Proposals for a new method of resourcing pupils
with Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools
Response of the Suffolk Division of the National Union of Teachers
| 1: The Union is in general agreement with the proposal to adopt an audit approach to resourcing Special Educational Needs in mainstream Schools, but we believe that the timetable for introduction is too rapid and that more thought needs to be given to the effect on workload, to the cost to schools for training and cover, to the details of the weightings and "value" of points, to the inclusion of EBD as a Special Education Need, to the need to retain strategic control over ASC places and to various other points outlined below. Concentration on LMS schools fails to address the holistic approach an LEA needs to adopt, and militates against early intervention (pre-school) and against links with provision other than at school. |
| 2: The Union agrees with the principle of making finance available to meet individual needs rather than a diverse system of block grant, per capita funding, additional hours, etc. It is clearly preferable to be able to justify the expenditure of resources on a fair and equitable footing according to identified actual needs. We acknowledge that the current system can be wasteful and inefficient. It is often slow and unresponsive to need. A properly trialled and costed audit model would meet with the Union's approval , provided that the resulting resource per child is adequate to meet the special need, and that staffing at both school and LEA levels is adequate to administer and deliver the provision, without increasing the overall workload of individual teachers or groups of teachers or making unacceptable demands on non-teaching staff. |
| 3: We have a growing concern that the introduction is being rushed. Consultation with the teacher organisations occurred very late (one session on June 27th), there having been none at all during the pilot. Consultation therefore only took place after the decision to proceed had been taken and training for LEA staff, Heads and SENCOs had been organised. Even then, details (such as the P scales themselves) were not available for scrutiny. As the detail has emerged at school level, SENCOs and staff have become increasingly concerned at the potential for overload. There is a very real fear that too much change is being proposed at once, on the basis of a small and incomplete pilot. We advise caution and a more gradual approach. |
| 4: An indication of the indecent rush to implement before consultation has been completed is in the fact that the CDs and supporting literature for the audit are already in schools, complete with the calculations and criteria. The assumption is made that the consultation will alter nothing. That completely negates this "consultation" process. |
| 5: We have an overriding concern over workload, of teaching and non-teaching staff, if the audit is to be successfully executed within the tight time scale envisaged, especially in schools where, for social reasons, there might be a larger proportion of pupils with SEN. Some large schools will be facing an audit of a very large number of pupils within a couple of weeks (creating incidentally a shortage of cover teachers). |
| 6: In both the meeting with Teachers' Organisations and the area Road Show presentations it was stated that Heads and others in the pilot found the process feasible and that "many" were anxious to introduce the scheme even more quickly that was planned. However, these comments have not been attributed to any individuals or groups. Our own soundings differ considerably: our indications are that Heads and SENCOs are much more cautious about the wisdom of wholesale change in funding arrangements for April 2002. We believe that reports of such enthusiasm for rapid change may well be exaggerated. |
| 7: We are particularly concerned at the individual workload on SENCOs overall, remembering that in primary schools, many SENCOs are not full time. Their workload will be increased further if they become the lead trainer to cascade information to the rest of the staff involved. In the largest schools, including most Secondary Schools, the audit will of necessity involve other teachers, including group tutors (for the Personal and Social factors). |
| 8: There is a feeling that SENCOs, who in many situations have little or no non-teaching time for assessments and the paper-work, will be taking on the role of advisory teachers, even of Educational Psychologists, without the benefit of the latter's training, resourcing and expertise. In many cases, schools will have to buy in tests (e.g. BPVS) which have in the past been brought in by the Advisory Teacher. In all cases, it appears that schools will have to administer the tests and make the individual assessments which have previously been done for them, or with them. |
| 9: If Schools become responsible for their own assessment and decision-making on Special Needs then they will also have to deal with parental complaints themselves. At present, because Advisory Staff will have been involved in the assessment of pupils with significant SEN, the school has had assistance and support in dealing with parental concerns from the Special Needs Officers in the Area Office. That support will either be lost or become more difficult to arrange: the communications chain will be broken. |
