Select Committee on Education and Skills Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 700-719)

MS MIRIAM ROSEN, MS EILEEN VISSER, MR DAVID CURTIS, MS JOAN BAXTER AND MR RALPH TABBERER

8 MARCH 2006

  Q700  Chairman: Whether individual specialist schools are closing down or—as in my constituency—being absorbed into larger provision, it is the same thing, is it not?

  Ms Visser: That is exactly the point we made in the report, that the number of pupils in special schools, irrespective of how many there are, is the same as it has been for the last 10 years—and it is probably worth saying that it is the same for mainstream schools as well. That has not increased. In relation to Mr Wilson's point earlier, it is not about inclusive or exclusive; the number of children with identified special needs, whether they are statemented or not, is more or less the same.

  Q701  Mrs Dorries: What could be the reason for that? If we have had 90% of school closures, how can that be possible? Are you talking about numbers or percentages—because there is a difference.

  Ms Visser: Yes, it is percentages.

  Q702  Mrs Dorries: That is not exactly the same.

  Ms Visser: It is not quite the same, but, in fact, if we look at the numbers, the numbers . . . It is really like one percentage point. The numbers are very small.

  Q703  Mrs Dorries: It is percentage again, because we know 97 schools have closed down.

  Ms Visser: Yes, but, in the same way, other schools will have opened. They are much bigger schools and therefore more viable and can be much more outward looking than they were before. But the numbers have not changed.

  Q704  Mrs Dorries: How can we get the information as to how many children are in special schools? I am sorry, that is not a question for you.

  Ms Visser: Well, we do have the numbers, in case you asked.

  Q705  Chairman: If you have the numbers, give them!

  Ms Visser: Remembering that things change as you speak, so do not hold me to these constantly, there are 1,122 special schools. They have gone down, but numbers remain the same. We have 85,000 pupils at the moment attending special schools, and, of those, about 83,000 have got a statement—so we still have children in special schools without statements. As one of the big things that Warnock wanted to do was to say: "You cannot go to a special school unless you have got a statement—that is your protection," we have not entirely got that right either. Do you want me to give a breakdown?

  Q706  Chairman: Yes, please.

  Ms Visser: There are 410 in maintained nursery, 67,380 in primary, and 76,580 in maintained secondary schools.

  Q707  Mrs Dorries: Those are the pupils with statements.

  Ms Visser: Yes.

  Q708  Mrs Dorries: Could we have the figures from 10 years ago and five years ago and break it down over time?

  Ms Visser: These figures we have got from the Department of Education. We do not hold these figures.

  Chairman: We can get those. A last bite—Ralph Tabberer is looking neglected—do you want to put a question to him?

  Mrs Dorries: Oh, gosh, sorry Ralph, no. I am finished now.

  Q709  Mr Carswell: A question really—sorry, Ralph—for the Audit Commission and Ofsted. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts, in particular, on the question of statementing and parent choice. The theory is, of course, that the statementing process defines the need and enables a decision about provision to be taken rationally. The practice, certainly in my experience—and you may find this a bit subjective—is that it tends to empower inclusionist ideologues and experts. For example, in Essex, the ability of the LA to control the statementing process I think they have been able to use as a pretext to close down a special school by manufacturing a fall in the head count. Do you think the statementing process leaves LA officers with too much control, vis-a"-vis the parents? Do you think we do need to have a radical overhaul, so that the statementing process does more to empower parents? How could it be improved? Could it be made more specific? Crucially, do you think you could have a statementing system that included a form of financial entitlement, if need be enforceable through the courts?

  Ms Rosen: I think to some extent we have answered that by saying we really think there should be much swifter allocation of resources to the point of need. We also feel there should be more emphasis on the outcomes, on what it is the pupils are enabled to achieve, rather than of tying down very specific resource entitlements, such as so many hours of a teaching assistant's time. Because what really matters is how well the pupils do when they are given the resource, not exactly what the resource is. In some ways, tying down an amount of very specific resource to a child is not necessarily going to be the best way of promoting that particular child's progress.

  Mr Curtis: I will not respond to: Have LAs got too much control or too much power? Quite clearly we have a problem with the statementing process over accountabilities, because the local authority is meant to be delivering the statement but actually the resource and the implementation of the statement rests with the schools. When we did our past study—and colleagues from Ofsted would have a more up-to-date information, review on this—it was very difficult to pin down who was responsible and who was going to be held to account for the non-delivery of the statement. It was easy to identify, as I said earlier on, that the resource was allocated; it was not easy to identify the impact of that and the value of that particular statement as far as the individual child was concerned. The other point I would make about statementing—and I do not know what the Essex position is and what the entitlements or non-entitlements of the children in Essex are—is that quite clearly we now have tremendous variation in the country about your likelihood of getting a statement. The figures that we have would indicate, for instance, if you were in Nottinghamshire—because they have a particular pooled-budget approach in Nottinghamshire—about 1% of children will have statements. If you go to Hulton 4.8% of children will have statements. So there are differences in different parts of the country about the way in which that statement is being delivered, and I think there is an issue therefore around tariffs, if you like, and entitlements as far as children are concerned, because it does vary quite considerable between local authorities. But, as I say, I do not know what the picture is in Essex and in the local authorities concerned.

