Statements

[invent 10 things b4 breakfast]

Ok, my son already has a statement which was drawn up before his diagnosis of Aspergers. His funding for TA's comes from the school budget. I know of another boy in the same school that is also Aspergers but his funding comes from the LEA. How is this determined, why and can I get mine changed?

 

My son has several TA's depending on who they can find to do the "job" but this other little boy has one TA on a contract because she is paid for through the LEA.

 

How can this be??? Anyone know?

Edited August 2, 2005 by invent 10 things b4 breakfast

[helenl53]

Hi Becky

 

Propably because the wording on the other childs statement is very specific about dedicated 1:1 and the quantification .

 

You childs statement is probably worded 'support can be provided from the schools own budget' - in which case, there is the flexibility for the school to provide for your child in a 'flexible' manner.

 

This is where it is so very important to ensure that the statements are written well.

 

 

Now you know where I have a book that may help.

 

Best wishes

 

HelenL

[Zemanski]

Helen is right - your son's statement needs to say what sort of LSA support he should get.

 

where the money comes from is immaterial - the LEA has a legal responsibility to meet your son's statement but it doesn't matter where the funding is from, most funding is now delegated to schools but that is between the school and the LEA and is none of our business.

 

If the statement is being met then it really doesn't matter where the money comes from.

 

if the statement is not being met then you need to challenge the LEA - not about funding but about the provision. Speak to your responsible officer - I think that is what they are responsible for (haven't managed to find anything else that they claim to have any authority over)

 

if the statment is being met but it isn't meeting your son's needs (or you aren't satisfied) then you need to get his statement amended at his next review - you can call an early review if you need to

 

Com was given 1 main LSA in Y7 and it worked well.

 

over Y8 there were various changes because his brilliant LSA got a new job.

we were asked if we minded more than 1 LSA (two is often a good idea as then if one is away there is still continuity) and we said 2 would be ok.

we were introduced to 3, discovered it was four the following week and by the end of term it was up to 7 or 8 - disastrous for Com who couldn't even recognise most of them.

 

we have now got school to agree that it will not be more than 3 and will get this put in his statement next review, along with a whole lot of other stuff.

 

zemanski

[LKS]

Zemanski I think where the funding comes from is our business. As I've said on other threads(sorry to be boring) the funding for my sons statement will not follow him to secondary school, but will come out of their SEN budget. I can't help feeling that if a child was coming into school with X amount, they will be far more likely to receive whats on their statement than if it is coming out of one budget. Don't you think it's worrying that all children with Aspergers. MLD, and Sp&Ld to mention but a few are now all being lumped together under the blanket term of high incidence statements. It seems to me that this is an awfully big responsibility to transfer to schools. How do we know that what is on the statement is actually happening. Does it mean that we have to continually question our children to see what help they are being given and when. After all these children by the very nature of their difficulties may not be able to tell us. I think there is going to be an awfully big temptation for schools to cut corners.10 things b4 breakfast is the other persons statement more recent than your own. On my children's statements it specifies the amount of hours L.S.A. support they should receive, but it says this is in addition to what the school is expected to provide at SA+. For my daughter someone was specifically employed to work eith her in the morning, but in the afternoon they use whatever L.S.A. is available!

[Kazzen161]

In our LEA (same as yours?), if the AS child is "autistic" they get a low incidence statement, and the school gets funding from the LEA. If the AS child is "not autistic", they get a high incidence statement and the funds come from the schools delegated funds.

 

From what I have seen being "autistic" AS means flapping, repetitive speech,etc.

 

In terms of what each child needs, it is no different.

 

Karen

[invent 10 things b4 breakfast]

Hi LKS - yes this other child is only just about to go into Y1 and my son is about to enter Y4.

 

After listening to what you all have to say it seems that because my son did not have a "label" at the time his statement was issued then he was classed as high incidence, but how he has recently got a diagnosis of Aspergers then possibly he could become low incidence? Therefore qualifying for funding from the LEA? Would this be right?

