Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction
Brief history of SEN
1. The
Warnock Report in 1978, followed by the 1981 Education Act, radically
changed the conceptualisation of special educational needs. (Paragraph
9)
2. During the 1980s
and 1990s there was a considerable decline in the number of children
in special schools and a gradual increase in the proportion of
children both identified as having special educational needs (SEN)
and given statements of SEN. (Paragraph 12)
3. Since 1999-2000
the proportion of children in special schools (around 1%), the
proportion of children with SEN (around 18%), and the proportion
of children with statements of SEN (around 3%) has plateauedall
within a system still based on the original 1978 Warnock framework.
(Paragraph 14)
4. The Warnock SEN
framework is struggling to remain fit for purpose, and where significant
cracks are developing in the systemmost starkly demonstrated
by the failure of the system to cope with the rising number of
children with autism and social, emotional or behavioural difficulties
(SEBD)this is causing high levels of frustration to parents,
children, teachers and local authorities. (Paragraph 17)
5. The Committee would
invite the Minister to read the 230 written memoranda we have
received during this inquiry and consider, in full, the conclusions
and recommendations of this report. (Paragraph 23)
A major review of SEN?
6. Despite
the Audit Commission specifically calling for a review of the
statementing process in 2002, four years on the Government still
says it has no plans to review the statementing process. This
is unacceptable. (Paragraph 27)
7. Whilst the Government
says is does not wish to undertake a major public review of its
policy on SEN, it does seem to be re-considering its policy in
private. (Paragraph 31)
8. The Committee believes
this is a critical time to be publishing the results of our inquiry.
We would urge the Government to give most careful thought to our
recommendations and consider a completely fresh look at SEN.
We look forward to constructive and vital progress for children
with SEN and disabilities. (Paragraph 32)
1. Why SEN matters
SEN and the link to socio-economic background
9. Special
educational needs exist across the whole spectrum of social classes
and abilities. It is important to recognise that some conditions
which give rise to SEN, in particular along the autism spectrum
and specifically Asperger's Syndrome, can defy an easy correlation
between those conditions and social deprivationas well
as the children often being above-average intelligence. It is
important therefore that social deprivation is not seen as the
only and automatic benchmark for addressing SEN issues. (Paragraph
36)
10. There is, however,
a strong correlation between social deprivation and SEN that deserves
careful consideration by the Government. SEN policy should explicitly
address these overlapping sets of needs where they occur. (Paragraph
37)
11. At secondary school
level, children with statements of SEN are nearly twice as likely
to be eligible for free school meals as the average school population.
(Paragraph 38)
12. Children with
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and social, emotional or behavioural
difficulties (SEBD) provide an excellent example of where the
old Warnock framework is out of date and where significant cracks
exist in the system to the detriment of those who fall between
them. Far more important, however, is the frustration and upset
caused to parents and families by the failure of the system to
meet the needs of these children. This needs most urgent resolution.
(Paragraph 43)
SEN in the wider educational context
13. SEN
policy continues to operate a separate system for special educational
needs (SEN) and, as a result, SEN continues to be sidelined away
from the mainstream agenda in education. This must not continue.
The Government needs to give greater priority to SEN and take
full account of its need to have a central position in education.
(Paragraph 48)
The cost of failing children with SEN
14. The
continuing correlation between children with SEN and exclusions,
low attainment, not being in education, employment or training
(NEET), and even youth crime, means that there are significant
long term economic and social costs involved in failing children
with SEN. The personal cost to families of children with SEN
should also be considered. (Paragraph 49)
15. There are considerable
costs involved in failing to meet the needs of large numbers of
children with SEN. Moreover, the Government has a responsibility
to provide high-quality education for all children to enable them
to reach their potential. (Paragraph 54)
2. Clarification of inclusion policy
Defining inclusion
16. The
Government's changing definition of inclusion is causing confusion.
