| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
My other two amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 17 and 84, address a very similar area. Amendment No. 17 would work in tandem with Amendment No. 84 to ensure that parents of children with a statement of special needs are provided with good information on all the special needs options open to them in their area and are given a real choice of schools. That point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In referring to statemented children only, I am making an important distinction that we shall come to in another debate. Suffice to say for now that statemented children make up a small proportion of the whole special needs register but are the children most in need. That is why my amendments on special needs focus only on them. Currently, parents of special needs pupils face a daunting task not only of obtaining a statement for their child but also of navigating their way through the complicated and varied special needs provision. Not only can they consider provision in their area but in others also. The pressure to make the right decision for the future well-being of their child is huge.
The Committee will be well aware of the current bias towards mainstream education for special needs pupils. That came about following the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, of the late 1970s, which was implemented in the 1981 legislation. I am sure that your Lordships recall the recent developments in that debate, led notably by the noble Baroness, who has stated publicly that in the light of modern educational thinking and practice, the bias towards integration does not work.
We have come a long way since the 1970s and 1980s, where “special educational needs” was an emergent phrase pushing away the now outdated references to “handicapped children”. Yet in the past nine years we have seen no major review of attitudes towards special needs education, and no review of the assumption that drives special educational needs provision in favour of inclusion in the mainstream. I can safely say that we have reached a stage where the debate reaches far beyond a simple question of inclusion and segregation. As the Minister in another place stated, the picture is one of shades of grey rather than black and white. The priority in choosing between special schools and mainstream schools must be the interests of the child and, by the same token, the wishes of the parent, considering that child’s best interests.
The amendments would ensure that the parents of special needs children would have a realistic choice of where to send their child to school. One-size-fits-all education has been proven not to work. Successful schools use streaming within the school; specialist schools select talented sportsmen and musicians by
5 July 2006 : Column 324
The problems with an automatic bias towards inclusion are well-documented. Noble Lords will be well aware that the resources necessary to meet the stated needs of children rarely follow them into mainstream schools. Teacher and assistant training leaves much to be desired on the special needs front, which has already been raised in this evening’s debate. At the same time, teachers are being stretched to cope with a wide variety of needs and abilities in one classroom. A recent report from the University of Cambridge, The Costs of Inclusion, charts the pitfalls of an automatic bias towards the mainstream. It describes how teachers in mainstream schools are forced to leave teaching to teaching assistants who are not qualified to teach, so that they can provide for children with SEN or vice versa. As schools exert themselves to raise standards, the report tells us that a tactical approach to ensuring the highest value-added score focuses teachers’ attention on demonstrable results, and special needs students may be “disapplied”.
The curriculum demands for children in the mainstream are often completely inappropriate for children with complex behavioural and learning needs. The report goes on to describe higher exclusion rates for statemented children in the mainstream. Those children are nine times more likely to be excluded than children without statements. A permanent exclusion is likely to result in social exclusion and, in the future, even more challenges for those children than they already face.
A Times Educational Supplement study last year was discussed by my honourable friend in another place, John Hayes. It showed that two-thirds of teachers received less than one day’s training in special needs and disability teaching. Some 90 per cent of head teachers thought that their schools did not receive sufficient resources to fund integration. Yet, when I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, whether there could be a moratorium on the closure of special needs schools, her response was firmly negative. She had moments earlier stated:
“The Government do not believe that it is a case of either/or—of either special schools or mainstream schools”.—[Official Report, 14/6/06; col. 207.]
We on these Benches believe that children with special educational needs should be able to choose a special education and that they should have a real choice between schools. I am sad to say that the noble
5 July 2006 : Column 325
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, pointed out that special needs funding had risen in the past nine years—and that may well be the case. But I would refer to two statements: one by the Education Secretary yesterday, when he told head teachers that, in spite of an extra £58 billion of investment in schools, new Labour had not delivered; and another from the Cambridge University report, which emphasises that,
- “resources on their own will not bring about change. The issues run deeper and challenge the very nature of current policy...It is time for a through review of policy and practice”.
As the reforms that the Bill introduces evidence, investment alone does not bring about change. That is why we support this Bill, which for mainstream education brings about changes that we on these Benches have considered necessary for the past 20 years. It is now time to think inclusively, but not coercively, about special needs education. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I shall speak to Amendment No. 183 in my name in this group. It has come to us from the Special Education Consortium, which wants to see a requirement that teachers at all levels of the service can demonstrate an understanding of special educational needs and disability.
