[SENco-forum] Re: SEN Criteria

To be fair Jill -- and to contradict myself somewhat -- the small mixed special school that I worked at in the late 80s -- and which had MLD / SLD / PMLD pupils -- was mainly MLD -- and the  severely disabled pupils were regarded as a Unit and were mainly taught sepretately with their own specialist teachers. In this situation the far more able and streeetwise MLDs got used to the Unit kids and were a positive social help in many ways. It also got them out of the "horror" feeling of  socialising in the company of severely disabled children. But it was not ideal in many other practical ways and would not be acceptable in the current inclusion climate -- which is why this school was closed. But to take just a few failing MLDs into a mainly SLD/PMLD setting would be traumatic for the MLDs as you say -- and I doubt parents would accept such a placement in the first place. Also, the curriculum would be totally unsuitable - if MLDs were introduced it would have to be enough to make a full class and even then it would be a highly compromised situation. As the fine Welsh contributer suggested -- where there are no special schools in the area all children are included and this can be educationally successful if properly manged and well resourced. And it is massively beneficial socially -- to the non-SEN pupils more than any.   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 9.05PM
Subject: Re: [SENco-forum] Re: SEN Criteria

I fully agree with everything you say.  I was referring to those whom the system has failed.  Further,  I agree with what you say about how horrifying it would be   for the MLd children to be in the setting of PMLD.  This had not occurred to me.   Jill

On 26 Nov 2006, at 19:40, kngbrndn at aol.com wrote:

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 e! ducation 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 
> 
> - 

= 