Memorandum submitted by Network 81
1. Network 81 is a charity which still seeks
to fulfil our initial aim which is:—"A national network
of parents working towards properly resourced inclusive education
for children with special needs." To this aim we train volunteers
("Befrienders"), who are usually parents, to then go
on to support other parents, as they wade through the mine-field
of bureaucracy and emotional turmoil which having a child with
special needs engenders.
2. Network 81 also runs a helpline, including
email service, for parents, other voluntary organisations, parent-led
groups and professionals. These services are very extensively
used and field a huge range of questions and queries: these could,
for example, be from a parent who has just learnt from a school
that their child has special educational needs and knows nothing
of the policies or procedures, or a request to review in depth
case paperwork and provide suggestions for amendments. We work
with other agencies in the same field such as IPSEA, ACE and CSIE
as well as NPPN (National Parent Partnership Network) and charities
providing support for specific syndromes. In addition we work
with LEAs and LAs to support them in their roles.
3. Through working closely with parents,
the compilation of subsequent statistical information from the
helpline and feedback from training days it is apparent that SEN
provision in England and Wales is not all sunshine and roses so
a new look at the present arrangements is welcomed.
4. We have endeavoured to deal with each
topic as far as we understand it.
Provision for SEN pupils in "mainstream"
schools: availability of resources and expertise; different models
of provision
RESOURCES
5. Resource availability is variable and
too often led by the funding available from the LEA/LA and not
applicable to the needs of the child/ren. Also, the resources
are allocated to each individual school to do with as they see
fit. This may then not be allocated to the individual needs of
the child. We can give many examples of individual schools where
resources are provided but the individual children receive very
little of the provision. As there is no "ring fencing"
of SEN funding it can easily be used in other ways by schools.
There is also often no effective monitoring of these resources
by LEA/LAs.
6. This is why many parents fight for a
statement of Special Educational Needs so that the funding is
specific and allocated to their son/daughter and even then it
is often not applied for their sole use.
EXPERTISE
7. Many schools do not have anyone qualified
in the general area of Special Educational Needs, let alone a
specific area. This in itself is not a problem if they are aware
of this lack and avail themselves of all the expertise available
within the LEA. However if you are dealing with a pupil you need
help to hand not via sixteen phone calls and advice over the phone
if you can get it or perhaps even worse "an expert"
in the wrong discipline giving you advice. Some experts are very
difficult to access and will visit only when dealing with School
Action Plus or Statements so "Early Intervention" is
impossible. Is this really what was envisioned by the law on Special
Educational Needs or the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice?
8. The use of Learning Support Assistants/Teaching
Assistant to support the young people is common place and usually
works well with a very special relationship being built between
support staff and the young people. However, is it appropriate
for these LSAs to be placed in this position without having in
many instances relevant experience or training and a decent pay
structure to attract the right level of candidate? They are often
paid at just above the minimum wage and yet expected to deliver
the curriculum and differentiate it appropriately for the individual/group
with, too often, very little input from the qualified teacher.
Do we/you really value the work done by these highly motivated
and committed people?
PROVISION
9. Across England and Wales provision is
variable and what is more not uniform to the needs of the child.
A child in LEA "A" can be provided with "XYZ"
and the same child in another LEA say "B" can be provide
with "LMN" which are not even similar. This anomaly
is confirmed as true so often as children move from area to area
their provision changes. Also there are many parents that move
their children completely away from state education and home educate
because they "give up" on trying to secure the provision
required for their child.
Provision for SEN pupils in Special Schools
10. Many Special Schools are being downsized
and some closed/amalgamated. Whilst we agree with the inclusion
agenda this is being forced through by some LEAs/LAs with limited
thought for the individual needs. In our experience it is apparent
that there are some children for whom a school of less than 300
is preferable and for some where the class size is just too big
even when they are supported. For many of our more vulnerable
children class size and school size is important.
11. Through our experience of working with
parents we know that some children do not have their needs met
in the mainstream sector. Some parents initially agree to a placement
in a mainstream school because they are promised provision and
support for their child which subsequently is not forthcoming
and the child is unable to cope. This is especially true in secondary
schools where there are large numbers of pupils and staff have
little time, training or support to be able to cope with children
who have particular needs or behaviour difficulties. Parents then
request a move to a "special school" either in the maintained
or private sector.
