Response from the National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (NASS) to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Education and Skills Inquiry into Special Educational Needs

 

 

1. Introduction

This document forms NASS's written evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Education and Skills Inquiry into Special Educational Needs. NASS is an umbrella organisation, representing all 72 Non-Maintained Special Schools and 50 Independent Schools catering wholly or mainly for children with SEN, most of which have approved status through the Department for Education and Skills.

 

NASS schools provide education, social care and health care for children with the most complex, severe and low-incidence special educational needs. As a result of these needs and the subsequent vulnerability of these children and young people, the cost of individual placements can be high. This frequently results in assumptions that our schools are "too expensive". In this evidence, NASS will seek to set out the value of the Non-Maintained and Independent Special School (NMISS) sector in cost and expertise terms. There are also responses to the specific areas to be addressed by the Select Committee.

 

Given the needs of the children and young people that NMISS cater for and the inaccuracies that exist in the understanding many public sector bodies have of our sector, NASS would particularly welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Committee.

 

2. NMISS - A vital element in the continuum of SEN provision

In 2003, the DfES Special Schools Working Group Report highlighted the essential role special schools play in meeting the needs of children with SEN. Within special school provision, NMISS play a particularly specialist role. Whilst many Local Authority-maintained special schools cater for children with a broad range of SEN, each NMISS tends to specialise in only one or two types of SEN. This gives schools experience that most mainstream and maintained special schools will not have and allows for the development of very specialist skills and expertise.

 

In recent years, Government policy has led to an increasing number of children with SEN being educated in mainstream provision. For many children, this has been appropriate and successful. However, for children with very complex or severe SEN, there is a risk that attending a mainstream school does not represent real inclusion. Many mainstream school staff do not have the experience of working with children with high levels of need or the associated skills that come from such experience. For some children with complex or severe SEN, attending a NMISS has been the first time that they have had a sense of belonging and of being fully involved in the whole educational experience from teaching and learning to peer group relationships. NASS strongly believes that inclusion must be about more than where a child received education and that special schools can, and do, provide excellent inclusive educational experiences.

 

The trend towards inclusion has led to a correlated trend towards NMISS catering for children with the most complex and severe SEN. Medical advances have meant that children who may not have previously survived, are now living into adolescence and beyond. Many children will have highly specialised health and social care needs, which smaller Local Authorities struggle to meet. The specialist nature of NMISS makes them an essential element in the provision of services for such children.

 

Where possible, it is appropriate that children should not have to leave their home and families to receive the education, social care and health care that they need. It is appropriate that Local Authorities should be reviewing and developing their own provision and considering regional provision. NASS argues that NMISS are ideally placed to be part of that regional picture of provision. Whilst school places form the core business of NMISS and allow for the development of expertise and innovative practice, there are many opportunities for that expertise to be shared with children and young people, parents and Local Authority-based professionals. As the evidence will detail at a later stage, many schools are already engaged in innovative partnership work.

 

3. Cost and value for money

Although the cost of comprehensive, high quality provision is not cheap, NASS strongly argues against accusations that our schools are "too expensive". A review of Ofsted and Estyn inspections of NASS schools (available on the NASS website at www.nasschools.org.uk ) reveals that of the 119 schools surveyed, 100% achieved "sound" or better judgements for value for money, 75% were "good" or better and 27% were "very good" or "excellent". These findings are better than many maintained special schools.

 

To date, there has been no comprehensive research that conclusively demonstrates that NASS schools are more expensive when comparing like with like and taking into account the full range of education, care and health services that NASS schools are able to deliver on site. Despite this, there is mounting pressure on Local Authorities from central government not to make "out of authority" placements and a reduction in the funding available to authorities to make such placements. This threatens the choice of parents and children to opt for specialist educational provision and leaves many to have to fight for their wishes to be heard through the SEN and Disability Tribunal. Whilst NASS supports the mainstream education of children with SEN, with the proper support, we are very concerned about "inclusion" being promoted as a cost-cutting exercise.

 

NASS argues for some level of central government funding of places in NMISS to remove these financial pressures from Local Authorities. This would ensure that vital specialist provision is not lost through the closure of schools where parental demand for places outstrips supply but the number of placements made by authorities is falling year on year.

 

4. High Quality Provision

For two years running, Mary Hare School in Berkshire and RNIB New College in Worcester (both NMSS) have topped the DfES Value Added tables, achieving educational outcomes for children with hearing and visual impairments far in excess of what might be expected. However, because they are small schools, these figures are not widely published.

