SEN Changes

[bed32]

I'm sure this has been discussed before - but what will the proposed changes to SEN mean for our statemented children with ASD?

 

Has NAS or someone published any information?

 

While there is no doubt that the whole SEN process is not fit for purpose - at least with the present system we know where we stand and once we have a statement we have considerable rights.

 

On the positive side I can see a lot of benefits in parents having direct control over the budget, but on the negative side I just don't see how that budget is going to be set fairly.

[chris54]

The latest announcements don't really make it that clear (To me at least) who this "own budget" is aimed at other than a woolly statement "The most sever SENs", Dose that mean all children who have a statement, does it mean children that go to special schools, or What. My thinking is that a lot of the time, those in government thing of "disabled" and "SENs" in terms of if you can walk and talk then your not.

[Canopus]

I'm probably going to come across as a miserable ogre here...

 

What we need to do is look at this situation from first principles, then decide exactly what services for kids with ASD should be provided by schools and LAs, and which services are best provided outside of LAs - such as by ASD support groups, the internet etc.

 

There is currently a lot of ambiguity and lack of precision when it comes to LAs and schools providing SEN services which makes it a much easier target for cutbacks than if the details were more precise. At the moment it is very difficult to determine what the medium term outcomes of these SEN changes are or whether kids with ASD will lose out badly from them. IMO there is a lack of self reliance in the ASD community with a considerable proportion of parents holding the view that it's a God given right that schools and the LA provide everything on a gold plate for their kids. Now the game has changed and if we are to expect guaranteed services from schools and the LA then it is of utmost importance that we come up with clearer definitions of what they are.

[bed32]

The key issue is whether our children retain a statutory right to appropriate provision. If we do - and that right is enforceable through the tribunal - then I think the changes are likely to be a good thing as it does seem to do away with some of the distinctions between educational and other needs.

[Sally44]

"IMO there is a lack of self reliance in the ASD community with a considerable proportion of parents holding the view that it's a God given right that schools and the LA provide everything on a gold plate for their kids"

 

I think that is totally unfounded. If you read the current SEN legislation and the current system it clearly says that a child is not entitled to the "best" education, just a satisfactory one. So there is no gold plated SEN provision being handed out. Provision is detailed in Statements when it has been proved by professionals as being needed for the child to access education.

 

There is a whole range included in the "ASD community". Maybe the more able adults with Aspergers already do what they can. But what about the children? What about those that are unable to communicate, who are vulnerable and who HAVE TO rely on other people.

 

And if those children are not taught to be independent and responsible and useful members of society, who is going to support them as adults when their parents are gone? Who is going to house them? How are they going to live if they cannot work? And won't "supporting them as adults" cost a lot more than providing them with an education that makes that as independent and useful and productive as possible?

 

I think the baby is going to be thrown out with the bathwater. And this is just a great opportunity to try to sell parents something that looks tempting on the outside, but is empty and unworkable on the inside.

[chris54]

But who decide what "Appropriate Provison" is?

 

I don't think you can say that anything a disabled child NEEDS should be provided by support groups. They have their place but as it is the luck of the drew whether there is one in you geographical area or your area of need, they cannot be relied on. Any help they give must be seen as a bonus.

 

I agree that as a society we need an open discussion as to how much we, the tax payer is prepared to fund in all areas of health, care, education, welfare etc

Politicians of all colors have there own party agendas, the extreme of which they try to hide from us while at the same time trying to pleasing their own supporters.

 

Disabled are being told to go out and fine work, the old are being told to work longer, mothers are being told to go back to work, but we have rising unemployment.

 

If we neglect the education of the most vulnerable, then we do ourselves no good. (By education I mean it in its broadest sense)

[Sally44]

And you cannot rely on a voluntary sector to provide vital services/support or provision.

 

These difficult times mean that many people are having to work longer hours just to make ends meet. Voluntary groups are struggling due to a fall in numbers.

 

My daughter goes to a Scout group, where the leader has recently left. There are two other assistant adult leaders running it at the moment, but one has to leave due to University, and the other says they will have to pack it in due to pressures from work. So this Troup may close if another leader is not found. And I think that this economic climate is going to make more people give up voluntary work as they have to concentrate on just meeting their own families needs.

 

And as good as a volunteer maybe, they are rarely professionals in the given subject. So if I were in hospital I would like to be treated by a qualified nurse and not a volunteer.

[bed32]

Canopus

 

I have yet to find a single parent who thinks the LA provides anything without a fight - let alone providing it on a gold plate. That in fact is part of the problem. Rather than LA cooperating the experience of most people is that they obstruct the process at every stage and you have to fight for even the most basic provision.

 

Your post highlights one of the problems ASD people face - it is the "hidden disability". If the same questions about right to access to education were asked about children in a wheelchair, no one would question it, but because ASD children can look, and often behave normally a lot of the time, people don't seem to acknowledge that they are as disabled than a child in a wheelchair. In fact more so in educational terms because the disability directly impacts their ability to learn in an environment optimised for NT children.

 

IMHO a particular scandal about the education of ASD children is how inefficient it is. Properly joined-up provision would be both more effective for the child and much cheaper for the country.

 

I am very happy for the voluntary sector to play a role. Round here I have a lot more faith in the services provided by NAS than those provided by LA/NHS. Although classed as voluntary, a lot of their workers were full time paid staff and in my experience had a much better understanding of ASD than many of the CAMHS people who were less specialised (having to deal with a wider variety of conditions)

[chris54]

 

I am very happy for the voluntary sector to play a role. Round here I have a lot more faith in the services provided by NAS than those provided by LA/NHS. Although classed as voluntary, a lot of their workers were full time paid staff and in my experience had a much better understanding of ASD than many of the CAMHS people who were less specialised (having to deal with a wider variety of conditions)

 

This highlights the point I was making. Here there is no NAS representation at all. There is one Asperger's group, but it is only a talking shop of a hand full of people and if you don't agree with the man who runs it you are not made welcome. There are no other fully appropriate groups at all, being mainly aimed at those with the more serious learning disabilities, or physical disabilities.

Edited May 16, 2012 by chris54

[LancsLad]

I think there are a lot of good points being made here on both sides of the debate. What this highlights is there is a need for a debate on this.

