Memorandum submitted by TreeHouse
1. TreeHouse is the national charity for
autism education and runs a special school for children with autism.
It was established in 1997 by the parents of newly diagnosed children
with autism in response to the huge unmet national need for specialist
autism education. TreeHouse is in contact with thousands of parents
who have children with autism across the UK, the majority of whom
have struggled to access education. TreeHouse runs a pioneering
and innovative pro-inclusion special school which currently educates
43 children with autism. In doing so, we deliver the education
that LEAs are legally required to make available for our children—meaning
we are filling a basic gap in provision.
2. TreeHouse is delighted to have the opportunity
to give evidence to this inquiry on Special Educational Needs
(SEN). We commend the Committee for choosing to investigate this
area; there is an urgent need to improve SEN provision and this
will require political prioritisation. TreeHouse is a member of
the Steering Group of the Special Educational Consortium (SEC)
and we fully support the SEC submission. As a supplement, this
submission is intended to highlight key autism-specific issues.
TreeHouse has taken note of the areas that the Committee intends
to investigate, and our submission is intended to highlight the
key issues for autism in these areas. If the Committee would be
assisted by a more detailed explanation, TreeHouse would be delighted
to put forward a senior member of staff to give oral evidence.
3. Autism is unique because there is no
other condition of such complexity, affecting so many children
in the UK, about which so little is known and for which society's
response is currently so inadequate. Virtually 1% of school-age
children are on the autism spectrum and 27% of them have been
excluded from school, the majority more than once (ONS, 2005).
Unlike for other special educational needs, society still does
not know how to educate children with autism. Yet the absence
of appropriate education can mean that children with autism never
acquire even the most basic skills—speech, functional communication
or self care.
4. One of the greatest barriers to progress
for children with autism is low expectations. Too many children,
particularly those who are `passive' and do not disrupt the education
of other children, are merely kept safe in schools rather than
educated to their full potential. TreeHouse has shown that children
in our school can make real progress when their needs are accurately
assessed and appropriate interventions are put in place.
5. This inquiry is taking place in the context
of the Government's strategy for SEN, `Removing Barriers to Achievement'.
TreeHouse was involved in the development of this strategy and
we support its contents, particularly the focus on a future role
for special schools within a spectrum of provision and the need
to improve SEN training. We hope the Committee will recognise
the value of `Removing Barriers to Achievement' and will urge
Government to progress its implementation.
6. In summary, TreeHouse's primary concerns
are:
(a) the quality and quantity of training
on autism available to education professionals
(b) the need to develop a spectrum of autism
provision in each local area.
7. We also wish to highlight the impact
of delegation on the resourcing of specialist SEN services and
the legal bias against `independent' schools (ie voluntary sector
schools set up to address underprovision), which can prevent parents
from accessing the most appropriate provision for their children.
8. SUBMISSION
1—THE NEED
TO INVEST
IN TRAINING
AND AUTISM
AWARENESS
9. All children with autism need to be taught
by teachers, practitioners and support staff who have skills and
expertise in autism education. Autism requires provision every
bit as specialist as that for children with visual and hearing
impairments. For example, teachers require:
(a) Practical skills as well as a theoretical
understanding communication systems such as signing (Makaton)
and PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System)
(b) The ability to use highly technical behaviour
management skills
(c) The ability to significantly differentiate
the curriculum to address the unique and idiosyncratic learning
styles of each child.
10. Yet there is no equivalent of `teachers
of the deaf' or `teachers of the blind' for autism, and no requirement
that professionals demonstrate any level of expertise before teaching
children on the autistic spectrum. It is deplorable that only
22% of teachers who teach children with autism have had any training
at all, and this is usually for less than half a day.[27]
11. TreeHouse would urge the Committee to
recommend:
(a) that all educational professionals should
receive a basic level of training in autism, and that every school
should ensure that at least one member of staff has a recognised
autism qualification to act as a central resource of expertise.
This parallels the `training and professional development pyramid'
outlined in `Removing Barriers to Achievement' (paragraph 3.9,
p. 56) for all SEN. TreeHouse submits that the complexity of autism
as a condition and increased rates of prevalence justify specific
autism training modules within this framework.
