Select Committee on Education and Skills Third Report

5  Future strategy

250. In this final section we look at proposals for future strategy on special educational needs and, based on the evidence we have received, make recommendations for an approach which puts the needs of pupils at the centre of provision.

251. The following is a summary of our proposals regarding future strategy:

Pupil-centred provision: a national delivery model

252. The Government needs to develop an approach to SEN that is based on pupil-centred provision. This would require:

A national framework with local flexibility

The need for a national framework

253. A number of witnesses have articulated a need for "a national framework with local flexibility which recognises, as NASUWT suggested, "these are some sort of common entitlements everyone would have… getting a national framework right and, within that, you allow—on a local authority or school basis—the flexibility to meet specifically identifiable local needs."[197]

254. The charity I CAN have told the Committee "a national delivery model must be developed and implemented across all schools and educational settings in the UK to actively support children's[...] (needs)."[198] Virginia Beardshaw, Chief Executive Officer of I CAN, told the Committee that:

    "We need a system of national standards with professionals trained appropriately to meet those standards."[199]

255. At present, with an insufficient national framework in place, it is not clear what role the DfES has in regional planning of SEN provision and placement. The 2004 SEN Strategy was not properly implemented in terms of policy priority, funding, and training. It proposed a more "strategic role" for local authorities with regard to SEN provision in 2004 but the strategy failed to give details of how this might be achieved and, more importantly, guaranteed across all local authorities. Ofsted also found that different groups of pupils with similar needs received different levels of support depending on where they lived which is unacceptable.[200] The Government need to take a lead and develop an overarching strategy for SEN in order to set minimum standards for children with SEN—whilst maintaining local decision-making powers—to give a clear lead on policy direction for the sector to follow.

256. The DfES described the recent SEN Audit[201] as "a national audit of specialist provision for children with the most severe and complex needs." It said "the audit will identify where the gaps are and enable the Department to support local authorities in improving regional planning and provision to meet those needs."[202]

257. The SEN Audit has recommended that the Government introduce a "clearly articulated national framework, linked to quality standards."[203] It said that "Strategic planning is needed at regional, sub-regional, and local levels[...] however, it should take place within a clearly articulated national framework linked to quality standards."

258. We back the SEN Audit's recommendation that "there is a currently a range of standards for provision and services (for example, within the SEN Code of Practice, Removing Barriers to Achievement, Ofsted, National Service Framework (Disabled Children), Every Child Matters and Quality Protects). The DfES should bring these together within a unitary framework that is accessible to all relevant providers."

259. The Minister assured us that "we (the Government) would look very carefully at anything you recommended to us in this area".[204] This Committee adds its voice to the recommendation in the SEN Audit for the Government to introduce a "clearly articulated national framework, linked to quality standards". There is now wide consensus on the need for the Government to produce a national framework with local flexibility.


260. The NUT urges the Government to place a statutory requirement on local authorities to "maintain, or have access to, a wide range of provision, including high cost provision and a range of special schools, schools and dedicated units for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties and services for low incidence special educational needs".[205]

261. The National Autistic Society have recently recommended that "the Government [...] should enshrine in law a duty upon local authorities to ensure that every child with autism has local access to a diverse range of mainstream and specialist educational provision, including autism-specific resource bases attached to mainstream schools, special schools and specialist outreach support."[206]

262. We support the recommendation made by the National Autistic Society that "local authorities should ensure that every child with autism has local access to this diverse range of mainstream and specialist educational provision, and report publicly on the range of provision that is provided"[207] and would extend the requirement to all children with SEN and disabilities.

263. We believe early diagnosis of children with autism and particularly Asperger's Syndrome is likely to be a preferential route, as witnesses have suggested, rather than statementing. We urge that local authorities be given a statutory responsibility to consult and work with autism groups, both locally and nationally to forward this objective.

264. This idea of national level guidance and minimum standards with local flexibility has been described as provision mapping. The provision map would describe the additional strategies, interventions, resources and staffing which a school should have in place for those pupils identified as having SEN. It would aim to ensure a coherent, whole-school approach to planning, intervention and resources for children with SEN.

265. There is considerable evidence of demand for such guidelines. The recent audit of provision for children with low-incidence SEN undertaken for the DfES concluded that "there is evidence that clearer national guidelines for good practice would be welcomed as a basis against which local quality can be judged more systematically. These will need to go beyond process and start to define desired outcomes[...]"[208] In oral evidence, Mark Rogers, Director of Children's Services at Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, identified a need for:

    " 'provision maps' [...] which [...]set out then for some local determination our expectations of the range of strategies and interventions, staffing arrangements, et cetera[...] that schools should have in place to meet the needs of children with additional needs, including SEN[...] we have of 150 English authorities doing their own thing within a framework but too loose a framework."[209]

266. I CAN described an example of provision mapping where: "all settings should achieve Level One [universal]; designated and additionally resourced settings in each [...] area should achieve Level Two [enhanced]; and specialist/regional provision should achieve Level Three [specialist]."[210] Special schools would, of course, be fully included within provision mapping as they are the major providers of specialist capacity.

267. We recommend that parents and children are given a clearly defined entitlement that is described in a (statutory) guidance framework that sets out the expectations that schools and other providers should meet in terms of a provision map. One of the key benefits would be to ensure that every local authority maintains broad range of flexible provision—including special schools.

268. The Government should provide much clearer guidance on minimum standards and implement a statutory requirement for local authorities to maintain a broad ranging and flexible continuum of provision which should then be monitored on a regular basis.


269. Any national framework must allow for local flexibility. Local authorities must continue to have the capacity to plan and re-organise provision to meet the needs identified locally—including support, services and provision for low-incidence needs.

270. The recent audit of provision for children with low-incidence SEN concluded that "the DfES should[...] encourage flexibility in the services and support provided by statutory agencies[...]"[211] It also recommended much greater levels of flexibility at the school level. It said that "the DfES should [...]foster a more 'open' role where special schools are willing and able to adjust their provision to meet changing local needs and support the strengthening of local options[...]"

271. Many witnesses, including the schools we visited in Essex, have said that a much greater local flexibility is needed in the system (this could be within a National Framework) to allow the desired expansion of collaborative opportunities such as dual-location, dual-placement, and cluster working between mainstream and special Schools to encourage shared expertise. Head teachers of special schools on our visit to Essex described to the Committee how they were trying to do more collaborative work with but the system was not helping them. The dual-registration of pupils between mainstream and special schools, for example, was very difficult to set up because of funding difficulties.

272. The Government should do a great deal more to enable greater local flexibility at the school level. Funding arrangements for dual-placements and other sharing of facilities, specialist resources and expertise should not be a barrier. More needs to be done to enable children to attend both specialist and mainstream provision. To encourage and reward local authorities and schools to do so, Government should give more practical and financial incentives to co-operation, as the Minister indicated was their desire in evidence.

