Special Educational Needs
Your thoughts on tonight's guest.
MONDAY MORNING UPDATE: In case you missed it, the piece from Friday's programme.
The introduction was along these lines...
We know from the PM blog that children with special educational needs are of great concern to PM listeners. You can click on a link on the blog now to read the history of our coverage which has been led by our reporter Yvonne Murray.
Tonight, Yvonne has a follow up to our last interview on the subject with the schools minister Lord Adonis.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Rosemary, Lady Hughes, is somewhat naive to say that one independent person alone can assess the needs of a child is nonsense, unless they are a qualified in speech and language therapist, an occuaptional therapist, a consultant paediatrician and educational psychologist, in wrapped up in one. I have never heard such nonsense at all.
I also represent parents voluntary at SENDIST. I am sorry the process is truly awful for parents, not just financially but emotionally.
The Tribunal is a fact finding lower court and has to conduct itself like one. Further, Lady Hughes fails to mention that when SENDIST makes an error in law as they often do as they did in my child's case on three occasions, then parents have to pay for the appeal to the High Court.
The Tribunal fails to collate any data on the social economic circumstance of the parents and she is unable to know just who is accesssing it.
The Tribunal Panels are inconsistent in their approach, and I assure you with nine years of experience you cannot describe the Tribunal as informal.
Lady Hughes is happy to meet with LEAs and take representations from them, yet never invites parents to discuss their concerns.
Finally, typical establishment of see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil, given Lady Hughes describe parents of disabled children complaining of the system as grumbling minorities - could that possibly be that she reports directly to Lord Adonis ?
I fully concur with the comments of those required to attend SEN Tribunals - they are daunting and quite intimidatory occasions. However, I speak as a former Headteacher who was, so to speak, "on the other side, though not through choice,I might add.
As with many of my colleagues, I was ordered to attend to add weight to the LEA's decision not to provide appropriate support for a child. We had exhausted our resources, human and financial in attempting to support the child as far as we were able but it was evident to everyone that this was insufficient. However, because the LEA was not prepared to move, I was required to give evidence and answer questions. It did, indeed, feel as if I were "in the dock"! The outcome - the school was required to do more. The child lasted three more months before finally the LEA acted!
You very seldom hear the views of those who have to represent the Local Authority at the Tribunal. This was my job between 1997 and 2001. I'm now retired and one thing I do NOT miss is the stress of constantly being cast in the role of villain by parents who disagreed with our efforts to be fair to all the children in our (small and rather poorly resourced )Authority and operate the policy of educating children locally, rather than always acceding to requests for placement at specialist schools outside the Borough - this was the most frequent reason why parents took us to the Tribunal. The Authority never had legal representation at the hearings, although parents occasionally did. Tribunal members always went out of their way to make things as easy as possible for the parents and to pay as much heed to their eveidence as they did to anything produced by the Authority. This often made it tough for us as LA representatives.
As your speaker from the Tribunal so diplomatically said, it's the disgruntled appellants who make the most noise. Some of the stress reported by parents might be self-induced. A parent who lost an appeal against her daughter's placement in a local special school, rather than in a specialist residential school, eventually admitted that the placement had worked well for her daughter.
An independent asessor might be an ideal solution but would surely prolong the process for parents.
The point is being missed as to why there is such a problem with Special Needs Tribunerals. The variety of provision in terms of special schools and small secondary schools suitable for the needs of many children is not now available since the closure of many because of the growth of the large 'inclusive' comprehensive. I was a special needs coordinator and worked in special education for 27 years . In those years the introducyion of misguided integration policies coinciided with a rise in the number of appeals. I have a son who is dislexic, he could not cope with a large comprehensive as is the experience of many. 15 years ago the LEA was supportive and he went to a small school with specialist help. Similar children I have worked with until a retired 2 years ago were not given that option as there simply is not the provision available. The National Curriculum and the plethora of beaurocracy make setting up and funding schools difficult ,and LEAs are set in the misguided track of ever larger schools. A move to encourage LEAs and interested teachers to set up small/special schools is the only solution. Specialist teachers are disappearing in comprehensives as poorly trained (cheaper) classroom assistants are given the responsibility for complying with the oblication to provide some form of secial help.
