Re: SEN Tribunals and the Lamb Enquiry

[Guest guest]

It's going to be a whitewash you know. Did you read the story about

parental anger at the SEN system?

Lamb said that officers needed to talk to parents about their

hopes and fears for their children's future.

There ....did that make you feel cared for? Feel less angry now?

I googled Lamb enquiry after that story a couple of days ago and

couldn't find anything much. Do you have a link to the parental

consultation bit?

Sally

bty343341 wrote:

>

> Lamb Inquiry.

>

> The Lamb Inquiry was set up in response to the House of Commons

> Education and Skills Committee report of 2007.

>

> It is supposed to investigate 'parental confidence' in the SEN

> assessment system as a 'key issue' in making provision for children

> with SEN.

>

> To find out more google 'Lamb Inquiry'.

>

> Parents will have different experiences and views on the system, and

> how it might be improved. They are being invited to contribute their

> experiences of the SEN system - and their views of what should be done.

>

> Included below is what some parents think about the Lamb Inquiry, and

> suggestions about improving the SEN system. It's just a few parents

> views - so bear that in mind. It's intended to get the ball rolling.

>

> The e-mail address for parental contributions is:

>

> Philippa.STOBBS@... <mailto:Philippa.STOBBS%40dcsf.gsi.gov.uk>

>

> Parental contributions to the Lamb Inquiry.

>

> There is little information on how parents views will be canvassed -

> or their voices are heard.

>

> Some parents say:

>

> to have any faith in this inquiry, it should clearly explain how it

> intends to reach parents of children with SEN, and children with SEN,

> and ensure that mechanisms to hear their concerns are put in place as

> a matter of urgency.

>

> Expert Advisers Group.

>

> As part of this Government Inquiry, there is an 'Expert Advisors Group'.

>

> Some are concerned that the Inquiry has been timid in their choice of

> professionals for this Group. There is concern about why, and how they

> were appointed, what purpose they serve, and the role they will play

> in the inquiry.

>

> For example, the Barrister Nick Armstrong is on the Advisory

> Committee. A significant part of Mr Armstrong's professional work is

> representing Local Authorities against parents at Special Needs

> Tribunals. Some parents suggest there is a clear conflict of interest

> in his presence on the inquiry as an expert advisor. Parents may have

> felt more reassured if, in addition to Mr Armstrong, the expert

> advisers group also contained lawyers and parental advocates, the

> majority of whose work in this field is about representing parents at

> Special Needs Tribunals.

>

> Some parents want to know:

>

> why the Lamb Inquiry is listening to these people.

>

> Lamb Inquiry Pilot projects.

>

> As part of the Lamb Inquiry eight Local Authorities are being given

> government funding to provide evidence of 'positive developments' that

> have 'improved parental confidence', and to provide their examples of

> 'innovation'. Some parents are asking why this money is being given to

> Local Authorities.

>

> Many parents who live in the Local Authority areas now being awarded

> cash to come up with innovative ideas, will have evidence about how

> the system is working (or not working) for them. In relation to some

> of the Local Authority areas getting the government cash, some parents

> say there's also evidence of unlawful activity in the past.

>

> Parent Partnership.

>

> The issue of 'parent partnership' is identified as worth funding a

> number of authorities to investigate. Some parents have voiced serious

> concerns about parent partnership organisations. They feel that they

> have no grasp of the law, or parents legal entitlements, that parent

> partnership organisations mislead and bully them, and that there is an

> inbuilt conflict of interest. Even when there is the suggestion of

> distance from an LEA, and from LEA funding, some parents are highly

> distrustful.

>

> Some parents:

>

> wish to see a free independent SEN consultation service.

>

> Delegated Funding: School Action and School Action Plus.

>

> The issue of 'delegated funding' and provision for pupils on school

> action and school action plus is also worthy of a great deal of Lamb

> Inquiry money going to Local Authorities.

>

> The House of Commons Education and Skills Committee report of 2007,

> identified serious concerns about the system of delegated funding for

> pupils on School Action and School Action Plus.

>

> Evidence to the committee drew attention to serious failures about how

> the system of delegated funding is working in practice. Charities and

> others have voiced subsequent concern about delegated funding. - In

> particular: lack of transparency in the system for parents, Local

> Authorities introducing illegal policies, the lack of any real

> requirement for Schools to publish accounts demonstrating how they use

> delegated SEN funds, and that Local Authorities continue to act

> unlawfully, failing to provide parents with information on School

> Action and School Action Plus.

>

> For some parents this is a matter of huge concern and frustration.

>

> It is not without irony that Local Authorities involved in these Lamb

> Inquiry pilots, have themselves acted illegally in the past with

> regard to providing parents with information on School Action and

> School Action Plus.

>

> To address the issue of delegated funding, and provision for children

> on school action and school action plus some parents say that:

>

> School Governors should be required to issue accounts outlining how

> they spend delegated funds for SEN.

>

> Local Authorities who behave unlawfully in failing to outline

> information for parents on School Action and School Action plus,

> should be subject to immediate and punitive action. Local Authority

> officers should be fined for breaking the law.

>

> Local Authorities acting illegally and failure to police the system.

>

> Some parents say confidence in the system could be improved overnight,

> if Local Authorities were to act within the law, and if their

> activities were to be properly policed by the DCSF.

