Can 20% of pupils really have Special Needs?

[moondog]

Good article from the Telegraph on the inexorable rise of the SEN industry.

From my perspective this is absolutely correct. All smoke and mirrors.
Meanwhile children who really do have special needs are not having them addressed properly.

LP, yes indeed.
There is a big difference in a clinician saying she has 'contacts' with 30 children a week and one who works with perhaps 15 children a week but has measurable outcomes as a result of her work.
Unfortunately the current structure of the NHS is more interested in the numbers crunched by the first example.
What actually happens is quite often utterly irrelevant as long as the all important waiting times are not breached or 'contact's are recorded against the child's name.

I'd also point out that the more people you have involved with your child, the less likely it is that there will be a definable plan of actions.
Assessments will be staggered over different times, resulting in an inaccurate profile of your child's needs and more energy will go into organising meetings between the people involved than working with your child.

HP, if more time was spent teaching kids how to read, write, listen, sit still and do some basic mathematics at a very early age and less spent in building castles out of foam blocks and 'exploring' textures and ruminating over the 'letter of the week' (Madness when most kids, even thosue with so called SEN can quite easily learn a letter in a matter of minutes) there'd be a much lower incidence of 'SN'.

My rule of thumb is quite simple-=I don';t want my kids doing anything in school for exteneded periods of time that they could be doing
a. at home
b. for free
c. in their own times

I have no idea why, but AE's first post made me cry!

Socialising should be an integral part of schooling,not a add on 'social skills' programme in most cases (although some kids need this and when they do, the people who need to help them with it, invariably don't have the skills needed to task analyse and accurately monitor progress.)

A lot of guff is talked about building 'self esteem' before tackling academic issues. That's nonsensical. 'Self esteem' comes about as a result of being good at something, not in a vacuum.

I draw analogies with another huge fraud-the dieting industry. Women are persuaded that they need to navel gaze and 'feel better about themselves' befor they are ready to tackle weight loss. If they just got on with losing weight (if that is the ultimate goal) they'd feel a hell of a lot better about themselves if they cracked on and did it.

Waasup sorry I knew it wasn't you but what you quoted is what a lot of people think.

I have always thought that 'statement of educational needs' would be better named 'statement of classroom management strategies'.

Schools rarely apply for them unless the child is becoming difficult to manage in the classroom, and they will usually still refute any need for 'educational' provision.

Most aren't worth the paper thry are written on in any case.

God, the comments at the end of that article really are vile, aren't they?

moondog You speak so much sense.

Shame the educational establishment are still hell-bent on pushing all the soft, fluffy nonsense instead of concentrating on providing the firm foundation of the '3Rs'.

I'm not sure it is as black and white as that Hot.

If the provision doesn't fit, it doesn't mean the child is not capable of learning. It means there is something wrong with the provision.

How would you assess 'readiness' for formal learning? How would you even define formal learning?

Why would a child need to be around other children? For what purpose, and how can you tell if that 'purpose' is being fulfilled?

If I was working with a child who 'wasn't ready' for formal learning (a construct I believe is in any case fabricated by people who quite simply don't know how to teach) I would be focussing on self help skills-feeding, toiletting, removing and putting on clothes, moving around independently, asking for help, working on fine and gross motor skills, ensuring a functional communication systems is in place.

These can all be considered formal learning however. The child is formally learning how to be as self reliant as possible. The more you can do for yorself, the less reliant you are on the SEN army-and less likely to be abusied or taken advantage of.

I work with plenty of profoundly disabled kids-blind, deaf, largely immobile in somew cases. Not one of them isn't ready for formal learning. Anyone who would use their disabilities as an excuse not to teach them doesn't deserve to be a teacher or a therapist.

A life lived in ballpools and sensory rooms and footspas is no life at all.

The trouble is in that this country you need 2 wages to have a reasonably confortable lifestyle. So the solution is to get them into school early so both parents can get into the workplace.

