IV. IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING SPECIAL
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
The Incidence of Statements of Special Educational
Needs
20. The Warnock Report[23]
estimated in 1978 that about 20% of children would have special
educational needs at some stage in their school careers. It also
estimated that only 2% of children - one tenth of the total number
- would have needs sufficient to justify a statement of their
special educational needs following a statutory formal assessment.
These Warnock figures do not have a statistical basis, but have
acquired a degree of influence in determining policy.[24]
So, for about nine children in ten with special educational needs,
provision is made by schools without recourse to the formal procedures
of statementing and without those children having the benefits
of the rights which children have under those procedures.
21. There has been a significant growth in recent
years of pupils with a statement of special educational needs
("statemented pupils"). From a total of 5,480 in 1990-91,
the number has risen in 1996-97 to 8,450, an increase over 50%.[25]
The Department of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI) told us
that the main reasons for the growth in statementing include:[26]
- more children with profound and/or multiple mental
and physical handicaps are surviving to school age and beyond,
because of medical advances in post-natal care;
- the introduction of the statutory curriculum,
and the associated right of all pupils to a broad and balanced
education, have heightened the awareness among schools and in
Education and Library Boards of the need to consider carefully
how curricular and educational needs can best be met;
- schools are increasingly aware of the potential
impact of SEN pupils, including those with behavioural difficulties,
on other pupils in a school/class and are therefore more disposed
to refer such pupils for formal assessment and possible statementing.
22. DENI accepts that the Warnock estimate of the
percentage of children needing statements is now outdated.[27]
It is not used by DENI for any administrative purposes, and, in
particular, it is not used to determine levels of funding for
special education or to set a quota for numbers of statements.
Its use is essentially as an indicator to schools that only a
small proportion of pupils are likely to have needs which would
require reference to an ELB for formal assessment. The Comptroller
and Auditor General reported[28]
that the percentage of statemented children in Northern Ireland
in 1996-97 was 2.3% overall, with the figures for individual ELBs
ranging from 1.8% to 3.8%.
23. DENI has identified a range of factors which
it considers may in the longer term lessen the recent upward trend
in the numbers of statemented pupils, despite further increases
in post-natal survival rates as medical knowledge improves.[29]
However, for immediate planning purposes, DENI assumes that the
recent trends in the growth of the numbers of statemented pupils
will continue.
Core Principles
24. The Code of Practice lays down five fundamental
principles:[30]
- the needs of all pupils who may experience learning
difficulties during their school careers must be addressed; the
Code recognises that there is a continuum of needs and a continuum
of provision which may be made in a variety of forms;
- children with special educational needs require
the greatest possible access to a broad and balanced education,
including the Northern Ireland Curriculum;
- the needs of most pupils will be met in mainstream
schools, and without a statutory assessment or a statement. Children
with special educational needs, including those with statements,
should, wherever appropriate and taking into account the wishes
of their parents, be educated alongside their peers in mainstream
schools;
- even before a child reaches compulsory school
age, he or she may have special educational needs requiring the
intervention of the Boards as well as the health services;
- the knowledge, views and experience of parents
are vital. Effective assessment and provision will best be secured
where there is partnership between parents and schools, Boards
and other agencies.
25. The Code of Practice embodies the following "essential
practices and procedures":[31]
- children with special educational needs should
be identified as early as possible and assessed as quickly as
is consistent with thoroughness;
- provision for children with special educational
needs should be made by the most appropriate agency. In most cases
this will be the child's mainstream school, working in partnership
with the parents, and no statutory assessment will be necessary;
- Boards should complete assessments and statements
as quickly as thorough consideration of the issues allows;
- Boards must produce clear and thorough statements,
setting out the child's educational and non-educational needs,
the objectives to be secured, the provision to be made and the
arrangements for monitoring and review; they must ensure the annual
review of the special educational provision made for the child
and the monitoring and revision of educational targets;
- the ascertainable wishes of the child should
be considered, in the light of his or her age and understanding;
- there must be close co-operation between all
the agencies concerned and a multi-disciplinary approach to the
resolution of issues.
