Memorandum submitted by Allan Willis and
Julie Maynard
PREFACE
The authors of this document are Allan Willis;
an independent specialist educational psychologist in the field
of social communication and language disorders and Julie Maynard
who is a voluntary lay representative of parents at the SEN and
Disability Tribunal. They met as part of their efforts to ensure
children with special educational needs received an education
that their learning needs called for and often work professionally
together supporting parents at SENDIST Tribunal hearings. This
document represents their substantial personal experiences of
the special educational needs system in this Country both as professionals
within the system and as "end users".
INTRODUCTION
In the very early 1980s there was a very charismatic
figure, Mary Warnock, leading from the front calling for major
changes in the way we educate children with special educational
needs. Her rallying cry was "Inclusion!" and we all
fell behind her like a well-disciplined army chanting the mantra
of the new dawn for our most vulnerable children. New legislation
was put on the statute books and children with special needs suddenly
had legal rights and protection. Even better, local education
authorities (LAs) for the first time became accountable at last
for providing an education that was appropriate to meet the educational
needs of the child.
Today though Mary, Baroness Warnock has changed
her mind and has in our view and professional experience, rightly
raised the pressing serious concerns about the way inclusion is
being implemented under current Government's education policy
for children with special needs. She feels the policy is seriously
hindering many children and now, 25 years later, calls for major
reforms in the statutory process and in the role of specialist
schools and provision. We share her serious concerns about the
policy of inclusion, particularly on its impact upon children
who are on the autistic continuum or who experience speech language
and communication impairment.
Over the last three years we have seen a dramatic
increase in the number of referrals of children with autistic
spectrum and language disorders who are in mainstream that are
failing dismally. When things go wrong for a child with ASD, they
can go spectacularly wrong. Children with ASD find mainstream
the most challenging environment imaginable. They struggle with
language, social interaction and often have behaviours that are
extreme and bizarre. Yet, LA's refuse to accept proven research
that children with ASD do not learn from other children naturally
because of the nature of their condition, which robs them of an
interest in people and the motivation to interact with them. These
children find noise, movement and general stimulation of the everyday
world so overwhelming and terrifying that they try to shut it
out. Placing them in a class of 30 noisy, lively children exacerbate
their difficulties.
Of course we accept that there are some children
who are able to learn in a mainstream setting and it is absolutely
right that they be placed there, but we must consider the fact
that a significant proportion of the autistic population, for
example, find mainstream impossible to deal with and their needs
require a much more specialist environment and teaching approach.
Another big concern for us is that under the
current policy of inclusion, many children with complex special
educational needs are being inappropriately placed in mainstream
schools in an environment that is not led by the individual needs
of the child but driven by a policy that is based upon ideology
and dogma. Furthermore, local education authorities are deliberately
failing in their statutory duties to identify and meet the special
needs of the child.
In many respects, the 2001 Special Educational
Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) has served only to further aggravate
the matter, especially as it states that there is a duty to educate
children with special needs in mainstream unless it is against
the wishes of the parents or it is incompatible with the education
of the other children. However, when we attend meetings with local
education officers we are told that it has a statutory duty to
educate the child in mainstream school in accordance with Government
policy. No mention is ever made of parental choice or the individual
needs of the child. However, the Government, it seems, now actively
denies that it has any such policy.
Let's take the first exemption, that relating
to parents' wishes. Sadly, it is the case that when parents actually
do express a desire for their child to be educated in specialist
provision this is usually now refused by the LA. We have represented
substantial numbers of cases where parents express a desire for
a specific specialist provision in contrast to the LA naming mainstream
and these cases have eventually ended up at SENDIST. In the vast
majority of cases we have witnessed and represented, the parents
are successful in their appeals. It seems, therefore, that parental
preference only works when the parent wants mainstream.
The second exemption relates to the effect upon
other children in the class/school. The problem is one of how
this can realistically be tested other than to have the child
in mainstream and wait for them to fail or disrupt others education.
There is also, through the policy of inclusion,
an erosion of the individual needs of the child and this is very
much damaging a lot of the good work that we have as a society
achieved in special educational needs over the last 30 years.
Sadly, LAs are deliberately attempting to undermine much of the
excellent legislation found in the 1981, 1993 and 1996 Education
Acts, which promotes the individual needs of the child and provision
that must meet those needs. This in our view as much to do with
cost as it is dogma.
Baroness Warnock has also made comments about
the statementing process by which a child receives a legal document
called a "statement" at the end of a statutory assessment.
She feels that this process should be abolished because there
are now too many children with statements and she feels that this
has all got out of hand. Although we are great are also incorrect.
One of the great defining moments in special education history
was the 1981 Education Act, which gave children with special needs
the right to have their needs protected by the law through a statement.