It really makes me angry that we're subsiding school/nursery for 3 year olds while hacking away the support for disabled children. My generation (yes-I'm old) stayed at home with Mum until we started school at age 5. No playgroups, no nursery, nothing. Even my own children in their early 20s only went to playgroup for an hour or 2 each week - paid for by me and totally voluntary. They started school at almost age 5.

Why this rush to educate earlier and earlier (except for the 2 salaries required).

It's not a rush to educated though is it? It's a rush to institutionalise. I woukd suggest my dd gets more 'education' at home with me than she does from her nursery placement.

She has loads of opportunities to 'socialise' in her community outside of nursery and in someways this is better as she seeks out children with a similar or more advanced level than her which is not available at her nursery (she is a September birthday but has also benefitted from ds' therapy).

I have seen her ETFS profile completed by her 'setting'. They don't even appear to know she can read or that she has the mathematical concepts that she does.

I'm in a situation where I see school almost entirely as an opportunity to socialise.
Most of the actual learning and practice that formal learning needs is done at home, because I know how to teach properly. I commit to doing this on top of a demanding f/t job.
I like my children's school and staff very much but they are caught up in the whole sorry mess.

iirc SEN registers are not just used for children with SN, but also for children suffering from bereavement/trauma/neglect/abuse etc etc. It doesn't necessarily mean that vasts sums of money are being spent, often it's just a useful reminder that a child needs a little extra looking after at school. A child who can't concentrate because his mum is terminally ill or he has flashbacks to the time when his dad battered his mum does have Special Educational Needs which the school will neglect at their peril- and sadly there are no statistic limits as to how many children can be affected by these issues.

I don't agree with the practice of rushing them into school simply to get mum and dad back into the workplace though. How is that putting the child's needs first? I think 3yo is way too young to be pushed into preschool and 4yo is too young to be in reception. I think 5yo is plenty young enough to start fulltime school.

It's good at 3 and 4yo to have socialisation opportunities, but let's face it, we're putting our 3yo DS3 into preschool this autumn because it's expected. I'd prefer to keep him at home for another year, and certainly don't want him in FT schooling at 4yo. But we know from dealing with DS2 that there are continual questions if they are not in the expected preschool at 3yo. DS2 didn't go to preschool until the spring just before reception (we didn't want to send him at all tbh), and it's been a decision that has been questioned numerous times. It certainly didn't cause his SNs, but lord with all the times it's been brought up, you'd think they suspected it.

Cory, you harbour the illusion that

1. people actually read them (most remain stuffed in a file somewhere and it probably wouldn't occur to most schools to God forbid! allow the lowly LSA to read it)
2. they are specific in terms of the child's need
3. people feel inclined to do what is legally required of them
4. peopel know how to do what is legally required of them
5. people do what is legally recquired of them

As Mary Warnock has acknowledged (in many interviews and articles) the system she set up is no longer fit for purpose.

We were quite lucky in that the preschool that he went to was very small and the woman that taught (and the TA) were so incredibly patient and happy to do whatever was necessary to help him to interact. DS2's current school has been brilliant as well, but he's just reaching a point now where he simply is not coping well with MS.

It's difficult, as I know some of the reason is so they can watch for early signs of developmental problems. But honestly, how many times do we hear on this board that parents have brought up concerns over and over to GPs only to have them dismissed and then FINALLY someone listens to them at school when the child really shows difficulty coping. That's what happened to us. I do think that if more GPs were more proactive and LISTENED to parents, many of these children with developmental delays and ASD and such would be spotted SO MUCH SOONER!!

Yes but DS got a dx early and the common response was to get him into preschool ASAP. There is even additional funding to get them there sooner.

Why? Well because then he is with 'professionals' and because he needs a social setting apparently.

TWO terms I left him there in an overstimulating environment with children shouting and Walls shouting and whereas he would have had his stimming redirected at home it was ignored and sometimes encouraged as an occupier at pre-school.

Yet removing him got me criticised by Social Services because apparently he needed to learn social skills and independence from me.

I do not disagree that he needs those skills, but it was quite clear the sure tart centre preschool was unable to provide them.