When a similar amendment was tabled in another place, the Minister said that there was no need to set out specific standards in primary legislation and he assured Members that the current standards for teachers were under review. Well, so they need to be, because the Special Education Consortium has concerns about how well teachers are prepared to teach children with special needs and believes that a compulsory element at every level of teacher training is essential to ensure that all teachers are properly trained and prepared for their responsibilities.
There is evidence for that concern from Ofsted and the Audit Commission. Ofsted reports that,
- “the quality of teaching seen on the visits for pupils with SEN was of varying quality, with a high proportion of lessons involving pupils with SEN having important shortcomings”.
In a significant proportion of lessons, Ofsted found that,
- “teaching for the lowest-attaining pupils had weaknesses which prevented those pupils fully reaching their potential, even when the teaching for the rest of the class was good”.
That must change if every child is to fulfil their educational potential, as the early part of the Bill states.
In 2002, the Audit Commission reported:
“Many teachers feel under considerable pressure, on the one hand to meet the needs of individual pupils and on the other to
5 July 2006 : Column 326
Teachers are expected to be able to cope with a very wide range of abilities and challenges from their pupils and there is no substitute for specific and good quality training to help them to do that.
The special educational needs co-ordinators, interviewed as part of the Audit Commission research, identified curriculum differentiation and behaviour management as being among the topstaff training priorities. The Special Education Consortium regards it as crucial, therefore, that these issues are addressed during initial teacher training and that the development of those skills is fostered at every level of the service—probably through continuous professional development courses.
In addition to concerns about the core skills for enabling disabled pupils and those with SEN to learn and to progress, Ofsted found a lack of understanding of the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. In respect of the planning duties on schools, Ofsted reports:
“Schools are required by the Disability Discrimination Act 2001 to plan to increase access to education for disabled pupils. This planning duty applies to access to premises, the curriculum and to providing written information in alternative formats. Schools are required to produce their first accessibility plans by April 2003.
In four out of ten schools visited there was satisfactory planning for improved access to premises, particularly when this could be achieved with relatively small adaptations. A few schools had planned for increased access to the curriculum... However, over half of the schools had no disability access plans and, of those that did exist, the majority focused only on accommodation”.
So there seems to be a very great shortfall in access to the curriculum in particular.
The solution to ensuring improved outcomes for disabled pupils and for those with special educational needs depends on the improved skills, knowledge and understanding of those working with and for them. Training holds the key to that, and that is why we are promoting this amendment.
9.15 pm
Baroness Massey of Darwen: The noble Baroness has raised some very important issues and I realise that this is a complex matter. Of course, the welfare of the child is paramount, but I am under the impression that strategies are being put into place to address some of the issues raised.
I remember a debate in your Lordships' House some months ago about SEN in which many issues were raised and some clarification made. Prior to that debate, I talked to two local authorities to discuss how they went about their provision. I understand that the population of children with special needs is changing, that local provision is changing in response to that need and that management has improved under the inclusion framework.
The local authorities to which I talked said that many parents of SEN children were choosing mainstream schools because they felt that they provided a better situation for their children. I
5 July 2006 : Column 327
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for the opportunity to look again at this important issue. I see parallels with what happens to children who are taken into care. Those children are supposed to receive a full assessment on being taken into care but I understand that, when they are assessed and it is decided that they have such a need, often they are not given the appropriate placement. As a result, the chief inspector for Ofsted last year reported to this House that 40 per cent of looked-after children were in inappropriate placements. Some children are suited to the setting provided by children’s homes—particularly adolescents, as fewer foster carers want to take on teenagers or children who are particularly emotionally demanding. Yet it appears that often the cheapest option is tried first—that is, low-level supported fostering, followed by a higher level of supported fostering. At a recent meeting of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Children In and Leaving Care, one young man there had had 37 different placements. Therefore, I think that I recognise this problem of mainstreaming some young people too quickly.
There are also some very good residential schools for children with emotional behavioural difficulties, but they can be very expensive to run. I know that one with very good Ofsted results is currently suffering from a low occupancy rate. It needs people to take those places. I imagine that this problem is familiar to the noble Baroness.
I know that the Minister is trying to tackle this problem—for example, through schools within schools, by making schools more intimate andplaces where children can have a stronger sense of belonging, and through many other means. I remember his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, talking about strategy, for instance, to have special schools supporting mainstream schools. From the report to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred, it is clear that there is still a long way to go. I look forward to the report from the Select Committee, which will be produced tomorrow, and I am sure that it will be helpful for further debates in this area. I look forward to the Minister’s response and the reassurances that he can provide.
