March 2011 - "SEN Green Paper: My Considered Thoughts (For What They Are Worth)..."
Further to my update on 22 March 2011 regarding the SEN Green Paper I have now had a chance to consider it more fully. A number of people have emailed me as they would like to know what I think so here is my 'tuppence worth' for what it is worth!
As I indicated in my last update, on 4 April 2011, I spoke at the Westminster Education Forum Keynote Seminar entitled 'The Future for SEN post-Green Paper'. There was an interesting line up of speakers including Paul Maynard, MP (who has cerebral palsy himself); Jaeevan Vsagar (Education Editor - the Guardian); Lorraine Petersen (nasen); Ralph Hartley (Education Unit, Policy Exchange); Patrick Leeson (Ofsted); Kevin Barron, MP; Heather Stack (SEN Consultant); Jolanta Lasota (Ambitious about Autism [formally 'TreeHouse']); Kim Johnson (Headteacher of a special school); and Jonathan Bartley (Trustee of the Centre for Inclusive Education and the parent of a disabled child himself).
The transcript of the forum is available to consider if you are intersted and the best way is to contact the Westminster Education Forum themselves on info@westminsterforumprojects.co.uk (I believe they will charge a fee).
Broadly speaking the proposed changes were welcomed but there was some concern expressed that the ideas had not been thought through properly. There were also particular concerns about where the funding for the changes would come from.
Rather than me trying to tell you what I think I have 'copied and pasted' my speaker notes here for you in case it is of interest to you, as follows:
"I am a solicitor who specialises in the area of SEN and have done so for many years. I represent parents through the 'Statementing' process and in appeals to the SEND Tribunal. I have a well known website called www.SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk which receives about 150,000 'unique visits' a year. I pride myself on being as objective as possible. I see my role, just like many of you do, as being a member of a team who is trying to get the child involved the right special educational provision and placement based on the best evidence available.
It may surprise you to learn that, even though I am a lawyer, I try to avoid litigation wherever possible! I always encourage people to try and make good decisions early and avoid disputes wherever possible. This is sometimes possible by just using a bit of common sense. However, I also often say that 'common sense and the law do not always go together!' But sometimes disputes are inevitable or unavoidable and require arbitration by an independent Tribunal to determine what is best for a child, having regard to all the circumstances.
On the whole I think that our current SEN framework is actually not that bad although I think that there are many things that could be improved for the better. For example, there is too much form-filling and bureaucracy, too much resource wasting and too much time and money being diverted away from the child concerned needlessly. Too many times I feel that the child has sometimes been forgotten in the process.
I try to live by the adage 'if it aint broke don't fix it!' I therefore suggest that rather than wasting time and money trying to come up with a new SEN framework, we should try and improve on the one we have already got, which has been built up over the last 30 years. Although there are a number of things that can be rightly criticised about the current framework, I am not sure that now is the right time to try and undertake a wholesale reform of it, bearing in mind the current economic situation. Making targeted changes to things that are objectively shown to be not working, may be a better, quicker and cheaper way to go about things.
There is an inevitable tension in the SEN system. What we have to remember is that parents will always want what is best for their child but Local Authorities are also concerned with the needs of other children and only have to consider what is 'adequate' to meet a child's needs. Parents get upset when local authorities do not make what they believe are sensible or rational decisions and make them feel that they have to 'fight' to get what their child requires whereas local authorities get upset that parents do not appreciate that they have a plethora of statutory duties to meet but only a limited amount of funding with which to do this. But resources need to be allocated realistically, fairly and consistently.
Disputes are always going to happen. We do not get it right all of the time. We should look for ways to resolve disputes as early as possible in order not only to get the right provision/placement for the child but also maintain a relationship between the parents, school and LA wherever possible.
Parents also need to feel that they have been listened too more sometimes and, even more than that, parents need to feel that they are being listened too properly and not just as part of a box-ticking exercise. Sometimes they are appealing to a Tribunal because at least they feel they will get a fair, independent and objective hearing. Many cases end up in appeal hearings as the parents feel that the Tribunal will at least listen to their side of the story before reaching any decision.
Let's start with the premise that local authorities see the SEN system as biased towards parents and parents see it as biased towards local authorities. Schools sometimes feel that they are stuck between a rock and hard place. You often find that it is either local authorities against schools and parents or local authorities and schools against parents. Rather than the one side being right and one side being wrong it is usually two 'truths' competing with each other so that hard decisions have to be made. Schools may see things from the parental side or the local authority side.