It is only through the statement that vulnerable children can
have their educational provision defined, specified and quantified
and it is only through the statement that local educational authorities
can be held accountable for what they are providing. Moreover,
the number of children who have a statement has dropped considerably
over the years as noted by recent statistics published by the
DfES and they are at a five-year low. Only around 2% of children
benefit from a statement despite more children being identified
with special needs.
It is saddening to note that we have seen a
dramatic rise in the number of children who have been refused
a statutory assessment by LAs resulting often in appeals to the
Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Indeed the
majority of appeals to the Tribunal, according to their Annual
Report 2003-04, relates to the failure of LAs to undertake a statutory
assessment. So far, in all of the appeals for refusal to assess
that we have attended both as an expert witness and lay representative,
it gives us no great pleasure to state that the parents have won
every time. This means that an independent body, SENDIST, has
looked at all of the evidence submitted pertaining to the needs
of the child in these cases and has concluded that the LA should
carry out an assessment.
Without a statement of special educational needs,
a parent is unable to express a preference for specialist provision
or secure appropriate help, so inclusion is imposed on our most
vulnerable children through unlawful backdoor policies, which
the Government is fully aware of, but refuses to act upon.
We are passionate believers in the principle
of providing for our most vulnerable children through the protection
of the law. We also, believe it or not, passionately believe in
inclusion if it is the parental wish and right for the child.
But inclusion at any cost should not be at the expense of the
individual child's needs because that ceases to be inclusion and
becomes political dogma, which results in enabling LAs to avoid
their statutory duties towards some of society's most vulnerable
members.
Inclusion, for us, is about recognising a child's
needs and providing an appropriate education to meet those needs.
Sometimes that will be in mainstream, sometimes in a special unit
attached to a mainstream school and sometimes in highly specialised
schools catering for children with the most complex needs. Education
is about giving children with special needs the skills to live
as independently as possible in the world they so often find difficult
to cope with. Inevitably, many of these children will require
the expertise of specially trained professionals to teach those
skills in settings that provide safety and security so that skills
can develop hand in hand with confidence and self-esteem in an
attempt to achieve whatever potential that all of these children
have inside of them.
INCLUSION
When Baroness Warnock first published her report
about inclusion, she was absolutely right to inform debate in
our society about what was happening to our most vulnerable children,
who were often being denied an appropriate education and their
individual needs were being failed. Baroness Warnock was also
correct to want to ensure that Parliament took actions through
legislation to prevent discriminatory practices in the education
system and that society had to protect children with special needs
by compelling the local education authorities to address the individual
needs of the child by ring fencing resource through the means
of a statement.
No sensible commentator today would deny that
many physically disabled children, who were intellectually able,
were wrongly placed in residential schools away from their communities
before and after the Second World War, when as a society we should
have ensured their needs were met within a mainstream environment
or within our own communities. Unfortunately we cannot change
history only learn by it.
We should also reflect that during the 1970's,
we were experiencing a fundamental shift in social policy and
society's more tolerant views towards the rights of others. We
have all benefited from the introduction of new legislation to
protect the rights of others regarding equal opportunities for
women and ethnic minorities. Many of us are able to recall the
discrimination women and people from our ethnic minorities experienced
after the War and still do. However, we now fully accept that
the changes we now experience were not only about legislation,
but about good practice, responding to the individual, and more
importantly informing and re-educating people's views. It was
not about imposing an ideology or dogma that alienated people,
but encouraging a gentle process of change.
In the 1990s we have seen great strides made
by physically disabled people and the gay community in creating
a more inclusive society, again by understanding rather than imposition,
and with Parliament enshrining their rights through legislation
to reflect society's changing views. None of us would pretend
that we live in a perfect inclusive society, but we certainly
have made substantial strides in our genuine attempts to encompass
all members of our society within our community.
However, pro-inclusion educationalists are fundamentally
opposed to parents' right to choose an appropriate education for
their child, and are effectively imposing their values and ideology
on others, without considering individual need. They do not appear
to recognise that children with special educational needs represent
a vast spectrum of need and that society should respond to those
unique differences instead of adopting "a one glove fits
all" approach and grouping every child with special needs
collectively together.
Sadly, many following the mantra of inclusion
represent groups who are physically disabled but are highly intellectual
and very vocal. As such they bring their own perspective of disability
into the debate, which in our view often distorts the true facts
and diversity of need. For example a child with an autistic spectrum
disorder may not want to be a member of society, because they
have a social communication disorder and have to be formally taught
those skills by highly trained professionals if they are to embrace
society at adults. Understandably, given their communication disorder
they often cannot express their views, so are effectively excluded
from the debate, leading it to be dominated by experiences of
physically impaired adults, whilst excluding the views of those
who present with learning disabilities and impairments.
Our society is in fact highly sophisticated
and knowledgeable about what is happening in their local communities.
