Funding for a child with a statement

[jma3]

I've recently received a copy of a letter trying to explain how much our childs school will be allocated. He has 32.5 hours one to one and now the school are telling us that they are not being given enough money and are having to cover the shortfall. Does anyone else have problems on changes to funding?

[lopa]

Dear Inclusionist , thanks for your response and advice. I am an inclusionist by heart as well. I did some research in this matter. I have a feeling that the school is aiming for the High need SEN funding. The problem is that neither the school nor the LEA is being open and honest with us.

[Inclusionist]

Again in my LA 35hrs on a statement would attract £6k + £4k from the school's delegated budget and £4k top up from the LA.

In terms of hiring an £8ph TA that is 6 hrs per day ie only 30hrs. More experienced TAs cost more than £8ph. There are also other costs to consider like buying in SALT/ OT/ Ed Psych time, buying equipment etc.

So, no, the money doesn't cover full time support.

[Inclusionist]

lopa if the Secondary school have already offered the place they cannot then say they won't take your DS due to his SEN.

In my LA changes to funding arrangements have to be done through the annual review process so the school's only route would be to call an early annual review in September and outline/ argue the case for the need for additional funding themselves.

In response to others. Remember the on-costs of employing a TA represent about a 3rd of the total cost. So £6k only pays for about 2.5hrs of £8p/h TA time per day. Nowhere near full time.

[lopa]

Hi my child has DS and will start yr7 in a mainstream school in sept. She has a statement which allocates 25 hours/week of support on a 1:1 basis or in a small group which worked really well in Primary setting. Today the headteacher of the sec school called and said this level of support won't be enough and they will need funding for 1:1 special teacher support for 35 hours/week. Apparently the LA has refused to do so and if this is not in place my child won't be able to start in sept. The headteacher has advised us, parents, to contact LA for additional funding, which we would do. My questions are:

1. what are the chances of LA to agree to extra funding if parents contact them?
   

2.Does the school has a right to say NO to a statemented child?
3.Can the LA allocate the funding to the parents to ensure better utilisation for the child?

[daftdame]

community.tes.co.uk/tes_primary/f/36/t/381051.aspx?pi2132219857=2

Many of the posts on here only highlight how Special Needs provision often bears no resemblance to a child's individual needs at all. Teacher's annoyance seems to be a primary factor determining educational achievement. There certainly does need to be a culture change.

[daftdame]

Starlight Yes it may mean what you have said. In reality there will probably be a combination of both. This is why I believe there needs to be still more transparency.

However reading the Schools Forum and our local Cabinet minutes even these recent changes will take some implementing. You have to hope there is some improvement though, otherwise there would be no progress at all, if the Status Quo was preserved above all else.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

'Doing it this way may enforce a cultural change concerning what a school can deal with at a base level.'

Perhaps. Or you'll find schools ignoring needs, fighting parents who suggest an EP might be worth a visit, a statement worth applying for, who feel that their child needs some form of therapy, individualised help to access their learning.

[daftdame]

All this 'playing the system' diverts funds away from those who do^ need them.

[daftdame]

X post Starlight

I believe schools should demonstrate what has been spent, on what and the effectiveness.

The what has been spent is important because I believe it is the only quantifiable aspect, regarding level of need.

I believe the schools are being asked to manage the upfront 6K because there is a history, as with my LA, of schools playing the system in order to receive extra funds which distorts level of need.

Doing it this way may enforce a cultural change concerning what a school can deal with at a base level. When you read about all this 'working to rule' from teaching unions it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to see how the 'rules' would require more children, with even slightly delayed self care skills, be deemed special needs. Previously teachers (in my Aunt's generation) saw helping children with coats, wiping noses, the odd toilet accident etc as an important part of their job, as an Early Years Practitioner.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

The pathfinders were supposed to be trialling individual budgets (over the past 2 years). So far a few of us have done freedom of information requests and found ONE LA who is trialling direct payments for Speech and Language therapy for ONE child whose parent got agreement to go ahead with a Judicial Review to make them.....

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/childrenandfamilies/memo/cf108.htm

This paper outlines the issues for children and the families.

All the changes mean are money being more tightly controlled. There is no evidence that it will lead to improved outcomes for children (though arguably if you can continue to fail children in the same way for less money you should probably do so).

[daftdame]

Starlight The individual budget hasn't been rolled out yet to my knowledge.

At the moment there are a great differences between individual LAs with regard to statement funding. I think some of this should be evened out in law, since it affects how children who have statements are viewed.

A statement seems to be universally understood as being indicative of a high level of need, yet not all authorities even attempt to require schools to quantify their provision subsequent to awarding the statement.

