SEN green paper available tomorrow

[mullymummy]

Hi all, a colleague has just informed me that Sarah Teather will be launching the Green Paper tomorrow morning at 9.30am. Apparently it should be on the DfE website then...

I visited a school today, Snu, wher they eanted me to do a FT week for free becuase they ahve no specialist input in my field.

A day I an do, a week? I need food too!.

Woudl I consider though taking over ds3's school if it was to close? yes, and I know a aprent who is in education who would go in with me.

But I don;t ant to.

And it's not my job to.

There's also hints in the appre that residential stuff will be dropped (as in, no mention in lists..) and given that many kids with a statement will not ahve SSD input, if one joins with the others do we think SSD will give more support or drop more applciations of educational help?

Well quite.

They identify bullying, kids who are bright with SEN etc and that's positive: mainly though it's wordy with very little direct information. They should be forced to say exactly what will happen.

And there's a huge focus on work, and national citizen's service: not something ds3 will manage but who will they beleive telling them that?

I am also really concerned about the terms voluntory and community sectors, i can think of only one charitable sector in my area and thats a toy library which already receives no financial funding from the local council, the two voluntory ladies who run this are a wealth of information, but only because of their own situations with sen children. Are we now expected to put our childrens futures in the hands of people who have little or no formal training in sen, no disrespect for the toy library volunteers. I think this is what is meant by mr camrons big society idea, I'm alright jack' now do it yourselves.........

Well the training of volunteers varies: for example I am going to go into a school to help with ASD kids one day a week, I have 2 of my own and am a dissertation short of an MA in ASD.

I used to work for a national charity using volunteers and we did give them dcent training and- crucially- support.

But absolutely I share your worries there. Continuiity, training, reliability.... all things that are best ensured through employed, accountable staff.

The charity sector exists as a complement and top up to the state and private sectors: it cannot take on the roled, and tghose of us best qualified to help need work and income: our input (or lack of) should not be scapegoat for a lack of provision, there's only so much I can do and still pay the rent!

It seems to me on a very quick reading, that Statements will be abolished and replaced with Education, Health and Care Plans. However, it doesn't seem clear to me that the Care Plans will be statutory in any respect, which would mean that no funding could easily lead to no services without recourse to anything. If you've found anything that suggests I've misunderstood that, please post.

There was something about legality, yes but I would need to pull that out: the revised plans would have legal power it seems.

Do you think for voluntary sector they mean charities like NAS schools and Treehouse? What about privately run schools how are we supposed to access private special schools or home programmes. There is nothing here except more choice of state options but there are no state run options in my area. Zero. And no charity run schools either. I don't need an easy read information booklet to tell me what is on offer locally, I already know theres very little and what there is is crap.

I believe the inference for the one day assessment is that charities like the National Autistic Society will be asked to get involved in the assessment process. Are these organisations not already overstretched enough trying to support an already weak system of support for both SN children and their carers?

One day assessment!! Like all people SEN children have good days and bad days, so if you're producing a report based on either of those it could sway results dramatically. And, are all the necessary people going to be present on the day? In their dream.

Obviously, the old system is not perfect, but it seems the new government believes they can run the SEN process like a factory!

Who is going to fund charities and voluntary groups to do assessments? If it's local authorities or government, they won't want to bite the hand that feeds, so will surely have a conflict of interest?

How confusing is all this? One day assessements, my BIG FAT ARSE....!! Ha ha ha

Couldn't have put it better myself lol!

Apparently they are trying to avoid a conflict of interest that they currently have at the moment according to one article I read. At the moment the assessments are paid for by the Council's who need to fund the Statement if awarded I think.

So, to me, this says they won't even be giving them any extra money but expecting them to offer their services!

Yes, I find the whole idea of a team of professionals (or carers or voluntaries or whatever) getting together to decide together at one time or on one day laughable. In our situation, our SENco organised a multi-agency meeting, but it had to be rescheduled numerous times in order to allow the most people to be present, and especially the paediatrician, who was especially keen to be there. We are lucky in that our school is good about things like that.

LOTS of people, however, deal with professionals or schools that do not "play well with others" and don't make the effort. If they have to rely on these people getting together and organising things, they'll never get the help they need.

And a one day assessment is ridiculous. Surely they can find a happy medium between "one day" and "years".... grrrr

I think I have found what I was looking for, with regard to whether or not Academies will find it easy or even be legally able to refuse places to SEN pupils, under point 2.52:

'We want parents to have a real choice of school in law and in practice. We have ensured through the Academies Act 2010 that mainstream Academies and Free Schools have the same obligations as maintained mainstream schools to accept children with a statement of SEN which names the school. And we intend to introduce legislation to ensure that parents of children with a statement of SEN or ?Education, Health and Care Plan? have equivalent rights to express a preference for any state-funded school ? whether that is a special school, mainstream school, Academy or Free School. Children are all different and their parents have different views about the school they feel is right for them. Some want their child to attend a mainstream school but may feel frustrated that the school they seek is not able to take the reasonable steps to include their child. Others may want their child to attend a special school but feel frustrated by not being given that choice by their local authority. The statutory guidance Inclusive Schooling covers these and other issues and makes clear that a local authority must consider the parents? preference and cannot simply place the child in a school irrespective of the parents? wishes.'

