Paces

Belated farewell to Dr Sonia Sharp - heading down under to Victoria

Sometimes news travels very slowly. We have only just learned of Dr Sonia Sharp's move from Sheffield to Victoria, Australia. Are there parents and conductors active in Victoria?

This is from the City Council website in March 2012.

"Dr Sonia Sharp is leaving Sheffield City Council after being personally asked to lead on services for young children for the State of Victoria, Australia - a more senior role than the one she currently holds.

She was appointed to this senior government role because of the innovative work she has done here at Sheffield City Council for the last four years, in particular the work done to create integrated services for early childhood development.

One of her first tasks will be to establish Multi Agency Support Teams (MAST) similar to ones she has been instrumental in setting up here and which have significantly improved child safety, health and early learning across Sheffield.

Four years ago the Australian government passed legislation to make its children’s services integrated and while good work has been undertaken, there is still significant opportunity for improvement.. Dr Sharp was singled out as the person to lead this work following a global search across countries including Canada, America, New Zealand and the UK.

An announcement will be made at a future date about establishing any replacement for the role of the Executive Director of Children, Young People and Families. "

Read more on the City Council website Children's leader to head up services down under

The Sheffield Telegraph reported the story on 23rd March, though the headline writer's ignorance of her role (Executive Director -  Children, Young People and Families) does not reassure:  "Education chief heads to Australia".

Support and Aspiration: DfE publish 'Progress & Next Steps' document

This just published and taken straight from DfE web site:

This report sets out a summary of the key responses to the consultation questions in Support and aspiration, current progress and our further plans for the vision in the Green Paper, in which:

• children’s special educational needs are picked up early and support is routinely put in place quickly
• staff have the knowledge, understanding and skills to provide the right support for children and young people who have SEN or are disabled, wherever they are
• parents know what they can reasonably expect their local school, local college, local authority and local services to provide, without them having to fight for it
• children who would currently have a statement of SEN and young people over 16 who would have a learning difficulty assessment have an integrated assessment and a single Education, Health and Care Plan which is completed in a shorter time and without families having the stress of searching to get the support they need
• parents have greater control over the services they and their family use, with:
  • every family with an Education, Health and Care plan having the right to a personal budget for their support
  • parents whose children have an education, health and care plan having the right to seek a place at any state-funded school, whether that is a special or mainstream school, a maintained school, academy or Free School.

There's a DfE Press Release here, too.

Here is IPSEA's initial response.

How many children have SEN? Again.

Actually, I was googling "Brinks-Mat" and "Stephen Lawrence". Links between criminals and detectives in the two cases had been mentioned on BBC TV, last Saturday, as I was making myself a slice of cheese on toast for breakfast.

Searching for something quite different, in other words, as I find often happens Google threw up "Can 20 per cent of schoolchildren really have special needs?" - an article by "writer, biographer, journalist and broadcaster" Peter Stanford in yesterday's Daily Telegraph.

20% is some sort of average. Peter Stanford points out the difference between Richmond upon Thames (11.8% of primary pupils on the SEN register) and Liverpool (22.6%). On this blog, in October 2010, I noted DfE statistics that in primary schools boys overall were much more likely to be registered as having special educational needs (25.4% with or without a statement) than girls (14.3%): "Are we failing 1 in 4 boys said to have special educational needs?"

I concluded:

I don't know about you, but it strikes me that if as many as 1 in 4 boys have "some form of special educational need' then there is something seriously wrong with our perspective on schooling or on children or on special educational needs or on all three.

Peter Stanford, having asked the question, an important one in my view - perhaps the most important one in the five billion pound (and more) industry that is SEN - seems as perplexed as to the answer as anyone. "But why, if numbers of statements are falling, does the money spent on the system continue to rise?  ... No one seems clear about what is going on, least of all anyone at the Department for Education."

Pointing the finger in turn at parents or teachers or local authorities or money, reviewing possible explanations, hardly seems satisfactory. Perhaps it's the whole system, the whole apparatus, the whole concept? In 2005, even Baroness Warnock, who helped devise the SEN system, repudiated it.