Getting to the tribunal stage demonstrates a failure of the LEA. In many cases where the LEA fails to meet children鈥檚 needs parents opt not to go to tribunal because it is such a daunting process. It is inevitably an adversarial process as you are only there because of opposing opinions.
We chose to oppose the LEA鈥檚 statements without going through tribunal but it took a year and many hundreds of hours of effort. During most of this time we were forced to educate at home.
Cases that go to tribunal represent the tip of the iceberg in terms of failure to make adequate SEN provision.
Characterising parents who won鈥檛 lie down and continue to stick up for their children鈥檚 rights as 鈥渄ifficult鈥 or a 鈥済rumbling minority鈥 is typical of the institutionalised bullying practised by LEAs.
I have attended around 50 SEN Tribunals over the last 5 years as LEA representative. I also appealed last year about my own child's sepcial educational needs, so I have seen the system from both sides.
I have to say that I have almost invariably found the Tribunal panel to have reached a decision based on the evidence before them.
Many parents now employ solicitors and barristers to represent them at the tribunal hearing. Following some extremely unpleasant experiences where head teachers who attend to give an honest account of the provision available at their school have been traumatised by the hectoring and bullying behaviour of some of the parents' representative, my authority now also employs a barrister where the parents have instructed one, simply for the protection of the witnesses.
My experience has been that unrepresented parents are as likely to be successful in their appeal as those who are represented, even in those cases where parents are not themselves either highly educated or articulate.
I agree that where parents are advised that they need to obtain a raft of private assessments, the costs become prohibitive. Unfortunately these are often witheld from the LEA until days before the hearing, which means that where they do provide additional evidence which would justify the Authority in altering its view, there is no time before the hearing to give reasonable consideration to the fresh information, and a hearing which might have been averted has to go ahead. If the tribunal were to employ their own expert to assess the young person my opinion is that this would be extremely useful. If such an assessment were to be made available to both parties ahead of the hearing, this may enable more appeals to be settled without a hearing being necessary. It need not prolong the process, one appeal I was involved with last year was lodged in the summer, and heard in February!.
My own view is that where an authority makes a decision that parents are unhappy with, they are entitled to take it to appeal for the Tribunal to look at independently. Most often especially where parents are unrepresented, the hearings are conducted in a civil and reasoned manner with discussion being encouraged. In most cases professionals and parents have to continue to work with each other following the hearing. In my experience, especially where parents are unrepresented, parents and professionals leave the hearing on at least as good terms as they were before it.
In relation to my own child's appeal, both my husband and I felt that we had a fair hearing. It was clearly stressful for both sides. We are still on good terms with the school. ( I should say that the appeal was not successful!)
Rosemary Hughes referred to all 200 pages of the blog as the "grumbling minority"! She will never improve her Tribunal until she accepts the truth.
I have attended 13 Tribunals for my 2 children mainly because the LEA have been able to get away with adjourning last minute. The Tribunal's annual review reflects an increase in adjournments. Adjournments mean more costs for parents and the LEA get away with a few more months of not having to pay for appropriate provision. Parent's have to do so much to match all the LEA employees who are constant players and their Barristers.
A parent cannot on their own match up to that especially when panel members allow the LEA's to get away with all sorts.
At my number 13 Tribunal I was horrified to see a panel member assisting the LEA and later fell asleep whilst
We moved from one LEA to another in September 2006. We had been to a SENDIST Tribunal in December 2005 but had been unsuccessful as we wanted to have a special school named for our severely dyslexic son. The SENDIST Tribunal felt that our son鈥檚 needs would be met with 4 hours with a special teacher one to one and a learning support assistant for 7.5 hours in a mainstream school. Due to our move from one LEA to another, we were forced to have our son's statement re-assessed. We finally received an amended statement at the end of February 2007. The amended statement did not adequately address our son鈥檚 needs nor did it provide appropriate qualified or quantified support. The LEA proposed only 7.5 hours with a Learning Support Assistant in a mainstream school. We appealed the amended statement and we were supposed to go to a SENDIST Tribunal a few days ago.
