SEND REFORM
The real implications of 'benevolent' SEN reform
LYNN ATTWOOD
Consultation of the DfE's Green Paper, Support and
Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational
Needs, provoked considerable debate among public and
private sector professionals, parents and young people
over the planned special educational needs reform.
Since then, publication of the Children and Families Bill
in 2013 indicates definitive changes in law, while the
revised SEN Code of Practice, which will provide pro-
fessional guidance, is awaited. There are implications
to this reform beyond those which have already been
published, although alluded to in the Green Paper. This
article will explore the influence of language in the
deconstruction of disability, the implications of raising
the threshold before a categorisation of SEN applies,
concerns arising from implementation of the Single
Assessment Process and, finally, how funding reforms
will negate some of the anticipated benefits for parents
and their children.
Key words: special educational needs, SEN, decon-
struction, normalising, false consciousness.
Introduction
This article has been written from the perspective of a
former Parent Partnership Service manager, with experience
in managing a statutory service which provided support to
parents of children with special educational needs (SEN).
Through this role the author gained considerable insight into
the range of difficulties experienced by parents and their
children as well as knowledge of strategies adopted by pro-
fessionals with respect to addressing children's needs and
working in partnership with parents. Concerns being raised
are supported by anecdotal evidence and quotations
from recorded parental interviews, undertaken as part of
the author's own research, with regard to the British
Educational Research Association's Ethical Guidelines for
Educational Research (2004, 2011). Anonymity is retained
throughout by adoption of fictitious names, while signed
consent from parents permits publication and use of the
material in any format.
© 2013 NASEN
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9604.12032
Catalyst for change
The Government's Green Paper (DfE, 2011a, p. 16),
Support and Aspiration: A new Approach to Special Educa-
tional Needs and Disability, acknowledged that several
reports had served as the catalyst for SEN reform; among
these were Lamb's Review of parental confidence (DCSF,
2009a), the Rose Review on dyslexia (DCSE, 2009b),
Tickefl's Review of early years education (DfE, 201 lb) and
OFSTED's (2010) report which asserted there had been
over-identification of children with special educational
needs. Consultation with professionals and parents further
contributed to the Green Paper's proposals, resulting in the
Government's opinion that the existing system 'is no longer
fit for purpose' (DfE, 2011a, p. 15).
Many of the proposals have since been incorporated into the
Children and Families Bill (DfE, 2013) which will receive
Royal Assent in spring 2014. Key elements of reform
include introduction of the Single Assessment Process
through which children will obtain Education, Health and
Care Plans, replacing Statements of Special Educational
Needs, while informal methods of assessment will be
adopted for children with less significant difficulties; teach-
ers will be upskilled on specific learning difficulties and
disabilities; local authorities, as 'Champions for Parents'
(DfE, 2010, 2011a), will publish 'local offers'; integrated
working will be strengthened; while the 'third sector' will be
integral to the delivery of services. The Schools' Funding
Reform 2013-2014 (DfE, 2012b) contributes to SEN reform
by increased delegation of funding to schools and explains
how provision for children with Education, Health and Care
Plans will be funded.
Raising concerns
While Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) are wel-
comed, the downside is that the Children and Families Bill
(DfE, 2013) only requires that agencies 'commit' to dehver
services written into EHCPs, although local authorities
'must' secure special educational provision overall, failing
to reassure parents that services will be provided. Particular
concerns relate to: (a) the threshold for SEN being raised
(DfE, 2011a); and (b) how revised funding arrangements
will impact upon eligibility for additional support as well as
'capping' budgets per child. Integral to these issues is the
extent to which parents may exercise 'choice' atid 'control'
Table I. The language of needs
New terminology Original language
Learning difficulties (included mild, Educationally subnormal
moderate and severe)
Specific learning difficulties Related to specific conditions
such as reading difficulties
Emotional or behavioural difficulties, Maladjusted
later known as emotional, social
and behavioural difficulties
Source: Wamock, 1978, pp. 43, 44,
over proceedings relating to their children. Inherent within
these reforms are conceptual changes regarding the nature
of SEN provision. 'Benevolent' SEN reform will be detri-
mental to some children, denying them vital support, which
will have wider implications for society.