 

The sector has struggled against unwarranted accusations that provision in NMISS is of poor quality. In the review of Ofsted and Estyn inspection reports detailed above, we found that there is nothing to suggest that the quality of education and of leadership and management in NMSS and Approved Independent Special Schools (AISS) are weaker than in maintained special schools. Indeed, the percentage of NMSS and AISS where leadership and management are sound or better is 99% compared with HMCI's figures for all special schools in 2002/3 of 89%. In the same report HMCI stated: "pupils' achievement in approved independent schools is similar to that in LEA-maintained special schools" (Standards and Quality 2002/3.The Annual report of HMCI, p. 53). This was reiterated in a letter to the NASS Chief Executive by David Bell, dated 5/02/04: "I hope you will ...take comfort from the fact that my Annual Report 2002/03, published on 4 February 2004, draws attention to the good quality of provision in approved independent schools."

 

The safety of children with SEN, particularly those living away from home, is paramount. Children and young people are often particularly vulnerable as a result of communication or emotional needs. The emotional health needs of children with SEN are often poorly understood or neglected. Schools like Westwood in Kent are addressing this by employing a full-time school counsellor, who liaises with the local CAMHS team. This work makes a major contribution to ensuring that children in school are safe. Despite criticism of some residential special schools in the recent Safeguarding Children report, there are numerous examples of excellent practice in Child Protection in NASS schools. Chailey Heritage School in East Sussex is nationally recognised for its good practice guidance on intimate care for disabled children and is represented on its local Joint Child Protection Forum. Peterhouse School in Southport recently shared their expertise in working with children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders at a national conference, "Protecting Those Who Cannot Tell" and Pegasus School in Derbyshire was the first school to be awarded a maximum 5 star audit by the British Safety Council.

 

5. Innovative Practice

NMISS are perfectly placed to develop innovative practice in teaching and learning and "hidden curriculum" activities for children and young people with low-incidence SEN. The Loddon School has introduced the PLLUSS programme - Personalised Learning for Life Using Supportive Strategies - which offers tailor-made education for each child, drawing on preferences for activity, location and staff. This supports children previously excluded or rejected from previous schools to access education fully. Sunfield School near Stourbridge has used its research centre to develop innovative practice with children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders ranging from classroom activity to the building design and decoration of their new residential unit.

 

Mary Hare School, New College Worcester and Royal West of England School for the Deaf, are all pathfinders in the DfES's new programme of Specialist Special Schools, helping to ensure that their expertise can benefit a wider range of children and staff.

 

6. Working in Partnership

Although there are some tensions between NMISS and Local Authorities surrounding funding, there are also many examples of strong partnerships. The development of the 11 SEN Regional Partnerships has created opportunities for NMISS to work closely with authorities in their area. The Old School in Nuneaton now works intensively with therapeutic, social and medical services in each student's locality to ensure that gains made at school can be sustained and built upon when they leave. In Exeter, the Royal School for the Deaf provides professional management of Torbay's Hearing Impairment Service and advises on ICT for pupils with SEN, reaching a far greater number of children than those attending the school. St Vincent's School in Liverpool provides a similar Visual Impairment service for one of its Local Authorities.

 

Relationships between NMISS and local mainstream schools are often particularly strong. Many schools have arrangements in place to share teaching and learning and recreational facilities and in many cases this means that children with SEN are learning alongside their peers, whilst still receiving the benefits of specialised educational support. There are also benefits for staff with many schools offering opportunities for mainstream staff to spend time in NMISS or making specialist training courses available.

 

Summary

NMISS are an essential element of the continuum of provision for children and young people with SEN, particularly those with severe and complex disabilities. Funding constraints and an unwillingness to acknowledge the real cost of fully meeting the educational, social care and health needs of these children and young people creates tensions between Local Authorities and schools and parents. These tensions are often expressed as objections to NMISS in cost, value for money and quality terms, which are not bourn out by available evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

NASS's response to specific areas identified by the Inquiry

a) Provision for SEN pupils in 'mainstream' schools: availability of resources and expertise; different models of provision.

