[senco-forum] Training for all teachers

Hi Sally -- you are right -- I got needlessly exasperated and was most  
impolite to Sharon. I apologise to her and anyone on the forum I may have  offended 
-- there is no excuse and I was out of order.

I'm so pleased to hear -- Sally -- that you are explaining to parents what  
Dyslexia is (difficult stuff particularly with the many contrasting views and  
controversial opinions amongst professionals). As a parental advisor and one 
who  represents at tribunals -- I am constantly attempting to provide an 
insight for  parents about current issues surrounding dyslexia -- not only a modern  
definition -- but reasons (though unacceptable) why so many teachers,  
professionals and SEN officers avoid the use of the term, but worse still, hide  the 
fact from many parents throughout primary phase, of any hint of specific  
learning difficulties (SpLD). 

I have just been assisting a parent of a 13 yr old with a reading age of 7  
who has significant SpLD and very low verbal, but exceptionally high visual,  
processing skills. At first the LA refused her request for a statutory  
assessment. The highly academic High School refused support in her request  stating 
that she would never get the child statemented as the LA "did  not statement 
anyone unless they were in the bottom 1 or 2% of ability level. No  EP had ever 
assessed the kid -- but advisory teacher assessment at  primary had led the 
parent to suspect Dyslexia -- but no one would officially  use the D word -- one 
class teacher suggested to the parent that he was highly  dyslexic -- but 
asked not to be quoted "as she was not supposed to suggest this  to parents -- as 
the term was not recognised in her LA".

Faced with a parental appeal (I was now involved) the LA agreed to assess.  
The EP report showed clearly a pattern of dyslexia -- but he did not clearly  
identify this or use the term itself (mentioning only that it was suggested  in 
the past). School report suggested SpLD as a possibility. When parent  phoned 
the EP for more clarity he stated he did not believe the child was  Dyslexic. 
A detailed letter was sent asking for more clarification -- but a  long 
letter of reply was just as vague as the report. A very vague and wrongly  written 
proposed statement was issued. We then met with the head SEN  officer of the 
LA -- with a list of changes required to the proposed statement  -- including 
needs and quantification of provision. Part 2 (Needs) had described  child as 
having "mild general learning difficulties" -- we wished this changed  to SpLD 
and Dyslexia. Within the first minute the officer stated that she agreed  that 
the needs description was wrong and agreed the term SpLD was  correct 
(reluctant to use term Dyslexia). No apology for use of completely  wrong and 
misleading term in draft statement -- or failure to diagnose SpLD  in early primary 
when the evidence was available or detectable.

We are now pressing for a clear statement that provides definite TA support  
at  a high level and Dyslexia specialist tuition -- plus speech and  language 
provision from a therapist specified in Part 3. The LA are resisting  this -- 
wanting a vauge statement that does not guarantee any increase in the  support 
or required specialist capacity of the school. The school want to  receive 
the additional funding triggered by the statement but want to leave the  use of 
this funding "flexible" to use as they see fit -- and without increasing  TA 
hours or providing 1:1 or additional small group sessions. It is not a  
Dyslexia friendly school in any way. However parents do not want the upheaval of  
changing the child's school placement.

We obviously will go to appeal and win all we are reasonable asking  for  -- 
but it is a scandal that parents have to fight the subterfuge and  confusion 
all the way -- and only get the right provision after years of delay.  Parents 
start off confused as to why facts are kept from them and are refused  
assessments -- then, when it dawns on them that it is all about saving the  expense 
of properly providing additional support and specialist tuition to  all but the 
children of the most persistent parents -- they are amazed,  appalled and 
then get very angry.

I wish this was an exceptional case -- but it is true in virtually every  
case I (and colleges) deal with nationally. So you can see why I am touchy on  
this subject. Firstly, I am cynical about the notion of transparency and  
consultation and partnership with parents as a general practice -- it is just  not 
happening in very many cases.  And I get annoyed at  fruitless notions that all 
that is required is that teachers in  general only need to be aware of a need 
to involve parents -- when  this is largely only paid lip service to in any 
case. Teachers need also to know  what to do practically with their dyslexic 
and other SEN children -- and be  able to spot the symptoms and provide (or 
bring in) effective  differentiaited tuition -- so real training and awareness is  
required.

That is why I considered the debate that arose to be a pointless red  
herring. It is not an either or matter -- of course parents must be fully and  
intimately involved and enlightened as to their child's SEN -- Shiela and I  never 
suggested otherwise -- we were misinterpreted. But in addition to  involving 
parents fully -- then the child must have the sufficient  remediation's put into 
place by knowledgeable and aware teachers -- for which  training is required 
-- hence the list I suggested along with Sheila. Early  identification and 
remediation is required along with full participation with  parents -- but it has 
never happened consistently on a national basis -- and is  still not 
happening and it is a national scandal.
Brendan         