Ok folks, we have a statement, but ...

[moosemama]

The following is an extract from my LEA's website. Am I right in thinking that what they are saying here is that refuse to specify or quantify statements and instead just bung x amount of funding units onto the statement and leave it up to the school to decide what to do with it?

"What does Delegated Funding mean for your child?

In April 2006, in response to Government guidance, XXXX 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 XXX 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.

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 education plan."

I am very confused because, my LEA were reported to the Secretary of State in 2009 for seemingly having a policy of never specifying or quanitfying statements (which appears to be exactly what they are saying on their website). After an 'internal investigation' they were found not to have a blanket policy in place, but did accept that some of their statements 'might not be sufficiently specified or quantified' .

In the S of S response to the complaint, they said the the LEA had committed to using the Annual Review process to review and tighten up any statements that lacked sufficient speficiation or quantification and that the SofS therefore felt there was no more action necessary to be taken by them. (They have apparently asked the Department's National Strategies SEN Adviser for the region to make sure the work the LEA committed to was undertaken. )

Also in the response S of S stated:

XX LEA has also stated that the paragraph within the statements relating to funding is included to identify the sum of additional money that the school will be given in addition to the resources already allocated to the school through delegation. It is not intended to remove the requirements to quantify or specify.

Which is odd, because there is not one single thing on ds's statement that I would class as appropriately specified/quantified, and there's absolutely no mention of funding or units whatsoever. In short, its woolier than a highland sheep in winter.

It does cover all the areas we wanted it to, but is worded in a very ambiguous way, leaving a lot of scope for the school to interpret it however they want.

Feels like a big job to even start sorting it all out, not least of all because I am completely knackered today and have to have at least a draft sorted by Friday when we have ds's LS review at school.

I don't think the school have even been informed that he got a statement yet, because I only found out by ringing yesterday when the deadline was up and there was still a no-show from the LEA. Apparently they had it ready to post out this morning, but their postal system is so slow there's no way we'd have received it by Friday's meeting, so they offered to email me the body of the statement without the appendices.

Anybody know when my 15 days starts from - will it be today or from when I receive the whole document, complete with appendices and reports?

I feel like I need to kidnap a whole of bunch of you to help me rewrite section 3, because its long and complicated, but very wordy and not really much use in its current form.

Others may well know more than I but this changed when I was briefly SENCo at my school.

Before, statements came with money attached specifically for individual pupils and all funds had to be allocated directly and obviously to that pupil.

Then they split the statementing from the funding, as you say, such that the pupil receives a statement and the money is added to the general school's budget, added to other students' statement money if there is some, and it is up to the school how they spend it. Clearly, this allows unscrupulous HTs to fiddle the system somewhat, although on the flipside a good HT can use the money more efficiently for more than one student and make it go further. In doing this however there was clearly a degree of naivety in assuming that all schools always act in the best interests of their SEN children...

It means that statements require more accuracy and more specific quantifiable needs listed - so your LA may have been pulled up for not doing that - as otherwise the school has no obligation to fulfil the pupil's needs.

If the statement is woolly, it needs to be rewritten so that it is not.

I don't know if you have seen this page but it's got a link to a document on it that is very helpful. www.ace-ed.org.uk/advice-about-education-for-parents/advice-booklets-and-briefings/getting-the-statement-right-a-practical-guide-to-parents-legal-rights

Thanks DesertOrchd, that's what I thought. In and of itself the delgated funding shouldn't be an issue if the HT/SENCO are good (which ours generally are) and on side, but couple it with a woolly statement that's neither specified or quantified and it means they school can do whatever they want - so no point in having a statement at all really.

Beautiful girls - thank you for that link. I have downloaded the booklet and already seen the section that gives you the wording that should set alarm bells ringing. I think we have just about all of the words/phrases listed - perhaps with the exception of the word 'periodic'.

Dh is home now, having read the statement himself. He agrees that the bare bones of what we want is all there, which is a good starting point, but that there is absolutely no onus on the school to provide it.

Feeling quite rough this evening, so am going to put it to bed for the night and get stuck into it in the morning, using the advice in the ACE-ED booklet and some stuff I have on 'Threads I'm Watching' from MNSN.

moose, you know that they are still trying to pull the same fast one. It matters not a flying fuck who or how your DS's statement is funded. It is completely irrelevant to you. The law still requires the provision to be quantified and specified, whether the school fund it from within their delegated funds or the LA fund it directly or usually a combination of both. You need to be arguing this, perhaps using help from ACE or IPSEA or SOSSEN. Or even a savvy lawyer or advocate. Firstly, you can use their guides to tell them how you want it changed quoting the relevant law. Your 15 days should be from when you receive the whole statement, including the advices. Go through it with highlighters, making sure every need from the advices is specified in part 2 and SMART provision for each is in part 3.

At least you have a statement, that's one fight you don't have, but it's pretty worthless unless it's a good one.

Crossed with you, moose.

Absolutely agree that their arrangements for paying schools the money is irrelevant to you. The statement should still be tight and quantifiable. I would definitely be challenging it and be totally disinterested in any 'explanation' of why they feel this is unnecessary.

well I would say that this write up is on your LA site because a LOT of people are asking them to specify and quantify and they think that because they explain it on their site that...................makes is all right then!

NOT.

I had the "we just dont do that anymore", "the green paper now does" from the LA, the PP, CAMHS etc. I basically didnt give in and got DS 25 hours on that statement I was lucky and didnt get as far as tribunal but that proved to me that they can and do specify and quantify when pushed......go for it girl x

Send a link to that site to everyone who might be interested I.e SOSSEN, sofS, IPSEA and even Sharon Hodgeson.

And don't forget to do a screen shot in case of tribunal.

Moosemamma, I am having the same sort of problem as you. I disputed the statement on the grounds that it was "woolly" too, and they have basically asked me to rewrite it and they will consider. We gave our comments and instead of using any common sense they used the suggestions I had made verbatum so that what they put in was " X currently receives......" not "X will receive".
I did however get them to change all the "the school should provide" to " X will receive ". the rest is a work in progress. I have had some advice from and independent Ed Psych and she helpfully sent me some depersonalised GOOD statements to help with the wording. I am currently negotiating with the LEA before the tribunal date.
I found that I got some good advice from SOSSEN, but that the advice from the ED Psych seems to be worth every penny if I can get the LEA to agree to the changes.
beautifulgirls thank you for the link - I will be using this too.

Thanks for all the advice folks, it's gratefully received.

alison222, thanks for posting. Its so frustrating isn't it, you've come this far and should be on the home stretch, but no - yet more hoops to jump through instead.

I did manage to find some useful stuff on the IPSEA site in terms of advice and case studies and SOSSEN also have a couple of sheets on statements and how to check them in their free download section, so I have all that as well as the booklet beautifulgirls linked to.

Typically, I'm not doing very well cognitively today - just when I need to be sharp for working on this. Must have picked it up and put it down again a million times this morning. Am even struggling to type this post.

It all seems bigger than me today and such a pitifully short timeframe to get it all sorted in as well, so not really an option to leave it for another day.

moose have PM'd you.

A sample of a statement from treehouse here, if you are interested :www.talkaboutautism.org.uk/files/treehouse-corp/files/what_does_the_statement_look_like.pdf

Thank you Alison - I have replied.

Tryingto, thanks for that. I have already noted a couple of phrases that would really help tighten up ds's statement and I'm only on the first page of Section 3!