Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) was one of many hon. Members to criticise the statementing process, and she was right to do so. She called it lengthy and bureaucratic, saying that there
were deliberate delays to lessen the burden on local authorities, and rationing on the basis of parental commitment. There is a widespread suspicion that that is what the Governments approach is all about.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) spoke passionately and from personal experience about the horrors of the lengthy statementing process. He said that dealing with all the bureaucracy was a very trying and exhausting experience, and he referred to the special educational needs commission established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), when he was shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Last year it recommended the removal of the conflict of interest in statementinga change also recommended by the Education and Skills Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) reminded the House with his usual accuracy.
The statementing process is clearly in need of urgent review. It has become a Kafkaesque nightmare for parents, who have to cope with finding out that their child has special educational needs, and then with meeting those needs, at the same time as they are navigating the labyrinth of the statementing and appeals process.
Since 2002, report after report has exposed the shortcomings of the current system. The Audit Commissions 2002 report stated:
Statutory assessment is a slow and unresponsive process...Most parents said they had to fight to have their childs needs formally assessed...This was often linked to a perception that the local authority was trying to control its expenditure.
Government should establish a high-level independent review to consider options for future reformengaging all key stakeholders.
The need for a review was also emphasised by the Education and Skills Committee in its report last year, which said:
the SEN system is demonstrably no longer fit for purpose,
significant problems with the current system of SEN provision and high levels of dissatisfaction amongst parents and teachers.
The report went on to urge the Government to
consider a completely fresh look to SEN.
The Governments response to the report was disappointing. The hon. Member for Huddersfield summed up his Committees view when he said that the Governments response was
the most abrasive and challenging that I have ever read in any response to a Committee report since I have been Chairman.[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 26 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 492WH.]
That is an awfully long time. By rejecting a review, the Government rejected one of the most fundamental and important findings of that entire Select Committee report. They are promising an Ofsted report in 2009, which means that two more years will be wasted, with little done in the interim.
The Opposition seek only two things from the Government this afternoon, and if they deliver them they will have our full backing. The first is a moratorium on any more closures of special school places until a review has taken place. We do not want the stop-go process that the Minister for Schools
described but merely a pause, to ensure that we are going in the right direction. Our second requirement is a fundamental and immediate review of SEN provision.
I hope that the Government will concede to these demands. By doing so, they can improve the education available to thousands of special needs children, and ease the burden on their parents just a little.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Parmjit Dhanda): I shall begin my remarks by commending the contributions by hon. Members of all parties today. We may differ in our opinions about policy, but we share a common ambition to improve the educational attainments of children with special educational needs and disabilities. We also want to improve their health, safety and well-being, and to increase the extent to which they are able to contribute to society.
I pay tribute to the skill and dedication of the staff in our schools and early years settings, and of the professionals in the education, health and social care services. Working together, they do their best to ensure that children with SEN and disabilities are able to make the most of their time in education. I also pay tribute to the parents of children with SEN and disabilities; there are some such parents in the Chamber today. They know their children better than anyone else, and they sometimes feel that they have to battle to get them the support that they need.
It is worth taking stock and looking at the context of the Select Committee report. The Government have taken positive action as a result of it, although other initiativessome of them were mentioned at least tangentially in the debate, while others were notwere under way already.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools was right to say that support and training for SEN is an integral part of introductory teacher training. We are also working with the Training and Development Agency on a programme worth £1.1 million to ensure that people in the early stages of becoming teachers have opportunities to secure placements in special schools. We are also working to create an information portal so that they can share best practice.
We are keen to do more to promote access to specialist support. My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools earlier mentioned the 15 new specialist schools that we will be creating. We are also keen to work with special schools, and to tap into the expertise of their staff, so that more outreach work with mainstream schools can be undertaken.
We want parents to enjoy better accountability and supporta common theme in this debateand we will achieve that in part through the parent partnership services. They play a really important role: they can help parents who are unsure about whether their child has special needs, or assist them with the statementing process. In addition, they can provide support for parents who, believing that the school to which their child is being sent is not the best option, go through the special educational needs and disability tribunal
process. We want those services to remain at arms length from local authorities, and we intend to beef them up.
In addition, we are working with the National Autistic Societys autism working group, and many hon. Members will have attended the launch of the societys Make School Make Sense campaign. We are working closely with local government organisations, teaching groups and the NAS to prepare better resource packs for teachers so that they can identify children with autistic spectrum disorders and subsequently support them in the classroom.
We are also doing a lot of work with statementing, and are introducing a new performance indicator for the full process. A performance indicator is already in place that requires a local authority to have a draft statement ready 18 weeks after a statement is first requested. The new indicator will set out a maximum end-to-end period of 26 weeks for the statementing process.
Annette Brooke: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Dhanda: No, as I have only a little while left.
The debate has not covered the amount of investment that the Government have made available. Ofsted has reported improvements since the publication in 2004 of Removing Barriers to Achievement, our long-term SEN strategy. For example, the percentage of children with SEN who do not achieve at least level 3 in maths at key stage 2 has fallen from 28 per cent. to 25 per cent. between 2003 and 2005. For English, the proportion of children with SEN who do not achieve at least level 3 has fallen from 31 per cent. to 27 per cent. That shows that the Governments policy is making a difference in attainment.
Those improvements reflect the increasing investment that the Government have made in provision for children with SEN. Local authorities indicative spending on SEN rose to £4.5 billion in 2006-07. Of that total, £1.3 billion is delegated to maintained special schools, and £1.8 billion to mainstream schools. Budgets for special schools are rising by 23 per cent., from £1.1 billion to £1.3 billion.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) talked about statistics, and about the effect on parents of the statementing process. When considering the context, it is worth bearing in mind that of the 1.3 million children with special educational needs, only 3,215 have gone through the SENDISTspecial educational needs and disability tribunalappeal process, and only 332 did so on the grounds that they were not happy with their choice of school.
In the short time available for my response, I hope that I have been able to get across the facts about the extra money and extra resources that we are putting in. We are making a difference for children with special educational needs, and as Ofsted says, the right time for a review will be 2009-10, when we can effectively measure the differences and changes that we have made. In the meantime, the moratorium that has been mentioned by many Members would result only in the scrapping of new developments and new schools, such as the facilities in Leicestershire and Oldham, so if that
is what Opposition Members want, they should bear in mind that it will be on their consciences.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |