FINAL REPORT
Increasing Parents’ Confidence
in the Special Educational
Needs System:
Studies commissioned to
inform the Lamb Inquiry
Nick Peacey Institute of Education, University of London
Geoff Lindsay CEDAR, University of Warwick
Penelope Brown Institute of Education, University of London
Anthony Russell Institute of Education, University of London
Contents
Executive Summary
4
1SEN and disability: evidence on school inspection
and accountability
1.1 Significant issues for consideration
14
14
1.2 Monitoring and evaluation of the education of pupils who have
statements of SEN or who benefit from very specialised help
17
1.3 Monitoring and evaluation of the education of all pupils with special education needs and disabled pupils
27
1.4 The learning environment
34
1.5 Cross-institutional and service issues
38
1.6 National Surveys
46
1.7 Conclusions
48
54
2 Local authorities’ learning from the eight projects
2.1 Introduction
54
2.2 What have LAs learned
56
2.3 Can LA learning from the projects be generalised?
65
2.4 Can the project be sustained?
68
2.5 Conclusions
70
3Consultation Questionnaires – Views on the Special Educational
Needs System, by Parents, Students, School Staff and Other
Professionals Working with Children, Schools and Families
74
3.1 Summary of questionnaire findings: the responses at a glance
74
3.2 Introduction
79
3.3 Children’s outcomes
84
3.4 Children’s learning and progress
86
3.5 Parental confidence in the SEN system
101
3.6 How well the SEN system works
113
3.7 Parental views on the process of statutory assessment
125
3.8 Views on statements
131
3.9 How to improve the SEN system
142
3.10 Additional views on the SEN system
146
3.11 Report on e-mails sent to the Lamb Inquiry
152
3.12 Conclusions from the survey and the emails 155
Appendix A
158
2
Executive Summary
This summary sets out the main findings from the work commissioned by
the Lamb Inquiry from SENJIT at the Institute of Education and CEDAR at
the University of Warwick. The evidence gathered falls under three main
headings:
• issues of school inspection and accountability in relation to SEN
and disability
• local authorities’ learning from the eight projects funded
by the Inquiry
• consultation questionnaires: views on the special educational needs
system, by parents, students, school staff and other professionals
Over the course of the Inquiry we carried out a series of tasks to contribute
to the process of investigation and recommendation supporting the
development of Brian Lamb’s advice to the Secretary of State. Although
the present report is the summation of our work, the process was fluid
and interactive. We fed emerging findings into the Inquiry and provided
evidence to support Brian Lamb’s interim report to the Secretary of State,
as well as the final report of the Inquiry.
Inspection and accountability in relation
to SEN and disability
The Secretary of State asked the Inquiry to explore the issues of inspection
and accountability in relation to SEN and disability. Evidence for that
section was drawn from many sources. It is based on a review of the
literature on accountability, inspection, and related areas. We have also
examined evidence received by the Inquiry from individuals and voluntary
organisations and undertaken specific investigations to clarify issues.
Much of the latter evidence is small-scale and is used with caution.
Significant issues emerged across the accountability structures examined:
• the importance of high levels of engagement with public and
partners
• an understanding of difficulties/barriers in the effective performance
of the role of critical friend, particularly when applied to the work of
governors
• the need for a focus on outcomes within accountability structures
• the need for the processes, as well as the outputs, of accountability
systems to have a benevolent impact on provision for pupils with
special educational needs and/or disabilities(SEND) and thus
increase the confidence of parents and other stakeholders
We found some specific concerns in relation to the evaluation of systems
for pupils on School Action Plus or with statements of SEN. There remains
4
insufficient clarity about what authorities should be paying for and
schools should be paying for within devolved funding systems. Local
authority staff trained in research, such as educational psychologists, are
not necessarily involved, or given time for systematic evaluation of the
progress of pupils with SEND across systems.
Evidence suggested that the reporting within the 2005 Ofsted framework
did not always provide parents with adequate ‘information on school
effectiveness on SEND.
We noted that the self-development of local authorities and schools in
relation to SEND had been enhanced by specific measures. For example,
the National Strategies/DCSF Progression1 Guidance can provide better
data for schools on how well learners with special educational needs
and/or disabilities (SEND) are progressing; scrutiny committees can
perform a valuable role in the systematic development of LA services for
SEND; school governors and head-teachers with responsibility for SEND
outcomes give parents confidence when they are properly trained; School
Improvement Partners, who are now critical to the success of schools’
self-evaluation on SEND, benefit from professional development and
management specifically targeted on this area.
Our survey found that the annual review is the one form of quality
assurance that stretches across every institution providing for pupils with
SEND. But our work on accountability and evidence from the
questionnaires suggest that while the reviews take place, there are
serious concerns about the extent to which conclusions are taken
seriously enough and recommendations acted upon. In relation to annual
reviews and their other SEND provision schools need specific help with
monitoring across all the ECM outcomes for children with SEND.
Our evidence suggested that quality assurance mechanisms would need
to monitor the development of the Masters in Teaching and Learning,
both in terms of whether participants covered SEND effectively and also
whether the quality in schools’ partnership with HEIs on could be
guaranteed.
Evidence also suggested that accountability systems, including the Ofsted
school and other inspection frameworks, should give greater prominence
to the monitoring, the design and management of learning environments
in relation to SEND.
Finally, our investigations found a system undergoing frequent, rapid
institutional change, not least in terms of requirements for collaboration.
The evidence suggested that those responsible for accountability and
5
1National Strategies/
DCSF(2009) Progression
guidance 2009/10
monitoring frequently found it hard to keep up with these shifting
relationships, particularly those between organisations with very different
governance structures, such as children’s services and health services.
Two approaches seem to offer most promise:
1.Insistence by all concerned on designing thorough accountability
systems into all new frameworks, institutions and partnerships.
These should be dovetailed with existing systems and run
consistently and comprehensively from the point at which
the innovation is introduced.
2.Transparency in publicising the findings of the ongoing monitoring
of systems, particularly of partnerships between services and
institutions, for example, provided by well-designed websites such
as that of the Charity Commission.
Above all, any structures for accountability that develop over the next
years must be designed in full acceptance of the White Paper’s2 position
that: “No school can meet the needs of all its pupils alone.” Evaluations
and inspections that are conceived and implemented within a holistic
model are likely to enhance parental confidence in the system, even if
they can only show part of the picture at a particular time.
Local authorities’ learning from the eight projects
The Inquiry asked the IoE/Warwick team to examine the messages to be
drawn from the work of the eight LAs funded to undertake innovative
projects to improve parent confidence in the SEN process. The authorities
each received in the region of £20k-£40k for the year September 2008
– July 2009.
LAs were required to select one of five topics for their project. One was
not selected by any LA and the others represented a good spread, with
a preference for i) sharing best practice in developing good relationships
between the authority and parents, through effective parent partnership
services and other local mechanisms; and ii) effective practice by
schools and local authorities in meeting the needs of children at School
Action Plus.
LAs worked in partnership with other agencies and each project was
evaluated locally. Parents were required to be involved in each project
including the evaluation of changes in parental confidence. LAs were
supported by the National Strategies SEN adviser team who acted as
critical friends, providing both a support and challenge function.
6
2DCSF(2009)Your child,
your schools, our future:
building a 21st century
schools system
The authorities’ experience was that it was important to develop
commitment from schools ‘so you’re not having to twist people’s arms’.
Authorities and parents stressed the shift of powers and responsibilities:
the school rather than LA is now in many respects the key organisation,
although the LA has statutory responsibilities and a strategic role.
So improving parental confidence in the SEN system was not simply a
matter of building confidence in the LA system. It is at school level that
the main basis for confidence ultimately lies, in pupils’ day to day
experiences, so system development must engage those involved in
operating the system.
The initiative to fund eight projects through the Lamb Inquiry to improve
parental confidence in the SEN system may be judged a success. Four of
the five original types of project were implemented across the LAs. Most
were clearly developmental projects and these were particularly successful
in terms of parental confidence. Authorities running developmental
projects involved parents more comprehensively in innovation, rather
than only as providers of feedback regarding practice.
These projects demonstrated that for a modest financial outlay important
improvements in parental confidence can be achieved. Fundamental to
success was the commitment of LAs to true, not tokenistic or paternalistic
parental engagement and a clear aim to improve confidence and work
collaboratively with parents. Authorities benefited from undertaking
a project per se, in addition to any project-specific benefits. However,
the specific focus was less important than the manner in which it was
carried out, including the commitment of the LA and its engagement
with parents.
The evidence from the Lamb projects suggests that each could be
undertaken by other LAs. In this case, a project needs to be developed
relative to the existing policy and practice in the LA. Other LAs may
prefer to develop a different project. In either case the following factors
should be considered for new projects designed to improve the SEN
system and parents’ confidence:
• Parents should be involved throughout the project. They should be
engaged in the design, evaluation and future planning based on the
project’s findings.
• The project should have a clear parent focus, with parents actively
engaged in the project itself.
• The project should be developmental rather than a review of past
or existing practice.
• It should address an issue of importance for policy/practice
• Evaluation should be built into the project in order that learning
can influence subsequent practice and sustainability
7
Second, national support for a further phase of projects would provide
an important element in a framework to optimise their delivery. External
support and challenge should be included, and two complementary
forms are proposed:
• Involvement of the National Strategies SEN team as ‘critical friends’
• Presentations at seminars where practice and learning arising from
the projects is presented and shared with other LAs.
• Projects can be successful with relatively modest financial support;
however, financial input is an important factor, not only in real terms
to enhance resources but also to support commitment and
accountability. A similar sum (£20-£40k) would seem appropriate.
The evaluation of future projects would benefit from a combination of
qualitative (e.g. interviews, group discussion) and quantitative (e.g.
surveys with rating scales) measures. The use of combined methods seeks
to gain the benefits and reduce the disadvantages of each. It is also
important to consider the most appropriate way of accessing parents,
particularly in terms of the independence of organisations involved and
appropriate coverage of the relevant parent population. True partnership
with parents and a commitment to engage with them require recognition
that parents’ responses may not be in line with the ideas, policies and
practice of the LA and schools.
The use of a low cost project format provides a potentially very useful
model for widespread roll out across the country. Ideally a similar initiative
with a small budget for a group of LAs should be implemented with
increased coverage, possibly by LAs continuing with one or more partners
and by the organising of regional rather than national meetings. An
evaluation of that further initiative could build on the evidence of the Lamb
projects to identify areas of policy and practice that have a high priority
and build on projects across several local authorities that provide strong
evidence of success and potential for generalisability to other LAs.
Consultation Questionnaires – Views on the Special
Educational Needs System, by Parents, Students,
School Staff and Other Professionals Working with
Children, Schools and Families
The third part of the report details the results from the Inquiry’s
consultation by questionnaire. Questionnaires were designed for parents,
students, school staff and other professionals working with children,
schools and families. The questionnaires for the different groups were
broadly similar: the questions covered similar topics and the wording
was changed as appropriate.
8
Just over three thousand four hundred questionnaires were returned,
mostly in response to web questionnaires. Responses were received from
1,941 parents, 400 school students, 544 school staff and 516 other
professionals working with children schools and families. ‘Other
professionals’ included anyone working within the SEN system who
was not a school staff member: this group included local authority
staff, educational psychologists, therapists, health service staff and
many others.
The parents who completed the questionnaire did not form a
representative sample compared with the national population of parents
with children with SEN. Their children were largely identified within two
very specific areas of need (as being on the autistic spectrum and/or
having speech, language and communication needs), were less eligible
for free school meals and more often of White British origin than those
of parents in the national SEN population. So the sample should be
considered as skewed. However, this does not make those respondents’
views on specific aspects of the system any less valid.
Parents emphasised the importance of both social and academic
outcomes for their children’s education. This, by implication, suggests a
wish for a broad curriculum for children with SEND. When asked what
helped children’s learning and progress, over 25% of parents, school
staff and other professionals mentioned good teaching. Limited teaching
methods, failure to set work at the correct level and inflexible teaching
styles and an inappropriate curriculum offer were often mentioned as
hindering learning. Students mentioned many teaching approaches as
helpful, including care in explanations, sensitivity to learning styles and
understanding the need for extra time for some tasks. Unhelpful
approaches frequently related to communication in the classroom
including teachers who talked too fast, were hard to understand and did
not check that the pupils had understood the tasks set.
Such concerns led many adult respondents to comment that lack of
training was a major hindrance to learning and progress for children
with SEND: this included ‘generic’ knowledge such as ‘good subject
teaching’ and specific training in SEND, such as in teaching for work with
autistic pupils.
Support staff were viewed as important by all respondents. Parents did
not always link the presence of support to its quality or content. Some
school staff and other professionals questioned the wisdom of having
the pupils with the greatest needs being supported by the least qualified
members of staff. They also worried about the quality of support staff
interventions and their lack of training.
9
Parents and staff valued inclusive learning environments with some
mentioning acoustics, classroom seating arrangements and the need for
the safe and non-distracting environments.
School staff (31%) particularly noted emotional factors, such as low selfesteem and high anxiety levels, that hindered children’s learning and
progress. 15% of students’ responses related to how learning could be
impeded by emotional, social and physical issues. Some students reported
learning as difficult because of their inability to concentrate or focus,
some said that being too tired or too ill had an effect. They also mentioned
being bothered by the behaviour of other students, including disruption
and bullying.
The bureaucracy and paperwork involved in the SEN system (for most
respondents, statutory assessment, statement preparation and review)
was considered a burden for parents, school staff and other professionals
alike. The complexity was reported as stressful, often at a time when
parents were struggling to come to terms with their children’s special
needs. Parents were often only able to navigate the system with the help
of school staff, parent partnership services or charities. This support was
invaluable. Despite the dissatisfactions expressed, only 1.8% of parents
suggested the possibility of separation of assessment from provision.
Whilst the complexity of the system was seen as a weak point, the people
working within it were, for many, the highlight. The highly skilled and
knowledgeable people they encountered gave the parents confidence in
the system. The importance of training was frequently mentioned in the
responses from parents and professionals. Training members of staff,
particularly SENCOs, in a range of special needs and passing that
information on to other teachers would help to ensure that children were
taught using the most appropriate methods.
Respondents felt the training of local authority staff would be beneficial for
many reasons, but principally to raise the quality of statements. The use of
‘template’ statements was deplored in many responses since it appeared
that the statements were often being written with little understanding of
an individual child’s needs, even when an officer had the professional
assessments to hand. Statements were said to be often complex, full of
jargon and vague, with over-broad objectives and a lack of clear
quantification of provision. This was seen as allowing the LA or the school
to be dilatory in supplying the provision named in the statement.
Some parents had initially seen statements as legal documents which
would result in schools and LAs being forced to implement the provision
specified for their child, but were disappointed when it was not
10
implemented fully. In such circumstances they could feel disempowered
and were not helped by concerns about the annual review process. It
was recognised by some that failure to implement statements was often
due to a lack of funding. The delegation of funding to schools was not
always considered positively since respondents often saw little sign of
monitoring to ensure that resources were being spent on the children it
was intended for.
Overall, the responding groups of parents and professionals shared some
concerns, for example in relation to the importance of inclusive teaching
methods, quality training for working with children with SEND and the
bureaucracy of statutory assessment. Professionals and students
emphasised emotional factors that affected learning and students were
specific about the need for good adult-pupil classroom communication.
Some parents responding had very painful stories to tell, which often
related to the limited implementation of statements and annual reviews.
Parents sought social and academic outcomes for their children and
were equally committed to the idea of the one-to-one teaching sessions:
professionals were concerned for the quality and content of such sessions
and preferred a range of arrangements including, but not only, individual
and small group sessions. But the range of responses was very wide and
the answers to some questions could be not be analysed to provide a
coherent picture. This was unsurprising, given the number of individual
histories involved: many respondents were clearly parents who had had
problems with the system and a wide range of teachers and other
professionals responded to the questionnaires. But the consistency of
response to some of the questions, as discussed above, particularly given
the size of the survey, suggests some important threads for development
by the Inquiry.
Conclusion
Much of the evidence we have gathered must be treated with caution. It is
small-scale, but such small-scale work can provide important indicative
evidence which can then lead to careful examination of further examples.
Respondents to the questionnaires and evidence from our investigations
suggest that, while a few concerns may need legislation, many issues
simply require a refocusing of efforts and resources at relatively low
cost3, including an insistence on compliance to statute and regulations
that already exist and genuine engagement – ‘really listening to’ –
parents and children. Other concerns can be tackled by the use of simple
but carefully designed measures4 that move people to different forms of
behaviour without overt regulation or instruction.
11
3For example, in the case
of the low cost format
recommended (Section 3)
for roll-out of findings from
the pilot projects.
4For example, the idea of the
accessible and ‘transparent’
website to improve the use
of resources
However it is done, the work is most important. Parents’ concerns about
failures in the system ring through parts of the evidence we have
gathered. We hope that our report will play its part in helping the Lamb
Inquiry ensure improved learning and participation for all children and
young people with SEND and increased parental confidence in all aspects
of the system that supports them.
12
1SEN and disability: evidence
on school inspection and
accountability
1.1 Significant issues for consideration
As part of our work for the Lamb Inquiry, SENJIT at the Institute of
Education and CEDAR at the University of Warwick were commissioned
in April 2009 to undertake an examination of accountability and
inspection systems for pupils with SEN and disabled pupils across the
education systems of England. Throughout this exercise we have sought
to collect information on the impact or lack of it on every sort of outcome
for these very vulnerable groups.
Evidence for this section has been drawn from many sources. It is based
on a review of the literature on accountability, inspection, and related
areas. We have also examined evidence received by the Inquiry from
individuals and voluntary organisations and undertaken specific
investigations to clarify issues.
1.1.1The case for engagement with consumers and partners
in accountability systems
For stakeholders to have confidence in accountability systems, they need
to see that the checks and balances devised involve them and allow
them to have a share in determination of priorities. A recent report on
local government noted:
“Authorities that achieved the highest levels of service
improvement were also the most likely to report high levels
of engagement with the public and/or their local partners.
Similarly, there was evidence of a positive association between
effectiveness, community leadership and accountability to internal
and external stakeholders. And there was a link between effective
leadership and the perceived responsiveness of an authority’s
services, the extent to which its services were ‘joined up’ and
levels of staff satisfaction. There was a link between improvements
in accountability and increased public confidence. Moreover,
authorities that were perceived to have become more accountable
to central government were also regarded as the most
accountable to local people and other stakeholders.5”
1.1.2Challenge and support: barriers to the work of ‘critical friends’
Official documentation often refers to the importance of challenge, for
example by governors or school improvement partners (see below) to
school leaders. But schools, like all institutions, develop their own cultures
14
5Communities (2009)
Reforming local government:
impacts and interactions of
central government policies
from 2000 to 2006 – Final
report of the meta-evaluation
of the local government
modernisation agenda
http://www.communities.gov.
uk/documents/localgovernment/
pdf/1318747.pdf
and ideologies and these can be difficult for a ‘critical friend’, however
well-intentioned, to address appropriately. Governors, for example, may
be unwilling to be involved in challenge because of the risks involved6.
The evidence suggests that:
•any ‘critical friend’ taking a role in relation to improving provision
for SEND in a school must be both well trained and supported
•school leaders themselves must be given a full understanding
of what the roles of their ‘critical friends’ are intended to
achieve, as this is by no means a universal understanding
(see ‘Governors’ below)
•‘critical friends’ must be able to make use of an evidence-base
of research and recorded experience to assist in the testing of
assumptions. Work on SEN of the primary strategies has been based
on this approach and resulted in valuable summaries of ‘what works’
with pupils with SEND 7). For secondary schools, the evidence is not
so easy to come by. For example, the Rose Review found a lack
of well researched evidence on effective interventions for dyslexic
pupils in a secondary setting8, the Bercow Review found few
initiatives (so little evidence) of ‘what works’ with secondary pupils
with SLCN9 and a recent major literature review found a lack of
research in secondary schools right across the SEND spectrum10.
The Audit Commission, in evidence to the Inquiry, noted the lack
of a national body, similar to the National Institute for Clinical
Excellence, for examination of value-for-money interventions
in relation to SEN and disability.
•there may be tensions between the role of schools as
commissioners and end-users of services and, for example, the
professional approach of educational psychology services, seeking
to prioritise their work in line with their own – as opposed to the
school’s – understanding of children’s needs. Such services may
also be disempowered from providing appropriate ’critical
friendship’ to schools in the course of their work.
•‘critical friends’ must be supported in encouraging scrutiny of pupil
outcomes when schools seem to be using practices not based on
evidence or where no evidence exists. For example, a recent study
of ability grouping found“…a high level of stratification by ability
within schools exerts a negative influence on students’ academic
self-concept11”. It concludes,
“Interest, enjoyment and perceptions of competence affect
students’ intentions towards learning and thus their achievement,
course choices and future careers. With the current emphasis on
raising educational attainment, the importance of these aspects
of learning should not be overlooked as they not only impinge
on individual lives but also the future prosperity of the nation.”
15
6Dean, C., Dyson, A.,
Gallannaugh, F., Howes, A
and Raffo, C (2007), Schools,
governors and disadvantage,
Joseph Rowntree Foundation,
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/
jrf/1994-schools-governorsdisadvantage.pdf
7Dowler A (2004) What works
for children with mathematical
difficulties? Brooks, G. (2002)
London: DfES Research Report;
What Works for Children with
Literacy Difficulties? The
Effectiveness of Intervention
Schemes. London: DfES
Research Report 380
8Though some ‘promising
approaches’ were found in
Greg Brooks’ work. Brooks, G.
9But, for example, see Islington’s
SLT service work with secondary
schools: section 2.3.1 below
10Rix, J, Hall K, Nind, M, Sheehy
K and Wearmouth, J (2009)
‘Teaching approaches and SEN:
What pedagogical approaches
can effectively include children
with special educational needs
in mainstream classrooms? A
systematic literature review’
Support for Learning: British
Journal of Learning Support,
Volume 24, Number 2,
May 2009
11Ireson, J & Hallam S (2009)
Academic self-concepts in
adolescence: relations with
achievement and ability
grouping in schools Learning
and Instruction Volume 19,
Issue 3, June 2009, 201-213
This study is only the latest warning from the literature about the risks of
‘high levels of stratification by ability’ for all pupils. Yet ‘setting by ability’
for long periods remains a common feature of our schools. Iano points
out wryly,
“It seems certain that research findings are not what have driven
the practices of ability grouping. Rather, these practices have in the
first place been promoted by ideology and larger systems of belief
about education and teaching.12”
•not all ‘critical friends’ will want to be involved in the more
‘technical’ educational literature(see ‘Governors’ below), but all
should be informed about the relatively straightforward issues
involved in checking a school’s outcomes for minority groups, such
as pupils with SEND. “…while governors may not need the same
level of educational skills and knowledge as professionals, they do
need to know enough about schools and management to exercise
effective oversight.13”
A focus on outcomes is important: in a substantial review, Ofsted
expressed concern that at school placement in ITT or the induction year
for an NQT, many schools do not take appropriate care to give an
outcomes focus to their support and monitoring of new teachers’
progress (Ofsted 2008).
1.1.3 The power of accountability: interpretations and processes
Coburn reminds us that accountability structures create their own priorities
for all those involved. “Although accountability policies are constructed at
the central government level, they are ultimately shaped by the different
actors in a specific school. Each teacher’s understanding and interpretation
is influenced by social interaction with colleagues and by characteristics
of the school environment. A context-specific analysis of pressure to
improve and the school’s improvement efforts must not be forgotten.14”
Similarly, Perryman reminds us, “Inspections are not straightforward
events, but practices which are set within their own tradition and discourse.
Auditing is often thought of as a neutral collection of facts, but Power
(1994, p.815) notes; ‘audits do not passively monitor performance but
shape the standards of this performance in crucial ways’16.”
This has two implications for the Inquiry. First, by commission or omission,
the structures used for accountability must not make things worse for
the vulnerable and substantial minority with SEND. In contrast, a wellconstructed accountability system for SEN and disability in which all the
16
12Iano, R P, (2004), in Gallagher
D, Heshusius, L, Iano, RP, Skrtic,
T M, Challenging Orthodoxy in
Special Education: Dissenting
Voices Love Publishing
Company.
13Dean, C., Dyson, A.,
Gallannaugh, F., Howes,
A and Raffo, C (2007), Schools,
governors and disadvantage,
Joseph Rowntree Foundation,
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/
jrf/1994-schools-governorsdisadvantage.pdf
14Coburn, C E. (2005)
Shaping Teacher Sensemaking:
School Leaders and the
Enactment of Reading Policy,
Educational Policy, Vol. 19,
No. 3, 476-509 DOI: 10.1177/
0895904805276143
15Power, M. (2009) The Audit
Explosion, London: Demos
16Perryman J (2006) Panoptic
performativity and school
inspection regimes: disciplinary
mechanisms and life under
special measures in Journal of
Education Policy Vol. 21, No. 2,
March 2006, pp. 147–161
elements fit together should be a positive driver for good practice and
increase the confidence of parents and other users of the system.
1.2Monitoring and evaluation of the education
of pupils who have statements of SEN or
who are at School Action Plus
This section examines issues of monitoring and evaluation that, while
they have application to the learning and participation of all pupils with
SEND, relate particularly to those with statements of SEN or who are
identified as needing intervention at School Action Plus.
1.2.1The local authority role in monitoring and evaluation
of the progress of pupils who have statements of SEN
or who benefit from very specialised help.
“Directors of Children’s Services and Lead Council Members for
Children in every local authority are accountable for the delivery
of education, social care and delegated health services for children;
they are also responsible for driving wider partnership working.”
(DfES 2006)
The changing relationship between local authorities and schools is at the
heart of many recent developments. Much of the funding once directly
managed by local authorities (LAs) for SEN is now delegated to schools.
This can lead to creative and effective solutions to frontline issues, but
also, as evidence to the Inquiry from the Audit Commission stressed, puts
a great responsibility on schools and local authorities to be clear about
who does what and what funds are in fact available to schools for SEN17.
The Audit Commission has recently produced a useful resource18 to help
schools consider value-for-money issues in relation to SEN, but
undertaking the exercises in the pack, or similar investigations, remains
optional activity for school managements. Given parents’ concerns about
the transparency in the use of funding delegated to schools for SEN (see,
for example, responses to the Inquiry’s web-based questionnaire),
monitoring of take-up of the Audit Commission resource and similar
approaches could be important for parents’ confidence in the system.
Statutory Instrument (SI)(2001) 2218 (DfES) provides that LAs should
make explicit the LA/school division of responsibility for funding for SEN
and publish the arrangements on their website. Recent steps to ensure
that this Statutory Instrument is implemented more consistently across
17
17This can be an internal
as well as external issue.
SENJIT still receives requests
for advice from SENCOs
who do not know what
funds their head-teacher
has available for SEN
provision in the school.
Audit Commission evidence
confirms the continuance
of this phenomenon.
18www.sen-aen.auditcommission.gov.uk/
LAs have resulted in more accessible descriptions of delegated
responsibility on websites. Audit Commission evidence to the Inquiry
also stressed the importance of school and local authority websites that
were “transparent’ in terms of allowing stakeholders to find their way
quickly to data about funding of pupils with SEND. Local authorities that
support school leaders by providing easily accessible information about
funding such as that provided in Section 52 school budget statements
are also providing a valuable service to parents of pupils with SEND. The
Oldham authority website includes these and other statements that can
be seen as clarifying responsibilities in relation to Statutory Instrument
(SI)(2001) 2218.
“Resourcing AEN [additional educational needs] in schools:
Pupils at School Action, School Action Plus and those with Statements that
is; all pupils who benefit from the Graduated Response, are entitled to
SENCo time, and a share of activity generated by the AEN element of the
AWPU [age-weighted pupil unit] and money allocated through the AEN
formula. Some named pupils will be allocated IPI funding. IPI is a a set
amount which is allocated to the most needy pupils annually for one year
without recourse to Statutory Assessment. In addition, centrally held
resources are available for a range of additional activities to support pupils
with learning difficulties and disabilities. These resources are over and
above funding that is allocated through AWPU, AEN, and IPI. This includes:
•Specialist teacher assessment and advice from the AEN Quality and
Effectiveness Support Team for needs relating to Physical Disability,
Specific Learning Difficulties, Moderate Learning Difficulties, Speech
Language and Communication Difficulties, Autistic Spectrum Disorders
and related syndromes and in some cases direct teaching support,
from one of the two AEN Specialist Teaching Teams; the AEN Team
for Hearing Impairment and the AEN Team for Visual Impairment.
•Special School Partnership Projects designed to support schools
in building capacity to meet severe and complex needs.
•Special Circumstances Funding to meet medical, personal care and
specialist equipment needs outside the Statutory Assessment Process19”.
1.2.2Recent evidence on specialist provision in LA systems:
the Rose Review and the Bercow Review
19www.oldham.gov.uk
The Rose Review (Rose, 2009) of provision for dyslexic pupils and the
Bercow Review on speech, language and communication needs,
particularly the research commissioned on practice in six local authorities,
provide recent evidence on local authority provision for pupils at Wave 3
intervention level. 28 authorities responded to the Rose Review’s
questionnaire on LA practice20:
18
20The Rose Review also
included a useful summary
of a cross-LA strategy
Every Child a Reader
which incorporates a
strong evaluation model.
1.The respondents emphasised their role in supporting schools’
evaluations of their success with dyslexic pupils.
2.Several had committed substantial support to the development
of provision management for the evaluation of provision for SEN,
including dyslexia, usually through their support services.
3.The authorities emphasised that access to specialist
teachers was a key feature of their provision. Apart from
their professional development role, these teachers, along with
educational psychologists, had a major role in the evaluation
of interventions. [It is not clear whether the Rose Review is
here referring to evaluation other than that of interventions
for individuals.]
Those authorities sound confident of the appropriateness of their
approach to accountability for dyslexic provision. In response to the
review’s recommendations, the Secretary of State has committed to the
training of 4000 specialist teachers who are specialists in dyslexia.
Research for the Bercow Review of services for SLCN (Lindsay et al 2008;
in press) found that the children’s services for education and health in
the six LAs studied were not collating or analysing data on outcomes at
more than an individual level. The study found:
“The use of monitoring and evaluation by LAs and PCTs was also
varied and under-developed. In this case [SLCN provision] the
general situation was characterised by a high level of data being
available to LAs but not to PCTs. However, LAs did not utilise this
resource effectively nor had they developed a collaborative
pooled database with colleagues.21 22”
This, together with evidence that educational and medical records were
not being brought together to evaluate outcomes for SLCN provision, led
the researchers to propose that each LA should have a part-time post
dedicated to bringing this information together for use by all parties.
The role of Ofsted
Ofsted inspects 7000 schools each year. It must be stressed that, in
comparison, our evidence–gathering for the Inquiry was small-scale. It
also mostly related to inspection under the 2005 school inspection
framework.
