1. KIDS report of stakeholder meetings &
consultation with disabled children
Report produced by:
KIDS
6 Aztec Row
Berners Road
London
N1 0PW
020 7359 3073
pip@kids.org.uk
2. Contents:
Page
Introduction 4
SECTION 1: STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS 5
Process 5
Overview of events / feedback on day 6
Overview of participant working groups and general themes 7
Conclusion 17
SECTION 2: KIDS CONSULTATION WITH DISABLED CHILDREN 18
Process 18
Composition 19
Key findings – positive school response 24
Key findings – negative school response 29
Key findings – positive after school/club responses 34
Key findings – negative after school/club responses 39
Conclusion 43
2
4. Introduction
The Lamb Inquiry was established as part of the Government’s response to the House of
Commons Education and Skills Committee Report Special Educational Needs: Assessment
and Funding. The Lamb Inquiry, under the chairmanship of Brian Lamb, the Chair of the
Special Educational Consortium, investigated a range of ways in which parental confidence in
the SEN assessment process might be improved. For further details go to:
www.dcsf.gov.uk/lambinquiry
The Inquiry has gathered evidence from a range of sources: from research, including
research currently commissioned by the DCSF; from submissions to the Select Committee;
from the Reference Group for the Inquiry and the networks represented on the Group; from
the Expert Advisers; and directly from stakeholders including SENCOs, head teachers, local
authority officers, parents and pupils themselves.
The Inquiry’s purpose was to oversee a comprehensive examination of the information
requirements on schools and local authorities in relation to SEN and disability to ensure they
meet the needs of parents, encourage greater transparency and focus on outcomes for
disabled children and those with Special Educational Needs (SEN). The examination of the
information requirements was published in April 2009. Two further reports were
commissioned for July 2009.
It was decided to hold stakeholder meetings after the call for evidence closed in order to
gauge the response to possible recommendations that the Inquiry might make and gather
potential new ideas for development.
Following a tender process, KIDS arranged three stakeholder events for parents and
professionals, and undertook a consultation with disabled children and young people who use
KIDS’ services to further inform the inquiry. Two of the stakeholder events were held in
London and one in Leeds in July 2009. These events catered for over 200 delegates – a
mixture of parents and professionals. The aim of the consultation was to seek the views of
disabled children and young people aged 5-16 years on issues relating to school and after
school clubs/ activities. Over 100 children were consulted in Hampshire, Kent and Hull
between July and August 2009.
Section 1 of this report summarises the contributions of the participants who attended the
stakeholder events drawing out the key themes, whilst Section 2 outlines both the process
and the findings of the consultations carried out with disabled children and young people.
KIDS has 42 years experience working with disabled children, young people and their
families, currently delivering over 100 projects nationally including the organisation of
successful national conferences and seminars. For further information on the work of KIDS go
to: www.kids.org.uk
4
5. SECTION 1
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS (LONDON AND LEEDS –
JULY 2009)
Process
Led by the Director of KIDS National Development Department, KIDS Programme Officer
organised the following events:
Event 1 took place on Thursday 16th
July, 10am-2pm at Coin Street Conference Centre,
London, catering for up to 80 delegates.
Event 2 took place on Thursday 16th
July, 5pm-7pm at Coin Street Conference Centre,
London, catering for up to 80 delegates.
Event 3 took place on Thursday 30th
July, 10am-2pm at Leeds United Football Club
Conference Centre, catering for up to 100 delegates.
Using a combination of information provided by the Lamb Inquiry, KIDS contacted a wide
range of stakeholders with details of the event.
Audience invited / attended
KIDS circulated an invitation email (Appendix 1) through the Reference Group and the Expert
Advisers Group for the Lamb Inquiry and through their own database. Over 320 responses
were received from people wishing to attend.
Each of the events was fully booked with a waiting list in operation. The number of actual
delegates attending on each day was impressive.
On the 16th
July, in London, 77 people attended the morning, Event 1 and 66 people attended
the evening, Event 2.
On the 30th
July in Leeds, 99 people attended Event 3.
Overall a combined total of 242 people attended the three events.
It was anticipated that a mixture of parents and professionals would attend. We had a good
response from parents, with at least 20 attending each event and many professionals
attending had dual status, as some were also parents of disabled children.
5
6. Of those professionals attending, there was a good mix of those from voluntary and statutory
organisations, allowing for vigorous debate across all sectors.
London Event 1:
Parents 35%, Voluntary/Private organisations 35%, Statutory organisations 30%
London Event 2:
Parents 35%, Voluntary/Private organisations 40%, Statutory organisations 25%
Leeds Event 3:
Parents 25%, Voluntary/Private organisations 25%, Statutory organisations 50%
A wide range of people with varied perspectives and interests attended. These included;
School Governors, Teachers, SENCOs, Independent Advice Line Officers, Consultants,
Educational Psychologists, Portage Workers, Nursery and Early Years Officers. There was
also strong representation at all levels from Parent Partnership Services.
Overview of events / feedback on day
Each event used a standard agenda (Appendix 2), which was condensed for the evening
event, Event 2 in London. This took into account that this would have followed a working day
for many attendees, and to allow time to travel home afterwards.
Each event included a brief introduction from Brian Lamb on the progress of the Inquiry so far.
Philippa Stobbs then delivered a comprehensive presentation on the findings of the Inquiry to
date with key information about the direction the Inquiry was taking and overview of the many
strands of thinking that had developed so far.
Initially the delegates were arranged in defined groups of Parents or Professionals and asked
to sit separately so that they could identify key problems that their group had experienced. A
brief plenary session was held afterwards to pinpoint those problems that were considered to
be most pressing. Later these groups were mixed so that Parents and Professionals could sit
together and explore possible solutions to the problems that had been identified; again a
plenary session at the end gathered these ideas for consideration.
Food and refreshments were provided for all events, and time was reserved at the end of
each event for networking and further discussion.
In order to gauge the success of the events, delegates were asked to complete an evaluation
form (Appendices 3-5). There was a very high response rate on the evaluations and
delegates were positive about the organisation of the events.
6
7. The majority of delegates highly rated the delivery of the aim of the events as a method of
delivering an update on the Lamb Inquiry, as well as a way of gathering input from those
attending. Delegates valued the overview of the Lamb Inquiry to date, introduced by Brian
Lamb and delivered by Philippa Stobbs, and the adept chairing of the events by Brian Lamb
which ensured they kept to time.
In particular, the feedback indicated that parents and professionals appreciated the
opportunity to discuss ideas together in a way which would not normally be available to them.
