Memorandum submitted by the National Governors'
Council
1. BACKGROUND
TO THE
NATIONAL GOVERNORS'
COUNCIL
1.1 The National Governors' Council (NGC)
is the main representative body for school governors in England.
The members of NGC are independent Associations of governing bodies
in two thirds of the LEA areas in the country. NGC seeks to represent
the interests of all school governors and governing bodies in
all phases and types of school.
1.2 NGC sent a questionnaire to our member
associations and asked for their views on SEN provision in their
areas. This memorandum is generated from the responses to the
questionnaire as well as existing policy work NGC has carried
out in relation to SEN.
1.3 We hope that this memorandum will be
a helpful contribution to the Committee's deliberations on SEN.
2. GOVERNING
BODY RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR SEN
2.1 The governing body is responsible for
the strategic leadership within the school. It is the governing
body's responsibility to formulate policies for the school and
to monitor and evaluate their effectiveness. It is not the governing
body's role to engage in the implementation of policy or day to
day management of the school.
2.2 Governing bodies have specific responsibilities
under the Special Needs Code of Practice. Governing bodies are
required to set a SEN policy and monitor and evaluate its effectiveness.
Although it is not a statutory requirement it is considered good
practice for governing bodies to nominate a member to be the SEN
governor. There are very few governing bodies which do not have
such a governor.
3. SUMMARY OF
FINDINGS
3.1 Governors believe that the most important
factor in determining the provision for a particular child is
the educational need of that child. To this end it is important
that a range of educational provisional is available and each
pupil is educated in the most appropriate setting for their needs.
Governors are concerned that schools are not always adequately
resourced to meet the needs of SEN pupils.
4. HAVE GOVERNING
BODIES SUFFICIENT
KNOWLEDGE AND
EXPERIENCE TO
CARRY OUT
THEIR ROLE?
4.1 The NGC has asked its members whether
they feel that they have sufficient knowledge/experience to meet
their statutory responsibilities for SEN. The majority of our
respondents said that on a personal level they felt they did have
sufficient knowledge/experience to carry out the role. However,
a number of our respondents felt that while they as an individual
had sufficient knowledge/experience they were not convinced that
this was true of the whole governing body. It should be noted
that members in special schools were less convinced that mainstream
governors fully understood their role, or indeed were totally
familiar with the SEN Code of Practice.
4.2 The importance of appropriate training
was acknowledged by all those who responded. In particular it
was felt to be vital for those taking on the role of SEN governor.
The majority of governors felt that the efforts of the staff in
the school and in particular the SEN Co-ordinator (SENCO) were
invaluable in providing them with information and knowledge on
SEN issues.
5. PROVISION
FOR SEN PUPILS
IN "MAINSTREAM"
SCHOOLS: AVAILABILITY
OF RESOURCES
AND EXPERTISE;
DIFFERENT MODELS
OF PROVISION
5.1 Most governors felt that the needs of
pupils with SEN were being met. However, they felt that this did
require more resources than were allocated to the school for the
pupils. A number felt that the introduction of personalised learning
by their schools had made a difference because it was clearly
tailored to the needs of the individual child.
5.2 The biggest issue in relation to meeting
the needs of SEN pupils, statemented or not, related to the amount
of resources devoted to them. The general view was that the funding
allocated for SEN was not sufficient to meet the needs of the
pupils. Governors do not profess to have the professional background/knowledge
to comment on the detailed methodology by which the numbers of
SEN pupils in the school are calculated, however, most take the
view that that using free school meal entitlement as a proxy indicator
is too crude a measure.
5.3 Many felt that their schools in an effort
to provide the best possible education for pupils with SEN had
no choice but to allocate more resources to these pupils than
had been delegated by the authority. This was particularly true
in those areas where it was felt there was reluctance to statement
pupils. Other members report that the funding they receive is
sufficient.
5.4 Some members expressed concern about
where "gifted and talented" pupils fitted into this
agenda.
6. THE SYSTEM
OF STATEMENTS
OF NEED
FOR SEN PUPILS
("THE STATEMENTING
PROCESS")
6.1 The statementing process falls within
the day to day management of the school and, therefore, outside
the scope of the direct responsibilities of the governing body.
However, many SEN governors have knowledge of the process. The
majority of these report that the process took too long, involved
too many resources and was too bureaucratic. Many governors feel
that the resources needed to get a pupil statemented were disproportionate
to the amount subsequently allocated to meet the needs of the
pupil.
6.2 There was also a view that in some authorities
the approach to statementing and SEN in general was finance rather
than needs lead. In some instances it was felt that pupils who
really should have statements were not statemented until the situation
became critical largely due to financial considerations. Shortages
of sufficiently experienced and expert staff in local authorities
were also thought to be contributory factors to problems in the
statementing process. Others thought that the views of teaching
professionals were not always given sufficient weight during the
process.
6.3 Delays in statementing were felt to
be detrimental to pupils' long-term educational outcomes. On the
plus side, the fact that the process gave parents the opportunity
to have an input was felt to be a positive factor in the system.
7. SPECIAL SCHOOLS
7.1 Governors from special schools generally
reported that pupils were well-catered for, but experiences varied
in different local authority areas. Some reported a high-level
of local authority support for special schools, whereas others
felt that the local authority was totally unsupportive, to the
extent in one case of not informing parents that special schools
existed and were an option. Most governors believe that special
schools have a vital and important role to play in education provision,
both as the main educational setting for some pupils and also
as a valuable resource which "mainstream" schools can
use for advice and "outreach" services.
8. PROVISION
FOR DIFFERENT
TYPES OF
SEN, INCLUDING EMOTIONAL
BEHAVIOURAL AND
SOCIAL DIFFICULTIES
8.1 Governors believe that the needs of
the individual child should be at the forefront of any decision
about the appropriate educational setting for that child. They
believe that a range of provision must be available to enable
all pupils to achieve their potential. There is concern in some
areas that special schools have been closed or are under threat
of closure and the alternative provision will not be adequate
to meet the needs of the pupils involved. One special school governor
reported that her school for pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties
(MLD) was being told by the local authority that there were no
pupils with MLD—which they do not believe—and were
being put under pressure to accept pupils with EBD.
8.2 A number of governors reported the difficulty
their schools faced in balancing the needs of one child against
all the others in the classroom. It was felt that even with designated
one to one support some pupils unfortunately had a negative impact
upon the education of their classmates.
CONCLUSION
8.3 Governors support the inclusion agenda,
but not at the expense of the needs of the individual child. Both
"mainstream" and special schools have an important role
to play and children should be educated in the situation which
is best for them.
October 2005
| 
