funding

[nix]

Hi there my son is 4 years old and diagnosed asd and developmental delay. He currently attends a school which is not our LEA but only 6 miles away which his brother NT also attends. My asd son is currently on EYFI action plus and has 9000 pounds funding. I have just received my proposed statement from my lea and it is absolutely horrendous it says the money is less 7143 and is not qualified and quantified etc no arrangements for teaching 1:1 etc. I am in consultation with ipsea etc. The only problem is that the ep phoned the other night to say that if I get the statement in the way I want it written then they will make him attend a school local to us which is not on because he is all settled in at his school set up with all the things such as teacch visual diary etc. She said the reason was that it would be detramental to the other children in the school if he attended it as he would be taking away sen fuding from non statemented pupils. Has anyone else had to go through this worry and can they make him do this I will fight all the way but It is really hard and I am worried sick I am justso happy with the school he currently attends. My house has been up for sale for 18 months and have just reduced it but ipsea have said to wait until I get the statement because I would have to go through this process again when I moved and start from the beginning requesting assesment etc.

[Hectorshouse]

Hi Nix, what a tricky position you are in, firstly IPSEA's advice is correct if you move boroughs before finalising the statement, the new LEA will make you go through the whole assessment process again. This is why I settled with a less than brilliant statement for T when we were in Cornwall, so as I had something concrete to take to the new LEA, even with this though it has been difficult, but through dogged determination we have managed to get extremely good provision for T, albeit until his AR in January, but I am ready for that battle. Having said this though, T's first statement was about as much use as sun tan cream is to a chronic agrophobic. I didn't know this the first time round, was just so pleased to get it, once I knew more and T was having so many problems, we then went for reassessment, which my EP actually thought was unecessary, when in the end the LEA doubled his provision, and increased loads of information in the statement that had been omitted first time round. EP's are good for their reports, that is their job - to provide advice and recommendations for the LEA, not to try and sabotage you.

 

I would be tempted to not get panicked by the EP's comments, try and remember he is also working for the LEA and therefore is under pressure from another agenda (i.e LEA budgetary requirements). What I can't understand is that if your son already recieves 9000 funding how can be getting the same amount be detrimental to other children with SEN. Money from the statement is paid to the school from the LEA for your child, at the moment it looks like your school are already contributing hugely to his SEN needs from their school action+ budget, infact with designated funds from the LEA they would be better off. The EP should not have said any of this to you, you are entitled to have the statement written in the best and most appriopriate way, and the LEA cannot force you name a school in your area, this is a scaremongering tactic, a ploy to baffle parents and scare them into ignorant compliance. Fortunately, you have here and IPSEA to sound out your concerns, don't let them hood wink you. Also, as your son attends a school with another sibling, this a another strong ground for admission.

 

Your proposed statement should be quantified and hopefully IPSEA will help you through this process, as your son already attends the school which you are going to name this gives you a very strong argumemt for maintaining the placement, and the LEA would have to have extremely good reasons for this move, schedule 27 of the Education Act 1996 supports you with this.

 

Sorry for going on a bit, hope your OK, stick with your instincts and sound it out one here, I'm sure other people with give you some sound advice.

 

HHxx

[Zemanski]

LEAs use funding issues to make us feel guilty and accept the crumbs they offer our children

 

sorry to be so cynical but I have heard this so many times from so many parents and it's been done to me too.

 

your child has a right to have his needs met and you have a right to say where that should be.

 

funding is not your responsibility, it is the responsibility of the LEA and the school must deal with the LEA if the level of funding is an issue for them. This is the law and regardless of the funding actually given to the school the school must meet your child's statement. It is not your problem

 

So, forget the funding issue, concentrate on getting the statement right.

 

The LEA cannot put conditions on what goes in the statement like this - you need to ask for what you think your child needs and they cannot say he will only get it if he attends a particular school. IPSEA will help with this

 

The LEA may try to pressurise you into accepting an LEA school but you have the right to ask for any school you feel will meet your child's needs to be named in part 4 of his statement; this need not even be a state school.

 

unfortunately the LEA may dig their heels in and refuse to name the school you want on the statement but you can appeal against the decision and go to tribunal if the LEA won't back down. Again IPSEA know their stuff on this

 

the law says that the LEA has to have good reasons for refusing to name a parents' choice of school but that doesn't usually stop them trying.

 

What you need to do is make sure you can answer their points.

first visit all the schools the LEA are likely to offer you (just ring round and ask for an appointment because you are looking for a suitable school for your ASD child, they don't need to know you are looking for evidence to reject them) - write down precisely why each one is not suitable for your son. If it goes to tribunal the tribunal will want to know that you are not just rejecting the LEA schools without considering them. It's also useful when the LEA suggest a school to be ready to say well it seems a very nice school but .....

 

then write down all the reasons the school you want is the most suitable - this will be the basis of an appeal if it has to go that far.

Make sure you include the fact that there will be no transition arrangements to consider and no disruption to your son's education due to transition if he stays in the school he is settled in - point out that ASD children respond particularly badly to transitions of this kind and that he would need transition arrangements to take place over an extended period, say 2 terms, if he were to move, this would be expensive and disruptive.

 

hope that helps a bit

 

HH is really on the ball on this as she (sorry about that, HH ) has been through similar

 

Zemanski

Edited November 26, 2005 by Zemanski

[phasmid]

HH's and zemanski's advice is spot on. Do not let the LEA brow beat you over this.

