House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Third Report

Formal Minutes

Wednesday 21 June 2006

Members present:

Mr Barry Sheerman, in the Chair

Dr Roberta Blackman- Woods

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mr David Chaytor

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Jeff Ennis

Paul Holmes

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Mr Rob Wilson

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report, proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Draft Report, proposed by Mrs Nadine Dorries, brought up and read, as follows:

"Report Summary

I. Since the introduction of SENDA 2001 the position of special educational needs children, a vulnerable group, has become considerably worse. What has made this situation so shocking is that it has been done with intent via the pursuit of a policy driven by political dogma and duplicity. Throughout this period, the level of government expenditure has increased, making it even more regrettable that the needs and interests of some of the most vulnerable children in our society have been compromised. The increasing number of children who are being left behind are the innocent victims of an ideologically driven and dogmatic view with regard to 'inclusion.' There is much evidence to show that inclusion into mainstream school can meet the needs of many children for whom mainstream education is appropriate and desirable. However, an indiscriminate approach in implementing a policy of inclusion—irrespective of a child's needs—fails those vulnerable children who need support the most. Improving parental choice and rights is vital if a more balanced and reasonable approach is to be adopted in the provision of SEN for children.

II. The government has a responsibility to ensure that its educational policies are based upon a co-ordinated and cohesive approach to meet the educational needs of all children. The government's continued obsession with its ideological approach to include children with special educational needs into mainstream schools—whether it is appropriate or not—is demonstrated by its refusal to consider the need to review its own inclusion agenda in the first place. Conflict arises between the policy of inclusion and the terms of the legislation as set out in the Education and Inspections Bill; as a result the government must accept full responsibility and resolve the apparent conflict, as highlighted by this Inquiry.

III. The Department for Education & Skills fails to act as responsively as it should in response to concerns brought to its attention by parents and parent support groups. As IPSEA stated, one of the main difficulties faced by parents is a systemic failure of the DfES to take appropriate action against those local authorities who fail to fulfil their statutory obligations.

IV. The right of parents to choose school placements for their children has been severely undermined and should be strengthened. School placements should not be determined by a local authority's inclusion policy, but upon a guaranteed minimum national standard of provision and the individual needs of the child concerned. Many local authorities have pursued inclusion by the use of blanket policies and the evasion of statutory duties under Schedule 27 of the Education Act 1996.

V. The government needs to give greater priority to SEN and take full account of its central position in education and appreciate that vulnerable children are individuals, requiring different learning experiences and learning environments to fulfil their potential. It should ensure local authorities adopt the view that children require an education that responds to the individual needs of the child and the rights of parents to make the best choices for their children. It should be acknowledged by the government that both mainstream and special schools play a very important role in meeting the needs of children with SEN; whilst this provision may be very different, they are of equal value and worthy of equal acceptance.

VI. Parental backlash and frustration is motivated by the strategic direction the government has decided to adopt with regard to SEN. It is evident that the government's policy is denying parental choice, which breaches the criteria laid down in Schedule 27 of Education Act 1996. Parents are presented with a confused message and the government must give a clear unequivocal message to local authorities and Parliament, to ensure parents are better empowered in determining the future of their children's education.

VII. Parents of children with special educational needs are increasingly turning to the independent and charitable sector to ensure their children receive an appropriate education for their needs.

VIII. The less favourable treatment experienced by pupils, who have been denied the same right of appeal to SENDIST regarding the naming of a city academy, is discriminatory and could be in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA).

Introduction

1) Baroness Warnock[290] advised the Committee that an over emphasis on the policy of inclusion was not working and a review of current government policy was needed—a point she emphasised in her most recent pamphlet on this matter—'Special Educational Needs—A New Look.' Inclusion has benefited children, but equally has failed many others. The importance of the Warnock Report 1978 and its findings should not be overlooked, as it led to children with special educational needs having their rights enshrined in law for the first time. Warnock never suggested all children should be included in mainstream, as confirmed in her oral evidence. Despite this the government has pursued a policy of inclusion for the past nine years. Baroness Warnock accepted at the time of her original report that understanding of what constituted special educational needs was very limited, predominantly reflecting children with physical disabilities. Baroness Warnock further concurred that the nature of recognised special educational needs today has significantly changed since 1978.

