Appendix 1
Government's response to the Tenth Report from
the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2006-07
Introduction
1. The Education and Skills Committee published its
report Special Educational Needs: Assessment and Funding
on 25 October 2007.
2. This is the Government's response. It is structured
as follows:
- Section 1 responds to the Committee's
proposals to separate the role of local authorities in the assessment
of children's special educational needs (SEN) from the funding
for any resulting SEN statement;
- Section 2 responds to the Committee's
recommendations on "Wider issues".
3. Getting provision right for children with SEN
and disabilities is a priority for this Government. The Government
welcomes the Committee's report and the interest the Committee
has taken in this area. We are aware that members of the Committee
were disappointed with the Government's response (October 2006)
to its previous report on SEN (July 2006). The Government's October
2006 response was not intended to give the impression that there
were no genuine concerns about the operation of the SEN framework
or that we felt we had all the answers. However, as the responses
to the Committee's current report on SEN show, there can be honestly
held differences of view about how best to improve provision for
children with SEN and disabilities and parents' experience of
the 'SEN system'. What the October 2006 response aimed to do was
to set out how a range of initiatives within the overall framework
of Every Child Matters would lead to the improvements that
both we and the Committee want to see. The decision to carry on
implementing the policies and initiatives that were set in train
by the Government's long-term SEN policy document Removing
Barriers to Achievement rather than "consider a completely
fresh look at SEN",[2]
as the Committee called for, was supported by others, most notably
Ofsted and the Special Educational Consortium.
4. The Government did not, however, suggest that
the SEN framework would not need to be looked at critically in
the future. We remain committed to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector
(HMCI) reviewing progress in 2009 in the light of how these policies
are being implemented. We reiterate our intention to consider,
following HMCI's advice, "whether the present framework for
SEN, or particular features of it, should be reviewed and what
further action should be taken to achieve better outcomes for
children with SEN and/or disabilities and their families".[3]
5. The Children's Plan, published on 11 December
2007, sets out the next steps for achieving world class schools
with an excellent, personalised, education for every child, including
every child with SEN. It puts families at the centre of high quality,
integrated services that put their needs first, regardless of
traditional institutional and professional structures. It reinforces
the Government's commitment, and announced £18 million of
new funding over 2008-11, to improve outcomes for the 20 per cent
of children in England with SEN and disabilities through:
- implementation of personalised
learning and a focus on progression;
- equipping schools with the data they require
to assess whether children with SEN are making good progress;
- improving provision for children with dyslexia
through the Every Child a Reader programme; and
- increased investment in the skills of the workforce
in responding to children's individual special educational needs.
In addition to the £280 million of revenue funding
allocated under Aiming High for Disabled Children to improve
short breaks, the Children's Plan also announced a further £90
million of capital funding to improve equipment, transport and
facilities for short breaks. The Children's Plan also announced
£8.4 million of additional funding to enable the Family Trust
Fund to provide grants to 16- and 17-year-old disabled young people.
We expect up to 16,200 grants to be provided over 2008-11.
Section 1: Separating assessment and funding for
statements
1.1 The Government agrees with the Committee
on the importance of increasing parental confidence that their
children's SEN will be provided for and that they will be treated
fairly by schools and local authorities when decisions on provision
are being taken. The Government has previously addressed this
issue through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act
2001. It obliged local authorities to give parents access to unbiased
information from Parent Partnership Services and to dispute resolution
arrangements. We have also addressed the issue through guidance,
The management of SEN expenditure (May 2004). The Department
for Children, Schools and Families has recently published an exemplification
of the minimum standards set out in the SEN Code of Practice for
Parent Partnership Services, aimed at increasing the independence
of the services from local authorities,[4]
and has also commissioned research into the disagreement resolution
services.
1.2 There continue to be parents who are dissatisfied
by how the SEN system has dealt with their children's cases and
this is a matter of serious concern for the Government. It is
clearly of the utmost importance in an area such as SEN provision,
which is crucial to the development and life chances of children,
that parents see that their child has been dealt with properly
and fairly.
