Guest guest Posted October 18, 2008 Report Share Posted October 18, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.