At our MPs behest a voluntary legal representative helped us with our Tribunal. She wrote our case statement and provided us with a working document which comprehensively reflected all of our son鈥檚 needs and educational objectives. Two days before our Tribunal date the LEA sent us a second amended statement that was identical to the working document which we had proposed. We are of the view that the authority took Counsel advice (barrister) who clearly would have advised the LEA that on the basis of our case submission prepared by our legal representative, that the authority would have been notified that their position was untenable. If the LEA had contacted us even a week earlier the expense of the Tribunal (probably in the region of 拢4,000), which was to be held in a hotel at the LEA鈥檚 behest, would have been saved.
The LEA is now paying for our son to be educated at a special school for dyslexic children, weekly speech and language therapy plus weekly travel expenses.
We have been though years of stress and huge expenses. We have paid over 拢45,000 in the last two years on school fees, speech therapy and reports from educational psychologists, a child psychiatrist and a speech therapist. Thanks to our legal representative we were successful. The support, guidance and extensive knowledge of special educational needs law provided by the legal representative were critical in our success. In our first Tribunal in December 2005 we were like lambs to the slaughter. We believed the spin we were given ie that parents could represent themselves and it was not absolutely necessary to bring witnesses. A SENDIST Tribunal is an extremely challenging and legal environment. The present system fails SEN children and their parents. It just doesn鈥檛 work. It especially does not work for parents who do not have access to legal help or have learning difficulties themselves.
Lady Hughes doesn't know what she is talking about when she says that we are a "grumbling minority". If we did not have the money to pay for all the reports we would have got no where.
Lady Hughes should resign her post. She should be replaced by someone who has actually been through a SENDIST Tribunal. I am sure that Lady Hughes' children did not go to a state school or maybe like Ruth Kelly, instead of slogging it out like the rest of us, would have placed her child in a special private school if they had incurred difficulties.
Would Lady Hughes be prepared to defend herself in a Court of Law against a professional prosecution where her very quality of life depends on it. I think not.
The claim that parents who pay for professional help at tribunals are 鈥渟tatistically鈥 no more likely to win than those parents who do not pay for such help is grossly misleading. Presumably the statistic is that (say) 50% of parents who pay for a report and / or legal representation at tribunal win and 50% of those parents who do not pay for such support also win.
This is a gross misuse of statistics. It is obvious that a parent with clear prospects of success at tribunal will not pay for the cost of representation. A parent with a more difficult case or up against a Council paying lawyers for representation will feel they have to pay for help themselves. If the same numbers of each group win then it demonstrates the necessity of paying for support. Apples are being compared to grapes.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Congratulations to Lord Adonis for completing the full set. Remember, Every Child Matters. (Unless you are a Special Needs child living in the wrong authority).
addressed to Ms Kinloch - alleged inappropriate behaviour is not exclusive to parents, their representatives or Counsel, but is also the domain of LEA officers, and I have observed it both inside and outside the Tribunal.
The simple solution for your LEA was not to employ barristers, but not to force head teachers to attend Tribunals often against their wishes against the parents.
LEAs such as Wiltshire in fact has millions of pounds and staff resources available to it, parents do not. Indeed in a recent Tribunal judgment that very fact was noted.
I do note with some interest that unfortunately you personally lost your Tribunal, when the vast majority of parents in fact win their appeals. Perhaps it was because you did not take a step back and consider the need to secure independent reports to support your child?
Lady Hughes has missed the salient point - most parents do not criticise the Tribunal itself, but the process, which she claims is free. She is also woefully out of touch regarding the costs of reports which are nearly one thousand pounds each.
The Tribunal is also a Court of Law and conducts itself like one - it is not friendly at all. I also know that it depends on the panel you have some are more friendly user than others.