The new framework, brought in from September 2009, puts a far stronger
emphasis on vulnerable pupils including those with SEND and addresses
many of the concerns raised in this section and in Section 1.3.6. The
2009 framework includes this objective:
19
21Lindsay, G. & Dockrell,
J.E., Desforges, M., Law. J,
& Peacey, N. (in press)
Meeting the needs of
children and young people
with communication
difficulties International
Journal of Language and
Communication Disorders
(in press) and original
report
22Lindsay, G., Desforges, M.,
Dockrell, J., Law, J., Peacey,
N., & Beecham, J. (2008).
Effective and efficient use
of resources in services for
children and young people
with speech, language and
communication needs.
DCSF-RW053. Nottingham:
DCSF. http://www.dcsf.gov.
uk/research/data/uploadfiles/
DCSF-RW053.pdf
“to provide parents with information; this informs their choices and
preferences about the effectiveness of the schools their children
attend or may attend in the future (Introduction, Para.2)”
But, though our evidence should be treated as indicative, the issues
raised may offer the Inquiry insights into the concerns that parents and
professionals have had about SEN aspects of school inspections under
the 2005 framework and provide some pointers to the directions that
future accountability policy should take.
The questionnaire survey
During the academic year 2007-8 a questionnaire seeking school
SENCOs’ views of their experiences of inspection was sent to 20% of the
mainstream schools in SENJIT-subscribing local authorities (LAs) which
had been inspected since September 2005 (when the revised framework
came into force). These covered schools in inner and outer London, in
counties and unitary authorities. A total of 400 questionnaires were sent
out. There were 150 responses (37.5%). Of the responses, 89 were from
primary SENCOs; 19 from secondary SENCOs and 42 did not indicate the
phase of their school.
For comparison with the SENCO survey enquiries were made to local
authority officers: telephone interviews with LA officers were also used
as part of work for the Lamb Inquiry. The team also examined a selection
of 34 Section 5 reports of mainstream schools.
1.2.3The Ofsted role: section 5 inspection of specialist provision in
maintained mainstream schools: units and resource bases
Many pupils with statements of special educational needs are educated
in units and resource bases attached to a mainstream school. An Ofsted
review23 of provision and outcomes noted that additionally resourced
provision in mainstream schools was particularly successful in achieving
“high outcomes for pupils, socially, academically and personally”. This
suggests that stakeholders would benefit from consistent reporting of
the qualities that make for this success.
1.2.4Evidence of Ofsted reporting on additionally resourced
provision within the 2005 framework
Our evidence revealed some concerns about the inspection of additionally
resourced provision. For example, the survey carried out by SENJIT in
2007/2008 found that only 59% of teachers-in-charge of units or
20
23Ofsted (2006) Does it matter
where pupils are taught?
resource bases had been interviewed during an inspection. Inspectors
may have satisfied themselves about the outcomes of pupils attending
the unit/base by other means, but it would not appear that the process
was clear to the teachers involved.
We were told of instances of mismatch between inspectors’ expertise and
the provision being inspected. For example, a headteacher reported to the
Inquiry that a special school for pupils with very challenging behaviours
was inspected by someone from a residential specific learning difficulties
setting who did not have real understanding of behaviour issues; a local
authority adviser was asked to help the inspector make a judgement as
the inspector admitted that she was not a BESD school specialist.
NDCS evidence to the Inquiry included:
“...an Ofsted inspection [of a named school] in March 2008, reported
that: ‘Pupils in the PDC (provision for deaf children) progress well
because they are supported by highly experienced staff who ensure
that pupils enjoy their work and are fully included in school activities.’
However, NDCS is aware that: The unit did not have a teacher in
charge who was a qualified teacher of the deaf. Indeed, the person
in charge was not even a teacher. No evidence was provided to
substantiate the statement that deaf children were making good
progress and it was unclear what criteria was being used to make
this judgement. The Tribunal decision (written by the Tribunal Chair)
drew on the evidence of an advisory teacher of the deaf:
‘[The advisory teacher of the deaf] explained that there had
been problems at [a school] School in terms of staffing which
had resulted in poor management and an insufficient focus
on pupils’ progress. The school was also far from ideal
acoustically and due to be rebuilt in 2010.’”
Again, this is one example among many inspections and may present
one side of the picture. But it is clear that the move to the briefer
inspection with the 2005 framework led to substantial qualitative and
quantitative changes in reporting on special provision in the mainstream
school. Two examples of successive Ofsted reports on school units for
deaf pupils for special educational needs show the changes in extent of
coverage in the later reports (Table 1).
These figures should be seen in the light of the overall reduction in the
length of the text of inspection reports that came in with the 2005
framework: similar ‘specialist’ areas were also given reduced reporting
space under that framework. In 2007 Ofsted responded to concerns
21
Table 1: Two examples of inspections of units for deaf pupils 2003-7
Name
Date of
inspection
Numbers of pupils in unit
at inspection
Lines
of text
Laycock Primary School24
Laycock Primary School
Gartree High School Gartree High School
52
52
5
10
32
6
77
1
Nov 2003
Nov 2007
May 2004
June 2008
about judgements on additionally resourced provision within the 2005
framework with further guidance25:
“A judgement about the effectiveness of the provision should
be included in the overall effectiveness section of the report.
This should be based on the outcomes for the learners”.
To understand the issues involved, we looked at the most recent Ofsted
Section 5 reports on the thirteen mainstream schools with additionally
resourced provision that form the total provision of this type in two local
authorities, one in London and another in the north of England.
Of these reports, three written before the end of 2007 and one written
in 2009 make precise mention of outcomes for pupils in the ARPs. One
was particularly encouraging: “...such is the quality of support from both
teachers and teaching assistants that pupils with learning difficulties,
including those in the resourced classes, make the same progress as their
peers and indeed often surprise themselves at what they can do.” Six
reports, four written in 2006/726 and two in 2009, mention the existence
of the ARP in the school but are not explicit about recognizing the
progress of pupils from within it. There may, of course, be an issue in
tracking pupils who are effectively included in mainstream provision. But
it would be helpful for parents and others to have a more explicit
reference to the quality of progress of pupils in an ARP for SLCN and
autistic spectrum disorders than this judgement, written in early 2009,
provides : “Improving support for pupils with specific learning difficulties
and/or disabilities ensures that most of these pupils are now making
‘broadly satisfactory progress”. Finally, three reports, all written in
2008/9, did not mention the additional provision at all, though one of
them commented “The proportion of students with learning difficulties
and/or disabilities is almost double the national average.” Perhaps time
was an issue, perhaps the school’s leaders did not ‘promote’ the work of
the ARP to the inspection team. But the omission would be puzzling to a
22
24Attention was drawn
to these schools in
NDCS evidence.
25Supplementary guidance
for inspectors-inspecting
provision and outcomes
for pupils with learning
difficulties and disabilities
in mainstream schools,
Ofsted (2007), Schools
and Inspection Issue 1:
November 2007
26ie. before the additional
guidance was circulated
parent with a child in the provision or a parent thinking about entrusting
a child to the provision.
The new inspection framework’s emphasis on vulnerable pupils should
make such omissions less likely.
1.2. 5Governors, senior school leaders and the role of the school
improvement partner (SIP) in relation to pupils requiring
statements of SEN and/or at Wave 3 level of intervention
The governors of a school, or its responsible body, have responsibility for
all SEN provision and for ensuring the implementation of disability
discrimination legislation. There is remarkably little research examining
the role of governors at all, let alone any study explicitly examining the
role in relation to SEND. However, Dean and her colleagues offer us a
perspective on the whole matter of governance that directly impacts on
the education of pupils with SEND.
“Although government guidance expects governors to act as critical
friends to head teachers and as strategic leaders of their schools, the
reality is more complex than this. By and large, the governors in our
study felt happier offering support rather than challenge, and relied
on heads to set a strategic direction for the school. They also found it
difficult to articulate any clear and detailed vision of ‘service quality’
on which to base their leadership. However, they did have a strong
and principled sense of acting in the interests of the school and of the
children within it. They were, therefore, prepared to battle external
threats to these interests and their support for head teachers was
conditional on the head, too, acting in this common interest.”
If we set this report against evidence to the Inquiry from Melian Mansfield,
an independent governor trainer and chair of the Campaign for State
Education, we can see why governors might view challenge as a difficult
matter. She reports that headteachers have often had no training in working
with governors and their respective roles are not mutually understood.
Encouragingly, though, she has found that well-focused training for heads
and their deputies can bring about rapid shifts in attitude.
Governors will need support in performing their duties in relation to
vulnerable pupils, including pupils with SEND. This is an area that lay
people may find particularly complex because of the range of issues
involved. Our evidence suggests that it would also be valuable to review
the training given to headteachers in working with governors on issues
concerned with vulnerable pupils.
23
1.2.6 School Improvement Partners
Governors and heads need to be able to look to their school improvement
partners (SIPs) for help with SEN and disability, particularly in relation to
considering the monitoring of the progress of pupils receiving the most
specialist interventions. The task of the school improvement partner in
relation to SEN and disability is described in the Government’s response
to the select committee report on SEN 27:
“School Improvement Partners (SIPs) will challenge and support
schools on their performance. They will discuss and assess a school’s
self-evaluation and school improvement plan against available
evidence and comment on their effectiveness. They will provide an
objective review of the school’s performance data and analyse the
evidence for its improvement. They will identify areas of strength
and weakness and scrutinise the progress made by different groups
of children, including those with SEN and disabilities, to ensure
that success for some does not hide failure of others.”
Evidence to the Inquiry uncovered concerns about the capacity of SIPs,
whatever their expertise in the field, who have only had available five
days a year to work with any school, to provide consistent support to
schools in the self-evaluation of their work with pupils with statements.
Recent changes in the role and training of SIPs, announced as a result of
the Inquiry’s recommendations and the concerns addressed by the recent
White Paper, address many of the issues we have found in our review.
Great weight is put on the SIP’s role:
“We will develop the reforms started with the New Relationship
with Schools further, by strengthening the role of SIPs as the single
agent for challenge and support to schools across all Every Child
Matters outcomes on behalf of local authorities, and by extension,
central Government. For all significant business, local authorities,
nondepartmental public bodies (NDPBs) and DCSF need to
observe the gatekeeping role of SIPs.28”
Our evidence suggests that local authority management of SIPs, with
National Strategies’ oversight, needs to target issues relating to pupils
for whom Wave 3 interventions are appropriate if the limited contact
time available between SIPS and the schools is to have any useful impact
in the quality of provision for SEN and disability. As future SIP reports to
governors will include a judgement on SEND in a school, it is encouraging
to note that guidance on the new Ofsted inspection framework confirms
best practice under the 2005 framework and states:
24
27DfES (2006) The Government’s
response to the Education and
Skills Select Committee report
on Special Educational Needs
28DCSF(2009) Your child, your
schools, our future: building a
21st century schools system
“The lead inspector should always ask the head teacher for sight of
the school improvement partner’s most recent report on the school.
It should not normally be necessary for a meeting to take place
between the school improvement partner and lead inspector.”
1.2.7 The statutory assessment of special educational needs
Statutory assessment in a devolved system
The delegation to schools of funding that would in earlier times have
been used to support statements can lead to a range of concerns already
picked up by agencies working with the Inquiry. Professor Klaus Wedell
reports on messages circulating between SENCOs on the SENCOforum,
a Becta-supported electronic discussion resource:
“At the same time, local authorities are increasingly implementing
policies to delegate funding to meet pupils’ special educational
needs to schools. Messages on the Forum have indicated how these
policies have highlighted the issue of how far schools can meet
their obligations. When schools do apply to their local authority
for Statements, how do they justify their claim that they cannot
adequately meet needs from the resources delegated to them?
Another message cited an example where a school was applying
for a Statement because of the degree of problem behaviour on
the part of a child, but the behaviour then reached such a level that
the pupil was excluded in the meantime. A further message from a
member of a support service described a situation where a school
had made quite extensive provision to meet a pupil’s needs, but
when the local authority finally agreed to provide support through
a Statement, the school withdrew its own individual support and
relied only on the Statement support. SENCOs, for their part, are
increasingly having to take account of the fact that parents can
take local authorities to Tribunal for claims that schools have
not provided sufficient support to meet their child’s needs.29“
The issues of delegation and ring-fencing of funding remain concerns for
respondents to the Inquiry’s web-based questionnaire (see above Section
2.1). The Audit Commission in evidence to the Inquiry drew attention to
the need for all those involved in the system being clear that it was the
local authority’s role to balance the range of interests in any situation.
The annual review
Evidence gathered from other sources suggests that the annual review
process may be at least as much in need of attention as the statutory
assessment itself. Of course, the objectives of a statement need to be
25
29Professor Klaus Wedell
‘Points from the SENCOForum: Procedures and
processes in special needs
provision’ from British Journal
of Special Education, Volume
36, Number 2, June 2009
clear and assessable for any sort of effective review against them to be
possible. The annual review is the only detailed quality assurance
procedure that is consistently in place for those with a statement right
across the diversity of schools in our education system. The Inquiry report
to the Secretary of State in July raised concerns about parental confidence
in the process:
“The review process
The analysis of responses to the web survey identifies difficulties with the
review system as being one of the most significant factors in both parent
and professional responses to the survey:
The wording which was written when he was 3 and now he is 13 and
the LEA still wanted to use it!
Time taken for amendments to be made so can be working with an outdated
document because the student has made progress and it is not reflected
quickly enough in the new document to boost the student’s self esteem.
The NDCS evidence cites examples where:
“...if a child has not made good progress, the annual review simply copy
the existing objectives into the next year, without assessing whether the
objectives are still appropriate for the child to make good progress.
Concerns about the conduct of reviews have been expressed by a number
of organisations providing advice to parents. Help line organisations,
including the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice (IPSEA)
have advanced evidence in support of the argument for a right of appeal,
where following an annual review the local authority decides not to
amend a statement.”
The 2006 Ofsted thematic review30 reported that not all schools
systematically monitor the progress and attainment of pupils with SEN:
“This leaves the main purpose of the annual reviews without
crucial infrastructure in some schools and undermines the core
function of the review.”
The IPSEA evidence to the Inquiry noted,
“currently, if the local authority proposes an amendment to a
statement following an annual review, there is a parental right
of appeal. However, there is no right of appeal if the local authority
decides not to amend the statement following an annual or interim
26
30Ofsted (2006) Inclusion:
does it matter where pupils
are taught?
review, even when the school’s report to the local authority
following the review meeting recommends amendments.”
Transition annual reviews
Students with a statement of special educational needs must have a
transition review at the age of 14 years. Evidence from learners and
parents shows that these are successful when the whole school system
supports the process of the young person becoming a young adult, rather
than focusing on the bureaucracy of the formal procedure. The curriculum,
including the support systems, needs to prepare the young person to
take decisions at this stage. But many learners in one local authority
review31 reported they were asked to select options that they had no
prior knowledge of. These learners need the same options as their peers
without SEN but frequently are given restricted choices. Similarly, learners
with SEN are likely to need more help with making such decisions.
Intervention from careers services needs to begin earlier for some
students and be sustained. There are particular issues as to how best use
the transition review for young people who have the most significant
needs. The Learning and Skills Council sometimes licenses schools to
keep these learners until the age of 25. In such cases the transition
review needs to focus on how to develop the skills and experiences the
learner will need to make more independent decisions in future rather
than the location of their learning.
“The key to inclusion is inclusive learning. To achieve inclusive
learning, pupils must be included in the curriculum.32”
Professor Klaus Wedell has reminded us how important it is to address the
notion of an appropriate curriculum in terms of meaningful outcomes.
“The 14-19 curriculum appears to be constrained in some
schools and to be dictated by what will generate value added
scores for the school. A system output such as a national
curriculum level or a P scale does not necessarily translate
to a meaningful outcome for a young person in terms of further
study, training or employment. The related strand of ECM and
achieving economic well being, along with citizenship needs
more national attention in terms of learners with SEN.33”
1.3Monitoring and evaluation of the education
of all pupils with special educational needs
and disabled pupils
Every accountability system must aim to ensure that barriers to learning
27
31Review carried out by SENJIT
for a SENJIT-subscribing
authority, 2008
32O’Brien, T (2001)
Enabling inclusion...
blue skies, dark clouds
Stationery Office Books
33Wedell, K (2009): Points
from the SENCO-Forum:
Procedures and processes
in special needs provision’
from British Journal of
Special Education, Volume
36, Number 2, June 2009
and participation are removed as early as possible as a pupil with SEND
moves through the education system.
Olga Miller and her colleagues examined the reasons for changes of
school for pupils with visual impairment. The table below is adapted
from their research report,
Table 2 Reasons reported for leaving previous school
Percentage
Parent felt school unable to meet child’s VI needs
Completed final year at school
Parent felt school unable to meet child’s other SEN
Parent felt child’s academic needs better met at another school
Other reason for child leaving school
Child was not happy at school
School and or LA felt school unable to meet child’s SEN
School and or LA felt school unable to meet child’s VI needs
Journey time too long
43.8
31.6
27.6
24.9
22.2
19.5
13.0
12.4
0.5
N =185
“Responses show that in most cases pupils left their previous
school because it was unable fully to meet their VI needs. In a
number of cases the school had been unable to meet the child’s
other SEN. In the main it was the parents/ carers who identified
this problem rather than the school or the Local Authority (LA),
indicating that many parents are taking an active role and
making decisions about their child’s schooling.34”
Two other points need making about the scope of accountability in
relation to pupils with SEND:
•It should include monitoring of progress within a broad curriculum
(see section on ECM below) if it is to give parents confidence. The
report on responses to the questionnaire survey35 shows that many
parents are anxious about their child’s progress towards outcomes
that go beyond the narrowly academic; their aspirations look ahead
to their child’s life as an independent and social adult.
•The whole context within which a pupil with SEND is working, even if
it is planned to be inclusive, also needs careful monitoring or pupil
and parent will lose confidence.“Hannah was offered a place in the
local authority’s comprehensive school that had a specialist unit for
28
34Miller, O, Keil, S, Whitehead,
D, (2008), Is there still a
role for designated visual
impairment (VI) special
schools in the 21st Century?,
IoE, University of London
35 Section 3.3 of this report
disabled children. ..[Implementation] of her statement was fine at this
school, and the assistance to include her in the mainstream school
classes was good. What was disappointing was the poor teaching,
and chaotic circumstances in the main school. There was frequent
disruptive behaviour in class, which frightened Hannah...Occasionally
the school was closed because of uncontrollable fighting...Hannah
made good friends with some of the children and staff in the special
needs unit, but had no relationships with any of the ordinary
students at the school36”.
1.3.1A culture that nurtures the Every Child Matters
(ECM) outcomes
The role of the local authority
As discussed in section 2 above, the local authority has wide responsibilities
under the 1996 Education Act for oversight of the education of pupils
with SEN. More recently its duties under disability discrimination
legislation have become more prominent and are being brought into
sharp focus by the introduction of National Indicator 58 which covers
services for disabled children.
The links between these two areas have been clarified in the DfES pack
Introducing the Disability Discrimination Act in schools and early years
settings (DfES, 2006). This, in explaining the relationship between the SEN
and disability frameworks, suggests that, in terms of what you might see
in an inclusive school, practice within the two frameworks would be hard
to differentiate. Given this approach, what might those monitoring progress
in schools hope to see? Two innovative examples may be helpful:
Jake’s sports day
This film (from the pack mentioned above) shows the way that staff from
Jake’s infant school included him into his school sports day by taking
advice from many quarters: his mother, local authority advisers, published
government materials and not least Jake himself to change the approach
of the sports day for Jake and everyone else. After the event, it is agreed
that the approach will be used the following year, not least because
everyone who took part, including Jake, benefited from the changes.
ListenEAR 37: Islington Speech and Language Therapy Service
working with secondary schools
A speech and language therapist (SLT) has been working with a group of
Islington secondary schools on many aspects of student learning. This work
involves, for example, working with students on communication with others
in and out of lessons and support with ‘dispute mediation’ sessions and
29
36Denise Wilkinson, Written
evidence to the Inquiry
37 EAR= enjoy, achieve, respect
with teachers’ understanding of communication needs and lesson design.
Each programme is a whole school initiative and only involves the SLT in
visits for one or two days a week. Because the school SENCO and a member
of the leadership team are closely involved in all aspects of the design and
implementation the interventions have proved remarkably successful.
These examples remind us that any systems that monitor and evaluate
school provison for pupils with SEN and disabled pupils should address
some specific areas.
1.3.2 Approaches to accountability
Stakeholders need accountability systems that tell them of the extent to
which (see Wedell above) a culture of commitment to all pupils’ achieving
ECM outcomes is reinforced and developed in any school or educational
institution. This can be time consuming, as such progress is hard to record
in numbers.
“There are many other learning outcomes that are far more difficult
to quantify. These include:
• improvements in behaviour and social skills;
• improvements in self-confidence and emotional stability;
•the very small steps towards early communication,
independence, and social interaction made by pupils with
severe or profound and multiple learning difficulties; and
•increasing participation in mainstream social
and learning activities.
Records of achievement for these outcomes will usually be
descriptive rather than numerical. This makes it more difficult to
compare pupils’ achievements and progress in different settings.38“
The DCSF and Ofsted have recently addressed some of these issues,
specifically in response to concerns about pupil well-being:
“We believe that ‘perception surveys’, which draw on
parents’ and pupils’ views, will yield a better picture of pupils’
well-being than is currently available. We want to provide pupils
and particularly parents with regular opportunities to inform both
the school and Ofsted of their views of the quality of the school’s
contribution to pupils’ well-being. These surveys will also enable
parents to provide information that will help Ofsted make
decisions about when a school should be inspected.39”
30
38ESTYN/HMI for education
and training in Wales (2007)
Evaluating outcomes for
children and young people
with additional learning
needs
39Ofsted (2009) An evaluation
report: responses to the
Department for Children,
Schools and Families and
Ofsted joint consultation on
proposals for developing
indicators of a school’s
contribution to well-being
Documentation from Government has not, so far as we are aware, dealt
with issues relating to SEND, for example in relation to people for whom
oral or written communication presents barriers.
1.3.3Provision that monitors that all teaching programmes
are encouraging academic progress
The recent progression guidance issued by the DCSF40 offers valuable
help to evaluators of provision that addresses academic needs. The Rose
Review41 notes:
“In follow-up interviews, local authority officers emphasised
the necessity to ensure that the practice and processes at both
school and local authority level enable all vulnerable children
to be identified and tracked to make sure they do not ‘fall
through the net’.”
Many good exemplars of schools and LAs that use the national tests and
other resources to carry out this vital task are available.
1.3.4 Provision that is efficient and offers value for money
As the examples given above suggest, provision that uses the lessons
from the learning of individuals to design what is on offer for everyone
is both inclusive and highly cost effective. It is likely to prevent individuals
requiring more heavily resourced interventions, as the Rose Review
found. The point here is that accountability procedures, principally those
of self-evaluation and the SIP and inspection must go beyond simply
looking for good provision for SEN/disability as a separate entity and
seek a value-for-money integrated system.
1.3.5The relationship of external support and advice
and the curriculum
Both examples above show how integrated approaches to can draw on
external expertise to modify the curriculum in a way that benefits all
pupils. This is not always the case.
“The relationship between support service teachers’ work in
schools and the regular curriculum was not always clear. While…
various perspectives and, clearly, teacher/ school attitude was an
important factor, the practical reality seemed to be that it was lack
31
40DCSF and National Strategies
(2009) Progression Guidance
2009-10: Improving data
to raise attainment and
maximise the progress
of learners with special
educational needs, learning
difficulties and disabilities
41Rose, J (2009) Identifying and
teaching children and young
people with dyslexia and
literacy difficulties DCSF
of adequate time for dialogue, planning and feedback that led to
support staff’s work not being effectively integrated into classroom
and school practice. Were adequate time allowed for this, there
would be more extensive opportunities for staff development
and for the preparation of classroom and subject teachers
to enhance their skills of differentiation.42”
1.3.6Ofsted Section 5 reporting under the 2005 framework:
mainstream schools
A random sample of 34 inspections within the 2005 Ofsted framework
found that reports mentioned, normally briefly, in one way or another:
progress of pupils with LDD 31; numbers of pupils with LDD in relation
to national averages 31; ‘support’ 18; teaching assistants 9;curriculum 5;
teaching 3; inclusion 2; links to external agencies 1; transition 1.
All reports gave an overall grade for ‘How well learners with learning
difficulties and disabilities make progress’ at the end.
We noted that almost all teams had given a judgement on outcomes in
the body of the report and had often discussed ‘support’ and teaching
assistants, which sometimes seemed to be used as synonyms. This is an
encouraging picture and we look forward to inspections within the new
framework building on it in four respects:
•more frequent comments on inclusion within the school, as this is
significant for so many issues within the Every Child Matters agenda
•consideration of progress within ECM outcomes
•additional discussion of findings to support parents in understanding
the basis of judgements: some reports have given little space to the
learning of a minority (those with SEND) that forms at least 20%
of most school populations
•all teams’ awareness of SEN/disability developments:
respondents to the 2008 SENJIT survey reported instances when
an inspector was unaware of provision mapping/management or
guidance or...‘expressed his concern [to a primary SENCO] that
IEPs [individual education plans] were not written for every child
on our special educational needs profile.43’
1.3.7 Use of evidence-based approaches.
The National Strategies have provided primary teachers with valuable
resources on ‘What works’ in relation to the core subjects and pupils
with learning difficulties. But there is not always such a firm foundation
for ‘critical friends/evaluators’ to draw on:
32
42Fletcher-Campbell,
F, Cullen, M A, (2001),
Impact of Delegation on LEA
Support Services for Special
Educational Needs, NFER.
43Guidelines following the
revised Code of Practice
(DfES 2001) made clear that
IEPs are not necessary when
other appropriate forms of
assessment are in place
“There is a shortage of evidence about the nature of teaching
approaches which effectively include children with special
educational needs in mainstream classrooms. There is a need
for more UK and secondary-based research, and more rigorously
designed studies to evaluate teaching approaches. Consideration
should be given to indicators of pupil progress which are rich
and varied and not just to indicators that are readily measurable.
There is also a need for research into teachers working alone
within inclusive settings, and about their interactions with
support staff and pupils, particularly in relation to interactions
involving tactile and signed modes of communication...44
The National Strategies/DSCF Progression Guidance45 should be helpful
to all those working for accountability in SEND. Thorough professional
development will be needed to explore its many implications.
1.3.8 Developing leaders for a ‘can do’ ethos’
Part of the development of a coherent ethos will depend on the senior
managers and in particular on the head-teacher or principal. We have
already noted the importance given to their commitment in the
Achievement for All guidance (p.11). Expertise and developed confidence
in inclusive approaches is vital for this group in taking their school
forward: many coming to headship will already have that expertise and
confidence. Others will not.
Professional development, such as the Aspiring Leaders Programme run
by NCSL might be a valuable way to ensure standards are made more
level. Two features of the current programme are noteworthy:
•Participants undertake 4 out of 19 optional online modules
of 7 hours. None of them explicitly deals with inclusion, special
educational needs or disability, though pupils with SEND will
form 20/25% of the population any head-teacher will be
responsible for.
A module on SEND is under development. But it will remain optional,
because the programme encourages an aspiring leader to choose their
own route, based on their view of what they need, supported by that of
colleagues who know them well.
The balance between self-directed learning and coverage of areas
essential for someone who will hold the futures of many vulnerable
pupils in their hand depends, perhaps too heavily, on the skills of the
‘coaches’ who guide them through the programme.
33
44Rix, J, Hall K, Nind, M,
Sheehy K and Wearmouth, J
(2009) ‘Teaching approaches
and SEN: What pedagogical
approaches can effectively
include children with special
educational needs in mainstream
classrooms? A systematic
literature review’ Support for
Learning: British Journal of
Learning Support, Volume 24,
Number 2, May 2009
45DCSF and National Strategies
(2009) Progression Guidance
2009-10: Improving data to raise
attainment and maximise the
progress of learners with special
educational needs, learning
difficulties and disabilities
1.3.9Developing leaders : design of accountability for the Masters
degree in Teaching and Learning (MTL)
The MTL programme has three phases. ‘Content area 346’ includes
‘managing additional needs and inclusion, including socio-economic
background, disability, G&T, SEN, BME, EAL, narrowing achievement
gaps and contributing to social mobility’ as one area that must be
covered by the end of the programme (i.e. all three phases). But this is
one among many priorities and in the last resort the quality of what the
MTL delivers will depend on the priority that providers give SEND and
the monitoring of their programmes. The programme gives great
significance to the role of an in-school coach within the MTL partnerships.
The model requires a high level of expertise from this coach, but a
communication from the London Reach consortium for MTL to the Inquiry
reflected their concerns about this role. Any accountability structures
established by Ofsted or the TDA should monitor the degree to which
participants are involved in exploring SEND issues in depth and the
effectiveness of the role of the in-school coach in relation to this area.
1.4 The Learning Environment
Reporting on learning environments is important for pupils with SEND.
For example, the importance of good acoustics to the attainment of all
pupils with SEN has been established by the work of Shield and Dockrell47.
NDCS has argued that:
“In a survey48 of a sample of local authorities who had built new
secondary schools since 2003, we discovered that only one in
five were able to confirm that their new schools complied with
government standards on acoustics, as set out in Building Bulletin
9349...At the school level, NDCS also believes that insufficient
attention is given to the acoustic environments in schools,
particularly where deaf children are present. “
At present, the physical quality of learning environments has little profile
in school inspection, even where such environments are for specialist
provision. Given the importance of acoustics and other environmental
features for all children and young people, and especially those with
communication impairments, greater prominence for monitoring this
area could have significant effects on pupil progress.
Many authorities are bringing special and mainstream schools together
on the same site through the Building Schools for the Future and Primary
Capital Programmes. Ofsted’s 2006 thematic review50 looked at provision
34
46TDA (2009) The National
Framework for the Masters
in Teaching and Learning
47Shield, B. & Dockrell, J.E.
(2008). ‘The effects
of environmental and
classroom noise on the
academic attainments of
primary school children.’
JASA Journal of the Acoustic
Society of America 123,
no 1, 133-144
48http://www.ndcs.org.uk/
document.rm?id=4047
49DfES(2003) Acoustic
Design of Schools:
Building Bulletin 93
50Ofsted (2006) Inclusion:
does it matter where
pupils are taught?
in such places and found “good opportunities for LDD pupils to mix with
their mainstream peers” but that “good joint working was rarely
observed.” Such locational changes are intended as a creative route to
developing inclusive practice across the two types of school. The report
quoted above suggests that all Ofsted reports on any co-located school
should include evidence on the success of the collaboration between the
two schools on the site in terms of staff and pupil attitudes, experiences
and learning.
1.4.1 Local authority responsibilities and the Ofsted inspection
When local authority and Ofsted views diverge
It is to be hoped that the new inspection framework will allow resolution
of concerns if judgements by the agencies with responsibility for
accountability differ significantly. The SENJIT survey suggested that such
differences could cause significant concern: for example, two local
authority advisers/managers mentioned instances where they have had
anxieties about a school’s provision for pupils with SEN/disability, worked
hard to improve matters in the face of some difficulties and then hear
that an inspector has judged the provision good or even outstanding. Of
course, there are two sides to any story like this and, anecdotally, we
have been told of situations where Ofsted inspectors had substantial
concerns about local authority staff’s view of SEND provision.
