logo

Search:

Selected Quote:




I wrote the following article expressing my concerns about some aspects of SEN provision, which was published in Kent on Sunday on 26th August 2007.

Concerns about Special Education Needs (SEN) policy and practice in schools surface once again (KOS 19th August), as Kent County Council attempts to come to terms with government policy to integrate more and more children with learning difficulties into mainstream schools. Sometimes this is beneficial to all concerned, but the multitude of different needs faced by teachers is daunting, with some mainstream schools in Kent having 50% or more of the pupils on the Special Needs register. Few newly qualified teachers have as much as three hours training in SEN, most experienced teachers less.

 KCC has worked hard to minimise the damaging effect of government policy on inclusion by keeping its Special Schools open, although the clientele has changed so that many pupils with ‘moderate learning difficulties’ are now unsuitably placed in mainstream schools. KCC has invested heavily in these Special Schools, so that parents can see major building projects taking place across Kent.

 However, none of this helps parents battling to secure a Statement of Special Educational Need, which gives their child a legal entitlement to the support they require, often in a mainstream school. Last year, Kent had a total of 160 appeals to the Tribunal that rules on disagreements over statements, the sixth highest proportion of all 124 local authorities outside London. With such delays built into the process, it can take up to two years for parents to secure a statement, the stress on families and the damage to children’s education in that time wreaking incalculable damage.

 A government select committee last year identified the conflict of interest faced by local authorities, who both have to assess pupils and then arrange provision within a limited budget. It identified the high proportion of funds earmarked for SEN which is swallowed up by the statementing system and on Tribunals (68% in 2002). It concluded that the current framework is not fit for purpose. Government has ruled out a fresh look at the process, but meanwhile the number of statements issued continues to fall, with consequent damage to children’s education.

 It is not enough to say, as many in authority do, that statements are not necessary; the reality is that a statement gives protection now Special Needs funds are delegated to schools. For children without such protection, other pressing budgetary needs see money too often siphoned away from the SEN department. Each year, I am contacted by bewildered parents looking for a secondary school for children with SEN, who find the school of their choice is dissuading them from applying, claiming not to have the resources or the necessary trained staff to meet the needs of the children. The reality is that children with SEN are a drain on the school budget!

 Adam Holloway, M.P, is championing the case of Mrs Gammon. The paperwork shows clearly that her son’s school was missing trained SEN staff at the critical time of assessment. Sadly, not unique.

 Yes, I agree with the government select committee that the current framework is not fit for purpose. But will it be replaced, and with what? Baroness Warnock, who introduced the policy of inclusion and the current framework for statementing, has now acknowledged it is failing, but how many children will see their futures ruined because they are the battlefield for a discredited structure and financial economies.