Secretary:
Martin Goold NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS
SUFFOLK COUNTY
DIVISION Secretary:
Martin Goold
The NUT Response to the consultation document:
"Raising the Educational Achievement of Pupils with
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties"
General: The Union supports the principles of the social inclusion of pupils with special needs but warns that the education of children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties cannot be completely inclusive and even partial inclusion can only be undertaken with a massive injection of resources, including capital build, training for existing mainstream staff and additional specialist staffing. Our general conclusions about the current consultation document are:
The remaining comments refer to numbered paragraphs in the consultation document and are taken seriatim.
1.2 Timing of Decisions: The Union considers the LEA to be at fault in that the decision to set up the Policy Panel was not taken until three months after the decision had been taken to close Oakwood. This is a basic error of judgement which has always been criticised by the Union, because this fact alone endangers to whole enterprise of inclusion. The County Council has deliberately closed down EBD facilities before it had any idea how to cope with inclusion of EBD pupils. That error pervades the whole consultation document and has distorted what should have been the planning process. In short, the closure of Oakwood has forced the pace of inclusion to a reckless extent.
2.3 (a) The Union supports the "foundations of an overall strategy", but notes that the rest of the consultation document is very light on detail or substance to explain how these strategies will be put in place, particularly regarding the training needs for teachers in mainstream schools.
(b) We applaud the intention to strengthen "the skills of all staff working with pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties". However, the LEA does not recognise EBD as a "Special Need" attracting a Special Needs allowance. The closure of Oakwood highlighted this inconsistency once again: teachers from Oakwood who transfer to a PRU go from a "Special" School attracting 2 SEN points to a post which has none: they are doing much the same work with the same pupils and have the same experience and qualifications, but Suffolk does not recognise EBD per se as an SEN specialism.
(c) The LEA officers have once again (July 2000) refused to entertain the principle of paying SEN points to teachers in PRUs. The Union believes that these Units will never be able to attract sufficient well-qualified and experienced EBD teachers, and to "strengthen the skills of EBD staff", without such recognition of EBD as a Special Need specialism.
(d) The "range of specialist support" must be capable of rapid deployment: they must turn up quickly. Also, "wider dissemination of existing best practice" must be planned and delivered in a resourced way: left to schools' own devices, it will not happen.
3.1 Definition: (a) The definition is meaningless in practical terms. What is needed is, as with other forms of SEN, a checklist of actual needs which can allow some standardisation of degrees of "severity". There needs to be developed a scale of acceptability, which would range from "well suited to mainstream education, with support" through to forms of exclusive provision to include full-time residential care and education.
(b) This range of severity should include statements of the type of behaviour in a mainstream school which will lead to the exclusion of the pupil, such as any act of violence against pupils or staff, physical or verbal, and behaviour which disrupts other pupils' learning beyond a minimal period of warning. The NUT will support class teachers and headteachers who refuse to "include" those whose EBD has a continuing impact on others' learning or who are violent, whether or not the relevant support has been provided. The receiving school must be in a position to refuse to allow the inclusion of any individual pupil to distort the work of a class or school, where the strategies for inclusion have failed or were inappropriate.
4.1 The Union believes that whatever strategies are employed to meet an individual's EBD needs should be a balance between adopting an inclusive approach and "high quality provision which offers best value". The consultation document refers to "best value" but the implications are ignored. The Union believes that "best value" must balance the social advantages of including a pupil in mainstream education against the cost of so doing and against the educational and financial advantages of some form of PRU or other external provision. It is clearly more cost effective to teach 6 pupils together in a PRU with 1 teacher, than to have 6 individual schools supported with extra staffing and resources so that each school can provide a specialist education for one child. The financial arrangements to support all 6 pupils at school level must recognise this additional costs to each school, plus the cost of training all relevant staff in 6 mainstream schools.
4.2.1 The Union supports the principle of early intervention and had long been a proponent of the type of provision recently opened as "First Base". (Indeed, the record shows that the Suffolk NUT has, for over 20 years, proposed to a reluctant LEA that PRU units should be available in all areas for all ages, promoting the principle of early intervention well before it became accepted wisdom and Government Policy.)
