SEN Mediation

[Jerbil]

Not posted for a while, but here we go again!

Has anyone used the Mediation service for SEN? apparently it's one step up from Parent Partnership. PP told me about it and though they are going to try and speak to SENCO and see what they can resolve they said I may end up going that route.

Basically DS1 has had a great start to the year at school, is currently playing with one peer, but I know once that peer gets bored that will be it and he'll then spend weeks if not months sat alone. What DS1 says to me is not what school say has happened but merely his interpretation of it! (oh really, is that not because he has autism?)

He is one of those children who hides most of his behaviours at school, has a terrible time at home coping. I completed a one page profile of his as recommended by NAS. I had asked for the meetin with his teacher. in came the senco and the asst senco. so 3 vs 1! they took the meeting and then began to rip apart my profile of my son saying how it wasn't true! no it isn't as far as they can see but underneath his outward persona and when he comes home then you see him for who he is!

I'm just so angry and upset (not for the first time)!

I purely went into give a background to his new teacher and they took their defensive stance

To be fair, my parents and family are all teachers and even they were very doubtful about my story/plight in the early days.

I wouldn't expect that these ex-teacher mediators are themselves deliberately biased, but more a product of their experiences as having had a job that they believed they were good at but had the unpleasant side effect of idiotic parents trying to tell them how to do their job or garner preferential treatment for their children.

That way, they would automatically assume that any parent at a mediation in the first place was idiotic/greedy etc. not just desperately trying to be understood in a system that doesn't care.

same here Star, all education family history amongst the nurses lol but I find it hard tbf imo/e and I only tell it from my pov

I like this quote on his website (if indeed it is the same Alan). It's very zen:

If other people are annoying you, it's not they who are being annoying, it's you who is being annoyed.

Don't agree with that except for the fact it is helpful in recognising your own feelings.

It's rather like saying people aren't bullying it is YOU who are being bullied!

I missed off the irony emoticon. Sorry!

Or rather 'allowing' yourself to be bullied.

I got your irony disco dad.

It's a real shame he has disappeared. He could add a lot and learn a lot and possibly even restore some faith.

hmm, thanks guys. a possibility you have sussed Alan out. though not sure if intentions are all that bad. Although it's a bit naive to think we can go into a meeting thinking let's sort this out when they're so defensive to start with! and as if we're going to never repeat something that's said during mediation at an appeal.

I wouldn't remember what had been mentioned at mediation and what had been mentioned in the playground TBH!

My apologies for not responding earlier, I thought I'd have a notification of responses but didn't receive any so assumed the discussion had not continued. How wrong I was! perhaps there are settings I didn't 'tick' to receive them. I'm not sure I'll be able to respond to all that has been said but I'll do my best to respond to general points or questions raised.....
Starlight...message of 5th October. No one has to attend mediation, it's a voluntary process. Doesn't make a lot of sense to do it via email as the aim is for a discussion to ensue rather than frequent letters back and forth and / or intermittent phone calls. A substantive discussion for about 2-3 hours to go through the concerns of the parents about the child's education and a chance for the LA to hear those concerns and reasons for feeling needs not being met. A discussion is much better than letters and a lot quicker. Also however, for LA to explain its perspective and reasons for not providing what parent believes is needed and to see if any ways can be found of resolving the situation. Legal representation is not 'banned' but not really the point of mediation, it is not an adversarial process like a tribunal, it's the chance for a straight discussion between those directly involved in the care and support of the child from all angles, parent, teachers if the school represented or involved and the LA.
Some interesting responses to what I said as if I'm 'taking the side' of the LA. I explained what is involved in mediation and pointed out the 'aim' of it.
Keepingonkeepingon1 - yes I'm a mediator and have been for 18 years - not presently working in SEN mediation but I have done.
Devientenigma I can't be biased towards the profs in my role and if it were to be so within a meeting that a participant felt something I did was biased whether prof or parent they'd have every reason to leave and could do so. Explaining what mediation is is not advocating it, it's just explaining what it is so that people can make a choice about it. I don't mind if people use mediation or not, what matters to me is that there's an opportunity for them to make an informed choice about it rather than have a misconception about its purpose.

