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

"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"

Well, herein lies the problem with mediation in the SEN world.

The Education Act doesn't permit the LA to take 'different angles' or to assess an individual child's needs against the other needs it has to provide for. Such an approach is entirely unlawful.

Yet, a parent, without knowledge of the law, sat in a 'mediation' with a mediator and a powerful public body may well end up 'cooperating' because of such seemingly plausible arguments (and a 'let's see it from both sides' perspective) without the parent and, it seems the mediator, ever appreciating that a child's legal rights have just been curtailed or entirely undermined.

However, the LA know this full well. This is why when you take a legal approach to enforcing your child's rights rather than being a suitably uninformed parent, you get ten tons of crap thrown at you.

The SEN process is a legal process. You need a lawyer if there is conflict or an entirely impartial mediator with a legal background.

'the parents will be driven by wanting the best education for their child'

I don't think this is what takes parents to tribunal tbh. Parents go to tribunal out of FEAR for their child after substantial evidence that shows their fears are founded.

I am not driven by wanting the best education for my DS but any education!

We went to tribunal as DS was school refusing, he attended the only special school in the area for pmld/sld/asd. We were hoping to come to some compromise as well as effective strategies to get him back in. The school as usual were not helpful, however for the 1st time, slightly honest.

At the end of the 6 hour slanging match heated discussion constructive critisism(sp) we were no further forward and the bits and pieces of relevant evidence they then bound by confidentiality. I chose a conditional agreement which meant should they fail in the outcomes we agreed I could go back to mediation and take it further.

The school failed epically the next day!!

My DS is now in his 3rd year of being home schooled, not just by me but 9 hours from the LA. He is challenging and complex with a number of dx's, he is also 2 adult supervision, yet most of the time I'm alone.

IMO/E the whole system is corrupt.

To preface any comment I make as I'm not sure it's been taken on board, my comments are only to clarify what mediation is, not to advocate for it in any given case as that's not my decision.
Bochead - mediation can be much swifter than the long drawn out battles that have ensued in many disputes. I once mediated in an NHS complaint between a Dentist and patient that had gone on for a year and accumulated a thick correspondence file. They resolved it in just over an hour simply because they were able to have a simple informal discussion rather than have to go through all the 'procedures' that were required via the formal processes of the NHS complaints system. Again, not all complaints would work out so quickly but some do and any one that does is saving all involved a lot of time and effort and stress and cost.
inappropriatelyemployed - the 'different angles' referred to the clearly different perspectives held by the parent and the LA, it was not saying the LA could vary its perspective as that is, as you say, defined by the Education Act and that is what it would bring to any mediation or tribunal. Agreements in mediation cannot override the legal rights of a child so any agreements that were made without realisation of that would not be sustainable or enforceable.

I recognise that there are concerns about the use of mediation and it may not be felt to be suitable for some within this forum, and if so, then there's no compulsion to use it. But it is without question that mediation has helped participants, both parents and teachers and LAs to come to resolutions that have worked for all concerned, in the views of all concerned. But, in the same way that Tribunals do not always lead to satisfactory outcomes nor does mediation, the point is that it provides an alternative option that is open to anyone to use. They don't have to have it but it's available as an option. When there is only one tool available it provides less flexibility in the approach taken.

"the 'different angles' referred to the clearly different perspectives held by the parent and the LA, it was not saying the LA could vary its perspective as that is, as you say, defined by the Education Act and that is what it would bring to any mediation or tribunal. Agreements in mediation cannot override the legal rights of a child so any agreements that were made without realisation of that would not be sustainable or enforceable."

I'm afraid you miss the point entirely.

The LA's perspective is not defined by the Education Act - it should be but I would say 99% of the time it is defined by financial constraints and other resource concerns which are irrelevant to the test set out in the Education Act.

So, the LA takes a 'different angle' to the needs of the child from the parents. the parents say 'my son needs X' and here is the evidence. The LA say 'you'll get Y because that is what we always give and we haven't got any money'.

My point is, if a mediator sits in a mediation and is unaware that what the LA has just said is entirely unlawful (and from your posts you appeared to be unaware of this too) then a parent could be persuaded that the LA's approach or 'different angle' is entirely reasonable.

They could then agree to shitty provision Y and a statement could be issued on that basis.

There would be nothing 'unenforceable' about any statement issued in this way under the Education Act and it would near nigh impossible (and prohibitively expensive) to persuade a court to unpick it because you allege you agreed to it not knowing that the arguments advanced by the LA were unlawful (even if by some miracle you managed to figure that out at some point). You would be best waiting for an AR and appealing to SENDIST.

This is my big problem with non-lawyers meddling in a complicated legal process and making strident assertions on legal issues when they frankly haven't a clue what they are talking about.