Lord Lucas: The crucial amendment is not in this group; it is Amendment No. 179 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Without it, there is no hope of my noble friend’s amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 17 and 84, working. There is such
5 July 2006 : Column 328
By and large, kids are the same across the nation. There is a relationship between deprivation and special needs. Special needs are about 50 per cent more common in highly deprived areas, as opposed to basically middle-class areas, but the difference in statementing levels is 7:1 between the keenest authority and the most reluctant. That is just down to strange educational theories and particular fixations of individuals in local education authorities on what should be. In addition, to bring it back to the point of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, it is down to the financial pressures on local authorities to try to control this, and to the temptations which many have given into to try to crunch special needs spending to stay within budget.
The good behaviour and bad behaviour is not a matter of political argument. It is extraordinary how it has spread. One of the best councils in terms of parental response to SEN problems is Islington, which does not have a school that I would ever recommend to anybody if they had a choice. Neighbouring Camden, which has a lot of good schools, is one of the worst authorities. It is not something that goes with the flow; it is the individual character of local authorities.
The way in which inclusion for SEN is handled, and the way in which children are given the designation of school action, or school action plus, varies enormously from authority to authority without any clear pattern. Again, we come back to the underlying inconsistency because we are dealing with conditions that should not differ from one local authority to another. The basic diagnosis or recipe for what should be done should be fairly constant. Without that constancy, I find it hard to know how Amendment No. 17 will operate. How can you tell what is a sufficient number of special schools when one authority will say that it is one, and the next will say, “No, you need seven”? We must get back to a rational system and away from the distortions present in the current one.
Given that, I very much applaud what my noble friend is aiming at, which is that the supply of schools should be in response to the real needs and concerns of the children involved and parental preferences. It should not be guided by some theoretical prejudice in the hearts of somebody in the local education authority.
One of the great difficulties, as others have pointed out, is the current state of inclusion. Inclusion is a wonderful thing when it works well, and in many schools it works brilliantly. But there is a collection of schools where being a special needs kid is a real disaster. Again, that varies from one local education authority to another.
If we look at kids who do not have SEN in primary schools, about 7 per cent of them score really badly on value added. When they come to take their key stage 2 they are way below where you would expect. For SEN kids, the figure is 22 per cent. Generally SEN kids on primary school value added do much
5 July 2006 : Column 329
A great deal needs to be done—coming on to the last amendment in this group—to make sure that teachers are trained. That seems to me to be the sort of function which LEAs, as envisaged by us and the Government, should really be undertaking and major in. There are immense disparities here, which need to be sorted out. Certainly, as regards the sort of function a school improvement partner should perform, one thing they should be doing is spreading good practice. Again, that is one reason why I do not want these people to be confined within one LEA. I want them to be nominated by the Government and then chosen more widely than that. If you have bad practice in an LEA, you will not learn by just circulating within that LEA. Getting out to see how they do it in neighbouring counties is going to be an important experience for a school improvement partner.
I very much support the amendments, but they are at the periphery of what needs to be done.
Lord Dearing: I have three amendments in this area to be dealt with later, so I shall be brief.
I recall going to a large gathering of primary head teachers on the subject of children with special educational needs and whether they should go to special schools or whether we should pursue a policy of inclusion. There was a strong ethos: “Inclusion is right”. I was a coward; I did not object. But it occurred to me then that a primary school does not have the breadth of expertise to respond to the different requirements of children with special educational needs.
The Minister has a reputation for listening. I hope that he will take away the issues ventilated here tonight and reflect on them tomorrow in the context of the Select Committee’s report, which we have not yet seen. I suspect this is an area where we must think hard and do much.
Lord Adonis: I find myself in a slightly uncomfortable position in responding to points about the Select Committee report in another place, because I have seen it. An embargoed copy came to me today, but it is not published until tomorrow. I fear that a debate will ensue.
5 July 2006 : Column 330
Lord Lucas: It is published at one minute past midnight. If we keep the debate going—
Lord Adonis: The noble Lord is generous. I understand that we have an agreement to carry on until half past ten, but not to one minute past midnight. If noble Lords take a different view, I am happy to stay here longer and give the core response. Indeed, I think I am giving the response on the “Today” programme at seven o’clock in the morning, so I could rehearse it with your Lordships before I have to deliver it to a rather larger audience. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that we intend, as is our duty, to give serious consideration to the report. We will respond once we have done so. Some significant issues are raised.
On the specific amendments, we agree with the underlying principle of Amendments Nos. 17 and 84, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that there should be a sufficient range of good quality provision available for children with special educational needs and disabilities to provide a choice for parents of children with SEN statements. Such provision should include sufficient provision of special schools and resourced special needs provision within and attached to special schools. Local authorities can arrange admission to non-maintained special schools and independent schools for children with statements where that is necessary, and can also collaborate to ensure that a range of provision is available.
9.30 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |