Letter: Special needs of pupils ignored
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Not only badly behaved children are excluded from school, and often their special needs are inadequately met ("More parents support `unruly pupil' protest", 11 September). While researching precedents nationwide for my daughter, who has severe ME, I encountered several exclusions or attempted exclusions of seriously ill pupils with excellent behaviour records and sound academic motivation. Most had never so much as answered a teacher back.
If the child can be proved to be able to cope with some education, and the local education authority agrees the school placement to be suitable, disregard of the special needs code of practice to this extent is probably illegal. The reason could be league tables or money.
Also, the provision of home tuition for sick children is a national disgrace, in that it is frequently limited to three hours a week because the local authorities are so underfunded. These children need eight hours a week at least to deliver the equality of opportunity to which they are entitled under the 1993 Education Act.
Many authorities are unwilling to combine tuition at home with partial school attendance, which these children badly need to assist re-integration into normal life and often to help their medical recovery.
One has to overcome a similar reluctance to provide the help to the 16- 19 age group which the law seems to intend. One must ask why, if some allegedly badly behaved primary pupils merit instant expenditure at a rate of pounds 14,000 per annum?
I have now, I hope, solved my daughter's education needs, but then I am a teacher very familiar with special needs legislation, and I have been well supported. Many other parents of exam candidates with chronic ill health cannot say the same, and they should contact their MP and the relevant pressure group, to establish precedents in law.
Dr CAROL BLYTH
Wendover
Buckinghamshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments