House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Written Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Astrid Hansen

1. SUMMARY

Provision for SEN pupils in "mainstream" schools: availability of resources and expertise; different models of provision

Over the last two decades there has been almost relentless Government interference in education which has served to undermine both the professionalism and autonomy of teachers and educationalists. Local Management of Schools (LMS); the Literacy and Numeracy Strategy; the "deskilling" of teachers; the move from "child-centred" to "target-driven" education; the general increase in teachers' legal liabilities and responsibilities; the policy of inclusion and the increasing homogenisation of learning and school type have collectively "straight-jacketed" and bureaucratised school staff, to the detriment of pupils with special educational needs. This situation has been exacerbated by the lack of knowledge of SEN law on the part of Heads and teachers and lack of training to cope with the huge increase in the prevalence of SEN over the last two decades.

No policy or legislation, however well-meaning, will work in the absence of adequate centralised funding and effective mechanisms for ensuring that implementation is not hijacked by bureaucrats whose budgetary concerns override everything else.

Provision for SEN pupils in Special Schools

Any discussion on special schools must consider the effects of the Warnock report and the policy of "inclusion". My position on inclusion is primarily that of a parent protecting my child. As such I question the morality of a policy in which SEN children are currently being used as "guinea pigs" in order to achieve some ideal in future. LEAs claim that they are closing down special schools in line with Government policy. Decisions are not being based on children's needs, parents' wishes or education law and no audits are being carried out to determine the range of provision needed in each area.

There is cross-party agreement about the value of mainstream units or integration classes but disagreement about who should ensure adequate capacity for all children who need these. Funding for the setting up and staffing of these units should initially come from the Government. Parents should not have to move to obtain better provision. There are several educational advantages for having unit provisions in almost every school.

Special schools should be retained for those children in need of them and there must be recognition for the excellent teaching and learning which goes on in them. MLD and SLD schools could be increasingly linked to mainstream schools so that opportunities for sharing of expertise and dual placements can take place.

Raising standards of achievement for SEN pupils

Many Government policies, introduced to raise standards, have resulted in alienation, disaffection, low self-esteem and poorer achievement for many SEN children (see Section 2.1). This process will not be reversed unless politicians accept that solutions must come primarily from those who are most affected—parents of SEN children, teachers, educational psychologists and others lecturing and researching in the field of education. As I see it, the role of the Government is to listen to these "experts" and ensure that funding is there to provide quality services on a national scale.

Issues of class size, the more efficient use of LSAs, early intervention and needs-based planning and a "joined up" approach are also essential in raising the achievement of children failing in the current system.

The system of statements of need for SEN pupils ("the statementing process")

LEAs persistently evade their legal duties by concealing or providing inaccurate information about parents' and children's rights; by adopting policies which keep Parts 2 and 3 of statements vague; by insisting that Speech and Language therapy is a medical, rather than an educational, need and by stalling and delaying the provision a child needs until the parent seeks legal redress. Permanently excluded children and children removed from school by their parents for medical reasons represent two further groups who are failing to receive an appropriate package of full-time education.

I strongly support the creation of Independent Assessment and Statementing Panels (IASPs) as proposed by Julie Maynard and Allan Willis in "Beyond Warnock". LAs should be relieved of these duties which they are unable to carry out effectively since they are currently both the commissioners and funders of educational provision, creating a fundamental conflict of interest. Educational psychologists should be placed within the IASP rather than under LA control and the Government should address the national shortage of EPs.

At present the opportunities for appropriate redress for the stress and injustice caused to parents by LA practices are extremely limited. The DfES shows a distinct reluctance to police LAs. Levels of compensation awarded following complaints to the LGO are paltry compared to the damage caused to parents and children by LA maladministration. SENDIST, although free to parents, is time-consuming and only an option for the most determined and able parents. SEN Regional forums are using public money to lobby SENDIST and disseminate "bad" practice and should be disbanded and legislation must be introduced to properly police LAs, making them accountable for their actions.

The role of parents in decisions about their children's education

Parents of SEN pupils are often viewed by schools in a negative way. Unofficial exclusions are widespread. In some schools, parents are effectively "barred" and there is often poor and insufficient communication between home and school, with parents concerned about their child's progress being viewed as `pushy' by staff. Parents' and children's views must be sought for IEPs and statutory assessments but are rarely acted upon and there seems to be no recognition that a parent knows his/her child best. Schools should set time aside for talking to parents and staff should recognise the difficult job parents of SEN children do. Opportunities should be provided for parents to train together and learn from each other.

There is a mismatch between parents' expectations of Parent Partnership and what this service offers. No service funded and managed by the LA can be truly independent and parents rely on charities such as IPSEA, which receive no funding from LAs or Government, for support. A growing number of individuals are now making a career out of the adversarial way in which LAs implement SEN legislation. Their wages are paid for with money which could be spent meeting children's needs.

The "efficient education" continues to be abused by schools and LAs, often working in unison to achieve the LA's and not the parent's choice of placement. The law does not allow parents to request a place in a mainstream unit.

The legislative framework for SEN provision and the effects of the Disability Act 2001, which extended the Disability Discrimination Act to education

The relatively low take up for DDA claims at SENDIST may be explained by the fact that DDA: Part 4 legislation has no "teeth" and the statementing process is far more likely to obtain appropriate outcomes for the child. The lack of case law in this area means that the main beneficiaries of current DDA appeals are not the children on whose behalf the appeal is being made but their "successors". Parents often fear repercussions if they make a DDA complaint against a school which a child is still attending. However, the low number of DDA appeals is no indicator of the widespread discrimination occurring in schools and LAs on a daily basis.