In a blog posting on her website, Special Needs Jungle, author,former television journalist and Mum, Tania Tirraoro, who was interviewed for the Telegraph article, sets out "What I really think".

What I said when speaking to Peter but didn’t make it into the piece, was that I believe that the pressures of today’s society on children, parents and teachers are immense ...

(Some children) may or may not actually have special educational needs to start with, but if their home life is insecure and they live in poverty, it is sure to have an impact on their learning. They may just need attention and nurturing to give them self-esteem and confidence in themselves.

Tania is surely right, as you must read for yourself. But I still cannot bring myself to think it right to categorise 1 in 4 boys (never mind 1 in 5 children) as having a 'special educational need'. The term, the concept, the whole system is unwieldy, inefficient and does not serve the education of children, their parents or those who would teach them.

 

Some first responses to Queen's Speech - SEN

While we wait until next week, when we are promised DfE will put some detail, here are a few first responses to the Queen's Speech. If you know of more, please leave the link in a Comment below.

Nasen (formerly the National Association for Special Educational Needs): "Nasen welcomes the announcement that proposals outlined in the Green Paper will be moved forward during this session of parliament."

Follow Your Dreams - CEO Sue Sugarman's response to the Queen's Speech: "Although I don’t see how these changes give more “choice” to families, I certainly see the benefit of making the process simpler."

IPSEA: "IPSEA welcomes the aspiration of the Government ...  However, IPSEA’s advice lines and casework are already throwing up problems in local authorities’ Pathfinder pilots of the processes which the Government intends to set out in the Children and Families Bill"

Mencap: "We now have serious concerns about the Government's desire to address the crisis in social care and move beyond the limited remit of the draft Bill. People with a learning disability and their families are increasingly unable to live full and independent lives".

Nursery World (has several quotes from other children's organisations): "Many of the proposals have been outlined by ministers previously".

ACT Now for Autism: "Act Now For Autism fears that once again children with autism, many of whom currently don't have a Statement, will continue to have their complex needs ignored"

EDCM (Every Disabled Child Matters) "Srabani Sen, EDCM Board Member: "However, we are deeply concerned by plans to restrict access .... We are concerned that this will leave many children with social care and/or health needs without support".

Scope: "We are, however, pleased that the Government has recognised the need for greater support for children and families, particularly disabled families, and plans to develop a Children and Families Bill."

NAHT (National Association of Head Teachers) Russell Hobby, general secretary: “We welcome giving parents a sense of control and choice ..."  [I have to say, don't you just love that "... sense of ... "?]

 

 

Queen's Speech & SEN - more next week

We can, next week, expect DfE Ministers to set out their detailed response to consultation on the SEND Green Paper "Support and Aspiration" and a timetable for what they are describing as the biggest reform of special education in 30 years.

In a DfE press release, accompanying the Queen's Speech to Parliament yesterday, the Minister, Sarah Teather, says, "In our Green Paper, Support and Aspiration, we set out plans for the biggest SEN reforms for 30 years – giving parents real choice and joining up health, education and social care services." (In fact, the SEND Green Paper does not set out "real choice" for parents when it comes to choice of school; as a careful reading shows, it sets out arrangements for expressing a preference; not at all the same thing, but let's not quibble here just now.)

Yesterday's Queen's Speech, which sets out the Government's proposed legislative programme for the coming year, announced "My government will propose measures to improve provision for disabled children and children with special educational needs." (Full text: Guardian)

A Children and Families Bill, to be introduced "early in 2013", will cover SEN, adoption, family law, shared parenting and the Office of the Children's Commissioner. The key measures of the SEN element will be:

• replacing SEN statements and Learning Difficulty Assessments (for 16- to 25-year-olds) with a single, simpler 0-25 assessment process and Education, Health and Care Plan from 2014
• providing statutory protections comparable to those currently associated with a statement of SEN to up to 25 in further education – instead of it being cut off at 16
• requiring local authorities to publish a local offer showing the  support available to disabled children and young people and those with SEN, and their families
• giving parents or young people with Education, Health and Care Plans the right to a personal budget for their support
• introducing mediation for disputes and trialling giving children the right to appeal if they are unhappy with their support.

