Memorandum submitted by RESCARE
1. Further to your Committee calling the
Rt. Hon Mr Jonathan Shaw MP, Minister for Disabled People, to
give oral evidence in respect of the above we wish to express
our support for the Government's position in ratifying the UN
Convention by the end of 2008 including it's reservation and interpretive
declaration in respect of the Convention's Article 24: Education.
2. It's Department for Children, Schools
and Families has indicated that there is a need to recognise that
the general education system in the UK includes a range of provision,
including mainstream and special schools which will require an
interpretive declaration, and there will also need to be a reservation
in respect of disabled children whose needs are best met through
specialist provision which may be someway from their home.
3. Run by families for families we consider
that the above reservation and interpretive declaration are essential
in meeting the educational needs of children and young people
with learning disabilities, autism and other complex needs, as
an option for their parents. We fully support the statement 6
May 2008 re Article 24 Education by the then Minister for Disabled
People Anne McGuire MP on behalf of the Government as above.
4. As a current relevant example we offer
as evidence excerpts from our Response, as follows, to the closure
of five special schools by the South Tyneside Authority which
has raised serious concerns and opposition amongst the parents
and relatives involved, not only for their own children but for
those that the future will surely bring.
5. Rescare Response to the proposed closure
of five special schools by the South Tyneside local authority
namely Epinay, Bamburgh, Margaret Sutton, Oakleigh Gardens and
Greenfields.
Rescare supports choice in Education including
properly resourced mainstream, special day and residential schools.
Run by families for families and representing through 40 affiliated
organisations plus individual and family members, thousands of
families with sons, daughters and relatives with learning disabilities
and/or autism it is on behalf of our members affected by the proposed
closure by the South Tyneside Authorities of five of its special
schools that we strongly oppose such closures.
6. The proposal cannot be justified as a
"national plan" as stated—DfSE (now the Department
for Children, Schools and Families) said, "Inclusion is not
an agenda to close special schools".
7. The Government's Office for Disability
Issues in a Consultative Document 2007 "Equality for disabled
people: How will we know we are making progress?", in discussing
support for disabled children including those with Special Educational
Needs and their families its item 41 said:
"There are a range of possible areas which
might be suitable for monitoring over time in order to determine
whether the government is making progress in terms of equality
of opportunity for disabled children (including those with statements
of Special Educational Need), particularly in the years leading
up to their making the transition to adulthood. For example: To
measure the effectiveness of the government's policies to encourage
and support parental choice in education, and evaluate the impact
of these policies on outcomes for disabled children, we could
amongst other things, monitor parents' ability to access the educational
provision of their choice (be it mainstream or special school),
the suitability of school environments and support provided for
disabled pupils, the educational achievements of disabled children
and the proportion of disabled young people who go on to further
or higher education"|
8. Far from assuming a fall in the numbers
of children requiring special schools recent forecasts expect
increased numbers of children with learning disabilities and/or
autism over the next few decades (1% per year) who will surely
require further developed properly resourced mainstream, special
day and residential schools. These, as a choice option for parents,
is a principle which Governments, past and present have afforded
to all parents and which it intends to remain so.
9. It should not be a case of one type of
school versus another but a comprehensive educational service
with each option having a part to play. Since when were Universities
considered segregational?
10. In the meantime by refusing referrals
and offering only the mainstream option now, and in the future,
the South Tyneside Local Authority is pre-empting its own consultative
process in an exercise of denying adequate information re special
schools as a choice option for parents who do know their child
best. This could constitute an act of discrimination against their
rights, and also not being in the best interests of their sons,
daughters and relatives as is demanded by the Mental Capacity
Act 2005.
11. One has to ask when did "modernisation"
equate with closure? This and other conjectures are compatible
with a process of using words to cover actions which are based
on budgetary targets and not needs led. An abuse of terminology
is invoked to cover intent in what amounts to be an experimental
exercise in social engineering. Such children should not be used
as a battering ram to pursue that which evidence increasingly
proves not to be in their best interests.
12. In meeting the educational needs of
children and young persons with learning disabilities and/or autism
an holistic approach is essential beyond just the physical. This
is necessary in order to accommodate their unique life long requirements
which are deserving of meaningful choice options at the appropriate
time by their families whose commitment is equally life long.
13. What the South Tyneside authorities
are proposing would be the wholesale dismantling and loss of a
well proven and essential part of an inclusive educational service
on the false pretext of being over-populated and an unnecessary
rationalisation. It is the quality of outcome for each individual
that is the ultimate criterion not the process.
14. The proposals do not acknowledge the
growing body of evidence, including the comments of Baroness Warnock
who first, in 1978, recommended inclusion but now admits it has
failed. A report by academics at Cambridge University suggest
that many children with learning disabilities and special needs
placed in mainstream, often undermining the education of others,
are leaving teachers exhausted as they struggled to cope, often
delegating responsibility for special needs pupils to classroom
assistants|
15. The danger is that the expertise, leadership
and relationships built up through the special schools sector
is to be lost, submerged by the current fashion of ideological
pursuit that a "one size fits all" imposition. "Idealism"
as John Galsworthy said "increases in direct proportion to
ones distance from the problem".
16. The Report of the Schools Working Group
2003 said: "In the coming years we see special schools as
being, along with others, at the leading edge of the government's
wider education agenda. We see them participating in the full
range of Government initiatives and at the forefront of the wider
education agenda. We see all types of special school—maintained,
non-maintained and independent—working as equal partners
with LEAs, mainstream schools, and other individuals and providers
within health and social services. We see more head teachers and
teachers choosing to join the sector because of the opportunities
that are on offer, and because the sector is one with a secure
and long-term future. Special schools have much to offer the wider
education, health and social services communities, and it is time
for their unique contribution to be recognised and valued"|
17. A Parliamentary Early Day Motion on
behalf of RESCARE 2007 No. 2383 supporting Special Schools called
on Government to re-affirm the principle of their choice as an
option for parents whose children have special educational needs
and to take effective steps to stop the unwarranted closure of
special day and residential schools by local authorities which
is contrary to stated Government policy. The EDM was signed by
103 MPs.
18. We asked that the members of the South
Tyneside Select Committee give our submission the fullest consideration
to the benefit of our members, and supportive non members alike,
and thanking them for the opportunity to do so.
19. We offer the above to your Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights to fully justify the inclusion
of the Government's necessary interpretive declaration and reservation
in the Conventions Article 24.(Education) to avoid the dangers
of such ill conceived practices as exampled by the South Tyneside
Authority.
20. The implementation of the Government's
position will ensure the retention of the expertise and environmental
friendly special schools as a necessary and rightful parental
choice option within an inclusive educational service of properly
resourced mainstream, special day and residential schools.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit evidence
and trust that our response will be given your fullest and hopefully
positive consideration.
28 October 2008
| 
