Minister to target SEN "scams"

[Kathryn]

Parents of children with SEN are just exploiting the system, apparently.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle7144811.ece

 

Text of article here in case link doesn't work:

 

Minister to target special needs ‘scams’ for pupils

The government is set to launch a review of special needs education amid concerns that schools and middle-class parents are exploiting the system to gain extra teaching help and more time in exams for pupils.

The review, to be announced in the next few weeks by Sarah Teather, the Liberal Democrat children’s minister, is expected to consider tightening up the criteria for registering a child as having special needs.

Its main focus will be on the highly bureaucratic system by which councils assess children with the greatest need.

In England, more than 19% of schoolchildren are classed as having a special need, compared with 5%-7% in most developed countries.

Critics argue the discrepancy is caused by “perverse incentives” that encourage some parents to obtain diagnoses of mild conditions such as dysnomia — the tendency to forget things — to gain extra teaching help and exam time.

In addition, head teachers use them to improve the league rating of their schools as they have their exam scores adjusted according to the number of children who have special needs.

By contrast, parents of children with the greatest special needs or disabilities are subjected to the rigours of the local authority “statementing” process.

Critics argue it gives an advantage to those with dogged determination and a legalistic frame of mind.

Many are defeated by councils wanting to ration the extra provision that a statement brings.

The government’s commitment to changing the system has been driven in part by the experience of David Cameron, the prime minister, in negotiating for services for his late son Ivan, who suffered cerebral palsy and epilepsy.

Sir Robert Balchin, pro-chancellor of Brunel University, commissioned by the Conservatives to report on special needs in 2007, said: “David Cameron has encountered the system himself and I know he is determined it should come under the microscope.”

A recent study by Matthew Macan, chairman of governors at Isca College of Media Arts, a secondary school in Exeter, found that the number of children on special needs registers at other schools in Devon had risen 82% since 2006, when they were first taken into account for league tables.

John Bald, a literacy consultant, said much of the system was “a scam” and many children had simply not been taught to read and write.

Bald said: “I had one 12-year-old girl see me recently who had never been shown how to use a pen. In the meantime, a series of overpaid goons have decided she’s autistic.”

Edited June 9, 2010 by Kathryn

[NickyB]

Parents of children with SEN are just exploiting the system, apparently.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle7144811.ece

 

Hmmm interesting article. I'm a bit worried about the sweeping generalisation that seems to have been made. I guess there will always be those who will try to exploit a system for their own ends, but they will be in a very small minority, and there is a danger that we will all be seen in this light. There is no doubt that the whole SEN system does need to be looked at but it must be done in a fair way.

I do agree with this bit though :

 

'By contrast, parents of children with the greatest special needs or disabilities are subjected to the rigours of the local authority “statementing” process.

 

Critics argue it gives an advantage to those with dogged determination and a legalistic frame of mind.

 

Many are defeated by councils wanting to ration the extra provision that a statement brings.'

 

.... but then what do they mean by 'the greatest special needs or disabilities' ?

 

Nicky x

[Kathryn]

Critics argue it gives an advantage to those with dogged determination and a legalistic frame of mind.

 

 

Or is it not the case that parents develop dogged determination and a legalistic frame of mind through battling with the system? I have spoken to so many parents at various stages of the SEN process and it's clear they really really don't want to be fighting all the time, it's scary and stressful, but they feel they have no choice.

 

K x

[Sally44]

Critics argue it gives an advantage to those with dogged determination and a legalistic frame of mind.

 

 

Or is it not the case that parents develop dogged determination and a legalistic frame of mind through battling with the system? I have spoken to so many parents at various stages of the SEN process and it's clear they really really don't want to be fighting all the time, it's scary and stressful, but they feel they have no choice.

 

K x

 

 

Too XXXXXX right!! I, along with countless other parents, could probably sit a bar examination after years of following LEA bureaucracy and loopholes.

 

Part of the problem I feel is that when you get a Statement it is very specific, as it needs to be. But then that Statement goes into a mainstream school that has a general approach and simply cannot deliver the Statement. BUT as far as I understand it, no mainstream school can say NO WE CANNOT DELIVER THAT. For example "explicit teaching", that is mentioned in my son's statement and yet no-one actually delivers anything in that teaching style.