Indeed most sensible commentators now fully understand that whilst
inclusion is right for one child it is extremely damaging to another
child, because we have been able over time to inform and educate
listeners. The benefit of which means we have a more receptive
responsive society about the nature of differing disabilities
and the impact it has on the individual. Sadly, our Government
is failing to understand that society having acquired that knowledge,
has led to a substantial shift in public opinion regarding how
best to support children with special needs, which Government
is simply not responding too.
No person would wish to return to a society
whereby children are banished to residential schools, but the
stark reality is that the current policy of inclusion that is
leading to special school closure is now forcing parents of special
needs children to place their children in independent special
schools away from their communities, to ensure the child receives
an appropriate education. In addition, there seems to be no appreciation
that should a child fail in mainstream school, they are effectively
denied a "safety net" to respond to their needs as the
local authority has removed specialist provision for them to access.
Society understands from first hand experience
that however noble the cause to include all children in mainstream
school, it is simply unrealistic to expect our hard pressed mainstream
teachers to meet the diverse spectrum of needs that all of our
children who present with special educational needs have within
the classroom, without having a detrimental effect to the other
children's education. We are expecting too much to ask them to
deliver a National Curriculum at such vastly differing levels
in a busy mainstream classroom to appropriately meet children's
special needs, especially without huge considerable financial
and human resource.
Furthermore, it is a stark reality that we have
a chronic shortage of specialist health professionals such as
speech and language therapists available in the Country to support
and help these children in mainstream schools. It is also a fact
that there is not an endless bottomless pit of money from which
schools or local educational authorities can dip into to fund
the present system. Therefore, it appears clear to us that we
need to re-evaluate how we can most effectively support, educate,
nurture and integrate special needs children within their communities,
within those human and financial constraints.
In addition, if we continue to close special
schools and units down, we will begin to erode and water down
the specialist knowledge we as a society have acquired over many
years regarding the teaching of children with special needs. Without
that specialist knowledge, mainstream teachers will be left floundering
to meet the special needs of children.
Sadly, from our personal experiences there appears
to be an ingrained generational culture within the DfES and the
local educational authorities that is firmly stuck in their desire
to "right the injustices of the past" rather than considering
the present. It is also becoming evident that there is now an
ever-growing backlash to the policy of inclusion by society. Government's
special educational need policy and provision cannot just be developed
solely from the most vocal contributors, some of who we accept
were at one time denied an appropriate education as a result of
their disability, but encompass a more universal approach. Indeed,
the reality is their minority view is being imposed on others
such as those children who are unable to express a view as to
whether they are unhappy or dislike mainstream. This imposition
is as fundamentally wrong today in much the same way as when they,
or their peers, were wrongly placed in residential schools. We
cannot justify one wrong with another.
We maintain that society's wishes are to insure
all our children benefit from a high quality diverse education
system that responds to the individual needs of the child. The
current inclusive culture and agenda of "one-glove fits all"
approach is effectively preventing us from developing a sensible
cohesive education policy and infrastructure. As such the need
is to ensure all children as adults reach their true potential
and are empowered to play an active role in an increasingly more
tolerant inclusive society, is alas being thwarted.
TRUE COST
OF INCLUSION
There has in this Country, been no extensive
independent research on the outcomes of all children with special
educational needs that have been included in school. Research
has often targeted small specific groups, in schools that have
received high amounts of additional funding from the LAs to demonstrate
inclusion works. No research has then followed to ascertain what
happened to those children in adulthood.
Moreover, the increasing numbers of children
being supported on the staged approach of the SEN Code of Practice
are as a result not brought to the personal attention of the LA
nor are the nature of their difficulties recorded properly, as
it is a matter for the individual school to ensure the child's
needs are met. The LA merely collects statistical data for the
DfES regarding the total number of children their schools report
as having special needs, on a yearly basis.
However, what DfES figures do show (Removal
of Barriers for Inclusion) is that, of the 0.5% of the school
population excluded from school, two thirds of the children and
young people involved had special educational needs. Sadly, most
were not subject to a statement. Given, that only 20% of children
as noted by Baroness Warnock in her original report, will present
with special educational needs at sometime during their schooling,
children with special needs should not be accounting for the significant
majority of pupils who are excluded from school. We are of the
view that one of the direct consequences leading to their exclusion
was because their individual educational needs were not being
met or identified due to our current inclusive school approach.
It is noted by the Youth Justice Board that
a recent study undertaken demonstrated that 80% of young people
in a youth offender's institution experienced special educational
needs. Again most of those young people did not benefit from a
statement of special educational needs. The biggest risk factor
for children to become involved in crime or to re-offend relates
to those not attending school and as already noted the majority
also have special educational needs. Finally, the vast majority
of children truanting from school also present with special educational
needs and are therefore exposed to the same risk factors as those
children who are excluded.