The Assessment Mechanism
26. The Code[32]
sets out a five stage approach to the identification of children
having learning difficulties, the assessment of their special
educational needs and the making of whatever special educational
provision is necessary to meet those needs. The first three stages
are based in the school, with Stage 3 calling as necessary on
external specialists. At Stages 4 and 5 the appropriate Education
and Library Boards shares responsibility with schools.
Stage 1: teachers identify and register
a child's special educational needs[33]
and, consulting the school's SENCO, take initial action.
Stage 2: the SENCO takes lead responsibility
for collecting and recording information and for co-ordinating
the child's special educational provision, working with the child's
teachers.
Stage 3: teachers and the SENCO are supported
by specialists from outside the school.
Stage 4: the Board considers the need for
a statutory assessment and, if appropriate, makes a multi-disciplinary
assessment.
Stage 5: the Board considers the need for
a statement of special educational needs; if appropriate, it makes
a statement and arranges, monitors and reviews provision.
27. As we have noted earlier, the needs of the great
majority of children with special educational needs are expected
to be met under the school-based stages. In this context, the
Dyson Report revealed a wide variation in the extent and quality
of mainstream schools' special educational needs provision. While
some schools were found to be highly organised and to have provision
and practice corresponding to the recommendations of the Code
of Practice, others were considered to have much development work
to undertake in order to implement those recommendations. In addition,
the Dyson Report comments that the quality and extent of support
available to schools from external services is highly variable
and that this casts some doubt on the ability of schools to construct
a meaningful response at Stage 3 of the Code of Practice.
28. If a Board decides that a statutory assessment
might be necessary, or receives a valid request from the parents
for such an assessment, it has, under the Code of Practice, six
weeks in which to decide whether to make an assessment.[34]
Having decided to make an assessment, the Board is required under
the Code to reach the stage of issuing a prepared statement normally
not later than 18 weeks from the date of the parental request
or the date of its decision to make the assessment.[35]
Health and Social Services Trusts ("HSS Trusts") are
required normally to respond to requests from Boards for advice
within six weeks.[36]
29. Once a Board has decided to make a statement,
the parents have a right to state a preference for the grant-aided
school their child should attend. The three main options are a
mainstream school, a special unit in such a school, or a special
school. It is, however, for the Board to decide where the child's
special educational provision should be met and this may include
education otherwise than at school, placement at an independent
school or other non-grant-aided institution in Northern Ireland,
or at an institution outside Northern Ireland.[37]
The Code provides that the period from proposed statement to final
statement should not exceed eight weeks.[38]
Time Limits
30. The Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention
in his report to delays between the decision to proceed with formal
statementing and the issue of a final statement of special educational
needs.[39]
Under the Code of Practice, a proposed statement should be issued
within 18 weeks[40]
and the final statement should be issued within a further 8 weeks,[41]
making an overall period of 26 weeks. In the period 1994-95 to
1996-97 no ELB apparently came remotely near this target period
on average.[42]
The delay was, in most cases attributable both to delays in receiving
professional advice and to the time taken within the ELB to process
that advice.
31. The Code indicates[43]
that when seeking the necessary professional advice needed for
the statement - notably, parental, medical, educational, psychological
and social services inputs - ELBs should ask all concerned to
respond within six weeks. This is substantially quicker than the
average achieved in the case of all but one type of advice with
a single ELB in 1996-97.[44]
32. On the question of the timeliness of advice from
HSSBs, Dr Telford, of the Southern HSSB, cited the result of a
sample survey in respect of formal medical advice and return of
completed assessments.[45]
The average response time was 5.8 weeks, with 78% being completed
within the six week period, and 89% within eight weeks. A variety
of reasons were given for exceeding the recommended time interval.
