I was delighted to accept an invitation to the opening of the Laural Centre, an SEN Unit  for children on the Autistic Spectrum, attached to The North School in Ashford. This is the first Unit to be opened since the reversal of county policy two years ago that sought to phase out all SEN units in the county. The Centre was opened by Paul Carter, Leader of KCC, who has been a strong champion of SEN Units and Special Schools in Kent........

There has been considerable debate about the article I wrote for Kent on Sunday, based on figures I  found through FOI, for the very high number of Kent children permanently excluded, especially those with Statements of Special Education Need. The BBC 1 Politics Show for viewers in the South East (not London) is featuring the issue on Sunday at 11 a.m., including.......

As they say, it has been one of those weeks! Every day more news. The week started with my article in KOS on the high number of exclusions in Kent, focusing on the disparity with Medway numbers, the alarming proportion of statemented children being permanently excluded in Kent and the high number of exclusions in new academies. This became the main news item on Radio Kent on Tuesday who focused on the statemented children issue, my interview being followed up by Paul Carter, Leader of KCC, who also expressed his concern about several of the issues I raised.  The SEN aspect has now been taken up by Kentonline, and is likely to feature on BBC SE next week........

Several Freedom of Information requests I submitted to Kent and Medway Councils have produced considerable and alarming information on school exclusions, especially in Kent. You will find the full article, comment and background here. The headlines, which relate to children with SEN, academies and the startling differences between Kent and Medway are that:........

The following item served the basis for an article in KOS on 11 June 2011, and also triggered the front page news story.

A Freedom of Information request I submitted has revealed a number of alarming features in the pattern of permanent exclusions (expulsions) in Kent schools.

The first two new style academies created in Kent top the list of permanent exclusions between September and Easter, headed by Westlands School in Sittingbourne with 11. Next is Canterbury High School with nine permanent exclusions.

Both these schools previously had outstanding Ofsted reports, so it is difficult to believe they have difficult disciplinary problems.

Other schools with high numbers of permanent exclusions over this period are: Chaucer Technology School, also in Canterbury (nine); Hartsdown Technology College (converting to an academy – eight) and the Marlowe Academy both in Thanet (seven); and Astor College for the Arts in Dover (seven).

The total over this period is rising alarmingly already being almost the same as for the whole of 2009-10.

In general, an excluded child does not just go away, they are moved to another school to be given a fresh chance but, as this will usually be one of the few with vacancies in the area, it just heaps the problems on a possibly struggling school.

Of particular concern is the number of children  with statements of special education needs (SEN) who continue to be permanently excluded, in spite of government policy that “schools should avoid permanently excluding pupils with statements, other than in the most exceptional circumstances”.

While I don’t yet have figures for this year, in 2009-10 out of a total of 168 secondary exclusions 22 were of statemented children, a further 68 being of other children with SEN, together over half of the total.

However, the most astonishing and alarming statistic in this whole survey is that nearly all of the 34 Kent primary school exclusions in the last school year were of children with Special Education Needs, with 13 statemented children and another 18 with SEN.

 

So much for Kent. Meanwhile up in Medway there is a remarkably different picture. The council reports that there were just three permanent exclusions from Medway Secondary Schools in 2009-10 (none statemented), and none from primary schools. For 2010-11 the reported figure is currently zero, although Medway Council has subsequently claimed it is unaware of at least three permanent exclusions from Bishop of Rochester Academy, even though it would have responsibility for those children, so this figure needs to be treated with some caution.

 

This all begs many questions. Firstly, why are the pictures in Kent and Medway so very different?

Medway may only have around one sixth of the children being educated in Kent, but this does not come close to explaining why some Kent schools resort to formal exclusion proceedings so often, whereas Medway can avoid a dramatic, stressful and bureaucratic process so effectively.

Medway schools have always co-operated well over what are called ‘managed moves’ to a fresh school, although whether this will continue when all are independent academies remains to be seen.

