SEN Green Paper 2011: progress and prospects : Policy Paper 6, 6th Series, June 2011

SEN Policy Options Group

SEN Green Paper 2011: progress and prospects

Policy Paper 6, 6th Series, June 2011

Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction to Policy Paper 3

Chapter 2. Support and aspiration: cultural revolution or pragmatic evolution?Brian Lamb, Chair of Lamb Enquiry Report: SEN and Parental Confidence 7

Chapter 3. The Green Paper – a view from mainstreamKate Frood, Headteacher, Eleanor Palmer Primary School, Camden, London 18

Chapter 4. Support and aspiration: the SEND Green Paper, 2011: a personal view from an LAofficerDebbie Orton, Head of Inclusion Services, Hertfordshire Local Authority 22

Chapter 5. Summary of discussions in small groups 28

Chapter 1: Introduction to Policy Paperjrs3_1217_1 107..121

Background to the policy paperThis paper is based on the Policy Seminar held at the CloreManagement Centre, Birkbeck College, London on 25 May2011 on the special educational needs (SEN) Green Paper2011: progress and prospects.

The aims of the seminar were to give participants an oppor-tunity to examine in depth the SEN Green Paper: its aims,its assumptions and approaches. The seminar provided aunique chance to discuss to what extent the paper hasaddressed adequately these and other matters: Is it likely to:

• enhance parental confidence and build parentpartnership,

• 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 intosmall groups to discuss and debate further. There is asummary of points from these discussions in the finalsection.

SEN policy options steering groupThis policy paper was the sixth in the 6th series of seminarsand conferences to be organised by the SEN Policy Options

Steering Group. This group organised the initial Economicand Social Research Council (ESRC) – Cadbury Trustseries on policy options for special educational needs in theearly 1990s. The success of the first series led to the secondand subsequent series that have been supported financiallyby nasen. (See the list of these 26 policy papers at the endof this section). The Steering Group has representativesfrom local authority (LA) administrators, governmentagencies, voluntary organisations, professional associa-tions, universities and research. These events are intendedto consider current and future policy issues in the field ina proactive way. They are planned to interest all thoseconcerned with policy matters in SEN.

Aims of the 6th series over a 5-year period from2006–2011:

1. To continue to provide a forum where education policyrelevant to the interests of children and young peoplewith SEN/disabilities can be appraised critically andproactively in the context of the development ofchildren’s services;

2. To inform and influence policy formulation andimplementation, to encourage and support an activeand ongoing dialogue on SEN policy and practicebetween key stakeholders such as nasen and other

bs_bs_banner

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs · Volume 12 · Number 2 · 2012 107–121doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01217_1.x

107© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

professional associations, schools, LAs, parents andother agencies;

3. To examine and evaluate policy options in terms ofcurrent and possible developments and research inorder to inform and influence policy formulation andimplementation in the field;

4. To organise events where policy-makers, professionals,parents, voluntary associations and academics/researchers analyse and debate significant issues in thefield drawing on policy and practice in the countries ofthe UK and

5. To arrange the dissemination of the proceedings andoutcomes through publication and summary briefingpapers.

Steering group membershipThe current membership of the SEN Policy Options Steer-ing Group include Professor Julie Dockrell, Institute ofEducation; Peter Gray, SEN Policy Consultant; Dr SeamusHegarty, Professor Geoff Lindsay, Warwick University;Professor Ingrid Lunt, University of Oxford; ProfessorBrahm Norwich, School of Education, Exeter University;Debbie Orton, Hertfordshire local authority; LindaRedford, Policy Consultant; Penny Richardson, Educa-tional Consultant; Philippa Russell, Disability Rights Com-mission and Adviser; Philippa Stobbs, Council for DisabledChildren; Janet Thompson, Office for Standards in Educa-tion (OFSTED); and Professor Klaus Wedell, Institute ofEducation, London University.

Current seriesThe current series aims to organise full- or half-day eventson special education policy and provision over the period of2006–2011 that are relevant to the context of considerablechanges in the education system.

If you have any ideas about possible topics or would like toknow more about the events, please do contact a member ofthe group or Brahm Norwich, Co-ordinator of SteeringGroup, at the Graduate School of Education, University ofExeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU (01392 724805;email: [email protected]).

I. Policy Options Papers from first seminar series

1. Bucking the marketPeter Housden, Chief Education Officer, Nottinghamshirelocal educational authority (LEA)

2. Towards effective schools for allMel Ainscow, Cambridge University Institute of Education

3. Teacher education for SENProfessor Peter Mittler, Manchester University

4. Resourcing for SENJennifer Evans and Ingrid Lunt, Institute of Education,London University

5. Special schools and their alternativesMax Hunt, Director of Education, Stockport LEA

6. Meeting SEN: options for partnership betweenhealth, education and social servicesTony Dessent, Senior Assistant Director, NottinghamshireLEA

7. SEN in the 1990s: users’ perspectivesMicheline Mason, Robina Mallet, Colin Low and PhilippaRussell

II. Policy Options Papers from second seminar series

8. Independence and dependence? Responsibilities forSEN in the unitary and county authoritiesRoy Atkinson, Michael Peters, Derek Jones, Simon Gardnerand Philippa Russell