We now see the wisdom of that advice. But it would be sheer folly to remove provision for KS4 EBD for at least 10 years, to allow the early intervention principle to have an effect. The 10 years should only start once all areas have actually got KS1 - 3 Units up and working. With the closure of Oakwood, that sheer folly has actually begun.
Although the principle of early intervention is clearly important, it does not cater for the disaffected adolescent. Parents and teachers dealing with teenage children will aver that some behavioural problems do not appear until Yr 9 or Yr 10. Both boys and girls can suddenly present with behavioural difficulties at this stage, often arguing with parents as well as with teachers and sometimes this will meet the definition of EBD in 3.1. Of course, secondary teachers are used to dealing with "normal" teenage behaviour. However, in a significant number of cases, it will not be feasible to retain that pupil in school, even if they are at KS4. (See comments on 6.4 onwards). No amount of early intervention will totally remove this syndrome.
4.3.1 As with the above, the statement that school support is "at the heart" of the policy is fine. The detail, including funding, is missing.
4.4.2 Where behaviour is a manifestation of other, unrecognised learning difficulties, the system would be failing a pupil. A fully staffed and fully effective School Psychological Service is paramount, but ignored in the consultation document in this respect. That service must be empowered and instructed to establish the appropriate provision for each individual child's needs, without political interference. In the case of Oakwood, School Psychologists were told to include a residential requirement in order to place a child at Oakwood, whether or not that child needed it. This is not acceptable and will not be an acceptable basis of trust and confidence upon which schools can base their response to requests to include pupils.
In this respect, it is important to remember that some EBD pupils are in ASCs. The future of ASCs is also in the melting pot and if they emerge to be catered for in the mainstream or PRU, even more places might be needed.
In short, if the Psychological Service is leant on politically to influence or alter decisions in order to retain unsuitable pupils in mainstream schools, the whole inclusion process will fail.
4.4.2 Again, training for mainstream schools is mentioned, but despite the fact that inclusion has already started, there are no estimates or plans in the consultation document indicating the scale of investment required. How much has already been set aside for training in 2000-2001 to accompany the inclusion of former Oakwood pupils and since April 2000 to support behaviour support policies?
4.8.2 Contribution of other agencies: The Union is concerned that LMS has led to a lack of joined-up provision. In the days when local health, social and educational authorities were less autonomous, liaison was good. In special schools, some teachers were even employed by the Health Service. This interactivity has now been lost and 4.8.2 is trying to re-invent it. The Suffolk NUT believes that residential and EBD education requires an umbrella structure for effective management and holistic decision-making.
It is both worrying and surprising that section 4.8 makes no mention of Hampden House, where flexible arrangements include residential options, PRU provision, mainstream school for children not living at home and a high quality liaison with the social services department, without the high cost of out-county placements.
Yet, the consultation document makes no comment on the effectiveness of this provision at Hampden nor indicate how it might be used as a basis for further development along the lines of 4.8.2. Elsewhere (Oakwood consultation document), it has been suggested that the Oakwood facilities could be used for such "small family based" accommodation, but there has been a formal refusal to entertain any link between such accommodation and the educational facilities available on the same site. The LEA is in danger of making the same error with Hampden House as it made with Oakwood.
Reference to the OFSTED report on Hampden House will show that few other places can boast such effective and high-quality, cost-effective provision for pupils with a range of EBD problems. The Union has to ask why this highly successful half-way house solution is not more widely known and discussed.
There are pupils (boys) whom the Psychological Service have formally assessed as requiring residential EBD provision. This was available at Oakwood or out-county. Since the closure of Oakwood, the LEA has been in breach of its statutory obligations to meet the requirement of a statement stipulating residential provision. The current consultation document appears to continue to breach that obligation and does not make it clear how the LEA will meet future statements. It is clear that residential EBD places will no longer be used, but the educational basis for this has not been established.
4.8.3: The list of other agencies with a role to play should include Connexions.