2.1 PROVISION FOR SEN PUPILS IN "MAINSTREAM" SCHOOLS: AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES AND EXPERTISE; DIFFERENT MODELS OF PROVISION

In my opinion the following events have collectively served to create the current "crisis" in mainstream school and classrooms:

Increasing Government intervention in education

Local Management of Schools (LMS)

The Literacy and Numeracy strategy

— The "deskilling" of teachers, who are increasingly becoming little more than "operatives" whose sole purpose is to push through the Government's education agenda. Until the late 1980s, teachers built up their knowledge base by attending courses of relevance to their pupils and by reading the latest educational research on how children learn; but most importantly, by observing what worked and didn't work with each individual child in their class. The recent controversy surrounding dyslexia is a perfect example of how dependent the teaching profession has become on "labels", when any teacher my age would find it obvious that all children who are failing at reading (or any other skill) require additional, targeted input to remedy the problem. We also know from experience that the best way to encourage a child to read is to instill in them a love of books and this is not achieved by presenting them with endless short texts, followed by a "test" of their comprehension. As the author and recently appointed Children's Laureate, Jaqueline Wilson, correctly states, primary age children need to have that time at the end of the school day when they are simply read to by the teacher. Most schools simply no longer have the time to do this. My perception is that continuous professional development now centres around the latest Government initiative rather than the child.

There are also huge variations from school to school in the experience and commitment of the SENCO, ranging from excellent to virtually non-existent. In some schools the SENCO's position is full-time whereas in other schools the role is covered by a full-time class teacher. LAs are now increasingly appointing individuals with no teaching quailifications as SENCOs. There is no doubt that this must impact on how well the needs of SEN pupils are met.

Ironically, this "deskilling" has been accompanied by the creation of a career structure within the school system and accompanying jargon (such as "middle management") which did not exist two decades ago. Teaching is, and should be, a vocation—not a career—and no Government initiative should distract teachers from their primary duty, which is to help each and every child they teach to achieve their potential.

The move from "child-centred" to "target-driven" education

The move away from topic work into subject-based lessons at the primary level has made it harder for SEN children to understand how facts relate to each other. For most autistic children learning must be child-centred with information presented as a topic of particular interest to them and based on their level of understanding. A search of the Internet reveals that many school districts and boards in North America still base their curricula on sound and proven educational research on how children learn and those involved in education in this country would do well to return to this practice.

The general increase in teachers' legal liabilities and responsibilities

The policy of inclusion

Teaching and support staff are invariably given "training" by an advisory teacher from the LA, which usually consists of a few staff meetings after school, so it is little wonder that they feel ill-equipped to deal with children who are too traumatised to learn, even with best will and expertise in the world. Bizarrely, in spite of the Government's drive towards increasing inclusion, teachers are not obliged by law to undertake any SEN training. According to the latest ONS statistics 80% of teachers (some 340,000 in England and Wales) will attempt to teach children with autism having received no autism specific training at all. We would not expect any other professional (eg doctors, lawyers) to widen their remit without insisting that they first achieve an acceptable level of expertise in the new area.

As a consequence what is happening in many of our schools is not "inclusion", but "integration", in which children with special needs are "bolted on" to the existing set-up, with or without some individual support. This practice usually results in teaching, learning and attitudes remaining largely unchanged and can lead to more social isolation for such children than they would experience in a specialist setting.

The increasing homogenisation of learning and school type

The lack of knowledge of SEN law

Parents are unlikely to be convinced that this arrangement is an acceptable substitute for a legal document which ensures a child's right in law to having his/her special educational needs met—particularly since neither the Government (DfES) nor LEAs seem very interested in putting the checks and balances in place to ensure that the extra funding which schools are receiving will guarantee this, in the absence of a statement. It has been quite common for schools to spend money earmarked for SEN pupils on the SENCO's wages; and parents with children on School Action and School Action Plus can testify to the appalling inability of schools to meet their children's needs from their existing resources, forcing them to request a statutory assessment.

The huge increase in the prevalence of SEN over the last two decades

Whilst some of the many government initiatives described above, may have been implemented with the best of intentions, it is self-evident that no policy or legislation will work in the absence of adequate centralised funding and effective mechanisms for ensuring that implementation is not hijacked by bureaucrats whose budgetary concerns override everything else.

2.2 PROVISION FOR SEN PUPILS IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS

One cannot discuss the role of special schools without referring to the Warnock report and Baroness Warnock's own recent recantation of much of its content. Whilst no reasonable person would argue against the principle of inclusion, this cannot be realised in a climate of under-funding, under-resourcing and evasion of legal duties by LEAs. Party politics and dogma should never be used to justify a "one size fits all" policy, particularly one which central government is not prepared to fund and police.

During a House of Commons debate on SEN on 22 June, 2005, Tom Levitt mentioned the need for our children to live in an inclusive society after they leave school. Laudable as this ideal may be, British society is far from inclusive, as adults with disabilities will testify. The trauma which many SEN children experience in mainstream classes, where they are bullied or become disruptive, is hardly a preparation for the kind of society which we want our children to be part of. Using children who are currently in the school system as guinea pigs in order to achieve some greater goal twenty years from now is immoral and unethical. It is as a parent of a child in the present system, and not as a sociologist or educationalist, that I question the morality of inclusion for ASD children. I will not repeat here the cogent arguments put forward by Julie Maynard and Allan Willis in "Beyond Warnock" but merely refer you to this submission.

Paragraph 2 of "Inclusive Schooling" supports the Salamanca Statement to "adopt as a matter of law or policy the principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise." Is the effect which "inclusion" is having on the mental health and quality of life of thousands of our most vulnerable children and their families not compelling enough to ensure that alternatives to mainstream classes are provided? The term "regular schools" can in any case be broadened, as it is in other EEC countries, to include integral units within mainstream schools (or integration classes) and the Government should be providing targeted funding to ensure unit places for all children who need this type of provision. This would include funding for the training of many more specialist staff.