9. Inclusion or exclusion: educational policy and prac-tice for children and young people with emotional andbehavioural difficultiesJohn Bangs, Peter Gray and Greg Richardson

10. Baseline assessment and SENGeoff Lindsay, Max Hunt, Sheila Wolfendale and PeterTymms

11. Future policy for SEN: response to the Green PaperBrahm Norwich, Ann Lewis, John Moore and HarryDaniels

III. Policy Options Papers from third seminar series

12. Rethinking support for more inclusive educationPeter Gray, Clive Danks, Rik Boxer, Barbara Burke, GeoffFrank, Ruth Newbury and Joan Baxter

13. Developments in additional resource allocation topromote greater inclusionJohn Moore, Cor Meijer, Klaus Wedell, Paul Croll andDiane Moses

14. Early years and SENProfessor Sheila Wolfendale and Philippa Russell

15. Specialist teaching for SEN and inclusionAnnie Grant, Ann Lewis and Brahm Norwich

IV. Policy Options Papers from fourth seminar series

16. The equity dilemma: allocating resources for specialeducational needsRichard Humphries, Sonia Sharpe, David Ruebain, Phil-ippa Russell and Mike Ellis

17. Standards and effectiveness in special educationalneeds: questioning conceptual orthodoxyRichard Byers, Seamus Hegarty and Carol Fitz Gibbon

18. Disability, disadvantage, inclusion and socialinclusionProfessor Alan Dyson and Sandra Morrison

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 107–121

108 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

19. Rethinking the 14–19 curriculum: SEN perspectivesand implicationsDr Lesley Dee, Christopher Robertson, Professor GeoffLindsay, Ann Gross and Keith Bovair

V. Policy Options Papers from fifth seminar series

20. Examining key issues underlying the Audit Com-mission Reports on SENChris Beek, Penny Richardson and Peter Gray

21. Future schooling that includes children with SEN/disabilityKlaus Wedell, Ingrid Lunt and Brahm Norwich

VI. Policy Options Papers from sixth seminar series

22. Taking stock: integrated children’s services,improvement and inclusionMargaret Doran, Tony Dessent and Professor ChrisHusbands

23. Special schools in the new era: how do we go beyondgeneralities?Chris Wells, Philippa Russell, Peter Gray and BrahmNorwich

24. Individual budgets and direct payments: issues,challenges and future implications for the strategic man-agement of SENChristine Lenehan, Glenys Jones Elaine Hack and SheilaRiddell

25. Personalisation and SENJudy Sebba, Armando DiFinizio, Alison Peacock andMartin Johnson

26. Choice-equity dilemma in special educationalprovisionJohn Clarke, Ann Lewis and Peter Gray

27. SEN Green Paper 2011: progress and prospectsBrain Lamb, Kate Frood and Debbie Orton

Copies of most of these papers can now be downloadedfrom the nasen web site. Look for SEN Policy Optionspublic pages for downloading these past copies.

Chapter 2: Support and aspiration: culturalrevolution or pragmatic evolution?jrs3_1217_2 109..123

Brian Lamb

‘I’d like us to implement a cultural revolution just like theone they’ve had in China . . . Like Chairman Mao, we’veembarked on a Long March to reform our educationsystem.’ Michael Gove Secretary of State for EducationDaily Telegraph 28th December 2010.

This paper looks at some of the key proposals in the gov-ernment’s Green Paper ‘Support and aspiration: A newapproach to special educational needs and disability’ (DFE,2011) through the lens of what questions the governmentwas trying to answer. The narrative on the need for reformis well rehearsed: parents too often have to battle to getspecialist support for their children, outcomes have beenpoor, the system is complex with too many assessments andthere is not enough focus on identifying and addressingproblems early. Real choice is often absent, a lack of paren-tal involvement and struggle to secure appropriate supportleading to conflict. All of this is despite a large number ofpiecemeal improvements to the framework and additionalrights, greater investment and a significant increase inpolicy focus and profile on SEN in recent years. It alsoworth at least noting that the underlying levels of parentalsatisfaction in the system (rarely acknowledged) has beenhigher than many have perceived (Parsons et al., 2009a;

Parsons, Lewis and Ellins, 2009b; Whitaker, 2007). Never-theless, there has been a growing pressure for reform, whileno overwhelming demand for overthrowing the principlesof the SEN framework.

Following Baroness’s Warnock’s challenge to SEN frame-work (Warnock, 2005), there followed a plethora of SelectCommittee reports and reviews (House of Commons, 2006;Lamb, 2009; Bercow, 2008; Rose, 2009; Salt, 2010; Steer,2009) and think tank reports (Balchin, 2007; Wilkins, 2008;Sodha & Margo, 2010) that essentially led to a number ofpiecemeal changes to the system. Thus, much reform overthe last 5 years has followed Karl Popper’s injunction forempiricist policy development in which

The piecemeal engineer knows . . . .that we can learnonly from our mistakes. Accordingly, he will make hisway, step by step, carefully comparing the resultsexpected with the results achieved, and always on thelookout for the unavoidable unwanted consequences ofany reform (Popper, 2002, p. 61).