1.3 We need to understand better why:
- some parents feel schools
and local authorities have not properly identified their children's
needs and arranged suitable provision to meet those needs while
others feel they have;
- some parents appeal to the SEN and Disability
Tribunal (SENDIST);
- many of those who appeal withdraw their appeals
before the hearing; and
- others carry on through to the hearing and engage
legal representation.
At the time the Committee's report was published
we announced that, with the Tribunals Service, an executive agency
of the Ministry of Justice, we would be commissioning research
to look at parents' experience of the process and to identify
how schools, local authorities and the SEN and Disability Tribunal
can increase parental confidence.
1.4 In addition to this research, the Government
is open to practical suggestions as to how to bring about a position
where all parents of children with SEN feel confident that the
SEN system is acting fairly by their children and operating in
a transparent way. The Committee's July 2006 report on SEN suggested
that one way of increasing parental confidence was to break the
link between assessment for statements and the funding of those
statements by taking the assessment function away from local authorities.
The Government's response to the Committee raised concerns about
this suggestion in relation to local accountability and raised
a number of questions about how the system would operate.[5]
However, in a subsequent exchange in the House of Commons, the
Minister of State for Schools said he would consider any proposals
the Committee put forward which took account of the practicalities
of implementing the separation of assessments from funding.
1.5 The Committee's current report Special
Educational Needs: Assessment and Funding gave three options:
- assessments commissioned by
local authorities or children's trusts;
- delegating assessment to schools; and
- making educational psychology services more independent.
Option two also suggested that SEN funding could
entirely become the responsibility of schools but with assessments
remaining with the local authority. Option three suggested two
ways of making educational psychology services more independent.
One was for the Department for Children, Schools and Families
to give clear guidance to local authorities that educational psychologists
must be allowed to make an unfettered professional judgement in
each case. The second was that the Department should fund local
educational psychology services directly or clusters of authorities
should pool their resources.
1.6 A number of respondents to the Committee's
consultation exercise, such as the Audit Commission, doubted whether
there was an inherent conflict of interest for local authorities
in both assessing for statements and funding them, and doubted
whether there would be any benefit from their separation. The
Committee also received a number of responses from local authorities
including, for example, one from Warwickshire[6]
which set out how the local authority is working with parents
to improve confidence in the decisions taken on children's assessment
and statementing. We want to build on examples like this.
OPTION 1
1.7 The first of the Committee's options, that
assessments should be commissioned by local authorities or children's
trusts, is in line with the Government's encouragement of commissioning.
Generally Government sees the role of local authorities as commissioners
of services, making impartial decisions about which service, whether
internal or external, can best meet the needs of children and
families. In the delivery of SEN services this is compatible with
the law if the local authority contracts out the service. Local
authority SEN assessment functions under section 323 and Schedule
26 of the Education Act 1996 are the subject of an Order[7]
made under section 77 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out
Act 1994, and so the option of contracting out assessments is
already available to local authorities. As the Committee says,
commissioning would allow the local authority to set a specification,
tender on the basis of the specification and then performance
manage the subsequent contract. A clear specification from the
local authority will mitigate the dangers of spiralling costs.
1.8 The statutory assessment process obliges
local authorities to seek, in addition to parental advice, educational,
medical, psychological and social services' advice as well as
any other advice the local authority considers desirable. In practice,
the medical advice will normally be channelled from local health
professionals through the designated medical officer, all of whom
are independent of the local authority. Regulations[8]
make clear that in normal circumstances the educational advice
must come from the head teacher of the school the child is currently
attending, although there are circumstances where the advice should
come from others. The Government's view is that the classroom
teacher who knows the child best should provide the advice for
the child's assessments, supported by other educational professionals
as necessary. They may come from the child's school or from a
support service. Although the social services arm of children's
services departments, who supply the advice for statutory assessments,
are part of the local authority, the social services advice best
comes from social workers who have had previous contact with the
child and family. Where children are already known to services
we would not advocate requiring children and parents to repeat
information for assessments by different professionals just to
ensure the 'independence' of those assessments.
