New £6k funding rules for 2013-2014

[rosielou678]

Please can someone help me with understanding the new government funding rules for Statemented children in mainstream settings

I understand that the first £6k has to come out of school's money. (I think!). If my child has a Statement but the school has to buy-in, say, £5k of external provision, does that mean that the cost of his place is £5k plus £6k. Or does it mean its £6k minus £5k and the excess £1k is not needed?

Hope this is clear! But i need to know what this actually means!

I've just started getting a piece together on this.

The funding reforms are across all school funding. That includes a reform of SEN Funding.

The bar for 'high needs' has been set at £10000. That is, any child whose provision is costed at more than £10000 is classed as 'high needs'. This is quite deliberate, to ensure that 'high needs' funding isn't linked with 'Has a Statement of SEN'. It is thought that to link 'needs' with 'Statements' could give an incentive towards getting a statement.

Schools get devolved funding via a notional SEN budget. This is based on a formula which looks at Free School Meals and IDACI (income deprivation affecting children index) measures.

Each Mainstream school is expected to contribute the first £6000 towards SEN provision for each child. So, if your child has Statemented needs of £7000, they would get a £1000 top up from the LA.

If they had a Statemented provision of £5000, they simply wouldn't get any money from the LA and would still have £1000 from their budget that they could spend on another child with SEN.

Thanks lougle. So on this basis, to put me child in a special unit, the LA claims costs only £575 per year so this is correct? His extra top-up needs to come from that pot of £6k money. But his actual everyday teaching costs is only £575 per year?

What a joke and a farce!

So this magical yearly sum of £575 includes all the buildings, all the teachers and built in weekly SLT from the NHS!

Wow! I wish every thing else was that cheap!

I reckon they are saying that his needs come to £6,575, but that the £6k doesn't count because the school would be getting it anyway regardless of whether your child attended.

However, if they had to find £6k to send your child to another school, that would be £12k they had to spend altogether iyswim.

This argument 'shouldn't' stand up to tribunal scrutiny, but all things being equal an tribunal might be sympathetic to the LA.

So it would be safe to also include the card that the LA cannot meet needs as well as the parental preference card.

No.

This document says:
"c. introducing an equivalent level of base funding for specialist settings ? specialist pre-16 SEN settings will receive base funding of £10,000 per planned place. Post-16 specialist SEN / learning difficulty and disability (LDD) provision will be funded slightly differently, but on an equivalent basis to mainstream post-16 settings. AP settings will receive base funding of £8,000 per planned place. Base funding will ensure equivalence of funding between providers, and will offer some stability of funding for specialist settings; and
d. aligning funding and educational commissioning responsibilities ? above this threshold, commissioners and providers will liaise directly over top-up funding for individual pupils based on their assessed needs."

Powerpoint images for illustrative purposes

The difficulty is that the new model hasn't been tested in tribunals. Is the cost to the LA £10000, because they have lost the place that another child could take, regardless of whether your DS needs that much intervention, or is the cost the itemised actual cost of his provision, and the setting gets a 'bonus' by having him?

We have a very specific breakdown of costs from the LA. They say the top-up for what they can't provide is a specific amount - lets say they've stated £5k. There is also an individual cost of £575 for an "enhanced provision"

But the £5k is a very minimum amount of bought-in provision. So it will be this which will be contested (I suspect)

I'm not sure I follow.

I know that DD1 will get £10000 place funding at her school, as per the document I linked to. Then, they will use a set criteria (I can't really go into detail) to decide how much 'top up' she will get. She is relatively 'low need' for her school, so they won't get much for her.

But they will still say that they have already spent a certain amount of money and will have to regardless, and claim therefor for the purpose of matching costs to the parental preferred provision, that theirs are zero.

If this isn't their argument then what on earth are they going to tribunal FOR?

This is the problem because I don't follow it either!

The breakdown I have from the LA is

£575 enhanced provision
£xxxx for yy therapy (bought in)
£xxxx for zz therapy (bought in)
£0 for SLT because although weekly SLT is uncontested, the cost is built in the £575 enhanced provision

Let's say the total of the bought in therapy equals £5k. So the LA say that the cost of his place is £5,575

Star - this is about princi

Oops flippin' phone!

This is about LA principals and who my solicitors are. This is not about my son

Yes. Often it is just about making the parent PAY dearly for daring to challenge, and to put those they talk to off from doing the same.

Just because it is uncontested, doesn't mean it doesn't count.

The cost of SALT is roughly £90 for each clinical hour.

So what the frig are your solicitors doing then, to leave you with this to figure out yourself?

Why don't you know what 'enhanced provision' breaks down to? How can you argue costs if they are using umbrella terms?

Surely you are able to point to the new funding formula and say that a specialist place cost is £10000?

Star - that's right - we have Essex's FOI stating all their costs. But it does mean we have to waste an extra £10k in going to Tribunal. £10k that could be used for my son and his provision.

Oops did I just out my LA? Oh well nothing to loose now as we are going to Tribunal.

Unfortunately the LA

... played dirty to the end and I only got this info today. Barrister not available so I only have MNSN to help me! In fairness they have stated that its £10k placement. But the LA have ignored them

So, because my son has been placed in a mainstream school with a SPLU, the LA should have given the following costs

£10,000 for the placement
£xxxx for yy therapy (bought in cos school can't provide)
£xxxx for zz therapy (bought in cos school can't provide)
£0 for SALT (because its a SPLU unit)

Is that correct?

If so, then this is all a total and utter b*ks. The transport alone, plus the £10k for the place, is equal to the fees for the school I want.

Just had DS AR where I was given info on his funding.
10 grand for his high needs school place with a further individual 14 grand to meet his needs as stated on his statement.
It's all getting very confusing but as long as my DS needs keep being met then school and LA can argue over funding not me.

Thanks coffee - that totally makes sense for my sons case. So I am correct that once again the LA think they are above the law so have used £575 instead of £10k. A slight difference in figures!!!

Ds is in a special school so his might be higher,he was in a resource last year and I think it was a cheaper option for the LA.

DS would be in a special unit attached to mainstream school - which according to all the government papers on this is £10k. But even if this is higher figure is disputed and its the lower level of £6k, adding on the top up for provision the school can't provide and the transport, this still takes us to exactly the same as the indie school fees

So, even I accepted the much lower (inadequate) top up therapy/support, the cost to place my son in the LAs school using correct placement figures will be MORE than the parental choice

This is institutional bullying.