All MPs seem to accept the need for a range of provision to meet the needs of the SEN population and DfES Minister, Jacqui Smith, asserts that "the Government do not have a policy of closing special schools"57[57] but, by adopting a laissez faire attitude to LAs' interpretation of Government policy, this is precisely what is happening in Councils across the political spectrum. Special school numbers are deliberately being reduced by some LAs, which are openly admitting to parents that they intend to close them. Parents up and down the country are being offered nothing but mainstream places, regardless of individual need—but there is no great enthusiasm on the part of most mainstream teachers and Heads to welcome children with more "challenging" SEN into their establishments. Children who have no speech are being directed away from SLD/MLD (severe/moderate learning difficulties) schools and into mainstream in an attempt to reduce the numbers of new entrants to special schools which LAs have decided to close—regardless of what parents want.

LAs are either under the impression that this is one of the "hoops" they have to jump through in order to "prove" to the Government that they are becoming more "inclusive"; or they are carrying this out in a cynical attempt to obtain a sum of money for "inclusion" from central government. In 2004 Bedfordshire's portfolio holder for education justified pressing ahead with the closure of special schools, against parents' wishes, in this way: "We are working within the Government agenda and as far as the Government is concerned we are lagging behind other authorities in respect of looking at our special educational needs."

Perversely, another reason put forward for the closure of special schools within Bedfordshire was that "197 pupils in special schools have attainment levels which are average . . ." suggesting that this is the only criterion for admission to a special school. If children with average IQs and social/behavioural impairments were thriving in mainstream classes, there would be no SEN debate! This argument also fails to recognise the quality of teaching and (very necessary) level of resourcing in special schools. It is unlikely that these children would have achieved so well in classes of 30.

It is of great concern that LAs, in pursuing an inclusionist agenda for less than "ideal" reasons, are overlooking the special educational needs of individual children within their remit. LAs have a legal duty to assess the needs of all SEN children (Section 323 of the Education Act, 1996) and (for children with statements) to "arrange that the special educational provision specified in the statement is made for that child" (Section 324(5)(1)Education Act, 1996) and it is these duties which should form the basis for planning. Therefore, before making any alterations to the range of provision for the SEN population, a county-wide "audit" would be imperative, in order to determine each child's needs and calculate the resources necessary to meet those needs. Expert reports produced during the statementing process usually give strong clues as to what type of establishment is best suited to an individual child's needs but considerable input would be required from local health and education professionals, such as Educational Psychologists, Speech and Language Therapists, etc. Bedfordshire County Council, like others up and down the country, does not appear to have carried out such an audit, apparently preferring to base its decision on criteria which seem to have nothing to do with children's needs, education law or the views of anyone else.

There is general agreement amongst parents, professionals and MPs from all parties that specialist units (or integration classes) within mainstream schools, which provide pupils with a "half-way" house, is the best way to "include" many of our most vulnerable children (of all abilities) but there are too few of these nationally. Having visited a huge range of special schools and specialist provisions, I firmly believe that these units make inclusion possible for children who would otherwise be unable to cope in a mainstream setting. There are many reasons why these provisions are excellent—mainstream role models, specialist staff, small classes, respite facilities, a differentiated curriculum—to name but a few. However, attempts by LAs to set these up have been thwarted by school Governors' refusal to allow such units in their schools. Another problem is the shortage of specialist staff to teach in such units. Establishments which offer accreditation in SEN-related pedagogy are limited. For example, until recently, only Birmingham University offered experienced mainstream teachers a Masters in the teaching of ASD children.

In addition to the £66 million, which Jacqui Smith recently announced had been earmarked for special schools, [58]the Government should consider further centralised funding for the national expansion of unit provisions attached to mainstream schools so that there is capacity for the ever-increasing number of SEN pupils who now require such placements. The "excellent able autism unit" in Ms Smith's constituency should be provided for children on a national scale. There is a huge variation in the competence and commitment of local authorities and parents should not be forced to move house in order to obtain better services. Only the Government can legislate to ensure global and fair provision locally for all who need it.

There would be many advantages to a model in which almost every school had an integration class/unit:

— The transition of SEN children into mainstream lessons would be much less traumatic if they were already familiar with the school. Similarly, children in mainstream exhibiting difficulties would have specialist staff on hand to provide advice and support for mainstream staff. Such pupils could also have access to the differentiated curriculum and specialist resources of the provisions.

— Support for mainstream staff coping with special needs would be on site and ongoing. Training could be "hands on", rather than the piecemeal approach taken at present.

— The transition of SEN pupils into mainstream could be supported and co-ordinated much more effectively than at present, with pupils receiving the support they need for as long as necessary.

— Expansion and contraction of class sizes in such units would be more easy to achieve, since staffing arrangements could be more flexible.

— Mainstream pupils would be spending time with less "stressed" SEN pupils, under the supervision of specialist staff, leading to a more positive experience of mainstream for everyone.

— Where this model is used in Europe almost all special educational needs can be met locally.

Special schools will always be necessary for some children—not only those with the most "severe" needs but also those who require a therapeutic or specialist environment. Teachers in special schools should be given the recognition they deserve. At present they are demoralised and in fear of losing their jobs. Parents of ASD/ADHD children have their suspicions about the "real" reason why LAs have so readily formed an alliance with the Government on "inclusion" and the closure of special schools. We believe it to be, not only short-sighted, but at odds with Part 4 of the 1996 Education Act, which requires LAs to arrange appropriate provision to meet the needs of every SEN child within their catchment. One way forward would be to link each special school to one or more mainstream schools so that opportunities for sharing of expertise and dual registration can take place.

2.3 RAISING STANDARDS OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR SEN PUPILS

Government intervention

In Section 2.1, I listed the ways in which teaching and learning for SEN pupils in mainstream school was being compromised by excessive government intervention in education. To some extent the education of pupils in special schools has also been affected by this. I can cite examples of SLD children learning about Tudors and Stuarts and children with very little speech being taught to say "Bonjour!" by Speech and Language therapists—not because this is appropriate—but in order that the school can tick boxes to show that the NC is being followed for that child! The Government should seriously consider relinquishing some of its stranglehold on education and allow teacher training establishments, educational researchers and teachers to become "the experts" once more. Heads and teachers must have the freedom to find creative and individualised solutions to facilitating SEN children's learning.

