Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-319)
MR STEVE
HAINES, MS
CATHY CASSERLEY
AND MS
PHILLIPPA RUSSELL
18 JANUARY 2006
Q300 Stephen Williams: If I can go
back to some of the legal duties and, perhaps, Mrs Russell or
Ms Casserley will want to pick this up, is the requirement on
schools to remove the causes of potential discrimination perhaps
a step too far for schools, and how will they define what potential
discrimination is?
Ms Russell: I think there will
need to be, obviously, clarification about what areas of potential
discrimination might be relevant to a particular school situation,
but I think a core duty within the accessibility planning arrangements
is anticipating what those barriers, what the areas of potential
discrimination, might be and we are not only looking at physical
access—important as it is—we need to look at the whole
life of the school. The Government's Extended Schools Programme
and the forthcoming promises and delivery of Youth Matters
are absolutely crucial to disabled young people because they really
do extend opportunities for participating in sport, drama, and
homework clubs—the life of the school. Of course, those
new services are not covered by the SEN framework, so schools,
for example, will need to consider how they will actively include
and promote equality of opportunity for disabled pupils. However,
we are talking about accessibility planning duties and we will
be talking about disability equality schemes which, as Cathy said,
are anticipatory, are flexible and reasonable. I hope that schools
really will work with all relevant partners. There is some very
encouraging work out now about the use of inclusive school councils
in mainstream and special schools engaging disabled pupils in
actually identifying what they see as potential barriers, where
they see lack of opportunity. So I think we are on a learning
curve and, as Steve said, the DfES, the Disability Rights Commission
and the Council for Disabled Children have been working on the
accessibility planning and reasonable adjustment projects, and
I think nothing actually encourages success like good, working
examples of schools which have embraced the accessibility planning
duties, the equality of opportunity duty and find that it benefits
all pupils.
Q301 Chairman: Can I apologise to
you, Steve Haines? I realised I have a question at the back of
my mind which I have for the next set of witnesses on academies.
Do you want to articulate a little more your concerns about academies
in relation to special educational needs as opposed to disability?
Mr Haines: I think, really, the
focus on academies is on tackling the outcomes for certain children
who face disadvantage. That children with special educational
needs are at the centre of the focus of academies, I feel, is
really important. What we should be looking at is not just meeting
needs but, rather, looking at the kind of structures we have to
see how they can promote equality of outcome. My concerns are
really focused on where funding agreements mean that academies
are not as responsible to that legislation as perhaps they might
be. I am sure your witnesses later will be able to give you more
detail on that.
Q302 Mrs Dorries: I wonder if you
can just clarify that point again. We have heard evidence in this
Committee that, in fact, academies have no obligation to take
children with special educational needs and there is no statutory
duty for them to be named in a statement. In that case, how can
the focus of academies be on children with special educational
needs if they have no obligation?
Mr Haines: I think that is exactly
my concern, yes. The focus really should be on promoting equality
of opportunity for children with special educational needs, and
that these are the very systems that should support this, whereas
they seem to have missed the opportunity to focus there and, instead,
almost watered down that duty in relation to those children.
Q303 Mrs Dorries: So your statement
that the focus of academies is on special educational needs—the
fact they have that—is that your opinion or is that based
on some kind of evidence?
Mr Haines: I know that this will
be focused on later by some of the witnesses who have a legal
understanding of the situation, but what seems to be coming through
what I am hearing through various networks that we are in contact
with is that there is that lack of onus on children with special
educational needs. I would have to find more evidence for you
on that.
Q304 Chairman: Would Cathy Casserley
like to come in on that? The word "legal" was mentioned,
so I thought perhaps you wanted to say something.
Ms Casserley: The word "legal"
was mentioned but my legal experience does not stretch to academies.
Chairman: You are the sort of witness
we like, those who say they do not have an answer!
Q305 Mr Chaytor: Can I ask a follow-up
question to Steve about that? In your experience, can you make
any generalisations about the way in which different categories
of school respond to the needs of children with SEN?
Mr Haines: It is a very mixed
picture out there, and I think the Ofsted report from last year
really showed that. What is important is not necessarily the category
of school but the approach of the school, and the schools that
are best at inclusion are ones that have a very inclusive ethos,
and who consider the outcomes and achievements of all children,
whether disabled children or non-disabled children, as of paramount
importance. So it is really the approach that is important rather
than the categories.
Chairman: Let us move on to an outcome
focussed system of provision, and Jeff Ennis is going to lead
on this.
Q306 Jeff Ennis: Thank you, Chairman.