Personalisation—SEN v. the standards agenda

273. The Minister described personalisation as the "key" to the Government's strategy on SEN. This had not previously been stated anywhere. It had been said that SEN "should play a central part in the personalisation agenda",[212] and the SEN strategy says that the Government will "put children with SEN at the heart of personalised learning"[213] but this is quite different to putting personalised learning at the heart of the SEN strategy. This is further indication that the Government is re-thinking its policy on SEN.

274. There still remains the question of whether the Government has achieved its promise made in the 2004 SEN strategy to "put children with SEN at the heart of personalised learning". Personalised learning was a major theme in the recent Schools White Paper but the chapter on this subject gave little more than a passing mention of SEN.[214] Baroness Warnock was not alone in thinking:

    "There was not one tiny paragraph, unless I missed it, which mentioned children with special needs in the recent White Paper."[215]

275. The Schools White Paper did make a brief reference to SEN. It said that "Children and young people with SEN already benefit from the personalisation inherent in the SEN framework, which provides an individualised assessment of need and tailored provision." This is not the finding of this inquiry.

276. The Schools White Paper made it clear that the goal of raising standards was at the heart of personalised learning, not SEN. It showed that raising attainment in schools is still the main agenda for the Government and, as a result, targets and league tables will continue to drive behaviour in the education sector. In theory, it might be possible to have both raising standards and SEN at the heart of personalised learning but in practice this seems far from being realised. As Jean Salt, President of NASEN, described to us:

    "we would see the cohort of pupils being targeted under personalised learning to be a different cohort to those with special educational needs.… the personalised learning pathway seems to target those who are just missing those crucial level boundaries or grade boundaries at GCSE level."[216]

277. There is a recognised conflict between the aims of raising standards and SEN: raising standards focuses on the narrow outcome of academic attainment whilst a SEN focus would require a broader definition of outcomes in line with the five outcomes set in Every Child Matters—healthy, safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution, and achieve economic well-being. As Dr Rona Tutt, Immediate Past President of the National Association of Head Teachers, said to the Committee:

    "I think it is very difficult to continue to run a system that relies so heavily on tables, targets and tests and (then) say that every child matters and we want personalisation which fits in entirely with SEN."[217]

278. In practice there is still a strong and very stubborn correlation between children having SEN and low academic attainment. Headteachers have articulated a conflict between taking children with SEN and a negative effect on their league-table position. NASUWT argue that the existence of performance league tables act as a disincentive for schools to accept pupils with SEN onto their rolls.[218] Professor Dyson believes that "attitudes have hardened towards low-attaining students—including those with SEN." He believes that the environment that schools operate in—driven by League Tables, targets, and inspection regimes—is such that certain students are inevitably 'less welcome' if it is thought that they might reduce the performance of the school.[219]

279. In her 2005 paper, Baroness Warnock has said that "the greater the pressure to improve academic standards, the worse the fate of those who could never achieve under such measures".[220]

280. The DfES argue that by improving league tables and using "contextualised value added" results—that can take account of SEN—there needs to be no conflict between raising standards and prioritising SEN.[221] The evidence, however, demonstrates quite the contrary. The decisions made by the most successful schools are clearly demonstrated by the fact that the top 200 performing non-selective state schools take far below their "fair-share" of children with SEN.[222]

281. Evidence exists of this conflict existing for teachers as well as head teachers. This was articulated by the British Association of Teachers for the Deaf who suggested "the inexorable pressure of the curriculum, examination/SATs requirements and league tables[...] demand that mainstream teachers drive forward in a way that may not be conducive to good inclusive practice—causing tensions between the two."[223]

282. Regardless of the theory, in practice the evidence clearly demonstrates that SEN and the raising attainment agenda sit very uncomfortably together at present. Furthermore, it is clear from the Education and Inspection Bill that the standards agenda still remains the much greater priority for the Government. It is the standards agenda, not SEN, that is at the heart of the existing personalisation agenda. As a result, it is difficult to see how personalisation can be the key to the Government's strategy on SEN as the Minister claims. Again, we recommend that the Government clarifies its strategy for SEN and gives SEN sufficient priority so that it might indeed sit at the heart of personalised learning as promised in the SEN Strategy.


283. The DfES recognise that many people identify a conflict between the standards agenda and SEN. Recent research from the University of Cambridge has highlighted the "contradictions inherent in (the) interface of the standards and inclusion agendas".[224] In oral evidence to this inquiry Mr McCully, DfES, said:

    "I have heard of schools which are worried about their relative position in so-called performance tables, because of issues with SEN. That has been a constant issue which headteachers always raise with me and my colleagues[...]"

284. Whilst they recognise that a conflict has been identified they claim, however, that it does not have to be true. The SEN Strategy states that "some have argued that there is a conflict between the Government's school improvement and inclusion agendas. The reverse is true. Helping children with SEN to achieve is fundamental to sustaining improvements in schools' performance."[225] Whatever the theory, in practice this is still far from happening.

285. The DfES memorandum starts by referring to the five outcomes identified as being crucial to a child's wellbeing and development in the Children's Green Paper Every Child Matters—being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution to society, and achieving economic well being.[226] It says that "the five outcomes define the purpose of local planning and services for children and form the basis for measuring progress locally and nationally."[227] The Schools White Paper,[228] however, does not make a single reference to these five outcomes and continues to focus solely on raising academic attainment as the key priority and, presumably, the primary measure of success and progress for children. Furthermore, whilst the DfES memorandum might have introduced the five outcomes and the start of the submission, it then makes no reference to them the section dedicated to "How Children with SEN are Achieving". Once again, the only measure of achievement referred to is academic attainment.

286. The Government is now beginning to try to link SEN to the attainment agenda (e.g. through the Barriers to Achievement Strategy) and is moving away from language about having "needs met", towards "raising attainment" for children with SEN. But despite this attempt it is still unclear where SEN sits in relation to the government's mainstream agenda (or key priority) of raising standards in schools. SEN clearly links—or could be linked—to other areas in education policy such as the Every Child Matters agenda and five outcomes, personalised learning, multi-agency working, and behaviour strategies, all of which are buzz words in government documents at present. But SEN will never be given sufficient priority until it is seen as a key part of the strategy for raising standards.

287. In identifying the five Every Child Matters outcomes—being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution to society, and achieving economic well being—the Government is beginning to broaden out its focus away from just the standards agenda. We are still a long way, however, from SEN and the achievement of the five outcomes playing a central role in mainstream education policy. This Committee recommends that SEN is prioritised, recognised as being in the centre of mainstream education policy and radically improved.

288. We also believe that to fulfil the objectives of Every Child Matters it is important that social care and out-of-hours family support augments and is integrated within the educational provision during school hours and that at local level those objectives are delivered as seamlessly as possible.

