This time I am going to write about the way in which some children with special needs go to a mainstream school while others go to a special school.

I warn you. If you feel for the difficulties that parents of these children have to face every day (revisit Post 16 “Born to be different”), it is not good news. You might think that while Governments have to govern, these parents deserve better from society than having also to deal with unsympathetic officialdom working to a political agenda set and funded in Whitehall, and monitored by OFSTED. (Revisit Post 2 to understand this.)

A few quotes from my play will help you to understand it a little more.

Author’s Note

There are about 400,000 children with learning difficulties of one sort or another. The Department of Health White Paper Valuing People envisages an annual increase of around one per cent of children with severe learning difficulties. If their parents want them to be educated in a Special School, they need to receive a Statement.

Statementing is a bureaucratic process under the control of Local Education Authorities (LEAs). It could be, and it should be a multidisciplinary one, but it isn’t. It is regulated by Law and it is designed to define the very different needs of children requiring special attention, and the way those needs are to be met. It is a passport to admission to a special school that is impossible without it.

Act One, Scene 2

James Harrington, the Mandarin from the DFES and David Harding, the Director of Education for Wexborough are discussing how to secure the closure of Brighouse School.

JAMES HARRINGTON People like Gerry will win them over. You just have to. You see the Treasury has made up its mind that there are savings to be made here if they invest in it. You know the figures. Three per cent of children have special needs but they gobble up eight per cent of the total spend on education. That really isn’t equitable.

DAVID HARDING Between these four walls I don’t think Inclusion is going to be a cheap option.

JAMES HARRINGTON Well leading accountants advised us that we could make some real savings simply by reducing the number of Statements LEAs have to write for children with special needs. Get that down by a third, reduce special school places by the same, and then hey presto you don’t need all those special schools. And writing Statements is a real headache. We’ll have to keep some schools for kids with profound difficulties or very complex behavioural problems, but most can go.

DAVID HARDING Hm. Accountants. Some are just calculating machines on legs. They play with figures and talk about outcomes. They leave us to deal with people and try to meet their needs. They’re just not street wise. They manage us when we should be managing them. The savings won’t be there if we do our job. Mark my words.

JAMES HARRINGTON You may well be right, especially to begin with. The Treasury has agreed to cough up millions to adapt mainstream schools, and we will obviously have to commit ourselves to training. We are currently trying to work out the actual cost now. It’s not easy though. There’s a major study just started.

DAVID HARDING Good luck to it. I look forward to seeing the results. I just hope you haven’t provided them.

I should add here that if parents are unhappy with a Statement provided by a Local Education Authority they can always go to a Tribunal. It is a nice question whether this is more than a charade. I shall come to it.

Act One, Scene 3

Margaret Williamson, head teacher and Wendy Robinson, non-teaching care assistant, are talking in the staff room.

MARGARET WILLIAMSON Meanwhile our great government can’t make up its mind whether we are a part of one large sausage machine, or a lot of small sausage machines, and they keep coming up with more and more paper plans, more and more targets.

WENDY ROBINSON They certainly keep themselves fully employed. Good intentions maybe, but so had my Aunt Mabel.

MARGARET WILLIAMSON Who is your Aunt Mabel, Wendy?

WENDY ROBINSON She doesn’t actually exist. But in our family we always blamed her when things went wrong.

MARGARET WILLIAMSON No, she exists alright. She works alongside Murphy. Did you not know? I’ll tell you exactly where she is. Mum wants little Johnny to come to this school. Thinks it’ll meet Johnny’s needs. The medics agree. We agree, and we’ve got a place for him – and the more kids in this school the less on average each one costs. Yes? But no, Murphy who’s not wired up to what we do decides the fate of little Johnny and wants to send him somewhere else, and Mabel, who of course is legally qualified, chairs the tribunal that decides what’s in Johnny’s best interests so long as it makes the best use of economic resources, and she goes along with Murphy. Mabel’s word is final. But you can appeal against it. To whom? I’ll give you one guess….To the ever courteous, totally dependable Mabel. The needs of little Johnny are supposed to be paramount, but they get lost somewhere along the way. What a crazy mixed up world. They’ll give the job to a computer next. You watch.

When the Tribunal looks at the requirement that their decision should make “the best use of economic resources”, they do not look at the big picture. Cost benefit analysis is not part of their remit. I am not at all sure that they always look at the small picture either.

Act Two, Scene 4

At a public meeting with parents David Harding, Director of Education for Wexborough, and Gerry Thompson, a Special Needs Coordinator, fend off questions from Anwar Fawzi, a parent, and other questioners.

ANWAR FAWZI Are you trying to get rid of Statements?

DAVID HARDING They are more trouble than they are worth.

ANWAR FAWZI For you maybe, but not for us.

DAVID HARDING We do have to meet the needs of your children whatever a piece of paper says or doesn’t say.

ANWAR FAWZI But we lose our right to a special school for our kids. What about parental choice, hey? What about our choice? Where’s that gone?