>

> On statements of special needs parents suspect that there is no real

> incentive for LEA's to fulfil their legal obligations because it means

> the Local Authority will have to fork out more as provider of the

> services. Some parents say this means the continual production of

> illegal statements, endless frustration, and the connivance of the

> DCSF in all this. - Complaints about the activities of Local

> Authorities take months to be considered by the DCSF. Given Government

> policy to reduce statements parents say that the DCSF has a vested

> interested in turning a blind eye to illegality, because it suits

> their purpose.

>

> Some parents say:

>

> that illegal activity by Local Authorities with regard to statements

> of special needs, (for example the attempt to amend a statement by

> issuing a separate document which does not give parents a right of

> appeal, a statement in which provision is not clearly specified and

> quantified), should trigger immediate and punitive action. Local

> Authority officers should be fined for breaking the law.

>

> there must be a random audit of statements of special needs by the

> Department on a yearly basis to ensure they comply with the law.

>

> Appeals to SENDIST.

>

> On statutory assessment, and the statutory process, the Education

> Select Committee report of 2006, highlighted the significant issue of

> unequal access to the SENDIST appeals system. This is an on-going

> concern, not helped by further considerable concern on the new SENDIST

> regulations.

>

> Some parents say:

>

> that appeals to SENDIST, should be made in the name of the child with

> SEN, and therefore legally aided.

>

> Professional Advice for statements of special needs.

>

> The Lamb Inquiry suggests that it is commissioning 'work' with regard

> to Department guidance to local authorities on the role of Educational

> Psychologists in SEN assessments and the importance of Educational

> Psychologists (EP's) exercising their professional judgement freely.

> This Lamb Inquiry 'work' is neither defined nor clear.

>

> In terms of the very serious and pressing concerns some parents have

> with regard to LEA EP's, parents say the Lamb Inquiry fails to

> understand that many parents simply have no confidence in these

> professionals. Parents have many examples of LEA EP's not only failing

> to act professionally in identifying and assessing need, but bullying

> them.

>

> 'Arms length' is no longer a serviceable idea for these parents. They

> want independent assessments from independent EP's. They don't trust

> the system.

>

> Some parents say:

>

> that Educational Psychologists who undertake assessments of children's

> SEN must be independent of a LEA.

>

> Some parents also suggest that another big failure in the system is

> that reports from NHS professionals for the process of statutory

> assessments, do not specify or quantify provision for a child, and

> only suggest what an NHS Trust is willing to provide, which will not

> meet a child's needs.

>

> Some parents say that to address this issue, a complete overhaul of

> this aspect of the system, is now a pressing necessity, and should be

> considered as part of the remit of the Lamb inquiry.

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1852 - Release Date: 16/12/2008

18:11

>

>

[Guest guest]

this is great - it really sums up what's wrong with Lamb.

Where did it come from?

Listmates please use some of what's here and send an e mail to

a Stobbs at DCSF (copied to Lamb if you can)

You could also send the same letter - asking for comment - to Mark

Lever, Chief Exec of NAS (mark.lever @ nas.org.uk and

Lehehan at the Council for Disabled Children clenehan @ ncb.org.uk)

as these are the organisations that are supposed to be representing

us.

Zoe

>

> Lamb Inquiry.

>

> The Lamb Inquiry was set up in response to the House of Commons

> Education and Skills Committee report of 2007.

>

> It is supposed to investigate 'parental confidence' in the SEN

> assessment system as a 'key issue' in making provision for children

> with SEN.

>

> To find out more google 'Lamb Inquiry'.

>

> Parents will have different experiences and views on the system,

and

> how it might be improved. They are being invited to contribute

their

> experiences of the SEN system - and their views of what should be

done.

>

> Included below is what some parents think about the Lamb Inquiry,

and

> suggestions about improving the SEN system. It's just a few parents

> views - so bear that in mind. It's intended to get the ball

rolling.

>

> The e-mail address for parental contributions is:

>

> Philippa.STOBBS@...

>

>

> Parental contributions to the Lamb Inquiry.

>

> There is little information on how parents views will be

canvassed -

> or their voices are heard.

>

> Some parents say:

>

> to have any faith in this inquiry, it should clearly explain how it

> intends to reach parents of children with SEN, and children with

SEN,

> and ensure that mechanisms to hear their concerns are put in place

as

> a matter of urgency.

>

> Expert Advisers Group.

>

> As part of this Government Inquiry, there is an 'Expert Advisors

Group'.

>

> Some are concerned that the Inquiry has been timid in their choice

of

> professionals for this Group. There is concern about why, and how

they

> were appointed, what purpose they serve, and the role they will

play

> in the inquiry.

>

> For example, the Barrister Nick Armstrong is on the Advisory

> Committee. A significant part of Mr Armstrong's professional work

is

> representing Local Authorities against parents at Special Needs

> Tribunals. Some parents suggest there is a clear conflict of

interest

> in his presence on the inquiry as an expert advisor. Parents may

have

> felt more reassured if, in addition to Mr Armstrong, the expert

> advisers group also contained lawyers and parental advocates, the

> majority of whose work in this field is about representing parents

at

> Special Needs Tribunals.

>

> Some parents want to know:

>

> why the Lamb Inquiry is listening to these people.

>

> Lamb Inquiry Pilot projects.

>

> As part of the Lamb Inquiry eight Local Authorities are being given

> government funding to provide evidence of 'positive developments'

that

> have 'improved parental confidence', and to provide their examples

of

> 'innovation'. Some parents are asking why this money is being

given to

> Local Authorities.

