Memorandum submitted by Councillor Diane Packham, Parklands Ward, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

 

I write in support of the Committee's conclusion that:

 

"There is an in-built conflict of interest in that it is the duty of the local authority both to assess the needs of the child and to arrange provision to meet those needs, and all within a limited resource. The link must be broken between assessment and funding of provision."

 

I support the Committee's conclusion on the following grounds:

 

· Research has indicated that there is a seven-fold difference between the numbers of statements of special education need issued by local authorities. In view of such variation it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the same level of difficulty is regarded quite differently depending on where a child lives.

 

· There is little or no correlation between the number of children in receipt of Disabled Living Allowance (DLA) and number of children who have the benefit of a statement of special educational needs. For example some years ago the DWP estimated there were 1600 children in receipt of DLA in Newcastle and more children, who would qualify for DLA. However, at the same time only 900 children had the benefit of a statement of special educational needs. Some children in receipt of DLA do not need a statement of special educational needs. However such children will be rare and their needs are likely to be relatively uncomplicated and remedied by various aids such as wheelchairs. However, most children, who have DLA, have complex and multiple needs and the chances are they would benefit from statements of special educational needs. Such children are likely to be at risk of not having their needs met without a statement.

 

· Given the above children without the benefit of a formal statement of educational needs will be vulnerable to budgets cuts resulting from pressures in other areas of schools' budget particularly unexpected costs arising from new buildings

 

· Currently there have been problems with the funding of the training of educational psychologists and the extension of their training. The progress of educational psychologists as a professional group in terms of numbers and status compares badly with that of clinical psychologists. Given that both groups contain highly able people the blame for the relative poor standing of educational psychologists (witness the muddle over training) must rest to some extent with local authorities, who have often seen educational psychology services as an easy target for cuts.

 

Overall the identification of disabilities and special education needs in children's needs would be best met by large multi-disciplinary centres as exist in the Netherlands and not by smaller, fragmented services. Too often a disabled child's progress relates to his parents ability to "push" his case.

 

I understand the present Select Committee will complete its present piece of work. In that case I would be glad if this letter were brought to their attention. If not I would be glad if you would refer it the Committee that will replace it. My comments are made in the context of experience as an educational psychologist, a parent of a physically disabled child and a councillor.

 

July 2007