2) It could be argued that at one point there were too many special schools in the UK. Many children, particularly those in residential units, were denied the opportunity to fully integrate into their local communities. As a consequence some children were based in units many, many miles from their own homes and families. In more recent years however, governments of both complexions have gone too far in the opposite direction, with the closure of too many special schools. A consequence of these closures is that many more children are educated outside of their own local education authority, resulting in long journeys and as well as some residential placements. In this respect government policy has travelled full circle, to where we were in the 1970s.

3) Since the introduction of SENDA 2001, which assumes children should be educated in mainstream, there has according to DfES[291] statistics been a decrease in the number of children with statements, which are at a five-year low. The reduction appears to coincide with Lord Adonis' evidence that the DfES had appointed seven special educational needs advisors and created regional special educational needs partnerships under its SEN policy document Removal of Barriers to Achievement[292]—the aim of which is to reduce the dependency of statements and increase inclusive practice.

4) The number of children attending special schools has declined steadily under successive governments, but there are still some regional differences. Some local authorities are more proactive in pursuing inclusion than others, as noted by the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education—Bill Rammell MP[293]—who described his own local authority 'as representing the extreme end of the ideology of inclusion.'

5) The National Autistic Society[294] and Scope[295] both report that over 50% of parents are unhappy with their child's current school placement—figures also reveal that 27% of autistic children are excluded from school at any one time, with 23% of those excluded on more than one occasion; as a consequence many parents have lost trust in the government's policy and its ability to deliver on special educational needs.

6) The Minister accepted all was not well with the current system and confirmed that senior civil servant, Mr Iain Coates, had issued a strong steer in the form of a letter on the 15^th November 2005, to all local authorities regarding their statutory duties and warning against the implementation of 'blanket policies.' The letter was issued as a result of a threat of legal action being taken against a number of those authorities who were operating at the very extreme edge of inclusion.

7) Parents' right of choice regarding school placement has been eroded and needs to be restored. It should not be dependent upon their local authority's inclusion policy, but based upon a guaranteed minimum national standard of provision and the individual needs of the child. Authorities have pursued inclusion by the use of blanket policies and the evasion of statutory duties under Schedule 27 of the Education Act 1996.

8) Lord Adonis' evidence that the government does not have a policy of inclusion, but was 'the will of Parliament' is unhelpful. Parliament is governed by the majority party of the day and therefore the will of Parliament reflects the will of the incumbent government of which he is a Minister. Therefore, the Minister should take responsibility for his government's policy.

9) The Conservative Party is currently conducting its own Inquiry into special educational needs under the chair of Sir Robert Balchin. In its interim findings, it called for a change to the 'statementing' process and a review of the policy of inclusion. It noted the tension in the current system has arisen because under the Education Act 1996 local authorities undertake the dual role as both the funder and commissioner of needs as identified during the statementing process. This disincentive effect for LEAs to identify a level of support that best meets the needs of a child with SEN, encourages a process that aims to minimise the extent of a child's needs by adopting what could be regarded as the most economical, mainstream option.

10) The government should conduct a review of Schedule 27 of the Education Act 1996 to ensure effective improvements are made to the current SEN framework and to re-examine the policy of inclusion and how authorities are interpreting it.

11) Lord Adonis advised that SEN policy is kept under review and there is an intention to improve the outcome for vulnerable children. But, if the discussion does not reflect upon the growing unhappiness of parents with current policy and the system, then the outcome will be flawed. There have been numerous calls on the government to conduct a full review of its SEN policy, and Lord Adonis has acknowledged that in conjunction with the DfES innovations unit, he is holding private ministerial seminars on 'next practice' in SEN. It is regrettable that the government have refused to conduct a more open and transparent review, to give those in the education sector and parents a greater say in determining the future of government policy in this area.

In his evidence to the Committee, Lord Adonis claimed that as and when the DfES is aware that local authorities may not be fulfilling their obligations, they will intervene in an attempt to ensure this is not the case. The volume of circulars and guidance issued by the DfES to authorities in response to those who are operating at the 'extreme end of the ideology of inclusion' makes it difficult for LEAs to keep pace with the latest government thinking on many areas of policy and LEA's are as a result confused. However, in written submissions as evidence to the Inquiry, IPSEA and Mr David Ruebain[296] stated that in reality the DfES rarely intervenes in challenging allegations regarding the failure of LEAs to fulfil their statutory obligations. This is supported by the recent high profile SENDIST decision, W vs Hertfordshire Local Authority regarding disability discrimination upheld because of poorly drafted legislation. The Tribunal has called on the government to change the law. The Department has been aware of this legal loophole since 2003, but has failed to act to prevent this injustice and continued to acquiesce with local authorities.