Class size

It is now quite common for some mainstream classes to have almost 50% of their children on School Action, School Action Plus or statemented. Most SEN children require a huge amount of additional support which they simply do not receive in mainstream classes of 30+. If the Government is serious about inclusion, then it must drastically reduce class size to a maximum of 20.

The Use of LSAs

I have not only observed this myself but have also heard many teachers complaining about the inefficient use which is made of LSA support in schools. LSAs are usually under-trained, underpaid "dogsbodies" who work with one or more SEN children in or out of the classroom. At best they are given targeted work to do with the least able and/or most disruptive pupils—at worst they are "babysitters" for these children, having been given no direction by the teacher about how they should occupy them. By the time children reach secondary school level they are often embarrassed by having such "minders". The Government needs to have a complete rethink about the role of these individuals.

In my opinion, LSAs should all have a minimum standard of education (GCSE level), should be literate and numerate and have an active interest in SEN. They should all be willing to undertake training in areas of SEN (eg autism, ADHD) which will be of practical use to them in school. Teachers must be obliged to plan and explain to LSAs what is expected of them during each lesson and sensitivity should be used in how and where each child is supported. However, with the correct training, LSAs could fulfil another important role in schools, which would sit well with the current drive to allocate more funding to schools for special needs. Statements frequently specify that a speech and language or occupational therapist should advise schools on how to deliver the therapy a child needs. Whilst parents know that this is often simply an attempt on the LA's part to "water down" provision and save money; where this level of input is appropriate, LSAs should have the opportunity to receive NHS training in the delivery of SALT, OT, etc, perhaps receiving a qualification at the end of the course, along with a pay rise. There would be several advantages to this:

— Unlike the current situation in which children often do not receive the provision in Part 3 of their statement because no-one in the school is competent to carry it out, children would have their needs met by an LSA qualified to deliver the therapeutic program. An LSA with such training could also provide "in house" support to children on School Action and School Action Plus.

— LSAs would become "experts" in a particular field within a school. This should be highly motivating, particularly if they also receive more pay for the increased responsibility.

— Closer links will be established between health and education, in line with Government policy.

— There would be less pressure on local PCTs for paediatric services if there were at least one suitably trained person in every school. Having gained practical experience, LSAs may even decide to complete their training as therapists, thereby partially solving the shortfall in the NHS.

NB The duties of LSAs and other non-teaching staff should run parallel to those of a teacher—not replace them. The current practice of employing unqualified SENCOs, for example, or expecting LSAs to teach classes implies that "anyone" can teach. Whilst it may be possible for "anyone" to deliver a curriculum; it requires training, experience, professionalism, sensitivity to the needs of all pupils and the concerns of parents, and a determination not to let any pupil "fail" to raise standards for SEN children.

Early intervention and needs-based planning

By law, LAs should identify the special needs of children as young as two. For children requiring statements, it is vital that the LA uses the information it has about the needs of each child to optimise his/her potential in terms of resources and placement. Unfortunately, parents' experience of how well this is done varies wildly. For example, Hertfordshire has a peripatetic advisory and support service comprising one Senior Advisory teacher, four Visiting teachers and 12 Specialist Home-Support Workers (working directly with pre-school children and their families) to support a population of 369 (statemented) children with autism. Bedfordshire has two Autism Advisory teachers for the whole county and no early intervention programmes.

Some LAs see "resourced nurseries" as the solution to meeting the needs of most of the SEN population. Well-resourced as these nurseries usually are, having, for example, PECS symbols around the classroom is not a substitute for intensive Speech and Language therapy for a child with limited or no speech (see below). Children not only need to acquire language (preferably before the age of 7) to access the curriculum but also to decrease the likelihood of institutionalisation in later life. At present the education system, even at the early years stage is failing to provide the intensive therapies which underpin learning. It is little wonder that, with so many needs unmet, these children develop low self esteem and ultimately become disaffected with school.

If all LAs and PCTs practised early identification and needs-based planning in line with the 1996 Education Act and "Every Child Matters", the whole country would have a range of provision with sufficient capacity and flexibility to cope with variations in demand. As a result many high profile issues, such as exclusion and `school refusal' of children with statements could be minimised.

A "joined up" Approach

It is clear that a more "joined up" approach is required in meeting the requirements of SEN children who often have educational needs which require NHS services. However, the reality is that there is a massive shortage of professionals in the very services which our children require, ie. speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, music therapy, drama therapy, educational psychology, child psychiatry, etc. The result of this is that children's statutory right to these services is being compromised because of huge NHS waiting lists. Luton and Bedfordshire PCT announced in 2003 that no child over the age of seven would receive any paediatric occupational therapy services, regardless of the level of need. There are no offers of alternative private treatment for our children. Instead, parents are forced to battle for statements in order to secure funding for private treatment, arranged and paid for by the LA. One does not need to point out the effect on a child's educational achievement when they are denied services which would enable them to speak or use a pencil. The paucity of provision also means that the parent and child become pawns in a protracted battle between the NHS and LA over which should provide the service—hardly the seamless provision the Government had in mind. There will be no real multi-agency working until all local service providers are adequately funded and have a full complement of staff to deliver services.

2.4 THE SYSTEM OF STATEMENTS OF NEED FOR SEN PUPILS ("THE STATEMENTING PROCESS")

It is now almost common knowledge that the biggest source of stress for many families of children with SEN is caused, not by caring for their child(ren), but by the failure of LAs in their statutory duties towards huge numbers of SEN children for whom they are responsible. The 1996 Education Act sets out three specific duties which LAs have towards children with special educational needs; duties which form links in a "chain" that creates the legal entitlement for these children to receive the provision their needs call for. The specific duties are:

A. The duty to assess (S.323 EA 1996).

B. The duty to issue a statement (S.324(1) EA 1996).

C. The duty to arrange the special educational provision set out in the statement (S.324(5)(1) EA 1996). This duty applies regardless of whether the Statement says that provision should be made by another body, (eg a school or Health Trust).

