Banding on SEN statements

[coff33pot]

I am going through proposed statement and waiting for meeting date to go over it.

It does not say anywhere the number of hours as some of you are aware.

I have been told that LAs do not put the total number of hours on a statement anymore. By camhs and PP also DIAL. But they must specify and quantify the amount of help he is getting throughout the statement as in times for SALT etc?

This is obviously condradictory to what I have been told. However even the HT emailed the LA as she had no notification either about what funding wa proposed. And because I advised her that I was having a meeting at some point with the LA she very kindly sent me a copy email from the LA stating that DS was BAND b3 and they would be provided with funding for 25hours LSA.

What is band b3????

The green paper does not replace THE LAW.

Say you have no interest in any colours, but in fact letters, specifically the letter of the law.

Don't get sidetracked by banding. You don't actually want that in the statement, you want hours specified. If they say band D, then band D can have a variable value. You don't want funding specified either as it makes no difference whether the the TA is working for free or over £100k, what matter is that your child gets the number of hours of the particular type of support they need.

She has asked if I would like to email them what my concerns are ie hours/training etc and all the other bits (mainly fine tuning and actually using the word SALT and OT) Would it be safe to email her my amended version?? and battle it out by email?

Tbh, I would write an email/letter clarifying that they are using the green paper to justify breaking the law. You don't have to write it exactly like that, but having such a blanket policy in writing might get you somewhere.

She did say if I did this she would get it infront of a panel next week. Then perhaps have a meeting to discuss any overal agreed amendments

It depends. You have to respond in the time. You don't want endless negotiation for months and then end up at tribunal anyway with you child having missed so much provision. If you meet, it resets the clock too, which they love but it can be a useful strategy for you if you want to arrange for and independent opinion it need more time to get advice.

I think a good way of getting feedback on how serious they are is to meet with them to get the two weeks reset, and tell them that you are giving them your ammendments and you expect the statement to be finalised in a fortnight with your amendments properly considered and a legal statement. Flash them a copy of your already completed appeal document (which looks daunting but only has to contain the amendment you want).

Tell her that it has been to the panel already and that legally the statement us her responsibility and she cannot hide behind the panel. She has the power to make the amendments and she has the responsibility for doing so. It really doesn't matter what the panel say and there is no justification for Paying these people to attend a meeting whilst simultaneously denying your child of the provision that ending unnecessary meetings coukd fund.

coff33 - I am in the same position as well.
I have formally rejected the draft in writing and am waiting for them to set up a meeting date to discuss things. Again I have a blanket woolly "the school will use the funding flexibly to meet X's needs" totally useless.

There are some case studies on the IPSEA website with advice for how to tighten it up.
This is my job for the weekend to look at it and try to make amendments to tighten it up. Ours has a banding on it ie an amount of funding - I have no idea how much time that equates to.

That ACE document is really helpful - thanks to whoever put that up ( its on the previous page here and I don't want to lose what I have typed)

I did all the negotiation on dd3's statement via email, partly because I didn't want to be lied to and partly because they only answer their phones between 10am and 12 I got a copy of the statement as a word doc via email so it was easy to amend and send back. Thankfully my lea aren't as bad as stars and we managed to reach an agreement.

Coff33, I really hope you manage to sort them out with this. They are seriously cooking the books.

Your LEA sound like they do things the same was as ours and we are expecting the same battle. Our LEA's website actually states that it no longer quantifies hours on statements and we were told the same thing by both our SENCO and our Inclusion Team Leader. The SENCO said that the school is allocated funding and then its between us and them how its is used to support ds. According to her, the LEA don't get involved in whether or not ds needs a 1:1, on the statement they just identify/state his SEN/s based on their assessment, give the school some money to support him in whatever they see necessary and then let them get on with it.

I didn't get into an argument about it at the time, as I know the school is resistant to giving him 1:1 support (almost definitely based on cost alone), but I will if necessary.