I would like to ask the witnesses, first of all, how can we better
achieve an education system with high expectations for all disabled
pupils?
Ms Russell: I, personally, and
I know many others, have warmly welcomed an outcome focussed approach
to education and, indeed, to all children's services. I would
define that approach as ensuring that all pupils gain not only
the necessary academic qualifications (or maximise the academic
opportunities if they are not able to get academic qualifications)
but, also, gain life skills which will enable them to have a fulfilled
adult life. Within Every Child Matters we have the five
key outcomes for all children, and the Prime Minister's Strategy
Unit report on improving the life chances of disabled people very
clearly set out concerns about the numbers of young disabled people
who come through the system and do not necessarily have the skills
and abilities that will enable them to go into the world of work.
I think an outcome focussed approach is a holistic approach; it
is ensuring that all pupils are engaged to the maximum level of
their ability within the life of the school. However, if I might
just refer to my own son's personal experience, his ability, notwithstanding
significant disabilities, to have his own home and be part of
the local community depended not only on having access to a good
education in the traditional sense of the word (he has severe
learning difficulties) but in the acquisition of good communication
skills and the understanding of personal safety, the ability to
work in a team with others, and the ability to travel to a limited
extent independently. I think we do need to make sure that we
include disabled young people in all the initiatives which are
around at the moment. If I might quote a couple of statistics
which give us a warning about the importance of this, last year,
the 2004 DfES Youth Cohort noted that disabled 16-year olds are
twice as likely as their non-disabled peers to be in neither education
or training or in employment, and that really is not satisfactory.
Nor is it satisfactory at the moment that 21% of disabled people
16-24 have no qualifications compared to 9% of non-disabled people.
In this context I would like to make a strong plea for the recommendation
that disability is not a disqualifier for success in adult life,
and I am including within my definition of disability people with
learning disabilities, be it mental health problems or a range
of impairments which might seem very challenging. Nonetheless,
these are people with talents and we need to be absolutely certain
that we are looking at those long-term outcomes, and access to
further education training and higher education is important.
It is the Every Child Matters agenda, and I hope it will
apply equally to disabled children and young people.
Q307 Jeff Ennis: Just a follow-up
to what Phillippa has just said, obviously within the mainstream
school settings etc, or within special schools, the young people
with disabilities are protected from the outside world to some
extent. When they reach adulthood—and it is following on
the point you were making about the doubling of the number of
young adults with disability who are not in training or employment,
or whatever—will the Every Child Matters agenda really
impact on this, what I call, transition phase from the protective
environment of the school into the adult world?
Ms Russell: I hope that it will.
There are big challenges around transition. I think the transition
arrangements 14-19 are probably one of the most important, but
also probably the most variable forms of provision that young
disabled people, or indeed any young people, go through. In some
areas, the Audit Commission has noted, we have a postcode lottery;
Connexions is working well and there are a number of initiatives.
There are some interesting partnerships around between special
and mainstream schools. For example, Beaumont Hill Technology
College, which is a generic special school up in Darlington and
which operates on a campus basis, is doing some very exciting
work with young people who are in mainstream schools and enabling
the staff there to develop the specific skills to ensure that
they actually do well. Every Child Matters is a challenging
agenda but we must be absolutely sure that young disabled have
bright futures, and futures, and I know because the transition
information network is supported by the Council for Disabled Children
that young disabled people with whom we consult are particularly
anxious about what comes next, and many with good school experiences,
be it mainstream or special, are worried they might not get the
support and training in order to be ambitious, to make choices
about their life after school and to actually go on and achieve.
One challenge here, of course, is that many young disabled people
have missed significant amounts of schooling because of hospital
treatment etc, and we do need to be absolutely sure that the lifelong
learning journey is open to them and that their education and
training opportunities are not cut short prematurely.
Q308 Jeff Ennis: We have focussed,
to some extent, on the Every Child Matters agenda that
the Government is working to. The other major SEN document, of
course, within mainstream schools is Removing Barriers to Achievement.
Are these two strategies fully complementary with each other or
is there anything missing between the two strategies?
Ms Russell: I think the strategies
are complementary and I think they are right. If Every Child
Matters and Removing Barriers to Achievement can be
delivered in the spirit in which they were developed, and that
has to be over a period of time, they will work well. However,
I think we need to be vigilant at every stage to make absolutely
certain that disabled children and young people are fully included
at every stage and within every initiative. There is no doubt
that if Removing Barriers to Achievement is to succeed
then we need the multi-agency approach, the collocation of services
and the better joining up of health and social care, etc, in order
to support progress in education. It is a challenging agenda but
I think we are on the right path.