 

In many ways I do have a lot of sympathy for the system which has developed as a result of political 'creep' in that we have lost sight in respect to what is SEN and I agree with Canopus here that we need to go back to basics and develop some strong definitions. The profile of SEN is very different today than it was25 years ago when my partner started working in this sector. I do think it is fair to undestand how organisations such as LA's have been potioned in this debate and are in my opinion in danger of taking a lot of the blame unfairly.

 

As a construct I can see this issue very much as being structured as our current water issues. On one hand we have a system which requires a resource to be placed into it on a consistent basis and that resource is finance and this can only come from taxation. At the other end of the system we have client expectations and given the choice they would happily turn many of the taps full on washing their cars, putting sprinklers on the lawn relaxing in a nice deep bath at the end of a hard day, but is this sustainable. In the middle we have the water companies, and in this case local authorities.

 

A lot of the comments made regarding local authorities are pretty well justified, I see the frustration in my partner in having to deal with the system and she is part of it. In a lot of cases what they are doing might well be illegal and certainly not in line with guidelines, but what are they doing? In my opinion they are basically trying to nothing more than control the flow of water out of their resevoir knowing stocks are low and there is no rainfall predicted for the coming season. have they got any regulatory powers to do this, no they have not but in hoping for a rainy day they are trying to keep a system in some sort of balance.

 

I think Canopus is right here in that city dwellers do not make the journey out into the countryside and make the connection between a resevoir at the bottom of its capacity with sailing dinghys grounded on cracked mud banks and the water which still emerges from the kitchen tap. In a similar way I can not see much in the way of sympathy for LA's in any of the rhetoric.

 

I think there is a danger here that government simply turns on local authorities most of which are out of their political control now and attack them for wated resorces. Again I see comparisons with the water industry. They can measure the water leaving their resevoirs and what eventually passes through water meters and know there is a large percentage of it leaking away somewhere underground. The point is because of persitent lack of investment since Victorian times and the building of layers and layers on top of this vital infrastructure we are in now near a position to start digging in reducing this massive waste the impact on towns and cites would be massive. Again the issue would be a not in my back yard approach, the attitude would be dig up infrastructure to reduce my bills in another town or city but not outside my bussiness or home I want my life to carry on unaffected.

 

The problem is that our education system needs a complete overhall but this is not possible given current social attitudes, there is too much of a protectionist attitude out there. Recent political creep in empowering parents has added to this problem. In many ways I appalud this move on ethical grounds but in my heart feel that the social backdrop of the country is not ready to take on this level of responsibility rather we are stucK in a consumerist society where self interest rules, hardly a backdrop to create balanced and fair educational reform.

 

We have to make decisions as to what constitutes special educational needs and this requires some clear definitions. The current and past government lack clear vision, rather they play a game of political posturing and purposefully avoid the concept of definition as it alows them to reposition policy in relation to ongoing pressure. My concern in the next 2 years is that the voice of the LA's will not be listened to, the NHS is about to be turned into turmoil with the dismantaling of a level of a system which might have been placed to address some of these issues, rather we are facing the prospect of GP's being able to work there way through a complex maze of which they have no experience of navigating. The pressure will therefore fall on parents to apply pressure in trying to work out solutions for their children, but who, what, where and when do they focus their energies on, I can see a period of massive frustration.

 

In picking up the point by Chris I think there are real issues in respect to generating a collective voice from section of the SEN community. Our lead groups are charities as opposed to political machines well suited to representing minority groups. This is fine in times of plenty, but in drought conditions I suspect they have little in the way of influence. Politicians have seen this economic downturn from a long way off and as such did a good job of dismantaling a lot of political 'quangos' who would in many areas be coming into their own in holding the government to account. To many people Eric Pickles may come across a a bit of a bumbiling idiot, but in fact he was a pretty effective stealth agent who at the start of this government did a pretty effective job in getting behind enemy lines and torching crop after crop so the subsequent retreating army have nothing to fall back on in the way of basic supplies.

 

I can see difficult and dark days ahead, we need to understand we are in this together and the first thing we need to do is know thine enemy, and not look within our own ranks to vent our frustrations and create our own minor skirmishes.

 

just a few thoughts.

[Canopus]

"IMO there is a lack of self reliance in the ASD community with a considerable proportion of parents holding the view that it's a God given right that schools and the LA provide everything on a gold plate for their kids"

 

I think that is totally unfounded. If you read the current SEN legislation and the current system it clearly says that a child is not entitled to the "best" education, just a satisfactory one. So there is no gold plated SEN provision being handed out. Provision is detailed in Statements when it has been proved by professionals as being needed for the child to access education.

 

Under the 1996 Education Act it is the parents who are responsible ensuring that children receive an education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs they may have. State schools offer the NC and anything in addition to this apart from that obtained via a Statement of SEN is a bonus. A Statement of SEN is a tool to access a selection of services beyond that normally offered as part of the NC but it is not, and never has been, a magic wand to ensure that the very best education is provided to every student. As a consequence of this, it is the parent's responsibility to decide whether a state school education (including anything available under a Statement of SEN) is the best education or whether it is merely satisfactory in the government's opinion.

 

This could be viewed as a get out of jail card for schools or the LA but is it actually possible to provide the very best education for every student under a monolithic system? This is why smart parents, including those of NT kids with no disabilities or SEN, know that the very best education can only be achieved with a certain degree of input outside of the school system.

 

The profile of SEN is very different today than it was25 years ago when my partner started working in this sector.

 

That is true and the entire situation needs looking at from today's perspective also taking into account various developments that have taken place since the 1980s.

 

The problem is that our education system needs a complete overhall but this is not possible given current social attitudes, there is too much of a protectionist attitude out there. Recent political creep in empowering parents has added to this problem. In many ways I appalud this move on ethical grounds but in my heart feel that the social backdrop of the country is not ready to take on this level of responsibility rather we are stucK in a consumerist society where self interest rules, hardly a backdrop to create balanced and fair educational reform.

 

I have discussed cutbacks to services for SEN and disability with my (Conservative) MP who replied that they are ideological just as much as they are financial. It is the opinion of the Conservatives that under NuLab society became excessively dependent upon the state and has lost much of its self reliance and willingness to solve its own problems and provide for the needy. He then cited a certain LA that was not heavily dependent on public services and how its own people had a get up and go attitude when it came to repairing infrastructure or providing facilities for kids without the council or the taxpayer being involved.

