Free School in Nottingham

[chris54]

There is a group who are bidding to open a Free school in Nottingham. It will be a special school catering for children aged 7-16 with HFA/Aspergers.

If you live in Nottingham, or surrounding area, and your child is currently in primary school, worth a look. (If you child is older than due to the lead in time scale they will probably miss out)

 

http://tlordschool.c...nsultation.html

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Mum-plans-free-school-help-autistic-children/story-14045088-detail/story.html

 

 

( had to get my son to put these link on as I had no idea how to do it)

[Gutcruncher]

"Free" schools are a slippery slope to all schools being privatised.

[bed32]

Around here at least all AS provision is pretty much private anyway. There is no state provision for AS outside mainstream schools, and for many ASD children mainstream is just not an option

 

You have to question why LAs have such poor provision - and so why should we as parents be denied the best schooling possible for our AS/ASD children.

 

I would love to be able to set up a school that really caters for children like my son and I don't see why I should not be able to get together with other like-minded individuals

[LancsLad]

I have to agree with Gutchruncher here.

 

I looked at all the details around the school, and would raise a few very simple points. Real concerns though over an ideology which thinks you can pick out at year three a career line for an individual and base an education provision around such concepts. By their own admission in the section on curriculum on the website they portray the opinion that life is all about having a sucessfull career. Is this not simply a case of middle class values out of control in a perverse way?

 

Will leave it at that as my real thoughts would run into pages and pages on this one.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Kathryn
To remove comment which breaks forum rules

[bed32]

Seems very odd that you don't choose to criticise the appalling provision for AS provided by the state sector but instead blame parents for trying to do what they think is best for their children.

 

If you have children who have the intelligence and cognative capacity to achieve well academically but who can't survive in mainstream for emotional or sensory reasons then there is no LA provision for them.

 

It seems to me that your ideology is trying to condemn by bright but disabled son to the scrapheap before he gets to his 9th birthday. If that is what you want for your children then fine - but I deny your right to impose that on others.

[LancsLad]

What I am criticising is the position we now find ourselves in as I see it.

 

When I was 18 I made the decision to become a teacher. I sought out the first Honours degree programme in this country whic lasted for four years. I that time we had to undertake modules in contextual education in which we had to demonstrate an understanding of individual learning stlyes, of child psychology, we had to examine case studies from a wide range of areas etc... As part of that course I spent time in special schools though i was training for a mainstream secondary subject. We were also made to teach in some of the most deprived areas of this country to gain experience.

 

What I have witnessed since is despite a lot of new research being available in areas such as ASD goverment policy and teacher training taking step after step backwards from the position I found myself in in the early eighties.

 

I think parents are well placed to make judgements on the parenting of their own child, I have my reservations about how well placed they are to make judgements in respect to providing sound educational environments for a range of other individuals. I think this area is highly emotive. I am not defending schools but feel that the answer is not to go in this direction.

 

My own opinion is that we should be turning to individuals with the most experince of how children opperate in education environments, this would include some parents but also highly experienced teachers, psychologists etc.. and they should be recomending better models of provision for the state sector and financial suppport and training should be available to implement this. As an individual I am not trying to impose anything on anyone rather expressing a point of view. There are strong ethical and idealogical arguments to be made in a constructive debate in this are. Personally from an ideological position I am in favour of inclusivity wherever possible as I do not believe segregation benefits society as a whole , that is my choice though I am open to being persuaded otherwise but would need research and personal experiences from another perspective to at least match my own experiences for that argument to have a real posibility in changing my personal opinion that is only fair is it not?

 

I am also in favour of alternative models to be developed, but as someone with an ASD diagnosis I am concerned that children should not be treated as guinea pigs in such a move, rather their should be very strong safeguards put in place to protect their interests. I have looked into the free schools programme since its conception and I can see no such safeguards and so I do have my concerns.

 

Bed32 I am not taking a protectionist stance in respect to the public sector rather I am concerned that we have entered a phase where it is fragmenting, much of the politics having nothing to do about the interests of kids, but in creating alternative economic structures in the education sector. I agree that parents have the interests of their kids at heart, personally I am not as convinced that they have the expertise to be able to deliver a provision which meets some very complex needs. I am not saying mainstream is doing a good job in this respect, but personally do believe it has a better chance of doing so in the long run, and this includes seperate special school provision for some children.

 

I could take ofence from your last comment about me wanting to condem children to a scrapheap, but will take personal solace in the reasons as to why I became a teacher and foster carer and in many of the successes I had working with individuals who had their own unique issues to overcome. Just my personal views, it is the nature of a forum.

[chris54]

I am in principal, against any segregation in education.

 

That would include free school, academy schools and grammar schools, as well as faith schools and private schools.

 

Where we live, my son went to the local church primary school. If he had passed the 11plus, he could have gone to grammar school, he currently goes to an academy school. Despite what we get told about choice, there is no real chose. These are the schools that serve the area, and that's that.

 

I am told by my local council that there is adequate SENs provision, but there is no SENs provision (out side of mainstream) for academically able children with SEN. My son is just about getting by in mainstream, I am grateful to the school (An academy which in principal I am against) in that they are providing more resources for son that the LA say he needs.

If my AL had not opposed the setting up of a SEN free school, and knowing what I do about the team behind it, It would have been a strong candidate for my son. Even though in principal I am against Free Schools.

Edited March 5, 2012 by chris54

[LancsLad]

I understand where you are coming from Chris. It is easy in some ways to have principles as a teacher for example and I understand that a lot of my own principles are a derivative of my own up bringing where there was one choice and that was the local comprehensive. In reality there was segregation even then there was a comprehensive which was an old grammar school and the comprehensive which was the old secondary modern, I had no choice given the report I had from my primary school and started off in the bottom sets for everything in the old secondary modern.

 

When you have your own children those principles are tested. We have two schools in our area both church schools and we are outside the catchment area of our nearest county primary which is oversubscribed. Because of my own principles on faith schools which are not shared but supported by my partner we have had to find a county primary which is half way between our home and her own school 20 miles away. In some ways the school is very much of a compromise in respect to what I would consider my ideal environment but even though I have some reservations I fully support the school in what it does because that is the right thing to do in my mind. Principles in my experience only become principles when you live by them and that can be very difficult at times, on this question my priniciple is inclusivity, but I am open to influence and clicked on both links in the post and fully read everything there. The principle of inclusivity is my choice but i respect the rights of others to have a different views. I respect them more when they are constants in their lives and not simply applied when it suits them to do so.

[chris54]

What if you couldn't find a school, or you were not in a position to take you child to your chosen school. What would you have done.

 

If I was to impose my principals on my son it would be detrimental to him. am I prepared to live with that.

[LancsLad]

Good question Chris. On the first one if for example we had no transport and there were no buses as an alternative means of travel I think I would send him to one of the local faith schools. In doing so I would accept that it was a faith school and so could not object to any of their teachings. This is still the case in a way he goes to a county primary and comes home and talks about Jesus, plays a king in the nativity etc... I know I can not influence him against such things other than teach him about people such as Charles Darwin and let him draw his own conclusions in his own time. The only thing I ever really expect of any school is that the support him in his ability to think. By the way I dont think you have compromised by him going to an academy which is simply a political construct, I have worked in one, by all intents they are comprehensives in everything but name with slightly different management and finance structures.

 

Your second point is the harder one, to what extent might my principles be detrimental to him. I think this is tied up in concepts of the common good. On one level I can see the need for the majority of people in society to live and operate under a banner of common values and from this perspective would support the example of state schools, a national health service, British rail etc... The flip side of the coin is that I am a real loner and consider myself a very independant thinker. I think i draw a compromise position based on a belief that people are very resiliant and are well adapted to deal with hardship in general, my experience of kids in care bears this out, it is also how I view myself. Because of this I take a view what might be detrimental in the short term might derive benefits in the long run, which leads to a beleif we can 'always' work through things and if we can then overarching principles are important in providing direction and consistency in our lives.

