Our LEA is now no longer issuing statements

[Ifcatshadthumbs]

Anyone else being told the same? What does this mean for children who already have one?

That is the CORE issue. Lots of LAs have argued in the past that money is delegated to schools so children don't need statements but of course this leaves the, without legal protection and it is against the law.

The money is not ring fenced and whether children get the support will be up to schools who just have to use their 'best endeavours'

This is not the law at the moment and the Education Act must be followed until repealed.

Thanks for raising this. I will raise it.

So now parents challenge the school directly rather than the LA. parents deal directly with the school and go through mediations etc with them rather than the LA.

But there is no mechanism to challenge schools. It is entirely up to schools as schools can argue they are using 'best endeavours' and that is the end of it.

No right of action against the school. No enforceable provision.

Changes in April this year meant that schools are responsible for funding more of the cost of a statement but it doesn't mean a statement shouldn't be provided.

That IS the crux of it. No enforceable provision. Also in our area you can't get a place in SS without a statement.

My thoughts exactly, Cats.

God, it all becomes clear doesn't it.

Doesn't it just

It's very frightening. I feel luckier than most DS is doing well, school are good, we are able to fund therapies where provision is lacking and if it all goes tits up we'll whip him out and home school him but there are so many vulnerable children and families out there who have no choices and will slip through the net.

It's all so short sighted. Do they not think if they cut provision and early intervention down to the bare bones that it's going to cost them dearly in the long term?

I've just had a light bulb moment as to why superb provision has turned rotten from one year to the next . (My school has a new vegetable patch).

Have posted something using what you have said on the CDC site. Hope that's ok.

If you mean me that's no problem. Do you have a link to where you are posting? Would like to book mark it. Thanks.

On thread below. I know, you fight for a statement to avoid this battle with schools over provision and then find its all getting punted back to schools.

Got it thanks.

Yes, a big step back. As a SENCO the weight on my shoulders has reached new levels. Now I have to decide how much support to give where the LA used to assess and then put their wise heads together to make the decision. And I am an experienced teacher and SENCO. What decisions will al the new younger SENCOs still gaining experience decide? Apparently this was what SENCOs said they wanted from the government consultation...I certainly did not.

Saw your post on the blog, IE...knew you'd make a good job of it.

I'm worried about teaching for the following reasons:-

1. Free schools have no requirement to employ qualified teachers (this is already true in the private sector but public funding requires quality control).

1. Troops now surplus to requirements in the armed services are to be employed in schools with reduced training compared to the standard BEd or PGCE route.

1. Employment rights in academies and free schools are being eroded.

1. Staff training generally once in post is being reduced to the bone (& I'll be the first to admit my kid requires significant expertise to teach!).

1. Teaching assistant posts are being reduced - we are already seeing "protected posts" such as 1:1 's for statemented children being spread like marmite across the whole class with increasing regularity. TA's for those children on school action and school action plus are becoming eroded.

1. Curriculum rate of change is getting silly - I wouldn't teach year 10 & 11 for all the tea in China right now, as the goal posts change faster than anyone can monitor currently.

1. The conflict of interests between league tables for SATS and GCSE's and the penalty regime imposed upon schools means that "delegated" SN funds will inevitably be focused on attracting those children that will push a school's results over the golden line. This can either be at admission, or in focusing on those children at the border of grades. What happens to those kids at the extremes of the grade levels? (I've noticed this gov has gone quiet on G&T, so it's not just the previously statemented children will suffer).

1. The pace of special school closures continues apace - meaning mainstream schools will continue to receive children for whom they have NO expertise in how to include and teach.

1. Schools teachers continue to be expected to actively participate in the diagnostic process, act as social workers, run activities for the wider community, act as surrogate parents (healthy eating takes over KS1) and involve themselves in numerous activities other than their core function - education.

10. The detachment of the SN officer from the day to day hullaboo of school meant that she or she could objectively focus on analysing the support required by an individual child without distraction. The SENCO does not have that luxury, and already has a very demanding day job.

LMB - can I put your piece on my blog and describe you as a SENCO??

Bochead - hear, hear.

IE - feel free.

I am going to do a post; a SENCO speaks...

Thanks you - thank you - thank you for sharing this LuvmyBoyz. It really helps.

It is on there now. If you are tweeting - do give it a re-tweet

Non-dodgy-LAs (if there are any left!) are between a rock and a hard place. Not an excuse for illegal and underhand tactics, but still a problem.

The law as it stands obliges them to assess properly, and then arrange suitable provision for our dc. But most of the funds they used to allocate for this, are totally out of their control in academies' budgets, or else in the iron grip of their mainstream HTs. So the LAs retain the responsibility, but lack authority to make schools spend delegated £££ on SEN.

I agree. But they need to be vocal and open about this and not employ underhand tactics as a way of avoiding the issue.

And the LAs do have powers over their delegated funding and could be more thorough in ensuring the funds were used accountably.

The reality is that most LAs don't bemoan, they rejoice in this delegation as a way of side-stepping legal responsibility. Parents are consistently told they don't 'do' statements as schools have all the money but it is the LA and not the school that chooses how much to delegate - or it has been.

LAs are not impotent victims. Most heads are desperate to toe the LA line as the career prospects often depend on it. I know a head who had to move out of county because he didn't do what the LA wanted on SEN.

Heads who stand up for children against LA bullying that the child doesn't need help are few and far between.