Reducing the rights to appropriate schooling for children with disabilities

Thank you for drawing our attention to this JaneJudge and for posting the link which I’ve used. Nothing surprises me any more with this shower.

Thank you for the link, I have signed.

Could you supply a link to information that says disabled children's rights are not being protected, please?

I did do a search but found nothing.

Thank you both. It is such a backwards step. All children have the right to reach their full potential and receive appropriate, safe schooling

JaneJudge
The article you linked used the word could not would
I’m a stickler for detail and that one word wants me to know more.
Any more details?

I'm not sure exactly what the petition is about. There is a SEND review in process and people are being asked for their opinions. There's a consultation document here sendreview.campaign.gov.uk/ The consultation ends on 22nd July.
I've only done a quick scan of the proposals but it seems there is to be a national standard of assessment and provision and new qualifications for SENCOs. It's a long and complicated proposal so I may not have found the problematic sections yet www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-and-ap-green-paper-responding-to-the-consultation

www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-and-ap-green-paper-responding-to-the-consultation/summary-of-the-send-review-right-support-right-place-right-time#:~:text=The%20review%20has%20heard%20that,with%20the%20most%20complex%20needs

I suppose I have posted thinking you all have background knowledge of how local authorities are set wrt funding and support. Our local authority spends more on fighting lost tribunals than on supporting actual children. I know which I'd prefer

JaneJudge

www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-and-ap-green-paper-responding-to-the-consultation/summary-of-the-send-review-right-support-right-place-right-time#:~:text=The%20review%20has%20heard%20that,with%20the%20most%20complex%20needs

I suppose I have posted thinking you all have background knowledge of how local authorities are set wrt funding and support. Our local authority spends more on fighting lost tribunals than on supporting actual children. I know which I'd prefer

But surely then this green paper should meet with your approval as as I understand the funding would become nationally organised with regional hubs responsible for provision?

It has also just occurred to me that the money spent by local authorities on fighting disputes will not just be on those for special needs children. There may be cases of oversubscribed schools and parents insisting on admission, and cases of exclusions, so there isn't any real correlation between spending on appeals and special needs funding.

Glorianny

It has also just occurred to me that the money spent by local authorities on fighting disputes will not just be on those for special needs children. There may be cases of oversubscribed schools and parents insisting on admission, and cases of exclusions, so there isn't any real correlation between spending on appeals and special needs funding.

The figures for fighting specifically special needs tribunals are separate from admission appeals and exclusions.

The target for the new bill seems to be the independent providers of SEND and I agree that the costs can be exorbitant, which is why LAs are reluctant to use them. The issue is that some parents want to send their children to them and claim they provide the education their children need.

The bill seems to want to increase the provision in mainstream schools and not to provide any alternative. Unfortunately, some mainstream schools do a better job than others. There's as perverse disincentive not to admit special needs pupils because they're expensive and bring down a school's exam results. I once went to an interview at a very high-achieving school and the head boasted that the school didn't really provide SEND support. Apparently, he told parents that and advised them to look elsewhere.

Most mainstream teachers aren't experts in SEND and just don't have the skills to deal with specific problems. It would take years to provide the training and expertise and I'm not sure the money being quoted would cover it.

Yes , Growstuff, I agree. The focus is on more inclusivity, which is not the answer; the answer is specialist units attached to mainstream schools which was proposed many years ago (at least 30) but the Report advocating it was supressed. Don't know the name or the authors but our Ed.Psych used to quote it mournfully.
Not every teacher is a teacher of Special Needs, as Dame Mary Warnock said so glibly when the new SEN curriculum was announced, again many years ago, and no one assesses the damage caused in mainstream schools to the ordinary pupils, some struggling but not qualifying for help and totally overlooked. Plus the disruption in some cases.
The' training' is superficial, and the people delivering SEN in schools have very little access to the budget or any say in how it is spent.
Very glad I am no longer a Senco.

I'm glad you agree with me eazybee. I've worked in schools with excellent SENCOs and real investment in SEND. However, I've also worked in others, where we were lucky to have half a day per year training. Like most secondary teachers, I tried my best and tried to follow action plans, but sometimes I just didn't have the expertise to know what to do and didn't have the resources/time to give pupils what they really needed. A couple of SENCOs didn't seem that clued up either. I don't believe inclusivity is the answer for all children.