  Q710  Mr Carswell: Picking up on the point you made, Miriam, you suggested that you should focus on an outcome rather than resource allocation, which sounds wonderful in theory, but is it precisely because there is a vagueness in the statementing that does not explain in detail what is going to happen to the child to meet their educational needs, a lack of being specific, that allows the wiggle room and it is what allows people, however you look at it, to avoid meeting their obligations to the child, and is that not the problem with the statementing process?

  Ms Rosen: I think one of the problems is that it has focused entirely on provision without evaluating the provision to look at what the outcomes are and then to come to judgments about what sort of provision enables the greatest progress. It might be that a shorter amount of time with a very expert teacher would result in more progress than a longer amount of time with a teaching assistant. That is just an example but because the whole process is tied to levels of provision rather than outcomes, we have no guarantee that it is actually resulting in the best possible outcomes.

  Mr Baxter: To take a statement, I think it is very easy for parents to think that throwing a lot of money at the child is the solution. It is understandable that parents want to do everything they possibly can to enable their child to move on and to develop. The evidence base about what works does not really help us terribly, particularly in relation to some special educational needs, so parents will hear about schools which are very expensive and which appear to have extremely good facilities, and will make the assumption that this is what their child needs, when, in fact, other provision which is a lot less costly may achieve the same or even better outcomes.

  Q711  Mr Carswell: They have certainly managed to throw a lot of money at it in Essex. I am just not sure how much has ended up helping the children. Sorry, a question! My final question is: does what I think is the paradox about inclusion, which is where this policy of enforced inclusion is pushed through, mean that you can end up with what is, in effect de facto exclusion? I know of a number of children in my constituency who were forced into a mainstream school. One of them has an ASBO and several of them, for a number of reasons, will not be in class today. I am not quite sure what tick box category they are under, whether they are excluded or whatever, but they are no longer in mainstream school. Some people would say this was predictable. Do we have statistics on this? Can we show somewhere how many children who are forced into mainstream school are flourishing and how many are now excluded? Does the evidence exist for this? I know it does in my constituency because I have compiled the figures myself, but in the country?

  Ms Visser: The only figures that we have are the numbers of pupils with a statement who have been excluded nationally. Those are the only figures that are collated and I do not have those, but the Department will.

  Q712  Chairman: Would you recognise Douglas's point as a problem? David and Joan are nodding.

  Mr Baxter: Children with a statement are more likely to be excluded than children without a statement.

  Mr Wilson: If it helps it does say in our briefing that: "The Audit Commission found that the vast majority of permanent exclusions in the 22 LEAs surveyed related to pupils with SEN: 87% of exclusions in primary schools and 60% of exclusions in secondary related to pupils with SEN."

  Q713  Mr Carswell: That is not entirely the point I was pushing at. I know that many of those who are excluded tend to have statements. The point I am more trying to get at is to look at the impact of the policy of enforced inclusion on those children who have been forced into mainstream school, how have they done, is there any data on that, can we look at how many of those children who were in special schools, say, two years ago, are in mainstream, have they had discipline problems, have some of them been excluded, how have they fared? I would be fascinated to see that data.

  Ms Visser: I am just not sure of the term you are using of "enforced inclusion". It is not a term that I have ever come across and it is not a term that I have come across in any local authority that I have worked with.

  Q714  Mr Carswell: By enforced inclusion, I mean when you shut the special school and that provision goes and the children then have to go to a mainstream school. That is inclusion and it is enforced.

  Ms Visser: I have been involved in discussions about the closures of a range of schools including those for emotional behavioural disorders, which I assume you are making reference to—

  Q715  Mr Carswell: Not specifically, no.

  Ms Visser: I was just taking the point about children having ASBOs and not being in school today. They tend to be ones with behaviour problems so that was my assumption. In no case that I have been involved with, if a parent or child has requested another form of special provision, have they been forced to go into a mainstream situation, so I do not recognise the problem.

  Q716  Mr Carswell: Is that including your experience in Essex?

  Ms Visser: I have not been involved in Essex. They have not involved us in closure proposals.

  Ms Rosen: If you look at our report, it is clear that those schools which have been successful in including a range of pupils have had a range of characteristics such as good management, adapting the curriculum, and good teaching. You do need all those conditions there for inclusion to be successful and a school which does not have those characteristics and is willing to accept a range of youngsters is much less likely to be successful.

  Q717  Chairman: How many children get excluded from special schools?

  Ms Visser: We do have the figures but we have not got them here because we did not think that question would come up.

  Q718  Chairman: It could be useful. They must do, must they not?

  Ms Rosen: They do and I am sure we could supply you with that figure. [2] (Ev 345)

  Chairman: Jeff?

  Q719 Jeff Ennis: Could I ask a supplementary, first of all, to the line of questioning Nadine was pursuing earlier in terms of the seven-year-old special educational needs child in one of her schools who was not allowed to sit their SATs. Can I couch it in terms of the Education Inspection Bill which has its second reading next week because one of the recommendations we put to the White Paper as a Committee was to bring in a benchmarking system for pupils with special educational needs, free school meals, et cetera. That particular recommendation appears to be rejected by the Secretary of State because she says it is more of a quota system. However, some of us are still pushing the possibility of bringing it in as an added value measure in terms of the league tables, so the schools identifying how many children who are in the SEN category, free school meals, et cetera, as an added value measure in league table terms. What is your take on that? Would that be a useful indicator to give as a measure for parents deciding where to send their children?

  Ms Rosen: Ofsted includes those figures in the data that it provides to inspectors.


2    Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 6 July 2006