 

To support you I will shoot myself in the foot and highlight I havn't the faintest idea what it would be like as a parent with strong religious beliefs such as devout mormons and not let my child undergo blood transfusions if they had Lukemia as a matter of principle. For that reason we have to be carefull where we draw lines in respect to our principles and I fully take your points that whilst this might be easy when we are only responsible for ourselves it becomes far more difficult when we have children. I think this should make us think as to how valid our own principles really are, they might well hold good for us but they should hold true for the most precious things in our lives our own kids.

 

Good question.

[Canopus]

I'm strongly of the opinion that the one size fits all model of mainstream education turns out to be the one size fails most model. I can understand where some people are coming from with regards to segregation, but unfortunately, if schools are to support the needs and requirements of individuals then a significant amount of segregation is inevitable. A school which is designed for kids with AS/HFA will not appeal to all that many NT kids with outgoing personalities. Neither is it a good idea to lump kids with AS/HFA in the same school as NT kids who are known to be vindictive bullies.

[bed32]

Sorry - the idea of one size fits all is totally preposterous.

 

The idea that every autistic child is best served in a school that may see one child like that every 10-20 years is totally crazy.

 

This smacks of trying to reduce everyone to the "lowest common denominator".

[Kathryn]

With mod hat on for a minute:

 

This is a really interesting topic is a fairly emotive one so can I ask people to avoid getting pesonal and to respect each others' opinions even if you don't agree with them. Thanks.

 

mod hat off again cos I want to join in!

 

Going back to the original free school topic, I would agree with a lot of what Lancs Lad has said, particularly the bit below:

 

I am also in favour of alternative models to be developed, but as someone with an ASD diagnosis I am concerned that children should not be treated as guinea pigs in such a move, rather their should be very strong safeguards put in place to protect their interests. I have looked into the free schools programme since its conception and I can see no such safeguards and so I do have my concerns.

 

I notice that this particular school will incorporate Neorolingustic programming as one of its key strategies. As a parent seriously considering this school I would want to know: what is it? Does it work? Does it work for ASD kids? What evidence is there for this? Are other schools using it and if not why not? My fear is that parents are so desperate they may take any lifeline thrown to them without seriously considering what they are signing up to.Are parents so desparate for any alternative to mainstream that they would sign their children up to something they didn't fully understand, in the hands of someone with no proven track record, in an institution which is allowed to float free of many of the checks and balances which maintained and even independent fee paying schools are subject to?

 

I'm not saying that free schools are all bad. Some of them may be the immediate answer to a dire shortage of provision. Too early yet to tell. What needs to be understood very clearly however is that in both academies and free schools, parents have very little influence, and few rights, particularly if things go wrong. Fee paying independent schools are accountable to the parents with whom they have a contract. Free schoolsacademies have a contract (funding agreement) with the secretary of state and are not directly accountable to parents, or of course, the LA. They don't have to abide by education law either - only by the terms of their funding agreement which can be altered any time, and the terms of which may allow them to depart from the law and guidance as it applies to maintained schools, for example, exclusions guidance and the admissions code.

 

I understand how desperate paents are to get their child into the right school - I was too. I once met a very interesting lady who "collected" children who for one reason or another had dropped out the school system, and gave them an education of sorts, mainly based on going for long walks and making gardens. I've no doubt she helped a lot of children. I wanted to believe she could help my own daughter who was then severely damaged by school, and out of education. She was a nutritionist by profession and believed all my daugher's problems could be cured by diet and also by several interesting therapies - including hopi ear candles (I think they're called). I disagreed with her analysis and didn't pursue it further. I've no doubt she is even now attempting to set up her own school and no doubt there will be many takers.

 

Worried? I am. .

 

K x

[Canopus]

My fear is that parents are so desperate they may take any lifeline thrown to them without seriously considering what they are signing up to.Are parents so desparate for any alternative to mainstream that they would sign their children up to something they didn't fully understand, in the hands of someone with no proven track record, in an institution which is allowed to float free of many of the checks and balances which maintained and even independent fee paying schools are subject to?

 

I think the problem is that stress and emotions gets the better of many parents. My parents signed me up for an unsuitable residential school and then refused to re-assess the situation after I had started at the school. Sadly the situation hasn't improved much since then despite AS now being known about and far more sources of information and advice being available than in 1990.

 

What needs to be understood very clearly however is that in both academies and free schools, parents have very little influence, and few rights, particularly if things go wrong.

 

There is much truth to this. Free schools are highly deceptive as they benefit the clique who run them and the kids who fit in well much more than kids with special needs or who need extra help and support.

[chris54]

. Free schools --- benefit the clique who run them and the kids who fit in well ---

 

Surly though that is the very purpose of such a school. that it will benefit the children that fit in well, the children that it is intended for.

 

Free school of all types are set up by people who. for whatever reason don't like what is already provided. They want something that fits their ideal of what a school should be.

 

My own life principles tell my they are wrong, they split communities, It is one of my fundamental beliefs that all and I mean all children should go to their local school. But when it comes to my own child things don't look that simple.

 

 

Schools become academies to get a bigger share of school funding, and autonomy from the LA.

They don't have to take SENs children if they choose not to.

Our local secondary school has never been under the control of the AL, It was founded over 100 years ago, it is now an academy school. the nearest alternative school is about an hours drive away.

 

In reality it is run by one person, the Principle. Fortunately he has a positive approach to SEN.

Edited March 6, 2012 by chris54

[bed32]

I think the problem is that stress and emotions gets the better of many parents. My parents signed me up for an unsuitable residential school and then refused to re-assess the situation after I had started at the school. Sadly the situation hasn't improved much since then despite AS now being known about and far more sources of information and advice being available than in 1990.

 

 

 

There is much truth to this. Free schools are highly deceptive as they benefit the clique who run them and the kids who fit in well much more than kids with special needs or who need extra help and support.

As a matter of interest what do you think would have worked better for you?

 

At the risk of repeating what I've said elsewhere - as parents of a very bright yet Autistic son we face a terrible dilemma. I can see no likelihood of him surviving in any mainstream school within reach of where we live now. These days LA run special schools tend to be SLD or MLD at best, and I think that would be a terrible thing to do to a bright child. The best bet seem to be the few specialist AS schools but they are (a) A long way away and ( tend to be predominately residential.

 

I fully understand AS parents looking for, and trying to start, a school that is highly specific in catering for ASD children of average to above average cognative abilities. If such a school existed locally I would definitely consider it and I would support anyone trying to start one in the area.

[LancsLad]

Thanks Kathryn and Canopus for the last two posts and putting some calm back into the discussion. I hope I do not ignite it again but move it on and open it up.

 

Firstly Chris by putting up the links here you have in my opinion done a great service to the forum by highlight this is something which a group of individuals are trying to get of the group and as such provideds a real example for scrutiny. As someone who has been involved in education and has a partner who is a highly experienced and well respected SENCO I do think I have something to add, I also respect and want to hear the views of parents and people from other sectors including parents, the two reasons I joined the forum was to offer insight based on my experiences and broaden my understanding of autism and be a better informed individual. None of this can happen for me and others if people want to clamp down debates. Free schools are a massive sea change inour education sector and as such there should be real scrutiny about what they might mean for children with ASD's and their parents.

 

I will make the point as I have no intention of hiding my principles and ideologies, I believe in 'inclusive state sector education for all'. Throughout my training and teaching experience I did have oportunities to work in the special needs sector. In fact because I believe in inclusivity when I was head of technology in one of the first specialist colleges I insisted that we include local special needs schools in our cluster group which was not a requirement, as such we did not have to direct resources there, and I made efforts to have technology days in those schools and vice versa invited kids and teaching staff into my school to work alongside our pupils on activity days. Some of my special memories of my teaching career is seeing kids with severe physical and mental disabilities including children with classic autism working in teams along with pupils from the school. The experiences led to so many of our students wanting to direct their own major examination projects at GCSE and A level in solving practical problems for both the school and the kids in their homes. As I have said before a principle is a principle when you live by it.