Reports by other agencies, in particular SIP reports, should be taken into
account by school inspection teams. Where a school inspection team
forms a different opinion from that set out in another report on the
school, this should be picked up by inspectors and addressed through
the inspection process, including through the gathering of evidence and
discussion of it with the school’s leaders.
1.4.2 The numbers game
LA advisers told us of the importance of Ofsted attention to unexplained
growth in numbers of SEN pupils in a school. Once again, the emphasis
in the new inspection framework should make for consistency in the
fulfilment of the recent Ofsted guidance on this topic51.
1.4.3 Academies: Governors and Responsible Bodies of Academies
PricewaterhouseCoopers’ most recent report on academies52 raises key
issues for their accountability. The PwC team express some concern
35
51OFSTED (2009) Schools
and Inspection: Issue 9,
March 2009
52DCSF(2008)
Academies Evaluation
5th Annual Report
http://www.standards.dcsf.
gov.uk/academies/pdf/
Academies5thAnnualReport.
pdf?version=1
about the number and quality of governors likely to be available to
academies in future.
“5.34 There are…. issues with finding sufficient governors
to support the expansion of the programme...”
PwC also tell us that governors of academies are not yet reporting on the
attainment of minority groups, including disabled pupils and those with
SEN.
“Academies should report attainment for sub-groups of pupils
(e.g. those on FSM, SEN, EAL) in order to ensure that achievement
for these pupils continues to receive appropriate attention.”
While in many cases the law that surrounds academy governance is similar
to that for maintained schools, there is a notable difference. Local authorities
do not have general oversight of academies’ provision for SEND under the
1996 Education Act. This places even greater responsibilities on sponsors
and governors to ensure high quality policy and practice in this area and
on other sources of accountability data, such as Ofsted and SIP reports.
The annual review of statements of special educational needs which
operate, as an LA resource, in every type of school including the academy
should also support quality assurance on SEND within academies.
The Inquiry should also note that SENCOs in academies are not covered
by the recent regulations on professional development:53 parental
confidence may be affected by the fact that this group of professionals is
exempt from the requirement to undertake the two module Masters level
course that all other new SENCOs must now go through.
1.4.4 Collaboration involving academies
PwC make a significant recommendation relating to the importance of
collaboration:
“DCSF should investigate the impact of the Academies model
on effective collaboration, looking both at Academies and
at neighbouring schools.”
This recommendation underlines, yet again, the need for accountability
systems to develop increased sophistication about partnerships that give
appropriate emphasis to the needs of vulnerable pupils including those
with SEND.
36
53SI 2008 2945 The Education
(Special Educational Needs
Co-ordinator), England
Regulations 2008
1.4.5 Newly Qualified Teachers
It is sometimes not realised that:
“In respect of the arrangements for the induction of newly
qualified teachers, each LEA is the appropriate body under
the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 for maintained
schools and non-maintained special schools within its area...
and has responsibility for deciding whether newly qualified
teacher’s training and supervision during induction [is adequate].
In order to fulfil these responsibilities, LEA’s will therefore need
to ensure that headteachers and government bodies know
their duties for monitoring, supporting, guiding and assessing
newly qualified teachers and are capable of meeting them.
Guidance on the respective tasks involved in induction
can be found in DfEE Circular 5/99, The Induction
Period for Newly Qualified Teachers.”
“In the case of independent schools, the appropriate body will be
either the LEA for the area in which the school is located or the
Independent Schools Council Teacher Induction Panel.54“
Given their responsibilities in this area, local authorities will have been
concerned by the findings of the Ofsted review on the preparation of
new teachers to teach pupils with LDD
“Less than half the schools visited provided good induction into
teaching pupils with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. In just
over half of the 77 lessons seen, which were taught by new and
recently trained teachers, the quality of teaching and learning for
pupils with learning difficulties and/or disabilities was satisfactory.
In 12, it was inadequate.”
The report recommended: “Providers and local authorities should ensure
more rigorous evaluation of the provision for learning difficulties and/or
disabilities in schools, so that they can adapt courses and programmes to
minimise the differences in their style and quality of provision, as well as
in the experiences of intending teachers.”
The Training and Development Agency for Schools has commissioned
resources to support the evaluation of progress by NQTs in meeting the
Core Professional Standards in relation to pupils with SEND. These
include a self-audit tool for school leaders on the capacity of the school
to train new teachers in SEND. Piloting has shown that such a tool is
highly valued.
37
54Whitbourn, S, Morris, R,
Parker A, McDonough K,
Fowler J, Mitchell, K, Poole,
K, (2004), What is the LEA
for? An analysis of the
functions and roles of the
Local Education Authority,
Slough: NFER
1.5 Cross-institutional and service issues
Three aspects of the rapidly developing devolved school systems are
significant in terms of accountability for SEN and disability.
• Impact of the admissions system of schools across an LA area
•Partnerships and collaborations across children’s/paediatric services/
voluntary bodies/schools
•Inter-school collaboration or the lack of it: the impact on disabled
pupils and pupils with SEN
1.5.1 Impact of the admissions system of schools across an LA area
If one or more schools in an LA are slow or unwilling to admit pupils with
SEN, this is likely to be an issue for all other schools in the area, at a minimum
in terms of resource implications. As more schools become their own
admissions authorities, this will remain an area of heightened scrutiny.
Gorard and others have expressed concerns about the effects of
increasing diversity of school types. “Increased diversity of school types
is strongly associated with increased segregation of student intakes55.”
Such segregation can lead, in Gorard’s view, to less commitment to
inclusion and citizenship: “Inclusive schools are generally more tolerant
(56), and exhibit that tolerance in racial, social and religious terms, and
this is also associated with greater civic awareness (57).”
The National Foundation for Educational Research explored admissions
and exclusions of pupils with SEN58. They found some relative good news
across the schools of the six LEAs they surveyed: there was no sign of
systematic abuse of the admissions system. However, they expressed two
concerns:
“Schools that were not full considered that most of their
casual admissions were of pupils with some degree of special
educational needs. This meant that, during the year, they could
have a substantial number of pupils entering who needed
additional support. As support is generally planned prior to the
new school year and allocated in the autumn term, this can pose
difficulties in the deployment of support and putting in place
provision for those pupils who need it.”
“In three of the LEAs [out of the six], there was a shortage of
places generally and this was felt to affect both statemented pupils
and pupils with SEN but no statement. Additionally, in LEAs with
particular types of school – for example, high numbers of grammar
38
55Gorard, S. and Taylor, C.
(2002). What is segregation?
A comparison of measures
in terms of strong and weak
compositional invariance,
Sociology, 36, 4, 875-895
56Slee, R. (2001) Driven to the
margins: disabled students,
inclusive schooling and
the politics of possibility,
Cambridge Journal of
Education, 31, 3, 385-397
57Schagen, I. (2002)
Attitudes to citizenship in
England: multilevel statistical
analysis of the IEA civics
data, Research Papers in
Education, 17, 3, 229-259
58Wilkin, A, Archer, T, Ridley, K,
Fletcher-Campbell, F, and
Kinder K(2005) Admissions
and Exclusions of Pupils with
Special Educational Needs
DfES Research Report
RR 608
schools or single sex schools – the range of schools to choose from
for pupils with SEN was inevitably restricted: for example, parents
of boys had only the boys’ schools.”
Given the potential implications of both these points, the NFER team
was disturbed to find that:
“Admission Forums can monitor admission agreements in terms
of their effectiveness in serving pupils with special educational
needs. However, interviewees did not produce any evidence of
this mechanism being used; local authorities reported little or no
monitoring, particularly of pupils with non-statemented SEN.”
The Admissions Forum is independent of the local authority. Since the
NFER report, local authority responsibilities have been strengthened by
the duty to produce an annual report to the Admissions Adjudicator,
though the report from the local Admissions Forum remains voluntary. It
can be submitted with the Authority’s report each year. The Authority
report must include:
“the authority’s assessment of the extent to which the current
admission arrangements in the area of the authority serve the
interests of looked after children, children with disabilities and
children with special educational needs59”
This is a very new arrangement and illustrates a cycle we have seen
before in our investigations for the Inquiry:
• New institutional arrangements are established
• A cycle of concern and investigation is gone through
• Modifications are put in place.
These cycles can take a long time. In the specific example we are
considering, the cycle has stretched from 1998 when Section 85A of the
SSFA 1998 established Admission Forums to the present. The Adjudicator
has not yet reported on the new system which came into force in January
2009. In contrast, the most recent report by the Local Authority
Ombudsmen notes encouragingly, despite receiving 50% more complaints
on school admissions, than in 2007/8 (1422), that less complaints
proportionately have been received about SEN. They record “Some of the
faults we see in considering these complaints include:
• delays by local authorities in dealing with SEN issues;
• failure by local authorities to make the provision specified in SEN
statements; and
• failure by local authorities to monitor and take action in cases
where children are out of school.60“
39
59Statutory Instrument (2008)
No. 3091
60Office of the Local
Government Ombudsman
(2009) Annual report
2008-9
1.5.2Partnerships and collaborations across children’s/
paediatric services/voluntary bodies/schools: the
Comprehensive Area Assessment
This report has discussed above possible implications for accountability
for SEN/disability of the increasingly devolution of school systems from
local authority direct control. As we noted, the recent White Paper
reinforces the message:
“No school can meet the needs of all its pupils alone. Delivering
the Pupil and Parent Guarantees will require schools to work in
partnership with other schools and with wider children’s services
in order to offer more by working together than any one partner
could alone and to provide better value for money.”
Reviewers, such as Lindsay and his colleagues have expressed concern at
the vagueness of many inter-school collaborations in terms of legal status
and the failure of inspection systems to address their working61 62.
Whitty63 among others has argued for the development of comprehensive
systems in every locality.
From September 2009 the central tool for oversight of each local system
and service will be the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) led by the
Audit Commission. At the time of writing, trials of the CAA have been
completed in twelve local authority areas. The first reports will be
published in November 2009. There are two elements to the CAA:
Area assessment will assess the extent to which councils and their
partners are delivering improvements on the issues that matter to people
within the local area. It will consider whether the priorities set in the area
reflect those of the people who live there. Area assessment will also look
at how effectively the improvements are being delivered, and will assess
the future prospects for improvement.
Organisational assessment will focus on the individual public bodies
within an area, to make sure they are accountable for quality and impact.
It will involve two assessments:
• managing performance
•use of resources, consisting of three themes: managing finances,
governing the business and managing resources.
The Secretary of State’s response to the Inquiry’s report in July 2009,
noted that CAA reports, if appropriately monitored by specialist HMI, will
be able to act as a trigger for more detailed exploration of SEN/disabilities
concerns.
40
61Lindsay, G., Muijs, D., Harris,
A., Chapman, C., Arweck, E.,
& Goodall, J. (2007) School
federations pilot: Study
2003-2007. DCSF-RR015.
Nottingham: DCSF. http://
www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/
data/uploadfiles/DCSFRR015v2.pdf
62Lindsay et al’s report
was written before the
introduction of the 2009
inspection framework.
63Whitty does not argue for
comprehensive schools per
se, but suggests “however
much diversity is allowed to
develop, it will be important
to insist on rebuilding a
comprehensive system of
secondary education and
curbing the excesses of
quasi-markets.”
1.5.3 New Performance Profile
The information strand of the CAA could have equal significance for
those working in the field. From June 2009, the CAA will provide a
performance profile of the quality of services and outcomes for children
and young people in each local authority area. It will draw together
relevant findings from across the inspection and regulation of education,
care and skills and set this evidence alongside the relevant Every Child
Matters indicators from the new National Indicator Set (NIS). Evidence in
the profile is arranged into three main blocks:
•The findings from regular and ongoing inspection and regulation of
services setting and institutions;
•Findings from safeguarding and looked after children inspections;
unannounced inspections of contact, assessment and referral
arrangements for children in need and children who may be in need
of protection; evaluations of serious case reviews; safeguarding and
looked after children findings from recent joint area review
inspections; and finding from triggered inspections;
•Performance against Every Child Matters indicators from the
National Indicators
This information will be available on a website. This is still in pilot form
but already raises the question of what we might call ‘visibility and
predictability of data’. For example, the new National Indicator NI 54,
which covers services’ performance in relation to disability, is only one
among many that stakeholders with an interest in SEND need to be able
to check. We know that websites that give easily accessible, targeted
evidence of performance and compliance are highly valued by
stakeholders64. There is a CAA trial site now available at http://www.
audit-commission.gov.uk/localgov/audit/CAA/Pages/oneplace.aspx.
As this site moves towards launch in December 2009, it should be
possible to ensure that users find performance against NI54 by any
authority in the country is easily available to them.
1.5.4 Children’s Trusts
The Children’s Trust (CT) is at the centre of the Government’s plan for
collaboration for services that will deliver the Every Child matters
outcomes for every child and young person. Guidance has recently
strengthened the model65. The guidance explains that ‘robust and
effective arrangements’ are needed under the new ‘duty to cooperate’. It
sets the Trusts in place as a thematic partnership within the local strategic
partnership, extends the Trust partnership to all schools, including
41
64The Charity Commission site
is an example www.charitycommission.gov.uk
65DCSF (2008) Children’s
Trusts: Statutory guidance
on inter-agency cooperation
to improve well-being of
children, young people
and their families
academies, and FE colleges and makes the Trust Board a statutory body.
This guidance has great significance for many pupils with SEN and
disabled pupils, particularly those whose support involves professionals
from health services.
“Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and local authorities must work
together to achieve their common goals, including delivering
on Public Service Agreement targets….The partnership between
the local authority and the Primary Care Trust is the driving
relationship for the Children’s Trust.”
Given the significance given to collective endeavour, the accountability
structures put in place so far seem limited: “It is important the CT is
accountable for its actions to the local community…” This is apparently
to be done by producing a Children’s and Young People’s Plan and
evaluating and publishing the review of the Plan. There are other
complications:
“However, if a Children’s Trust is to be capable of championing the
needs of local children and families it must be clear about its role
as both commissioner of services in the interest of the community
and, through the work of its partners, as a provider of some of
those services. Whatever organisational role is put in place there
must be in all cases clear mechanisms for commissioners to hold
in-house provider functions to account for delivery.”
This injunction with its lack of specificity might suggest that the Children’s
Trust is at a relatively early stage (the institution building) of the cycle of
accountability-building described above66.
1.5.5Inter-school collaboration or the lack of it: the impact on
disabled pupils and pupils with SEN
The well-known triangle of skills from Removing Barriers to Achievement
(DfES 2004) has, as a desirable resource at the apex of the triangle,
‘Specialist skills in some local schools’. The implication of this phrase is
that in some way, such skills will be shared through school collaboration.
A similar approach seems to be anticipated by the ministerial acceptance
of the recommendation of Rose Review that 4000 dyslexia specialist
teachers should be trained and based in schools. (Of course, specialists
in SEN are to be found in other places than schools, not least in local
authority support services and health services.) This implies that
headteachers will need somehow to share with others some of their
most effective teachers. The White Paper Your child, your schools, our
42
66The Audit Commission is
developing a tool to allow
Children’s Trusts to evaluate
their work with pupils with
SEND in terms of value
for money.
future: building a 21st century schools system seeks to address the
governance of this sort of partnership working.
“3.14 In order to recognise the importance of partnership
working, Ofsted is introducing a revised partnership grade
for introduction from September 2009”
Inspectors are to evaluate:
•“the extent and effectiveness of the school’s partnership activity
with other providers, organisations and services to promote
learning and well-being for its pupils and those of its partners
• how well partnership activities provide value for money.67”
The White Paper (para 3.14) continues:
“[Ofsted] is already moving to introduce more streamlined and
co‑ordinated or joint inspections for federations68. Alongside this
we will look to ensure that, as far as possible, they have single
or common School Improvement Partners.”
The White Paper also looks ahead at multi-agency team working:
“3.23 A school-based model is increasingly being adopted
where local buildings permit. But not all schools can have
on-site teams and primary schools are least likely to do so.
Therefore, schools often need to work in clusters in order
to benefit from multiagency teams; it becomes viable for
a multiagency team to be based in schools, if the resource
is shared well between the schools (as well as to support
children not on a school roll), so that all children in the
area have access to the services they need.
3.24 Increasingly, as clusters become stronger and more
formalised, they will be able more effectively to commission
a range of services to meet the needs of children and young
people on behalf of the local authority and the Children’s Trust.”
Monitoring and inspection procedures in force in England have not until
now explicitly covered the collaboration of groups of schools at all69, let
alone in relation to the provision or outcomes of vulnerable pupils or
those with LDD. If combinations of schools are the appropriate route to
deliver specialist services to pupils with SEN, there must be some question
over whether such collaborations can be effectively monitored if the only
mechanism available to inspectorates is an institution-by-institution
approach.
43
67Ofsted (2009) The
evaluation schedule
for schools: guidance
and grade descriptors
for inspecting schools in
England under Section 5
of the Education Act 2005,
from September 2009.
68There is nothing about
similar rules for the
inspection of co-locations
(see above section 2.4).
69This section also relates
to soft or hard federations
of schools.
Ofsted’s report on Advanced Skills Teachers70 may be relevant here. These
teachers, like the dyslexia specialists recently announced71, were intended
to be an outreach service, In fact, Ofsted reported:
“In about two-thirds of the schools the ASTs were using at
least half, and sometimes all, their dedicated time for AST work
(equivalent to one day a week) on support within their own school.
This pattern was particularly evident among most of the longer
established ASTs in schools in the introductory phase, with a
consequent reduction in time available for outreach work.”
1.5.6The role of the local authority in accountability in the age
of partnerships: new possibilities for accountability
Local authorities have direct responsibilities for pupils with SEND in
relation to:
• the 1996 Education Act
• oversight of the induction of new teachers
• the training and support of governors
• the management of SIPs
Since these responsibilities were established, many LAs feel that their
approaches to carrying them out appropriately have had to shift
substantially. Partnership working normally demands a different style of
management and this is sometimes felt to be an inappropriate tool for
situations of substantial concern about school or other provision.
Executive power can often be inappropriate in the many current
circumstances. However, LAs have other approaches to issues that can
be used and as the children’s services experiment with devolution and
partnerships, the need for councils to use innovative ways to achieve
quality is pressing.
The Scrutiny Committee
The local authority scrutiny committee could be a resource for improving
provision for children and young people with SEND. Such committees
perform a similar function to that of a parliamentary Select Committee
and can give a wider picture of any local issue that needs exploration.
They can examine, simply through getting the answers to questions, the
doings of any bodies in receipt of public funds, including schools of all
types. They can address issues, like schools’ approaches to SRE with
pupils with severe learning difficulties, that need sensitive and careful
examination. The LB Camden established three Language Resource
Bases (LRBs) following a Scrutiny Committee inquiry. The children who
have a place in the LRBs have severe specific language impairment (SSLI).
44
70OFSTED (2001) Advanced
Skills Teachers: employment,
deployment and impact
71In January 2009, there
were 17, 041 maintained
primary, 3,211 maintained
secondary schools and 133
academies (DCSF (2009),
SFR Schools, pupils and their
characteristics. So the 4,000
dyslexia specialists will have
to share their expertise
among 20,385 schools.
They spend the majority of their time with their class, while receiving
additional specialist help. For example, a speech and language therapist
is based three days a week in one school. Her work with pupils may
include support in class; joint teaching; small group or paired work;
withdrawal sessions with individuals. Her time with colleagues includes:
weekly planning meetings with each teacher working with a pupil with
SSLI; teacher and teaching assistant training and inset; meetings with
the headteacher and SENCO to plan whole school interventions. Parents
and carers play a key role as partners in helping children’s progress. All
staff receive support on communication, such as regular signing lessons.
These centres aim to work with school colleagues on transforming the
generic learning context for pupils, including the teaching approaches
and lesson planning, as well as addressing the identified barriers that
must be removed for individuals to learn and participate. This seems to
offer an imaginative and inclusive approach to an authority-wide issue:
it is exactly the sort of response that can be triggered by the scope of a
scrutiny investigation.
The London Scrutiny Officer Network, in evidence to the Inquiry, suggests
that it should be made clear that “overview and scrutiny can scrutinise
any body that is in receipt of Public funds (the suggestion of the Centre
for Public Scrutiny is of all public bodies as so defined by the Data
Protection Act) and they [such bodies] have a duty to co operate in
providing information, responding to reports, and requests to attend
public meetings.
The Network proposes that “Scrutiny committees should have the power
of referral to the relevant Secretary of State for any matter”. They note
that it is accepted that the little-advertised role of scrutiny in systematic
examination of aspects of local health services has been effective. “NHS
is more democratically accountable thanks to scrutiny members knowing
and using their powers on behalf of their residents.” They argue “... the
public don’t understand partnerships, delivery agencies, different funding
streams etc. but they do understand outcomes. Scrutiny has the potential
to cut through the confusion and bring the right people to the table to
look at outcomes.”
They also draw attention to the findings of a government-commissioned
evaluation: “Despite the fact that overview and scrutiny has no power to
compel decision makers to change their position, around 50% of portfolio
holders report changing policy as a result of the activities of overview
and scrutiny .’ This suggests that power to influence is greater than many
of those in the system realise.72”
Finally, they quote success in LB Hounslow:
45
72Gains F, Greasley S, Stoker G
(2004) A Summary of Research
Evidence on New Council
Constitutions in Local
Government Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister
“In Hounslow we have several examples of how we have worked
robustly but sensitively in relation to schools. Scrutiny members
have worked well with a national challenge school which has
led to a sea change in the attitudes of the special schools and
mainstream schools with special centres; – to name just three
issues of typical critical friend working.”
1.6 National surveys
1.6.1 Ofsted
Ofsted thematic reports73
The thematic reports by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate on SEN and disability
issues, such as Ofsted (2006) and Ofsted (2008) are highly regarded and
used in discussion of SEN and disability issues and provision nationally
and locally. Other such reports often have a subject focus. Some of these
contain little or no discussion of the success or otherwise of teaching
and learning of pupils of LDD.
For example, Success in science (2008) evaluates the strengths and
weaknesses of science in primary and secondary schools between 2004
and 2007 and does not mention pupils with LDD. English at the crossroads
(2009) is based principally on evidence from inspections of English
between April 2005 and March 2008 in 242 maintained schools in
England. It makes reference to low attaining pupils, but no specific mention
of LDD except in one case study. The only references to LDD in Mathematics:
understanding the score (2008) relate to the work of teaching assistants.
Report by Her Majesty’s Chief inspector for the academic year 2007-8
At least 7,000 maintained mainstream and special schools and PRUs
were inspected during 2007-8. The section dealing with pupils with
learning difficulties and/or disabilities is brief.
“For the youngest children who have learning difficulties
and/or disabilities, early and effective intervention can greatly
improve their subsequent achievement and life chances. In the
overwhelming majority of schools, these pupils make satisfactory
or better progress, and in most local areas support agencies are
working together more effectively across health, education and
social care. But there are unacceptable delays in access to some
key specialist services, and there is too much variation in the
training of teachers to teach pupils with learning difficulties
and/or disabilities”
46
73 See Appendix 13
There is a brief discussion of provision in special schools and then the
report includes, as its summary of progress, the following statement:
“Pupils who have learning difficulties and/or disabilities make
good or outstanding progress in around two thirds of all schools.
However, their progress is inadequate in 3% of primary schools
and 6% of secondary schools, almost always as a result of
inadequate provision.”
Tables 5 and 6 in Annex 3 of the report give the following figures for
mainstream schools under Achievement and Standards:
How well learners with learning difficulties/disabilities
make progress:
Primary schools
Outstanding: 14%; Good: 55%; Satisfactory: 28%; Inadequate: 3%
Secondary schools
Outstanding: 17%; Good: 44%; Satisfactory: 33%; Inadequate: 6%
Ofsted reports on teacher training providers
Examination of reports on those institutions that train teachers do not
always discuss LDD issues. This may change as a result of the concerns of
the Ofsted (2008) report on the training of new teachers (referred to
above in relation to the LA oversight of induction) and HMCI’s comments
above. The thematic review noted particular concerns about the
consistency of training quality on SEN/disability in school placements on
which so many ITT courses depend.
1.6.2 The TellUs surveys
We note the DCSF TellUs on line surveys, which are designed to gather
children and young people’s (CYP) views on their life, their school and
their local area. as a most promising national development in terms of
two key themes of this report:
•the need to maintain a watch on accountability for the broader Every
Child Matters outcomes for pupils with SEND
•the need to listen to pupils’ views to hear about what’s really
happening in their education and learn from them.
47
1.7 Conclusion
1.7.1The implications of devolution and delegation
for accountability systems
A well-constructed accountability system for SEN and disability, in which
all the elements fit together, should be a positive driver for good
practice.
“Devolved decision-making within a coherent national
framework is a central feature of the Government’s public
service reform programme.74.” “In recent years, schools have
become increasingly independent of local authorities. Indeed,
the Government has recently declared the aim of the next
stage of education reform to be ‘...the creation of a system
of independent non-fee paying state schools75’.”
Our evidence suggests the desirability of an Ofsted role in checking the
success of school collaborations, specifically in terms of provision and
outcomes for youngsters with LDD, such as specialist SEN services, and
in terms of equity of contribution/resource-sharing to enable success for
all pupils with LDD. This issue will be of increasing importance as the
‘duty to collaborate’ legislation comes into force and more resources (for
example, those freed up when the contract with the National Strategies
comes to an end in April 2011) are given to schools. While Ofsted plans
consider improving the inspection of federations, it not clear that these
will affect collaborations intended to benefit pupils with LLD.
Devolution (along with delegation of funding at local level) means that
cross-institutional provision must increasingly be provided through
partnerships between institutions and services: the commitment of
resources becomes a shared responsibility. The recent White Paper
reinforces the message:
“No school can meet the needs of all its pupils alone. Delivering
the Pupil and Parent Guarantees will require schools to work in
partnership with other schools and with wider children’s services
in order to offer more by working together than any one partner
could alone and to provide better value for money.”
Accountability systems based on single institution/service models are
unlikely to give stakeholders, including parents76 and the Secretary of
State, an adequate picture of the quality of provision across the system.
As Lord Turner has pointed out in another context:
48
74DfES (2006) The
government’s response
to the select committee for
education and skills report
on special educational
needs.
75Dean, C., Dyson, A.,
Gallannaugh, F., Howes,
A and Raffo, C (2007),
Schools, governors and
disadvantage, Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
76‘Parents’ refers to ‘parents
and/or carers’ throughout
this document.
“Regulators were too focused on institution by institution
supervision of idiosyncratic risk, central banks too focused
on monetary policy tightly defined-meeting inflation targets.
In future regulators need to be more willing to make judgements
about the sustainability of whole business models...77”
1.7.2Holistic models of curriculum and the relationship of Wave 1
(Quality First Teaching) and Wave 3 (specialist) work
Guidance on the Achievement for All initiative is explicit:” the engagement
of school leaders will be essential to developing an inclusive ethos.
Leaders must be capable of shaping an educational vision that helps
every child achieve the best they can.” This injunction is based on sound
evidence. The most recent systematic review of learning and teaching for
pupils with SEN78 makes clear that quality education for this group must
grow out of a community of practice, a ‘teacher community’, (see
Appendix 2) involving the whole school. The only people in a position to
ensure this is consistently in place are school leaders: governors, headteachers and senior staff. The argument that SENCOs should be members
of the senior leadership team is founded on that understanding. The
other leg of the argument for the importance of whole-school involvement,
led by senior managers, is based on value-for-money. The Rose Review
(Rose, 2009) found a strong belief among those it surveyed that the
universal provision of inclusive teaching reduced the need for specialist
interventions, which are more expensive in time and money terms.
1.7.3Accountability for the inclusive and broad curriculum:
leadership
Davis and Florian79 have argued for a curriculum that is flexible and
inclusive, rather than a range of ‘mainstream’ and ‘alternative’ curricula.
We are also clear (for example, from the work of Lewis and Norwich80)
that there is strong evidence that much specialist support for pupils
working at Wave 3 is typically a ‘personalised’ extension of ordinary good
teaching [Wave 1 practice]. The recent White Paper has reinforced the
government’s commitment to the Every Child Matters outcomes as an
essential part of all pupils’ education. Anderson and Fraillon81 have pointed
to the substantial pedagogic and assessment commitment involved:
“A critical difference between measuring the non-academic
outcomes and academic outcomes of schooling is the role
of self-reflection in the outcome measure. In the non-academic
outcomes both the external and internal reflections on student
49
77Adair Turner discussing the
2008 failure of the banking
system in The Economist’s
Inaugural City Lecture 2009
78Rix, J, Hall K, Nind, M,
Sheehy K and Wearmouth, J
(2009) ‘Teaching approaches
and SEN: What pedagogical
approaches can effectively
include children with special
educational needs in
mainstream classrooms? A
systematic literature review’
Support for Learning: British
Journal of Learning Support,
Volume 24, Number 2,
May 2009
79Davis, P. and Florian, L.
(2004) Teaching Strategies
and Approaches for Children
with Special Educational
Needs, A Scoping Study.
Research Report 516,
London: DfES.
80Lewis, A. & Norwich, B.
(2006) Special teaching
for special children?:
Pedagogies for inclusion.
Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
81Anderson P and Fraillon J
(2007) Measuring nonacademic outcomes of
schooling Paper to
Australian Council for
Educational Research
Conference August 2007
development are clearly intrinsic to the outcome itself. In the
academic outcomes, student self-reflection may (or may not) give
an accurate sense of student learning achievement; however the
process of self-reflection is typically used as a pedagogical tool
to support student learning growth and understanding of the
learning area...It is not just a matter of assessment.”
These systemic issues suggest that leadership from the top is essential
for any sort of lasting success in accountability for a broad curriculum
and that training for school leaders should address this area as a priority,
particularly for pupils with SEND.
1.7.4 Ofsted Section 5 and other inspections
The need for information for parents and carers has become a most
important justification for Ofsted inspections of schools. As we have
noted above, the latest Ofsted framework (Ofsted, 2009) has this
objective in its introduction:
“to provide parents with information; this informs their choices and
preferences about the effectiveness of the schools their children
attend or may attend in the future (Introduction, Para.2)”
Other types of assessment, such as the CAA, aim to inform all stakeholders
about the provision available in their area. Of course, other reports seek
to inform possible candidates, e.g. for teacher training courses, about the
quality of provision on offer.
The evidence we have assembled suggests that Ofsted Section 5
inspections over the last few years have provided limited SEN and
disability information to stakeholders. The new inspection framework
should address these concerns, as could an appropriate concentration on
the quality and, perhaps as importantly, depth of training and professional
development, as well as experience, available to all inspectors.
1.7.5 The changes that work are not necessarily dramatic
The evidence suggests that the changes required are often not dramatic,
but involve a re-emphasis on a service, aspect or process that has not
had sufficient attention in the past. For example,
•the role of SIPs in developing provision for pupils with SEN had rarely
been highlighted until Brian Lamb’s report to the Secretary of State
•the significance of the annual review of statements of SEN
50
becomes apparent when you note that it is virtually the only
quality indicator of provision and outcomes that is used right
across every type of educational institution from 3-16
•the TellUs surveys can be exploited for pursuing national
assessments of success in achieving the ECM outcomes
•all inspectors and SIPs need to be aware that an inclusive and
efficient school gives as much attention to developing its quality
first/Wave 1 teaching practice as it does to that for Wave 3.