Where an LA is attempting to evade one of these legal duties, a link is broken and the legal entitlement is destroyed.

As a general duty, LAs must identify any child who "has special educational needs" and "it is necessary for the authority to determine the special educational provision which any learning difficulty he may have calls for". (Section 321 EA 1996).

NB. Any child who is deemed by the LA as having SEN which is not severe enough to warrant a statutory assessment, is placed on School Action or School Action Plus. Although, in law, the Governors of a school must "use their best endeavours" to ensure that provision is made for these pupils (under S.317(1)(a) EA 1996), in practice, these school-based stages do not guarantee any specific entitlement in law and parents are aware that Governors are generally reluctant to take any effective action against a Head or teacher. In addition, parents often rightly fear repercussions for themselves and their child if they complain.

How LAs evade their duties:

A. S.323—the duty to assess

An LA must assess a child who has, or probably has, special educational needs and whose needs cannot be met by a school, using existing resources, eg. a child requiring Speech and Language therapy not available at the school. LAs commonly use the following tactics to avoid their legal responsibilities:

— neglecting to inform parents of their rights. This takes various forms:

— school prospectuses, SEN policies and LA documents not indicating that parents have a right to request a statutory assessment for their child;

— schools, LAs and Parent Partnership Services informing parents and local charities that "they'll never get a statement in this LA";

— LAs informing parents and charities that, as they are now putting more funding into schools as part of their inclusion strategy, there will be less statements; and

— limiting the information and support that Parent Partnership (which are not, as the name suggests working "with" parents!) can give to parents.

— making the criteria for who gets a statement unreasonably high, eg "only the bottom 2%", "only severe and complex needs". None of these are lawful but are widely believed by parents, school staff, charities and sometimes even LEA officers.

— minimising the child's disability and insisting that they can "cope" in mainstream, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is a commonly used tactic for high-functioning ASD children, many of whom cannot survive in large classes.

— using Local Management of Schools (LMS) to absolve themselves of any responsibility when schools fail to identify or make provision for SEN children, even though Section 332B(2) EA 1996 states that LAs must "make arrangements with a view to avoiding or resolving, in each relevant school, disagreements between the parents of a relevant child and the proprietor of the school about the special educational provision made for the child."

The only legal recourse parents have when an LA refuse to assess, is Tribunal, which is very stressful and delays the process for 5-6 months, during which time the child's need remain unaddressed.

B. S.324(1) EA 1996—the duty to issue a statement

LAs attempt to evade their responsibilities by:

— having policies for keeping Part 2, but more often Part 3, so vague that the statement is rendered meaningless and the school receives no funding. Some LAs are issuing "templates" to produce statements with almost identical wording in Part 3 for every child. A parent, seeing a proposed statement for the first time, is unlikely to realise this. Other ways in which LAs do this is:

— By failing to quantify the provision, eg "he may need the help of an LSA";

— By referring to a "band" of funding which is meaningless to the parent, since it is not linked to anything meaningful in terms of eg number of hours of LSA support;

— By ensuring that the wording, particularly in Part 3, is vague, eg "access to . . .", "opportunities for . . ." Parents who accept such wording in Part 3 have no legal recourse when their child subsequently fails to receive any provision.

— By convincing the parent that S&LT/OT is a "medical" and not an educational need, and placing this provision in Parts 5 & 6 of the statement, which means that the child has no legal entitlement.

The result of this is further Tribunals.

C. S.324(5)(1) EA 1996 - the duty to arrange the educational provision set out in the statement

Often, even when LAs are ordered by SENDIST (Tribunal) to fully quantify the package of education in Part 3, they will "drag their heels" or simply stall until the parent employs a solicitor to carry out a judicial revue. Many parents are unaware that this option is open to them. Although legal representation is free, parents must pay for the initial cost of the solicitor reading through the paperwork, discouraging parents on low incomes.

At present the Government is attempting to delegate more funding to schools to pay for SEN but the legal responsibility, when schools fail to deliver, is with the LA—and rightly so, particularly since Councils make ever-increasing financial demands on council tax payers. It makes much more sense to enforce the LA's legal obligation to arrange provision and to empower them to do so, whilst at the same time relieving them of their duty to assess, but I also strongly support the setting up of Independent Assessment and Statementing Panels (IASPs) nationally, as proposed in "Beyond Warnock", which takes responsibility for the whole of the statementing process completely out of LA hands.

Parents recognise that the credibility of educational psychologists' reports is undermined when their salaries are paid by the LA. Many professionals are instructed by LAs to keep (statutory assessment) reports vague in terms of recommendations and quantification of provision. The transfer of EPs to a multi-disciplinary organisation, independent of LAs, provided that it was not under pressure to save money by downplaying a child's disability, would help to restore some faith in the system of statutory assessment. The Government also needs to address the national shortage of educational psychologists.

In addition, there are thousands of statemented children who have been permanently excluded and who are receiving little or no education—let alone the provision in their statement—a legal document which is supposed to guarantee this right. Two thirds of these are SEN children with disabilities such as high-functioning ASD, ADHD and other conditions related to poor social skills and "challenging behaviour". There is virtually no provision for these children, who are severely disabled—not academically—but socially.

The Government recently trumpeted the exclusion of almost 10,000 children in one year alone (the majority of whom fall within this group) as a sign that they getting to grips with the problem of disruption in schools. In its document "Behaviour and Attendance, Part 2: Removing Pupils from a School Site and the Decision to Exclude" the Government stated: "Since September 2002, all LEAs have been committed to ensuring that all permanently excluded pupils receive suitable full time education, either at school or, where necessary, making use of a Pupil Referral Unit or other alternative provision." Why is no-one questioning what happens to these children, many of whom sit at home for months or even years receiving only a few hours per week of education? The latest ONS statistics show that one in four ASD children now face exclusion and, as David Cameron recently stated: "One in five people of school age affected by autism is expelled from school and never returns." The lack of provision for this group of children, who should never be placed in PRUs, is a national scandal.