It is perhaps also the testament to the complexity and sen-sitivity of the issue that ministers, the voluntary sector


109© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

lobby and statutory authorities have all wanted to treadcarefully before making changes to the SEN framework, ifsometimes for different reasons.

Thus, the proposals in Green Paper have sought to balancea radical intent to change culture, linking more generalchanges in the schools’ system with more specific changesto the SEN framework and possibly legislation, moretesting, pilots and consultation before making any substan-tive changes; more Popper in method than Maoist in intent.

The context for these changes has been the Coalition Gov-ernment’s overall strategy of a radical decentralisation ofservices. (Gove, 2011) This represents a decisive shift in therole of the LA with power moving upwards to central gov-ernment, approval of academy and free schools, and drain-ing downwards towards frontline professionals throughacademy status for schools, greater power and flexibility forheads, more power to vary the curriculum, lighter touchinspections and personalised budgets. The more generalfoundations on which the whole education system rest willset much of the context for any new SEN framework andamounts to a fundamental shift – cultural revolution – in therespective roles of LAs and schools. This paper will ques-tion how a SEN framework will operate in a more deregu-lated and devolved environment.

Increasingly, when it comes to free schools and special freeschools, it is the secretary of state who is in the firing line ondecisions in a much more direct way than before, as localdiscretion had previously shielded central government fromdirect parental dissatisfaction about levels of provision andchoice.

The Green PaperI am going to take five key issues as touchstones in lookingat the approach of the Green Paper. In doing so, it is worthnoting that the overall thrust of the Green Paper is to seek tojoin up services, improve early identification and interven-tion, streamline process, put more power into the hands ofparents and ensure more specialist support are welcome.However, questions remain about the proposed means ofachieving this.

Definition of SEN and merging school action and schoolaction plusThe dangers of over-identifying the numbers of childrenwith SEN were raised by Sir Alan Steer’s Review of Behav-iour (Steer, 2009), the Lamb Inquiry (Lamb, 2009), PolicyExchange (Hartley, 2010a, b) and by OFSTED (2010) withvarying degrees of force. Plans to get the proportion ofchildren identified with SEN are not new:

Schools currently identify 18% of children as havingspecial educational needs of differing kinds . . . .This Green Paper asks some questions about thesefigures . . . as our policies take effect, the proportion ofsecondary age children whom schools need to identifyas having SEN should move closer to 10% (Blunkett,1997).

The Green Paper puts the issue of over-identificationsquarely within the nature of the definition of SEN propos-ing ‘a new single school-based SEN category, providingclear guidance to schools on the appropriate identificationof SEN’ (DFE, 2011).

It has been recognised that over-identification has a numberof complex causes. These include the perverse incentives ofthe contextual value-added scores, mislabelling childrenwho have simply fallen behind, lagging performance ofsummer-born children and the inherent relativity of a defi-nition that will depend on the level of SEN support in aschool, differing definitions of what constitutes inadequateprogress, catchment area and local policies adopted(OFSTED, 2010).

Merging school action and action plus will simplify thesystem but is not going to answer issues of context depen-dent identification, unless the scope of those covered underthe new category is radically changed and/or the yardstickof national indicators that might trigger identification arerevised (DFE, 2011). It is difficult to envisage a definitionthat is not, to some extent, context dependent, and thereforeopen to variability of interpretation, unless the aim is torestrict any new definition to known medical conditions.Apart from the obvious objections of moving towards amedical model, this would be likely to have a profoundimpact on groups where there was a complex interactionbetween social, emotional and cognitive factors (Ellis, Todand Graham-Matheson, 2011). Tightening the definitionwould also be a reverse for those who had seen the need fora broader, less deficit-based definition (Norwich, 2002;2009) and also for those who wanted to move in the direc-tion of the Scottish model of additional needs.

What also drives identification is the link between theresources deployed and identification. Where identificationof SEN secures either access to or protection of specialistprovision, this is especially obvious. It also provides someaccountability at the school level to ensure that needs areaddressed. As long as there remains scarcity of specialistsupport, identification of SEN will remain the goal ofparents in ensuring needs are addressed and as a means ofprotection against cost savings. As the Lamb Inquiry found,parents work up the system to find the specialist who under-stands their child’s needs and to seek statutory protectionfor provision made.

Changes in triggers to identification and merging schoolaction and school action plus may reconfigure the gatewayto additional resources focusing support more tightly onthose most in need. This is justified if the school’s core offeron SEN is significantly improved without needing recourseto the SEN framework. It is dangerous if it just allowsschools to retrench their efforts on a smaller group of chil-dren – typically those at the higher end of schools actionplus – without addressing the needs of the others.

Therefore, it might have been a wiser strategy for govern-ment to focus even more than it has done on improving the



school’s offer through specialist support services, teachertraining and accelerated workforce development, whichwould, in turn, reduce the drive to using the framework andseek statutory protection, especially when attention given toa new definition could cause upheaval and confusion at apoint where what we need is a ruthless focus on improvingschools offer to all children (DCSF, 2010).

