Further Memorandum from
the Department of Education for Northern Ireland
Question 1 What monitoring of expenditure on special
educational needs does the Department undertake? Is there any
analysis of this expenditure across Boards? What range of information
on special education does the Department collate from Boards and
what analysis of that information is carried out?
At general level, Board spending plans for all
services, including special education, are made available to the
Department through financial schemes requiring DENI approval and
progress is routinely monitored at various stages in the financial
year. Monitoring is informed by analysis of a range of statistical
information on pupils with special educational needs which DENI
collects directly from schools. This includes information on types
of disability in respect of pupils at special schools and units,
and numbers of statemented pupils placed at various types of school.
The Special Needs sections of the Boards also
complete two annual returns, one relating to activity on assessments
and the other updating unit cost information about various types
of provision in the special education sector. DENI Special Education
Branch collates from these returns information on trends (e.g.,
mainstream placements of statemented pupils) and pressures (e.g.,
educational psychology services), both locally for each Board
and centrally for DENI, and these data are used to inform decisions
about resource allocation and policy developments (e.g., the introduction
of time limiting of assessments).
Returns are examined by DENI and justification
is sought for any unexplained changes or possible discrepancies.
In practice, meaningful cost comparisons between Boards—and
indeed between individual schools, even in the same Board area—are
particularly difficult to establish in this sector, mainly because
of differences in accommodation standards and enrolment patterns.
Comparison between special schools is particularly problematic
since each specialises in catering for children with particular
learning problems and there are no standard sizes. In particular,
a number of these schools are small and the accommodation in many
of the SLD schools (as inherited from DHSS in 1987) is particularly
poor, necessitating high maintenance costs. Similar difficulties
arise, though on a lesser scale, in dealing with per pupil costs
at special units, and Boards have not applied standardised approaches
to the apportionment of costs between special units and the mainstream
schools to which these are attached.
The procedures and forms relating to these exercises
were established by a joint DENI/inter-Board working group in
1994. They were informed by practice in England, and have since
been revised from time to time on an ad hoc basis. DENI
will be reviewing the statistical requirements from Boards within
its overall ELB Strategic and Management Review.
Question 2 The NI Forum Report refers to a Service
Level Agreement which will set out the respective roles and responsibilities
of DENI and DHSS and specify the standards of medical and therapy
services which health authorities should supply to the Education
and Library Boards. Is this agreement available? Will it address
the issue of provision of such services for children who live
within a different HSS Trust or Board from their Education and
Library Board?
The Service Level Agreement (SLA) referred to
in the Forum Report focuses on the respective roles and responsibilities
of the Education and Library Boards and the Health and Social
Services authorities, rather than those of DENI and DHSS. A proposed
model SLA on the provision of health services in school for children
with special needs is still in draft form, and a copy has not
yet been officially made available to the Department.
Drafting is being taken forward by the Regional
Review Group set up in 1997 (with ELB and HSS membership) at the
joint initiative of DENI and DHSS. The model SLA will provide
a context for further more detailed agreements at Board and Trust
level, which would be able to encompass any particular local issues
arising of the kind referred to in the final sentence of question
2.
Question 3 What arrangements does the Department
have to monitor implementation of the Code of Practice and its
effectiveness? What action will be taken where monitoring indicates
problems?
As with other aspects of the Schools Improvement
Programme, progress with implementation of the Code of Practice
in schools will be systematically monitored on the Department's
behalf by the Education and Training Inspectorate as part of the
on-going process of schools inspections. ETI further propose to
target a sample of schools for focused SEN inspections and structured
visits. The emphasis will be placed on establishing how successfully
each school is catering for its SEN pupils rather than scrutinising
in detail the application of the letter of the Code.
Action to be taken to address any problems identified
by monitoring will depend on their precise nature. Decisions will
be further informed by reports from Education and Library Boards,
who will be working closely with schools in implementing the guidance
provided by the Code and providing training for teachers and school
governors. Any such action might well be expected to include the
following:
— the provision of further advice to
schools, both specific and general;
— organising activities to disseminate
good practice, e.g., seminars, conferences;
— establishing ad hoc working
groups;
— revision of procedures, both statutory
and non-statutory.
Question 4 In respect of the suggestions made
in the "Dyson report", what steps have the Department
taken to ensure that there is a shift in "the focus of their
implementation effort from the detailed procedures of the Code
towards its underlying principles"
It is noted that the quote is taken from the
(as yet unpublished) report[2]
of a research study commissioned by DENI (after advertisement)
from the SEN Research Centre at Newcastle University. This project
was initiated by DENI in order to establish a baseline for future
monitoring of the SEN Code of Practice in Northern Ireland. The
research team appended some further observations to their report
which, while not arising directly from their brief, were nevertheless
seen by them as central to the successful implementation of the
Code.
The Code of Practice has since been published
by the Department (on 1 June) and will be operative from September
1998. A letter was issued to each school to accompany the Code,
together with a copy of the DfEE SEN Co-ordinator Guide. The letter
identified the key principles of the Code as follows:
— most children's special educational
needs being met within mainstream classes;
— children with special educational
needs, in common with all others, having access to a broad and
balanced curriculum;
— schools having in place appropriate
assessment and diagnostic procedures to identify pupils' special
educational needs at the earliest possible stage;
— the development of suitable school-based
intervention strategies as part of a whole-school approach to
meeting special educational needs;
— the effective involvement of parents
in the development of appropriate special educational programmes.
The letter acknowledged that for many schools,
it would be a challenging task to address the practical arrangements
for dealing with special educational needs in the light of the
Code, and indicated the additional resources which were being
made available. Amongst other information and guidance offered
to schools, the letter included the particular assurance that,
in monitoring the implementation of the Code, the Inspectorate
will concentrate on how successfully the school is catering for
children and young people with SEN in terms of the quality of
the provision, and appropriateness of the outcomes for them, rather
than scrutinising in detail the application of the letter of the
Code.
Question 5 The Education (NI) Order 1996 does
not include regulations setting time limits on a Board's response
to a parental request for a statutory assessment and a Board's
response to a parental request for a change of named school on
a child's statement. Both of these have time limits placed on
them in the English Code. Is there any particular reason for such
omissions?
The Northern Ireland legislation on time limits
for assessments differs from that in England, reflecting in particular
local consultation outcomes and previous DfEE experience. In particular,
it was decided that the statutory regime on time limiting (by
means of regulations which take effect from September 1998) should
be simplified so as to apply only to the complete period taken
by Education and Library Boards to issue draft statements (for
which purpose 18 weeks will be the prescribed period). All other
interim and additional time targets, including those indicated
in question 5, have been retained in the Code of Practice.
Subsequently, representations were made to the
Department by one voluntary organisation that the targets specified
in the Code of Practice for the two circumstances indicated should
also be prescribed in regulations. In the course of its consideration
of these representations, the Department received legal advice
to the effect that, even if there were general consensus that
such time limits should be prescribed, any such regulations would
be ultra vires in terms of existing enabling powers.
Such targets could only be included in regulations
by first amending the primary legislation and we will monitor
the position before taking decisions as to whether or not to make
this legislation and if so, what form any amendment should take.
10 July 1998
2 This report has now been published as DENI Research
Report No. 11, 1998. Back
| 