 

My LEA is Dorset and have been pretty good, but I feel that the school are just fitting his hours around what they can get their TA's to work. He has 20 hours a week, including 5 for lunchtime, and they have split it out at 3 full days and 2 with no support at all! How is he expect he cope with no support after having 3 full days? Conspiracy I say

 

When my son moves to middle school in Sept 2006 I know that the school we have in mind don't allocate specific TA's to the child but have specialised ones in each class that is being taught, ie trained in numeracy, literacy etc, but these people need to be trained in AS too So like LKS says what happens then? If the funding counes from the LEA then could we not insist on a specific person for our child rather than who is available?

 

Helen - I'll give you a call soon

Edited August 3, 2005 by invent 10 things b4 breakfast

[Kazzen161]

>>After listening to what you all have to say it seems that because my son did not have a "label" at the time his statement was issued then he was classed as high incidence, but how he has recently got a diagnosis of Aspergers then possibly he could become low incidence?

 

In our County, no this would probably make no difference. High incidence just means there is a lot of it about - it has no correlation to need. So once AS would have been low incidence - now it is classed as high-incidence.

 

As the others said - where the money comes from SHOULD make no difference to the provision. If lunchtime support is specified in the statement- he should get it, regardless of how it fits in with the TA's. If it just says 20 hours per week, they can use it as they like - but common sense would say 4 hours a day.

 

At his next annual Review you could try to get the statement changed to say one trained TA only.

 

It does not matter where the money comes from - what is specified in the Statement must be provided.

 

Karen

[LKS]

When my friend who has a son in year 8 attended his annual review, she felt that not only were the LEA now keen to cease his statement, but the school did to. She felt it had nothing to do with the" progress" he has made this year but more what it could save the LEA and school. Thankfully the specialist teacher for autism stepped in and was able to let the LEA know in no uncertain terms that he was only able to function in mainstream when supported . Think about it, if a L.E.A are able to cease to maintain a statement and the school can still get the same funding, but not have to provide support for a child what a great way of saving money. Sorry to sound so cynical, but my L.E.A have never given me any reason to think that they are interested in anything but saving money.

[invent 10 things b4 breakfast]

I have spoken to my parent partnership friend tonight and apparently all LEA funding ceased in April this year and now all statements are funded through the school.

 

The school have the option to go to a panel called STAR which comprises of the LEA, EP's SENCO etc and they decide if the school requires more money for the child based on individual needs. So this low/high incidence does not seem to exist anymore. Blows my theory out of the window

[helenl53]

Hi Guys,

 

I think it is Mossgrove who has made the point that, it doesn't matter where the funding comes from and that it should not be for us parents to worry about - but I am very very very concerned at the delegation of funding and it would seem, delegation of responsibility. Someone will probably correct me and say it is devolved funding

 

At the end of the day, it is important that we all remember that it is the LEA who have the statutory duty to assess and make provision for our children and to maintain the statements and that they are really making the schools, the fall guys.

 

 

Best wishes

 

HelenL

[helenl53]

Sorry Zemanski - I did not give credit where credit was due - it was in fact your very good self who pointed out about funding - not Simon - although I may have seen it on another thread.

 

Apologies - i was trying to rush out an answer.

 

Best wishes

 

HelenL

[lisa]

LKS

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head with your theory. I'm positive that this is exactly what's happening with us. The school are really digging their heels in and won't admit that L needs help, won't back our request for statutory assessment even though all the professionals who have seen L have recommended 1:1 or said in their opinion she isn't coping. We've even offered to pay ourselves for 1:1 support for her but the school have refused, basically if they accept our money then they're admitting that there's a problem and would have to do something. I can't see any other reason for this apart from money. The school must have to pay for the provision if she gets a statement otherwise they would take on board the professional advice and our concerns and help us.

 

Lisa

[Malika]

Hi LIsa and all

 

Very recently I have been told that there are 5 level for statementing

A B C D E the first 2 do not receive any extra money (A the others have funding from the LEA but this is always subjected to a statutory assesment, it seems as well that in some borough the Lea will give all the provision to the school

who will have the freedome to spend it as they so wish, concerning statmenting I think it will be given to the school but for children who need lot of support there will be some more money given to the school who will decide of the appropriate way to spend it.

