Independent Panel for Special Education Advice (IPSEA)	Defending children's right to special education provision
Extract from the Special Educational Consortium's response to the draft revised Code of Practice October 2000 Back to home page	IPSEA is publishing this extract with the permission of the Special Education Consortium, which represents 274 organisations and individuals within the education and disability fields. Introduction Loss of specificity and lack of clarity about the use of resources for a statement Parental confidence Impact on inclusion Less contentious systems for decision-making Delegation of funding	The Consortium has serious concerns that the revised Code of Practice, as currently drafted, could undermine much of the positive direction given to SEN by the Green Paper, the Programme of Action and the SEN and Disability Rights in Education proposals
Introduction Back to top	The Special Educational Consortium is a consortium of 247 organisations and individuals concerned to protect and promote the interests of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, particularly when there are proposals for changes in legislation. The majority of members are voluntary organisations, but teacher unions, professional associations and local government organisations are also in membership. The Consortium has serious concerns that the revised Code of Practice, as currently drafted, could undermine much of the positive direction given to SEN by the Green Paper, the Programme of Action and the SEN and Disability Rights in Education proposals, on which the DfEE consulted earlier this year.
Loss of specificity and lack of clarity about the use of resources for a statement Back to top	The Consortium has particular concerns in the following areas: loss of specificity and lack of clarity about the use of resources for a statement ... There are three proposed changes that the Consortium wants to consider in this section: the proposed removal of wording from paragraph 4:28 of the current Code that guides LEAs to ensure that the provision set out in a statement is normally 'specific, detailed and quantified;' the proposed changes to the wording in the regulations governing the drawing up of a statement, in which the word 'specify' would be changed to 'set out,' and to paragraphs in the Code relating to the drawing up of a statement which would show the same change; the proposed changes in section 8.1 of the draft revised Code which encourage LEAs to pass money for statements to schools without earmarking it, that is delegating the funding rather than devolving it to schools. The Consortium is opposed to these changes.	The Consortium is opposed to these changes.
Parental confidence Back to top	There is concern that these proposals erode the very structures that can give parents the confidence that their child's needs can be met in a mainstream school. The Consortium has consulted with a number of groups of parents in different parts of the country. Some talked positively about the progress of their child in a mainstream school, but many had sought a special school place because the struggle to secure support for their child in mainstream had become too great, or because they had seen what other parents had experienced and this had made them feel unequal to the task. It would appear that there are many parents of children in special schools who are, in effect, refugees from mainstream and would have chosen a mainstream school had they had happier initial encounters with mainstream schools and had they been able to secure the necessary support. Many of the parents we met no longer have confidence that a mainstream school could meet the needs of their child and on first meeting them they are ardent in their support for special schools and set against any national, or local, moves towards increased inclusion.	Many of the parents we met no longer have confidence that a mainstream school could meet the needs of their child and on first meeting them they are ardent in their support for special schools and set against any national, or local, moves towards increased inclusion
Impact on inclusion Back to top	This lack of parental confidence is already having an impact on the extent to which parents are seeking a mainstream place for their child. There is a concern then that any changes that erode the specificity of a statement will have a disproportionate effect on the placement of children in mainstream schools. This will further undermine the government's intention of moving towards greater inclusion.
Less contentious systems for decision-making Back to top	At the same time as promoting inclusion and parental choice the government is seeking a system that will give rise to fewer disputes. There is real concern that, because the proposed changes will make it less clear what provision is to be made, there will be increased disagreement, increased parental dissatisfaction and a rise in the level of disputes in the system. Many teachers, particularly SENCOs and SEN teachers, have also expressed their concern about the proposed changes. They have said how important it is that a statement is specific, detailed and quantified. If it is not, they are concerned that they may not be able to secure, or monitor the deployment of, the resources that they need to meet the child's needs within the school. The one area where currently there is some clarity for SENCOs is in the funding that comes with a statement. In a situation where there is often a lack of clarity about what general funds are available within the school for SEN work (see below) the erosion of the clarity about statements presents a real cause for concern. Many teachers feel that the proposed changes hold the potential for increased conflict between parents and schools and will put SENCOs in a particularly difficult position.	Many teachers, particularly SENCOs and SEN teachers, have also expressed their concern about the proposed changes.
Delegation of funding Back to top	In meeting with different groups of parents around the country one of the issues that emerged was a high level of concern amongst parents about how the resources allocated to meet their child's needs were being used. Encouraging the delegation of these funds without appropriate systems of accountability will inflame those concerns. During a statutory assessment and the drawing up of a statement a lot of careful thought is given to the nature of the child's needs and how those needs should be met. The Consortium feels that encouragement to delegate and use funds flexibly will significantly undermine the purpose of a statement. The Consortium is aware that in the longer run inclusion will be better served by the resourcing of schools to work with pupils with a wide range of difficulties and disabilities. Thus, in time, there may be a shift away from resourcing individual children. However, this longer-term shift will not be achieved by the erosion of entitlement in a system that is still quite hostile to children with special educational needs. It will certainly not be achieved without putting in place tighter systems of accountability. It will only become possible as the need to seek the individual resourcing wanes, as parents, and schools, see fewer reasons or incentives for seeking a statement. October 2000	In time, there may be a shift away from resourcing individual children. However, this longer-term shift will not be achieved by the erosion of entitlement in a system that is still quite hostile to children with special educational needs.

