[SENco-forum] Re: SEN Criteria

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

The social integration argument you put forward is one that I support whole
heartedly. It is good to see it expounded, because I think it is one that is
easy to forget. And when that happens, we start to look 'inwards' and think
only about what happens for the children in class, rather than look
'outwards' at the community the children grow up and socialise in, and, for
many, the one in which they will spend their young adulthood (at least). I
work in an assistive technology centre here in NZ, where inclusion is the
policy. However, rather than the curriculum being differentiated across the
whole class to promote inclusion, all too often the rest of the class are
working in one way, and the child recognised as having special needs is
working in another way. I long for the day when teaching practice and the
use of funding (and here, the law changes to support it) have evolved to the
point where integrating children with special needs is not an issue; rather,
the support is there to help ensure all children's learning needs are met.
Sue 

Sue Beechey
Technology and Learning Consultant
TalkLink Auckland    Wahanga Tu Korero
sue.beechey at talklink.org.nz
p: + 64 9 815 3232  extn 802
f:  + 64 9 815 3230
m: + 64 275 585 013
w: www.talklink.org.nz

-----Original Message-----
From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
[mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of
kngbrndn at aol.com
Sent: Monday, 27 November 2006 7:59 a.m.
To: jillclayton at mac.com
Cc: SEN at tringham.net; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: Re: [SENco-forum] Re: SEN Criteria

So! you have a small special school with mainly PMLD and SLD pupils --
staffed to cater for these pupils with highly adapted curriculum programmes
-- in very small classes with very enhanced staff-pupil ratios. And you want
to off-load a very few MLD chuildren, who should be offered a full unadapted
National Curriculum, who are articulate, fully street-wise, and just below
avarage ability. You want to buss them away from there own locallity, away
from the friends they will have already made, and from their siblings who
may be at the local mainstream school -- where they will no longer be able
to engage in after school activities and sports alongside their mainstream,
local community, peers. They will be expected to mix in with (to them) a
strange and scary mix of highly disabled children who will not be able to
offer them anything in the way of stretching them socially and academically
(they will suddenly be "top of the pile" in these respects -- with no higher
performing role models).

My specialism before retirement was PMLD and SLD, after a long time in
mainstream SEN. I worked in a small all-age special school that contained
MLD/SLD and PMLD. The mix was entirely inappropriate and the existance of
the school was to do with contingency and compromise -- not commonsense
placement. This school no longer exists -- replaced by a secondary phase
school for the latter type of children plus severly autistic children. 

You mention the agonies these MLD children go through in mainstream. The
plain fact is that the vast majority of MLD pupils remain in mainstream, and
within their local community, as they have as a human right and a right in
current UK law. You want to turn back the clock and segregate these children
in schools entirely inappropriate for them. It won't happen -- parents won't
allow it. Imagine these parents visiting the area special school populated
by PLML/SLD pupils. They will immediately reject the notion of their MLD
children being placed with an entirely inappropriate coterie of pupils. Any
SENDIST appeal panel will firmly reject the notion of such children being
palced in an innappropriate setting -- in the situation where the law
provides for the primacy of parental preference and retaining most pupils
within mainstream. 

The answer is for the MLD children floundering and suffering in mainstream
to have there needs sufficiently met through specific statements stating
exactly what additional support, materials and equipment they must be
provided with. Mainstream staff must accept their responsibilty to adapt
their practices to provide for a wide range of moderately affected SEN
children -- i.e.,virtually all (99%) of its local community. This is a human
right and a matter  of UK law. 

There is no use ringing hands and whinging -- and using the excuse that the
MLD SEN children are suffering in mainstream. The answer is not to hive them
off to the far away special school (leaving the mainstream school with no
hard to teach children) but to welcome them and include them with sufficient
provision so that they are happy young people making progresss according to
their ability. I know this has yet to be achieved for many SEN children in
many mainstream schools -- but this must be the aim so that most children
remain included within their local community for this crucial 11-13 yrs of
their lives. They have to seek social and economic inclusion once they leave
school -- this will be all the harder if they have been excluded from the
mainstream of society during childhood. 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 a
> 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 
> 
> - 

__________ NOD32 1882 (20061124) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com