|
Memorandum submitted by Special Educational Consortium (SEC)
The Special Educational Consortium welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Select Committee's call for evidence on Special Educational Needs: separation of assessment of need from funding of provision.
The Special Educational Consortium (SEC) is convened under the auspices of the Council for Disabled Children to protect and promote the interests of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. SEC provides a policy forum on issues affecting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. SEC is a broad consortium consisting mainly of voluntary organisations but including professional associations and local government organisations as well. SEC defines its policies by identifying areas of consensus that exist among the wide range of groups represented within it.
In addressing the questions put by the Committee SEC: · recognises existing difficulties with the way the statutory assessment process currently works and considers key features that are needed from the assessment system; · focuses on aspects of SEN that have to improve to develop high quality assessment and provision before the statutory stages; · considers how greater transparency can improve parents' confidence in the system; · ways in which assessment can be improved to give parents greater confidence.[1]
SEN: separation of assessment of need from funding of provision
1. Statutory assessments and statements are designed to secure the appropriate provision to meet the needs of children whose education is more complex and costly than that of others. As statements provide access to additional resources there needs to be some form of assessment in order to determine entitlement to those resources, and indeed such assessment systems existed well before the publication of the Warnock report and the passage of the 1981 Act. 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 in the process; and · to provide a system of appeal for parents who do not agree with the outcome of the process.
2. SEC believes that these are the key ingredients that any system needs to provide.
3. SEC recognises the tensions that exist around the assessment of and provision for pupils with special educational needs. These were highlighted most recently in the Committee's own report of 2006 and reflect the frustrations that parents experience with the system. SEC is of the view of that it is the way the system operates, not its fundamental design that is problematic. In this SEC shares the view of the Committee's predecessor, the House of Commons Education, Science and Arts Committee of 1987, when it concluded:
We are in no doubt that aspects of the present system are not working satisfactorily. [Bold as in the original] The weight of evidence shows on balance that it is the way these statutory procedures operate which is unsatisfactory, not their scope and purpose. House of Commons Education, Science and Arts Committee (1987)[i]
4. The 'scope and purpose' of the current system seems to be sound. It is the way the 'statutory procedures operate' that is more problematic.
5. The key challenge of the current assessment system is how it can become more responsive to the special educational needs of children and young people. The problems are highlighted in this quote from a parent in the Vernon research of 1999:[ii]
'What I want to know is that the education this child receives is going to enable him to achieve as much as he can and be happy. I've had a lot of advice from a lot of experts over this and I've no complaints about that - they were all very courteous and helpful. What I did get annoyed about is that it took such a long time before anybody would acknowledge that there was something wrong. I was dismissed as a neurotic mother - that's where something needs to be done - right at the beginning - making sure that parents are listened to. When you don't get it then, it's very easy to become embittered by the whole thing - I've seen it with so many other parents. The whole thing takes on the attributes of a fight.'
6. Recent work on assessment in schools has been designed to integrate assessment more closely into the fabric of teaching and learning. The Consortium's view is that, if assessment is to inform future action for a particular child, it needs to be kept as close as possible to the school and the pupil, with contributions from teachers, children and parents and with schools drawing in additional expertise from outside the school as necessary.
7. The separation of assessment from provision risks leaving the assessment of children with special educational needs further isolated from mainstream developments in assessment in schools. The work of the Assessment Reform Group (2002) on Assessment for Learning encourages schools to bring assessment into the planning of teaching and learning. The Reform Group set out ten research-based principles for assessment for learning and SEC would like to see this approach being used more widely to inform decisions about the learning of children with special educational needs.
8. The separation of assessment from provision risks leaving the assessment of children with special educational needs isolated from developments in assessment in other areas of children's services as well. The development of the Common Assessment Framework, for use across services, is designed to pick up and respond to a range of needs from very early in children's lives and to draw on other more specialist assessments as necessary. Any separate assessment process risks the development of a process that is more isolated from these developments and that moves further away from local provision and local services.
9. SEC takes the view that assessment could be significantly improved if it were: · undertaken earlier, both in terms of the age of the child and the stage of assessment and provision; · more responsive to the special educational needs of children and young people; · better supported by a range of agencies.
10. SEC has concerns that the Committee's proposal for the separation of assessment of need from funding of provision will encourage the perception that this issue lies at the heart of difficulties in meeting the special educational needs of children in our schools. SEC believes that there are more pressing priorities that would have a greater impact on outcomes for pupils with SEN, that could reduce tension in the system, lead to greater parental satisfaction and better outcomes for pupils.
11. SEC recognises existing difficulties with the way the statutory assessment process works, including the costs of the process itself and the tensions that develop between parents and providers. SEC is confident that improvements to the system can be made that will address the Committee's concerns. In particular SEC considers: · wider improvements in the quality of the provision that is made in schools and a reduction in the variation in the quality of provision that is made before a school or a parent approaches the local authority for a statutory assessment; · linked to this, improved transparency about what parents can reasonably expect schools to provide from their delegated resources and local authorities to provide from theirs; · improved transparency in the decision-making system itself.
