"The statement will not state the number of hours support your child should receive"

[skewiff]

Just recieved a newsletter from our Parent Partnership.

There is an article in it called "Statements and delegated funding explained" which is very relevant for us, as we've just got a proposed statement through.

I have been advised by IPSEA that legally the number of hours of support have to be stated.

But this article says (its for Walthamstow, London) "Statements levels B to D are to be implemented using funding already given, or 'delegated' to the school in their Special Needs budget"

"Statements with levels E and above do carry some additional funding, but only 'top up' monies to cover the difference between level D and the level of the statement".

"The statement will not state the number of hours support your child should receive"

"All of this may sound very confusing to parents and carers and you should try not to worry too much about the funding issues. That is for your child's school to worry about and it is between the school and the local authority to agree that the statement is resourced at the right level to support the needs of your child" (!!!!!)

Is this legal?

Hmm think Herts tried same with divulged funding told them I don't care who pays what long as I have in black and White what he needs they can argue money toss between them

I think Beds do it too. Not legal. Go back to IPSEA and ask for advice.

No! Contact IPSEA - they will be very interested and appeal your proposed if it doesn't quantify hours. Disgusting!

Yep herts say the same thing. They have justified it (to me) by saying that it is in line with the recommendations from the Lamb Inquiry, that showed specified hours to create dependency (or some such nonsense).

Look page 43, point 7:

ha ha, I am so gonna get them on that!

Oh yes Star, you get them on this point!.

skewiff - I would contact IPSEA re this matter asap. Its not legal at all to state this. You must reject the statement if the provision is neither specified nor quantified (as required by law).

Devolved funding has a lot to answer for. Basically these LEA's are saying to the schools, "here's some money, now you sort the problems out". It goes without saying that these children get short changed as a result.

It's illegal.

You should refer the matter to IPSEA who routinely write to the Minister for Education who in turn then slams the Council

But the most disgusting thing about it is that you say Parent Partnership put out this advice.

That is outrageous - they are supposed to support the parent - not butter up the LA.

But we know different - don't we.

Although...playing devil's advocate here....

...If a statement was written in a specific and quantified manner, giving detailed advice of how much of the day should be in 1:1 support, how much should be in small group, etc. And contained very specific guidance relating to OT & SALT input, and pinned down the real issues affecting children (ie. break and lunch cover, etc), then the statement wouldn't need to specify hours.

At the moment, it seems that children get a statement that says 'blah blah needs..' 'blah blah targets..' 'blah blah blah...' 'By the way, you've got 15 hours of support to fit that all into.'

If, instead, it said "these are the needs, these are how they will be met..." you could tot up the number of hours of support needed.

That is really interesting lou,

The Parent Partnership article does say that you/we need to be really specific in Section2 I think it was, about child's needs and then they'll get the provision right.

So - if we really can't quantify/qualify (have to speak to IPSEA about this) I will just be really pedantic about detailed advice.

Thanks.

Yes, skewiff. Basically, Part 2 is describing the needs, and Part 3 is detailing the provision. If something is not written in Part 2 as a need, then Part 3 will hold no provision for it. So Part 2 needs to be very detailed and comprehensive. Equally, you should be able to go through Part 3, and compare it with Part 2, saying "ah, so point 4 relates to this need, and point 6 relates to this one", etc. You shouldn't find a single 'need' in part 2, that doesn't have a related provision.

Thank you Lou,

that makes good sense.