If it is going to continue to use this term in key policy documents
such as the SEN Strategy, the Government should work harder to
define exactly what it means by inclusion. This Committee supports
the principle of educators pursuing an ethos that fully includes
all childrenincluding those with SEN and disabilitiesin
the setting or settings that best meets their needs and helps
them achieve their potential, preferably a good school within
their local community. (Paragraph 64)
Clarifying the Government's position on inclusion
17. Based
on statutory and non-statutory guidance, it is reasonable for
those involved in SEN to assume that the Government holds a policy
of inclusion from which it has given guidance to local authorities
to reduce both the proportion of pupils in special schools and
to reduce reliance on statements. (Paragraph 72)
18. The Government
has been firm and consistent in stating its position on inclusion
for this inquiry both in written and oral evidence. It has stated
that it does not hold a policy of inclusion that is resulting
in the closure of special schools. This is not sufficient. At
the very least there is considerable confusion over the Government's
position on inclusion and they must take responsibility for this
lack of clear strategic direction and for the consequences of
this. (Paragraph 73)
19. The Minister's
words demonstrate a significant change in policy direction. (Paragraph
79)
20. These answers
present a confused message, but one that signals a move away from
the Government's original position in 1997. (Paragraph 84)
A change in policy
21. The
most generous reading of the evidence is that the Government is
moving forward towards seeking a "flexible continuum of provision"
being available in all local authorities to meet the needs of
all children, including those with SEN, but this is not the basis
for the approach outlined in SENDA 2001, the SEN Code of Practice
2001, or the 2004 SEN Strategy. This should be put right. (Paragraph
85)
22. What is urgently
needed is for the Government to clarify its position on SENspecifically
on inclusionand to provide national strategic direction
for the future. The Government needs to provide a clear over-arching
strategy for SEN and disability policy. It needs to provide a
vision for the future that everyone involved in SEN can purposefully
work towards. (Paragraph 86)
23. Seeking change
through evolution not revolution is one thing, but changing a
key policy focus and hoping to tie it back in to a particular
reading of the existing SEN Strategy is not acceptable. The Government
should be up-front about its change of direction on SEN policy
and the inclusion agenda, if this is indeed the case, and should
reflect this in updated statutory and non-statutory guidance to
the sector. (Paragraph 87)
3. SEN: Facts and Figures
24. It
is widely recognised that there is a strong correlation between
exclusions and children with SENparticularly those with
social, emotional and behavioural difficulties and autistic behaviour.
The Committee finds it unacceptable that such a well known problem
continues to occur. The Government should enhance existing, and
improve alternative, forms of provision, training and resources
rather than using an increasingly punitive approach for these
children and families involved. (Paragraph 95)
25. Schools need better
guidance and staff training in dealing with disruptive behaviour
by children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, particularly Asperger's
Syndrome, and social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties.
Schools should give careful consideration to these children in
their behaviour strategies and make appropriate adjustments in
disciplinary responses especially when considering exclusion.
This needs to be backed up by closer DfES guidance and local
authority monitoring, details of which could be collated by either
Ofsted or the Schools Commissioner, with a view to urgent and
substantial reduction in the numbers of exclusions. (Paragraph
96)
Existing legislation
26. There
is an inbuilt conflict of interest in that it is the duty of the
local authority both to assess the needs of the child and to arrange
provision to meet those needs, and all within a limited resource.
The link must be broken between assessment and funding of provision.
(Paragraph 99)
27. There is a great
deal of work still to do to pull together the disability and SEN
agendas and legislation. The Government should be prioritising
this important work. (Paragraph 110)
28. In light of evidence
from witnesses that in many schools there is a significant lack
of understanding of their duties under the Disability Discrimination
Act and a failure to implement the Disability Equality Duty fully,
we await improved and more specific guidance from the DfES which
is due to be published shortly. Guidance should pay particular
attention to ensuring that all teachers and staff have an appropriate
awareness of their duties and that this is not left to a single
disability officer within schools. (Paragraph 111)
Voices of young people, parents and teachers of
children with SEN and disabilities
29. We
recommend that the Government continues to increase the role of
children and young people in reviewing, planning and designing
services. (Paragraph 117)
30. We recommend that
the Government urgently address the feeling of both parents and
teachers that there is inadequate training and resourcing for
dealing with SEN children in mainstream classrooms. We would
give the highest priority to the need to radically improve SEN
and disability training in initial teacher training, induction,
and in the continuing professional development of all staff. (Paragraph
133)
4. Failings within the SEN system
Statementing process
31. The
2004 Ofsted and 2002 Audit Commission reviews identified serious
flaws in the SEN system with regard to standards and consistency
of provision, the statementing process, fair access to schools,
and outcomes for children with SEN and disabilities. This Committee
finds it both surprising and highly concerning that these issues
have still not been addressed. Evidence presented to this inquiry
has further highlighted that there are significant failings in
the system that need to be dealt with urgently. We now turn to
these issues in the following recommendations. (Paragraph 141)
32. This inquiry received
large numbers of memoranda from parents whose lives had been taken
over by the statementing process and had had to fight to achieve
a better outcome for their childand were still fighting.