QUESTIONER A (In the first row of the real audience) I had a great problem getting my Stephen into this school. Had to take it through a tribunal. Much good are your new ideas going to do for Stephen. I think you’ve tried to starve this school of pupils.

DAVID HARDING Gerry, would you answer that?

GERRY THOMPSON We’re back to individual cases again. They’re all different, and some are difficult to decide. Yours was probably one of them.

QUESTIONER B (In the first row of the audience) Some kids will do well in mainstream. What about the rest? Mine has speech problems. She really suffered in mainstream schools before she came here.

DAVID HARDING You really have got to trust us to work that out at the time. There are still going to be some special schools, you know. We’ll do our level best to respect parental preference.

But can you really trust them? You might like to copy this link into your browser: http://www.ipsea.org.uk/tribunal-rules-08.htm I am not alone here.

Act Two, Scene 7

Brighouse school is being demolished. Emma Kirk, the Music teacher, Judith and Anwar Fawzi, parents, Margaret Williamson, head teacher and Eileen Winterton, chair of governors are watching.

EMMA KIRK They don’t understand. Schools like this have the gift of healing, and they engage the spirit. That’s what’s so good about them. They just don’t understand.

JUDITH FAWZI I really do wish someone would expose the lousy, stinking, hypocritical charade of those who put it about that they care. They say the rights of you kids are paramount. Words. Empty words. Holy Jesus, you just try to assert those rights today in a tribunal. It’s difficult enough as it is.

ANWAR FAWZI And not cheap.

JUDITH FAWZI No, not if you have to get a medical report. And now they’re trying to get rid of Statements altogether. Then you’ll have no rights at all. They’ll try to make out it’s in our interests, when it’s only in theirs. You know, all they do is play games with people’s lives – you kids are just little pawns in a gigantic game of chess.

MARGARET WILLIAMSON Sacrificial pawns, Judith. And for everyone else it’s “Snakes and Ladders”, with more snakes than ladders.

Sorry if this is a rant

But let me say a word here about Tribunals, all Tribunals.

There is a fiction – and it really is a fiction – that tribunals are not the same as courts. It is suggested that they are just informal proceedings with the law absent, lawyers superfluous and that they are independent. I am sorry to disillusion you. The Law is ever present. Statutes, Statutory Orders and the precedent of previous cases guide decision taking, although these can sometimes be total gobbledegook to the lay person. Witnesses present evidence, but need to have their arguments questioned in cross-examination. A paid lawyer, who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, acts as chair of the panel. Members are appointed by the DfES. There are 175 such Tribunals throughout the country.

In the Prologue I referred to the Power Inquiry’s call “for a re-balancing of power between the Executive and Parliament, between Central and Local Government and between the Citizen and the State.” I have addressed this in broad terms suggesting that there is all the way still to go here, despite the Inquiry. (Revisit Post 15). Here I give you one precise illustration.

The scales are loaded against parents. Murderers, rapists, paedophiles are entitled to legal aid defence, but this is not the case with parents of children with special needs trying to do their best for their children. They have to pay for a lawyer if they want one. Furthermore, if they have to get medical reports, they have to pay for them too, and they are not cheap.

No, the answer is not to provide legal aid. In the present economic climate, in any economic climate, that will never happen. There could, I suppose, be a “pro bono” role for 3rd year students in the law departments of Universities, a useful learning experience for them – maybe better than studying Roman law – and much better than nothing for parents.

That, too, is not what I suggest here, although it might help with other Tribunals.

Much better to slay not one, but two sacred cows instead. Hence the abattoir.

First, go back to my first quote: “Statementing is a bureaucratic process under the control of Local Education Authorities (LEAs). It could be, and it should be a multidisciplinary one, but it isn’t.” Decision taking should be in the hands of those sensitive to individual need and not ruled by a political agenda to secure “outcomes”. (Revisit Post 3.)

Sacred Cow Number One: end the writing of Statements by civil servants.

Sacred Cow Number Two: scrap Special Educational Needs Tribunals altogether. With them, scrap all the paper-chasing, time consuming, money-wasting rigmarole that they involve.

In the words of the Power Inquiry, “rebalance the power between the Citizen and the State.” But don’t just say it. Do it. Currently the termites are winning every time. (Revisit Post 1.)

Appoint multi-disciplinary bodies, comprising retired head teachers, medics, physio’s, educational psychologists and one or two lay members to work off reports, and draw up Statements of need. A clerk could keep them right by the Law. Then, if parents do not go along with their decision, give them a personal hearing and pay for any evidence they want to provide. I am sorry there will be no “jobs for the boys or girls” – no jobs for lawyers or accountants. That should save some money for a start.

This is my freebie for any political party that wants to make it a Manifesto pledge for the next General Election. It must be worth at least 400,000 votes, and save some money as well. Come to think of it, if they take me up on it, they could make a contribution to the Death of a Nightingale Fund giving holidays in London to children with special needs to further show that they care.

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 9th, 2009 at 6:52 am and is filed under Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.