SCN0039
Written evidence submitted by Dr Lorna Selfe
A study of the changes in SEND provisions in one unitary authority (Herefordshire) over the last decade was conducted and the following conclusions were drawn:
1.1 Competition rather than cooperation between schools has intensified.
1.2 There is drastically reduced oversight from the LA in the development or maintenance of SEND provisions in mainstream schools.
1.3 There are a rising number of permanent exclusions of pupils with SEND.
1.4 Many more parents of children with SEND are electing to educate their child at home without any monitoring or guidance.
1.5 Local Authorities have had drastic budget cuts and extended responsibilities under the 2014 Children and Families Act.
1.6 There are no real incentives in mainstream schools to support children with SEND.
1.7 Special units in mainstream schools have largely disappeared.
1.8 There has been an expansion of segregated special school provision.
1.9 More and more children with moderate learning difficulties are being placed in provisions originally intended for pupils with severe learning difficulties.
1.10 Pressure on the LA to make use of existing segregated provision for many more pupils has resulted in ‘catch all’, type provision sometimes euphemistically termed ‘broad spectrum’
1.11 The most vulnerable children in our community are being educated alongside the most disadvantaged. This is bad for both groups.
2.Rationale for an investigation into changes in SEND provisions
2.1 A guiding principle of the 1981 Education Act was that young people should be included wherever possible. The ‘Inclusion’ movement in education gathered momentum in education across the developed world. (Fredrickson and Cline, 2009). Norwich (2010) argued that a central goal of education ‘was to enable active social participation and responsible social contributions’. Normal models of language and behaviour lifted the horizons of children with SEND being education alongside typically developing peers. Moreover, all pupils were made more compassionate and understanding by being with the full spectrum of children in their community. (Brown, 2014).
2.2 In 2006 OFSTED published a report entitled Inclusion: Does it matter where a pupil is taught? This report examined the factors that promoted good outcomes across a range of different provisions for pupils with learning difficulties and disabilities. It found effective provision was distributed equally between mainstream and special schools when certain factors were securely in place. However, more ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ provision existed in resourced mainstream schools. It stated that: ‘Mainstream schools with additionally resourced provision were particularly successful in achieving high outcomes for pupils academically, socially and personally.’ The recommendation to special schools was that they: ‘should collaborate and share expertise more effectively to develop specialist teaching in mainstream schools, with the support of the LA (Local Authority) and in line with other services.’
2.3 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (2017) has drawn attention to the halt in Britain’s progress to include pupils with SEND and that the number of children in segregated special schools is rising (2017). School exclusions are running at their highest rate for many years, children ‘disappear’ from records of schooling and there is an increase in the placement of children in special schools which might not be entirely appropriate. Local councils are expected to use their resources to promote more places in special schools.
2.4 There have been several pieces of significant government legislation affecting provisions for SEND in the last ten years. The four most important being:
3.1 The County in question is largely rural relying mainly on agriculture and associated industries. The county has one city, five market towns and a large number of villages and hamlets. There are 13 secondary schools over half of which are academies and over seventy primary schools. There are a few private schools. The average income is below the national average. In 2006 there were over 1,000 children and young people with a statement of SEN. This represented 2.8% of the pupil population. By 2016 statements had changed to Education Health Care plans but the number in the LA had remained at a similar number.
3.2 Trends in SEN provisions over the last decade have been reviewed from information collected before 2006 and information available through the council website and from Freedom of Information requests. It would appear that what is happening in this LA is generally typical of the national scene. However, it should be acknowledged, that the outcomes should not be viewed as failings in the LA but rather due to the changes in legislation that the LA is obliged to enforce.
3.3 In line with the national trend more pupils with SEND are being excluded and, as the LA were responsible for meeting the needs of pupils with SEN, the inevitable decision was to expand the number of places in the segregated provisions that already existed. In this county the numbers in the three special schools and the segregated behaviour, emotional and social difficulties (BESD) provisions have more than doubled over the last ten years.
4. Historical background to the study
4.1 Following the 1981 Education Act segregated special schools (independent and LA) started to close and provisions and resources in mainstream school schools were established. This was a national trend which continued for decades. Four independent residential special schools within the county had closed by 2006. The LA retained three special day schools for statemented children with severe learning difficulties with a total population of around 100 children. This number had been relatively static over the previous thirty years. There was one special school for statemented children with BESD for about forty pupils. In addition, there were two Pupil Referral Units (PRU) for excluded pupils, pregnant school girls and those pupils who were school phobic.
4.2 Statemented pupils who were visually impaired, hearing impaired, physically disabled, on the ASD continuum, or had severe language difficulties had their needs met by specialist teachers and resources in mainstream schools. Statemented pupils with moderate learning difficulties had their needs met through the provision of specialist teachers and support assistants in mainstream schools. There was a very small and diminishing number of pupils in Out of County special schools. The LA was responsible for the assessment of children with learning and behaviour difficulties and for meeting their needs. A statement of special educational needs was drawn up as a contract between the LA and the parents of the child and special provisions and reviewed every year. The fundamental change in legislation in 1981, assessing the child’s needs rather than assigning labels and categories, led to substantial changes in provisions.
4.3 The 1981 Education Act had taken pupils with difficulties out of the dark ages of ascertainment, categorisation, and mental subnormality into an enlightened and positive era of special educational needs, multi-professional assessment (in which parents had a major input) and meeting needs, wherever possible, in mainstream schools.
