Is there anything in the SEN COP or Education Act?

[claw2]

that states that provision in a statement should be quantified and specificed?

Just looking for something to quote at them.

There is case law - have you looked on IPSea re common problems - just going to get my code of practice......

Part 8.36 states a statement should specify clearly the provision necessary to meet the needs of the child.

Part 8.37 leas must not in any circumstances have blanket polices not to quantify provision.

Part 8.34 part 3 should specify all of the special educational provision the LA consider appropriate for all learning difficulties in part 2 even where some of the provision will be made direct intervention on the part of the authority, some will be made by the child's school from its own resources and some may be made by the health authority.it is the LA that is responsible for arranging provision in the statement irrespective of who actually delivers it unless the LA is satisfied that the child's parents have made suitable arrangements

I hadnt searched any case Law, running out of time to reply to be honest.

Thanks will quote SEN COP at them in the final paragraph of my letter.

I have ds at home all day, out of school and he doesnt sleep too well, with only 2 weeks to reply, i was struggling with the final paragraph

The courts have consistently said that each special educational need specified in Part 2 must be met by provision specified in Part 3: R v Secretary of State for Education ex parte E [1992] 1 FLR 377. This means that Part 3 must describe all aspects of the provision which differ from the provision normally made in mainstream schools in the area including the class size, the qualification of the teachers or those supporting the child etc. Where small group work is involved, the statement must confirm the size of the group, the length and frequency of the sessions etc: L v Clarke and Somerset [1998] ELR 129.

This requirement to specify is ?not a bureaucratic purpose?. by that provision, local authorities ? and tribunals? are required to give full and adequate specific consideration to the needs of the child? the requirement for specificity outlaws ? a general statement ?. in such broad terms that it could lead to specific needs being ignored or inadequately focussed upon?. the second purpose is that, once made in terms which are specific the purpose of the provision can be furthered and effected by enforceability?.?: E v Flintshire [2002] EWHC 388, [2002] ELR 378.

Similarly, SENCOP para 8.37 confirms that provision should be quantified in terms of hours, staffing arrangements etc.

The courts have put it this way:?The real question ? is whether [the statement] is so specific and so clear as to leave no room for doubt as to what has been decided and what is needed in the individual case?: L v Clarke and Somerset [1998] ELR 129). , S v Solihull [2007] EWHC 1139,

For my DS's c**p Statement, my LA is currently arguing that the SEN COP says 'normally be quantified' and that the COP also says that there are cases where some flexibility should be retained. They are also saying that there is case law that it is acceptable to flexibility - and then they go on to quote a particular case law from 1994.

Hopefully that particular case law has been overruled by the more recent cases you quote inappropriatelyemployed!

Thanks guys, so very helpful, when im feeling so rushed

The law says that flexibility can only be an argument if it is in the interests of the child and NOT the school or LA.

Thanks inappropriatelyemployed. Just another ploy (one of many many ploys) from my c**p LA to brow beat me into giving up!