 

I think the aim of state, tax payer funded, education is to provide a broad umbrella of provision, which aims to cover the needs of the majority of our nations children. From personal experience I believe there is a section of children who's needs are so obvious that at a very early age it is obvious that a special school is the most appropriate course of provision, severe physical and mental disabilities and this would include children who can be diagnosed as severly autistic in the classic sense. Appologies here if I might not describe children in technically corrent ways, please come back to me on this, as I have said I want to be informed, but I hope you know the group I mean. I would also say through experience that I have worked with children in a foster carer capacity offering regular weekend restbite who have come to us from specialist residential schools. It pains me to say it that these kids are very damaged in respect to their mental health, many have experience mixtures of physical and sexual abuse, neglect and often have alcohol and drug issues as developmental consequences. I can see at specific points in their rehabilitation back into a more normalized society specialist residential care is the right option. Having also worked with transitioning such individuals into independant adult life before their 18th birthday I am also fully aware that their is a natural progression for all young people where they have to be able to make genuine attemps at independance.

 

The point I am making here is that though I believe in providing a mainstrem umbrella under which the majority will opperate there will be instances and I support this where children are better in satelite schools, but importantly I believe and my actions prove this within cluster arrangements alongside primary schools, secondary schools and FE colleges. For me the children I have described sit in the satelite concept. As tax payer funded units there has to be a line somewhere. We have to accept we are not in a position where every child can have every one of their needs met there are only ever finite resourses. It is our role as parents to make up the difference, if you can not so be it, if you can not but can pay for it then that is your choice. Within those resources I would very importantly place qualified, experienced and trained individuals for which their is a massive national shortage a major mistake by successive governments.

 

In respect to ASD I wish parents who come onto the forum are more specific about their level of their own children as the spectrum is very broad. Without such insight individuals like myself are left feeling as if we need to tread on egg shells because we may be talking about an indivdual who I would call severe classic autistic individual and do not want to offend. On the other side of this coin when parents talk about their children not coping in mainstream secondary education there is no way I feel that a child of this nature could slip through the net so to speak. I think it is only fair to recognise that the autistic spectrum is broad, but I do feel there is possibly a mentality of groupthink here and that is about collecting all children with a diagnosis together because it leaves the adults feeling I or my child is not the only one and strength in numbers makes us feel better about ourselves. This has to be about individual cases not creating parent power groups.

 

In respect to the school proposal highlighted in Nottingham here are some of my reservations. If you have not clicked on the links and read everything I urge you to do so.

 

The first area is funding. Over the weekend I sat down with my SENCO partner who is very aware it is her job regarding funding allocations in respect to designated criterias for entitlement and threw around the figures in respect to no more than 10 per class and was this feasable. In her opinion something has to give. The first point is what is the ratio of qualified teachers to children and would they choose to or be expected to work below standard pay grades? The answer is it may be possible but this depends on what levels of income are brought in by individual children. Under the free school system this would be brought across from the state sector. I think you can start to make the numbers work on a basic level but you need to go hunting out the children who come with the most cash, and by their very nature have the most needs to be met. Have parents who support the concept of such a school considered what their opinion would be in the following scenario, their own child is bordeline in respect to 'coping' in mainstream and they make the decision to transfare them across to a specialist free school to find they are now in a classroom environment with nine other children a teacher and two support assistants. Four of the other children have come into the school from special school provision and have very complex needs and are very demanding as a consequence the environment is not emotionally very stable and their child feels their own needs are not being met. A hypothetical proposition but possibly a realistic one. What would they do in such a hypothetical position?

 

There is of course the incentive to cut costs by reducing the levels of qualifications required of the staff. In my opinion there is some logic in this I for one have been in a school were we had a behavioural cool down room which was very expensive as it locked down a senior mamber of staff in effect every day, the decision was made to bring in a retired ex police officer who was brilliant and the running costs were cut down to a third of what they were, it was not however a very good educational unit, the guy was not that well equiped for that. And there is a real point here as you remove the specialist levels of staffing you inevitably reduce the specialist educational input. Whilst I fully go with the concept, that volunteers with clearance are capable of going to the shops and developing life skills an activity previously described on another forum post, they are not possibly best placed to make assesments and work on language development issues. I do have a concern that it is in the interests of free schools to promote a curriculum which has large areas that can be delivered by individuals on lower pay levels and without qualifications. In an area as broad as the autistic spectrum it may well be the case that an individual has found a comfortable environment in which to opperate but they are getting no where near the educational provision their abilities indicate.

 

On this last point of educational provision and the claim of the school that they can prepare individuals for a sucessful career. Firstly as a teacher this would never be my end point, rather happy balanced self confident indipendant individuals who are turned on by the prospect of life long learning and have a thirst for investigating new experiences in their lives. What mainstream is good at is that it is not a one size fits all environment, rather there is great diversity within it, and that diversity increases and we move up the age structure. I think there is a danger of children being moved out of mainstream at early stages into an alternative sector yet just around the corner the provision would open up for them and they could find their niche space. As a technology teacher I believe I have had my fair share of ASD kids pass through my hands, not simply as isolated cases but in clusters, usually to be found in my rooms and workshops at every spare minute, as they say it takes one to know one. Many of those individuals have gone on to achieve very high level qualifications and as a result have constructed a life forthemselves built around what they are good at and are flourishing. But mainstream is not all about achievement at the top end in respect to examinations in fact I think that is the least important area of education, I can think of so many of my students who abilities had been developed to such hight standards that thet had unconditional offers of either work or university placements months out from their exams. Let me paint a picture of a different type of achievement and I will go back to a technology day ran in a mainstream school;

 

We have a pair of pupils one is from my own mainstream school the other from a specialist school who has severe physical difficulties and communication issues, they both have a lot to learn from each other, and me from them the real joy of teaching. Their task is to make a ball bearing maze, the mainstream pupil has built the components for the frame in preperation in a previous series of dinner times. The next task is to design the route for the maze. One individual in the group could easily do this on the computer using a key board, but it is not their job, in fact a mouse is problematic, so they will use a graphics tablet and their fingers as the makeshift stylus, this will require physical contact as they work inside the outline perimeter. They run their design which is really interesting through the computer then place a plastic sheet in a machine which cuts out the ball bearing tracks exaclty as they drew it. Side note combined cost machine, compute, tablet, software around £75,000. They assemble the ballbearing game and paint it which has to dry over night. This is unfortunate for the child from the special school who really wanted to take it with them, but the problem is solved because the mainstream pupil will take it to them when they visit their school for an equally special day in a weeks time.