12) It is concerning that in her evidence on behalf of Ofsted, Ms Visser states there were no major problems with the SEN system. A contradiction with much of the evidence submitted to this Inquiry and previous criticisms by Ofsted about the provision and delivery of SEN. A more robust and independent approach on the part of Ofsted—particularly in light of their previous statements on this issue and the increase in parental dissatisfaction—would have been more helpful to the conduct of this Inquiry.

1) Why SEN Matters

13) There is sufficient evidence regarding the Tribunal process that if the child does not have an appropriate level of diagnosis, then local authorities refuse to statutory assess or place a child in an appropriate learning environment. There is evidence that local authorities evade their statutory duties towards children unless the child has a diagnosis of a disability in other words a 'label'. If children are inadequately assessed, they are denied the appropriate education their learning needs require, and denied access to specialist practitioners, therapists and teachers.

14) SENDA 2001 and the DDA 1995 has provided parents of disabled children with a stronger rights based approach, to compliment Schedule 27 of the Education Act 1996. The Disability Rights Commission under its Code of Practice identifies the category of children who are considered disabled under the terms of the DDA Act 1995, which excludes children with BESD (Behavioural Emotional and Social Disorder), which should be examined.

15) Poverty and social opportunity cannot be redressed through SEN education legislation, as it should solely relate to the special educational needs of the child, not socio-economic circumstances. There is a strong correlation and at times a social overlapping between social deprivation and SEN. But delegated funding for SEN to schools is dictated by how many children are in receipt of free school meals, so the link between poverty and special education needs has already been established in principle in any case.

Schedule 27 of the Education Act 1996 is about the special educational needs of the child, not their socio-economic circumstances. As uncomfortable as it may be, the development of educational law on SEN must reflect that realisation.

Many children, who have SEN, also come from families who have special needs themselves; as such, they have a higher propensity to be from an economically deprived background.

According to the government's statistics, 65% of disabled children, are raised by lone parents, and it is this core group of children who the government have failed to elevate out of poverty. Accordingly, the issues and reasons of socio-economic need and poverty have to be separated clearly from educational needs.

We must consider the possibility that the current method of delegated funding has effectively meant disproportionate amounts of children with SEN being placed by their local authority into one school. In effect this funding system for non-statemented children has perhaps failed to ensure the equality of opportunity to access good local schools. LEAs have successfully manipulated the current system to place statemented children into local schools that receive high delegated resources for SEN, due to the amount of children in receipt of free school meals, as it can in real terms reduce the amount of cost the LEA has to contribute to the provision of the child's statement. As a result they have instead been able to rely upon the school's delegated resources meant for non-statemented children with special needs to subsidise its own cost.

16) The causes of BESD are complex and the link to social poverty as a single cause on the limited evidence available to the Inquiry is incorrect. In addition, many children with ASD experience secondary emotional behaviour difficulties and some 20% of children will experience severe mental health problems at adolescence.[297]

17) Historically special schools have existed alongside mainstream schools, with little integration or sharing of skills, but evidence shows that is now changing. But there is a need to maintain a SEN Framework that protects children with statements of special educational needs. Inclusion into mainstream can be inappropriate for both the child concerned and for their peers; equally, it can be a rewarding experience. Ensuring access to a broad range of good local schools, including mainstream, special school and units attached to local mainstream schools, all working collectively together within the local community sharing their expertise is the natural development of future SEN strategy.

18) The government needs to give greater priority to SEN and take full account of its central position in education and appreciate that children are individuals, requiring different learning experiences and learning environments to fulfil their potential. It should ensure authorities adopt the view that children require an education that responds to the individual needs of the child and parental choice and an acknowledgement that mainstream and special schools provision may be very different, but nonetheless are of equal value and equal worth

19) There has been no evidence given to the Committee regarding any long term extensive research undertaken to compare a wide range of similarly situated groups of children, who present with similar special educational needs and cognitive ability, as to whether the children achieved better throughout their school careers in special schools, segregated or enhanced special unit, or mainstream provision. Without evidence it appears a policy of inclusion has developed on the basis that it benefits all children.