How can Kent primary schools exclude children with statements in such numbers, compared to a negligible number of children without special needs, in direct contradiction to the government imperative that this should only happen in exceptional circumstances?

Why does Kent but not Medway have so many exceptional circumstances?

Once again KCC is seeing children who surely deserve the highest standard of care, at the bottom of the pile (see last week’s Kent on Sunday).

Another factor to add to KCC’s Scrutiny Committee investigation into primary school standards.

What is special about Westlands and Canterbury High apart from the fact they are outstanding Ofsted schools, that they need to take this extreme action, effectively forcing these children to less popular and successful schools, whereas others, often in far more difficult situations, appear to be able to manage better? Are they showing the future for academies?

What happens to the schools that become ‘dumping grounds’ for children excluded by other schools better able to cope with them?

Above all, why does KCC not look at Medway’s procedures to learn how to improve these dreadful figures?

I gave an interview on Radio Kent (today) supporting a letter written by Sarah Hohler (Kent County Council Cabinet Member for Education) to Michael Gove urging him to reconsider the inclusion of many children with SEN in Government performance tables as they distorted the achievements of schools. I made three points:.........

Where there has been a recent OFSTED Report, there are more details for each School below.

ALL FAITH’S CHILDREN’S COMMUNITY SCHOOL – TOTAL COMMUNICATION Unit (Primary), Strood

ABBEY COURT COMMUNITY SCHOOL Severe and profound learning difficulties

RAINHAM CAMPUS, Gillingham (4-11years)  

STROOD CAMPUS, Strood  (11 –19 years)

  (OFSTED July 2010 - Outstanding) Abbey Court is based on two sites 12 miles apart. It has a capacity for 150 pupils aged from three to 19, all funded by Medway local authority. All pupils have a statement of special educational needs including severe learning difficulties and profound and multiple learning difficulties. An increasing number of pupils joining the school have very complex medical conditions or extremely challenging behaviour. There are fewer girls than boys. The vast majority of the pupils have a White British heritage. A few pupils are from minority ethnic backgrounds and have English as a second language. A small minority of pupils are looked after in public care. Secondary pupils, including sixth-formers, are based at the Strood site. The site for primary-aged pupils is in Rainham and this has recently added a nursery to its provision. The school has specialist school status for cognition and learning.

 BRADFIELDS SCHOOL, Chatham

(11-19 years) – Moderate learning difficulties

BROMPTON ACADEMY, Gillingham

(11-16 years) SPLD & Speech & Language @ COMMUNICATION CENTRE

CHALKLANDS CENTRE, Elaine Primary School, Strood

(5-11 years) Emotional & Behaviour difficulties.

DANECOURT COMMUNITY SCHOOL, Gillingham

(4-11 years) Moderate learning difficulties.

MARLBOROUGH CENTRE, Hoo St Werburgh Primary School

(5-11 years) Autism

RIVERMEAD COMMUNITY SPECIAL SCHOOL, Gillingham

(5-16 years) Hospital School

RIVERSIDE VI UNIT, Riverside Primary School, Rainham

(5-11 years) Visual Impairment

RIVERSIDE HUB, Riverside Primary School,Rainham (5-11 Years) Autism: OFSTED 2012 - Good School. Excerpt from Report: Information about the school -  Provides for students aged 11–19 with complex emotional and behavioural needs. It is smaller than average in size and the overwhelming majority of students have a statement of special educational needs mainly related to autistic spectrum disorders. Most students have additional communication and language needs and/or medical/mental health needs. The length of placement at the school depends on individual needs, and many students have spent a considerable amount of time away from mainstream education before admission. The provision in the sixth form is still under development. It will be implemented fully in September 2012 and until that time there are no students of this age in the school. Key findings - Rivermead is a good school. The development of the sixth form is progressing well in preparation for September 2012 when new students will start. Students of different ages, backgrounds and abilities make good progress and achieve well. They achieve particularly well in the development of their skills in communication and in mathematics. In the vast majority of lessons, teachers provide students with activities that engage their interest and they use information and ICT well to enhance learning. They assess students’ work regularly and accurately and ensure that students know what they need to do to improve. The overwhelming majority of students make significant improvements in learning to manage their own behaviours, and bullying of any kind is almost non-existent. Students feel extremely safe and secure in school at all times. They enjoy school, support each other well and attendance levels are above average. The school is very well led and teachers’ performance is generally managed effectively. The strong leadership team ensure there is a sustained focus on improving classroom practice and outcomes for students.  The very effective way in which the school promotes students’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is a key factor in its success.