It is all too easy to get bamboozled by a massively funded corporate body like an LA if you do not know the law inside out and LAs take advantage of this all the time.

This is why they love mediation - it wastes time, stalls appeals and allows them to look reasonable in front of a non-legal third party who may unknowingly end up advancing their unlawful arguments.

It's all about the money and not about the child. LAs and parents don't fall out because of some silly little problem with communication. LAs break the law consistently and deliberately to save money and in doing so fail children.

ie just WOW!

I bow to you AE.

What ina said

Applauds and high fives AE. My son's education and health has suffered because of purely financial reasons. They are looking too much at the short term - when he's unemployed and in poor mental health in a few years time they will be spending money on having to pick up the pieces.

Oh, and after now meeting the criteria to qualify as a 'family in need' a major charity is now supporting us so I will be happy to have my day in court with them all!

inappropriatelyemployed - you make a lot of generalisations about mediation that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Mediation can't be a waste of time if those involved have decided it's something they want to participate in. Why would they agree to participate if they feel it would be a waste of time?

I'm not sure either that LAs 'love' mediation, many LAs rarely use it if ever so your assertion that they love it is a strong claim and I'd be interested to see your evidence that it's so. The Government's misguided intention to make mediation 'compulsory' in the new draft proposals is as much to make LAs offer it and use it more as it is to do with parents not using it. LAs frequently do not make parents aware of its availability and as a consequence the Government is trying to enforce that. If they 'loved' it, would they not be making parents much more aware of it?

You go on in that sentence to say mediation 'allows them to look reasonable in front of a non-legal third party who may unknowingly end up advancing their unlawful arguments.' You don't seem to understand what mediation is .......LAs don't care how they look to a mediator and nor do parents and if they did it would be an unnecessary concern. We are not there to give an 'assessment' of the participants and we certainly don't 'advance an argument' as to do so for either party would be to act partially. At no point do I ever, as a mediator put forward an argument on behalf of one party or another. I'm not sure what process you are referring to but none of the above quote from your last post fits with either the practise or the purpose of mediation.

I also don't 'meddle' in a complicated legal process - again you are talking about something different to mediation but I'm not sure what. You speak as if I am there to influence a decision one way or another. That may be the role of an advocate or an arbitrator or a representative or a lawyer but it certainly isn't the role of a mediator.

'LAs and parents don't fall out because of some silly little problem with communication.' LAs and parents often fall out because of problems with communication but they are not 'silly little' ones they can be extremely serious in their consequences. Jerbil's original comment related to a means of communication used by her child's school when discussing her view of her child's needs. Schools that are more effective in how they communicate about such matters not surprisingly are far less likely to have such dissatisfied parents and as a result the working relationship between school and parent regarding the child's needs is more effective and co-operative rather than adversarial and destructive as seems to be the case in her situation and possibly others in this forum.

I don't know the experiences that others have had with LAs and from my own experience know that their activities sometimes leave much to be desired, but i'm not commenting here on LAs or individual schools or teachers as I'm entirely unqualified to do so. But I am qualified to clarify what mediation is and what it's not and your comments relating to the process of mediation in most of your last post describe something other than mediation.

Thanks all! This had been interesting! Some good assessments here from all angles. A the mo we are not at an LA stage where it is them we re battling with. If only! We are still doing battle with School it seems. Well, I wasn't but due their attitude towards communication as Alan said in the last post this is where I've ended up.

I do agree, although I would e willing to enter into mediation I fear the worse. If school agree to go into it then I feel we would have exactly the same conversations we've already had. And it would all result in v little support if any for DS1.

Instead I fear the very fact that I will be the one proposing mediation it could put their backs up further. I'm not against mediation I just don't want it to backfire and make a bad situation a terrible one.

I have had a psychiatrist, psychologist, SALT go into school meetings and come out with mostly promises of things that have either happened for a short time, not happened at all or been completely refused! How this would change with Mediation I don't know. The only way the is going to change IMO is to have it forced on them but as they will not be telling he LA they need any help I wouldn't get any support from them if I wanted to go and get a statement.

Jerbil tbh I don?t think this situation is one that mediation will be overly useful for, simply because of the stage you?re at, but much depends on the individual?s ability to use it well, and there's an argument that if you don?t try, you?ll never know.

The positives I could see for mediation for you, are pulling the staff out of their comfort zone, (the school and fitting you as a ?complaining? parent in) and making them give attention to addressing the bigger picture, (rather than current ?I pass him on in a year or four anyway? stance) if you bring that to the table. It also makes it clear to them that you?re not just accepting their view and going away which could be positive or negative.

Yes you will just have the same conversations again if you haven?t decided how it will be different, and how to get it there. However having your ?fears and theories confirmed? can be helpful, if only to know depth of their stance for further on, or that you?re wasting your child?s time trying to change things.