(b) that DfES should convene a working party
to determine core standards for autism training. Such standards
would cover the full spectrum of autism education and would also
need to address problematic areas such as medication and physical
restraint. Ensuring that all staff possess a basic understanding
of autism will increase the likelihood that support from specialists
will be welcomed rather than viewed with suspicion.
12. SUBMISSION
2—THE NEED
FOR A
SPECTRUM OF
AUTISM PROVISION
13. TreeHouse believes in sustainable inclusion—that
people with autism should be able to access a full and inclusive
life within their own community. Education must work towards this
goal. `Inclusion' for children with autism will not always result
from a placement in a mainstream school. Specialist education,
meaning access to skilled teachers and an appropriate environment,
is often an essential component of social inclusion for children
with autism. Yet the most recent survey suggested that there are
only 7,500 specialist places for an estimated 90,000 children
with autism across the country (Jones, 2002). Even assuming that
75% of children with autism could be successfully placed in mainstream
schools, which is an extremely ambitious target, this would leave
thousands of children with autism without an appropriate school
place.
14. Autism is a broad spectrum condition,
and there needs to be a spectrum of educational provision to meet
the spectrum of need. Mainstream and specialist provision must
not be seen as "either/or" solutions, as there is a
need for a range of approaches and placements. A one-size-fits-all
approach—be this a blanket policy in favour of special schools
or a blanket policy in favour of mainstreaming—is potentially
disastrous for large numbers of children with autism, each of
whom will have unique needs, strengths and potential.
15. The need for a flexible and sensitive
approach to each child's needs is in danger of being lost in a
polarised debate in which individual children's stories are generalised
as what is `right' for all children with SEN. `Special' does not
necessarily equal `specialist': Generic special schools which
cater for a wide range of special educational needs may not always
be better equipped to meet the particular challenge posed by autism
than many mainstream schools.
16. TreeHouse submits that the spectrum
of provision that should be available for all children with autism
is set out in the APPGA (All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism)
Manifesto (APPGA: 2003):
(a) an autism-specific educational provision,
including a unit attached to a mainstream school or
(b) a mainstream school where autism-specific
support is provided, tailored to the individual or
(c) a special school with experience and
expertise in autism or
(d) a recognised home-based educational programme
or
(e) a combination of the above, tailored
to the child's educational needs
17. Establishing a spectrum of provision
in every local area will require significant initial capital expenditure
and ongoing revenue costs. Yet this needs to be viewed in an `invest
to save' context; the best available estimate is that only 7%
of the current lifetime cost of a person with autism to the state
is spent on education (Knapp and Jarbrink, 2001). Increased expenditure
on educational provision, and also on staff training, may result
in significantly reduced long term costs—as well as better
outcomes for people with autism and their families.
18. SUBMISSION
3—MAINSTREAM VS
SPECIAL SCHOOLS—A
FALSE DISTINCTION
19. `Removing Barriers to Achievement' states
that "special schools have an important role to play within
the overall spectrum of provision for children with SEN—educating
some children directly and sharing their expertise with mainstream
schools to support greater inclusion" (paragraph 2.12, p
34). TreeHouse is fully behind this agenda.
20. Until very recently, children with SEN
had severe limitations placed on their entitlement to a mainstream
school place. TreeHouse welcomes the changes that occurred in
September 2002 when the Special Educational Needs and Disability
Act came into operation.
21. Positive inclusion most often occurs
in schools with higher staff:pupil ratios. But it is not just
the numbers of staff that matters—the quality of their training,
autism awareness, access to external professional expertise, and
practical skills are crucial factors in understanding and meeting
the needs of all children with autism.
22. However, the aim of sending children
to mainstream school should not entail ignoring difference and
`treating all pupils the same'. Schools must be responsive to
the needs of the individual child and commit appropriate resources
for the entire duration of the school day. Sadly, TreeHouse hears
from parents that their child's `inclusion' in mainstream school
is merely cosmetic or tokenistic, with children left on their
own in complete isolation from the curriculum and their peers.