 

There are some things that the state sector is capable of doing so well, I hope this was one such example, I know it moved an American head of a very large business to tears who had flown over from the States to move into the special needs sector investing a lot of money because of what he witnessed on the follow up day. My point here is that I read out the list of all the provision this free school in Nottingham was offering to my partner to which she repplied we do all that anyway and it would be the same people and I suspect they would charge more. What the free school prospectus does not do is list what other unique things they will provide rather they state services which I would see as essential in either sector. I believe strongly that mainstrem schools can offer a lot of core provision that a smaller unit could never hope to provide, that is why I believe in specialist units in schools which might have alternative environments for core activities yet can still draw on the wider benefits of the establishment. Yes I fully agree it is difficult for children with ASD to cross a threshold at the start of the day along with 2,000 other kids thats why they tended to arrive about half an hour early and often wandered across to se what I was up to an we had a chat over my last cup of tea at times. On a previous post I have described an individual who I strongly suspected had AS and had a lot of difficulties at shool who now works as a scientist in the Antartic and has had an amazingly productive life, i have to question if his gran had put him into a free school as described in the prospectus for this one in Nottingham would their career outcomes be the same, for the life of me though I believe as individuals we can find a way through almost any difficulties I do not think so. Yet it is not in the interest of such schools to highlight all the fantastic opportunities available in mainstrem, and where we struggle to provide them I had such strong links with the FE and HE sector, I have even sent groups of 15 year old abroad for 3 week to experience SAAB's aeronatuical and engineering college. I think it is hard for mainstream schools to shout about what we can offer kids traditionally defined as having 'special needs'. They do not work like that rather they aim to provide fantasitc opportunities for all, it is up to individuals to access them. In my experience every time I was approached with the notion we have a child who would like to access you curriculum or even extra curricula activities we have found a way, if not we have created something tailored for them, and this is the important bit, opened up access for all!

 

The final point I want to raise and which expands on Gutcrunchers post which drew me in, I was going to leave the post alone, is the slippery slope concept. My partner as a specialist SENCO heavily involved in training and mentoring other SENCO's is well aware there is a real shortage of experience to meet the growing demands created by a wave of diagnosis cases, this is something governments have not had the foresight to plan for. My concern is how do we manage that scenario. As I have said previously I am not sure if state provision as we set it at current expertise levels and contact ratios is transfarable into a free school sector. My partner would say her model is not due to the experience levels of staff. What realies worries me is that we enter into a phase of free school +, with the plus being additional finacial contributions from parents. From an idealogical perspective I do not like the notion of an independant sector but can accept it as a historical context and one which is here to stay. What I find harder to accept is a creep into public areas of provision. The first area might be in enticing specialist teachers away from mainstream such as my partner, personally I think this will be hard as they work in mainstream through strong personal convictions, the alternative to experience is dismantaling staff from existing specialist schools. If this does not work then the easy target are young teachers who will be attracted to take such roles, who might be very good but simply have been unable to gain experience over anything like a meaningful timespan. My partner comes across so many of these individuals asking for help and advice. In free school+ I also worry about some of the most needy children who though their state funding being at high levels are initially usefull. What if there comes a point through parental pressure that in a specialist environment they are deemed as counterproductive to the common cause, in other words we can offload Johnny if you all throw in a bit of extra cash, what happens to Johnny?

 

In the longrun I can see free schools in the special education sector going the same wasy as dentistry in this country. As tax payers we susbisdise the training of dentists and then have to try and plead with them to stay in the NHS sector for a short time before they move on to make some real bucks. In the meantime large sections of the population are left walking around with dental issues which in the short term are not that problematic in the long run will lead to full sets of dentures. In the meantime the dentists ply their trade with individuals more concerned with teeth whitening and getting the look of their best friend. Yes I am concerned as well Gutcruncher!

 

I am not asking that people agree with me, if they do then say so, but I think this is a really important issue and one which could have a massive impact on ASD children from all areas of the autistic spectrum and from a wide range of backgrounds and as such it is deserving of honest open debate. Comments and alternative views most welcome.

[bed32]

We have a long and proud history of private/free schools in this country. Private education predated any form of state organisation by hundreds of years; and "Direct Grant" or whatever it is now called (?is it VA) still plays a major role in both primary and secondary eduction. Beyond secondary level education remains pretty much "private" in that sense.

 

Also in the ASD field I am not aware of any LA funded AS/ASD type school anywhere in the country.

 

I am unsure about the funding levels for free schools but as I understand it they are only a little higher than those in the state sector. Also as I understand it they have tightly controlled admissions criteria and so are really more like VA schools rather than pubic/private schools.

 

I make no secret of the fact that my son (8) is too far along the Autistic spectrum to cope in mainstream (social communication skills below that expected of a 5 year old - below the 0.1% percentile) while cognatively he is very bright (above the level expected for a 16 year old. so over the 99th percentile) as well as having sensory integration issues. He will never learn anything in a class of 20+ pupils.

 

Realistically the only current option for him is a Cambian/Priory School - which are private and which will cost the LA vastly more than a more local free school.

 

Even leaving the ASD asside I am a fan of choice in all areas of life, including education. I think having a wide range of schools catering for all tastes and preferences and I don't any fundamental problems with that. Safeguards are required to ensure that other schools don't lose out. The only other thing I would say is that I would like to see it easier to move school 11+. The danger with any choice at that age is that there is a danger of betting his (or her) entire future on a single choice at the age 11 and it can be difficult to change your mind afterwards.

[chris54]

Funding, It was explained to me, it all seemed a bit complicated, the government has a set funding formula which the free school has to work with. For special free schools the funding is not attached to an individual child, but the level of provision in place. The formula has changed recently. All I can tell you is the numbers seemed to add up. But as the bid for a Special Free School that would be accessible to us was blocked, I have not investigated this or other maters in to much detail..

 

I'm not sure if you are aware that The National Autistic Society has been invited to help set up Free school Reading.

 

http://www.autism.org.uk/news/

[Canopus]

As a matter of interest what do you think would have worked better for you?

 

You can read more about my experiences of school if you go back to my earlier posts from around 2005 and 2006.

 

There were no magic bullet solutions at the time as AS was not known about, which resulted in the LA and mainstream schools being unable to offer me anything remotely positive. My preferred choice would have been home education. I was home educated during Y8 and I would continued with it if I had found a GCSE exam centre which accepted private candidates. My parents weren't happy about home education because they believe in the social aspect of school and they were concerned that I was missing out on science practical work.

 

Surly though that is the very purpose of such a school. that it will benefit the children that fit in well, the children that it is intended for.

 

Free school of all types are set up by people who. for whatever reason don't like what is already provided. They want something that fits their ideal of what a school should be.

 

Exactly. It is almost a foregone conclusion that free schools will generally be run according to the whims of whoever is in charge of them. Primary schools from before the NC are the best snapshot we have of how free schools will turn out as they were almost autonomous and run according to the whims of the teachers and governors. Like the primary schools of the pre NC era, there will be some kids who fit in perfectly to a particular free school, but if they don't fit in, then it will be tears of frustration for both the kids and their parents because they will have difficulty in influencing change to accommodate requirements if it flies in the face of the beliefs of those in charge.

[chris54]

But if a free school were set up that your child didn't fit in to, you would not send them there in the first place??

If I was a parent who was against the teaching of religion at school, I would not send my child to a newly set up Catholic free school, so there wouldn't be a problem.

One of the criteria for setting up a free school is that there is real demand, you have to prove that there are sufficient parents in the area that want the school, who would send their children there.

One of the problems of a new Free School setting up is that this could leave existing schools in the area under subscribed, and even lead to the LA having to close schools. It is only Special Free Schools that have to have the backing the the LA. As it stands at the present time only children with a statement of special educational need can go to a Special Free School, the AL have to agree to the school being names on their statement, If the LA are opposed to the school, this wont happen. And of course the school have to agree that it is the right school for that child.

 

As I have previously stated I am not in general in favor of Free Schools.

 

If all existing school met all the regiments of all the children we would not be having this discussion in the first place,

Why would we expect a Free School to be any different in this respect, they are aimed at particular groups of children, if your not in that group you wont fit in.

Edited March 7, 2012 by chris54

[LancsLad]

In response to the last few posts from Bed32, Canopus and Chris, and the sector in which a school sits is irrelevent in this point so I will agree to differ.

 

One way of viewing education is to provide learning experiences and to manage behaviours in a contextual environment, that context being defined as 'special'. To use an example from my partner she often works with a children with a statement of AS alongside an individual with for example Downs Syndrome, I have witnessed this. In other words there are overlaps between their 'special needs'. That does not mean she might work at times with alternative group dynamics or that these children are not entitled to and recieve the required one to one work that they are entitled to.

