|
Memorandum submitted by Mrs Eirwen Grenfell-Essam, Chair, Summary · General Introduction including SENDIST data · Response to -
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? o Three suggestions 1. Larger more diverse autonomous local group to decide assessment 2. Ofsted oversight 3. Leading 'independent' professionals · Response to -
What other issues need to be addressed in order to make the separation of
assessment and provision effective? o Clarity of Information o Consistency o School expertise · Conclusion
1. Network 81 is a charity that supports, advises and trains parents and carers about the education of children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities within England and Wales. Through our helpline, our parental supporters and our training we have contact with many families, all of whom have different experiences within their own local authority. Due to the nature of our work the majority of these families have come to us due to having some difficulty with either the school or the local authority.
2. Many parents report to us that the school based staff do not understand the law/ guidance regarding statutory assessment but seem to have more regard for the locally based criteria, or as some parents refer to it 'the hurdle they have to climb over' although also referred to by some as the pole vault high bar. Since the local authority can set the bar at any height and then enforce who can cross it, this seems to parents to be unfair. Many parents are told that if their child gets extra hours someone else will be deprived of hours. This 'blackmailing' of parents seems unnecessary and at best unhelpful.
3. All that parents want is the best for their son/daughter. If provision was indeed based directly on need at point of delivery, and all children could get provision decided by the school with some additional oversight by another independent body, perhaps more schools would put in provision at an earlier stage thus negating the need for statutory assessments and the costs entailed. However many children who we hear of and meet on a regular basis have been assessed by their school and proclaimed as 'within the average range' so not requiring additional help. No regard has been given to their actual IQ/ verbal ability or their 'other skills'. Many of these do eventually achieve a Statutory Assessment, a Statement of Special Educational Needs and additional provision; some even up to 25 hours despite being initially turned down by the local authority for an initial assessment, as can be seen by the statistics quoted from SENDIST Annual Report 2006. http://www.sendist.gov.uk/publications/documents/SENDISTAnnualReport2006.pdf
SENDIST Annual Report 2006 Outcome of appeals: general Page 9
SENDIST Annual Report 2006 Outcome of appeals: decided Page 10
4. From the figures on Page 9 (Appeals not involving contents
of statements) it would appear that in the year 2005/6 1668 families were
affected by the appeals process although it may be that some appear twice since
they could have appealed against refusal to assess and refusal to statement.
Many of those who withdrew may have been conceded by the LA although not all.
Of the 343 who were heard by SENDIST (Page 10) 215 were upheld. So in fact this confirms that approximately
70% of these families obtained at least an assessment/ reassessment or a
statement; maybe both. 5. Would this cost, not just in money, but in turmoil and some heartache for the families and schools concerned be required if local authorities were not the judge, jury and executioner.
6. The cost for SENDIST is over £5 million, not much by some standards, but would that money not be better spent on the young people and their education and maybe on a fairer system.
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?
Three suggestions
7. Firstly, we suggest a larger/combined group to make the decisions based on the panel system already used by most local authorities but involving more outside agencies such as local interest groups, charities, etc but with direct oversight by the DfES or Ofsted and linked to SENDIST data. Thus if a significant number of people are appealing decisions made by the 'new panel' a DfES/ Ofsted or SENDIST based team should be able to directly request a study of a sample of all cases and if necessary remind the panel of their terms of reference. So greater accountability and oversight would ensue and not a new system per se.
8. If individual panel members were more autonomous
financially from the local authority their decisions might appear to the
parents to be less biased. It is after
all consumer confidence which is the problem. Parents do not see the process itself
as fair and transparent; and as this is supported by SENDIST decisions parents
become very angry and disheartened. 9. Secondly, Ofsted already has a remit to inspect local authorities could this not be extended to include a closer oversight of Special Educational Needs and the assessment processes.
10. Thirdly, within Further and Higher Education a much more simplified assessment process is used; where a suitably qualified 'independent' professional writes a statement of need within days of meeting a student. Then within weeks the funding and provision are in place and the student is able to fully access the education system. However within the school sector even though several independent professionals including leading authorities on some medical conditions have written reports, these are often ignored by the local authority or at least given little credence. Could a panel of these independent professionals be formed to oversee the process?
What other issues need to be addressed in order to make the separation of assessment and provision effective?
Clarity of Information
11. Most groups campaign for greater clarity in order that parents can make informed choices. If local authorities and schools had a consistent way of informing parents of the local situation and how they were spending the funding perhaps this would lead to less tensions. Since the demise of the Annual School Report to Parents prepared by the governors the reporting on the allocation of Special Educational Needs funding has disappeared.
12. We are asked regularly about how schools are funded, not always strictly money related but linked. Questions such as · How much time can I expect for my child on School Action? · Does the school get money for my son with Dyslexia? · How are hours allocated? · How can I find out how much they spend on my son (with a Statement) and his needs out of the money they get for him? · We have been told my daughter needs a laptop, we want to buy it but the school have refused to let him use it. What can we do? · My school says they have no money for my son to get any extra help so do I need to pay for it? · Does the SENCO get paid from the Special Educational Needs budget? · My son has 25 hours support in primary school, he is being offered 12 for secondary. Can you explain please? · My son needs some special pens do I need to pay for them? · What is Section 52 funding? · What are the allocated points for my son and what is a point worth? · What funding will Band D get? · Does every school get the same amount of money for Special Educational Needs? · If schools get extra money for my son with a statement why will they not assess him for one?
13. These are confusing questions from parents with no internal knowledge of the school/education system and many are in jargon which they have been told, but to them is unhelpful without a detailed explanation.
14. Can we also help those parents who may themselves have a special educational need access this information in a simpler format and also have a consistency across the country?
Consistency
15. We have noted that at present many local authorities have
renamed their provision with a points system, not LSA hours as previously, but
seemingly with little or no explanation so adding to parents' confusion.
Greater delegation of funding to schools has added to this confusion. 16. One of the aims of the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice was consistency across local authorities. This is lacking at present and parents who move even into the next street may have crossed an imaginary line into a new authority and into a different process, with new time lines, new names of things such as 'points' - all extremely confusing for the parents.
School expertise
17. The new role envisage for the SENCO is welcomed by some parents but many have reservations how it will actually work in practice. Many believe the Head or deputy will take on the label but the day to day work will be done by lower minions, probably even an LSA. The expertise of many SENCOs is undervalued and most parents are amazed that the person acting on their child's behalf is not required to have any additional qualifications. The class teacher often has none either. This is even more confusing within special school provision.
18. As mentioned earlier many parents report to us that the
school based staff do not understand the law/ guidance regarding statutory
assessment but seem to have more regard for the locally based criteria or as some
parents refer to it 'the hurdle they have to climb over'. Additional training
for all staff is therefore required and should be mandatory. We have had
teachers and learning support assistants attend our training and they are all
overwhelmed by their previous lack of knowledge about what mechanisms are
already available so that they can access help for individuals within their
school/class. In conclusion 19. Families are emotionally involved with their children and
expend great energy to fight for the best for them. This is often exacerbated
by the processes. On our helpline we often deal with tearful parents who on the
whole have enough to deal with caring for their son/daughter without taking on
the legal battles required. 20. For most parents the problem is not one of money but of
fairness. All of our children and young people need access to the correct
provision properly resourced but with Special Educational Needs this is even
more necessary. Concise and rapid assessment of need and then actual delivery of
provision at school based levels would negate much of the concerns of parents. 21. Openness and clarity of information about the process would
increase confidence in the systems in place. 22. Accountability to a higher authority (whichever one) and
some degree of real pressure available to be applied to ensure compliance with
the regulations. July 2007 |