1.9 So the Government is not persuaded, like
the Audit Commission and others who responded to the Committee,
that requiring commissioning or contracting out of assessments
is in the best interests of the child, as those providing the
advice will not have had continuing contact. But we agree with
the Committee that there is a need to build the confidence of
parents in the assessment process. Therefore we will set up
a group of experts, under the chairmanship of Brian Lamb,[9]
to investigate the most effective ways of increasing parental
confidence. The group will look at whether increasing parental
confidence could be best achieved through:
- making the provision of educational
psychology advice "arms length" from the local authorities
(as this is the element of advice for the assessment process which
sometimes proves contentious with parents, making them feel they
need to engage their own educational psychologists);
- sharing best practice in developing good relationships
between the authority and parents, through effective Parent Partnership
Services and other local mechanisms; and
- effective practice by schools and local authorities
in meeting the needs of children at School Action Plus.
We would also welcome bids from local authorities
with innovative proposals to increase parental confidence, in
these three areas and others. The group led by Brian Lamb would
be responsible for the design and conduct of this work and the
research project in paragraph 1.3 will evaluate the outcomes formally.
1.10 We also believe that the current framework
for assessments could be carried out in a more holistic way. So
we propose to also carry out a pilot based on a "team around
the child" approach to SEN Statutory Assessment that more
closely reflects and builds on the principles that underpin the
Common Assessment Framework. This approach puts the child
or young person and his or her family at the heart of the assessment.
It would see the local authority working through the children's
trust or integrated Children's Service arrangements to complete
the assessments. A lead professional would contact the family
before the assessment; a dedicated team of professionals, reflecting
the sources of advice local authorities have to statutorily contact,
would work together, sharing expertise through the assessment
process. A clear plan to address needs and support progress would
be developed and recommended to the local authority. We believe
this would increase parental trust by engaging them from the start
as key partners in the assessment process. In this way they will
be better placed to contribute their views and increase their
understanding of the process in a meaningful way.
OPTION 2
1.11 The Government has decided not to pilot
either of the two parts of the Committee's second option. The
Government does not believe delegating assessments to schools
is the right way forward. Schools would vary widely in their capacity
and their capabilities to undertake these assessments and there
would be a danger that this would increase the 'post code lottery'
of provision to which the Committee refers. As the Committee itself
suggests, there would need to be some form of quality assurance
by local authorities which would weaken the clear separation which
is being sought between assessment and funding. As the memorandum
and subsequent article on which this option is based make clear,
this proposal would require the establishment of a National Funding
Agency. Where parents appealed against the level of support being
provided by their child's school this would trigger an assessment
carried out by the local authority and so this proposal would
not entirely take the assessment process away from local authorities.[10]
1.12 The second arm of the Committee's second
option was that funding for SEN becomes entirely the responsibility
of the schools with the assessments remaining with the local authorities.
This option raises the risk that the child will be assessed for
provision which schools say they cannot fund from delegated resources,
resulting in the parents being caught in a dispute between the
local authority and the school. By leaving assessments with the
local authorities it does not fulfil the Committee's primary aim
of taking assessments away from the authorities and having them
carried out 'independently'.
OPTION 3
1.13 The Committee's third option focuses on
making educational psychology services more independent of the
local authorities. The Committee emphasised that it is not questioning
the integrity of the professionals involved in assessments,[11]
including educational psychologists, and the Government believes
that local authority educational psychologists do provide professional,
independent advice. However any call to make educational psychology
services more independent does necessarily call into question
the way local authority educational psychologists are carrying
out their role. In its response to the Committee, the Association
of Educational Psychologists pointed out that it represents over
93 per cent of educational psychologists in England and Wales
and went on to say:
Although there is a potential conflict of
interest [when the local authority is both assessor and funder]
reference to "an inbuilt conflict" questions the integrity
of the professionals working to meet the needs of children and
young people. We would argue that there is an implied understanding
within Local Authorities that psychological advice is not contaminated
by budgetary constraints, but rather first and foremost reflects
the needs of the child or young person and how best they can be
met. As with any 'good' assessment, contextual factors and what
can realistically be achieved are taken into account, but do not
have a bearing on the conclusions and recommendations given on
what a child's needs are and how they can be met.[12]
1.14 In a letter to the Secretary of State following
publication of the Committee's report, the Association expressed
concern about the weight given by the Committee to the views of
independent educational psychologists as against the view of the
Association. It suggested that if educational psychologists employed
by local authorities are criticised for lacking independence then
those whose advice is paid for by parents can equally be criticised.