Whilst we do not in anyway condone youth crime
or vandalism, the Government's policy to address so called "yob
culture" by the use of ASBOs or anti social behaviour policies
are effectively being undermined. The fact is many young people
becoming involved in crime do so because they are being denied
opportunities to benefit from an appropriate education in the
first place. Moreover, many parents of children with special educational
needs have learning difficulties themselves and are ill-equipped
to support their children's educational needs without support
from others. Yet the Government's policy to this is to punish
parents of problematic pupils rather than to address the child
and parent's learning needs.
The Government policy of inclusion effectively
leads it into direct conflict with its own educational policy
of planning to show a "zero tolerance" approach to low-level
disruption in the classroom by students. Yet, many children with
dyslexia, speech language and communication disorders, and ADHD,
have pragmatic language problems, poor concentration and attention
skills and as such develop secondary emotional behaviour problems.
It is inevitable that their frustration over their learning difficulties
often not being addressed will lead to inappropriate behaviour
in the classroom. Merely excluding them, and placing them part-time
in an educational placement such as a Pupil Referral Unit, without
addressing their special educational needs, is courting disaster
for society and local communities.
We are of the view that this present Government
policy to address the current "yob culture" has become
reactive, rather than proactive. We feel given the ample statistical
data available regarding youth crime and the clear links to poor
educational attainment, the Government should be properly reviewing
what is happening to students with special educational needs within
our state educational sector and accounting for the true cost
of the failure of the education system to appropriately address
the special educational needs of our children both socially and
financially to society, as a whole.
STATUTORY PROCESS
The Education Acts of 1981 and subsequently
1996 have enshrined in legislation the legal rights of a child
to receive an appropriate education that their learning needs
call for. For the first time LAs were compelled to meet the educational
needs of our most vulnerable children. However, we believe on
both the grounds of inclusion and cost LAs have actively attempted
to avoid those statutory duties. The Government has for a substantial
time now effectively turned a blind eye to it, and as a direct
consequence LAs have been enabled to fetter their legal duties
without recourse.
Our experience of the conduct of LAs should
concern the Government. We have supported and represented parents
from across the Country, against LAs led by all political parties.
The vast majorities of statements of special educational needs
we see are unlawful, as they simply do not detail the child's
special educational needs, nor do they specify or quantify the
support the child requires to ensure they are enabled to access
the National Curriculum and are usually with very little resource.
Furthermore, LAs are using unlawful banding policies to say a
child with this "label" can have this much support only,
when we all know that children's special needs impact upon them
in an individual way and as such policies like this make it clear
statements are not being needs led, but cost driven.
Parents are not, as the Government states, permitted
to express a preference for a school of their choice, but have
their local mainstream school imposed on them through dogma, and
unlawful policies such as transport arrangements. Namely the LA
refuses to transport the child to the local special school only
to the local mainstream.
LAs are also now actively using policies that
are not in accordance with the Education Act 1996 for its reason
to refuse a statutory assessment of a child and therefore can
effectively force the child into mainstream school through such
policies. Of concern to us about the statutory assessment is that
it did mean that as a consequence of the process children were
brought to the attention of the local health service and underlying
disabilities such as speech and language impairment or ASD were
identified. Teachers are not qualified to identify these types
of impairments and by not statutory assessing these children,
needs are not being identified early, as is the desired intention
of the Removal of Barriers for Inclusion.
We have personally witnessed LA officers physically
and verbally abuse parents, especially if a parent is articulate
and able enough to disagree with the LA's proposals. The unprofessional
conduct we have observed is extremely concerning.
Despite making numerous complaints to the DfES
about the conduct of LAs in failing to fulfil it's statutory duties,
in most cases the DfES, appears to actively choose to ignore them,
as also noted by IPSEA.
It is a reality that one of the biggest causes
of children not receiving an education their learning need calls
for and one of the primary tension in the special educational
needs system apart from inclusion, is the Education Act 1996,
itself.
Although, vital to protect children with special
educational needs, amendments to this primary legislation are
needed urgently. The LA is both the commissioner and the provider
of resources for statements of special educational needs and the
Act creates a conflict of interest, which parents find they are
caught up in the middle of.
It is clear from our experiences that LAs are
reluctant to commission something that is effectively going to
cost them money. Accordingly, if they are enabled by legislation
to refuse to commission something and as a result of that refusal
can save resources it probably will. It is evident to us that
in a lot of cases we come across, the Authority under financial
pressure, will act in this contrary way, whether it is appropriate
or not. We also are aware of many financially hard-pressed LAs
adopting unlawful policies simply to reduce the number of statutory
assessment of a child's special educational needs it conducts,
given the direct cost saving it experiences.