Raising standards of achievement for SEN pupils
12. This is not being achieved in many schools.
The achievements of many have been more closely monitored since
the introduction of the P Scales which have allowed better measurement
of progress. For many children however the extra input needed
by staff to ensure progress has not been forthcoming. The use
of IEPs (Individual Education Plans) does not ensure access to
the level of basic skills needed to achieve economic well being.
The use of a limited curriculum concentrating more on basic skills
for a limited period would enable more pupils with Special Educational
Needs to achieve more in the long term. Access arrangements for
all examinations including SATs are difficult to interpret for
individuals and many schools fail to obtain the necessary "extra
time" allocations due to lack of knowledge and understanding
of the system and in some cases lack of understanding of how the
extra time can be of benefit to the individual.
The system of statements of need for SEN pupils
("the statementing process")
13. This system is still hampered by the
bureaucracy involved which is, we believe, a tourniquet effect
placed by LEAs/LAs. This is due to in part the financial constraints
of the authority but still a restrictive factor. This is then
limiting on the needs of the individuals who happen to live in
that area. It bears little or no relation to the needs of the
individual for access to education by whatever means. Too many
parents fall at this first hurdle not because their child does
not meet the criteria or does not need a statement but because
the parent does not know how to proceed and/or thinks "the
LEA know best". We are very aware of the time taken to produce
the final statement and the reasons behind this but we do feel
that there needs to be an option for a shortened version for those
who have urgent needs such as medical/behavioural needs which
should be dealt with in the short term to prevent further "disadvantage".
14. The present system does not allow schools
to put in early intervention but forces them to wait for the process
to conclude before accessing funding. This can take up to one
year (sometimes more) before provision is in place and in the
life of a child that may be too long and therefore too large a
price to pay. Playing "catch-up" which is what they
will then be doing disadvantages them. Some would argue that delegation
to school of all funding for SEN obviates this problem but we
feel very strongly that this funding would not be ring fenced
or applied accurately to the specific needs of the individuals.
15. The majority of the parents we work
with want a legal document so that they have a legal right to
challenge the LEA when they are not in receipt of provision that
has been detailed on the Statement of Need. However many parents,
with our help or help from other organisations, have to completely
re-write badly written statements. This can lengthen the process
even more than is necessary. Provision is sometimes "blanketed"
because LEAs do not have the resources to provide the provision
stated. Banding is used to place children with apparently similar
needs together and provide similar quantities of resources. Individuality
is not permissible.
16. Direct Payments to parents are also
a cause for concern as most parents seem unaware that they can
access these or how to access them.
The role of parents in decisions about their children's
education
17. As an organisation which deals with
parents on a daily basis it is very concerning to us about the
level of involvement, or should we say non-involvement, of parent
in the education of their child and the lack of understanding
of professionals as to the skills of these parents, many of whom
have become experts in the educational/medical/physical/mental/emotional
needs of their child. Their knowledge is often disregarded by
the teachers who "having been on a course know all there
is to know about . . ." (however long that course is). This
arrogance does not allow the parties to work together to do the
best for the child.
18. Many other parents abdicate their role
and hand over total responsibility for educating their child to
the professionals and assume that this role will be carried out
with no input from them. Both of these scenarios need more support
to aid both groups to interact with professionals as equals, in
partnership.
19. There is limited opportunity for parents
to actively participate in the decision making for their son/daughter.
Those who try to do so are regarded by many as "interfering",
"over anxious", "busy bodies", "fussy";
whereas there are also parents who do not attend any review meetings
nor parent evenings and fail to communicate with the school on
many issues and are seen as "uncaring" and "unsupportive"
and therefore "bad" parents.
20. We have evidence of parents being told
in a playground that their child has been placed on the SEN Register,
with no opportunity for a detailed discussion or explanation of
why and what this means.
21. We also have evidence of young people
who have had their Special Educational Needs provision ceased
without recourse to the parent.
