Independent Panel for Special Education Advice (IPSEA)	Defending children's right to special education provision
Inept analysis, dangerous conclusion July 2002 Back to home page	IPSEA's response to the Audit Commission's report Statutory assessment and statements of SEN: in need of review? This report warrants a line-by-line critique, there is so much in it which is inept and dangerous. But IPSEA's remit as a charity is to undertake casework in direct support of individual children with special educational needs and their parents/carers. We do not have the time to spare neither would it be appropriate for us to divert our attentions from our main role to unpick the many misconceptions and expose the many biases in the Audit Commission's report. A few examples will have to do. The report asserts: 'assessment … may add little value in helping to meet a child's needs'. But if you don't assess the need how can you begin to work out what is required to meet it? Is the Commission of the view that information is of no value? Assessment is the route to a possible Statement and a Statement provides a legal guarantee that a child's needs will be met. Does the Audit Commission see this as being of little value? The report says: 'statements provide little assurance'. But the Statement is a legal document, binding, as would a contract, the LEA to arrange the provision specified in it. The report says: 'parents … were largely consistent in their criticism of the statutory assessment process' but goes on to acknowledge that only 1% of parents appeal against their LEAs' decision and records: 'We have not investigated why the overall level of appeals is low. It could be because parents are satisfied that their child's needs are being met.' It 'could be' many things. The report would seem to be based on research which is at best partial. The thrust of the report's conclusions is that the statutory framework is inadequate and in need of 'review'. Yet many of the examples of problems show precisely how vital and logical the statutory framework is, but that it is too often disregarded by LEAs. On page 16, 'one family's experience' purports to reveal the weakness in the assessment process by setting out Mark's chronology as follows: at 3 he has little language and throws temper tantrums at 4 his class teacher says he is clumsy at 6 he is falling behind with his reading and writing at 7 he is assessed and found to have dyspraxia at 8, eventually, Mark receives the resources his needs call for. Yet this shows the contrary of what the Audit Commission seem to think. It is not that assessment was ineffective for Mark but that it did not start until he was 7 - then it led to his needs being met. The example shows the LEA's failure to identify Mark's needs (a legal duty from a child's birth). It shows that the parent was not informed of her right in law to request assessment when problems began. It shows the failure of professional to advise the parent of this right. But the assessment, as such, was effective and speedy, once initiated. On page 18 a case is reported of a parent saying: 'I found it difficult to start the process. I had to phone, I had to beg …' Yet the law gives parents the right to request assessment of their child's needs, following which an LEA has a strict legal duty to respond within a 6 week deadline. The law is not in need of 'review' here. It is in need of being obeyed. Another parent is reported on page 18 as saying: 'Professionals' advice is based on funding not the needs of the child.' Yet the law clearly sets out the content of professionals' reports and insists that they cover the needs of the child and the provision required to meet those needs. It is simply not lawful for professionals to distort their opinion on a child's needs in order to save their employer (the LEA) money. Again, the law is not in need of 'review' here. It is in need of being obeyed. On page 24 the report says researchers found situations where there were 'delays in provision (such that support was not forthcoming for many months …)' Yet LEAs have a duty in law to arrange the provision specified in a statement from the date of its issue. The law is not in need of 'review' here. It is in need of being obeyed. Also on page 24, the report says researchers found situations in which there were 'shortfalls in provision (support was provided, but to a lesser extent than set out in the statement).' Yet LEAs have a duty in law to arrange all the special educational provision specified in a statement. Again, the law is not in need of 'review' here. It is in need of being obeyed. The Audit Commission urges the Government to review the statutory framework, but children's problems arise not from the law, which in fact is what provides them with the legal entitlement to have their needs met, but from LEAs who disregard the law for budgetary reasons. Basically, LEAs wish to be relieved of the burden of their statutory duty towards children with sen. The task for parents is getting LEAs to obey the law. Changing the law will not make them obey it -- unless of course the Audit Commission believe that LEAs' statutory duties towards children with special educational needs should be weakened. Certainly, this would persuade LEAs to view the law in a more positive light. In IPSEA's view, weakening children's entitlement to special educational provision is not in children's best interests, nor in the best interests of their parents/carers nor in the long term is it in society's best interests. Instead, IPSEA believes that there is a need for an enforcement agency which would ensure that LEAs fulfil their legal duties towards children with special education needs. Public law tends to leave enforcement to individual parent and carers, which discriminates against those parents who, for whatever reason (lack of confidence, ability, resources, time) are unable to act as legal watchdog to their own LEA. But why should children have to rely on their parents to police the education system to ensure they get the provision their needs call for, when the law, since 1983, has guaranteed this as of right? And, why should parents have to rely on charities and voluntary sector support systems, when their children have legal rights to appropriate provision? The profound danger in the Audit Commission's report being used as the starting point for national debate is that the report repeatedly claims that most problems in the field of special educational needs arise from aspects of the statutory framework. This is simply not so. Most problems (including those detailed in the report itself) are caused by LEAs' determination (and current licence) to disregard the statutory framework. IPSEA 31 July 2002	There is so much in the report which is inept and dangerous ... the law is not in need of 'review' here. It is in need of being obeyed ... many of the examples of problems show precisely how vital and logical the statutory framework is, but that it is too often disregarded by LEAs.
Back to top

Independent Panel for Special Education Advice (IPSEA)

Defending children's right to special education provision

Inept analysis, dangerous conclusion

IPSEA's response to the Audit Commission's report Statutory assessment and statements of SEN: in need of review?

