SCN0486

Written evidence from Dr Helen Curran

 

 

  1. Written evidence submitted by:

 

  1. Dr Helen Curran, Senior Lecturer: SEN, Bath Spa University on 14th June 2018.

 

  1. I am submitting the following as written evidence to the Special Educational Needs and disabilities (SEND) Inquiry. My evidence is drawn from:

 

3.1.                      My work as a university lecturer and researcher in SEN, SENCo and SEN policy

 

3.2.                      My role as Award Leader for the National Award for SENCo

 

3.3.                      My PhD research: SEND reforms 2014 – from policy to practice: SENCos’ perspectives of the first-year post implementation (Curran, 2017)

 

3.4.                      My current research in conjunction with the NEU, NASEN and Bath Spa University exploring SENCo workload

 

3.5.                      My role as a Trustee of a Multi-Academy Trust

 

3.6.                      My perspective as a parent whose child has SEN and went through the statement – EHCP process last year. Perspectives from a parental view are denoted with *.

 

 

Summary:

 

  1. The SEND reforms have brought about a number of challenges for parents and for schools. A lack of specific guidance, early on, and varying support has led to inconsistent interpretation; from a basic change of process with limited change to schools reviewing their system for SEN.

 

  1. The wider backdrop of economic austerity and a lack of priority within the wider education system, as well funding issues including no ring fencing of funding, has meant that the effective implementation of the principles of the SEND reforms has been limited and lacks consistency.

 

  1. Children and parents continue to be marginalised, often denied the support they require and the funding they should be entitled to. This suggests that the concerns raised by the Lamb Inquiry in 2009, regarding parents having to ‘fight’ for their children, remain. Equally accessing support still relies on parents knowing where to look, ie the Local Offer.

 

  1. The concept of SEND remains problematic within an inclusive education system. SEND policy needs to be reconceptualised as central to determining wider educational policy, as opposed to an adjunct. The current tensions between the inclusion and standards agenda, and Ofsted’s role in terms of accountability and priority within this, need to be critically examined.

 

  1. The SEND reforms missed an opportunity for a reconceptualisation of the term SEN and its application in schools.

 

  1. The SEND Code of Practice (DfE and DoH, 2015) remains predominantly early years/ Key stage one/ Key stage two focused. Additional support for teachers and SENCos regarding the implementation of the Code, their statutory duties and related processes, is needed.

 

  1. The SEND reforms missed an opportunity to revisit the role of the SENCo, specifically in relation to how the role is executed in schools, its attributed seniority and time/ resources to effectively manage the role. Currently the role significantly varies in execution and effectiveness and it is vulnerable to the impact of financial constraints. The system currently relies on individual interpretation and professional dedication, rather than statutory expectations and policy priority.

 

  1. SEN focused input for trainee teachers remains a critical component of developing a fully supportive, inclusive educational system.

 

  1. Fundamentally it is difficult to see what has changed except additional layers of bureaucracy and additional demands on parents and professionals.

 

Main submission:

 

  1.         The assessment of and support for children and young people with SEND

 

13.1.     Note: the following points from this section are drawn from my PhD research

 

13.2.     With the introduction of the SEND Code of Practice, there was a prevailing view from SENCos that the number of children on the ‘SEN register’ should reduce.

 

13.3.     In response to the SEND reforms, numbers of children identified and recorded as having SEN reduced from 17.9% in 2014 to 15.4% in 2015.

 

13.4.     SENCos attributed this to several factors, including: a reconsideration of the term SEN, a ‘change’ to the legal definition of SEN (as perceived by some SENCos), only recording children as having an additional need if they were accessing external agency support, a need to reduce numbers due to budgets, a need to reduce numbers to make the SENCo role and SEN provision more manageable, removing children previously at School Action from the ‘SEN register’.

 

13.5.     Therefore, there remains confusion regarding the how the legal definition of SEN in understood and applied in school contexts. This leads to varying practice and a variance in support provided.

 

13.6.     Additionally, due to the reduction of children identified as SEN as well as budget constraints, SENCos are concentrating their efforts on children with more complex needs. As a consequence, this suggests that the principle of ‘early intervention’ is open to compromise.

 

13.7.     The Assess, plan, do and review process remains open to interpretation. Parental involvement has not significantly increased through this approach. For example, the process of determining whether a child has additional needs, or not, through the assess, plan, do, review cycle, including collaboration with parents, has been problematic for some SENCos to conceptualise within their schools. Schools which are focusing on this aspect had already planned to explore increased parental collaboration regardless of policy change. SENCos and teachers report that little training or guidance has been provided to professionals regarding how to facilitate this. Time remains an issue – how to facilitate this, particularly in secondary settings. It should be noted, however, that a number of SENCos reported that the introduction of new policy legitimised the increased focus on collaboration which they were seeking to develop.

 

13.8.     Children with social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs have been particularly impacted. The change of term from behavioural, social and emotional difficulties (BESD) to SEMH has also contributed to the reduction of children identified as having SEN in this area, and therefore accessing support. The change of term provided an opportunity to consider the underlying reasons for children’s behaviour, yet further training is required in this area. A specific challenge for providing appropriate support is that the current policy for supporting children’s behaviour is based on behaviourist principles which do not take account of underlying needs; particularly with regards to ‘behaviour’ being the symptom rather than the need. SENCos report that access to CAMHS is particularly problematic and at critical levels.