Equipping the workforce

Equipping the workforce is key

289. There is much evidence that teachers and support staff are struggling without the appropriate training to improve outcomes for children with SEN. Equipping the workforce (teachers, TAs, and early-year professionals) with appropriate levels of training and expertise would facilitate the possibility of much earlier intervention and reduce the level of dissatisfaction in the system. In the detailed 60 page memorandum from the DfES, however, there is just a small section on "improving staff skills" embedded within the chapter on "raising expectations and achievement". The document contains nothing significant on workforce development.[229]

290. In evidence taken on 1st March, witnesses agreed that "the key is training".[230] A recent research report from the University of Cambridge, The Costs of Inclusion, has argued that "effective and targeted professional development for school staff—for teachers, TAs, administrative staff and senior leaders—is an urgent priority."[231] In evidence to this Committee Ofsted said that:

    "what is really important is to look at professional development across the piece, at school level, local authority level, in terms of ensuring that teaching and learning with curriculum flexibility meets better the needs of a wider group of learners[...]"[232]

291. The Audit Commission report (2002) found that teachers were feeling ill equipped to meet the wide range of needs in today's classrooms. The 2004 SEN Ofsted report concluded that expectations of achievement were often ill-defined or pitched too low for children with SEN so that progress in learning was slower than it should be for a significant number of pupils, that use of data on pupil outcomes was limited, and that schools under-used the potential for adapting the curriculum and teaching methods to give pupils suitable opportunities to improve key skills.

292. Ofsted have found that "the use of flexibilities at Key Stage 4 is having some profound effects on engagement and progress.[…] The best practice in schools clearly indicates that when personalised learning is part of the culture of a whole school approach to curriculum development, the systems for assessing, planning and teaching match the needs of all pupils. This reduces the need to define learners according to categories of need".[233] But, as was argued in evidence on 1 March, personalisation will only help [with regard to SEN provision] if those who are facilitating are trained to implement it.[234]

293. The Training and Development Agency (TDA) recognised that there had been a focus on improving teacher training for the majority over the last decade, and that there was a need to re-focus training to equip teachers to improve the outcomes of the 20% of children with SEN and disabilities. In oral evidence to this Committee Ralph Tabberer, the then Chief Executive of TDA, said:

    "There are a number of places now where we can look at boosting[...] the[...] teaching (of) the 20%. We have almost, for the last eight or nine years, been developing[...] teaching 80% of our children in classrooms extremely effectively—I think there is momentum up now to have a bit of a push in this realm, so we do accept the challenge."[235]

294. It is unrealistic to expect teachers and other members of the workforce to be able to meet the needs of children with SEN if they have not received appropriate training. Particular concerns have been raised with regard to both initial teacher training and continuing professional development for all staff.


295. Concerns were raised to this Committee regarding the lack of training on SEN given during Initial Teacher Training. Susan Tresman from the British Dyslexia Association said the "biggest barrier is training."

296. The DfES memorandum refers to a "commitment to improve staff skills" made in 2004.[236] The SEN strategy did indeed set out a bold strategy for workforce development described as a "welcome pledge" by NUT. It is very disappointing, however, that this much needed strategy is not being implemented in anything like its original form.

297. The TDA have been asked by the DfES to look at strengthening SEN training but their proposals are limited in their scope. They include non-compulsory modules in initial teacher training (ITT). Given the time constraints of the course, it is unlikely any PGCE students would be able to take these modules (2/3 of a PGCE is spent in schools). The SEN Consortium argued that "it is essential that all trainee teachers have access to initial training on SEN and disability."[237] As Richard Rieser, Director of Disability Equality in Education, told the Committee:

    "we are not preparing teachers of the future for this. The (TDA) is looking at bringing disability equality and inclusion training on the three-year course, but actually 80% of teacher trainees now come through the one-year course and they are still not extending it to that. They have to. I think it is really important that your Committee argues that that has to be mandatory, because at the moment it is one hour on the Code of Practice. How does one hour on the Code of Practice tell you what to do in the classroom when you are faced with a lot of different children?"[238]

298. In their oral evidence to us, the DfES did accept that more needed to be done:

    "I think we recognise that there needs to be more[...] We are already doing some work with the TDA […] but I think we are aware that it is only a starting-point."[239]

299. One of the key issue is that the DfES have asked the Training and Development Agency (TDA) to develop optional modules within initial teacher training. Unless the intention is for these optional modules to be followed rapidly by assessment and then rolled out on a compulsory basis, this is unacceptable—particularly in light of the bold commitment to improve staff skills in the 2004 SEN Strategy.

300. In evidence to the Committee, the TDA agreed that there was "not a big emphasis on SEN in initial teacher training". Ralph Tabberer said that when newly qualified teachers (NQTs) were asked by the TDA what they would have liked to have done more of "NQTs always say they want more time on SEN".

301. Based on evidence that demonstrates the level of need, and demand from teachers for training on SEN, SEN training should become a core, compulsory part of initial teacher training for all teachers. The Government should re-start negotiations with TDA on these grounds and in conjunction with the three-fold strategy of SEN training as part of initial teacher training, induction and continued professional development that we have advocated.


302. Continuous professional development is a key area, but with the numerous priorities a school has so manage, it is unsurprising to hear that SEN falls down the list and 23% of teachers say they have received no more than one day's training on SEN.[240]

303. The TDA have been asked to develop an approach to continuing professional development (CPD) based on looking at "standards" for teachers and raising expectations through different stages of a teacher's career. In a written answer to a parliamentary question, the Government said that "The National Occupational Standards for Teaching/Classroom Assistants contains elements relevant to working with pupils with SEN or particular educational needs. The TDA will be reviewing these standards as part of its new responsibilities."[241]

304. Expectations or standards are being emphasised as being key to the professional development of teachers but it is not clear how teachers can be expected to meet expectations without proper training. David Curtis, Director of Education, Culture and Social Care at the Audit Commission told us that:

"it is our intention to endeavour to strengthen expectations at different stages in the career of teachers so that we are reinforcing much more. The assessment skills, the diagnostics, the early assessment, the interventions, the ability to apply these regimes are something that are part of the progression of every teacher if they want to go up to "senior" teacher and "excellent" teacher status. It is very important that the Committee keeps an eye on those standards as a further potential lever for putting over the message that this is something we need to get stronger. At the moment we accept that professional development in this area is patchy and does need serious attention."[242]

305. There is already an expectation that teachers should be able to differentiate the curriculum for pupils including those with SEN—its is required as part of the General Teaching Requirements of the National Curriculum. The DfES memorandum implies from this that teachers are already able to differentiate the curriculum in order to teach children with SEN.[243] Recent findings, however, have found this not to be the case.

306. The National Autistic Society have found, for example, that "in mainstream schools only 27% of parents say that all their child's teachers could adjust their approach and teaching materials—and therefore meet their legal duties under the SEN and Disability Act (2001)."[244] The TES Survey found that teachers feel ill-equipped to deal with children with SEN and receive little or no relevant training.[245] Teachers are expected to be able to differentiate the curriculum for children but are not given appropriate training including knowledge of child development psychology to equip them to do so to the greatest effect.