It went on to say that most parents of children with special educational
needs are satisfied with the assessment made of, and the provision
made for, their children.[13]
1.15 Educational psychologists work within the
guidance given in the SEN Code of Practice on providing advice
to local authorities for statutory assessments (original emphasis):
7:79 "LEAs should make clear that the Regulations
require that the advice must relate to the educational,
medical, psychological, or otherwise features that appear relevant
to a child's current and future educational needs. The advice
must also set out how those features could affect the child's
educational needs and the provision that is considered appropriate
in the light of those features. Those giving advice may comment
on the amount of provision they consider appropriate. Thus LEAs
should not have blanket policies that prevent those giving advice
from commenting on the amount of provision they consider a child
requires.
7:80 However, the advice provided by all professionals
should not be influenced by consideration of the name of
the school at which the child might eventually be placed. Specific
schools must not be suggested. Placement will be determined by
the LEA at a later stage and in the light of any preference stated
by or representations made by the parents. But discussions between
advisers and parents about the child's needs may include consideration
of various options, including the scope for mainstream education
for the child and the type of school in which the child's needs
might best be met, for example mainstream, special or residential.
But such discussions should not commit the LEA, nor pre-empt the
parents' statement of a preference, any representations they might
make or the LEA's eventual decision."[14]
1.16 Educational psychologists play an important
role in assessing children's needs, contributing to statements,
working with schools and parents and making a central and key
contribution to multi-agency teams. In general, parents value
their contribution. The SEN Code of Practice assumes that educational
psychologists will be allowed to give unfettered professional
advice and we believe that they do so. As noted above, it is true
that some parents express concern about the impartiality of advice
from local authority employed educational psychologists and this
colours the likelihood of their accepting the eventual statement
if one is produced, and could increase the likelihood of appeal
to the SEN and Disability Tribunal.
1.17 The Government does not believe that either
funding educational psychology services centrally or local authorities
pooling services would achieve the result of improving parental
confidence in the system. Under central funding, some parents
would still consider the educational psychologist as subject to
national rather than local government guidance and influence on
securing effective use of resources. Under the cluster model the
educational psychologist would still be employed by a local authority.
But we do believe there is merit in taking forward the Committee's
suggestion that DCSF provides guidance to local authorities
about the role of educational psychologists in the form of non-statutory
guidance from the Department to the Directors of Children's Services
in each local authority. We will work with the Local Government
Association and the representative bodies of educational psychologists
on this. This guidance will remind local authorities that
educational psychologists must be allowed to exercise their professional
judgement freely.
Section 2: Wider issues in relation to special
educational needs provision and particularly in relation to parental
confidence
2.1 The Committee also raised a number of other
points, some of which refer back to its previous report on SEN,
in addition to the recommendation on separating assessments and
funding. What follows are responses to the Committee's individual
recommendations.
"We ask the Government to tell us how it
anticipates the increased use of the Common Assessment Framework
and the continued development of Children's Trusts will impact
on assessment of special educational needs, what advice it is
giving on the use of the Common Assessment Framework for assessing
special educational needs, and what implications it considers
this will have for the statementing process."
(Paragraph 27 of the Committee's report.)
2.2 The Government agrees with the Committee
that assessment is a process and not an event; that assessments
for statements must be seen in the wider context of meeting all
children's needs; and that assessment for some children will involve
a range of practitioners.