22. In the role of our helpline we speak
to many parents who want to be involved in the day to day care
of their son/daughter but their offers are spurned by the very
people they are trying to help. This treatment seems to be wide
spread and national with some areas of England more affected than
others. However the parent who contact the helpline are the ones
who have bothered to seek more advice, how many more are there
who just suffer in silence. There is little evidence of initiatives
to bring parents and school staff together to promote a greater
understand about SEN.
How special educational needs are defined
23. The basic definitions within the Special
Educational Needs Code of Practice are sound and when applied
uniformly can be a basis for provision. They do however need to
be revisited for the many conditions now being found in schools
in particular, for those children with emotional and behavioural
needs. Placing emotionally damaged "withdrawn" children
in the same category as those with overt "acting out"
behavioural needs can lead to confusion and mismanagement. It
is suggested therefore that additional categories of need be considered.
Provision for different types and levels of SEN,
including emotional, behavioural and social difficulties (EBSD)
24. This "provision" is left to
individual schools.
25. Quantities of provision should be specified;
eg how much support does a child get at School Action one hour
per week in a group of four with a TA or one hour per week 1:1
with TA. There is no specific provision for those with emotional
needs who may well require more 1:1 work to defuse situations
so may require a TA to be "on call" all day. .
26. Dyslexia or Specific Learning Difficulty
is a specifically difficult syndrome for parents to get recognised,
and if recognised, get provision for, and yet specific programmes
of learning for this group can raise standards in a short time
and enable these children to achieve.
27. The lack of understanding of conduct
disorders, behavioural and emotional needs is quite unbelievable.
Many children are labelled as "naughty", "badly
brought up", "defiant" by teaching staff who lump
all "bad" behaviour together and fail to separate the
"disabled" and "disadvantaged" from those
who are just plain "bored". A headteacher colleague
mentioned recently if we have enjoyment we will attain excellence.
So just giving detention does not alleviate the problem of emotional
instability. Neither is anything a "quick fix" it takes
time and money and one size definitely does not "fit all".
28. It would seem that provision for EBSD
in Secondary schools is less obvious than in primary settings.
Many pupils are "excluded" because they cannot conform
to the social norms set by the society. This may be due to the
fact that despite intervention for individuals the actual structure
of the schools themselves is "too big" for some pupils.
Pupils have often moved from a school of less than 200 to a school
of over 200 in each year group. The feeling of being lost in the
crowd is often mentioned by individual pupils as a primary cause
of truancy; "no—one cares if I"m there or not!!"
The legislative framework for SEN provision and
the effects of the Disability Act 2001, which extended the Disability
Discrimination Act to education
29. The full implications of the change
are still to become clear. Recent high court decisions are allowing
greater understanding but the actual improvements for the young
people in our care are not yet apparent. More guidance needs to
be produced to enable parents and educational professionals to
gain a clearer understanding of the nuances of the changes as
they apply to education.
30. Many parents are unaware of this Act
and therefore not aware of their children's rights not to be discriminated
against by schools. Parents need information and support .
31. Having been involved recently in work
with two families with "exclusion" issues where both
children had obvious special educational needs but had still been
excluded, our only recourse was to appeal to the Tribunal (Disability
Section), and that decision is not something taken lightly, but
then having to fight to prove that the Special Educational Needs
was also a disability. Despite the reissuing of "Circular
10/99: The Secretary of State's Guidance on pupil behaviour and
attendance", guidance in the Disability Code of Practice
and SENDA 2001 regarding exclusion many children with SEN are
still being excluded either "fixed term or permanently"
and should be being offered alternatives within the system but
are being "failed".
We are willing to supply additional oral evidence
if required.
This statement was prepared by Mrs Eirwen Grenfell-Essam,
Chair of Network 81.
My day job is as SENCO/Inclusion Manager in
a Junior school where over 70% of pupils are placed on the SEN
Register.
We would also like to ask two questions of the
committee:
Why are parents of children with SEN not
empowered in the decisions which are made regarding their sons/daughters
education?
and from this
How can more be done to educate/support parents?
October 2005
| 