In the main, people were prepared to respect one another’s views, even if they did not
personally agree with them.
Negative aspects of the events tended to feed from individual experiences, rather than the
events as a whole – these included the perception that one person was dominating a line of
discussion, with others feeling that their professionalism was under attack. The nature of the
subject matter lent itself to a highly emotive and passionate debate, some of which was
played out in the plenary sessions. However, the tone did not become adversarial and any
potential for this to occur was quickly dealt with by the chair.
Some delegates were initially perturbed by the separation of tables for ‘Parents’ and
‘Professionals’ at the beginning of each session, wondering if this was to engender an ‘us and
them’ experience. However, when it became clear that they would later be integrated, these
fears were allayed.
The vast majority of delegates reported a useful and informative day.
Overview of participant working groups and general themes
Two parts of each session were split into discussion groups and were used to gather
feedback from those attending. The first discussion group focused on the problems
experienced by both parents and professionals (Appendix 6). Parents and professionals sat in
separate groups to discuss the issues that related to themselves and their peers and to set
priorities to be addressed in the second session. The second discussion group focused on
seeking solutions. Parents and professionals then moved to mixed groups and worked
together to consider solutions to some of the problems they had previously identified
(Appendix 7).
7
8. Within the plenary and verbal feedback periods, the delegates identified the following key
issues:
Problems:
Parents
Parents feel ignored by the services that are meant to assist their child. Some parents report
being regarded as a ‘troublemaker’ by schools, to the extent of being banned from school
premises. Others report that they have been bullied into accepting a blanket policy that does
not meet their child’s requirements. One parent told of how their child was repeatedly
excluded from school until they had no option but to home educate. Some parents also
reported having being threatened with child protection measures in order to drop appeals. Not
every parent reported such extreme cases, however, there was general agreement that
parents were very often the last people to find out what had been decided for their child. They
also stated that they often had to seek information from other parents due to a lack of clear or
consistent information from service providers. Overall, parents did not feel that they were
respected as the experts on their child’s needs.
Parent Partnerships
Currently there is no consistency as they operate differently in different areas. A number of
parents said that they wanted Parent Partnership Services to be independent and that they
would like them to be funded completely separately from local authorities, to clarify their
independence from budget/funding issues in the locality.
Child focused
The child is seen as a problem rather than a person. Avoid putting children into special
schools where they are separated from their local community and expectations are extremely
low. Even in special schools, children do not receive the specialist support they may require.
The national curriculum is often bypassed in special schools. Time spent to consider the
needs of the child, not the resources available.
Independent assessment
Independent assessment of needs is not independent from the funding providers.
Educational Psychologists are ‘lent on’ by local authorities to not support statements, or to
only give out a specific quantity of statements.
Training
A lack of skilled or knowledgeable staff. Teacher training does not adequately cover SEN and
disabled children. Equality and human rights not covered. Inclusion for disabled children not
understood. Ofsted inspectors require training to understand good quality provision for
statemented and disabled children. Teachers and support workers lack the tools they need to
ensure they can reach every child in the classroom.
8
9. Statutory assessment
LEAs and schools to stop using child protection issues as a way to avoid SEN responsibility.
Statutory Assessment should override child protection, it will follow naturally anyway if it is
required.
Ofsted and family inclusion
Ofsted needs to flag up family inclusion in schools. Compliance issues need to be spread
further. If a school fails on SEN then they should fail their inspection, or have a limiting
judgement.
Statementing
Challenging a statement is a costly process for parents who already have limited resources
both financially and emotionally. Parents should not then have to ‘police’ the statement once it
is given.
Statements do not reflect the changing requirements of the child, a child statemented at age 7
will have very different requirements by the age of 12.
Specialist support
The current system is 30 years out of date and doesn’t work. More specialist support is
required on the front-line.
Communication
Poor lines of communication at every level between parents, Parent Partnership Services,
schools, local authorities and healthcare providers.
Funding
Funding, not enough and not in the right places. Often there is confusion over where the
funding should come from to service the statement.
Solutions:
Listen to and work with parents
Listen to and work with parents (including fathers) consistently and regularly. Simple things
can have a large impact. Respect for parents. Transparency of process and a clear line of
access to decision makers. There is no clear route of access for parents entering the SEN
world – everything should be in one place. Parents to have the right to view the information
shared between professionals during the statementing process. National training programme
for parents to understand the statementing process. A parent’s board to be set up (like
Children’s Trusts) with true parent power. Blue box information on Early Support given to
parents.
9
10. The child should always be at the centre of the process
The child should always be at the centre of the process, consulted and informed with an
emphasis on the Every Child Matters outcomes. Children with statements are a minority
amongst their peers, but they should not be neglected. Proper choice of provision and
flexibility in local area, children should not be ‘bussed in’ with hours of travel each day. Need
to change the fact that legally a child is only entitled to a bare minimum of education.
Independence of professionals
Absolute independence required of Educational Psychologists and NHS / Speech and
Language therapists. Keyworkers to be independent of local authorities.
Parent Partnerships
If local authorities properly implemented the exemplification of minimum standards then
Parent Partnerships would be fine. Need for more good Parent Partnerships that respond
effectively with proper signposting from local authorities.
Teacher training
Initial teacher training needs a full module on SEN (not a brief half day covering basics).
Equality and diversity training should not just be instituted for teaching staff, but for the whole
school. Make differentiation materials available nationally via LEAs as the resources are more
readily available. In legislation the responsibility falls on schools and teachers. Need to equip
all professional with a good understanding of best practice. Outcomes are good but need to
be careful of expectations being set at a ‘convenient’ level for providers that does not properly
challenge the child. Training should encompass ideology as well as theory. Bring parents in to
inform professionals of the struggles they have faced. There should be a generic bank of staff
for clusters of schools so that certain schools don’t ‘own’ specialist knowledge. Teachers also
need support and an independent voice that is listened to.
SEN
A ‘hearts and minds’ campaign for the SEN agenda at local authority and school governor
level should be instigated.
Enforcing the SEN Code of Practice requires Ofsted involvement. Ofsted should have
properly trained inspectors that understand SEN. All schools should be compelled to work to
a set of standards, eg training and information provision. Local authorities need to issue
guidelines to schools on School Action and School Action Plus.
