Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360-371
JIM KNIGHT
AND MS
SUE GARNER
13 JUNE 2006
Q360 Mr Borrow: Are you aware of
any difference between education authorities in terms of performance,
or is it simply a matter of some schools being better than others?
Jim Knight: I think it is more
down at the school level.
Ms Garner: It is more down to
the school level and knowing where the child is going next.
Jim Knight: In these circumstances
the more time that is given in respect of notice of posting the
easier it is to get all these things in place and to resolve them
clearly, and there is greater clarity over where the new school
will be and then all those arrangements can be set up.
Q361 Chairman: Minister, we have
heard from you about the 15-day rule, but we have also heard from
others that it is routinely not followed. What are you doing to
ensure, first, that it is and, second, that when it is transferred
the quality of the information is higher?
Jim Knight: The 15-day rule is
set out in regulation so it is a requirement that it be fulfilled.
That would be part of Ofsted's inspection of schools and it would
want to see that schools fulfilled their obligations in regulation
and law. If it saw evidence that it was routinely failing to fulfil
its obligations under regulation it would be something on which
it would have to report. The governors would then have to respond
in the normal way to failings identified by Ofsted in its report.
Q362 Chairman: Can you take away
from this Committee the evidence it has received that it is routinely
not followed?
Jim Knight: Certainly, and I am
very happy to talk to the chief inspector and remind him of what
you have just said.
Q363 Mr Borrow: I turn to an area
similar to one we touched on earlier: special education needs
and the issuing of statements. I know that during the 15 or 16
years I was governor of various schools, including a special educational
needs school, getting statements in the first place was a hassle
and difficult. For parents who have to move fairly frequently
and transfer their children from one school to another to start
all over again to get a statement is just damaging to the children's
education. This is not simply an issue for Service children but
for all children in a period of increased mobility. Is it not
possible to do some work to ensure that a statement which is acceptable
to all LEAs can be transferred so that we do not have to start
from scratch every time a child moves from one LEA to another
or from Germany to the UK?
Jim Knight: I have looked at the
ideas which have been floated around in relation to a statement
passport, which sounds like the sort of thing you are describing.
I believe that it is an interesting idea. There are challenges
attached to it. One must ensure that the assessment is up to date.
Clearly, for some children their needs evolve. One challenge is
how regularly one updates what should be in the passport. That
is a particular issue in respect of transfers back from overseas.
Currently, there are issues of competence overseas, and one area
in which I am interested is whether we treat the agency a little
more like a local authority. It is an area where the more notice
we have the greater the possibility, if we do not have any kind
of up-to-date assessment, of some of the work being done perhaps
by educational psychologists who prepare the statements whilst
they are still overseas, but often we do not have that ability
given the timing or capacity because so many children are moving
at once. I think it would be difficult to have a situation where
one accepted a statement that might have been used prior to the
overseas posting because of changing needs, and as ever with SEN
there is such a range of different abilities and needs that it
is difficult to make sweeping statements about what we should
and should not do. There may be some pretty stable conditions
where we may be able to work something out; there may be others
which evolve much more quickly and it is just inevitable that
we would go through a fresh assessment process every time they
moved to ensure that it is up to date and that the parents are
offered the opportunity to state their preference for a school
which suits that particular local authority area.
Q364 Mr Borrow: A child aged five
that starts in a mainstream school and leaves at 16 is statemented.
That statement will be reviewed regularly, even if the child is
not moving all over the country. To a certain extent the statements
are not tablets of stone. I cannot get my head round a situation
where, say, a child moves with 20 kids from a class in Germany
and lands in a school in the UK. Let us say that that child has
had extra classroom support for three or three-and-a-half days
a week and when it arrives in a mainstream school here it starts
from scratch and has to wait a year or 18 months or two years
to get a statement. During that period no extra support is given
to that child. The statement on which support was provided in
Germany is still there. It would seem logical to say that the
child should be transferred with the statement. We know that it
will have to be reviewed but the school can then get the resources
to provide the in-class support for that child. If the statement
is reviewed and a different judgment is made we go through the
process but do not leave the child stranded for 18 months to two
years without a statement and all the previous support being taken
away until the education authority gets round to doing the new
statement. I think it is so obvious and important that, even if
the statement that the child had before is not perfect, it is
better to do that than have no statement and support.
Jim Knight: I think you make a
very good point. The Education and Skills Select Committee is
currently concluding a report on SEN. I am sure that will give
us food for thought on how we can develop and improve provision
for SEN generally, but certainly I would want to bear in mind
some of that thinking in respect of how we respond. But I shall
want to respond to the whole issue alongside my colleague Lord
Adonis who takes particular responsibility for SEN. I believe
that a situation in which children are left high and dry for a
long period of time without any kind of statement, support or
assessment taking place is not tolerable. We need to find ways
to resolve it.
Q365 Mr Borrow: Will you be reading
with interest our recommendations at the end of this inquiry?
Jim Knight: Certainly.
Q366 Chairman: In that context I
take you back to the example of the 11 year-old child who has
attended 13 schools. I do not believe that in that case she needed
a statement, but the concept of having an up-to-date statement
would be meaningless unless such a statement could be produced
routinely in two weeks. Clearly, since it is taking about two
years the idea of keeping things up to date is meaningless.
Jim Knight: 92% of statements
are produced within the statutory 18 weeks, so I do not want the
Committee to go away with the impression that two years is the
norm.
Q367 Linda Gilroy: It may be that
this arises in those schools where they know the children will
be moving on so the incentive to do it just does not arise. It
is probable that the average for schools with large numbers of
Service children is much higher?
Jim Knight: Yes.
Q368 Chairman: We have three minutes
left. I should like to fit in if possible two questions. Should
local education authorities accept a unit postal address from
which to apply to schools in the absence of a new home postal
address?
Jim Knight: I believe that is
helpful.
Ms Garner: And we advise them
to do so.
Q369 Chairman: But you have no power
to insist?
Ms Garner: We can put it in the
school admissions code which is being rewritten.
Q370 Chairman: That is very helpful.
The answer to the next question may not be so straightforward.
Would it be feasible for schools near garrisons in the UK to have
reserved places for Service children?
Jim Knight: I do not believe that
it would be. The answer to that question provided by Don Touhig
was probably right. It would be difficult for any of us as constituency
MPs, given the pressures to which all of us are subject when admissions
are taking place, to say that a child cannot go into a particular
school because it is possible that a Service child may need it.
It may be that what I talked about earlier in respect of schools
being set up or moving to a situation where they have their own
admissions arrangements for current Service children would be
helpful, but to hold back places on the chance that they might
be needed becomes very difficult.
Q371 Chairman: We will go over what
you have already said about boarding schools and if necessary
we may or may not write to you. Minister and Ms Garner, I should
like to finish by thanking you for coming to give evidence to
a "foreign" Select Committee about issues that are nevertheless
extremely important to the children and the fighting forces of
our country.
Jim Knight: Thank you very much.
I entirely endorse your motivation.
| 
