|
Memorandum submitted by the Children's Services Development Group (CSDG)
This submission: �� Introduces the members of the Children's Services Development Group as leading independent providers of specialist care and education services for children with very complex and challenging needs. �� Welcomes the Committee's continuing interest in finding potential solutions to the problems associated with the SEN assessment and funding process. �� Makes clear our view that decisions about the appropriate services required to meet the needs of children with SEN should rightfully be made on the basis of a professional opinion - not due to arbitrary cost restrictions. �� Suggests that Educational Psychologists working within Local Authorities are empowered to make independent decisions about the correct provision to meet an individual child's needs �� Provides our view that local authorities should be legally bound to arrange provision to meet those needs, as recommended by the professional opinion of the educational psychologist.
Introduction to CSDG:
The Children's Services Development Group comprises independent providers of residential education and care services to children with special educational needs and looked-after children.
Our membership currently consists of Cambian Group, Castlecare Group, Foster Care Associates, Hesley Group, Priory Group and Senad. Between us, we deliver residential education and care to over 3,600 children and young people nationwide. Our members' services consistently meet the highest regulatory standards from Ofsted and CSCI and set a leading example for the training and development of their staff.
Introductory Remarks:
We welcome your current investigation following the Government's response to your earlier report on Special Education published in July 2006. We have ample evidence of children being denied access to specialist educational resources, despite the recommendations by professional staff whohave worked with the child. In our view decisions are being driven by financial constraints, and therefore any improvement must be based on a more robust system of funding special education. We are not convinced that this requires significantly more money. Indeed, we are working with the Audit Commission in preparation, we hope, for a study they will undertake this autumn on 'Value for Money' processes in securing special education places for children who have a Statement of Educational Need.
As leaders in the independent sector of special education we agree with both Central and Local Government that the most suitable placement for any child is ideally in a local school with their siblings/peer group, and living in a stable family environment. Often not all these circumstances are achievable. However, this does not mean that the current policy of integration, and finding alternative families for those children who cannot live in their own family home should be challenged. This submission is not therefore about trying to challenge the current balance between services provided locally and specialist services provided regionally or nationally. We do however believe that some current practise must change. No child (regardless of whether they have special needs or not) should be placed in any setting which is not able to guarantee that the full national curriculum will be provided in a way that is appropriate to their educational needs. This is not a situation we currently face and requires urgent attention if children are not to be denied access to high quality, challenging educational experiences.
Our responses therefore to the questions the Committee poses are based on these principles and practises.
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 that purpose.
We agree with the stated position of the Committee that separating assessment and funding for special educational needs would not require the establishment of a new agency; that it would not undermine the basis of the current statementing system; and that it would not undermine local accountability for decision making.
You only to have to look at other areas of legislation to find a model where the professional person who undertakes an assessment of need, whilst employed by a public body, is required to make an assessment of an individual's need regardless of the financial implications. Under current mental health legislation the Approved Social Worker (who has to be registered to undertake these duties) together with the registered medical practitioners can not only commit a person to a secure placement in hospital, but can also require the funding trust to pay for that placement.
We believe that similar arrangements, with a professional assessment being conducted by a qualified, and registered (for that purpose) Educational Psychologist would be able to act in the same independent way. We are aware of examples of some local authorities where educational psychologists have been given both numerical and budgetary targets to meet in issuing statements of educational need. This arbitrary approach cannot allow for the needs of all the children within that area to be met. Alongside the psychological assessment should be a teacher's assessment, and again with a simple training programme and a registration process, the balanced professional perspective could be achieved.
It would then be for the local authority to make proposals for how best that child's needs could be met, based on the specific recommendations of the professionally independent assessment panel. The local authority should not be able to overturn the assessment recommendations without agreement. Conflicts of opinion on how to achieve the educational outcomes included in the assessment report should be referred to an independent Tribunal, as is currently the case.
It would then be entirely the responsibility of the local authority to estimate the number of assessments likely each year, the pattern of how educational need will be met and the likely cost when it is preparing its budget.
