Contents:
-
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction to Policy Paper 3
Chapter 2:
Support and Aspiration: Cultural Revolution or pragmatic evolution? 7
Brian Lamb
Chair of Lamb Enquiry Report: SEN and Parental Confidence
Chapter 3:
The Green Paper – a view from mainstream 18
Kate Frood
Headteacher, Eleanor Palmer Primary School , Camden. London
Chapter 4:
Support and Aspiration: The SEND Green Paper, 2011: a personal 22
view from an LA Officer
Debbie Orton
Head of Inclusion Services, Hertfordshire Local Authority
Chapter 5:
Summary of discussion and conclusions 28
Chapter 1:
Introduction to Policy Paper
Background to the policy paper
This paper is based on the Policy Seminar held at the Clore Management Centre, Birkbeck College, London on 25 May 2011 on the SEN Green Paper 2011: progress and prospects.
The aims of the seminarwere to give participants an opportunity to examine in depth the SEN Green Paper; its aims, its assumptions and approaches. The seminar provided a unique chance to discuss to what extent the Paper has addressed adequately these and other matters: Is it likely to:
- Enhance parental confidence and build parent partnership,
- Reduce bureaucracy with transparent funding,
- Treat professionals with more trust and empower them to use their expertise,
- Improve the system for all and with focus on disadvantage?
Following the presentations the participants went into small groups to discuss and debate further. There is a summary of points from these discussions in the final section.
SEN Policy Options Steering Group
This policy paper was the sixth in the 6th series of seminars and conferences to be organised by the SEN Policy Options Steering Group. This group organised the initial ESRC - Cadbury Trust series on policy options for special educational needs in the early 1990s. The success of the first series led to the second and subsequent series which have been supported financially by NASEN. (See the list of these 26 policy papers at the end of this section). The Steering Group has representatives from local authority administrators, Government agencies, voluntary organisations, professional associations, universities and research. These events are intended to consider current and future policy issues in the field in a pro-active way. They are planned to interest all those concerned with policy matters in special educational needs.
Aims of the 6th series over a 4 year period from 2006-2011:
1. To continue to provide a forum where education policy relevant to the interests of children and young people with SEN/disabilities can be appraised critically and pro-actively in the context of the development of children’s services.
2. To inform and influence policy formulation and implementation, to encourage and support an active and ongoing dialogue on SEN policy and practice between key stakeholders such as NASEN and other professional associations; schools, local authorities, parents and other agencies.
3. To examine and evaluate policy options in terms of current and possible developments and research in order to inform and influence policy formulation and implementation in the field.
4. To organise events where policy-makers, professionals, parents, voluntary associations and academics/researchers analyse and debate significant issues in the field drawing on policy and practice in the countries of the UK, and:
5. To arrange the dissemination of the proceedings and outcomes through publication and summary briefing papers.
Steering group membership
The current membership of the SEN Policy Options Steering Group is:
Professor Julie Dockrell, Institute of Education; Peter Gray, SEN Policy Consultant; Dr Seamus Hegarty, Professor Geoff Lindsay, Warwick University; Professor Ingrid Lunt, University of Oxford; Professor Brahm Norwich, School of Education, Exeter University; Debbie Orton, Hertfordshire local authority; Linda Redford, Policy Consultant; Penny Richardson, Educational Consultant; Philippa Russell, Disability Rights Commission and Adviser; Philippa Stobbs, Council for Disabled Children (CDC); Janet Thompson, Ofsted; Professor Klaus Wedell, Institute of Education, London University.
Current series
The current series aims to organise full or half-day events on special education policy and provision over the period of 2006-2011 which are relevant to the context of considerable changes in the education system.