We need also to be aware of the context of these ‘quick wins’. We have
set our children’s services upon the path to fundamental change and this
will inevitably take time to achieve. Cameron and her colleagues
(Cameron et al, 2009) have recently compared work in England and
Sweden for children in early years. They note that in Sweden:
“This [system change] has resulted in a graduate professional
as the core worker across the integrated ECEC system, and
the reform of professional education to bring the three main
professions into a common educational framework.”
“In England, while most professionals agreed that
inter-professional work was important, and many were
successfully in conducting it, the fieldwork revealed that
collaboration was rarely a priority, with few strategies in place
to achieve it. Competing government agendas, insecure funding,
a sometimes complex jigsaw of management and governance
structures on the same site, were all obstacles getting in the
way of inter-professional work. In the face of these difficulties,
the co-location of services was not a sufficient condition
for achieving good ‘working together’.”
In this connection, we may note the importance of training in SEND
issues for those, such as headteachers or directors of children’s services
with a social care background, moving to oversee professional activities
which are not part of their earlier careers.
1.7.6 Accountability: the underlying pattern?
We have summarised above a range of issues concerning accountability
systems in relation to the education of pupils with SEND. Three related
policy commitments have asked questions of, and led to changes in,
accountability systems in recent years:
•giving schools more responsibility for their own destinies within
self-evaluation systems and centralised national guidance frameworks
51
•creating new types of independent self-governing schools (academies)
• moving children’s services into increasingly close partnerships
The 2009 White Paper82 makes clear that individual schools cannot, on
their own:
•offer the specialist provision and professional development required
for the education of pupils with SEND
•provide the complete range of experiences that all pupils need to
make progress across all the ECM outcomes
The White Paper then sets out an accountability system for all schools
based on four complementary elements:
• self-evaluation
• school report card
• Ofsted inspection
• school improvement partner
The report card is new. The other three elements are well-established,
but, our evidence suggests, have not been consistent in delivering quality
in accountability on the education of pupils with SEND. All four elements,
working together, need to help stakeholders by:
• addressing the changing structures and new forms
of governance for schools
•meshing effectively with specifically SEND approaches, like annual
reviews and provision mapping, and wider cross-institutional
evaluations, like the CAA.
Whether working in terms of institutions, services or processes, the
designers of an accountability system for SEND must balance:
•the need to give professionals the flexibility for creative problemsolving in the removal of barriers to learning and participation
•the guarantee to parents that the system builders have taken
appropriate account of a key text of defensive design: “If there’s
more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result
in disaster, then somebody will do it that way83”, and put in place
the structures that will anticipate any such behaviour.
In this connection, the Ofsted website84 now includes a helpline for
professionals, parents and others to use if they have concerns about the
safeguarding of pupils in education. Most of the concern-raising about
serious and immediate issues in SEN and disability provision is left to
parents and carers at present. The Inquiry may wish to consider whether
this service should be explicitly extended to SEND matters: professionals
are often the first people to be aware of poor treatment of a pupil and
would perhaps benefit from knowledge of this confidential resource and its
explicit linkage to the education of disabled pupils and pupils with SEN.
52
82DCSF (2009) 21st Century
Schools: A World-Class
Education for Every Child
83Sometimes known
as Murphy’s Law
84 www.ofsted.gov.uk
2Local authorities’ learning
from the eight projects
53
2.1 Introduction
Eight LAs were funded to undertake innovative projects that were
concerned with improving parent confidence in the SEN process following
a request for submissions to which over 50 LAs replied. Requests from
the eight LAs were in the region of £20k – £40k for one year, September
2008 – July 2009.
LAs were required to select one of five topics for their project: one was
not selected by any LA, the other projects represented a good spread,
with a preference for i) sharing best practice in developing good
relationships between the authority and parents, through effective parent
partnership services and other local mechanisms; and ii) effective practice
by schools and local authorities in meeting the needs of children at
School Action Plus – topics 2 and 3 in Table 1.
LAs worked in partnership with other agencies, e.g. parent partnership
services and each project was evaluated locally. Parents were required to
be involved in each project including the evaluation of changes in
parental confidence: most LAs ensured that this was a key factor in their
project. LAs were supported by the National Strategies SEN adviser team
who acted as critical friends, providing both a support and challenge
function.
The LAs were required to provide evidence of good capacity for SEN such
as a recent Joint Area Review or by annual performance data. The LAs
were also required to be willing to share information as their project
progressed. In one case the LA (North Tyneside) engaged with a partner
(Sunderland); all LAs presented interim findings and reflections at
national meetings of all the projects with Brian Lamb and the Inquiry
team.
The LAs were also selected to provide a spread of geography and LA
type. Of the original 50 expressions of interest, 18 detailed bids were
invited from which the eight projects were selected.
The intention was that each project would be monitored to pick up any
changes in parental confidence and other benefits, if these were apparent.
Again, parents were required to be part of this process. In practice this
was variable with not all LAs being able to collect the amount of evidence
that would provide a sound basis for evaluation and/or not investigating
change in parental confidence. In some cases evaluation reports
presented quantitative data (e.g. from a survey) but unfortunately no
statistical analysis, conclusions apparently being drawn by visual
inspection of the data.
54
Table 3Projects undertaken by the eight LAs
Project focus
LAs
1.
Making the provision of educational psychology advice “arm’s length”
from a local authority
–
2.
Sharing best practice in developing
good relationships between the authority
and parents, through effective parent
partnership services and other local
mechanisms
Portsmouth,
Durham,
Kent,
Oxfordshire
3. Effective practice by schools and Blackburn
local authorities in meeting the needs and Darwin,
of children at School Action Plus
Newham, Durham,
Oxfordshire
4.
Developing the ‘team around the child’ approach in the school stages.
Wolverhampton
5.Other activities:
i) Extending the use of provision mapping to increase the capacity of
schools to have positive dialogue with
parents about how they are making
provision to meet children’s SENs
Durham
ii) Increasing parental confidence in schools’ use of delegated budgets to
meet identified need
N.Tyneside
The present study was conducted in June-July 2009 towards the end of
the project. Interviews were undertaken with the LA lead (in some cases
more than one person, at the LA’s suggestion) for all eight LAs and with
a parent proposed by the LAs in six cases. The other two other LAs
considered that a parent would not be able to contribute as their projects
comprised evaluations rather than developmental initiatives. There were
a total of 17 interviews (10 LA officers, 1 evaluator, and 6 parents).
The focus of the study was primarily to examine LAs’ learning from their
project and how they intended to develop the work. In some cases the
55
project was clearly part of a development previously underway. In two
LAs the project was essentially an evaluation of the LA practice; in some
LAs the project was basically a developmental project of which this was
an early phase.
The interviews with both LA officer and parents addressed five main
questions:
•To the extent that outcomes were achieved,
why they were achieved?
•To the extent that they were not achieved, why they were not
achieved?
•Over and above the evaluation of the project against its own aims
and objectives, were there wider benefits/drawbacks arising from
running the project?
•Is the work transferable? If so, what would need to be in place to
make it work elsewhere?
•How sustainable is the project in your LA and, in the light of that,
what plans does your authority have for taking the work forward?
These were modified as necessary to fit the project and the interviewee.
Given the nature of the study, parents were advised that neither they nor
their child would be identified but complete anonymity could not be
guaranteed as the LAs would be named.
In addition to the interviews, information was available from the original
project proposals; the project summaries presented at the London
meeting 12 June 2009; and the evaluation reports produced by local
evaluators.
2.2 What have LAs learned?
This section will discuss the learning from the projects as a series of
themes rather than an analysis of each project – the evaluations provide
this information. Of course, the fact that LAs undertook projects with
different foci resulted in different learning occurring across the eight.
2.2.1 The challenge of information exchange
The SEN system is complex. LAs have statutory duties to provide
information and others such as voluntary bodies also provide extensive
assistance. But it is apparent from experience as well as other studies
that parents are often insufficiently aware of important information,
confused or overwhelmed. However, if communication exchange is
56
handled well this can improve parents’ confidence as they are treated as
real partners with an important contribution. As one parent interviewee
said: ‘It gives you a sense of input… you feel like you do have some
influence’.
It is important to distinguish different aspects of the information
collection/dissemination system; various processes are involved. For
example, North Tyneside have found that it is possible to engage parents
in determining what information is necessary and helpful for parents
whose child has SEN. What is evident here is that initially parents did not
know what was necessary but that groups of parents could contribute
productively to developing a form of information template. Furthermore,
the fact that parents contributed to this process, and their views were
taken seriously was empowering. The LA is now developing a booklet
that will guide parents on questions to ask, for example the teachers’
expertise in different SEN domains, the presence of pupils with similar
problems to those of a parent’s child and the outcomes achieved. The
mother interviewed from this LA was very positive about the development
and compared it with the situation she had been in herself when she was
initially seeking information concerning her own child: ‘I would have
liked this information when I was going through’.
Developing such a system requires both foundation work and careful
cooperative engagement. The LA’s experience was that it was important
to seek and develop commitment from schools ‘so you’re not having to
twist people’s arms’. Parent forums must be real, not tokenistic.
Furthermore, as the parent noted, ‘involving parents takes quite a lot of
work’. The LA and parent also stressed the importance of recognising the
shift of powers and responsibilities: the school rather than LA is now in
many respects the key organisation although the LA also has important
statutory responsibilities as well as a key strategic role.
2.2.2 Developing communication
A frequent message from the projects was the need to develop 2-way
communication between parents and the LA and schools, and indeed
with other services. This goes beyond the examples of information
exchange. A number of examples were given. Kent’s project included
setting up two types of meeting. Parents were offered an ‘initial’ meeting
at the stage when a request for a statutory assessment had been made,
with a Parent Partnership Officer (PPO) from Partnerships with Parents
(PwP), funded by Kent LA but with a remit to operate at ‘arms length’
from the authority. A second part of the Kent project comprised contacting
parents and offering a meeting when a statutory assessment request
57
was declined: the ‘no decision’ meeting. The involvement of PwP was
considered positive by the LA interviewee because of its perceived
independence and the high parental trust in the organisation, although
use of such a service in this way also has the danger of compromising its
perceived independence when offering support to individual parents.
Parents were pleased to have early access and an opportunity to discuss
their child and the evaluation report suggests improvement in parents’
increased their knowledge of and their confidence in the LA’s statutory
assessment system, including an increased confidence in their views
being taken into account. As the parent interviewee noted, the initial
meeting’s taking place so early was very helpful: ‘these were not people
you have to wait 8-10 months to get help from’. The ‘no decision’
meeting, as in this mother’s case, could enable professionals to explain
why and how they considered particular provision could meet the child’s
needs. Importantly, this system also set up the provision, without need of
a statement, at this stage so avoiding the need to wait for a statutory
assessment and statement before provision was put into place. Hence
early communication plus appropriate action was positively regarded. In
the event, this mother’s son was not made the subject of a statement as
she had initially sought but her confidence in the decision was enhanced
by the opportunity to have the discussion at her ‘no decision’ meeting
with the Parent Partnership Officer.
Early engagement and communication was also stressed in the project
run by Blackburn with Darwen designed to develop an alternative
package of support directory and then to develop further this approach.
Again, a parent was very positive about early discussion of his child’s
needs. Interestingly both of these parents also noted how, in their view,
so much of the available literature and guidance on the SEN system
available to parents was negative: ‘If you go on the [name of voluntary
body] website they provide material that implies a fight is necessary’.
Their experience showed that an alternative outcome was possible.
Parents in other projects also expressed both their wish for real
communication – not tokenism – and that their confidence in the SEN
system had improved as a result of effective communication, even in
some cases where they didn’t achieve all their originally desired outcomes.
The communication process had shown respect for them as parents and
provided an opportunity actually to influence decisions. This was the case
both for work focussing on their own child and also when parents
contributed to wider discussions to develop policy and practice. In
Durham, for example, parents of children with SEN contributed to
professional development meetings of the SENCOs within the Community
of Learning (CoL) schools undertaking the project. These events were
58
judged by participants to be much enhanced by parents’ contributions
providing personal accounts – the evaluation of school staffs’ self
perceptions indicated very positive and widespread increases in their
own confidence. The decision to use parents from outside the CoL was
found to be a success by ‘taking the tension out’ as no SENCO was
directly linked to any parent’s narrative.
The third element of Kent’s project comprised workshops to improve
knowledge of the SEN system and communication. Three workshops
were run for parents/carers, school-based staff, LA services staff and
other professionals and a further four workshops were run for parents.
Overall substantial increases in knowledge and confidence were found
but the numbers of parents involved overall (37), disappointingly, far
exceeded the number of professionals (10). If communication is to be
productive it must be two-way; it cannot be assumed that the professionals
are communicating effectively as these two quotations from parents
taken from the evaluation indicate:
“Many parents have negative experiences with schools/LA …
communication is the key, but I feel schools are very defensive.”
“There needs to be careful, frequent, accurate, truthful
communication...without communication parents are
antagonised and disempowered.”
These examples, and many others across projects, indicate clearly the
central importance of effective and appropriate forms of 2-way
communication. Not only is this a fundamental right, that parents should
have every reason to expect of a service provided, it is also an effective
approach to increase their confidence, from which their trust also
increased.
Furthermore, LAs and schools benefitted as effective communication
facilitated their ability to carry out their roles and address the children’s
needs. But this requires development for parents and both LA and school
staff. Newham identified the importance of effective communication
between parents and schools, not only the LA, as schools’ independence
made their role increasingly critical. This point was echoed by Kent, a very
large LA, whose project included workshops, one designed to improve
communication skills while others were planned to improve understanding
of the SEN system among both parents and professionals. In both cases,
but particularly for the latter workshops, the evaluation found evidence
for an increase in parent/carer knowledge of school based provision;
however, the numbers of professionals attending were disappointing so
limiting the potential impact on school practice.
59
2.2.3 Provision
Communication is essential but so too is appropriate provision to meet
the needs of individual children and groups/communities. Making
provision to meet the needs of children with SEN has been a major
challenge conceptually and in practice. Relevant issues concern location
(e.g. mainstream or specialist provision), teaching approaches, staff to
deliver interventions and support, suitability of physical resources (e.g.
access, acoustics) and funding. Some projects focused on aspects of
provision including funding models and sought parents’ views on
previous development (through an evaluative study) or the further
development of an existing approach.
The background to Oxfordshire’s project was the decision in 2006 to
delegate all centrally held funding for secondary aged pupils with
statements to schools, There were positive indicators that this had been
successful. The aim of the Oxfordshire project was to review overall levels
of delegated funding and share good practice for pupils with higher
levels of need as a means to further improve relationships between the
LA, secondary schools and parents. In particular the project sought to
explore whether, by reducing reliance on statements, pupils’ needs could
be met appropriately, their outcomes could be as good or better, and
parents would be confident that appropriate provision was being made,
and that thy trusted the LA and school.
The project comprised a number of activities but was essentially an
evaluation of practice, drawing mainly on the views of parents of Year 7
pupils with statements or at school action plus. Their main focus was on
secondary school practice but it is interesting to note that parents gave
more positive judgments of provision in secondary schools than their
children’s previous primary schools when interviewed in term 3 of Year 7.
Furthermore, levels of satisfaction were similar for parents of pupils with
a statements or at school action plus.
A range of approaches to support transition were implemented by
different schools, with positive comments from parents whose children
experienced different approaches – see Section 2.5 below. Parents also
stressed their wish for specialist teaching support (e.g. for dyslexia or
speech and language difficulties). The issue has been picked up also by
Sir Jim Rose in his recent report on the teaching of pupils with literacy
difficulties. Parents also sought intervention that recognised their child’s
particular needs rather than their being ‘fitted into’ an existing package.
However, the project identified good practice in schools with which
parents were satisfied. Furthermore, parents did not seek statements,
indeed there had been a substantial reduction in numbers of new
60
statements since 2006, and the LA’s approach in this respect had a good
degree of parental confidence in its appropriateness. The LA was intent
on using the results of their project this year to share good practice
across the authority.
Other LAs such as Newham and Blackburn with Darwen also explored
models of funding that reduced reliance on statements. Again there was
a good deal of parental support where they had confidence that the
provision would meet their child’s needs: these projects did not find a
strong demand, in general, for statements. Newham’s survey of parents
found that parents of children with statements and those who were
subject to exceptional resource funding (ERF) were more likely to consider
that the funding had made a positive difference to their child, across a
range of domains including being happier and making progress, than
parents whose children had statements. However, there was some
evidence that the latter group of parents had a focus on the resources
and appeared to have doubts about provision at secondary school, the
statement therefore being seen as providing security in this respect.
Blackburn with Darwen had introduced Individual Pupil Resourcing
Agreements (IPRAs) in 2004 to provide enhanced funding at School
Action Plus and reduce the need for a statement. This funding for IPRAs
was delegated to schools and had gained the confidence of schools and
parents. This project developed the approach further to fund more flexible
packages of support that addressed the five Every Child Matters (ECM)
outcomes and addressed training needs (see below). This was positively
received by both parents and schools. As a result the LA was moving on
to develop this approach further. This included Provision Mapping
designed to show clearly the support being received by a child and the
costings of the elements of this provision. Other LAs had also found
support for provision mapping. This approach acknowledges the concerns
of parents, including several of those interviewed, that they were
insufficiently aware of the provision package for their child. The inclusion
of financial information assists audit but parents were less interested in
the funding available to a school than the provision being made by the
school to support their child. Provision mapping may also usefully include
details of external services as well as the use of the school’s own
resources, so providing a comprehensive account for parents.
2.2.4 Involving parents in SEN panels
Decisions regarding provision to be made by LAs for children with SEN
typically involve a panel of LA officers and others including representatives
of professionals involved by law in statutory assessments (typically
61
educational psychologists and consultant community paediatricians) and
in many cases teachers (heads, SENCOs). Portsmouth’s project went
further. Parents were recruited and 44 were trained to become members
of the authority’s Inclusion Support Panel (the panel that advises the LA
on whether or not to carry out a statutory assessment or issue a
statement), a greater number than originally expected (‘vastly
oversubscribed’ stated the LA officer, a fair judgement as the aim was
about 30). Our parent interviewee reported that the ‘training was
excellent – couldn’t fault it’ and he was strongly of the view that other
parents involved had equally positive views about the initiative.
Since December 2008 at least two parents have sat on every panel.
Evaluation of the project indicates very positive findings. These parents/
carers reported feeling much more knowledgeable, empowered and
enthusiastic to continue on panels. These findings were reinforced by our
parent interviewee who was very willing to continue as a panel member
as he could see how beneficial the system was for parents whose children
were being considered by the panels. Furthermore, he commented that
’I’ve found the whole thing very rewarding’ and compared this with his
own experience when his children were going through the SEN system
(in another LA) when ‘I didn’t know the process and I didn’t have a lot
of confidence in it’. Interestingly he also noted that being involved in this
way had other benefits ‘also building up your own self esteem and
passing on the confidence to other parents’. The evaluation found that
almost all parents (those on panels or not) expressed more confidence in
ISP decisions once aware that parents had become trained and voting
members of the panels.
Interestingly, there has so far been no change in the pattern of decisions
made by the ISP. This can be interpreted in different ways, of course, but
the parents themselves considered their responses have been broadly in
line with the majority, suggesting consensus rather than their views being
sidelined. Furthermore, professionals on the panel were also positive and
other LAs in the 8- project initiative have expressed great interest in this
project. The LA’s perspective on the success of this initiative is that it had
the benefit of being ‘hands on’ – not simply a consultation exercise which
typically received little interest and engagement. Training is crucial and
the initial phase made a higher than expected demand on officer time
(but this reflected the 50% over-subscription of parents). Positive spin
offs identified by the LA included an increase in the number of parents
wishing to attend panels that were considering their own child.
It is also of note that the ISP requires panel members to consider relatively
limited amounts of information, avoiding parents being confronted with
large files on each child. An e-system was already in place which was
62
also helpful. Running costs are low, just expenses but with a small fund
to recompense those parents who lose financially by attending a panel.
Our parent interviewee also commented that there was now interest in
extending support ‘we’re looking at different ways to do this for other
parents’, for example by going out to meet with them.
This model appears to be readily transferable to other LAs at low cost
after initial training of the first group of parents. Issues to consider
include the existing operation of the panel which should be parent
friendly before introducing parents to its meetings, e.g. limited
documentation to read; positive, effective and supportive relationships
between panel meetings; effective interpersonal and communication
styles; setting up effective training; and a clear system for dealing with
confidentiality, including part of the training programme. There is also a
benefit in reviewing the system periodically and offering parents the
opportunity for feedback and debriefing – some cases may be particularly
difficult, even distressing, and support for parents to discuss their own
emotional feelings would be useful.
2.2.5 Supporting parents at transition
Children are subject to a number of significant changes in their school
careers. The first and arguably the most significant is the transition from
home to their first educational or care setting. The nature of this transition,
including age at which it occurs, varies depending on early child care
(e.g. at home or with a child minder, playgroup) and the provision
available. Later transitions include Key Stage 1 to 2 and Key Stage 2 to 3
(primary to secondary school); finally there is the transition from
compulsory schooling (end of Key Stage 4) to post-16 education,
employment or training. The Wolverhampton project focused on the
transition into school provision at around age five years.
The LA had a well established system, the Team Around the Child (TAC),
which included regular meetings of professionals and parent(s) at preschool to discuss and plan for a child with complex needs. Central to this
system was the key worker and Wolverhampton’s policy that the key
worker should be chosen by the parent(s), not allocated by the LA. This
system had run successfully for several years at pre-school and the project
focused on extending it into the first year of school, in most cases special
schools. The project identified that the extension of the TAC into school
continued to enhance parental confidence but also that changes were
likely to be appropriate, as the child moved through the school. This was
partly driven by the relatively high person-time allocation required but it
was also judged appropriate to the child’s and parent’s changing needs.
63
However, there continued to be strong support for the parent choosing
the key worker, at school as well as pre-school. This required a careful
transition process so that the parent could get to know potential key
workers and so make an informed choice. Initially after transfer the preschool key worker continued with the child but this was reviewed after
TAC meetings in school.
Interestingly, many parents have chosen non-teachers, perhaps a teaching
assistant or speech and language therapist, for example. At interview,
one parent noted she had chosen a nursery nurse as she was ‘more a
guardian than authority figure’ and had both personal and professional
experience of children with SEN, as well as personal characteristics that
were similar to those of the mother. This example indicates the range of
factors a parent may take into account to gain confidence – ultimately,
however, ‘you want somebody who bonds with your child’.
The project in Wolverhampton indicated that the TAC could usefully be
amended with a reduction in numbers of meetings and a number of
professionals attending as certain inputs were no longer necessary.
However, the LA also appreciated that numbers of TACs will increase
year on year from this pilot and so sustainability would require careful
review in the future in order that parents’ high confidence at present
would be maintained. But, the central importance of informed parental
selection of the key worker would remain.
The Oxfordshire project was a study of existing practice and included a
focus on primary-secondary transition. Parents were generally positive
about transition arrangements, although schools did vary, and the
evaluation report identified a number of activities found helpful,
including:
• secondary school SENCO attendance at year 6 reviews
• personalised packages of visits for children whilst in year 6
• summer school introductions to secondary school
•a transition worker providing individual preparation before transition
and individual support for the term following transition
• teaching assistant key workers supporting before and after transition
• lunchtime clubs for vulnerable children
• buddy systems
• staggered school opening and closing for year 7
When asked what advice they would give to other parents about
transition, the parents involved in the project focused on effective
communication, taking advantage to see and talk with the secondary
school and maintaining that dialogue once their child had transferred.
64
The importance of being assertive in discussing their child’s needs was
stressed and then monitoring the provision that was provided. One
parent interviewed for the evaluation identified a 10 week programme
of initiatives in their child’s primary school which, collectively, had clearly
been seen as very beneficial.
2.3Can LA learning from the projects be
generalised?
The eight projects were relatively low cost (£20k – 40k) and took various
forms. Two were essentially evaluations of existing provision but the
other six comprised development initiatives. Each project has produced
interesting and very worthwhile findings but a key issue is whether the
learning experienced by the project LAs can be generalised so that other
LAs may also produce positive outcomes and, if so, what is necessary?
Discussions with project LAs indicated that all considered their project
was indeed generalisable to other LAs. In some cases questions of the
relevance of demographic factors was raised, including LA size (population
and geographic spread) and ethnic composition. However, these were
not seen as inhibitory to generalisation. Neither was finance a very
significant factor: the budget was relatively small, although not
insignificant, and could be prioritised. Nevertheless, the fact that there
was a financial input from the DCSF was welcomed as it indicated both
seriousness and importance attributed to the initiative, and reinforced
the need for considered bids and accountability for the implementation.
What then are the main issues? These may be summarised as follows.
• Commitment to and engagement with parents
All project LAs had a history of parental engagement but this varied in
degree and nature. The experience of the project indicated that, even so,
LAs developed new learning from their experience, identifying aspects of
work with parents that they had not sufficiently recognised in the past.
Nevertheless, a fundamental commitment to engage with parents as
partners was crucial. The degree of engagement of parents by the eight
projects varied. Two were essentially evaluations of past practice whereas
others involved development work with parents. There is certainly a
benefit in evaluating past practice but a clear benefit from the
developmental projects was where evaluation took place of that
project.
In these cases parents were involved more comprehensively in the
projects rather than only as providers of feedback regarding practice.
65
They were able to comment not only on failings (or successes) of the
system but more particularly on attempts to improve it by innovative
practice, in which they were involved.
The means whereby parents were engaged will vary with the nature of
the project, but a fundamental commitment to parent involvement
coupled with active implementation of this value position in the project
are keys to success.
• The project as a vehicle in itself
It would be unrealistic to expect all LAs to want and be able to run with
all of the development projects. Each takes time and resources to organise
and implement properly. It is important that each LA considers priorities,
among these initiatives or others, but perhaps the key issue is the active
engagement with a project. The focus is, of course, important – it needs
to be important and manageable – but so too is the nature of the learning
from the engagement, for LAs, parents and schools. Experience of these
LAs suggests that there were some common experiences and gains from
undertaking a project per se, in addition to any project-specific benefits.
Furthermore, there seemed to be added value in that engagement in a
project aimed at increasing parental confidence on occasion generalised
to other LA authorities.
Some key factors to consider for the nature of future projects include:
1.The project should be developmental not just an evaluation of
existing practice
2.Parents must be central in a number of aspects including:
a. collaborating with the LA in conceptualising, creating
and confirming the project;
b. being actively engaged in an element of new practice;
c. contributing feedback on their experiences;
d. as recipients of feedback and evaluation in order to contribute
to the interpretation of findings.
3.Projects should also include LA and school staff – system
development must engage those involved in operating the
system, not just parents and their children.
• Support and challenge
Also important for the success of the projects, and acknowledged as such
by LAs, was the requirement to formulate a bid meeting specific parameters
and associated processes and the involvement of the National Strategies
SEN Advisers who contributed to the planning, design and analysis of the
projects and acted as critical friends, checking that the projects were on
target and on timetable. They provided a welcome and respected balance
of challenge and support which LAs valued. LAs also had the benefit of
66
national meetings where they presented their interim findings and had
the opportunity to learn about each others’ work. The association with
the Lamb Inquiry, and the presence of Brian Lamb and the Inquiry team,
provided an additional benefit that would be more difficult to match in
future but regional seminars could be useful. Furthermore, the presence
of both LA staff and parents was both a further opportunity for joint
learning and another opportunity for LAs to make clear statements about
parental engagement and the value of their involvement.
• Local authorities and schools
Several LA officers made the observations that generalisation to other
LAs, and indeed sustainability within their own LAs, depended on the
relationship between the authority and the schools. As power has shifted
from LAs to schools so the relationship has altered. These initiatives had
benefited from good LA-school relationships which recognised that LAs
needed to work collaboratively and seek schools’ engagement, which
schools could decline. As one LA officer noted, in their project ‘the schools
were very, very committed’. Improving parental confidence in the SEN
system was not simply a matter of confidence in the LA system: parents
needed confidence in schools’ contributions. Furthermore, it was at
school level where ultimately the main basis for confidence lay, in the
day to day experiences of the pupils. One LA officer stressed that ‘with
[number] of schools, we [LA] don’t have the resource. the governing
bodies have to take this on’. The evidence from these projects indicates
that parents are often lacking knowledge and understanding of and
confidence in the school’s approach to meeting their child’s needs and
also that particular effort is necessary to engage schools with the projects
– take up/responses were low in some LAs.
However, some aspects of the SEN system are LA issues, not least their
statutory responsibilities. Parents who were interviewed recognised the
different responsibilities and highlighted specific issues pertinent to
schools or LA as relevant – which indicates how they had personally
benefitted from the project with which they had been involved. However,
they also identified some common factors at school and LA level, perhaps
particularly well summed up by this parent’s explanation of the benefits
of the project with which she was engaged:‘...taking the bureaucracy
out of it and putting the human touch back in’. Compare this view with
that of the parent who also had very positive views on the project but
who commented on the negative information available, for example on
the internet: ‘every bit of literature tells you to prepare for a fight’.
• Evaluation of projects
The evaluation of future projects would benefit from a combination of
qualitative (e.g. interviews, group discussion) and quantitative (e.g. surveys
67
with rating scales) measures. The evaluations undertaken for this initiative
were all small scale – all developmental projects had small budgets for
their evaluation as the majority of the grant was, appropriately, for the
implementation of the innovative project. The use of interviews is time
consuming but potentially rewarding for producing richer data, and the
evaluation reports of the Lamb projects show the benefits of this method.
Surveys have the benefit of larger numbers of respondents to provide
breadth and address representativeness but some surveys here had limited
numbers of respondents, substantially below expectation at times.
The use of combined methods seeks to gain the benefits and reduce the
disadvantages of each. However, to gain these benefits requires an
appropriate sample – e.g. in terms of size – and preparation of participants
so that they are able to provide as full information as possible. Furthermore,
if reasonable sample size is attained for a survey then the use of statistical
analysis rather than visual inspection of the data is indicated.
It is also important to consider the most appropriate way of accessing
parents, whether through an organisation such as a parent partnership
service or directly to individual parents. In the former case there are
issues regarding the nature of the organisation, e.g. their independence,
pressure group, organisational ability to support the project. In the latter
case there are issues of ensuring coverage of the relevant parent
population and avoiding overload on small numbers of willing and
committed parents.
