Special educational needs and disabilities: disagreement resolution arrangements in England. Government report on the outcome of the review conducted by the Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research
The authors reviewed how well new and existing routes for redress are working for children, young people and families when there is a disagreement about identifying and/or meeting SEN.
-
Theme: Achieving long-term outcomes and making a difference to lived experiences
-
Strength: Promising
-
Breadth of Impact: Robust
-
Status: Quality Assured
The authors reviewed how well new and existing routes for redress are working for children, young people and families when there is a disagreement about identifying and/or meeting SEN.
The authors found that the pilot single route of address stimulated more joint working on SEND issues across education, health and social care; increased knowledge and overall understanding of the system and relevant legal frameworks and practices, and acted as a ‘lever’ to promote reaching a resolution prior to the First-tier Tribunal SEND hearing.
This grey literature was appraised using a validated checklist. The AACODS checklist provides guidance when dealing with diverse formats of grey literature (Tyndall, 2010). AACODS includes the following items: Authority (who is responsible for the intellectual content) – Accuracy – Coverage (parameters which define the content coverage i.e., reference to a particular population group, or certain type of publication) – Objectivity (identify bias, if it is unstated or unacknowledged) – Date (that confirms relevance of information)- Significance (value judgment in the context of the relevant research area). The checklist can be used for any discipline area and prioritises expert opinion and expertise over source format (Tyndall, 2010).