I am very tired, but I think this means that if you have a statement and a school is named on the statement, it will be very hard for them to refuse your child a place?

Or am I deluding myself? Maybe I should stop trying to read it go to bed - it isn't really going in.

DH says he'll pop up to the local printing/copier company and get them to print it out, rather than spending a fortune on inkjet cartridges. I'm hopeless at reading things online and in truth am itching to get out my trusty colour coded highlighters and scribble things in the margins!

Regarding academies, the new academies formed since Sep 2010 cannot refuse to admit pupils with statements no matter what admissions criteria they choose to set. Their funding agreements require them to comply with the SEN code of practice and the admissions ocde of practice in the same way that maintained schools have to. This means that the local authority can overrule and name such an academy if that is your preference. If you are aware that a new academy has set an admission criteria that seeks to exclude certain children in a way that does not comply with the COP you might want to complain to the Governors and then direct to the Secretary of State.
The older academies will be brought into line with these requirements when their funding agreements are renewed, which is every seven years.

Nobody knows what the new assessment will look like. The Green Paper doesn't go into much detail about this or any of the ideas really. The clue is in the title, they are mainly 'Aspirations'.

Arghhh, I am appalled. Have just read lots of this green paper and skimmed a lot too, but have just come across a case study in section 5.43 (page 104 on my adobe reader) about West Kent Community Health's Speech and Language therapy service and their so called improvements being touted as an example of what can be achieved. It all sounds lovely and idyllic that they have turned this service around, when the reality is that my daughter falls under this "service" and I have been fighting for nearly 2 years to get her any speech therapy despite reports from their therapists stating she needs therapy (we have managed to get two assesments from them). We have been through the CAF process and still can not get therapy despite this being one of their listed criteria to access it now. The consultation with service users included myself at a meeting where we were basically told the caseload would be cut to meet the level of therapists and the feedback from the service users was that this was unacceptable - but of course we were ignored, they could now tick the boxes to say they had consulted us.

Forgive me for venting, I was already quite about how all this was really going to work in the real world. For me seeing this and knowing the very full reality of how appalling this so called improved service is just seals the decision for me that things will never really change. They will just find other ways to dress up the reality that kids who need help will still have to fight for anything even close to some of what they need.

Just for the record we are trying to get a statement so the speech provision can be a legally binding thing now. DD also undergoing assessment for ASD.

Introduction paragraph 50: 64% of excluded pupils have SEN

Section 3.55: Exclusions should trigger consideration of mental health or underlying family problems... a whole family approach with a multiagency assessment is needed.

So... if the school can't cope in future, it'll be my fault. And the SEN will be irrelevant.

Aargh, it gets worse. The example they give of good provision for BESD (ie mostly adhd, mental health problems and asperger's) is a pupil referral unit / special school combination.

I'm also a bit concerned that the new strategy covers children and young people from 0-25. Given budget problems, this may reduce support from age 16. I can see more 'Go to the jobcentre, or connexions' rather than education from 16-19, and reductions in life-skills colleges and disabled undergraduate student payments.

getting those pesky SN kids out of the way so that the kids that really matter can learn no doubt

BESD support is not for kids with ADHD and Apsergers.

If your child is getting BESD and has a dx of ADHD or Aspergers you should be seriously complaining....

IB techinically true bnut many, many kids in those units have undiagnosed ASD, ADHD, ODD.......

And sometimes diagnosed; I can think of at elast one child whose needs cannot be coped with anywhere else (extremely HFA, extremely aggressive, runner etc...... danger to classmates and staff). Actually ic an think of two: my ds1 being the second though we've lucked out on a palcement elsewhere.

BG not surpised about the case study tbh- another wonderful service listed was never even offered to us despite living across the road: just far too over subscribed. Helpful!

Can everybody amke sure they go on the department of education site and fill in the consultation doc please?

Just a call to all of you that have children on school action or school action plus, not supported by a statement. Having read through the green paper it seems they want to declassify alot of children that are currently classed as having SEN through school action/ school action plus but they don't really give a clear criteria other than a child with SEN will be.....

'a child whose needs exceed what is normally available in schools'

What a ludicrous way to assess the needs of a child. It seems to me that what is 'normally available in schools' could vary vastly depending on the additional SEN funding available and the quality of the school and the teaching, so surely this can't be the basis of an assessment of need as it's so subjective. For example What is 'normally available' in school will vary according to the funding available so therefore if what is 'normally available' is reduced because less children are on the register, then the support will be reduced and what is 'normally available' will be less and more children will have to be put on the register again. This could end up being a never ending cycle of children going on and off the register depending on what the school can afford to make 'normally available'. If this really is the proposal then surely funding will have to be given to schools under different criteria but there is no mention of this that I can see. Children should be classified according to their difficulties and their lack of progress not what resources are available. It's a nonsense!

As a parent of a dyslexic child I am extremely concerned about this report and before I feedback I have written to my MP to get clarification on whether the new government will recognize SPLD as a SEN under their new guidelines.

