Wording in Bucks council tax questionnaire 'unfortunate' according to the DfES …

IPSEA, national charity for parents of children with special educational needs, welcomes the Department's speedy response to their complaint against Buckinghamshire County Council.

The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has ruled on IPSEA's complaint against the County Council's consultation questionnaire, sent out to council tax payers earlier this year, asking them, in effect,

'Shall we save money by cutting down on statements of special educational needs for children with disabilities/learning difficulties and on the number of education psychologists we employ?'

IPSEA's complaint was made on the basis that Local Educational Authorities have strict duties in law towards children with special educational needs and that these duties cannot be put on one side on the basis of a majority of council tax payers thinking that this would be a good way for the Council to save money.

From the DfES' letter to IPSEA, it is clear that Buckinghamshire CC gave the Department an assurance that they are 'fully aware of (their) duty to identify and make statutory assessments', but nevertheless, the DfES have commented:

'In the Department's view, the wording used in the consultation document was unfortunate, in that it gave the impression that the Authority proposed to reduce its ability to make and maintain statements without any compensating action to meet individual needs.'

Speaking for IPSEA, John Wright said:

"We are pleased with this outcome and with the speed of the DfES' action. Obviously, we do not know who drafted the questionnaire, or whether they obtained advice from the Council's Legal Department or from the Education Department before circulating it. We will be writing to Bucks asking them to investigate how this potentially misleading error came to be made. In the meantime, the letter from the DfES should reassure parents in the County that their LEA does not intend to rob their children of their rights to special educational provision."

The DfES letter

28 February 2006

Dear Mr Wright

FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, AS A LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY, UNDER SECTIONS 496 AND 497 OF THE EDUCATION ACT 1996

As indicated in my letter of 20 February, it was necessary for us to make enquires of Buckinghamshire Local Authority with regard to the specifics of your complaint. We wrote to the Authority seeking their response to the issues you raised, together with an explanation as to how they reconciled the proposed budget reductions with their legal responsibilities in relation to children with special educational needs. We have now received their response.

Current status of the budget proposals in question

We have been informed that a full meeting of the County Council held last week considered a range of options in relation to the 2006-07 budget, and accepted the recommendation of the Cabinet that there should be no cuts in the staffing in the Authority's Special Educational Services. The proposed reduction in EPs will therefore not proceed, nor will there be any loss of a higher grade officer in Buckinghamshire's SEN team.

Budget proposal "Reduce capacity for providing statements for children with special needs"

As regards the advertised option of reducing capacity for providing statements, the Authority assure us that the proposals as circulated did not signal an intention on their part to reduce the number of statements of SEN made or maintained as a result of this round of budget planning. They maintain that they are fully aware of the Authority's duty to identify and make statutory assessments, and that they have worked hard over the last two years to build the confidence and trust of parents in this process.

We understand the proposed cut would have involved a reduction of one in the number of higher grade officers dealing with SEN matters, but the response seeks to assure us that there would have been no reduction in the number of officers directly involved in the actual process of making and maintaining statements as such.

In the Department's view, the wording used in the consultation document was unfortunate, in that it gave the impression that the Authority proposed to reduce its ability to make and maintain statements without any compensating action to meet individual needs.

Budget proposal "Reduction in the number of educational psychologists who help children with difficulties"

Whilst the EP proposal, if implemented, would have involved a reduction in the number of educational psychologists, the Authority maintain that they have increased significantly the number of EPs on the ground over the last two years. They point out that EPs employed by Buckinghamshire provide a wide range of services to children, families and schools, and that a substantial proportion of their time is spent on non-statutory functions. They maintain that they cannot be held to be acting unreasonably since statutory duties would not be affected.

Conclusion

In light of the Council's decision, and on the basis of the information presently available to the Department, we do not see a case for further action under sections 496 and 497. We have however taken the opportunity to remind Buckinghamshire of the Department's letter on so-called blanket policies - the letter sent by Ian Coates on 15 November 2005.

I am copying this letter for information to Janet Sparrow, Acting Head of Special Educational Services, Buckinghamshire.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Dance
Special Educational Needs & Disability Division