Although we are told that the version of Alison Sauer’s new guidelines for local authorities now circulating is not the final one, I have been assured that the section on SEN is unchanged in the final draft which Graham Stuart now has. This was confirmed when somebody helpfully sent me some notes and handouts from a training session run by Sauer Consultancy Ltd for a local authority in the north of England.
My jaw dropped when I read what Alison wished to remind local authorities about in the new guidelines and I am not sure that the implications are yet clear to most parents. She says on page 20:
A Local Authority is responsible for any child of compulsory school age that ‘has been brought to their attention as having (or probably having) special educational needs.
Where such a child comes to the attention of the Local Authority, the Local Authority has a duty to establish whether the child has SENs that are not currently being met.
Now this, although surprising to many home educating parents of children with special needs, is perfectly true. If you are home educating a child and somebody rings up your local authority and says that she believes your child to be dyslectic or have Asperger’s, then the Local Authority have a legal duty to assess your child and see if you are providing for these needs; which may or may not exist. This is a power of which very few LAs are really aware or ever consider exercising. Most home educators are glad about this; they do not want their local authority knocking on the door to ask questions and carry out assessments unless they the parents invite them to do so. This section from the 1996 Education Act makes the situation clear. It is s321 (3):
(1) A local education authority shall exercise their powers with a view to securing that, of
the children for whom they are responsible, they identify those to whom subsection (2)
below applies.
(2) This subsection applies to a child if—
(a) he has special educational needs, and
(b) it is necessary for the authority to determine the special educational provision
which any learning difficulty he may have calls for.
(3) For the purposes of this Part a local education authority are responsible for a child if
he is in their area and—
.....................................
(d) he is not a registered pupil at a school but is not under the age of two or over
compulsory school age and has been brought to their attention as having (or
probably having) special educational needs.
Now the question is, why on earth would Alison Sauer wish to remind local authorities that they are responsible in this way for all home educated children who have, or might appear to have , special educational needs? Do most home educating parents of such children really want their local authorities to assume responsibility in this way for their children? Or have they taken their kids from school precisely because they no longer wish the local authority to be responsible in this way, because they wish to take over that responsibility themselves? I wonder if anybody can imagine the effect that reading the bits quoted above would have upon an overly zealous Educational Welfare Officer investigating a home educated child whom she thought might have special needs? After all, the local authority is responsible for this child and has a duty in law to check that his needs are being met.
I must emphasise that this part of the act is not only concerned with statemented children, but with any child, whether or not at school, who somebody tells the council might have special needs. As I say, few local authorities currently assume this duty, but they still have it legally. The question is, why on earth would anybody involved with home education wish to remind them about this and urge them to start knocking on the doors of all home educated children with special needs so that they can take over responsibility in this way? The 2007 guidelines for local authorities, by comparison, limited themselves to a few words about children with statements and said nothing at all about this general duty. Are the new guidelines an improvement in this respect?
I don't often agree with you, Simon, but I am in complete agreement on this point.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think it could be argued that they are not responsible for home educated children - using 2b to say it didn't apply to home educators because it would not be necessary for the authority to determine the educational provision. However, i think highlighting this section in the guidelines is a huge mistake.
I did, at an early stage, express concerns to someone who claimed to be involved in writing the guidlines, about what would be in the SEN section, and was told they were leaving them alone - not changing the current guidelines. That was the extent of my involvement. I didn't wish to be involved more because I no longer have the time to focus on home ed so much, and also I don't think that writing legally tight guidelines would be a strength of mine. Judging from the conversations among people with an interest in SEND, I am not sure who has been involved with any knowledge in this area.
Christine
In my opinion, the guidelines should be impartial to both LAs and HEs. The legal side is fairly clear, so to omit something that HEs may not like is not on. We, as HEs, cannot just cherry pick the bits of the law that we want and ignore those that may be inconvenient to us.
ReplyDeleteTaking that into consideration, I feel that all areas of the law and HE should be included in the guidelines, even the bits we do not like. Double standards is something I really do not like.
'We, as HEs, cannot just cherry pick the bits of the law that we want and ignore those that may be inconvenient to us.'
ReplyDeleteWe, as home educators need to work within the law. The law has not, so far, been interpreted in such a way that Alison now seems to be suggesting it should be.
I home educated my daughter with SEN all the way through after a disasterous couple of terms in a reception class. Thank God Alison, or whoever is owning up to this 'work', wasn't around, interfering with my HE, when I was doing that.
I'm pretty annoyed and my kids are grown up. If I was still HE'ing, I would be fuming.
'The law has not, so far, been interpreted in such a way that Alison now seems to be suggesting it should be.'
ReplyDeleteLocal authorities have indeed not interpreted the law in this way and, as Christine says above, there is a case to be made for this not being the legal position at all. However, I have seen stuff from Sauer Consultancy training days which leads me to believe that at least thirty local authorities have been encouraged by Alison Sauer to adopt this approach to home edcuated children with special needs. If this idea were to be enshrined in official guidelines then it would mean that all local authorities would be advised to take responsibility for all home educated children who had, or were thought by anybody to have, special needs. This is a can of worms which ought, in my opinion, to remain closed.
I have explained before that some of my work involves helping parents with such children to deregister their kids from school. As things stand, the council is usually only to happy to be rid of these children and do not bother the family overmuch once they are out of school. I do not know many parents who would be happy, once their children had been withdrawn from school, to have the LA chasing them up and insisting that they still had a duty to carry out assessments and so on.
Simon.
Local authorities have a general responsibility for all children living in their area and a specific responsibility for certain groups of children *in respect of services they provide*.
ReplyDeleteMy reading of the 'responsibility' defined in s321 cited above is not a responsibility *for the child* - parents are still legally responsible for the welfare and education of their children - but for *identifying* children with SEN and the special educational provision their SEN calls for.
In other words, if there are children over two and under sixteen living in an area, regardless of whether or not they attend school, who need speech therapy, occupational therapy, large print books or dyslexia assessments etc in order to have their learning difficulties met, the LA should identify that need. The implication is that the need should then be met by education, health and social care, but that appears to be a different kettle of fish.
'My reading of the 'responsibility' defined in s321 cited above is not a responsibility *for the child* - parents are still legally responsible for the welfare and education of their children - but for *identifying* children with SEN and the special educational provision their SEN calls for.'
ReplyDeleteAnd in order to establish whether or not the child has special needs which are not being met, the local authority has a duty to intervene in the lives of any home edcuated child who anybody says might have a special need. It is not generally done, but could in theory become common practice. It would mean that you could not refuse access to your child to the LA if somebody claimed that the kid had a special need. I am sure that you can see the hazards in this as well as I can. I am just baffled as to why anybody would be drawing attention to this possibility in what are meant be official guidelines , unless that person actually wants local authority officers to have access to all home educated children who have, or are thought to have, special needs.
Simon.
I do share your concerns. Especially since local authorities aren't renowned for providing support for children whose parents would like them to get it.
ReplyDelete