 

These difficult times mean that many people are having to work longer hours just to make ends meet. Voluntary groups are struggling due to a fall in numbers.

 

I also mentioned this with my MP and how cutbacks to benefits often end up translating as cutbacks to voluntary work. At least the John Major government had the decency and courtesy not to introduce JSA until after the worst of the last recession had cleared. This government is on the brink of bringing back the workhouse by forcing benefits claimants to have to work for no pay for wealthy multinational corporations like Poundland or Tesco whilst denying them the right to useful and beneficial voluntary work.

[Sally44]

Statements are not a 'bonus'. They are a legally binding document of SEN that the child needs to access education and make progress.

 

The problem for many parents is finding a suitable placement. There are many ASD children who are capable, but who cannot cope or learn in a mainstream environment. Those that cope and do well in a typical mainstream school can usually have their needs met within that school with additonal support detailed in a Statement if that is proven necessary.

 

But there is a whole host of problems even before you get to that stage. SEN are not recognised. Children are not assessed or observed. Professionals [LA and NHS] do not carry out assessments to give a baseline reading from which you can measure progress [because they know that lack of progress is something that the SEN process would trigger additional support/therapy/teaching etc], and professionals [LA and NHS] do not quantify and specify, even when their own professional bodies have guidance that say the law requires them to do that, and to quantify and specify the provision needed "regardless" of what the resources available are.

 

That isn't so a child gets "more than" it needs. It is so a child get the level of provision needed for them to learn and make progress. Without that level of input, you might as well discharge the child from the educational system because the teachers and children are wasting their time if there is nothing productive that will come out of it. It would be the equivalent of making a blind child attend a mainstream school regardless of the fact that she cannot see and therefore cannot learn or demonstrate learning. Just filling up her days attending school until school leaving age. What is the point of that. School is not supposed to be a baby sitting service.

 

The only types of school LAs offer is mainstream, ASD Unit, Special School. For those that cannot access mainstream, there is little point them being moved to a unit that then feeds them over to mainstream for certain lessons. Yet this is what the majority of them do. For those children that are cognitively able, they are not suitable for a MLD special school, where the other children have general learning disabilities, but tend to have reasonably good social communication skills.

 

The Placement has to be suitable for the needs of the child. If nothing exists, then the parents have to look at independent and approved or non-maintained schools. All LAs use them. All LAs have a list of those types of schools that they currently use. Yet, for some reason - probably financial - there is no incentive for LAs to provide that type of school themselves. It must be more cost effective to pay the independent school fees for that smaller minority of children.

 

That is the current state of play.

 

Now move the legally binding Statement process, and replace it with an individual budget.

 

How will that work.

 

What financial budget will each need be given.

 

How will parents get each need detailed, when there is already a huge difficulty to get any second or third co-morbid diagnosis confirmed on paper? I have often been told that his "dyslexia" "OCD" "Anxiety" "Sensory Processing" "Severe/profound Speech Disorder" "Dyspraxia" are all "Under the ASD Umbrella". But each child is affected differently. And the Budget for one child will be drastically different to that required by another child.

 

If my child just received a budget for all those disorders/diagnoses under ASD, then surely he will get a much lower budget allocated to him. And that budget simply will not cover the therapy and provision he needs to even go to school and cope there [rather than being out of school for over a year as he was previously].

 

And how will parents source these professionals. Will there be lots of different professionals popping into school to see different children. What about MDT expertise. What about funding such teams within the school/LA/NHS?

 

For example, if a child receives speech therapy as part of a group of 4 children, and one childs parent decides to opt for the budget option. If the combined cost of the SALT service is £100 divided by the 4 kids, she will receive £25. What can she do with that. She cannot buy an hours Speech therapy for £25 when it costs £100. And more importantly the other 3 children also lose that Speech Therapy because they now only have a combined pot of £75 and not the £100 cost needed.

 

It is all an absolute load ot twaddle. They have grasped a thorn and are going to really struggle to demonstrate how it will work in the functional setting.

 

SEN children and the cost of their provision is an easy target. Looks like huge savings are possible. But they aren't.

 

And what about the fact that the Government is stating that the LA will be responsible for funding provision up to age 25? An increase from age 19. Why aren't the local authorities up in arms about the extra money this is going to cost them? The only possible answer is that behind closed doors they are being told that actually this new system, even if it is extended to include young adults up to age 25, will still be a saving for them.

 

Do they think we are stupid or what???

Edited May 17, 2012 by Sally44

[bed32]

A SEN Child does not have a right to the "best" education, or even (now) an "appropriate" education - but rather just an "Adequate" education. That is a pretty low standard and equivalent to what an NT child would get in any state school (other than maybe a few failng schools).

 

However many - if not most - parents of ASD children end up appealing the statement through tribunal and a high proportion of those who appeal are successful. That shows that in a high proportion of cases the LA is not even supplying that bare minimum "adequate" education for ASD children. That is a scandal - but these changes are not intended to address that

 

Another problem with the SEN system now is that it seems to be "all or nothing". So if say I choose to place my ASD son in a private school the LA will wash their hands of him and not contribute to the costs attributable to his SEN as they would have to in mainstream school. So even if we are willing and able to contribute to getting our son the best education that is very difficult to achieve with a SEN child.

[chris54]

Another problem with the SEN system now is that it seems to be "all or nothing". So if say I choose to place my ASD son in a private school the LA will wash their hands of him and not contribute to the costs attributable to his SEN as they would have to in mainstream school. So even if we are willing and able to contribute to getting our son the best education that is very difficult to achieve with a SEN child.

 

Its been explained to me that if you had a system that enabled Parents to "Top up" the education fund spent on their child (SEN or otherwise), it would open up the system that would enable people who would send the child to private school anyway (The better off), using it as a way of "Subsidising" the cost of a private education at tax payers expense.

[Canopus]

Statements are not a 'bonus'. They are a legally binding document of SEN that the child needs to access education and make progress.

 

Read my comment again. You misinterpreted it.

 

That isn't so a child gets "more than" it needs. It is so a child get the level of provision needed for them to learn and make progress. Without that level of input, you might as well discharge the child from the educational system because the teachers and children are wasting their time if there is nothing productive that will come out of it. It would be the equivalent of making a blind child attend a mainstream school regardless of the fact that she cannot see and therefore cannot learn or demonstrate learning. Just filling up her days attending school until school leaving age. What is the point of that. School is not supposed to be a baby sitting service.

 

There is always the big question of exactly what do parents want to get out of the school system. Can their demands be reasonably provided or not? As a general rule of thumb, the SEN services provided in mainstream schools are heavily biased towards whatever is required to learn the NC material because that is the official service that the school supplies. If large amounts of material outside of the NC, including real world life skills or vocational subjects, is required then this usually has to be provided in special schools or colleges. There are thousands of kids out there with educational needs that no existing school effectively supplies. I certainly fitted into this category and ended up attending an unsuitable SEN school that was probably worse than a mainstream school with no SEN services.

 

However many - if not most - parents of ASD children end up appealing the statement through tribunal and a high proportion of those who appeal are successful. That shows that in a high proportion of cases the LA is not even supplying that bare minimum "adequate" education for ASD children. That is a scandal - but these changes are not intended to address that

 

This is getting back to the basics again. Clear definitions of the SEN services that schools and LA must provide by default and those that are (almost) guaranteed under a Statement of SEN need to be drawn up if we are to ensure that they will be delivered. At the moment the vagueness and lack of clear definitions surrounding SEN makes the provision of SEN services highly vulnerable to financial cutbacks.

 

An example of a service that must be provided by default are teaching staff and LA SEN officials who are knowledgeable about ASD. It is of utmost importance that budgets for staff training and the provision of books about ASD to schools are ringfenced. Cutbacks in this area will result in a whole generation of staff who lack sufficient knowledge and understanding of ASD to be able to provide any meaningful services, and it will effectively turn the clock back to where we were 15 or so years ago.

[bed32]

At the moment SEN provision is not really at risk from budget cuts (at least not for statemented children) as the provision is statutory and does not take account of affordability (beyond being the cheapest). To move away from the system where the children no longer have a statutory right to have their needs met would be a retrograde step. In our LA the non-statemented provision is pitiful - I think the school's SEN budget amounts to about £300 per child on SAP/SAP per year

 

It would indeed be much better if more SEN provision came out of the LAs general budget (or NHS) and was available to all children who need it rather than just those with statements - but it would be very hard to make that a (quantifiable) statutory requirement. The new process may indeed be a step towards that if the have fewer SEN children, but those that are have more tightly defined needs - but my real fear is that we are in for 5 or more years of chaos while the system is introduced, breaks, and is mended - and by the time it is working properly it will be too late for our children

[chris54]

And by then we will have had a change in government and they will start all over again.

[Sally44]

Sorry Canopus, read it again and see what you were saying.

 

At the moment SEN is identified through "lack of progress" in the areas identified as SEN categories in the SEN Code of Practice. So a lack of progress triggers School Action, and then further lack of progress moves the child onto School Action Plus.

 

I don't see how the government can say that under that system too many children are being identified as having an SEN. And by removing SA and SA+ that does not change the fact that those children were not making progress and will continue to do so. It also does not change the fact that the teaching staff have to address their difficulties whether or not they have an SEN label. I presume it will just mean less funding to meet those childrens' needs.

 

And regarding "education". The definition is very broad based. Case Law interprets it as educating a child to be as independent as possible as an adult. The actual case itself that set this precedent is on the Ipsea website. So it is NOT just about NC results or academic ability. Education does include life skills, social skills, speech and language skills, daily living skills, conversational and friendship skills, sensory processing skills etc. That is why SALT and OT input IS recognised as an educational need and is included in Statements in section 3.

[LancsLad]

I think the issues raised simply point to the question we need to decide as a nation what is the purpose of the education system in this country. I think the posts highlight that we have different perceptions on this important issue. In palying devils advocate I would say that the purpose of the 'state' education system in its modern form is to produce 'functional individuals' who were able to enter into a society and make a productive contribution. I think one of the issues is that these expectations are becoming somewhat dated.

 

Due to technological advancement our society is a very different one to that of just twenty or thirty years ago. I think the reality is that today the 'vast majority' of people are unable to make a productive input into the system and in that I mean 'create' wealth. The pressure on the wealth creators has become enormous. There was a period where we were able to use the then level of wealth generation to support a layer of services which simply pushed that wealth around a bit. There might even have been something left over to support the individuals who could not enter this service sector of society.

 

In my opinion we now have a mainstream education system which is not really fit for purpose. It is based on a National Curriculum which provides a grounding at an at best 'average' level, and in International terms 'below average' level in comparison to our global competitors. It would be possible to structure a society with 75% unemployment if the top 25% where highly efficient and focused on creating real value in the global market place. The issue with this is what would be an acceptable level of living standards for the unemployed majority. In such a society SEN would be all about the 'gifted' and in getting them to reach their potential for the benefit of the majority, but would the majority be happy with this scenario.

 

By making this argument on one side of the debate, what is the point in putting in resources into individuals who because of SEN may never come even close to making a productive contribution in society? I think there needs to be a level of realism here whilst we come to collective decisions about what is fair and just.

 

Personally I feel that the hidden truth within the system is that the majoriy will not reach societies desired standards. I want to make it clear as an ex teacher and examiner that standards are not falling rather they are increasing but they are not increasing at sufficient enough a pace to keep us competitive globally and that the productive workforce is a diminishing element as a whole. What is left is very much a system based on promoting levels of self esteem up to a point. It is very much based on the idea of progress. I want to use a very strong example from my own life to highlight a point. I went to an old secondary modern school turned comprehensive. At age 14 the head teacher decided to introduce 'O' levels for the top set in my school, I had never heard of this exam, it was a very devicive decission. I was fortunate to be in that first group of 20 whilst all my mates were in the other 7 larger groups doing CSE's and were very resentuful of my new status and the resources and attention my group recieved. Whilst the experiment was somewhat inevitable I was the only one out of the 20 to initially go to university though I believe a couple of others have done so as mature students. The animosity from my mates soon disipated towards me personally on the sports field and this was partly due to them believing there would be work for them in the coal mines, the glass factories or the armed forces, I was merely doing my own thing. When the recesion of the late seventies hit there was no future for them, the mines and factories shut and the reality of the armed forces was first the Falklands and then a string of conflicts around the world. The perceptions of their world were no longer sustainable and they had a hard reality to face, one of my extended family lined up in various ques of 'D's' as they signed on at around 11:00 on a Tuesday morning every second week, as I headed for London and university.

