DD will attend a resourced unit when starting reception. We are taking the LA to tribunal for wishy washy statement that fails to quantify and specify provision.
anyways, DD will attend a resourced unit in which she will spend about 7.5h/weekly, the remaining 25h will be spent in a MS classroom. we want a 1:1 for these 25 hourse (in line with the reports for the SA). we cannot get a single hour of 1:1 :( (DD has autism, rather low functioning with severely delayed s&l, I mean WTF?).
LA are arguing that as DD will attend a unit, the unit has to meet DD's needs from their own resources and the LA is not able to allocate additional funding for DD's 1:1 (school told us they won't have resources for a 1:1 TA for DD).
I always thought statements need to specify and quantify provison? no idea why they bring up funding. I could not care less about who funds what. I am just interested in DD's provision.
the LA are taking the buiscuit, don't they. or is this a valid argument?