So why, when school have been by and large difficult....

[fleshmarketclose]

obstructive and often useless and it has been a constant battle to force them to provide the support detailed in dd's very good and specific statement of SEN do they start to try when I tell them we are coming to the end of the road and I'm going to consider my options and look for a different placement when her statement moves to EHCP? (January next year)
I would have thought they would have been delighted tbh,get rid of the difficult parent and the child who needs the support delivered properly not just babysitting as they seem to think is a TA's role
Why are all the things that were too difficult at a meeting a fortnight ago and couldn't be done (against Autism Outreach's advice) suddenly seemingly not a problem and will be implemented immediately?
Obviously they will lose the funding that her statement brings but it's a big school and her funding is a drop in the ocean and whilst she might be predicted top grade GCSEs they aren't a certainty and don't think losing her grades will impact all that much anyway as it's a very big school.
So what reason could they have to want to keep dd there because if the boot was on the other foot I would have been delighted to be getting rid of me at least

Because funding is funding and without it they might have to make that TA redundant?

I had no idea funding was so tight tbh that dd's funding would make a difference. I would feel bad if any of her TA's lost their posts though I can't say that I will keep her there but will at least give them the chance to implement the new strategies. The trouble is that, on past form, the trying won't last and so I have to hedge my bets really. HT oversees dd's support (because it has been so bad) but it's immediately obvious the minute he takes his foot off the pedal.

If the funding is that important I'd say they should have tried harder sooner. They didn't therefore they should lose her. Hopefully to a school that tries genuinely!

Raindrops yes I agree they should have tried harder and to be honest it hasn't just been not trying it has been deliberate and determined obstruction by the SENCo,a safeguarding fail (by the SENCo) a breech of confidentiality (by learning support) and a data protection breech.
I have done what I could, but dd has suffered and continues to suffer because some of the SENCo's actions have caused harm to dd (she doesn't get the chance now as I go straight to HT) and frankly I'm sick of fighting and banging my head against a brick wall.
Her current TAs are the ones I chose and the best of a mediocre bunch IMO so I would feel awful if they lost her hours or one of them lost their job.

It's not your problem though, you have to do what's best for your DD.

If her funding goes directly to paying for TA time for her then their hours will be reduced or switched to another child. Why are the TAs useless? Do they not get training? Perhaps some of her (and other Sen finding) funding should be put towards that? It could make a big difference.

The TAs are useless because they have ineffective leadership and management from the SENCo IMO. Learning Support runs for the convenience of the TAs and has nothing to do with the needs of the children they should be giving support to. Because there is no leadership and management from SENCo the vast majority of TAs simply attend rather than doing any form of support or they seem to think that threats and warnings and nagging and bullying constitutes support. There are two TAs who are not allowed to approach dd at any time or be in the same room as her because of their behaviour because I will not tolerate it and the HT ordered that at my insistence. That they should have been dismissed is another matter.
So another example dd doesn't need support in X lesson but needs support in Y lesson in line with the recommendations in her statement. SENCo puts support in X lesson. I contact SENCo ask that she meets the statement and ensures support is where it should be. SENCo says it isn't convenient to the TAs to have support in Y lesson but if I insist dd can have support in Z lesson from an unnamed TA (again not in the terms of statement as dd has a specific number of TAs with specific training and qualifications) I contact SENCo again remind her of the need to meet the statement. SENCo replies she will look into it next term (this is two week into term) I contact HT copy him into emails and ask whether I need to contact LEA about another failure to meet her statement. The following day I get email from SENCo to tell me support will be in Y lesson with immediate effect.
This is how it is, funnily enough the latest OFSTED lists the very same observations I gave to the HT two years ago regarding Learning Support so my experience isn't an isolated case and my observations aren't vindictive as the SENCo alleges.
So should dd's funding be used to train the useless bunch? No the three TAs who support dd have all the training that meets her statement requirements and they are decent TA's the root cause of the difficulties is the SENCo who sometimes regularly tries it on and dd's TAs bow to her seniority leaving me no option but to address the issues instead and I'm getting tired of fighting tbh.