10
11. Legal aid
Legal Aid must be available at all points when undergoing a Tribunal. It should be directly
allocated to the child and not means tested - the financial implications can have a devastating
impact on families with already stretched finances. More transparency about funding in
schools for SEN. Parents should not be responsible for accountability. There should be an
enforcement/direction body to do this. What is the process after a tribunal enforces a
decision? Also, use risk assessments to include children rather than exclude. Properly
thought out statements lead to practice change. Take away the adversarial process where
parents are pitted against faceless organisations and institute a new culture of support and
good practice.
Local children’s services and early intervention
Local children’s services need to be more pro-active in terms of early intervention. Statement
need to be reviewed annually and changed accordingly. Extend the statement up to age 25 to
ensure children are supported through transitional stages into adulthood and further
education/training.
Changing attitudes
Try to disengage the political process from the education process. No short term gains when
a long view is what is required. Clear cross-party consensus. Sea-change in attitude across
the whole system away from ‘that’s how we’ve always done it’.
Clear communication
Plain English – no one, parents especially, should need a glossary to be able to read a
statement. Accountability of those making decisions is also paramount.
Extra funding for services
Overall there needs to be a significant amount of extra funding for services. An end to
delegated funding for statements. The DCSF needs to police the system so that statements
adhere to the Code of Practice and are quantifiable, specific. Personal education budgets –
so the parents can make judgements about quality and value for money. Managing funds
from health services / NHS, as there is also some duty there to provide.
Problems: Across the group work sessions, Parents and Professionals also identified the
following (Appendices 8, 10, 12):
Parents
Local authorities working with parents
Local authorities refusing to statement and not listening or consulting with parents. Instructing
professionals to manipulate reports to suit their needs – to fit provision with resources
available, not with the needs of the child.
11
12. Clear communication between schools and local authorities
Lack of clarity between school and local authority with regards to provision and who pays for it
(once a statement is given).
Lack of compliance
Lack of compliance on: IEPs, Annual reviews, PES, SEN policies, and DDA generally – due
to lack of skill / understanding. Lack of compliance, inconsistency and vagueness with
statement in relation to Code of Practice.
Clear idea of SEN figures
Local authorities no longer have a clear idea of SEN figures as many have reduced number of
statements to be issued (informal directives limiting the number of statements that each
school can support).
Engaging with parents
School, staff and governing body not engaging enough with parents as a whole to understand
needs. Failure by schools to take on board Disability Discrimination Act in their attitudes.
Specialist teaching skills
Over-reliance on Learning Support Assistants - doesn’t address the root problems which need
specialist teaching skills or SALT (Speech & Language Therapy).
Outcomes for all children
Need to ensure the outcomes of disadvantaged and vulnerable children, not just rich and
articulate parent’s offspring. Postcode lottery of provision.
Transparent tracking of outcomes and parental involvement
No transparent tracking of outcomes for children shared with parents. No parental
involvement when schools are audited for SEN delivery.
Professionals
Funding not ring fenced
Funding not ring fenced for support for ‘children with additional needs’. Parents finding
themselves ‘piggy in the middle’ between school and LEA over who is responsible, eg the
school says it has not got resources and the LEA says funding has been provided.
Exclusion
Governors reluctant to overturn head’s decision to exclude, despite parents presenting vital
evidence according to DCSF exclusion guidance. Unofficial exclusion – local authority willing
to turn a blind eye to keep figures low.
12
13. Delays in the system
Delays naming placement on statement with parents constantly chasing up – not much
feedback from caseworker. Children out of school for long periods of time because system is
too slow / suitable provision can’t be found.
Lack of training and understanding
Lack of training and understanding in teaching and support staff. Inexperienced / overworked
SENCOs. Lack of knowledge of what SEN means in a classroom, compounded by lack of
time, training and resources.
Lack of specification / quantification in statements
Lack of specification / quantification in statements lets schools ‘get away’ with not making
appropriate provision. This leads to parental dissatisfaction and conflict. More work for Parent
Partnership Services.
Local authorities and schools working with parents
Local Authorities and Schools not really hearing or believing parents (making assumptions or
judgements). Parents and schools unaware of availability of statutory service. Disagreement
resolution service; disputes get very entrenched.
Clear guidance from DCSF
Lack of clear guidance from DCSF about reducing reliance on statements and inclusive
education policies, set against growing number of children and young people with autism and
complex needs.
Social exclusion
Social exclusion. Bullying. Research shows one of the main reasons disabled children leave
mainstream education to go back into special schools is social exclusion, cannot learn well if
unhappy socially. Extends to outside the classroom / school trips etc. Some procedures /
extra tuition carried out in break times so children miss out on play and friendship.
Lack of understanding from schools and local authorities
Lack of understanding from schools / LA of children’s needs, eg ages 4-5, not being able to
access provision because of needs which local authority wants school to assess, but child
cannot go to school without.
Services being reduced
Working with local authorities and seeing services provided being reduced that are
desperately required to allow for more capacity, eg 1,000 hrs for 20 children becoming 1,000
hours for 44 children. Outcomes become harder to evidence.
School communication with parents
School communication with parents. Sometime good practice in schools is not shared with
parents until Parent Partnership Service involvement.
13
14. Parents’ attitudes
Parents scaremongering to other parents.
Solutions: Across the groups, Parents and professionals also identified the following
(Appendices 9, 11, 13):
Develop practice
It was felt that some measures need to be introduced or developed to support work already
taking place within various services including:
• Health visitors armed with information and able to help parents navigate what’s
available from earliest opportunity (responding to diagnosis).
• Change of culture and ethos in schools so that work with children with SEN is an
important area and a benchmark of how well the school is performing overall
• Involve parents and children in setting priorities / targets / outcomes that are going to
be judged, so more relevant to the individual child and their future lives.
• Statement of 1to1 support could be used more effectively to include break times and
lunch times. Greater emphasis on life skills. Monitor effectiveness of these non-
educational interventions.
Other thoughts were around ensuring that children are not set attainment targets which are
too easy in the misguided apprehension that they are not capable of responding to challenge.
Enabling children to stretch beyond what is expected leads to a greater sense of achievement
for all involved. This has to be balanced against setting up a child to fail, and should be
carefully monitored.
Promote good practice
Although good practice exists, not enough of it is shared and some excellent work is lost as it
is hidden within the locality, some basic sharing of good practice amongst all service
providers would make a positive impact, such as:
• Viewing parents as equal partners (like the principles espoused in Aiming High / Early
Support). Professionals should see parents as experts and consult with them.
• Local provision for local children. Too many children are taken out of their community
for SEN and segregated; this denies them the opportunity to participate alongside their
peers or share the same experiences that siblings and friends are able to. This should
extend beyond the classroom.