 

I agree that a look at the SEN system and provision is needed. But don't make out parents to be scroungers or scrammers who have taken the time and effort and care enough about their children to want them to succeed.

 

The woman mentioned in the article is the one I wrote my letter to. I'm sure she's very busy, not had a reply yet - but await it with great interest!

[lizj]

Oh My God, it makes the blood run cold to think that things are going to get even harder in the future. We could wallpaper a room with all the letters, reports, and complaints from the time we were trying to access decent Special Needs education. It took 5 years to get him into the right school.

We weren't middle class parents with dogged determination, but we damn well are now. I remember the times I was physically sick with worry before meetings and assessments, and how many interviews and panels ended up with me in tears.

Those who find ways to exploit, cheat and beat the system will continue to do so, by employing clever and expensive lawyers. It will be the poor ordinary families that will end up losing out, yet again.

[baddad]

There are, lets face it, two very real issues here and no easy answers to either of them. Do I think the system is exploited by some? Absolutely. Do I think the doggedly determined are better equipped to indentify the resources, legal loopholes in legislation and private professional consultants who will enable them to do that exploiting? Absolutely. Do I believe that over-diagnosis, casual diagnosis, bought diagnosis etc etc are a growing problem, and that adjustments based on labels and assumptions are often taking the place of adjustments based on need? Absolutely. Do I believe that these things have huge negative implications for those with the most genuine/profound needs, or for those children who have parents that are less 'doggedly determined' or otherwise disenfranchised from accessing legitimate support and advice? Absolutely.

So the 'overhaul', IMO, should be a good thing.

The real problem is, though, that however this is dressed up and however real the problems they are claiming to want to address the primary function of this exercise will be cost-cutting. And when you are cutting costs in anything the intended targets are usually the ones who are also the most adept at dodging bullets by using exactly the same skills they have honed in exploiting the system to successfully avoid detection by the legislation designed to expose them. It's simple maths: one parent fighting doggedly and determinedly to 'prove' the need for an unreasonable adjustment for their child can cost a LA ten times as much as ten parents seeking reasonable adjustments who lack the resources for dogged and determined resistance.

 

I would really, really love to see this 'newspeak' (which, lets face it, is all it is at the moment - a bit of 'testing the water' to see the reaction - God, I hate new politics!) produce some sort of equilibrium within a very unequal system. Sadly, chances are that if it does effect any change it will do exactly the opposite and tip the scales even further away from SEN and create an even bigger MESS EN where 'special' is defined more by parental psychology than student needs.

 

L&P

 

BD

[BusyLizzie100]

Critics argue it gives an advantage to those with dogged determination and a legalistic frame of mind.

 

 

Or is it not the case that parents develop dogged determination and a legalistic frame of mind through battling with the system? I have spoken to so many parents at various stages of the SEN process and it's clear they really really don't want to be fighting all the time, it's scary and stressful, but they feel they have no choice.

 

K x

 

I can't open the webpage!! Is the link just not working for me?

 

Lizzie x

[BusyLizzie100]

I can't open the webpage!! Is the link just not working for me?

 

Lizzie x

 

Googled and found it. Now I am really annoyed!!!!!!!

 

I have not fought on behalf of my kids for extras, but what is appropriate and is at least 'adequate', which, as I understand it, is the test in law. LAs are required to provide an adequate education, not necessarily the best or most appropriate. That would indeed be lovely, but sometimes just trying to get them to provide 'adequate' really does need 'dogged determination and a legalistic frame of mind'! And, importantly, all parents whether middle class or otherwise should be able to seek what's right - yes, 'adequate' - for their children.

 

It would indeed be wonderful to have a thorough and proper review of SEN throughout the country, perhaps ruling out the current postcode lottery situation, but I would like to see things improving, not deteriorating. I would like to see the assessment process removed from LA control, for example, so that the assessors are not also the providers of services and support - assessment should be independent in that sense, and parents should not have to rely on paying for private assessment.

 

Oh, i could go on for ages on my soap box, but haven't got all day......

 

Lizzie x

[Kathryn]

I pasted the article in the opening post as the link is dodgy.