Moreover, the statutory assessments of children
woefully minimise the extent and nature of the child's special
educational needs, for exactly the same financial reasons and
cost implications. Namely, the less needs an LA identifies as
educational the less resource it will need to invest in the child's
school placement and provision, so there is a cost saving. We
are increasingly coming across statements that state an autistic
spectrum disorder is a non-educational need and should be in part
V and VI of the statement rather than an educational need, which
is simply nonsensical.
SEN TRIBUNAL
The Government recently stated in the House
of Commons that there is a robust system in place for parents
to appeal against any Authority's decision regarding their child's
educational needs, which we concur with. However, the Government
did not seem to appreciate that most parents find this process
beyond their financial resources and capability.
Indeed, the Government is fully aware the SEN
Tribunal is a lower court of law, governed by complex legislation,
which baffles most parents. Under the current system, parents
regardless of income or ability (given many parents of children
with special needs presents with learning difficulties themselves)
cannot have legally aided representation, but must rely upon either
representing themselves, securing Counsel or upon charitable organisations
to help them prepare and represent their legal case. Legal bundles
amounting to hundreds of pages have to be digested and considered
within the context of the law.
Most parents struggle to access this system.
The University of Strathclyde in recent research found only parents
with considerable ability and resources access SENDIST or secure
special provision for their child. Therefore, the sad reality
is most special needs children from lower social economic backgrounds
are being denied opportunities because the system is out of reach
to their parents. The low number of appeals lodged from ethnic
minorities is also extremely concerning. Although the appeal process
is free parents need to commission independent reports to identify
the exact nature of their children's special needs, the cost of
which often runs into thousands of pounds.
The Government stated that the answer to the
statementing process was to intervene early so that parents feel
their children's needs are adequately met in school. This concerns
us as it infers:
I. Children with special educational needs
are not entitled to an education "that their learning needs
call for" as noted in the Education Act 1996, merely an adequate
education. Most parents regardless of their children's ability
expect more than just an adequate education for their child.
II. As previously stated a parent can only
express a preference for a special school if their child is subject
to a statement of special educational needs. The Government's
expressed agenda encourages LEAs not to undertake statutory assessments,
which could lead to a statement of special educational needs,
and therefore effectively imposes inclusion on the child whether
appropriate or not.
III. The majority of appeals (39.6%) to the
SEN Tribunal in the year 2003-04 as noted in the SENDIST Annual
Report, related to refusal to undertake a statutory assessment.
Accordingly, given most parents are unable to access the SEN Tribunal
in a meaningful way, it is likely that there are a considerable
number of children currently being educated in mainstream school
that are being denied an appropriate education.
PARENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
AND MEDIATION
SERVICES
The Government claims to have counteracted this
flaw in the SEN Appeals system by ensuring LAs established parental
partnerships schemes to help parents. However, it systematically
failed to ensure that those working for parental partnership schemes
were independent of the LA and/or policy decisions.
Accordingly, many parents we meet complain of
the bias of parent partnership officers and directly relate it
to the fact that they are employed by the LA and are such partisan.
Moreover, their conversations are not subject to confidentiality
and we have read in a number of case statements comments parents
have made in good faith to the parent partnership officers believing
it was confidential referred to in LAs case statements to the
SEN Tribunal.
Parents are also concerned how little parent
partnership officers know about primary legislation and parents
legal rights in ensuring a child receives an appropriate education.
We are also concerned about the mediation services
that LEAs are obliged by Government to offer to parents. Parents
have no say whatsoever in which mediation service is used as the
Authority has direct control as the commissioner of it. Again
from personal experience we are concerned that there is a definite
bias by the mediation services and that discussions always commence
from a position that it is Government policy to include a child
in mainstream school and an active hostility to specialist provision
is invariably shown.
SEN REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
We have been concerned about these regional
government established quangos for a substantial time now. They
consist of LA officers from differing LAs meeting together. Their
remit is to plan a consistent approach to SEN provision within
their region. However, they are accountable directly to the DfES
and not to elected local members, and are being actively funded
by the Government. Officers are establishing policy and consensus
about provision within their region, with no reference to the
County Council itself.
We have also noted from minutes that the partnerships
were set up to increase inclusion under National Government objective
2. However, the Government publicly insisted in the House of Commons,
that special educational needs provision is a matter for local
communities only, not them, when in fact it has actively created
regional provision and policy, through these partnerships.
We are also concerned that these regional partnerships
are according to minutes having direct contact with SENDIST lobbying
it to change procedures. This body was established by Parliament
to be totally independent from outside influence and we are disturbed
by this contact, especially as that same ability is not afforded
to parents.
Finally from minutes we have reviewed, much
of the discussions taking place are not about enhancing provision
and meeting need, but about how LAs can evade their statutory
duties and share bad practices rather than good.