We know that, however defined, there are around 20 percent of the school population who are underperformingagainst any current definition of performance and outcomeswe apply (DFE, 2011). Altering the designation of thisgroup does not alter the nature of the needs to be addressed.Other parts of the Green Paper strategy show promise infocusing on this area, including the stress on early interven-tion and professional development. This relates to theextension of funding for Achievement for All (AfA), a pro-gramme that does address the school’s offer with a focus onthe progress achieved by the bottom 20 per cent, the prin-ciples of greater parental involvement and a focus on out-comes (DFE, 2011).

The presumption towards inclusionThere has been nothing more emblematic of a change in theoverall direction of policy than the commitment in theGreen Paper, echoing the Coalition Agreement (CabinetOffice, 2010) that the presumption towards inclusion wasgoing to be removed.

Although the Green Paper convincingly showed a strongvariation between placement decisions of different authori-ties for special school places (DFE, 2011), it does little elseto demonstrate where this presumption occurs as a system-atic bias in legislation nor how to redefine the concept. Thecoalition agreement linked the presumption towards inclu-sion simply to the decline of special school places, since thelate 1990s, but has not explicitly addressed how far thistrend was justified in respect of either improving main-stream provision or the quality of placements that are nolonger being funded.

Conversely, inclusionists have bemoaned the slow pace ofchange and pointed to some authorities increasing place-ments in special schools over the same period and at best arelatively small drop in the overall numbers in specialschools, if independent provision was excluded. Further-more, it all depends on the starting point for discussion as,for many categories of special schools, numbers haveincreased since 2006. However, for many in the sector, theterms of the debate have moved on, with a greater focus onpersonalised provision to meet the needs of the child ratherthan focus on place (Gillinson and Green, 2007).

The Green Paper’s approach has been more subtle than thebold statement may have suggested. It proposes extendingthe choice of schools to all state-funded schools that wouldinclude special schools, academies and free schools. Thechange that was in any case necessary because of the expan-sion of the academy and free school programme. Parentswill also be given the opportunity to take over specialschools that are closing.

The right to name a wider range of schools is still qualifiedby the requirements that the provision must meet the needsof the child, not be incompatible with the efficient use ofresources or be incompatible with the efficient education ofother children. Thus, at the moment, the changes are morethe consequence of a greater range of schools that parentshave choice over than a fundamental change in legislativeframework of choice, although this could change furtheronce we see what the precise changes that are going to beproposed.

The new criteria for setting up free special schools placesalso include a number of criteria that replicate currentrequirements including the need for a statement, proving aquality service, demonstrating demand for places and fitwith the LA’s strategy. All these measures that are designedto ensure a coherent fit with local planning of provisionand existing resources (DFE, 2011). Thus, the immediateimpact and growth may be slower than first anticipated.

There will also be new guidance to LAs on inclusion. Somemay be concerned that, culturally, this will throw localpolicy-making into reverse where placement decisions areconcerned, especially where special free schools mobiliseparents to ask for statements to aid placement decisions andwhere new legislation now enables maintained specialschools to become academies. However, unless morecentral funding is provided, and the requirement to need astatement to be placed in special provision is relaxed (DFE,2011), it is difficult to see how far this will alter the overallpattern of provision.

As funding decisions are still with the LA, funding modelswill remain crucial to placement decisions. As Riddell et al.(2006) concluded ‘Funding regimes are critical in influenc-ing the shape of provision for children with special educa-tional needs, incentivising placement in either special ormainstream settings. . . . Delegating funds to local levelmay be intended to support inclusion, but may have theopposite effect in practise, making special schools moreattractive because of guaranteed levels of funding’(Riddellet al., 2006, p. 12).

In this context, it will be interesting to see what proposalscome forward through the review of funding the GreenPaper proposes, although it is to be noted that to fund moreplaces in special schools either budgets will have to rise orcost reduce. (DFE, 2011) Changes in patterns of provisionwill result from a much more complex interplay of fundingand the local policies and the decisions that flow from these,the cost and availability of special provision, how far main-stream schools can meet need and parental preference.

Joint plan and statements?It has been a constant refrain of the voluntary sector andresearch (Audit Commission, 2003) that the current systemis too fragmented, children undergo too many assessmentsand that the health service is not routinely part of anyco-ordinated approach. However, where resources have



already been devoted to joint assessments, the results haveled to very different models of assessment at local level(Townsley, Abbott and Watson, 2004) as has the develop-ment of the Comprehensive Assessment Framework.Despite the early support programme, which has pioneereda more holistic team around the child approach, there islittle evidence of these joint approaches to assessment beingroutinely deployed in the school system. So the proposals tointroduce a single assessment process with a new education,health and social care plan (DFE, 2011), and the greaterfocus on early support programme have been warmly wel-comed by the sector. However, there are significant con-cerns remaining about ensuring how a joint plan would beimplemented.

Concerns centre on accountability mechanisms within thelegislative framework and cultural factors relate to how theservices operate. Although the Green Paper proposes a jointstatutory assessment, there are no proposals in the GreenPaper for harmonising the underlying statutory basis ofprovision between health and education. Although state-ments have statutory force, health provision is essentially an‘offer’ that has no analogous enforcement mechanism to thetribunal. The Green Paper asserts that the new plan willafford the same statutory protection as the statement, butit is difficult to see how this will apply to other serviceswithout radical reform of the legal basis of health and socialcare provision.