• SEN recommendations to be changed into inclusive principles that are no longer an
‘add-on’ to the school policy but are interwoven into the school’s provision.
There was also a repeated emphasis on the need for consistency from Parent Partnerships
as impartial / neutral in exemplars and relating to the Code of Practice.
14
15. Training and expertise
Training was seen as an important part of any solution. There was reference to the need for
training in the following areas:
• the implementation of the Code of Practice
• the use of common resources
• the effective use of additional support
• better differentiation of materials and adaptation of practice
There was reference to the need for initial training, for continuing professional development
and to the need to anticipate where skills would be needed, rather than waiting till the shortfall
was apparent. One group thought that the expertise in special schools should be put to use in
mainstream schools. Skills also needed to be better embedded in the system.
Funding
The level or lack of funding needs addressing, as well as allocation of funding after a
statement is provided. Some measures to ensure that funding is reaching the intended
location could include:
• Local authorities tracking the SEN spend in schools and upholding the accountability of
the school if not compliant.
• A national audit to highlight good practice in some areas, ways of replicating good
practice and exploring why poor practice prevails.
• Funding could be back dated to when request for statutory assessment was made (if
costs have been accrued).
A common thread throughout was the tension between the opposing responsibilities for those
writing statements and managing budgets, in principle these are recommended be separated
as they are eternally in conflict.
Keyworkers
A central point of contact such as a keyworker was identified as important in ensuring
continuity of care, advice and information for parents, children and professionals. Some of the
principles are as follows:
• Keyworkers and lead professionals can share good practice on keyworking nationally.
Needs to link with team around the child, parents / carers and siblings, portage, health
visitor, doctor/GP, family support lead professional, social worker, therapist, after
school services, school, hospital and other teams within teams.
• Look at the overlap between pre-school provision and maintained provision in use of a
keyworker to support child and family.
Bridging workers can also be used as mechanism for supporting and introducing a child into a
new situation and will gradually ‘fade away’ as the child becomes more confident and familiar
with the new situation.
15
16. Reports and statements
Transparency of reports and statements provided by professionals was seen as very
important by all. The following issues were identified in particular:
• Early intervention for referral and provision of statements.
• Education psychologist to be independent in the adversarial process.
• Clearly identified point of appeal needed for when provision is not being delivered as
dictated by the statement.
• Burden of forcing issues of non-compliance / proof should not be on parent. Parents
should not find themselves in a position where they feel their only option is to
campaign or take legal action to chase LEAs and schools to address issues and get
action.
Parents in particular reported that getting a statement in the first instance was very difficult,
but once it was granted, they still found themselves in the position of having to ensure that it
would be provided. Having a separate body to monitor and enforce statements would relieve
this pressure. It was also noted that most attendees were unaware of the Disagreement
Resolution Service that is available to mediate when a statement is disputed, greater
recognition of this function could reduce the amount of formal appeals taking place.
Tighten compliance
It was recognised that in many instances the foundations of good practice exist but are not
being properly followed through, focusing on compliance should go towards addressing this:
• Clarity and transparency for funding trails – who is accountable for ensuring the
funding makes it to the right place and supports the child.
• Ofsted to hold schools accountable for compliance with SEN Code of Practice and to
publish findings and outcomes.
• Professionals should maintain professional integrity and produce accurate, specific and
honest reports. Monitored by a body separate from funders.
Legislation
On the whole suggestions to bring about further legislation was low, instead it was agreed
that measures should be taken to strengthen the existing legislation wherever possible, such
as:
• Ensuring as much priority is placed on School Action and School Action Plus
programmes as well as statemented pupils.
• A legal duty on schools to spend all statement money on the child and to inform
parents what the money is being spent on.
• Separation of assessment from funding function. Punitive fines for local authorities who
are found to have broken the law. Clarification of ‘reducing reliance on statements’ and
the legal framework behind this.
Taken as a whole these recommendations could have a significant impact on the education
and personal development of disabled children and those who support them.
16
17. Conclusion
The three events reached a broad spectrum of those people involved in the care, education
and day to day lives of disabled children and children who have Special Educational Needs.
They were positively received and gave voice to some groups who had not been previously
consulted.
This was a vital opportunity for the Inquiry to check with stakeholders the veracity of the
evidence that the Inquiry had already gathered and to explore solutions in some of the areas
where they might want to make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
The feedback from these groups is crucial to understanding the challenges that face disabled
children, their parents and carers and those who work to support them. The quantity of
feedback from the stakeholders has given rise to further thinking on how service providers
and users can be positively engaged in improving the quality of provision for disabled
children, young people and their families and how providers can be supported in ensuring that
a high quality, transparent process of SEN commissioning can be delivered to those that
require it.
17
18. SECTION 2 – KIDS CONSULTATION WITH DISABLED
CHILDREN
Aim of the consultation
To seek the views of disabled children and young people including those with Special
Educational Needs (SEN) aged 5 -16 years to inform the Lamb Inquiry.
Process
This consultation was carried out between July and August 2009 by staff working with 106
children and young people, aged 5 -16 years, accessing KIDS’ services (including Parent
Partnership Services, Residential Respite, Summer Play Schemes, Saturday Fun Clubs,
Independent Voice Scheme and Youth Clubs). The consultation was carried out in the North
and the South of England to ensure that children from fairly prosperous regions as well as
those from more deprived areas were consulted. A total of 49 children were consulted from
the Northern region (Hull) and 57 children from the Southern region (Hampshire and Kent).
Two questionnaires were devised (please refer to Appendix 1 and 2 attached) – one focusing
on school issues and the other focusing on after school/club activities. Both questionnaires
were designed using the ‘Widget’ programme – allowing questions to be presented in a
pictorial form for those children that required this method of communication.
These two questionnaires were designed primarily for children with moderate learning
difficulties. Simplified versions of the questionnaires were also designed for children with
more complex learning difficulties (please refer to Appendices 3 and 4). The questionnaires
were completed by children either at a KIDS setting where the child was accessing a service,
or at the child’s home.
Staff supported each child to complete the questionnaires. All members of staff were familiar
with the children and their specific requirements and/or communication style. The staff were
able to use signs, symbols and other appropriate methods of communication to obtain
responses to the questions asked.
The level of support provided varied according to the specific requirements of each child.
