Memorandum submitted by Scope
Scope the national disability organisation welcomes
the opportunity to provide written evidence to the Select Committee
Enquiry into Special Educational Needs.
Scope's current `Time to Get Equal' campaign
aims to raise awareness of the problems and barriers disabled
people face in their everyday lives and this includes barriers
in education. As well as campaigning and policy work, Scope also
provides direct services to disabled people. These services include
special schools which we are in the process of developing and
re-provisioning, in order to provide mainstream opportunities.
Our ultimate goal is that disabled children, regardless of impairment,
will be taught in mainstream schools. This will include co-location
of our schools (as a medium term goal) and increased outreach
work to mainstream schools. Scope believes that if inclusion begins
at school (and in early years) and children learn and socialise
together, this will lead to a more tolerant and inclusive society,
where all people are valued.
At present, we recognise that there are many
barriers to inclusive schooling but we believe that these barriers
can be overcome. At present, disabled people are still only half
as likely as non disabled people to be qualified to degree level
and are twice as likely as non disabled people to have no qualification
at all. This pattern of inequality has not changed since 1998.[24]
Scope has particular concerns, which are detailed
below and pertain particularly to two of the areas that the Select
Committee wish to investigate; 1, Raising standards of achievement
for pupils with special educational needs and 2, Provision for
pupils with special educational needs in `mainstream' schools:
availability of resources and expertise; different models of provision.
1. RAISING STANDARDS
OF ACHIEVEMENT
FOR SEN PUPILS
Information on schools: league tables
Despite recent moves to include contextual value
added (CVA) (and other information available for parents made
available through the school profiles), league tables remain a
crude indicator of how a school is achieving and schools can be
exposed to unnecessary distortion in the media where generally,
only GCSE and A-level grades are reported. Scope would like to
see the variability of rates at which all pupils progress reflected
in value added measures as current measures do not take into account
those working below the national curriculum levels. Although we
acknowledge that including those working below the usual attainment
range for their key stage from threshold indicators could skew
the results of inclusive schools, not including these pupils work
against the very philosophy of inclusion. However, we remain concerned
about the extent to which performance tables can actually reflect
the complexity of school communities.
In our response to the Consultation on Performance
Tables and Pupils with Special educational Needs (2004), Scope
wanted to ensure that any Ofsted reported judgements on a schools'
`inclusivity' would incorporate a number of elements (not just
those with statements and those on School Action and School Action
Plus) but an indicator of inclusion should incorporate the range
of lessons that children are included in with their non-disabled
peers; the availability of specialist staff and support; involvement
in their local community and, crucially, the views of the child
about the schools effectiveness on including them.
The curriculum
Recently, tools such as P scales and Pivots
have been developed to assess those working below the National
Curriculum Level 1. These assessment tools are used in Scope's
schools to measure progress of children with special educational
needs. Teachers in mainstream schools will need training around
adaptations to the curriculum and in the use of such tools. P
scales do not fully reflect the progression of those with the
most severe and complex needs who may find it difficult to move
up even one P scale over a long period of time. For those working
on P levels 1-3, some pupils may never move up from P level 3
in their whole school career. There is a need to develop ways
of valuing what these pupils are doing, and for these `smaller
steps' to be reflected in value added measures. Many schools have
already developed ways to record children's progress within a
P level, PIVATS for example, break the P levels down even lower
(5 sub levels for each P level). Scope feels it should be compulsory
for schools to provide P scales data in the future, but provision
needs to be made for within level development and there needs
to be adequate support and material to ensure consistency. P scales
and pivots are open to teachers' interpretations, so moderation
will be essential however. Teachers in mainstream schools will
need training to ensure that they are confident in using P scales
and Pivots.
Exams
Scope welcomed the announcement that examining
bodies would be covered under the Disability Discrimination Act
from 2006. However we are apprehensive that taking away indicated
certificates before exams have adopted the principles of `inclusive
design' could mean that disabled students are discriminated against
in certain exams; there have been reported concerns to Scope about
modern languages in particular. Although currently pupils can
opt out of elements of the exam, we are concerned about pupils
having to demonstrate that they can meet assessments and exams,
that haven't been designed with their needs in mind. This is crucial
at a time when school standards are of such high priority. Scope
wants all assessment procedures to adopt the principles of `inclusive
design' before regulations and access arrangements are changed.
Withdrawing indicated certificates before assessments are inclusive
to disabled students is unacceptable.
2. PROVISION
OF SEN PUPILS
IN MAINSTREAM
SCHOOLS: AVAILABILITY
OF RESOURCES
AND EXPERTISE;
DIFFERENT MODELS
OF PROVISION
Admissions
We need schools to reflect the communities that
they seek to represent. Scope believes that the capacity for schools
to select pupils on grounds of academic ability is wrong and academies
shouldn't be able to adopt their own admission procedures. The
concept of `choice' can exacerbate segregation because real choice
is often only exercised by those that have the capacity to make
choices and this is often determined by economic and social factors.
Scope recommends that schools are subject to common admission
procedures to prevent `hierarchies' developing between neighbouring
schools.
In terms of legislative changes, Scope would
like to see a statutory right to educational inclusion so that
any pupil (or their parent on their behalf) can ask for inclusion
in a mainstream school. If the school refused, the school (and
not the parent) would have to go to SENDIST to seek sanction to
refuse that placement.
Resourcing mainstream schools
Schools should now be accessible to disabled
pupils. The Schools Access Initiative, triggered by the NUT and
Scope's Within Reach' campaign have enabled many mainstream schools
to become physically accessible. However, Scope have some concerns
about the extent to which schools are accessible to disabled pupils
and that the SAI is no-longer ring-fenced but delivered through
the single capital pot. Progress on the accessibility plans (required
by SENDA) has been slow and a recent Ofsted report[25]
showed that over half of schools visited had no accessibility
plans. We have recently written a letter to the Secretary of State
for Education outlining our concerns and to ask in particular
for the continuation of funding after 2008.
Teacher training
Developing teachers' skills and confidence in
mainstream schools is fundamental to making inclusion work. This
was recognised in the recent Government strategy.[26]
However, at present there are separate teaching standards for
those wanting to specialise in `special' educational needs and
very little disability equality training or consideration of disability
issues at initial teacher training. If inclusion is to become
a reality, teachers need to have a sense of responsibility for
all children and teaching children with `special' educational
needs shouldn't be seen as a separate and individual `expertise'
within the teacher training programme. Initial teacher training
also needs to be accompanied by a sustained in-house teacher training
programme for teachers.
Specialist support
The ability of schools and their staff to collaborate
with those who have specialist knowledge and with other professionals,
such as social workers, health visitors, and speech and language
therapists is vital to successful inclusion.
Scope are exploring a pilot project for an `inclusion
team'. This team would comprise of those key professionals that
individual pupils require for a supported mainstream placement.
Scope would like to see each LEA providing an `inclusion team'.
The statement of SEN would then be the right for the school to
draw upon the local inclusion team to `enable inclusion'. and
this would make the statement work for the provider of inclusion,
rather than segregated provision.
Children with special educational needs need
consistency through co-ordinated support within schools and co-location
of services through extended schools and children's centres. Children's
centres in each local authority should be inclusive and this would
help to alter parental expectations from the outset; which would
increase demand for inclusion later in the child's education.
October 2005
24 DRC (December 2004) Disability Briefing. Back
25
Ofsted (2004) Special educational needs and disability: towards
inclusive schools. Back
26
DfES (2004)Removing Barriers to Achievement. Back
| 