Influential legislation and policy
The Warnock Report (1978) instigated a cataclysmic shift
with respect to children with additional needs by decon-
struction of assumptions regarding 'ability' and 'disability'
and reconfiguration of prevailing ideas associated with
special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Children
with short-term support needs, medical conditions and
'hidden' disabilities (such as autistic spectrum disorders)
became encapsulated within SEN alongside those with
complex and profound difficulties. Warnock's new classifi-
cations were hierarchical and, through changes in language,
the emphasis shifted from a model of personal 'deficit' to
one that focused on the types of difficulty being experienced
by children. Table 1 illustrates this.
Furthermore, the preference for segregated institutions was
replaced by integrated mainstream provision, which subse-
quently became known as 'inclusive' education. Parents
were expected to collaborate with professionals, as pivotal
parties to SEN processes, under the guise of 'partnership'.
To aid this process. Parent Partnership Schemes (later
known as 'services') were developed, reinforcing the notion
of 'partnership working', while providing parents with
information, advice and support.
Deconstruction
Labelling is often viewed as derogatory even when it targets
specific difficulties rather than the whole person; it remains
implicit that the individual has a deficit of some kind
(Terzi, 2010, p. 37). Language distinguishes individuals
as 'them' or 'outsiders' who are on the periphery of main-
stream society and, as a consequence, clients, consumers
and patients, who are in receipt of services, can be vulner-
able to mistreatment by others (Nunkoosing, 2000, pp. 53,
57, 59). Conversely, while restricting engagement in
some areas of life, labelling 'opens doors' to individuals
receiving support and accessing welfare benefits, which
justifies such use.
182 Support for Learning • Voiume 28 • Number 4 • 2013
Danforth and Rhodes (1997, p. 359) assert that deconstruc-
tion, as a political perspective, is underpinned by the
assumption that disability is fiuid. Notions of disability arise
from individuals' thoughts, use of language and their
responses to disability in social situations, which then re-
inforce concepts of disability upon those so labelled. The
'disabled' must then choose whether to accept or reject such
categorisation, both in their attitudes and choices regarding
how they live their lives (Danforth and Rhodes, 1997),
although this is not an option for all. When children and
young people in education present with difficulties, these
are often explored by professionals, who through dialogue
define the problem, assign a label and then collectively
agree strategies for management, corroborating Danforth
and Rhodes' (1997, p. 360) assertion that language is central
to the deconstmction of disability.
The author has witnessed 'deconstruction in action'. While
supporting families, there were occasions when speech and
language therapists were definitive about the full nature of
children's difficulties, while paediatricians were sometimes
more reticent. Subsequent dialogue between professionals
resulted in formal paediatric diagnoses to explain and
support children's difficulties in school.
Definitions of SEN and disability
The current system of SEN provision is underpinned by the
Education Act 1996, Part IV, the Equality Act 2010 and the
SEN Code of Practice (DfES, 2001). The Children and
Families Bill (DfE, 2013) has repealed Part IV of the 1996
Act and made provision for new Regulations and a revised
SEN Code of Practice, which will detail systems of
professional practice. The existing definition of special
educational needs is being maintained although applicable
to children and young people in post-16 provision who
experience:
'(a) greater difficulty in learning than the majority of
others of the same age or (b) have a disability which
prevents or hinders children from making use of facili-
ties' (DfE, 2013, p. 17; DfES, 2001, p. 6).
New professional guidance on identifying special educa-
tional needs will ensure that only children whose needs
exceed provision 'normally available in schools' (DfE,
201 la, p. 58) will be placed on school-based SEN support.
This 'raised threshold' will effectively 'de-classify' many
children currently on SEN registers.
Social justice
The Government's position is complex and, at times, con-
tradictory. Fundamentally, social justice is being applied
through the principles of educational equality: first, this is
evidenced by the entitlement of all children to a state
1 2013 NASEN
education; and second, equality is demonstrated through
their attendance at mainstream schools where 'inclusive
practices' enable access to whole school curriculum and
participation in school activities, as much as possible
(Terzi, 2010, pp. 26, 158). Wamock (1978) acknowledged
the dilemma of treating all children the same while needing
to vary the learning environment to help children access the
curriculum.
Models of disability
SEN reforms are reinforcing the application of two primary
models of disability. The medical model of disability
predominates for children with complex and profound
difficulties. EHCPs will be issued, for many children,
following identification and assessment of difficulties in
early infancy. Hypothetical judgements regarding children's
educability arise from medical and educational assessments
and, combined with the practicalities associated with
meeting needs, many children with complex and profound
difficulties are assigned places in specialist schools due to
their requirement for intensive support. In the author's ex-
perience, children with complex and profound disabilities,
such as those who require breathing and feeding apparatus,
usually attend local special schools.