>

> Many parents who live in the Local Authority areas now being

awarded

> cash to come up with innovative ideas, will have evidence about how

> the system is working (or not working) for them. In relation to

some

> of the Local Authority areas getting the government cash, some

parents

> say there's also evidence of unlawful activity in the past.

>

> Parent Partnership.

>

> The issue of 'parent partnership' is identified as worth funding a

> number of authorities to investigate. Some parents have voiced

serious

> concerns about parent partnership organisations. They feel that

they

> have no grasp of the law, or parents legal entitlements, that

parent

> partnership organisations mislead and bully them, and that there

is an

> inbuilt conflict of interest. Even when there is the suggestion of

> distance from an LEA, and from LEA funding, some parents are highly

> distrustful.

>

> Some parents:

>

> wish to see a free independent SEN consultation service.

>

> Delegated Funding: School Action and School Action Plus.

>

> The issue of 'delegated funding' and provision for pupils on school

> action and school action plus is also worthy of a great deal of

Lamb

> Inquiry money going to Local Authorities.

>

> The House of Commons Education and Skills Committee report of 2007,

> identified serious concerns about the system of delegated funding

for

> pupils on School Action and School Action Plus.

>

> Evidence to the committee drew attention to serious failures about

how

> the system of delegated funding is working in practice. Charities

and

> others have voiced subsequent concern about delegated funding. - In

> particular: lack of transparency in the system for parents, Local

> Authorities introducing illegal policies, the lack of any real

> requirement for Schools to publish accounts demonstrating how they

use

> delegated SEN funds, and that Local Authorities continue to act

> unlawfully, failing to provide parents with information on School

> Action and School Action Plus.

>

> For some parents this is a matter of huge concern and frustration.

>

> It is not without irony that Local Authorities involved in these

Lamb

> Inquiry pilots, have themselves acted illegally in the past with

> regard to providing parents with information on School Action and

> School Action Plus.

>

> To address the issue of delegated funding, and provision for

children

> on school action and school action plus some parents say that:

>

> School Governors should be required to issue accounts outlining how

> they spend delegated funds for SEN.

>

> Local Authorities who behave unlawfully in failing to outline

> information for parents on School Action and School Action plus,

> should be subject to immediate and punitive action. Local Authority

> officers should be fined for breaking the law.

>

>

>

> Local Authorities acting illegally and failure to police the

system.

>

> Some parents say confidence in the system could be improved

overnight,

> if Local Authorities were to act within the law, and if their

> activities were to be properly policed by the DCSF.

>

> On statements of special needs parents suspect that there is no

real

> incentive for LEA's to fulfil their legal obligations because it

means

> the Local Authority will have to fork out more as provider of the

> services. Some parents say this means the continual production of

> illegal statements, endless frustration, and the connivance of the

> DCSF in all this. - Complaints about the activities of Local

> Authorities take months to be considered by the DCSF. Given

Government

> policy to reduce statements parents say that the DCSF has a vested

> interested in turning a blind eye to illegality, because it suits

> their purpose.

>

> Some parents say:

>

> that illegal activity by Local Authorities with regard to

statements

> of special needs, (for example the attempt to amend a statement by

> issuing a separate document which does not give parents a right of

> appeal, a statement in which provision is not clearly specified and

> quantified), should trigger immediate and punitive action. Local

> Authority officers should be fined for breaking the law.

>

>

>

> there must be a random audit of statements of special needs by the

> Department on a yearly basis to ensure they comply with the law.

>

>

>

> Appeals to SENDIST.

>

> On statutory assessment, and the statutory process, the Education

> Select Committee report of 2006, highlighted the significant issue

of

> unequal access to the SENDIST appeals system. This is an on-going

> concern, not helped by further considerable concern on the new

SENDIST

> regulations.

>

> Some parents say:

>

> that appeals to SENDIST, should be made in the name of the child

with

> SEN, and therefore legally aided.

>

> Professional Advice for statements of special needs.

>

>

>

> The Lamb Inquiry suggests that it is commissioning 'work' with

regard

> to Department guidance to local authorities on the role of

Educational

> Psychologists in SEN assessments and the importance of Educational

> Psychologists (EP's) exercising their professional judgement

freely.

> This Lamb Inquiry 'work' is neither defined nor clear.

>

> In terms of the very serious and pressing concerns some parents

have

> with regard to LEA EP's, parents say the Lamb Inquiry fails to

> understand that many parents simply have no confidence in these

> professionals. Parents have many examples of LEA EP's not only

failing

> to act professionally in identifying and assessing need, but

bullying

> them.

>

> 'Arms length' is no longer a serviceable idea for these parents.

They

> want independent assessments from independent EP's. They don't

trust

> the system.

>

> Some parents say:

>

> that Educational Psychologists who undertake assessments of

children's

> SEN must be independent of a LEA.

>

> Some parents also suggest that another big failure in the system is

> that reports from NHS professionals for the process of statutory

> assessments, do not specify or quantify provision for a child, and

> only suggest what an NHS Trust is willing to provide, which will

not

> meet a child's needs.

>

> Some parents say that to address this issue, a complete overhaul of

> this aspect of the system, is now a pressing necessity, and should

be

> considered as part of the remit of the Lamb inquiry.

>

[Guest guest]

How do we mail Lamb? Philippa.stobbs@...

