Dan Harris FRSA’s Post

James Davies

Prof. Amanda Kirby -yesterday you kindly and helpfully provided this useful insight: "1. Screening for one condition alone misses swathes of students/children who have a range of neurodevelopmental conditions or co-occur. 2. If we spend all our money screening all children we won't have any money for delivering interventions - we need to look at children who are 'learners of concern' 3. Training teachers across neurodevelopmental condiitons and typical development is hugely helpful and would assist all children 4. Supporting all parents early would also have big impact. 5. Equity means also considering adversity in the mix too." How does the change yesterday in the Bill focus impact do you think? Obviously lots of clarity to be sought in the coming days......

ORIGINAL POST FROM YESTERDAY

Thank you Sarah Templeton also for all of your advocacy on this topic and support for the widening scope into Neurodiversity more holistically.

Kirstin Calvin Dr Martin Bloomfield Toni Horn 🩷Claire Polansky, Ph.D Mike Bedford 🧠🌶️ Lyn 💡 Ray Emma Hartnell-Baker Kieran Stewart CITP FBCS FRSA Paula Burl-McCartney Cate Deans Kassandra Clemens Gillian Farkas-Blake Heather Payne Simon Rawcliffe UBAA Neil Marks MA MSc Roos Moesbergen Armine Guzelian James Lovatt Mel Sims ICF Certified Coach - ADHD and Emotional Wellbeing Stephen Rockman Filippa Sjöberg Dr. Asma Ounnas (PhD, IMC, ISEB) Nazia Aman 🍉Darren C.Ann Guindi Mark Hamilton-Taylor Arber Ismaili Dawn McKendry Laura Lewin Elaine Weir Jon Springer Sharon Kennedy Susan Ball David Breakspear Ken Bamford, MBA, BSc(Hons), FdA Jessica Dark ND Kirstie Keate BSc (Hons) GMBPsS Thanks for such interviewing views points in the debate yesterday. What do you think of the evolution over the last 24 hours?

This is a positive development for identifying ND children in school. I believe there particularly needs to be much more awareness of identifying autism and adhd traits in girls as this so often gets missed until later due to masking with really damaging effects eg my daughter now 14 was only referred for ASD assessment after struggling over the last 18 months with an eating disorder (a much higher number of girls with autism develop eating disorders) while my son was identified from a very young age.

I think the intention is good but it simply makes the whole thing much worse. This is a bill being put forward by somebody who has consistently supported educational policies that have made school worse for the children he is hoping this will help. The subject of neurodivergence is far too broad, in the mandatory training we will simply find box ticking processes utilised as head teachers contiunue to struggle to keep their underfunded and over beurocratised schools functioning. Basic SEND provision is in crisis right now and following any screening it is unlikely the required provision will be able to be put in place and the following diagnosis could take years. We need to fix the significant underlying issues before adding more on top of it. There are standard teaching practices that make learning as accessible as possible offering differentiation. but given the way teachers are targeted, managed, paid and the difficulty in recruiting the required aptitudes, children are not gett8iung the quality of the education they deserve.

To all who had an impact in making him listen, well done. What jumps out to me though, and yes I'm deeply cynical: A) My word Matt Hancock has a moral compass. Who knew? Unlikely. But he'll try to get popularity wherever and how ever he can, going into the jungle, or appearing to care about the ND community. It's all spin. B) the sentiment is promising but... C) let's be realistic, just because Mr H has ammended a Bill, let's not forget, who he is, what he's done before, which party he's aligned with and their track record for actually taking any useful, impactful action. So, I'll not wait with baited breath for anything to come off this because as is already evident: * there's simply not enough money in the public purse to fund this initiative. * the Conservatives simply will not care enough to take any action on this. I applaud everyone's passion and wish I shared in your trust of Matt Hancock and your belief they anything will change because of this.

As someone who remembers the idiotic "V-A-K" edict from 2003 that impacted both teachers (I was one at that time) and the children in their classes, this has "yet another useless imposition from above" written all over it. Teachers know their pupils, and know how to get the best from them intuitively, without the need for labels. Let them get on with their job, or you'll drive even more from the profession.

I think in principle this looks great. But we are already seeing LAs refusing EHCPs at astonishing rates, ICBs cutting ND assessment services, schools having to cut all kinds of services for SEND because of a lack in funding. Without funding for both the screening and the support which would need to come after this is meaningless. Of course, if this were passed quickly and Labour then came into power it would ensure an impossible task for them wouldn’t it? A lovely welcome back to government present from the Tories…