PROPOSALS
Short-term
1. We believe that the Government needs
to express a clear proper view point as to whether their desire
is for all children with special educational needs to be included
in mainstream school or not, (even though this usually happens
now) and if so should that occur against the expressed wishes
of the parents. Its current guidelines policy document about inclusive
practice merely reinforces that position. However, its public
statements to the House of Commons are vague. Ministers often
report that it has no active policy of inclusion one way or the
other. That position is simply no longer plausible or tenable
and there needs to be proper clarification.
2. If it is the case that LAs have misinterpreted
legislation as claimed by ministers recently in the House of Commons,
then the DfES should in our view formally write to all LAs advising
them of this and for LAs to adopt appropriate lawful policy. That
letter should also be published.
3. The Government has widely spoken about
parental choice for education. If the Government is pro-choice
for parents it should apply that policy unilaterally across the
educational spectrum including those children with special educational
needs. Parents of special needs children should have the right
to choose a unit, special school or mainstream school, providing
the child's placement adheres to the current Education Act 1996,
but are currently being denied that opportunity by most LAs.
4. The Government must ensure that LAs are
held accountable for their actions and that they are prevented
from adopting policies that are contrary to the Education Acts
of 1981 and 1996. The DfES must also improve its performance in
policing LAs unlawful SEN policies and ensure that it conducts
proper prompt investigation, and actively find in the favour of
the complainant or not. If the complaint is upheld then appropriate
public criticism should be made. This public criticism is important
to enable parents in the community to actually review whether
or not their child's statement of special educational needs or
refusal to assess has been made in accordance with primary legislation,
moreover it informs parents that the LEA has been deemed not to
fulfill their statutory duties.
5. The SEN Audit should evaluate all specialist
provision available within the Country, not just encompass the
narrow margin of low incidence special educational needs that
it has commenced upon. Moreover, the Government should publish
figures relating to just how many children in the Country is believes
present with special educational needs including those on school
action and school action plus, not just children with statements
of special educational needs, given many children are now being
denied statutory assessment.
6. It should also publish just how many
children from each classification of special needs there are currently
in education system, namely the exact number of children identified
say with dyslexia, ASD, MLD, SLD, cerebral palsy, complex learning
needs etc together with how many of the children from each of
those groups have statements of special educational needs and
how many are supported on school action and school action plus.
Until society has those exact statistics we are unable to plan
future specialist provision, invest in mainstream inclusion or
meet those children needs in further education or into adulthood.
7. The DfES should disband the SEN Regional
Partnerships. These groups are not reflecting local needs they
merely conduct unaccountable regional discussions relating to
National objectives. Moreover, it has not ensured good practice
has "radiated out" as hoped, but has enabled officers
to share advice in what policies their respective LAs adopt to
avoid their statutory duties.
8. The SEN Tribunal must remain totally
independent to both LAs and parents as noted in primary legislation.
Therefore the current lobbying practises adopted by LAs as noted
in SEN RP published minutes should cease forthwith and ministers
should instruct LAs accordingly.
LONG TERM
Change to Primary Legislation
1. We would like the SEN and Disability
Act 2001 amended to ensure that the assumption that a child must
be educated in mainstream school is removed, and that parents
should have the right to choose the provision they best think
suits their child's special educational needs as in accordance
with the Education Act 1996 and in accordance with the child's
educational needs.
2. The purpose of Baroness Warnock's original
report was driven by a genuine desire to ensure that local educational
authorities were compelled unlike before to meet the needs of
our most vulnerable children, through the introduction of statutory
duties. She wished for children where it was appropriate to be
included in mainstream, but at no stage did she argue for total
inclusion, nor did she espouse all children's special educational
needs could be met within mainstream.
However, since the introduction of the 1981
and 1996 Education Acts, LAs have unfortunately tried to avoid
any statutory duties they have towards these children, either
because of cost or as a result of inclusion. Whatever, the exact
reasoning behind their failure to address these children's needs,
the time has come for legislators to finally ensure that our vulnerable
children's needs are met and addressed within the education system
through in our view new legislation.
As stated, the current system is adversarial,
legally complex to parents and grossly unfair to children from
lower social economic backgrounds, given their parents or carers
may not have the ability to understand legislation around special
needs or have the financial resources to meaningfully access it.
Therefore the system is failing to help vulnerable children, as
it should.
As previously noted the current Education 1996
makes LAs both the commissioning agent and the funding agent thus
creating a conflict of interest, which parents find himself or
herself in the middle of. We propose removing the statutory assessment
and statementing process away from the LAs, simplifying it, and
placing it into the independent sector referring to it as the
"Independent Assessment and Statementing Panel (IASP)".
Accordingly, we lay out our proposals:
(a) The IASP will replace the LA in the
primary role of the identification, assessment and funding of
children who are likely to require a statement of special educational
needs.
