Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Kids First Group
1. The committee expressed surprise that
no-one had spoken against inclusion.
I do believe that inclusion should be rolled
back, it has gone too far:
— A class should have one basic curriculum
albeit with some children needing extra help to keep up or catch
up. Would you be able to teach many different lesson plans simultaneously?
— As you know, inclusion doesn't work
as well for emotionally vulnerable, language sensitive and hyper
or hypo-sensory childen such as ASD, some ADHD, obsessive compulsive,
PDD-NOS, DAMP and others.
— How would you develop a child's self
esteem when they can see that they are always going to be the
poorest performer in your class?
— Many SEN children have; strong interests
and obsessions, special skills (computing, good memory), spiky
abilities (1st percentile in some things, 99th in others); need
constant sensory input to focus (wobbling, chewing, squeezing);
different thought processes and reactions. Could you as a mainstream
teacher make full use of these to impart information as opposed
to coping with these characteristics?
— Expertise develops amongst full time
specialists—special schools and units will generate expertise:
less special schools and units, less genuine expertise.
— Some SEN conditions necessarily result
in emotional and behavioural challenges (although most arise from
poor management). In mainstream schools this not conducive to
the teaching of other children.
— Much of the time an SEN child spends
in mainstream is actually spent segregated in a corner, in another
room for special teaching or "in their own world". Is
this the ideal of inclusion?
— The argument that children should
face the same people and challenges in school as they will face
in grown up life is clearly misguided.
— Special school does not mean segregation,
it should mean specialisation.
— Team and field sports exclude many
SEN children either through inability to take turns and follow
rules or through physical, sensory and motor difficulties. Differentiating
this curriculum is one of the most pressing matters.
Strong links between mainstream and special
schools, ideally supported by physical proximity, would better
protect the mental health of SEN children.
2. The committee expressed interest in real
life case studies and examples.
CASE 1
My own daughter, Maddy, was assessed at age
4 with severe expressive communication delay (unclear and very
little speech) and PDD-NOS (on the autistic spectrum). She was
extremely fragile and emotionally vulnerable.
Her occupational therapy report (privately commissioned)
stated that "running tests were not performed in case of
physical injury". She wore glasses for squint and astigmatism
and was on the 10th percentile for height and weight. She required
help toileting, dressing and eating.
The LEA's educational psychologist's report
showed a very spiky profile but, despite this being known to be
poor practice, they averaged her scores out to a "normal"
intelligence score (perhaps to facilitate a mainstream solution).
The LEA did not carry out a speech therapy assessment. Merton
LA recommended the speech and language hub in a primary school
45 minutes away from our home plus about two hours of non-specialised
LSA support per day.
This school was busy, cluttered noisy and cramped.
Children were physically bumping into us in the playground and
corridors. The speech language hub was empty during our visit.
The head teacher could not guarantee any specific level of speech
therapy—it would be "as resources allowed" and
in a group. (The school sometimes did not have access to a speech
and language therapist).
No occupational therapy or physical therapy
was available at this school (despite many speech affected children
also having motor skills issues).
My child would have been traumatised from day
one. She could not have survived break and lunch times or PE lessons
(in any case she couldn't change clothes or shoes independently).
She would have cried and resisted going to school (as she had
done at her temporary placement in a moderate learning difficulties
school).
I employed a lawyer. Merton withdrew and offered
to fund a place at the independent special speech and language
school in Wimbledon. Finally, after agreeing to drop legal action,
I forced them to specify an amount of speech therapy and OT in
the statement.
She didn't speak at school for about a year
(selective mutism is a common psychiatric disorder resulting from
stress) and as she couldn't write, her new school had difficulty
assessing her real needs. Eventually, through intensive adult
support, therapy and a protected environment, her skills and confidence
have developed. She is now eight, swims, goes to riding for the
disabled and dances enthusiastically in school concerts. She is
learning to write, has a reading age above her chronological age
and is only one to two years behind in maths. With continuing
support we now know she could become an independent, working adult.