The SEND Green Paper was published in March 2011. In September 2011, DfE announced arrangements for 20 'pathfinder' projects, covering 31 local authorities, to pilot the Green Paper reforms. "The interim evaluation will be published in autumn 2012 and final evaluation in 2013. The work of the pathfinders will continue to inform the changes we make to legislation through the Bill."

And that's about it. You can read more on the Department for Education website, where there are all the links mentioned above: "Children and Families Bill to give families support when they need it most".

Me? I'd like to see a Bill setting out truly radical changes in the education and upbringing of children with cerebral palsy - and I'm talking training, pedagogy and curriculum as well as the role of local authorities in assessment, provision and funding.But that's a debate for another day. Alternatively, you can read Scope's first response, in the form of a statement from CEO Richard Hawkes "Scope responds to the Queen's Speech".

We'll have to wait and see the detail. The measures for extending assessment and planning to 25 years particularly interest me, given Paces' long-standing commitment to achieving 'independent adulthood as active citizens' - and how that provision is to be funded. "Ambitious About Autism", "welcomes the commitment made in today’s Queen’s Speech to extend the legal right to educational support up to the age of 25 for young disabled people". On the other hand, these provisions need to relate to the provisions of the also-proposed draft bill to modernise adult care and support, about which Mencap has this to say "We now have serious concerns about the Government's desire to address the crisis in social care and move beyond the limited remit of the draft Bill. People with a learning disability and their families are increasingly unable to live full and independent lives".

To end this post on a positive note, then. This, which I agree with, from Mark Atkinson, Director of Campaigns, Policy and Research at Ambitious about Autism on extending entitlement to 25 years: “This reform has the potential to revolutionise the life chances of tens of thousands of young people with autism who are currently denied access to any educational opportunities beyond school."

More next week ......

The 3rd lesson David Cameron learned as a parent of a disabled child: July 2009

As we wait for the Department of Education to publish the SEN White Paper, here is an echo from July 2009, an article in The Independent "David Cameron: the five lessons I learned as a father of a disabled child - and intend to put into practice".

This was his third lesson:

"The third lesson is that we've got to make it easier for parents to get the right education for children with disabilities. So many parents get stuck on a merry-go-round of assessments, appeals and tribunals to get a statement of special needs and the extra help their child needs. There's a structural reason for that. The people that decide who gets specialist education – the local education authorities – are also the ones who pay for it. We're seriously looking at how we can resolve that conflict of interest so that parents don't have to enter into such a huge battle for special education."

A structural conflict of interest is a serious matter. But local authorities being both assessors and funders isn't the whole of that conflict. They are also providers of most SEN school placements and commissioners much of the rest. Free Schools were meant to address this, putting parental choice first. But proposers of Special Free School required Local Authority approval and the SEN Green Paper systematically confused "choice" and "preference", holding out the latter to parents.

There is such a powerful lobby in favour of this "structural conflict of interest" that even a Prime Minister with knowledge of the "huge battle for special education" has been as yet unable to defeat it. This story has still some distance to run.

Dipping into ... "Supporting Families in the Foundation Years"

Yesterday, in my post "Dipping into 'Open Public Services' - the White Paper", I suggested that this "comprehensive policy framework for public services" would touch everyone in the UK working in conductive education whether with children or adults or families - and the very organisations we have created to do so, as well.

When I posted that, I did not expect so soon to be reading, this very morning, another Government publication of equal, if not greater importance to us all.

"Supporting Families in the Foundation Years" "sets out for commissioners and the workforce how they can deliver the Department's vision for Early Years education", from pregancy to five years of age, in fact. You can download the publication or link to an article about how the Government proposes to support "Families in the Foundation Years", or even go to "A new website for parents with information and advice for families in the foundation years.

The Government proposes:

• ensuring that the focus of the foundation years is on child development;
• recognising that families are the most important influence on children in the foundation years;
• promoting effective and evidence-based early intervention;
• working with employers to continue to improve the quality of the workforce;
• and, establishing a new relationship between central government, commissioners and providers.

I am busy reading. There is much of interest. Most of all, as with the Public Services policy framework to which this publication makes explicit reference, there is the potential for radical change. And, in my view, where there is change, there is opportunity - for conductive education practitioners as much as anyone else.