(b) The Government should set up local
multi-discipline assessment centres, under the auspices of the
IASP, to undertake the assessment, identification and statementing
process of children with special educational needs.
(c) The multi-disciplinary independent
team of professionals would consist of an educational psychologist,
a clinical psychologist, a community paediatrician, a specialised
speech and language therapist and an occupational therapist.
(d) The multi-discipline independent
team will undertake a full one-day or, in more complex cases,
a two-day assessment of the child's special needs, having previously
gathered reports from the child's educational placement and from
the parent(s). They will give the parent(s) at the end of the
day verbal feedback of their findings.
Independent specials schools such
as Moor House School, Oxted, Surrey have successfully been conducting
these types of assessments for a substantial number of years as
a method of insuring the child would be suitably placed educationally.
Parents trust the findings, as the staff conducting them, are
totally impartial.
(e) The IASP will, under legislation,
be responsible for identifying the child's special educational
needs, drafting the statement, which adheres to the requirement
to specify and quantify support and after full consultation with
parents the type of provision the child needs, whether it be mainstream,
a special unit, or special school.
(f) Parents, or the school, instead of
requesting the local educational authority to undertake a statutory
assessment of needs will contact their local IASP. When initial
contact is made either by the parent or school, the IASP will
ensure that an educational psychologist assesses the child in
their educational placement within three weeks of the request.
Should the child be out of school the child should be seen at
the Assessment Centre.
(g) If following that visit the educational
psychologist believes there are educational concerns then the
IASP will undertake a formal assessment, within three weeks of
that visit.
(h) However, if the educational psychologist
feels that the school can meet the child's needs within their
delegated resources, (s)he will issue advice to the school in
how best to address the child's current special educational needs.
Parents and the school should be advised within seven days of
the visit that no statutory assessment is needed. Parent would
be given the same right of appeal to the SENDIST as currently
available.
(i) If a statutory assessment takes place,
and the IASP feel a statement is necessary, then a proposed statement
should be issued within three weeks of the assessment for parent
and school to consider and respond to.
(j) The final statement, following consultation
with the school and parents should be issued three weeks after
the proposed statement. If parents disagree with the contents
of the statement of special educational needs then, as now they
will have the right of appeal to SENDIST.
(k) If on the other hand the IASP feels
a Notice in Lieu is more suitable it should send that out to parents
within three weeks of the assessment and as now advise the parents
that it has the right of appeal to SENDIST.
(l) Parents wishing to seek an amendment
of their child's statement of special educational needs or seeking
a statutory re-assessment would follow the above procedures.
(m) The IASP will also re-assess the
child when they need to transfer to secondary provision and further
education and follow the above procedures.
(n) Annual review reports will no longer
be sent to the LA but the IASP for consideration.
We believe the removal of the statementing process
out of LAs control will have the following benefits:
— It will actually reduce the initial
request for a statutory assessment down from the current six week
timescale to four weeks.
— Reduces the statutory assessment
and statementing process down from the current 26 weeks to 12
weeks, saving valuable time in insuring intervention into a child's
education.
— The Assessment Centre will bring
professionals from education and health together in a more cohesive
manner for the benefit of the child's education and well-being.
— A one or two day visit to the Assessment
Centre would be less stressful for the child than having to attend
appointments for professionals on different days. Moreover, the
parent will not have to keep repeating their concerns about their
child to professionals as happens now.
— Parents being given access to an
independent assessment service are more likely to have trust in
the system and less likely to turn to SENDIST.
— We also believe an independent system
will enable schools to be more open about the nature of a child's
special educational needs, as the system for identification and
assessment has been removed from their employer's remit.
— Removal of the statementing process
from the LA who is the commissioning agent and funding agent ends
the tension in the system created by the Education Act 1996.
— If LAs are aware that parents effectively
have a `funding package' in place either for a special school,
unit or mainstream, which is going to bring resource into a maintained
school rather than take resource out, the LA is more likely to
want to actively engage with parents and ensure it has a diverse
range of provision available to address the child needs to secure
that funding. Parents are effectively empowered to be able to
"purchase" high quality educational services from the
LA, hopefully at a local level, if not then are likely to seek
provision elsewhere, meaning the LA will lose potential investment
in their education provision if it does not have choice.
Funding
Children with special educational needs who
require statements account for a disproportionate amount of local
authority funding and we believe that their education should be
funded through Central Government as opposed to the LA. We genuinely
believe that LAs are forced to make inappropriate decisions about
children not based on need, but on cost, as they simply do not
have the resources to meet the child's educational needs at that
moment in time, particularly if a specialist residential school
is required.
Medical advances has also led to a greater number
of very premature babies surviving, 50% of who experience special
educational needs. Moreover, babies who are ventilated at birth
also have a much greater risk of having special needs.