The obvious negatives have already been covered. I think the important thing is to look at how (and or if) you could you use the skills of a mediation service to get staff to change their pattern of behaviour and recognise what it is you?re seeking, why you?re seeking it, and that this isn't a threat to them, or their point of view? If not, this isn't the time/situation for it imo.

My understanding is mediation no longer being voluntary and becoming compulsory for any parent/LEA as a pre requisite for presenting at tribunal, will end up law.

I?m very interested in what parents think and feel about this situation if this is right, and most of all if it does, what could be done to make things better, less stressful and more effective for parents having to use it, given the situations we often face, and would welcome opinions? (have already picked out quite a bit from what?s been discussed)

I have two older SN children, have been through mediation, (and tribunal, and prepped for a judicial review) with a highly tricksy LEA, and think I have few illusions about several sides of this coin.

I?m now involved with (voluntary, and not as a mediator) a good independent mediation service, but feel strongly that mediation services often don?t realise how imbalanced it all can be, and am trying to help change it.

I think parents need more knowledge of what mediators can and can?t do and to know how to use even a good service well, and that it isn't easy, and a lot more knowledge needs to be in parental hands for mediation to be a useful tool for SEN children and their parents, not just another hurdle, time delaying exercise, or chance to beat a parent down.

I agree with Alan that it shouldn't be an adversarial process, and it was me that sought mediation, en route to tribunal, but my LEA sought to make it adversarial and about continuing the failures of the past, not a different present or future, from the outset, tried to set pre-conditions, and it took a lot of nerve and standing my ground, (and a mediation message relayer with the patience of a saint) to be all-right, and quite honestly if I hadn't already come to a point of nothing left to lose and nowhere left to take it, I think it could have been disastrous for my child?s future.
As it was, it was a painful but eventually positive thing, but it should not have been such a close run thing.

Bearing in mind a mediator can?t take sides, and you may be forced to do it, to get to tribunal, what could make it more useful, positive, etc

I agree with just it's worth pursuing even if she did quote my 'fears and theories' which seemed a dig. I would not wish anyone to be in the position I'm in and it is all about playing them at there own game so to speak. Which is what I did and gained nothing but knowing the whole system is corrupt, the school are liars and they are able to cover themselves left right and centre and there's nothing I can do about it.

tbh your child is similar to mine, where he takes the school day out at home, not just in behaviour but nightmares etc also, mine has always been difficult to get to school and school refused to see any of this and blamed us all the way. He's had 2 major stints out of school, the 1st where he attacked 3 members of staff from my car not to go in and this one, where I asked school to come and collect him, they did, they failed. That was me left to deal with him.

Not been pulled after all?

Is this not the thread people think has been pulled?

In my case the LA used mediation to stall processes and failed to adhere to the agreements reached. The LGO failed to find maladministration in this so personally I cannot see the point if the outcome is not enforceable. May as well exchange a cow for a few beans!

I think so! Lol

And where can I get a cow? :-)

You'll have to change your name to JackandJerbil

Well I have to say that in my journey through the SEN system I have encountered herds of them!

Arggh! I've been misinformed!

Deviant I'm really sorry if my quoting you reads as some sort of dig, that's not what I meant at all!

I meant that no matter how much as parents we go to the process hoping for change, sometimes we suspect we know the true measure of those we're trying to mediate with, and at least by going find out we're not wrong, they really are like that/trying to do that to our children, and we don't spend more valuable time thinking we might be wrong, and trying to reason with unreasonable people.

I hope I come over the way I mean to here. I am clearly a klutz, but for different reasons than I thought!

I totally agree that the results of mediation not being legally enforceable, makes a farce of it, and think that it should be easy enough to go from a 'here's our nice agreed future actions/package from both sides', now the agreed results goes past mediation, and into a 'charter.' I don't see why that should cause a problem?

I've listened to the other side of this coin where professionals have said we can do things off record more easily for individual children by keeping it this way. (this does actually happen for some) I think they should have the power to do those same things for children regardless.

I considered the pre conditions my lea tried to set, as evidence of their mindset at tribunal, and as they weren't part of the mediation I could at that time do that.

If mediation before tribunal became law, one of the things I'd want is to make sure that's not taken from parents in the process, I'd also like every parent to have the knowledge they can do that if their LEA set unreasonable pre conditions.

I'l like to ensure that a parent refusing to mediate with staff from a previous school that a child is formally de registered from, and the parent is trying to mediate with the LEA over different provision, isn't seen as refusing mediation thus stopping them reaching tribunal.

Those are just a couple of the things that I can see that could curb some LEA's behaviours, I'm hoping that other's can see and suggest more. Maybe not, maybe we're headed for a system that isn't possible to make better.

(have to go for a bit at this point, but remain interested in what people think, even if it's an overwhelming 'no way, we just wont now go to tribunal' )