SILVERBANK PARK, Chatham

(11-16 years) Emotional & behaviour difficulties.

ST WERBURGH CENTRE FOR AUTISM, Hundred of Hoo Comprehensive, Hoo

(11-16yrs)  Autism

THE ROBERT NAPIER SCHOOL – VI UNIT, Gillingham

(11-16 years) Visual Impairment

 TWYDALL INFANT PD Unit, Twydall Infant School, Gillingham

 

(4-7 years)  Physical Disability

TWYDALL JUNIOR PD Unit, Twydall Junior School, Gillingham

(7-11 years) Physical Disability & Complex Medical Conditions

WARREN WOOD COMMUNITY PRIMARY SCHOOL Speech & Lang UNIT,Rochester

 

(4-11 years) Speech and Language difficulties

WILL ADAMS CENTRE, Gillingham

(11-16 yrs) Emotional & behaviour difficulties

WOODLANDS HUB, Gillingham

(5-11 years) Moderate learning difficulties

Last updated: 26 Jan 2011

Please note that there are discrepancies between some of these tables, as some area cross calender years, some academic years and some decisions run from one year to the next.

Pattern of application for statements in Kent: 2005/6-2009/10

	2005/6	2006/7	2007/8	2008/9	2009/10
Requests for a statutory assessment of SEN	1029	1017	10910	1131	1097
Statutory assessments carried out	564	649	721	763	739
New Statements of SEN issued	493	613	646	784	744
% of primary School pupils with statement	1.25	1.15	1.09	1.11	1.12
% of secondary school pupils with statement	2.17	2.00	1.82	1.74	1.62

Pattern of application for statements in Medway: 2006/7-2010/11

	2006/7	2007/8	2008/9	2009/10	2010/11
Requests for a statutory assessment of SEN	265	197	240	252	212
Statutory assessments carried out	176	171	161	177	127
New Statements of SEN issued	158	187	193	180	124
% of primary School pupils with statement	Information not available
% of secondary school pupils with statement	Information not available

 

 

 

 

Children with Statements of SEN in Kent and Medway, based on where child attends school

	2008			2009			2010
	Total Pupils	Pupils with Statements	%	Total Pupils	Pupils with Statements	%	Total Pupils	Pupils with Statements	%
ENGLAND	8,102,190	223,610	2.8	8,071,000	221,670	2.7	8,064,399	220,890	2.7
SOUTH EAST	1,303,490	36,900	2.8	1,301,520	36,870	2.8	1,300,700	37,140	2.9
KENT	232,967	6,544	2.8	231,582	6,556	2.8	230,571	6,492	2.8
MEDWAY	44,196	1,301	2.9	43,886	1,292	2.9	43,262	1,331	3.1

 

Assessments & Statements during Calendar Year 2009 (Government data)

	Total children assessed for SEN during 2009	Children assessed for whom no statement was issued		Children with new statements
	Number	Number	%	Number	%
England	27550	1060	3.8	26490	96.2
South East	4590	180	3.8	4410	96.2
Kent	750	20	2.7	730	97.3
Medway	220	30	13.5	190	86.5

