Memorandum submitted by John Smith, Chair, SEN Inclusion Sub Committee, Northern Council of Education Authorities, Middlesbrough Council

 

I wish to respond to the proposed separation of the assessment of need and funding of provision functions.

 

I write to you in my capacity as Chair of the SEN/Inclusion Sub-Committee of the Northern Council of Education Authorities which comprises the following Local Education Authorities:

 

Darlington

Durham

Gateshead

Hartlepool

Middlesbrough

Newcastle

North Tyneside

Northumberland

Redcar and Cleveland

South Tyneside

Stockton on Tees

Sunderland

 

Individual Authorities may respond to the consultation separately but collectively the Authorities named above would wish to present the following observations:-

 

There was an understanding that the principle of separating assessment of need from funding of provision might appear to have some merit but there were serious reservations about how such a system would work in practice.

 

· Assessment of need takes place in the context of, and is influenced by, the provision that is available locally. This is not necessarily a bad thing since an effective local authority will ensure that the assessment process informs the development of provision.

 

· The drive for inclusion needs to be co-ordinated. Statements are written differently for special school and mainstream placements.

 

· Which body would carry out reviews of statements? Presumably it would be the provider. How would a recommendation for a significant change be considered?

 

· Assessment must take into account the local context in order to support inclusion.

 

· Local authorities have different patterns of delegation of funding to schools (and of statementing) as a result of lack of clarity of direction from DfES.

 

· Such a separation may work against integration of children's services.

 

· Such a separation may work against local authority accountability if there is a clear distinction between assessment and provision.

 

· All authorities in the region have multi agency moderation panels to ensure pupils' needs are assessed fully and fairly.

 

· Since they are a key part of the assessment and moderating process, local authorities accept their responsibility to make the necessary provision. The link between assessment and provision is a strength rather than a weakness

 

· Such a separation would increase the adversarial nature of the process and add another layer of tension. Authorities would not be minded to make provision it considered excessive or unreasonably expensive.

 

· Would such a separation require another level of appeal e.g. by a local authority against the assessing body?

 

· The existence of a separate assessment function would adversely affect early intervention through parents wanting to go straight to assessment.

 

· The expectation that an education establishment had applied a graduated response to a pupil's difficulties before a statement was considered could be diluted. The assessment process cannot operate in a vacuum divorced from the provision available. There would be a potential for a significant increase in the number of assessments.

 

· Many of the key advice givers to an assessment e.g. schools, support teachers, educational psychologists, are linked to the providers and would continue to be so.

 

· The great majority of children with special educational needs are supported in their mainstream schools without a statement. For these children, the provider (i.e. the school is both assessor and provider). To have a different system for those children who happen to have a statement would be confusing and divisive.

 

· Mediation arrangements and access to tribunals are already in place to ensure fairness through the assessment/statementing process.

 

· The independence of the assessment process could be reinforced by appointing additional independent members to moderating panels such as headteachers, school governors, parent representatives (parent partnership officers?), lay members. Many authorities have already gone some way to achieve this but further developments could be considered.

 

· It would be possible to have a multi agency assessment centre (which apparently happens in Denmark) on a local or sub regional basis separate from consideration of provision which may be helpful for low incidence special needs. It is feared, however, that as such centres become knowledgeable about local provision, their assessments are influenced by this knowledge and the level of independence is reduced.

 

· There may be a case for separating assessments from provision where complex pupils requiring high cost placements are concerned. A sticking point in current arrangements can be the reluctance of colleagues in health to contribute to placement costs.

 

· As Authorities respond to pressures to increase inclusion and reduce out of area placements their ability to achieve this would be seriously reduced if their influence on the assessment process was diluted.

 

· The new arrangements would not produce additional resources and, indeed, would inevitably cost more to administer. A key strand of the government's strategy for SEN is to reduce bureaucracy not develop it further.

 

· The proposals would promote a medical model of special needs and increase the use of statements to obtain resources.

 

· The experience of the health service is that even with clear, independent diagnosis, provision is rationed even where there is clear clinical judgement that they would be of great benefit to the individual concerned.

 

 

June 2007