The majority of children with SEN are educated in mainstream schools. For many children this is appropriate and primary schools in particular are often able to meet children's needs effectively. The experience of children and young people with SEN in secondary schools is often less successful. Difficulties which may have been contained within a small primary school can become manifest in larger secondary schools, where staff are likely to have less detailed knowledge of individual children and young people. For children with particular types of SEN, particularly Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (BESD) and Autistic Spectrum Disorders, this lack of containment can lead to the breakdown of the educational placement.

The mode age for placement in NMISS is 15. Frequently placements are made at a point of crisis, where mainstream school placements have broken down and Local Authorities have exhausted their own resources. These types of arrangement are far from ideal for the young people involved and do not provide a good starting point for NMISS in working effectively with them. NASS welcomes the focus in Every Child Matters and Removing Barriers to Achievement on early intervention. From the perspective of NMISS, the opportunity to provide specialist input to children at an early stage increases the possibility of that child or young person returning to mainstream schooling at some point in their education.

As noted in our earlier evidence, a number of NMISS provide or manage Local Authority support services. This is an excellent use of their expertise and NASS would seek further developments of this nature within the Change for Children programme. The exchange of staff and training mentioned earlier would also contribute to developing expertise in mainstream school staff. The Special Schools Working Report and current Audit into Low-Incidence SEN have both mentioned the possible development of "Regional Centres of Expertise". NMISS should be an integral part of these, whether in terms of providing a bricks and mortar base and/or being viewed as a significant source of the expertise.

 

b) Provision for SEN pupils in Special Schools.

Special schools must continue to be recognised as a vital part of the continuum of provision for children with SEN. Inclusion is not simply about where a child is educated but about how they are educated. As noted earlier, children in NASS schools report positive educational experiences and a sense of belonging and of having their needs understood and met. It is inaccurate to assume that a special school placement cannot, by definition, offer an inclusive educational experience. The use of dual placements and closer links between special and mainstream schools have reduced the "either/or" distinction and reduce the potential for isolation.

The funding of placements in NMISS would benefit from review. Until the late 1990s despite successful fundraising activities for particular projects funding for the sector was primarily pupil placement based. Although individual schools were able to bid annually for some aspects of capital funding this source of funding was very limited. A few schools were sometimes able to receive specific grants to support a portion of specialist staff training costs through arrangements with their local education authorities but again this was both limited and inconsistent across the country.

 

Through the work of NASS a number of direct funding streams to the sector have been established in recent years. These have included several year-on-year allocations (e.g. Standards Fund, School Standards Grant, Devolved Capital Funding), various funds to support specific arrangements (e.g. Threshold Funding to UPS1, some aspects of leadership training) and some indirect grants to fund particular initiatives (e.g. ICT training, Laptops for Teachers, PLASC). The amount of Capital Grant available for bids from the sector has also increased.

These new funding arrangements have been welcome but there remain inconsistencies and anomalies e.g. payment for progression to UPS2, Pension contribution arrangements. The restriction of these funds to NMSS while AISS continue to provide very similar services also remains a concern. Only through the fees charged for placements can AISS fund the same initiatives for the benefit of their pupils.

Funding arrangements based almost entirely on annual placement costs for pupils with statements have significant disadvantages for NMISS which constantly strive to keep placement costs to a minimum in accordance with their charitable objects and operating principles.

 

· schools are extremely vulnerable to short-term changes in placement patterns and significantly reduced numbers in a particular year or two-year period can threaten and sometimes irreversibly undermine the viability of some NMISS jeopardising their viability or future existence at a point in time when, due to health or demographic trends, demand will rise again and their services will again be required

· where schools make provision for pupils from several LEAs viability is dependent on total intake and one or two LEAs changing their placement arrangements can have an adverse impact on provision for pupils from other LEAs placed in the school

· uncertainty about pupil numbers and intake can undermine the stability of employment of established expert staff and encourage them to seek careers elsewhere

· maintaining high quality provision and curriculum breadth can be seriously challenged where highly specialised staff are lost to less specialist but more secure employment

· working within a narrow income and expenditure margin leaves few opportunities for long-term planning and very little funding for new initiatives and developments (e.g. outreach work)

· existing funding arrangements allow for very little more than a maintenance of the status quo

· inconsistencies in funding streams for NMSS and AISS put the latter at a significant disadvantage when it comes to determining fee levels

 

LSC funding of placements at specialist colleges has for some time now been based on an annually pre-determined fee matrix system. Through this identified individual student needs and agreed levels of support and provision automatically allocate the level of fee to be paid for the placement of each student. Application of this type of model to NMISS or a new model of core funding for the sector warrants further investigation.