Where the child was able to record the answers, he or she did so. Where the child found it
difficult to write, he/she responded verbally and the staff member scribed. Similarly, where the
child was experiencing difficulty in understanding the question, staff members used their skills
to present the question in a way that would enable the child to understand - without
influencing his or her answers. The language used does not always reflect exactly what the
child expressed but rather an interpretation (where appropriate) of what the child wanted to
express. Where this occurs it is clearly identified. It should also be pointed out that not all
children answered all parts of the question(s), and that some children put forward more than
one view on different issues. Hence the numbers in the graphs do not always match up with
the numbers of responses and/or quotes.
18
19. Composition of the group
Number of participants Age Range (in years) Level of difficulty
28 5 - 10 Moderate Learning
Difficulty
52 11 – 16 Moderate Learning
Difficulty
4 5 - 10 Severe Learning Difficulty
22 11 - 16 Severe Learning Difficulty
Data was also gathered on type of impairment to ensure that a wide range of children with
varying requirements and ability were consulted to ensure children with both moderate and
severe learning difficulties were included in the sample as required by the research brief.
19
20. Type of impairment/condition
53
11
8
6
5 5
4
3 3
2 2 2
1 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
U
LTIPLE
ASD
/AU
T/ASP
M
LD
AD
D
M
ED
C
O
N
D
C
P
SL
D
YS
SEBD
D
O
W
N
AD
H
D
SLD
BL
SBH
Numberofparticipants
KEY
MULTIPLE Multiple diagnosis/impairments
DYS Dyslexia/SpLD
ASD/AUT/ASP Autistic Spectrum Disorder/Aspergers
SLD Severe Learning Difficulty
SEBD Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
CP Cerebral Palsy
MED COND Medical Conditions in addition to Learning
Difficulties
ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
MLD Moderate Learning Difficulties
ADD Attention Deficit Disorder
SBH Spina Bifida and/or Hydrocephalus
SL Speech and Language Difficulties
DOWN Downs Syndrome
BL Sensory Impairment ( Visual )
20
21. Type of school attended
KEY
M/S Primary Mainstream Primary
M/S Secondary Mainstream Secondary
S.U Specialist Unit Attached to Mainstream School
Dual Placement Attending Special and Mainstream School
15
23
61
2
2 3
M/S Primary
M/S Secondary
Special
S.U
Dual Placement
Unknown
21
23. Ethnic origin
96
3 2 1 1 1 1 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
WB UNKNOWN W + BA MIXED AOM PAK I OTHER EB UNCLASSIFIED
Numberofparticipants
KEY
WB White British
OTHER EB Other Ethnic Background
MIXED AOM Any other Mixed Background
PAK Pakistani
I Irish
W+BA White and Black African
4.7 % of the group were from black and other minority ethnic backgrounds.
23
24. Key findings
Questions regarding school - positive responses
The group were asked a twofold question. Those with more complex learning difficulties were
asked what made them happy at school. Some children were only able to answer this part of
the question. However, in some cases by successfully engaging with the child and talking to
them about what made them happy, staff were able to further ascertain what helped them
learn at school. The graph below identifies the most prevalent responses – other responses
are also listed.
Key areas at school identified as making children happy
17
10
6
3
2 2 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
FriendsPlaying/Playtim
e/SoftPlay
Sw
im
m
ing
B
ikes/G
o-K
arts
Painting
G
olden
Tim
e
Trips
Numberofresponses
Other areas which were identified as making children happy at school were:
Social aspects
“Kids playing happily together”
“To see all my friends and to play with them at playtime”
“Role-play”
“Singing”
“Making new friends”
“Talking to friends”
“Laughing”
“Drama”
24
25. Specific activities
“Going on the computer”
“Everything”
“Cooking”
“Going outside”
“House”
“Computers, art, ball pool and water”
“Playing in the sand”
“Reading”
“Music class makes me happy - I can be a D.J”
Sports activities/exercise
“Dancing”
“Sport and in particular Football”
“P.E and Football”
“Walking”
General comments
“Choosing what you do when you feel like it”
“Saying thank you”
“Being helped to do my work”
“The staff make me happy as they are very funny”
“School dinners”
“Nice teachers”
Children also told staff that being affectionate, having a routine, being appreciated and
interacting with staff made them happy at school.
25
26. Key areas reported as helping children to learn at school
This question was asked in two different ways: a) ‘What helps you at school?’ and b) ‘Can
you think of 3 things that help you learn and do well at school?’ The results were brought
together as demonstrated in the chart below. Some of the children responded with one thing,
some with two or three. Hence, the numbers gathered below are based on responses and not
the numbers of children that were asked.
Other responses included:
Teaching methods/strategies
“The teachers help me at school, by explaining things to me more than once”
“Symbols”
“My 1:1 T.A”
“T.A explains when I don’t understand”
“Teacher Aids”
“Teacher on my table when we need help”
“Being shown how to do work and receiving help”
“Being told what to do as an individual”
“1:1 assistance – keeps me out of trouble and stops me being bored”
“Visual learning – seeing things”
45
29
16
10
9
5 2
Teacher
Teaching Assistant
Computers/Programmes
Pictures/Diagrams
Friends
Less Distractions
Listening
Top 7 responses
26
27. “Grouped into ability”
“Enough staff for the group”
“Explained properly so that I can understand”
“Once the teacher has explained the work to all the class then coming over to me and
explaining again”
“Sitting at the front of the class”
“If you don’t understand the work they will go over it and over it until you do”
“Someone brushing me to keep me calm”
“Not being pulled out of class about something which happened yesterday”
“Being given a chance to put it right”
“When teachers don’t stress me out”
“When teachers listen to you but they don’t”
“T.As, teachers have got more time to explain things when I don’t understand”
“SEN Department”
“Well spoken teachers”
“Visual images”
“Group discussions”
“Someone reading with me”
“Working in groups”
“Type – put verbal ideas into text”
Resources
“Counting beads”
“Big numbers on the wall and ceiling”
“T.V”
“Having my own laptop”
“Switch for computer”
“Roller Ball Mouse”
“Special keyboard/Key guard”
“Text books I can bring home”
“Signers, Brail Equipment”
“Special resources such as roller ball, special keyboards and PECS”
“The computer. I go on the internet to do my work”
“Routine”
Specific activities
“Drawing”
“Asking questions”
“Having a pool”
“Art”
“Sports (such as swimming and general exercise)”
“Art”
“Soft Play”
“Listening To music”
“Having my own laptop, taking it to lessons and then home for homework”
27
28. Classroom environment
“Calm and quiet classroom”
“Having a private room for exams with 2 -3 other friends really helps. Having extra time for
exams also really helps, especially History and Geography as it takes longer to put
information from my head onto paper”
“I don’t feel different here- everyone is the same” ( Client in special school comparing to
experience at previous mainstream school)
“Being with nice friendly people”
“Not being disrupted”
“If no one would annoy me at school but they do”
“Being at same school as my friend with disabilities”
“Less children in class – can listen better”
General comments
“Dinner Ladies”
“Enjoying subject”
“Talking to people”
“Mum and Dad”
“Whiteboard”
“Nurses”
“Not afraid to ask teacher for help”
One individual reported that the SEN Department helped him to learn at school as it was
somewhere he could go and feel safe. He felt that having well spoken teachers – with a clear
voice helped him understand. When he was being taught by teachers who spoke too fast or
too slowly his mind would start to drift and he could not concentrate. He believed that he
learnt best when he was presented with visual images and access to “vibrant, diverse lessons
in a similar environment.” He also felt that as his attention span was fairly short it proved
beneficial for him to engage in short periods of work using a variety of mediums.
