Countering Misinformation on the SEND Tribunal
Introduction
We are responding to the article written by the Law Gazette concerning the supposed abolition of SEND tribunal. Their article positions the Labour government as on the verge of ending ‘legal rights to defined support’ for children with special education needs. [1] Misinformation surrounding children with special educational needs is extremely damaging, and here, we aim to counter-balance some of the suggestions of this speculative article.
The Proposed Abolition
This article claims SEND Tribunal judges are being told their work is no longer needed, and the Tribunal will lose all jurisdiction in the face of these imminent reforms.
According to Sonay Ozkutayli, our Cofounder and Head of Advocacy Services, this is a policy change that would represent a fundamental infringement upon the rights of children with special educational needs. It would remove a major safeguarding vehicle for independent and unbiased decision-making for families. Furthermore, this abolition would ultimately cost the taxpayer far more as the only recourse would become judicial reviews. All aspects of this abolition therefore, appear nonsensical; it would represent a direct human’s rights violation as well as ultimately being an extraordinarily counterproductive policy shift.
Issues with the Gazette’s Claims
However, this white paper has not been released and there have been no moves by the government suggesting any moves to abolish the Tribunal. On the contrary, most recent policy shifts have been centred around improving dispute resolution and procedural streamlining within the Tribunal. [2] Furthermore, this form of infringement would require robust consultation and would have been met with extreme challenge from the SEND field. That the article suggests these policy shifts are imminent is a baseless claim that has the potential to undermine the active and dedicated work of the SEND community.
Education for SEND Children
This article also cites recommendations from the ISOS consultancy firm, who have launched proposals for a ‘new pathway where children enter the school system through a single mainstream route’ in the name of ‘inclusivity’. This is a highly controversial topic, and in briefly proposing this as a solution, the Gazette fails to properly explore this nuanced issue. We have seen first-hand the issues with this approach as children with special educational needs often face struggles with integration and receiving adequate support in ‘mainstream’ educational settings.[3] By proposing this as a solution, without providing clear explanation, as well as failing to have official statements from the Ministry of Justice or Education on this topic, the entire evidential proof of the article is undermined.
Protecting education rights for the SEND community is of utmost importance; vague allusions of this manner to contentious policy changes is counterproductive.
Conclusions
The SEND field is replete with exceptionally passionate people, constantly working to best protect SEND children and families’ rights to education and beyond. This article seems to be a misjudged and speculative one that fails to clearly explain current issues and spreads misinformation on policy changes. What it reminds us of it the vitality of ensuring any white paper has complied with all correct procedures and that families and children’s voices remain at the heart of this issue with the protection and support they deserve.
If you are in need of an advocacy service, we provide this. Please contact [email protected]
[1] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/government-eyes-abolition-of-send-tribunal/5123548.article
[3] https://theneurodiversityfamilyhub.org/contribution/sen-child-advocacy-if-i-dont-who-will