In essence, the Green Paper’s offer rests on the expectationthat having come together to do a joint assessment that bothsides will be bound to a level of services. However, there islittle to stop health recognising a level of need for a servicefrom the assessment but then not providing it. This may notnecessarily be in a cynical way, but simply because thenecessary resource has not been commissioned in that area.However, even a cursory glance at speech therapy servicesmight suggest that health authorities have already got veryused to tailoring assessments to meet provision in someareas. There may be recourse to complaint mechanisms thatare set up through the health reforms. The current mainremedy would be judicial review, which is even less parentfriendly than the tribunal system.

The government’s assurance that those who have currentlyreceived a statement would continue to be eligible for thenew plan are welcome. Also welcome is the commitmentthat it will be regularly reviewed, hopefully retaining theright of review that was recently established for statements.However, under the current proposals, it is only childrenwho have a statement who will be assessed under the newplan, which begs the question of how integrated supportfor others will be triggered. Under the Children’s Act, thetrigger for assessments for social care and support isbecause the child is ‘in need’, has a disability or requiresspecialist health support. Issues about the scope of the newplan and what triggers assessment will need exploring inthe pilots to create confidence that joint assessment canbe made to work and cover all those who could benefit.(OFSTED, 2010)

Beyond the cultural issues of cooperation and synergybetween health and education service models, the othermain barrier to a more coherent approach has always beendisputes over service boundaries and budgets. One majorintervention that could alter this dynamic is to ensure thatthe joint plan comes with a joint budget. There are alreadyarrangements in place in legalisation that allow for thepooling of budgets, and personalised budgeting might alsorequire a radical look at budget allocations in any case.Pooling budgets would get over a major hurdle and drivechanges in service planning and culture. Personalisedbudgets are also intended to cut through discontinuity ofservice provision by making parents as commissionersof service and allowing them more control of elements ofthe service.

The dominant narrative from the Select Committee onwards(House of Commons, 2006) is that assessment and provi-sion need to be separated to ensure more transparencyaround decision-making and that provision reflects needsnot just the availability of resources. The Green Paper hasrejected outright separation, perhaps because of the prob-lems of setting up at least two new agencies to deliver thedifferent services. Also, there were concerns about com-plexity of administering a centralised budget while at thesame time delegating funding. Further transparency offunding nationally would have been likely to provoke moreupwards pressure on resources once the overall budgetbecame clearer.

Instead of this, a new role is outlined for the voluntarysector in helping to co-ordinate and support the assessmentprocess. Educational psychology services are going to bereviewed that could lead, together with the inevitablechanges wrought by a joint plan and single assessment, tosignificant changes to the assessment model and whichprofessionals are involved. The aim of injecting a newelement of independence into the model and greater supportfor parents is very welcome but may not totally answerquestions about transparency unless harnessed to moreopen models of assessment with more opportunity forparents and children’s views. However, LAs retain theresponsibility to specify the level of services provided, evenwhere it is envisaged that the voluntary sector is playing agreater role in the process.

Many voluntary organisations nationally and locallyalready provide specialist support, assessments and adviceto LA on a contract basis, but this is not the same as takinga greater formal role in the process of co-ordination andsupport of the assessment process. This could look like thevoluntary sector is being asked to join together processesand organisations that should in any case be co-ordinatingthemselves in an improved way. If the joint plan works,why would the sector need to have this role? Being honestbroker between statutory services and the parents maynot be a place that will appeal to many organisations,especially if there is no additional support to make sure ithappens.



Personalised budgetsThe Green Paper also proposes introducing personalisedbudgets that could be seen as the analogue to separating outfunding by putting purchasing power in the hands of theparents. This is intended to give parents more direct controlof what services they get and can be seen as enhancing bothchoice and control. Furthermore, it can be seen as part of theanswer to the challenge of how to ensure that services aredelivered. Although it is not clear from the Green Paper,personal budgets are unlikely to extend to funding specialschool or whole school placements and will be for discreetservices. The concern that this will only benefit parents withhigh levels of competence and skill is partly addressed bythe commitment that parents will be able to access keyworkers for support in managing budgets. But then again,questions will remain about where additional key workersare going to come from. The need for clarity around how themodels of delivering personalised budgets will work inpractice will be crucial to their impact and acceptability toparents.

Classically, there is always a tension between decentralisa-tion and efficiency of markets in state-controlled services. Ifyou do not have a certain level of aggregation of demand,then it may become difficult to secure support services suchas speech therapy, specialist teacher resources and alliedprofessionals where planning and investment are needed tosecure a level of supply. This is where markets are non-existent or cannot easily respond when skilled labour isreduced or lost and cannot be replaced quickly because oftraining times. These factors could pose serious problemsfor workforce planning especially at school level. Reduc-tions in LA specialist support services could also exacerbatethis issue.