As for Ms Kinloch giving reasons that head teachers have been so traumatised by barristers, at Tribunal, could it be because they are having to say what their employee the LEA wants them to say rather than a fair reflection of the child's needs? I was at a Tribunal when the Head under questioning who had said how they were wonderful at meeting the child's needs, admitted they intended to exclude him, but had been told by the LEA officer not to say anything because it would look bad at Tribunal. At another hearing parents were berated for over two hours by the LEA's Barrister on instruction of the LEA, to the point when the Chair had to step in and say it was enough.
Earlier this year the LB of Croydon lost a High Court Appeal because its head teacher had not told the truth to the Tribunal and ended up with over twenty thousand pounds of costs.
So I agree with Ms Maynard the solution is to stop forcing head teachers to go to Tribunals against their wishes which has a long term detrimental effect of the relationship between the parents and the school.
Finally, Rosemary Lady Hughes also missed the salient point namely the responsibility to assess, correctly identify and meet the needs of the child is the local authority not the parents and certainly not just one person from the Tribunal - I think she is somewhat out of touch with reality.
Grumbling minority? Grumbling, yes. Minority, yes. So, is Lady Hughes right? No, in my view, she is not. That is because it is only the minority who know how, and can afford, to appeal against the might of the Local Authority. If more parents and carers, whose children either do not have a Statement of special educational needs or have one that does not provide an accurate description of their child's needs (or doesn't describe the specific support required to meet those needs or doesn't name the best placement for the child) had access to an independent service that will help them to get the right support - and at the right educational setting - then the minority would soon grow into the majority.
I think that Lady Hughes is not in touch with those who suffer at the hands of LEAs who don't always provide the truth at Tribunal or at the hands of Tribunal Chairs who take evidence from LEAs without questioning its accuracy.
Thank you all again for your comments on this subject. We will be recording them all again for our next follow-up.
It's important to point out that in the interview I conducted with Lady Hughes on Friday, the phrase "grumbling minority" was in my question to her - not in her answer.
We will post the interview on the blog this week if anybody would like to listen.
OK, so where is this (majority of??) parents who are actually happy with the Tribunal System?
No point Lady H implying that more parents are satisfied with the Tribunal System than are not if she cannot at least show us reliable indicators.
Can she provide us with a web link to substantiate that which she can only seem to imply?
Maybe each parent should have the chance to comment on the service they receive at the Tribunal in a Post-Tribunal Customer Satisfaction Survey or similar.
How about it Lady H? Then we will know better.
Where are the actual stats / what is the evidence upon which Lady H and Lord Adonis base their (cringemaking) opinion?
Please give us some real indication, something solid on which we can start a proper debate.
We can't take this debate very far based upon Lord Adonis' and Lady H's waffle and spin, and vast distance from reality.
Do they really believe that parents of children with SENs are just up for a fight for no real reason?
This is not just ridiculous but grossly insulting and very deeply hurtful to those who are already suffering enough.
If you look through the comments it is invariably those who have no direct experience of bringing up children with SENs, those who do not have to "live it" who make the most outrageous, dismissive and unfeeling comments.
Pat (15),
"it is invariably those who have no direct experience of bringing up children with SENs, those who do not have to "live it" who make the most outrageous, dismissive and unfeeling comments."
Exactly why, although I am appalled at the complacency of the two spokespersons for 'the system', I have refrained from commenting.
My sympathies are with those parents who not only have heavier than 'normal' parental duties and responsibilities, but are faced with such an insensitive set of procedures as the comments reveal it to be.
It needs sorting, and with good speed.
xx
ed
Re: Post 16 " "it is invariably those who have no direct experience of bringing up children with SENs, those who do not have to "live it" who make the most outrageous, dismissive and unfeeling comments."
Exactly why, although I am appalled at the complacency of the two spokespersons for 'the system', I have refrained from commenting. "
I felt exactly the same. I was so stunned by the indifference, arrogance, ignorance, condescention, spin, waffle, lack of real informed substance in their comments on the whole thing so far, my "mouth" seized up for a while.
Speechless!!!!!!!!! What can you say?
How do we establish constructive, real, informed open debate on this matter???
It's just vague generalised slippery waffle on their part at the moment. Total denial.
