Government proposes biggest reforms to special educational needs in 30 years

[CQrrrnee]

online consultation closes tomorrow - last chance to reply
here

Well, you're a drunker stronger woman then I.

Very good idea - one for the meeting Star do you think??

Yes. Certainly should be put on the agenda.

I'm having a bit of a nightmare finding a date and location that a reasonable no. of people can make. We might have to just go ahead with 'something' and then try to get those who were interested to tag on as and when we can make it possible.

It's not easy trying to get a national thing going with a handful of people

I wrote a big response but the wine made me do something stupid and delete it. Basically said: our language provision is being removed because our statements are too wishy washy. That's not because of the reports that I wrote, I can assure you. The current provision is 2 x direct with a SALT 1:1, 4 x group with a SALT, daily x 30 mins with a HLTA with training, in-class support with staff who have had Elklan training. Statement wording was changed while I was on mat leave to say "a programme drawn up with advice from a speech and language therapist".

There are shoddy professionals galore, I won't dispute it, but the machinations of the LEA SEN panel are at another level. And they're not shoddy, they're very calculating and shrewd and they know the game at a level that professionals just don't.

I also made the point that it needs to be easier to expand the evidence base. I am all for EBP but also recognise at the moment, there are good practices going on that are not being reported and that the evidence base is very incomplete. Moondog, have you published? I don't think the settings I work in are great by any means but we have had some fantastic results with a cohort of students that had all entered the setting having been disqualified from SATs at primary but a number left with a variety of GCSE's A-C. Is it written down anywhere so a parent can quote it? Compared with kids who were disqualified from SATs in other settings?

I've just been through NHS ethics and it is a lengthy process that precludes a lot of good information being circulated. It is a 50 page document to complete and then you have to make an appointment with an ethics review board which takes 60 days and most staff don't know how to go about it and are not encouraged to. There could be regular reporting of single case studies that would combine to provide good evidence in the absence of RCTs etc - undertaking research would improve capacity and quality for all and move us away from this culture where people think their opinion is "professional" but it's really just opinion. I had a scary moment with a professional recently who gave advice about firesetting behaviour that was directly contrary to current best evidence in the field. Could have had serious consequences.. that's not professional opinion though, is it? It's just some random ramblings..

Sorry if this makes no sense. Wine.

what's firesetting behaviour?

Basically pathologically setting fires. It can be an issue for some young people who have language and learning difficulties with poor social skills. Current evidence recommends a zero tolerance approach from parents/carers/schools but education on the consequences of firesetting (among other things, can't go into details for obvious reasons).

Aka arson

oh okay

'There are shoddy professionals galore, I won't dispute it, but the machinations of the LEA SEN panel are at another level. And they're not shoddy, they're very calculating and shrewd and they know the game at a level that professionals just don't'

Yes. I do agree with this. But how does it happen that professionals defend the calculating LEA? Is it because their lives are generally easier if they support the LEA against the parents? (okay, I know not all professionals do this, or at least not with full knowledge of what they are doing)

Star, one OT told me once that she had been 'told off' by the SEN manager because she had said a child needed 1:1. His argument was that this was a matter for teaching expertise and not medical professionals.

It really affected her and she has never been as forthright as she might have been as a result, finding it difficult to distinguish between what is within her 'mandate' and what should be left to LA Ed Officers.

These people can be bullies and do issue circulars telling medical professionals what is expected of them and what can and can't be said and it can be easier to go along with it.

This is NOT the case, I hasten to add, with our S&LT team who work at an 'arm's length' basis from the LA - basically they work on a contract funded by the LA to deliver services in a particular way - i.e. indirectly. So, there is no incenctive for them to offer anything else

AT Ours provide a template for the SLT to stick their hours in amongst their woolly wording.

btw, sorry, but would you mind redirecting the FOI request you did for me to the body that they replied should be dealing with it? A body I might add that I never knew existed (perhaps it just got invented )

Will so.

PM me if it is anything but straighforward. I don't wish you to spend any time faffing about on my behalf, especially at this time.

It's not a problem. Site is just really slow so I'll try later

I'm glad to say noone has ever told me what to do or say or recommend. Ever.
As I often say, I work with people who have great integrity.This seems even more apprent when I hear what you people go through. Almost without exception everyone I know professionally wants to do the best for kids and for partents to be happy with provision.

How sad that what you say should sound so unique and different.

I think alot of people kid themselves about the truth of what they're doing. Our LA Inclusion officer is fond of saying 'it's all about the children' but that is clearly crap and she must know that.

Well I would instantly be suspicious of anyone that said somethnig so banal.
You'll find a lot of public sector types holding forth like this and trumpeting things thast should be a bloody given is such a job.

Yes, absolutely. It's not as if you could possibly say 'it's not all about the children' is it?

Yes.
This stuff is all impilcit.
If they say anything to you it should be about the whistles and bells in addition to the basics.

It's the feeling I always get reading professional standards ot mission statements. That 'Well duh. We all know that.'

The thing that pees me off the most is 'we all want the best for your ds!'

FFS! They say it because they know you won't contradict.

I have reminded them in meetings that I am the only one there with NO competing agendas, be that other people's children or whatever and continued to remind them that I don't expect them to deliver the best, only adequate and we are currently quite far from that.

They narrow their eyes and scowl and then say something trite like 'Well we'll just have to agree to disagree' - as if it is perfectly acceptable to leave it at that.

I once had someone start snivelling in a large meeting who then said,( in a tremulous voice, while dabbing eyes) 'Don't accuse me of not caring!'

That angered me more than anything else-the person's attempt to assume the moral high ground. I still feel enraged when I think of it.

To be honest, and I think I'll use this in future, - I don't give a rats arse whether they care or not. Caring won't educate my child. In all honestly as long as they deliver the provision he needs, I couldn't care less whether they cared or not!

'Well we'll just have to agree to disagree' !!

Yes, I've had that one when challenging them about not keeping records of their SEN Panel meetings, telling them that this was poor governance as record keeping of public bodies should be transparent and they should be accountable. How can you judicially review decision-making on the basis it is unreasoned if they don't supply reasons?

'Well we'll just have to agree to disagree' they say.

Er, no we won't, your practices are unlawful

Perhaps 'Your personal opinions are irrelevant to this discussion.'