 

The point I am making was that the expectations of my own secondary school were not fit for purpose but for a long time they had created a sense of self esteem and porgression amongst its pupils. To do so they had to opperate in a wholly artifical environment and this could only be achieved because there were work opportunities and the prospect of a council house once you were married with a couple of kids within the perception of the pupils minds, as such there was a level of complacancy in the set up.

 

My question is can we afford to artifically manufacture that level of complacancy in the system in respect to kids who might have special needs? In some ways I do not feel we can do it in mainstream for average kids who might go on to get 8 GCSE's, 3 'A' levels and and undergraduate degree because even then they may be no where close to being considered 'productive'. The harsh reality is that a lot of the education system of the future will need to be about creating levels of 'self esteem' in young people so they are able to cope with living a life which is 'not productive' in its traditional definition. If we take on board this concept then the real differences between an average mainstream pupil and one with Special Needs are greatly reduced to become in many scenarios almost insignificant. What is the difference between a 17 year old SEN kid playing playstation all day and a 17 year old with 8 GCSE's doing the same when the prospects of employment for either are minimal?

 

For me a lot of the arguments made in this and similar posts is about justifying resorces so that a child can move towards the same goals as a non SEN child. I can see how this creates a feeling of inclusivity and offers hope, but if the goals have little real value is this still a justifiable course of action.

 

I do of course have a selfish interest in this debate as I choose to frame it. If the only answer for our society is to have a highly productive minority then I feel as someone from within the autistic community there are a large number of individuals within our ranks who would sit comfortably withing this minority profile. At present and worryingly in future a lot of the emphasis in the debate around ASD and SEN may be focused on provision in just one area. Canopus is right in that we need some strong definitions of what are SEN's. By doing so we should take a further step and look at an individuals potential, this will be very uncomfortable for many parents. If we do this we might find that SEN in fact works both ways and it might be more prudent for our society to focus SEN resources towards individuals who have talents and abilites way above average levels even though they may be very difficult to work with at times. My fear is that this government agenda will simply see these individuals as average and as such the false expectations and false promisses of the mainstream system will suffice for them. SEN needs to work both ways, it is a category which should sit on either side of mean values but we have made little in the way of progress at the higher end of this scale. I can see these proposals simply destroying any progress which has been made and that would be demonstrate a complete lack of foresight by government and a lack of vision as to the type of society we needs to be developing if this nation is to have much of a prosperous future.

 

Just a few thoughts.

[bed32]

I think the problem is really a matter of definition - so what is included in SEN. If 20% of children are defined as SEN then it becomes a bit of a contradiction - issues facing that many children should be catered for in mainstream as a matter of course and do not justify the tag "Special". It is too easy just to label any child SEN. To do so devalues the term for those children who have genuine severe Special Educational Needs.

[chris54]

About targeted SEN resources. I have posted before about my time at a special school back in the 60s. Then, it was only children that it was thought after an intensive period of educational intervention would be able to return to mainstream that were included. If not you were just left in mainstream doing colouring at the back of the class room. If after a period of time if you were not making any progress at the special school you would be returned to mainstream. It was felt that the meager resources should be directed were they would do most good. There were other types of special schools but they did little more than babysit the children untill they were 16 and at the end of education.

 

That was the past, will it be the future?

Edited May 18, 2012 by chris54

[Sally44]

I think that we should not just be looking for savings from SEN children.

 

What about the huge volume of children that go onto university now. In the past it was only the Grammar school kids that went to University. Now everyone seems to have a right to a degree, even if it is totally useless.

 

In my day 8 GCSEs and 3 'A' levels were not average. That was way above average. In those days we were told that the average was around a CSE grade 3. I was caught up inbetween the two systems and got both O Level grade Bs and CSE grade 1's.

 

We seem to have high expectations for all our children. We have to import labour to do the jobs that no-one wants to do. And we have technology that takes away jobs that the less able used to do.

 

How do we determine who gets the resources? Is it based on equality, or on performance. Many children with learning disabilities make progress and are expected to get to KS 3 and above in secondary school [whether that is mainstream or special], yet you can have children who do not have a LD, but maybe a SpLD who end up leaving school with absolutely nothing.

 

If resources are diverted away from those children who are not expected to gain employement, surely that will mean they will be more of a burden on society as adults? My own sister went to a special school and did not gain any qualifications. She works at Remploy [a sheltered workplace and another institution that is being slowly closed factory by factory to achieve savings]. But if my sister was not employed, she would need adult support during the day, she would need her rent paying and would be living off benefits, and when she reached retirement age she would need her pension.

 

There all kinds of different factors that make someone productive or not productive. Criminals are hardly productive and cost the taxpayer alot of money [yet another institution that maybe taken over by the private sector].

[chris54]

I has thought for a long time that we are being dishonest to our young people about education. Back when I was at school it was,"Do well in your GCE/CSE if you want a good job." Now it "Do well at university if you want a good job" If the target of 50% going to university is met then clearly only a small number of these graduating will find a job that reflect their Qualifications. My company advertise for up to graduate qualified staff, but pays little more than minimum wage.

I am one of the most experienced of their workers, but I am the least qualified, (In that field of work).

 

For the majority of people what they do at school and/or university should be seen as life enhancing and not the first step on a career ladder. For most it has no relevance to their final career path at all. I do not think of myself as of have a career, I have had a series of jobs. Ranging from digging holes on building sites to caring for new born babies, to looking after learning disabled. (What I do now) Apart from basic Maths and English, what I learnt at school, academically, has made little impact on my ability to do these jobs.

 

How well or otherwise a child does at school can be used as measure of their ability to learn now skills. If that is the case it is important for a SEN child, like any other, to do as well as possible at school.

[Sally44]

I know that this is now going way off topic, but our school often has reunions [every 5 years or so].

 

What I always noticed was that those that did very well for themselves were not necessarily the smartest kids in the class/school. What was different about them was their attitude I suppose. So I think education has got to be about lifelong learning, and being able to find out information, and enjoying learning about things. Not just passing examinations.

 

I hear employers often saying that the school leavers may have good qualifications on paper, but they have no idea about the work environment and how to get on.

 

Or maybe i'm just getting too old???