This individual was very positive about school and reported that the SEN Department worked
hard to ensure that his day ran smoothly. He noted that whenever teachers were absent from
school he would always have the same supply teachers and this assisted him in his learning.
The school also appeared to work in partnership with this individual’s mother and any planned
changes were communicated to her well in advance, in order to help prepare her child for that
change at school.
28
29. Negative responses regarding school
As above this question was twofold. Those children with more complex learning difficulties
were first of all asked what made them sad at school. Again, by successfully engaging with
the child and talking to them about what made them sad, in some cases staff were able to
further ascertain what made it difficult for them to learn at school. The graph demonstrates
the most prevalent responses and other responses are also listed below.
Key areas identified as making children sad at school
8
5
3
2 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Bullying Screaming/Shouting/Noise Getting Told Off Other Children People being nasty or
fighting
Numberofresponses
Other responses included:
“The word ‘No ‘ “
“Noise”
“When teachers don’t listen to me”
“Long lessons – boring”
“When my friends don’t play with me”
“When I get into fights”
“Messy school”
“Nothing I like school very much”
“Matches”
“Science Teacher – Horrible, tells me off, Bossy Boots”
“Not being supported and always getting the blame for things”
29
30. “When I don’t have an animal at home”
“Not having routine”
“Making my tummy fat” – eating too much and drinking too much!
“Falling over”
“I do not like loud people in my class”
“When I’m angry”
“Getting punched for no reason and sometimes I get teased for not reading”
“When I have to go to take a break room”
“Maths”
“When I can’t do what I want to do”
“Can’t do work”
The key areas identified as making it hard to learn at school
This question was asked in two ways: a) ‘What makes it hard for you at school?’ and b) ‘Can
you tell me three things that make it difficult (hard) for you to learn at school? ’ The graph
demonstrates the most prevalent responses and other responses are also listed below.
21
12
10
7
6
5
4
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
NumberofResponses
Distractions
Teacher
Being Bullied
Reading/Writing
Tests
Finding Work Difficult
Maths
Boredom
30
31. Other responses included:
Issues relating to teaching staff/ teaching methods
“People left alone does not work”
“Teachers’ expectations”
“Teachers leaving, lots of supply teachers, different teachers”
“Being rushed to do work”
“When teachers shout at me”
“The teacher’s mood. If they are miserable and moody and start shouting I get all defensive
and it gets me into trouble”
“Some staff and teachers don’t understand me”
“I couldn’t write things down quickly enough, so didn’t get time to check work through as
never got it all written down”
“Teachers being “off” with me for being slow and not understanding. I’d ask once and then
not ask again in case they had a go at me”
“When people don’t understand me”
“Teachers shouting and teachers who have no respect for pupils”
“When teachers are not clear”
“Teachers accusing me of things I haven’t done and I get into trouble for it”
“Excluding me from school”
“Not knowing what is next”
“Not understanding homework – not clearly explained”
“I found it hard to talk to one of the teachers – was scared of her”
“Being randomly split into groups”
“When there’s no teacher in class”
“When I don’t get help”
“Help I had didn’t last for long and stopped after Year 9”
“Not getting on well with teacher. My anger/behaviour/violence”
“To do one task – get confused when I have to do different things”
“Stupid teachers”
“If communication isn’t clear and simple it’s hard for me to understand”
“Hard to get teacher’s attention”
“Frustrated when people shout at me”
“When work is not interesting”
“Lone working”
“It’s difficult to read instructions”
“I can’t always read everything”
“I need more help”
“If work is not repeated then I find it hard”
“Work is too hard”
“I find it hard to do my work, as I can not do it”
“When I want to play and my teacher says no I have to do work. I can play after work but its
very hard work”
31
32. “Not given enough time to do things. I need more time when I am writing”
“Not having enough time to complete tests”
“Not enough time to do exams”
“Knowing what the time is”
One parent clarified her son’s response – she reported that he had a lot of difficulty
understanding the teaching in class, due to the language used and the speed of delivery. He
really struggled due to his dyslexia and his requirements not being met.
This particular child reported negative experiences in school – especially since he suffered an
epileptic fit and the school advised his mother to withdraw him from school :-
“When I was coming up to doing my GCSEs, I was having more and more problems with my
epilepsy ……….. At the beginning of January I had a fit (during Christmas Holidays) and was
unconscious for a long time. I had to be taken to hospital. My mother told the school and they
got extra concerned about me having a fit at school and I was told to stay off school until a
‘plan’ could be arranged for me being at school. I missed a large chunk of course work for
each subject and was unable to make up the lost time. When we went to school for a meeting
my mum was advised to withdraw me from school and that I could do 3 years in the sixth form
instead…….some subjects had to suffer so that I could concentrate on the ones I thought I
had the best chance at. It was all very demoralising and I found it very difficult and stressful.”
This particular child then sought help from Connexions, who arranged for an interview at a
local college. He was accepted unconditionally for the course he wanted to do and he was
impressed that they worked quickly to put a support plan into place shortly after the interview,
to help him through the course.
This individual’s experience of school was not very positive in part due to the school’s lack of
confidence in coping with his medical requirements. He is, however, looking forward to
making a fresh start at college and remains optimistic.