 

13.9.     Consequently, quality first teaching has expanded to incorporate children who previously may have been considered as having additional needs. This has implications for accessing support, advice, monitoring and review, as well as how this has been communicated to parents.

 

13.10. SENCos report that this shift has brought additional continuing professional development (CPD) needs for staff, as SENCos are seeking to fill the gap between the input teachers receive as part of their initial teacher training and the increasing complexity of the classes they are teaching. Yet, it is reported that SEND CPD is compromised due to competing priorities in school; priorities which may have greater levels of external accountability attached.

 

 

 

  1.         The transition from statements of special educational needs and learning disability assessments to education, health and care plans.

 

14.1.                 Schools have been leading on this process. SENCos report that LA involvement has been limited. SENCos in many cases have taken the lead, in some instances writing the documentation themselves. LA input has been restricted to process.

 

14.2.                 *At statement - EHCP transition, from my experience as a parent, there was no involvement from external agencies, other sectors or the Local Authority. The school led on the whole process. It was paper based exercise; it was difficult to see the value in such a process when reflecting on the nature of current provision my child accesses.

 

  1.         The level and distribution of funding for SEND provision

 

15.1.                 The SENCos I work with report that funding levels for SEND are critical. SEND resources, including personnel, are being significantly reduced. I have observed that SENCos are reporting that their non-contact time is being reduced. This is in response to budget constraints and therefore impacting negatively on children, parents and staff who require support.

 

15.2.                 Some SENCos have reported that their LA/ City Council have, without noticed, reduced funding bands. This has led to school not receiving adequate funding and therefore children not receiving the support them require. This is creating tensions with the focus on ‘outcomes’. Support is reduced to what can be provided within budget, rather than what is hoped and/or planned for.

 

15.3.                 My PhD research supports this view. SENCos are having to make difficult decisions regarding who receives what support and when. Additionally, SENCos are increasingly looking at ways in which they can creatively provide support, with increasingly limited resources. The outcome of such pressures, and related approach, is that SENCos are often expanding their role to try and provide once externally accessed facilities, thus creating a potentially false view of capacity and placing additional demands on their time. SENCos are reporting that children are not accessing the support they required. Exclusions are increasing as a result.

 

15.4.                 SENCos have reported that the introduction of Multi Academy Trusts has brought an additional difficulty when trying to access required resources. SENCos have reported that they are trying to access funds via business managers who may not have the training/ knowledge of SEND.

 

15.5.                 Due to the above factors, there appears to be a lack of transparently regarding the funding schools receive for children with additional needs.

 

 

 

  1.         The roles of and co-operation between education, health and social care sectors.

 

16.1.                 SENCos are seeking to enhance collaboration with other sectors. However, education is leading the way here with a reliance on SENCos to co-ordinate. Typically contact/ support from the Local Authority is limited, although in some instances there are reports of good practice.

 

16.2.                 Yet, when other agencies/ sectors are involved, SENCos report that their role is not regarded as ‘professional’. Evidence supplied by the school is not regarded with the same weight as advice from other agencies. This leads to frustration, due to the expectations placed upon the SENCo role and the school to lead in other areas.

 

 

 

  1.         Provision for 19-25-year olds, including support for independent living, transition to adult services and access to education, apprenticeships and work.

 

17.1.                 My work does not extend to this sector, therefore no comment.

 

 

Recommendations

 

  1. The role of the SENCo needs to be re-examined. Statutory advice needs to be provided to schools regarding the nature of the role, as well as how the role is implemented in various school contexts. The issues of seniority (SLT membership) and the time required to conduct the role are intrinsic and need consideration. If the current system is to continue, where one person is typically responsible for this area, then the role needs to be significantly enhanced. In the longer term a review of the SENCo role, and its purpose within inclusive education, needs to be considered.

 

  1. Wider policy makers need to ensure that SEN and inclusive policy is central to policy decision making. SEN policy is good practice for all and should be intrinsic to all policy making decisions.

 

  1. Due to the increasing complexity of need in mainstream classrooms, it is imperative that the minimum requirement for teachers’ SEN training within Initial Teacher Training (ITT) is reviewed. This training needs to extend beyond ITT, with statutory requirements over the NQT year.

 

  1. Funding for SEND should be ring-fenced and should be held to similar accountability measures akin to the pupil premium.

 

  1. The written statutory guidance for schools, specifically the SEND Code of Practice, would benefit from review in terms of the specificity of the guidance provided and the applicability for varying phases.

 

  1. Consideration needs to be given to the impact of various measures undertaken to support the implementation of the SEND reforms.  Accessibility of projects, and the target audience, needs to be reviewed in terms of how effective it has been.

 

  1. Whilst funding was provided to schools for the National Award for SENCos, this needs to be revisited as this can heavily impact on a school’s budget. The award has provided opportunities to develop the SENCo role, the SENCo network and their own professional knowledge and skills. The SENCo role needs to be developed as an attractive career pathway.

 

  1. The role Ofsted plays regarding meaningful accountability for the inclusion and progress of children with SEND needs to be reviewed.

 

 

June 2018