support at lunchtime every day (two half hrs)

Remaining seven and half hrs will only cover nine and a half lessons 1:1 That would leave 25 and a half lessons unsupported.

Even if DS had lunchtime 6th form buddy 10 hours 1:1 is only a third of weekly hours. How would DS cope for other two thirds.

We are trying to get our pupil at least 20 hrs weekly support.

Julieann

Edited March 2, 2007 by julieann

[Karen A]

Hi.The issue of quantification of provision in Statements for children at Specialist units in our area was discussed at a review of SEN provision recently.The exact level of provision had not been quantified in detail according to individual need.Hence the level of some support could be reduced if resources were tight.In practice some children were getting much less support in some areas.It is really important to ensure that whatever is to be provided is quantified in detail-both who will provide support and how often.Please do not allow the LEA to get off the hook by suggesting because your child may be placed in specialist provision it is not an issue.Karen.

[phoebe]

No chance anyone is getting off the hook here - too much is at stake.

 

We will go all the way if necessary.

 

Seem to be meeeting a few brick walls and a lot of procrastination in the meantime though!

 

Thank you for your replies.

 

Phoebe

[UltraMum]

From IPSEA

Sometimes, LEAs determine not to quantify or specify provision for children whose statements provide for them to attend special schools. There is nothing in law which limits the obligation to quantify and specify provision to those children not attending special schools. However, in E v London Borough of Newham and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal [2003] ELR 286, the Court of Appeal accepted that, where a child was attending a special school, a lower level of specificity may be appropriate. LEAs often seek to rely on that decision to argue generally that provision for a child at a special school should not be specified or quantified. However, the obligation still remains to specify and quantify provision, except where there are good reasons not to do so. Merely attending a special school is not a sufficient reason not to specify provision and "flexibility" must be something that the child needs. As the Court of Appeal said in a case brought by IPSEA, (R (on the application of IPSEA Ltd) v Secretary of State for Education and Skills) [2003] ELR 393): "any flexibility built into the statement must be there to meet the needs of the child, and not the needs of the system."