I have two children, both autistic. One does well in mainstream school, with adaptations; the other cannot survive in a mainstream environment at all – everything about it triggers him.
Any minister who wants to do away with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) settings should be required to leave their quiet office and spend a week conducting their duties in a busy secondary school (After disability benefits, is Labour really about to target the educational rights of special needs children?, 7 July).
Every 55 minutes they must drop what they are doing and move to a different room to work on a completely different ministerial portfolio, regardless of their interest in or aptitude for it. A few times a week, they will be required change for PE in a room full of people.
Why is it so hard for government to understand that “inclusion” does not mean “force everyone into a single framework regardless how unsuitable it is”? It means understanding, respecting and acting appropriately, as everyone has different needs.
Rachel Taylor
Lewes, East Sussex
The battle to acquire an education, health and care plan (EHCP) is not easily won. All too frequently it requires tenacity, resilience and no small measure of confidence and skill to negotiate the appeal and tribunal process.
As a teacher, barrister and former representative of Independent Provider of Special Education Advice, the leading charity in the field of Send law in England, I know this from first-hand experience. My own child had complex medical needs and I was astounded when my local authority said that they did not meet the threshold (clearly defined in the Children and Families Act 2014). I appealed, successfully, but had to attend a hearing at a magistrates court.
I understand why local authorities are not supportive of EHCP applications; they know they do not have the funds to meet the plans. Watering down, or removing children’s rights to support can never be the answer. Adequately funded Send support enables children to be successful. My own child, with a plan in place throughout secondary school, was able to go on to achieve a first‑class degree. I fear that this might not be the outcome for our next generation of children.
Susan Hailes
Fowlmere, Cambridgeshire
Your correspondents (Letters, 6 July) make a powerful case for the need to support children with additional educational needs, but I feel that they are mistaken in trying to perpetuate the current use of EHCPs.
I was, for many years, a governor of two secondary schools and witnessed the problems with the EHCP “system” with mounting despair. The processes have become so complex that they are almost inaccessible to parents who lack the skills to navigate an administrative labyrinth, which discriminates against some of the neediest.
The time taken to secure a plan can be so protracted that it is pointless for junior schools to initiate a request late in the child’s time with them; the secondary school may struggle to support the child for their first year and only get a plan by the end of year 8 – meaning that children at a crucial stage in their school life lack additional support for as much as three years.
Any system with these features needs replacement, and I would urge your readers to welcome the opportunity to achieve this.
Dick Quibell
London