5.2 As already mentioned above, some EBD pupils are currently catered for in ASCs in the earlier key stages. This needs to be recognised when planning for effective county-wide provision and should be included in the audit.
5.5 Equal opportunities: The only area where the Union believes that girls with EBD are not currently "offered equality of opportunity" is in the area of residential accommodation. This is now only available for Boys in one institution, Hampden House. The 58 places at Oakwood are no longer available.
It appears that, in any case, the LEA is not accepting that there is any educational need for pupils to be resident. This may have implications for Hampden House, although the LEA may well claim that residence there is a social, not an educational, need. So, if the policy goes through unamended, there will be no residential EBD places for either boys or girls. Equality will be achieved by levelling down to zero.
At the end of 5.5, reference is made to KS4 pupils without ready access to PRUs. This is not taken up in Section 6.4, where the impression is given that the number and location of PRUs is not in question. The Union would suggest that more KS4 PRU places should be considered and the locations could well include Stowmarket, making good use of redundant facilities at Oakwood.
6.2.1 First Base Model: the Union hopes that the First Base experiment in Lowestoft will live up to the high expectations of success expressed in the consultation document. However, these are early days and no new venture will be perfect first time around. It will take some years before the effectiveness of its early intervention and out-reach work can be evaluated. We therefore warn against any complacency that all our EBD troubles are over.
6.2.5 Centres of Excellence: the Union is concerned to note that the LEA feels unable to promote "excellence" from its existing EBD staff (employing outside agencies). The fact that this agency is already recruiting local staff indicates that they would be available, given proper conditions and incentives. This ties in with our comments [2.3; 6.4.1] concerning the lower status of EBD staff and teachers in charge, in Suffolk. Other Authorities provide higher status, including Norfolk.
6.2.9 It is most worrying that the LEA has still not developed its contingency plans for KS1,2,3 Units and do not yet even know what existing accommodation might be available for adaptation as Units (See 6.3.5 also), particularly in view of the planned removal of existing provision at Oakwood as early as April 1999 (the publication of the proposal to close Oakwood). It is not possible to make any comment on the adequacy of the LEA's plans without further detail, including spending plans.
6.3.2 Statements of SEN. Given that it is policy not to statement pupils in future, wherever possible, no system of placement or support should be dependent upon a statement. This has distorted decision making in the past and has set up artificial barriers (eg. you cannot attend Oakwood unless you have a statement of residential need, whereas pupils in Stowmarket with severe EBD were not eligible to attend!). The process of statementing, giving statutory rights, has clearly been abused in the past. We have no reason to believe that it will not be abused in the future.
6.3.3 It seems to have escaped the notice of the LEA that the Oakwood premises are actually purpose built for EBD education, including a residential option. It could be developed as flexible provision to be similar to Hampden House, but is large enough to be multi-purpose, including room for a KS4 PRU. The conversion of the current Oakwood premises into social services accommodation and a completely separate KS2/3 PRU would still under-utilise the facilities.
6.3.4 Our impression from casework would be that a KS2/3 PRU in the Brandon/Mildenhall area would be crucial for the success of inclusion, and should not just be added as a possible extension of the provision.
6.4: KS4 Provision: If the proposals for KS1 to 3 are lacking in detail and await funding and planning decisions, the consultation document's weakest and most unsatisfactory section is this one, on the future of KS4 pupils with EBD.
6.4.1: We acknowledge that the existing KS4 PRUs have been successful but point out that none of them have been fully staffed, with permanent staff, for some time and that there is a very high factor of long-term absence for ill health. The PRUs are clearly already under great strain and stress and it has not been easy to find suitably qualified and experienced staff to fill vacancies. [One reason, as given above, is the lack of recognition of EBD as meriting any Special Needs allowance at all. Teachers in Charge have all the responsibility of Headteachers but none of the recognition or status of a headteacher. Their salary reviews due last year and this have not been addressed.]
6.4.1 "Post 16 educational and vocational opportunities". These were not listed in the "existing resources" and we would wonder what they might be. If they need developing, as we expect, then this must also be planned, financed and otherwise resourced.
