Call us on
020 7837 2900
Case Study: Background information
Joel was a five year old boy
with autism, about to start primary school. His parents, Mr. and Mrs. D, were
dismayed to discover that the local authority had named the nearby
mainstream primary on Joel’s statement.
This was a complete surprise to them as they
had had a letter from the local authority a few months earlier saying that
Joel could go to a special school, after he had spent his first two school
terms in the reception class in mainstream.
|
Contact Us |
|
Service Leaflets |
|
Making a Referral Developing Positive Relationships with Parents |
|
Help / Resources |
|
Latest News |
|
Training |
|
Are you 12 to 18? |
Parents'
Views
Mr. and Mrs.
D were shocked, how could the local authority go back on its word when their son’s future
was at stake? Joel would never cope in mainstream: he may have been five
years old but he wasn’t toilet-trained. He also found large groups very
difficult to deal with. Mr. and Mrs. D were determined to go to Tribunal and do anything necessary to help their son secure the educational environment best for him.
Local
Authority's Views
For their
part, the local authority felt that, whilst Joel did have specific needs, as
outlined in his statement, these needs could be fully met by the mainstream
school, with the support provided for him in the statement.Mrs. A, the Head of SEN, also felt that the parents didn’t understand that budgetary constraints meant that Local Authorities had to consider the most appropriate placement for the child, which was not necessarily the one preferred by the parents.
What
happened at mediation?
At the
mediation meeting various options were explored. At the end of the
mediation, a creative solution to the disagreement was found; it was decided
that Mrs. A, the Head of SEN, would investigate the option of a dual
placement for Joel. He would attend the mainstream school 3 days a week and the special school for 2 days. Both parties went away feeling happy with this outcome; unlike at Tribunal where someone always loses, with mediation neither party felt that they had ‘lost’ or given in to the other side.
How did
parties feel about the issues discussed at mediation, afterwards?
The parents said
they were delighted: “A very useful professional service” and, “A compromise
was explored that we thought was not an option. We thought it was well
structured.”
The local authority representative said, “Mediation was helpful, to meet with parents in a constructive setting.”
Abdul
attended a school for children with moderate learning difficulties. At
the time this case went to mediation, he was 8 years old, and was unable to feed
himself. His mother, Mrs. M, called us in a distraught state. She was
sure that the Local Authority didn't understand the seriousness of her son's
needs.
Despite several meetings with the Local Authority and the case being
referred twice to panel, it had been felt that Abdul should remain in his
current placement with a respite package from social services.
His mother lodged an appeal with SENDIST and also requested mediation. She
wanted a placement which she felt could fully cater for Abdul's complex
needs.
Attending mediation
were Mrs. M, her Advocate, the Head of SEN and a Social Services Team
Manager.
4 hours passed, and Abdul’s needs were seen in a different
light. The case went back to panel with the information that had been
uncovered. Residential placement was agreed. Tribunal was avoided.
Meetings had taken place before and the case had been discussed, in great detail, at
panel meetings.
-
Why then, on the third time, did the panel take a different view?
-
Was it a case of he or she who shouts loudest wins?
-
Was the panel simply caving in?
No,
is the answer to these three questions. The truth lies in the
tangible difference the mediation process made.
Mediation allowed for a
different quality of communication and therefore a different perspective was
taken.
The parent said: “I feel that without the mediation meeting, it would have taken much longer to resolve. The mediation proved very beneficial.”
The social services representative said, "Made the process more personal, very useful…an excellent service.”
The Local Authority representative said, “I thought my interpersonal skills were good – but the mediator helped in a way I had not foreseen. I was able to sit back and reflect more, asking different kinds of questions that allowed a different outcome."
*Names have been changed to protect anonymity.
