Memorandum submitted by The Educational Guidance Service, West Yorkshire

 

1.0 Summary of Submission

 

1.1 That SEN money to schools should be ring fenced

 

1.2 That educational psychologists should be independent of the Local Authority

and work more closely with schools and other existing agencies.

 

1.3 That these costs should be delegated to schools and other agencies

and must be ring fenced.

 

1.4 That other specialists could work within such a specialist group.

 

1.5 That this would make processes much more independent and transparent.

 

1.6 That the Local Authority should still oversee SEN or additional needs

processes.

 

2.0 The Educational Guidance Service Ltd

 

This service is an independent group of mainly educational psychologists who work in a range of institutions including schools, colleges and universities providing assessment, support, training and more general consultation in the areas of psychology and education. The service also works with local authorities on special small scale projects and provides support to parents and other professionals.

 

3.0 The Submission

 

We welcome the Education and Skills Committee report on Special Educational Needs published in July 2006. We understand that the Committee is seeking views on the following issues:

 

· How might assessment of special educational needs be undertaken other than by the relevant local authority without the establishment of a new separate agency for the purpose?

 

· How might local accountability for assessment be maintained if the local authority does not directly undertake the assessment?

· What other issues need to be addressed in order to make the separation of assessment and provision effective?

 

· What models from other countries could usefully be drawn on to demonstrate how separation of assessment and funding for special educational needs might be achieved?

 

 

3.1 In Chapter 4 the Committee reports on a number of failings within the SEN system at the present time. It notes the Audit Commission's report (137) that too many children wait too long to have their needs met, that parents lack confidence in the system and that some children who might be taught in a mainstream school are turned away. Parental requests about the system are also summarised (145) suggesting that local authorities were unwilling to make a statement, that assessment was biased and inaccurate, that the allocation of resources was insufficient and in Statements not detailed, and that placement decisions were badly made. The point was also made (153) that it is better to seek to reduce reliance on Statements by improving the skills and capacity of schools to meet a diverse range of needs.

 

3.2 Currently a request for a Statement can be triggered by a number of individuals. Certainly a system is needed allowing professionals and parents (in association with professionals) to trigger an assessment for potential "Statementing" purposes. The report is clear that the Government should take responsibility to improve processes and this should involve the early identification and assessment of needs, efficient and equitable allocation of resources and the appropriate placement of pupils based on their needs and taking account of parental preference (163).

 

3.3 The pressures on schools are enormous, yet they essentially are responsible for providing the placement and meeting the personal needs of individual children. Schools need a considerable amount of support, as do other agencies, to develop their SEN policies and practice whilst at the same time parents need to be assured that effective, independent advice, assessment and support is available. The educational psychologist is a key player for local authorities, schools and parents. These professionals are often placed in a difficult position, sometimes feeling like the "puppet of the local authority", the opponent of parental wishes and sometimes seen as "loose cannons" by their local authority. There is much debate about how their time is used and the models of practice utilised. We believe that schools, in particular, need a little more control in terms of what happens within the school.

 

3.4 We would propose that educational psychology services should be made independent of the local education authority. Educational Psychologists (EPs) should be encouraged to work in a group to ensure that there is proper professional development, a range of extensive expertise among individuals and also allow practice to be monitored in a professional way. Currently SEN money is not ring fenced and this is a major failing of the current system. The report notes this difficulty and we trust that such money can be ring fenced in future. It is proposed that money for educational psychology services (and possibly other educational needs services) is also ring fenced but delegated to schools (funding mechanisms should be able to ensure that the different needs of schools can be appropriately catered for). This would ensure that schools have contracts with groups of psychologists which in turn would:

 

a) Ensure that young people have access to an educational psychologist as of right

 

b) Encourage early referral to an appropriate professional

 

c) Aid schools develop their policies and practice to meet the needs of individuals or small groups of individuals

 

d) Allow for on-going assessment, consultation, monitoring and evaluation as well as the giving advice to appropriate individuals within the schools.

 

e) Allow schools to have the ability to choose which group they worked with, thus, generally speaking, improving the quality of support available to them.

 

f) Direct the accountability for individual pupils through the school and not through the local education authority, although the local authority might still be expected to collate information for general monitoring and budget purposes. The local education authority could still be responsible for the collation of information for any legal purposes.

 

g) Ensure that advice supplied by the psychologist and schools would remain independent as the psychologist would not be a member of staff of the school or local authority. This should make it easier for parents to accept the advice as independent of the local authority and not dependent on funding.

 

 

3.5 Not only should schools be required to contract into such services but this would also apply to Children's Centres and social workers. This would lead to community-led services, and this working together of professionals would certainly meet the "Every Child Matters" agenda effectively. Such forms of working would allow for local agreements, and aid the development of additional support procedures and systems. Specialist services could be attached to such groups especially for assessment purposes (e.g. Specialist teachers for the hearing or visually impaired).

3.6 Such a system would be transparent and allow for good parental contact throughout any processes involving children with SEN (or additional needs). It would allow the assessment of special educational needs to be undertaken without the establishment of a new separate agency as these professionals already exist and have their own management structures.

 

3.7 The local authority, whilst not directly undertaking the assessment, would still be responsible for collating the information and making funding decisions. However, all the information would have been collected independently from professionals and this should reduce the number of tribunals and difficulties between parents, schools and local authorities.

 

3.8 It cannot be stressed enough, however, that none of this could possibly work without ring fencing the money dedicated to SEN, and money dedicated to providing the services of various professionals. The money can be delegated to the school but it should be ring fenced in such a way that it can be checked by bodies such as OfSTED to ensure that it is being spent appropriately.

 

 

June 2007