% of children with new statements in 2009 in each type of provision
	SEN Units	Mainstream	Maintained Special Schools	Independent Schools	Hospital Schools & Pupil Referral Units
England	3.0	66.7	21.3	3.1	1.4
South East	4.1	62.7	23.4	3.1	1.1
Kent	8.0	54.4	27.5	3.4	0.8
Medway	8.3	49.5	8.3	6.8	10.9

 

In the above tables, Kent appears to have a higher proportion of children in Special provision than the norm, reflecting its commitment to such provision. Medway appears to have a lower proportion than the norm who successfully follow an assessment through to a statement, it appears to identify potential children for statements much earlier than the norm, and has a very high proportion in hospital Schools (unlikely) or Pupil Referral Units for children who are likely to have been permanently excluded from mainstream education, raising concerns about its support for such children. 

Tribunals

The average time in 2008-9 between Registration of an Appeal to Tribunal and a decision being made was 6.4 months.

There was a total of 2925 appeals concluded in 2009-10. Of these, 940 were conceded by Local Authorities without a hearing. A decision was reached on 661 (postive or negative), 11 were struck out before a hearing as inappropriate, and 1313 were withdrawn. For Kent, out of 139 appeals, 58 were conceded, 52 withdrawn, 0 were struck out, 23 were decided, and 6 were left pending to the next year.

 

Types of Appeal 2009-10	National		Kent		Medway
	Number	% of total	Number	% of Total	Number	% of total
Against refusal to assess	1159	35	62	45	24	45
Against refusal to make a statement	216	7	8	6	6	11
Against refusal to re-assess	430	1	0	0	0	0
Against refusal to change name of school	14	0	0	0	0	0
Against decision to cease to maintain statement	57	2	0	0	0	0
Against school named in statement	0	0	0	0	4	8
Against failure to name a school	1	0	0	0	0	0
Against contents of the statement - parts 2 & or 3 (sometimes with 4)	1400	43	54	39	19	36
Against contents of the statement - part 4	390	12	15	11	0	0
Total Appeals Registered	3280		139		53

Where decisions were reached by Tribunals in 2009-10, these were as follows.

Outcome	Number of Decisions
	National	Kent	Medway
Dismiss Appeal	76		7
Order LA to make and Maintain a Statement	26		2
Remit Case to LA to Consider	1		0
Order LA to continue to Maintain a Statement	14		0
Order LA to cease to maintain a Statement	1		0
Order LA to name parent's preferred school	0		0
Order LA to make a reassessment	67		0
Order LA to change School  named	5		0
Uphold Part of Complaint	135		1
Upheld Parts 2,3 & 4	304		0
Upheld Part 4	46		0
Appeal Struck Out	11		0
Total	688		10

Source: Annual Report of Tribunal 2009-10. There are slight discrepancies in some of the tables, as decision taking often overlaps a year end.

For 2009-10, 141 Appeals to Tribunal were registered by Kent parents, the second highest number for any Local Authority in the country (the highest was Surrey with 147). I should be able to publish data on the outcomes of Kent and Medway appeals to Tribunal, by the end of January.

In 2004 Kent County Council decided to carry out a Review of Special Education Units contained within mainstream schools that support children with Autism, Speech, language & communication difficulties, Specific learning difficulties, Hearing impairment, Visual impairment, or Physical disability.  In 2009 they told families that Units would be phased out and there would be no new admissions in the Pilot areas of Gravesham, Dartford, Swanley, Ashford and Shepway for September 2010.  Many parents gave up seeking places in Units as a result. This month KCC quietly reversed its policy and if parents know there are now places in Units they can apply for them – although at this late stage some have given up and settled for less satisfactory arrangements.

However, in reply to several questions I put to KCC, they have today said they don’t know of any parents who have been told there are no places this September.  This is simply not true.  Some SEN Units have been telling parents for months of the KCC policy that there were to be no admissions to Units this year.  KCC on its own website makes clear that this was the situation until the reversal of policy was quietly announced on an inner page last week.  I have today spoken with parents who are angry that they have been misled by KCC and are now having to reapply for places in Units. Adam Holloway, MP for Gravesham, has been campaigning for months to secure places in Units for children of constituents who had been turned down, but was told in writing in February by Peter Gilroy, KCC Chief Executive, and again in April by the Kent SEN Manager that there would be no places in Pilot area Units for September.