 

Given this reality of traditional provision I am concerned that we go along a line where AS for example is seen as being unique in respect to the contexts in which these kids should be educated. It might be unique as a diagnosis and even then I would say this is very broad. I can see the appeal of unique to some parents but feel this can easily be misinterperated. Bed32 thanks for being so open about your own child in this respect. I suspect here is an example of an individual where a diagnosis might lead to something close to a unique style of provision as such I support Bed's rights to having a place in education which meets his needs, as I have said this forum covers a very wide range of areas under the banner of autism, and at times we have an insight into but one section of that spectrum. Personally I would like his place to be in the State sector as I believe experience is the most valuable commodity and I would wish it to be available for all. If however that is not possible and you choose to go to the independent sector that is your choice and I respect that.

 

If I have a concern it is with school under a banner for example such as a specialist AS school which is in reality saying we are unique. If there are no examples in the state sector there might be a good reason for this, something tied up in notions described using the example of a Downs Syndrome child. Chris is right to highlight that there should be safeguards in place which relate to the nature of places and as such it is not a first come first served basis, rather matching places to individuals. Firslty I am not too sure if it is in the interest of any group in society to be educated where there are valid alternatives in such a closely defined sub culture. Secondly if there were a number of specialist AS schools for example my concern as someone with AS is that parents wanting to see their own kids as 'unique' use pressure to push them firstly into a diagnositic criteria with the aim to push them into a 'unique school'. I really worry about if there is a need to do this and what the outcomes in the long run are for such individuals.

 

I fully recognise there is a dividing line between mainstream type provision and satelite provision which I have previously described. Four miles away from my home there is a special school wholly focused on autistic children at one end of the spectrum it is has been there for many years and I have been around it and enjoyed my experience. Should that school be faced with closure i would fully support the parents in setting up an alternative because the kids I have seen would not cope in mainstream provision and deserve an education of a high standard. I know where the dividing line sits in respect to those kids and where they sit on the autistic spectrum. I alos know of individuals on the spectrum at the other end for whom mainstrem education has been the appropriate vehicle which has led to incredible lives centred around their talents, both sets of individuals are 'unique'. The question therefore is, where is the dividing line on the spectrum if in reality everyone on it is unique?

 

If there is to be a line and there has to be, then is it not right that it is the same across all sectors, the criteria for an independent special place being the same as in the state sector, not saying this is not the case. My question is are we entering into an area where that dividing line is not well established and therefore open to wide ranging interpretation. If that is to be the case as we search for new models which help in redefining that line then as Chris highlighted earlier having organisations such as the autistic society set up and trial a free school might be the way forwards. Even so part of me would say they have a vested interest in making something such as this work and how impartial would they be about reporting on the models strengths and weaknesses. A very large part of me says creating new models should not be the responsibility of parents, our kids are far too important and vulnerable for that to happen. If parents feel very strongly about their own child then educate them at home, do not transfare you concepts onto others. If parents believe they have no alternative but to set up new schools then that is not fair on the part of government when we are talking about kids such as the ones in the special school down the road from me. However when parents see an opportunity that is there to open schools because they believe their own child is unique and then move the line around to suit their own beliefs is I believe highly counterproductive in the long run.

 

Just a few more thoughts.

[bed32]

I would certainly agree that I would prefer the state sector to be providing the necessary provision - and even if they don't I would prefer free schools to totally independent.

 

One of my "ideological" concerns about the statement is that in effect it writes a blank cheque and as a result we can force the LA to provide very expensive independent education which I feel is not necessarily good value for the tax-payer. I can't help thinking that a school could provide an education that is almost as good for half the price.

 

We can simplify and say that every child (NT and ASD) lies on a "spectrum of need" (although in truth there are many dimensions to it) No school can realistically cover the entire spectrum. I think it is better for a school (any school) to focus on doing one area weill rather than trying cover too much and do it all poorly - to that extent I see choice in schools as being a good thing.

 

Ideally you would hope that the LA would ensure that all needs were catered for, but realistically we know that that is not the case so it is reasonable for free schools to fill the gap. It would perhaps be an improvement on the "free for all" nature if a proposed school had to satisfy an external body that it was meeting a genuine need and setting it up would not unduly impact other local schools

[chris54]

Is support for a school, the same as need?

We do not need church school, independent school, private schools. We may want but do we need.

 

Choice, if the next nearest school is an hours drive away do you realy have choice.

When people talk about have a choice of school, they assume we all have 2 or 3 school withing 5 minuets of our home, that for most people is simply not true.

Edited March 7, 2012 by chris54

[chris54]

For me, my son, it is not so much the education being provided by his school, it is the whole school environment that is the problem. If he could just parachute into each lesson and leave the same way, life would be better. You could say that attending school is damaging his education. Yes the school are doing there best to address his educational needs but there is very little they can do about the school environment. This for me was the attraction of the Free School. If it had gone ahead and if I had decided to apply, there is no guarantee that he would have been deemed a suitable candidate for the school, especially as it looked like the school was likely to be 3 times oversubscribed. But that will never happen now, we are where we are and have to make the best of it.

 

If you read the target group the the proposed Special Free School was/is aimed at, it does not say it is exclusively for children with ASD, but in reality it is likely that the majority of its candidates would be in this category.

[Canopus]

A very large part of me says creating new models should not be the responsibility of parents, our kids are far too important and vulnerable for that to happen. If parents feel very strongly about their own child then educate them at home, do not transfare you concepts onto others. If parents believe they have no alternative but to set up new schools then that is not fair on the part of government when we are talking about kids such as the ones in the special school down the road from me. However when parents see an opportunity that is there to open schools because they believe their own child is unique and then move the line around to suit their own beliefs is I believe highly counterproductive in the long run.

 

I disagree with many aspects of this. Who should be responsible for creating new models?

 

My experience with people from both the home education and the business community are increasingly conveying the message that the monolithic one size fits all mainstream educational model has had its days and has failed to keep with with changes in technology and business practices.

 

I myself would only support an AS school if:

 

1. It did not have a year group system and taught kids by ability, not age, on a subject by subject basis.

 

2. It did not follow the NC and was free to develop its own curriculum including teaching subjects not taught in mainstream schools. A sensible compromise would be to ensure that English language and maths was taught to GCSE standard but the school had control over everything else.

 

3. It was free to choose its own exams and could offer qualifications other than GCSEs.

 

4. Exams could be taken at any age rather than the end of Y11.

[LancsLad]

Canopus in theory I believe the responsibility for the development of education in this country should lie with the Secretary of State for Education.

 

When I started teacher training in the early eighties at Avery Hill College, now part of Greenwich University, it was recognised as a leading institution. I can rememebr being very influenced by a philosophy that there where multiple learning styles and that a traditional academic approach was not appropriate for the 'majority' of children but simply suited a few, this was reinforced to us with very good research. I remember entering into the profession and was viewed by many as a very 'creative' teacher in the way I taught in general. I rose through the ranks very quickly and pupils with whom I worked had a lot of sucess much of it not grounded in academic qualifications, though there was plenty of that. As an individual I waited for a new philosophy to emerge, what happened was the National Curriculum arrived and a drive for standards gone was that idea of flexibility of approach. In subsequent years I have seen research emerge in all sorts of areas, we have had periods where we have had a sideways glance at other education cultures which are obviously outperforming our own, and what do we do at a national level, answer nothing.

 

Canopus in the past 30 years I find it hard to think of a single government department who seems capable of listening to, taking on board and implementing expert advice unless it is on the back of some sort of emergency following an enquiry and even then they are pretty poor.

 

What is see with Michael Gove is an individual who given the choice would absolve himself of all responsibility, it has taken pressure in the Lords to stop that, and has given up the ghost by opening up the system with few too safeguards in my opinion.