To say that there is some dissatisfaction with the current system,
or to claim that there are "some" problems as the Minister
did, fails to give proper regard to the level of unhappiness felt
by some parents. (Paragraph 147)
Issuing of statements
33. Whilst
the DfES letter of guidance to Directors of Children's Services,
15 November 2005, was a helpful clarification of the Government's
position on the illegality of blanket policies for issuing statements
of SEN, it should not have been necessary, and does not make up
for a lack of clear national strategy. (Paragraph 151)
34. It is better to
seek to reduce reliance on statements by improving the skills
and capacity of schools to meet a diverse range of needs, but
this must be set in a system with much greater clarification and
much stronger guidance on minimum standards of provision. Without
such a system in place, guidance on "reducing reliance"
on statements has led to the inequity of provision and "postcode
lottery" that exists. This cannot continue. The sector
needs much clearer guidance through a national framework with
local flexibility. The Government needs to give local authorities
clear national guidance on when to issue statements of SEN.
(Paragraph 153)
35. We recommend that
there should be an absolute deadline that a decision on whether
to issue statement in respect of any child should be made within
the required 26 weeks (six months) of a written request being
made with no exceptions. (Paragraph 154)
Transfer of statements
36. Whilst
recognising that it would require significant changes to the existing
system, we recommend that the DFES consider how to make statements
of SEN transferable between local authorities so that they can
follow the child. We believe this would reduce administrative
costs, allowing more resources to be devoted to SEN provision,
and, more importantly, would prioritise the needs of the child.
(Paragraph 156)
Other possible models
37. The
landscape of local authorities and local heath organisations is
continually changing which makes it difficult to make specific
individual recommendations about the way they should work together.
We consider, however, that assessment of SEN should not be made
directly by the bodies that fund the provision, and any revision
of the system overall should take this principle on board. (Paragraph
161)
38. Scottish reform
to the statementing process demonstrates one way in which the
1978 Warnock framework might be reformed. These proposals may
not have all of the answers but they are witness to the fact that
something needs to be done to improve the existing system. (Paragraph
162)
39. The lack of a
ready-made alternative is not a good enough reason to keep a failing
system of statementing. If SEN was given sufficient priority
this would not be allowed to continue. It is the responsibility
of Government to devise better processes for SENnot necessarily
in one statementand to implement them. This should involve
the early identification and assessment of needs, efficient and
equitable allocation of resources, and the appropriate placement
of pupils based on their needs and taking account of parental
preference. We request a specific response from the Government
on this issue. (Paragraph 163)
Placement decisions
40. Where
good practice exists in local authorities the level of parental
satisfaction improves greatly. A National Framework of guidance
should be put in place based on best practice of local authorities.
It should ensure that: multi-agency panels make decisions regarding
placement and are accountable for their decisions; parents are
kept well-informed at all stages of the process and involved in
the decision-making process as much as possible; and there is
a wide range of appropriate high-quality provision available to
meet the needs of children. There also needs to be much greater
consideration given to support for parents of children with SEN
who themselves may have SEN issues and require assistance in coming
to considered decisions and views about their children's futures.
(Paragraph 170)
41. For many children
with SEN and disabilities, special schools are invaluable. The
issue should not be their closure but how to progress to a system
based on a broad range of high quality, well resourced, flexible
provision to meet the needs of all children. More schools should
be positively encouraged to form federations including both mainstream
and special schools. (Paragraph 171)
Planning role of local authorities
42. While
some local authorities have made good progress in managing SEN
in recent years, there remains much variation in performance and
some poor practice. Clear statutory guidance is in place but
local authorities are then told only that they must "have
regard to" the SEN Code of Practice. Non-statutory guidance
then further muddies the waters. Local authorities have a crucial
role to play with SEN but the operation of good practice must
become the norm. (Paragraph 177)
43. Local authorities
must be allowed to continue to plan provision at the local level
to meet need but this should be within guidance of a clear National
Framework linked to minimum standards to ensure consistency of
outcomes for children with SEN. (Paragraph 178)
44. All local authorities
and schools should embrace the opportunity presented by the new
Disability Equality Duty to ensure that they promote and provide
a positive environment for children with SEN, both now and in
the future. (Paragraph 179)
Admissions and parental choice
45. The
Government should give careful consideration to the impact that
key drivers such as league tables are having on admissionsparticularly
to the most successful non-selective state schools. There is
strong evidence that the existing presentation of performance
data in league tables does not reflect well on many children with
SEN and consequently acts as a disincentive for some schools to
accept them. This cannot continue. (Paragraph 182)
46. Children with
SEN and disabilities should have fair access to all types of provision.