The processes associated with statutory SEN provision re-
inforce the medical model of disability; as currently applies
for Statements of SEN, children will be required to undergo
medical assessment for EHCPs and, while agencies commit
to deliver services, there will be a need for ongoing medical
monitoring. Annual reviews further reinforce this model
by the requirement that professionals submit up-to-date
reports.
Conversely, the social model of disability adopts the posi-
tion that disability is primarily caused by the structural and
institutional aspects of society and that, by removal of bar-
riers, individuals with disabilities are no longer disabled.
This position fails to acknowledge the effects of impairment
on individuals and their own psychological approach to their
disabilities and life in general. Inclusive educational prac-
tices seek to remove barriers that may prevent engagement
and participation of the disabled (Terzi, 2010, p. 19). This
model is being applied through the Government's policy to
'de-classify' many children who, under the current system,
are viewed as having special educational needs, on the
premise that most difficulties can be addressed through good
teaching practice and in-school resources (DfE, 201 la).
This position is further compounded when educational
professionals adopt a positivistic position that only accepts
the existence of observable phenomena and assumes that
all individuals with the same conditions will exhibit the
same characteristics and respond in the same manner
(Nunkoosing, 2000, p. 52). Positivism and whole class
strategies have significant implications for children whose
© 2013 NASEN Support for Learning • Volume 28 • Number 4 • 2013
learning difficulties or disabilities have few outward signs or
when educational professionals misinterpret the difficulties
presented.
Generalised assumptions regularly underpinned the con-
cerns of parents, supported by the author. Parents have
reported that educational professionals either denied that
their children had any difficulties or, when acknowledged,
applied whole class strategies to address key characteristics
of conditions such as dyslexia or autistic spectrum dis-
orders, without consideration of individual presentation,
severity and differences in learning style.
Deconstruction and social construction
Medical professionals determine the parameters of 'normal'
and 'abnormal' functioning. Normality leads to 'opportu-
nity' while individuals categorised as 'abnormal' often have
their opportunities curtailed. Assumptions about ability
become the 'lived' experience when children choose to
accept 'labels' assigned to them and act in accordance with
limitations that have been externally imposed by others
(Danforth and Rhodes, 1997, p. 358). Mrs F and her son,
James, illustrate this point:
'It's almost like a dogma - "this is so and you have to
deal with it", are the messages given to James. Eor
instance, I never told him that he had severe learning
difficulties, but he was told by a professional that he did.
Afterwards, he threw down his pen, and said, "I can't do
it because I've got really bad learning . . . really bad. . .
my brain really doesn't work". That's really difficult
because I didn 't choose to tell him that, but I did say,
"you have some difficulties in some certain areas'"
(Mrs F, in Attwood, 2007, Appendix C6, p. 39).
James accepted the professional's 'truth' and became more
disabled as a result, supporting Danforth and Rhodes'
(1997) claim that disability has an element of choice; cer-
tainly James chose to become more 'disabled' than his
(genuine) disability justified.
While 'labelling' can be detrimental to individuals, 'raising
the threshold' before children meet the criteria for
individualised support is also harmful. 'Normalising' chil-
dren with disabilities or learning difficulties denies them
appropriate support to help overcome their difficulties.
Furthermore, children then experience the challenge of
operating from a position of 'false consciousness', with the
expectation that they compete with non-disabled peers on
equal terms (Low, 2006, p. 108). Pretending that a problem
does not exist does not make it go away. It does, however,
amount to social injustice when children's needs are not
addressed, causing them intolerable strain, both during their
school lives and beyond. Social injustice already applies
when pupil difficulties remain unidentified or there is lack of
183
consensus between professionals. Mrs D, speaking about
her son, George, demonstrates this point;
'Preschool staff said, "there is something quirky here;
something isn't right". Both the speech and language
therapist and paediatrician both claimed George was
within normal boundaries because he had been able
to line up with other children. I went to a different GP
who informed the health visitor, he didn 't think there was
a problem. The health visitor replied, "you don't live
with him". At school Behaviour Support said, "there's
something's quirky here". We saw a second
paediatrician, who asked what I thought it was. I said,
"I think he's got Asperger's". She said, "yes". It was
that clear cut. He wasn 't even borderline; he came well
within it. He was four and a half when we got the diag-
nosis, and that was early!' (Mrs D, in Attwood, 2007,
Appendix C4, pp. 22, 23).