 

My opinions and beliefs have not changed in 30 years and that is teaching styles in mainstream education and that includeds the independent sector do not suit the majority of children rather children are made to fit into a standard mould and some are far more malleable than others. The current state of graduate unemployment and our lack of competitivness as a nation in so many areas simply shows that mould is not fit for purpose. We should not be tinkering with the existing model we should be deconstructing it and creating something which is in context with existing research and best practice from around the world and developing a concept which is fit for purpose. For me parents groups can not be the answer in such a scenario they are simply part of it.

 

The area of education is in dire need of real leadership, and I can see no one prepared to take up that mantle. A sad example was the recent attempts by Richard Branson to get the government to re look at its attitudes surrounding drug policy in this country another area in which there needs to be development. Here was a respected leader of his own organisation, coming forward from a group which had been involved in looking at this issue for some 4 years as I believe it. Supporting them was some pretty strong research which i went through as an interested party. In reality it took about 2 days for the whole argument to be closed down some would say by the Daily Mail, others would say by the government using the Daily Mail. This is the political culture we are in and it has been so for a number of years, governments lacking in leadership qualities do everything in their powers to supress real leadership from emerging as a parallel force to their own polarized policies.

 

I can see that a mother coming forwards in Nottingham to set up a specialist free school will be seenh as an example of leadership by other parents in similar positions and as such her ideas have the potential to align others behind her. I too would say this demonstrates leadership. My worries are around how much expertise is there surrounding this leadership? For this reason that I feel government is being unfair, they should be in a position to call on whatever resources they need in setting up trial model schools yet try and absolve themselves from their responsibilities, instead transfaring powers onto a parent who has to generate their own resources.

 

If there is a solution to this I would like to see people come forwards as high profile individuals with their own diagnosis on the autistic spectrum, and working together with national charitable groups set up in the short term working examples possibly using free school structures. I would have confidence in these leaders to transfare their own beliefs that consulting experts and listening to what they have to offer is a given rather than a display of weakness. If such moves were to have widespread support I do think any models which are developed do need to be directed towards eventual widespread implementation in the state sector. If in contrast the emphasis would be on setting up independent specialist units, Steiner schools come to mind in this respect, I know personally I would have difficulty from an ethical stance getting involved. I hope people understand that as an individual with AS I am by my nature a very black and white thinker, and ethics are important to me in that respect. My experience is that this is also the case with many people I have come across who as professionals would fall into an expert category and would have a lot to offer.

 

Canopus there is nothing in your post with which I would disagree yet I have not changed my position. In fact I do not think anyone has changed their position in the discussion so far yet there is a lot of common ground. If there is a difference of opinion in the posts I think it surrounds how we view current mainstream provision. I think from one perspective supported in the main by parents on the forum, and I wish more would make a contribution to this post, is one of total frustration with the mainstream position and as a result a desire to throw it some distance from their own childs lives and a belief that almost anything would be better. On the other side there is a view that likewise there are a lot of issues with the mainstream scenario and that these are due to a lack of development to keep track with research and the groundswell of ASD diagnosis within our child population, yet there is an ethical belief in inclusive education where possible.

 

I think it is important that whatever position you take or anything in between there are common factors in play. There are for example a chronic shortage of qualified and importantly experienced individuals out there. Funding is totally fragmented and service provision misaligned to individuals rather only to its own local bodies, so what is the real value of the open cheque which comes with a childs statement as was clearly articulated? Knowledge from within the autistic community is fragmented and in my belief has yet to fully settle down, the forum highlights issues still with diagnositic meanings, but this is getting better.

 

From my own perspective I think there are other very important areas no one is even bothering to look at. In my past as a landscape designer I have worked alongside mental health clients who commisioned architects and together we have put forwards proposals for a new hospital unit to be built as part of a rellocation programme between hospital trusts. Those radical and cost effective designs went on display at Westminster and won awards yet were implemented in favour of a standard specification model which ran over budget. Personally I think the whole area of environmental design plays an enormous role in the lives of children and adults with ASD conditions, and free schools may well be set up in some of the worst environmental structures imaginable, I can not see a group raising finances for a new radical build, rather trying to adapt a building as best they can. This is one reason why I feel the Free School propasals are half baked. We have made real progress with environmental design in respect to the new acadamies programme, although such bodies are mortgaged to the hilt, and we should be learning lessons, simple ideas origonally backed up by good research evidence such as mixed toilets have been proved to work. Instead we are constantly stopping idea evolution and starting from ground zero almost every time.

 

Canopus I am highly frustrated as are many others and a lot of my anger is vented upwards towards central government, but I believe the best chance of a good outcome lies with them, I know this sounds crazy but it is my belief. I can also understand that if you have a child long term solutions which work well are of little concern to you, what you want is a short term solution for your child. If that is a little bit better then I guess for you it is worth it anything beyond that is a real bonus. I have been in special schools and met some wonderfull staff and children and the parents think the schools are amazing, in many ways i share their views. I also have to say that as a tax payer I have stood there in total embrassment at the standard of provision and overall expectations. I am not trying to undermine anyone here but if we really, really pulled available resources what sort of impact could we make on the lives of the children in such schools, what if we set the bar really high, what could be achieved.

 

To finish if I had a choice for 20 AS Free schools with 60 kids in each, or the resources put into one purpose built school with 60 kids in it around which a lot of people in the sector would work very hard to make a success, where the bar was really high I would go for the latter option, and then ask the question to the likes of Michael Gove tell me why you can not place such units carefully into a mainstream setting where they have access to wider facilities and opportunities. If as a parent you could get your child into that school you might be very plaesed if not then i suspect many would disagree with me.

[bed32]

I myself would only support an AS school if:

 

1. It did not have a year group system and taught kids by ability, not age, on a subject by subject basis.

 

2. It did not follow the NC and was free to develop its own curriculum including teaching subjects not taught in mainstream schools. A sensible compromise would be to ensure that English language and maths was taught to GCSE standard but the school had control over everything else.

 

3. It was free to choose its own exams and could offer qualifications other than GCSEs.

 

4. Exams could be taken at any age rather than the end of Y11.

Surely that is true now of any special school - and of many independents. I have been assuming that an AS school has better staff/pupil ratios than mainstream and teaches a highly deferentiated for each child. That certainly is what my son needs so I will be looking for the environment that does that best

 

LancsLad - surely we've had far too much Government involvement in education over the years, through "comprehensive" education (which is neither comprehensive nor gives much of an education), through league tables, dumming down of qualifications, national curriculum. Surely education should be controlled by professional educators rather than left to the whim of whichever party is in power at the time

[LancsLad]

Bed32 I agree with you totally about the negative involvment of successive governments in education. The point I am trying to make is that we do need 'professional educators', real experts who influence national policy decisions.

 

The reality is that governments appoint professional experts to positions of for example 'The Chief Medical Officer'. These indivuduals are highly qualified in their field and spend their time consulting other experts and going through research to the point of making very informed recomendations to the government whoever they may be. The issue is when government doesn't like what they come up with, or they feel it might not be too popular with their key voters, middle England and so sack them, or at best put them in positions where they feel they have to resign. In my view this is a diabolocal and immature position to take. The question is have we given up on the idea of ever having a responsible government and as such the notion of responsible democracy. If we have then the inevitable consequence is a free for all. Free schools might be a legitamised push in that direction, no more no less.

[chris54]

Just a little point, Free School are not allowed to build new building, they have to be in existing structures, but can be altered and adapted. The Nottingham group at present do not have a building, and even if they get approval, if they cant find a building their plans will be scuppered.

 

The free school does not own its premises they are owned by a government body (Cant of the top of my head think of the name) and are leased to the school. Any premises have to be available to be purchased free hold by this body.