If the Government were serious about "inclusive schooling" and "removing barriers to achievement" they would not only publish details of exclusions by disability but also carry out a thorough investigation of what happens to these children and why they were excluded.

Another national scandal is the growing number of children whose parents remove them from school because they are becoming physically and mentally ill as a result of attending mainstream classes. Such parents, hoping to protect their child from further trauma, find themselves in a "legal limbo" in which they are threatened by the LA with attendance orders if they do not return the child to the very situation which made them ill or self-harm in the first place. These desperate parents and children are the ones we see in the media - reported as "one off" stories—but in actual fact there is a growing number of them, increasingly prepared to take action to expose the failures of the current system.

LACK OF REDRESS FOR PARENTS

Taking on the LA as a parent is like David fighting Goliath for the following reasons.

— Complaints to the DfES (under S496 & 497 EA 1996) are seldom upheld and I wholeheartedly support the call for a National Audit Office or Parliamentary Ombudsman's investigation into the activities of the DfES, which has for some time now shown a distinct reluctance to police LAs and schools.

— The local Government Ombudsman can sometimes award compensation but it is minimal compared to the financial loss and stress the parent and child may have suffered. I was told by the LGO that levels of compensation for parents of children who had been excluded from school and had been receiving virtually no education—sometimes for years—was between £200 and £2,000! My son was in this situation for two years, forcing me out of a career and onto benefits. Although the LA's offer of £500 was insulting, in view of the financial impact on our lives, I accepted this sum because I was exhausted by the battle just to get that.

— SENDIST is the only effective option open to parents when the statement is not properly written. However, there are strict limitations on when a parent is able to appeal; and if a deadline is missed, it can be at least a year before the next opportunity presents itself. Also, the increase in the number of appeals means that the process can take much longer than it did a few years ago, made worse by the fact that LAs have become adept at further delaying the process by requesting one adjournment after another. Witnesses such as Heads, SENCOs and teachers, are "commandeered" as LA witnesses and told what they can and can't say, and parents are regularly shouted at and bullied by LA officers immediately before, after, and even during the hearing. Whilst the Tribunal itself is free, parents rarely win without expensive expert reports and witnesses to back up their case. The stress and costs involved mean that Tribunal is effectively only an option for the minority of parents.

To make matters worse, changes to the Tribunal Regulations (as a result of SENDA) have made it even more difficult for parents, who no longer have the opportunity to read or respond to the LA's grounds for opposing the appeal until they receive the case statement, whereas the LA knows from a very early stage what the parents' case is.

In addition, the SEN regional partnerships, set up by the DfES to share good practice, are not being used for this purpose; the East of England SENDIST user group, being a case in point. The chair of this group has been paid considerable sums of money to provide training to LA officers in `interrogating' parents at Tribunals. It has discussed how LAs can avoid the paying of transport costs for a child when SENDIST orders the parents' choice of school to be named in Part 4 of the statement. It has recently tried to lobby SENDIST to change its procedures in favour of LAs. Anyone reading the minutes of this group's meetings would be unlikely to come across anything of direct benefit to SEN pupils and I am not the only parent who feels that these quangos, paid for out of taxpayers' money, should no longer be allowed to operate.

LAs are, of course, very aware that it is extremely unlikely that they will be brought to account for their actions and will continue to act in this way with impunity until the DfES, LGO and SENDIST are given more powers to police them. In May, 2000 the Government appointed Sir Andrew Leggatt to review the operation of the Tribunal system (including the SEN and Disability Tribunal). Leggatt found that Tribunals were well-placed to identify areas where departments' primary decision-making needs to be improved, stating: "We want to make sure that a new system enables primary decision-makers to learn the lessons of adverse decisions." In August, 2001 the Government published a consultation paper which considerably watered-down Leggatt's recommendations, insisting: "The new tribunal organisation's approach has to be co-operative: it will not be able to dictate to departments as to how they do their work." The Government must seize the opportunity to make LAs and other public bodies more accountable for their actions because at the moment LAs are being rewarded for unlawful behaviour (by cost savings) and this will only change if it becomes more costly for them to evade their legal obligations towards SEN children than to fulfil them.

2.5 THE ROLE OF PARENTS IN DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION

One of the most striking changes which I have observed over the last two decades is the way in which parents of the more challenging SEN children have become increasingly regarded as "the enemy" by Heads, teachers and LAs. The idea of these bodies working in partnership with many parents, in line with the SEN Code of Practice, is a pipedream.

Schools

As a teacher I had expected a real partnership between myself and staff in my son's schools. Apart from a few notable exceptions, I have been treated with a mixture of suspicion and contempt. The more I tried to communicate with the school when things went wrong, the worse it became. Other parents would frequently express their views about my child (in front of him) directly to me in the school-yard and in the classroom. I was often asked by both staff and parents "Why don't you just send him to a special school?" At the time I believed that I was the only parent that this was happening to and wondered what I had done wrong. I subsequently discovered that this is an experience shared by many parents.

Before my son was permanently excluded from mainstream school at the age of six, he spent six months attending mornings only. The school "covered" themselves by placing him on a series of Pastoral Support Programmes and claiming that he was unable to cope full-time. My only legal options as a parent were either to accept this situation or to take my child to school every afternoon and have a "showdown" with the Head. The NFER research shows that, again, that my experiences are not unique.

There are many ways in which schools can make it clear to parents of SEN children that their children are unwelcome and yet give the impression to outside agencies that the school is "caring". I would suggest that the procedure for the monitoring of schools by Ofsted includes a questionnaire for the parents of pupils who have either been excluded or have transferred to other schools in the area at other times than phase transfer. At present their views are seldom heard and no lessons are learnt from schools' failure to educate their children.