Issues with other students and/or learning environment
“Too many needs in one class”
“More disabled get more attention”
“Negative attitude”
“If there’s too much going on I get easily distracted and off-target”
“Sometimes the children speak loudly and I can’t concentrate”
“People picking on me that cause arguments with other students and teachers i.e. something
I haven’t done”
“Not enough resources”
“I am at 2 Schools and it gets hard when I have to go to different classrooms, people think
that I’m weird because I go to 2 schools. It makes it hard for me to learn properly”
“Listening when I am stressed”
“Making friends, lunchtime and break time are difficult”
32
33. “Charity day or sports day – I worry about these before the day – But once I am there, after an
hour I will be O.K. But only if I know what will be happening during the whole day not just what
will be happening until break time. If that happens I will be back to square 1”
“Poor hygiene standards in school. If there’s no soap in the toilet I feel uncomfortable during
the school day – I don’t want to touch anywhere”
“Struggle making friends”
“People shouting”
“Throwing pencils”
“Too many people in class”
“Children bossing me about”
“Friends take the mickey out of people”
“Loud people”
“Finding it hard to make friends”
General comments
“Knowing what the time is”
“Sometimes takes a long time to get to lessons”
“Not allowed to push myself around” – Wheelchair User
“Bad access”
“Sitting and waiting”
“Tricky maths – when I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count on”
“Writing things down”
“If the laptop goes flat”
“I can not have friends push me at break times only the T.A” – Wheelchair User
“Can’t play active games”
“I sometimes get annoyed”
“When I am hungry or tired”
“My behaviour”
“I need more help”
“I get very tired”
33
34. Questions regarding after school clubs/activities
Number accessing a club Number not accessing a
club
No response
73 15 18
Positive responses
The group with more complex learning difficulties were asked what made them happy at after
school clubs/activities. Again by successfully engaging with the child and talking to them
about what made them happy, staff were able to further ascertain what helped them learn at
after school clubs/activities. The graph below identifies the most prevalent responses – other
responses are also listed. However, it is worth nothing that many children are not able to
access after school clubs/activities (due to barriers of access and attitude) so would not have
been able to answer this particular question. Some children with more severe impairments
did not understand the question.
34
35. Key areas identified as making children happy at an after school club/activity
10
7
6
6
5
5
4
3
3
Friends
Trips
Bikes/Go Karts
Swimming
Soft Play
Arts and Crafts
Bouncy Castle
Singing/Dancing
Having Someone to Play with
Other responses included:
Specific activities
“Cooking”
“Listening to music”
“Putting on shows”
“Drawing”
“Ball pool”
“Animals”
“Sand”
“Doing different activities”
“Watching T.V”
“Adventure, interesting”
“Playing on my own”
“Wet play”
“Making models”
“Playing in the sensory room”
“Playing with my friends and staff with my toys”
“Feeding the ducks”
“Dressing up”
“Policeman visiting”
“Playing with water and making new friends”
“Glue and paint – messy”
“Every week you do different things at Friday club”
35
36. Social aspects
“Having people to talk to”
“It makes me happy to do something different”
“Being listened to”
“The play worker”
One child reported that interacting with staff and being affectionate made her happy at clubs.
36
37. Key areas identified as helping children learn or do well at a club or
activity
This question was asked in two different ways: a) ‘ What helps you at clubs or activities?’
and b) ‘Can you tell me three things that help you learn and do well at the club or
activity?’ Some children were able to offer more than one answer, some only one. The
most prevalent responses were brought together as demonstrated in the graph below.
Please note this is not the number of children questioned.
36
11
4 4 4
3 3 3
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Numberofresponses
Staff
Friends
Being Shown What To
Do
Pictures/PECS/Makaton
Having Fun
Key Worker
Simple Clear
Instructions
Kind And Helpful Staff
Routine
Other responses included:
Level or type of support/staffing arrangements
“Being in smaller groups”
“Having 1:1 tuition/help”
“We are helped to support each other and how to do things”
“Not having a worker to each of us”
“Volunteers”
“I always follow or watch someone then I know what to do”
“They tell you what to do”
“Staff being kind and helpful”
“The teacher explaining what to do and dancing with me”
“Understanding adults”
37
38. “Clear rules”
“Clear and simple communication”
“A coach teachers me the rules at football”
“Reassurance”
“People paying attention”
“Supported to use buses so I can travel safely. Teach us how to meet new people and
friends”
“My football manager knows I have Dyspraxia”
“Using different mediums – Educational videos”
General answers
“I’ve got respect for my football coaches”
“I want to improve my skills so I listen to my coaches”
“I have known my football team mates for 6 years”
“Being able to do practical things rather than ones which involve writing”
“I enjoy it so I want to learn how to do better”
“Creative activities because they are fun”
“Going outside”
“Ask questions”
“Lots of people being around”
“My confidence. Making friends”
“Playing games”
“Being calm”
“Equipment”
“Playing with others”
One individual commented that it was the enthusiasm of the staff and their belief in him that
he could achieve, which really helped him to learn.
38
39. Negative responses regarding after school clubs/activities
The group with more complex learning difficulties were asked what made them sad at after
school clubs/activities. Again by successfully engaging with the child and talking to them
about what made them sad, staff were able to further ascertain what makes it difficult for them
learn at after school clubs/activities. The most prevalent responses have been brought
together in the graph below. Other responses are also listed.
Key areas identified as making children sad at after school clubs/ activities
15
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
Nothing
People Being Nasty or Naughty
Shouting/Screaming/Loud Noises
Having to stop a fun activity
Boredom
Bullying
Fightng
Getting Told Off
Other responses included:
“Lots of people and shops”
“When I don’t get my own way and if it rains”
“Not being allowed in soft play”
“When people aren’t talking to me”
“Being alone”
“Working”
“Drawing things”
“When something I enjoy has to stop or finish” ( 3 children)
“Nothing I like the Play Scheme”
39
40. “Nothing” ( 11 children)
“Nope – Never”
“Nothing makes me sad”
“I am always happy at KIDS Club”
“Not enough clubs”
“Not being able to go into the Sensory Room”
“Not being able to sing to Abba!”
“Not being listened to, not being allowed to join in by 2 older boys, kicking and hitting”
“ If I can’t do it”
Invasion of personal space was also reported as a factor which makes children sad at after
school activities.
40
41. Key areas identified as making it hard for children to learn
This question was asked in two different ways: a) ‘ What makes it hard for you at clubs or
activities?’ and b) ‘ Can you tell me three things that make it hard for you to learn or do well
at the club or activity? .’ The most prevalent responses have been brought together in the
graph below. Other responses are also listed.