Instead they seem happy to work using vague matrices, in terms of severity of need, whilst the only aspect of need that is quantifiable is the money that has been spent or that needs to be spent. They have probably taken the view that the administration of monitoring provision would cost more. This is why they then buy in block provision in order to ensure some money actually is spent on Special Needs.

This is why I am pleased that schools need to demonstrate what has been spent. It prevents the manipulating of LA policies by schools purely for extra revenue. However I fully appreciate there are still many problems, the new legislation does not go far enough to ensure fairness at all.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

Schools should be made to demonstrate effectiveness of the £6k they have spent per child.

That I'd like to see.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

Also, how can you have an individual budget and at the same time say that schools have to spend the first £6k.

Can the parent request the £6k from the school to hire their own TA?

[StarlightMcKenzie]

I'm also not keen on the idea that a school has to show how much they've spent. How much they've spent is irrelevant if it has been on ineffective/unqualified provision.

I wouldn't care if my child was supported for nothing by a volunteer from the WI provided she had the right training and background to be able to demonstrate progress using evidence-based-practice methodology and decent data-keeping skills.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

The individual budget thing will be an unenforceable policy.

Do you know anyone who has one?

LA's aren't going to simply hand over money without a fight to the death. Mostly they get round supplying this on the grounds of efficient public expenditure where they have bought in services on a block contract and state that they are already paid for and as such are zero cost. Giving a parent money would be on top of that and so 'extra' money and not efficient.

[daftdame]

Starlight The individual budgets is promising re.transparency.

Also the fact that a school has to show how much they have spent before extra resources are applied for prevent the exaggeration of needs just to receive extra funding (for the school).

I can see how this exaggeration of need happens. My LA lowered the amount of funding they delegated to schools simply because more schools were applying for statements. This meant more schools had to apply for statements (because there was less delegated funding), as a policy decision, which in turn in my opinion lowered the entry requirement for a statement, distorting the level of a child's additional need (when compared with national levels).

[StarlightMcKenzie]

Yes, but despite the reform, as far as I can tell, we're just continuing with the status quo but with the money in a different place.

There will be no more transparency. There will be no more accountability. If anything there will just be more lies preventing the children from getting the help they need.

[daftdame]

Starlight Ah yes, forgot about the non-ringfenced aspect. Tricky one this.

There is one scenario where schools could exaggerate a child's needs and misappropriate individual funding (with the old legislation) another where they can spend delegated SEN money on something completely unrelated to SEN (with the new legislation).

It does seem to be problematic getting schools to spend the funds they are given for Special Needs on Special Needs. Accountability to parents, more statutory transparency with regard to what has been spent on what, seems the only way to tackle this problem in law.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

The school have to spend £6k of their delegated SEN money. That is the money doesn't come individual for the child but the school IS given it in addition to their normal budget to cover SEN.

Whether they spend it on SEN or a new vegetable garden however, is entirely up to them.

[daftdame]

Balti I think you have to look at the admissions policies of your LA.

I agree this is a problem however there was an equal problem of a child's funding not being spent on them which before this reform was extremely difficult to address.

If the child was coping with the lesser resource being channelled towards them they still suffered as their actual 'need' was being distorted (possibly with permanent implications) and schools had no incentive to address this issue.

If they were not coping it could be difficult for parents to ascertain what the problem was, not being able to very easily track what their child's funding was being spent on.

I therefore agree with the funding reform but believe there has to be further tightening up of regulations regarding admissions.

[Bati]

I have only just become aware of the changes and I am really concerned. We recently went to my dd review meeting and the senco told me that from september the schools now have to find the first £6000 of the funding for all children who have a ipf or statement.
My dd is in yr 10 and cannot stay for their 6th form as they only do A levels, but what school is now going to take my dd on for their 6th form knowing it is going to cost them £6000

[daftdame]

that should be the government wants schools to show that money has^ been spent on a child's special need before they can receive any extra.

[daftdame]

The school are now supposed to use some of their budget to cover your child's needs, with the new funding reform.

There are so may stories concerning statemented funds not following individually funded children ie school using the money / resource as they see fit eg person assigned to do 1 to 1 doing photocopying, working with other children. In a way I am pleased that the government wants schools to show where the money is spent because this type of action distorts where the actual need lies and can lead to schools 'playing' the system (to the detriment of some children).

However I appreciate there are some horror stories, where schools say they cannot afford any more children with additional needs.What is needed is much more transparency. Your LA should be able to help re. what the school should be able to provide.

[wombview]

Thank you for that. I will have a look later.