Abstract
Introduction
Using a market analogy, tensions exist between
the several parties involved as consumers and providers (or both) in the
educational systems of England and Wales (and elsewhere). These tensions are
manifest between the educational values of a system, the priorities determined
by, and the resources allocated, towards achieving a government's, an LEA's or
a school's legally prescribed educational objectives. That legal framework
bears on the rights and responsibilities of individuals and institutions. The
system allows certain grievances to be identified and addressed.
One important set of tensions, albeit polarised, lies between those whose focus is on providing what is seen as likely to provide "The greatest good for the greatest number" (an Institutional/Systems orientation) and others who adopt a different view: for example, "..nothing is good to me that ignores individuals". These stances are not mutually exclusive. This symposium considers three situation where such tensions are manifest.
The first (Paper 1) concerns tensions between carers, their children and the providers of education in particular. Its presenters consider whether the system of SEN Tribunals in England and Wales is a constructive way of resolving educationally complex disagreements concerning pupils with special educational needs. The second describes some tensions involved in the process whereby the National Association for Special Educational Needs (NASEN)uses its Branch network in order to enhance the professional effectiveness of its members. The third paper considers how students with disabilities are supported in higher Education. What messages for H.E staff and students can be drawn from the first degree results of students with disabilities who graduated in 1999.
The Special Educational Needs Tribunal (England / Wales)
Ronald Davie & J. Nicholson
The paper will set out briefly the historical and legislative context
for the establishment of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal in England and
Wales, its legal powers; and its operational framework and procedures.
The
Special Educational Needs Tribunal was set up by the Education Act 1993. It
considers parents' appeals against the decisions of Local Education Authorities
(LEAs) about a child's special educational needs, where the parents cannot
reach agreement with the LEA (DfE, 1994).
The number and nature of appeals heard by the SEN Tribunal in its first five years will be analysed and also the outcomes. Research centred on the Tribunal's work will be summarised and the co-authors (both Tribunal members) will discuss some of the early difficulties and issues from an insider's perspectives.
The aims and procedures of the Tribunal will also be set in an international perspective.
References
Department for Education (1994) SEN Tribunals: How
to Appeal. London: DfE Publications Centre.
Supporting and Developing the Effectiveness of The National
Association for Special Educational Needs (Nasen) Through Branch Development:
Process and Products in 1999
C. Darlington
The National Association for Special Educational Needs (NASEN) has a membership of over 10,000 and an extensive network of Local Branches covering the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Providing support in both the establishment and maintenance of these Branches is essential if they are to provide high quality programmes that contribute towards the continuing professional development of their memberships (Darlington, 2000).A significant contribution to this end, is the provision of a Branch Training Day open to all 57 local branches.
This paper describes the rationale, form, content and outcomes of the Branch Training Day held at the University of Birmingham School of Education in September, 1999.
Aims
To identify how NASEN can effectively support its local
branches by identifying and meeting their collective and individual
professional development needs.
Method
All NASEN Branches were offered one free place at a
Branch Development Day (travel/subsistence was paid by NASEN). Branches were
also invited to send additional representatives paid for by their respective
Branches.
The Development Day was held in September, 1999, at the University of Birmingham School of Education and ran from 10:00 hrs. to 15:00 hrs on a Saturday. There were presentations by NASEN officers designed to update the Branch delegates about current and future developments affecting the children, carers and communities with whom our members work, and hence the membership of NASEN.
The views of participants were elicited through a questionnaire that was collected at the end of the final plenary session.
Intended Audience
The target audience comprised NASEN's 57
Branch officers and committee members, plus NASEN's national officers, chairs
of its sub-committee and journal editors.
Sample
On the day, 39 NASEN Branches were represented out of
a possible 57.
Results
The evaluation of the programme by those who attended
will be presented.
Conclusion
The day was most successful. The process could
readily be adapted for use in other countries enabling them to develop a
proactive professional network of local branches, if raille i there is no such
a system. Such a network could support and develop localised effective special
needs practices. Auditing the views of those who attended helps identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the content and organisation of such an event. This
feedback helps in improving subsequent Branch Training Days. Professionally and
politically, the development of a network of Branches is a strategy that has
much to commend it.
Reference
Darlington, C. (2000) NASEN's branches - a network
of support. NASEN: Working Together Building a Better Future. Tamworth: NASEN,
pp. 14-15.
The First Degree Results of Disabled Students in Higher Education in ihe
U.K
Peter D. Pumfrey
Context
In the U.K., in 1995, a Disability Discrimination Act
was passed. It requires each Higher Education Institution to publish a formal
Disability Statement setting out policy and practice for all students with a
disability.
"Increasing opportunities for people to learn and widening access are at the heart of this Government's policies for creating a learning society ... our priority is to reach out and include those who have been under-represented in higher education, including people with disabilities" (DfEE, 1998).
1n 1998-1999 there were 1,311,910 UK students in Full and Part-time Higher Education in the U.K. (HESA, 2000)
Aims
To describe the academic achievements at the end of
their first degree courses of:
Method
The analyses to be presented derive from a specially
designed and commissioned interrogation of the HESA database for 1998-1999.
Sample
All U.K. undergraduates completing their first degree
in 1999.
References
Department for Education and
Employment(DfEE)(1998) Higher Education for the 21st. Century. Response to the
Dearing Report. London: DFEE.
Higher Education Statistic Agency (HESA)(2000) Students in Higher Education Institutions 1998-1999. Cheltenham: HESA.
 |
 |