 

c) Raising standards of achievement for SEN pupils.

Despite the introduction of PLASC and P Scale benchmarking there is still no solid research that makes comparisons between pupils with SEN in different forms of education provision. Looking beyond educational achievement, there are very limited mechanisms for evaluating how well children with SEN are meeting the 5 outcomes set out in the Children Act 2004. There is a real need for large scale longitudinal research studies to track children and young people through education and beyond to provide evidence on the impact different education experiences have on life chances. Such evidence is essential for making valid comparisons between different types of education provision, including those of cost-effectiveness, and both purchasers and providers are hampered by its lack.

 

c) The system of statements of need for SEN pupils ('the statementing process').

There are valid concerns about the length of time the statementing process takes and the amount of resources tied up in the process. NASS supports a review of the process but is cautious about simply ending statementing in the absence of a wider review of parental wishes and access to specialist support. For many parents, the statement becomes the only vehicle by which they can assert their wish for a specialist placement in a NMISS. This situation becomes more frequent with increasing pressures on Local Authority funding of "out of authority placements" and many of these cases result in a tribunal. NASS would seek reassurance that any change to the statementing process would not result in children and young people who require specialist support being denied access to a place in a NMISS.

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

The right of parents to choose a mainstream or special school education is often a struggle in practice. As detailed above, the wish of parents for a NMISS placement for their child is not always acknowledged by Local Authorities. Parents are often not made aware that such placements exist or are forced to go through the lengthy and stressful tribunal process to secure a place. Some NMISS find themselves placed in a difficult position whereby offering support to parents through the tribunal process puts them in direct conflict with the Local Authority who does not wish to place the child there. This does nothing to enhance relationships between NMISS and Local Authorities and is detrimental to future partnership working. However, there is very little support for parents in this position, who often feel that the NMISS are the first people to listen to and attend to their needs. Some NMISS have responded to this by developing family support services, notably Sunfield, who have run a number of successful events for families, including fathers' and siblings' days.

e) How special educational needs are defined

The four bands set out in the SEN Code of Practice do not adequately categorise the range of needs that children might have. This becomes a particular issue when funding is attached to this banding and when there are a range of professionals working with a child or young person. Professionals from education, health and social care backgrounds tend to define needs differently and this is likely to be problematic as we move towards Children's Trusts and pooled budgets.

f) Provision for different types and levels of SEN, including emotional, behavioural and social difficulties (EBSD)

Given that NASS schools cater for the full range of SEN, a full exploration of each type, in each region of the country, would be too lengthy for this submission. However, we would be able and pleased to provide oral evidence about the position relating to each specialism. As a brief introduction to the subject we would offer the following observations:

Sensory Impairment -although many children with visual or hearing impairments have good experiences in mainstream schools there are still many who benefit from special school provision or support. Many authorities have reduced or cut their central support services at the same time that NMISS catering for sensory impairment have noted falling pupil numbers. Our experience that this is not related to falling demand from children and families but an increased reluctance from placing authorities to use this provision.

Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties - as noted earlier, the pattern of referral to NMISS is of referral at age 15, only when other placements have broken down irreparably. This is a particular case where earlier intervention is greatly needed.

Autistic Spectrum Disorders - the number of children and young people with ASD who are out of school  is a serious concern. Estimates are likely to be the tip of an iceberg with other children - especially those in mainstream - on part time programmes (half day) or not allowed to stay for lunch. There is an argument that this is the result of including children with Autism and AS in mainstream settings without adequate skilled support and without the school making sufficient adaptations to the way it operates. Parents in particular report a lack of specialist education places and the difficulty in securing such a place for their child.

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

NASS would note potential tensions between SEN legislation and the new Children Act 2004 and subsequent Change for Children programme. Change for Children has a holistic focus on children and young people that has the potential to make real changes for Children with SEN. Given that the focus is on all children, it offers a real opportunity to do away with the sometimes artificial distinction between those children and young people with SEN and those without. This could be adversely affected by a continued reliance on the SEN Code of Practice. At the same time, balances need to be in place to ensure that budgetary pressures do not lead to a reduced service for children and young people with additional needs and their families.

The extension of the Disability Act 2001 to education has been appropriate but has focused largely on schools, both mainstream and special, making material changes to buildings. This does not fully address the real process of inclusion in terms of educational experience as well as location.