More inclusivity is not the solution. The trouble is that the correct solution (more specialist schools with appropriately trained staff) costs huge amounts of money.

Antonia

More inclusivity is not the solution. The trouble is that the correct solution (more specialist schools with appropriately trained staff) costs huge amounts of money.

I don't pretend to understand all the implications of this new bill, but my impression is that it's basically a cost-cutting exercise, however it's being sold as extra investment.

I don't think the bill actually does insist on more inclusivity it actually has a section on alternative provision. Two of its points are
make alternative provision an integral part of local SEND systems by requiring the new SEND partnerships to plan and deliver an alternative provision service focused on early intervention
give alternative provision schools the funding stability to deliver a service focused on early intervention by requiring local authorities to create and distribute an alternative provision specific budget
It also goes on wanting a specific inspections process and more supervision to make movement between alternative provision and mainstream possible and to oversee the leaving process at 16.
There's also a national standard for SENCO's in it.
Perhaps there isn't the funding but some of the ideas seem sound.

I did write that I don't pretend to understand all the implications, but the introduction to the report does mention the cost of alternative provision and seems to make it clear that the expectation would be that provision would be within mainstream schools.

We already have regional hubs - they're called Local Authorities. SEND is one of the few responsibilities they retained.

As ever, the devil is in the detail and it really does look look as though the idea would be to integrate (and possibly lose) SEND pupils within mainstream schools.

But as you have said growstuff provision in schools is patchy and only occasionally good so as regional hubs LEAs are failing to deliver.Perhaps a regional hub whose sole purpose was to improve SEND services would do better.

Providing 'alternative' support with another mainstream school is simply pushing the problem onto another school. Some SEND pupils are not suitable for mainstream education because they cannot cope with the environment. There are fewer special schools, and an increasing number of children with severe disabilities taking the places in these schools, so children with mild and moderate needs are pushed up into environments that are not suitable for them. There will not be enough money available, neither will there be appropriately trained staff.

Glorianny

But as you have said growstuff provision in schools is patchy and only occasionally good so as regional hubs LEAs are failing to deliver.Perhaps a regional hub whose sole purpose was to improve SEND services would do better.

I don't understand your reasoning. Local authorities do have staff dedicated to special needs pupils. Why would renaming such teams make any difference?

I didn't claim provision is only occasionally good. Some schools fiercely protect their academic reputations and deliberately don't attract SEND pupils. No hub would make any difference.

eazybee

Providing 'alternative' support with another mainstream school is simply pushing the problem onto another school. Some SEND pupils are not suitable for mainstream education because they cannot cope with the environment. There are fewer special schools, and an increasing number of children with severe disabilities taking the places in these schools, so children with mild and moderate needs are pushed up into environments that are not suitable for them. There will not be enough money available, neither will there be appropriately trained staff.

I agree with you. The key here is money, appropriate facilities and well trained staff, which most mainstream schools don't have. It's frustrating for staff, parents and pupils.

Inclusivity is in fact a policy introduced by the Blair government and largely supported by most disability rights groups and many parents. The fact that it isn't working properly is no reason to think it is wrong. Of course it requires much more cash and investment. Something that I don't believe will really happen but creating a joined up system is also important. It seems very odd to me to argue that SENCO training is inadequate and support for SENCOs is lacking but then claim the regional hub (LEA) have adequate teams.
I'd like to see complete services in a primary and secondary school in every area to provide the support SEND pupils need. It would be hugely expensive but make such a difference. My niece's daughter who has cerebral palsy had such support in her schools in the US. It covered every aspect of her needs, included speech and physical therapy from an early age, and counselling as she grew older. All in mainstream schools. So it can be done.
It's wrong to think inclusion is a mistake when it is obvious that what it really requires is more funding.

Glorianny What experience do you have of British schools or the education system? Your comments are naive in the extreme.

Try to have a good think about what inclusion actually means. For a lot of children that purely means being able to access suitable education and be included. It doesn't mean going to a mainstream school