The lawyers have been accused of exploiting parents of children with special needs by education secretary Bridget Phillipson, who said their criticism of the government’s policy changes was motivated by profit.
Speaking at the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) annual conference, Phillipson said the special educational needs reform outlined last month would “move the system away from the very troubled system we have, where parents have had to fight so hard for support”.
Lawyers offering family services have criticized elements of Phillipson’s package, which aims to see more children with special needs such as autism or ADHD be educated in mainstream schools rather than special schools.
Phillipson said: “I haven’t been surprised that there has been such vocal criticism from lawyers about the changes we are bringing. You know, they have a vested interest in maintaining the failed status quo. There are profits to be made.”
“They want the system to stay the way it is, because they often make profits by exploiting parents. And I don’t blame, not for a second, the parents (who) are pushing hard to get what their children need. Who wouldn’t? But it’s a fundamentally unfair system if parents who have the money to hire lawyers end up getting a better deal than those who don’t.
“Our support for tilting the system towards much earlier support, a fairer support system for all children, is absolutely the right approach, supported by evidence (and) supported by the profession.”
The changes outlined in last month’s schools white paper will also limit the council’s spending on private special school fees, leading to claims that some will be forced to close and increasing shortages of places elsewhere.
But Phillipson rejected this, saying: “We need to clamp down on the totally unacceptable revenue growth we have seen in private equity-backed independent specialist service provision. It is sucking money out of the education system in the form of profits, which should be focused on delivering outcomes for children, and where the quality of provision is highly variable and does not always deliver good outcomes for children.”
Earlier, ASCL president Jo Rowley, deputy headteacher at Stafford, said members welcomed more responsibility for schools to provide extra support for pupils with special needs. But he said some were “a little anxious” that he might come into conflict with their parents.
Rowley said: “We work with parents at the moment; parents will be in a battle with local authorities over (education, health and care plans) and we will work with those parents… I wouldn’t like to see that battle then turn into a battle between family and school because that definitely doesn’t help, and it shouldn’t be teachers making those decisions, and that’s something we’re all very much agreed on at the moment.”
Asked if schools could avoid becoming the new battleground over special needs, Phillipson said: “Parents have and should have every right to voice their concerns at their child’s school about where things are not working well, but it is about how we respond collectively.” He added that “parents have a responsibility to support their children’s school.”