At a meeting of  parents at the York Road, Dartford, Unit in February,  parents were told by  a senior officer of  KCC that there were to be no places in Units for September.  The Unit at the Langafel School in Longfield has been giving the same message to parents.

I could go on with further examples, but KCC have told me today that there has been NO change of policy, which as you can see from the above is simply untrue.  I have to say that the way this information was written appears designed to mislead me. Indeed, the letter to headteachers last week informing them of the new policy some time after parents knew, is so muddled and confusing that neither I nor two headteachers I consulted were clear as to what it was saying. Sadly, this confusion is typical of most communications on this subject in recent months.

 How has this chaos come about?  In 2006 KCC decided that the concept of Units was “dated” and looked for a more inclusive provision within mainstream schools. In 2008 (just four years from the start of the Review!), KCC decided to phase out all Units, in two phases, the first (the Pilot) to begin in 2009. No new admissions would be allowed from September 2010, so that the Units would wither away. Instead those children who would previously have been admitted to Units  would now go to mainstream school classes, increasing still further the wide range of skills already required by teachers as they came to terms with these conditions.  Lead schools would be set up for each disability providing outreach support, duplicating some of the provision currently being developed by Special Schools for this very purpose.

Consequences are that children have been turned away from Units although some who have persevered in spite of obstacles put up by KCC have broken through the net, staff at Units have been demoralised and are looking for other posts because of lack of a secure future, recruitment is down and Units will inevitably have been damaged which may make them easier to close in the future.

 What do I think of the whole situation? Frankly I think it is an utter disgrace, putting unreasonable pressure on vulnerable families and damaging Units which have enjoyed an excellent reputation over many years. And for what? It has taken six years, considerable expenditure of money, time and energy to discover that what is in place is best, and the main victims of this chaos are of course Kent children with Special Educational Needs whose needs are best met in Units; surely those who deserve the best possible care from the Authority.

The Kent SEN Unit Review was initiated in 2003, and scrapped in September 2010. It introduced a wholly misguided policy of closing Units to new admissions and setting up a system of Lead Mainstream Schools,  whic would fully integrate the children. KCC denies there was ever such a policy, but it was on their website until Autumn 2010, and i still have a copy. Sadly, the damage the policy has done to the SEN Unit system will take years to repair.

The comments below were prepared in 2010, and are reproduced here, for those who wish to understand the background.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

IF YOU ARE AFFECTED BY ANY OF THE ISSUES BELOW, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS

Until recently, KCC  contained a policy document on its SEN wewbsite pages that states: "Units and designations which exist currently and which have agreed to become lead schools will gradually be replaced by the lead school model.  There will be no new admissions to the units but all children and young people currently in them will remain there until they are due to leave or until a review of the Statement of SEN determines their placement should change"

Since I first challenged the policy last December, KCC has consistently argued that no such policy exists.  KCC has now issued an important letter to all headteachers in the Pilot areas, signed by Rosalind Turner, Managing Director Children, Families and Education. You can find this here. It is clearly written and unambiguous (unlike some previous communications). It states that KCC is minded to end the Pilot project next March. It will remove the swirl of misunderstandings that are still circulating.

It makes clear that no Units are closing to children, but acknowledges that some parents may have been misled into thinking otherwise and the authority apologises if there have been any such misunderstandings. It makes clear that there is no block on naming schools with Units on statements and asserts that there never has been.

It also gives an undertaking that KCC will look again at any case brought to its attention by parents who feel that as a result of misunderstanding they have been influenced to accept provision with which they are unhappy.

Whilst I disagree with several of the assertions of what has happened in the past, that is in the past, and given the LA’s assurance on support for families who may have been misled, we should now be able to look forward positively to the future.

