Does this sentence from a statement need to specify one to one TA support?

[Ineedmorepatience]

XXXXX Children's Services will provide funding based on Band 5, the equivalent of 15 hours teaching assistant support per week, pro rata for the balance of the financial year.

I have seen this sentence on 2 statements recently and need to know if it is specific enough, please.

Thankyou in advance

We didn't fight this but I don't think it is specific enough if they / you think 1 to 1 support is essential for the 15 hours. The money could be spent on anything as written not necessarily TA wages.

I would be having a word with IPSEA about this particular wording.

No, its not good enough at all and infact the question of funding is not for parents to have to address anyway. Statements should be both specified and quantified properly in terms of support, if not it should be rejected out of hand.

Thats what I thought one

We were told Dd3 could have 15 hrs support on SA+ but when the secondary school broke it down for us to explain how it works it wasnt actually going to give Dd3 any one to one at all!!

Thanks attila

No. It is saying what the school will receive not what the child will receive. Schools will like that usually coz it is money that they can spend as they see fit. Some will spend it on the child, many will spend it on a TA to be used flexibly but include child, a few will renovate the library in time for the open day.

And don't forget that 'band 5' could mean literally anything, and though it may well be equivelent to 15 hours of TA support, what kind of TA support? A newbie? An experience with a qualification in SEN? An ABA shadow?

Thankyou starlight

Why do they have to make it so difficult!!

Because money goes further/short cuts taken if you're vague about what it's for. Schools unlikely to complain about being handed money without conditions especially if they don't understand or acknowledge the purpose it is supposed to be being given.

Also easier for staff in both LA and school to deem another child (with the less pita greedy grabbing mother) more deserving and justify their internal reallocation of resources behind closed doors with no legal recourse.

I only know about my LA star but I can tell you this... it is corrupt all the way through to the core and top to bottom as well !!!

If I could move I would but we are 5 days off finding out if Dd3 is going to be given a statement (all be it a crap one!!)

So we have to stay and fight!!

I agree with the other posters, but why does it refer "pro rata for the balance of the financial year"? So what happens next year?

A statement should be indefinite, unless the child is about to leave school - and even then, LAs' year ends are March, when children leave school in July?

Oh yes, - completely missed that one. Cheeky!

Yes that happens with the Early Years funding too!! We have to fight for it every march and this year they didnt tell us until the week before we broke up.

Two staff members are paid directly from this money!!!

Told you they are a nightmare!!

My advice to any parent, who has a phrase like that in their child's statement, putting a time limit on provisions, is to ring the IPSEA Advice line on 0800 0184016, and ask them to take it to their Legal Team.