| 10: There is an inference in the documentation that staff will have to be taken off timetable in order to complete the audit assessments. However, no extra resources seem to have been made available for this to be done. The Union therefore proposes that extra resources be made available to relieve SENCOs and other key staff from teaching or other duties in order to undertake the audit, train others and prepare the evidence for moderation. This should be in addition to any financing of schools for staff training for the audit. |
11: The claim that this audit is feasible even for such
large numbers because SEN staff will already have information on each child
with SEN is false for two reasons:a) The Audit requires a different set of data from that normally applied (The P Scales instead of reportable SATs data, IEPs, etc.) Whereas it is true that most of the information in an IEP / statement would contain similar data, it is in a different form and still has to be "translated" into P Scales for the audit. |
| 12: There is a particular difficulty in assessing pupils quickly for personal and social P Scales on transfer, because of the time needed for evidence to emerge. Academic data might be easier, if standard data is used. |
| 13: The P Scales are themselves not always easily applied: in some areas changes are imperceptible from one step to the next. Elsewhere, such as in Mathematics, the steps can be much larger. SENCOs are also foreseeing practical difficulties in finding evidence to justify a given P Scale assessment at KS1. In general, we find the criteria too complex and time-consuming. |
| 14: As things stand, the first year in Middle, Secondary and Upper Schools, for example, have to make detailed judgements about their pupils on the basis of just a couple of week's teaching and observation. (There are 42 separate descriptors for "Personal and Social" P Scale decisions alone, which have not only to be recorded and entered, but also need to be backed by hard evidence for moderation purposes.) It is significant that, in the pilot, staff did not have to submit to moderation and could therefore make their audit judgements without having to think about how they would be justified by some portfolio of evidence. Basing the feasibility of the scheme on such a false premises is misleading and runs the risk of overestimating its acceptability amongst the staff concerned. . |
| 15: The use of criteria based on the P Scales also means that there is a gap between the audit criteria and nationally verifiable and nationally available criteria. This will create extra work again for those schools with a high turn-over / "turbulence" factor. These schools will find that the threshold for extra funding for "turbulence" will not meet the considerable demands placed upon them to assess new pupils on arrival, using criteria which the previous schools will not have provided. We must remember that the school has a duty to identify special needs for all pupils anyway: the school cannot wait for the audit event in order to seek to make the appropriate provision. |
| 16: We agree that any moderation arrangements should involve practising teachers with some expertise in the field, but note that this will entail further teacher time away from the classroom and consequential supply costs. Consideration should be given to criteria which are easier to moderate and to different sampling techniques, avoiding the need for schools to keep portfolios of evidence for audit purposes, rather than keeping academic data for the purposes of informing teaching and learning. |
| 17: Primary schools in particular are concerned that moderation has to be done with reference only to the evidence which the school can provide. There are fears that this could disadvantage a school if it is affected by staff absence, by a late appointee missing the training, or by a lack of suitably trained replacements for staff on maternity leave. The Advisory Service may have to be asked to help in such situations, rather than see needs under-estimated. |
| 18: In a true audit situation, the purpose would be cost the provision that an individual child needs. The present audit, however, does not do this. We are concerned that total size of the cake has been decided before the total audited need is established. The already agreed total will be divided by the total number of "audit points" at the end of the audit. This may, or may not, reflect actual costs. A true audit model would attach costings to each "diagnosis". |
| 19: Reallocation of delegated budget: We understand and support the need to change the LMS formula to reflect the proposed changes, once they are implemented, but cannot express a view on the size of that reallocation. 4% may well be the kind of adjustment required, but we do not have the information on which to judge the effect on individual schools. Clearly, in a larger school, a 4% cut from the Table 4 staffing budget is considerable. We underlined in consultation that schools must receive their new SEN audit funding at the same time as (or before) they receive their main school budget. Otherwise, there will be great uncertainty generated, by receiving notice of a cut in funding before being notified of the funding to replace it. (Questions 5 and 6) |