13
3
2 2 2 2 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Numberofresponses
Nothing
Being Annoyed By Other Children
Not Being Able to Concerntrate
No Help
Other People
Not Understanding or Knowing What Will
Happen Next
Others Not Understanding the Child
Other response included:
Issues with concentration and/or comprehension
“My concentration sometimes goes and I don’t stay focused”
“Sometimes the boys muck about and I can’t concentrate”
“Kids annoying you and kids messing about”
“Too many kids”
“New places, new people”
“At one club no one helps or does anything with us – we just sit in room with arts/crafts”
“In a match I don’t get the instructions repeated to me”
“People working individually, not including others”
“Difficult work that’s too hard”
“I forget what to do”
41
42. “Changing the rules often, children shouting and being tired sometimes”
“Not being given accurate instructions – manuals, lack of organisation by others and working
with others”
“Not listening to instructions and reading them”
“If I’m wound up by other people”
“If communication isn’t clear it’s hard for me to understand”
Social, emotional and behavioural Issues
“New places, new people”
“No friends – find it hard to make friends”
“Sometimes I stammer so I don’t talk to my team mates”
“Low self- esteem”
“Once my confidence was knocked by the instructor I wouldn’t go back”
“When I am upset, I get bored and don’t want to play”
“I get frustrated if people shout at me in P.E”
General comments
“Not being listened to, hitting and kicking”
“Mum has to pick me up from after School Club instead of getting bus”
“Adults that don’t understand my problems”
“Trips – some places don’t have full access to their facilities”
“Weather”
“Side effects to my medication”
“Not much, when things get hard staff try and help me”
“Going home”
“When not understood”
“Waiting to do things”
“Hungry”( 2 Children)
“Not feeling well”
“Holding hands”
Reasons given for children not attending after school clubs or activities
“No transport” ( 7 children)
“Because I don’t like being around loads of people. It makes me stressed and easily
embarrassed and there are no clubs I like that are local or near me”
“I never wanted to go to any after school clubs or activities because no one else I knew
wanted to go as well”
“No transport – Mum /Dad can’t drive”
“Does not attend due to living with grandparent and no transport” Reported by Staff Member
“Fear of going and what will happen”
“Change to routine – come home and have cereal - Can’t do that if I am still at school”
“I want to get home and play on my laptop – relax. I live a long way from school – 40 mins”
42
43. General comments
“If the school had a tennis club after school and it was very organised and if I knew who was
doing it and where and what time it was on, I would go”
“Going with a friend would help”
One child’s mother reported that her daughter’s previous experience at a mainstream school
where her needs were not being met and where she was being bullied had a big impact on
her self esteem and confidence. This made it difficult for her to have the confidence to attend
any clubs, even ones which were not connected to the school in any way.
Conclusion
The children who were consulted provided an interesting and varied insight into what helps
and hinders their well being and their learning - both within a school environment and during
after school clubs and activities.
Friends, play and swimming were identified as major contributing factors to their happiness at
school. Equally, teaching staff, computers, the use of pictures/diagrams to communicate were
identified as elements which assisted them in their learning.
Bullying, distractions within the classroom, testing and getting told off were identified as
elements which made children sad at school. In particular, bullying was identified as a major
issue which impacted negatively on learning at school .The children were able to break this
down further and highlighted that various forms of bullying including physical abuse, verbal
abuse (i.e. name calling/teasing and other children reminding them of their particular
difficulties or impairments) as well as psychological abuse such as not allowing the child to
join in a game, or ignoring the child altogether, all impacted negatively on their ability to feel
included and learn at school. In addition 11.5% of children felt that being annoyed by other
children made it difficult to learn and 7.6% felt that both not being able to concentrate and not
having any help hindered their learning.
Friends, trips, bikes/go karts and swimming were identified as making the group happy during
after school clubs and activities. Helpful staff and being shown what to do, the use of
alternative communication methods such as pictures/PECS/Makaton were identified as
important elements which helped the group learn during clubs and activities.
The group tended to be more positive about their experiences during after school clubs with
the majority of children reporting that nothing made it difficult for them to learn, and with 43%
reporting that nothing made them unhappy at after school clubs.
43
44. Not having transport to get to and from a club (due to the child living in a rural location or
because the child’s parents did not drive) was identified as a major barrier to children
accessing after school clubs or activities. Some children also identified coping with a change
to the usual routine as a barrier to attending clubs. Approximately 12% of children reported
that people being nasty or naughty made them unhappy, and 9% reported that shouting,
screaming and loud noises had an adverse effect on their happiness during after school
activities.
This aim of this consultation was to seek the views of disabled children and young people so
it seems appropriate to conclude this report with a quote from both a disabled child and his
mother respectively.
“It’s like I am on stage and the stage is my life. To stop power cuts, crowds and
surges they (the SEN department) are frantically working away behind the
scenes trying to sort things out”
(A child with a diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome, referring to all the preventative measures the
SEN department put in place, behind the scenes to ensure a smooth day at school).
“The school know my son well and they really go out of their way – they prepare
and adjust according to him. They plan ahead, even before he knows they have
planned and smoothed things over before he gets to that point”
(The child’s mother)
44
45. Glossary of acronyms used in this report
ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder
ASC Autistic Spectrum Conditions
ASD Autistic Spectrum Disorders
CAF Common Assessment Framework
CPD Continual Professional Development
COP Code of Practice
CWANM Child with Additional Needs Meeting
DCSF Department for Children, Schools and Families
DDA Disability Discrimination Act
DRS Disagreement Resolution Service
FFI Framework for Intervention
FFT Family Fund Trust
GP General Practitioner
HE Home Education / Educator
IDP Inclusion Development Programme
IEP Individual Education Plan
IPSEA Independent Panel for Special Education Advice
ITT Initial Teacher Training
JAR Joint Area Review
LDD Learning Difficulties and Disabilities
LEA Local Education Authority
LSA Learning Support Assistant
MLD Mild Learning Difficulties
MSBP Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy
NIMBY Not in my back yard!
NPQH National Professional Qualification for Headship
NQT Newly Qualified Teacher
OT Occupational Therapy
PCT Primary Care Trust
PIVATS Performance Indicators for Value Added Target Setting
PLASC Pupil Level Annual School’s Census
PPS Parent Partnership Service
SALT Speech and Language Therapy
SEN Special Educational Needs
SENCO Special Educational Needs Coordinator
SEND Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
SENDIST Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal
SIPS School Improvement Partners
SLT Senior Leadership Team
SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timed
45
46. SSEN Statement of Special Educational Needs
TDA Training and Development Agency
UPN Unique Pupil Number
VCF Vulnerable Children’s Fund
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Anna Route from KIDS National Development Department for organising the
stakeholder events and writing up Section 1 of the report, and to Bushra Din, KIDS Parent
Partnership Coordinator for undertaking the consultations and writing up Section 2 of the
report.
46