Edited March 8, 2012 by chris54

[Canopus]

Surely that is true now of any special school - and of many independents. I have been assuming that an AS school has better staff/pupil ratios than mainstream and teaches a highly deferentiated for each child. That certainly is what my son needs so I will be looking for the environment that does that best

 

Most AS schools are based around the NC and it's designated year group system. Most independent schools teach the same subjects as state schools but offer a few extra frills like Latin and separate sciences. They are not significantly differentiated for each student and are also loathe to allow students to take exams before Y10/11.

 

LancsLad - surely we've had far too much Government involvement in education over the years, through "comprehensive" education (which is neither comprehensive nor gives much of an education), through league tables, dumming down of qualifications, national curriculum. Surely education should be controlled by professional educators rather than left to the whim of whichever party is in power at the time

 

Governments have made countless changes to the education system for over a century but major problems steadfastly refuse to go away. An important factor not mentioned so far are teaching unions. They wield enormous power and influence over education policy but they represent the (career / financial) interests of teachers, not the students they teach. I do not think that teaching union bosses understand SEN very well.

 

How are 'professional educators' defined? For a start, do they know much about (or better still have been actively involved in) home education and understand the thousand or so reasons why parents opt for it and why it is increasing in popularity, or is their training and experience mainly confined to the mainstream school system?

[LancsLad]

Canopus I think your point about teaching unions is a very important one. A big problem in so many areas of work is this notion of the 'profession' and their representative bodies as being the only way to maintain standards. What this has led to is real protectionism in so many areas of or society. The reality is that over the past couple of decades the landscape of areas such as education, health the law etc... has changed in respect to client profiles, needs and expectations yet the professional bodies have tried to remain steadfast in a structure and ideology which often is grounded in the first period of a previous century, soem earlier than that.

 

What is required now is a multi agency approach of expertise being brought together in more flexible and dynamic models. My gut reaction is that there still needs to be a fulcrum point around which such services are directed and that should be a qualified specialist teacher. There is a big issue here in getting the balance between the number of such trained individuals and the number of statements which are currently in and predicted to be in the system in the next few years. With a shortage of such qualified individuals there is even more need to get the most out of them by building additional expertise around and alongside their core provision. This is one reason why I am in favour of specialist units in mainstream secondary education. I know for example as a good teacher I can possibly effectively deliver 2 to 3 hours of provision lets say for a 15 year old studying electronics or engineering because it is a strength area for them, and as such I am extending the capability of a specialist in the unit who has experience of dealing with other issues associated with say AS.

 

Where I think it started to go wrong and general mentality in teaching was to blame for this is that concepts such as 'advanced skills teachers' have never really taken off in the right way. If opportunities for advanced skills teaching had been matched to needs and this had encompased children in a special unit, I do not think there would have been that many takers in the general teaching population but there would have been some. it was always unlikely that an individual such as myself who was one grade below senoir teacher level would have gone down an advance skills route, it didn't make financial sense in the long run. In contrast i might have had a member of my department who had excellent skills and was particularly good at working with special needs kids. Rightly this teacher might say I have no experience in this sector nor any specialist training. The advance skills teacher route would be an excellet concept in developing the talents of such an individual. Going along this path would create problems for me as a department manager I would loose them for at least a day a week as they might be working in a specialist satelite school and taking students with them. On balance I could accept this as part of the extra funding would not go in the individuals pocket rather it would be used to replace the teacing provision lost, all made sense at the time and this was a route we were going along before I moved schools.

 

In reality however heads tended to see advanced skills teaching opportunities as a means of keeping hold of staff who otherwise might move on to heads of department, heads of year roles in other schools. Often these people were involved in the teaching of key sets in their subject not the top but bordeline D/C groups which in reality are by far the key battle ground in respect to leauge table placement. What happened was that the concept became a devisive tool in school staff rooms in many instances. The problem is that in my experience there is a solid middle group in the profession who simply see themselves as good solid teachers, generally believe in differentiation, rather than mixed ability teaching, would like to see all children with behavioural issues in a special school and not as their responsibility and feel they have a right at the end of their career to make a last minute push up the pay scale to enhance their pension. I know this is a generalisation but it is my experience and that of my partner which covers the school age range. Canopus I do not think the problem is the unions as such rather it is this group in general who gravitate towards one union inparticular with overlap into the next biggest organisation. My experience of teachers who do not fit this mould is that they tend to gravitate towards smaller unions but now find that here overlaps with lecturing staff in FE have meant they are drawn into similar political scenarios.

 

I do not see the problem about teacher perceptions of how their roles might evolve over time changing much in the future. The new young breed coming into the profession does not on the whole fill me with much hope. A lot are graduates who can not find a role in their chosen careers so take up teaching as a second choice. They see it as a job not a vocation and something of a career path profession. As a consequence they see their destiny as being conected to results and dealing with individuals who might not achieve at the top end is like putting the knife into their own career prospects. In my teaching career I saw a big change in other subject areas than my own how leauge tables affected who taught groups. Prior to tables top exam groups were the remit of heads of department and their deputies. By the time I left these same 'safe' groups were being given to new teachers with a year or so's experice, who move on quickly, whilst the most able and often experienced teachers dealt with the borderline D/C territory. What this leaves are the workhorse staff who are happy in taking examination groups with less pressure attatched and teaching lower school a lot. Often they have been in the school for many years and are quite content, what they are not really ready for is change or they have become so disheartened they can see very little in the way of alternatives. When I have been in independant schools i have seen very much the same picture the only thing that moves is where the D/C bar lies in relation to groups. Within such scenarios I fully understand why many kids with identified needs suffer. In respect to ASD I suspect many of them are either in the very top groups or near the bottom given their skills profile, often this results in them missing out on the best and most experienced subject staff who tend to be strategically placed in other areas.

 

In my experience a lot of problems asociated with teaching can be overcome, I have had numerous conversations with secondary SENCO's at options times over what might be good suggestions for particular kids in respect to teacher options and not subject choices. In reality you can engineer a curriculum which works for many, but to be honest a lot of this is done on the quiet. In lower school my subject often involved 7 rotations I would always place myself before certain members of my department as I would placeother very good teachers with difficult kids. Many a time I have had a child who I knew would not cope with the personality of the next member of staff and as such have held them back on the rotation 'so they can finish their project which they want to just get right', they have then leapfrogged back into their normal group when they move on again. The trouble with teachers and I think this is where attitudes are problematic they are weak at recognising their own strengths and weaknesses and importantly where they stand in respect to their colleagues. We have common pay scales in the public sector which are far more rigid than in the private sector. The whole emphasis is on moving up the pay ladder very few accept the concept of a step back down, as a result the profession is very reticent to fe flexible in matching attitudes to a changing landscape of children who pass through their hands. For example I might one year have 5 statemented kids in an exam group which require a lot of extra preperation and time after school working with them, they bring into the school extra resources, but I have yet to hear of an example of say a £200 bonus at the end of that year for doing so, rather the culture is I want an allowance on the pay scale and I want it to be permanment.

 

Will stop there Canopus, I think you are right there is a problem and it requires a more dynamic approach to leadership in the sector to energise individuals unfortunatly facing a third year of a pay freeze I suspect many teachers are not up for radical change at the minute and it does not surprise me that given the political landscape some of the more negative attitudes in the profession are becoming entrenched leading to a strengthening of union activism, never seen it so high, my partner having travelled to London to go on demonstrations without pay is a first for her. At a time when things need to be far more flexible in reflecting a changing landscape I see a profession becoming very rigid, there will be no winners in this and I fear its the kids who will loose out again.

[Canopus]

A move that I would like to see implemented is the separation of the provision of teaching from examinations. Schools will no longer offer exams. Instead there will be an exam centre in every town that is used for state, independent, and HE students with no minimum age to take the exams.