Experience of current schemes also suggests that personalbudgets are often set at a lower rate than the same servicesare costed internally by an LA. This could lead to a situationwhere parental contribution to services could become theexpectation. It would be interesting for the pilots to exploremodels of parent purchasing consortia that might then havemore control and access to services by aggregating theirlocal purchasing power and deliver more security of plan-ning for schools.

The local offer and parental involvementThere is a strong correlation between authorities whoinvolve users of services and levels of service improvement(Peacey et al., 2009). This was also the conclusion of theevaluation of the Lamb Inquiry Projects where the greaterparental involvement in development of service initiativeswere related to the more parental satisfaction and increasedconfidence in the service:

Fundamental to success was the commitment of LAsto true, not tokenistic or paternalistic parentalengagement and a clear aim to improve confidenceand work collaboratively with parents. The focus ofthe project was an issue of importance to the LA and

its parents, but the specific focus was less importantthan the manner in which it was carried out, includingthe commitment of the LA and its engagement withparents (Peacey et al., 2009).

Conversely, parents often complain of poor involvement indecision-making, lack of transparency and poor communi-cation as affecting parental confidence in service provision,leading to conflict with schools and LAs. The Local Offeressentially resurrects the key components of the Core Offerrecommended in the Lamb Inquiry and already imple-mented in Aiming High for Disabled Children. This reflectsthe key insights of the approach and also looking to giveLAs a more strategic role in the securing of a range ofservices. At the strategic level, it challenges local authori-ties to establish a partnership with parents in the planningand delivery of services and builds on some of the learningfrom the Lamb Inquiry.

There are also more specific recommendations for schoolsbased on information services that pick up on work from theLamb Inquiry on information services and governanceissues that also rightly aim to give more power to parents. Itwould be helpful to see these piloted further alongside theplan and personalised budgets, building on the second-stageLamb Inquiry projects such as Rotherham’s Charter ofparents and children’s rights or Durham’s ConfidentSchools–Confident Parents pack (Peacey et al., 2009).

Although these changes are really welcome, it will beimportant to tie the offer more closely into formal expecta-tions about delivery than to simply leave it to the good willof LAs to implement. It is also important to ensure that thelocal offer dovetails with the existing Core Offer in AimingHigh for Disabled Children. Apart from the idea that tribu-nals might take into account the obligations around the localoffer, the idea needs further statutory underpinning to giveit force in areas where LAs have poor records of parentalinvolvement. Early ideas include linking the parental satis-faction measures more directly into national evaluations ofthe local offer and also taking it more into account duringmediation stages of complaints are a helpful start but thisneeds pinning down further.

ConclusionsThe Green Paper represents a compromise in terms of thearchitecture between a number of competing demands.However, when put together with broader changes in theeducation system, it could be seen to contain the seeds of aradically different, decentralised approach, coupled withgreater parental and voluntary sector involvement.However, fundamentally, parents will need to notice thedifference in what is delivered in schools, greater involve-ment in decision-making, more specialist support and betteroutcomes for children, or changes to the architecture andculture will count for nothing.

Whether this will look like a thousand flowers blooming orlead to more fragmentation and a retrenching of services to



those most in need depends not only on how successful thepilots are in answering some of the questions posed here butalso on the effects of public spending cuts. Nevertheless,there is enough that is right about the principles and direc-tion of reform to make it worth addressing the challengesthat the Green Paper poses. There is everything to play forover the next 3 years if the right mixture of cultural revo-lution and pragmatism reform are found.

ReferencesAudit Commission (2003) Services for Disabled Children.

A Review of Services for Disabled Children and TheirFamilies. London, UK: Audit Commission.

Balchin, R. (2007) Conservative Commission on SpecialNeeds in Education: The Second Report. London:Conservative Party.

Bercow Report (2008) A Review of Services for Childrenand Young People (0–19) with Speech, Language andCommunication Needs. London: DCSF.

Blunkett, D. (1997) Introduction to Green Paper,Excellence for all children: meeting specialeducational needs. DfEE p5 and p12.

Cabinet Office (2010) The Coalition: Our Programme forGovernment. London: HMSO.

DCSF (2010) Breaking the link between specialeducational needs and low attainment.

Department for Education (2011) Free schools in 2012.How to apply. Special Free Schools.

DFE (2011) Support and Aspiration: A New Approach toSpecial Educational Needs and Disability. London:Department for Education.

Ellis, S., Tod, J. & Graham-Matheson, L. (2011)Reflection, Renewal and Reality: Teachers Experienceof Special Educational Needs and Inclusion. London:NASUWT.

Gillinson, S. & Green, H. (2007) Beyond Bricks andMortar. An Alternative Approach to the SEN Debate.London: Demos/RNID.

Gove, M. (2011) ‘Speech to children’s directors.’ <http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a0066543/michael-gove-to-the-national-conference-of-directors-of-childrens-and-adult-services> (accessed 25 May2011).

Hartley, R. (2010a) Teacher Expertise for SpecialEducational Needs: Filling in the Gaps. London:Policy Exchange.

Hartley, R. (2010b) Special Educational Needs;Reforming Provision in English Schools. London:Policy Exchange.

House of Commons (2006) Special Educational Needs.Education and Skills Select Committee. London:HMSO.