By contrast, TreeHouse's school provides an example of the potential
for specialist educational provision to work with mainstream settings,
with the result that a quarter of our children are currently on
dual placements with TreeHouse and local mainstream schools.[28]
23. SUBMISSION
4—LOCAL RESOURCING
OF EXTERNAL
PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE:
THE DANGERS
OF DELEGATION
24. `Removing Barriers to Achievement' cites
research commissioned by the then-DfEE and the National Association
for Special Educational Needs (NASEN) in 2000 which concluded
that "increased delegation of SEN resources has eroded the
availability of support in some areas, and that learning and behavioural
support were most affected" (paragraph 2.35, p.48). A more
recent report by Ofsted highlights the negative impact of delegation
on an LEA's ability to provide targeted to support schools that
are struggling to raise standards for children with SEN.[29]
Nevertheless, `Removing Barriers to Achievement' states that the
Government `want[s] to see further delegation' of funding from
LEAs to schools (ibid.).
25. Children with autism frequently require
external expertise to assist them in their educational and social
environment (from educational psychologists, speech and language
therapists, etc). These essential services have traditionally
been housed within central LEA teams, enabling all schools to
draw on a pool of professionals and benefit from economies of
scale and more experienced staff. Yet TreeHouse has witnessed
a decline in the availability of behaviour support and language
support at LEA level.
26. The advantages of delegating the commissioning
of these services to Head Teachers and Governors are not yet clear.
Accountability and an over-reliance on parental scrutiny are key
problems. In TreeHouse's experience, it is usually only Heads
and Governors with direct, often family, experiences of SEN who
have sufficient awareness to invest in important expert services.
27. The development of local communities
of schools, federations and specialist school networks is a welcome
development in principle. TreeHouse has established strong relationships
with several neighbouring schools. However, in specific relation
to the commissioning of expensive professional services, there
is little evidence that children are benefiting from delegation.
Too much is being left to chance.
28. TreeHouse submits that the Committee
should recommend that:
(a) an evaluation of the impact of delegation
on SEN support services should be prioritised by DfES;
(b) while that evaluation is awaited, LEAs
should receive guidance to retain sufficient funds to deliver
central SEN support to schools; and
(c) DfES should consider the potential for
specialist schools such as TreeHouse, whether in the maintained
or voluntary sector, to become SEN support services for our local
community of schools, operating as centres of enhanced provision.
To fulfil this role, funding needs to be made available to release
our staff for outreach work, following the model increasingly
adopted for maintained special schools.
29. SUBMISSION
5—IMPROVING THE
STATEMENTING PROCESS
30. Too often, the statementing process
consists of a series of battles that pit parents against LEAs.
However, when applied—and implemented—properly, statementing
offers one of the clearest and most certain means of ensuring
children with SEN obtain the provision they require.
31. The statementing process is inherently
adversarial in nature. Parents and professionals are entitled
to request an assessment of SEN, which the LEA are entitled to
decline. This often triggers the first of what may be many stressful
visits to SEN Tribunals, and is reflected in the rising number
of `Refusal to Assess' cases at SENDIST (Special Educational Needs
and Disability Tribunal). Autism represents the single largest
category of cases at SENDIST (see SENDIST Annual Reports).
32. In TreeHouse's experience, the adversarial
nature of the statementing process derives from the fact that
a growing need chases increasingly finite resources. Only a root-and-branch
reconfiguring of the funding system could alter this equation.
As one LEA Head of SEN said to a parent: "you've got to look
after your child—I've got to look after my budget".
In the absence of a radical reappraisal of SEN funding, upward
pressure on budgets will either mean that children with autism
are educated at the expense of others, or that children with autism
will be in danger of not accessing any education at all.
33. Making a proper separation between assessment
and provision would go some way in mitigating the conflict. However,
only when the scarcity of resources earmarked for provision (and
not allocated to legal proceedings) is tackled will the situation
improve. Cross-authority or regional pooling may go some way to
alleviate the resource gap.