I could better pin down a fat slug.
I missed Lady Hughes on the 13th July. Thanks to the 大象传媒 for listen again!
I have been to SENDist three times. The third time was for a discrimination case against my son鈥檚 school. Guess who presided over the panel? Yes, you have it, Lady Hughes herself.
Lady Hughes said in her Radio 4 statement that the tribunal was friendly and not adversarial; she said, further, it was informal but where legal points were involved it may be best to have legal representation.
I would like to take these points, one by one, and highlight where my view differs from Lady Hughes.
Firstly, with due respect to the Lady, she may see herself as friendly and informal but I can assure her that, even though I am very used to attending senior business meetings with many captains of industry, that she does not present as friendly and informal but is more intimidating than many I meet.
Her manner and exercise of the authority she wields is very clear as to who she believes she is. I will admit Lady Hughes was just at the change-over from her predecessor Mr Trevor Aldridge and maybe she was still finding her feet but I do suspect that much of what I saw was her normal modus operandi.
Our panel was hearing a strikeout proposed by the school on the basis of three points of law. In dealing with these she was most stern, unapproachable and in my opinion, bias against the child [us the parents] from the outset of the hearing.
The outcome of the tribunal was a decision that my son [with clear diagnosis to the contrary] was not disabled in the terms of the DDA.
The method by which Lady Hughes determined our case was flawed as the procedure she stated as being the procedure that would be followed was not followed and thus the outcome was later commented on in the High Court [Lord Leveson] upon application that: -
Mr Nicholas Bowen, who appeared for the parents before me [Lord Leveson] as he had before the Tribunal, explained that before hearing submissions the President [Lady Hughes] emphasised that the nature of the application, being an application to strike out, was such that they would exercise their discretion under the regulations on the same basis as though it were an application to strike out in ordinary civil litigation, that is they would proceed on the basis of the appellant's version of the facts. That approach is not reflected in the formulation of the Tribunal's decision and I am far from clear as to its true meaning and effect鈥
Lord Leveson also said in this summation -
The Tribunal must govern its own procedure, but in my judgment there are sufficient flaws in the approach of the Tribunal to justify it being quashed and remitted for further consideration.
This meant the Tribunal decision was shown to be wrong in law and had not followed the accepted precedents. The matter did not return to SENDist as the school agreed all remedies in line with those achievable at SENDist and it would have been inappropriate to thus waste more Court time once the other party had agreed to resolve the matter.
Therefore, I can assure all parents that the Tribunal is a Court, and has the powers of Parliament for the purpose of its remit. Make no mistake, it may not be able send you to prison but it can impose such devastation, in its outcome, or lack of, or deliver a perverse decision or be challenged and bullied by the power of Councils and their well-equipped Lawyers, such that no-one as an ordinary parent should ever be lulled into the impression that by just pleading an honest, common-sense case that they will be heard and that justice will win through. It does not. The Tribunal is manipulated by trick after trick used by LEAs to delay and undermine the position of the Tribunal.
As I said at the beginning I had three tribunals, the first two was an adjournment and reconvening of a hearing for Educational SEN matters. The SENDist staff who presided over these were very clear, well balanced, and in many ways more conformant to the ideal description given by Lady Hughes. I would like to re-state that despite these attributes the panel members were very clear to me that within the process they had to follow they had to be very aware of the law and be very careful to give the LEA every opportunity and leeway to thus minimise the LEAs opportunity to appeal the final outcome by way of legal challenges.
This was the right way to run the process but without representation and support, it would not be easy for parents whom are stressed, fatigued and emotional from many months/years of battling through assessments, delayed by LEA, and then to be presented with the process of a lower Court, it is not realistic to expect them to come in unarmed when the LEA, even if they do not bring a Solicitor, have been fully briefed and had discussions on this coming hearing for the preceding weeks in preparation for the hearing and have probably role played their statements and inputs several times.
They also have probably been to many Tribunals on different occasions and are proficient representatives for this purpose. As a council tax payer [taking a perverse view for a moment] I would expect nothing less than efficient, effective Officers but I do not support or want untruthful, law breaking and mischievous Officers which unfortunately we so often get.