Independent Panel for Special Education Advice (IPSEA)

Defending children's right to special education provision

Extract from the Special Educational Consortium's response to the draft revised Code of Practice

IPSEA is publishing this extract with the permission of the Special Education Consortium, which represents 274 organisations and individuals within the education and disability fields.

Introduction
Loss of specificity and lack of clarity about the use of resources for a statement
Parental confidence
Impact on inclusion
Less contentious systems for decision-making
Delegation of funding

The Consortium has serious concerns that the revised Code of Practice, as currently drafted, could undermine much of the positive direction given to SEN by the Green Paper, the Programme of Action and the SEN and Disability Rights in Education proposals

Introduction

The Special Educational Consortium is a consortium of 247 organisations and individuals concerned to protect and promote the interests of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, particularly when there are proposals for changes in legislation. The majority of members are voluntary organisations, but teacher unions, professional associations and local government organisations are also in membership.

The Consortium has serious concerns that the revised Code of Practice, as currently drafted, could undermine much of the positive direction given to SEN by the Green Paper, the Programme of Action and the SEN and Disability Rights in Education proposals, on which the DfEE consulted earlier this year.

Loss of specificity and lack of clarity about the use of resources for a statement

The Consortium has particular concerns in the following areas:

loss of specificity and lack of clarity about the use of resources for a statement ... There are three proposed changes that the Consortium wants to consider in this section:
- the proposed removal of wording from paragraph 4:28 of the current Code that guides LEAs to ensure that the provision set out in a statement is normally 'specific, detailed and quantified;'
- the proposed changes to the wording in the regulations governing the drawing up of a statement, in which the word 'specify' would be changed to 'set out,' and to paragraphs in the Code relating to the drawing up of a statement which would show the same change;
- the proposed changes in section 8.1 of the draft revised Code which encourage LEAs to pass money for statements to schools without earmarking it, that is delegating the funding rather than devolving it to schools.

The Consortium is opposed to these changes.

The Consortium is opposed to these changes.

Parental confidence

There is concern that these proposals erode the very structures that can give parents the confidence that their child's needs can be met in a mainstream school.

The Consortium has consulted with a number of groups of parents in different parts of the country. Some talked positively about the progress of their child in a mainstream school, but many had sought a special school place because the struggle to secure support for their child in mainstream had become too great, or because they had seen what other parents had experienced and this had made them feel unequal to the task. It would appear that there are many parents of children in special schools who are, in effect, refugees from mainstream and would have chosen a mainstream school had they had happier initial encounters with mainstream schools and had they been able to secure the necessary support. Many of the parents we met no longer have confidence that a mainstream school could meet the needs of their child and on first meeting them they are ardent in their support for special schools and set against any national, or local, moves towards increased inclusion.

Many of the parents we met no longer have confidence that a mainstream school could meet the needs of their child and on first meeting them they are ardent in their support for special schools and set against any national, or local, moves towards increased inclusion

Impact on inclusion

This lack of parental confidence is already having an impact on the extent to which parents are seeking a mainstream place for their child. There is a concern then that any changes that erode the specificity of a statement will have a disproportionate effect on the placement of children in mainstream schools. This will further undermine the government's intention of moving towards greater inclusion.

Less contentious systems for decision-making

At the same time as promoting inclusion and parental choice the government is seeking a system that will give rise to fewer disputes. There is real concern that, because the proposed changes will make it less clear what provision is to be made, there will be increased disagreement, increased parental dissatisfaction and a rise in the level of disputes in the system.

Many teachers, particularly SENCOs and SEN teachers, have also expressed their concern about the proposed changes. They have said how important it is that a statement is specific, detailed and quantified. If it is not, they are concerned that they may not be able to secure, or monitor the deployment of, the resources that they need to meet the child's needs within the school. The one area where currently there is some clarity for SENCOs is in the funding that comes with a statement. In a situation where there is often a lack of clarity about what general funds are available within the school for SEN work (see below) the erosion of the clarity about statements presents a real cause for concern.

Many teachers feel that the proposed changes hold the potential for increased conflict between parents and schools and will put SENCOs in a particularly difficult position.

Many teachers, particularly SENCOs and SEN teachers, have also expressed their concern about the proposed changes.

Delegation of funding

In meeting with different groups of parents around the country one of the issues that emerged was a high level of concern amongst parents about how the resources allocated to meet their child's needs were being used. Encouraging the delegation of these funds without appropriate systems of accountability will inflame those concerns. During a statutory assessment and the drawing up of a statement a lot of careful thought is given to the nature of the child's needs and how those needs should be met. The Consortium feels that encouragement to delegate and use funds flexibly will significantly undermine the purpose of a statement.

The Consortium is aware that in the longer run inclusion will be better served by the resourcing of schools to work with pupils with a wide range of difficulties and disabilities. Thus, in time, there may be a shift away from resourcing individual children. However, this longer-term shift will not be achieved by the erosion of entitlement in a system that is still quite hostile to children with special educational needs. It will certainly not be achieved without putting in place tighter systems of accountability. It will only become possible as the need to seek the individual resourcing wanes, as parents, and schools, see fewer reasons or incentives for seeking a statement.

October 2000

In time, there may be a shift away from resourcing individual children. However, this longer-term shift will not be achieved by the erosion of entitlement in a system that is still quite hostile to children with special educational needs.