Teachers do not adhere to Statemented 1 to 1 support, do not believe in sub-levels, make APP assessments up....How much of what parents are told by schools about teaching is a box ticking exercise?

[Regards]

Following on from this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/1859219-Im-a-teacher-and-happy-to-answer-any-questions

and this:
community.tes.co.uk/tes_primary/f/36/t/381051.aspx?pi2132219857=1

I realised I was incredibly gullible when my DC first started school. What exactly should we believe concerning what the teachers tell us, how much is a PR job to cover up the ugly truth?

My child's 1:1 was for hearing / speech issues and she was shared. I was so incredibly naive about how his statement worked. The school is considered outstanding and certainly my older son had a very positive school experience. I was staggered at the difference when it came to DS2.

The same as others I did all of the hard work to get his statement and felt confident it would be adhered to. As I said, I was naive....

We moved him from mainstream to a SN school midway through year two after a terrible year and it was the best thing we did.

He was isolated at mainstream, though always a very popular and well behaved child but if his TA wasn't nearby he had lost his communication. His TA was shared out amongst not only the class but the entire infants.

Despite my negative feelings towards the school I can also see how woefully under supported they were in adhering to his statement. The Ed Psych was shockingly awful and unfortunately the school simply weren't able to deal with it. My main criticism of them, is that actually they didn't deal with it. Just ignore a problem all year ready for the poor parents to get a shock at the annual review .

I can also see how woefully under supported they were in adhering to his statement

that relates to DPs experience: he wants more speech and language support in the school. they like their current person so asked the NHS if they could buy more of this person's time. to be told no, X is an agency worker and there is a freeze but dont worry, we will recruit someone extra.

which does not happen. so no additional speech and language support in the school.

'2) can a statement be used to legally enforce e.g. 15hours of 1 to 1 support? he has never seen a statement written in this way but did not rule out some could be. in a typical statement, the school has a legal obligation to meet the child's needs, as defined in the statement but the legally enforce part does not detail how those needs should be met.'

If the statement does not detail how those needs should be met it is either a) a bad statement or b) a statement written with the purpose of the resources allocated to be used flexibly at the discretion of the teacher and school as the needs of the child have been assessed as requiring this kind of support.

However, if a child has 15 hours of 1:1 specified, then this is what the experts have deemed VITAL (as most of you know the LA isn't giving away money that isn't anything but essential and then more than likely a bit less) in order for that child to have their needs met adequately. Not well, not to fulfil their potential, - ADEQUATELY.

These hours are then protected in law (as would be flexible use of funding if that is what is specified) and as such CAN'T be removed or reallocated, no matter how greedy or selfish you think the parents of that child might be.

*'receive more up front funding'!?!

DP's school get £3k for any level of need*

This varies from LA to LA. On top of the AWPU (in our authority this is approx 2.5 k) schools get additional funding, in our authority this is based on prior attainment and FSM.

Is the figure you quoted YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime the AWPU?

'he wants more speech and language support in the school. they like their current person so asked the NHS if they could buy more of this person's time. to be told no, X is an agency worker and there is a freeze but dont worry, we will recruit someone extra.'

This is EXACTLY why schools and parents should work together. If the HeadTeacher can ensure that a significant number of children (who NEED Speech and Language support) actually have the provision they require specified and quantified in their statements, the Local Authority will have NO CHOICE but to provide it to the school (as this will put the provision for each child above what a school can be expected to fund from their budget, - as it is the LA that is subjected to legal action for not adhering to the statement requirements, not the school.

Also it is not applicable to utilise the additional funding on all the children. So if the figure you quoted is or includes additional funding per childYouAreMyFAvouriteWasteOfTime you have to remember not all children have SENs.

Although the additional funding is not strictly ring-fenced (apart from FSM element)....

regards each child with a statement, gets an extra £3k pa. whatever their level of need.

so if you need someone with you all the time so you don't eat something you should not/take your clothes off etc. the school get £3k to fund your extra support.

they also could bid for extra money but the total pot was smaller than the total need. so the bid was only part funded.

if your needs were less than £13kpa, there was no extra money available. so the school received £3k of funding for your extra needs in total.

Though what will happen to the FSM element in Primaries, when all under 8yrs get free school meals, I don't know....

^All I can say is that does not seem to match the Funding Reform Legislation *YouAreMyFAvouritWasteOfTime. Here:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-funding-reform-next-steps-towards-a-fairer-system

regards I am not talking about FSM, only the children in DPs school with statements.

regards I don't disagree with you.

YouAreMyFAvouriteWasteOfTIme Have you read your LA's consultation with school regarding this? Did your DP participate?

In most Local Authorities, That £3k 'extra' would have been extra to the schools budget which ALREADY contains funding for SEN provision to cover all children with SEN. The £3k is a 'top up' for those with statements and never intended to fund the whole provision as the school has already had the money for that.

But the system has changed from this September and the Local Authority has given schools even MORE money in their overall budget with less 'top ups' in order to give the schools the control.

One of the problems though is that in order to do this the Local Authorities have had to change the formula they were using to allocate funding as well as criteria and some schools who were better off comparatively before have possible received less money in absolute terms.

It doesn't change the law with regards to the schools statutory duty to fulfil the requirements of a childs statement.

The law doesn't say 'You must deliver this child's legal entitlement unless you don't think you have enough money to'.

YouAreMyFAvouriteWasteOfTime The only reason I mention FSM is that in our LA, the figure of uptake, was used to determine additional funding, as part of the SEN Funding Reform.

starlight the entire school budget of £2M is being cut by 10% that's £200k.

so DP forces then to fund an extra say £40k. but there is no real extra money to pay for it.

so either there is less money in other schools. or they just cut the main budget further.

you cannot increase the school budget in this way. everyone's budgets are being cut.

Giving the schools more money from the LA, and less top ups has resulted in schools seeing their 'SEN top-ups' reduced and are claiming that the SEN money has been cut.

It hasn't. The top ups have been cut. The schools overall budget that includes money for SEN is given by the Local Authority according to criteria that they set, and the Local Authority, from September, has given MORE of their central funds, not less (though to be fair, how much an individual school receives MIGHT be less if they no longer meet some of the new criteria when a school with less money last year did).

Conversely our school had money left over last year from their budget. I bet they are thankful there was no 'clawback'!

Our LA admit there will be 'winners and losers' as a result of the funding reform.

starlight

DPs budget has been cut by 10%. they have less money not more. you need to accept this or think you know more about his funding than he does.

in addition, the funding changes you mention negatively affect schools in deprived areas.

But it is not reasonable, and not legal, to fund a missing £40k by removing, or stealing a disabled childs VITAL support.

There is NO argument that would make it legal.

Starlight Or fair...

YouAre I am not denying that your DH's school budget has been cut. I believe you/him.

But I am interested in this idea that the schools in deprived areas have been worst hit, because I am hearing a bunch of schools in an affluent area whinging on about how because they have low FSM and SEN and good SATs THEY are being worst hit and all the deprived area schools are getting the money.

there is no missing 40k. maybe I can express this more clearly:

so DP forces then to fund an extra say £40k. = say DP forces them to fund an extra say £40k.

I was talking theoretically.

he has all the money the LA are giving his school & it is not enough.

In suppose it could be useful to look at it like this:

• Some schools have had their overall budget cut. Though some have not and some have received more funding.

• NO school has had the element of their budget cut for the provision they are required to deliver to meet their statutory duties and fulfil the requirements specified in the statements of children with SEN.