This seems to be done in order to avoid the LEA some form of accountability as nobody seems to know then what to do if the school does not spend the money properly. Anybody please let me know if that's correct I am not sure this information was given to me from somebody working for our borough LEA (not the acountability bit of course)..???

 

Malika

[call me jaded]

Malika

 

You need to take this up with the school governors (I am one). I would ask to speak with the SEN governor to raise my concerns.

 

The LEA cannot delegate responsibilty: they have a legal duty to ensure what's in the statement is provided. What they are attempting to do is reduce the amount of admin involved in getting additional help. Previously headteachers would have collect a lot of evidence over a long period of time and make a case for statementing before they can receive extra funding. Now they already have the funding and it's up to them how they spend it. I think this is potentially a good move, but have serious concerns about whether schools will use SEN funds for solely SEN purposes. The people who make this decision are the members of the Board of Governors.

 

Governors are volunteers and there is an increasing demand on their time (new OFSTED guideline in September). They are much more likely to direct attention to SEN if they are aware that parents/carers are asking questions. Governors expect to be accountable for their actions. You can do this in quite a low key and persistent way.

[LKS]

Call me jaded I agree that anything that saves time and admin is a good idea. Hopefully the child gets support straight away and doesn't have to wait for assesment However children who are already statemented are not in the position of waiting, but funding will still not go with them, how will this be better for them I wonder. If anyone can give me some ideas on how I can check that my son and daughter are receiving the amount of support specified in their statements I would be very greatful. My son is probably able to give me an idea, my daughter wouldn't have a clue and I don't want to keep questioning them. My Lea officer said I must trust the school to do what they think is best for my child If this sometimes means that my son is working in class ok, and that another class, in another year group, in another part of the school building needs help with literacy then so be it. I realise that ultimately everyone wants children to work more independently but the L.S.A. should surely be available. How can they possibly tell for sure whether a child will need any help. So while my son was getting further and further behind in the writing up of certain subjects, the school were benefitting from a lovely little literacy group for year 4 run by my son's L.S.A. Yes and I did complain to the head and things would improve for a while and then I find out school is providing about half of support specified so I phone IPSEA and get the letter to say LEA are failing to provide etc. etc. and they would have a word with the head and things would improve for a while .......... I think you get the picture Sorry I've completely gone off on one here

[Zemanski]

The funding can be delegated or come direct from the LEA, that is now up to the LEA to decide and as has been pointed out this does put schools in a very awkward situation when they have to meet statements that cost more than the average they expect to pay for meeting a child's special needs.

 

The temptation for schools is to cut corners and this happened to Com over the last year but mostly the problem for Com was that they looked at a very non-specific statement that allowed them to do it - they met the wording but not the needs.

This is precisely why a statement needs to be specific; if it says 1-1 LSA support but doesn't say no more than 3 LSAs then they can use as many as they like and in literal terms they were meeting the statement and it was the statement's fault that Com's needs weren't met, not the school's or the LEA's (except that the LEA should have given him a specific statement in the first place).

 

This became a problem partly because of the funding issues - if the school had had specific funding for Com then they would have had to spend it on him but because it is delegated they look at it as a part of their overall budget that is being taken up by one child and who can blame them for trying to cut the corners.

But ultimately the legal responsibility for meeting a child's needs is with the LEA and while it is worrying that delegation means that schools are trying to do this cost cutting thing with statements the only way to really fight it is to get the statement really tight and make sure it is met (they are not acting illegally unless they are not actually meeting the requirements of the statement).

 

Delegation is relatively new, certainly to the extent that is now happening, and there are bound to be teething problems with it. As with anything there are pro's and con's - at the moment we seem to be seeing more of the con's but there are good things about it, especially for kids who don't have statements.

 

Schools need to get the message that they cannot cut corners in meeting the needs of autistic and AS children but they are on a very steep learning curve at the moment, both about budgeting and about ASDs.

These children may be 'high incidence' (an illegal blanket policy? - check with IPSEA about these statement bands if you think they are having a negative effect on your child's provision) but that does not necessarily mean 'low cost' and schools can still get extra funding from most LEAs if they are prepared to challenge them and provide the evidence - Com's school got an extra �3000 last year (which I helped them get) but were discouraged by the LEA from applying for it this year and now thoroughly regret it.