Lamb, B. (2009) Lamb Inquiry into Parental Confidencein Special Education Needs, DCSF. London: HMSO.

Norwich, B. (2002) ‘Education, inclusion and individualdifferences: recognising and resolving dilemmas.’British Journal of Educational Studies, 50 (4), pp.482–502.

Norwich, B. (2009) ‘Special educational needs hasoutlived its usefulness: a debate.’ Journal ofResearch in Special Educational Needs, 9 (3),pp. 199–217.

OFSTED (2010) SEN and Disability Review: A StatementIs Not Enough. London: OFSTED.

Parsons, S., Lewis, A., Davison, I., Ellins, J. &Robertson, C. (2009a) ‘Satisfaction with educationalprovision for children with SEN or disabilities:A national postal survey of the views of parentsin Great Britain.’ Educational Review, 61 (1),pp. 19–47.

Parsons, S., Lewis, A. & Ellins, J. (2009b) ‘The viewsand experiences of parents of children with autisticspectrum disorder about educational provision:comparisons with parents of children with otherdisabilities from an online survey.’ EuropeanJournal of Special Needs Education, 24 (1),pp. 37–5.

Peacey, N., Lindsay, G., Brown, G. & Russell, A. (2009)Confidence in the Special Educational Needs System:Studies commissioned to inform the Lamb Inquiry.

Popper, K. (2002) Poverty of Historicism. London:Routledge.

Riddell, S., Tisdall, K., Kane, J. & Mulderrig, J. (2006)‘Literature Review of Educational Provision for Pupilswith Additional Support Needs.’ Scottish Executive.<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/152146/0040954.pdf> (accessed 24 May 2011).

Rose, J. (2009) Identifying and Teaching Children andYoung People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties:An independent Report from Sir Jim Rose to theSecretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.London: DCSF.

Salt, T. (2010) The Salt Review: Independent Review ofTeacher Supply for Pupils with Severe, Profound andMultiple Learning Difficulties (SLD and PMLD),DCSF. London.

Sodha, S. & Margo, J. (2010) Ex Curricula. London, UK:Demos.

Steer, A. (2009) Review of Pupil Behaviour: InterimReport 4. London: DCSF.

Townsley, R., Abbott, D. & Watson, D. (2004) Making ADifference: Exploring the Impact of Multi-AgencyWorking on Disabled Children with Complex HealthCare Needs, Their Families and the ProfessionalsWho Support Them. Bristol: Policy Press.

Warnock, M. (2005) Special Educational Needs: A NewLook of Great Britain. Philosophy of EducationSociety. London.

Whitaker, P. (2007) ‘Provision for youngsters withautistic spectrum disorders in mainstream schools:what parents say – and what parents want.’British Journal of Special Education, 34 (3),pp. 170–8.

Wilkins, L. (2008) Learning the Hard Way: A Strategy forSEN, Policy Exchange/Centre Forum. London: CentreForum.



Chapter 3: The Green Paper – a viewfrom mainstreamjrs3_1217_3 115..129

Kate Frood

IntroductionIn 1983, at Fleet Primary School in Camden, I began myteaching career as an Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT). Wehad children with cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, behav-iour and learning difficulties. Their inclusion in all aspectsof school life – from productions to school journey – wentunquestioned. I knew no different; morally and instinc-tively, it felt right that mainstream schools should beexpected to work with the majority and so I have taken thisapproach with me throughout my career learning fromothers along the way. Twenty-eight years later, I am a headteacher in the same borough.

In my current school, we have a similar mix of SEN,although significantly less with behaviour and learningneeds than some of my colleagues in other Camden schools.Unlike the picture painted in the Green Paper, I have apositive view of health and education support services forSEN in Camden. And I would say that my school has a goodtrack record on inclusion: Why?

• Children feel loved and included – and this mattersmore to parents than anything else;

• Relationships with parents are open and honest;• With the head as SEN co-ordinator, we have been able

to wield power to get resources for the child;• There is an ethos at the school that children will be

included;• The curriculum is broad and engaging with an emphasis

on real experiences and• Teachers are expected to differentiate and to know all

the children and their individual needs well.

What we do not have is specific expertise. We get by; wefind helpful professionals who already know the child, andwe get as much out of them as possible; teachers run staffmeetings once they know the child well to pass on theirexpertise; we see the parents as experts; we find the oddcourse. We are not brilliant at paperwork or tracking data,but we do the essentials such as termly meetings withparents and annual reviews very well and are open with allother professionals.

So, as head teacher in a mainstream community school witha positive attitude to inclusion, what resonates in the GreenPaper; what do I welcome?

The acknowledgement about over-registration, thehistoric perverse incentive to do so and the culture oflow expectation that goes with registrationThis has long been a bugbear of mine, ever since Camdenlinked SEN budget to number on SEN register back in the

early 1990s. How many teachers tell you with pride thatthey have 18 on the SEN register in their class? Are theyhonestly doing meaningful personalised learning for themall, following carefully negotiated Individual EducationPlans (IEPs), liaising with parents? The danger is that ifwhat you are doing is not working, if a child is notbehaving/performing, it can, as the Lamb Inquiry (2009)reported, be ‘unhelpfully collated’ with falling behind.Success depends on how a child is led and managed.