At Paces, I am looking to pull together a workshop on these publications to see where the opportunities might be, for ourselves and for CE in the UK.

 

Play critical to child development: controversial guidance from Chief Medical Officers. Or not.

"the amount of time babies and toddlers with cerebral palsy spend strapped in buggies or car seats should be cut down"

"toddlers with cerebral palsy should be allowed to move around or be physically active for at least three hours a day"

"The new guidance reflects growing concern over children with cerebral palsy who do not exercise enough, which can be linked to obesity and brain development"

"recommendations include encouraging babies with cerebral palsy to move about and be active from birth, for example on activity mats or swimming"

"there is considerable international evidence that letting children with cerebral palsy crawl, play or roll around on the floor is essential during early years"

OK. OK. Hands up ... I added "with cerebral palsy" to each of the quotations above. The quotations are taken from a BBC News report of guidance published jointly by the Chief Medical Officers for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It has long seemed self-evident to me that there is a clear link between physical activity (let's call it "play") and brain development (let's just call it "development"). I just do not think this is controversial or surprising.

It has long seemed evident to me (about 28 years, to be precise; my daughter Sarah's age now), that children who cannot readily play for some reason, such as cerebral palsy for instance, need specialist help to do so. 

It has long seemed evident to me that this should be so in Sure Start centres, Children's Centres, and in Nursery, Primary and Secondary school settings - and is not.

It is the lack of such specialists - learning specialists, educators, conductors - that seems to me controversial and surprising. It is the lack of discussion about who is teaching what and how - in other words trained specialists who understand pedagogy and curriculum in relation to children with cerebral plasy from birth, that seems to me controversial and surprising. 

Yet so often it is the suggestion that we need conductors - or any trained educators at all - that is regarded as controversial.

The SEN Green Paper, for instance, is largely silent on these issues.

SEN Green paper doesn't go far enough: MP #sengp

This post is not quite 'finished'. I was wanting to add a bit more at the end but don't have time. Not all the links are in place. If I don't post it soon it won't get posted at all. So here it is, as it is.

---------------------------------------

For followers of such things, there was an interesting moment in the House of Commons last week week (8 June) when Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North, Conservative) sought leave to bring in a Bill “to require the Secretary of State [for Education] to increase parental involvement in provision of education for children with special educational needs”.

Not the least interesting point is that listed second among the proposers of the Bill is David Blunkett, (Lab) Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough and former Secretary of State for Education.

The Parliamentary technicalities are that the Bill will be progressed “to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December and to be printed (Bill 199)”.

The essence of Ms Mordaunt’s case is that in order to increase the involvement of parents of children with SEN in their education, and to strengthen their hands in fighting for their children’s rights and entitlements, change is needed; whilst the SEN Green Paper makes “some progress” in this direction, it does not go far enough.  She proposes “five principal areas” that “must be addressed”:

First, in the manner of the NHS constitution, the rights and entitlements of children must be established in law. We must have a document towards which parents can point stubborn local authorities …. and a clear assertion of children’s rights would help to hold authorities to account.

Secondly, there must be means other than a statement by which a child’s needs can be demonstrated and verified. Statementing needs reform, but it can be the only ammunition that parents have. The Green Paper outlined plans for a single assessment process as a replacement for the statement, but to really strengthen parents’ hands other forms of proof should be accepted as evidence of need, even if this simply guarantees that the child undergoes the new assessment. We must remove an LEA’s power to deny that a child has a special educational need despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The third aspect of necessary change is closely associated with the second; the link between the assessor and the financer must be broken. Currently, local authorities sit in judgment on SEN cases with only one eye on the child’s future—the other is glued to its own bottom line—and that is not a tenable situation.

Fourthly, all providers of appropriate schooling, including independent schools, must be listed by the LEA, as is supposed to happen already.

The last area to address is funding. I applaud the Green Paper’s commitment to personalised funding, but for this to work properly funding must truly follow the pupil, as with the pupil premium. But unlike the pupil premium, it must include the per-pupil funding derived from the LEA. I urge the Government to consider, as part of their review, how school funding can become genuinely per pupil, whether on a total or top-up basis.