The Government should do more to encourage the most successful
non-selective state schools to take their fair share of children
with SEN and disabilities. Admissions policies in this matter
should be carefully monitored with a requirement to report back
on progress to Parliament and to this Select Committee. Furthermore,
the Government should ensure the protocol for hard to place children
makes specific reference to children with SEN and disabilities.
(Paragraph 183)
Choice for parents of children with SEN
47. The
existing DfES policy regarding the placement of children with
SEN is good in theory, but in practice parental choice is not
being upheld. Where a special school is sought by a parent this
must be given proper consideration. Where a mainstream school
is sought by a parent, a local authority must consider whether
reasonable adjustments could be made to ensure that their admission
could be made compatible with the efficient education of other
children in the school. (Paragraph 192)
48. We recommend that
in the new Code of Practice on School Admissions, children with
SEN and disabilities should be given explicit priority in over-subscription
criteria. (Paragraph 193)
49. As long as the
choice of parents of children with SEN continues to be qualified
by whether it is compatible with the efficient education of other
children in the school, the final decision-making power regarding
placement will remain out of the hands of parents and we do not
suggest that this should be changed. This is appropriate where
expert independent advice has been sought but should be the exception
rather than the rule. There is a great deal more that could be
done to increase involvement from parents: to seek their views
and understand their choices more carefully, to work in partnership
with them as much as possible, and to ensure they are fully informed
at all stages of the process. Careful consideration should be
given to parent-partnership schemes being funded independently
of local authorities being trialled on a pilot basis. The system
should not have to rely on an appeals process to achieve fair
access for children with SEN. (Paragraph 194)
50. The Government
should work with local authorities and schools to raise the level
of detailed understanding amongst parents of the implications
of disability rights in education. (Paragraph 195)
Academies
51. Evidence
presented to us has been inconclusive, but if it is the case that
some Academies are turning away children with SEN, this is of
great concern. (Paragraph 200)
52. To guard against
the possibility that Academies could discriminate against children
with SEN this Committee recommends that the Government take the
relatively simple step of changing the funding agreement so as
to put Academies on the same legal footing as all other schools
with regard to children with SEN. (Paragraph 207)
53. Local authorities
should monitor admission of children with SEN to schools in their
area, including academies and trust schools in England, and report
publicly on this each year. (Paragraph 208)
Appeals process
54. Parents
must have the right to appeal against decisions made regarding
the education of their children. All parents and legal guardians
must have equal access to the appeals process. Evidence suggests
this is not the case at present. The Government is responsible
for ensuring steps are taken to guarantee equal access to an appeals
process for all parents and guardians; in doing so it should give
particular attention to the access of parents from low socio-economic
backgrounds, parents with SEN themselves, and the fair representation
of looked-after children. The Government should start to collect
data on the background of parents at tribunal, and on expenditure
in relation to outcome. (Paragraph 220)
55. The standard approach
should not be adversarial. We recognise, however, that all too
often parents had little choice in taking an adversarial approach
during the appeals process in order to obtain what is in the interests
of their children. With a range of appropriate high quality SEN
provision in place, a clearer understanding of roles and responsibilities
and more transparent processes, the confidence of parents in the
system should increase and the level of anxiety, frustration and
litigation should reduce. (Paragraph 222)
56. Conflict between
parents and local authorities needs to be minimised through clear
understanding of roles and responsibilities, transparent processes,
and better management of expectations. (Paragraph 225)
57. The Government
should review whether SEN appeals should be part of a broader
education appeal process as part of a strategy to reduce reliance
on a separate system for SEN. (Paragraph 227)
Funding process
58. This
Committee welcomes the additional investment in SEN and special
schools in the last three years but SEN remains under-funded,
particularly in mainstream schools. We agree with the Minister
that the Government can accomplish a huge amount when they put
the resource behind it. The Committee recommends that this principle
is applied to SEN. The Government should radically increase funding
for SEN in order to achieve a range of appropriate, high-quality
provision across every local authority with a fully equipped and
resourced workforce. The Committee hopes that the Treasury review
of funding for children with complex needs, which we welcome,
will provide an opportunity to do just this. (Paragraph 232)
Delegated funding
59. The
Government should stop and think before further increasing the
level of delegated funding to schools without other necessary
conditions first being in place and without improved accountability
for school spending. Delegated funding should enable more early
intervention, in theory, but it needs to be implemented hand in
hand with other key factorsa clearer national framework
linked to minimum standards, a broad range of suitable provision,
and a workforce that is fully equipped and resourced to identify
and meet the needs of children with SEN. Without these other
conditions in place further delegation of funding is a high-risk
approach, particularly in light of evidence from Ofsted that some
delegated funding to schools is not being spent on SEN. (Paragraph
236)
60. We believe there
would be much merit in reserving part of central government's
funding to encourage flexible access and co-operation between
special and mainstream schools, the Minister himself having said
in evidence that it was "crucial to see that money intended
for SEN is spent on SEN". (Paragraph 237)
Funding of specialist services and provision for
low-incidence needs
61. Local
authorities should be required to maintain a proportion of SEN
funding to resource specialist services and services to meet low-incidence
needs. The Committee supports the recommendations made in the
recent SEN Audit on low-incidence needs. (Paragraph 242)
62. Non-maintained
and independent special schools (NMISS) provide invaluable provision
for many pupilsincluding some children with low-incidence
special needs. The Committee notes with some concern the rapid
increase in expenditure on NMISS places in recent years. NMISS
places must remain an essential component of a broad range of
flexible provision within all local authorities but we recommend
that fees for NMISS places should be monitored by the DfES.
