| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Leigh: I take the point that in the past children may have had to travel long distances to special schools. That is why nobody is arguing in principle with the thinking behind the Bill that it is good to try to encourage children into mainstream schools, if they are nearby, funding is available and the right education and care can be given. However, it must be done properly and that is why we need some serious arguments from the Government about why new clause 2 is not acceptable.
Dr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the wishes of the parents or the needs of the child should be paramount, because both cannot be?
Mr. Leigh: That is a debating point. The reality is that discussions will take place at the statement stage and the course of action that is in the best interests of the child will become apparent to the parents. After all, few parents go out of their way not to put the interests of their child first.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend mentioned the need to travel long distances to special schools. Will he speculate why parents and children might be prepared to travel those distances? Could it be the special treatment and care that children get at those schools? Parents and children often have to travel at their own expense, but they consider it to be well worth it.
Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point, and I know that my hon. Friend also represents a rural constituency. In fact, there is a special school in Gainsborough. My constituency is geographically the same size as Greater London, which has 73 constituencies, but parents will travel many miles to that school because they believe that it meets the special needs of their children.
The fundamental issue is funding. Teachers in my constituency are, on the whole, extremely sceptical about the promised funding from the Government to implement the admittedly desirable objectives of the Bill. Teachers do not think that they will receive enough funding to meet all the extra demands placed on their schools by the policy of inclusion, and nor are they impressed by the training on offer to equip teachers to cope. The Bill needs to be covered by adequate funding if it is to work and our children are to get the best possible education.
If funding is inadequate, the law will be made to look an ass. Schools will refuse to take on more SEN children because they cannot afford to financially; or because it would push the school over the edge of teachability, as one head teacher in my constituency fears; or because schools would be unable to cope with children with special educational needs, who would be far worse off than if they had stayed in their special schools.
Paul Strong is the head teacher of a large, successful comprehensive school in my constituency. It has come high up the league tables and recently, with my help and that of others, has acquired a sixth form. Mr. Strong has said:
- "there are some children for whom mainstream education may be manifestly unsuited"--
I have received a letter from a teacher who specialises in teaching those children with special educational needs. She says:
- "Special Schools have historically catered for one type, or possibly two or more similar types, of SEN: Autism, sight impairment, hearing impairment, physical disability . . . In those schools, class sizes range from 6 or fewer, to 12, or at most 15 where the needs are not too severe. The teachers are supported by 1:1 SSA's where appropriate, as well as by a trained classroom assistant. The particular needs of the children are met by fully qualified staff, so that, for instance, Physio's and OT's are closely involved with developing and monitoring programmes for children with mobility problems, Speech Therapists work regularly with children with speech and language or hearing difficulties, and psychologists and behaviour therapists have counselling roles with disturbed children. The teachers themselves benefit from training specifically for meeting the needs of the children they are working with, and from a complex support structure within their schools. Life skills are a feature of every child's IEP, and are given appropriate space in their educational day. Furthermore, the school buildings are adapted and modified to accommodate the needs of the children they serve, and they have the resources and equipment necessary for the children's full educational and pastoral needs.
By contrast, Mainstream schools have classes of 30 children, regardless of the range of need within those classes. One teacher may be supported for some, and in Early Years possibly all, of each day.
However, every school can now expect to be obliged to accept children with any type of SEN, and be required to provide as best it can for their varying needs. Buildings may not be appropriate, resources and equipment may not be available, and staff may have
- no training, expertise or understanding of how best to support the children whose parents have opted for Inclusion, but that seems to matter little to those who are promoting this policy."
The Government must give assurances that they will not water down the specificity of the statements that are given to children. The Government backed down in the Lords and now refuse to say when they will issue the code of practice that will outline the rules. Those rules must not be watered down to obscure the funding that a child deserves. Parents must be able to see clearly their child's entitlement and what they can claim from the local education authority.
Another school in my constituency is undersubscribed and has been struggling to attract pupils, for various reasons that are not the fault of the school. I must make it clear that it is a different school from the one I mentioned earlier--William Farr school--which is a highly successful and oversubscribed school. The head teacher of the less successful school told me that inclusion was a very good principle and was necessary for the good of society, but he also said that his school could not take any more SEN children. More money would not help him because he cannot employ staff as it is. He spoke of a vicious cycle in his school in which more SEN children means standards and behaviour declining, which means good pupils and teachers leaving--
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): That is outrageous.
Mr. Leigh: Labour Members may not like that, but they must listen to the reality of the education world. We cannot frame legislation simply on the basis of good intentions. I am reporting the views of a head teacher of a comprehensive school in this country and he says that good pupils are leaving, making more spaces for SEN children and so the cycle continues. Some comprehensive schools could be pushed further into unpopularity.
Mr. Levitt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard this comment as helpful. If what we have heard is a genuine description of what is happening in two of his schools, I recommend that he invite Ofsted to look at the situation immediately.
Mr. Leigh: That, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying so, is a rather silly point. A very successful, oversubscribed school is, in principle, prepared to have more children but it needs the funding to do so, while the head teacher of another school is doing his best in a difficult situation but could be pushed into taking action that would make the school unpopular. It is a vicious cycle. These people must be listened to; it may be difficult, but life is difficult.
Miss Begg: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was quoting a head teacher. I am disturbed that head teachers
with such views are teaching in comprehensive schools. I was a special educational needs pupil and I was a teacher in a comprehensive school with special educational needs--my own. I find it incredibly insulting that there are some in the education system who make the assumption that because people have special educational needs or a disability they will cause a problem or be badly behaved. That is simply not true.
Mr. Leigh: I am not saying that. I am simply trying to describe the real situation. Often we may not like the real world as we find it. However, the fact is that schools nowadays are competing with each other for pupils, competing for teachers in a very difficult job market and competing in the league tables.
The head teacher I mentioned was not against the principle of the Bill--he is all in favour, in principle, of inclusion. He is simply saying that we should be careful, pause and not rush into a situation in which, in the real world, SEN children may be dumped into certain mainstream schools. [Interruption.] Yes, dumped. I have to use that word. It is no point Labour Members looking shocked. This sort of thing goes on, I am afraid. There is no point in framing legislation full of high ideals if, in the long run, children with special needs suffer.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |