Reform of Special Educational Needs.

I have been asked to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] against the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
The petition appears to me to be a knee-jerk response to the changes, and the people who have asked me to sign it have taken mighty offence at my asking questions about it so I thought I would put it to some more rational people.

An Online Petition wrote:If these proposals are passed, these will be the first changes to the law in relation to children and young persons with disabilities and special educational needs, which reduces both their and their parent’s rights. This proposed legislation is anti parent, and turns the clock back over 30 years.

Our concerns:
No right for parents or schools to request the equivalent of a Statutory Assessment (if children have been missed or the complexity of their needs have not been recognised, there is nothing parents or schools can do about it).

Dilution of the duty to specify the special education provision. Current requirement to “specify” special educational provision in a statement is watered down to a lesser duty to “set out” provision in a EHC plan.

Mandatory Mediation – with anti parent penalties
· A parent has no choice and is forced to do this.
· It is not independent (the LA appoints the mediator).
· It includes penalties against parents, but not Local Authorities.
· The system of mandatory mediation is highly complex, provides a system similar to an SEND Tribunal Appeal, and will delay and obstruct parents who are attempting to get a quick and easy decision about their children.

I am not inclined to believe that any legislation says what somebody tells me it says unless they are somebody I know to be reliable, and in any case, I think the way to get a draft revised is to properly debate the flaws in it.

Anybody here know about it?
Or alternatively we could discuss the pointlessness or otherwise of online petitions.

I tend to avoid the online petitions. To be brutally honest I think they are just a tool to make the ruled feel like they have a say, but have little to no effect.

I can't comment on special needs provision in the UK, I'm long since out of that loop, but I can in Canada. Both my boys are classified as having high needs, and I expected a mighty scrap getting them a decent education - many many meetings later, I have become the parent the schools dread, but my boys are getting their educational needs met.

I guess what I am saying is I believe that it depends on each childs needs and and IPP needs to be drafted to tailor the education to meet the kids not just through blanket enforcement of rules..

Adrian wrote:I tend to avoid the online petitions. To be brutally honest I think they are just a tool to make the ruled feel like they have a say, but have little to no effect.

That was part of my point. And that particular petition does not even say what its aiming to achieve.
It amounts to: "change is bad... M'kay."
I've heard of nothing but trouble regarding the current regulations, but I've been banned from the forum for asking what is actually wrong with the proposals. :?
Strange people.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

My mantra (if had had such a thing)

Ooh, you are a bit canny sometimes.
It was actually something not unlike that which got me the ban.

well, not going to happen here - only two people ever got banned here - one was a short one to stop someone saying things she would regret (huge mistake on my part) the other was because a guy was posting sexualised material - this is a family show...

I don't like banning or removing posts, tbere is too much authoritarianism and censorship on other fora, not happening here

Adrian wrote:one was a short one to stop someone saying things she would regret (huge mistake on my part)

Did you try apologising?

I don't like banning or removing posts, tbere is too much authoritarianism and censorship on other fora, not happening here

I thought that the thing to do if a post may want removing is to remove it and send a copy back to the poster so they can perhaps rephrase something.

Hairyloon wrote:

Adrian wrote:one was a short one to stop someone saying things she would regret (huge mistake on my part)

Did you try apologising?

Repeatedly - but that wasn't good enough, and to be honest, my life is just too short to appease an angry person

Fair enough. Was just asking.

Meanwhile, back on topic...

Going back to the subject of the petition, I can see the subject from several different angles. My other half works with autistic children in a LA school - some are fairly severely autistic (little speech, poor social integration, lots of rituals etc - I know the childen too as I sometimes work in the unit if there's a staff shortage.) There have been problems with one or two children who are probably not autistic but have severe behavioural problems which are complex, and in part are probably linked to problems with parenting. There have been instances of the parents of these children having a lot of power, and demanding specific advantages for their children which are not available to the other children. The legislation mentioned would make it harder for these parents to monopolise services for their child.* On the other hand, I presume that the legislation is mainly proposed to save money (!) so probably no-one will be a winner. We haven't heard much about it here to be honest.
*I'm all in favour of parents fighting for their children - we had to do it for our son, and it's what parents have to do. I'm really talking about people who have unreasonable and unfair expectations. Obviously I can't be more specific...

Dandelion wrote:The legislation mentioned would make it harder for these parents to monopolise services for their child...

Are you basing that statement on what you have read in the legislation, or do you have another source?

Just deducing from what you said in the original post about parental entitlement...could be completely wrong but that's what it sounded like to me.

Dandelion wrote:Just deducing from what you said in the original post about parental entitlement...

I didn't think I'd said anything much in the initial post.
I assume you mean what I quoted from the petition.

Hairyloon wrote:
I am not inclined to believe that any legislation says what somebody tells me it says

Very wise. But, forgive my impertinence, it sounds from your posts as if you haven’t actually read the proposed legislation for yourself. The new draft, to which you provided a link, is 60 pages long (less than your average boiler manual). Like any legislation, it is almost certainly open to interpretation, and your interpretation is as valid as anyone else’s. I would have thought that doing so would give you enough understanding of whether the petition contains worthwhile arguments, although you would need a good working knowledge of the current legislation too.

If your interest (in all senses of the word) in the matter is not sufficient for you to become familiar with the legislation, I’m not sure why you feel it is necessary to take it further (ie questioning the petition).

I don’t feel inclined to comment on the current legislation, the draft legislation or the petition – too many boiler manuals to read!

freebird wrote:

Hairyloon wrote:I am not inclined to believe that any legislation says what somebody tells me it says

Very wise. But, forgive my impertinence, it sounds from your posts as if you haven’t actually read the proposed legislation for yourself.

I have skimmed it, and not found the bits to which the petition refers.

The new draft, to which you provided a link, is 60 pages long (less than your average boiler manual).

Not sure what your point is there, I don't read manuals either... except when I'm really stuck.

Like any legislation, it is almost certainly open to interpretation...

Only if it is badly written.
The whole point of legislation is that says what it means and it nails down the law as precisely as it can do.

and your interpretation is as valid as anyone else’s.

No, at the end of the day, the only interpretation that matters is that of the judge.

I would have thought that doing so would give you enough understanding of whether the petition contains worthwhile arguments, although you would need a good working knowledge of the current legislation too.

This is part of my point.
If somebody asks me to join their cause, then I want to know if it is a good cause.
The answer in this case (although never explicitly stated) was "I've got a mutant baby, of course it is a good cause", which does not hold any water as an argument.
I have heard nothing good about the current regulation and I have heard a lot of complaints, so I asked what was the problem with revising them and was told to go and research it myself.
I think that is plain bad manners.

If your interest (in all senses of the word) in the matter is not sufficient for you to become familiar with the legislation, I’m not sure why you feel it is necessary to take it further (ie questioning the petition).

Because it appears to be important, and they are going at it arse about tit.

Online petitions are a pretty pointless at the best of times and this one is particularly poor. Frankly, if I was the Minister for eating babies, I might well start up one like that to distract those who might otherwise hinder my devious plots.
No matter how many signatures it gets, that petition will go straight in the bin, yet all the people who have signed it are happy that they have done something constructive.
In the alternative, and the petition does have an effect, then that effect will be to delay any good changes that the draft seeks to make.

The way to get draft legislation amended is to properly argue it out and put those arguments to the relevant people.