Memorandum submitted by the Northern Council
of Education Authorities
1. PROVISION
FOR SEN PUPILS
IN "MAINSTREAM
SCHOOLS": AVAILABILITY
OF RESOURCES
AND EXPERTISE;
DIFFERENT MODELS
OF PROVISION
(a) Models need to be as inclusive as possible.
For example, separate units in mainstream schools can be as isolating
as separate special schools.
(b) There is still a need to provide whole
school training to reinforce the message to teachers that `good
teaching is good teaching'; there is no separate `magic' pedagogy
for SEN.
(c) Resourcing should start from the standpoint
of resourcing schools so that they can meet a diverse range of
needs and are accountable for how they use resources. For example:
there can be difficulties in pupils accessing laptop computers
or in having computers repaired, unwillingness to change nappies
in an educational setting can be a barrier to inclusion and could
contravene DDA requirements.
(d) There needs to be a `joining up' with
other issues—workforce remodelling, BIP, BEST, extended
schools and children's centres—so that the principles of
inclusion are embedded in all aspects of school life, reducing
the need for separate provision.
(e) There needs to be clarity on the responsibility
for and resourcing of specialist equipment for pupils requiring
medical support
2. PROVISION
FOR SEN PUPILS
IN SPECIAL
SCHOOLS
(a) There is some expertise and some good
practice in special schools but many staff have no special qualifications
or training and some schools receive poor Ofsted reports. A culture
shift is required to reduce reliance on special schools (amongst
both parents and school staff) and develop the new role of special
schools in relation to in-reach/out-reach in partnership with
other local authority SEN services.
(b) Other agencies may prefer the convenience
of delivering their services to pupils in special schools but
inclusion requires the delivery of services in the child's mainstream
locality. The timescale and organisational issues to facilitate
this are key factors for success.
(c) Pupils in special schools could be dually
registered at their local mainstream school to support their inclusion
and the Government would need to take the funding implications
of this into account.
(d) Special schools need to be adequately
resourced to provide support/training to mainstream schools
(e) LSC funding is inadequate and places
pressure on the local authority to provide, at the cost of mainstream
services, provision and transport for post 16 pupils.
3. RAISING STANDARDS
OF ACHIEVEMENT
FOR SEN PUPILS
(a) Evidence demonstrates that inclusion
is effective in raising the achievement of pupils with SEN.
(b) There is also evidence that the placement
of pupils with SEN in mainstream does not hinder the progress
of mainstream pupils (see `The Impact of Population Inclusivity
in Schools on Student Outcomes' EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research
Unit, Institute of Education, University of London http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk)
(c) Further attention should be given by
school improvement partners and local authority SEN and School
Improvement Officers to ensure that the progress of pupils with
SEN is monitored alongside that of their peers. Individualised
pupil planning should be supplemented by P levels (eg PIVATS)
where appropriate.
(d) A national agreement on the measurement
of value added progress, web sites of good examples and a more
accountable monitoring system by the DfES would reinforce the
importance of measuring pupil progress
4. THE SYSTEM
OF STATEMENTS
OF NEED
FOR SEN PUPILS
(THE STATEMENTING
PROCESSES)
Although in depth assessments to understand
the learning style and potential of pupils continue to be required,
the current system requires radical change as Statementing is:
(a) Lengthy, arduous, costly and excessively
bureaucratic.
(b) An inhibitor to change, `locking' local
authorities into what they are already providing.
(c) Potentially unfair, as parents with
skills and resources can pursue a legal process to get what they
want regardless of an individual local authority's policy for
SEN. SENDIST is inherently conservative and an inhibitor to change.
(d) A process which labels individuals rather
than focusing on addressing the needs of all.
(e) Prevents local authorities from offering
an immediate response to pupil needs. Funding for pupils with
SEN should not be dependent on having a Statement.
5. THE ROLE
OF PARENTS
IN DECISIONS
ABOUT THEIR
CHILDREN'S
EDUCATION
(a) Parents should be involved and informed
from the earliest stages of planning and not be faced with stark
choices/deadlines.
(b) Parental preference needs to be in the
context of the outcome of a thorough assessment of need and within
the context of local authority policy.
(c) Parents of pupils with SEN should have
the same `rights' as all parents, neither more nor less.
(d) Parents of pupils with SEN are not always
made aware of the pupil's entitlement to special examination arrangements.
(e) All school staff need basic information
about procedures for identifying and providing resources for pupils
with SEN in order to ensure parents are given the right information
from the start.
6. HOW SPECIAL
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
ARE DEFINED
(a) This should be in the context of personalised
learning for all pupils, with the emphasis on individual need,
not fitting children into categories using labels.
(b) A label may give a general picture but
children don't fit neatly into categories and usually there are
a range of factors which are barriers to learning for a particular
child.
(c) Labels are not consistently applied
across agencies.
7. PROVISION
FOR DIFFERENT
TYPES AND
LEVELS OF
SEN, INCLUDING EMOTIONAL,
BEHAVIOURAL AND
SOCIAL DIFFICULTIES
(EBSD)
(a) The above points apply to EBSD, although
this is potentially the most challenging issue for inclusion,
in the context of a political stance to `get tough on' behaviour
and also a continuing divide in some schools between SEN and pastoral
systems. Out of authority provision for EBSD can be extremely
costly. There can be long waiting lists to access CAMHS.
(b) Provision of therapies—either
resources should be made available to local authorities or a health
facility to make therapeutic support for pupils with SEN a priority.
8. THE LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK FOR
SEN PROVISION AND
THE EFFECTS
OF THE
DISABILITY ACT
2001, WHICH EXTENDED
THE DISABILITY
DISCRIMINATION ACT
TO EDUCATION
(a) This needs to be reformed (see comments
on statementing above) and seems outdated in the light of, for
example, provision mapping as a means of monitoring and evaluation
for SEN.
(b) The implementation of DDA (requirement
to make reasonable adjustments in all areas of school life) could
be effective in itself to ensure that special needs are met and
pupils with SEN have access to all aspects of school life. For
example, reasonable adjustments following a risk assessment must
be explored before a pupil with ADHD could be excluded from a
school outing
9. ADDITIONAL
POINTS
(a) The Government's voice on inclusion
can be inconsistent. There are still barriers to inclusion regarding
the tensions between inclusion and league tables and between inclusion
and zero tolerance of behavioural difficulties.
(b) There is a need for real joined up thinking
in relation to the standards and inclusion agendas
(c) Changes in the role of local authorities
and their relationship with schools have had an impact on inclusion
and strategic planning for SEN. Schools have ever increasing autonomy
and control over the SEN budget in order to allow greater flexibility
in response to needs and to facilitate early intervention. The
role of the local authority in monitoring provision and appropriate
use of resources and in responding to parental concern requires
development and clarity.
(d) Micro-management of education by government
has a negative impact.
(e) Transitions of pupils with SEN at 16+
to access further education, training or adult services remains
problematic, with particular concerns around LSC funding levels,
access to therapeutic services and criteria for additional years
in FE.
(f) There is a need to ensure that pupils
with SEN are given more of a voice in decision making.
(g) One local authority has three City Academies
out of a total of eight secondary schools. This presents a danger
of limiting the choice for parents of pupils with SEN.
October 2005
| 