If you have any ideas about possible topics or would like to know more about the events, please do contact a member of the Group or Brahm Norwich, Co-ordinator of Steering Group, at the Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU (01392 724805; email: )
I. Policy Options Papers from first seminar series
1. Bucking the market: Peter Housden, Chief Education Officer, Nottinghamshire LEA
2.Towards effective schools for all: Mel Ainscow, Cambridge University Institute of Education
3.Teacher education for special educational needs: Professor Peter Mittler, Manchester University
4.Resourcing for SEN: Jennifer Evans and Ingrid Lunt, Institute of Education, London University
5. Special schools and their alternatives: Max Hunt, Director of Education, Stockport LEA
6.Meeting SEN: options for partnership between health, education and social services: Tony Dessent, Senior Assistant Director, Nottinghamshire LEA
7. SEN in the 1990s: users' perspectives: Micheline Mason, Robina Mallet, Colin Low and Philippa Russell
II. Policy Options Papers from second seminar series
8. Independence and dependence? Responsibilities for SEN in the Unitary and County Authorities: Roy Atkinson, Michael Peters, Derek Jones, Simon Gardner and Phillipa Russell
9. Inclusion or exclusion: Educational Policy and Practice for Children and Young People with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties: John Bangs, Peter Gray and Greg Richardson
9. Baseline Assessment and SEN: Geoff Lindsay, Max Hunt, Sheila Wolfendale, Peter Tymms
10. Future policy for SEN: Response to the Green Paper: Brahm Norwich, Ann Lewis, John Moore, Harry Daniels
III. Policy Options Papers from third seminar series
11. Rethinking support for more inclusive education: Peter Gray, Clive Danks, Rik Boxer, Barbara Burke, Geoff Frank, Ruth Newbury and Joan Baxter
12. Developments in additional resource allocation to promote greater inclusion: John Moore, Cor Meijer, Klaus Wedell, Paul Croll and Diane Moses.
13. Early years and SEN: Professor Sheila Wolfendale and Philippa Russell
14. Specialist Teaching for SEN and inclusion: Annie Grant, Ann Lewis and Brahm Norwich
IV. Policy Options Papers from fourth seminar series
15. The equity dilemma: allocating resources for special educational needs: Richard Humphries, Sonia Sharpe, David Ruebain, Philippa Russell and Mike Ellis
16. Standards and effectiveness in special educational needs: questioning conceptual orthodoxy: Richard Byers, Seamus Hegarty and Carol Fitz Gibbon
17. Disability, disadvantage, inclusion and social inclusion: Professor Alan Dyson and Sandra Morrison
18. Rethinking the 14-19 curriculum: SEN perspectives and implications: Dr Lesley Dee, Christopher Robertson, Professor Geoff Lindsay, Ann Gross, and Keith Bovair
V. Policy Options Papers from fifth seminar series
19. Examining key issues underlying the Audit Commission Reports on SEN: Chris Beek, Penny Richardson and Peter Gray
20. Future schooling that includes children with SEN / disability: Klaus Wedell, Ingrid Lunt and Brahm Norwich
VI. Policy Options Papers from sixth seminar series
21. Taking Stock: integrated Children’s Services, Improvement and Inclusion:
Margaret Doran, Tony Dessent and Professor Chris Husbands
22. Special schools in the new era: how do we go beyond generalities?
Chris Wells, Philippa Russell, Peter Gray and Brahm Norwich
23. Individual budgets and direct payments: issues, challenges and future implications for the strategic management of SEN
Christine Lenehan, Glenys Jones Elaine Hack and Sheila Riddell
24. Personalisation and SEN
Judy Sebba, Armando DiFinizio, Alison Peacock and Martin Johnson.
25. Choice-equity dilemma in special educational provision
John Clarke, Ann Lewis, Peter Gray
26. SEN Green Paper 2011: progress and prospects
Brain Lamb, Kate Frood and Debbie Orton.
Copies of most of these papers can now be downloaded from the NASEN website. Look for SEN Policy Options public pages for downloading these past copies.
Chapter 2:
Support and Aspiration: Cultural Revolution or pragmatic evolution?
Brian Lamb
“I’d like us to implement a cultural revolution just like the one they’ve had in China……Like Chairman Mao, we’ve embarked on a Long March to reform our education system.” Michael Gove Secretary of State for Education Daily Telegraph 28th December 2010.
This paper looks at some of the key proposals in the Governments Green Paper “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability” (1) through the lens of what questions the Government was trying to answer.
The narrative on the need for reform is well rehearsed: parents too often have to battle to get specialist support for their children; outcomes have been poor, the system is complex with too many assessments and there is not enough focus on identifying and addressing problems early. Real choice is often absent, a lack of parental involvement and struggle to secure appropriate support leading to conflict. All of this is despite a large number of piecemeal improvements to the framework and additional rights, greater investment and a significant increase in policy focus and profile on SEN in recent years. It also worth at least noting that the underlying levels of parental satisfaction in the system (rarely acknowledged) has been higher than many have perceived. (2) Nevertheless there has been a growing pressure for reform while no overwhelming demand for overthrowing the principles of the SEN Framework.