| 20: Some assumptions as to relative cost must have been made to provide the weightings for different learning difficulties, when converting the assessments to audit points. This is very likely not to be right first time, and may well lead to spreading resources too thinly to be of real use in certain situations. |
| 21: Whereas the free school meal formula is only a crude estimation of Social Disadvantage, we have no evidence to suggest that there are any better indicators. We therefore support the continuation of this measure of disadvantage. (Question 4) |
| 22: The Union proposes that the LEA should undertake further research to establish realistic costings for specific individual needs, or combinations of learning difficulties, on which to test the viability of the resulting "audit point" value. |
| 23: We note that there is a lack of joined-up thinking with other forms of SEN provision, including Education Other than at School (on which a separate consultation has just finished). The LEA has made an artificial divide between SEN provision at school and all the other provision, including Special Schools, Units and Home Tuition. There will be confusion and financial illogicality if a pupil, originally assessed and taught in a school, then goes to a Unit or Home Tutor, then returns to school. The Unit or Home Tutoring service will not have access to the money which was assessed as being required for that child. There will be no guarantee that the resourcing provided by the audit can transfer with the child: we understand that once assessed at school, that school will retain the funding even if the child is not there. |
| 24: One effect of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 could be to encourage more parents to seek a Special Education placement in a Special School, including such provision as is only available out-county. The LEA must therefore plan for the financial consequences. Special School and out-county provision is budgeted for separately: this runs the risk of a decision being taken for financial, rather than purely educational, reasons. The cost of out-county provision can be extremely high. The LEA should examine its own Special School provision to establish (or in some cases restore) facilities which are currently only available in very expensive private or out-county placements. |
| 25: The Union is most concerned to note that the LEA has not included Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties as a special educational need. The "Personal and Social" P Scales assessment do not address disruptive and violent behaviour or a refusal to follow instructions, safety rules, etc. These are, of course, criteria which affect learning for the individual concerned (as well as the others in the class). Such EBD is a Special Educational Need and it is also one of the most difficult, and costly, to deliver at mainstream school level. As pupils with EBD are mainly to be educated with the mainstream ("included"), their provision MUST be included in any audit which purports to finance a school's duties to individual pupils with defined needs. This is a fundamental flaw in the audit proposals. |
| 26: Another flaw is the failure to link in with early years intervention (pre-school provision). Colleagues are concerned that the right place for early identification of special needs is at the pre-school stage. This will usually not be in an LMS situation and needs separate funding. However, it is vital for the success of early intervention to intervene early. |
| 27: The audit of pupils in Autumn Reception (Foundation) will be taking place at the same time as Baseline Assessment. We suggest that the assessment could be done in Yr 1 when Spring and Summer Reception pupils will also be present. We realise that there is a proposal by Government to move Baseline into Yr 1, and suggest that there is in any case a duplication of effort and another overload in terms of data assessing much the same areas by two separate sets of criteria. By 2004 all three year olds will have free access to nursery education. If early intervention is to become a reality, early diagnosis of special educational needs (including EBD) is a priority. We suggest that the baseline assessment should be used as early as possible and be used as the first audit criteria. Wherever baseline is ultimately placed nationally, it should be used for the audit (possibly augmented) rather than be undertaken as a totally separate piece of work for the early years / KS1 teachers. |
| 28: There are particular fears for the future of ASCs in these proposals. Our main concern is that the LEA, which retains overall responsibility for SEN provision in the County, will lose strategic control of the resources available to the County. Where a Governing Body decides to remove its ASC the LEA would be powerless to stop this loss of provision. Where parents take advantage of their option to move to their local school, as opposed to a school further away with an appropriate ASC place, the viability of the ASC funded on a per capita basis may be affected and the LEA will then face the cost of making special provision for one individual elsewhere, while losing the ASC facility for other children. |