The remainder of this page now relates to issues that may have gone, and will be revisited as time permits.

Update on information that follows this section:

There were a series of interviews on Radio Kent recently on the phasing out of SEN Units.  Rosalind Turner, Managing Director Children, Families and Education maintained the KCC line that (1) Units were never going to be closed, (2)there had been no change of policy, (3) they knew of no children with statements naming Units had been turned away, and so (4) there was no need to take action to inform parents of any change of policy.  As you may imagine, my own contribution focused on challenging these claims.

Three parents were interviewed, including two who had children who had been turned away from Units. One, whose child was appropriately placed at Linden Grove Primary School Speech and Language Unit in Ashford, had been told both by the Unit and KCC Officers that there was no point in applying for a statement naming the Unit as it was closing. This enables KCC to make the claim about no children with statements naming a Unit being turned away - parents have been told there is no point in applying for one!! Another was told by the school and KCC officers that as York Road Speech and Language Unit in Dartford was closing, there was no point in applying for a place.

It is now clear that the KCC statement that no Units were ever going to be closed is 'technically correct'. Its just that they are going to be closed to children! One parent who was told that the Unit was going to be closed fought to secure a place and was then told that the policy had been changed and she could now have a place. However, when the statement came through, the child had been allocated to the mainstream school - with support from the Unit. I have now been told of another case of the same at the Morehall School Unit in Folkestone. This of course is the Lead School Model designed to replace Units that so many parents are unhappy with.

I am therefore still unclear whether Units are closed to children or not. Five months after I first asked the question!

There are therefore still three key questions to be answered. Please ask these if you have the opportunity, or alternativel I would welcome the answers:

1) Are Units in the Pilot area being closed to new children for admission on the previous full time basis (sorry if the wording is still not quite correct - but it is evident that KCC is expert with semantics)? This discounts children being placed in the mainstream school with access to support from the Unit.

2) What is KCC doing to alert parents whose children have been told by KCC Officers  or schools that the Units are closing and so there is no point in applying for them?

3) Will such children now be fast tracked for admission to these Units.

I have now seen the Minutes of a fascinating meeting in July 2009 where it was agreed by KCC Officers and the Deputy Cabinet Member with responsibility for SEN, that a new Secondary  SEN Unit would be set up in Swale,  catering for autism and Speech and Language for September 2010!  This was to cater for the large gap in provision in this area for children with these conditions. The  proposal is clearly inconsistent with the County policy at the time,  but consistent with the new policy. However, there appears no sign of the Unit scheduled for Sittingbourne Community College, although I suspect it has become a Lead School.

The document also explains how the Pilot areas were chosen. Apparently in Ashford, Shepway and North West Kent concerns about the Lead Schools concept were lowest so they were selected for Phase One. If the problems that have emerged reflect low concerns, it makes one wonder what would have happened if they had chosen the others! Warning - if there are proposals that you don't like, your school or area may be chosen ahead of others if you don't shout loudly enough.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And now back to the beginning with my Kent On Sunday Article of May 23rd:

SEN Units have been in a state of utter confusion in recent years as KCC has planned to phase them out, the proposal being for children who would otherwise be placed in Units to attend mainstream classes and be supported by visitng teachers from Lead Schools in each of the specialisations.

KCC claim they don't know of any child who has been deprived of a place at a Unit in one of the Pilot areas, but I have now identified several and would be very happy to hear of others to  understand the scale of the problem. It is now late in the day to get a statement changed to name a Unit, but KCC ought to be prepared to do so.

 

The following article (abbreviated) appears in Kent on Sunday and Kent on Saturday this weekend (22nd & 23rd May):

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE

In 2004 Kent County Council decided to carry out a Review of Special Education Units contained within mainstream schools that support children with Autism, Speech, language & communication difficulties, Specific learning difficulties, Hearing impairment, Visual impairment, or Physical disability.  In 2009 they told families that Units would be phased out and there would be no new admissions in the Pilot areas of Gravesham, Dartford, Swanley, Ashford and Shepway for September 2010.  Many parents gave up seeking places in Units as a result. This month KCC quietly reversed its policy and if parents know there are now places in Units they can apply for them – although at this late stage some have given up and settled for less satisfactory arrangements.

