Upload
roxanne-ward
View
223
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Oxfordshire•155,700 (0-19) children and young people.
•234 primary schools, 34 secondary schools, 13 special schools and 1 PRU
•Contrasts:
–Oxfordshire is the most rural county in the South East region. Over 50% of people in Oxfordshire live in settlements of less than 10,000 people.
–There are ten areas within the bottom ten per cent of all areas in England with high child poverty
–Three of the five Districts score in the top ten per cent of affluence nationally
Where We Were “Stalinist” approach to SEN Bureaucratic Wasteful use of resources Mistrusted Unfair Opaque Unknowing
What Were We Doing? Investing in ICT and data e.g.SIMS,EMS, Reshaping SEN services Linking with other agencies Adopting an area approach Reducing out-county places Retaining special schools, widening their
role and creating consistency in admissions Reducing transport costs Reinvesting in services and schools
What Did We Want? Fairness Embedded inclusive values Resources linked to need Early intervention Flexibility of response Expert advice to teachers Parental and school confidence and… effective financial management
A Change of Authority Culture No instant miracle cures Clarity of values and purpose Efficiency and effectiveness Acquiring, cleaning and using data Consistency, openness and fairness Involvement, challenge and support Letting go – decisions and resources
What Do Statements Provide?
Multi-professional information and guidance on a child’s needs
Targeted resources for individuals Parental confidence and security A requirement for special schools
But … All that information is available without a
Statement The resources can be available without delay and
for all children with SEN Services can be linked to need not bureaucracy Parental confidence can be secured by the school
and the knowledge that a Statement is available Around 90% of assessments were requested by
schools not parents LA maintains ultimate legal responsibility but
schools actually educate children, not LAs
And.. The very existence of Statements marks out
children as different – it is not inclusive There is an artificial divide between those
with and those without Statements Statements can contribute to certain
children being seen as someone else’s responsibility
Funds residing with central authorities impose a barrier to schools meeting needs
Low correlation between Statements and SEN
So Statements… Aren’t fair, Aren’t effective Are bureaucratic and costly Waste SENCO and service time Leave educational decisions to bureaucrats Hamper effective school level decisions Don’t match resources to need And are are rigid and restrictive
A Reminder“Trusting the professional judgement of teachers is at the core of, and essential to, the efficient tackling of SEN”
“Decisions on spending should be taken at the lowest possible level”
“In no area is (the) commitment to excellence and equality of opportunity more important than in the area of SEN and inclusion”
National (English!) Picture
Statutory Assessment and Statements of SEN in Need of Review? Audit Commission 2002
LEA Strategy for the Inclusion of of Pupils with SEN. Ofsted 2002
Reducing Reliance on Statements. An Investigation into LA Practice and Outcomes. Anne Pinney (for DfES) 2003
Removing Barriers to Achievement. DfES 2004
Reducing Reliance on Statements
“Explore, with schools, the delegation of the statementing budget in order to ensure practical support is available to meet children’s needs as quickly and flexibly as possible”
Oxfordshire SEN Strategy 2004
What We Did Built on accepted approaches Improved LA practice Encouraged confidence through
openness Innovated together Listened and responded Shared aspirations
The Working Group Governors, unions, heads, officers,
advisors, EPs, Parent Partnership Agreed aims and principles Opened the books to scrutiny Created a huge range of models Produced innumerable drafts
Consulting Informal/formative consultation to
engage key parties and encourage feedback
Briefings and workshops – politicians, parents, teachers, heads, governors
Refined, rethought and redrafted
The Model Delegate most/all the Statementing
budget to secondary schools Delegate much of the Statementing
budget to primary schools Maintain the existing criteria for
statutory assessment Retain and strengthen SEN Services
The SEN Index A measure of socio-economic
deprivation* - 30% School assessment of SEN (SEN
registers) - 30% A measure of attainment of school
intake - 40% (End of key stage 1 and 2 results).
* includes Children in Public Care or with English as an Additional
Language (EAL).
Socio-economic Measure All pupils traced, via postcodes, to areas of
300 to 400 houses. Each area has an Income Deprivation
Affecting Children Index (IDACI), based on factors such as the number of families receiving income support.
From this an overall score for the school is calculated.
The formula also includes a small element for EAL and in Public Care.
School Assessment Of SEN Schools provide total number on SEN register. SEN registers are checked against previously
submitted data. Analysed against the other two elements of
the index (which have a very strongly correlation).
Where SEN registers fall outside the expected level, which may be for perfectly valid reasons, schools are contacted.
