Difference between VC, VA, Academy and Maintained?

[ETM]

DC is KS2 and has an EHCP.

There are a few issues with school providing things included on the EHCP and they’re saying its due to the way the school is funded plus the class make up itself (there’s several EHCPs with FT Tas which in itself is unusual at KS2 and school are saying its too much so some DC in the class miss out)

I’m looking at moving schools but not sure if we might get the same issues due to funding so what are the difference between the types of school and how they’re funded?

Also wondering if it’s worth moving for what might end up being 12-18 months.

DC has no behaviour issues at all, which is apparently part of the issue – school say EHCPs are more for behavioural issues and need would be met without it.

I don't know how the school funding interacts with fulfilling the EHCP.
Is your child's EHCP well-written and a good description of the child's needs, without any woolly "get out" clauses/weasel words e.g. "would benefit from"/"occasionally"/"when possible" which mean the school don't have to do anything?

in terms of the differences between schools which was your question in the title - centuries ago, the government didn't involve itself in education much. however, the Church owned and ran some schools and some other charitable foundations too.
When the government decided to start providing universal education, existing schools that were owned and run by organisations other than the state had the opportunity to become integrated with the state system. The state was building a great many new schools too, but the land and buildings of existing schools are very valuable assets which couldn't be just transferred to state ownership.

A voluntary aided school will have some existing funding from the church or charitable body that originally founded it. there might be an endowment fund providing an annual income for the maintenance of the school which has existed for centuries, possibly from legacies of local gentry.

A voluntary controlled school will have the governors/trustees appointed by the church or charitable organisation and the original founding principles of the school will be more significant - either of these may be more likely to have church attendance and baptism as admissions priority criteria, if they were specifically founded to provide a Christian education to the faithful then it would be inappropriate to abandon that altogether.

in a maintained school the building is still owned by the church or charity but the funding all comes from the state, and the church may have less power over the governance.

academies are a more recent invention, where the school can be owned by an organisation which may be a profit-making business rather than a charity (though some academy trusts are charitable or church-owned too) and funding comes from the state, but the academy trust makes all the decisions abd are freed from the oversight of the local education authority.

I can't see how any of this would prevent a school from fulfilling its obligations in an appropriately worded EHCP.

Whether the school is VC, VA, maintained or an academy really shouldnt have any bearing on an EHCP being delivered. And EHCPs arent just for behavioural issues.

The thing you need to do is check the ehcp is fit for purpose. It needs to be clear. If it is fit for purpose then it needs to be enforced. If you look at sossen there is advice.

Is the provision specified and quantified in section F? No woolly or vague wording e.g. access to, would benefit from, regular, or equivalent, opportunities for, e.g. …?

If it is specified and quantified the provision must be provided and if it isn’t you can enforce it. Email the LA’s Director of Children’s Services (as it is the LA who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the provision is provided) informing them of the situation and stating if the situation continues you will be forced to begin judicial review proceedings. Often the threat works but if it doesn’t contact SOSSEN for help with a pre-action letter.

Also email the headteacher informing them the provision in F must be provided and to not do so is disability discrimination. Others in the class and funding is irrelevant.

Sadly if the provision is vague and woolly it can’t be enforced and you should request an early review to tighten it up.

EHCPs can be fully funded regardless of the type of school.

Thanks everyone

Section F is specificied, I insisted on this. It says "(DC) will have 15 hours of TA support per week, 10 of which will be used in foundation subjects in the classroom, the other 5 will be provided either within the classroom or as small group or 1-1 work outside class" "(DC) will recieve X input from X professionals" "(DC) will miss PE in order to take part in extra group input sessions where appropriate"

It's the TA hours thats the main issue, DC is getting the 1-1/Group input and the help from other professionals but nothing in the classroom as school are saying they cannot have anymore staff in the classroom as it will be overcrowded and that they do not have the funds to provide it anyway and because DC behaves (worst they do is refuse to work independently, and just sit there hence the 1-1 as they won't ask for help) that there's actually no need for the EHCP.

in that case the school are clearly saying they can't meet your child's needs, as they do not have the space for the TA to support your child, and clearly don't have a very good understanding of what the TA is needed for if they think that a child who isn't misbehaving but also isn't participating or learning therefore doesn't need support. Your child needs a different school where all the provisions of the EHCP can be met, not just picking and choosing the bits they find easier to meet.

