|
Memorandum submitted by Dr David Bishop-Rowe, Principal, Sutton School and Specialist College, Dudley
Background
David Bishop-Rowe has an extensive experience of special needs in both main stream and special schools. He has headteacher experience in two schools and has been a Senco in two mainstream schools. In 2001 he was recognised by Ofsted as the leader of a 'much improved school' having lead the school out of special measures and in 2004 his leadership was reported in his current post as 'The leadership of the headteacher .... Is very good. The vision for the school is very well focused on improving the education for pupils.' In 2005 he was seconded for 9 months to his local authority to lead on inclusion.
Submission
Areas covered · Separation of assessment from funding · Changes to the COP to facilitate such a separation · Alternatives to Local Authority Assessment · Accountability
Seperation of Assessment from Funding
1. The separation of assessment responsibility and funding of the provision is in essence a sound premise. However the identification and subsequent assessment of need should not require the provider to incur additional costs. It should focus on identifying the most appropriate place for the child to be educated and the expected foci with outcomes and targets.
Changes to the Code of Practise
2. In order to provide such a separation some fundamental changes to the Code of Practise (COP) would be needed.
These would include directions not to include such things as 1-1 support within the statement of special needs as this would incur a financial cost, often on the educational establishment, that is over and beyond the finance provided by the LA (Local Authority).
It should be acknowledged by the committee that the practise of writing statements for children that incurs costs above the LA delegated budget and not funded by the LA is commonplace. A practise that has serious and damaging effects on schools and other educational establishments in relation to budgets, staffing and the overall provision. (appendix 1)
3. Appendix 1 shows a section of a statement indicating the need to provide 321/2hrs support for a child. This in reality requires two adults (as statutory breaks need to be provided for the adults) at a cost of approximately £20,000 this is prior to the provision of a teacher and resources for the education of the child. The second page is taken from the section 52 outturn that shows the actual special school allocation for the pupil. The cost therefore of education and support for this pupil is £29,000 nearly 5 times greater than the financial provision.(see appendix 2)
4. It is therefore essential that any direct or indirect financial requirements should not be included within the statement of special educational needs. It is the responsibility of the LA to provide educational establishments that are adequately funded to meet the needs of the pupils it receives.
Alternatives to Local Authority Assessment:
5. The system of assessment currently used is set out in the code of practise and requires a LA basis for such an assessment. By definition, therefore, the LA is the 'gate keeper' in several aspects placement, needs and type of education to name but three. Cost pressures, personal preferences and limited knowledge all contribute to making this process less than secure. It is therefore in the LA interest to put additional costs on to the school and not onto themselves.
6. Cost pressures. Some children with extremely severe and complex needs require what are called 'out of borough' placement. In reality this is usually a private provision costing a great deal of money. (not uncommon to be £60,000+ per year per pupil). It is not therefore within the LA interest to identify such provision for pupils.
7. The way forward: I would submit to the committee that total independence is not required but an established a group within each local authority with a. an independent chairman. b. That the group should consist of a majority of none-LA members. c. The constitution should be set out nationally. d. The membership and constitution should be clear and should include Parents, Senco's, Heads (or representatives) from Primary, Secondary and Special, and an Educational Psychologist. e. The group could request information from other interested parties either by report or in person. As currently 'statementing panels' tend to be mainly LA officers the reduction in cost to the LA in attending could be channelled into the Independent Chair etc. thus the cost would be neutral. The inclusion of elected members may also be considered.
Accountability
8. Accountability should be seen as part of a consistent, accountable and reasonable approach to children with special needs.
9. Consistency could be achieved by moderation across the country through sampled statements, observation of assessment process and the use of data currently available (including reports from OFSTED, JAR etc.) this could be achieved with a small number of 'inspectors' throughout the country.
10. By establishing these groups with parents, local educationalists (elected members) and some LA representation the local accountability would remain.
11. Accountability would also be through challenge of the 'inspectors', by locality reports submitted by the committee itself and by data such as DDA claims etc.
12. Reasonable adjustment as described in the DDA legislation would provide a reasonable approach for both accountability and for use by the committee.
13. 'Hard to place children' identified by the committee would form a focal point for special needs review within the LA and the independent chair each year. This would provide the LA with vital information as to trends in required special needs provision.
Conclusion:
14. It is practical, cost effective and in the best interest of the child to divorce the assessment from the funding of provision.
15. It is essential that 'statements' do not contain financial implications.
16. That independence can be obtained through independent chairs
17. Accountability would be both local and within national guidelines.
Thank you for your time in reading a practitioners views. I understand that the committee will not be taking verbal submissions but I would be willing to clarify any issue I have raised and would welcome a visit from the committee or its representatives to Sutton School to see, at first hand, the practical difficulties faced.
Appendix 1
Taken from an actual statement currently in use:
'The school will provide 32.5 hours per week individual support from a teaching assistant.'
Appendix 2
Taken from: 'Fair Funding Financial Year 2007/08 Section 52 Information' Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council.
Sutton School Total place lead funding Total pupil lead funding Total Places £998,580.00 £17,923.00 124
By adding figures 1 and 2 and dividing by 124 the £ per pupil = £8197.60
July 2007 |