Disputes always start, in my opinion, in anything, as a result of a lack of proper communication. It is sometimes like people are speaking different languages. I see time and time again avoidable disputes which could have been settled amicably at an early stage but, because of a lack of proper communication (and communication means listening as well as talking), which have escalated out of all control and before you know it the parents, schools and local authorities are facing each other and battling it out in an appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
Parents often do not feel there is enough transparency in the decision making process. Although they may be offered a meeting with an LA to discuss the decision they say that they do not just want to meet with somebody whose role is just to explain the already taken decision to them but rather someone who has the power to make another decision one way or the other. Coming to a meeting which is not able to achieve anything is seen as a waste of valuable working/domestic time and just delaying the inevitable. A meeting like this may only strengthen a parental resolve to appeal.
Whilst I see the advantage in mediation, its availability is already there. It is also sometimes not possible to mediate everything and it can be worse to try and get people to feel that they have to compromise. Yet parents often tell me that they just would like to have been listened to by being allowed to attend a meeting with a panel from the Governing Body to share their concerns or attend an LA SEN panel meeting to hear what is being said about their child, either as an observer or to be allowed to speak for about 5 minutes so before a decision is reached. If parents were allowed to attend SEN panel meetings they would hopefully see that there is nothing to hide and a fair and understandable decision being reached so they may then think twice about appealing.
I do not have any 'radical' proposals to offer you, just some simple 'common sense' things that we can do to improve our system. Sometimes it is only politics that is driving change but politics is just like fashion and pop, it usually goes around in circles every 20 or 30 years. After 20 or 30 years somebody says its time for a change and before we know it the wheels of change have started and we cannot stop them. This is why it is so important to have open and informed debate such as this one.
SEN cases have been getting more complicated in the past few years. There is more case law to have regard to, more difficult issues to resolve and more potential consequences to consider when reaching decisions. Funding issues are even more critical now. 'Statementing' is also a very emotive subject.
Parents do not enter the appeal process lightly. No parents want to appeal if they can help it. Ask many of them and they will tell you that it is hard enough trying to cope with a child who has SEN issues. However, some feel that they have no other choice. But I still feel that you win or lose appeals on evidence.
I am concerned that we are trying to implement a whole new process perhaps just for the sake of it rather than concentrating on improving the system we already have. There is an old Chinese saying which roughly translates as 'be careful what you wish for ... you might just get it'.
My main message today is that we always need to remember the child/young person at the heart of the process. It seems obvious doesn't it, but sometimes with all the focus on policies, rights, funding and the law, the child is very easy to forget."
I hope that this information is of help to you.
With good wishes
Douglas
As I indicated in my last update, on 4 April 2011, I spoke at the Westminster Education Forum Keynote Seminar entitled 'The Future for SEN post-Green Paper'. There was an interesting line up of speakers including Paul Maynard, MP (who has cerebral palsy himself); Jaeevan Vsagar (Education Editor - the Guardian); Lorraine Petersen (nasen); Ralph Hartley (Education Unit, Policy Exchange); Patrick Leeson (Ofsted); Kevin Barron, MP; Heather Stack (SEN Consultant); Jolanta Lasota (Ambitious about Autism [formally 'TreeHouse']); Kim Johnson (Headteacher of a special school); and Jonathan Bartley (Trustee of the Centre for Inclusive Education and the parent of a disabled child himself).
The transcript of the forum is available to consider if you are intersted and the best way is to contact the Westminster Education Forum themselves on info@westminsterforumprojects.co.uk (I believe they will charge a fee).
Broadly speaking the proposed changes were welcomed but there was some concern expressed that the ideas had not been thought through properly. There were also particular concerns about where the funding for the changes would come from.
Rather than me trying to tell you what I think I have 'copied and pasted' my speaker notes here for you in case it is of interest to you, as follows:
"I am a solicitor who specialises in the area of SEN and have done so for many years. I represent parents through the 'Statementing' process and in appeals to the SEND Tribunal. I have a well known website called www.SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk which receives about 150,000 'unique visits' a year. I pride myself on being as objective as possible. I see my role, just like many of you do, as being a member of a team who is trying to get the child involved the right special educational provision and placement based on the best evidence available.
It may surprise you to learn that, even though I am a lawyer, I try to avoid litigation wherever possible! I always encourage people to try and make good decisions early and avoid disputes wherever possible. This is sometimes possible by just using a bit of common sense. However, I also often say that 'common sense and the law do not always go together!' But sometimes disputes are inevitable or unavoidable and require arbitration by an independent Tribunal to determine what is best for a child, having regard to all the circumstances.
On the whole I think that our current SEN framework is actually not that bad although I think that there are many things that could be improved for the better. For example, there is too much form-filling and bureaucracy, too much resource wasting and too much time and money being diverted away from the child concerned needlessly. Too many times I feel that the child has sometimes been forgotten in the process.
