|
Post by jo70mo on Sept 30, 2011 11:15:20 GMT 1
5. Children with Special Educational Needs
LA approval for removal from roll is not required for children with statements of special educational needs who are registered at mainstream schools. Where parents elect to home educate a child with a statement who is registered at a mainstream school the school will remove the pupil from roll in the same way as for children who are not the subject of a statement of special educational needs, following receipt of written confirmation from the parent that educational provision is being made otherwise than at school. The school will immediately notify the CME team of the removal from roll and they in turn will notify the EHE team.
If a parent chooses to home educate a child who attends a special school under arrangements made by the LA the LA's consent is required before the school can comply with a parental request for the pupil to be removed from roll. In such cases, when a special school receives notification from the parent that a child has been withdrawn from school for EHE, the school will notify the CME team of the decision to withdraw but will retain the pupil on roll. The register will be marked C (authorised absence) or B (approved educational activity) – the latter code is only available if the activities provided through EHE meet the legislative requirements and the school has received confirmation that the activity took place during the session in question. Advice on what arrangements would be required to ensure the B mark can be used can be obtained from the appropriate School Attendance Consultant (Primary and Special schools) or Behaviour and Attendance Consultant (Secondary schools).
On notification from the CME team of the election to home educate the EHE team will liaise with IDSS to determine the time scale for conducting a review of the statement at which the suitability of the provision to meet the needs set out in the child's statement will be determined. The EHE team will then contact the family to advise them of the timescale to be followed and to discuss how information relating to the provision being made by the parent will be obtained. The parent will be invited to all review meetings.
Where the LA is satisfied that provision is appropriate and the child's needs as set out in the statement are met, the LA will make arrangements to amend the statement. The statement will continue to name the provision that the LA has identified as appropriate to meet the child's needs through attendance at an appropriate school, but will also indicate that the needs are instead being met through provision being made by the parents under EHE.
For children who were registered at a special school and who have therefore remained on roll, the LA will at that time inform the school that the pupil's name can be removed from the admissions register. The EHE team will work with the IDSS to ensure the statement is then reviewed annually to fulfil the LA's responsibility to ensure the child's needs continue to be met. This review includes assessing whether the statement is still appropriate, requires amendment or might cease to be maintained.
Where the LA is not satisfied that provision is sufficient to meet the needs identified in the statement the IDSS will determine whether it is appropriate to make provision under Section 319 of the Education Act 1996. As a general rule no funds are available to support the statement other than in exceptional circumstances as in most instances the LA will have identified a school placement where all the needs set out in the statement can be met.
If there are any cases where, having conducted the review, the LA does not consider that the provision being made meets the needs of the child as set out in the statement, permission for removal from roll for students who were attending a special school will be refused. At that point, the parent will be asked to return the child to the school at which they are registered and the school will be advised to mark the register as if the child is no longer on EHE. Any failure to return or subsequent future absences would be addressed as for any registered pupil at the school.
For children who had been removed from roll, the parent will be asked to voluntarily return the child to school with discussions taking place with parents to determine the most appropriate placement reflecting parental preference and effective use of resources. Failure to comply will result in the LA following School Attendance Order proceedings.
|
|
elizm
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by elizm on Oct 6, 2011 19:24:22 GMT 1
"LA approval for removal from roll is not required for children with statements of special educational needs who are registered at mainstream schools. Where parents elect to home educate a child with a statement who is registered at a mainstream school the school will remove the pupil from roll in the same way as for children who are not the subject of a statement of special educational needs, following receipt of written confirmation from the parent that educational provision is being made otherwise than at school. "
I don't see a problem with this correct me if I'm wrong.
"The school will immediately notify the CME team of the removal from roll and they in turn will notify the EHE team."
This is not right, if parents pull a child possibly because the school were failing to provide a suitable education the child is not automatically CME.
Can parents who feel a school is not meeting the needs of their child refer their own child to CME? that'd be interesting.
|
|
elizm
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by elizm on Oct 6, 2011 19:28:18 GMT 1
Some of the rest doesn't seem right it makes it rather difficult and I can't help but imagine a distressed child who's special needs are not being met and distressed parents having to make their way through this quagmire when they should simply be attending to the child they have decided to Home Educate.