307. The charity Young Minds says that it spends a great deal of time "pointing out to the government that there should be much more emphasis on child development in teacher training" which would enable teachers to take a much more effective use of personalised learning. The Schools White Paper set goals of wanting to "tailor education around the needs of each individual so that no child falls behind". But, as the Dyslexia charity Xtraordinary People who raise money to train teachers say, "how will the government deliver this when 96% of teachers don't have training to teach children with specific learning difficulties?"[246] They said that "the answer to ensuring all children succeed lies in the quality of the training and expertise our teachers and support staff are given." [247]

308. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), in their evidence to this Committee, said that the TDA had reported a year ago that CPD for teachers was in a "dire state".[248] NASEN, along with many others, argue that "SEN needs to be a priority in schools for training—if teaching is right for those pupils with special or additional needs then teaching will be right for the school population. If SEN is a priority then teachers will take up CPD opportunities and good quality CPD needs to be offered".[249]

309. Professional expectations through the General Teaching Requirements are no replacement for training and equipping teachers. Teachers cannot be expected to properly fulfil requirements such as differentiating the curriculum for all children, including those with SEN, without receiving the appropriate training to enable them to do so. In some cases, this may require a detailed knowledge of child development psychology to equip them to do so to the greatest effect. Good quality, appropriate continuing professional development should be made available for all teachers and schools should be resourced to fund them. Compulsory in-service training should include SEN if it is to be given sufficient priority in schools.


310. There is a strong consensus across various charities and organisations regarding the proposed solution for teacher training for SEN. The Dyslexia charities for example, such as the Dyslexia Institute and Xtraordinary People, believe that training and equipping teachers to recognise, assess, and teach children with SEN is the single most important factor in radically improving SEN provision. Agreement has been reached on a "triangle of training need" which is a strategy to equip various numbers of teachers to various levels.

311. A recent research report from the University of Cambridge, The Costs of Inclusion, has concluded that "additional and strategically targeted resources for professional development are of the highest priority, together with realistic levels of staffing and ongoing expert support for teachers."[250]

312. Not only is there consensus across many charities and training organisations but this "triangle of training needs" with regard to SEN training was recognised and proposed in the Government's own 2004 SEN Strategy Removing Barriers to Achievement. The document was bold in stating that action would be taken along these lines. It said "every teacher should expect to teach children with SEN—and we must ensure that they are equipped with the skills to do so effectively."

313. This will require action at three levels:

Stage 1: core skills or foundation stage for all teachers and LSAs (recognise problems and have knowledge of early intervention strategies including phonics strategies). All teachers and support workers will teach children with some level of SEN and therefore should have a basic understanding of child development and psychology.

Stage 2: advanced skills or certificate teacher stage (1 year on-the-job training to allow screening, assessment and some specialist teaching)

Stage 3: specialist skills or diploma teacher stage (2 years on-the-job training to allow full diagnostic assessments and highly specialised teaching—proposals suggest approximately 1 for every 5 schools).

314. Xtraordinary people have costed this at approximately £5,000 per school.[251]

315. Despite such bold assertions in the Government's SEN Strategy, however, there has been very little action in the last two years to achieve a strategic approach to training. The TDA's proposals for non-compulsory modules in ITT and limited CPD opportunities seem very limited in light of the proposals in the SEN strategy. This has been contrasted to how the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies were integrated into ITT and CPD as compulsory and core elements.

316. We recommend that the Government prioritises the training of its workforce (teachers, TAs, and early-years professionals), across a broad range of provision, to equip them with the skills and support they need to effectively teach children with SEN.

317. More specifically, we recommend that the Government fully implements its own strategic approach to training outlined in the SEN Strategy: putting into practice the "triangle of training needs" in order to achieve the proposed three tiers of specialism in every school; making SEN training a core, compulsory part of initial training for all teachers; and ensuring appropriate priority and quality of continuing professional development to equip all of the workforce. There is a broad consensus of agreement on these proposals and yet little progress has been made since 2004. This is not acceptable.

318. The Government should make training and equipping its workforce a top priority and re-start its talks with the TDA on far more ambitious grounds.


319. The DfES memorandum continues to lay a great deal of responsibilities on Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCOs) within schools—including some significant new responsibilities such as the proposal to "encourage the delegation of more SEN resources to schools to enable head teachers and SENCOs to address the individual needs of pupils more quickly and without the need to 'demonstrate need' to their local authority before resources are made available." It is not at all clear, however, that SENCOs are always given the appropriate training—or the appropriate authority—to be able to undertake these significant responsibilities. Despite the recommendation in the SEN Code of Practice that SENCOs should be a part of the Senior Management team within a school, this is often not the case, and furthermore, this Committee has received evidence of Teaching Assistants being asked to take on the role of SENCOs in some schools. Baroness Warnock told this Committee that:

320. The growth in non-teaching roles, including the SENCO role being taken by a non-teacher, is having considerable repercussions on whole-school issues re SEN. Some SENCO tasks (e.g. administration of records, appointments) can readily and sensibly be devolved to a non teaching assistant. However other roles, particularly in the context of increasing multi-agency working, can much less convincingly and effectively be carried out by a non-teaching SENCO. A SENCO who is not a qualified teacher is possibly not therefore entitled to advanced formal specialist training (i.e. top tier) as outlined in the Government Strategy for SEN (2004).

321. A recent research report from the University of Cambridge, The Costs of Inclusion, has recommended that "SENCOs should in all cases be qualified teachers. Training and support for SENCOs is vital in ensuring the effectiveness of their strategic role in provision. Their influence will be enhanced if they have senior status and are enabled to play a substantive role in planning and policy development."[253]

322. Special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCOs) should in all cases be qualified teachers and in a senior management position in the school as recommended in the SEN Code of Practice. Firmer guidelines are required rather than the Government asking schools to "have regard to" the SEN Code of practice. The role and position of a SENCO must reflect the central priority that SEN should hold within schools.

323. SENCOs should be given ongoing training opportunities to enable them to keep their knowledge up to date as well as sufficient non-teaching time to reflect the number of children with SEN in their school. These baseline standards for SENCOs to be given training both on and off the job should apply to all schools, including academies and trust schools. Schools should set out in their SEN policy action to ensure that all SENCOs are adequately monitored and supported in their vital roles.


324. In its 2004 report,[254] Ofsted recognised the important contribution of specialist support services. The report by the Audit Commission in 2002 identified concerns about a "shortfall of specialist support".[255]

325. The role of SEN regional partnerships has been important in brining together policy and provision for low-incidence SEN. Uncertainty about sustained funding has, however, hampered their strategic planning. We recommend that SEN regional partnerships are given increased and guaranteed funding for their role in planning provision for low-incidence SEN.