6.4.2 The proposal to increase staffing of the PRUs is welcome, but there must be no artificial manipulation of the in-take to PRUs to reduce numbers in order to allow the outreach work to be done. The basic work of the PRUs must be allowed to take place, given that there will be pupils at KS4 who cannot be retained in mainstream schools and for whom the PRU is the best way of avoiding permanent exclusion from school. The LEA should plan for an increase in actual placements in PRUs, at least in the early days of "inclusion". The consultation document does not indicate that the PRUs are ready for this: indeed, as inclusion has already started, the staffing plans for KS4 PRUs should have been effected first. Once again, the LEA is too late with its planning: inclusion is going ahead and there is no structure around it to support the mainstream schools who may need to find an alternative to permanent exclusion.
6.5: The Most Challenging Pupils: we have no problem with a "coherent joint strategy developed to meet the needs of children and their families" (6.5.2), but find little of substance to indicate how this will operate or be funded in this section of the document or else.
From our discussions with the LEA officers concerned, we understand that 6.5.3 refers to the employment of the National Teaching and Advisory Service for "intense and specialist support". We note that this is at a very early stage and entails in the first instance support for 4 former Oakwood pupils. Paragraph 6.5.4 refers to 150 to 170 pupils who would benefit from a specialised form of support. [This compares with the 58 places lost at Oakwood and the 40 out-county places for EBD, autism and Aspergers Syndrome. It is interesting to note that no progress has been made in reducing the number of out-county placements and this may well have to increase in the future, contrary to the objectives of the LEA].
It is by no means clear how the NTAS is going to address this number of pupils with particular difficulties, with only 4 staff to cover the whole county. It is designed to increase inclusivity, which is fine, but the consultation document does not indicate how the existing needs, including those who were, or would be, at Oakwood, are to be met.
When the NTAS teacher has helped out for a term, (s)he moves on to help another, but will have 8 to 16 on his/her books after a while. The practicalities of this are yet to be seen, in a large rural setting with considerable travelling time. Such staff cannot pick up all 8 pupils in the morning and take them all home in the evening, as has been suggested. They cannot give all pupils individual attention. Schools and their normal staff will pick up the extra work. The costings in 6.5.7 make assumptions which are no doubt based on the NTAS bid, but it remains to be seen whether the school is satisfied with the help it receives in term 2.
6.5.9 There is a misprint: it would appear that 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 are not the correct references.
Stop press: The LEA has in the last few weeks received notification of a sum of £320,000 additional money for the development, this financial year, of "Progress Centres" which, as we understand it, are akin to PRUs but attached to mainstream schools, creating an on-campus facility for helping to deal with EBD problems within the school.
This has to be spent quickly (by April 2001), and is in addition to the pupil retention grant. The Union has already suggested that priority for this money should be given to the two areas of greatest need in terms of social conditions leading to a concentration of behaviour problems. These would be in the Holywells and Kirkley catchment areas of Ipswich and Lowestoft.
We believe that this money could help to address the backlog of casework in at least the two most difficult areas for behaviour management in the County. We appreciate that other areas may well also deserve special treatment but, given the late notice, would suggest that there is not time for a lengthy bidding process.
This information was not available at the time of the publication of the EBD Consultation Document but could now make a substantial contribution towards setting up the kind of support and in-school provision that is implied in the document, albeit without detail or costings.
The Union urges the LEA to act immediately to apply this money to the areas of greatest need.
Conclusion: The LEA has put cart before horse. We are rushing headlong into inclusion, before putting planning, training, support and resourcing in place. At the same time, existing provision has been closed down or is under great strain.
Our concern, as believers in inclusion, is that such poor planning will actually lead to a failure of inclusion and a political backlash, led by the parents whose children's education is affected by poor inclusion strategies and by teachers who will be coping with problems which are outside their experience, training and ability to contain. Schools, and individual teachers, will bear the brunt of this onslaught and much damage will be done, individual and collective, before mistakes are recognised and rectified.
The LEA should keep existing provision going, while slowly and methodically introducing inclusive measures at a manageable pace and with full resourcing.
MJG 19/07/00