If necessary, follow up visits take place.
Pupil Attainment For primary schools the KS1 performances for
reading, writing and maths in the previous summer are converted to points and averaged.
For secondary schools the performance at key stage 2 is used: English, maths and science are pointed and averaged.
The resultant scores are ranked and the lowest 10% of pupils weighted at 2 points. The next 10% are given 1 point and the remaining 80% are given zero.
As a one-year score is volatile scores are averaged over a number of years.
Applying The Index
Secondary Schools Funding for all pupils with SEN, including those with statements, is delegated to secondary schools using the SEN Index.
Primary Schools For most primary schools funding is delegated to provide up to 15 TA hours p.w. or equivalent.
Small Primary Schools For the hundred primary schools with the smallest whole school budgets, funding equivalent to 5 hours of additional provision is delegated.
Top-up Funding
Funding is retained centrally to top–up provision for individual pupils in primary schools with needs beyond the provision already delegated to schools.
Top-up funding is considered by a panel of heads officers and services when a statement is being drawn up or following an annual review. For small primary schools, a request may be made for additional funding.
Clear, agreed evidence on use of existing delegated funding is then considered by a panel of heads, officers, Senior EP, SEN service managers
What Is Expected Of Schools? Provide for all their pupils’ needs from
delegated funds (plus top-ups in primary schools)
Maintain and review plans and provision in line with the SEN Code of Practice
Carry out self evaluation audit at least three yearly but usually annually
Maintain SEN register as part of SIMS school data and allow electronic collection by the LA
What Is Expected Of The LA?
Top-up funding for primary age pupils Provision of special school places, as appropriate Continue to monitor school performance Provide free SEN specialist service advice, training
and, where appropriate, in school teaching/support e.g VI and HI
Comply with legislation on existing Statements Carry out statutory assessments where requested Provide feedback to schools on data collected
Monitoring The LA has a statutory duty to monitor the use of
resources delegated to schools for SEN. An annual inclusion profile is provided for every
school containing contextual, resources and progress data on vulnerable pupils.
This information is used to prioritise schools for further support to help raise achievements of vulnerable pupils and to safeguard their rights and entitlements.
On a three yearly cycle all schools are supported, by officers and advisors, with their Inclusion Self-evaluation (From Audit to Action).
Did It Work?Children with Statements Maintained by Oxfordshire
2047
2126
2281
2427
254025502551
2653
2502
2000
2500
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Sta
tem
en
t N
um
bers
Statutory Assessments
Number of Incomplete Assessments on Count Day Each Month
0
50
100
150
200
1 5 9
13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41
Number ofIncompleteAssessments onCount Day EachMonth
Were Parents Satisfied?Numbers of Tribunals
8
30
17
8
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
Academic Year
Outcomes•Delegation of all statement funding for secondary schools and partial for primary schools with:
– Greater autonomy for schools
– Strengthening of self evaluation and monitoring procedures
– Reduced bureaucracy increased school time and funding
– Central SEN services retained
•Performance measures and outcomes remain good:
– Tribunals remain low compared with statistical neighbours and nationally
– Inclusion in mainstream is high
– Very low user of out county/area placements
– Improved pupil performance
•School level review of all delegated SEN funding resulted in:
- head teachers agreeing to not increase the overall delegated funding
External Evidence
“Overall it was very difficult to find differences in the way the children where treated with and without statements. Children were regularly reviewed whether they had a statement or were on School Action Plus and had similar access to interventions and support. Similarly, parent feedback was not distinguishable between the two groups”.
Oxford Brookes University Research Study for the Lamb Enquiry 2009
Other Judgements•100% of statements completed within 26 weeks, with and without exceptions
•Regional Adviser describes Oxfordshire as having ‘very good practice in terms of SEN systems and budget management’.
•Identified ‘as an area where good practice has been developed in managing SEN/AEN resources and using data to measure impact’. Audit Commission 2009
• OFSTED judged 65% of schools good or outstanding in SEN
OFSTED
“How effective, efficient and inclusive is the provision of education, integrated care and any extended services in meeting the needs of learners?”OFSTED Overall Effectiveness Judgement
Time To Think Again?“There is no correlation between the socio-
economic profile of LAs and the level of Statements. However there is a strong link between the socio-economic profile and the proportion of pupils with SEN overall. This confirms the link between SEN and deprivation, but points to the influence of local policy on statementing practice”.
Reducing Reliance on Statements – Anne Pinney 2003