You can enforce the provision, funding and other members of staff are irrelevant. Email the LA threatening JR and email the school reminding them the provision in F must be provided and to not do so is disability discrimination and leaves them open to legal proceedings.

You don’t need to move school, you can enforce the provision in the current school. The school can’t just say they can’t meet needs. They are named in the EHCP therefore they must provide the provision.

While it isn’t the vaguest I have seen it also isn’t the tightest. For example,
“Small group” needs defining - your definition will not be the same as the LAs. What will they be doing during the small group or 1:1.
“where appropriate” needs removing, what group input sessions, who will lead it, what will the do…
The TAs experience, training, qualifications should also be stated.
You should try to tighten it up at the next AR.

@JustKeepBuilding The group work/1-1 isn't the issue, this is being provided, school define group work as no more than 3 other DC. Will take out the where appropriate though I agree with that and get them to firm up the no more than 4 in the group.

Missing PE is fine, as school let me know in advance if that will happen and we discuss it.

It's just the lack of TA in the classroom because they say the already have 3 other TAs plus the Teacher in the classroom and they're saying to add another adult will make the room overcrowded, hence thinking a different school might be better as I don't want them to breech fire regs either, the class already has 31 DC in it so can see how adding 5 adults in could make it overcrowded.

Obviously you can look to move school if you want, but you can enforce the provision in the current school.

I don't want them to breech fire regs either, the class already has 31 DC in it so can see how adding 5 adults in could make it overcrowded

working out how the EHCP can be fulfilled without overcrowding, breaching fire regs or overspending the funding is not your problem. it doesn't matter that you can understand their difficulty. you are the person who has to advocate for your child and make noise if the child's needs are not being met. They are proposing to resolve the difficulties by ignoring your child's needs, that's not acceptable.

it sounds like forcing a Judicial Review might be the best solution. They can show evidence about the difficulties they are having meeting all the EHCPs but the JR won't absolve them of the responsibility - but it will let them know that shrugging and washing their hands won't be tolerated and that will help progress things.

@FeinCuroxiVooz My thinking is if school then say they can't meet need due to overcrowding i'm in the same position anyway.

I know it's unusual to have so many adults in a KS2 class even school are saying they've never had a class where so many adults have been needed before.

The school can’t just say they can’t meet DS’s needs due to having other TAs in the classroom. It is unlikely the LA can prove the high bar for incompatibility on the basis of having 31+5 in the classroom.

What the school has done before is irrelevant.

Unfortunately DC whose parents know the system, advocate for them and enforce their rights get better support. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is and if you allow the school to go unchallenged they will continue acting as they are.

@JustKeepBuilding Surely fire regs/overcrowding has to be considered? I know it happens in specialist schools sometimes but usually they have smaller class sizes. There's nowhere to move DC to, no other class as there's only 1 class per year so if they say they can't add another TA to the class I fear they'll say they can't meet need if I force it.

As I posted, the school can’t just say they can’t meet DC’s needs, that’s not how EHCPs work.

The threshold to prove incompatibility is high. It is far more than an “adverse effect”, “impact on” or “prejudicial to”. It is highly unlikely the LA could meet that threshold for 31+5.

The school should have raised the point when the last EHCP stating 1:1 in the class was being consulted on. They could have raised any objections then. As the school was named anyway in all the EHCPs the LA clearly disagree with the the school’s objections (if they raised them and if they didn’t the question is why is this suddenly a problem), therefore the school must admit and they must provide the provision. To not do so leaves them and the LA open to legal proceedings.