Following Baroness’s Warnock’s challenge to SEN framework (3) there followed a plethora of Select Committee reports and reviews (4) and think tank reports (5) which essentially led to a number of piecemeal changes to the system. (6) Thus much reform over the last five years has followed Karl Popper’s injunction for empiricist policy development in which;
“The piecemeal engineer knows…..that we can learn only from our mistakes. Accordingly, he will make his way, step by step, carefully comparing the results expected with the results achieved, and always on the lookout for the unavoidable unwanted consequences of any reform”(7)
It is perhaps also testament to the complexity and sensitively of the issue that Ministers, the voluntary sector lobby and statutory authorities have all wanted to tread carefully before making changes to the SEN framework, if sometimes for different reasons.
Thus the proposals in Green Paper have sought to balance a radical intent to change culture, linking more general changes in the schools system with more specific changes to the SEN framework and possibly legislation, more testing, pilots and consultation before making any substantive changes; more Popper in method if Maoist in intent.
The context for these changes has been the Coalition Government’s overall strategy of a radical decentralisation of services.(8) This represents a decisive shift in the role of the local authority (LA) with power moving upwards to central government, approval of academy and free schools, and draining downwards towards frontline professionals through Academy status for schools, greater power and flexibility for heads, more power to vary the curriculum, lighter touch inspections and personalised budgets. The more general foundations on which the whole Education system rest will set much of the context for any new SEN framework and amounts to a fundamental shift-cultural revolution-in the respective roles of local authorities and schools. This will paper questions how an SEN framework will operate in a more deregulated and devolved environment.
Increasingly when it comes to Free Schools and Special Free Schools it is the Secretary of State who is in the firing line on decisions in a much more direct way than before, as local discretion had previously shielded Central Government from direct parental dissatisfaction about levels of provision and choice.
The Green Paper
I am going to take five key issues as touchstones in looking at the approach of the Green Paper. In doing so it is worth noting that the overall thrust of the Green Paper is to seek to join up services, improve early identification and intervention, streamline process, put more power into the hands of parents and ensure more specialist support are welcome. However questions remain about the proposed means of achieving this.
1. Definition of SEN and Merging School Action and School Action Plus
The dangers of over identifying the numbers of children with SEN where raised by Sir Alan Steers Review of Behaviour(9), the Lamb Inquiry (10), Policy Exchange (11) and by OFSTED (12) with varying degrees of force. Plans to get the proportion of children identified with SEN are not new;
“Schools currently identify 18% of children as having special educational needs of differing kinds….This Green Paper asks some questions about these figures…...as our policies take effect, the proportion of secondary age children whom schools need to identify as having SEN should move closer to 10%”(13)
The Green Paper puts the issue of over identification squarely within the nature of the definition of SEN proposing “ a new single school-based SEN category, providing clear guidance to schools on the appropriate identification of SEN”.(14)
It has been recognised that over identification has a number of complex causes. These include; the perverse incentives of the Contextual Value-added Scores, mislabelling children who have simply fallen behind, lagging performance of summer born children, and the inherent relativity of a definition which will depend on the level of SEN support in a school, differing definitions of what constitutes inadequate progress, catchment area and local policies adopted.(15)
Merging school action and action plus will simplify the system but is not going to answer issues of context dependent identification, unless the scope of those covered under the new category is radically changed and/or the yardstick of national indicators that might trigger identification are revised (16). It is difficult to envisage a definition that is not to some extent context dependent and therefore open to variability of interpretation, unless the aim is to restrict any new definition to known medical conditions. Apart from the obvious objections of moving towards a medical model this would be likely to have a profound impact on groups where there was a complex interaction between social, emotional and cognitive factors (17). Tightening the definition would also be a reverse for those who had seen the need for a broader less deficit based definition (18), and also those who wanted to move in the direction of the Scottish model of additional needs.
What also drives identification is the link between the resources deployed and identification. Where identification of SEN secures either access to or protection of specialist provision, this is especially obvious. It also provides some accountability at the school level to ensure needs are addressed. As long as there remains scarcity of specialist support, identification of SEN will remain the goal of parents in ensuring needs are addressed and as a means of protection against cost savings. As the Lamb Inquiry found parents work up the system to find the specialist that understands their child’s needs and to seek statutory protection for provision made.