2.4 Can the project be sustained?
Local authorities were confident that their initiatives could be sustained
after the funding ceased. This was aided by several factors:
• Part of a developmental process
The projects could generally be seen as part of an initiative that had
started prior to the Lamb Inquiry. Although not necessarily specifically
focused on improving parental confidence, all were seen as offering
important contributions to improve practice for children with SEN. As such,
improving parental confidence in the SEN system was also possible. The
LAs were implementing actions as appropriate to maintain and enhance
momentum. In some cases this involved making modifications to the
original ideas to improve sustainability in the future – e.g. Wolverhampton’s
scaling down of the Team Around the Child at school age on the basis of
the experience of the project. In some cases proposals for future work had
been put forward to the appropriate LA officer or committee; in other
cases specific plans had been made to roll out the initial pilot – e.g. in
68
Durham which has a conference planned for the autumn to roll out beyond
the original Community of Learning group of schools.
•The degree of embeddedness
The project could enable an initiative to have achieved its objective and
become part of practice – e.g. Portsmouth’s inclusion of trained parents
on the Inclusion Support Panel where sufficient parents had been
trained and the system was established, although, in time new parents
would need to be recruited and trained.
The projects concerned with funding for pupils with SEN had
reached different stages of development but in each case there was
commitment to the approach being taken by the LA in question and
increasing consolidation taking place, although Newham discovered
that, despite their system of Exceptional Resource Funding at School
Action Plus being well established, and evidence for its acceptability,
there continued to be parents who were less than fully convinced and
sought the ‘security’ of a statement.
• Limited financial commitment
The limited funding of the projects was a plus as LAs had demonstrated
success at low cost, so providing support for sustainability, especially in
the present financial climate.
• Commitment
In addition to such factors a primary consideration was the LAs’
commitment to engaging with parents and improving their confidence.
This was characterised by the ways projects had been set up, with true
partnerships. Of course, this was built into the remit but, even so, the
LAs’ genuine commitment was confirmed by those parents that were
interviewed as well as by the local evaluations of individual projects.
True partnership with parents and a commitment to engage with them also
require recognition that parents’ responses may not be in line with the
ideas, policies and practice of the LA and schools. In the developmental
innovative projects parents were engaged and were generally positive,
albeit with some caveats. Furthermore, these LAs wanted to develop and
improve practice; in the two evaluations of existing practice, some potentially
uncomfortable findings were revealed including parents’ differential
confidence in primary compared with secondary schools – interestingly the
results were contradictory in the two LAs – and the continuing concerns of
parents for the ‘safety/security’ of a statement for their child despite prior
work attempting to reassure parents by alternative systems. Developmental
projects benefit from an ability to tackle these challenging perspectives
and attempt to build in responses to the feedback received.
69
2.5 Conclusions
The initiative to fund eight projects through the Lamb Inquiry to improve
parental confidence in the SEN system may be judged a success. Four of
the five original types of project were implemented across the LAs. Most
were clearly developmental projects with two focusing on evaluation of
previously established procedures concerned with funding. Each project
had a local evaluation which provided interesting and generally useful
evidence although this varied: in some cases proposed pre- versus postproject comparisons were not carried out and some surveys had very low
numbers of respondents; one project had a late deadline for responses
and will analyse their findings in the autumn term. Overall impact for
future LA practice was enhanced where parents were actively engaged
in the projects.
These low cost projects provided very useful vehicles for LAs to work
productively with parents and to develop practice that improves parents’
confidence in the SEN system. Furthermore, there is evidence both for
sustainability and the potential for generalisablity to other LAs. Although
at this stage there is only limited evidence for the success of any one
project, or for its generalisablity to other LAs, the aggregated evidence
indicates the success of the initiative overall. For a modest financial
outlay important improvements in parental confidence can be achieved.
Fundamental to success was the commitment of LAs to true, not tokenistic
or paternalistic parental engagement and a clear aim to improve
confidence and work collaboratively with parents. The focus of the project
was an issue of importance to the LA and its parents but the specific
focus was less important than the manner in which it was carried out,
including the commitment of the LA and its engagement with parents.
In taking forward the learning from the Lamb projects there are two
issues to consider: whether and, if so, how an initiative from one LA
might be implemented by other LAs; and whether and, if so, how a
further phase of similar projects might be run.
First, the evidence from the Lamb projects suggests that each could be
undertaken by other LAs. The following guidance is proposed to any LA
wishing to undertake a project with a similar focus.
•Examine the LA’s final report to the Lamb Inquiry, including the
results of the local evaluation.
•A project needs to be developed relative to the existing policy and
practice in the LA. This requires consideration of the pre-existing
situation relevant to the project, for example the current level of
parental engagement in the LA’s SEN system; the nature of the
current funding system for support of students (e.g. where new
70
funding models are under consideration); the LA’s system for
supporting groups of schools (e.g. area-based, training and
development); the existing nature, including membership and
procedures, of panels determining provision (e.g. the inclusion
of parents on such panels).
Other LAs may prefer to develop a different project. In either case the
following factors should be considered for new projects designed to
improve the SEN system and parents’ confidence:
•Parents should be involved throughout the project. They should be
fundamentally engaged in:
o Identifying the focus and aims of the project
o The provision of data, providing information and opinions
relevant to the topic
o The evaluation design including the identification of information
to collect and sample
o The interpretation of the findings to provide parent perspectives on the outcomes
o Identifying the learning for the future and the future planning
on the basis of the project’s findings
•The project should have a clear parent focus, with parents
actively engaged in the project itself. This could include, as
appropriate to the project:
o Providing input e.g. into the training of professional staff
o Developing support for parents e.g. to receive information; opportunities to engage with the school or LA to influence decisions
•The project should be developmental rather than a review of past
or existing practice.
• It should address an issue of importance for policy/practice
•Evaluation should be built into the project in order that learning
can influence subsequent practice and sustainability
Second, national support for a further phase of projects would provide
an important element in a framework to optimise their delivery. The
following two points are relevant:
• External support and challenge should be included, and two
complementary forms are proposed:
o Involvement of the National Strategies SEN team as ‘critical friends’ who would be involved in the planning, design and analysis of projects, including regular reporting by the LA (e.g. once a term), so providing support and challenge.
o Presentations at seminars where practice and learning arising from the projects is presented and shared with other LAs.
71
•Parents should be active participants in these seminars
•They should be relatively small scale to optimise engagement of
attendees, suggesting a regional format
•National contributions should be included to signal their importance
and seriousness, and to facilitate further dissemination of practice
•Projects can be successful with relatively modest financial support;
however, financial input is an important factor, not only in real terms
to enhance resources but also to support commitment and
accountability. A similar sum (£20 – £40k) would seem appropriate.
Looking to the future, the use of a low cost project format, as evident
here, provides a potentially very useful model for widespread roll out
across the country. Ideally a similar initiative with a small budget for a
group of LAs should be implemented with increased coverage, possibly
by LAs continuing with one or more partners and by the organising of
regional rather than national meetings. An evaluation of that further
initiative could build on the evidence of the Lamb projects to identify
areas of policy and practice that have a high priority and where there
projects across several LAs provide strong evidence of success and
potential for generalisablity to other LAs.
72
3Consultation questionnaire –
views on the special educational
needs system, from parents,
students, school staff and other
professionals working with
children, schools and families
3.1Summary of questionnaire findings:
the responses at a glance
The Institute of Education and the University of Warwick, with advice
from the Lamb Inquiry team, designed, ran and analysed a largely webbased survey for the Inquiry. The survey involved the preparation of four
questionnaires to seek users’ and professionals’ opinions about their
experience of the SEN system. The questionnaires were differentiated for
parents, school staff, other professionals85 and school students, so
covering much of the same ground in slightly different ways.
The main results of the survey are summarised below.
Outcomes (full account at 3.3)
Questions to parents:
•What sort of outcomes do you want for your child
over the next year or more?
•Has the school discussed these outcomes with you?
Questions to school staff and other professionals:
•Do you discuss medium term outcomes (over the next
year or more) with parents of pupils with SEN?
• If ‘yes’, what sort of outcomes do parents say they want?
Key findings
•Parents wanted success for their children in a wide
range of outcomes.
•39% of parents responding said that the school
attended by their child had not discussed the child’s
outcomes with them.
•22% of school staff responding said that they did
not discuss children’s outcomes with parents
Children’s learning and progress (full account at 3.4)
Questions to parents:
• What helps your child to learn and progress?
• What gets in the way of your child’s learning and progress?
Questions to school staff and other professionals:
• What helps children to learn and progress?
• What gets in the way of children’s learning and progress?
74
85‘Other professionals’
included anyone working
within SEN system who was
not a member of a school
staff. Respondents included
LA staff, educational
psychologists, therapists
and other health service
staff and many others.
Questions to students:
• Think of three things which help you to learn and do well at school.
•Which three things make it hard for you to learn or do well at school?
•Which three things could we change to make it easier for you
to learn and do well at school?
• Do you get extra help with your learning at school?
• How does it help you?
Key findings
•The teaching style or environment praised by one parent was
often criticised by another. Many items recorded as helpful by
some parents were seen as unhelpful by others.
•Most frequently, respondents considered that good teaching,
adapted to the child’s needs, strengths and interests, along with an
appropriately adapted curriculum was helpful in supporting progress.
•Training was mentioned frequently. It was acknowledged that staff
needed to have knowledge, expertise and understanding. Many
respondents felt that lack of these impeded students’ learning
and progress.
•Many parents appeared to take the view that one-to-one and small
group support was the best way for their child to be involved in the
curriculum although some reported a lack of training for those
delivering the support.
•School staff and other professionals had more doubts about the
appropriateness of children being supported in this way, with some
pointing out that the children most in need were being supported
by the least trained staff.
Parental confidence in the SEN system (full account at 3.5)
Questions to parents:
• What gives you confidence in the SEN system?
• What reduces your confidence in the SEN system
Questions to school staff and other professionals86:
• What gives parents confidence in the SEN system?
• What reduces the confidence that parents have in the SEN system?
Key findings
•The people working within the system were often reported
as giving parents confidence; but the system itself was often
seen as reducing their confidence.
•A quarter of the parents responding to this survey reported
that they had no confidence in the SEN system.
75
86It should be noted that this
was a survey of the views
of individuals. The school
staff and other professionals
who responded are most
unlikely to have worked
with the parents or students
who responded to the
questionnaire
•Parents welcomed positive, informative and supportive
communication, including ‘being listened to’.
•School staff attitudes and overall competence in SEN matters,
together with specific interventions, were seen as fundamental
to parental confidence.
•Parents value being consulted and treated as partners.
•Early identification of children’s needs and having these needs
met are of critical importance for parental confidence in both
LA and school practices
How well the SEN system works: additional views
from the professionals (full account at 3.6)
The professionals were asked two questions not asked of the parents.
Questions to school staff and other professionals:
• What works well in the SEN system?
• What doesn’t work well in the SEN system
Key findings
•The responses covered a wide range of elements of the system.
•School staff and other professionals appreciated the expert input
from local authorities and other agencies
•Although many professionals liked the idea of delegated
funding, just as many did not, citing a lack of ring-fencing
for SEN and the fact that there was no apparent monitoring
to ensure that it was actually spent on SEN.
•Lack of funding was understood but the time it took
to receive funding was not.
•The SEN system was regarded by some as bureaucratic,
complex, difficult to initiate and overly long.
•Some argued for more special schools as some children with
SEN ‘could or should never be integrated into mainstream schools’,
whilst others believed that there should be no special schools
and inclusion could work very well but not whilst special
schools still existed.
•Other responses commented on conflict in a system that
promotes inclusion while emphasising performance tables.
•The importance of correct placement was mentioned.
Specialist provision, in units or special schools was seen
as important but the supply of places was a concern.
•Responses suggested that knowledgeable, skilled and trained
SENCOs, teachers and support staff were highly beneficial. But badly
paid, unskilled and untrained staff put children with SEN at risk.
76
Parental views on statutory assessment (full account at 3.7)
Questions to parents:
•If your child has a statement or if you’ve tried to get
a statement for your child:
• What did you find helpful about the process?
• What did you find unhelpful about the process?
Key findings
•19% of the respondents stated that they did not find
the statutory assessment process helpful.
•Parents reported that support from individuals and organisations
was extremely important and sometimes the only thing that helped
them through difficult times.
•Not all parents received the help they wanted. Lack of support, poor
attitude and working practices of some schools, individuals and
organisations was strongly remarked upon and added greatly to the
unhappiness and stress of parents
•Parent Partnership services were generally considered extremely
helpful and supportive although some parents felt that they were
not impartial enough and worked too closely with local authorities
•Despite the dissatisfactions expressed, only 1.8% of parents suggested
the possibility of separation of statutory assessment from provision
•Respondents saw the procedure of statutory assessment as complex
and bureaucratic to the extent that other parents might not be able to
go through it successfully owing to lack of time, money or education.
•Some parents found the process a positive one since it had clear
timescales, included parents and gave opportunity for meetings to
discuss the children.
•Many parents felt that having the children assessed and diagnosed
was beneficial, since it led to others taking the children’s needs
seriously and provided a complete picture of needs.
Views on statements (full account at 3.8)
Questions to parents:
•If your child has a statement:
What is helpful about your child’s statement?
What is unhelpful about your child’s statement?
Questions to school staff and other professionals:
•If you work with one or more children with a statement:
What is helpful about the statement?
What is unhelpful about the statement?
77
Key findings
•Parents saw the statement as a document that would provide
statutory access to provision, but felt that schools and LAs did not
always implement statements in full. Some parents felt that there
was little they could do about this.
•Statements were appreciated by parents because they contained
information about the children’s needs and allowed them to be
understood by everyone. School staff and other professionals liked
the fact that the statements contained information about the best
ways to teach and support the children.
•Statements were not always felt to be an accurate representation of
what children needed, eg in relation to the hours of therapy included.
•Statement wording was often vague and ‘woolly’ with provision and
support not quantified, or else was so prescriptive that schools and
staff felt forced to carry out actions which they considered were not
in the best interests of the children.
•Statements were sometimes considered to use complex jargon that
was not easy for the lay person or school staff to understand.
How to improve the SEN system (full account at 3.9)
Question to parents, school staff and other professionals:
• How can we improve the SEN system?
Key findings
•The wide range of views resulted in very low response rates
for most categories.
•Greater training and recognition for those working with students
with SEN was desired.
•Respondents suggested that SENCOs should only be concerned with
that role and should always be members of the schools’ SMTs.
•Respondents wanted SEN system to be made less bureaucratic, less
complex, more open and transparent, easier to access & more flexible.
•Funding was felt to be inadequate and delegated funds were
considered a mixed blessing – clear auditing and monitoring
processes were requested. Parents wanted a greater say in how
the money was spent; some requested an individual budget
for their child to use as they considered appropriate.
Additional views on the SEN system (full account at 3.10)
This section presents responses to the open-ended question at the end
of the questionnaire.
78
Question to parents, school staff and other professionals:
•Is there anything else you would like to tell us about
the SEN system?
Key findings
Parents
•Some parents had had to fight at length for provision for their
children. For many this meant a huge financial and emotional cost.
•For many children, having a statement was no guarantee of their
needs being met.
•The focus of the school system was academic, on targets and exams,
whilst placing little emphasis on social needs of children. This meant
many pupils left school with no qualifications and low self esteem.
3.2 Introduction
The Institute of Education and the University of Warwick, with advice
from the Lamb Inquiry team, designed, ran and analysed a largely webbased survey for the Inquiry. The survey involved the preparation of four
questionnaires to seek users’ and professionals’ opinions about their
experience of the SEN system. The questionnaires were differentiated for
parents, school staff, other professionals87 and school students, so
covering much of the same ground in slightly different ways.
The four questionnaires were made available on the Lamb Inquiry website
and publicised through the Inquiry’s Reference and Advisory Groups. In
this way they were made known to charities, forums, unions, parents,
teachers, students, educational psychologists, social workers, SENCOs,
and staff in children’s services.
The questionnaires were advertised and paper versions distributed from
the start of May 2009. The website remained open for completion of the
questionnaires until the end of June 2009.
Structure of the report
This section introduces the survey, its structure, the respondents and the
format of the report. Sections 4.3-4.10 set out the responses to particular
questions. Section 4.11 reports on the many emails sent to the Inquiry
team. Section 4.12 suggests some conclusions.
Each section reports on:
• the question(s) covered
• the respondent groups
79
87‘Other professionals’
included anyone working
within SEN system who was
not a member of a school
staff. Respondents included
LA staff, educational
psychologists, therapists
and other health service
staff and many others.
• the key findings
•more detailed issues, including relevant quotations
to clarify points of view
Note: Responses are not directly comparable: the questions for each
group are slightly different and do not relate to different reports of the
same experiences.
3.2.1 Respondents
Just over 3,400 questionnaires were completed. Responses were received
from 1,941 parents, 544 school staff, 516 other professionals working
with children88, schools and families and 400 students. Approximately
90% of the questionnaires were completed online; approximately 10%
were paper returns.
Those completing the questionnaires were generally a self-selecting group
and many, particularly the parents, were aware of the Lamb Inquiry owing
to a heightened awareness of and involvement in SEN issues due to
difficulties they had experienced. It is likely that those who had no concerns
about the SEN system were less likely to complete the questionnaires. As
shown below, the overall profile of parents responding to the questionnaire
differed from that of a national sample of parents of children with SEND
in several respects. The findings should be interpreted with this in mind.
3.2.2 Approaches to reporting
Some findings below are based on samples of respondents owing to the
large number of completed questionnaires (see Table 10a in Appendix A.
Not all the responses to the questions are analysed in this report. A
single question generated many different comments. Only the issues
mentioned most frequently are reported upon unless they provide a
comparison with other comments.
For each open-ended question, the respondents were given space in
which to write up to three separate answers. So, if a respondent felt
particularly strongly about their response to a particular question, the
same or similar answer could be stated for all three. For this reason the
figures are given as a percentage of the coded comments made, rather
than of respondents.
All quotations are reproduced as they appeared in the original response,
without alteration of syntax or spelling.
80
88‘Children’ refers to
‘children and young people’
throughout this document.
‘Parents’ refers to ‘parents
and/or carers’ throughout.
3.2.3 Demographics of the respondents
Parents
In many cases the parents ticked multiple boxes to indicate the range of
difficulties experienced by their children. Results will therefore not add
up to 100%. (Table 4)
Table 4 Parents’ specifications of the special educational needs
of their child
Special Educational Need reported
% of parents reporting need
Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD)
Speech, language and communication difficulties
Behavioural, emotional and social needs
Moderate learning difficulties
Severe learning difficulties
Profound and multiple learning difficulties
Specific learning difficulty
Physical disability (unspecified)
Visual impairment
Hearing impairment
Multisensory impairment
49
43
34
27
14
5
22
16
9
8
8
Table 5 Prevalence of children with ASD or SLCN according
to School Census
Special Educational
Need recorded
% of primary need
in DCSF census
ASD
SLCN
17.5
12.8
The latest 2009 DCSF89 census results put the number of students in
primary, secondary and special schools with ASD as the primary need at
17.5% of the SEN population; 12.8% are recorded as having SLCN the
students’ primary need (Table 5).
While the figures are not directly comparable, as the DCSF census figures
only include the primary need of a child, the comparison indicates that the
questionnaire sample differed from more national prevalence of SEND.
81
89All census figures referred
to are from DCSF (2009)
Special educational needs in
England 2009: An analysis.
Nottingham: DCSF. http://
www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/
DB/STA/t000851/Main.pdf
Table 6 Stage of SEN Code of Practice
Intervention level: SEN Code of Practice
% of parents reporting
Had a statement of special educational needs
School Action Plus
School action
‘Don’t know’
70
20
6
7
The large majority of parents had a child with a statement of special
educational needs (70%) whilst 20% of the children were at School
Action Plus and 6% were at School Action (Table 6). 7% of the parents
responded ‘don’t know’ to this question.
Table 7 Educational context of the children of parents responding
Education context % of parents reporting
Children still at school
Pre-school children
Home educated
College No longer in formal education
Excluded Pupil referral unit
82
6
6
3
2
<1
<1
82% of the parents were writing about children still at school whilst 6%
had pre-school children and 6% were home educated (Table 7). The
remainder were at college (3%) or no longer in formal education (2%).
Just under 1% were excluded as were those at a pupil referral unit.
Only 14% of the children of parents who responded were eligible for
free school meals compared with national prevalence of 29% of students
at school action plus and 27% of students with statements, indicating
that the questionnaire sample is less socio-economically disadvantaged
than the SEN population as a whole.
A third of the parents reported that they were paying for extra support
for their child to help with his or her special educational needs. They
were paying for a range of activities and support including additional
maths and literacy tuition, specialist dyslexia tuition, ABA tutoring,
speech and language therapy and physiotherapy.
82
Table 8 Ethnicity of the children of parents who responded
Ethnicity % of parents reporting
White British
White Irish
White ‘other’
Indian
Other Did not wish to state their ethnic origins
86
2
3
1
<1
2
The majority of parents reported that the child was White British (Table
8). However, DCSF census figures suggest that the SEN population in
schools is made up of similar proportions of white, mixed race, black and
Asian children overall90. Minority ethnic groups were underrepresented
in the sample responding to the questionnaire. Over 99% of stated that
their child spoke English easily.
Conclusions
The demographics of the parents responding to the questionnaire may
be summarised as follows:
•The prevalence of parents stating their child had ASD in the sample
was high (49%).
•43% of parents stated that their children had speech, language
and communication difficulties.
•The prevalence of children eligible for free school meals was
low for an SEN population
•Few parents gave their ethnicity as other than White British, making
the sample atypical for the parents of the SEN population in England
The overall profile of parents completing this questionnaire therefore
differs from the national population of parents with children with SEN.
Their children are largely identified within two very specific areas of need,
are less eligible for free school meals and more often of White British
origin than parents in the national SEN population.
Table 9 School Staff
Mainstream/special schools
% of school staff reporting
Worked in mainstream schools
Worked in special schools
89
11
83
90DCSF (2009) Children
with special educational
needs 2009: an analysis
Nottingham: DCSF
89% of the school staff responding to the questionnaire worked in
mainstream schools with the remainder working in special schools Table
9). As with the other professionals they worked in many different LAs
with pupils of various ages.
Students
Virtually all those responding to the students’ questionnaire were
teenagers. Of the 400 questionnaires completed, just over 300 were
returned from the same special school for pupils with mixed needs.
3.3 Children’s outcomes
Questions to parents:
•What sort of outcomes do you want for your child
over the next year or more?
•Has the school discussed these outcomes with you?
Questions to school staff and other professionals:
•Do you discuss medium term outcomes (over the next
year or more) with parents of pupils with SEN?
•If ‘yes’, what sort of outcomes do parents say they want?
Key findings
•Parents wanted success for their children in a wide range of outcomes.
•39% of parents said that the school attended by their child had not
discussed the child’s outcomes with them.
•22% of school staff said that they did not discuss children’s
outcomes with parents
3.3.1 The range of outcomes
While parents’ responses naturally varied depending on the age and specific
needs of their child, most reflected concerns across the whole range of
Every Child Matters outcomes, rather than narrow academic expectations.
So, for example, while a few parents with children in secondary school
referred to GCSEs and others from primary and secondary phases
mentioned speech, language and communication skills and literacy, the
majority were particularly concerned with outcomes relating to safety,
independence, successful transition and social inclusion. Social outcomes
were of great importance to parents. They were mentioned in 44 % of
parent responses, and slightly less frequently in responses from school
staff (29%) and other professionals (30%).
84
• Parents’ responses
Right to choose whether my child can stay at school
in 6th form, or choose an appropriate college course
Parent of a secondary school student with ASD
For her not to be permanently excluded from her school
Parent of a student with ADHD, a specific learning difficulty,
ASD and behavioural emotional and social difficulties
Achieving academically within the restrictions of his ability
Parent of a young primary school child with moderate learning difficulties
Gain good GCSE’s
Parent of a teenager with moderate learning difficulties,
behavioural, emotional and social difficulties and ASD
To cope with the transistion to secondary school,
assisted by Autism Outreach and input from both
primary and secondary SENCO’s
Parent of a primary school aged pupil with behavioural
emotional and social difficulties
Smooth transition between schools to ensure continuity
of effective provision/intervention to support the main
outcomes for their child
Learning support advisory teacher
To be happy and fulfilled in school
Parent of a primary school aged child with ASD
To feel safe and secure enough to be able to learn
Parent of a young primary school aged pupil with behavioural
emotional and social difficulties
We want our child to be able to communicate confidently
and coherently with her peers
Parent of a young child with Downs Syndrome
To develop strategies to manage his own stress and aggression
Parent of a student with ASD in a residential school
Functional life skills eg bathing, dressing
Parent of a young secondary school pupil with MLD behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties speech, language and communication
needs, ASD and a physical disability
85
Being able to get a job and support a family
Parent of a primary school child with MLD, behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties, speech, language and communication
needs and a specific learning difficulty
• Staff/professionals’ responses
Leisure and work opportunities
Specialist teacher for students with ASD
They want the children to get into the secondary school of their choice
SENCO in a mainstream school
Their son/daughter is able to lead an independent life
SENCO in a mainstream school
Pupils accepted in the real world
Learning support worker in a special school
For their children to be happy and enjoy their learning
SENCO in mainstream school
To be fully included in school and take part of everyday
all day activities.
TA in mainstream school
Being able to be an active member of the workforce
and contribute to the economy
Parent of a primary aged child with speech, language
and communication needs and epilepsy.
Of those parents completing the outcomes question, 60% said the school
had discussed outcomes with them, whilst 39% said that they had not.
77% of school staff answering the question stated that they had
discussed outcomes with parents and 22% said that they had not.
Of the ‘other professionals’ that replied, 84% stated that they had
discussed outcomes with parents whilst 16% said that they had not.
3.4 Children’s learning and progress
Questions to parents:
• What helps your child to learn and progress?
• What gets in the way of your child’s learning and progress?
86
Questions to school staff and other professionals:
• What helps children to learn and progress?
• What gets in the way of children’s learning and progress?
Questions to students:
• Think of 3 things which help you to learn and do well at school.
• Which 3 things make it hard for you to learn or do well at school?
•Which 3 things could we change to make it easier for you to learn
and do well at school?
• Do you get extra help with your learning at school?
• How does it help you?
Key findings
•The teaching style or environment praised by one parent
was often criticised by another. Many items recorded as helpful
by some parents were seen as unhelpful by others.
•Most frequently, respondents considered that good teaching,
adapted to the child’s needs, strengths and interests, along with an
appropriately adapted curriculum was helpful in supporting progress.
•Training was mentioned frequently. It was acknowledged that
staff needed to have knowledge, expertise and understanding.
Many respondents felt that lack of these impeded students’
learning and progress.
•Many parents appeared to take the view that one-to-one and
small group support was the best way for their child to be involved
in the curriculum although some reported a lack of training for
those delivering the support.
•School staff and other professionals had more doubts about the
appropriateness of children being supported in this way, with some
pointing out that the children most in need were being supported
by the least trained staff.
3.4.1 Teaching
When asked what helped and hindered children’s learning and progress,
the vast majority of the responses were about the teaching and support
the children received. Responses frequently mentioned the impact upon
pupils of the teachers’ methods and decisions, plus the way in which
teaching is carried out: 29% of responses by parents and school staff
and 25% by other professionals cited it as important.
The respondents considered that good teaching, adapted to the child’s
needs, strengths and interests was important as was an appropriate
curriculum, differentiated to allow the child to work at the correct level.
87
11% parent, 12% school staff and 13% of other professionals’ comments
suggested that teachers could have a negative impact on pupils. Examples
given included inconsistent teaching methods, failure to set work at the
correct level and inflexible teaching styles.
Despite the sample of parents responding including many who had
concerns about the system, the numbers worried about poor teaching
were much lower than those who were positive about it.
The detrimental impact of an inappropriate curriculum was mentioned
frequently enough to warrant its own category.
• Helpful to learning and progress
Adapting teaching methods to suit the student
FE support coordinator
Meaningful education designed to help him specifically
Parent of a home educated teenager with a profound
specific learning difficulty
Exciting and engaging lessons.
SENCO in a mainstream school
An appropriate and differentiated curriculum
Behaviour and support advisory teacher
Clarity and consistency of teaching methods
SEN teacher in a mainstream school
Differentiated work to match ability
Head of learning support in an independent prep school
• ‘Get in the way of learning and progress’
Being moved down to a lower set because
of speed of work
Parent of a teenager with a specific learning difficulty
The pace of lessons – not having enough time to think
or revisit learning
Acting deputy inclusion manager in a mainstream school
Lack of differentiation and rigidity in school systems
Parent of a primary aged child with behavioural, emotional
and social difficulties, speech, language and communication
needs, and ASD
88
The over emphasis on the written word to communicate
understanding of learning
Parent of a primary aged child with a specific learning
difficulty and a physical disability
Insufficient thought to helping pupil access curriculum
SEN specialist in a mainstream school
Limited teaching styles
Assistant Headteacher in a mainstream school
Poor scaffolding and visual support / differentiation
in class from subject teachers
SENCO in a mainstream school
Rigid adherence to the National Curriculum when
it is obviously inappropriate for that particular child
Educational Psychologist
3.4.2 The student responses
When asked to think of three things that helped them to learn and do
well at school, the students also mentioned the beneficial effect of good
teaching. 11% of their responses mentioned liking ways in which the
teachers gave them good explanations, worked with their learning styles,
gave extra time to complete work and used appropriate vocabulary.
However, when asked what stopped them from learning, 10% of their
remarks were about the work being too hard with not enough explanation,
poor instructions, difficult to understand or difficulty in seeing or hearing
the teacher.
• ‘help you to learn or do well at school’
Using words I understand
Student aged 11
Making the lessons good
Student aged 15
Not being shouted at
Student aged 12
Not copying out of books
Student aged 15
89
I am able to work at my own pace and not be rushed.
Student aged 14
Going over things a lot
Student aged 12
Extra time in tests when the teacher
remembers to give it to me
Student aged 10
• ‘Make it hard for you to learn or do well at school’
Cant understand work
Student aged 15
Don’t know what to do
Student aged 9
Hard to see board
Student aged 12
If I don’t hear what the teacher is saying
Student aged 9
Teacher talking too fast
Student aged 12
Hard to understand teachers
Student aged 16
When asked what helped them learn and do well at school, not all
the students gave quite so much detail, simply stating ‘my teachers’.
These were coded along with others who mentioned the teachers who
were sympathetic, listened to the students and provided interesting
lessons. In total these accounted for 14% of the student’s positive
responses.
Sympathetic teachers
Student aged 14
Have a nice teacher
Student aged 11
Techers who make lessons intresting and fun
Student 13
90
3.4.3 Training for teachers and support staff
All adult groups acknowledged that the teachers or support staff needed
to be skilled and trained, with knowledge and expertise.
Such personal attributes, along with the ability to understand and support
pupil needs were mentioned in 21% of parents, 13% of school staff and
16% of the other professionals’ responses.
The negative impact that a lack of training and knowledge can have
upon children’s learning and progress was also stated (9% of parents’
responses, 7% school staff and 10% of other professionals’ responses.