 

I think it's harsh to say people are "exploiting the system" - everyone just wants the best for their children. However I do think a line should be drawn somewhere as resources are not infinite and should be directed to where they are most needed. I don't for example think that public money should be used to fund intensive home based ABA or SonRise programmes for children who have never been in the school system. There are parents who have fought tooth and nail to get their LEA to provide these via a statement, well done to them, but is it right? Neither do I think LEA's should be obliged to top up support for children who are already in mainstream independent schools through parental choice. There are independent schools which try it on and encourage parents to apply for statements just to get the extra funding for things parents are already paying through the nose for them to provide.

 

As Lizzie said, the law is very straightforward: every child is entitled to an adequate education that meets their needs. The LA has a duty to assess and arrange provision for every child who has SEN and can't get their needs met in school. Parents have the right of appeal at various points if they disagree. Parents didn't write the law and shouldn't be vilified for simply trying to make the authorities stick to it. If schools and LEA's would only meet their basic legal duties parents wouldn't have to tie themselves in knots just to make it happen.

 

Is there room on your soap box Lizzie?

 

K x

Edited June 9, 2010 by Kathryn

[Sally44]

The major proportion of tribunal cases (as far as I am aware) is from parents who go to tribunal because they believe they have evidence that a mainstream environment does not meet their child's needs. That their child needs a suitable peer group. That their child needs a whole school approach with SALT/OT and specialist teachers on site.

If LEAs had those types of school then both they, and parents would save a lot of time, energy and money and would reduce tribunals by about half.

 

Yes the system is not fair for parents who feel they are not capable, or who do not have some spare cash lying around. But that is the major proportion of parents. We had to re-mortgage our house last time, and if I do have to resort to independent reports again - because the LEA has attempted to exclude my previous reports as part of their re-assessment - then I am looking at selling my car. And the ONLY reason to contemplate this is because otherwise I will be left going to tribunal to say I 'feel' my sons needs or I 'believe' he should have access to. The LEA goes in with their professionals as witnesses for them with their reports and even their own solicitor. It is like a court of law. It is not family friendly, although the people on the panel are friendly enough. So you do need to prove your case and if the only reports you have are the LEA/NHS reports which are vague and do not specify or quantify or even identify all of your child's needs, then you are on dodgy ground.

 

I needed to have my solicitor to explain what they meant last time as it is not at all clear. For example Panel said we did not have evidence that my son needed 30 mins SALT every week. So I thought we had lost that argument. What Panel actually meant was that they wanted a TERMLY figure for 1:1 SALT input that equated to 30 mins a week. Panel then went on to explain that that would mean the Statement was flexible, otherwise the SALT would have to turn up every week whether my son was in school or not. How is a parent supposed to understand the subtle wording required for a Statement to be both legal and flexible??

 

I wonder if this government can do anything about children currently placed in independent schools?

Edited June 9, 2010 by Sally44

[Athena]

Oh!! This just gets better and better......on top of the Academies Bill, now we have this attack as well to contend with!

 

Interesting that no mention is made of the fact that the SEN system was looked at under the previous Government by the Lamb Inquiry, which only reported in 2009 or off the previous Parliamentary Select Committee that looked and SEN and whose recommendations, (such as separating out assessment from provision) where ignored.....

 

 

[Sally44]

Could children currently in independent schools with fees being met by the LEA come under threat??

[call me jaded]

Could children currently in independent schools with fees being met by the LEA come under threat??

 

My impression is that it will be high frequency needs that will come under the microscope first.

 

I was at a meeting with my LA yesterday and they'd just had their budget allocations from central government through and were talking about some severe cuts being made, although they are unable to say what as yet. This is before the special budget in a week or so.

 

Even with the protection of a statement I think there will be closer scrutiny. For instance my own son has just had his September placement agreed (post 16+) as a formality. I think next year they will have a genuine look at post 16 provision to see if more can be done at the local college. I think this would include putting in 1 to 1 provision where there is currently none.

 

Two other interesting facts: the inclusion officer said she had 13 children with no suitable placements in September; and, the head of therapy services was saying they'd experienced an increase in referrals from 300 to 1200 a year during the last 9 years. Not greater awareness, either.

[Sally44]

I suppose it could go either way. Tory governments are usually in favour of farming out work to the private sector, so there could be more children going to independent schools, if the LEA could get a reduction in 'group bookings'. Or the LEA could say they could provide the same service in a new LEA maintained school and try to claw back all those children in independent schools currently.