This links to a letter PS sent to local authorities asking for projects

which increased parental confidence in SEN provision. Our lack of

confidence is to be smoothed away by encouraging us to look on the sunny

side of life.

> www.dcsf.gov.uk/lambinquiry/downloads/Lamb%20Inquiry%20EoI.doc -

> Similar page

>

<http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en & client=firefox-a & rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:off\

icial & hs=VEh & q=related:www.dcsf.gov.uk/lambinquiry/downloads/Lamb%2520Inquiry%25\

20EoI.doc>

Sally

Zoe wrote:

>

> this is great - it really sums up what's wrong with Lamb.

> Where did it come from?

>

> Listmates please use some of what's here and send an e mail to

> a Stobbs at DCSF (copied to Lamb if you can)

>

> You could also send the same letter - asking for comment - to Mark

> Lever, Chief Exec of NAS (mark.lever @ nas.org.uk and

> Lehehan at the Council for Disabled Children clenehan @ ncb.org.uk)

> as these are the organisations that are supposed to be representing

> us.

>

> Zoe

>

>

> >

> > Lamb Inquiry.

> >

> > The Lamb Inquiry was set up in response to the House of Commons

> > Education and Skills Committee report of 2007.

> >

> > It is supposed to investigate 'parental confidence' in the SEN

> > assessment system as a 'key issue' in making provision for children

> > with SEN.

> >

> > To find out more google 'Lamb Inquiry'.

> >

> > Parents will have different experiences and views on the system,

> and

> > how it might be improved. They are being invited to contribute

> their

> > experiences of the SEN system - and their views of what should be

> done.

> >

> > Included below is what some parents think about the Lamb Inquiry,

> and

> > suggestions about improving the SEN system. It's just a few parents

> > views - so bear that in mind. It's intended to get the ball

> rolling.

> >

> > The e-mail address for parental contributions is:

> >

> > Philippa.STOBBS@...

> >

> >

> > Parental contributions to the Lamb Inquiry.

> >

> > There is little information on how parents views will be

> canvassed -

> > or their voices are heard.

> >

> > Some parents say:

> >

> > to have any faith in this inquiry, it should clearly explain how it

> > intends to reach parents of children with SEN, and children with

> SEN,

> > and ensure that mechanisms to hear their concerns are put in place

> as

> > a matter of urgency.

> >

> > Expert Advisers Group.

> >

> > As part of this Government Inquiry, there is an 'Expert Advisors

> Group'.

> >

> > Some are concerned that the Inquiry has been timid in their choice

> of

> > professionals for this Group. There is concern about why, and how

> they

> > were appointed, what purpose they serve, and the role they will

> play

> > in the inquiry.

> >

> > For example, the Barrister Nick Armstrong is on the Advisory

> > Committee. A significant part of Mr Armstrong's professional work

> is

> > representing Local Authorities against parents at Special Needs

> > Tribunals. Some parents suggest there is a clear conflict of

> interest

> > in his presence on the inquiry as an expert advisor. Parents may

> have

> > felt more reassured if, in addition to Mr Armstrong, the expert

> > advisers group also contained lawyers and parental advocates, the

> > majority of whose work in this field is about representing parents

> at

> > Special Needs Tribunals.

> >

> > Some parents want to know:

> >

> > why the Lamb Inquiry is listening to these people.

> >

> > Lamb Inquiry Pilot projects.

> >

> > As part of the Lamb Inquiry eight Local Authorities are being given

> > government funding to provide evidence of 'positive developments'

> that

> > have 'improved parental confidence', and to provide their examples

> of

> > 'innovation'. Some parents are asking why this money is being

> given to

> > Local Authorities.

> >

> > Many parents who live in the Local Authority areas now being

> awarded

> > cash to come up with innovative ideas, will have evidence about how

> > the system is working (or not working) for them. In relation to

> some

> > of the Local Authority areas getting the government cash, some

> parents

> > say there's also evidence of unlawful activity in the past.

> >

> > Parent Partnership.

> >

> > The issue of 'parent partnership' is identified as worth funding a

> > number of authorities to investigate. Some parents have voiced

> serious

> > concerns about parent partnership organisations. They feel that

> they

> > have no grasp of the law, or parents legal entitlements, that

> parent

> > partnership organisations mislead and bully them, and that there

> is an

> > inbuilt conflict of interest. Even when there is the suggestion of

> > distance from an LEA, and from LEA funding, some parents are highly

> > distrustful.

> >

> > Some parents:

> >

> > wish to see a free independent SEN consultation service.

> >

> > Delegated Funding: School Action and School Action Plus.

> >

> > The issue of 'delegated funding' and provision for pupils on school

> > action and school action plus is also worthy of a great deal of

> Lamb

> > Inquiry money going to Local Authorities.

> >

> > The House of Commons Education and Skills Committee report of 2007,

> > identified serious concerns about the system of delegated funding

> for

> > pupils on School Action and School Action Plus.

> >

> > Evidence to the committee drew attention to serious failures about

> how

> > the system of delegated funding is working in practice. Charities

> and

> > others have voiced subsequent concern about delegated funding. - In

> > particular: lack of transparency in the system for parents, Local

> > Authorities introducing illegal policies, the lack of any real

> > requirement for Schools to publish accounts demonstrating how they

> use

> > delegated SEN funds, and that Local Authorities continue to act

> > unlawfully, failing to provide parents with information on School

> > Action and School Action Plus.

