VII. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
80. The following are the Committee's summarised
principal conclusions and recommendations:
(a) 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. 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. (Paragraph 35)
(b) 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.
(Paragraph 38)
(c) Our predecessors
reported in February 1997 on underachievement in Northern Ireland
secondary schools and reached a number of conclusions about school
funding and social disadvantage, and TSN funding in particular.
In its response in July 1997, the Government reported that it
had received a consultants' report on TSN methodology and, in
particular, dealing with two separate, but inter-related, strands
of the policy - social deprivation and special educational need.
The Government agreed that more should be done to monitor how
targeted resources are used and to evaluate their impact on pupils
with social and educational needs. We recommend that the
Government take the opportunity of its response to this Report
to state what progress it has made in this area. (Paragraph 46)
(d) Given that schools
are now required to state in their annual reports their policy
with regard to provision for special educational needs, we believe
they should also be required to publish details of how they have
used that part of their delegated budget intended to be spent
in this area. Quantification of expenditure would provide an objective
basis for future allocations, and remove the need for indirect
formulae. (Paragraph 47)
(e) There is a need
to seek to establish, as far as possible, common criteria on the
purpose and aims of statementing. We recommend that the Government
commission appropriate research. Without such benchmarks, it is
not possible to assess with any confidence the effectiveness of
the considerable level of public expenditure involved. (Paragraph
51)
(f) The Comptroller
and Auditor General also expressed concern about the variations
in the levels of statementing, which he considered might reflect
a lack of consistent criteria for identifying pupils with special
educational needs, or different interpretations of the definition
of special educational needs. We recommend that the Comptroller
and Auditor General's recommendations designed to improve consistency
be carefully studied. (Paragraph 52)
(g) We recommend that
DENI reviews the current scope and extent of training for teachers
in special schools and takes steps to ensure that adequate funds
are available to ELBs for in-service training in this area. We
also recommend that special school inspections specifically include
an assessment of the current state of staff training. (Paragraph
56)
(h) It is clear to
us that the success or otherwise of a mainstream school's SEN
policy will stand or fall on the competence and commitment of
the SENCO. It is therefore vital that schools select their SENCO
with particular care and ensure that they receive appropriate
training. The Dyson Report emphasised the contribution to be made
by in-service training in this respect. We understand that there
is likely to be pressure to extend the duration of training for
SENCOs. While we note Mr Manning's assurance that the withdrawal
of funding for award-bearing in-service courses has not, as had
been feared, depressed demand, we hope that DENI will take steps
to ensure that appropriate funding arrangements are in place to
ensure that lack of funding does not discourage potential trainees.
We welcome the ring-fenced resources which DENI is providing for
training, including SENCO training, which is designed to have
a significant impact on the quality and status of SENCOs within
schools. We believe that the introduction of the Code of Practice
means that teachers generally, and not just SENCOs, will need
greater training in special educational needs, not least because
of the likely increase in the number of children with such needs
placed in mainstream schools. We recommend the continued provision
of ring-fenced training resources in this area. (Paragraph 59)
(i) We are pleased
that Mr McFall saw the need to remedy the current shortage of
educational psychologists as an urgent issue and that he proposes
to have discussions with both the Queen's University and the ELBs.
We recommend that these discussions include the scope for increasing
the teaching and training resources with a view to seeking to
eliminate the shortage in this key function as soon as is practicable.
(Paragraph 62)
(j) We consider it
important that the opportunity to train as an educational psychologist
should be available to as wide a pool of applicants as possible.
In particular, we consider there is a good case for attracting
teachers with a greater degree of experience. We have seen suggestions
that the present level of funding of Temporary Employment Contracts
may be a deterrent to applicants, particularly more experienced
teachers. We understand that in Scotland there has recently been
a move to increase significantly the value of Temporary Employment
Contracts to address this problem there. We recommend that the
value of such contracts in Northern Ireland be reviewed. (Paragraph
63)
(k) We recommend that
steps be taken to seek to improve the recruitment and retention
of speech and language therapists in Northern Ireland. We note
that the Department of Health and Social Services is seeking to
update the methodology for identifying needs in terms of manpower
planning in partnership with HSSBs and Trusts. We look to the
Secretary of State, in responding to this Report, to indicate
how it is intended to tackle the recruitment and retention problems.
