With reference to provision in schools for special educational needs and disabilities (Send), Anne Longfield is right to say that problems need to be identified early (Send provision in ‘vicious downward spiral’, says former children’s commissioner, 23 December). Her call for the expansion of and investment in Sure Start centres is the right one, together with her call for a focus on more inclusivity in mainstream schools.
As some parents attest, children with education, health and care plans (EHCPs) can thrive alongside their mainstream peers when good additional support is provided. When this erodes, the negative impact on individual children and classroom life becomes evident. So it is understandable, although questionable, when a headteacher with Send expertise calls for more funding for special schools as the answer to the problem.
As a teacher many years ago, I and my primary school colleagues had to be able to identify the source of problems with any of the 32 pupils I taught: was I making school work for the child, or was I expecting them to fit in with my plans?
With the onset of the national curriculum and ever-changing government demands on teachers, woe betide the child who can’t conform. And I say this as an ex-Ofsted inspector who left the profession when the fourth iteration of the “guidelines” was introduced.
Pauline Silcock
Kenilworth, Warwickshire
It was shocking to read of the disastrous situation Send is in. As well as its systemic transformation, it is important to rethink aspects of the primary national curriculum, particularly the literacy/English component. Many children requiring special help might do better if formal schooling was delayed, and if grammar and punctuation were kicked into the long grass until a good time to mow it.
There is talk of making children school-ready, but ready for what? To learn phonics when you are barely four? What does it say about the early years curriculum when a bright four-year-old, asked about the first few weeks of reception class, says: “There is too much learning.” When four- and five-year-olds have to know about digraphs and trigraphs?
And what does it say about the year 3 curriculum when the children have to do what we once called “parsing and analysis” – not taught until secondary school in the 1960s. Now seven- and eight-year-olds have to understand the grammar of complex sentences, conjunctions, prepositions etc. Most adults, when faced with such analytic terms, look blank. Are they school-ready?
Celia Roberts
Cambridge
As the country’s longest-serving provider of legally aided education law services, we are painfully aware that children’s childhoods are passing them by while they wait for the support and education they need (£100m spent in England on failed efforts to block children’s SENDSend support, 22 December). As your report suggests, all too often the current system produces conflict and delay, with huge stress on the families concerned.
We are often able to secure individual children and families the support they need through legal intervention, but this falls well short of the systemic reform that is required to enable all children to lead fulfilling lives and achieve their potential. Coram’s Charter for Children calls for the realignment of the social contract between society and children, and at the heart of our call is fair and timely access to high-quality and consistent Send support.
Dr Carol Homden
CEO, Coram
READ SOURCE
