Please or to access all these features

SN children

Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on special needs.

Interesting read - LA report on high needs funding and future strategy

11 replies

KOKOagainandagain · 16/02/2015 09:59

Know thine enemy Smile

OP posts:
KOKOagainandagain · 16/02/2015 10:02

Oh! Blush I forgot to add the link

www.schoolsurf.suffolkcc.gov.uk/docs/unrestricted/Consultative_Groups/Schools_Forum/2015-01-13_Meeting_Papers/index.aspx

OP posts:
senvet · 16/02/2015 10:43

suffolk is where we had that petition because they were closing all their units..

ouryve · 16/02/2015 13:10

My computer doesn't trust that report and won't let me read it. [ironic face]

KOKOagainandagain · 16/02/2015 13:50

Yes it is. But as you can see below other, larger, cuts are being considered.

Some highlights include:

As has previously been reported in considerable depth to Forum, the County is facing considerable demographic pressures with regards to the rising numbers of children and young people presenting with more severe and complex needs, particularly on the autism spectrum (ASD), BESD and with speech language and communication difficulties (SLCN).

Without intervention, the county will be unable to meet the rising need for this group of young people to progress in the kind of local learning environment which will best meet their learning requirements, is fit for purpose, and which parents and carers are asking for. Moreover, the lack of local provision is likely to result in further expenditure on costly placements in the independent and non-maintained sector.

? The current trends in the identification of SEND within the county indicate an increasing pressure on the available high needs provision in county. Without a strategy to align provision with future needs, the county will be unable to meet the rising need for children and young people with SEND to progress in the kind of local learning environment which will best meet their learning requirements, is fit for purpose, and which parents and carers are asking for.

? We have legislative obligations to meet (in particular the Raising of the Participation Age (RPA) and the SEND reforms) which require us to undertake forward planning on the extent and range of our provision.

? Independent and non-maintained placements are costly and long-term local solutions could at least relieve pressure on the High Needs Funding block and at best, realise significant financial savings.

We are currently profiling and assessing the needs of the 236 learners being educated in non -county provision, to ascertain the potential for any of this cohort to be able to access provision in county. The progression of the local offer added to reasonable adjustments being made to learner support plans, may enable a number of learners to return to the county for future education. This proposal is not driven by finance, but one that is in the best interests of learners to return to their localities and social groups as soon as is feasibly possible, rather than deferring the problem.

The High Needs Block is looking at a forecasted overspend in 2014-15. Currently the level of overspend is forecast at between £2.5m - £3.5m. The main areas of concern are:
? Out of County Placements - £1.4m overspend
? Top Up payments - £1.8m overspend
? Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) - £0.6m overspend

Savings / redeployment of funding that needs to be considered in the short term include:
? £1.8m (current forecast overspend) capping top ups paid to schools including Post 16.
? £0.65m removal of mainstream band 1
? £0.68m by stopping residential provision at 2 of our Special Schools
? £0.25m due to under occupancy in Specialist Support Centres (SSCs)
? £0.3m by applying Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) to Special Schools, PRUs and Specialist Units
? £0.07m with the introduction of a new SLA for PRUs
? £0.03m by removing top up funding for Specialist Units

OP posts:
WintersDayTOWIE · 16/02/2015 14:06

We are currently profiling and assessing the needs of the 236 learners being educated in non -county provision, to ascertain the potential for any of this cohort to be able to access provision in county. The progression of the local offer added to reasonable adjustments being made to learner support plans, may enable a number of learners to return to the county for future education. This proposal is not driven by finance, but one that is in the best interests of learners to return to their localities and social groups as soon as is feasibly possible, rather than deferring the problem.

I'm speechless at the lies inaccuracies in this statement! If the proposal is not driven by finance, then why are they trying to get pupils out of an in-county indie school.

As it is, noone wants to send their child out of county (my DS is out of county) but if there isn't the correct "adequate" provision in county, then what else can we do?

Definitely a know your enemy on this one!

senvet · 16/02/2015 14:35

does anyone have the cost comparisons for raising 2.5 - 3.5 million in eg tax rises or cutting something frivolous like the repainting of council offices?

ouryve · 16/02/2015 15:13

Whose budget will pick up the kids who lose their residential placements, I wonder? Hmm

KOKOagainandagain · 16/02/2015 15:42

Hard to pick which proposed cut is the worst. Sad

2.5m worth of cuts affect DC in the mainstream, (DS2) and 2.23m affect DC not in the mainstream, before even getting to DC who are educated OOC (DS1).

If this is geographically local, we will relocate, but I'm not sure that it is

OP posts:
senvet · 16/02/2015 16:03

overspend shows that they didn't budget enough, not that the need to make cuts...

uggerthebugger · 16/02/2015 20:21

does anyone have the cost comparisons for raising 2.5 - 3.5 million

Not for the council as a whole, but you can check out what Suffolk (and other LAs) planned to spend this year's education budget on via this link

Looks like Suffolk are perfectly happy to spunk away £4.7m on school improvement. There's your saving right there.

In this context, school improvement doesn't mean new buildings, new IT, new teaching resources, subject-specific training, or anything that most of us would consider necessary to actually improve a school. What school improvement means here is 'getting schools to jump through the ever-shifting hoops that Ofsted have set up, no matter how batshit-insane they might be'

School improvement is where otherwise unemployable education consultants and burned-out head teachers go to keep themselves in the style to which they are accustomed. It's nothing more than a gigantic white collar welfare system for school leaders, a bolus on the face of educational humanity.

Case study - here's what the Chief Executive of the Suffolk improvement service is on, and what he or she is expected to do for the money.

The prospects for Suffolk's kids would not suffer a jot if the whole school improvement partnership were shot into low-earth orbit - and with a £4.7m budget, they could totally afford to do it. And if you used the right energy management manoeuvres, you could set their re-entry profile back down to earth to land on Ofsted HQ, neatly resolving the problem in one.

Short version - If these cunts can afford to keep the school improvement juggernaut running, then they have no excuse - not one fucking excuse - for cutting SEN placements that already represent lawful minimum expenditure.

senvet · 16/02/2015 23:35

Tried to get ugger's superb research work and exquisite turn of phrase to the campaign organisers.
I think I failed - I would need to do facebook or something

New posts on this thread. Refresh page