Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
Statements don't come with funding any more...........(19 Posts)
I think it is because of devolved funding matrix formulas.
Basically, the LEAs get given a pot of money according to a multi-factored formula, such as deprivation scores, etc. That is supposed to cover all high-incidence SEN, including pupils with statements. The exception is some low incidence statements like profound physical disability. So, while the statement ear-marks provision for the child, it is down to the school to fund it out of their annual budget.
You are being told that because they are trying to tell you that there is no 'pot of gold' waiting at the end of the statementing rainbow.
You, as an informed Mother, will go back and say that you don't care what funding comes with the statement, that is their problem, not yours, and you expect DS to get the provision that he has been assessed as requiring.
funding still comes with dd2's low incidence statement... as lou bsays, tis an irrelevance. you don't care how they fund it - money is not your concern - but they will provide the support.
totally meaningless statement, as far as you are concerned.
what they are trying to get you to say is "oh, really? well, better not go through the hassle of fighting for one then"
once a statement is issued it is legally binding, as you know.
at that point it doesn't matter where they get the money from - it justneeds to be found.
it's because most LEA folk are experts at tangential conversations - they appear to answer your query, but in fact say something completely different.
one of my favourites was last year, when dh & I were arguing that dd1 should not stay at the school she is at, as she has not progressed at all.
head of school said: "oh, but next year will be different () - dd1 will be in a different class, which will meet her needs better"
me: "but it will take her all year to settle - you know how long she feels unsettled for after a change"
head: "she will have one staff memebr the same. this will provide continuity for her"
me: "but isn't that staff member going off on maternity 4 weeks after term starts? that's not much continuity is it?"
head "well, we can't keep her on at work just to suit dd1, you know. ha ha ha (fixed grin)
it just all goes around in circles, tbh.
you know they can't currnetly provide for your ds, and you know what he needs. their job is to deny what you know, and talk up what they (don't) provide.
this is all part of the same "if you insist on having X funding, another child [whose needs are greater] will miss out" - like that is anyone's problem but the LEAs...
Perhaps it is because they know your aim is to fund ABA? Most statemented children have educational provision that's sourced from an educational establishment i.e. school. They don't worry about the money, because it has already gone to the school. But you want provision which will specifically cost them money, so they are trying to tell you that there isn't a pot of cash for each statement as such.
You are telling them you don't want money, you want ABA.
I have lost count of the number of similar cobversations I've had, Starlight.
what makes it all the more is the LEA are already funding dd1 at a private ASD pre-school. It is not meeting her needs, and is costing the LEA a lot of money (she is fully funded for a full time lpace - we don't send her full time as we are running an ABA programme part time)
we want dd1 to go to an ABA school. we know there is a place available for her (in 3 different schools actually). the funding that the LEA are already providing would pay half-two thirds (depending on which school) of the cost, but they won't agree it. they would rather waste the money on a lacement that isn't meeting her needs, as at least the placement is TEACHH based
it is a total farce, tbh.
its cos our kids are just points as far as SEN are concerned.... & what do points make..
I don't know if there is the same system everywhere but here they have an SEN audit & the child earns points for statements, dx, outside agency involvement etc etc... the more points the more the school budget is topped up from the LEA SN budget.
So yes there is not a direct ££ per statement funding BUT if the statement is in place at the start of the yr & included in the school SEN audit then the school SEN budget should reflect the childs needs.
The shortfall comes when a statement is put in to place half way through the yr (post audit). I fthis happens the school has to fund the support detailed in the statement from existing funds.
Its all a load of bllcks aimed at making it harder for our dc to get the suppport they need & no doubt local LEA bosses will achieve a bonus for keeping the purse strings tightly closed.
The otherS are correct though... not your problem its the schoiols problem to argue for additional funding from the LEA.
Education Act 1996 section 324.
Paragraph (5) (a) (i) which states:
Where a local education authority maintain a statement under this section, then
(a) unless the childs parent has made suitable arrangements, the authority
(i) shall arrange that the special educational provision specified in the statement is made for the child.
The LA is legally obliged to make sure the provision in the statement is delivered.
Even if they state that they have delegated all the funds to the school, the LEA cannot delegate their legal responsibilities - I've been doing my homework!
"(a) unless the childs parent has made suitable arrangements, the authority"
Does that mean that parents who set up ABA programs to prove their effectiveness have to tread carefully, in case they are deemed to be making suitable arrangements?
The irony is that many authorities happily send kids out of county to horrendously expensive schools just to get them out of their hair. These can cost up to £100 000 a year nad from my experience, offer no proof of using evidence based practice or running an integrated curriculum based on this delivered by well trained staff.
And yet they get twitchy about £30 000 a year of ABA, the one truly solid data driven evidence based intervention.
I hope so Starlight, because the wording is ambiguous, and LEAs are slippery fish.
Will reply here and your other thread so you see it.
The key thing is that ds gets what his statement says. It is not your problem who pays and the law backs this up fully. The LA remain responsible for the provision happening, even if they delegate funding, and schools can force the LA to pay even if they do delegate funding under a formula, if they choose to say that they haven't enough money under the formula arrangement. This is why you (rightly) are pushing for the Statement: without it, you have no guarantee of anything happening and with it, the provision has to happen or the law is being broken.
J's statement is under exceptionality rules of funding and thus the school contribute nothing to the funding; it comes direct from a central budget. Nothing under 25 hours a week does though. J gets 38 hours (100% school cover plus extra 5 hours for liaison/ resources prep. etc.) but I have to say, he gets so much purely because of his behaviour, not particularly his core autism issues of communication and interaction. His behaviour is unsafe and unpredictable and thus he needs that adult supervision all the time. I know that that was the only reason he got it - he's exceptional in his behaviour not his autism in the eyes of the LA iyswim.
Join the discussion
Please login first.