School action and statement

[hoxtonbabe]

Hi,

Am I right in thinking of a child is on School action/SA plus, the funding comes out of the schools budget, if they have a statement then the local authority pay the school a premium.

Also has anyone requested the funding paperwork that sets out what is what for their child and the school they attend?

Many thanks.

Correct-ish. The school still has to fund the first 14 hours even with a statement. The lea pays for anything over 15 hours.

I think the first 15 hours thing is not true of all LEAs.

So, yes. If your child does not have a statement, school receives no extra funding for them.

That's not the case in my LA shoppingbag. I've learnt a lot on here over the years, and my conclusion is, in terms of SEN provision, that the answer to most questions is "It depends on your LA".
Where I work, SA is just as it says on the tin - action provided by the school from within their resources. SA+ doesn't bring specific funding in for any individual children, but there is funding that comes into the school which will be linked to the number of children you have on SA+. Statements are then funded through a formulaic table / assessment thing, which, again, can be traced to individual children, but it is years since any Statement (in our LA - clearly not the case from other posts I see on here) has mentioned "hours", as the funding doesn't have to be spent that way... it could be on a soundfield system or some physical adjustments, or it could be on training, or to contribute to a shared TA or something.

Dd2 was on SA+ for three years with a ft 1-1 funded by the LA. She was then statemented with 1-1, which I assume was also paid for by the LA. Her equipment was largely funded by the LA, but there was an agreement between the LA and the PCT.

It very much depends. Complete post code lottery.

Am mildly curious why you care who is paying for support though? Why does it matter?

Parents largely should be fighting for the support a child needs - let the school and LA argue about who foots the bill, and focus on getting agreement that the support is required. I personally don't care who pays, as long as the support is in place.

My son has a statement, if I go by what the school is saying (which I am disputing by the way) my son should be going off to Cambridge!

He does not have behaviour isssues and other than his Speech and Language diagnosis, he has some attention and listening difficulties, but not ADHD. If I was to believe what the school are saying, especially regarding his NC levels, he should not have his statement, yet they are itching to keep it...I can only see this as him being a financial gain to them as it makes no sense that the school would say all he needs are the odd stratagies that are integrated in the whole class, a TA is already in the class that can support him if need be, and his attention is now suddenly fine that I am appealing (after 2 years of constant complaining about his attention and listening), but as a school we want the statement, all those things they are saying can and should be met at SA/SA plus and intruged as to how they are going to explain this to the panel at my appeal.

It is weird as they want the statment yet do not want to put the work in to support him. They are fully aware my son needs far more support than what they suggest, but do not actually want to put the effort in (such as not monitoring his progress in 3 years!)

I think different LEA's do different things as I can never quite get a straight answer to this question, but thought children with SEN status automatically had a higher premium attatched to them??

Im confused, lol

Madwoman, each parent/childs case is different some more complex than others.

My knowing this would actually help my case.

Oh, that's not weird at all. Dd2 and ds1 are both 2e, ie have both disabilities and are gifted. It's quite likely the school do have additional funding attached to the statement, so are able to use that resource to benefit a wider group. V familiar with that. (dd2 needs support, but not 24/7, but her needs can't be scheduled for 2 hours a day, they are spread throughout- so it makes sense that her TA supported other students etc)

I would go back to my comment about support needs though - if he isn't being supported, get that sorted out (if he needs support - I assume his statement was originally for communication - was he using pecs or similar initially?).

I really wouldn't get bogged down by who is paying for what. If he needs support, but isn't getting it, concentrate on that.

Do you want the statement withdrawn? I'm a bit confused. The problem with statements is that although in theory they are reviewed annually, they generally aren't. It's a box ticking and rubber stamping exercise, as staff don't have time, so kids are pretty much guaranteed to carry on with whatever they started out with. Statements are hardly ever rewritten according to changing needs.

I am not getting bogged down about who is paying for what, and your right I dont care who pays, but I do care about how the funding is used and what is allocated to him, it is a legitimate question for MY particular case, and it is quite complex, my solicitor actually said that my bundle was the largest she had seen to date. I realise it may be mind boggling but until you understand the full picture only then will it make sense. My son has had his statement since he was 5 and is now 14, and the LEA know full well I am clued up, and I have had his statements changed according to his changing needs because as my sons needs change the provision/objectives change, however the last 1.5 years they have not playing ball as we have been in a dispute which will all come to a head in court next month.

Getting the support is easy in the grand scheme of my case...it is part 4 of the statment where the fun and games begin.

The school on the other hand seem to think I am a bit daft, but that has worked in my favour, the only area I am not so sure about and I think it is going to be LEA specific from what I have gathered from this issue regarding funding.

Well, you are obviously doing the right thing, if your AR actually leads to changes in the statement. I'm not sure any case would be improved by knowing who is paying though - unless the point of the case is to prove that necessary support isn't in place but is paid for by the la, or that there is no requirement for support (in which case the la funding will just be cut if it exists).

I guess it makes sense somewhere though - good luck with the hearing.