(Paragraph 65)
(l) We welcome the
conclusion of the Interagency Agreement for the provision of education,
health and social services to children with special educational
needs. We hope this will provide a catalyst for improved service
provision to children with special needs. In their evidence to
us, both ELBs and HSSBs have described details of the ways in
which they work together to meet the needs of the child. Given
the collective constraints of both human and financial resources,
we look to the Boards to build on their experience when they review
the operation of the Agreement later this year. (Paragraph 72)
(m) We believe that
both HSSBs and ELBs may need collectively to work together more
closely in meeting parental expectations for services. As the
Interagency Agreement states, the HSSBs and ELBs believe that
through collaborative work more effective use can be made of the
available resources and best long term effect can be gained for
children. We hope that they will pay full regard to parental concerns
in this respect, and seek to draw on the expertise of organisations
with particular interest in and experience, of assisting children
with special educational needs. (Paragraph 73)
(n) It is clear that
the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Code of Practice
represent a watershed in special education provision in Northern
Ireland. The Government has recognised that this will involve
significant additional resources, both for schools (including
special schools) and for implementing the Code of Practice. It
will also require a change of approach to the delivery of education
to children with special educational needs to ensure that there
is compliance with both the spirit and the administrative mechanisms
of the Code. In changing the approach, it will be important for
all concerned to keep in mind that fact that the overwhelming
majority of children with special educational needs - perhaps
as many as nine out of ten - will have those needs assessed and
met outside the statementing framework and within the resources
ordinarily expected to be available in mainstream schools. We
hope, therefore, that very careful consideration will be given
to implementing the recommendations of the Dyson Report. We consider
that an informed debate involving both service providers and their
"customers" - the children and their parents - would
be beneficial. (Paragraph 74)
(o) Given the likely
growth in the number of statemented children, at least in the
short to medium term, and the limited capacity of special schools
and units, it is likely that an increased number of these children
will be educated in mainstream schools. The challenge for such
schools will be enhanced by the fact that many of these children
are likely to have more profound needs than such schools have
normally faced hitherto. This will need to be reflected in the
funding such schools receive. Greater targeting of resources where
they are needed will be facilitated by our recommendation that
schools take steps to identify expenditure on meeting special
educational needs. (Paragraph 75)
(p) Given the likelihood
that there will be continued pressure on resources for meeting
special educational needs, we consider there is a case for ELBs
to look closely at their expenditure on special schools and special
units, and at provision for meeting special educational needs
in mainstream schools, to ensure that resources are deployed to
greatest effect. There would appear to be a good case for according
higher priority to capital expenditure on special schools, where
to do so would improve their capacity to deliver good quality
services, and to provide specialist support to mainstream schools.
(Paragraph 76)
(q) There is a variation
between Boards in the number of children referred for assessment
and in the number of statements written. The Comptroller and Auditor
General has also drawn attention to a number of other differences
between Boards and with comparable local authorities elsewhere
in the United Kingdom. While we recognise the reality of such
differences, and that the reasons for their existence are likely
to be complex, we recommend that the ELBs seek to agree common
bases for their definition of assessment of special educational
needs and seek to develop common approaches. The research we have
recommended in paragraph 51 may have a part to play in this process.
As the problems encountered are not unique to Northern Ireland,
there may be scope for drawing on experience elsewhere in the
United Kingdom. (Paragraph 77)
(r) While we recognise
that there have been many moves to improve parental involvement
and increase their right to appeal through Tribunals within the
field of special educational needs, there are still many unresolved
issues. Recent research in the Graduate School of Education at
Queen's University indicates that parents frequently feel alienated
by the assessment process and do not feel well enough informed
to make a meaningful contribution. They also complained about
the delays in the statementing process and often did not understand
the statement when it eventually was completed. Furthermore, they
perceived a lack of cohesion in the statementing procedure when
both education and health and social services were involved. We
recommend that DENI, the ELBs and the HSSBs review the scope for
improving parental perceptions of their involvement. A greater
attention to this aspect in the training of the professionals
involved might be appropriate. (Paragraph 78)
(s) Given the scope
and nature of the changes likely to arise in meeting special educational
needs provision following the introduction of the Code of Practice,
we consider it important that progress should be kept under review.
We recommend that DENI do so, and amend the Code as necessary
in the light of experience. There is also a case for continuing
parliamentary interest in this important and sensitive area.
(Paragraph 79)
|