Behavioural difficulties, when due to 'hidden' disabilities or
mental health concems, are often attributed to rebellion,
disaffection or poor parenting. As a consequence, difficul-
ties are not always thoroughly investigated. Mrs B obtained
a complete diagnosis for Barry when he was 13 years old,
having fought since his pre-school days. In the intervening
years, a Statement had supported ADHD and Barry periodi-
cally received fixed-term exclusions;
'Well, when we got the final diagnosis, a year and a half
ago, I was just relieved really. Some people had said that
Barry was quite destructive and there was a lot of
behavioural stuff- he was very impulsive and also obses-
sive, I knew instinctively that Barry had no awareness of
some of the stuff he was doing and that he really couldn 't
help himself, I was proved right because the diagnosis
revealed it was Asperger/ADHD and other leaming
problems such as not understanding language' (Mrs B,
in Attwood, 2007, Appendix C2, p. 10; Attwood, 2013,
p. 164).
The Govemment's Green Paper (DfE, 2011a) asserts that
educational professionals should ascertain the root causes of
poor behaviour to ameliorate the need for school exclusions.
Such investigations will be an additional burden upon teach-
ers and drain resources; there is a risk of schools being
reluctant to await the investigative outcomes before imple-
menting what they consider to be appropriate disciplinary
action.
In the author's experience, educational professionals are
often unaware of pending investigations and lack knowledge
of how specific disabilities present in individual children.
They do, however, view it as their right to discipline
challenging behaviour, irrespective of cause. Furthermore,
educational professionals are sometimes reluctant to expend
additional resources on children who are considered
unco-operative.
Deconstmction enables professionals to deny the presence
of disability in their work with parents and children
184 Support for Learning • Volume 28 • Number 4 • 2013
(Danforth and Rhodes, 1997, p. 360). This position could
explain the Labour Govemment's emphasis on parenting,
under the Every Child Matters Agenda (DfES, 2004), which
effectively gave professionals licence to blame parenting
styles for poor behaviour. This was reinforced through the
appointment of 'parenting commissioners' with respon-
sibility for commissioning parenting services, including
evidence-based parenting programmes. To ascertain the
'root causes' of challenging behaviour, parents are at risk of
being subjected to intrusive conversations while profession-
als determine whether their methods (or other family
circumstances) are the cause. There is significant risk of
more parents being expected to attend parenting courses as
a result of such 'investigations', while deflecting the need
for professionals to examine whether school dynamics
and/or teacher-pupil relationships are contributing factors.
The influence of schools
Ultimately, the position adopted by one professional agency
influences the practice of others. When schools no longer
consider certain behaviours and difficulties as special edu-
cational needs, this will impact upon paediatric manage-
ment of cases. In the author's experience, both parents and
educational professionals input their views into paediatric
assessments for possible 'hidden' disabilities. Differences in
opinion often result in lack of clarity regarding the nature
and extent of difficulties, resulting in a 'wait and see
approach' being adopted.
As educational professionals input information into paedi-
atric assessments, this will disincentivise the need for
paediatric diagnoses, when milder difficulties are no longer
categorised as SEN. In the author's experience, sometimes
definitive diagnoses are only provided to help children secure
additional resources. Lack of corroborative evidence will
make it harder for parents to 'prove' their children's difficul-
ties, with only the most overt, complex and profound
difficulties qualifying for school-based support or EHCPs.
Children's difficulties are sometimes inaccurately perceived
or missed entirely and, under the politics of reform, this will
be exacerbated. The following anecdotal story illustrates this.
Mrs C contacted a support service, following the local
authority's refusal to undertake statutory assessment. Her
14-year-old son, Luke, already had a diagnosis of autistic
spectmm disorder and had been unable to make educational
progress. Following the support service's referral for speech
and language assessment, subsequent diagnosis confirmed
severe speech, language and communication difficulties,
resulting in a Statement being issued. Educational profes-
sionals had failed to identify these difficulties.
Children failed by the education system have fewer oppor-
tunities available to them such as college places, training,
employment and independent living. Undiagnosed diffi-
culties deny children and young people an appropriate
) 2013 NASEN
education as well as state benefits and other services.
Professional mistakes can, therefore, have significant and
long-term implications.
