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
| 