> >

> > For some parents this is a matter of huge concern and frustration.

> >

> > It is not without irony that Local Authorities involved in these

> Lamb

> > Inquiry pilots, have themselves acted illegally in the past with

> > regard to providing parents with information on School Action and

> > School Action Plus.

> >

> > To address the issue of delegated funding, and provision for

> children

> > on school action and school action plus some parents say that:

> >

> > School Governors should be required to issue accounts outlining how

> > they spend delegated funds for SEN.

> >

> > Local Authorities who behave unlawfully in failing to outline

> > information for parents on School Action and School Action plus,

> > should be subject to immediate and punitive action. Local Authority

> > officers should be fined for breaking the law.

> >

> >

> >

> > Local Authorities acting illegally and failure to police the

> system.

> >

> > Some parents say confidence in the system could be improved

> overnight,

> > if Local Authorities were to act within the law, and if their

> > activities were to be properly policed by the DCSF.

> >

> > On statements of special needs parents suspect that there is no

> real

> > incentive for LEA's to fulfil their legal obligations because it

> means

> > the Local Authority will have to fork out more as provider of the

> > services. Some parents say this means the continual production of

> > illegal statements, endless frustration, and the connivance of the

> > DCSF in all this. - Complaints about the activities of Local

> > Authorities take months to be considered by the DCSF. Given

> Government

> > policy to reduce statements parents say that the DCSF has a vested

> > interested in turning a blind eye to illegality, because it suits

> > their purpose.

> >

> > Some parents say:

> >

> > that illegal activity by Local Authorities with regard to

> statements

> > of special needs, (for example the attempt to amend a statement by

> > issuing a separate document which does not give parents a right of

> > appeal, a statement in which provision is not clearly specified and

> > quantified), should trigger immediate and punitive action. Local

> > Authority officers should be fined for breaking the law.

> >

> >

> >

> > there must be a random audit of statements of special needs by the

> > Department on a yearly basis to ensure they comply with the law.

> >

> >

> >

> > Appeals to SENDIST.

> >

> > On statutory assessment, and the statutory process, the Education

> > Select Committee report of 2006, highlighted the significant issue

> of

> > unequal access to the SENDIST appeals system. This is an on-going

> > concern, not helped by further considerable concern on the new

> SENDIST

> > regulations.

> >

> > Some parents say:

> >

> > that appeals to SENDIST, should be made in the name of the child

> with

> > SEN, and therefore legally aided.

> >

> > Professional Advice for statements of special needs.

> >

> >

> >

> > The Lamb Inquiry suggests that it is commissioning 'work' with

> regard

> > to Department guidance to local authorities on the role of

> Educational

> > Psychologists in SEN assessments and the importance of Educational

> > Psychologists (EP's) exercising their professional judgement

> freely.

> > This Lamb Inquiry 'work' is neither defined nor clear.

> >

> > In terms of the very serious and pressing concerns some parents

> have

> > with regard to LEA EP's, parents say the Lamb Inquiry fails to

> > understand that many parents simply have no confidence in these

> > professionals. Parents have many examples of LEA EP's not only

> failing

> > to act professionally in identifying and assessing need, but

> bullying

> > them.

> >

> > 'Arms length' is no longer a serviceable idea for these parents.

> They

> > want independent assessments from independent EP's. They don't

> trust

> > the system.

> >

> > Some parents say:

> >

> > that Educational Psychologists who undertake assessments of

> children's

> > SEN must be independent of a LEA.

> >

> > Some parents also suggest that another big failure in the system is

> > that reports from NHS professionals for the process of statutory

> > assessments, do not specify or quantify provision for a child, and

> > only suggest what an NHS Trust is willing to provide, which will

> not

> > meet a child's needs.

> >

> > Some parents say that to address this issue, a complete overhaul of

> > this aspect of the system, is now a pressing necessity, and should

> be

> > considered as part of the remit of the Lamb inquiry.

> >

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1852 - Release Date: 16/12/2008

18:11

>

>

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Lamb Inquiry.

> >

> > The Lamb Inquiry was set up in response to the House of Commons

> > Education and Skills Committee report of 2007.

> >

> > It is supposed to investigate 'parental confidence' in the SEN

> > assessment system as a 'key issue' in making provision for children

> > with SEN.

> >

> > To find out more google 'Lamb Inquiry'.

> >

> > Parents will have different experiences and views on the system,

> and

> > how it might be improved. They are being invited to contribute

> their

> > experiences of the SEN system - and their views of what should be

> done.

> >

> > Included below is what some parents think about the Lamb Inquiry,

> and

> > suggestions about improving the SEN system. It's just a few parents

> > views - so bear that in mind. It's intended to get the ball

> rolling.

> >

> > The e-mail address for parental contributions is:

> >

> > Philippa.STOBBS@

> >

> >

> > Parental contributions to the Lamb Inquiry.

> >

> > There is little information on how parents views will be

> canvassed -

> > or their voices are heard.

> >

> > Some parents say:

> >

> > to have any faith in this inquiry, it should clearly explain how it

> > intends to reach parents of children with SEN, and children with

> SEN,

> > and ensure that mechanisms to hear their concerns are put in place

> as

> > a matter of urgency.

> >

> > Expert Advisers Group.

> >

> > As part of this Government Inquiry, there is an 'Expert Advisors

> Group'.