34. In addition, LEA commissioners must
recognise the changing nature of the population of children with
SEN and expand the breadth and depth of provision available for
particular groups of children, such as children with autism. The
APPGA Manifesto (APPGA, 2003), endorsed by over 300 politicians
from all main parties, calls for each LEA to establish a spectrum
of provision for autism, from home programmes through resourced
units and special schools to mainstream schools where the staff
have the training and expertise to teach these children. If sufficient
provision is available, the conflicts between parents and LEAs
over statementing will naturally reduce.
35. SUBMISSION
6—INCREASING PARENTAL
TRUST IN
THE SEN LEGAL
FRAMEWORK
Parental trust in the SEN legal framework has
been corroded because SENDIST is powerless to enforce statement
provisions. Parents are then faced with the prospect of a Judicial
Review in the High Court and all the time, expense and anxiety
this entails. A simple legal mechanism to ensure that statements,
once agreed, will be implemented would significantly improve trust
in statementing. SENDIST itself would appear to be the ideal vehicle
to deliver this.
36. The lack of such a legal mechanism shocks
many parents, who understandably assume that provision will follow
an agreed statement. If the Government wishes to reduce the number
of statements issued, the approach needs to be one focussed on
reducing parental demand for statements by increasing confidence
in school-based provision. There needs to be a consequential recognition
that some pupils, such as many children with autism, will always
require provision that costs more than any individual school can
be expected to fund from its budget.
37. SUBMISSION
7—RAISING STANDARDS
OF ACHIEVEMENT
FOR SEN PUPILS
38. TreeHouse welcomes the Government's
commitment to increasing expectations for all children (paragraph.
3.1, p 52) and to the aims of `personalised learning'.
39. The freedom to focus specifically on
the needs of the children with autism is of high importance, especially
where these contrast significantly from the needs of typically
developing children. `Removing Barriers to Achievement' promises
to `put children with SEN at the heart of personalised learning,
helping schools to vary the pace and approach to learning to meet
individual children's needs' (p 50).
40. The best provision is most likely where
schools give greater curriculum differentiation. This needs to
reflect the fact that many children with SEN are operating below
National Curriculum Level 1, and require significant support to
develop basic skills which typically-developing children learn
as a matter of course. Yet schools across the country are struggling
to know how to teach children with autism. TreeHouse is already
playing its part, offering our children "challenging and
relevant curriculums" (paragraph. 2.16, p 38).
41. New models for assessing achievement
on a daily and termly basis need to be innovated in order to assist
mainstream schools and ensure compliance with the national curriculum.
Factors to consider are the need for precision in data collection,
attention to detail in curriculum differentiation and greater
personalization of teaching approaches as well as curriculum materials.
This is still an area of ongoing discovery and exploration in
relation to children with autism. DfES must ensure firstly that
more research in this area is commissioned and secondly that research
findings are translated into practice.
42. SUBMISSION
8—THE ROLE
OF PARENTS
IN DECISIONS
ABOUT THEIR
CHILDREN'S
EDUCATION
43. Recent developments and the broad sweep
of legislation in the education field have placed greater emphasis
on the roles of parents. TreeHouse gives qualified support to
these changes. Parents generally know their children's needs better
than anyone else.
44. However, recent remarks by the Prime
Minister and the Secretary of State for Education have raised
our concern that the balance has swung too far. Commenting on
another aspect of the Government's education policy, the Prime
Minister said: "It is not government edict that is determining
the fate of city academies, but parent power. Parents are choosing
city academies, and that is enough for me".[30]
45. TreeHouse has some reservations about
placing the onus on parents as the guarantor of the quality of
education their children receive. Even though TreeHouse blazed
the trail for a wave of parent-founded autism schools, this was
a desperate response to underprovision, not a sustainable answer
to system failures. Parents of children with autism have a hard
enough job to do themselves without having to ensure schools and
LEAs are doing their jobs properly, too. Parents who fight for
provision for their child risk being labelled as `pushy', while
children whose parents are less equipped to engage with their
school and LEA may miss out on much-needed support.
46. A regime in which the role of parents
is prioritised will inherently favour those parents ready-equipped
with the skills and information to scrutinise and campaign for
better services. This, of course, contains inherent dilemmas in
public policy where educational outcomes are already subject to
socio-economic and educational inequalities. Once children are
placed in schools such as TreeHouse, some LEAs abdicate their
legal duties to the child, refusing to attend annual reviews and
leaving parents to monitor the quality of their child's education.