5. The current situation
5.1 What has happened to SEN provisions and resources in the LA over the last ten years? There is a unique opportunity to examine the impact of all the legislation on education that has been enacted over this last decade on the provisions available to pupils with SEND in one local authority
5.2 A small number of the thirteen comprehensive secondary schools in the County had already changed their status but, as a result of the Academies Act, 2010, a further number opted to also become academies, independent of LA control.
5.3 SEND provisions in high schools and their feeder primary schools in the LA have withered largely because the LA was no longer responsible for funding staff and resources in the academies. Some special units in the new academies and LA schools were disbanded or reorganised. In some instances, parents of children with SEND have been discouraged from sending their child to their preferred mainstream school and, where pupils were already attending, there have been instances of parents being told that there is no special provision for their child with SEND and they should take their child elsewhere.
5.4 The fact that schools have become less accommodating to pupils with SEND is revealed in the figures on permanent exclusions. Statistics for the county are generally more encouraging than the national record. Last year there were 17 permanent exclusions from all schools and 6 were of children with SEND. The figure, however, shows the disproportion in exclusions that occurs nationally, where children with SEND are less than 3% of the pupil population but more than 30% of the permanent exclusion rate.
5.5 Interestingly, at a time of cuts and austerity, money has been available to establish free schools in this county. An estimated £6 million was given to a venture to establish a vocational facility for 14-19 pupils which failed two OFSTED inspections and is currently being wound up. A much larger sum was given to establish a free Steiner school for about 300 pupils.
5.6 As the LA is responsible for meeting the needs of pupils with SEN, the inevitable decision was to expand the number of places in the segregated provisions that already existed. There were three special schools for pupils with severe learning difficulties and one school for children with BESD. The Local Authority had retained some control over placements in these schools, and the population of children in these schools has more than doubled in the last ten years. As a consequence the sites are now too small and overcrowded and there are plans afoot to build new provisions on larger sites. The county has a special school for children with BESD where the population has also doubled. The school currently has ‘needs to improve’ status in its latest OFSTED inspection.
5.7 Clearly a number of pupils with moderate learning difficulties have been placed in these provisions. These are pupils who would have been in special units in mainstream schools ten years ago. They frequently come from the poorest homes and their parents would not have the means or confidence to oppose their child’s placement in segregated provisions. The officer in charge of SEND in the authority appreciates the arguments for inclusion but is unable to convince the heads of primary and secondary schools that inclusion is a basic human right and in everyone’s interests. There is no forum for meeting the heads of academies and the officer has a daily battle to juggle competing demands of parents for suitable provisions. The LA has had a further £17 million taken from their budget this year.
5.8 It is unclear exactly how many children are now in home education because the parents of home educated children are not required to register their child with the LA although many do. Nationally available statistics suggest that the number has increased in England by 65% in six years (BBC report, 2017). In the LA the number of registered pupils had been static for many years around 100 pupils but last year the number was over 180.
5.9 In general, it can be seen that responsibilities are extended at a time when LA budgets are being cut. With substantially reduced resources the LA has had to write over a thousand EHC Plans for all the pupils who already have statements of SEN plus the new cohort undergoing assessment. They also have a new responsibility for the plans and resources available for young people from 16 to 19 years. The LA was also given the responsibility of establishing an advice and support service for parents of children with SEND. Future funding for this service is now doubtful. It is clear that finance has to dominate every decision taken by the LA and it is understandably difficult to think creatively about reinstating inclusive provisions if every day LA officers are faced with requests that cannot be met.
6. Conclusions
6.1 Ground has been lost in the last ten years in championing the right for pupils with SEND to be included in mainstream schools alongside their peers. Much lip service is given by all the political parties to the principle of inclusion in education but legislation, which has often been driven by an agenda to curtail the power of the local authorities, has had unintended consequences for our most vulnerable pupils.
6.2 Specialist units and classes in ordinary schools have withered and all but disappeared. Heads of schools that had a larger number of pupils with SEND believed that they were likely to be disadvantaged in their overall results compared with schools where the number of children with SEND was relatively low. Children with SEND are disproportionately excluded.
6.3 LAs have had to use provisions where they have been able to retain some control. There has been a national growth in the number of children placed in segregated special schools but this has been expedient rather than planned and thought through so that pupils with a wide range of disabilities are placed together. The claim is that such schools are ‘broad spectrum’ but the reality is that the most vulnerable are often placed with the most disturbed and staff are unable to specialise.
6.4 There has been an effective abandonment of a role for LAs in monitoring children who are being educated at home. Some of our most vulnerable children with the most complex needs are being educated at home without any proper supervision and guidance and clearly with no safeguards as to the quality of the education provided. These are pupils who are most likely to require specialist interventions and highly skilled teaching.
This is a sad and socially divisive state of affairs.
References:
BBC News Report by Jeffreys B., 27th November 2017
Brown, J. (2014) Rights and Legislation in Cameron, C. (Ed.) Disability a Students Guide, London, Sage.
Council for Disabled Children, Independent Support. Questions and Answers. (2014) www.ncb.uk/media
Department for Education: HMSO and online:
Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities (2007)
Academies Act (2012)
Equalities Act (2014)
Children and Families Act (2014) and Statutory Guidelines
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2018) www.european-agency.org/ Denmark
Frederickson N. and Cline, T. (2009) Special Educational Needs: Inclusion and Diversity, Buckingham, Oxford University Press.
OFSTED Report (2006) Inclusion: Does it matter where a pupil is taught?
Lindsey, G. (2010) Educational Psychology and the Effectiveness of Inclusive Education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1-24.
Norwich, B. (2010) Response in Terzi, L., Special Education Needs. A New Outlook, London, Continuum.
UN (UNESCO publication) (2017) A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education pdf on line
April 2018