12. SEC is persuaded that a clearer focus on provision will have a greater impact on outcomes for children and lead to greater parental satisfaction. In considering ways forward in this area SEC also wants to address the concerns that the Committee raised, in its report of 2006, about variation in provision across the country.
13. Underlying the Committee's focus on the separation of assessment and provision functions is a concern to improve parental confidence in the system. It is clear that one of the key functions of statements is to provide re-assurance to parents (Audit Commission, 2002).[iii] Giving parents greater confidence in the system at an earlier stage is therefore key to reducing pressure on the high stakes, high tension end of the system.
14. SEN legislation constructs both special educational needs and special educational provision as relative. Special educational needs are defined in relation to other children and special educational provision is defined in relation to the provision that is locally available. The 'additional and different' element of special educational provision is determined in relation to local provision. SEC believes that it is the variable quality of local provision that fuels dissatisfaction with the system and increases pressures for statutory assessments. Greater clarity about what parents can expect from schools is a key element in taking some of the pressure off the statutory stages of the system.
15. One of the factors that fuels pressure on statutory assessment is the gradual loss of parental confidence that their child can learn and progress in the school they attend. The school's response to parental dissatisfaction can be translated into pressure on the local authority for a statutory assessment and a statement. Vernon (1999)[iv] identified this in the second evaluation of parent partnership services. It is typified in a quote from one parent:
'The school said there was no option - we'd have to go to the LEA for a statement. 'What's a statement?' I thought.'
16. This highlights the critical importance of high quality special educational provision in schools. SEC has concerns about the underachievement and the under-expectation of disabled pupils and pupils with special educational needs. Ofsted identified the problems in their 2004 report:[v]
Expectations of achievement are often neither well enough defined, nor pitched high enough. Progress in learning remains slower than it should be for a significant number of pupils.'
17. The development of greater teacher expertise in special educational needs and disability is central to improvements in the way that the statutory system works. In this respect SEC welcomes the fact that the Training and Development Agency for Schools has commissioned materials on special educational needs and disability to support the initial training of teachers. Though the Government is considering it, there is as yet no clear commitment that the one-year post-graduate courses will be included in this development. It is critical that all teachers receive training on SEN and disability if parents are to have greater confidence that schools' ability to work with their child and to enable them to learn and progress.
18. Building teacher skills through initial training is one route, but with the introduction of the materials from 2008 on the 3- and 4-year teacher training courses in practice the workforce, as a whole, will not be significantly affected by improved skills in SEN and disability for some time. Therefore it is crucial that the skills of the current workforce are enhanced. In this respect SEC supports the development of the post-experience training that the Government is developing through the Inclusion Development Programme and through their support for the Dyslexia Trust and the Communications Trust.
19. In addition the current work to develop the role of the SENCO in schools will help significantly in ensuring a wider and more consistent response to pupils with special educational needs, across the whole school. Many of the cases that have gone to the SEN and Disability Tribunal on claims of disability discrimination have highlighted the difficulties that schools have in ensuring that all staff understand the particular approach that needs to be adopted for a particular pupil. The difficulty is highlighted in a quote from a pupil in the report commissioned by the Disability Rights Commission:[vi]
'I used to have a little letter that explained my situation because sometimes a supply teacher just didn't believe me!...they obviously get a lot of jokers in their classes and I can just remember in one English lesson she gave me a sheet and I said I can't see this and she said don't be so stupid! She walked off and I was sitting with my friend at the time and he was just laughing. I tried to explain to her and she said oh really and then just sat down so I had to get the letter out and she eventually said I'm very sorry.'
20. Crucially, with SENCOs in a senior management position, schools will be better placed to ensure the training and communications systems are in place to support schools in being more responsive to a variety of pupil needs.
21. All of this work will help to build the expertise in schools. In addition, schools need access to additional expertise from local support services. The provision of support services can significantly enhance the capacity of schools to respond to a range of needs. Ofsted identifies the important contribution of support services:
'Support and outreach services promoted inclusion and improved the life chances of many vulnerable pupils.' Ofsted (2005)[vii]
22. The report by the Audit Commission, in 2002,[viii] identified concerns about a 'shortfall of specialist support' and Ofsted identified delegation as undermining the LEA's ability to target support for pupils with SEN:
'The delegation of funding for support services had a negative effect on the provision for some pupils with SEN. It diminished the capacity of many LEAs to monitor the progress of pupils with SEN and reduced the range and quantity of specialist staff available to provide advice and support.' Ofsted (2005)[ix]
23. SEC wants to see generic minimum standards for SEN support services, to ensure that this crucial source of advice and support is not further eroded and to assure access to the expertise that schools need to be able to access when they may not themselves have all the skills they need to work with particular pupils.
24. At the same time it is important that there is clarity about delegated funds: what is delegated, what for and how it is being used. There is currently a lack of clarity between schools and local authorities about their respective responsibilities for special educational provision: what schools might reasonably provide before a statutory assessment is considered and what the local authority expects to provide in addition through a statement. This lack of clarity can fuel pressure on the statutory system.