[LancsLad]

Canopus, what you have just said is so obvious in a modern society, it would do wonders in breaking the stigmas down surrounding adult education, yet what chance?

 

The problems with schools are they are tools for social manipulation and many people would want to see this factor continue. Something like driving a car and the requirement to pass a test, as a more modern idea has gone down the sensible route you advocate. The end result is we are confident that standards are held and there is a feeling of equity on the roads. Some might argue that driving behaviours are not equitable in that some go out in big 4x4 and as such may have an alternative view but in genral terms it is a fairer system.

 

If we are to create an education system for this century we need a raft of proposals such as this one. They do not have to be very big ideas, your suggestion is not in many ways that is the beauty in it, but the impacts would be massive, there unfortunatly however needs to be the will before we find a way.

[puffin]

As someone who lives in Sweden- the home of free schools I would have some concerns about stability especially for smaller schools

 

My local free school went bankrupt last year when a couple of pupils moved school - parents were given 10 days notice to find a new school

[Sally44]

I don't understand why LAs don't set up their own ASD specific special schools for children who are around average cognitive ability. They could also accept children that need similar types of supports or therapies including Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Sensory Processing Disorder and Speech and Language Difficulties and Anxiety Disorders.

 

They would work on the small class principles of around 8 pupils grouped according to ability rather than age. And they could have SALT and OT on site, as it would save them travelling back and forth from individual schools for individual pupils.

 

I'm sure that would cost them less than paying independent fees. And there must be enough children to fill such a school. We have about 10 children just from our village going to different schools. I think the diagnosis rate is about 1:100 pupils just for ASD.

 

Infact, there are so many children needing something other than the school models offered by LAs, that we have had a new ASD specific independent school built within our city boundary that opened Sept 2012. So the demand is there.

 

But what our LA is proposing to do [according to information on it's webiste], is for children with special needs not to be "placed" at any one special school. But for each school to give certain types of lessons or types of learning. And the plan is that the pupils will be bused to different locations for those different lessons. In that way they believe they can meet the learning needs of all pupils.

 

As a parent of a child with an ASD and an Anxiety Disorder, and a fear of change of environment and people. I cannot see that model working well for those on the spectrum. That constant change throughout the day and every day, is not for the benefit of the child. It is for the benefit of the LA trying to meet everyones needs, but in a way that is doomed to failure especially for a certain population of children.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Sally44

[LancsLad]

What I find interesting about your last post Sally is the fact that the kids are to be bussed around locations. To me I would have thought that continuity of physical learning environment would be a really important factor in children and young adults having a solid foundation from which to make progress. If anyone should move around surely it should be the specialist adults. In my opinion just another sign of adult arrogance and a give away that the intrests of the kids are rarely at heart in these matters.

[chris54]

Sally, one of the reasons my LA have blocked the Free School is that it would have shown a need for the school.

My LA at least, is doing all it can to reduce the number of children in special schools. This is purely on a cost basis.

 

 

As it stood it was likely that the free school would have been something like 400% over subscribed.

There is a demand, but we just get repeatedly told by the LA that there is adequate provision. This provision is in mainstream school, the way the LA want to go.

Edited March 14, 2012 by chris54

[Sally44]

Some months ago [about 6+], I, and a number of other parents, were approached by the LA and asked to attend a meeting. At that meeting we were asked if we would be prepared to become a kind of parental panel that would look at LA proposals, such as the one above, and give their advice on any ideas or plans the LA had from our own personal experiences of our SEN children.

 

However, the abovementioned plan is already in motion to be implemented in 2017. I have never been asked by the LA to attend any meetings or read any material and give my opinion on it. So I now believe it was just posturing by our LA for them to be able to say "we have a panel of parents of children with SEN blah, blah, blah". But eventhough they recruited us, they don't use us. Infact, I may write to the LA to see what is happening with this Panel.

 

I totally agree that it is hard to get any one school to suit all pupils. But I think the model of mainstream, and special school for MLD works quite well for most children.

 

The children that fail are those that are usually too capable for the special schools, but who are not able to access or cope with a mainstream setting or mainstream style of teaching. To me, it seems that there is alot of cross over between those children with those specific diagnoses that I listed above. Those are the children that are most likely to not cope or fail within the system. They are the children most likely to need a different approach, to need a different environment and to need substantial therapy input.

 

I have no problem in those children being grouped together. I think that inclusion for inclusion sake is dangerous. Human beings are not perfect. Children can be very cruel and there is always a natural pecking order. And although that is not acceptable, it is also not acceptable to keep children in an environment that is causing them great difficulty and maybe mental or physical pain.

 

I have a similar problem with the government deciding to close a large number of Remploy factories. I have seen a number of disabled people on TV [physically disabled, not cogntively impaired in any way], and they have all said they do not like the idea of disabled people being grouped in a factory ghetto. Does that mean that all factories are ghetts then?

 

If any disabled person wishes to work within the "mainstream work place", they are already entitled to do so and there are sufficient laws and support to help them achieve it.

 

For those that are more vulnerable, who have neurological difficulties that involve problems typical of being on the spectrum, or those with learning difficulties. I do not have a problem with an employer that caters for and supports those individuals so that they can work and gain independence. Remploy is a sheltered workplace for a reason.

 

My sister works at Remploy. Prior to her employment there she tried a number of different, mainsteam and quite menial jobs, and she never managed to keep any of them. She has mild learning disabilities.

 

I think it is very naive for a government, or employer, to believe that they can bring someone in, who may not work at the same speed as everyone else, or be able to complete some of the harder/heavier types of work due to their disability, and believe that the general workforce will not resent it. They will. They will feel that the easiest jobs are being given to the disabled employees, and they won't take it out on the managers, they will take it out on the individual employees. The very people that are more vulnerable. And when those people have learning or specific social communication difficulties, they are less able to defend themselves or cope with those attacks.

 

Gone a bit off topic here. But a need for different types of workplace is needed as well as different types of educational facilities. Otherwise where do all these children go after leaving education?

[Canopus]

Canopus, what you have just said is so obvious in a modern society, it would do wonders in breaking the stigmas down surrounding adult education, yet what chance?

 

Detaching teaching from the provision of examinations will be the greatest change to the mainstream school system since the introduction of O Levels in the 1950s. If exam centres imposed no minimum age limits for candidates then a strong possibility exists that it will improve educational standards as it will introduce a new level of competition where candidates compete not just for grades but by age as well. Since 2000 there has been a marked increase in the number of underage private candidates taking GCSE and A Level exams. In 2002 a 10 year old getting a GCSE was seen as remarkable. Nowadays it isn't even news when 10 year olds get A Levels. Although the numbers of such people are only a tiny fraction of the total, it seriously brings into question the mentality of restricting GCSEs to Y11 students in mainstream education. On the other hand, it creates new problems (for the government) such as whether kids should have to continue studying a subject after they have taken a GCSE exam in it. A primary school made a student sit their maths SATS exam despite him having an A grade maths GCSE.

 

I doubt that Lib-Lab-Con politicians would back such a proposal as it has the potential to take much power and control over the school system away from the government. The Greens used to be in favour of it but they have now abandoned it in their quest to become more 'mainstream'. I have encountered some UKIP members and a odd few English Democrats who are strongly in favour.

 

The problems with schools are they are tools for social manipulation and many people would want to see this factor continue.

 

Schools have always been used as vehicles for social manipulation - everything from "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" echoed in classrooms in Edwardian England, which is why many school leavers were eager to head off to the Western Front in 1914, to all the NuLab indoctrination channelled through the NC during the Blair decade, which is why many school leavers have corrupted minds today. Sadly only a small fraction of parents (worldwide) are aware of this as the majority broadly agree that what goes on in schools is right and the government is better placed at deciding the curriculum than they are. The small number who sound the alarm that indoctrination and social manipulation is a cornerstone of the mainstream school system are branded as heretics by the masses.