326. Local authorities should take action towards achieving the standards set out in the National Service Framework for children, young people and maternity services in respect of disabled children and speech and language therapy.


327. A recent article has said "Educational psychologists have a vital and frequently misunderstood role within Britain's education system.[…] Their expertise is in child development. They usually work with children whose special needs require a tailored educational regime. Those needs can be behavioural, medical, cognitive or social. Educational Psychologists work with schools to develop teaching strategies."[256]

328. Changes to the training route for Educational Psychologists will mean a move from a one-year master's to a three-year doctorate. The new route, which is broadly welcomed, will also remove the requirement for Educational Psychologists to be qualified teachers. The British Psychological Society was keen to bring the training of Educational Psychologists into line with other areas of applied psychology. They said "we have worked towards the introduction of three-year doctoral training since 1997 because we want to implement the highest standards and have a unified training route. Raising the standards of training in educational psychology reflects changes in national education policy and takes account of developments in Europe."[257] While welcomed by many, it is likely that the changeover period will exacerbate an already difficult situation because there will almost certainly be no educational psychologists qualifying in the next two years.

329. The government's move towards joined-up children's services is seen as an opportunity for the profession to be recognised for its essential work. The government has recognised that they have a "particular, distinctive contribution"[258] to make and is undertaking a review of the profession that is due to report next month. The minister has, however, already ruled out funding for "expensive changes" to the new training route. The Association of Educational Psychologists say that they are staggered by the government's "dual standards" in making this decision. In evidence to this Committee Kevin Rowland, Chair of the Division of Child and Educational Psychology, British Psychological Society, explained that:

    "We are now at a point where we can finally clarify the funding issue. A model used to exist of secondments based on local education authorities but that did not work because some authorities did have teachers train as educational psychologists and some did not. We are moving now to a fair and equitable model. The DfES and LGA are unable to resolve those issues and so at the moment we are faced with no funding mechanism whatsoever."

330. The Government has recognised the particular, distinctive contribution of educational psychologists. They have a vital role to play in moving towards truly joined-up services for children. The Government should re-consider how the new training route for educational psychologists is funded to ensure that a sufficient number and calibre of professionals are being supported in their training. The Government urgently needs to take additional steps to ensure that the shortfall of educational psychologists is not exacerbated in the two year transition period up to 2008.

Early intervention and key transition phases

Early intervention

331. Removing Barriers to Achievement 2004 says early intervention is the "cornerstone" of the Government's SEN strategy (p.9). Evidence presented in this report demonstrates how far that is from being true. Many children are failing to have their needs recognised or diagnosed early enough, if at all, in the present system. Often when a need is identified, it can take many months or even longer for appropriate provision to be made available to meet that need. The Audit Commission report concluded that "too many children wait for too long to have their needs met."[259] Evidence would suggest that little progress has been made since 2004 under the present system.

332. Ofsted found that "there is a conflict between the language of assessment and categorisation that has given rise to the unacceptable variations of identification of need and appropriateness of provision across the country. This requires urgent resolve."[260]

333. Early intervention requires the ability of the workforce to recognise or diagnose a particular learning need. As Focus identify, "at present, many cases of SEN go undetected all through primary school, and even secondary school. (this is partly) because the assessments procedure is so complicated, requiring the input of professionals who are in relatively short supply[...]"[261]

334. This goes back to the earlier recommendation that fully equipping and resourcing the workforce must be a key priority for the Government if it is to make progress for children with SEN. The SEN Strategy does not make enough of the link between the capacity for early intervention and training staff. It focuses on existing measures to increase the level of delegated funding which is by no means a sufficient solution in isolation of other conditions being in place.

335. To achieve real progress in terms of early intervention, the Government must move away from the fundamental flaw in the current system that attempts to categorise a certain group of children with SEN. Children exist on a broad continuum of needs and learning styles but do not fit into neat categories of different sorts of children. A system of identification, assessment, and intervention that currently exists for children with SEN should be in place for all children under the personalisation agenda. The system should start from the position of every child being seen as having individual learning needs and then establish a sliding scale of additional needs right up to severe complex needs.

336. The Government should follow through the proposals of Every Child Matters to their logical conclusion and fully implement an "assessment for learning" for every child. The workforce must be equipped and resourced to achieve this. Assessment for learning[262] is gradually being introduced in Primary Schools by the DfES and the recent Schools White Paper talks about "personalised, tailored learning" for individuals but none of this goes as far as would be necessary to replace existing SEN provision with a streamlined and staged intervention process. To achieve real progress in terms of early intervention the Government needs to change the premise on which SEN is provided to one in which literally "every child matters". This would mean a radically new approach to SEN provision where a system of assessment of learning and intervention takes place for every child on a spectrum of provision that can be geared up for children that require high levels of support. A swifter and more intelligent system of assessment is required. The Government should deliver on their promise to put SEN at the heart of the personalisation agenda.


337. Key transition phases are currently a big problem for children with SEN. Changes in provision, location, people, curriculum and ethos can cause major difficulties for some children with SEN and disabilities. Problems have been identified to the Committee at each stage of education from early years to post-16 and into adulthood.

338. A recent research report from the University of Cambridge, The Costs of Inclusion, found that "transitions—from home to school, from nursery to primary, from primary to secondary and secondary to FE or elsewhere, as well as lateral transfer from school to school, were mentioned most frequently by parents as the single most prevalent cause of difficulty for children with special needs."[263]

339. The difficulties in transition from primary to secondary school was raised in oral evidence by Carol Boys, Chief Executive Officer of the Down's Syndrome Association, who explained that:

    "It starts to break down when the child moves into secondary school: the child goes to a comprehensive; a different member of staff for different lessons; having to move around the school. We also have evidence that social isolation starts to cut in at secondary schools as well."[264]

340. Mike Collins, Head of Education Services at the National Autistic Society, agreed that:

    "Primary schools are beginning to get there but … they suddenly arrive at secondary school and their world collapses."[265]

    "I think within primary schools [...] there is a greater partnership between a class of children and their teacher. When you arrive in a secondary school, you can be taught by up to 12 or more teachers in a week, so the opportunities to form and establish those sorts of relationships and understanding on both parts is not as great, so that might be one factor."[266]

341. Mr Collins described the change in environment and ethos that made it difficult for some children with autism to cope with their new surroundings at secondary school:

    "In the mainstream settings again the ethos of secondary schools can be quite challenging for young people who are often of at least average ability and intelligence, but find the whole way in which secondary schools operate, which can often be on a very confrontational basis which children with autism do not understand…. That is seen as passive (aggressive) … challenging the teachers' authority, so consequently they find themselves being short-term expelled and so on."[267]

342. Post-16 provision was identified as another major concern in current provision for young people with SEN and disabilities. On a visit hosted by SOS!SEN, a parent-representative organisation, the Chairman heard about the concerns facing many parents of children with severe SEN and disabilities that face a future of their children being dependent for a large part of their life. Although this inquiry is not looking at post-16 provision in detail, it does recognise the challenges faced by these parents. This issue deserves further consideration at a future stage.

