Memorandum submitted by National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT)

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

POSSIBLE FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SEN AT LOCAL AUTHORITY LEVEL

 

The creation of a new state-funded quango, to which local authorities' responsibilities for assessing needs might be transferred as means of avoiding potential conflicts of interest, would be unacceptably bureaucratic and would divert finite resources away from front-line provision for pupils with special educational needs. Further, it undermines the strategic role of the local authority and undermines local democratic accountability. The ways in which some local authorities appear to manage potential conflicts of interest in this respect need further investigation before credible and coherent recommendations on this issue can be made by the Committee.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1. NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to submit additional evidence to the House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee examination of the specific issue of funding of special educational needs at local authority level.

 

2. NASUWT is the largest union representing teachers and headteachers throughout the UK.

 

3. NASUWT's evidence gives the Union's view of the relative merits of approaches to the organisation of funding of special educational needs and places this consideration into an appropriate broader context.

 

 

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

 

4. The NASUWT acknowledges that, as part of its original investigation in 2005/6 into special educational needs (SEN), the Committee identified the organisation of funding of SEN at local level as a key concern and that many of the submissions received by the Committee, both orally and in writing, focused on this issue to a significant extent. Therefore it is legitimate that the Committee has decided to explore this specific aspect of SEN provision in more detail.

 

5. In its written submission to the Committee's original inquiry, the NASUWT highlighted the Union's concerns about funding of SEN, particularly in light of evidence that the driver for the establishment and development of inappropriate models of inclusion at local level appears to be associated with the reduction of the costs of special school provision rather than the needs of pupils, teachers, headteachers and other members of the school workforce. The NASUWT notes, however, that the Committee is seeking views in particular on the potential conflict of interest caused by the current system whereby local authorities remain responsible for determining the level of additional support pupils with SEN may need and securing effective provision to meet these needs.

 

6. While this issue merits further investigation, particularly in light of the Government's invitation to the Committee to consider alternatives to current arrangements, it is important that appropriate account is taken of the wider context within which the needs of pupils with SEN are met in schools and local authorities. Although funding is important, the ways in which provision is organised in different local authorities are of critical importance in supporting the work of teachers, headteachers and other members of the school workforce in ensuring that pupils with SEN get the high quality support and range of educational opportunities to which they are entitled.

 

7. These important contextual factors, particularly in relation to the lack of a national entitlement framework for SEN, the variability in quality and range of provision between different local authorities and the negative impact on pupils and staff of inappropriate policies of inclusion, were set out in detail in the NASUWT's original written submission to the Committee and in the Union's subsequent oral evidence. The Union believes that tackling these issues remains central to effective action to address the concerns highlighted by the Committee in its substantive report setting out the findings of its original inquiry.

 

8. The NASUWT believes that the Committee must seek to progress this issue in a way that recognises that reforms to funding arrangements are, of themselves, unlikely to deliver the improvements for pupils with SEN, their families and those responsible for their education that the Committee seeks without meaningful broader reform. It would be regrettable if the Committee's additional investigation of this specific issue prompts a debate on SEN provision that focuses to a disproportionate extent on funding machinery that distracts the attention of key policymakers and other relevant stakeholders on the need for wider systemic reform.

 

POSSIBLE FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SEN AT LOCAL AUTHORITY LEVEL

 

9. The NASUWT recognises that, in the course of its original inquiry, the Committee received a number of submissions that articulated the view that the current arrangements for funding SEN, involving local authorities retaining responsibility for assessing pupils' special educational needs and securing effective provision to meet these needs, creates a potential conflict of interest for local authorities in this respect. Some respondents set out concerns that financial considerations could have a prejudicial impact on the ability of local authorities to assess pupils' needs objectively.

 

10. Although this risk was recognised by the Government, the view was expressed on its behalf that the only effective means by which this potential risk might be addressed would be the through the creation of a new state-funded quango, to which local authorities' responsibilities for assessing needs would be transferred. Both the Committee and the Government expressed concerns that this solution would lead to an increase in bureaucracy with finite resources diverted away from front-line provision to support the management and administration of a system of assessing SEN reformed in this way.

 

11. The NASUWT shares these concerns and believes that any potential benefits of the creation of a quango to take responsibly for the assessment of SEN would be outweighed by the difficulties created by establishment of an organisation of this type. Further, the establishment of a quango would be costly and a drain on resources. It would also result in the loss of local democratic accountability. For these reasons, it is appropriate that responsibilities for the assessment of needs and provision of specialist SEN settings and support should remain within the remit of local authorities.

 

12. The NASUWT believes that a national framework for provision for SEN is needed. Such a framework would set minimum standards and help to ensure consistency and quality of provision across the country. Local authorities would support the delivery of high-quality provision for SEN by ensuring that the national framework is contextualised to meet local needs.

 

13. In the NASUWT's view, a meaningful examination of this issue by the Committee must involve a detailed and comprehensive investigation of existing good practice at local authority level in relation to the reconciliation of potentially conflicting responsibilities. It is unlikely that any policy recommendations made by the Committee that fail to take full account of the fact that such conflicts of interest are addressed effectively in practice in a number of instances will have any significant influence on the perspectives or actions of Government, local authorities, members of the school workforce, parents or the general public.

 

June 2007