Memorandum submitted by Surrey County Council

 

On the presumption that local authorities would continue to fund special needs provision:

 

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?

 

· Difficult to see how this could be achieved

· Any new assessment arrangements would need to be multi agency and allow for assessment over time including impact of appropriate intervention

 

 

How might local accountability for assessment be maintained if the local authority does not directly undertake the assessment?

· There would need to be a moderation process to ensure quality of assessments and consistency

 

What other issues need to be addressed in order to make the separation of assessment and provision effective?

· How school and other agencies' professionals already assessing and monitoring pupils progress fit in with an independent assessment centre.

 

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?

 

There are some further issues that would need to be clarified:

 

How would this proposal fit with the principles of the Code of Practice?

· Graduated response

· Assessment over time

 

How would this proposal fit with the national agenda of reducing the need for statements?

 

How would funding be controlled?

 

How would any new assessment arrangements fit with the CAF?

 

What would be the role of SENDIST and who would be accountable in the event of parental dispute around content of assessment and placement?

 

What evidence is there to suggest that this would bring about improved provision for Statemented pupils?

 

What accountability is there for completing assessments within Code of Practice timescales?

 

Would there need to be changes to current SEN legislation to facilitate this?

 

A separate process could lead to over reliance on one off assessments rather than the accumulated profile gathered over the graduated response time-scale and is unlikely to reflect the knowledge of the team around the child approach, in particular in Early Years where a large team of professionals (Portage teachers, speech and language therapists etc.) work together both assessing and implementing support.

 

Would this process effectively introduce another tier of bureaucracy?

 

In a range of areas LAs assess need and fund provision and manage this well. This proposal if taken forward would create precedence.

 

 

July 2007