343. We know that "disabled young people are considerably more likely than non-disabled people to be not in education, employment or training (NEET)."[268] The Minister agreed that the current education system was failing many of these young people:

    "Of course a high proportion of pupils with special educational needs are at the lower performing end of the spectrum and are those who the education system, let us be frank, has traditionally failed, who have got to 16 not getting decent qualifications and not getting effective progression routes."[269]

344. The Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) have recently found that FE Colleges are failing to meet the needs of young people with learning difficulties or disabilities. In a report that David Sherlock, Chief Inspector of Adult Learning for England, described as "difficult reading", ALI are very critical of the FE sector. That say that "what is missing in many organisations that the ALI inspects are the skills and knowledge to help disabled people fully to realise their potential[...] there is a wealth of energy and talent which is still denied its fulfilment."[270] In terms of both availability and quality, post-16 provision is currently failing to meet the needs of young people with SEN and disabilities.

345. Although this report is not specifically considering SEN at the FE level it does give further support to the conclusions of the Little Report.[271] The report, commissioned by the LSC and independently chaired by Peter Little OBE, argued that radical change was needed in the planning and funding of learning for people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. In a comprehensive analysis of this provision across the learning and skills sector, it recommended that "the LSC should develop a national strategy for regional and local delivery, through collaboration with partners, to provide provision that is high quality, learner-centred and cost-effective." Lord Adonis assured the Committee that the recommendations of the Little Report are being taken forward:

    "The Little Report… makes a number of particular suggestions about the need for the FE sector to invest in provision for pupils with learning difficulties in colleges and to give this work a higher profile. The Learning and Skills Council has accepted that report. It is now working with local Learning and Skills Councils to see that they all have a proper investment strategy to upgrade their provision and we will be taking forward further work in the White Paper next week."[272]

346. One of the key aims of Darlington Education Village, visited by the Committee as part of this inquiry, is to reduce the negative impact of key transition stages—in particular the move to secondary school age 11. Having a primary school on site as part of the Education Village, and a special school that caters for children from the ages of 2-19, enables a much smoother transition through the key stages in education. Furthermore, the Education Village is working in collaboration with other local primary schools to encourage new pupils to visit and be involved in the Village as much as possible before enrolling. This will be achieved through a broad range of specific and community-based events.

347. The Education Village also has a close relationship (including at the Governing Board level) with the local FE College to ensure that post-16 transition is made easier for many pupils. The intention is that collaboration across the 14-19 curriculum with regard to resources, provision, and workforce expertise is the rule rather than the exception.

348. Many children with SEN and disabilities are being let down in transition phases across the education system from early years to post-16 and into adulthood. There needs to be much greater collaboration between schools, special schools and children's service providers working with parents and children to reduce the negative impact of transition between key stages such as the transition between primary and secondary education.

349. For young people with a statement, transition planning for post-16 provision should start when the child reaches year 9 (aged 14 years) and should involve inputs from a range of agencies. Young people without a statement should also be offered guidance and support with post-16 transition.

350. There needs to be an urgent examination of how to boost practical links over SEN between schools and post-16 colleges, drawing on some of the successful examples such as the Darlington experience. The emphasis by Government in developing 14-19 vocational qualifications make this particularly urgent if children with SEN and disabilities are not to be discriminated against in this process.

Partnership working and Every Child Matters

351. This report has repeatedly referred to the importance of collaboration and partnership working to improve outcomes for children with SEN. Collaborative working is required across schools and across agencies to achieve the sharing of provision, facilities, expertise, and support for the benefit of children with SEN. Communities or clusters of schools should be working together where all children feel they belong. These should include special schools, which have a great deal to offer to such collaborations with regard to specialist facilities and expertise.


352. A recent research report from the University of Cambridge, The Costs of Inclusion, has recommended that SEN policy "should not rely on individual schools struggling to contain children with special needs but should be conceived as a collaborative effort, sharing resources in a spirit of mutual support. Special schools should have a significant role to play as an expert resource for mainstream schools while they in turn have a supporting role to play in partnership with special schools."[273]

353. There is considerable consensus of opinion that collaboration and partnership working between mainstream and special schools is advantageous and should be encouraged. There are advantages in terms of access to resources and facilities—in both directions—and access to shared expertise and broader professional development—again in both directions. As Brian Lamb OBE, of RNID and the Chair of the Special Educational Needs Consortium, told the Committee:

    "I do not think there is the cliff-face that people often assume between mainstream over here and special school over there, and a wasteland between. If you look at the way the system is actually developing (and I think is going to develop much more), the whole idea of mainstream as 'one particular school over there' is falling apart, because what you have is specialist support services, you have co-location of specialist support within mainstream schools[…] and you have children moving between those different kinds of support. More and more, with federated schools and with clustering of schools and clustering of resources, that whole distinction between, somehow, mainstream being [...] over here and special schools being [...] over there is breaking down."[274]

354. Ofsted (2004) found that effective collaboration between mainstream and special schools was the exception rather than the rule. The ATL argued that collaboration between mainstream and special schools is a productive way forward but often difficult to achieve in practice; Local authorities, they say, should ensure adequate resources are available for partnership working.[275] Ofsted (2004) have also found that collaboration between mainstream schools and special schools is most effective when driven by the local authority.

355. Partnership can also be achieved with non-maintained independent special schools. NASS argue that "Although there are some tensions between NMISS and local authorities surrounding funding, there are also many examples of strong partnerships. The development of the 11 SEN Regional Partnerships has created opportunities for NMISS to work closely with authorities in their area. Relationships between NMISS and local mainstream schools are often particularly strong." They maintain that "It is appropriate that local authorities should be reviewing and developing their own provision and considering regional provision. NASS argues that NMISS are ideally placed to be part of that regional picture of provision."[276] Claire Dorer, Chief Executive of the National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (NASS) described to the Committee that:

    "There is a continuum[...] ranging from children who are entirely in mainstream placements, at one end, to children who are exclusively in a special school placement at the other. In between[...] it may well be that you have a special school and a mainstream school on the same site and children will spend sessions in both schools; it could be children who are in a special school for part of a week and also registered with a mainstream school for the other part of the week. There is a whole range. It could be about support services going in, or the children coming out for specific sessions. It is a broad continuum. We would like to see a whole range of activities that removes the debate for saying that it is either mainstream or it is a special school."[277]

356. Personalisation, inclusion and partnership are said to define the DfES strategy to SEN in their memorandum to this inquiry. The memorandum talks a great deal about collaboration between schools, federations or clusters of schools, and developing a third way (an approach that combines elements of mainstream and special education). It highlights examples of "communities of schools" where "the aim is for children to be educated in their locality and have the opportunity to participate in mainstream activities as a result of special and mainstream schools working together in clusters."[278]

357. The focus in the Education and Inspection Bill on creating autonomous, independent schools seems to contradict the aim of creating clusters and communities of schools. The Schools White Paper stated "our aim is the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying state schools."[279] Under these arrangements it is not clear what incentives a successful independent school would have to join a cluster of local schools including special schools and it is very unclear what leverage a local authority would have to encourage them to do so within its planning role.

