Guerrillamum's Blog

So the media circus around the controversial report – ‘The Special Educational Needs and Disability Review – a statement is not enough’ – is no longer front page news.  The hype has been played out.  Newspapers have been bought.  Links have been clicked and comments have been written.  The radio and TV media world has moved on leaving those of us who have children with special educational needs to reflect on and worry about the future implications of this report.

We have all heard the rhetoric about ineffective teaching and poor pastoral care.  I quote the report, ‘relatively expensive additional provision is being used to make up for poor day-to-day teaching and pastoral support’.  We have all had a chance to inwardly digest the subtle or not so subtle media messages about children with misdiagnosed special educational needs taking away resources from other children.  We have visualised the greedy parents waving educational assessments at head teachers, so they can gleefully claim ‘extra’ resources for their children. 

By page 6 of this 94 page report we hear that ‘The key implication of these (report) findings is that any further changes to the system should focus not on tightening the processes of prescribing entitlement to services’ and there is an early mention of ‘necessarily limited resources’. 

The 1996 Education Act provides for children with the most severe special educational needs to have their needs identified and provided for under the terms of a statement of special educational needs.  They do cost money to set up, they do cost money to fund, and yes, we also know that they can be expensive to maintain.  However, we also know that life only changed for our children in school when statements were obtained and implemented.  Prior to obtaining their statements, their lives were beset by failure, social exclusion, and, dare I say it, an overbearing feeling of sadness. 

Before receiving their statements, they were at various times on School Action and School Action Plus.  We were continually told that improvements to their support in school were unattainable to the school due to cost.   For us the graduated response – school action, school action Plus – failed because there were too many ways for the school and LEA to wriggle out of actually doing anything.  It was actually because at this stage of intervention there were no tight processes prescribing entitlement that our children slipped so far behind.  With this in mind, please read the excerpt below, paying particular attention to the phrase I have put in bold.  I quote from the report: 

‘The key implication of these findings is that any further changes to the system should focus not on tightening the processes of prescribing entitlement to services but, rather, on:

•  improving the quality of assessment
•  ensuring that where additional support is provided, it is effective  
• improving teaching and pastoral support early on so that additional provision is not needed later
• developing specialist provision and services strategically so that they are available to maintained and independent schools, academies and colleges
• simplifying legislation so that the system is clearer for parents, schools and other education and training providers
• ensuring that schools do not identify pupils as having special educational needs when they simply need better teaching
• ensuring that accountability for those providing services focuses on the outcomes for the children and young people concerned.

The review found a high level of demand from parents and carers for additional services for their children, and this is not something that legislative or regulatory change in itself can address easily. However, such changes could make the system better focused on the outcomes that parents and carers want for their children, and more effective in its use of necessarily limited resources.’

This looks suspiciously like a precursor to removing all entitlement to statements.  Imagine a world where there is only the graduated response to meet special educational needs – oh and improved teaching! 

Children with the most severe special educational needs in the country currently have the right to have these needs met under the provision of a statement of special educational needs.  This report has not categorically stated that it will take away the statement – not yet.  However, there are plenty of indications in the report that this might happen.  If this happens, parents who object will be vilified as wanting ‘special’ provision that takes away from other children.  They will be ‘sharp elbowed middle class parents’ – you heard it from the Prime Minister first.  If the teachers object they will be told to focus on improving their teaching skills. 

Politics is a curious thing.  Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was saying that the ‘poor should accept benefit cuts’.  Today we hear rumblings in the Press about the government no longer paying for teacher training courses for those candidates whose degrees are not ‘good enough’ – we can’t have any more ‘poor teaching’!  Before we know it, parents of children with SEN will find themselves being asked the question ‘what makes your child more ‘special’ than all the others, and why should they have access to more funding?’

The Green Paper: Children And Young People With Special Educational Needs And Disabilities – Call For Views was launched on 10^th September by Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families.  I’m not sure if this is window dressing on decisions that have already been made or not.  It is an opportunity for parents to contribute their views.  We have until 15^th October to contribute.  Make it a priority to participate!

I’d like to say a ‘Thank you’ to everybody who has re-tweeted, linked to the blog or published my posts so far.  This is an issue which needs to be highlighted as widely as possible because the public memory is short and the only message to come out so far is ‘special needs education is expensive and a bit rubbish’.  Please, please keep on re-tweeting, and linking to my blog because we need to get a proper debate and decision-making process on this vital issue.  It’s not just about a few years bad schooling it is our children’s futures that are at stake.