The capability approach
Sen's capability approach addresses justice and equality in
education from the perspective of the 'practical opportuni-
ties' presented to individuals and the extent to which they
subsequently achieve well-being and fulfilment (Mitra, 2006,
p. 236). This theory examines the way opportunities are
presented and how individuals can use them to their advan-
tage, with regard to impinging environmental, economic,
social and cultural factors (Mitra, 2006, p. 237; Sen, 1992,
cited in Terzi, 2010, p. 87). Even when presented with the
same opportunities. Sen noted that disabled individuals are
unable to function in the same way as non-disabled, conclud-
ing that disadvantaged individuals require different types and
amounts of compensation (Sen, 1992, 1999, cited in Terzi,
2010, p, 87). This has significance for the proliferation of
whole class strategies which are meant to address the needs
of children with the most prevalent learning difficulties
and disabilities. This is an inappropriate strategy for those
who cannot access the curriculum without receiving
individualised support to meet their needs, thereby increas-
ing the risk of children being failed by the system.
Transition planning and assessment
The Single Assessment Process (SAP) was originally intro-
duced for older people, under the NHS and Community
Care Act 1990, becoming statutory provision in 2005, and it
has now been adopted as the model for statutory assessment
for children and young people expected to require EHCP
provision. The new plan should benefit young people who
previously might have 'fallen through the net' during trans-
fer from children's to adult services. However, it is already
a requirement that transition planning takes place for chil-
dren with Statements during Year 9, when arrangements
should take place for future attendance at college, training or
independent living (where possible).
When the author contributed to a new local authority Tran-
sition Protocol, under the Government's Transition Support
Programme (DCSE, 2008), professionals were concerned
about having sufficient human resources to deliver the
service to all eligible children and young people. The author
has supported parents of children with Statements, where
transition planning either did not take place at the appropri-
ate time or was tokenistic regarding post-compulsory
education arrangements.
Since the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review
(HM Treasury, 2010), many local authority teams that
deliver key services are under-resourced. Inter-agency
working has, to an extent, blurred professional boundaries in
© 2013 NASEN Support for Learning • Volume 28 • Number 4 • 2013
relation to the execution of some tasks. Eunctions such as
leading and co-ordinating transition planning are not neces-
sarily specific to one professional role and there is risk of
tension arising between professionals due to their reluctance
or inability to take on additional responsibilities which
could be fulfilled by others. Therefore, transition planning
commitments may prove no more effective than the existing
system.
Explicit implementation details of the Single Assessment
Process are awaited, although with the Government's pref-
erence for multi-agency meetings (DfE, 2011a) there is a
strong possibility that such meetings will contain an assess-
ment component or professionals will review evidence
obtained from previous assessments. The author's research
concluded that family attendance at multi-agency meetings
can cause considerable stress. Children are objectified by
professionals and are sometimes mortified to hear others
discuss their weaknesses, experiencing both anticipatory
anxiety and emotional reactions afterwards. Such experi-
ences are contrary to protecting children's health and well-
being (DfE, 2012a), Parents, irrespective of social class and
professional background, experience heightened emotional
reactions (Attwood, 2007),
When planning the organisational arrangements associated
with the Single Assessment Process, professionals should
have regard for the impact upon families as well as the
effective use of resources. The Government's proposal to
use such assessment to support applications for other ser-
vices and disability benefits is welcomed (DfE, 201 la).
Funding arrangements
The School Eunding Reform: Arrangements for 2013-14
(DfE, 2012b) have increased delegated funding; this will
enable schools to support children's special educational
needs at school-based level as well as contributing £6,000
towards provision for children with EHCPs and existing
Statements, Eunding for statutory provision will be 'capped'
at £10,000, with local authorities contributing the remaining
£4,000, The total sum of £10,000 will be insufficient to
address the needs of many children with EHCPs and State-
ments, although 'top-up' funding may be granted, upon
parental application. This approach will necessitate parents
'presenting their case', which could trigger further stress for
them. Successful applicants will have additional funds cal-
culated on 'real time' required for specific services, which
will restrict parental choice when commissioning services.
Implications and concerns
There are a number of concerns arising from these reforms,
outlined as follows;
• Children will effectively be segregated into 'assessment
streams', with the Single Assessment Process being
185
 implemented for those perceived to need EHCPs while
'informal' methods will be adopted for school-based
provision (DfE, 2011a, 2012a). When children's diffi-
culties are incorrectly or partially identified, this denies
them necessary support. Parents will, inevitably, have
to 'fight' to have their children reassessed, resulting in
the new system proving no better than existing mecha-
nisms for assessing needs.