20) Research shows that a high percentage of people in youth offenders institutions have special educational needs.[298] Most did not benefit from a statement of special educational needs. One of the biggest risk factors to involvement in crime is non-school attendance, yet 87% of exclusions from primary schools and 60% from secondary schools are children with special education needs. The clear correlation between the fact that the majority of children excluded from school are those with special educational needs and the number of young offenders who have been identified with special educational needs, is concerning and needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. There is also evidence that many children educated in pupil referral units have been diagnosed with SEN; policy should be developed which has due regard to ensure that such children avoid the risk of becoming the 'ASBO' generation of tomorrow.

2) Clarification of inclusion policy

21) There is considerable confusion over the government policy regarding inclusion. On the one hand it wishes us to believe it has no such policy and yet on the other actively imposes its policy through guidance to education authorities. There exists a parallel of contradictions between what the DfES claims and then what it actually does. Whatever the government's claims to the contrary, it actively pursues via the DfES and its interaction with the LEAs, a pro-inclusion policy.

22) In evidence, the Minister, Lord Adonis refused to deny or accept under questioning that there was a government policy of inclusion but instead claimed it was the will of Parliament. Yet the government's own policy document 'Removal Barriers to Achievement' clearly demonstrates this is not the case and that it wishes for a high propensity of children to be educated within mainstream provision. The government's clear ideological stance to promote inclusion, is leading to a parental backlash based on fear, frustration and confusion. This duplicitous approach by the government undermines peoples confidence in its ability to deliver in the genuine interests of those children with SEN. It is evident that the policy is denying parental choice, which breaches the criteria laid down in Schedule 27 of Education Act 1996. Parents are presented with a confused message, and the government must give a clear unequivocal message to authorities, Parliament and parents who are anxious for their children's educational future, that the government is moving away from its policy of inclusion to a position of respecting parental right of choice.

23) The government would do well to follow the example of Baroness Warnock and recant a large part of its ideological stance, with regard to the policy of inclusion. This could be best achieved by issuing alternative guidance and circulars, and statements to the House of Commons, to enable LEAs to be more flexible in determining the type of provision for those children with SEN, in accordance with the Education Act 1996. If LEAs are to be more responsive to the needs of SEN children, they need to be more independent from the central government straitjacket. The DfES should enable LEAs to become decentralised, locally responsive and be locally accountable with regard to the provision of SEN in their areas. The current central government policy of inclusion, in effect excludes many children from receiving the provision of support they actually need. A genuinely inclusive approach to SEN would be flexible enough to allow for those children that need it, a provision of education that does not exclude them from certain educational opportunities, that are outside of the mainstream option.

3) SEN: Overview

24) It is evident that the tension in the current system is found within the law itself, which has a conflict of interest, namely the local authority is both the funder and commissioner of the statement of special educational needs. Successive governments from both parties have given the authorities every opportunity to meet the special needs of children, yet it has consistently been shown authorities do, and more so since the introduction of SENDA 2001, evade their statutory duties. The tension created in the Education Act 1996 - in its role as the Commissioner, funder and the provider - is to the disadvantage of children with a statement of special educational needs and must be resolved.

25) Parents of children with special educational needs are increasingly turning to the independent and charitable sectors, to ensure their children receive the appropriate level of education their needs call for. 65% of parental appeals to SENDIST regarding part IV of the statement of special educational needs, namely school placement, now result in parents successfully winning an independent school to be named in their child's statements. The policy of inclusion leading to the closure of special schools has in their effect only served to further remove children from their local communities and exclude children from their local communities. Ironically the government's policy of inclusion has been wholly exclusive for many children.

4) Failings within the SEN system

26) The major frustrations parents have complained of are:

a) Local authorities refusal to undertake a statutory assessment to ascertain if the child requires a statement of special educational needs.

b) The statutory assessment process lacks independence

c) Statements of special educational needs do not fulfil the legal requirements to identify need, specify and quantify support, or properly provide sufficient funds.

d) Parents can only express a preference for a school, but the local authority determines placement.

e) There is no right of appeal to SENDIST concerning the outcome of an annual review, if new educational needs, additional provision or alternative school placement is identified.

f) The monitoring of statements of special educational needs and the child's progress is based upon self- reporting of teaching staff rather than formal assessments to show attainment.

27) The Parent Partnership Schemes are funded and operated by local authorities and despite in many cases their best intentions are insufficiently empowering parents to ensure the interests of their children are being met. Parent Partnerships need the powers to call LEAs to account. They need to be more independent of LEAs and receive greater levels of funding to ensure they can do their jobs more effectively.