We note that these figures represent a significant improvement
on those for the same speciality in 1996-97,[46]
and hope that all Boards will make efforts to improve compliance
with the target, which is an essential component of ensuring that
the statutory 18 week time limit is met. There is also a need
for ELBs to take steps to improve the timeliness of professional
advice in areas for which they are responsible. These include
psychological advice and educational advice. The Comptroller and
Auditor General's report demonstrated[47]
that, in 1996-97, some of this advice took up to 6 months to reach
the ELB, a timescale wholly inconsistent with meeting the statutory
timescales in the statementing process. While there are, as the
Code of Practice notes,[48]
certain circumstances that may necessarily prevent ELBs meeting
these, we believe it is essential that ELBs seek to ensure that
their own procedures for securing psychological and educational
advice are not the cause of delay.
33. On the question of the time taken by ELBs to
produce statements we were glad that Mr McCullough, of the Belfast
ELB, was able to reassure us that ELBs were "very keen"
to improve on the performance included in the Comptroller and
Auditor General's report.[49]
He cited as possible causes of delays the dependence on receiving
information from other parties and the fact that schools are closed
for nine weeks in the summer, during which period, he maintained
nothing can be received from them. He also commented that the
speed with which a statement can be produced is a function of
the availability both of resources and of places "because
you cannot actually complete a statement for a school if there
is no place to go to, or provide a resource when there is no provision
available",[50]
although Mr Topping mentioned[51]
the possibility of temporary placements pending completion of
the statementing process.
34. We are concerned about the possible implications
of Mr McCullough's remarks, which suggest that in some cases the
decision to issue a statement may be resource-led. We do not believe
that such an approach would be consistent with either the statutory
requirements or the spirit of the Code of Practice. We recognise
that the present statutory definitions leave a considerable amount
of discretion in the hands of the ELBs when deciding whether to
issue a statement, and it may well be that there is a case for
the ELBs to develop common assessment criteria, to avoid inconsistencies
between Boards, and to avoid allegations of a resource-led approach.
We comment further on the criteria for statementing in paragraphs
51 and 77 below.
35. It is obviously in the best interests of parents
and children alike that the statementing process takes as short
a period of time as possible. We urge ELBs to make every effort
to secure the completion of the statementing process within the
limits prescribed in the Code of Practice. We recommend that they
review their practices and procedures as a matter of urgency with
a view to ensuring that as many cases as possible are so completed.
This will include ensuring that adequate administrative and
professional resources are available to be devoted to this important
function. The review should include an examination of Boards'
own administrative procedures with a view to ensuring that there
are no unnecessary administrative delays.[52]
We also recommend that the Boards consider jointly how best to
complete the statementing process as rapidly and efficiently as
possible. This would provide a mechanism both for disseminating
best practice and promoting consistency of approach across the
whole of Northern Ireland.
Review of Statements
36. An important requirement of the Code is that
all statements should be reviewed at least annually and that parents'
views should always be sought. The aims of the annual review include:[53]
- assessing progress towards meeting the objectives
specified in the statement; collating information for use in planning
future support for the child and assessing progress towards meeting
targets;
- reviewing the special provision made for the
child, including the appropriateness of any special equipment
provided, in the context of the Northern Ireland Curriculum and
associated assessment arrangements;
- considering, in light of the child's performance
and any additional needs which may have become apparent, whether
it might be appropriate to cease to maintain, or amend, the statement;
- where appropriate, setting fresh targets for
the coming year.
37. The outcome of the review process may include
the ELB amending or ceasing to maintain the statement. In practice,
amendments and withdrawals are relatively rare.[54]
The Comptroller and Auditor General examined a sample of annual
reviews;[55]
their scope was in some cases limited. He also drew attention
to the fact that ELB representation at the reviews was the exception
rather than the rule, and that, in a number of cases, the parents
were not present either. The ELBs told the Northern Ireland Audit
Office that they could not spare adequate officer or professional
staff time to support the review process fully. Mr Martin, of
the Western ELB, doubted[56]
whether having an officer present at each of his Board's 1,400
reviews would be an efficient use of resources. He took the view
that the Board's professional staff would be better employed in
supporting the schools "rather than tying up a lot of administrative
time being present". Mr Fitzsimons, of the South Eastern
ELB, suggested that the present arrangements were effective, as
measured by the lack of parental appeals against annual reviews.[57]
38. We accept that the evidence described above is
based on experience prior to the coming into effect of the Code
of Practice. However, we agree with the Northern Ireland Audit
Office that a lack of involvement of ELBs in the annual review
process weakens their ability to manage special educational resources
effectively. It may also mean that the most appropriate provision
is not made for the child in the forthcoming year. We therefore
recommend that ELBs consider carefully the case for devoting additional
staff resources to this important function, as the Comptroller
and Auditor General recommended.[58]
Demands arising from the Code of Practice
39. DENI considers[59]
that substantial adjustments in procedures and practice on the
part of Boards and schools, particularly during the current financial
year, will be required to reflect the new legislative environment.