> >

> > Some are concerned that the Inquiry has been timid in their choice

> of

> > professionals for this Group. There is concern about why, and how

> they

> > were appointed, what purpose they serve, and the role they will

> play

> > in the inquiry.

> >

> > For example, the Barrister Nick Armstrong is on the Advisory

> > Committee. A significant part of Mr Armstrong's professional work

> is

> > representing Local Authorities against parents at Special Needs

> > Tribunals. Some parents suggest there is a clear conflict of

> interest

> > in his presence on the inquiry as an expert advisor. Parents may

> have

> > felt more reassured if, in addition to Mr Armstrong, the expert

> > advisers group also contained lawyers and parental advocates, the

> > majority of whose work in this field is about representing parents

> at

> > Special Needs Tribunals.

> >

> > Some parents want to know:

> >

> > why the Lamb Inquiry is listening to these people.

> >

> > Lamb Inquiry Pilot projects.

> >

> > As part of the Lamb Inquiry eight Local Authorities are being given

> > government funding to provide evidence of 'positive developments'

> that

> > have 'improved parental confidence', and to provide their examples

> of

> > 'innovation'. Some parents are asking why this money is being

> given to

> > Local Authorities.

> >

> > Many parents who live in the Local Authority areas now being

> awarded

> > cash to come up with innovative ideas, will have evidence about how

> > the system is working (or not working) for them. In relation to

> some

> > of the Local Authority areas getting the government cash, some

> parents

> > say there's also evidence of unlawful activity in the past.

> >

> > Parent Partnership.

> >

> > The issue of 'parent partnership' is identified as worth funding a

> > number of authorities to investigate. Some parents have voiced

> serious

> > concerns about parent partnership organisations. They feel that

> they

> > have no grasp of the law, or parents legal entitlements, that

> parent

> > partnership organisations mislead and bully them, and that there

> is an

> > inbuilt conflict of interest. Even when there is the suggestion of

> > distance from an LEA, and from LEA funding, some parents are highly

> > distrustful.

> >

> > Some parents:

> >

> > wish to see a free independent SEN consultation service.

> >

> > Delegated Funding: School Action and School Action Plus.

> >

> > The issue of 'delegated funding' and provision for pupils on school

> > action and school action plus is also worthy of a great deal of

> Lamb

> > Inquiry money going to Local Authorities.

> >

> > The House of Commons Education and Skills Committee report of 2007,

> > identified serious concerns about the system of delegated funding

> for

> > pupils on School Action and School Action Plus.

> >

> > Evidence to the committee drew attention to serious failures about

> how

> > the system of delegated funding is working in practice. Charities

> and

> > others have voiced subsequent concern about delegated funding. - In

> > particular: lack of transparency in the system for parents, Local

> > Authorities introducing illegal policies, the lack of any real

> > requirement for Schools to publish accounts demonstrating how they

> use

> > delegated SEN funds, and that Local Authorities continue to act

> > unlawfully, failing to provide parents with information on School

> > Action and School Action Plus.

> >

> > For some parents this is a matter of huge concern and frustration.

> >

> > It is not without irony that Local Authorities involved in these

> Lamb

> > Inquiry pilots, have themselves acted illegally in the past with

> > regard to providing parents with information on School Action and

> > School Action Plus.

> >

> > To address the issue of delegated funding, and provision for

> children

> > on school action and school action plus some parents say that:

> >

> > School Governors should be required to issue accounts outlining how

> > they spend delegated funds for SEN.

> >

> > Local Authorities who behave unlawfully in failing to outline

> > information for parents on School Action and School Action plus,

> > should be subject to immediate and punitive action. Local Authority

> > officers should be fined for breaking the law.

> >

> >

> >

> > Local Authorities acting illegally and failure to police the

> system.

> >

> > Some parents say confidence in the system could be improved

> overnight,

> > if Local Authorities were to act within the law, and if their

> > activities were to be properly policed by the DCSF.

> >

> > On statements of special needs parents suspect that there is no

> real

> > incentive for LEA's to fulfil their legal obligations because it

> means

> > the Local Authority will have to fork out more as provider of the

> > services. Some parents say this means the continual production of

> > illegal statements, endless frustration, and the connivance of the

> > DCSF in all this. - Complaints about the activities of Local

> > Authorities take months to be considered by the DCSF. Given

> Government

> > policy to reduce statements parents say that the DCSF has a vested

> > interested in turning a blind eye to illegality, because it suits

> > their purpose.

> >

> > Some parents say:

> >

> > that illegal activity by Local Authorities with regard to

> statements

> > of special needs, (for example the attempt to amend a statement by

> > issuing a separate document which does not give parents a right of

> > appeal, a statement in which provision is not clearly specified and

> > quantified), should trigger immediate and punitive action. Local

> > Authority officers should be fined for breaking the law.

> >

> >

> >

> > there must be a random audit of statements of special needs by the

> > Department on a yearly basis to ensure they comply with the law.

> >

> >

> >

> > Appeals to SENDIST.

> >

> > On statutory assessment, and the statutory process, the Education

> > Select Committee report of 2006, highlighted the significant issue

> of

> > unequal access to the SENDIST appeals system. This is an on-going

> > concern, not helped by further considerable concern on the new

> SENDIST

> > regulations.

> >

> > Some parents say:

> >

> > that appeals to SENDIST, should be made in the name of the child

> with

> > SEN, and therefore legally aided.