Enforced 'normalcy' of children with milder disabilities
or learning difficulties risks disaffection which, in turn,
exacerbates emotional, social and behavioural difficul-
ties, increasing the risk of fixed-term and permanent
exclusions. Unacknowledged disabilities will deny
children 'reasonable adjustments' under the Equality
Act 2010.
There is a risk of inadequate contingency by schools to
support newly categorised 'high cost, low incidence
SEN' pupils.
Despite having additional funding, schools could be
reluctant to commission expensive specialist expertise
for pupils, relying on in-house support only.
Without ring-fencing, there is the potential for schools
to use SEN funds for other purposes.
Parents of children with EHCPs may optionally become
'budget holders', with some using the 'Direct Pay-
ments' system (DfE, 2011a, 2012a). Regulations wifl
determine the proportion and extent of parental influ-
ence in commissioning services. If parental influence is
limited to local authority funding only, their input will
be significantly compromised and there is risk of dis-
continuity of provision if other funding sources are
treated differently.
Educational psychologists will cease being centrally
provided by local authorities. The upskilling of teach-
ing staff may serve a dual purpose. While enhancing
professional practice, there is a risk of teachers being
expected to make decisions regarding learning difficul-
ties and disabilities that were formally the province of
educational psychologists. This will place unrealistic
burdens on teachers, while denying children specialist
assessments, unless parents have sufficient funds to
commission private reports.
Conclusion
Disability and special educational needs are deconstructed
through revisions in terminology, usually initiated by those
in power such as policy makers and professional bodies.
Following the Coalition Government's Comprehensive
Spending Review (HM Treasury, 2010), some services were
completely dismantled while others suffered significant
reductions in human and financial resources. The reforms
have been presented as an improvement on the current
system, and not as a cost-cutting exercise, although the
reality appears somewhat different.
Deconstruction of disability and SEN will result in some
children being 'normalised' - on the periphery of what is
186 Supporf for Learning • Voiume 28 • Number 4 • 2013
considered normal range, with repercussions for medical
diagnoses, social care support and access to classroom
support, and increasing the likelihood of educational
failure. Whole class teaching strategies cannot address the
individual manifestations of disabilities and learning diffi-
culties, despite the proposed upskilling of teachers. The
effects of 'normalisation' will follow children through
school, college (if attended) and into adulthood as they step
out into wider society and attempt, if possible, to gain some
form of employment. For some it may mean a 'grey exis-
tence' where they have an undiagnosed disability (albeit
probably mild), but without protection afforded under the
Equality Act 2010.
The number of children with Statements has declined in
recent years and this reform will ensure that only the most
profound and severe difficulties will qualify for EHCPs
under the medical model of disability. The deconstruction
of some forms of special educational need will address
OFSTED's assertion of an over-identification of SEN,
resulting in significant savings on the SEN budget. With
fewer children identified with special educational needs, the
Government can justifiably reduce the centralised SEN
budget, claiming that its reforms have been successful. As
schools have autonomy regarding SEN expenditure, except
for their contribution towards EHCPs, the Government is
distanced from blame when children are not adequately
provided for. Race and Malin (2011) note the drive towards
managerialism. This approach is evident from increased
delegated funding, a reduction in local authority support
services and through specialist services, such as speech and
language therapy, being delivered by support staff such as
teaching assistants (or similar roles), following appropriate
training, and this practice is likely to increase. The evidence
is stacking up that SEN reform is a cost-cutting exercise
under the guise of benevolent reform. These issues are
further explored in Attwood (2013).
Parental 'choice' of school has, to an extent, been eroded
by academies, with respect to children with Statements.
Although expected to comply with SEN legislation.
Academy Funding Agreements permit independent opera-
tion, enabling some to 'sidestep' this requirement, as
reported in The Guardian (24 May 2012). A 'double-edged
sword' applies for children operating under 'normalcy';
where 'hidden' disabilities fail to meet the criteria for being
SEN, it should be easier to gain admission to academies
although children's 'normalised' status will provide no pro-
tection under the Equality Act 2010 or from experiencing
the full weight of school disciplinary procedures. Ulti-
mately, children with 'hidden' disabilities may be in for a
tumultuous ride. It is hoped that this article will stimulate
further debate and consideration of potential pitfalls before
it is too late.