To follow on.....sorry, I really haven't got this sussed yet as I didn't see the comments above on the second page..... Starlight....your comment.... "That way, they would automatically assume that any parent at a mediation in the first place was idiotic/greedy etc. not just desperately trying to be understood in a system that doesn't care......" :-) not sure I'd ever think that to be honest. Each situation is different and I'm not there to give or have a view anyway, so even if I did think that it wouldn't have a lot of relevance or impact on the situation. I'm not in a mediation as an arbitrator who gives a view. A mediator doesn't give a view, their focus is on ensuring those present get a chance to put their view forward effectively and to continually support those present in looking for answers. Jerbil's original comment expressed concern about a '3v1' situation. Mediation enables an equal opportunity to discuss things. I don't expect as a mediator to 'know better' than anyone else present how to resolve the situation so my focus isn't on that, it's on providing the best opportunity for those present to have an effective conversation, whatever it's about. As I said above I don't do SEN mediation at present so it could be in anything from neighbour disputes to workplace disputes to disability discrimination disputes or a whole range of others.

Thank you Alan for coming back. Your posts do give me hope.

Actually, I wonder (given my previous observation that many in teaching etc. would find it very difficult to believe or understand the tactics of some LAs and other teaching professionals) if having a mediator from their own profession who has no history with the parent, could be a good thing. They might be less prepared to show themselves up and talk bollocks.

like you say, you don't do SEN mediation as yet. For us it wasn't a choice but a means to an end. Maybe if the mediator wasn't an ex teacher it may not have seemed biased. The staff were able to slate me and my family, and not be prepared to listen. The mediator tried pushing me constantly to retaliate which is what they all wanted to see anyway. It didn't happen and they didn't get what they wanted and during their argument dropped themselves in it no end, which in turn done us a small favour.

all our mediator done was encourage the school to have a go at us parents and sided with them when he didn't like what I said in return, even though I was proving them wrong throughout with paperwork and letters etc.

Although, the tribunal panel I faced ruled that we couldn't have the provision we wanted because no LA staff member had recommended it.

They were ex-LA staff on the panel.

What a waste of time that was, as we wouldn't have been at tribunal in the first place if a LA staff had recommended it.

The subsequent outcome of course was we were back at tribunal 18 months later year winning twice as expensive provision due to ds' needs not having been met as a result of the first tribunal ruling.

But anyway - surely the mediator should be someone who the parents feel comfortable with, not someone they are suspicious of from the outset, and yes - parents DO have to engage as it is proposed to be mandatory before a tribunal and subsequently weaken the parents case if they try to avoid it.

'Doesn't make a lot of sense to do it via email as the aim is for a discussion to ensue rather than frequent letters back and forth'

This is interesting.

It doesn't take any account of the preferred communication style of the parents. I understand that most LA policy is supposed to communicate with parents in THEIR choice of method in order to avoid discrimination. In particular, with ASD being the highest incidence SEN, and considered at least for some ASD's, to be genetic in origin, the parents are very likely to have a social communication disorder themselves even if just mild traits and therefore can find face to face meetings distressing and difficult. What account is going to be taken of them?

Hi there, what I'd say is that if you felt....devientenigma....that the mediator was in some way biased, you'd have every reasons/right to point that out in the meeting so that the mediator had to explain why they said what they said/did what they did and if you were'nt happy with their response you could leave on that basis.
Starlight, regarding the email issue, the point is that's probably how much of the communication will have gone ahead previously anyway and probably spread over many many days and weeks and to an end that meant there was still disagreement. The mediator would(I hope) have met or sometimes had a phone conversation with the parents and the LA representatives separately well before the meeting to talk through with them how they would be able to get the most from the meeting. This means the LA, in the case you mention of parents finding face to face meetings distressing, can see a model which is less distressing as it's taken account of the needs of the parent, and it can be used in future. Indeed that can be discussed further within the meeting itself as it all helps to ensure future provision for the child is most effectively discussed. I return to Jerbil's example where she felt ganged up on at 3v1 - that can be identified in a meeting as an ineffective way of doing things and a better way of meeting agreed on for the future.
Also Starlight, yes, it's proposed to be mandatory in the new changes and for me that means it is no longer mediation as mediation is, by definition, a voluntary process. I'd be surprised if that 'stuck' in the long term but if it is still attempted and not taken out of the draft proposals and put in the final changes then there will be very little to come from mediation and people would turn up just to go through the motions without any intention of resolving and so it would still then go through to Tribunal. But your reference to 'weakening the case of the parents' ....the Tribunal will look at the facts and requirements of the needs of the child not the 'character' of the parents, or the LA, come to that. There's often a confusion that a Tribunal is like putting a person on trial to see if they are 'guilty' or not. It's an assessment of the needs of the child on the available evidence and the case is put about the observed difficulties of the child not on whether the LA or parents have been 'good' and gone to mediation or not. It's irrelevant whether you attend mediation or not, it's just that mediation can, and often does, allow a different understanding of the child's needs and an improvement in the 'working relationship' between the parents and the professionals involved. Often in mediations I've seen parents bring new evidence to an LA, which has been accepted, of a child's needs and/ or agree within it to have a review of them as they have felt convinced they haven't been observed so far by the teachers/EdPsychs. I think it was jerbil who said that her child is different out of school to how she is in it so it woiuld be a chance to identify how much that is so through a lengthy discussion, not via email or letter or 3v1 meetings. But hey everyone I'm not trying to 'persuade' you to have mediation I just want to clarify a lot of misconceptions about it and to identify what you should expect from mediation and a mediator if you were to consider it or use it.