However, in reply to several questions I put to KCC, they have today said they don’t know of any parents who have been told there are no places this September.  This is simply not true.  Some SEN Units have been telling parents for months of the KCC policy that there were to be no admissions to Units this year.  KCC on its own website makes clear that this was the situation until the reversal of policy was quietly announced on an inner page last week.  I have today spoken with parents who are angry that they have been misled by KCC and are now having to reapply for places in Units. Adam Holloway, MP for Gravesham, has been campaigning for months to secure places in Units for children of constituents who had been turned down, but was told in writing in February by Peter Gilroy, KCC Chief Executive, and again in April by the Kent SEN Manager that there would be no places in Pilot area Units for September.

At a meeting of  parents at the York Road, Dartford, Unit in February,  parents were told by  a senior officer of  KCC that there were to be no places in Units for September.  The Unit at the Langafel School in Longfield has been giving the same message to parents.

I could go on with further examples, but KCC have told me today that there has been NO change of policy, which as you can see from the above is simply untrue.  I have to say that the way this information was written appears designed to mislead me. Indeed, the letter to headteachers last week informing them of the new policy some time after parents knew, is so muddled and confusing that neither I nor two headteachers I consulted were clear as to what it was saying. Sadly, this confusion is typical of most communications on this subject in recent months.

How has this chaos come about? In 2006 KCC decided that the concept of Units was “dated” and looked for a more inclusive provision within mainstream schools. In 2008 (just four years from the start of the Review!), KCC decided to phase out all Units, in two phases, the first (the Pilot) to begin in 2009. No new admissions would be allowed from September 2010, so that the Units would wither away. Instead those children who would previously have been admitted to Units  would now go to mainstream school classes, increasing still further the wide range of skills already required by teachers as they came to terms with these conditions.  Lead schools would be set up for each disability providing outreach support, duplicating some of the provision currently being developed by Special Schools for this very purpose.

Consequences are that children have been turned away from Units although some who have persevered in spite of obstacles put up by KCC have broken through the net, staff at Units have been demoralised and are looking for other posts because of lack of a secure future, recruitment is down and Units will inevitably have been damaged which may make them easier to close in the future.

What do I think of the whole situation? Frankly I think it is an utter disgrace, putting unreasonable pressure on vulnerable families and damaging Units which have enjoyed an excellent reputation over many years. And for what? It has taken six years, considerable expenditure of money, time and energy to discover that what is in place is best, and the main victims of this chaos are of course Kent children with Special Educational Needs whose needs are best met in Units; surely those who deserve the best possible care from the Authority.

 

Kent County Council has responded as follows, my comments in red:

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

 

A spokesman said: “It is Kent County Council’s aim that every child with special educational needs gets the care and education to fulfill their potential. “Everything we do in this important area of work is done in the best interests of children and their families. “KCC has not reversed its policy on specialist units in mainstream schools. So why has a senior KCC officers attended a meeting of parents at a Unit to tell them that Units would be admitting no new pupils.

A pilot is currently running in Ashford, Shepway and north-west Kent and it is the subject of evaluation. “In running the pilot, it was never the council’s intention to lose the expertise that exists in our units but to strengthen them and to build on the opportunities for using that expertise to support and build capacity in the other mainstream schools. The Council did plan to close those Units and lose that expertise - only when they belatedly realised earlier this year that this was going to happen did they reverse their policy.Another interpretaion told to some parents was that where they coincided with Lead Schools, the Units would not close as such. Instead, the teachers would become specialists in outreach going out to schools, but there would be no pupils coming into the Units! Use of language is everything in this debate.

