SEN green paper: IPSEA wants your views

[Kathryn]

Read IPSEA's response to the SEN green paper and air your own views by filling in their online survey.

 

http://www.ipsea.org.uk/news/hot-topics/may-2011.aspx.aspx

 

K

[BusyLizzie100]

Done x

[Grace]

Completed - I added my view that I think the number of parents appealing for a maintained special school, is not a true indication of the problem. IPSEA are saying that there is not a bias towards mainstream schools and I think there is.

 

I think many parents are not told about the option of special schools or are told that they would never get in, because they are full, or are only for children with 'extreme' SEN. I think many parents who are just starting out into the world of SEN and therefore have no knowledge of it, believe what the LA tell them. I also have heard of parents being told that they are not 'allowed' to approach SEN schools directly.

 

I think the shortage of special schools means that the LA's push for mainstream. As IPSEA themselves acknowledge, professionals are not recommending the type of provision/school; it is the LA who state where they think the child should go.

 

There is a huge bias in my LA towards mainstream and when I've looked at other authorities, there is such a lack of specialist provision, I would not be surprised if it happens there too.

 

Other than that, I agreed with what they were saying - key thing for me is that we don't lose ANY legal rights at all; it's hard enough with what we have now!

Edited May 15, 2011 by Grace

[Sally44]

I've filled it in.

Said pretty much the same really. That parents should not lose the legal rights they currently have under the Statementing/Appeal process.

That Academies should have the same legal responsibility as maintained schools.

That in my LEA there is definately a bias towards mainstream schools with a fair number of children then refusing school later on and there is no appropriate SEN school for ASD children.

I've also said that there is no professional independence because in my own case professionals did recommend a specific special provision and their employer effectively gagged them. How is that being independent, or meeting the needs of the child. The professionals and LA have a conflict of interest to both meet the needs of the child and also keep costs down.

As our children tend to need a smaller low arousal environment, and as many also have other difficulties such as dyspraxia, SpLD etc. I don't understand why they don't make a small "mainstream SEN school" for those children that are more vulnerable and whom all have the types of diagnosis that requires input from SALT and OT. In that way they could save money by having those professionals either on site, or that they visit the school 3 times a week.

[Kathryn]

I was interested in Ipsea's suggestion that the initial parental or school request should trigger an automatic Statutory Assessment - i.e. no 6 week consideration period before a decision. This is a good idea I think, it would remove the hurdle of an appeal against a refusal to assess, condense the process, avoid bureaucracy and save money in the long run. Well over half of refusals to assess are overturned on appeal, which suggests that LA's use this as a delaying tactic when there are no grounds for refusal.

 

K x

[Sally44]

Yes, I thought this proposal was a good idea.

 

If parents have concerns about their child, it would be helpful for those typically involved (EP, SALT, OT) to assess. From those assessments it can be decided if a Statement is needed, or whether the needs/difficulties can be met via delegated funding.

 

BUT, the major problem even with this alteration is that those carrying out the assessments are still employed by the LA and NHS. There is a conflict of interest with those employers to both meet needs and reduce or contain costs.

 

I think it would be better for LA's or regional areas to have a separate independent group of suitably qualified and expertienced professionals who did the assessments, but received no financial benefit from the provision they recommended. Ie. they did not assess and provide the service. And they should be paid independently and not be tied in any way to the service providers or those providing the budgets.

[Kathryn]

Just bumping this up.

 

The survey has to close on June 19th so that IPSEA can collate the data in time to meet the end of June deadline for responses to the Green Paper. So if you haven't done the survey yet, please do!

 

K x

[Athena]

Bumping this - IPSEA's survey has now closed, but the official consultation closes at 23:45pm today for online responses to the Department of Education

 

Linky to the webpage Support and Aspiration: A New approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability

[Athena]

IPSEA's full response to the SEN Green Paper is now available HERE It is an interesting read.

[mousytrap]

I think it would have far more credence if they fixed all the spelling errors...

 

mousy

[Kathryn]

Where are the errors? Can't immediately see any.

 

K x

[Athena]

I think that it is a powerful response - I'm sure that I made spelling errors in my submission too and I hope that doesn't give my views any less credence.

[mousytrap]

Where are the errors? Can't immediately see any.

 

K x

 

The long version, which was what I was looking at last night is here:

 

Ipsea Green Paper Response Long

 

I found:

 

physiotheraphy

determintion

Anicdotal

previoussystem (no gap)

theraphies

satutory

acknowleged

tehm

whot

decsions

IPSE (page 37)

recieve

especailly

refelected

refelct

dicated

particlar

determintion

 

All of those should have been picked up by a spellchecker...

 

mousy

Edited July 2, 2011 by mousytrap

[Kathryn]

Oh, I didn't realise you were looking at the long version.

 

Ouch, yes, although IPSEA's views are well respected anyway, I agree accuracy is important. I'll see if I can alert someone to have a look at it - as you say, a run through the spellcheck should do it.

 

K x