28) City academies are independent schools and cannot be named without consent and it is clear that if the academy does not consent, the authority cannot name the school in the statement, as in the case for all non-maintained independent schools. Several legal challenges have been lodged in the High Court. The less favourable treatment experienced by pupils, who have been denied the same right of appeal to SENDIST regarding the naming of a city academy is discriminatory and is probably in breach of the DDA 1995.

29) The SENDIST tribunal is a court of law. Although the appeals process in itself may appear to be 'free', the need to secure reports for legal case statements, are expensive and so the process excludes too many parents, particularly those from deprived social economic groups or those who may not fully understand complex SEN law. The Tribunal was set up on the understanding there would be no legal costs to the tax-payer, as such most parents are excluded from legal aid to pursue an appeal. Frequently, when parents decide to exercise their right for a Tribunal, the LEA will respond by appointing external legal advice such as a barrister to defend its case. At the same time parents are obliged to provide necessary reports and assessments, as well as appointing their own legal advice if necessary, in an attempt to counter those claims made by the LEA. LEAs also have the inbuilt advantage of having access to substantial resources and personnel, that parents do not. During his evidence to the Committee Mr Simon Oliver estimated that a Tribunal could cost parents from between £2,000 up to £10,000+. Clearly only those parents with access to such resources have a credible and realistic chance of reaching the Tribunal stage in the first place, without any guarantee of success. This current process denies most vulnerable and needy parents in society of the opportunity to ensure the cases of their children can be heard at a Tribunal.

30) The Government should consider ensuring that all parents of children with special educational needs are given access to free legal advice and support for appeals to SENDIST through the establishment of an advisory service, similar to that available under immigration appeals. The current system to access legal help is dependent upon the parents' resources, when the appeal is not to benefit them, but relates to their child's individual special educational needs.

31) Parents of children with special educational needs are concerned that the SEN audit conducted by the government, disregarded the needs of most children with SEN and it would seem sensible along with a review of special educational needs, that a proper audit is conducted to ascertain provision for all children with special educational needs.

32) The essence of the problem is that LEAs take their lead from central government, following the silent political ideology imposed on them by the centre. If LEAs looked to their local areas and turned away from central government they would be free to innovate and create solutions to meet the needs of vulnerable children as opposed to satisfying the ideological whim of their political masters."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman' s draft report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.-(The Chairman.)

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Chairman's draft report" and insert the words "draft report proposed by Mrs Nadine Dorries".-(Mrs Nadine Dorries.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Noes, 5

Mr David Chaytor

Jeff Ennis

Paul Holmes

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Ordered, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 152 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 153 read.

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 5

Mr David Chaytor
Jeff Ennis
Paul Holmes
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 2

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries

Paragraphs 154 to 169 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 170 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out from 'greatly' to the end of the paragraph and to insert the words 'The good practice that is the norm in some local authorities ought to be adopted and replicated in those local authorities where there are higher levels of parental dissatisfaction. Rather than seeking to do this by imposing a National Framework, we believe that the most effective way of ensuring that good practice is followed more widely is to ensure that within each local authority there is more direct parental accountability. Direct downward accountability to parents - rather than yet more upward accountability (or worst of all a vague and convoluted "multi-agency responsibility"), would provide the incentive to ensure that good practice and innovations applied in one local authority area were quickly replicated elsewhere. Far from being merely kept well-informed, parents should normally be instrumental in the decision-making process regarding their own child. We recognise that this is not always possible, but it should be the "default setting" within the SEN system'-(Mr Douglas Carswell.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 2

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mr Rob Wilson

Noes, 6

Mr David Chaytor

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Jeff Ennis

Paul Holmes

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 171 to 177 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 178 read.

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 7

Mr David Chaytor

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Jeff Ennis

Paul Holmes

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Mr Rob Wilson

Noes, 1

Mr Douglas Carswell

Paragraphs 179 to 185 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 186 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out from 'education' to the end of the paragraph and to insert the words 'funded, albeit not necessarily provided by, the state. The Institutions of civil society, not merely state agencies, should have a role in providing a high standard of education for all regardless of ability or background. Every parent should have a choice between various state-funded education settings. Key to making this aspiration a reality should be a legal right of parents, enshrined in primary legislation, to request and receive control over their child's share of local authority education funding. This right should specifically be extended to parents of children with SEN as a priority.'-(Mr Douglas Carswell.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson
Noes, 5

Mr David Chaytor
Jeff Ennis
Paul Holmes
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 187 to 195 read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 196 to 208 read.