'Starlight, regarding the email issue, the point is that's probably how much of the communication will have gone ahead previously anyway and probably spread over many many days and weeks and to an end that meant there was still disagreement.'

I think one of the big issues I have with this (besides the ones already mentioned) is that parents usually withdraw to written communication after years of meetings about meetings about meetings with promises taking an age to be delievered if at all. To demand that they then go back to those frustrating days when they had met face to face far too many times in good faith but been bullied, tormented and lied to is quite an ask and may intimidate parents into simply giving up.

Whilst that might mean matter resolved in terms of conflict, - how is that in the best interest of the child? Unless it is automatically assumed that the LA's and schools are only interested in what is best for that child which would be a ridiculous claim to make.

Is it mandatory for mediators to remove all paragraphs from their posts

'Also Starlight, yes, it's proposed to be mandatory in the new changes and for me that means it is no longer mediation as mediation is, by definition, a voluntary process.'

I think also that mediation assumes two equal parties, and no illegal behaviour by either. I would not go to mediation, either voluntarily or otherwise whilst the otherside were behaving against the law. There is no starting position, let alone resolution.

Given almost all tribunals are undertaken on the basis that the LA has broken the law on specifying and quantifying statements then I absolutely cannot see how this mediation thing is going to work.

Would you/any mediator be obliged to insist the LA to act lawfully in advance of the mediation, or does that have to be pointed out by the parents on the day etc.?

Hi Starlight.....I guess the previous situations of meetings you are talking about are not mediation meetings. I know very well about meetings about meetings about meetings in other contexts but mediation is directly focused on the point in hand and is managed by someone independent not the LA so the internal complexities of the LA don't come into the rearrangements of meetings upon meetings, it's just about the parents and the officer(s) present. There isn't a 'demand' that you go back to those previous days....unless you are meaning the proposed mandatory mediation....which as I said is a contradiction in terms........at present it is still a voluntary process and if you don't want it you don't have to have it, it's as simple as that.

I don't think mediation assumes two equal parties, it assumes two, or more, different parties and the difference of views held by them is a cause of unresolved conflict of some kind. If you feel the LA has actually broken the law in some way then obviously that's a very different issue and if you have proof then why would you go to mediation? As I've said before, I'm not here to persuade you that you should have mediation, I'm just commenting to clarify what mediation is and how it is used. It can help in many many instances but is not a panacea and should never be expected of people to participate if they feel there is a strong case to prove. However, in many instances where there's a long history that hasn't come to a clear outcome it's often because the proof isn't as strong as may be believed by either party, parent or LA and so mediation is a way of resolving things in such situations. This is true in complaints mediation, neighbour mediation, workplace mediation etc. etc. as well as in SEN mediation. But it's your choice, no-one else's and if anyone here feels a 'pressure' to mediate from some source then please take it from me, you don't have to if you don't feel it would be of benefit to try it.

Sadly in SEN cases, the vast majority are about points of law such of lack of specification and quantification of provision or outright failure to meet a child's basic needs (look at Maslow & then take a look at the number of threads on here about children who feel unsafe/very anxious in the school environment).

Schools seem to fall into two camps - very caring and willing to go the extra mile, or outright defensive to the point of being willing to lie/deny/insult. In the case of the first group a Tribunal can actually help secure resources from the LA the school would otherwise be unable to obtain despite the vigorous agreement of school staff & parents. In the case of the second group mediation is doomed to fail due to the basic requirement for both parties to enter into the mediation process in good faith and honestly.

