|
|
"Bad feeling and suspicion" |
|
An Audit Commission review of Special Educational Needs (SEN) in Richmond has criticised the relationship that some parents of pupils with SEN have with the council. There are local parents concerned about the provision of SEN in the borough who are dismayed at the report, which takes the activists among them to task and suggests that Richmond Council should consider disbanding the Special Educational Needs Consultative Group altogether. "Developing sound partnership with parents is part of the Council's commitment," states the report. "The majority of parents of children with special educational needs are satisfied with the council's performance in SEN. Inevitably, it is impossible to meet the expectations of all parents." The Audit Commission report urges the council to take every opportunity to celebrate its success in the area of SEN in order to benefit from a proper balance of local publicity to counteract negative public perceptions. The review goes on to state: "The SEN Consultative Group is not properly representative of parents, its effectiveness as a mechanism for consultation is in doubt and it is costly in officer time which can be ill afforded." The Commission proposes that parents be given a place on an SEN Strategy Group of officers, which meets monthly. "There is no parent representative on this group. Involving elected parent representatives would provide appropriate parental contributions to policy development at an early stage. The parent representatives would also be able to advise the Council on the need for wider parental consultation over key issues and could help facilitate the wider consultation process." Joan Baxter, Senior Specialist Inspector with the Audit Commission, attended a meeting of the SEN Consultative Group on 24th November 2003, and commented: "This evening meeting, lasting two and a half hours, was attended by officers, elected members, a parent governor (parent of a child with SEN), parents and parent representatives as well as school representatives. "A long agenda included a large and varied range of topics. Despite sound chairing, it was not possible to cover all agenda items at this meeting and a request was made for additional meetings. "The parents attending this meeting are unelected and not representative of all parents of children with SEN. At least two of the members of the group are representatives of local interest groups and have been involved in campaigns to influence the direction of Council policy. The style of the meeting gave the impression of an interest group holding Council representatives to account as opposed to a single stakeholder group consulting together in a spirit of cooperation." The report went on to say that the council was attempting to move forward from a situation in which a vocal minority of dissatisfied parents and their representatives had gained enhanced access to officers and members via existing consultation mechanisms, whilst satisfied parents formed a relatively silent majority. The Audit Commission officer ascribed "bad feeling" among some parents to the closure in late 2001 of Oldfield House school for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. "Officers and the parent governor expressed the view that the bad feeling and suspicion generated during the debate about the school's closure and the campaign to keep the school open has yet to abate and continues to find outlets," the report concluded. The
report added that the number of parents appealing to the SEN Tribunal
appeared to have fallen from 35 cases in 2001-2 September to August
to 22 in 2002-3 September to June. Audit Commission Report: Review of Special Educational Needs See the minutes of the meeting attended by the Audit Commission See the Education and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee, July 2004 See the Letters to the Editor Sunday, July 18, 2004
If
you wish to comment on this or other stories in the Journal please
go to our Letters
Pages © 2004 Online Communities Ltd |