47. Finally, it should be remembered that
many children (and a disproportionate number of them with SEN)
do not live their daily lives with the love and support of their
parents. Government should be careful not to build such assumptions
into their provision for children without substantial safeguards.
48. SUBMISSION
9—ADDRESSING THE
LEGAL BIAS
AGAINST INDEPENDENT
SCHOOLS
49. Aside from SEN, independent schools
are linked to the idea of privilege. In SEN, it is a very different
story—charities have set up schools outside the maintained
sector to provide appropriate education for disabled children
whose needs were being ignored. The legal framework in recent
years has provided parents with, in theory, greater choice in
deciding where their child is educated. However, the law remains
imperfect and is still subject to the judgement of LEAs who continue
to over-rule parents on grounds of cost.
50. The Special Educational Needs and Disability
Act 2001 (SENDA) created a greater right to a mainstream school
place for parents of children with SEN. This was a welcome development,
forcing mainstream schools to become more inclusive for children
with a wide range of needs. At the same time, the Act preserved
parents' rights to request a maintained special school—s316
Education Act 1996 (as amended by SENDA) states that a child with
a statement must be educated in a mainstream school unless that
is incompatible with the wishes of his parents (inter alia).
51. There are two different sets of legal
provisions in this area, one for maintained schools, the other
for independent and non-maintained schools. If a parent is looking
for a maintained school place, any additional expense of the place
can be balanced against the benefit to the child—enabling
parents to access a more expensive place if this is what their
child really needs. This right does not apply for independent
and non-maintained schools. These schools are generally more expensive
than maintained schools as they have to provide an infrastructure
that would otherwise be provided by the LEA, and may well have
higher staffing levels so that children's needs can be met appropriately.
To get a place in these schools, parents are forced to prove that
no maintained school can meet their child's needs—rather
than simply establishing that the independent or non-maintained
school in question is what the child really needs.
52. The system does not fully promote parental
choice even in relation to maintained schools. If a parent expresses
a preference for any maintained school, whether special or mainstream,
the LEA is obliged to name this school in the statement unless
it is unsuitable for the child, or to send the child to the school
would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children
or the efficient use of resources (schedule 27, paragraph 3(3)
Education Act 1996). It is arguable that this aspect of the law
should also be changed to oblige an LEA to send a child to any
maintained school requested by the parents.
53. CONCLUSION,
SOLUTIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
54. Whilst LEAs are forced to meet an infinite
need with finite budgets, the postcode lottery of provision will
remain. TreeHouse supports the distinct separation of assessment
and resource provision within LEAs—scrutinised by closer
DfES monitoring. However, of more fundamental importance is recognition
from central Government that more resources—human and financial—need
to be directed towards the SEN framework if all children are to
receive the support that they need.
55. Children with autism are regularly being
failed by the current SEN system. TreeHouse proposes:
(a) Measures to promote innovation in pedagogy,
such as that undertaken by TreeHouse's school.
(b) An initiative to develop national standards
and competencies required to be effective teacher of children
with autism.
(c) A consequential requirement that teachers
and other professionals will undertake the necessary training
to meet these standards.
(d) A strategic focus on the need for a spectrum
of autism provision in every local area, supported by local outreach
services and regional specialist centres.
October 2005
27 Barnard, J. et al (2002), Autism in Schools:
Crisis or Challenge?, London: NAS. Back
28
This proportion is far higher than the overall national proportion
of children with SEN who are dual registered. `Removing Barriers
to Achievement' reports that of the approx. 94,000 children who
attend special schools, only 2,000 spend part of their time in
a mainstream school. See "Key facts on special schools/PLASC,
p 34". Back
29
Ofsted (2005), Inclusion: The Impact of LEA Support and Outreach
Services, London: Ofsted. Back
30
Tony Blair quoted by Reuters (2005) "Blair to announce schools
shake-up", Monday 12 September. Available online http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12092005/325/blair-announce-schools-shake.html Back
| 