• ‘Help learning and progress’
Teachers who can empathise with pupils learning
difficulties and separate from their “intelligence”
SEN teacher in a mainstream school
Good subject teaching with knowledge of asd, how to adapt
teaching and learning styles
Parent of a student with ASD
Teachers who understand them and have time for individuals
Inclusion coordinator in a mainstream school
Staff who are knowledgeable and properly trained in SEN
Parent of a teenager with behavioural, emotional
and social difficulties and speech, language and
communication needs
Well trained teaching assistant support for pupils
SENCO in a mainstream school
• ‘Get in the way of learning and progress’
Absence of someone who has the knowledge, skills
and capacity to champion the child’s needs being met
SEN Service coordinator
Lack of understanding of their special needs by many
staff – learn the way I teach rather than I will teach
the way you can learn
Curriculum support teacher in a mainstream school
Staff not qualified to teach students e.g. dyslexic, autistic, deaf etc.
Inclusion manager and SENCO in a mainstream school
91
Untrained staff who treat him as naughty
without appreciating fully his disability
Parent of a primary aged child (in a special school) with a range
of difficulties including ADHD and ASD and speech, language
and communication difficulties.
Untrained teachers/classroom assistants that only have 1 day’s training.
Parent of a home educated teenager with ASD, behavioural, emotional
and social difficulties and ADHD.
Weaker teachers teaching SEN students
SENCO in mainstream school
3.4.4 Support
The issue of support for children at school arose frequently. 18% of the
students’ responses were about being given help and support either
from teacher or support staff. Many parents saw the provision of one-toone or small group support as vitally important although few stated how
they believed this helped their children. Parents did not always link the
presence of support to its quality or content. Many appeared to view
one-to-one and small group support as the best thing for their children,
though the lack of training of staff was frequently mentioned. Parent
responses often (10%) stated that one-to-one or small group tuition was
helpful. School staff and other professionals (4% and 2% of responses
respectively) placed less emphasis on this. However, 6% parents, 7%
school staff and 8% other professionals responses favoured available
and appropriate support without specifying that it should be one-to-one
or in a small group. The school staff (4% of responses) and other
professionals (3%) placed emphasis on the children participating in
structured programmes tailored for their needs or being given targeted,
early intervention. This type of support was only mentioned in 0.2% of
parents’ responses.
• One-to-one and small group support
1:1 or small group support
Parent of a young secondary school aged student with a range
of difficulties including multisensory impairments
One to one teaching with experienced teacher
A young primary aged student with ASD
Small group focussed provision or one to one
Inclusion leader in a mainstream school
92
• Appropriate support and interventions
Extra adults to support their individual needs
SENCO in a mainstream school
Sufficient support to enable to child to be part of the class
and understand what is going on
MSI education advisor
Structured multi-sensory course
SEN support teacher in a mainstream school
Targeted interventions
SENCO in a mainstream school
Following a structured programme designed to meet their needs
Retired teacher
Structured individual learning programme, progress regularly reviewed
Anonymous
• ‘Get in the way of learning and progress’
Not having appropriate support in the classroom
Caseload teacher
TA doing the work for the child, not allowing
the child to show their capabilities
Inclusion manager in a mainstream school
Unfocussed intervention
Specialist teacher
Singling the child out for support – counterproductive
Specialist teacher
Students’ responses:
• ‘Help you learn and do well at school’
Extra helpers in class
Student aged 16
Having enough support
Student aged 12
Help to hold my pencil correctly
Student aged 14
93
Having someone there all the time
Student aged 13
Going to my dyslexia unit
Student aged 11
3.4.5 Environment
Parents (13%), school staff (7%) and other professionals (7%) responses
remarked that an appropriate environment could have a beneficial
impact on pupils.
8% of parents, 1% of school staff and 2% of other professionals’
responses commented that the wrong type of environment hindered
children’s learning and progress.
• ‘Helps learning and progress’
An environment where distraction is a minimum
Parent of a primary school child with behavioural, emotional and social
difficulties, moderate learning difficulties and a visual impairment.
Being able to have time out when stressed
Parent of a primary aged child with ASD
Creating environment conducive for effective, inclusive learning
Disability support worker/tutor
Safe suitable environments geared to individual need
Senior practitioner
Flexible timetable to allow each child to access individual provision.
Resource provision manager
An environment that is focused on delivering the key provisions
needed to address the child’s special educational needs (especially
acoustics and classroom seating arrangements in the case
of hearing impaired children).
Principal of a special school
• ‘Gets in the way of learning and progress’
Being made to work in an environment where
he doesn’t feel comfortable
Parent of a primary aged child with behavioural, emotional and social
difficulties, speech, language and communication needs and ASD
94
Change in routine inducing anxiety
Teaching assistant in a mainstream school
Lack of routine/structure
Parent of a young secondary school aged student with ASD
Poor acoustic environments
Hearing support teacher
To be in the wrong environment where he feels
unsafe which makes him unhappy.
Parent of a primary aged child with ASD,
speech language and communication difficulties
and severe learning difficulties
Lack of calmness and quiet in class room.
SEN teacher
3.4.6 Emotions and attitudes
20% of parent, 31% of school staff and 18% of other professionals’
responses mentioned factors such as self esteem, anxiety levels and
frustration. Parents, school and other professionals also mentioned the
children’s interests, their ability to concentrate, their desire to do well
and their development of listening skills.
• ‘Helps learning and progress’
Feeling safe and supported by staff around her
Parent of a teenager near the end of secondary school
with complex epilepsy
Increase in self belief and confidence
Learning support coordinator in a mainstream school
Confidence in those areas brings success that feeds
progress in other areas
Special needs coordinator / supply teacher
Inner determination
Parent of a young child (in an assessment unit) with a range
of difficulties including moderate learning difficulties and ASD
Child experiencing success and enthusiastic to learn
SENCO in a mainstream school
95
Enquiring minds / positive attitude and aptitude to learning
Teacher of the deaf
Having a bank of strategies to overcome difficulties
Teacher in a mainstream school
• ‘Gets in the way of learning and progress’
A lack of social and emotional well being that leads
the child to develop ‘learned helplessness’ both
academically and socially & emotionally
Principal and special school
Child feeling stressed through being unsure
of what is happening or expected
Parent of a teenager (about to leave school) with ASD
and severe learning difficulties
Child’s low self-esteem and emphasis in most schools on the academic
being applauded and seen as more important than more practical gifts.
Special needs consultant
He is significantly behind his peers and he is realising this for
the first time in his life. He feels pressure and often refers to himself
as “dumb” – not a word we use at home so this has come from
someone else, more likely a child in school.
Parent of a primary aged child with behavioural, emotional
and social difficulties, specific learning difficulty and speech,
language and communication needs
3.4.7 Student responses
15% of students’ responses were related to how learning could be
impeded by emotional, social and physical issues. Some reported learning
as difficult because of their inability to concentrate or focus, some said
that being too tired or too ill had an effect.
Daydreaming
Student aged 16
Feeling ill or tired
Student aged 12
Getting distracted
Student aged 17
96
I find it hard to concentrate
Student aged 15
Nothing to keep my hands busy
Student aged 15
3.4.8 The effects of parents’ attitudes and actions
Some school staff and other professionals (9% and 6% respectively)
commented that parents could have a detrimental effect upon children’s
learning and progress. They commented on lack of support or interest
from home and parents who were unwilling to participate, either because
of unwillingness or perceived failings of the SEN system.
Parents did not mention this, though a few mentioned the positive effect
of encouragement and support on children’s progress. Given the recent
emphasis findings on the importance of parental engagement (e.g. in
the National Strategies’ Achievement for All programme), the results
suggest that parents responding underrated (or perhaps took for granted)
the effect that they could have upon their children’s learning.
• ‘Helps learning and progress’
Parents are most important, however we feel we dont always
have the skills to help her develop as we would like. We often
feel out of our depth.
Parent of a young primary school child with ASD
Good homelife – ie. supportive parents, good diet,routines etc.
Headteacher of a mainstream school
Attitude of parents to difficulties and their feedback to their children
Teacher in an inclusive literacy team in a mainstream school
Good involvement of parents
Group coordinator and trainer
Denial of child’s difficulties- from parents
SENCO in an independent school
Lack of ability/willingness of parents to support child
Teacher in a mainstream school
Lack of parental encouragement
Advisory teacher
97
Parental over-expectation
Educational psychologist
3.4.9 The effects of others’ attitudes and actions
The detrimental effect of the attitudes and expectations of others was
mentioned in replies by all three types of respondents, (8% parents, 1%
school staff, 5% other professionals). Their attitudes towards the children
and the feelings they provoked were particularly remarked upon.
• ‘Gets in the way of learning and progress’
Negative attitudes from adults who perceive SEN as a ‘problem
Consultant SpLD assessor
Other people’s attitudes and assumptions
Parent of a teenager with a physical disability
and profound and multiple learning difficulties.
Low expectations ‘because they have SEN’
Head of learning support in an independent school
Attitude of others towards them
Teacher in a special school
People who don’t take her disability into account
Parent of a primary aged child with moderate learning difficulties
Lack of understanding of their needs
Specialist dyslexia teacher
Many of the students also stated that the behaviour of others prevented
them from learning (14% of responses).
Other students being silly, disruptive or unwilling to be friendly were all
mentioned and bullying was reported in 7% of responses.
Other children playing hard games
Student aged 8
Other pupils talking
Student aged 13
Naughty boy who stop lessons
Student aged 9
98
Being bullied for being different
Student aged 15
Having “the Michael” taken out of me by other students during
lessons and doing it so the teachers don’t catch them so when I
get frustrated and annoyed and shout out I am the one who gets in
trouble. This happens at least once a day on most days and sometimes
I even get sent out of class where I can’t learn anything.
Student aged 15
3.4.10 Students’ further views on extra help and learning
Students were asked three further questions about learning. They were
first asked “Do you get extra help with your learning at school?” Of the
392 students who replied, 85% said that they did have extra help91
whilst 14% said that they did not. They were then asked “How does it
help you?” The final question was “Which three things could we change
to make it easier for you to learn and do well at school?”
Students gave many different responses when asked how extra help
assisted them in their learning but four main types of responses far
outnumbered the rest. The most frequent response(19%) was that the
pupil received further explanations of what the teacher said and this
helped understanding. 18% of students’ responses were that the extra
help ensured they did better or larger amounts of work. 16% of responses
were about the individual help and its availability whilst 13% mentioned
reading and literacy support.
Helps me to understand what the teacher is saying
Student aged 13
It helps me understand more on what I am doing
Student aged 17
They are trying to explained again and again and try to understand
Student aged 17
They can repeat what the teacher said sometimes
using different words to help me understand what I need to do.
Student aged 7
By asking the teachers what you stuck on – helped me
to join in more, and talk to people more
Student aged 16
99
91Approximately three
quarters of responses
came from students in the
same ‘mixed needs’ special
school so ‘special help’ may
have had a particular
meaning for them.
Help quickly when I need it
Student aged 15
Helps me with stratogies for my dilexia
Student aged 15
Writting
Student aged 17
Help my rieding and writing and with tests
Student aged 12
3.4.11Changes suggested by students
The responses to the question of what could be changed to help students’
learning produced two principal groups of responses. Students (19%)
said that they would like more help and support.
Some students were unspecific about the form of this help; others wanted
more teaching assistants, more teachers or more time spent one-to-one
or in small groups. 17% of the students’ responses were requesting more
lesson time, generally more of their favourite activities and more enjoyable
lessons;’ some wanted lessons to be longer and with more homework.
More teachers
Student aged 15
Proper support – people who understand my condition.
Student aged 11
To have lots more help
Student aged 8
Someone to sit with me and tell me what to do
Student aged 11
Choose our own lessons
Student aged 17
Extra homework
Student aged 16
Longer lessons
Student aged 14
100
Make it stuff i’m interested in
Student aged 11
3.5 Parental confidence in the SEN system
Questions to parents:
• What gives you confidence in the SEN system?
• What reduces your confidence in the SEN system
Questions to school staff and other professionals92:
• What gives parents confidence in the SEN system?
• What reduces the confidence that parents have in the SEN system?
Key findings
•The people working within the system were often reported as giving
parents confidence; but the system itself was often seen as reducing
their confidence.
•A quarter of the parents responding to this survey reported that they
had no confidence in the SEN system.
•Parents welcomed positive, informative and supportive
communication, including ‘being listened to’.
•School staff attitudes and overall competence in SEN matters,
together with specific interventions, were seen as fundamental
to parental confidence.
•Parents value being consulted and treated as partners.
•Early identification of children’s needs and having these met are of
critical importance for parental confidence in both LA and school
3.5.1 Communication
Communication accounted for 9.3% of positive comments by parents,
40% by school staff and 39% by other professionals.
• Confidence-giving:
Able to talk to a specialist who understands their child’s problems
Anonymous
Regular contact
Teaching assistant in a mainstream school
Being kept informed about their children’s progress and seeing that
appropriate resources and support are provided where necessary
Director of learning services
101
92It should be noted that this
was a survey of the views of
individuals. Responses do
not refer to the same
experience or event.
That they are communicated with well and often during times of change
Head teacher in a special school
Listening to parents point of view
Parent of primary school child with ASD
School making communication channels clear and prompt
Assistant head teacher and SENCo in a mainstream school
Open door policy, where you are approachable
Inclusion leader in a mainstream school
Being able to talk to someone who can explain to them
Operational Manager: Additional Needs – Learning
Somebody who will listen to their problems however trivial
SENCO in a mainstream school
3.5.2 General school issues
For many their experience of the SEN system is largely through the school.
• Confidence giving aspects of school:
The parents appreciated what the schools did for them and their children;
they valued good schools which communicated well, supplied a relevant
curriculum, set appropriate targets and had good IEPs (Individual
Education Plans).
Effective target setting that is child-centred and parent-driven
as much as school-led
Education and SEN Consultant and Specialist Dyslexia Teacher
Our current school- [name of school given] they listen, understand
and take time to do the job properly-not just a paperwork exercise
Parent of a young homeschooled teenager with behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties and ASD
Seeing promised actions implemented and having an effect
Assistant head teacher in a mainstream school
Engagement in the school in general – parents feel confident,
welcome and comfortable in the school – often easier at Lower
School level. Good communication with ALL parents
Learning Support Advisory Teacher
102
A curriculum that addresses core deficits of autism
Parent of a primary aged child with ASD
Demonstration by schools that they respect and listen to parents’ voice
Course manager
Good relationships with school
Educational psychologist
• Confidence reducing aspects of school:
When stating what reduced their confidence in the SEN system, parents
commented on: the attitude of some staff towards parents and their
children with SEN; a lack of good communication and access to staff;
and a school ethos which did not appear to welcome children with SEN.
Negative responses concerning ‘general school issues’ comprised 6% of
parents’ negative responses, 11% of those of school staff and 8% of
responses from other professionals’.
School not using delegated funding
Parent of a child with ASD
Incompetence in schools and ignorance of rights of child
Specialist teacher/SENCO
Platitudes like “He’ll catch up, just wait”, “There are children much
more needy than yours in the class” “We don’t believe in labelling
children” “Even if you get him privately assessed you won’t get any
more from school because there is no money” and more...
Dyslexia service manager
The parents feel they are only involved when
their offspring have broken the rules
Assessment and Advisory teacher for SEN
Schools are being asked to ‘listen’, they already listen,
but they don’t know what to do with what they hear
Parent of a primary aged child with complex needs
Parents’ wishes can be overruled by SENCOs
who have never met your child
Parent of a young primary aged child with difficulties including Speech,
language and communication needs and multisensory impairments
Take off SENCO register without agreement by parents
Parent of a primary school child with a specific learning difficulty
103
Teachers fitting SEN provision in after their targets & other obligations
Teacher, special school
No recognition of child’s individual needs
Learning support tutor in FE
Failure to provide what we say we will
Student Progress and Development Leader in a mainstream school
3.5.3 Support at school
• Confidence giving:
Positive responses about school support accounted for just 2% of
parents’ responses, 6% of those by school staff and 5% of the other
professionals’ responses.
The other professionals and school staff groups were likely to state that
it was not just the support provided for the children but the interventions
which were carried out.
Gets daily 1 to 1 help in school
Parent of a young primary aged child with speech, language
and communication needs and severe learning difficulties
Giving the support when needed
Parent of a young primary school child with specific learning
difficulties and speech, language and communication needs
Having appropriate support put into place in terms of intervention
and in mainstream classroom
Specialist teacher
Their son/daughter receiving the help needed
Peripatetic Dyslexia/Literacy specialist Teacher for
the KS4 Pupil Referral Service
Individual programmes designed specifically for their child
Head of primary department and complex needs in a special school
That the school give the support my daughter needs
Parent of primary aged child with a physical disability
Appropriate interventions
Assistant SENCO
104
• Confidence reducing:
Dissatisfaction with the lack of support or help for the children comprised
2% of parents’ responses. School staff (9% of responses) and the other
professionals (6% of their responses) also mentioned this as a significant
issue.
Not enough teaching support
Parent of a primary aged child with severe learning difficulties
School not allowing child to have extra support during school day
Speech and language therapist/dyslexia tutor
In her previous school, which was a “normal” school, there
was not help at all. The ignored her and her needs to the greater
degree letting her do nothing, play on the computer or draw
Parent of a teenager with specific learning difficulties,
moderate learning difficulties and behavioural, emotional
and social difficulties
Support is not provided in line with recommendations
Senior practitioner
No intervention undertaken by the school
Specialist visiting teacher
A school’s inability to put in extra support due
to lack of expertise or funding.
Inclusion manager
3.5.4 School staff
• Confidence giving:
When the positive qualities of the school SEN team of head teachers,
teachers, SENCOs and support staff are aggregated, we find that 17% of
responses by school staff, 12% by parents and 8% by other professionals
apply to this area.
The proactive and sympathetic SEN staff in his school
Parent of a teenager with specific learning difficulties
and behavioural, emotional and social difficulties
An excellent school head
Parent of a teenager with a range of difficulties
including severe sensory impairments
105
Excellent SENCO at the local school
Parent of a primary aged child with a range of difficulties
including speech, language and communication needs
Teachers willing to take responsibility
Educational psychologist
SENCO is a member of the Leadership Team
and is a champion for their rights
Assistant head teacher in a mainstream school
Staff who have expertise with SEN pupils
Principal of a special school
A teaching staff that understands the child and his/her needs
SENCO in a mainstream school
Dedicated and enthusiastic specially trained teachers
Parent of a young teenager with multiple
sensory impairments and speech, language
and communication difficulties.
Teacher & LSA expertise and knowledge
Headteacher in a mainstream school
The school staff were often viewed positively owing to the way in which
they dealt with parents and the knowledge and skills they displayed.
In contrast, lack of expertise, knowledge, training, and understanding of
the school staff working with children with SEN was a recurrent theme:
it was commented on by 8% of parents’, 5% of school staff and 4% of
other professionals’ responses.
• Confidence reducing
Lack of staff knowledge to deal with the severity
of SEN in mainstream
Faculty head, mainstream school
Inadequate knowledge of SENCOs
Parent of a primary aged child with a range of difficulties
including specific learning difficulties and a visual impairment
Lack of staff with specific SEN training of any kind –
should be automatic part of training
Retired SENCO
106
Not enough specialist teachers to meet most children’s needs
Anonymous
A poor SENCO
Teacher in a mainstream school
Teachers lack of training to meet the needs of special needs children
Parent of a secondary school aged child with behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties and ASD
3.5.5Local authorities, other agencies, other professionals
and their working practices
• Confidence giving
Parents often commented positively on individuals they were involved
with out of school. These included non-school and unspecified staff,
professionals such as educational psychologists, medical staff, therapists,
local authority staff and other organisations such as parent partnerships:
13% of responses by parents, 11% by school staff and 19% of responses
by the other professionals themselves.
Individuals who go beyond the call of duty to support
Parent of a pre-school child with ASD, speech, language and
communication difficulties and severe learning difficulties
Good relationships with external agencies
which give advice and monitor pupil progress
Assistant head in a mainstream school
Knowing that everyone involved with their child is communicating
with one another to build up a clear picture of the child’s strengths
and needs regardless of whether they work in LA, NHS etc
Anonymous
Staff who can empathise with the child to understand
what is being experiencing, in order that solutions can be found
Dyslexia coordinator
That some professionals are willing to speak out for the rights of our son
Parent of a teenager with ASD and severe learning difficulties
Staff offer quality customer service by being honest
and rigorous in delivering the processes
Operations manager SEN
107
The opportunity to work in partnership with a Local Authority and a
specified placement (the named school) that have a track record of
delivering the elements of provision that stem from the careful and
insightful analysis of a particular child’s special educational needs
Principal of a special school
When professionals say in public what they say in private
CEO of a charity
LA’s who look for solutions and think of the child’s
needs before how much it is going to cost.
MSI education advisor
• Confidence reducing
16% of parents’ responses, 3% by school staff and 4% of responses by
other professionals commented on local authorities (LAs), their working
practices and poor management, the criteria set by LAs for statements,
their funding arrangements, attitude to parents, and the fact that the LAs
are responsible for both assessment and funding:
The people who have the pay for the additional needs are also the ones
employing to specialist advisers – a massive conflict of interest
Parent of a primary aged child with ASD
In my LEA – the system is anything other than transparent
Educational psychologist
Local authority failing pupils with exceptional needs
Parent of a student with ADHD
Poor communication by LEA and school, parents’ opinions not valued.
Assistant head teacher in a special school
Local Authorities who feel that it is alright to provide a generic
education for children with SEN’s and not to meet individual needs
MSI education advisor
Local authority officers running the system against
the interests of the child
Parent of a young adult with a specific learning difficulty
and speech, language and communication needs
Patronising attitude of LA
Parent of a primary aged child with ASD
and severe learning difficulties
108
Lack of respect by the L.A. of the parents concerns and wishes, especially
when the provision is bad and you request out of authority placement.
Parent of a teenager with moderate learning difficulties
Being made to jump through hoops to satisfy
local authority bureaucracy
Service coordinator
• Non-specific
Some responses were unspecific and did not attribute blame to any
institution but stated that poor working practices such as a lack of
knowledge, communication, information and transparency were all likely
to reduce confidence in the SEN system (10% parental responses, 19%
school staff, 24% other professionals).
Attitude of some professionals
Early years consultant
Decisions already made before consultation
Autism outreach teacher
Decisions not explained sufficiently
SENCO in a mainstream school
The lack of contact we have had with the ‘system’ despite the
fact that our son is severely disabled and needs 1:1 support 24
hours a day. Some ongoing contact throughout his education
and into adulthood might make the day to day situation and
future prospects less daunting/terrifying!
Parent of a teenager with ASD and severe learning difficulties
Dismissing parent’s concerns as ‘over anxious’ or ‘blaming’ parents for
their child’s difficulties especially for impairments like ADHD, Asperger’s
Parent partnership officer
Conflicting advice on when/how to start the statement process – some
professionals said as soon as possible, others said wait until she is almost
school age (incidentally, we think the asap answer was the best one)
Parent of a pre-school child with moderate learning difficulties.
3.5.6 Involvement of parents
Just 3% of the parents’ responses stated that their involvement with the
system gave them confidence.
109
By contrast, 19% of the school staffs’ responses and 24% of those by
the other professionals saw it as confidence-giving.
• Confidence-giving:
That the system listens to what I have to say
about my child then acts upon it.
Parent of a young adult (at a residential specialist college)
with a physical disability and severe learning difficulties
That our child’s voice is heard
Parent of a young primary aged child with speech,
language and communication difficulties and ASD
Being consulted. They know their child best
Sensory support teacher
Feeling they are heard and supported
SENCO at an independent mainstream school
Easy access to information about the process
Pastoral manager to include outreach
Clear lines of communication about successes and difficulties
Parent partnership coordinator
• Confidence-reducing:
Some parents’ comments mentioned negative attitudes towards them
and their children from school and LAs. 5% of responses talked of
negative attitudes of unspecified individuals; parents were not listened
to or were allowed to be involved and the lack of support received. 7%
of school staff and 13% of other professionals’ responses also identified
this as an issue.
Parents and pupils are not listened to and are
expected to except whatever is given to them
without argument or question.
Parent of a teenager with a wide range of difficulties including
severe learning difficulties and a visual impairment
A transmitted feeling of nuisance or inadequacy
Senior project manager
Parents being accused of over exaggerating child’s needs.
Parent of a young primary aged child with ASD
and a specific learning difficulty
110
Failure to take their concerns seriously or thought to be a ‘fussy parent’
Specialist teacher
Does not consider parents wishes as important
Parent of a young teenager with a range of difficulties including
profound and multiple learning difficulties
Lack of support of finding a place for their child
Internal exclusion manager
3.5.7 Needs assessed and met
• Confidence-giving
2% of parents’ comments concerned their children’s needs being
recognised, assessed and met, with actions promised actually carried out
and that this gave them confidence; 17% of responses by school staff
and 10% by other professionals’ also emphasised this.
That his needs were noticed early
Parent of a young primary aged child with moderate learning
difficulties, behavioural, emotional and social difficulties
and speech, language and communication needs
That speech and language impairments are now being recognised
Parent of a primary aged child with speech, language
and communication needs
Action happening to address issues as soon as possible
Teacher and SpLD home tutor
School really understanding child’s needs and actually
doing something about it
SENCO in a mainstream school
That disabilities of dyslexia, ADD, dispraxia are open
and discussed not ignored as child being naughty
Dyslexia support teacher
Feeling their child’s needs are being taken seriously
and are being met through the statement of SEN
Consultant teacher
A further 2% of parents’ responses commented that confidence in the
SEN system had been gained by the way in which the system had proved
111
itself to work, provision promised was delivered and the children were
happy and progressing. 17% of school staff responses and 10% of
responses by the other professionals stated that parental confidence
came through the system being judged by its results.
He seems happy
Parent of a young secondary school aged
student with ASD
He has flourished at school
Parent of a student with ASD
How the child has improved
Parent of a young teenager with moderate learning
difficulties and behavioural, emotional and social difficulties
and speech, language and communication needs
Can see significant improvement in child’s behaviour/attitude/ability
Learning support tutor
Child’s ability to access most areas of learning
Advisory teacher
Increase in confidence/ achievements shown by student
Specialist teacher
• Confidence reducing
The largest number (23%) of parents’ responses expressed little
confidence in the system, generally along the lines of “don’t have much
confidence” or “nothing”.
How can a parent prove that the school
is not meeting a child’s needs???
Parent of a teenager with ASD
NOTHING at the moment – we have to fight
and tell them their jobs and state what the COP
states back to them to get help
Parent of a student with a range of difficulties
including ASD and multisensory impairments
Nothing, I had to fight all the way for everything I got
and it still was inadequate
Parent of a child with epilepsy, speech language and communication
needs, and severe learning difficulties
112
Nothing. The parents who come to us have been failed by the
system and cannot get those in authority to listen. For someone
to listen and act on what they hear would give confidence.
Acting manager of a carers centre
The parents I speak to have very little confidence in the SEN system.
Specialist teacher
We don’t think people have confidence in the system
once they have begun to experience it.
Parent support group leaders
NOTHING. The Local Authority will not listen
and make false claims over provision.
Parent of a primary aged child with moderate
learning difficulties
3.6 How well the SEN system works
The professionals were asked two questions not asked of the parents.
Questions to school staff and other professionals:
• What works well in the SEN system?
• What doesn’t work well in the SEN system
Key findings
•The responses covered a wide range of elements of the system.
•School staff and other professionals appreciated the expert input
from local authorities and other agencies
•Although many professionals liked the idea of delegated funding,
just as many did not, citing a lack of ring-fencing for SEN and the
fact that there was no apparent monitoring to ensure that it was
actually spent on SEN.
•Lack of funding was understood but the time it took to receive
funding was not.
•Some regarded the SEN system was regarded as bureaucratic,
complex, difficult to initiate and overly long.
•Some argued for more special schools as some children
with SEN ‘could or should never be integrated into mainstream
schools’, whilst others believed that there should be no special
schools and inclusion could work very well but not whilst
special schools still existed.
•Other responses commented on conflict in a system that promotes
inclusion while emphasising performance tables.
113
•The importance of correct placement was mentioned.
Specialist provision, in units or special schools was seen
as important but the supply of places was a concern.
•Responses saw knowledgeable, skilled and trained SENCOs,
teachers and support staff were cited as highly beneficial.
But badly paid, unskilled and untrained staff put children
with SEN at risk.
3.6.1 Schools and their staff
8% of responses from school staff and 4% from other professionals
stressed the importance of caring, dedicated, trained and skilled staff.
4% of school staff responses and 6% of other professionals’ replies to
“What doesn’t work well in the SEN system?” expressed concern about
qualities of schools and staff were not all that one might hope for, with
comments about lack of expertise, training and inflexibility. The lack of
appropriate staffing in some schools was also mentioned.
• ‘Works well’
Dedicated individuals who will fight the “system”
to ensure that the young people they are responsible f
or get the provision they need
Principal of a special school
Having the training to understand SEN difficulties
Special needs teaching assistant
Good well – qualified support staff and tutors
who know how to use them
Inclusion officer
Dedicated, trained staff eg experienced and knowledgable SENCOs
SEN Adviser & Tribunal Representative
The goodwill of staff involved
SEN teacher in a mainstream school
• ‘Does not work well”
Lack of training for staff – unqualified staff working
with the most challenging children!
Reading Recovery teacher
Lack of expertise to help the child stay in school and achieve
Parent partnership officer
114
Inflexibilty of staffing in schools. e.g. Too many support staff in
Secondary Schools or not at the right time in Primary Schools.
Sensory support teacher
Limited understanding of inclusion among school leadership
Specialist teacher for autism
Ensuring that individual teaching staff fully understands
the needs of a deaf child in their class. Difficulties in
ensuring schools and staff are deaf aware.
Anonymous
3.6.2 SENCOs
SENCOs were specifically mentioned by school staff (5% of responses)
and other professionals (4%) respectively. A good SENCO was considered
important as was allowing SENCOs enough time to do their work rather
than having a full teaching commitment. Some responses also argued
that SENCOs should have high status and be placed on the schools
Senior Management Team (SMT) to place a greater focus on inclusion
and put the children with SEN at the heart of school policies and
practice.
The SENCOs’ knowledge of the children and their ability to train staff
were also mentioned. A few responses mentioned the restrictions on
many SENCO’s roles.
• ‘Works well’
Having a dedicated SENCO with no other responsibilities
SENCO in a mainstream school
Professional SENCo with appropriate time to do the job
and administrative support
SENCO / specialist teacher assessor
Well qualified SENCos/Inclusion managers who are part of SMT
Team Manager Learning Support Advisory Teachers
Good SENCOs who make time to find the
right support for each child
Director of learning services
When sencos are knowledgeable and effective
Headteacher in a mainstream school
115
• ‘Does not work well’
Lack of time for SENCOs, particularly in primary, to fulfil role
Parent partnership officer
Change of emphasis on SENCO to Assistant Head with responsibility
for SEN. Don’t have knowledge, commitment nor funds.
Dyslexia specialist
Low status of SENCo in school systems and lack of time to do the job
SENCO / specialist teacher in a mainstream school
Increasing lack of respect for SENCo status – lower now than ever
SENCO, mainstream school
Ineffective Sencos that wait until Y6 to identify needs of children
Class teacher, mainstream school
3.6.3 Support staff/teaching assistants
Respondents noted the benefit of support staff being knowledgeable and
committed and, if used correctly, highly supportive to children’s learning.