This report warrants a line-by-line critique, there is so much in it which is inept and dangerous. But IPSEA's remit as a charity is to undertake casework in direct support of individual children with special educational needs and their parents/carers. We do not have the time to spare neither would it be appropriate for us to divert our attentions from our main role to unpick the many misconceptions and expose the many biases in the Audit Commission's report.

A few examples will have to do.

The report asserts: 'assessment … may add little value in helping to meet a child's needs'. But if you don't assess the need how can you begin to work out what is required to meet it? Is the Commission of the view that information is of no value? Assessment is the route to a possible Statement and a Statement provides a legal guarantee that a child's needs will be met. Does the Audit Commission see this as being of little value?
The report says: 'statements provide little assurance'. But the Statement is a legal document, binding, as would a contract, the LEA to arrange the provision specified in it.
The report says: 'parents … were largely consistent in their criticism of the statutory assessment process' but goes on to acknowledge that only 1% of parents appeal against their LEAs' decision and records: 'We have not investigated why the overall level of appeals is low. It could be because parents are satisfied that their child's needs are being met.' It 'could be' many things. The report would seem to be based on research which is at best partial.
The thrust of the report's conclusions is that the statutory framework is inadequate and in need of 'review'. Yet many of the examples of problems show precisely how vital and logical the statutory framework is, but that it is too often disregarded by LEAs.
1. On page 16, 'one family's experience' purports to reveal the weakness in the assessment process by setting out Mark's chronology as follows:
  - at 3 he has little language and throws temper tantrums
  - at 4 his class teacher says he is clumsy
  - at 6 he is falling behind with his reading and writing
  - at 7 he is assessed and found to have dyspraxia
  - at 8, eventually, Mark receives the resources his needs call for.
  Yet this shows the contrary of what the Audit Commission seem to think. It is not that assessment was ineffective for Mark but that it did not start until he was 7 - then it led to his needs being met. The example shows the LEA's failure to identify Mark's needs (a legal duty from a child's birth). It shows that the parent was not informed of her right in law to request assessment when problems began. It shows the failure of professional to advise the parent of this right. But the assessment, as such, was effective and speedy, once initiated.
2. On page 18 a case is reported of a parent saying: 'I found it difficult to start the process. I had to phone, I had to beg …' Yet the law gives parents the right to request assessment of their child's needs, following which an LEA has a strict legal duty to respond within a 6 week deadline. The law is not in need of 'review' here. It is in need of being obeyed.
3. Another parent is reported on page 18 as saying: 'Professionals' advice is based on funding not the needs of the child.' Yet the law clearly sets out the content of professionals' reports and insists that they cover the needs of the child and the provision required to meet those needs. It is simply not lawful for professionals to distort their opinion on a child's needs in order to save their employer (the LEA) money. Again, the law is not in need of 'review' here. It is in need of being obeyed.
4. On page 24 the report says researchers found situations where there were 'delays in provision (such that support was not forthcoming for many months …)' Yet LEAs have a duty in law to arrange the provision specified in a statement from the date of its issue. The law is not in need of 'review' here. It is in need of being obeyed.
5. Also on page 24, the report says researchers found situations in which there were 'shortfalls in provision (support was provided, but to a lesser extent than set out in the statement).' Yet LEAs have a duty in law to arrange all the special educational provision specified in a statement. Again, the law is not in need of 'review' here. It is in need of being obeyed.

The Audit Commission urges the Government to review the statutory framework, but children's problems arise not from the law, which in fact is what provides them with the legal entitlement to have their needs met, but from LEAs who disregard the law for budgetary reasons. Basically, LEAs wish to be relieved of the burden of their statutory duty towards children with sen. The task for parents is getting LEAs to obey the law. Changing the law will not make them obey it -- unless of course the Audit Commission believe that LEAs' statutory duties towards children with special educational needs should be weakened. Certainly, this would persuade LEAs to view the law in a more positive light.

In IPSEA's view, weakening children's entitlement to special educational provision is not in children's best interests, nor in the best interests of their parents/carers nor in the long term is it in society's best interests.

Instead, IPSEA believes that there is a need for an enforcement agency which would ensure that LEAs fulfil their legal duties towards children with special education needs. Public law tends to leave enforcement to individual parent and carers, which discriminates against those parents who, for whatever reason (lack of confidence, ability, resources, time) are unable to act as legal watchdog to their own LEA.

But why should children have to rely on their parents to police the education system to ensure they get the provision their needs call for, when the law, since 1983, has guaranteed this as of right? And, why should parents have to rely on charities and voluntary sector support systems, when their children have legal rights to appropriate provision?

The profound danger in the Audit Commission's report being used as the starting point for national debate is that the report repeatedly claims that most problems in the field of special educational needs arise from aspects of the statutory framework. This is simply not so. Most problems (including those detailed in the report itself) are caused by LEAs' determination (and current licence) to disregard the statutory framework.

IPSEA
31 July 2002

There is so much in the report which is inept and dangerous ...
the law is not in need of 'review' here. It is in need of being obeyed ...
many of the examples of problems show precisely how vital and logical the statutory framework is, but that it is too often disregarded by LEAs.