“At no point before or during the pilot were any decisions taken by elected members to close units. The KCC Cabinet Paper of 12 October 2009 headed REVIEW OF SPECIALIST UNIT AND DESIGNATED PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS – LEAD SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION, by Sarah Hohler, Cabinet Member for Education,  hardly mentions Units. However, it does state: "All lead schools in the pilot area are progressing although there are different development needs between new lead schools and those that previously had units". previously had Units - so where were they going? Some parents have had it explained to them that the budget from Lead  Schools comes from the phasing out of Units. KCC papers are littered with references to the phasing out of Units. Who authorised KCC Officers to tell parents that Units were being phased out and no new children would be admitted in the pilot areas for September 2010? Did elected members really not know what was being done in their name?

"The council will be reporting on the evaluation during the summer and this will inform, not just how we proceed with specialist provision in mainstream schools, but how we develop our special educational needs strategy to make sure all children and young people in Kent can have equal access to quality provision that delivers improved outcomes for them. “The letter that was sent to schools recently and also placed on the council’s website was not announcing a change of policy but was for the purpose of keeping schools informed about the review and its evaluation. Schools believed and knew that Units were being phased out. Somewhere in the confusion of Letter One, it implies they are not. That is a reversal of policy.  

“When Kent embarked on the pilot, it gave a commitment that the project would not compromise the education of those children who were already in units True or who needed access to those units during the pilot phase Where is this commitment, and what about those who were told there were no places in Units? and it has stuck to that commitment. “Nothing in Kent’s policy or practice can supersede or set aside special educational needs legislation, and the council takes seriously its legal duty to make sure it arranges provision for children who have a statement of special educational needs, in order to meet their needs. A statement of Kent's legal duty is always helpful, but this issue is about the nature of that provision, described as dated by KCC in an earlier paper that proposes they are replaced by Lead Schools. It is not primarily about the law.  

“In 2010 some parents expressed a preference for a school with a specialist unit within one of the pilot areas. These preferences were agreed where the child was considered to need that placement. Might these be the recent ones after the decision to change the policy was made? I was talking to a parent yesterday who was told the Unit would close but after persistent lobbying has now been told they can have a place. Certainly the parent I was talking to today, whose case has been put forward by his  MP, had been told the Unit he wanted was not accepting new children.  Only yesterday did he learn of the change of policy from his MP.  

“The council is not aware of any children with statements who have been offered an unsuitable school. I found this an astonishing claim. Then I examined it closely. Clearly the Council consider that a main stream placement with outreach support is suitable provisionl, and hence can make this claim. The fact that they are aware of children who wanted places in Units but were told there were none is not covered by this statement. Sadly, I believe it is purely an attempt to mislead the reader as I was initially misled.   

“All parents are advised of their right of appeal to the special educational needs tribunal if they are unhappy with the school named in their child’s statement. In the pilot areas, no appeals have been lodged by parents seeking places in schools with units.” Well they wouldn't would they! If parents are told the Units are being phased out, with no new admissions there is no point in going through the lengthy and stressful appeal process to SENDIST (Special Educational Need and Disability Tribunal). Some have already been down this route to secure their statement and come face to face with a barrister employed by KCC to shoot down cases. However, whilst parents now know that there are places it may be too late to change direction for September.

Why can't KCC simply acknowedge that they have changed policy for the benefit of Kent children, and attempt to contact those they have misled earlier, offering to fast track any late applications through to Units. Instead this policy of obfuscation and refusal to acknowedge the truth continues to drag out the misery. To quote the first sentence of this response again: "It is Kent County Council’s aim that every child with special educational needs gets the care and education to fulfill their potential. Everything we do in this important area of work is done in the best interests of children and their families". I just wish it were so!

ttached to mainstream schools. The good news is that they are all to remain open, although KCc has been telling parents for the past four months that they are to close. For further information, or if you are affected by these issues please go to Units. You will also find a list of the Units with the disability that each covers.