Respondents with concerns about support staff’s lack of training and
experience argued that children with the most challenging needs were
being supported by the lowest paid, least experienced and least trained
members of staff.
• ‘Works well’
Support staff that grow to know the kids have been excellent
at helping the students work to their full potential.
Literacy coordinator
TAs are often a very valuable asset to promote learning
SEN advisor
Teaching assistant hours are specified on statements
so school cannot make cuts
Inclusion coordinator
Where there is a Learning Assistant involved in assisting
& consolidating the lesson taught to the student in their
outreach session, this has a profound, positive effect on
the students rate of learning.
Primary Outreach Literacy Support Teacher
116
Efficient use of the TAs including using their strengths and training
SENCO mainstream school
• ‘Does not work well’
..... a consideration that “anyone” can teach special children
and it doesn’t really matter anyway.
Teacher, special school
Adapting successful models such as TEACH and PECS but
always implementing them incorrectly and half heartedly
causing the systems to fail. VERY WRONG
Private ABA tutor
Not enough training for support staff enabling them
to assist in the child’s development in the most beneficial way
Teaching assistant, mainstream school
Help not always fairly distributed for pupils who get a set number
of hours of TA support, I don’t always know when they will have
support in my lessons so hard to plan
Teacher, mainstream school
Many support staff do not push students merely appease them.
Teacher, mainstream school
Non Qualified teachers (TA’s/HLTAs) supporting our pupils
with the most complex needs
Team manager, learning support advisory teachers
Children with the most (complex and severe) educational
needs are supported by the least experienced, least trained
and least paid memebers of staff e.g. Teacher Assistance. Teachers
seem to be deferring their responsibilities of the children with
significant SEN to the TAs which does not always ensure that the
children are best served. In doing so teachers are not becoming
competent and confident teachers of children of SEN where
as TAs seem to developing more expertise in this area.
Educational psychologist
3.6.4 Support
School staff and, less often other professionals, mentioned other aspects of
support, including booster lessons and the fact that support was provided
both for specific domains and for one-to-one needs. Negative remarks were
117
almost invariably about a lack of available support and the problem of
challenging children in classes where additional support was not provided.
• ‘Works well’
Additional support when it is identified as being needed
Inclusion manager
Individual reading and spelling tuition
Instructor in a mainstream school
For dyslexic or specific learning difficulty students
structured individual tuition.
Dyslexia specialist
Specialist small group work and individual sessions where appropriate
Speech and language therapist
• ‘Does not work well’
Lack of support due to funding (I’m sick of being told it’s in
the budget) and additional high level needs aren’t able to be met
Learning support coordinator in a mainstream school
Incorrect or little provision for individual pupils.
Specialist teacher
Children who need additional support not receiving it
because their behaviour is not extreme enough
Teacher in a mainstream school
Many learners do not receive the support that
they are entitled to and desperately need
Specialist teacher
3.6.5 Teachers and teaching methods
School staff (6% of responses) and other professionals (5%) commented
positively on differentiated, specialised and individualised teaching
provided by caring, dedicated SEN aware teachers.
In response to ‘What does not work well in the SEN system?’ 7% of
responses by both school staff and other professionals mentioned such
concerns as lack of differentiation, inflexibility of teachers to adapt the
curriculum, a lack of support to help them do so, little time to liaise with
support staff or SENCOs and a lack of training.
118
• ‘Works well’
Individual qualified teachers dedication
Retired assistant SENCO
Individual teachers and TAs often do a brilliant job,
well beyond what could reasonably be expected
Training Principal/Specialist Teacher
Teachers who have the compassion and time
to understand and address needs of the pupil
SENCO, mainstream school
Specialist teachers
Support teacher in a special school
• ‘Does not work well’
Inflexible curriculum
Inclusion coordinator
Having to push lower ability pupils through ‘academic’ hoops instead
of catering for pupil’s own abilities
Specialist teacher
New Teachers with very little training in SEN. Teachers in
Secondary and upper Primary Levels with no understanding
of child development or how to teach reading.
Specialist teacher
Not enough training for classroom/subject teachers
to enable them to work appropriately with SEN students
Specialist teacher, mainstream school
Not having the confidence to seek help/a second opinion
about a child who may be causing the teacher some concern
Head of learning skills in an independent school
Methods used to assess achievement disadvantages the SpLD learner.
Course manager
3.6.6 Placement
School staff and other professionals both mentioned the role that correct
placement plays in the system. School staff and the other professionals
(6% and 11% of their respective responses) stated that inclusion in
119
mainstream schools, units, and special schools were important parts of
the SEN system. However, inclusion into mainstream schools was also a
concern, particularly when it involved schools with large classes or with a
strong focus on performance tables. Lack of places in special schools or
units was also mentioned. Parents rarely mentioned placement in their
responses.
• ‘Works well’:
Some pupils very well catered for in mainstream setting.
Faculty head, mainstream school
Children can be matched to a particular school
environment which suits their individual needs
Principal of a special school
Inclusion Resource Bases in mainstream schools, Special schools
and high level of funding for Inclusion
Inclusion manager in a mainstream school
Schools that operate a true response to providing for need, which
does not mean identical provision for all
Retired teacher
Supporting a wider range of needs in mainstream and esp progress
of pupils in enhanced resource schools with specialist provision
Head of SEN and disabilities
Conflict between standards agenda and inclusion agenda
for class teachers
Specialist teacher for SpLD
• ‘Does not work well’:
Children with severe special needs being placed in mainstream school
with teachers and staff who are not specialists in that area.
SENCO, mainstream school
Inappropriate placements – some SEN children
are damaged by being in mainstream.
Faculty head, mainstream school
Lack of Special School places and Special school places being reduced.
Assistant head of a mainstream school
Excluded pupils left without adequate education for too long
Parent partnership area coordinator
120
Classes are too big, and its pretty difficult for teachers to
cope with even typically developing children, let alone extra
demands of those with SEN
Speech and language therapist
3.6.7 Local authorities and other agencies
7% of school staff responses and 10% of other professionals’ responses
saw the involvement of the LAs and other organisations and professionals
as part of what worked well. The majority of responses were about the
access to these bodies and the advice and support received from them.
13% of school staff responses and 11% of other professionals’ responses
commented about the quality and working practices of the services
provided.
• ‘Works well’:
Advice and support of external professionals,
such as OT, EP, behavioural support, SAL etc
Inclusion manager
Access to peripatetic experts such as Deaf/vision/OTs SALTs/
Specialist literacy teachers/autism experts.
Reintegration room manager
I think the service provided by the Learning Support
Advisory Teacher is good – thorough assessment and
comprehensive advice given to teaching staff
SEN tutor
Educational psychology support here is excellent –
though it is a lottery I realise!
Leader of inclusion and welfare in a mainstream school
Parent Partnership service.
Assistant head, mainstream school
In those LA’s where there is a willingness to think innovatively
about individual need and allocate budget share to low
incidence and highly demanding special needs
Consultant in deaf/blind and multi-sensory impairment
• ‘Does not work well’:
Conflicting and confusing advice from behaviour support team. LEA
Headteacher, mainstream school
121
Lack of experts provided by LEA. These have been axed
to economise, a dreadful step in 1990s
Reintegration room manager
Children require a range of facilities – LA in-house policy restricts this
Principal of a special school
Deliberate manipulation of the system by LA officers
Head of an educational advisory service
Finite resources of speech and language therapy service
(Children in our school see a therapist once a year only!)
SENCO, mainstream school
Educational Psychologists, the service is dreadful, unfocused and not
enough to make much of a difference to secondary school outcomes
SENCO, mainstream school
LEA’s continual use of out-of-date therapy reports.
Occupational therapist
3.6.8 The SEN system itself
Some school staff commented that the processes in the SEN system were
effective (2%) and that children with SEN were given a good education
as a result (5%). 8% of school staff and 11% of the other professionals’
responses suggested that the system was complex, overly long, dependent
on unnecessary amounts of evidence, difficult to initiate and focused on
children who had already ‘failed’ rather than preventing failure. There
were also concerns about paperwork and bureaucracy (6% school staff
responses and 3% of other professionals’).
• ‘Works well’
I think that it does help a lot of children as long
as they can fit in with the system
Private tutor
Systems in place to improve the skills of those working
on a day to day basis with children with special needs
Senior educational psychologist
The system can work well when everyone involved with it wants to make
it work for the child and their family, and not as a bureaucratic battlefield.
Consultant child psychologist
122
There is a structure for all those involved with the child, including
parents. When used properly and in schools that place a great deal
of emphasis on SEN, with a effective SENCO and good ways
of working with parents, pupils with SEN do well.
Learning support advisory teacher
The system when properly understood and worked with
offers extra support, resources and expertise to pupils
Pastoral manager to include outreach
• ‘Does not work well’
It all takes too long – a week is a very long time in the life of a child.
Teacher in a mainstream school
It is combative and to be frank at times I have
observed outright bullying of parents who are trying
to do their best for their child.
Consultant clinical psychologist
Lack of openness and transparency
Assistant team manager
Having to produce unending amounts of evidence from
‘professionals’ that a child needs support. I believe I am
a professional. But my views are never enough.
SENCO in a mainstream school
Children often have to ‘fail’ before they qualify for support –
instead of schools being able to put in adequate additional
support at an early stage when concerns are first identified
SENCO, mainstream school
Discontinuation of the statementing process –
some schools think that if children don’t have statement
they don’t have special needs. These children would
have had a statement in the past.
Specialist dyslexia teacher
An emphasis on “systems” and “accomodations” rather than
individuals. An example being the needs of a severely dyslexic
child; whilst accomodations are definately required in the classroom
and helpful to the child, direct instruction to teach the child to read
and write is also essential. No amount of “accomodations”
would achieve this.
SENCO, mainstream school
123
Continuity of paperwork especially between school and college results
in needless reassessments especially for exam arrangements
Additional learning support tutor
Far too much paperwork to do,
although can’t think of a way to improve this
SEN teacher in a mainstream school
3.6.9 Funding, resources and provision
The terms ‘funding’, ‘resources’ and ‘provision’ were used interchangeably
by the respondents. If a response mentioned ‘provision’, in terms of
support, the response was coded with other support responses. However,
if the meaning was unclear, they were coded with ‘funding’. 3% of school
staff and 4% of other professional comments mentioned positive aspects
of funding. Responses commented on funding for specialist teaching and
for supporting learners, as well as the funds attached to statements.
15% of school staff and 12% of other professionals’ responses mentioned
concerns about funding.
• ‘Works well’:
Additional money is made available to meet needs
Manager VI support team
Adequate funding for support staff
Deputy head in a mainstream school
The ability to get a fair and equitable share of available
funding to schools to target support for vulnerable pupils
with the most complex needs and as early as possible.
SEN Strategy and Professional Services Group Manager/PEP
Dedicated funding ringfenced for a child
SENCO, mainstream school
Funding linked to the statement
Teacher of the deaf
• ‘Does not work well’:
Delegated funding to schools, it doesn’t always reach the SEN children!
one-to-one support provider
Money devolved to school for SEN isn’t always spent on SEN
Parent partnership officer
124
It takes too long to get funding into schools/settings
when an ‘unexpected need’ emerges (e.g. a child moving
into the areas unexpectedly)
Team leader
Having to apply constantly for funding and not having all SEN money
ring-fenced so that it can ‘disappear’ into school coffers in some cases
Education and SEN Consultant
Lack of funding to LAs to do the job properly,
funding in schools not ringfenced
Team Manager
Funding for preventative early intervention- everyone in authority
pays lip service to this but it is never recognised with resources
SENCO, mainstream school
3.7Parental views on the process
of statutory assessment
Questions to parents:
If your child has a statement or if you’ve tried to get a statement:
• What did you find helpful about the process?
• What did you find unhelpful about the process?
Key findings
•19% of the respondents stated that they did not find the statutory
assessment process helpful.
•Parents reported that support from individuals and organisations
was extremely important and sometimes the only thing that helped
them through difficult times.
•Not all parents received the help they wanted. Lack of support,
poor attitude and working practices of some schools, individuals
and organisations was strongly remarked upon and added greatly
to the unhappiness and stress of parents
•Parent Partnership services were generally considered extremely
helpful and supportive although some parents felt that they were
not impartial enough and worked too closely with local authorities
•Respondents saw the procedure of statutory assessment as complex
and bureaucratic to the extent that other parents might not be able to
go through it successfully owing to lack of time, money or education.
•Some parents found the process a positive one since it had clear
timescales, included parents and gave opportunity for meetings
to discuss the children.
125
•Many parents felt that having the children assessed and diagnosed
was beneficial, since it led to others taking the children’s needs
seriously and provided a complete picture of needs.
3.7.1 Support and information
Over a third (37%) of parents’ responses to the question stated that they
greatly appreciated the help and support they received from a variety of
bodies including Parent Partnership Services, charities, school staff, other
parents and Local Authority staff.
• Helpful
Parent Partnership are wonderful. There was nothing else helpful.
Parent of a primary aged child with moderate learning difficulties
We were given advice and information packs from the parent
partnership on what to expect and how to approach the process
Parent of a teenager with ASD
Teachers risking alienating their education authority
by supporting my child’s needs
Parent of a young secondary school aged child with ASD
We were supported by a voluntary sector agency to get a statement
when my son was just three. This has followed us from one part of the
country to another. Without this early support it is now clear that
a statement would not have been provided in time for our son
to receive additional support by the time he started school.
Parent of a young primary aged child with a specific learning
difficulty and speech, language and communication needs.
I found the support organisations like IPSEA and ACE helpful
Parent of a teenage with ASD
The educational psychologist took time to visit at home
and talk through the process
Parent of a child with ASD and behavioural, emotional/social difficulties.
The fact that I had a very approachable case officer who I felt I could
always contact and check progress with
Parent of a young primary aged child with ASD
The SEN casework team are helpful and generally have a desire to help.
Parent of a teenager with Tourette’s Syndrome
126
• Unhelpful
When asked what they found unhelpful, 44% of parent responses
commented on poor support, advice or poor working practices from
schools, Local Authorities or just no support at all.
Nobody at anytime explains the statement process to you
Parent of a primary aged child with moderate learning difficulties
The nobody cares attitude & the feeling you are
a bother to them
Parent of a primary aged child with behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties, speech, language
and communication needs and ASD
The lack of availability of specialist (non biased) advice for parents
(Parent Partnership services are run by the Local Authority! they claim
they are not biased, but they are too closely involved with the LAs).
A new, neutral, agency should be established for this purpose.
Parent of a secondary school aged child with a range of difficulties
including severe ADHD and a specific learning difficulty
The school did nothing to help, not even a leaflet to explain
the way it works
Parent of a young primary school child with a suspected
complex medical condition
Diagnosis and assessment from professionals outside the school
was disregarded and dismissed by the SENCO
Parent of a primary school child with a specific learning difficulty
Local authority approach – you have to fight and fight for
every hour of support and all the while your child is missing
out on vital early education and support
Parent of a primary age child with ASD
The fact that my county chooses to employ barristers
to stand against parents
Parent of a young teenager with moderate learning difficulties
and behavioural, emotional and social difficulties
The EP’s who should be independent are often clearly writing
their wording to appease the LEA and to express points that
fit in with the provision that the LEA’s choice of school can
provide for your child.
Parent of a young teenager with ASD
127
3.7.2 Complexity and bureaucracy
46% of parental responses also found the complexity of the cost,
bureaucratic nature, time delays and the process of the system was
unhelpful. Some parents felt that others, with less time, money or skills
would be prevented from appropriate involvement in statutory
assessment.
The length of time – when your child is very stressed in the situation he
is in and without appropriate support, the time involved is very lengthy
Parent of a teenager with ASD and speech, language
and communication needs.
The time span – early intervention is crucial for autism
but it takes the parent up to 12 months to get medical
evidence and then another 6 months to get a statement.
Parent of a pre-school child with moderate learning difficulties and ASD
Costly – Very high emotional cost for parents having to focus on and
detail everything your child finds harder than a ‘normal’ child or simply
cannot do at all in order to fill in paperwork
Parent of a primary school child with ASD
Persistence and time needed, when we were already
distressed and struggling
Parent of a young teenager with ASD
Had to fight every step of the way for it from the age
of 4 and still fighting now
Parent of a young teenager with Down’s Syndrome and behavioural,
social and emotional needs amongst other difficulties.
I felt it was discriminatory – normal children do not have to go through
this level of scrutiny to be able to have an appropriate education
Parent of a young adult at college with severe learning
difficulties and a physical disability
It was complicated and so seemed unjust to me as I strongly
suspect a lot of families would be excluded
Parent of a primary aged child with a specific learning difficulty
and speech, language and communication difficulties.
Time Consuming and bureaucratic.
Parent of a young primary school aged child with ASD
and a visual impairment
128
3.7.3 Positive process
However, 10% of parents’ responses said that the process itself was
helpful, with its clear timescales, the way in which parents were included
and the opportunity it gave for meetings to discuss the children.
Having the opportunity to have my say and to be heard
Parent of a primary aged child with a range of difficulties including
moderate learning difficulties and a physical disability.
The ability to provide my own ‘statement’ of experiences
to contribute to the assessment
Parent of a pre-school child with special needs including
behavioural, emotional and social difficulties and ASD
Clear, well defined timetable
Parent of a young secondary school aged child with ASD
Meetings with all relevant parties to agree action
Parent of a primary aged child with moderate learning difficulties
and behavioural, social and emotional difficulties.
It took a while to get the statements but I would say it was
in our case quite straightforward.
Parent of two children with Fragile X
Being able to meet before the draft statement was prepared
Parent of a teenager with a range of difficulties including moderate
learning difficulties and a hearing impairment
3.7.4 Assessments and reports
12% of parent responses noted the usefulness of the assessments and
reports. The positive comments were about aspects such as gaining a
diagnosis and the way in which this clearly identified and confirmed the
child’s difficulties and needs.
My child and I were taken seriously, after years of negativity.
Parent of a home educated child with Asperger’s Syndrome
Insightful as to what we as parents needed to know
about our daughter’s needs.
Parent of a young primary school aged child with speech, language
and communication needs and a visual impairment.
129
Having reports from different professionals at the same
time gave a rounded picture of my daughter’s needs
Parent of a young secondary school child with moderate
learning difficulties, speech, language and communication
needs and behavioural, social and emotional difficulties.
My child has had a statement since starting school and it was
great in that it brought all the professionals together. This provides
a holistic view of the child’s needs- academically, socially, healthwise
and particularly speech and language therapist input.
Parent of a primary aged child with ASD
Getting proper assessments done by people with expert knowledge
about my child’s disability (ie Sense as my child is deaf/blind)
Parent of a primary aged child with a range of special
needs including multi-sensory impairments, behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties and severe
learning difficulties.
Those who were unhappy about the assessments and reports cited
reasons such as inaccuracies in the reports, assessments being made by
professionals who barely met the child and reports dwelling on the
child’s weaknesses without mentioning strengths at all.
Dragging my child to so many different doctors and other health
professionals to get evidence. They would discuss my child’s problems
in front of him which I knew was detrimental to his confidence.
Parent of primary school child with specific learning difficulties
and speech, language and communication difficulties.
Some unnecessary repeat assessments eg a community
paediatrician had to assess my sons medical needs for the
local authority yet my son had several consultants who
could have provided this information
Parent of a secondary school child with behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties, Speech, language
and communication needs, ASD, severe learning
difficulties and a physical disability
How can an assessment that may take, if you are lucky, half
an hour, let that person make a decision on your child’s future
by the report that they write and may never see that child again.
Parent of a primary age child with a severe learning difficulty,
ASD and speech language and communication needs.
130
3.8 Views on statements
Questions to parents:
•If your child has a statement:
What is helpful about your child’s statement?
What is unhelpful about your child’s statement?
Questions to school staff and other professionals:
•If you work with one or more children with a statement:
What is helpful about the statement?
What is unhelpful about the statement?
Key findings
•Parents saw the statement as a document that would provide
statutory access to provision, but felt that schools and LAs did not
always implement statements in full. Some parents felt that there
was little they could do about this.
•Statements were appreciated by parents because they contained
information about the children’s needs and allowed them to be
understood by everyone. School staff and other professionals liked
the fact that the statements contained information about the best
ways to teach and support the children.
•Statements were not always felt to be an accurate representation
of what the children needed, for example, in relation to the hours
of therapy included.
•Statement wording was often vague and ‘woolly’ with provision
and support not quantified, or else was so prescriptive that schools
and staff felt forced to carry out actions which they considered
were not in the best interests of the children.
•Despite the dissatisfactions expressed, only 1.8% of parents suggested
the possibility of separation of statutory assessment from provision.
•Statements were sometimes considered to use complex jargon that
was not easy for the lay person or school staff to understand.
As mentioned before, 70% of the parents responding to the questionnaire
had children with statements of special educational needs. Statements
were a highly emotive subject for many. However it should be remembered
that those completing the questionnaire were an unrepresentative, selfselecting group of parents desirous of explaining the difficulties they
experienced.
As with the other questions, if a respondent felt very strongly about one
of the questions, they could write similar answers in all three of the
available response slots for the question, thereby increasing the
percentage of responses within a category.
131
3.8.1 Access to provision
The parents, school staff, and other professionals were all asked what
they believed to be helpful about statements. The parents’ principal
reaction to the question (43% of responses) was about the access to
provision that a statement provided, whether it be in order to supply
funding for specific programmes, support for the child in class, access to
funds or the guarantee that the money was ring-fenced.
Money for 1:1 hours of support is ring fenced for our son
(exceptional need).
Parent of young primary aged child with ASD and a visual impairment
Gets him into the school he is at
Parent of a child with speech, language and communication
needs and ASD
The fact that it offers him (and the school) adequate support (now):
37.5 hours of 1:1 funding per week – it took 4 years to get that though.
Parent of a primary aged child with behavioural, social
and emotional difficulties and a specific learning difficulty.
Provides funding for the school to give her one to one support
Parent of a young primary aged child with complex needs
including speech, language and communication needs
and hearing and visual impairments
Being able to ask for additional support such as laptops
and anger management training – and getting it.
Parent of a young secondary school aged child with ASD
It provides for a discretionary payment to meet our child’s ABA provision
Parent of a primary school aged child with ASD
When school staff and other professionals were asked what they
considered to be helpful about statements they had similar views to the
parents above, (27% and 18% of responses respectively).
It provides resources to meet their needs; without it,
the children would get no help at my school.
Advanced skills teacher, mainstream school
A Statement is a magic key for parents when looking at Secondary
schools, without it they cannot opt for a special school placement
Headteacher, mainstream school
132
The support is outlined AND RING FENCED!
SENCO, mainstream school
Ensures detailed amount of time with an adult
Teacher in LA literacy team
Child gets designated support – treated as a priority –
part of the enormous battle for funds has been won
Learning support tutor
3.8.2 Assessment
School staff and other professionals’ comments focussed upon the
information provided as a result of assessment (39% for both school staff
and other professionals). Parents (20% of responses) shared this view: all
three groups of respondents appreciated the fact that the information on
the statement allowed them to have the children’s needs clearly explained
and identified. The school staff and other professionals particularly
appreciated the strategies identified to help them support the child’s
learning and participation. Parents’ responses commented on this area
less frequently than other respondents, probably because they had already
completed additional questions about the process of getting a statement.
Raises staff/schools awareness of need for support/provision
Head of student services, mainstream school
It goes into detail of specific areas of difficulities
for each individual child.
Teaching assistant, mainstream school
The statement, if done properly can give school and parents a clear
understanding of a child’s needs, all codified in one place and parents
feel that their child’s needs have been acknowledged by professionals
outside of the school.
Parent partnership officer
It gives a clear overview of the child’s educational needs
Educational psychologist
It spells out what needs to be done to support the child
SENCO, mainstream school
Sometimes gives valuable recommendations
Assessment and Advisory teacher for SEN, mainstream school
133
Clear information about practical strategies to support the child
Literacy coordinator, mainstream school
Ways forward – methods and actions suggested by expert to help pupil
Specialist teacher
It describes my son so that anyone who can read it knows
what he is like and what his needs are and how to help
Parent of a teenager with speech, language and communication
difficulties and ASD
Everyone concerned knows what his additional needs are
Parent of a pre-school child with cerebral palsy with global
developmental impairment
3.8.3 Working with children more effectively
The school staff and other professionals also mentioned other ways that
the statement could help them work with children more effectively (26%
and 31% respectively), included aspects such as the targets listed with
their procedures for monitoring and review.
They found a statement helpful when it clearly defined provision and
support and was not open to misinterpretation.
All inputs are quantified, and so targets can be measures against
Parent of a young primary aged child with severe
learning difficulties, a physical disability
and a hearing impairment
It make[s] objectives clear to both parents and school
Parent of a young secondary school aged child with ASD
Outlines clear areas for development
Head, special school
It gives clear objectives that are reviewed annually
Deputy SENCO, mainstream school
Clear guidance and regular monitoring of expected outcomes
SENCO mainstream school
Measurable targets
Faculty head mainstream school
134
Provides a robust mechanism (annual review)
for monitoring the child’s progress
Parent partnership officer
The Review process ensures everyone gets together at least once a year
even in schools where IEP meetings don’t happen regularly
Sensory support teacher
Stating clearly the number of hours of support / therapy per week that
the child is entitled to (very unusual I have to say, and tends to be the
result of lengthy fights between parents and the LEA!)
ABA tutor
When it identifies the additional staffing required, the skills, knowledge
qualities and qualification of the staff, as well as the number of hours
those staff, including teaching, intervenor, rehab officer, SALT etc
Consultant in deaf/blind and multi-sensory impairment
Number of LSA hours support clearly identified and stated.
Specialist teacher, mainstream school
3.8.4 The statement as a legal document
The parents (11% of their responses to the question) appreciated the
fact that a statement is a legal document, a way to safeguard their child’s
entitlement and a tool to ensure that appropriate action was taken. This
was also mentioned by the school staff and other professionals (4% and
7% respectively).
It entitles her to a lot more help through her life. It is absolutely
nessessary to get her through her life.
Parent of a schoolchild with ASD
Ensures the support my child needs is documented and actioned upon.
Parent of a young primary aged child with a specific learning difficulty
and speech, language and communication difficulties.
It is legally enforceable
Parent of 3 children, all with special needs and severe learning difficulties
Since the statement is a legal document it can be used by advisory
teachers to back up their advice to schools and ensure the appropriate
provision is made.
Specialist advisory teacher.
135
That it is an acknowledged legal paper so I do not have to
fight for every little bit of support my child requires. it is written
down and legally binding on school /local authority to provide
the resources
Parent of a primary aged child with moderate learning difficulties,
behavioural, social and emotional needs, specific learning difficulty
and ASD.
The statement is a legally binding document and helps parents
to feel more secure about the support offered to their child.
Parent Partnership Officer
Local authority have a clear and statutory duty –
not just responsibility of parent and school
Integrated services strategy manager
3.8.5 Content of statement
All three groups of respondents were also asked what they felt to be
unhelpful about statements. Parents expressed unhappiness about
aspects of provision (14% of their responses), including items missing
from statements, the amount of therapy written into the statement and
perceived inadequacies of available support. Some parents also stated
that on statements that did not specify and quantify provision; this could
result in provision not being implemented and hard to ‘enforce’.
Provision in general is not specified except in vague
and unenforceable language
Parent of a secondary school aged pupil with ASD
and moderate learning difficulties
Doesn’t include important things I requested due to cost
Parent of a young primary aged child with severe learning
difficulties and speech, language and communication needs.
It doesn’t cover After School Club hours or any other
wrap-around childcare so have none
Parent of a primary school aged child with moderate learning difficulties,
speech language and communication difficulties and a physical disability
Refusal to put speech therapy in statutory provision so not delivered
Parent of a teenager with behavioural, social and emotional difficulties,
speech, language and communication needs, profound and multiple
learning difficulties and a physical disability.
136
It does not cover the O/T and speech therapy he requires
Parent of young teenager with a specific learning difficulty
It does not specify specialist equipment that he needs
e.g. computer aids, special chair, cutlery etc.
Parent of a teenager with moderate learning difficulties,
multi-sensory impairments and ASD
Lack of specificity in the provision leads to the fact that we are completely
dependent on who is in the (secondary) school’s Inclusion Team to cater
for our son’s needs; turnover or new prioritisations in needs may result in
different approaches, thus stability and continuity is not guaranteed.
Parent of two children with specific learning difficulties
3.8.6 Implementation
14% of parents’ comments expressed concern that provision listed in
the statement was not necessarily implemented by either the school or
the local authority, mentioning, for example, a lack of funds or the lack
of trained staff. Sometimes parents were concerned about the way in
which provision was implemented, for example in relation to schools’
interpretation of the statement’s requirements.
It not being followed by the LEA
(Parent of a teenager with ASD, behaviour difficulties and specific
learning difficulties, excluded from secondary school)
Too much responsibility placed on class room assistants
to provide medical care, and therepies
(Parent of a school aged child with problems including speech,
language and communication difficulties and physical disabilities)
The statement is fine – it was the school’s failure
to implement the advice on it that was the problem.
Parent of a young, primary aged child with ASD, currently excluded
from school
That the words are not being translated into a level of support
that enables him to have his entitlement to a full time education
Parent of a primary aged child with a range of complex behavioural,
emotional and social needs.
Things not being delivered, eg SALT [speech and language therapy]
Parent of a primary school child with Down’s Syndrome
137
The teaching assistant was meant to be one to one
but ended up being one to five
Parent of a primary age home educated child with ASD,
specific learning difficulties and multi-sensory impairments
The fact that the LEA seem to ignore what is on the statement
despite having had 3 annual reviews
Parent of a secondary school aged pupil with a range
of difficulties including speech, language and communication
needs and multisensory impairments.
3.8.7 Statement writing
Many parental responses (18%) commented on the way in which the
statement was written. Some parents said that the language was often
vague and non-specific whilst others found it to be complex and full of
jargon. The use of template documents was also criticised. The school
staff and other professionals had similar views about the contents of the
statement, 51% of both school staff and other professionals responses
were about the way the statement was either full of jargon and complex
or vague and ‘woolly’.
Objectives were seen as unhelpful when they were too broad, vague or
sometimes even unreachable; there were concerns about provision and
support not being quantified or, in contrast, being so prescriptive that staff
could not do what they felt was best for the child. All three groups mentioned
concerns that statement writers did not always appear conversant with
either the child or the type of special need and that template statements
were used which often had little bearing on the child’s needs.
• Wording
The statement has a lot of educational jargon
Parent of young primary school aged child with a range of special
educational needs including moderate learning difficulties, behavioural,
social and emotional needs and ASD
Our particular statement is badly written and probably too detailed – but
that’s not really a problem as we have a good understanding with school
Parent of a young primary aged child with Down’s Syndrome
The use of wording so that 30 hours one to one support
becomes access to. This could be none, 1 hour or anything.