2.3 The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) offers
an important process for identifying the needs of children who
may require extra support. It has a role to play for children
with SEN although it cannot replace specialist assessments such
as SEN statutory assessments. The CAF is appropriate for use at
an earlier stage than a specialist assessment, ideally enabling
issues to be resolved before they require specialist assessment.
In some cases, use of the CAF may highlight the need for a specialist
assessment. It is unclear what the overall impact of the use of
CAF will have on the number of statutory assessments that are
undertaken. We have already given guidance on the use of CAF
for children with SEN in particular. The CAF Managers' Guide (April
2006) states that:
"CAF is designed for use at lower levels of
need than statutory Special Educational Needs (SEN) or child protection.
Children requiring statutory SEN assessment by definition have
complex needs that require in-depth specialist examination. However,
there are a number of children who have lower level (non-educational)
needs. For these children a common assessment may be the best
route to targeted and, if necessary, specialist services that
they are not already receiving. The CAF would enable schools to
identify any factors outside school that may be impacting on the
child's learning which would benefit from discussions with other
professionals from other services. Where a CAF indicated that
the child might require further (specialist) assessment, for example
under statutory SEN procedures, the core data from the common
assessment can be used to feed into that process."[15]
Support for implementation of the CAF locally is
now the responsibility of the Children's Workforce Development
Council (CWDC.) We will consider working with CWDC to decide
whether publicising the CAF's interface with the SEN Code of Practice
more widely might be beneficial.
2.4 In Pathways to Success: Good practice
guide for children's services in the development of services for
disabled children the Council for Disabled Children (CDC)
showed how the pathfinder children's trusts were making multi-agency
assessments and information sharing more responsive to the needs
of families. CDC concluded:
"Developing a systematic approach to gathering
and keeping information across key agencies will lead to a better,
more coordinated response, it gives families more control as they
can access records when they want and have a degree of control
over who sees which information. The new systems will also hopefully
improve things like: clashing hospital appointments, reasonable
notice of SEN reviews and planning meetings, and more transparency
in how services are allocated."[16]
We have set out in paragraph 1.10 of part 1 to this
response that we will set up a pilot where local authorities will
work through children's trusts to assess children's SEN using
the "team around the child approach". We will monitor
carefully the success of this pilot and it will feed into our
thinking.
We ask the Government to make an early statement
on how the money from the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review will
be used to improve services for all children and young people
with special needs, and the guidance that it will be giving to
local authorities and schools to ensure that money provided for
special needs is spent on special needs.
(Paragraph 31 of the Committee's report.)
2.5 The Government has made available through
the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) an additional £912 million
over the CSR period for personalisation and SEN: this additional
funding is to support universal roll out of a personalised offer
to all pupils, including those with special educational needs.
Over the CSR period capital investment of £345 million (£115
million a year between 2008-11) will support the School Access
Initiative, which provides funding to mainstream and voluntary
aided schools to make them more accessible for disabled children.
This is in addition to the existing substantial resources in the
DSG baseline: in 2007-08 authorities budgeted to spend over £4.5
billion on funding for pupils with SEN. All this funding adds
to the resources local authorities have used over the years to
improve SEN provision. Since 1997-98 local authorities have: built
or rebuilt 100 new special schools; significantly refurbished
by more than 50 per cent of the total floor space a further 125
special schools; delivered more than 430 new SEN units at mainstream
schools; and funded SEN improvements at more than 500 mainstream
schools. The Government is also committing substantial additional
capital investment for special schools and SEN provision in mainstream
schools through Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and the
Primary Capital Programme (PCP), due to be rolled out nationally
from 2009-10. To date, around 140 special schools are included
in BSF waves 1-6. We have included in the forthcoming national
indicator set for local government three SEN/disability-related
indicators, including indicators focused on narrowing the gap
in attainment between children with and without SEN at key stages
2 and 4. We expect the attainment indicators to encourage local
authorities and schools to focus on the achievements of children
with special educational needs.
