[SENco-forum] Re: SEN Criteria

Hear Hear Sharon. All of the org's I have been involved with

I heard last week that one local special school for MLD children,   
which changed to offer places only to PMD (profound & multiple  
difficulties) or SLD (severe Learning difficulties)  MAY be about to  
offer some places to those MLD children who are unable to cope in  
mainstream.  Currently,  these unfortunate children spend time in a  
PRU followed by residential SEBD schools at a considerable distance.   
This is less suitable for them,  reduces the link with their families  
and - possibly the deciding factor - is extremely expensive.
I would not deny the right of children to a mainstream education.  I  
strongly object to children going through agonies to support the  
theory of inclusion as it is too often applied.  Jill
On 26 Nov 2006, at 14:44, kngbrndn at aol.com wrote:

> Hear Hear Sharon. All of the org's I have been involved with  
> (INCLUDING THE NUT) nut have  warned Govt. decades ago that moves  
> towards "integration" and less reliance on seperate special schools  
> would involve a long period of "double funding". But most  
> substantial changes in structure for SEN have specifically ruled  
> out any additional central Govt funding. Inclusion has been used as  
> a covert method of ending / reducing specialist provision for SEN   
> CHILDREN,
> BRENDAN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SEN at tringham.net
> To: kngbrndn at aol.com; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
> Sent: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10.34AM
> Subject: RE: [SENco-forum] Re: SEN Criteria
>
>
> My LEA did just that.  It re-wrote its templates as 'criteria' and  
> added the
> tiniest little caveat that said 'guidance only'.  But if the LEA  
> fight every
> step the school takes outside of the 'criteria' the school soon not  
> to rock the
> boat & keep in line .
>
> With employers in ultimate control it can never be a balanced or  
> fair system
> whatever policies are in place. Perhaps we could cut out the LEA  
> for all but
> employment and building control.
>
> Similarly  the government cannot have it both ways - inclusion without
> specialist external input or additional teacher training. I would  
> like to meet
> the idiot that told them inclusion was going to be a cheaper option.
>
> Sharon Tringham
>
> -