[bed32]

I would certainly agree that what makes you successful is hard work and determination (and a bit of luck) rather than just being bright. At schools (even good ones) it never pays to be top of the class - and if you are bright enough to find school easy then you don't get into the habit of pushing yourself.

 

The current education policy of "inclusion" that tries to educate both the brightest and children with Moderate SEN in the same class does no one any good. We really need education for all that is focussed on a particular set of needs (SEN or not) rather than this "One Size fits No One" philosophy we have now

[Canopus]

I think the issues raised simply point to the question we need to decide as a nation what is the purpose of the education system in this country. I think the posts highlight that we have different perceptions on this important issue. In palying devils advocate I would say that the purpose of the 'state' education system in its modern form is to produce 'functional individuals' who were able to enter into a society and make a productive contribution. I think one of the issues is that these expectations are becoming somewhat dated.

 

This is a subject that will be debated until the end of time...

 

Due to technological advancement our society is a very different one to that of just twenty or thirty years ago. I think the reality is that today the 'vast majority' of people are unable to make a productive input into the system and in that I mean 'create' wealth. The pressure on the wealth creators has become enormous. There was a period where we were able to use the then level of wealth generation to support a layer of services which simply pushed that wealth around a bit. There might even have been something left over to support the individuals who could not enter this service sector of society.

 

The reality is that wealth creation does not correlate with qualifications or NC knowledge. There are countless people out there who are well qualified and academically educated but earn lousy salaries. In contrast, a high proportion of 20 and 30 something entrepreneurs and self made millionaires do not have good qualifications and in some cases were school dropouts. It raises the question whether a traditional academic education is overrated and that in the 21st century it's the material outside of the NC that really leads to financial success, not GCSEs.

 

Personally I feel that the hidden truth within the system is that the majoriy will not reach societies desired standards. I want to make it clear as an ex teacher and examiner that standards are not falling rather they are increasing but they are not increasing at sufficient enough a pace to keep us competitive globally and that the productive workforce is a diminishing element as a whole.

 

I think what is more important is whether Britain can compete financially with low wage economies. If a certain job can be outsourced to India and done by workers with a comparable level of education and skills to a British worker for just a quarter of the price then what chance does a British worker have? All this talk about improving education and skills is a red herring. The price differential overshadows the intellectual differential.

 

Some economists go as far as saying that the education system should be restructured around developing skills for the jobs which cannot be outsourced rather than trying to outsmart other countries. In other words, tell schools to abandon computers and return to woodwork classes because building work cannot be oursourced to India like IT work can.

 

The harsh reality is that a lot of the education system of the future will need to be about creating levels of 'self esteem' in young people so they are able to cope with living a life which is 'not productive' in its traditional definition. If we take on board this concept then the real differences between an average mainstream pupil and one with Special Needs are greatly reduced to become in many scenarios almost insignificant. What is the difference between a 17 year old SEN kid playing playstation all day and a 17 year old with 8 GCSE's doing the same when the prospects of employment for either are minimal?

 

Gareth Lewis aptly summarises this in his article Youth Unemployment - No More Jobs for the Boys when he says "if there are no jobs for children when they leave school in five, ten, or fifteen years time, then there is absolutely no reason for sending them to school now".

 

If we do this we might find that SEN in fact works both ways and it might be more prudent for our society to focus SEN resources towards individuals who have talents and abilites way above average levels even though they may be very difficult to work with at times.

 

You are not the first person to say this.

 

For the majority of people what they do at school and/or university should be seen as life enhancing and not the first step on a career ladder. For most it has no relevance to their final career path at all. Apart from basic Maths and English, what I learnt at school, academically, has made little impact on my ability to do these jobs.

 

If this is true then it raises many questions about the entire nature of the state education system - or whether it should even be dismantled apart from primary school teaching basic maths and English. Is there really any point in spending millions of pounds on something for which there is little return on the investment economically when the internet can do the same job much cheaper?

 

What I always noticed was that those that did very well for themselves were not necessarily the smartest kids in the class/school. What was different about them was their attitude I suppose.

 

Intellectuals vs wheeler dealers?

 

So I think education has got to be about lifelong learning, and being able to find out information, and enjoying learning about things. Not just passing examinations.

 

You may be right but if you want this style of education then you have to go to Summerhill or home educate. State schools and most independent schools just function like meat grinders where exam grades are the be all and end all. They don't care about what kids know or learn that is outside of the curriculum.

[chris54]

"school leavers have no idea about the work environment" When employers say that what do they expect. They've just left school of course they have no idea about the work environment.

 

If I work in a factory, or a shop, or on a building site, I don't need to know anything about, history, geography, maybe a bit about science, I only need to be able to do basic maths, to read and write. If it is the function of schools to teach students how to do a job why wast money teaching all these things that are of no use to them in work.

 

No, education is much more than preparing children for work. It is about preparing them for life.

[Canopus]

I would certainly agree that what makes you successful is hard work and determination (and a bit of luck) rather than just being bright. At schools (even good ones) it never pays to be top of the class - and if you are bright enough to find school easy then you don't get into the habit of pushing yourself.

 

There may be truth to this but is it possible to be too clever in the real world? The problem with the mainstream school system is that it holds back high ability kids rather than lets them move ahead of the NC. I'm all for accelerated learning but many in the ASD community are not and the NAS doesn't advocate it.

 

No, education is much more than preparing children for work. It is about preparing them for life.

 

 

And does the state school system prepare children for life?

 

One of the many reasons why parents home educate is to prepare them for the real world by educating them in the real world by mixing with people who work in the real world.

[Sally44]

I think another major factor in education for children on the spectrum is their level of anxiety.

 

It does not matter what is made available in terms of provision or placement if the child is too anxious within school they will not learn, and that is why many of them end up refusing school. And the anxiety can be due to a number of reasons, often the large environment, sensory issues, social issues, teasing and bullying, being aware that they are different, in large schools, large classrooms, frequent changes of teacher and peers. They often do not get concepts and "self directed learning" is very difficult for children with lack of imagination, lack of theory of mind, and difficulties with comprehension and inference. And if that is the case, then inclusion is just an empty word that means nothing to children that are not and cannot be included within the system being offered.

 

The ONLY school that has ever been unable to understand and manage my sons anxiety is the current independent ASD school. They are doing everything to help him and there is nothing additonal I could suggest or even ask for. They have been brilliant.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Sally44

[chris54]

And does the state school system prepare children for life?