2.6 As part of the Comprehensive Spending Review
(CSR) settlement, the DCSF received £340 million over 2008-11
to implement the recommendations from the Aiming High for Disabled
Children: better support for families report (May 2007) which
followed the DfES/HM Treasury review of children's services. At
the heart of Aiming High is the Government's commitment
to establish a core offer of services based upon the principles
of information, transparency, participation, assessment and feedback.
This will help disabled children and young people and their parents
better understand their entitlements within their local areas
and increase transparency about any variations of provision. Funding
is phased in£31/93/220 million over the three yearsof
which £280 million over the period is for increasing short-breaks/respite
care for disabled children. Additionally, as referred to in paragraph
5 of the Introduction, the Children's Plan announced a further
£90 million of capital funding for short breaks to improve
equipment, transport and facilities.
2.7 Understanding how schools, in particular,
and local authorities use funds to meet children's SEN, is a vital
issue for parents. Increased clarity about SEN funding needs to
be led by the local authorities, through challenge to schools
about how they are using funds to provide for children with SEN,
supported by School Improvement Partners. The 2004 guidance The
management of SEN expenditure advised local authorities, when
delegating funds to schools, to work with schools and other stakeholders
to ensure that respective responsibilities are clear and to build
parental confidence. It said that in developing monitoring and
accountability arrangements the local authorities should:
"provide parents with clear information about
the progress and attainments of their child, the arrangements
that are being made and who is responsible for making the provision".[17]
2.8 That guidance also refers to local authorities'
duty, under The Special Educational Needs (Provision of Information
by Local Education Authorities) (England) Regulations 2001 to
provide an explanation of what special educational provision for
children with SEN but without statements they would normally expect
to be met from maintained schools' budgets and what from funds
held centrally by the local authority. The National Strategies
team of SEN National Advisers works with local authorities to
provide support and challenge on their implementation of the SEN
strategy and on how well they meet their statutory duties. The
DCSF will emphasise the importance of local authority compliance
with these duties in the work of the National Strategies. In
some local authorities the information provided for parents in
literature and on their websites could be improved and the SEN
National Advisers will continue to support improvements at these
authorities.
2.9 All maintained schools, other than special
schools, have a "notional SEN" budget which is recorded
on the annual "section 52" budget form and shows what
this budget is. (This information is available on the Department's
website at www.dfes.gov.uk/localauthorities/section52/). Any money
given under specific SEN factors is also identifiable on section
52. It is for the schools themselves to decide how to use all
the funding available to them to meet all of their duties, including
their duty to use their best endeavours to make the special educational
provision a child's learning difficulties call for.
2.10 Under The Education (Special Educational
Needs) (Information) (England) Regulations 1999 the governing
bodies of maintained schools have to publish information about
the school's special educational provision, about its policies
for the identification, assessment and provision for all pupils
with SEN and information about the school's staffing policies
and partnership with bodies beyond the school. For local authority
maintained mainstream schools the information needs to include
how resources are allocated to and amongst pupils with special
educational needs. The provision of this information helps to
reassure parents that schools are clear about how they address
children's SEN and meet their 'best endeavours' duty.
2.11 More assistance will be available to
schools to help them identify their annual budget and expenditure
for SEN and additional educational needs and how that funding
is being used to meet children's needs. As the Audit Commission
mentions in its submission to the Committee, the Commission, in
association with the Department and the National Strategies, is
developing a Value for Money Resource Pack for schools which will
help them to better plan for the use of SEN resources and to evaluate
the impact on outcomes for children and young people. This will
be published in April. The website based resource pack will include
a seven-stage model for Special Educational Needs/Additional Educational
Needs self review, covering budgets and spend, needs assessment,
provision and evaluation. The questions will prompt information
gathering so that schools completing the review can bring together
all relevant management information and build a picture of their
current practice in one place. This will help to improve transparency
in the use of funding by schools and help focus on value for money.
Achieving value for money is important to schools as it will help
them to improve outcomes for their pupils, if they are spending
their money and using their resources in the most efficient manner.