When Baroness Warnock published her original
report the number of children presenting with ASD, were considered
only to be the very few children with Kanner's Autism. Today,
through medical research and better understanding, we appreciate
the autistic spectrum is wide and according to a Department of
Health report published 31 August 2005, 1% of children now has
ASD, a staggering 27% of which will be excluded from school.
Government investment in special education needs
has simply not kept pace with medical advances and research regarding
children with special needs and the LAs cannot meet the financial
demands being placed upon them, to address this level of need.
Other roles of IASP
The IASP could also take on other roles to serve
the local community such as:
— Mediate regarding claims of disability
discrimination. Instead of a parent immediately appealing to SENDIST,
as happens now, parents could ask the IASP to review the child's
educational placement and provision, to ascertain if there is
a genuine concern about discrimination or that teaching staff
need more support and training.
— We also believe that any child permanently
excluded from school must be subject to a statutory assessment
by the IASP within two weeks of that exclusion to ascertain whether
the child or young person has special educational needs that have
not been identified or supported. This will ensure early intervention
as opposed to merely placing a child part time in a PRU and hopefully
reduce the risk of the child becoming involved in crime, as they
can actively be re-engaged in education with appropriate support.
— Children who persistently truant
should also be seen by the IASP to ascertain again whether the
child has special educational needs or whether it is a case of
poor parenting.
— We also believe that the IASP should
also have its own specialised trained parental partnership officers
to support parents and explain the procedures around statutory
assessments and the statementing process.
— The officers should also help explain
benefit entitlements to parents such as disability living allowance
and carer's allowance and assist where necessary to complete the
forms.
— If asked, the IASP should provide
parents' access to trained officers who are able to prepare the
parents' case statement for any appeal to the SENDIST and free
representation at the Hearing.
— The IASP should have a statutory
duty to liase with social services and the local health authority
to ensure a cohesive joined up approach to support vulnerable
children and their parents in the community including access to
respite care or befriending schemes.
— The IASP could also offer parenting
skills courses.
THE ROLE
OF EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES
We believe that Educational Psychology Services
are hindered in performing their core function, that is, the identification
and assessment of children with special educational needs. This
is because they are employees of LAs and are driven by the resources
available within the LA. This again creates an obvious conflict.
Therefore, EPs are forced into looking at the provision available
within the LA and "boxing" children with special needs
into that available provision rather than addressing need.
In order to perform their function efficiently
we believe that Educational Psychology Services should also become
independent and made into a National Educational Psychology Service
(NEPS). A similar system currently exists in the Republic of Ireland.
The NEPS would then be sub-divided into regional Educational Psychology
Services responsible for children with special needs within that
region and will work jointly with the Independent Assessment and
Statementing Panel (IASP) for that region.
LAs or individual schools could then buy in
other core EP services as demand dictates.
CONCLUSION
It is our experience that most parents of children
with special educational needs fully accept their responsibility
to their children and their only desire is to have an effective
system in place that provides them with a proper choice of provision
that is based upon an independent, impartial and easy to access
system. We believe our proposals offer just that.
We feel they reflect the proper right of parental
choice whilst supporting inclusion where appropriate and that
most importantly of all they provide children with special educational
needs full access to a range of educational opportunities. All
children should regardless of ability have the right to fulfil
their true potential and play an active role in society. Parents
are paramount to that success yet current Government policy effectively
excludes them from it and as such their valuable insight and knowledge
of their child needs is lost.
What parents do not want is to be burdened down
by Government policies that are driven by dogma and ideology based
very much on the wrongs of an education system some 50 years ago,
when society has moved on considerably since then.
Nor should financial accountants driven by the
need to save cost ever again be permitted to seriously impair
the opportunities given to a special needs child, especially as
they are too often based upon short-term gains rather than longer-term
objectives.
Baroness Warnock is correct to call on elected
representatives to review primary legislation and the current
special education system, which is causing such harm to some of
our most vulnerable children. Public opinion now fully recognises
inclusion is appropriate for some children and totally wrong for
others and the time has now come for politicians from all parties
to respond to that very pragmatic view.
Our document has been driven by a desire to
contribute to a sensible and thorough debate about how to address
our children's special needs in a way that does not polarise the
issues and that any discussion formally undertaken ensures that
children special educational needs are met in this Country through
a robust diverse special educational needs sector that fully embraces
the vital roles of both special and mainstream provision, and
that both systems are finally properly funded by Government to
ensure the success of these very special children, for the long
term benefit of society.
We believe that the measures outlined above
will deliver a more efficient and cost-effective statutory process
for the identification and assessment of children with special
educational needs where the needs of the child, in conjunction
with parental wishes, is paramount and where there is no conflict
between the commissioning and funding agents. This must be a better
deal for our most vulnerable children.
September 2005
| 