25. Local authorities are specifically required to publish information on what maintained schools are expected to provide from their delegated budget and the local authority from their retained budget, including putting this information on their website[x]. The Advisory Centre for Education[xi] found that few local authorities published this information. Yet it is critical to a clear understanding for parents of what they might expect from their child's school before approaching the local authority. A greater emphasis on this information, the involvement of parent partnership services and other parent organisations in the development and dissemination of this information and a more stringent approach by Ofsted on this issue would all support clearer expectations for all the parties involved.
26. In her work examining local authorities that had reduced the number of statements issued, Pinney (2004)[xii] recommended a number of approaches that led to more successful implementation. These included: · building the capacity of schools to respond to a wider range of pupil needs; · developing a sharper focus on schools' performance on SEN; · improving the information for parents on the provision that should be made by schools and the local authority; · the involvement of health and social services.
27. SEC believes that progress on all these aspects will start to address the issues that fuel pressure on the statutory assessment process. It is this pressure that raises the stakes for statutory assessment and creates the difficulties that the Committee's current call for evidence is designed to address.
28. Improvements in the SEN work of schools would become a higher priority and would develop more rapidly if both local authorities and Ofsted considered SEN provision as being central to school improvement. In the Vernon research (1999)[xiii] a local authority SEN manager comments:
'But not to put too fine a point on it, you're never going to find OFSTED criticising a school because of SEN - I wish that that wasn't true but I'm afraid it is.'
29. SEC feels that schools' effectiveness with disabled pupils and pupils with SEN should be a more significant feature of inspection and advice to schools and should be embedded into all school improvement work.
30. A further aspect of the current system that is clearly a concern of the Committee is the potential for pressure from local authorities to compromise the advice from professionals contributing to the statutory assessment process. SEC would want the Committee to consider a number of ways of developing greater confidence in the operation of this part of the system: · the Committee might consider ways of developing clearer expectations of the professionals involved in the assessment process. On this, we would refer the Committee to the response from the SEN Policy Options Group, to which SEC contributed; · the Committee might consider the benefits of the development of moderation of local authority decisions to carry out a statutory assessment. The SEN Code of Practice[xiv] suggests the use of a 'moderating group' that examines, retrospectively, the decisions of the local authority to make, or not to make, a statutory assessment. The Code suggests that such a group might include local head teachers. This could be an important point for the development of greater consistency locally in the decision to carry out a statutory assessment and develop some ownership by schools of the criteria that the local authority uses to inform their decisions.
31. SEC believes that a number of the approaches outlined might assist in reducing tension in the system. SEC would ask the Committee to consider dedicating some time to examining the effectiveness of some of these approaches and other ways in which local authorities have been able to improve provision for pupils, increase parental satisfaction and reduce levels of tension between schools, parents and local authorities.
32. The questions that the Select Committee poses for this enquiry assume that the separation of assessment from provision could make the system work better. SEC considers there are some risks in this approach and that there are more urgent priorities to be addressed. SEC would urge the Committee to consider some of these as an alternative to the separation of the assessment function from provision as the most effective way of addressing the problems with the current system.
33. SEC believes that the Committee's report of 2006 highlighted a lot of aspects of the system that are not working well. It would be helpful if the Committee could allocate time to an examination of features of the system that improve parental confidence that improve outcomes for children and young people, that are working well and could help to transform our school system and make it a better place to be for pupils with special educational needs.
June 2007
References: [1] In respect of question 4, SEC would refer the Committee to the submission from the Policy Options Group. [i] House of Commons Education, Science and Arts Committee (1987) Special Educational Needs: Implementation of the Education Act 1981
[ii] Vernon (1999) Parent Partnership and Special Educational Needs: Perspectives on Good Practice. DfEE Research Report RR162
[iii] Audit Commission (2002) Statutory assessment and statements of SEN: in need of review?
[iv] Vernon (1999) Parent Partnership and Special Educational Needs: Perspectives on Good Practice. DfEE Research Report RR162
[v] Ofsted (2004) Special educational needs and disability: towards inclusive schools
[vi] Lewis and others (2006) My school, my family, my life: telling it how it is Disability Rights Commission
[vii] Ofsted (2005) Inclusion: the impact of LEA support and outreach services
[viii] Audit Commission (2002) Special educational needs: a mainstream issue
[ix] Ofsted (2005) Inclusion: the impact of LEA support and outreach services
[x] The Special Educational Needs (Provision of Information by Local Education Authorities) (England) Regulations 2001
[xi] ACE (2004) survey of local authority websites.
[xii] Pinney A (2004) Reducing Reliance on Statements: An Investigation into Local Authority Practice and Outcomes DfES Research Report 508
[xiii] Vernon (1999) Parent Partnership and Special Educational Needs: Perspectives on Good Practice. DfEE Research Report RR162
[xiv] DfES (2001) SEN Code or Practice |