I am most grateful to Radio 4 for achieving statements from both Lord Adonis and Lady Hughes; both unanswerable to public scrutiny, both in their Ivory Towers, both, it would appear, unaware of the realities of the streets of Britain today, and the realities they, in their own ways, have created for the disabled children whether SEN or other, through their very narrow and dismissive attitude and ignoring of the facts as presented by those on the receiving end of their policies and regulations.
Re Comment number 8.
The problem re moving from one LEA area to another and having to be re-assessed - even possibly losing hard-fought-for support / provision, has had an extremely negative and frustrating / depressing effect, on my own housing situation, meaning I have been completely stuck in a particular housing situation. I can't elaborate, unfortunately.
Please use your imaginations as to how this phenomenon affects and disadvantages people. All of us have to adapt to particular circumstances in life sometimes, & move from one area to another in response, and this sort of thing (postcode lottery / need to be re-assessed by people who do not know your child) prevents us from doing so, affects our geographical mobility.
In effect - another freedom - that most people can take for granted - taken away from parents of children with SENs.
Please see below - this is what is happening re Connexions in our area. it worries me, as the LEA is always looking to save money. What will happen to Connexions, who currently can act as a safety net to those of our children who have a delayed education or none at all.
Article from local paper (name of LEA edited out by me)
COUNTY MAY TAKE OVER TRAINING ROLE
08 August 2007
The 拢14.5million-a-year ...... youth job and training advice service Connexions looks set to be taken back under ........ County Council's wing.
The former ....... Careers Service has been run as a "social enterprise" but from next April it may be taken back because of Government policy changes.
Connexions gives out leaflets on education, employment and training for under-18s and targets support to vulnerable young people via personal advisers.
It has a staff of 200 in ........ who would join ....... County Council where there are already 60 specialists operating the targeted services.
It has to meet targets for information, advice and guidance to reduce numbers of young people not in education, employment or training.
I am a former teacher and now a university education lecturer with the requisite PhD in education. I also happen to have two children with learning difficulties. At the suggestion of my children's schools, and with the full support of their Special Needs Co-ordinators and some of the LEA's own specialist members of staff, I made a formal application to the LEA for my children to be assessed so that they could receive a statement of special educational needs, and so their schools could receive additional funding on their behalf.
The LEA flatly refused to assess my children, citing a reason that did not hold up in law. I arranged for the children to have various private assessments with reputable specialists, to give an independent opinion as to what they were likely to need in educational terms, and whether it was advisable that I should proceed with an appeal. This cost in the region of 拢900, but has been an indispensible part of the jigsaw.
At home I scrutinised every piece of paperwork I was sent and I soon became aware that many of the LEA's policies were riddled with errors and occasional but fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of child development, and also did not stand up in terms of current education and disability law.
With the help of a couple of leaflets and the standard SENDIST video, I started to prepare my own case ready for the Tribunal, but found this gruelling, on top of a full day's work and caring for the children in the evenings. I estimate that I spent approximately 50-60 hours per child preparing each case. (Bear in mind that I am an academic and therefore well used to carrying out documentary analysis of complicated texts).
However it was too much even for me. Just as I was about to crumble and give up, a leading charity stepped in and provided me with a trainee barrister to carry on the work on a pro bono basis. She did a wonderful job, and her inside knowledge of the system meant she was able to anticipate problems such as the LEA failing to submit the necessary paperwork to the Tribunal, which would have meant that the Tribunal would not have been able to take all the facts of the case into account, which might have adversely affected our chances of winning. There is no way I could have known or anticipated that things like this would happen.
In the end, the LEA conceded the day before the Tribunal, and my children did receive a statement, but it cost a great deal of money, time and stress. I fail to see how any parents without specialist qualifications can navigate this process to best effect without professional support behind them. However polite and 'informal' the Tribunal might be, this can never be regarded as a fair or effective process unless parents receive free, impartial assessment and representation from the specialists of their choice.