The first of Ms Mordaunt’s “five principal areas” that “children’s rights and entitlements must be established in law” might bear some resemblance to California’s Lanterman Act which I have mentioned here before.

The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act is a California law that says people with developmental disabilities and their families have a right to the services and supports they need to live like people without disabilities. The Act outlines these rights; the structure of (largely non-profit) regional centres and service providers to help individuals get the services and supports they can obtain, how to use the personalised budget and programme plan to get needed services, and … what to do when someone fails to implement the Lanterman Act.

At the core of her second and third points is the issue of parent choice in the education of their child, which is the key to clarity over (a) assessment (which should be by a panel independent of the local authority); (b) the role of the local authority as sole or main provider (which reduces as more schools become Academies) and (c) financing SEN. The need for the separation of these roles is well covered in the Lamb Report and the Commission on Special Educational Needs.  The Second Report 2007 chaired by Sir Robert Balchin (now Lord Lingfield). These are critical issues.

Her fourth point is no more than ensuring local authorities comply with their statutory responsibilities – a point that exercises IPSEA in its own response to the SEN Green paper.

Her final point, like her second and third points, is a critical issue, perhaps the most critical. Funding must follow the child. Indeed Ms Mordaunt perhaps ought to go further and press for a stronger linkage between a more finely-graded assessment of a child’s need and the funding associated with it. Funding of the education of children with special educational needs generally is currently the subject of a review. When it is expected to report, I do not at this moment recall.  However, the Second Report of the Commission on Special Educational Needs makes the point well:

So, in summary, all children with special educational needs are [currently] placed in one of three boxes: ‘School Action’, ‘School Action Plus’, or XYZ. Having taken evidence from a large number of professionals and parents  …. We have come to believe that dividing 1,530,000 children with hugely varied needs into two large groups and one very small one is too crude a method of categorisation” (Commission on Special Educational Needs.  The Second Report 2007. Chapter 2.)

Given that the term SEN exists to define those whose education must be modified or particularised to suit their requirements and to allow the authorities to decide on appropriate funding for this provision, it follows that its sub-categories should more clearly define how a child’s education should be tailored to its needs. The funding of SEN support should then be more finely graded in correlation with this. (Commission on Special Educational Needs.  The Second Report 2007. Chapter 2.)

Radical reform of the system of funding is the foundation on which all other changes – assessment, provision, placement – depend. The SEN Green Paper, however, whilst alluding to the funding review in progress, and making a welcome radical proposal for a change to assessment, does not go far enough - and perhaps cannot.

Life long learning. Life long play (with thanks to @MaxMckeown) #CondEd

I especially liked the opening of this blog posting "Life long learning. Life long play" from Max Mckeown (@MaxMckeown on Twitter). The whole post is worth a read.

There’s an entrepreneurial art, the ability to see, and the guts to grab opportunities. Like all art, people have different aptitudes, like all art, people can learn. Learning the entrepreneurial art, requires the confidence to bet on yourself. And that confidence can be learned through practice and praise.

If society wants more entrepreneurial growth, then perhaps education should emphasis practice and praise. Instead of stopping the free play at five years old, free play should be encouraged throughout education. Throughout life.

Instead of school sharing out limited opportunities, education can be a way of creating unlimited opportunities. In this way, school stops being an incantation of the possible, and starts being an exhortation to the impossible. Each day, each child can choose to stay within neat, ruthless orthodoxy or decide to explore messy, forgiving unorthodoxy.

If our schools reflected the very best of us, they would be neighborhoods, communities, places of adventure and imagination. School has to do far more than let our children know where they rank on a four point scale.

A fanciful thought, maybe, but does "the confidence to bet on yourself", as Max puts it, sound just a little like what conductive upbringing and pedagogy is all about? Or what Mike Chitty calls "becoming"? Or Dr Hari writing about 'enhancing the quality of intention to achieve'?

Mind you, I remember Helen Pemberton (a conductor who worked with us at Paces a while back) once stressing to me that we do not emphasise enough the importance of play. Anyone for the early years foundation curriculum?

---------------------------

@ and # are used on twitter as special signs.