What future would Merton have provided for her if she came from
a different socio-economic background?
I have full documentation to support the above
if necessary.
CASE 2
A boy was diagnosed with Aspergers at the end
of primary school. He went to the secondary school in Merton which
has an autistic unit. In the unit and with support he became settled
and happy. However, the unit does NOT give children access to
the full GCSE curriculum; they have to attend the mainstream classes.
He is a bright boy with specific talents in maths, science and
computing. A number of attempts have been made to place Mark in
mainstream classrooms with LSAs. Each time they have failed—for
example, he was upset by a teacher saying "everyone gets
detention if the noise level doesn't go down". He feels a
sense of unfairness to quiet children like himself very personally
and becomes distressed. He has been allocated three different
LSAs in one year, one had no induction and had to be trained by
the mother. Mark's psychology report specifically mentions change
of personnel causing great anxiety.
When his classes upset him, he becomes anorexic,
depressed, suicidal and distressed at going to school. Each time,
his mother and teacher bring him slowly back to the unit where
he settles again. Finally, after his mother saw his secondary
education disappearing in this way, she asked Merton to reopen
the statement. They refused to consider a change of provision
and were willing to go to SENDIST. The argument lasted nearly
two years at which time Mark was nearly 16 and due to leave having
missed out many years of education. He will now attend a special
6th form college in Kingston but his mother will have to fight
with Merton for transport.
Merton cannot handle such cases because their
special schools and units are for moderate or severe learning
difficulties, not for intellectually capable children.
We have full documentation for this case.
We can provide documentation to support endless
cases of children being poorly served because of budget considerations
in all spheres of special needs if you have an interest.
SEN is de facto defined by the system as "academically
failing". Is this correct?
3. The committee expressed an interest in
teacher training.
Please bear in mind the statistics:
Seven million people in the UK of working age
are estimated to be disabled with 49% economically inactive (compared
with 15% inactive amongst non-disabled). Disabled people have
the highest inactivity rate of any disadvantaged group. Autistic
people have an employment rate of 6% and 12% for Aspergers whilst
more than 50% of this group are of normal intelligence.
Source: Office for National Statistics and National
Autistic Society
18.5% of school children are estimated to have
special educational needs (I believe this an underestimate). 60%
are in mainstream schools but with some LEAs reaching 75%+ inclusion.
Therefore, you would expect that initial teacher training would
have a significant, compulsory module for special needs—perhaps
as much as 20% of the curriculum but at least 10 to 15%.
Source: DFES
4. The committee were interested in whether
statements resolve educational issues for students.
I believe the answer is no because of the way
statements are written and enforced. Statemented children are
nine times more likely to be excluded from school than others.
— See inclusion above, the setting
itself often prevents learning.
— The provision of expertise solves
the problems, not the allocation of money. Most statements allocate
resource, not expertise, such as LSAs who are not directed or
trained. This is by far the biggest wastage in the system.
— Sometimes LSAs are prevented from
being effective by negative attitudes of teachers. (I have examples).
SENCOs have a mainly bureaucratic function and often do not progress
the attainment of these pupils even with specifically allocated
resources in a statement.
— Head teachers resist taking SEN pupils
irrespective of whether they have a statement. Two primary school
head teachers accepted my normal daughter but resisted my SEN
daughter saying they were full and they had no budget to really
meet SEN needs. If SEN pupils were excluded from SAT statistics
and league tables, head teachers would perhaps be more positive.
Separate tables (p-scales, value-added) for SEN pupils could be
published alongside to help parents of SEN children to choose
a school.
— Good education cannot be achieved
by writing that it must be so in a legal document. Positive culture,
real expertise, targets and rewards must be in place as well.
(Legal protection must be there as well because this is a disadvantaged
and non-vocal social group and pure prejudice still exists).
January 2006
| 