Q309 Jeff Ennis: What sort of timeframe
do you think we are on in terms of delivering that joined up approach,
shall we say, that you would be satisfied with as a Commissioner
for the DRC?
Ms Russell: I would like to ask
my colleagues, and I suppose all of us would like to say "tomorrow"
but saying "tomorrow" would be unrealistic. I am well
aware, having been around in this field for a number of years,
that progress has to be sustainable; that we have to be absolutely
clear that all partners understand their responsibilities but,
also, know that they can act in more creative and dynamic ways.
Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, the Prime
Minister's 2005 Strategy Unit Report, hoped that the ambition
set out in that report would be achieved by 2025; I hope that
we could achieve earlier. I think one of our challenges will be
maintaining the momentum. For example, achieving real inclusion
across the education system is a process and we have to learn
from experience. So my main concern is that any new programme
has the timeframe and the support within that timeframe for delivering
and evaluating progress, recognising that new challenges will
come along the way. One point I would want to make is that the
pattern of childhood disability is changing; we are seeing more
young people with very complex disabilities. The National Service
Framework is important in offering direction as to how we
might address those needs, but we need to be absolutely sure that
they are not excluded and that they do get education and support
appropriate to their needs.
Q310 Chairman: There is a view that
the way to really energise the system, if you want to take any
particular category of student and get something done about their
situation in giving them the fullest educational provision you
can, is to make it particularly rewarding for schools to take
them; in other words, a premium following a particular student.
What do you think of the view? Is there enough of a premium? If
a child with special educational needs or a child with a disability
goes into a school, is there a sufficient premium to make that
child, in a sense, attractive to the school, both to accept in
the first instance but, also, to provide a full level of facility?
Ms Russell: I think you are making
a very important point. I think that there has been an encouraging
development over the last few years in celebrations of schools
and pupils that are doing well, but we need to do more. I am aware
that many mainstream schools are worried about the league tables,
they are worried about how they demonstrate success and celebrate
progress—and all children do make progress in a good school.
I would like the reward, the recognition of achievement, to be
much more widespread. I know that good schools' value of progress
in their pupils may not necessarily be in achieving formal academic
accreditation, although I hasten to say that the Disability Rights
Commission is worried that many disabled pupils who could achieve,
for a variety of reasons, do not get the examination results one
would have expected, but I think the premium, as you call it,
or the celebration is very, very important. I certainly hope that
we will see more rewards, if you like, incentives, to schools
to think accessibility and inclusion.
Q311 Chairman: Do Steve Haines or
Cathy Casserley want to come in on that?
Mr Haines: I would echo very much
what Phillippa said. I would also add that, perhaps, rather than
an extra premium that has to be added, the mainstream policy should
encourage schools to give the best to disabled children and children
with SEN that attend that school.
Ms Casserley: I do not have anything
to add; I would just echo what Phillippa and Steve have said.
Q312 Chairman: Can I then just shift
the discussion, for a moment, because I realise what a valuable
group of witnesses we have with us. In terms of this balance between
SEN and disability, are we getting it right? That is the big question.
Are we getting it right? We started off with the big question,
so let us come back to it. If we are not getting it quite right
what new initiatives do we need?
Ms Russell: Just giving a personal
point of view, if I may, firstly, I think, as we said earlier,
we are looking at a jigsaw of provision, in particular the SEN
Framework and the disability duties, but there are other assessment
processes and services that may need to fit into that picture.
I think we need to improve the sharpness and the relevance of
our assessment processes so that we understand which framework
we are using when. Secondly, I think that greater awareness of
the accessibility planning duties and the forthcoming Disability
Equality Duty will make, hopefully, the inter-relatedness of the
two much clearer to schools. Thirdly, I think that we have a real
issue in a more complex education system, and I would include
the Early Years provision there as well because we have, of course,
major developments now in terms of children centres, the Childcare
Bill plus, of course, Government promises on Early Years education
where proper inclusion and accessibility will be crucial. I think
we need to take a strategic view and a regular review of how the
system is actually working. If we use the strategy set out in
Removing Barriers to Achievement we do have a means by
which we can measure progress, but I think the Disability Rights
Commission has an important role here as well, to assist the Government
in understanding how the disability duties interrelate with other
duties in protecting and promoting the overall human rights of
disabled pupils.
Q313 Chairman: The theme today in
all our discussions and our questioning has been about inclusion.
We started this inquiry partly because we have been away from
special education for too long but also because of the very famous
speech and pamphlet by Baroness Warnock. What do you believe in
terms of this view that Baroness Warnock put to us when she gave
evidence, that perhaps we have gone too far on the inclusion side;
that a good provision of special schools is very important and
very appropriate for a lot of student; that perhaps some people
are pushed into mainstream because of the inclusion doctrine rather
than getting really the right kind of education they want in a
special school?