2.12 Parents are more likely to feel confident
that their children's needs are being properly addressed if they
feel their voice is being listened to. Even for the parents of
children with statements most of their contact with the system
will be with the schools where their children are educated. And
Ofsted has reported that schools in a survey it carried out were
particularly good at working with the parents of children with
learning difficulties and/or disabilities and that:
"Parents and carers of pupils with learning
difficulties and disabilities were more closely involved than
those of other groups of pupils. In the best schools, successful
work with these families was used as a model for improving parental
involvement across the whole school."[18]
We want to see the good practice that Ofsted reports
spread so that the parents of children with SEN throughout the
country will benefit from a close relationship with their children's
schools.
We ask the Government to revisit its response
to our previous report and to make explicit commitments to provide
a national framework for special educational needs and to require
local authorities to publish provision maps for each area. (Paragraph
36 of the Committee's report.) and
Making the requirements that are placed on authorities
and providers explicit, easily accessible and easily understandable
in a single document, and requiring each authority to set out
in one document what support and services it provides for children
who have special needs, and the reasons for that pattern of provision,
would mark a substantial improvement in the provision of services
for children with special educational needs. It would also allow
comparisons of provision in different local areas. (Paragraph
36)
2.13 The Government's response to the Committee's
first report on SEN set out how, through a focus on outcomes,
integrated planning, joint commissioning, partnership in the delivery
of services and improved accountability for the progress children
make, all within the context of Every Child Matters, a
national framework is being built.
2.14 However the Committee recommends that the
requirements that are placed on local authorities and providers
are made explicit, easily accessible and understandable within
a single, national framework, document. The Government believes
that such a document exists already, the SEN Code of Practice.
This is statutory guidance to which local authorities, schools
and others must have regard and it sets out what the legal duties
for SEN provision are on these bodies and gives guidance on how
to carry out those duties. The Government believes that the SEN
legislation in the Education Act 1996 and the SEN Code of Practice
provide the national framework, within which there can be local
flexibility.
2.15 The Committee also suggests that each
local authority should be required to set out in one document
what support and services it provides for children who have special
needs, and the reasons for that pattern of provision.
2.16 In addition to the duties set out in paragraph
2.10, local authorities have continuing duties, under the same
Regulations, to publish information on the broad aims of their
SEN policy and the general arrangements made for SEN provision,
including arrangements for auditing, planning, monitoring and
reviewing provision for children with SEN in their area, both
generally and in relation to individual children. Local authorities
must make this information available on their websites and provide
a written copy of the information to any person on request. In
addition, under the Education Act 1996 local authorities must
keep the arrangements made by them for special educational provision
under review.
2.17 In 2007 the DCSF published Planning and
Developing Special Educational Provision: a Guide for Local Authorities
and Other Proposers.[19]
This encourages local authorities through planning and commissioning
to develop a range of special educational provision, giving access
to specialist support and developing regional and sub-regional
provision for low incidence needs. It provides guidance on applying
the statutory SEN improvement test whereby when proposing any
reorganisation of SEN provision, including any which involves
the closure of special schools, local authorities, and all other
proposers for new schools or new provision, need to demonstrate
to parents, the local community and decision makers how the proposed
alternative arrangements are likely to lead to improvements in
the standard, quality and/or range of educational provision for
children with SEN. The guidance also reminds readers that parents
and families should:
- be provided with good information
as and when they need it on the range of SEN provision in the
area through local Parent Partnership Services and other routes;
- be provided with good information about the progress
of their children and the plans and interventions used to address
their learning and other difficulties; and
- always be involved when decisions about specialist
provision or a change of placement are being considered with support
from local Parent Partnership Services where appropriate.
2.18 The Committee specifically called on Government
to require local authorities to publish provision maps for each
area. The National Strategies, working with the DCSF, have recently
developed a framework to help local authorities to evaluate the
impact of their SEN strategies and to plan for future developments.
The framework has been published on DCSF's Standards Website (www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/features/inclusion/sen/self-eval)
and information about it has been disseminated to local authorities.