Next year they won't have any choice but to put the provision in place properly, Com's statement will have it all there so they can't ignore it and then it is up to them to make sure the LEA gives them enough money - legally that is not my problem, I have quite enough to worry about just making sure his needs are met.

 

Once schools get the message that they must meet a statement then they should stop most of these silly games with funding and making us feel guilty about it - they know that funding is not our business, they only tell us to get us feeling that we are being unreasonable and to stop us demanding that our children's needs are met.

 

Zemanski

[helenl53]

Hi Zemanski,

 

I am glad you are making sure the point about explicit statements gets across.

 

10 Things has spoken about a Multi Agency panel in her lea who will decide on funding when a school applies for extra cash.

 

But with all these initiatives, it is important that parents of children with statemented needs do not forget who has the legal responsibility for maintaining those statements.

 

There are some clever words being used in some cases which would leave parents under the illusion that the school have the responsibility and that if there is no money then that is a case of tough doo doos.

 

To use an analogy, the school are the sub-contractor but the contractor is the lea and that is where the buck stops.

 

Best wishes

 

HelenL

[Zemanski]

great analogy, Helen

 

Z

[call me jaded]

I have quite enough to worry about just making sure his needs are met.

 

Absolutely. Policing the statement deserves its own thread.

[LKS]

Sorry invent 10 things to Hi-jack your thread . I also find my time is quite taken up making sure the needs of my 2 statemented children are met. However policing their statements is something I seem to have become involved in as I did not have the benefit of help or guidance in the past to make sure their statements were watertight! I'm quite offended if people believe that policing their statements is detrimental to making sure their needs are metl

[Zemanski]

Hi LKS,

 

sorry, I didn't mean to imply that questioning the funding system is not our business only that it is not our concern when looking at our individual children's statements and needs - I think we got crossed wires here.

 

There are many policies at school, LEA and government level that need challenging and I have fought battles to get policy changed myself - someone has to and the more of us that challenge the better.

I have a great deal of respect for anyone who can find the time and energy:notworthy:. - I must admit though that I cannot spare it at the moment as Com is in full blown crisis so his immediate needs have to come first.

 

The problem with the funding issue is that there are two sides to it -

 

one is about scrutinising the policy itself at LEA and government levels so that we can be sure it is going to be adequate to meet the needs of SEN children in general and in particular those with statements, which is what I think you are talking about and which definitely needs to be done;

 

the other is about how funding influences how the individual statement is met, which legally it should not. However, schools do like to use funding as an excuse to make us feel guilty about asking them to meet our children's needs which is why I say so strongly that it is not our concern when looking at a specific statement - if we're looking at global issues it ranks up there with the policies of inclusion and zero tolerance behaviour, etc., but in this case I was talking about individual needs which I think was where the thread started - can't check back that far, sorry, 10 things.

 

hope that clears up the misunderstanding, I really didn't mean to offend.

 

Zemanski

[LKS]

Zemanski It's me who should apologise . Iv'e only been on here a couple of months and I'm already having a strop I think I've become so used to being under attack from the school and the L.E.A that I no longer recognise when someone is offering some genuine help So please forgive me.

[Zemanski]

Hi LKS,

no need to apologise - we all get mixed up and go off at tangents - mine is currently the 'specifying provision' hobby horse because that's what I'm trying to get sorted for Com just now so I tend to get quite carried away.

 

resourcing inclusion properly and making it work in a way that suits our kids (those that can benefit from it) as well as providing specific units and specialist schools (for those that need to be included in a different environment) is another I'm working on - I'm helping push for a specialist AS resource here, attached to Com's school, much like the one in sheffield even though it won't be up and running till Com is in the 6th form as it will be part of a new build that's planned to come into use for 2008. - I could spout for hours on that topic!

 

We are the trail blazers, the ones that won't lie down and take no for an answer, there are lots of us here doing it in our own way, whether it is for individual children or for every SEN or disabled child in the country (just been looking at the DRC thread in general discussion) - it's always good to know we're not alone even when we have the ocassional misunderstanding

 

stay strong and keep up the good work

 

Zemanski