Ms Russell: I do not think the
inclusion agenda has gone too far. I think a lot of people would
say it has not gone far enough, inasmuch as we are still learning
how we can include all disabled pupils effectively in mainstream
provision. Whilst we are on that learning curve, special schools
or specialist provision will obviously have a place, but I think
one can already see some encouraging evidence of co-location and
strong partnerships between special and mainstream provision.
We have to build capacity in the workforce. Parents pick special
schools because they do not in general have confidence that the
mainstream schools will deliver the specialist additional support
their children need. We are working towards, I hope, an inclusive
and accessible society and that must include education, but I
personally would not want to backtrack on inclusion; rather I
would say that we need to learn, both from the UK experience and
from international experience, how we can include more children
to recognise that good inclusive schools are actually good for
everybody. If you include a disabled pupil well, then other pupils
will benefit. Thirdly, some children do have very complex needs
and special provision will be absolutely crucial to their educational
process and progress. I think we are also looking at some interesting
challenges for special schools. Some special schools already are
largely operating on an outreach basis to build competence and
confidence in mainstream. It is a learning curve, but I personally
would be very unhappy if we turned the clock back. I think we
are actually learning as we go towards the achievement of high
quality education with maximum inclusion for all pupils. I would
just turn to my colleagues briefly and ask whether they would
like to complement what I have said.
Mr Haines: Again, I would agree
with all of that. I think we do need to focus on the ongoing improvements
of the school system as a whole. Promoting separate schooling
should only really be done, following the Salamanca statement
of the UN, in those exceptional cases where it is necessary and
an appropriate environment and setting for that child to be able
to develop. On the whole, the efforts still need to continue towards
giving schools the skills and the framework with which they can
promote inclusion.
Q314 Chairman: What is your take
on Baroness Warnock's position?
Mr Haines: I do not think I could
comment directly on Baroness Warnock's position.
Q315 Chairman: Why could you not
comment directly? It is right in the centre of your life and work
experience, is it not?
Mr Haines: I think Warnock identified
some of the concerns that are out there, especially amongst parents
of disabled children. But we do need to ensure that the reality
for the disabled child is that they are given the opportunity
to interact with non-disabled peers. It has a very long-term benefit
and we need to promote the independent living in the future of
that child as they become an adult. I think some of the statistics
that Phillippa quoted earlier regarding those not in employment,
education or training at 16 are also echoed at 19, where there
is not sufficient transition coming from special schools, and
we see that blip that is reflected in the Prime Minister's Improving
the Life Chances of Disabled People report which shows a great
increase at 19, where children are leaving special schools. We
need to consider the disabled adult of the future as well as the
disabled child of today.
Q316 Chairman: Cathy Casserley, what
is your view on the Warnock review?
Ms Casserley: I think I have the
same view as Steve, that she identified a number of issues, but
the key thing is to make sure that disabled pupils have the same
opportunities as other pupils. That is not being done at the moment
and it needs to be.
Q317 Chairman: Coming from certainly
the two of you—and I am coming back to Phillippa Russell
in a moment—there is a rather negative attitude—or
"as the last resort"—to special schools. That
is what I am getting. Is that right? Surely in some situations
a special school would be the right environment to bring on all
the talents and make someone fit for a greater role in society.
Ms Casserley: As Steve said in
the Salamanca statement—
Q318 Chairman: He was being a bit
reluctant to answer.
Ms Casserley: Certainly there
are exceptional circumstances where special educational needs
or a special school may be the most appropriate forum, but my
view is that a lot of the education that goes on in special schools
goes on there because the provision is not being made in mainstream
and often parents feel that the way they will get the most for
their child is actually to have the resources focused and to have
that child educated in a different school. That often points to
a failure of the mainstream system, rather than it being much
better in a special school.
Q319 Chairman: It is a totally different
argument that some children thrive with a particular set of special
needs in a smaller environment. "Small is beautiful"
EF Schumacher called it. Is there not an argument that sometimes
that big environment of 1,000, or perhaps a 2,000 school environment,
however good the inclusion, is not the right environment for a
particular student?
Ms Casserley: My view is probably
that that is in exceptional circumstances. I would imagine the
vast majority of children would thrive much better, in general,
in a smaller environment. But, in broad terms, I would say that
is the exception rather than the rule. I have to say I am expressing
a personal opinion now, so I should probably hand over to my colleagues.
|
