The idea of independent assessments (Letters, 5 January) is an example of many solutions offered to address the crisis in special educational needs and disabilities (Send). However, in all the coverage, little attention has been paid to the core of the problem: the fair distribution of available resources to reflect differing levels of need. Few ask what an ideal system would look like, and whether what we are doing now moves towards or away from that.
When we considered our local education authority’s response to the first Send code of practice in 1994, these questions were front and centre. Bureaucratic statements of Send were increasing rapidly as parents and schools demanded them for the resources they brought.
We developed a clear system to balance the provision as fairly as possible between very disparate needs, while trying to encourage all schools to improve their quotidian needs provision. But there were still rewards for schools and others to game the system to increase funding.
Governments have tried to address the problems, but have made things worse. The education, health and care plan system is even more bureaucratic than its predecessor. The range of needs deemed to require extra provision has expanded. LEAs have been left with ballooning bills and fewer powers and resources to meet them.
A solution needs to reassess the principles underlying separate “special” provision. The benefits of inclusion need to be restated. We must abandon the current system of individualised demand for one founded on the benefits of cooperation. Then we can plan a transparent system based on equity to replace the current emotion-based unending competition for diminished resources.
Hugh Williams
Retired senior educational psychologist, Birmingham
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