Parent of a young secondary school aged pupil with moderate
learning difficulties
138
Vague ‘regular...’ remarks with no comment as to frequency. Haley’s
comet is ‘regular’, after all. Not frequent, though.
Parent of two primary school aged children with ASD
Vague language e.g. use of regular (once every year is regular)
Parent of a young adult with moderate learning difficulties
and a visual impairment (currently at college)
Taken from a template, I had to insist they personalise it to reflect my son.
Parent of a schoolchild with speech, language and communication
difficulties and a severe learning difficulty
The LEA consistently sending me updates with the wrong
child’s name at the top of it.
Parent of a primary school aged child with a range of difficulties
including severe learning difficulties and a hearing impairment
• Targets and Objectives
Targets that say things like small group support with literacy –
what does that mean?
Deputy SENCO, mainstream school
They often list an unrealistic number of individual learning objectives
which just can’t be delivered in a mainstream setting when a child is
included in every lesson.
SENCO mainstream school
Progress can be made faster than Statement allows –
targets are too easily achieved.
Faculty head, mainstream school
Targets can often be too vague with no clear impact measures
Deputy head, mainstream school
Objectives can be very broad and unSMART
Learning support teacher,
• Provision
Sometimes the type of provision named is not appropriate
to meet that child’s needs
Curriculum support worker, outreach team.
Can be prescriptive and not address all difficulties
that the child presents with
SENCO, mainstream school
139
Specified hours – in my experience these are not realistic –
if you want a child to ‘catch up’ or progress reasonably well so
that the child notices improvement. More spent early on would mean
that children with literacy problems could progress sufficiently for their
statement to be rescinded. Sometimes a huge list of interventions is
recommended and only a few hours to cover the lot – not realistic –
even if the specialist resources recommended were available
(OT, Speech and language).
Learning support teacher, mainstream school
Sometimes provision is not detailed, quantified or specified
SENCO, mainstream school
The provision suggested is not available eg. no room in a SEN unit
Headteacher, mainstream school
• Statement Authors
Written by someone who has had minimal/no contact with child
Specialist teacher, mainstream school
Not always written by people with enough expertise in the field.
SENCO, mainstream school
Most statements are ‘cut and paste’ affairs written
to fit LA criteria rather than to describe the child
SENCO, mainstream school
3.8.8 The statutory assessment process and afterwards
The school staff and other professionals also commented on the process
of statutory assessment and what happens afterwards (30% and 25%
of responses respectively). Many mentioned the length of time involved,
as was the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy. The complexity and
failure of the review system was the most frequently mentioned aspect
of this area: respondents commented on how often the statements
became out of date and how difficult they were to change. This was also
mentioned by the parents in 15% of their responses.
• Time taken
It is very slow and difficult to obtain a statement
SEN support teacher, mainstream school
The length of the process from referral to statement
SENCO, children’s centre
140
The statement process takes 6 months. That’s a hell
of a long time when you’re an infant school child
SENCO, mainstream school
Mindless form filling and repetition of info for info’s sake
Assistant Head, mainstream school
It produces too much paper work that does
not necessarily benefit the pupil’s progress
Specialist support teacher, mainstream school
• Review process
Annual Review forms – need to be condensed –
the same information is asked repeatedly.
SENCO, mainstream school
It needs to be updated more often as the needs
are not always appropriate to a child developing
and making progress
SENCO
Time taken for amendments to be made so can be working
with an outdated document because the student has made
progress and it is not reflected quickly enough in the new
document to boost the student’s self-esteem
Deputy inclusion manager, mainstream school
Having to argue with the LA if there are any changes
to it even though our son is never going to recover
Parent of a teenager with ASD, severe learning
difficulties and epilepsy
It’s not particularly a very “organic” document. It seems
difficult to update or change aspects of it simply to reflect
the progress of the child. Also as a parent you can be afraid
of requesting changes in case you lose some of the provision
that is in place to help look after your child.
Parent of a young primary aged child with special needs
including moderate learning difficulties, behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties and ASD.
LEA says it can’t be updated – just added to, so everyone
first sees ‘bad’ info on her from when she was 5
Parent of a primary aged child with moderate learning
difficulties and ASD
141
The wording which was written when he was 3 and
now he is 13 and the LEA still wanted to use it!
Parent of a teenager with ASD
My child’s statement was first written when she was approx.
4 years old and is written about her as a toddler. The LEA have
refused to re-write it to show her as a 9 year old at a mainstream
school. It is an outdated document.
Parent of a primary school child with Down’s Syndrome
3.9 How to improve the SEN system
Question to parents, school staff and other professionals:
• How can we improve the SEN system?
Key findings
•The wide range of views resulted in very low response
rates for most categories.
•Greater training and recognition for those working
with students with SEN was desired.
•Respondents suggested that SENCOs should only be concerned with
that role and should always be members of the schools’ SMTs.
•Respondents wanted the SEN system to be made less
bureaucratic, less complex, more open and transparent,
easier to access and more flexible.
•Funding was felt to be inadequate and delegated funds were
considered a mixed blessing – clear auditing and monitoring
processes were requested. Parents wanted a greater say in how the
money was spent; some requested an individual budget for their
child to use as they considered appropriate.
Parents, school staff and other professionals were all asked “How can we
improve the SEN system”. The answers to these questions covered a huge
array of issues with few of them producing larger numbers of responses.
Answers ranged from issues to do with the system adopting a different
type of focus, such as looking at the potential of the children rather than
their failings (8% parental responses, 2% school staff and 4% other
professionals) to the involvement of parents (12% parents’ responses,
2% school staff and 6% of the other professionals responses).
Very few responses (1.8% of parents, 0.3% of school staff and 0.6% of
other professionals) mentioned splitting the statutory assessment of
SEND from provision, typically in terms similar to this comment: “Split the
duty to assess from the duty to provide – whilst the LEA do both we will
142
always have an issue”. The lack of response is of interest, considering the
significance sometimes given to such proposals.
As discussed previously, the parents who completed the questionnaire
are possibly those most likely to have experienced problems in the past,
wishing to improve the system by highlighting what did not work for
them.
3.9.1 Training and employment
Responses often mentioned the training and employment of school staff.
It was suggested that not only should staff be trained in SEN but there
should also be specialists within the schools for different needs and that
all staff should be aware and understanding of SEN issues.
Such remarks were made in 8% of the parents’ responses, 18% of the
school staff responses and 17% from the other professionals.
Encourage it as a career path – since my child has been
going to his school the SENCO role has changed four times
and is changing yet again for next terms!
Parent of a primary school child with dyslexia
All schools to have a full time SENCO who can deliver
specialist teaching to SEN pupils and carry out other
SENCO responsibilities
SENCO in a mainstream school
Be realistic about the demands of the SENCO job.
It is huge if done properly.
SENCO in a mainstream school
All SENCOs should be on the SMT
Inclusion manager
Ensure that school SENCOs are committed to the needs
of the child rather than more concerned about government
targets and red tape of paperwork.
Parent of a primary aged child with
a physical disability
TRAINING SUPPORT STAFF AND TEACHERS!!!
Enforcing the training!
Parent of a secondary school age student with ASD
143
More training for teachers-they are becoming de-skilled
as TAs are taking over the SEN support role
Learning support advisory teacher
Better training of Learning Support Staff and SENCo’s –
identification, assessment, provisional planning, management
of SEN, selection of interventions, implementing plans, etc
EAL coordinator/learning support teacher
3.9.2 The SEN system and statutory assessment
Responses often mentioned statutory assessment. The remarks by the
respondents (14% of parental comments, 12% of the school staff
responses and 12% of the other professionals’ responses) were about
reducing the processes in the system, making it less complex and
bureaucratic, more open and transparent, easier to access and more
flexible.
Re-focus LEA’s from funding priorities which then forces
them to reduce assessments, statements etc to longer term
aims of student achievement into adulthood and the skills
they need to be successful adults
Principal of a special school
Reduce statements by allocating to pupils with profound
needs only. Allow funding to be shared fairly by schools
between all SEN pupils, not just those with statements.
SENCO, mainstream school
Scrap the need for children to go through the ‘hoops’ of school action/
school action plus as a prerequisite to the drawing up of a statement.
Parent of a primary aged child with ASD
Teaching staff need to be more involved
in the target setting process
Literacy coordinator
Reduce bureaucracy – a HT knows whether a child needs
assessing and should be trusted to make that judgement
Support worker, parents’ group
Simplify it by repealing and replacing the mass
of legislation including the regulations
Head of SEN and disabilities
144
More statementing at Primary level -for all students who
need it, not just those with educated and pushy parents
Head of student services, mainstream school
3.9.3 Funding
The issue of funding also prompted many responses. 9% of comments
from parents 17% from school staff and 12% from other professionals
mentioned this. The comments were largely about providing more funds
and in some cases, ensuring that it was ring-fenced.
A system where a “pot of money” is directly allocated
to the child based on the child’s needs is preferable
Parent of a primary aged child with moderate learning difficulties
and speech, language and communication difficulties.
Give parents an individual budget
Parent of a young secondary school aged student with moderate
learning difficulties and global developmental delay
Addition funding to employ our own Physio,
Speech and Language therapist
Head, special school
Funding for pupils at SA and SA+ needs to be addressed –
so many schools claim the money to support these children
is not adequate to meet their needs
Private specialist literacy teacher
Increased delegation of funds to meet SEN to schools
but with a clear process for auditing how these
additional resources are used
Principal educational psychologist
Joined up budgets are still evolving especially between
Children’s Services and the NHS. For more complex children
there needs to be more learning across local authorities
and health regions.
Consultant child psychologist
Money provided to support children’s needs should focus on teaching
and making a difference, not just paying for a “minder” to keep them
out of the classteacher’s hair while she gets on with teaching the rest
of the class. Support Assistants do a very valuable job, but they are
145
crying out for more guidance from specialist services. We put the least
qualified in charge of the education of the most needy and challenging.
This is bonkers.
Educational psychologist
Funding directed to areas where there are high levels of SEN needs;
not just schools fabricating figures, but real SEN needs
SENCO, mainstream school
3.10Additional views on the SEN system
This section presents responses to the open-ended question at the end
of the questionnaire.
Question to parents, school staff and other professionals:
•Is there anything else you would like to tell us
about the SEN system?
Key findings
Parents
•Some parents had had to fight at length for provision for their
children. For many this meant a huge financial and emotional cost.
•For many children, having a statement was no guarantee of their
needs being met.
•The focus of the school system was academic, on targets
and exams, whilst placing little emphasis on the social needs
of children. This meant many pupils left school with no
qualifications and low self esteem.
School staff and the other professionals
•Responses from school staff and the other professionals fell into
three categories which were very different from those of the parents:
early intervention
statutory assessment
inclusion
•Early intervention and more support during Early Years was
seen as a necessity. It was felt that a system which could react
quicker, putting support in place as soon as it was needed would
be highly beneficial, prevent or reduce the need for greater help
later on and save money on resourcing.
•Statements were not available to all those who needed them.
Parents had to fight through the complexity of the system in order
to get provision, with only the articulate and better off succeeding.
146
•Lack of consistency across LAs added to the unjustness
of the system.
•Barriers to inclusion were considered to be a lack of funds
available to cover all needs and the clash of the standards
agenda versus the inclusion agenda.
At the end of the questionnaires, parents, school staff and the other
professionals were all asked “Is there anything else you would like to tell
us about the SEN system?” Although not every respondent chose to
complete this question, those that did tended to write a great deal
generating a huge number of comments in each response. The 455
parent responses to this question, once analysed, generated a total of
1047 comments.
The figures reporting responses to this question only are therefore
calculated as a percentage of the total number of comments. Parents
made very different comments to those of the school staff and other
professionals and are therefore reported separately.
3.10.1 Parents
Whilst the earlier questions were seen as an opportunity to write a line
or two, this question gave parents almost unlimited space in which many
chose to express the reasons which had attracted them to completing
the questionnaire in the first place. Very few were entirely positive but as
discussed above, those who are satisfied with something which appears
to work, find little to comment on. Perceived failure of a system however,
promotes the desire to relate one’s experiences. Such experiences were
recounted in these responses which fell into five main categories.
3.10.2 Fighting for provision
The largest number of comments (41%) detailed the characteristics of
the parents’ fight to obtain provision for their children. This included
comments about the financial cost involved, the time it took to get a
statement or provision, the traumatic effects upon the children and their
families, and the lack of communication experienced.
The school and the LEA did not recognise the severity
of the learning difficulties. My wife and I had to find over
£1000 to go through the process up to tribunal
Parent of a teenager with speech, language
and communication difficulties
147
The situation regarding the Statementing process highlights the
unfairness of the situation, with LEAs using the SENDIST process
as a means to dissuade all but the very committed parents into
accepting a compromise settlement. Our own costs of referring my
daughter’s case amounted to over £20,000 before the case was
aborted 5 days before the tribunal was due to be held.
Parent of a young secondary school aged pupil with
a range of difficulties including multisensory
impairments and epilepsy
We first requested a statement for our child when he was 2 and
a half it took over 18 months before the process was complete. The
LEA were actively obstructive & extremely unhelpful throughout the
entire process. In the past year our responsible officer has left we were
not informed of this nor were we given the name and contact details
of his replacement. We constantly battle with our LEA to get our
childs needs met. I have no trust in them and do not believe
they have my childs interests at heart.”
Parent of a young primary aged child with moderate learning
difficulties, behavioural, emotional and social needs and speech,
language and communication difficulties.
3.10.3 A statement is no guarantee
23% of the parents’ comments related to the fact that for these parents,
their child having a statement was no guarantee of the child’s needs
being met.
The reasons given included the lack of expertise, resources or funds in
the school, the refusal of a school to admit a student with SEN, general
comments about the ‘SEN system being a failure’ and the fact that the
parents considered there to be a lack of accountability in the system,
with Ofsted inadequate to check on provision.
I have been told by all professionals that my son needs
one-to-one help, but the school have told me that even if I got
a statement then there is no money to provide this help. Having
an educational psychologist who can only see two referrals a
term is just ridiculous – this service should be based on need.
Having to put my child into a mainstream school without properly
trained staff and resources is a strain that neither he or us need.
I support inclusion but it is being done on a shoestring and
these children are being left out of the system.
Parent of a young primary aged child with ASD
148
I am sad to say that I now have no faith in the system, I feel it is nothing
more than an accountancy exercise and that special needs children are
seen as nothing more than case numbers and not complete human beings.
Parent of a student with difficulties including speech, language
and communication difficulties and a hearing impairment
3.10.4 General negative comments
18% of the comments were general negative remarks about the LAs, the
school or the SEN system. Delays stemming from the LA procedures,
along with their refusal to provide statements, was mentioned frequently
as was the lack of finance in the system and the parents view that the
LA’s considered finance to be the priority rather than the children’s needs.
Problems in the school were also mentioned, particularly delays caused
by schools and schools unwilling to support statutory assessment.
LEAs merely protect budgets and look for any loop-hole to prevent
appropriate help being given. I have been astounded that in the so
called developed world we can provide such a Dickensian system
for Vulnerable children.
Parent of a young teenager with speech, language
and communication needs and ASD
The SEN system appears from a parents perspective to be used as a
tool for managing the local education departments budget rather than
as a tool to ensure children with special needs receive high quality
education relevant to their lives
Parent of a young primary aged child with Downs’ Syndrome
3.10.5 Failure in the system
12% of the parents’ comments were about the impact of inefficiencies
in the system including concerns about children leaving school with no
qualifications and the fact that they were unable to cope in school. It
was also felt that the system focussed on tests and exams but neglected
the social needs of the children. In addition to this, some parents stated
that the views and wishes of the children were not taken into account.
My daughter simply struggles with the size/ noise of a mainstream
classroom. Although I totally endorse the need for her to spend time in
a mainstream environment, she would benefit from more learning in a
quiet area/unit as a result of her impaired attention/listening skills
Parent of a young primary school child with ASD
149
I have found that due to financial restraints the official system does not
want to recognise learning difficulties until a huge gap has opened up
between the child and the rest of the class. Earlier intervention would
save a lot of time and heartache.
Parent of a primary school child with a specific learning difficulty
3.10.6 Positive comments
Not all the comments from the parents were negative: 4% were positive.
These were usually about the schools their children attended but there
were also complimentary remarks about organisations such as parent
partnership services. Some comments also praised the SEN system in
general, particularly when comparing it to that of other countries.
I have found the help my daughter gets from the specialist unit is
fantastic and the support we get is first class, but within the normal
classroom I feel my daughter is left out of activities and not enough
people understand children’s special needs.
Parent of a young primary school child with a range of difficulties,
including ASD
Our child has thrived and continues to learn at an unexpected rate
despite what I perceive as the SEN system! She has been lucky to have
had a class teacher and teaching assistant both of whom have their
own special needs children and have therefore many years of personal
experience. We are facing a move to a new school and I can only hope
that we will find such a good learning environment for her again.
Parent of a young primary school child with behavioural,
emotional and social needs and speech, language
and communication difficulties.
3.10.7 School Staff and Other Professionals
The school staff and other professionals were also asked if there was
anything else they would like to state about the SEN system. Again a
large number of comments were generated and the figures are calculated
as a proportion of the total number of comments rather than responses.
3.10.8 Early intervention
Comments from the school staff and other professionals were in three
main categories, the first but smallest group relating to early years and
150
the need to make the most of this time in order to set early intervention
in place. This was mentioned in 6% of comments from school staff and
4% from the other professionals
Here a child is lucky if they see a SALT in a group once a week and
more often it is once a month for half an hour. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
These children may be non verbal but with a potential to talk if given
intensive early intervention at preschool level. The current SEN system
is actively denying these children a voice which contributes to their
inappropriate behaviour caused by their frustration. The SEN system
is exacerbating their special needs with its lack of vision.
Private ABA tutor
I really believe that by identifying characteristics of special needs
(especially SpLD) before age 7/8 and addressing these characteristics
early with one to one support would alleviate some of the strain
on the system further up the age groups.
Additional needs coordinator mainstream school
3.10.9 Statutory assessment
Statutory assessment was referred to in 21% of school staff comments
and 23% from the other professionals. Issues raised in this category
included the need for parents to fight their way through the system and
the fact that they should have some support.
In addition, owing to the complex, bureaucratic and at time, combative
nature of the system, it was suggested that only parents who were
educated, articulate and in some cases, better off were able to navigate
and fight their way through the system successfully.
Most of my answers deal with what I hear from parents and pupils
about their experiences. Their common complaint is that they have
to fight for everything. They battle with bureaucracy who don’t
understand the nature of SEN in education...
Independent practitioner
As far as parents are concerned we are often “piggy in
the middle” in their battle to get their children’s needs met.
We spend hours listening to their woes and mop up their tears
as we are their first port of call. As caring professionals we do
this willingly but hate to have to tell them that it could take
years to get a statement as they are often turned down.
Inclusion manager in a mainstream school
151
I am not surprised that parents have no confidence in the SEN process,
as it is deliberately bureaucratic and difficult so that children who need
Statements are snarled up in the system and denied help.
Head, mainstream school
3.10.10 Inclusion
The largest group of comments from the school staff and other
professionals (57% and 43% respectively) mentioned inclusion. It was
reported that some of the barriers to inclusion were as a result of the
lack of funds available and that delegated funds to mainstream schools
were not enough to cover all the needs of the pupils.
It was also felt that in order for inclusion to be successful all the staff
involved with children with SEN should have more SEN training. It was
also the view of some respondents that the ‘standards agenda’ clashes
with the ‘inclusion agenda’ and the needs of pupils with SEN.
It’s incredibly frustrating and depressing to see children progress
through a large primary school being managed as best we can, but
without the proper support that they need, year after year, because
of lack of funding and a slow, paperwork laden system.
Teacher, mainstream school
Inclusion is a commendable and desirable philosophy but it cannot
work unless a) staff are well prepared for the needs of the individual’s
they will be meeting in their classrooms.
SEN governor in a mainstream. school
Despite the introduction of Excellence and Enjoyment and a push
towards the Creative Curriculum, the development of these will always
be hindered whilst primary schools are measured and judged primarily
(almost solely) on the outcomes in the SATs testing. This often results
in teachers teaching to the test and narrowing the curriculum to ensure
good outcomes in the areas to be assessed, leaving many key skills
to be untaught. These key skills are often vital for SEN children to
develop into confident, independent adults.
SENCO, mainstream school
Schools report a tension between inclusive practices and the pressure
to reach targets. There are indications that some schools discourage
children who are having particularly difficulties from staying at the
school – advice such as “ perhaps he/she needs a fresh start”/”if you
feel your child is not doing well here perhaps you should go elsewhere”
152
is reported to our parent partnership service, even though the vast
majority of our schools are fully inclusive.
Service head – Early Years
3.11Report on e-mails sent to the Lamb Inquiry
We were asked to look at a sample of email messages sent to the Inquiry by
parents and others, received before, during and after the call for evidence.
The e-mail messages examined were mostly from parents (85), with
small numbers from teachers (4), Parent Partnership Services (PPS: 3),
academics (5), Local Authority (1), Community Service Volunteers (CSV:
2), other organisations (3) and unknown identities (4).
Some academics merely requested information.
A number of more extended papers were received from a number of
individuals and organisations. These covered a range of topics and are
acknowledged directly in the final report of the Inquiry.
Teachers’ e-mails expressed a range of views, all but one submission
being critical of various aspects of the SEN system.
The one positive submission was from a special school and consisted of
a large number of pages providing examples of that school’s good
practice e.g. detailed information and guidance for staff re particular
types of SEN, case notes about individual pupils.
The negative comments covered:
•conflicts between the standards agenda and inclusion
•failures of OFSTED to adequately inspect mainstream
schools’ SEN provision
•funding and statementing functions should be separated as funding
(which is inadequate) takes priority over pupils’ needs
•criticisms of the ‘whole statementing process’
•criticisms of the wording of statements
•unrealistic expectations of some parents
•disputes and delays that ‘characterise the process’
•tribunals as an ordeal for parents
•anti-parent attitudes in health and education services
•lack of cooperation between agencies.
E-mail submissions from Parent Partnership Services included comments
on how beneficial their role was felt to be.
153
A number sent in copies of the small scale survey results gathered from
parents in their areas.
In local authority A (24 responses) the weakest aspects of schools’
practice was poor communication about what provision for children’s
needs and failure to act on decisions reached in meetings.
The experience of parents of children with statements of SEN or at School
Action Plus was more or less divided between positive and negative.
In local authority B (18 responses) 60% reported positive experiences.
The weaknesses were seen as:
•work not being adapted for their child
•out of school social contact was lacking
•not being informed in advance of who would
be at meetings and why.
Parents felt generally satisfied with:
•their clear understanding of what the school could provide
•the experience and qualifications of staff
•having information about meetings in good time.
One PPS staff member felt that LA compliance should be more
enforced.
Parents’ e-mails raised points which, for the most part, had been raised
in the responses to the open-ended question in the web survey. Additional
points were:
•transition was often difficult and not adequately handled
•educational psychologists should be independent of LAs
•funding should be a ‘package’ for the child, provided directly
from the DCSF
•disfigured children are over-looked by SEN provision
•a parent happy that the statement meets their child’s need;
•Home Education is resorted to because school provision is
inadequate, but LAs sometimes raise child protection/abuse issues
when parents suggest/opt for Home Education.
The broad headings used in the analysis of the responses to the webbased open-ended question have been applied to this e-mail data and
the results are as follows:
1.Characteristics of the fight to obtain provision: (91 points: 40%)
general points (24) and specific issues in the ‘fight’ (67)
2.Statement is no guarantee of needs being met: (39 points: 17%)
154
lack of expertise in school (incl. use of TAs) (22)
and other specific points (17)
3.Negative responses by LA and school and system: (62 points: 27%)
general points (6), lack of LA support/corruption/errors (16), PPS
useless/not independent (4), other specific points (36)
4.Positive opinion of the school etc: (9 points: 4%) happy with
particular school (5), positive about PPS (4)
5.Effects on children: (27 points: 12%) earlier diagnosis/provision
would avoid delays/damage etc (11), other specific points (16)
6.Evaluating the effectiveness of the SEN system – data lacking
(1 point: <1%)
Few parents chose to write in to report positive experiences, which is not
to say that some parents and others do not feel that the system is
working more or less as intended and is meeting the needs of children
with SEN. However, this set of messages cannot be set aside, as it reflects
the very real and disturbing experiences of parents and others who are
familiar with the system and have identified many of its inherent and/or
‘in practice’ weaknesses.
3.12Conclusions from the survey and the emails
The surveys produced a high response rate from parents in particular and
have provided a rich source of views on the workings of the SEN system.
It is important to remember that the survey was not designed to access a
random sample of the population. Rather, the surveys were open to the
public and the assistance of voluntary bodies and others in contacting
people who had experience of the SEN system produced samples that
were not representative of the populations as a whole. On the other hand
these respondents have provided a substantial response to the opportunity
to express their views and those views are important in themselves.
The SEN system was widely seen as immensely complicated. The amount
of bureaucracy and paperwork involved was considered a huge burden
for parents, school staff and other professionals alike. The complexity
was reported as being highly stressful, often at a time when parents
were already struggling to come to terms with their children’s special
needs. The tenacity required to go through the statutory assessment was
considered to be a constant battle by some parents. The fact that many
poured in time and money in order to get statements was recognised as
being unfair since many other parents did not have the education, time
or money to do so and concern was felt for these children. It was felt that
the system could be greatly improved by reducing this unfairness and
making the system easy to access for all parents.
155
Many parents were only able to navigate the system with the help of
school staff, parent partnership services or charities. This support was
invaluable and helped to counteract the negative attitudes which some
parents encountered from some school staff and other organisations
including the local authorities (LAs).
Whilst the complexity of the system was seen as a weak point, the people
working within it were, for many, the highlight. The highly skilled and
knowledgeable people they encountered, whether it be the SENCO, the
teachers or other professionals, gave the parents confidence in the
system.
In order to have skill and expertise, training is important and it was
frequently mentioned in the responses. The quality of teaching and
appropriate teaching methods were seen as imperative yet, it was felt,
many teachers were required to teach children with a wide range of
special needs which they had little or no knowledge of. Training members
of staff, particularly SENCOs, in a range of special needs and passing that
information on to other teachers would help to ensure that children were
taught using the most appropriate methods.
Support staff were viewed as being very important by all the recipients
although some of the school staff and other professionals questioned
the wisdom of having the pupils with the greatest needs being supported
by the least qualified members of staff. They also worried about the
quality of support staff interventions and their lack of training.
Respondents felt the training of LA staff would be beneficial for many
reasons, but principally to raise the quality of statements. The use of
template statements were deplored by many since it appeared that the
statements were being written with little understanding of the individual
children’s needs, despite referring to the professional assessments. The
terminology of statements was said to be often both complex and full of
jargon but also vague and ‘woolly’: objectives were often so broad as to be
unusable and provision not being quantified other than in terms of phrases
such as ‘regular access to’. This was seen as allowing the LA or the school
to be dilatory in supplying the provision named in the statement.
Parents frequently mentioned the implementation of statements. Some
had initially seen statements as legal documents which would result in
schools and LAs being forced to implement the provision specified.
However, for many the statement was not implemented fully and was
felt to be no guarantee of provision. Many parents felt powerless to do
anything about it, though it was felt by some that failure to implement
statements was often due to a lack of funding.
156
The delegation of funding to schools was not always considered positively
since there appeared to be little monitoring to ensure that it was being
spent on the children it was intended for.
The surveys have revealed many concerns with the workings of the SEN
system but also some indications of positive experiences. Overall,
therefore, these responses provide a wealth of material that can
contribute to our thinking about and development of the system for
children and young people with SEN.
157
Appendix A
The questionnaires: Information
on the number of respondents,
percentages of questionnaires
analysed, and number of codable
comments analysed
158
Table 10a: Sample sizes for each question: Parents
Question
Number of
questionnaires
included in sample
for analysis of
each question
Percentage
of returned
questionnaires
analysed
No of codable
comments
analysed for
each question
What sort of outcomes do you want for
for your child over the next year or more?
1941
100
N/A
Has the school discussed these outcomes with you?
485
25
871
What helps your child to learn and progress?
485
25
894
What gets in the way of your child’s
learning and progress?
485
25
881
What gives you confidence
in the SEN system?
485
25
493
What reduces your confidence
in the SEN system?
485
25
784
If your child has a statement or if you’ve tried to get a statement for
your child: What did you find helpful
about the process?
1000
51
871
If your child has a statement or if you’ve tried to get a statement for
your child: What did you find
unhelpful about the process?
1000
51
1133
If your child has a statement: What is helpful about your child’s statement?
1500
77
1278
If your child has a statement: What is unhelpful about your child’s statement?
1500
77
934
How can we improve the SEN system?
485
25
682
Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the SEN system?
958
50
455
Note: The table shows the number of completed questionnaires and the
number of questionnaires analysed for each question. Percentages are given
to show the proportion of the completed 1941 questionnaires analysed.
159
Table 10b: Sample sizes for each question: Students
Question
Percentage of returned
questionnaires analysed
No. of codable comments analysed for each question
Think of 3 things which help you to learn and do well at school
100
954
Which 3 things make it hard for you to learn or do well at school?
100
804
Which 3 things could we change to make it easier for you to learn
and do well at school?
100
737
Do you get extra help with your learning at school? –
How does it help you?
100
349
Note: 400 questionnaires were returned
160
Table 10c Sample sizes for each question: School Staff
Question
Percentage of returned
questionnaires analysed
No. of codable comments analysed for each question
Do you discuss medium term outcomes (over the next year or more)
with parents of pupils with SEN?
100
N/A
If ‘yes’, what sort of outcomes do parents say they want?
100
665
What helps children to learn and progress?
100
902
What gets in the way of children’s learning and progress?
100
874
What gives parents confidence in the SEN system?
100
795
What reduces the confidence that parents have in the SEN system?
100
765
What works well in the SEN system?
100
591
What doesn’t work well in the SEN system?
100
688
What can be changed to improve the SEN system?
100
659
If you work with one or more children with a statement: What is helpful
about the statement?
100
635
If you work with one or more children with a statement: What is unhelpful
about the statement?
100%
514
Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the SEN system?
100
163
Note: 544 questionnaires were returned
161
Table 10d Sample sizes for each question:
Other Professionals working with Children, Schools and Families
Question
Percentage of returned
questionnaires analysed
No. of codable comments analysed for each question
Do you discuss medium term outcomes (over the next year or more)
with parents of pupils with SEN?
100
N/A
If ‘yes’, what sort of outcomes do parents say they want?
100
745
What helps children to learn
and progress?
100
899
What gets in the way of children’s learning and progress?
100
882
What gives parents confidence in the SEN system?
100
808
What reduces the confidence hat parents have in the SEN system?
100
825
What works well in the SEN system?
100
622
What doesn’t work well in the SEN system?
100
693
What can be changed to improve the SEN system?
100
724
If you work with one or more children with a statement: What is helpful
about the statement?
100
613
If you work with one or more children
with a statement: What is unhelpful
about the statement?
100
538
Is there anything else you would like
to tell us about the SEN system?
100
199
Note: 516 questionnaires were returned
162