If someone is on the HE Special list could they get some advice from experienced people on there?
|
|
elizm
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by elizm on Oct 6, 2011 19:31:01 GMT 1
There is nothing on there about intention for the LA to maintain specific special educational support that is not related to school placement e.g. communication aids, Occupational Therapy, Educational Psychology Support, Occupational Therapy, Physiotherapy.
Surely clarification and explaination of the situation around such provision is necessary.
|
|
elizm
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by elizm on Oct 6, 2011 19:32:56 GMT 1
Oh there was this I guess:
"As a general rule no funds are available to support the statement other than in exceptional circumstances as in most instances the LA will have identified a school placement where all the needs set out in the statement can be met."
I'm not sure that's true, EP OT and SaLT other services are usually brought in from outside the school. This sounds like a cop out.
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Oct 6, 2011 19:53:01 GMT 1
This is their system the removal from roll goes through the CME team as like a distribution centre and passed on to appropriate department. This is supposed to be because it would be too confusing to ask schools to send to a different place for each different reason of removing from roll. I don't think they use a CME form ie its not a referal. Not sure if I buy it. not sure how much its worth fighting to change. However what I do disagree with is if CME intercept some of these and go down CME route before handing over to EHE team
"The school will immediately notify the CME team of the removal from roll and they in turn will notify the EHE team."
This is not right, if parents pull a child possibly because the school were failing to provide a suitable education the child is not automatically CME.
Can parents who feel a school is not meeting the needs of their child refer their own child to CME? that'd be interesting.[/quote]
|
|
elizm
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by elizm on Oct 6, 2011 21:52:10 GMT 1
I really don't like the automatic association of Home Education with Children Missing Education.
If they wish to simplify the system then fine but they need to call the department something other than CME is it deals with all de-registration.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Oct 6, 2011 22:30:29 GMT 1
They claim the paperwork is just passed through CME, the child isn't registered as such but they do investigate cases where the school raises concerns, i.e. where the parents have disagreed with and upset the school. If the parent has stated HE in the dereg letter then they should be treated according to the EHE guidelines regardless of what the school says. If there are safeguarding concerns that should be passed to the relevant dept, not CME. The question is does all dereg paperwork from schools go to CME or just certain instances such as EHE ?
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Oct 6, 2011 22:58:56 GMT 1
Oh there was this I guess: "As a general rule no funds are available to support the statement other than in exceptional circumstances as in most instances the LA will have identified a school placement where all the needs set out in the statement can be met." I'm not sure that's true, EP OT and SaLT other services are usually brought in from outside the school. This sounds like a cop out. There are government funds available to the LA but Lancashire has taken the decision not to claim it. The circumstances do not have to be exceptional, the LA just has to want to help the child. If they were really concerned about the outcomes for children they would be doing everything they could to help improve things. As for there being an appropriate school, what happened to Bob Stott's favourite statement about valuing the plurality of ed provision ? This is effectively saying children with SEN should not be HEed. For children with SEN in mainstream the therapist who visits does so for the individual child. Often 2 children at the same school will have different therapists as they're allocated on specialty, not location. There is no difference between a therapist travelling to a school or to someone's home. In fact, less time is usually required at home as there are no school-staff requiring training. Lancashire LA cuts therapy funding as soon as a child is deregged - just how does that help a child, do their therapy needs suddenly disappear ? Statement funding should be seen as being for the child and not for the school, that way services could follow the child more easily. Unfortunately many SEN children turn to HE because the school abuses the funding and the LA refuses to step in. The LA needs to remember that it is the children who are meant to be their main concern and focus on them instead of creating unnecessary obstacles for parents.
|
|
fran
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by fran on Oct 7, 2011 0:23:39 GMT 1
Previous post: This is their system the removal from roll goes through the CME team as like a distribution centre and passed on to appropriate department. This is supposed to be because it would be too confusing to ask schools to send to a different place for each different reason of removing from roll. I don't think they use a CME form ie its not a referal. Not sure if I buy it. not sure how much its worth fighting to change. However what I do disagree with is if CME intercept some of these and go down CME route before handing over to EHE team
Me: The CME Guidance 2009 has a flow chart which implies that they find out the child is HE and just put the details on the database... Page 18
Previous post: Can parents who feel a school is not meeting the needs of their child refer their own child to CME? that'd be interesting
Me: No they can't. CME is not for children who are registered at schools - it states that in the guidance. The parent is responsible for the child's education.