> >

> > Professional Advice for statements of special needs.

> >

> >

> >

> > The Lamb Inquiry suggests that it is commissioning 'work' with

> regard

> > to Department guidance to local authorities on the role of

> Educational

> > Psychologists in SEN assessments and the importance of Educational

> > Psychologists (EP's) exercising their professional judgement

> freely.

> > This Lamb Inquiry 'work' is neither defined nor clear.

> >

> > In terms of the very serious and pressing concerns some parents

> have

> > with regard to LEA EP's, parents say the Lamb Inquiry fails to

> > understand that many parents simply have no confidence in these

> > professionals. Parents have many examples of LEA EP's not only

> failing

> > to act professionally in identifying and assessing need, but

> bullying

> > them.

> >

> > 'Arms length' is no longer a serviceable idea for these parents.

> They

> > want independent assessments from independent EP's. They don't

> trust

> > the system.

> >

> > Some parents say:

> >

> > that Educational Psychologists who undertake assessments of

> children's

> > SEN must be independent of a LEA.

> >

> > Some parents also suggest that another big failure in the system is

> > that reports from NHS professionals for the process of statutory

> > assessments, do not specify or quantify provision for a child, and

> > only suggest what an NHS Trust is willing to provide, which will

> not

> > meet a child's needs.

> >

> > Some parents say that to address this issue, a complete overhaul of

> > this aspect of the system, is now a pressing necessity, and should

> be

> > considered as part of the remit of the Lamb inquiry.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Rhona

Havent seen any round robins about Lamb but this just about sums up

my feelings about it.

We made it to the second stage of the bidding process but didnt get

through the final hurdle. Our project was to fund parent to parent

advocacy........no surprises that didnt get funded.

Someone used the word 'whitewash' earlier - it is looking

increasingly so I'm afraid.

Zoe

> > >

> > > Lamb Inquiry.

> > >

> > > The Lamb Inquiry was set up in response to the House of Commons

> > > Education and Skills Committee report of 2007.

> > >

> > > It is supposed to investigate 'parental confidence' in the SEN

> > > assessment system as a 'key issue' in making provision for

children

> > > with SEN.

> > >

> > > To find out more google 'Lamb Inquiry'.

> > >

> > > Parents will have different experiences and views on the

system,

> > and

> > > how it might be improved. They are being invited to contribute

> > their

> > > experiences of the SEN system - and their views of what should

be

> > done.

> > >

> > > Included below is what some parents think about the Lamb

Inquiry,

> > and

> > > suggestions about improving the SEN system. It's just a few

parents

> > > views - so bear that in mind. It's intended to get the ball

> > rolling.

> > >

> > > The e-mail address for parental contributions is:

> > >

> > > Philippa.STOBBS@

> > >

> > >

> > > Parental contributions to the Lamb Inquiry.

> > >

> > > There is little information on how parents views will be

> > canvassed -

> > > or their voices are heard.

> > >

> > > Some parents say:

> > >

> > > to have any faith in this inquiry, it should clearly explain

how it

> > > intends to reach parents of children with SEN, and children

with

> > SEN,

> > > and ensure that mechanisms to hear their concerns are put in

place

> > as

> > > a matter of urgency.

> > >

> > > Expert Advisers Group.

> > >

> > > As part of this Government Inquiry, there is an 'Expert

Advisors

> > Group'.

> > >

> > > Some are concerned that the Inquiry has been timid in their

choice

> > of

> > > professionals for this Group. There is concern about why, and

how

> > they

> > > were appointed, what purpose they serve, and the role they

will

> > play

> > > in the inquiry.

> > >

> > > For example, the Barrister Nick Armstrong is on the Advisory

> > > Committee. A significant part of Mr Armstrong's professional

work

> > is

> > > representing Local Authorities against parents at Special Needs

> > > Tribunals. Some parents suggest there is a clear conflict of

> > interest

> > > in his presence on the inquiry as an expert advisor. Parents

may

> > have

> > > felt more reassured if, in addition to Mr Armstrong, the expert

> > > advisers group also contained lawyers and parental advocates,

the

> > > majority of whose work in this field is about representing

parents

> > at

> > > Special Needs Tribunals.

> > >

> > > Some parents want to know:

> > >

> > > why the Lamb Inquiry is listening to these people.

> > >

> > > Lamb Inquiry Pilot projects.

> > >

> > > As part of the Lamb Inquiry eight Local Authorities are being

given

> > > government funding to provide evidence of 'positive

developments'

> > that

> > > have 'improved parental confidence', and to provide their

examples

> > of

> > > 'innovation'. Some parents are asking why this money is being

> > given to

> > > Local Authorities.

> > >

> > > Many parents who live in the Local Authority areas now being

> > awarded

> > > cash to come up with innovative ideas, will have evidence

about how

> > > the system is working (or not working) for them. In relation

to

> > some

> > > of the Local Authority areas getting the government cash, some

> > parents

> > > say there's also evidence of unlawful activity in the past.

> > >

> > > Parent Partnership.

> > >

> > > The issue of 'parent partnership' is identified as worth

funding a

> > > number of authorities to investigate. Some parents have voiced

> > serious

> > > concerns about parent partnership organisations. They feel

that

> > they

> > > have no grasp of the law, or parents legal entitlements, that

> > parent

> > > partnership organisations mislead and bully them, and that

there

> > is an

> > > inbuilt conflict of interest. Even when there is the

suggestion of

> > > distance from an LEA, and from LEA funding, some parents are

highly

> > > distrustful.

