Further supplementary submitted by Kids
First Group
I attach a number of items which back-up our
oral evidence to the Committee on 11 January.
1. We attach an excerpt from Merton's draft
2005 SEN Policy. Banding illustrates that the LEA thinks of statements
in terms of "pots of money" not individual, expert provision.
The banding approach is illegal as is the idea of an upper limit
(£12,000) of support. This section was removed after Kids
First, supported by IPSEA, threatened Merton councillors with
legal action.
2. This SEN Policy is the basis for devolved
funding to schools in Merton. Parent consultation was originally
limited to 10% of parents of statemented children and 5% of parents
of School Action/School Action Plus parents. As usual in Merton,
the consultation was launched during the summer holidays in the
hope that everyone hostile to the policy would be away. Kids First
eventually forced the LEA to extend the consultation.
3. There is a strong consensus among parents
in Kids First and parents in neighbouring boroughs that SATs and
other league tables should exclude SEN children thereby removing
this source of hostility to SEN children by Head Teachers (possibly
one table including and one excluding SEN to avoid total segregation).
These academic measures are in any case not relevant to those
on a differentiated curriculum. Parallel published data specific
to SEN children may give Head Teachers an incentive to actively
promote good practise and improve SEN provision.
4. We attach an internal memo written by
the Head of SEN with authority over the Educational Psychology
team in Merton regarding protocol for tribunals. This shows a
distinctly hostile stance which sums up the culture that parents
endure during the whole statementing process, not just Tribunal
cases.
5. We attach details of an autistic boy
assessed by a Merton educational psychologist who recommended
a school which she knew little about. It was wholly unsuitable
to his needs. The parents considered that the educational psychologist
under-assessed his level of need so that LEA's standard provision
could be made to fit. An independent Consultant Paediatrician
and Ed Psych recommended a home-based programme and one to one
support. The cost was the same as the out of borough provision
proposed. Eventually tribunal found in favour of the parents but
at a cost to the family of £18,000.
6. We draw your attention to a Merton case
involving a child whom the parents believed needed residential
care. This case was taken to tribunal and the High Court with
Merton finally giving in because it was discovered that their
officers had manipulated some key evidence. Merton paid costs
of over £40,000 to the lawyers on both sides!
7. Ofsted inspected our borough in 2004.
The inspection did not seek the views of parents and relied mainly
on self-evaluation by the LEA. We alerted Ofsted to Merton's suggested
banding approach and yet they continued to say in their report
that the SEN Policy fell within statutory guidance. Their final
report was generally positive towards the LEA although most parents
would not have agreed with this. Even those whose children are
successfully schooled here cannot attribute this to a positive
LEA policy but more to the dedication and professionalism of specific
teaching professionals. We believe that Ofsted generally identifies
success as a high level of mainstream inclusion and does little
to find gaps in actual provision.
January 2006
| 