According to the LEA's website:

In April 2006, in response to Government guidance, X Local Authority began the process of delegating funding to schools for children with Statements of Special Educational Needs. Previously a Statement of SEN specified a number of hours that a Learning Support Assistant would be employed to work with the child.

For children attending secondary schools delegated funding is in the form of a 0lump sum' added to the school's budget using a specific funding formula. This delegated funding is to meet the needs of all Statemented pupils currently on roll and there will no longer be any reference to a number of hours that a Learning Support Assistant will be employed to work with your child.

This is what you will now see written into Part 3 of the Statement:

The school will make arrangements through their delegated budget to ensure that appropriate staffing, training and resources are deployed to secure provision as specified in Part 3 of the Statement.

For children attending primary schools, all new Statements will now identify a number of funding units instead of hours. These units will equate to an amount of money that will be given directly to the school and the school must use this money flexibly to meet the needs of the child.

This is what you will now see written into Part 3 of the Statement:

Under X LEA's scheme for the delegation of funding for Statemented pupils, the LA will allocate a sum of money equivalent to (x) units. This is in addition to the resources ordinarily available to the school for children with special educational needs.

The school will make arrangements through their delegated budget to ensure that appropriate staffing, training and resources are deployed to secure provision as specified in Part 3 of the Statement.

If you receive an Amended Statement for your child, you will notice a change in the wording in Part 3 of the Statement. 0Resources' in Part 3 will have been amended to reflect the equivalent amount of funding units instead of hours.
For both primary and secondary aged pupils it is intended that this money may be used for any or all of the purchase of specialist teaching time, purchase of other specialist advice, or employment of teaching or non-teaching staff. It could be used to create additional time for specialist staff in the school, or to buy equipment, for example a tape recorder, photo-copied materials, books, tapes, videos, software - and any purchase consistent with the individual

So from what I take from that is - we (the LEA) will bung a chunk of money to your child's school and they are free to spend it as they wish.

Knowing our Head, he would find a way to spend it that would benefit ds a little and the school a lot! He's very clever at that sort of thing. Well not on my watch he won't!

This thread has been really useful, as I now have some ammunition.

That said, we have to get the to assess him first - request is going in next week, once we've ironed out the kinks.

The same thing happened to me a couple of months ago, the proposed statement did not have the number of hours that dd was to have school funded and statement funded. I telephoned my case worker at the LEA and was told that they do not put it on the proposed statement as they have to still negotiate the hours with the school. I recieved the actual statement a few weeks ago and it did specify the right number of hours on the back that dd was to recieve in MS school.

Coffpot

I've read the previous 2 pages of this thread but to summarise:

A Statement must normally be quantified i.e. must state the number of hours. Any deviation from that is for the benfit of the child and not for the school/LA,

If they tell you otherwise they are lying. The Green Paper is a consultative document and is not law. It suits the LA to try to pretend it is.

You're probably still at the trusting stage whereby you wouldn't think that La //PP etc lie - you'll be sadly educated soon - they do.

I would send a letter to the LA reminding them of their duty to quantify hours etc.

They are clearly using this Green Paper to their own ends (The LAs I mean) as a safeguard in not disclosing hours/funding in the meantime till this GPaper actually comes about. I got a feeling its all tied into the allocated money that the parent of SN child will be offered to decide what and how they best use it to their childs needs...............at least that is how I see it..definately fishy somewhere. Something tells me when it does we will lose our statements as they will all need to be reviewed and what better way when we have nothing specified in them.

Getting teasy now

I am going to send them an email now saying what I want. And also sending them the COP sections and also found the letter on the IPSEA from the DofE to all CEOs which clearly spells out about quantifying and blanket policies.

You know what? I have a feeling I am going to disturb her sleep for the weekend...........

coff33pot,

You go right ahead and disturb her weekend!. They are indeed using a consultative document for their own ends; the Green Paper is nowhere near becoming law.

Moosemama's LEA are also acting unlawfully as well if they choose not to quantify or specify provision. It just emphasis the fact that devolved funding is bad news indeed for children with SEN and require statements.

