Memorandum submitted by CASE
SUBMISSION ON
SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL
NEEDS
CASE (Campaign for State Education) is a national
campaigning organisation committed to high quality and well resourced
education for all children and young people. It is a voluntary
organisation funded by members' subscriptions and donations and
has no political affiliations.
CASE would like the Select Committee to consider
the following:
— the extent to which the revised Code
of Practice is being followed; and
— the funding of SEN and its impact
on the progress of children.
In particular:
1. Resources
— how local authorities and schools
allocate the funding for SEN and whether the costs for schools
are fully met. This is particularly in schools where there is
a high level of unstatemented special need, especially emotional,
behavioural and social difficulties;
— the role and sufficiency of educational
psychologists and other specialist staff eg speech therapists,
behaviour support teams. In particular, the support they are able
to provide to children in school and to teaching staff;
— the role of Governing Bodies in monitoring
and evaluating the way schools support children with SEN and identify
the progress they have made;
— clarity about the amount of time
provided for SENCOs to fulfil their duties—ideally it should
be a full time post at senior management level; and
— the amount and quality of the training
offered to teachers and support staff—initially and ongoing—on
how to diagnose and support children with SEN.
2. Statements
— whether there has been an increase
or decrease in statements in the last 10 years, the level of detail
they provide and how effective they have been; and
— the time between diagnosis and support/funding
being provided.
3. Parents and Children
— the level of information and support
being offered to parents by schools and how many provide support
groups for parents of children with SEN;
— the average number of reviews in
a year—ideally three, once a term—and whether parents
and children are fully involved;
— the effectiveness of Parent Partnership
schemes—both independent and local authority based;
— how children's views are accessed
and used to set targets and determine progress;
— the effectiveness of SEN policies
and the extent to which they are shared with parents; and
— the satisfaction of parents with
the provision their children are receiving.
4. Achievement and Selection
— where schools set children according
to ability in some or all subjects the proportion of children
with SEN who are in the higher and lower sets;
— numbers of children with SEN achieving
Level 4 or above at KS2 and 5 GCSEs at KS4;
— the success of disabled children
who are educated in mainstream schools; and
— the number/proportion of children
with SEN admitted to selective schools as compared to non selective
schools.
5. Inclusion
— the number of children with SEN who
are excluded;
— the extent to which schools have
become more accessible;
— whether children with SEN have access
to the full curriculum and whether this is the case for all children
ie to what extent are children still being withdrawn from curriculum
areas to be taught separately and how this impacts on the quality
of their education;
— the level of support and continuity
of provision at times of transition—eg from early years
to primary, primary to secondary and secondary to post-16; and
— the increase in inclusion—numbers
of special schools which have closed because the children are
in mainstream schools and any evaluation of the different outcomes.
6. 16-19 Provision
— the support provided for post-16
students and their progress/success—evidence from the Learning
Skills Council.
CASE POLICY
Special Educational Needs
1. Schools should be resourced to respond
to the true level of need and diversity of their pupils.
2. Children with emotional and behavioural
difficulties are children with special educational needs. Schools
should be given the resources and expertise to support them rather
than be forced to exclude them.
3. Where possible SEN co-ordinators should
be full time posts with proper training to enable schools to fulfil
their obligations within the Code of Practice. Disability Equality
Training should be part of teacher training and INSET provision.
4. Parents and pupils, where appropriate,
must be involved in decision making and at all stages of assessment.
5. The LEA should ensure that independent
advice and advocacy are available to all parents.
6. LEA support services are a vital link
in any schemes for integration and their function and status should
be maintained.
7. Statements should be sufficiently detailed
to enable parents to check that the support promised is being
provided. There should be time limits set within which the LEA
has to provide the necessary services set out by a statement.
Appeal and complaint procedures should be operated in such a way
that parents are able to make complaints about inadequate provision
for their childs special needs.
7. The Office for Standards in Education
(Ofsted) and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)
should play their part in ensuring that a broad and balanced curriculum
including the full National Curriculum is available to all children
with special educational needs.
8. CASE is a signatory of the Centre for
Studies on Integration in Education (CSIE) charter. CASE believes
that all children regardless of the nature and degree of disability
or learning difficulty should ideally be educated in mainstream
education. The assessment of a child's special needs should be
used to determine the support and changes necessary within a mainstream
school. Should a child's education ever have to take place in
a separate setting the aim should be to return to mainstream education.
The reason for the placement and the review arrangements must
be clear. LEAs should not place children in segregated provision
on the grounds of "efficient use of resources". Parents
should not have to hear that their child is too expensive, dependent
or different to be placed in their local school.
October 2005
| 
