Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

URGENT ACTION NEED TO PREVENT CHANGE TO SENDIST REGS

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

There has been a great deal of parental concern about changes to

SENDIST, due to come in on November 3rd.

Parents and others have been worried that the changes stack the odds

in favour of LEAs when it comes to appeals, - Parents having to get

all their evidence together much sooner, no sign of a limit on the

numbers of witnesses that can be called (very expensive if LEAs are

marching in witness after witness, and you have to counter their

arguments with your own - at a cost) and that SENDIST will become more

legalistic and complicated. Many are outraged at the fact that a

Tribunal can request that a parent agrees to an assessment of their

child - or face an adverse inference.

There's also deep dismay about the way the changes have happened, the

consultation (or lack of it) about the changes, that parents are

really confused - still - about what the changes will mean, and that

no-one appears to have any idea what's going to happen after November

3rd.

The Lib Dems and Tories have been involved in raising questions about

the changes - with Parliamentary Questions put down by Bercow

(Cons) and Vince Cable (Lib Dems) (You can read these on line).

Yesterday, the Tories took the unusual step of intervening against the

changes. They invoked a somewhat arcane parliamentary procedure called

'praying against' the regulations, in order that they are subject to

scrutiny. It appears the regulations may now be referred to a

Committee, which could delay the changes going ahead on November 3rd.

Many parents have already written to their MPs, to the DCSF, and to

Children's Minister, Ed Balls about their concerns regarding the

SENDIST changes.

There is now a further concerted attempt to lobby MPs about the

changes, given the action yesterday by the Tories.

One suggestion is that parents again lobby and write to their MPs, to

the DCSF and to Ed Balls, expressing their concern about the changes,

and insisting that there is a proper explanation and proper scrutiny

of what they will mean, before they are introduced.

One parent, and Lay Representative at Tribunals, has given her

permission for part of a text of her letter to the DCSF to be posted

here. Please use/modify this letter and write to your MP before it is

too late!

As you know there has been growing concern by parents like myself who

have disabled children regarding Government proposals for SENDIST and

the Regulations. In my view it has proposed very 'un-parent friendly'

regulations which will given enormous power to what is effectively a

lower court of law. It enables legal directions to assess our children

against our wishes, which we could have to pay for and failing to

co-operate must result in a negative inference. This is simply for the

sole reason of not agreeing with the local authority's view of where

and how our children should be educated and registering an appeal with

SENDIST. That power is not even available under the family courts,

unless we are suspected of abuse or neglect.

Many campaign groups have also pointed out that the Regulations are so

legalistic it would make it impossible for parents to attend Tribunal

without Counsel and prevent even more parents from appealing. People

like myself who are lay representatives (and I have been for nearly

ten years) will simply not be able to function in such an arena, as we

could now face costs against us and would not get indemnity insurance.

In addition the Tribunal has been transferred from the Department of

CSF to the Ministry of Justice, when the SEN Tribunal was supposed at

its conception to be an informal arena to resolve disputes between

parents and the local authority, instead it has been made more formal

under these proposals, and placed in the same arena as those who are

under the Mental Health Act or the running of care and children's

homes. This changes the whole culture and purpose of SENDIST

radically. If the Government was genuine in ensuring fair and equal

access then it would ensure appeals are registered in the child's name

who qualify for legal assistance, rather than the parents. After all

it is hardly our education at stake, but that of our children.

Many parents have been asking when the Regulations would be laid

before the House as they are due to come into effect on the 3rd

November 2008. The Ministry of Justice refused to tell us, and when we

complained about the lack of transparency towards parents about the

Regulations through our elected representatives, we were told it was

too late and nothing could be done.

This was simply incorrect. When the Regulations were laid before the

House MP's were entitled to 'lay down a prayer' to seek annulment and

for them to go back to Committee.

Indeed, yesterday, the Conservatives undertook the exceptional act of

laying down a prayer. - The procedure of prayer is rarely used, and at

least some MPs from the Opposition do seem to understand the genuine

concerns of disabled children's parents. It would appear that these

concerns are not shared by the Secretary of State.

Further, the Regulations really do erode our civil liberties regarding

the granting of access to our disabled children simply for disagreeing

with the Authority's proposals. If able children including the

Minister's were to be subject to imposed physical and therapy

assessments by a range of differing professionals who had no knowledge

of the child against parents wishes; which they could then be ordered

to pay for merely because they appealed against the LEA's allocation

of a maintained mainstream school under the Schools Standard and

Framework Act 1998, as they were unhappy with it, there would be a

public outcry. Yet this is exactly what is being proposed for our

special needs children simply for disagreeing with the LA. That cannot

be in the interest of the child, it simply is not morally right, and

it is certainly not fair or just.

Finally, it is disappointing that the Government ,before coming up

with the Regulations, did not think to sit down with the end users of

the Tribunal,including representatives and parents to listen to what

we felt worked very well in SENDIST and what is frankly has not and

does not work, rather than relying upon its own viewpoint. One always

needs to have someone play 'devil's advocate' to point out the

pitfalls of any proposals, which surely must include the users it

impacts upon the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...