References
ATTWOOD, L. (2007) A/! Evaluation of Communication between Edttca-
tional Professionals and Parents and Its Impact on Families and
) 2 0 1 3 NASEN
 Working in Partnership with Parents. Complete copy available at Bath
Spa University Library, Report (only) available [online at http://
www.actionresearch,net/writings/values,shtml]. Accessed 25/09/13,
ATTWOOD, L, (2013) Promises and Pitfalls of Special Education: For
Parents and Professionals. Peterborough: Fast Print Publishing
BRITISH EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION (2004, 2011)
Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. London: BERA,
DANFORTH, S, and RHODES, W, C, (1997) Deconstructing disability:
a philosophy for inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 6,
357-366,
DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES (DCSF)
(2008) Aiming High for Disabled Children Transition Programme.
[Onhne at http://webarchive.nationalarchives,gov,uk/20110809101133/
transitionsupportprogramme,org,uk/]. Accessed 08/03/13,
DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES (DCSF)
(2009a) Lamb Inquiry: Special Educational Needs and Parental Con-
fidence. Nottingham: DCSF,
DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES
(DCSF) (2009b) Rose Review: Identifying and Teaching Children
and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties. [On-
line at http://webarchive,nationalarchives,gov,uk/2013040I151715/
http://www,education,gov,uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/00659
-2009DOM-EN,pdf], Accessed 02/02/12.
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFE) (2010) The Importance of
Teaching. [Online at https://www,gov,uk/govemment/publications/
the-importance-of-teaching-the-schools-white-paper-2010]. Accessed
18/08/11,
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFE) (2011 a) Green Paper: Support
and Aspiration: A new approach to Special Educational Needs and
Disability. London: DfE,
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFE) (2011b) Tickell Review: The
Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Review. [Online at www,ed
,gov,uk/tickell]. Accessed 01/08/11,
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFE) (2012a) Draft Legislation on
Reform of Provision for Children and Young People with Special
Educational Needs. [Online at http://www,official-documents,gov,uk/
document/cm84/8438/8438,pdf]. Accessed 03/10/12,
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFE) (2012b) School Funding
Reform: Arrangements for 2013-14. [Online at www,education,gov.uk/
schools/adminandfinance]. Accessed 08/01/13,
© 2013 NASEN Supporf for Learning • Voiume 28 • Number 4 • 2013
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFE) (2013) Children and Families
Bill. [Online at http://www,publications,parliament,uk/pa/bills/lbill/
2013-20I4/0032/lbill_2013-20140032_en_l,htm]. Accessed 04/02/13,
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS (DFES) (2001) Specia/
Educational Needs Code of Practice. Nottingham: DfES,
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS (DFES) (2004) Every
Child Matters: Change for Children. Nottingham: DfES,
HM TREASURY (2010) Spending Review. [Online at https://wwvv',gov,uk/
govemment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203826/
Spending_review_2010,pdf,] Accessed 23/02/13,
LOW, C, (2006) Some ideologies of disability. Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs, 6, 2, 108-111,
MITRA, S, (2006) The capabiUty approach and disability. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 16, 4, 236-237,
NUNKOOSING, K, (2000) Constructing learning disability: consequences
for men and women with learning disabilities. Journal of Intellectual
Disabilities, A, 1,49-62,
OFSTED (2010) A statement is not enough: OFSTED review of
special educational needs and disability. Press release, 14 September,
[Online at http://www,ofsted,gov,uk/news/statement-not-enough
-ofsted-review-of-special-educational-needs-and-disability]. Accessed
12/03/13,
RACE, D, G, and MALIN, N. A. (2011) The impact of social policy on
changes in professional practice within learning disability services:
different standards for children and adults? A two-pai"t examination:
Part 2, professional services under the coalition: the trends continue
apace. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 15, 4, 289-299,
SEN, A. (1992) Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
SEN, A, (1999) Development as Ereedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
TERZI, L, (2010) Justice and Equality in Education: A Capability Per-
spective on Disability and Special Educational Needs. New York:
Continuum,
WARNOCK, H, M, (1978) Special Educational Needs Report of the Com-
mittee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and
Young People. London: HMSO,
Correspondence
Lynn Attwood
Email: lynn.attwood@talktalk.net
187
Copyright of Support for Learning is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.