These LEAs know the law, well they should bloody well do so. Ignorance is no excuse.

Good girl, go get 'em!

and also found the letter on the IPSEA from the DofE to all CEOs which clearly spells out about quantifying and blanket policies.

Coff - could you please send me a link to it as I knew it existed but can never find it on the IPSEA site,
Thanks

Could you possibly send a link to me too please Coff33.

This sound like something we all need to gen up on and get the best idea how to fight, as it seems to be more and more prevalent.

Good grief Moose,

I'd toward a link to IPSEA or write to them about that site. Your LA certainly know the law but being able to flaunt it publically like that just shows the law can mean nothing.

wetaugust
www.ipsea.org.uk/What-you-need-to-know/Law-and-Guidance-in-depth/Duty-to-specify/DfES-to-LEAs-specify-provision-avoid-blanket-policies.aspx

There ya go :) you click at the bottom and it pulls up the pdf letter. It spelt it out to all CEOs nicely

I will send it to you personally just incase you dont get back here :)

Thanks Coff

Is this good enough? If not I will have to bite harder next time

Dear x

I refer to our telephone conversation of todays date and our discussion about my concerns on the proposed statement. My overal concern is that nothing is really properly specified and quantified, including the number of hours support. I realise there is the Green Paper to consider and a new way of doing things but this paper is a consultative document and does not replace the law. The SEN Code of Practice states that hours should be specified and quantified, indeed there is a letter on the IPSEA website that was issued to ALL Chief Education Officers from the DofE stating the same. I enclose attachements of these for your perusal so you can understand why i am querying and requesting that this proposed statement follows the lawful guidelines. Not specifying and quantifying is unlawful as I have been advised by IPSEA and other more experienced advisors than myself.

I have also attached an amended proposed statement for your perusal and consideration. It is rough I know but I hope it helps and would be happy to sort all this out without the need of taking up your time on meetings.

My concerns are apart from the fact that the statement does not adhere to the Code of Practice, it needs to be specified in the statement that the TA needs to be trained and qualified in dealing with my sons needs. The staff at present do not hold this training and are struggling to cope with DS. If as an example he was left with the ordinary class TA who serves the whole class then he will not cope and the school will have to endure the consequences of that and more importantly it will set him further behind and he will not be able to survive in mainstream. I want him to remain in a mainstream school with adequate, experienced help with the appropriate interventions as advised by the SALT and OT, with a future prediction of one day not having a statement at all and I would really appreciate a statement that is going to get DS to that goal.

I realise what a demanding job you have and appreciate all the time and effort you have put into this for me.

I really would like to sort the statement out without the need for meetings and also avoid the need for a tribunal, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Kind regards

Coff, you'll get there. You seem to have a natural instinct for what is right/ allowed and what is bollocks. The trouble can sometimes be finding the backing for what appears to be common sense that the LA seem to be arguing dogmatically against, but don't worry too much about that as you can add/send that stuff later.

Absolutely stick to the facts and don't get sidetracked EVER into any wooly waffly justification. You will be told intricate details of their funding arrangements, details of justifications for their lack of transparency, dared to deny that everyone has your ds' best interests at heart and subjected to shock and horror at you implication that the staff wouldn't do what is best for your child.

Don't get into discussion about any of it:

Internal financial systems, budgets, banding etc are management concerns not yours.

You are not there go debate the intentions of the professionals working with your child, you are there to discuss the lawfulness of the statement.

Flexibility is built into the statement already through the annual review process.

You expect an outcome-led meeting as your time is valuable. You expect the points on YOUR agenda to be stuck to.

If you are brave you can insist that as it is your child you will chair the meeting and bring someone to take minutes.

Nice letter Coff

I'd leave out teh last 2 sentences - you want to ensure that they know you will go to Tribunal if necessary.

I certainly wouldn't thank them - this is their job so they're not doing anything helpful - in fact they have lied to you!

Hope the letter does the trick.

Coff, your letter is fine but half of that doesn't need to be there. You don't need to be so conciliatory.

I'll see if I can show you what I mean