Gove does it again....

[StarlightMcKenzie]

and so does the Daily Mail

Main Board discussion here

Zzzzz, that is the problem.
There is no precise definition of these terms, They are used recklessly and mean different thnigs to different people.
Same goes for 'special needs' 'learning disability' and similar.

Having Englsih as a second language is emphatically not a special need.
Most of the world is bilingual.
It is monoglots who are the odd ones out, strictly speaking.

It's alright,no offence taken whatsoever.
It's an emotive subject for us all.

Moondog, you asked for a link re the draft legislation. Try this to start with - www.ipsea.org.uk/Apps/Content/News/?id=478,

I'm surprised you say there is no definition of terms like "special educational needs". Have you seen Chapter 1 of the Code of Practice?

Your link doesn't work, Veritate. Or rather the page 'cannot be found'.
I know the SEN Code of Practice backwards.
Those are not legal defnitions.
They are subjective labels.
This is something I have researched extensively in a formal context and I was staggered to learn that no formal definition exists.

I've had a closer look at the summary on the IPSEA site though and there are two things that need clarification.

1. It is draft legislation. This is common practice. Weaknesses and inconsistencies are pointed out and then amendments are made.

1. IPSEA welocme many of the propsed changes.

IPSEA is a tremendous organisation. I use it in both a personal and professional context and in the latter case often point colleagues in the direction of the important judgements cited regarding case law that go a long way to helping them execute their duties legally.

Moondog, not sure why you think it needs to be clarified that this is draft legislation - that's how I described it from the outset. I also pointed out that there are one or two good points in it. However, it is quite an exaggeration to suggest that IPSEA welcome "many" of the proposed changes. In fact they welcome all of two of them.

The point is that you have repeatedly stated that Gove is good news for children with SEN, but in all the time he has been in office the only substantive action he has taken is to produce draft legislation which proposes to take away the right to request statutory assessment, takes away the duty to specify and detail provision so that it can be properly enforced, takes away the protection of an EHCP remaining in force pending appeal if a local authority decides to cease to maintain it, takes away the right of Parliament to scrutinise the Code of Practice, takes away the right to enforce speech and language and occupational therapy as educational provision - etc etc.

You may say that all these problems will be rectified after consultation, but you have to bear in mind that this is the product of a Green Paper which itself was the subject of extensive consultation, and many of the defects which have appeared in the legislation are precisely those that many, many respondents warned against. And the real question is - why produce a new Act at all? Given that they are not proposing to put in place the more radical proposals contained in the Green Paper for plans which contain enforceable social care provision, why not simply incorporate the improvements into the Education Act by way of amendment?

The definition of "special educational needs" and "learning difficulty" in Chapter 1 of the Code of Practice comes from section 312 Education Act 1996.

Are we reading the same document?
I see four things IPSEA likes and four things they don't.
Here

Your entire argument is based on the laughable assumption that the granting of a statements guarantees appropriate provision for a child with SEN.
It doesn't.

'The definition of "special educational needs" and "learning difficulty" in Chapter 1 of the Code of Practice comes from section 312 Education Act 1996.'

Where it comes from is irrelevant. Still means nothing.
Education Officers freely admit so-and have done to me on several occasions.

Apologies-eight things IPSEA do not like.

You do keep moving the goalposts. You said:
"I know the SEN Code of Practice backwards.
Those are not legal defnitions.
They are subjective labels.
This is something I have researched extensively in a formal context and I was staggered to learn that no formal definition exists."

By any standard a statutory definition is a legal and a formal definition. What Education Officers (many of whom are, frankly, not the sharpest tools in the box) say is irrelevant.

OK, four things IPSEA has said are positives. One of those is only a pilot, and if you analyse the aspects that they don't like, they are far more serious and weighty.

I'm not sure what you perceive my argument to be. From my point of view, it is that it is erroneous to claim that Gove is good news for SEN when he has done nothing concrete to help children with SEN and all that he has done, after an unconscionably long time in office, is to produce this very poor piece of draft legislation.

If my argument is based on a "laughable assumption" then so is IPSEA's. Of course a statement by itself does not guarantee appropriate provision, largely because LAs regularly break the law in the way they draft them. However, statements with properly specific and detailed provision can be and are regularly enforced by court order and the threat of court order. Tell us precisely how the EHC Plan will guarantee appropriate provision (especially therapies) if the legislation goes through in this form.

All I know is, that there is no way this government is likely to make it easier to access provision for our children with SEN because it costs money.

As I see it, the proposed new legislation seeks to remove parents right of appeal and over turn decided case law. ABA programmes will be a thing of the past :(

Special educational need is defined legally in s.312 Education Act 1996. It is not a medical label and it is broad enough to include many disabilities and needs.

But its breadth does not mean no definition exists. It is clearly set out in the Act

'What Education Officers (many of whom are, frankly, not the sharpest tools in the box) say is irrelevant. '

Yes, precisely.
However, it isn't irrelevant unfortunatley when they are the people telling their departments what to do. Knowledge of the law and statutory obligations is sparse to te point of non existence and sadly, unless you are someone who is very clued up on thse matters, your child may not get a fair deal.

I do not believe that sustainable progress is made when parents have to get involved in debilitating and costly legal battles. It ensures long lasting ill feeling on all sides and still you are left with little idea as to how the classroom drone ensures that the 'quantified and specified' provision for your child is carried out. You can't do unles you are in the classroom every minute of the day.

IPSEA is an honorable organisation but yes, their assumptions about statements are deluded. The idea of keeping a child in a school or indeed an LEA where provision is 'regularly enforced by court order and the threat of court order' is depressing beyond belief. I do not believe a proper open working relationship is possible between a school and a family if it has come to this.

I believe real progress is made for all when the focus is on increased accountability nad better training for teachers and teaching assistants as well as more evidence of the use of evidence based data driven interventions and that is what I see evdience of on a day to day basis in schools, irrespective of the bleating of the unions and I restate my opinion that for that reason, Gove is a hero.

Inappropriately, you state that special educational need is 'broad enough to include many disabilities and needs'.

That is the problem! One person's 'kid with SEN' is someone else's naughty/lazy/badly taught/ill supervised child. The lack of quality control across schools and classrooms is alarming.

PR, I don't think ABA programmes will be a thing of the past.
On the contrary, the use of data driven evidence based practice is a reflection of all that Gove is calling for and their is increasing evidence that this is possible in a setting which costs no more than a bog standard special educational setting.

Here's an example