Memorandum submitted by nasen

 

1. Introduction

 

1.1 nasen is the only professional membership organisation in the UK embracing all special and additional educational needs and disabilities. It promotes the development of children and young people with special educational needs (SEN) and supports those who work with them.

 

1.2 nasen has a membership in excess of 6,000 including teachers, teaching assistants, support workers, lecturers, students and is a valuable source of year-round advice, support and practical solutions assisting members to deliver high quality inclusive education and care to children and young people.

 

1.3 nasen reaches a wide national and international readership through its journals: British Journal of Special Education, Support for Learning and its on-line publication, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs plus its magazine Special.

 

1.4 nasen welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Select Committee, which as you can see, will reflect a diversity of opinion and experience.

 

 

2. The current process

 

2.1 The statutory assessment and statementing process is designed to ensure that appropriate provision is secured and available to meet the needs of all those children and young people who have special and additional educational needs and disabilities. These statements are linked very closely to additional resources and as such, demand a high level of assessment to determine the level of support and additionality that these young people need to be able to access their full educational entitlement.

 

2.2 As indicated in our response to the Select Committee enquiry in 2005, nasen would welcome a review of the current statementing process that appears to differ considerably from one local authority to another. We acknowledge that aspects of the current system are not working satisfactorily and that the process can be costly and bureaucratic and lacking in transparency for schools and parents. However, although nasen recognises that there are tensions around the assessment of and the provision for children and young people with special educational and additional needs it is the way the system is operated not the system itself that is causing the problems.

 

2.3 nasen recommended, in their 2005 submission, that as part of that review, examples of good practice were collated from across all local authorities to encourage the consistency in providing a statement. This remains a strong recommendation in moving this debate forward.

 

2.4 Some local authorities are already delegating the majority of SEN funding to schools outside the statementing process. Innovative and flexible strategies are being used to support the system and the experience and good practice from these local authorities should be reviewed as part of this consultation.

 

2.5 In the current system there is a very strong link between statutory assessment, receiving the statement and the perception that the statement will provide additional money/resources to meet the needs of the individual. There needs to be a much greater clarity across all local authorities about funding for SEN and how this is delegated to schools and a robust monitoring process to ensure that schools are providing the necessary additional support for those pupils who have been identified as having the greatest needs.

 

2.6 The current system is designed to achieve five key objectives:

· To identify children who may need special educational provision

· To assess their needs

· To make appropriate provision

· To engage parents and carers in the process

· To provide a system of appeal for parents who do not agree with the outcome of the process

These are the minimum requirements of any system that hopes to address the needs of pupils with SEN.

 

3. Separating assessment and provision

 

3.1 Assessment is not a one -off process that takes place at a point when professionals decide the time is right. Assessment is on-going and an integral part of the planning process that all teachers undertake as part of the whole teaching and learning cycle. Teachers, pupils and parents should be informed of a child's attainment and achievement on a regular basis and awareness of any issues regarding a child's individual needs highlighted from a very early stage in their educational life to ensure that support and intervention are planned for and made available. When deemed necessary the school may decide that it is necessary to include external expertise to carry out additional assessments to support the school's judgements and to enable the school, parents and pupils to access additional resources to meet the needs of individuals.

 

3.2 It is very important that any statutory assessments are carried out by those professionals who are trained and able to understand the complexities of the wide range of needs an individual child may have. Working with the school an external professional will be able to give their valued judgement and opinion on the needs of the child not just based on their evidence but that of all the other professionals who may have supported that individual's learning. Therefore separating out the assessment from funding will devalue all the work preceding a statutory assessment process.

 

3.3 The separation of assessment from provision will be a retrograde step and will further isolate from the current practice of assessment within schools.

 

3.4 The Every Child Matters agenda, emphasises the need for a much broader 'statement' that includes all aspects of the child's needs and how these might be addressed within a multi-agency framework. The use of the Common Assessment Framework, across all services, should ensure early identification and intervention. A separate assessment framework will isolate the most vulnerable children and young people. The effective and consistent use of the Common Assessment Framework could eradicate the need for a statement of SEN.

 

3.5 nasen does not believe that separating assessment of need and funding will address the concerns currently being experienced by schools, parents and pupils in meeting the needs of children and young people with SEN.

 

 

4. Ways forward

 

4.1 One of the main issues surrounding local authority delegation of funding for SEN is often a lack of understanding by Head Teachers, Governors, SENCOs and parents. This is especially true in situations where these individuals have moved from another local authority. An induction programme for these professionals on the process for delegation of SEN funding would be invaluable in ensuring that the budget to support SEN is used imaginatively and effectively to best meet the needs of the most vulnerable children and young people in a school.

 

4.2 Schools need to be accountable for the monies that are delegated to them and there needs to be a more effective system to ensure that those pupils who are being funded to support their special needs are actually receiving that funding. This needs to be transparent to governors, local authorities and parents.

 

4.3 Parents need to have a greater understanding and confidence in the system. All parents wish to do their best for their child and will put pressure on schools and local authorities to provide statutory assessment and a statement if they are not happy with the education their child is receiving. Their belief is that by getting a statement of need they will be able to access the best education to support their child's needs.

 

4.4 Therefore, there is an immediate need to ensure that every school can provide high quality, appropriate special educational provision for all those pupils who have additional needs. There is a variable quality in local provision and this does increase the pressure for statutory assessments. An increase in expectation of what parents believe a school should be providing would help support a reduction in statutory assessments being sought.

 

4.5 The training of teachers entering the profession is fundamental to this process. nasen is delighted that the Training and Development Agency are addressing this within their Initial Teacher Training Programme. All future teachers must have access to an SEN component in their training programme.

 

4.6 In time this will address the needs of all new teachers entering the profession, however there is a need for the skills of the current workforce to be developed and enhanced to support those children and young people in their schools today. The Inclusion Development Programme and support from The Dyslexia Trust and The Communications Trust is very welcome but there needs to be a much higher priority in raising SEN awareness in all schools.

 

4.7 nasen welcomed the commitment from the Government to enhancing the role of the SENCO. The raising of their status and development of their training will ensure a more consistent approach to the whole issue of assessment and provision for individual children and young people. Including the SENCO in the senior leadership team of a school will ensure not only that SEN becomes an integral part of a school's planning process but will also ensure that the communication and training for all staff is effective and responsive to a variety of needs.

 

4.8 It is important that schools have access to high quality expertise and specialist support from external agencies. It is a concern that there appears to be an erosion of local authority support services which in the past have been available to support schools and respond to a range of needs. The conflict between the desirability of delegating all funding to schools and the need for some services to be provided centrally is a cause for concern for many of our members working in them.

 

4.9 The introduction of Specialist Special Schools is welcomed by nasen as these schools will be available to share their expertise and knowledge with their neighbouring mainstream schools. The specialist outreach service that special schools can provide is invaluable to ensuring the support and progress of pupils in mainstream schools.

 

 

 

 

5. Conclusion

 

5.1 In order to ensure transparency and consistency, the committee might consider the possibility of recommending that all local authorities establish a moderation group ( if not already in existence) who would examine the decisions made by the local authority on whether to make, or not make, a statutory assessment. This moderation group should include head teachers, voluntary organisations and service users.

 

5.3 In asking the questions in their brief for this enquiry, the Select Committee are assuming that by the separation of assessment from funding and provision the current system could be made more efficient, transparent and effective. This is not the view of nasen.

 

5.2 nasen would ask the committee to consider some of the suggestions outlined in this response that might support the improvement of the provision for children and young people with special educational and additional needs without significantly changing the current statutory assessment process.

 

June 2007