[Tez]

Hi nix,

 

I'm in the same position as you and am having to confront my LEA over A's proposed statement. The whole point of a statement is that it meets all of your child's needs, it's the LEAs problem how they resource it. As IPSEA reminded me there is clear guidance for LEAs that they must meet the needs of the child

and not the needs of the system. My IPSEA contact has given me a copy of a letter sent from the DfES to all LEAs reminding them of their responsibilities in law. I'll copy it here because it might help you:-

 

The DfES letter

To all Chief Education Officers

31st July 2003

Dear Colleague,

Blanket policies in specifying and quantifying provision in children's statements of special educational needs.

The Department has received a number of complaints that authorities are operating, or planning to operate, blanket policies of never quantifying special educational provision in children's statements.

In many cases these complaints are made against a background of changes to authorities' funding arrangements. In some cases, authorities propose setting out the child's special educational needs in detail in Part 2 of their statement but specifying special educational provision in Part 3 by referring solely to a particular band of funding from their local system of calculating funding or a sum of money. In other cases, it is proposed that provision should be left open to the school in terms of options, for example, a particular number of hours support from a support assistant or a pro -rata amount of time from a Support Teacher or some equipment, without specifying the provision to meet the child's individual needs.

In our view, by having blanket policies to issue statements which do not specify provision clearly and in detail or never quantify provision, authorities would be acting in a way that is inconsistent with the statutory provision in Section 324 of the Education Act 1996 and Regulation 16 and Schedule 2 of the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001, which requires provision to be specified in terms of "any appropriate facilities, equipment, staffing arrangements and curriculum ?" and the advice in the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (2001) paragraph 8.36 and 8.37 which make clear that special educational provision in children's statements must be specified clearly and in detail and normally quantified.

You may find it helpful to see the enclosed copy of the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of The Queen (on the application of IPSEA Ltd) and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. I would draw your attention to paragraphs 14, 15 and 17 in particular in which Lady Justice Hale notes that:

"? the statement clearly has to spell out the provision appropriate to meet the particular needs of, and objectives identified for, the individual child" (paragraph 14):

and

"? any flexibility built into the statement must be there to meet the needs of the child and not the needs of the system." (Paragraph 15)

"It remains the case that vague statements, which do not specify provision appropriate to the identified special needs of the child, will not comply with the law." (Paragraph 17)

It is important that the authorities comply with the statutory requirements regarding specifying special educational provision in children's statements and I should be grateful if you would bring this letter and the enclosed judgment to the attention of staff within your authority with responsibility for drafting statements of special educational needs and their colleagues responsible for funding.

 

Hope this is of some help.

[phasmid]

For the purposes of my research I'd love to be able to quote this letter in my dissertation. Does it have a reference number on it? You can pm me if you'd rather. But it would be a very, very useful point to argue.

[Tez]

Phasmid,

 

I'll email my IPSEA contact and see what I can obtain for you. May take a few days to get an answer.

[call me jaded]

That letter's on the IPSEA website. Also this from Baroness Ashton in Hansard

 

A number of noble Lords have talked about the issue of specification and quantification. We have said that we would always wish to see specification take place. I underline the word "always". Noble Lords have talked about the difficulty of interpretation. I am very conscious that we need to be clear about what we

 

29 Oct 2001 : Column 1262

 

are describing. To me, the word "normally" means that in the majority of circumstances one would expect to see a statement as to quantification.

I give an example. If an LEA refers to the provision of speech therapy "as necessary", that is not properly specifying provision for speech therapy. The provision must be specific as to what is provided and it must be quantified in most circumstances.

 

However, I am clear that in some circumstances we need to be flexible. I do not want to suggest that, by having flexibility, we have provided a get-out clause for any LEA. The vast majority of cases are well catered for. Where there are exceptions we have ensured that there are methods for parents and LEAs to sort out, through the parent partnership services and eventually through the tribunals, the issues under dispute. We do not wish to have blanket policies. We believe that there is a need to have a little flexibility. But I put it on record that that does not mean that LEAs should do anything other than normally quantify.

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...xt/11029-23.htm

[nix]

Thankyou all so much I dont know what I would have done without this website

[LKS]

A bit off topic here but looking at the date of that letter to all chief education officers I wonder if they ever bother to do anything about them. I had a copy of a letter from the Dfes to all CEO regarding ammended statements for all children about to transfer to different schools in the september. It was very clear and said that although ordinarily parents would be informed of the school on the 1st of March, statemented children would receive their ammended statement by the 15th Feb. This would give parents more time to appeal if necessary. My LEA denied all knowledge of this letter and certain members of staff were downright rude when I asked where our statement was and told me its not fair on all the other children if you get to know first Sorry to hi-jack this thread but in the end I had to get my M.P to get the CEO to admit that this letter had been received but not acted on. I think you only have to spend a few minutes on Krism to realise that this letter about quantifying statements etc. is being ignored as well.

[Tez]

There is now a new letter on IPSEA's site that the DfES sent to LEAs in November reminding them of their legal responsibilities(under Dec news). So as LKS says obviously the original letter was still being ignored. Interestingly, my own son's proposed statement was issued after the new letter and still wasn't specifically specified and quantified so looks like they ignored that letter too.

 

 

Link to DfES letter to LEAs

Edited December 5, 2005 by Tez

[Flora]

Tez, I'm sending you a huge <'> and thank you, because I was not aware of that letter until I read your post, and I can see that the contents of this letter could be of huge assistance to me when I go to the review meeting tomorrow for my son's case.

 

Once again, this forum and the rich mix of experience and knowledge available from it's members has proven invaluable.

 

Thanks Tez!!

 

Lauren