In my situation it makes it even harder to know what to do as I am sure we will be at tribunal in about 6 months time. If an independent school placement is not an option it would be helpful to know that that is in the pipeline. But I presume the government would have to change the actual SEN law as it stands before they could do that. Which I presume would take a couple of years to do anyway??

[Sally44]

My impression is that it will be high frequency needs that will come under the microscope first.

 

I was at a meeting with my LA yesterday and they'd just had their budget allocations from central government through and were talking about some severe cuts being made, although they are unable to say what as yet. This is before the special budget in a week or so.

 

Even with the protection of a statement I think there will be closer scrutiny. For instance my own son has just had his September placement agreed (post 16+) as a formality. I think next year they will have a genuine look at post 16 provision to see if more can be done at the local college. I think this would include putting in 1 to 1 provision where there is currently none.

 

Two other interesting facts: the inclusion officer said she had 13 children with no suitable placements in September; and, the head of therapy services was saying they'd experienced an increase in referrals from 300 to 1200 a year during the last 9 years. Not greater awareness, either.

 

 

What do you mean by 'high frequency needs'?

It will be interesting to see the cuts in the SEN budget then.

I know that our autism outreach teacher has also said that the numbers of new referals is just growing year on year. Where are all these children coming from?? And I don't think this increase is due to the goal posts being widened. Because the children that are referred to her are the definately autistic ones, but who are currently still in mainstream and struggling.

[wasuup]

I watched the debate on Education yesterday and the new Education ministers didn't seem knowledgeable about SEN matters but will be looking at the Lamb Enquiry report as well as doing their own review.

[call me jaded]

What do you mean by 'high frequency needs'?

 

Children at School Action and School Action Plus who currently get a bit of extra input from the school and outreach teams. The more complex children with statements are relatively secure. There seems to be an ambition to reduce the percentage of children with SEN from 20% to levels similar to other countries of about 5%.

 

[puffin]

I think what they may be targeting are some of the more well know scams - there are many private and some grammar schools that are using SEN to gain unfair advantges for their own highly academic children whereas many familieis with genuine SEN - like most of us this board - have to struggle and fight for everything

 

There are some schools and parents who are colluding in scams to gain an advantage in exams and to maintain the school's league table position. These are not people with genuine impediments but is to do with ensuring that the kids get A* GCSEs instead of As or - shock horror - the total disgrace of a B

 

For example I know of one highly competitive independent public school that operates 2 SEN scams - it is a hot topic of conversation in the local area.

You have to remember that this is a school where there is high competition for places and where there is an entrance exam where you need to score almost 100% to gain admission - so the kids that go there are very bright and successful and have never struggled academically or in exams . This school has a high placing in the league table rankings

 

Scam 1 - involves them testing year 7 for SEN - despite these kids being in the top 0.1% academically - they school 'discovers' that many of these kids have SEN usually vague diagnoses - the school then makes appointments for the children and parents with a 'school recommended' Ed Psych who writes a report about the childs newly discovered 'disability' (not withstanding that the child got 100% in the extrance exam). The school then sends the ed psych report to the Exam board and they have loads of kids getting extra time in exams to perfect the A*

 

Scan 2 at this school involves parents of any kids who turn out to have genuine disabilities or anyone else that the school expects to do badly - suddenly these children find that the school has entered them as 'external candidates' for GCSE/Alevel - this means that the school is pretending that they do not belong to the school at all - sometimes they are even sent to other schools to sit their exams. The external candidates are not counted among the school's results for league table purposes.

 

 

[Sunlit Vampire]

Now this just upsets me.

 

this is all a bit beyond me really, but i suppose if you enforce a rule to include those who need support with those that are less honest will inevitably lead to problems, that's common sense really.

personally i think there looking for trouble, especially including families who have to fight the system to get them to help them. (since they may be caught in the crossfire)

still, i do realise that if there is room for schools and dishonest people to exploit such a system for academic merit at the disadvantage of others then it needs to change.

to be honest i don't know what i think about this, maybe it might force somebody to improve something or it could just dig the governments grave deeper, though i am inclined to think the latter.

 

i'm gonna go to my hut and cry for a bit on behalf of anybody who fights the system to get what help they need.

 

David~