> > >

> > > Some parents:

> > >

> > > wish to see a free independent SEN consultation service.

> > >

> > > Delegated Funding: School Action and School Action Plus.

> > >

> > > The issue of 'delegated funding' and provision for pupils on

school

> > > action and school action plus is also worthy of a great deal

of

> > Lamb

> > > Inquiry money going to Local Authorities.

> > >

> > > The House of Commons Education and Skills Committee report of

2007,

> > > identified serious concerns about the system of delegated

funding

> > for

> > > pupils on School Action and School Action Plus.

> > >

> > > Evidence to the committee drew attention to serious failures

about

> > how

> > > the system of delegated funding is working in practice.

Charities

> > and

> > > others have voiced subsequent concern about delegated

funding. - In

> > > particular: lack of transparency in the system for parents,

Local

> > > Authorities introducing illegal policies, the lack of any real

> > > requirement for Schools to publish accounts demonstrating how

they

> > use

> > > delegated SEN funds, and that Local Authorities continue to act

> > > unlawfully, failing to provide parents with information on

School

> > > Action and School Action Plus.

> > >

> > > For some parents this is a matter of huge concern and

frustration.

> > >

> > > It is not without irony that Local Authorities involved in

these

> > Lamb

> > > Inquiry pilots, have themselves acted illegally in the past

with

> > > regard to providing parents with information on School Action

and

> > > School Action Plus.

> > >

> > > To address the issue of delegated funding, and provision for

> > children

> > > on school action and school action plus some parents say that:

> > >

> > > School Governors should be required to issue accounts

outlining how

> > > they spend delegated funds for SEN.

> > >

> > > Local Authorities who behave unlawfully in failing to outline

> > > information for parents on School Action and School Action

plus,

> > > should be subject to immediate and punitive action. Local

Authority

> > > officers should be fined for breaking the law.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Local Authorities acting illegally and failure to police the

> > system.

> > >

> > > Some parents say confidence in the system could be improved

> > overnight,

> > > if Local Authorities were to act within the law, and if their

> > > activities were to be properly policed by the DCSF.

> > >

> > > On statements of special needs parents suspect that there is

no

> > real

> > > incentive for LEA's to fulfil their legal obligations because

it

> > means

> > > the Local Authority will have to fork out more as provider of

the

> > > services. Some parents say this means the continual production

of

> > > illegal statements, endless frustration, and the connivance of

the

> > > DCSF in all this. - Complaints about the activities of Local

> > > Authorities take months to be considered by the DCSF. Given

> > Government

> > > policy to reduce statements parents say that the DCSF has a

vested

> > > interested in turning a blind eye to illegality, because it

suits

> > > their purpose.

> > >

> > > Some parents say:

> > >

> > > that illegal activity by Local Authorities with regard to

> > statements

> > > of special needs, (for example the attempt to amend a

statement by

> > > issuing a separate document which does not give parents a

right of

> > > appeal, a statement in which provision is not clearly

specified and

> > > quantified), should trigger immediate and punitive action.

Local

> > > Authority officers should be fined for breaking the law.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > there must be a random audit of statements of special needs by

the

> > > Department on a yearly basis to ensure they comply with the

law.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Appeals to SENDIST.

> > >

> > > On statutory assessment, and the statutory process, the

Education

> > > Select Committee report of 2006, highlighted the significant

issue

> > of

> > > unequal access to the SENDIST appeals system. This is an on-

going

> > > concern, not helped by further considerable concern on the new

> > SENDIST

> > > regulations.

> > >

> > > Some parents say:

> > >

> > > that appeals to SENDIST, should be made in the name of the

child

> > with

> > > SEN, and therefore legally aided.

> > >

> > > Professional Advice for statements of special needs.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The Lamb Inquiry suggests that it is commissioning 'work' with

> > regard

> > > to Department guidance to local authorities on the role of

> > Educational

> > > Psychologists in SEN assessments and the importance of

Educational

> > > Psychologists (EP's) exercising their professional judgement

> > freely.

> > > This Lamb Inquiry 'work' is neither defined nor clear.

> > >

> > > In terms of the very serious and pressing concerns some

parents

> > have

> > > with regard to LEA EP's, parents say the Lamb Inquiry fails to

> > > understand that many parents simply have no confidence in these

> > > professionals. Parents have many examples of LEA EP's not only

> > failing

> > > to act professionally in identifying and assessing need, but

> > bullying

> > > them.

> > >

> > > 'Arms length' is no longer a serviceable idea for these

parents.

> > They

> > > want independent assessments from independent EP's. They don't

> > trust

> > > the system.

> > >

> > > Some parents say:

> > >

> > > that Educational Psychologists who undertake assessments of

> > children's

> > > SEN must be independent of a LEA.

> > >

> > > Some parents also suggest that another big failure in the

system is

> > > that reports from NHS professionals for the process of

statutory

> > > assessments, do not specify or quantify provision for a child,

and

> > > only suggest what an NHS Trust is willing to provide, which

will

> > not

> > > meet a child's needs.

> > >

> > > Some parents say that to address this issue, a complete

overhaul of

> > > this aspect of the system, is now a pressing necessity, and

should

> > be

> > > considered as part of the remit of the Lamb inquiry.

> > >

> >

>