 

One of the many reasons why parents home educate is to prepare them for the real world by educating them in the real world by mixing with people who work in the real world.

 

We are all educating our children all the time. Education does not stop at the school gate.

[julieann]

The only types of school LAs offer is mainstream, ASD Unit, Special School. For those that cannot access mainstream, there is little point them being moved to a unit that then feeds them over to mainstream for certain lessons. Yet this is what the majority of them do. For those children that are cognitively able, they are not suitable for a MLD special school, where the other children have general learning disabilities, but tend to have reasonably good social communication skills.

 

 

The wording above is meant to be Sally 44's quote.Obviously I haven't got the hang of quoting paragraphs.

 

I notice that with the new SEN changes Academies and Free schools are going to be added to the schools available. Surely these types of schools are run as a business. The're not going to want to take pupils knowing they will need expensive additional services from day one.

Edited May 19, 2012 by julieann

[Canopus]

I notice that with the new SEN changes Academies and Free schools are going to be added to the schools available. Surely these types of schools are run as a business. The're not going to want to take pupils knowing they will need expensive additional services from day one.

 

This has been discussed here before. SEN services for kids with AS are generally much cheaper than those for kids with physical disabilities so funding is less of an issue in theory. What is a more pressing concern is that academies and free schools will have a desire to protect their image and reputation so they will be reluctant to take kids deemed to be controversial, weirdos, or potential liabilities through their actions even if they are high calibre academically. The schools will tend to be run like families so kids will be expected to fit in and contribute to the spirit rather than being themselves with their own identities. This could actually work in our favour if we could get funding for free schools for kids with AS.

[LancsLad]

Canopus you highlight a very good point here about academies.

 

I finished my teaching career in a mainstream secondary which was struggling to get out of 'special measures'. The political decision was to move it across to be an acadamey. What this mean't was they could also drop a lot of the formal curriculum and introduce cousrses which had 'equivalent value' which made the statistics look like the move had been a success. Recently Michael Gove as education Secretary has said he is going to devalue such course and take away this level of filter so it is easier to compare schools on a level playingfield.

 

Personally I do not have a problem with pupils undertaking a course in animal care for example. As I have said previously if a yound person can set up a mobile dog and cat grooming service, something one member of this forum has done, then this is a massivly positive contribution to society as they are providing value for themselves by being self employed and at worst are neautral, employ one other person and this is a positive contribution, far better than being an unemployed graduate. If the origin for such a move was undertaking a specific related course at school rather than a GCSE in Design and Technology (my own subject so I am having a go at no one here), then that is fine by me.

 

My concern is that the level of flexibility afforded academies under labour is being reversed by the coallition government and academies are simply seen as a way of getting schools into the semi-private sector and out of the hands of LA's. Given flexibility of approach i can see there are possibilites for a lot of kids to do well in academies. If they however are forced back into rigid NC structures then the semi-private sector will feel no compulsion to engage in SEN students unless they can prove to be of high academic standing. If this scenario does develop will it lead to a growth in free schools or will SEN kids be bussed around what remains of the LA's provision after everything else has been cherry picked from their grasp?

 

Just a few thoughts.

[chris54]

The the school my son goes to is an Academy. It policy at the present time is to offer ALL of its pupils a post 16 place tailoring a course to suite that child's ability/wishes. As we have grammar schools here which already filter of the top 25%, it is likely that a higher than average proportion of these courses will be non academic. If the value of these courses is down graded how will that stand when it comes to measuring the schools achievements.

 

Will the school feel it cannot continue this inclusive policy, if so what will its children with SEN do then Post 16.

 

Bering in mind that because we have selective education here (Grammar schools) it already has a higher proportion of SEN children than average at the school.

Edited May 20, 2012 by chris54

[Canopus]

Recently Michael Gove as education Secretary has said he is going to devalue such course and take away this level of filter so it is easier to compare schools on a level playingfield.

 

Given flexibility of approach i can see there are possibilites for a lot of kids to do well in academies. If they however are forced back into rigid NC structures then the semi-private sector will feel no compulsion to engage in SEN students unless they can prove to be of high academic standing.

 

There is some anecdotal evidence that the current crop of public school toffs in Parliament sees the academic grammar school system as the future model of mainstream education and they are quietly reversing the reforms of the Thatcher decade such as replacing all examination O Levels with coursework based GCSEs, separate science subjects with double science etc.

 

If this scenario does develop will it lead to a growth in free schools or will SEN kids be bussed around what remains of the LA's provision after everything else has been cherry picked from their grasp?

 

It remains to be seen. Something I'm worried about is dustbinning SEN kids by lumping those with very different types of SEN in schools which provide a poor education just to clear them out of mainstream so it can get on with teaching kids who don't have problems. There is sufficient popular opinion from the Daily Mail readers to support such polices under journalist's titles of troubled, maladjusted, or disruptive. These were all terms that were used to describe my residential school that was officially EBD.

 

Personally I do not have a problem with pupils undertaking a course in animal care for example. As I have said previously if a yound person can set up a mobile dog and cat grooming service, something one member of this forum has done, then this is a massivly positive contribution to society as they are providing value for themselves by being self employed and at worst are neautral, employ one other person and this is a positive contribution, far better than being an unemployed graduate. If the origin for such a move was undertaking a specific related course at school rather than a GCSE in Design and Technology (my own subject so I am having a go at no one here), then that is fine by me.

 

I absolutely agree with this but if attitudes are that academic standards are paramount then useful vocational courses become vulnerable. Those who can't handle O Level / A Level material will get shunted onto useless courses like the CPVE.

[LancsLad]

Chris you make a good point about the measurement of standards and Canopus you are right to describe the current cabinet as a group of Public School Toffs. I was never a fan of Margret Thatcher but you are perfectly right to highlight that she did a lot to break down the differences which were apparent in the examination system and unified academic achievement under one fair banner. Without doubt a lot of the political ideaology coming out from the current Conservative regime is a very regressive step backwards and highly the teachings of a shop keepers daughter.