How might local accountability for assessment be maintained if the local authority does not directly undertake the assessment?
Our proposal still leaves the local authority as the education authority responsible for ensuring all children, including those with statements of educational need, are provided with appropriate education. Therefore local accountability is retained. To deliver such a policy there would need to be a different approach to funding (see note below). Obviously our proposal places far greater accountability on those who are responsible for the assessment. It would be the local authority's responsibility to make available to any child with special educational needs access to an assessment. Failure to do so would mean that the local authority was not meeting its statutory responsibility (as applied in the whole area of educational provision).
By having a simple professional registration system (as exists for Approved Social Workers and, to an extent, Doctors) that guarantees that the individual person has the skills to undertake the assessment, and is acting as an independent professional - would prevent the inappropriate restriction of recommendations. Through the normal inspection processes followed by Ofsted any variations in practise between local authorities would be highlighted, and recommendations on changes needed made. This would avoid the current situation where access to special education varies from one local authority to another.
What other issues need to be addressed in order to make the separation of assessment and provision effective?
We do not believe that legislation should dictate the pattern of services at a local level. This wouldstifle innovation, and ultimately would transfer responsibility away from Local Government to Central Government. If a local authority is following policies which prevent children access to the best format for their educational needs to be met, the Special Educational Tribunals have thepower to direct a Local Authority to place a child in a named school. This must be retained, with much stricter rules in respect of delays initiated by Councils in submitting their evidence (often we believe for financial rather than professional reasons). As with courts of law, the Tribunal should be able to require a local authority to appear on a specific date.
Elsewhere there has been much debate and concern at the lower levels of educational achievement of 'looked-after children'. We believe that this can in part be addressed by ensuring that no child be placed in any setting without a clear educational plan being agreed, requiring clear agreement on how that plan will be implemented. Too many children are placed in homes that cannot fully meet their educational needs, and therefore any hope of returning the child to a normal family setting is threatened merely because the child has not maintained their levels of educational attainment, which would allow them to integrate back into their peer group in mainstream school. This is even more important when a child has special educational needs. Local Authorities should be required as a matter of urgency to review all placements, requiring objective evidence that children are enabled to follow the full national curriculum (especially where the child has been placed in another local authority's area) and Ofsted should be asked to report specifically on this matter to Parliament. Local Authorities with a record of poor outcomes for children with special educational needs should be challenged. Finally the manner in which local authorities are able to fund special education is in need of review. The interface between the Dedicated Schools Grant and mainstream local authority funding needs to be re-examined. Whilst not proposing to challenge current Government policy of funding schools directly, clearly there must be a more effective way of managing funding streams for children deemed to have special educational needs, especially those with low incidence needs which cannot appropriately be provided within the local authority. Numbers of such children can be estimated reasonably accurately, and budgets to purchase such services can be planned. Clearly if a child leaves mainstream schooling, then funding should follow that child. The costs of a placement in an independent setting (or even one in a special school in the maintained sector) should be based on need, quality and value for money.
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?
We would like to draw the Committee's attention towards an American model of assessing and providing the appropriate levels of support for children with special educational needs - "20/20 Analysis: A Strategy for Monitoring and Planning for Student Success". This model allows for an integrated service delivery plan to be developed to focus on providing students who show the most, and least progress the intensive and specialist help and support they need. 20/20 Analysis identifies the students for whom traditional teaching methods are least effective, so that services can be adapted to their individual needs. More information on the 20/20 Analysis model can be found at:http://www.temple.edu/Lss/htmlpublications/spotlights/100/LSS%20Spotlight%20101.htm
Whilst we are aware of other areas of good practise in respect of special education provision in many countries we do not have the detailed knowledge to make informed comment which would be helpful to you. What is clear to us both from our own experiences, and those of other providers in various counties throughout the world, is that many children with special educational needs can overcome the challenges they face and rightfully take their places independently in society if they receive the right educational experiences, which challenge traditional practise, create opportunities and encourage success.
June 2007 |