I believe schools funding for SEN is currently given on the basis of how many children they have on the SEN register at the times of their SEN audit. What this green paper fails to highlight is whether the children that are on school action plus and are removed from the SEN register, will still attract equivalent funding for support by some other means. My instinct is that they won't so TA's and other resources that are currently funded through the schools SEN budget will probably be lost.

So if you have an SEN child that does not have a statement please read the green paper and let your views be known or you could find the support your child is currently entitled to is withdrawn when this reclassification takes effect.

I cried while I was reading it yesterday. I've fought throughout primary school for support and my son is finally well supported and happy at middle school and I feel it could all just be stripped away.

Ernie - similar fears here. DS has a dx of dyspraxia, but is academic. He is on SA+ as he has OT and physio at school. He is provided with the usual writing and dyspraxia paraphernalia and dispensations are given by the teachers as to speed, legibility and methods of working. I would be the first to admit that he does not need 1-1 to achieve at school, but also he does still require input - whether this be his exercises, equipment or implemented strategies.
I fear that he would be an easy case to cut. How will the new system budget for those who are on the cusp?
This reminds me of my DS's old school - that we moved from btw! When i asked why they were not implementing the suggestions by OT and physio, i was advised that unfortunately there were a rather large number of disruptive children in my DS's year and that they only had the resources to deal with the worst 5-6 and he was probably 7th. I asked if i should tell him to misbehave and disrupt in order to get the help required. I should have got a 'NO' - instead i got a shrug, with a look implying that it would be the only way she could think of! Are we going to end up with this system? Your DC is bad - but not quite bad enough so we're going to write his education off? Gives me shivers this SEN list massacre

I think there are some positive things about it.

I ctrl + f'd "speech and language" so preface what I have to say by the fact I have to confine my comments to my own area.

What I was struck by is the "real world" realisation that a lot of what's "going wrong" in terms of high incidence difficulties relates to a lack of excellent teaching. As I've said before, I am doing work in secondary schools to improve class teacher's understanding of SLCN and ability to respond to students' needs in class.

Where you have an excellent teacher (and I have come across a few), I can go in for a lesson and suggest some tweaks and I leave believing that it's possible that a real difference will be made to the student (will see if this is true when I reassess in a few months!). Where you have an unmotivated teacher, I don't see these changes. I sometimes, well, despair.

Speech and Language Therapy (and probably other services) has been reduced to consultancy models because the need to alter teaching and the (crazed) curriculum is so great. That's a controversial statement but as I reported here a few weeks ago, in a recent training session to a secondary school, not one teacher in a motivated group could given an example of how difficulties understanding language would impact on a student's ability to learn . This leads to inadequate provision and actual therapy for those with speech, language and communication disorders which IN TURN waters down SLT services which IN TURN reduces access to therapy for those who really need it even more. Sort the teaching properly and focus therapy services on students with low-incidence disability (sensory impairment, ASD, severe SLI (2nd centile and below), SLD etc) and this might be redressed.

The document suggests the need for much higher quality training and review of SLTs and I agree with this whole-heartedly. It's really important that as a profession we get back to knowing what to DO. The only way to learn this is through practising our trade: DOING therapy. I wouldn't be able to work as I do unless I did a lot of intensive therapy now and in the past.. and a lot of my colleagues are denied this experience which I believe impacts upon their practice and effectiveness.

I like the idea of a single assessment process (but not on a single day). I've been involved in four different diagnostic "panels" in two different areas and the only ones I had any faith in were conducted by ALL professionals in one place at one time. It's too subjective and egocentric academic otherwise. I would not support a single day assessment, however, for all the reasons that have been outlined.

It looked to me as though Health services like SLT will be forced to comply with statements vs pawning it off on the LEA with a shrug. If the assessment process is made more transparent and there is distance placed between providers of services on the one hand and those who say what individuals need on the other, this should make a REAL difference e.g. instead of WRITING a statement based on what's in a service, a statement will be written by assessing therapists about the NEEDS of the student solely. This is supposed to happen anyway but it's human nature to start to believe that what students need is what you are giving them anyway vs what the evidence said. If those assessing have the right skills and training, this could really change things e.g. the care plan could have PROPER evidence-based recommendations e.g. 3 times a week tx for verbal dyspraxia instead of "45 mins once a half term" (which has NO basis in evidence). The literature on therapy for social communication and language that is of any use is from the states, and there, any gains that are made are in a 3x a week model vs a "45 mins once a half term" way.

I don't know how I feel about voluntary sector involvement. I wouldn't mind being employed by the voluntary sector as I'm sure others wouldn't either.. but it remains to be seen how this will pan out.

I was dreading it.. but it has potential. This is not to say that I believe it more than partially entirely and that I don't have worries that what I like about it will become something typically dilute, rubbish, cost-saving etc. However, for a Tory government, it's a LOT better than I expected in terms of the aspirational element of it. There are nuggets, there, that show that they HAVE listened to e.g. the Bercow report.

We'll see. I am trying to be hopeful but there's a devil on my shoulder trying to cream pie me in the face for even daring to be.