My experience of communication between home and school is mixed. Many schools consider "good communication" with parents as being two parents evenings and one school report per year. Any attempt to make additional contact with the school to discuss genuine worries and concerns over a child's education is often viewed defensively and parents can be made to feel that they are being "pushy". Many schools also have a policy of not allowing parents to enter the premises. The lower school ASD provision my son attended, actively discouraged parents from coming to see their children perform at assemblies, claiming that our presence was "disruptive" for the pupils. As a group we were denied opportunities to applaud our children's achievements, whilst all other parents were actively encouraged to attend.

As a parent dealing with schools I have rarely had the feeling that my views were taken seriously or that there was any recognition that I knew my child better than anyone else. One example of this was one school's failure to believe that my son required a "respite" area to retreat to when he couldn't cope. Their insistence that he stay in the classroom during "meltdowns" was very damaging psychologically but enabled staff to gather the evidence which ultimately led to his exclusion.

Similarly, although the child's views are supposed to be taken into account when writing individual education plans at School Action and School Action Plus or during statutory assessment, teaching staff often lack the expertise to "translate" these views into effective classroom management strategies. For example, my son (before his diagnosis of Aspergers syndrome) regularly used to draw himself "visual timetables" of his school day. At meetings, I would point out that I believed these to be significant in some way; but it was not until a senior educational psychologist attended a meeting shortly before my son's exclusion, that these were interpreted as being his way of asking for help in interpreting the school day.

Creating positive relationships with parents is a crucial aspect of every teacher's job—particularly in relation to children with special needs—and all schools should ensure that time is set aside to chat to parents who have concerns about their child. Whilst a home/school diary is helpful, it cannot replace a spontaneous face-to-face chat with the teacher.

Parents of SEN children should be given recognition for the difficult job they do. The majority of teachers admit that they lack the expertise to motivate these children. Parents of ASD and ADHD children do this all day every day—otherwise our children would simply refuse to get out of bed or do nothing but play on the computer! Perhaps school staff would be less hostile towards parents if more "joint training" in SEN took place, ie parents and teachers attending training together. This may help both groups to understand the difficulties faced by the other and encourage the idea of parent and teacher working together to help the child.

Parent Partnership.

There is a huge mismatch between parents' initial expectations of the Parent Partnership Service and its actual role, with many parents believing that the service is there to support them. Whilst the quality of Parent Partnership services varies from one LA to another, generally, parents are quick to realise the limitations of a "disagreement resolution" service funded and line-managed by the LA. Those of us who have been involved in protracted battles with LAs to obtain appropriate provision for our children, are fully aware that, in some LAs, this service simply exists to satisfy Section 332B of the 1996 Education Act. Some Parent Partnership officers have limited knowledge of the law, adopt a partisan (pro school/LA) stance at meetings and breach their own confidentiality guidelines by reporting conversations with parents to their line managers in the LA.

In spite of S332B EA 1996 clearly stating that LAs must appoint "independent persons" to disagreement resolution services, there is no truly independent support on offer. Parents rely almost solely on charities such as IPSEA, ACE and the Childrens Legal Centre for impartial information and support, which is mostly provided by unpaid volunteers, many of whom are themselves parents acting out of a passion to see justice done for all SEN children.

What is extremely worrying is the number of individuals now making a career out of the increasingly adversarial and bureaucratic attitude on the part of LAs towards parents—Parent Partnership, mediation, consultants and experts representing LAs at Tribunal (sometimes at a cost of £1,000 per day). All of these individuals are being funded by the taxpayer through local or national taxes. At a recent Tribunal the LEA paid £2000 for Tribunal representation in an attempt to prevent a child receiving £500 of occupational therapy (which the parents won) making the total cost to the LA five times what it would have been had the LA simply given the child what he needed. In addition, both the LA and parents were berated by the Chair for not having brought expert witnesses (at an approximate additional cost of £500 each)!

The LA

The principle of Section 9 of the 1996 Education Act is that pupils are "educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents". Section 316 and Schedule 27; paragraphs 3 & 8 give parents of statemented children further rights to "express a preference" for a maintained school (mainstream or special). However, the caveats invariably used by LAs to deny this right to parents is "that the attendance of the child at the school would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for the children with whom he would be educated or the efficient use of resources."

Paragraph 1 of "Inclusive Schooling" states that the efficient education and efficient use of resources caveats were open to abuse pre-1993 and in paragraph 43 repeats that "The efficient education caveat—within section 316—must not be abused". These caveats continue to be routinely used by LAs and schools in order to achieve the result that LAs want for statemented children. Many Heads, with the full knowledge and support of LAs, are well-versed in the use of the "efficient education" argument when faced with a request for a place at their school for a statemented child. The receipt of such a refusal is not only hurtful to parents who already know that there is no appropriate "in county" provision for their child, but also unlawful, in the sense that LAs rarely use their powers under S.324(5)(b)EA 1996 to enforce the parent's choice. This is tantamount to allowing schools to make the decision themselves about which SEN children they will and won't accept. Until recently the Schedule 27(3)(4) letters which Bedfordshire LA send to schools for which a parent has expressed a preference, requested a response about whether or not the Head agreed to the school being named in the statement—the underlining of the word "not" sending a clear message to the Head about the response which was expected. Following a formal complaint, this LA have agreed to cease this practice.

An additional problem with parental preference and the current wording of the above legislation is that it does not allow parents to specify a preference for a mainstream unit place and parents are obliged to appeal for the school itself to be named in Part 4 of the statement. This puts the child at risk of being placed in a mainstream class when what (s)he needs is a unit place. The law needs to be changed to allow parents the right to request and appeal specifically for this type of placement, particularly if unit provisions are expanded nationally.

2.6 HOW SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS ARE DEFINED.

No comments.

2.7 PROVISION FOR DIFFERENT TYPES AND LEVELS OF SEN, INCLUDING EMOTIONAL, BEHAVIOURAL AND SOCIAL DIFFICULTIES (EBSD).

This has been covered in other sections.

2.8 THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SEN PROVISION AND THE EFFECTS OF THE DISABILITY ACT 2001, WHICH EXTENDED THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT TO EDUCATION.

My understanding is that the take-up for DDA appeals at SENDIST is relatively low. In my view, this is due to the following:

— DDA legislation has no teeth. If a claim is upheld, the most parents can expect is an apology for what has happened.

— The statementing process is more likely to obtain appropriate outcomes for the child than a DDA claim.

— The main beneficiaries of current DDA appeals will be future children who will benefit from new case law and not the child on whose behalf the appeal is being made.

— Parents fear repercussions if they make a DDA complaint against a school which a child is still attending. Due to the 6-month deadline within which a claim must be made, claims will be limited to those children who have changed schools shortly after the incident and those with parents brave enough to appeal while the child still attends the school.

NB. The low numbers of DDA appeals in no way reflects the extent of discrimination in schools. Many parents of SEN children all have examples of actions taken by schools which would merit a DDA claim.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Responsibility for delivering a high quality State education system which serves the needs of all pupils may lie in the hands of the Government, but the philosophy and ethics which underpin this delivery are a matter for all of us. As an increasing number of SEN children survive and enter the education system, it becomes crucially important for us, as a society, to consider what outcomes we wish to achieve for our most vulnerable citizens. It is my personal belief that the State has a duty to ensure that all children are given the resources to develop to their full potential. Whilst in the short-term this may be expensive, it should not be beyond the means of the fifth richest country in the world. The current system, in which huge numbers of SEN children (many of average or above average intelligence) are being denied the services which would enable them "to enter a world after formal education is over, as an active participant in society and a responsible contributor to it, capable of achieving as much independence as possible."[59] will cost society far more in the long-term. The following recommendations assume that those with the power to change the system understand this and have the will to make the necessary changes:

1. Qualitative decisions about education should be made by educationalists and based on sound and proven educational practice.

2. Decisions about the overall SEN provision within an LA area should be made by the body responsible for arranging SEN provision (currently the LA) and not by school Governors.

3. The Government should carry out an immediate evaluation of the impact of delegation of SEN funding and how it will ensure that both schools and LAs are fully accountable for their decisions.

4. The purpose of the national curriculum and the Literacy and Numeracy strategies should be limited to providing newly qualified teachers with useful guidance on lesson content. Teachers must be allowed the freedom to organise their classrooms and timetables to suit the needs of their class.

5. Teachers must also be encouraged to develop their own style of teaching based on the needs of their children. They should be allowed to make judgements about the appropriateness of different approaches, eg, whole class, group or individual teaching.

6. The starting point for learning is current understanding. Education, particularly for young and SEN children must be child-centred and based on what we know about children's development, learning style and concentration level. Topic work over a range of subjects could be reintroduced if timetables were made more flexible.

7. The culture of blaming parents/children within schools and LAs must be reversed. Advanced Skills Teachers could be brought into schools to where this is a particular problem.

8. Teacher training in SEN must be made compulsory and widely available if inclusion is to have any value at all. All education professionals should receive basic training in autism and the opportunity for teachers to specialise in the teaching of autism and other disabilities must be increased.

9. Similarly, teachers must be given a basic understanding of SEN law during teacher training, with regular in-service updates.

10. There should be a thorough evaluation of the different models of provision throughout the UK and a series of regional audits to determine the range of SEN and how well needs are currently being met. Decisions about how to ensure that a range of provision is delivered equitably across all regions, funding for the setting up of new provisions and the recruitment and training of specialist staff must be the remit of central Government. Capacity should be planned for the ever-increasing numbers of SEN children entering the education system.

12. There is general agreement about the efficacy of integral specialist mainstream units and satellite classes and these should be increased to meet demand. Special schools should forge links with mainstream schools.

13. The expertise of special school staff should be recognised and used as a resource in the training of mainstream staff in SEN.

14. Class sizes must be reduced to a maximum of 20 if schools are to raise standards of achievement for SEN pupils.

15. The qualifications and role of LSAs should be reviewed and courses developed to provide them with basic training in speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and other skills which are currently absent in mainstream schools. Teachers should be given a better understanding of how to make best use of LSAs.

16. The current shortage of NHS staff providing paediatric services should be urgently addressed so that all children receive the services they need.

18. Educational psychologists should be removed from LAs and given independence, as in the Republic of Ireland. They should work jointly with the above assessment centres. This would restore parents' confidence in their impartiality and professionalism.

19. The DfES must release statistics on the number of permanent exclusions by disability in order to throw light on which groups of children are being failed by the system.

20. Immediate measures must be taken to provide appropriate full-time education for the thousands of children currently not receiving this. This includes persistent truants, many of whom have unaddressed SEN. All children who are failing to access full-time education (other than those whose parents have made alternative arrangements) should have their special educational needs assessed (or re-assessed) within two weeks of this happening.

21. The Government must ensure that the DfES, the LGO and SENDIST are given the authority and the motivation to police schools and LAs when they evade their legal duties. The National Audit Office and/or the Parliamentary Ombudsman should investigate the failure of the DfES to uphold parents' complaints under sections 496 and 497 of the 1996 Education Act.

22. The SEN Regional Partnerships represent a misuse of the public purse and should be disbanded and all LAs instructed to desist from lobbying SENDIST.

23. Joint SEN training for parents and teachers should be set up to improve communication and understanding and encourage joint working, focussed on the child's needs.

24. Parent Partnership must be taken out of LA control and PP officers allowed to operate without interference from LAs. Perhaps officers could be placed within the CAB or other charities, and funded by central Government, or else placed within the proposed independent assessment centres.

25. An audit should be carried out to determine the true cost of the adversarial approach taken by LAs, ie the cost (to the LA) of mediation, Tribunals (including expert witnesses and representation) and salaries for an ever-increasing number of SEN officers paid to act as "gatekeepers".

26. There should be a slight change to the law to give parents the right to express a preference for a mainstream unit place.

27. Part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act must be strengthened, in line with other parts of the act.

September 2005