[senco-forum] (no subject)

All they need 

Special schools need to feel  protected 

Estelle  Morris
Tuesday July 25, 2006
_The Guardian_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)  

The select committee report on special needs sounded  all too familiar. 
Threats to special schools, lack of clarity, too much  bureaucracy and poor 
mainstream provision - all reflecting, at the very least,  frustration but, probably, 
more like despair in the parents of the nation's 1.5  million children with 
special educational needs.  
It echoed the arguments that were around when I was a junior education  
minister. And when I read the comments by the present minister, Andrew Adonis,  
those looked familiar as well - huge extra investment, government not against  
special schools, and the importance of parental choice. I'm sure at some point I 
 said pretty much the same.  
So what's  happening? Has nothing changed? I accept the select committee 
report reflects  accurately the dissatisfaction of many in the sector, which must 
be taken  seriously. But, if the government feels a bit "misunderstood", I 
have some  sympathy there too.  
When Labour came to power, there was a strong voice from parents who felt  
they had been denied the right to choose a mainstream education. And remember,  
after almost two decades of under-investment in schools, heads were often  
ill-equipped to respond to parents' wishes. Even the lack of a lift or a ramp  
prevented some parents from securing their choice of school.  
Against that background, a move to greater inclusion was promoted. Denying a  
child a mainstream place just because the school couldn't accommodate a  
wheelchair is not acceptable. I know the government has never had an agenda of  
closing all special schools, but I also know many people believe it has. My take 
 on this is that the government - including in my time - didn't get its 
message  across to begin with, and has failed to do so since. Some local 
authorities  wilfully used this as an excuse to close special schools, and any closure,  
whatever its justification, was seen as part of this process.  
It has become very difficult to discuss new ways of meeting the needs of all  
special needs children, because parents fear special schools will be shut out 
as  part of the answer. The government must, once and for all, persuade 
people that  it means no harm to special schools. It can't say its hands are tied 
and it's up  to local authorities. If there is a national entitlement to choose 
a special  school, it will have to be nationally guaranteed. If we can run 
academies direct  from Whitehall, we can protect special schools from there too. 

That might free us to take this debate forward. At the moment, only about 1%  
of children are educated in special schools and the rest of the 20% who are  
judged to have special needs are in mainstream schools. It is unthinkable that 
 the answer is to have all these children in special schools, so we have to 
face  up to the challenge of equipping schools to meet their needs.  
School buildings are far more suitable, but we're a long way from teachers  
having the skills and support they need. I'm not convinced it can all be done 
in  initial training, and teachers and pupils in mainstream schools should 
benefit  from the teaching expertise in special schools. So we need some 
innovation in  closer working or co-location between the types of schools, more 
flexible use of  specialist staff, and the training of specialist staff for 
mainstream schools.  But, until the government can reassure people about the secure 
future of special  schools, it won't get away from the starting post.  
Forty years ago, some special needs children were termed "uneducable". Now  
they gain degrees. That's the progress that has been made. Deciding how we use  
the knowledge we now have about how children learn, whatever their abilities, 
is  what the special needs debate needs to address.  
I do hope that the responses to this select committee report will at last  
allow this to happen.