358. The NUT also states that there are "alarming contradictions in the Government's Five Year Strategy and in the Government's SEN strategy. The Five Year Strategy advocates greater autonomy for individual schools, greater diversity among schools, and a weakened role for local authorities as well as the increasing number of City Academies. The Government's SEN strategy urges schools to work together and to build collaborative structures to share expertise. There is an inherent contradiction between the direction of travel set out in these respective strategies."[280]

359. The Cambridge research report The Cost of Inclusion recommended that "future policy should serve to enhance collaboration among schools to ensure the best service to all children. Currently collaborative initiatives are undermined by fragmentation of school types (specialist schools, academies, selective schools), competition for pupils and reluctance to accept children seen as detrimental to the school's attainment profile. Advocacy of network learning communities, joined-up child and family services and co-operative multi-agency work will be futile and counter productive if policy fails to address these systemic issues."[281]

360. The Government should resolve apparent contradictions in its strategy outlined in the Education and Inspection Bill between, on the one hand, giving greater autonomy to individual schools including a greater number of City Academies and, on the other hand, its SEN strategy that urges schools to be working in partnership to build collaboration to share resources and specialist knowledge. The Government should provide specific funding to local authorities to increase the extent to which they are able to facilitate and encourage collaborative arrangements where communities of schools work together, sharing facilities and professional expertise, to improve the outcomes for children with SEN.


361. The importance of Joint Services working in partnership for children with SEN cannot be overstated.

362. In their memorandum to this inquiry Ofsted described the situation very well. They said "we need to move away from developing a future based on historical issues related to place and systems, to a future focused on successful learning and social outcomes through flexible provision which ensures good value for money.[…] A way forward is through the ECM and Children's services agenda that brings the dimensions of children and young people's education, care, and health together through pooling of resources."[282]

363. The five objectives of Every Child Matters apply across education provision from early years provision through to further and higher education and should be utilised to improve outcomes for children with SEN. As the DRC said in their memorandum "The DRC supports the Government's strategy Removing Barriers to Achievement and the Every Child Matters change for children programme, which sets out to improve outcomes for all children and to narrow the gap in outcomes. The DRC encourages the Government to implement in full and build upon these strategies."[283]

364. The Every Child Matters agenda with its emphasis on five broad outcome measures (being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution to society, and achieving economic well being), inter-agency working, establishing lead professionals, and using the extended services agenda to bring sectors together has the capacity to achieve a great deal for children with SEN. The potential benefits of implementing this key Government agenda for children with SEN should be fully realised.


365. Particular problems have been highlighted with regard to working in partnership with health professionals. Newcastle City Council said: "The DfES are clear in their guidance about the level of teaching staff required in specialist settings. However there is no guidance about the level of health/therapy provision which should be available. This means the level of provision is left to the decisions of PCTs and Health Trusts, where the priorities, with restricted budgets, will always be on the demands of the acute rather than long term ongoing therapy provision for children and young people with SEN. Without any clear national guidance the levels of therapy provision in specialist provision are currently inadequate, with the added inequality across the region of significant variations between local PCTs and health trusts. local authorities have had to move to make up the shortfall in health provision and across the region are now funding additional therapy posts in specialist provision—we've just recently allocated £150,000 to new therapy posts in Newcastle. However this local authority, like other local authorities in the region, now has very restricted budgets which are focused on providing central services and it is difficult to know whether we will be able to continue to fund therapy posts on long term sustainable basis."[284]

366. In oral evidence Virginia Beardshaw, I CAN, made a strong call for joint working between health and education. She argued:

    "I would recommend to the Committee a really important point [...]about ensuring and enforcing joint ownership between education and health.[…] Many, many I CAN parents are driven to distraction and despair by the fact that, although there are recommendations about speech and language therapy in a child's statement, they cannot be accessed because the statement is not enforceable on health. I believe that, with the changes to children's services and particularly the implementation of integration across children's trusts, we have a once-in-a-generation chance to address that, and I would recommend that to the Committee. It needs to be enforceable on all the agencies concerned. It is quite wrong to make recommendations which have budgetary impacts on other agencies and then there is no way of families enforcing that, so I am making that point very strongly."[285]

367. There needs to be much closer working at the local level, between Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and educational providers on addressing the needs of children with SEN and disabilities who either do access or are eligible to access such activities. It is crucially important that as Children's Trusts develop under Every Child Matters, and as local authority education and social care departments work together to that agenda, that provision such as family support for example, for children on the autistic spectrum, is not lost in disputes during the integration process.

368. The Government should seek to resolve issues with regard to partnership working with health professionals. A national strategy should include minimum standards in terms of access to therapy provision and other health provision for those children that need it. The DfES should work with the Department for Health to achieve joint-service working and ensure that children's needs are being met.


369. The very difficult question is how to effectively achieve a partnership relationship with parents. Many of the memoranda we have received from parents claim that they are not being involved or informed and are far from being partners in any decisions regarding the provision for their children.

370. The DfES memorandum discusses "partnership with parents" within the section that describes "the current position" rather than in the section on Government priorities for the future or next steps. This seems to assume that there is already effective partnership working with parents. It refers to the rights of parents to be informed through the SEN code of practice, and the procedures available for resolving disagreements, and then concludes from very limited evidence, that "for the great majority of families the system is operating effectively to meet their children's needs".

371. Within the section titled "Next Steps" the statement is made that local authorities "have a key role in ensuring that parents from all backgrounds can be involved in this (reforms of services)", but with no indication of how they might go about doing this.

372. The language used in guidance seems to be setting the wrong tone for a partner relationship as well. The SEN Code of Practice, SEN Strategy, DfES memorandum and the Schools White Paper repeatedly refer to the "rights" of parents in comparison to the "responsibilities", "requirements" or "duties" of the local authority. The language used seems to reflect an assumption that the rights lie with the parents and the responsibilities with the local authorities. It is not clear that this is a helpful basis on which to establish a partner relationship. Rights and responsibilities come hand in hand and both exist for all parties involved. The local authority also has the right to undertake a planning role with regard to provision for example, and parents also have a responsibility to act in the best interest of their child, and a duty to act as a partner in a proposed partnership with parents. The language used in guidance should be more balanced to reflect the rights and responsibilities that exists for all parties and to encourage responsible partnership arrangements.

