[SENco-forum] Re: SEN Criteria

Jill -- you got me on my high horse about inclusion -- I aplogise if I personalised my reaction -- I admit now that I did not read your post carefuly enough and that the children you were referring to were already suffering exclusion. I respect what you have said and your reasons for saying it -- entirely reasonable in the situation you describe. But my general position remains the same. MLD children should be in their local mainstream school. If they have been placed in PRU's or residentail -- it is likely they were formally permanently excluded (or near to permanent exclusion) from mainstream anyway. So the system has already failed them. All responsible for mainstream SEN must work to prevent the 60% of excluded children who have special needs (over and above the advese behavioural problems caused by insufficient provision) from floundering, suffering, being bullied and, finally, excluded from school altogether. Many such children just "go missing" fom the education system altogether. It's a national scandal -- but children get permanent exclusions from special schools as well -- virtually always MLD/ESBD children inappropriately placed -- Brendan  

-----Original Message-----
From: jillclayton at mac.com
To: kngbrndn at aol.com
CC: SEN at tringham.net; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Sent: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 2.56PM
Subject: Re: [SENco-forum] Re: SEN Criteria

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 
> 
> - 