 

Chris I am not too sure where things will leave us. A part of me feels the system might simply self destruct as it is not sustainable. Tony Balir's idea that 45% of children can go onto university is proving to be a complete joke and as a result we are reaching the stage as is the case in the USA where an undergraduate degree has little value. At present you have to self finance postgraduate study and as such in the current job market few will be prepared to invest around £20,000 for a two year course if that still does not lead into employment. In such a climate by doing things differently there is a strong possibility that new values will begin to emerge, I hope so. It might be the case that at local levels employers for example might be interested in taking on young people from certain schools simply because in their experience they are developing well rounded and balanced individuals who fit well into their organisations. There is the possibility that traditional perceptions of what is value and what is not simply start to disintegrate.

 

Chris I am impressed that your local academy offers a course to 'all' of its students post 16 regardless of their abilities and skills profiles. As Canopus highlights in respect to one such structure CPVE's it is important that educationalists in partnership with employers organisations sit down and develop some stringent structures around such courses so that they represent value for both the participants and to the outside world who will use these qualifications as a means of judging value. The idea of alternative types of education which are fully inclusive is not wrong, nor have employers in my experience been quick to diminish their value. The problem has always been with traditional middle class models of academic education who dismiss anything which might challenge their percieved status quo in society as being valueless. The truth is that this system of education has reached the point where it has little value and at this point in time we might be able to take an alternative direction.

 

Just a few thoughts.

[chris54]

For Local academy read local school as, apart from the grammar schools it is the only school and serves of 15mile radius. It works with the boys grammar school to offer a wider rang of A level subjects. The girl grammar school pulled out of this agreement. The boys grammar now also takes post 16 girls as well. (Both post 16 boys and Girls from the academy attend the boys grammar school.)

[Canopus]

We are all educating our children all the time. Education does not stop at the school gate.

 

True, but how many parents are aware of the 1996 Education Act which states that they are responsible for their children's education? We now have a society where countless kids, mainly from lower class families in economically depressed areas, start school unable to carry out basic everyday tasks because their parents haven't bothered teaching them. That way schools are increasingly having to pick up the pieces of failed parenting.

 

The SEN community fares little better at times with countless parents expecting the state to provide an A1 education for their kids then more often than not fighting losing battles against the establishment. This is why I previously stated about going back to first principles then compiling lists of the services the state is to provide and the services where it is the parents responsibility to provide.

 

Chris you make a good point about the measurement of standards and Canopus you are right to describe the current cabinet as a group of Public School Toffs. I was never a fan of Margret Thatcher but you are perfectly right to highlight that she did a lot to break down the differences which were apparent in the examination system and unified academic achievement under one fair banner. Without doubt a lot of the political ideaology coming out from the current Conservative regime is a very regressive step backwards and highly the teachings of a shop keepers daughter.

 

I disagree. The all examination nature and the style of the questions in O Level exam papers is often better for kids with AS than the coursework based GCSE is. My education psychologist mentioned that I would do worse under the new style GCSEs than under the O Levels. There have been quite a bit of interest in IGCSEs by parents of kids with AS and they have been comparing exam paper questions with those from the GCSE.

 

GCSEs were designed to be a populist exam for the masses of NT kids.

 

As Canopus highlights in respect to one such structure CPVE's it is important that educationalists in partnership with employers organisations sit down and develop some stringent structures around such courses so that they represent value for both the participants and to the outside world who will use these qualifications as a means of judging value.

 

The value of a qualification is the level in which employers and higher educational institutions value it. Course content comes second.

 

I have found out that an electronics A Level is not highly valued by industry or higher education despite its content being just as technical as a physics or chemistry A Level.

[chris54]

, start school unable to carry out basic everyday tasks because their parents haven't bothered teaching them.

 

When My son first started school, after a few weeks the teacher took my aside and said, Can you teach your son to dress him self. It seemed that he was making out he couldn't and letting the teacher dress and undress him for PE..

Edited May 23, 2012 by chris54

[LancsLad]

Canopus I take your point in respect to GCSE's. But I feel there are good and bad elements to them.

 

On the good side for me is that it negated an issue I faced myself at school. Even though 'O' levels were around my school only asked pupils to do CSE's my set being the first time exception. They were fed a line that a grade 1 CSE was the equivalent to an 'O' level grade C, in my experience very few in FE and HE took this fact on board. The GCSE allowed people full access in many schools which had previously been secondary moderns full access to a full range of grades.

 

I do agree with the large amounts of coursework being a very devisive device. In general terms this has played very much into the hands initially of girls who tend to be more conciencious, and into families who are well resourced. As a past examiner and moderator of GCSE and A level Design & Technology subjects I can remeber being involved in arguments many years ago about things such as higher marks to be awarded for word processed work for example, knowing my own school sat in an ex mining area and unemployment in the catchment was running at over 35%. I have also been faced with marking student work and seeing a couple of bits of scrufy paper with a sketch or two on them showing real talent and having next to it a beautifully made piece of origonal furniture design and having to give it a grade D because there was no supporting evidence. Sitting next to it there would be pages and pages of beautifully created work showing many hours worth of effort, and within which there was not one origonal idea or thought rather it was all process driven, next to it there would be a very average piece of practical work and i would have to ignore the majority of the flaws and faults in it because they were all carefully analysed and evaluated on a few pages of written information all spoon fed by the teacher and give the project a grade B. I had no choice but to follow the criteria as was my job. The truth is I could have picked up the piece of furniture design and walked into many a universtiy department and got its producer a place on a foundation degree course. The reality is the individual almost always a boy leaves school at 16, the teachers are angry with them for letting them down by not producing pages and pages of coursework, and their potential is not realised.

 

I personally agree that as an Aspie I enjoy the pressure of written exams I find them easy in comparison to my peers. What I would say however there are very few instances in my working life where I have had to be under this amount of pressure. I personally think timed coursework is the way to go for a lot of areas. For example giving 30 hours to complete a project. In my experience such an examination format would be an absoloute disaster for many individuals, in particular well resourced middle class girls. I know this is a generalisation but I have a lot of experience in different school environments and many of these non competitive individuals would have great difficulty in time management, in being able to deal with and move on from their own mistakes which are inevitable. As the pressure of the process built they would have difficulty emotionally dealing with it. In contrast a lot of competive kids would relish the challenge and might feel obliged to do a bit more preparitory work for the main tasks if a teacher were present supervising. Of course the system is not going to introduce changes which might penalise some of their own andcreate a level playingfield which is better related to everyday working conditions.

 

just a few thoughts.