Motion made, and Question put, to leave out paragraphs 196 to 208.-(Mr Douglas Carswell.)

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 2

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mr Rob Wilson

Noes, 6

Mr David Chaytor

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Jeff Ennis

Paul Holmes

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Paragraphs 196 to 206 agreed to.

Question put, That paragraphs 207 and 208 stand part of the report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Mr David Chaytor
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Jeff Ennis
Paul Holmes
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 2

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mr Rob Wilson

Paragraphs 209 to 248 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 249 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, at the end to add the words 'Once a child's needs have been determined in a statement, a monetary value should be arrived at regarding the support of that child's needs, and parents should be able to chose the best school for their child. This would give real power and choice to parents built into a more independent system'.-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Mr Rob Wilson

Noes, 5

Mr David Chaytor

Jeff Ennis

Paul Holmes

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Paragraph agreed to.

Motion made, to leave out paragraphs 250 to 374 and insert the following new paragraphs:

'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.

More centralism is not the answer

251.There is a wide variation in the standard of provision of SEN between different local education authorities. In some LEAs, the system of assessing and providing SEN appears to be working well. In other LEAs, there appear to be significant shortcomings (see Chapter 4). This has led some to speak of there being a "postcode lottery" of SEN provision.

252. Before making our recommendations, our committee has asked how might public policy be reformed in order to ensure that the good practice found within certain LEAs is replicated across the board?

253. One strategy to achieve this might be to use create a National Framework of standards and best practice so as to try to ensure that what successful delivered in one LEA was delivered within every LEA. We have considered this approach and we reject it.

254. To merely recommend a National Framework and a further set of centrally determined standards and guidelines would be to repeat the post-war pattern of thinking followed by policy makers under governments of both major parties and automatically seek centralist solutions without giving due regard to the alternatives.[299] Creating a statutory requirement for local authorities to maintain, or have access to, a wide range of provision, including a range of special schools, specialist units, and services for low incidence special educational needs, is the wrong, and ultimately counterproductive, means of achieving a desirable outcome.

255. Top down decree is not the best mechanism for ensuring that SEN are better met throughout the country. In fact, we fear that were a National Framework established, it would create the mechanism by which "one-size-fits-all" policies could be imposed in the future, in much the same way that the policy of inclusion became the orthodoxy despite the opposition of parents.

256. We note that Baroness Warnock has called for a new commission to be convened, in much the same way that her original commission was established all those years ago, in order to determine policy towards SEN post-inclusion. We believe that it would be wrong to do so since it would mean yet again imposing a common policy from the top down.

257. We are suspicious of any suggestion that there be national level guidance. Whatever might be said about the need to preserve local flexibility, this so-called 'provision mapping' is likely to be even more prescriptive, and allow even less local accountability, than there currently is,[300] and to become a national SEN policy in all but name.

258. The fundamental lesson to learn from the failure of the policy of inclusion is that there should be no such thing as a national policy on SEN. Regardless as to what it might say about "inclusion", a National Framework would create a more uniform national approach to SEN. With a National Framework there would be both less pluralism between different LEAs and less downwardly accountable. Yet, it is pluralism combined with direct local accountability that ought to be the engines for innovation and improvement in meeting SEN.

Passing power away from town halls down to parents

259. Instead of making town halls more upwardly accountable through a National Framework, we recommend that LEAs be made more downwardly accountable by giving parents new legal rights. In place of uniformity, we advocate greater pluralism and choice. It is via pluralism, choice and parental choice that we will get the level of SEN provision that SEN children deserve.

260. In order that those good standards and practices within certain LEAs become the norm across all LEAs, we recommend that LEAs be made less upwardly accountable for the provision of SEN.

261. We recognise that the failings within the SEN sector have arisen as a consequence of there being too much upward accountability as there is (see Chapter 2 for details of the central statutory and non-statutory guidelines). Indeed, the driving force behind the inclusion agenda that was imposed under successive governments over a period of two decades, was central government, rather than local LEAs.

262. In place of yet more upward accountability, we recommend direct downward accountability in order to ensure that LEAs become more responsive to local parents, as opposed to the remote authors of future, as yet unwritten, SEN strategy documents.