"The school will immediately notify the CME team of the removal from roll and they in turn will notify the EHE team."
This is not right, if parents pull a child possibly because the school were failing to provide a suitable education the child is not automatically CME.
Can parents who feel a school is not meeting the needs of their child refer their own child to CME? that'd be interesting.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by jo70mo on Oct 12, 2011 7:46:26 GMT 1
There are concerns with this stuff on SEN but they are complex. I think they are overstating their case but we need to get some further input about the legalities here. So if you are reading please don't think we have no further concerns about this section. its more that we do have concerns but need to clarify them further before posting so as not to make this more muddled. Jo
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Oct 19, 2011 22:37:04 GMT 1
I've been struggling with the SEN section because it's split between here and Annex 1 with different info in both but here's goes for this bit.
Firstly, the issue of what to do while waiting for the LA to make a decision. Some LAs insist on the child attending school which is not acceptable so it's good to see that Lancashire are providing an alternative. The trouble is how long this can take and what happens if permission is refused.
Why wait for a review ? If all the info is in the statement, as it should be, the LA should be able to read that to understand the child's SEN and provision needed within the school environment.
Statement reviews take a long time to organise as many of the professionals involved have prior commitments, then they need time to write reports which must be circulated more than 2 weeks beforehand. After the review the school has 15 days to submit their review report and then the LA will consider it and make their decision. Is all that really necessary ?
Why can't the LA, after reading the statement, have a discussion with the parents about their plans and what needs/provision in the statement are not relevant in the home environment. If the LA need clarification on any points they can contact the relevant person/therapist for advice and make their decision much more quickly.
Why the need for a quick decision ? Well put yourselves in the parents shoes - you have a distraught child who is clearly struggling with attending school, you have to force them to go everyday, battle to get their uniform on and into the taxi, etc so you do some sums, decide that HE is feasible and decide to take the plunge. Great, your child is out of there immediately but you're left in limbo - can't make arrangements for therapy until it's definite, don't want to invest in expensive resources/programs in case the LA refuses to give permission and don't want to risk resigning from your job if it's not going to be permanent but only have limited holiday to tide you over until the decision comes. Added to that the child is uncertain, afraid, doesn't know whether they're going to have to go back - not good for their well-being. What about the other child who is desperate for that place, wants to get into that special school but can't, has to wait for a place which is currently taken up by a child not attending.
If there are reasons why permission is refused, the quicker that decision is taken the better as well.
The LA needs to look at this, not from a legalistic point of view, but from a practicality and child needs pov. Let's look at what is the best for the children and put procedures and advisory timelines in place to ensure that happens.
Nothing is said here about reasons why permission might be refused. It should be noted that there must be genuine grounds for refusal. The LA, school, therapists, etc being against HE on principle is not sufficient. Care must be taken to ensure refusal is because the parents, after being given opportunity to address any concerns, are not going to sufficiently take care of their child's SEN. Refusal which could be considered unreasonable can be taken to the Secretary of State. Parents can also take action if it appears that the LA has refused on disability discrimination grounds.
If, and this should be extremely rare, the LA refuses and the child is returned it should not be the end of it. There are clearly major issues that have caused a breakdown between parents/child and the school - they MUST be addressed. Just making the decision that HE is not going to be suitable is not sufficient. Perhaps the LA needs to explore other possibilities such as alternative schools, helping with HE provision, EOTAS or changes to the statement to ensure the issues don't happen again.
|
|
fionan
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by fionan on Oct 19, 2011 23:13:07 GMT 1
I agree that it's really messy having the SEN split between "policy" and "procedures". The way this draft policy is written in different places, the parent can't make plans and at the same time can't NOT make plans. This is from "procedures" towards the end of the draft doc on page 15: "The review meeting will determine whether or not the IDSS are prepared to amend the statement to reflect the EHE provision being made, in which case consent will also be given to the child's name being removed from roll. If the IDSS are not prepared to amend the statement then the child will remain on roll and the parent notified that the LA expects the child to return to school." This doesn't make sense to me. Just seems like the home education people can wash their hands of difficult issues by saying "We don't make the rules, we'd like to help but IDSS won't let us, it's out of our hands." That's only because Lancs chooses to set it up this way. I can see families getting passed all round the houses with this. And there's no reassurance that IDSS [whatever it is] knows anything about home education! www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1751/regulation/8/made covers dereg from special school.
|
|