Mediation is therefore only relevant to a very tiny minority of cases. One of the biggest barriers to the clinicians in identifying and correctly diagnosing invisible disabilities such as ADHD/ASD/dyspraxia etc is often the failure of school staff to admit the very real issues for fear of seeming unable to cope. Teachers with no specific SEN training (not their fault!) often take it very personally when they can't manage the behavior of a 5 year old.

The child who doesn't follow the normal developmental tracjectory can leave them both utterly confused and in denialin mainstream. There is a widespread inability amongst professionals generally working with kids to say "I don't know" for of seeming stupid in public. It's a very personal issue that goes to the core of their professional identities in many cases,and for good reason. Yet admitting that you haven't a clue how to handle some of the common situations arising with children who are "different" is often the first, critical step to actually arriving at a solution. If you are looking at mediating for SEN cases then as a first step helping schools to overcome that barrier of shame would probably go a huge way to resolving many disputes.

Parents, with only the one child to study in depth, & a greater knowlegde of that one child, sometimes find routes to potential solutions, only to find that noone at school or LA level will listen. It's suprising how often these solutions are low/no cost to implement too.

'I don't think mediation assumes two equal parties, it assumes two, or more, different parties and the difference of views held by them is a cause of unresolved conflict of some kind.'

If this is indeed what is happening then I can see the value of mediation.

But if you consider the reasons parents and LA's take their areas of conflict to tribunal they are for very different reasons.

Parents tend to go to tribunals because they are desperately concerned that their child's education is woefully inadequate for their needs. They have (usually) tried to avoid considerable resources and stress by resolving the matter already. Often they aren't always trying to get more costly provision either .

Local Authorities however, often go to tribunal for political reasons that has nothing to do with the child. Amongst the reasons LA's go as far as tribunal are: a)delaying provision they know they will be expected to provide in order to save the cost of funding it for 6 months, b)sending messages to the parents and parents who follow them, c)imposing stress on parents in order to encourage them to no longer seek the provision they are, d)fulfil some unwritten policy of reducing SALT spend, or number of places allocated to out of county placements etc etc.

In this context mediation is only going to fulfil the sumarised needs of the LA, however impartial mediation may be.

Bochead, I don't categorise which situations will / won't benefit from mediation or for whom it's relevant as each situation is different and to do so risks 'filtering out' situations that could benefit but don't then get offered it as someone else decides it's not relevant. The bottom line with mediation is that in each situation, those directly involved are given the opportunity to decide whether they want it or not. Some will, some won't and they will each have their reasons that they don't have to give or justify, but there are no 'rules' about who 'should or should not use it' it's down to each individual to decide based on as full an understanding of what it is as possible, the latter being my main concern as there are often misconceptions about it. To say on behalf of others that it is relevant to their situation is no different to saying on behalf of others that it isn't relevant. The assessment and decision is theirs to make not ours.

Starlight, you are obviously right that LAs have different reasons to parents. Parents know just their child, LA's are required to provide for thousands of children and so will not know each child as an individual and so parents and LAs are bound to come to things from different angles. As well as that as you say, the parents will be driven by wanting the best education for their child, the LA will be driven by a need to keep costs to a minimum while trying to fulfill its duties under the relevant legislation. Completely different angles. Which is why they will never be equal or the same in any way you could describe it. The point is, that sometimes that doesn't mean all involved have to 'battle to win against the other'......but could use opportunities to work together coming from their different perspectives. There are many examples of SEN provision that never go to Tribunal or mediation where there is a co-operative approach between parents and school and if needed, LA too. Mediation simply offers a chance for that approach to be tried if it isn't being used already. If it's felt to be too late for that or never likely to start in the first place then so be it, but the option is there to try it.

The key issue is,as Star has pointed out that often there are actually 2 agendas going on, the first being the parental (& sometimes schools) concern for an individual child. The second being whatever strategy the politicos at the town hall are following. I would expect an effective mediator to be able to hold their hands up occasionally during the meeting prep stage and say "you know what this is not going to work because..........."

I do think mediation has it's place, but as with so many things in life it's important to understand fully the practical limitations of the method before entering into it.

The goal for a parent is always the swiftest, most cost effective way to achieve the desired outcome for their child. We have to "filter" as you put it, or too much damage is done to our children & too many years get wasted in our children's lives that can never be recovered.