263. That some LEAs are not managing to effectively assess and deliver SEN is not in itself reason to in effect nationalise SEN policy even further. Instead it is a good reason for devolving accountability downward not merely from Whitehall to the town halls, but from the town halls to parents.

264. Clearly LEAs have some discretion as to how they provide SEN and some are not doing so as effectively as they might. Their failings suggest that mechanisms for downward accountability need to be put in place, rather than yet more mechanisms for upward accountability.

265. The National Autistic Society 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.'[301]

266 While we feel strongly that local authorities should ensure that every child with autism—and indeed with any other SEN—must have local access a diverse range of mainstream and specialist educational provision. However, we not believe that this is best achieved by a law that specifies outcomes. Rather, we believe it can best be achieved by a law that empowers parents to determine that outcome.

Enshrining parents rights in law

267 The Minister assured us that 'we (the Government) would look very carefully at anything you recommended to us in this area'.[302] Taking the Minister at his word, we recommend that the government introduce primary legislation to ensure that the parents and guardians of every child with SEN be given a legal right to request and receive control over their child's share of LEA funding.

268. Not all children with SEN have statements, but often those that have been statemented are the more vulnerable. We believe that a fundamentally different statementing process is needed to ensure the effective assessment of need, efficient and equitable allocation of resources, and appropriate placement to high quality provision for children with SEN and disabilities.

269. In chapter 4 we looked at some the shortcomings in the existing statementing process. The shortcomings in statementing mean that SEN are not being met, parents are being deterred from ensuring that their children's needs are met, and that responsibility for the failure to meet SEN is being evaded.

270. In place of the existing statementing system, which has too much room for ambiguity, we recommend that statementing be reformed so as to specify in details what degree of SEN a child ought to receive, and quantify how much of the LEA budget that same child might expect to receive in order to get that standard of education. We are open-minded as to whether it should be the LEA that makes the assessment of needs, or some other body.

271. Once a child has received a statement, the child's parents or guardians should be able to use the statement as a means of ensuring that their child's share of LEA funding followed the child through the system to ensure that those SEN were met—regardless as to the setting in which the parents or guardian determined the child's needs be met (i.e. special school, mainstream school or other).

272. Through this financial entitlement, parents should become instrumental in the decision-making process regarding their own child. We recognise that this is not always possible, but it should be the "default setting" within the SEN system.

Let a thousand flowers bloom

273. One reason put forward in favour of a National Framework is that it would iron out differences between the standard of SEN provision between different LEAs; it would remove the so-called "postcode lottery". We disagree.

274. Though it may seem counterintuitive to some, the further standardisation of SEN policy at a national level would further exacerbate the "postcode lottery". The apparently arbitrary variation in the standard of provision that parents can expect for their children between different LEAs has been caused by the upward system of LEA accountability. Because LEAs are not answerable downwards to parents of local children with SEN, the SEN policies that they pursue tend to be determined not by what local parents want, but by such arbitrary factors as what SEN experts they happen to employ and what role child psychologists, as opposed to other SEN assessors, play within that particular LEA.

275. Further standardisation between LEAs would, in creating even less downward accountability and even more upward accountability, paradoxically create even greater scope of arbitrary differences. Allowing for more policy pluralism between LEAs than that currently allowed (see chapter 2), coupled with downward accountability through effective parental empowerment, would remove the "postcode lottery".

276. Firstly, with many parents across each LEA likely to make similar choices, the good practice followed in some LEAs today, is likely to be followed swiftly across all LEAs. Parental choice, rather than statutory guidelines, is the more effective means of ratcheting up standards of LEA provision across all LEAs. More downward accountability would drive up standards and outcomes in those areas where parents were dissatisfied.

277. Most important of all, however, with parents having a legal right to request and receive control over their child's share of LEA funds, there would no longer be a lottery at all. Instead of taking their children's chances in a system of arbitrary SEN provision as currently happens, parents would for the first time be able to do something about it. How their child's SEN were met would no longer be a matter of pot luck. Parents would no longer have to put up with the outcomes and results their LEA chose for them. Pluralism and parental choice, rather than the nationalisation of SEN policy and provision between LEAs, would end the existing "postcode lottery" in SEN provision.'-(Mr Douglas Carswell.)

Motion made, and Question put, that the paragraphs be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1

Mr Douglas Carswell

Noes, 5

Mr David Chaytor

Jeff Ennis

Paul Holmes

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Paragraphs 250 to 374 agreed to.

Summary agreed to.