(Paragraph 244)
Allocation of resources through the statementing
process
63. The
fundamental problems in the statementing process that prevent
funding from following the child should be resolved as a matter
of urgency. (Paragraph 249)
5. Future Strategy
64. The
Government needs to develop an approach to SEN that is based on
pupil-centred provision. This would require: a national framework
linked to minimum standards; local flexibility within a national
framework; a pupil-centred approach with SEN at the heart of personalisation;
equipping the workforce (a major priority is to properly train
and resource all staff); early intervention; partnership working;
and a radical review of statementing. (Paragraph 252)
A national framework with local flexibility
65. The
Government need to take a lead and develop an overarching strategy
for SEN in order to set minimum standards for children with SENwhilst
maintaining local decision-making powersto give a clear
lead on policy direction for the sector to follow. (Paragraph
255)
66. 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." (Paragraph 258)
67. The Minister assured
us that "we (the Government) would look very carefully at
anything you recommended to us in this area". 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. (Paragraph 259)
A flexible continuum of provision
68. 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" and would extend the requirement
to all children with SEN and disabilities. (Paragraph 262)
69. 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.
(Paragraph 263)
70. 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 provisionincluding special schools. (Paragraph
267)
71. 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. (Paragraph 268)
Local flexibility
72. 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 locallyincluding support,
services and provision for low-incidence needs. (Paragraph 269)
73. 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. (Paragraph
272)
PersonalisationSEN v. the standards agenda
74. 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. (Paragraph 282)
75. In identifying
the five Every Child Matters outcomesbeing healthy,
staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution
to society, and achieving economic well beingthe 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. (Paragraph 287)
76. 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. (Paragraph 288)
Equipping the workforce
77. 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. (Paragraph 294)
Initial Teacher Training
78. 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 unacceptableparticularly
in light of the bold commitment to improve staff skills in the
2004 SEN Strategy. (Paragraph 299)
79. 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. (Paragraph 301)
Continuous professional development
80. 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. (Paragraph
309)
A new strategy for workforce development
81. 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. (Paragraph
316)
82. 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.
(Paragraph 317)
83. 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.
(Paragraph 318)
Special educational needs co-ordinators
84. 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. (Paragraph 322)
85. Special educational
needs co-ordinators (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. (Paragraph 323)
Specialist support services
86. We
recommend that SEN regional partnerships are given increased and
guaranteed funding for their role in planning provision for low-incidence
SEN. (Paragraph 325)
87. 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. (Paragraph 326)
Educational psychologists
88. 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. (Paragraph 330)
Early intervention
89. 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. (Paragraph 336)
90. 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
91. personalisation
agenda. (Paragraph 336)
Key transition phasesincluding post-16
91. In
terms of both availability and quality, post-16 provision is
currently failing to meet the needs of young people with SEN and
disabilities. (Paragraph 344)
92. 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. (Paragraph 348)
93. 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. (Paragraph 349)
94. 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. (Paragraph
350)
Partnership working and Every Child Matters
95. 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. (Paragraph 351)
Collaboration between mainstream and special schools
96. 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. (Paragraph 357)
97. 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. (Paragraph 360)
SEN and the Every Child Matters
agenda
98. 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. (Paragraph 364)
99. 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. (Paragraph
368)
Effective partnership with parents and communities
100. 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. (Paragraph 373)
|