Sinclairslaw provides a view on the new proposed reforms in SEN Law announced by the UK Government.

a) Currently the only effective way of securing adequate provision for a child, with legal force, is a statement of SEN.

b) There has no doubt, been a drive away from producing statements, with more local authorities complaining that they are too bureaucratic and expensive.

c) To proceed in this direction under the guise of an argument that "too many children are given the SEN label" is nonsense. If we read that approx 2% of children hold statements and Ofsted claim that 25% of those do not really need one, we are being lead to believe that there isn't a problem. Yet there certainly is. It is insulting to doctors and teachers to claim that children are being unreasonably labelled by them, when their job is to diagnose.

d) A single assessment incorporating the views of Health Social and education must be broadly welcomed with a degree of caution, as the indications appear to be, that there will be a lifting of the threshold for children to cross, before they receive this new proposed plan. The effect possibly being that a large volume of children, which Ofsted claim are the product of bad teaching, will miss the net, with serious legal consequences.

e) At the heart of this government agenda must be a knowledge, that parents because of that described above, must have confidence in the assessment process, and there ought to be proper independence for those obliged to undertake the evaluation, without which, the perception of conflict, will undoubtedly continue. Perhaps an American approach ought to be preferred? A single provider of assessments across the country for example will soon be labelled in the same way as local authorities, ie having a conflict of interest due to its consistent and close relationship will local authority.

We must be cautious not to over simplify the assessment, or presuppose that those might have the required expertise for what can sometimes be very complex children, yet at the same time if it is too complex, there is a fear that nobody will, not least the parents, understand it, or have the means to challenge them as I can predict multiple reports being necessary to mount an effective challenge.

f) Pupil premiums, for parents to control is all very well, but assumes that the parents will have the expertise to know how and where to allocate funds to address a childs needs. Infrequent assessment may add to the problem (see below)#

g) A reduction of assessments in favour of a single one to be undertaken at a particular time, is somewhat naive, as children often require regular monitoring and updating as well as regular comparisons of data to ensure that resources are directed efficiently.

h) There must be an effective remedy in the event of dispute. Currently the tribunal does not exercise jurisdiction over social and health matters, and clearly it must, otherwise we have a means only to resolve one of the three issues when the objective has been since 2004 to look at the child holistically.

i) At the same time as "empowering" parents with new legal guarantees, as well as the introduction of a child actually having a right of appeal ( as currently in Wales )there is a cruel irony, legal aid is being removed at the same time for education matters, (yet retained for community Care?!). How on earth can a child navigate through a complex maze of reports and recommendations without legal help!