Updated data sets will also be made available to local authorities
on an annual basis. The Local Authority Self-Evaluation Framework
and the Audit Commission's Value for Money Resource Pack draw
attention to provision management and support the implementation
of the proven Waves Model of intervention. This has been developed
by the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies as a model for
children experiencing difficulty in these areas based on three
wavesWave One, the effective inclusion of all children
in the literacy hour and daily mathematics lesson by differentiating
learning objectives; Wave Two, small group intervention for children
who can be expected to catch up; and Wave Three, specific targeted
intervention for children who require SEN support.
2.19 The information that is available to parents
on SEN provision will be augmented by the information on local
services delivered as part of the Core Offer which is being developed
through the Aiming High for Disabled Children programme.
If service providers deliver services in line with the principles
contained in the Core Offer, parents and young people will better
understand their entitlements within local areas. There will also
be increased transparency about variation in provision across
areas. Parents' experience of services for their disabled children
and delivery of the Core Offer will be measured through a national
indicator. In promoting the core offer the Government will
encourage local areas to consider the information they provide
to parents of children with SEN.
Conclusion
The memoranda submitted to the Committee display
a wide range of opinions on the best way forward for children
with special educational needsthe Committee gives an outline
of the range of these views in paragraphs 10 to 12 of its report.
Some organisations' views are that there is no conflict of interest
for local authorities in their assessment and funding role and
that it is not the SEN framework itself which is at fault but
the way in which it is implemented. While the Government believes
that the current framework provides well for a large majority
of children with SEN we are not complacent. We realise that some
parents have genuine concerns about how their children's needs
have been assessed, how their cases have been handled and the
provision that is made for their children. Our willingness to
investigate the most effective ways of increasing parental confidence,
to develop guidance for local authorities about the role of educational
psychologists, and to conduct research with the Tribunals Service
into a parent's path through the assessment, statementing and
appeal to SENDIST process shows that we are responsive to those
concerns.
2 House of Commons Education and Skills Committee,
Special Educational Needs, Third Report of Session 2005-06,
Volume I, The Stationery Office (HC 478-I), 2006, page 15. Back
3
Government Response to the Education and Skills Committee report
on Special Educational Needs (October 2006), The Stationery
Office (Cm 6940), 2006, page 6. Back
4
Parent Partnership Services - increasing parental confidence;
Exemplification of minimum standards for PPS and Local Authorities,
DCSF, 2007. Back
5
Cm 6940, The Stationery Office, 2006, pages 4 and 5. Back
6
Memorandum submitted by Warwickshire Local Authority to the Education
and Skills Committee, SEN41, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeduski/memo/specialedneeds/contents.htm Back
7
The Contracting Out (Local Education Authority Functions) (England)
Order 2002. Back
8
The Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Consolidation)
Regulations 2001. Back
9
Brian Lamb is Chair of the Special Educational Consortium, a
broad consortium of voluntary and local government organisations
and professional associations. Back
10
Memorandum submitted by Jonathan Rix to the Education and Skills
Committee, SEN 2. Statutory assessment of the class? Supporting
the additional needs of the learning context. Jonathan Rix.
International Journal of Inclusive Education 2007, pages 1-20. Back
11
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, HC 1077, page
10. Back
12
Memorandum submitted by Association of Educational Psychologists
(AEP) to the Education and Skills Committee, SEN 51. Back
13
Letter from the Association of Educational Psychologists to Ed
Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families,
dated 14 November 2007. Back
14
Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, DfES November 2001,
page 91. Back
15
The Common Assessment Framework Managers' Guide, DfES,
(April 2006), Annex B. Back
16
Pathways to Success: Good practice guide for children's services
in the development of services for disabled children: Evidence
from the pathfinder children's trusts. Helen Wheatley. Council
for Disabled Children, Department for Education and Skills, Department
of Health, 2006, page 32. Back
17
The management of SEN expenditure, DfES, 2004, page 2. Back
18
Parents, carers and schools, Ofsted, July 2007, page 6. Back
19
Planning and Developing Special Educational Provision: A Guide
for Local Authorities and Other Proposers, DCSF, 2007, www.dcsf.gov.uk/schoolorg Back
|