These include:
- greater responsiveness by schools and Boards
to the special educational needs of children;
- training programmes for teachers and school governors;
- expansion of Board statementing and educational
psychology services to meet the new statutory time limit for statementing;
and
- promoting better inter-agency liaison.
40. DENI anticipates[60]
that the new requirements will create or increase demand for school-based
support for pupils with special educational needs who are not
statemented (i.e., those pupils whose needs require provision
at stages 1-3 of the Code of Practice). It also expects increases
in demand for training programmes for teachers in relation to
identification and assessment procedures, preparation of education
plans and adoption of appropriate teaching strategies. Greater
demands are also expected both for outreach teaching services
from special schools to support increased mainstream placements
of statemented pupils and for ELB support services, in particular
educational psychology, peripatetic teaching and statementing
administration.
41. DENI told us[61]
that resources to meet the needs referred to above are being provided
as specific funding in 1998-99, earmarked for implementation of
the Code of Practice and as part of the School Improvement Programme.
About £2.9 million is allocated in 1998-99 specifically to
implementation of the Code of Practice. This figure rises to over
£7 million for 1999-2000.[62]
23 Cmnd. 7212. Back
24 See the Code of Practice, para. 2.2 and Lundy, L, in Child
and Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1998), p. 39. Back
25 Ev. p. 78. Back
26 Ev. p. 78-79. Back
27 Ev. p. 84 and Q85. See also Q66. Back
28 HC898 (1997-98), p. 23-4. Back
29 Ev. p. 79. See also Q48 and 67 for some ELB views. Back
30 Para. 1.6. Back
31 Para. 1.7. Back
32 Para. 1.8. Back
33 Parents must be notified of such registration (See Code of Practice,
paras. 2.50-51). Back
34 Para. 3.19. Back
35 Para. 3.35-36. Back
36 Para. 3.38. Back
37 Paras. 4.33 to 4.52. Back
38 Para. 3.37. Back
39 HC898 (1997-98), paras. 2.26-2.32. Back
40 Paras. 3.35-36. Back
41 Para. 3.37. Back
42 HC898 (1997-98), p. 29. Based on a random sample of 450 cases
over the period, 30 cases per year per ELB. Back
43 Para. 3.30. Back
44 HC898 (1997-98), p. 30. Back
45 Q150-1. See also Ev. p. 123. Back
46 Compared with data given by the Comptroller and Auditor General based on a sample survey. See HC898 (1997-98), p. 30. Back
47 HC898 (1997-98), p. 30. Back
48 Para. 3.36. Back
49 Q48-9. Back
50 Q48. Back
51 Q50. See also Q62. Back
52 See HC898 (1997-98), p. 31, for comparative data for the time
taken from receipt by ELBs of latest advice to production of a
draft statement. In 1996-97, the Board averages ranged from 1
to 10 months. Back
53 Para. 6.3. Back
54 In the period 1994-96, 6% of statements were withdrawn as a result
of the annual review process and 7% amended (See HC898 (1997-98)
p. 34). Back
55 See HC898 (1997-98), p. 61-3. Back
56 Q23. Back
57 Q23. Back
58 See HC898 (1997-98), para. 5.37. Back
59 Ev. p. 82. Back
60 Ev. p. 82-83. Back
61 Ev. p. 83. Back
62 Ev. p. 81, 87. Back
|