I try to live by the adage 'if it aint broke don't fix it!' I therefore suggest that rather than wasting time and money trying to come up with a new SEN framework, we should try and improve on the one we have already got, which has been built up over the last 30 years. Although there are a number of things that can be rightly criticised about the current framework, I am not sure that now is the right time to try and undertake a wholesale reform of it, bearing in mind the current economic situation. Making targeted changes to things that are objectively shown to be not working, may be a better, quicker and cheaper way to go about things.
There is an inevitable tension in the SEN system. What we have to remember is that parents will always want what is best for their child but Local Authorities are also concerned with the needs of other children and only have to consider what is 'adequate' to meet a child's needs. Parents get upset when local authorities do not make what they believe are sensible or rational decisions and make them feel that they have to 'fight' to get what their child requires whereas local authorities get upset that parents do not appreciate that they have a plethora of statutory duties to meet but only a limited amount of funding with which to do this. But resources need to be allocated realistically, fairly and consistently.
Disputes are always going to happen. We do not get it right all of the time. We should look for ways to resolve disputes as early as possible in order not only to get the right provision/placement for the child but also maintain a relationship between the parents, school and LA wherever possible.
Parents also need to feel that they have been listened too more sometimes and, even more than that, parents need to feel that they are being listened too properly and not just as part of a box-ticking exercise. Sometimes they are appealing to a Tribunal because at least they feel they will get a fair, independent and objective hearing. Many cases end up in appeal hearings as the parents feel that the Tribunal will at least listen to their side of the story before reaching any decision.
Let's start with the premise that local authorities see the SEN system as biased towards parents and parents see it as biased towards local authorities. Schools sometimes feel that they are stuck between a rock and hard place. You often find that it is either local authorities against schools and parents or local authorities and schools against parents. Rather than the one side being right and one side being wrong it is usually two 'truths' competing with each other so that hard decisions have to be made. Schools may see things from the parental side or the local authority side.
Disputes always start, in my opinion, in anything, as a result of a lack of proper communication. It is sometimes like people are speaking different languages. I see time and time again avoidable disputes which could have been settled amicably at an early stage but, because of a lack of proper communication (and communication means listening as well as talking), which have escalated out of all control and before you know it the parents, schools and local authorities are facing each other and battling it out in an appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
Parents often do not feel there is enough transparency in the decision making process. Although they may be offered a meeting with an LA to discuss the decision they say that they do not just want to meet with somebody whose role is just to explain the already taken decision to them but rather someone who has the power to make another decision one way or the other. Coming to a meeting which is not able to achieve anything is seen as a waste of valuable working/domestic time and just delaying the inevitable. A meeting like this may only strengthen a parental resolve to appeal.
Whilst I see the advantage in mediation, its availability is already there. It is also sometimes not possible to mediate everything and it can be worse to try and get people to feel that they have to compromise. Yet parents often tell me that they just would like to have been listened to by being allowed to attend a meeting with a panel from the Governing Body to share their concerns or attend an LA SEN panel meeting to hear what is being said about their child, either as an observer or to be allowed to speak for about 5 minutes so before a decision is reached. If parents were allowed to attend SEN panel meetings they would hopefully see that there is nothing to hide and a fair and understandable decision being reached so they may then think twice about appealing.
I do not have any 'radical' proposals to offer you, just some simple 'common sense' things that we can do to improve our system. Sometimes it is only politics that is driving change but politics is just like fashion and pop, it usually goes around in circles every 20 or 30 years. After 20 or 30 years somebody says its time for a change and before we know it the wheels of change have started and we cannot stop them. This is why it is so important to have open and informed debate such as this one.
SEN cases have been getting more complicated in the past few years. There is more case law to have regard to, more difficult issues to resolve and more potential consequences to consider when reaching decisions. Funding issues are even more critical now. 'Statementing' is also a very emotive subject.
Parents do not enter the appeal process lightly. No parents want to appeal if they can help it. Ask many of them and they will tell you that it is hard enough trying to cope with a child who has SEN issues. However, some feel that they have no other choice. But I still feel that you win or lose appeals on evidence.
I am concerned that we are trying to implement a whole new process perhaps just for the sake of it rather than concentrating on improving the system we already have. There is an old Chinese saying which roughly translates as 'be careful what you wish for ... you might just get it'.
My main message today is that we always need to remember the child/young person at the heart of the process. It seems obvious doesn't it, but sometimes with all the focus on policies, rights, funding and the law, the child is very easy to forget."
I hope that this information is of help to you.
With good wishes
Douglas