| 29: Another consequence of the SEN and Disability Act 2001 will be the right of parents to demand a mainstream place for pupils currently in ASCs or in Special provision. Where pupils transfer from the EOTAS or Special School situation, the appropriate budgets should be amended so that resourcing follows the need. Given the parental right to refuse a mainstream place, and the continued legal position regarding statementing of pupils, the LEA must retain some contingency funding. (Questions 7,8) |
| 30: As the proposals acknowledge, ASCs are important concentrations of expertise, experience and physical resources for children with a range of SEN. The LEA has already lost a number of specially trained SEN staff in recent years and should remove any uncertainty about their future in ASCs. |
| 31: The Union suggests that the funding associated with ASC provision should therefore NOT be included in the overall model. (Question 2) |
| 32: Medical Special Needs should have greater weighting (higher staffing levels). Children sometimes present with a complex mix of difficulties. These often interface with medical problems. When assessing the school's ability to care for an individual child, as well as providing an appropriate education for him/her, the audit should provide further weighted points for those who need regular medication to be administered on a regular basis (which is voluntary for school staff), intimate or invasive treatments or assistance or full-time attendance. It is not clear from the documentation to what extent this form of "inclusion" was tested, assessed or costed in the pilot. |
| 33: The LEA must have regard for the law and Code of Practice which do provide parents and pupils with certain rights, including the right to expect a child to be statemented where this is appropriate. The Union therefore believes that the objective should not be to reduce expenditure by reducing the number of statements by stealth. Rather the audit system should be developed and encouraged, in order to become sufficiently responsive to special needs in good time to avoid the need for statements. We think this is an important distinction. While the audit approach is being introduced and until the benefits of early intervention are clearly established, it would be premature to curtail access to statements where appropriate. (Question 1) |
| 34: The LEA must continue to maintain a brokering role and strategic management of the county's resources for SEN (Question 3). We wonder, therefore, whether the amount retained for contingencies and non-audit cases, including the £0.3m "disadvantage compensation money", will be sufficient to meet demand and whether the cross-over with EOTAS will allow sufficient budgetary flexibility to avoid cases "falling between two stools". |
| 35: It would also be premature to seek to cut staffing in those services which produce statements. Some virements of money to meet the extra costs of the present proposals are predicated on savings from the Advisory / Psychological service. The proposals foresee that the role of these professionals will "evolve" but there is no clear indication of how. The Union is concerned that those who have in the past played a vital role in assessing needs and accessing resources, should now be threatened with a "review" of their functions, rather than be taking a leading role in helping, advising and training staff to assist the audit, and to continue to deal with the most difficult cases. It is clear that, for some situations, statements will be required (for special school places, for example) and schools must be able to continue to call upon the guidance and expertise of the County's specialist staff. The County needs to retain this expertise and experience; we should not be seeking to make financial gains at the expense of not filling vacancies or reducing the service available to schools. It is possible that some of their time will now be paid for from the EOTAS side of the budget: this should be clearly stated to avoid fears of down-sizing the service. |
| 36: The Union proposes that more work should be undertaken to create a uniform system of funding of special needs that can follow the child, whether (s)he moves out of an LMS school, into a PRU, or wherever, and to be available as soon as the need is identified, such as in a pre-school situation. Advisory staff will have a vital role in such early identification and applying the funding formula to non-standard situations. |
| 37: Given our considerable reservations above, the NUT proposes a delay in implementation altogether or, failing that, a more gradual introduction, in stages. (Questions 9,10). These stages could include: |
Such a gradual introduction would also automatically remove the need to limit gains and losses in the first years of the new arrangements (Question 11).(i) a dual system (eg. finance SEN as before while assessment takes place over a longer period) |
| 38: Furthermore, the Union believes that, before implementation at any time, the proposals need to be improved by: |
- funding all cover for training |
|
| Note: The Question numbers above refer to those on the consultation response form issued by the LEA with the consultation document. |