373. The Government need to re-think their approach to involving parents. The Government should set out clear expectations for parents in terms of minimum standards of provision and access to a broad and flexible range of appropriate provision. The Government should seek to actively involve parents as part of their early intervention strategy and keep them involved as much as possible at all stages. The Government should try to ensure that local councils and schools do their utmost to co-operate in this process. It is essential that mechanisms are in place to ensure that parents are well informed throughout the whole process.

374. Community level involvement and partnership in collective working strategies is also important for the improvement of outcomes of children with SEN and disabilities. Community involvement is key to improving early intervention, key transition stages, and for reaching the most hard to reach young people and families. Integrated health services, pre-school children's services, and shared facilities across local communities—not just communities of schools—can all help to build links and relationships for the benefit of all children including those with SEN and disabilities.

197   Q775  Back

198   SEN 129 Back

199   Q623 Back

200   Ofsted, Inclusion: the impact of LEA support and outreach services, 2005. Back

201   DfES, National Audit of Support, Services and Provision for children with low incidence needs, Peter Gray, The Special Needs Consultancy, 2006. Research Report RR729. Back

202   SEN 178 Back

203   DfES, National Audit of Support, Services and Provision for children with low incidence needs, Peter Gray, The Special Needs Consultancy, 2006. Research Report RR729. Back

204   Q901 Back

205   SEN 01 Back

206   National Autistic Society, Autism and education: the reality for families today, 2006. Back

207   IbidBack

208   DfES, National Audit of Support, Services and Provision for Children with Low Incidence Needs, Peter Gray, The Special Needs Consultancy. Research Report RR729. Back

209   Q424 Back

210   SEN 129 Back

211   DfES, National Audit of Support, Services and Provision for Children with Low Incidence Needs, Peter Gray, The Special Needs Consultancy, Research Report RR729. Back

212   DfES, Removing Barriers to Achievement, 2004 SEN Strategy, page 50 Back

213   Ibid Back

214   DfES, Higher Standards, Better Schools for All-more choice for parents and pupils, Schools White Paper, October 2005 Back

215   Q43 Back

216   Q847 Back

217   Q790 Back

218   SEN 140 Back

219   A. Dyson, Philosophy, politics and economics? The story of inclusive education in England, 2005 in: D. Mitchell (Ed) Contextualising Inclusive Education: Evaluating old and new international perspectives (London, Routledge). Back

220   Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, Baroness Warnock, Special educational needs: a new look, 2005. No. 11 in a series of policy discussions. Back

221   The Department is working closely with Ofsted to streamline the provision of data analysis to schools by merging the Performance and Assessment reports - the PANDA - with the Pupil Achievement Tracker. The intention is that 'this contextual value-added information takes account of a range of pupil factors such as SEN and deprivation, in addition to pupils' prior attainment and, in secondary schools, school level factors' [SEN 178]. Back

222   Sutton Trust, The Social Composition of Top Comprehensive Schools - Rates of Eligibility for Free School Meals at the 200 Highest Performing Comprehensives, January 2006 Back

223   British Association of Teachers of the Deaf.  Back

224   University of Cambridge, John MacBeath et al, The Costs of Inclusion: a study of inclusion policy and practice in English primary, secondary, and special schools. Commissioned and funded by the National Union of Teachers.2006. Back

225   DfES. Removing Barriers to Achievement, 2004 SEN Strategy (page 49) Back

226   SEN 178 Back

227   SEN 178 Back

228   DfES, Higher Standards, Better Schools for Al - more choice for parents and pupils, Schools White Paper, October 2005 Back

229   SEN 178 Back

230   Q618 Back

231   University of Cambridge, John MacBeath et al, The Costs of Inclusion: a study of inclusion policy and practice in English primary, secondary, and special schools. Commissioned and funded by the National Union of Teachers.2006. Back

232   Q728 Back

233   SEN 133 Back

234   Q625 Back

235   Q669 Back

236   SEN 178 Back

237   SEN 136 Back

238   Q581 Back

239   Q142 Back

240   Times Educational Supplement, Inclusiveness and Behaviour Research Report, September 2005 Back

241   HC Deb, 1 Nov 2005, col 1003W Back

242   Q740 Back

243   SEN 178 Back

244   The National Autistic Society, Autism and education: the reality for families today, 2006. Back

245   Times Educational Supplement, Inclusiveness and Behaviour Research Report, September 2005 Back

246   SEN 199 Back

247   SEN 215 Back

248   Q759 Back

249   SEN 218 Back

250   University of Cambridge, John MacBeath et al, The Costs of Inclusion: a study of inclusion policy and practice in English primary, secondary, and special schools. Commissioned and funded by the National Union of Teachers.2006. Back

251   SEN 199 and 215 Back

252   Q39 Back

253   University of Cambridge, John MacBeath et al, The Costs of Inclusion: a study of inclusion policy and practice in English primary, secondary, and special schools. Commissioned and funded by the National Union of Teachers.2006. Back

254   Ofsted, Special educational needs and disability; towards inclusive schools, 2004 Back

255   Audit Commission, Special Educational Needs - a mainstream issue, 2002. Back

256   'Reverse Psychology', March 7th 2006,,1724631,00.html Back

257   Ibid. Back

258   HC Deb, 1 February 2005, Col 52 WS  Back

259   Audit Commission, Special Educational Needs - a mainstream issue, 2002 Back

260   SEN 133 paragraph 2.1 Back

261   SEN 98 Back

262   Assessment for Learning is the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there. (Assessment Reform Group, 2002).  Back

263   University of Cambridge, John MacBeath et al, The Costs of Inclusion: a study of inclusion policy and practice in English primary, secondary, and special schools. Commissioned and funded by the National Union of Teachers.2006. Back

264   Q577 Back

265   Q618 Back

266   Q649 Back

267   Q635 Back

268   Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, Improving the life chances of disabled people. 2005  Back

269   Q887 Back

270   Adult Learning Inspectorate, Greater Expectations, provision for learners with disabilities, 2006. Back

271   Learning and Skills Council, LSC strategic review of the planning and funding of provision for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities November 2005. Chaired by Peter Little OBE. Back

272   Q885 Back

273   University of Cambridge, John MacBeath et al, The Costs of Inclusion: a study of inclusion policy and practice in English primary, secondary, and special schools. Commissioned and funded by the National Union of Teachers.2006. Back

274   Q243 Back

275   SEN 117 Back

276   SEN 156 Back

277   Q260 Back

278   SEN 178 Back

279   DfES, Higher Standards, Better Schools for All-more choice for parents and pupils, Schools White Paper, October 2005 Back

280   SEN 01, summary. Back

281   University of Cambridge, John MacBeath et al, The Costs of Inclusion: a study of inclusion policy and practice in English primary, secondary, and special schools. Commissioned and funded by the National Union of Teachers.2006. Back

282   SEN 133 Back

283   SEN 05 Back

284   SEN 135 Back

285   Q645 Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 6 July 2006