SEN Tribunals and the Lamb Enquiry- post deleted in error

[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.

> >

>

Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:25 pm

Show Message Option

Up Thread

View Source

Use Fixed Width Font

Unwrap Lines

" bty343341 "

bty343341

Offline Offline

Send Email Send Email

Forward | Delete Message #52299 of 52299 < Prev | Next >

Expand Messages