Funding is the same for all.
just responsibilities vary.

You can contest the placement...
Parents of children/young people with EHC plans have the right to request a specific school in the plan.
You have to comply with the request unless:

It’s unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or SEN of the child/young person
The attendance of the child/young person would be incompatible with the efficient education of others or the efficient use of resources

@JustKeepBuilding two the EHCPs are new this year, I know the mother of one and she wants a specialist placement due to behaviour without 1-1 but keeps being told no by the council as school are managing them. Our last review was last academic year thats why I think they'll likely say they can meet need as DC behaves, thats why they keep saying no to 1-1 because DC according to them "doesn't need it". They insists theres already too many in the classroom and will not be adding anymore, they also insist they can't afford it anyway.

I'll call an early review and mention JR but I think they'll turn round say "We will say we can't meet need" so at the same time I will go and look round other schools. I think I'll avoid the type of school this is, as I'm still a bit confused on why they think they can't/don't have to provide it.

I cant see the logic of she doesnt need an ehcp but we cant meet need? What was the 1:1 supposed to do and how would that be done without a 1:1?

You can of course go and look for other schools but really dont consider the type in your planning - it has no impact. Possibly a voluntary aided school might have a tiny bit more money but not huge amounts more.

It's the LA responsibility to provide what the EHCP specifies, in this school or another.
The school gets no say.
Complain to the LEA and ask them to enforce.
If it doesn't happen within say a week, start JR proceedings. School may now say they can't meet need.

@Spendonsend They're saying currently the EHCP isn't needed as DC has no behaviour issues and EHCPs are more for behaviour. They say they can meet need without it, shown by them providing the 1-1/small group work intervention outside of the classroom.

DC needs 1-1 in some classes because they don't stay on task or won't ask for help they just sit and won't do what they're told, so the 1-1 "checks in" and makes sure they're on task and provides help where needed, school are saying DC doesn't need this and they won't be providing it as there's too many in the classroom already due to the 3 other FT TAs who're working 1-1 with different children. I feel DC still needs the help in class because they come out of school and say "I couldn't do X but no-one came to help me so I just didn't do it" and then I'm being told they're falling behind, yet school insists they can't have another adult in class as they're nearly overcrowded.

They do have to provide the provision specified and quantified in F.

Honestly the LA won’t be able to lawfully not name the school if it’s your preference just because the school say they can’t meet DC’s needs based on what you have written in your posts. The bar to prove incompatibility is high. Not having enough funding is irrelevant the provision must be provided, if they need more funding they should take it up with the LA.

If the school really thought having 31+5 was incompatible why did they not raise this when the 2 EHCPs that were finalised this year were consulted on? And if they did raise this during the consultation the LA clearly don’t agree that they can prove incompatibility. Therefore any objection is irrelevant, the provision must be provided.

The other parent wanting SS can appeal.

@drspouse School say that even though the LA are responsible they have to fund the EHCP themselves (as in school have to fund it). So it's up to them what they provide and they won't be providing the 1-1 in classroom.

It isn’t up to the, what they provide. They must provide what is specified and quantified in F. Stop listening to what the school tell you. They won’t tell you the law.

An EHCP can be fully funded.

*It isn’t up to them what they provide.

This.

The SEN code of practice is clear that the only grounds a school can refuse a place is if it is unsuitable for your child's needs (which does not appear to be the case) or it in incompatible with the efficient education of others. For the school to be able to argue this, the legal test is very high and in the parents favour and the school would need to demonstrate to the local authority that they have considered all reasonable adjustments to mitigate any incompatibility. This should have been thrashed out when the latest echp was issued to the school and they should have outlined any issues then.

If you can, contact your case officer at the local authority to raise this as they might be aware of other issues with the school but the onus should be on the local authority to sort this out with the school, definitely not for you to move schools to make other people's lives easier!

OP if you haven’t already it’s worth reading IPSEA and SOSSEN’s websites to learn more about EHCPs and law surrounding them.