The recognition of the need for early identification,specifically more rigorous 2- to 2 1/2-year checksI would love to see more rigorous screening and early iden-tification. The sooner children are identified, the sooner helpcan be put in place and life chances increased. We do, how-ever, need a clearer shared understanding between healthand education about realistic options and limited resourcesavailable to the child. For example, we find health profes-sionals still recommend statementing as the only route.

A simpler SEN registerWe actually find the stepped ‘SchoolAction’, ‘SchoolActionPlus’ and ‘Statement of Special Needs’ very useful.However, I find myself increasingly focusing on the ‘SchoolAction Plus’children, those for whom we have sought exter-nal advice or support. It is these children whom we investtime in, meeting parents and supporting professionals.School Action, as intended, simply means planned addi-tional in school support – part of our job. If there is to be asimplification, then legislation must make the expectationsabout inclusive practice for these children clearer (seebelow) and the focus of the SEN register must be those withgreater need.

The need for high-quality early years education andearly interventionEvery time I go into our foundation stage, I am remindedwhy it is called this: if you do not get the foundations right,underpinning years later is very costly. On a general note,our least able 6-year-old children are those who did not playand talk enough in early childhood. It is during their time inour Nursery, with its emphasis on talk and play, that we seesuch huge progress in our children with delayed speech.Good early years’ educators naturally work with andinclude parents. To focus on early years can only improveoutcomes for SEN pupils.

The promise of more training in SENThe best training we have had is as a staff altogether, fromsomeone who can set our school in context. This might befrom an outside expert or from one of our own staff who has



developed an expertise from a child in their class. Thereseems to be a view, inherent in the Green Paper, that theexperts reside (or should) in special schools and that this iswhere there should be more training. There is an undoubtedexpertise there, but what is much more compelling issomeone who has managed a child in a mainstream/class of30 setting and who has not lost sight of all the otherdemands in a mainstream school.

The use of voluntary organisationsThere are some excellent voluntary organisations around(e.g., KIDS) that can build relationships with families andbecome powerful advocates and translators of the system.This would be the best focus for targeted funding andsupport for less confident parents. However, in my experi-ence, this sort of support ends once the child enters school;it would be good to sustain support throughout educationand into adulthood. So, while there are some aspects Iwelcome in the Green Paper, opportunities are missed andmuch is unclear.

More could be said about the need to collectivelyimprove mainstream culture, openness to parents andthe quality of SEN teaching within mainstreamGiven that much of this agenda seems to be driven byparental dissatisfaction with current provision, I am sur-prised and disappointed that more is not said to challengepractice and attitudes towards inclusion in mainstream.Legislation as seen with OFSTED and the Disability Dis-crimination Act (DDA) can improve practice. Initiativesuch as ‘Achievement for All’, which have been runningsuccessfully in Camden, can do much to change these viewsas the Green Paper acknowledges. I hope that pathfinderwork will take a view on what good inclusion looks like.The comments about teaching assistants, ‘their routinedeployment to pupils most in need’ is mostly true. As thepaper says: ‘Children with SEN need more, not less, timewith the school’s most skilled and qualified teachers.’ Main-stream and ITT-based SEN training should include not justthe specifics of a need, for example, autism, but trainingabout broader issues of successful inclusion. This woulddo much to reduce the number of children unnecessarilycategorised as ‘school action’.

There is no clear distinction between predictable andexceptional needThe Green Paper is weak on definitions and numbers. Itsreference to 6–8% of child population as ‘disabled’ seemshuge and must include the more predictable School Actionchildren, yet most of the proposals centre around morecomplex needs. If all the legislation and new initiativeswill focus on these children, this may serve to fuel parentaldemands to push for category labels and diagnoses, or worse,lead parents to believe that any child with SEN is entitled toan Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. If a school canget its culture right on predictable needs, then the inclusionof pupils with exceptional needs will be better. However,it is often the children presenting with predictable needs,without a disability diagnosis, who present the greatestchallenge for teachers, for example, challenging behaviour.

The potentially divisive emphasis on ‘freedom’,‘personalised budgets’ and ‘parental control’In my not insignificant experience in education, parentsrespond very differently to these concepts. Some – the morearticulate and confident – relish such terms: they rush to setup free schools, to compete for places in popular schoolsand to make demands for their child. Powerful parents areadept at chasing diagnoses and enhancing their claims.

Other parents, the less confident and motivated, look to theschool as the key provider for their child: at best, theysimply agree with whatever we say and at worse, theyabdicate all responsibility. They are not, in the main, feck-less or inadequate, simply bowled over with all the profes-sional involved, the language of medical letters, thedemands the child makes and their own sense of inadequacycompounded. I know there is a powerful message in thisgovernment’s entire education policy that we need morepowerful and informed parents, but despite our best efforts,our experience is that this is a real challenge. Parentslacking in motivation and confidence, see the school as theplace where their child spends most time and where they areknown best. On one level, this is a delight. Trust is veryempowering for teachers.

The whole tenor of the Green Paper is empowering parentsto work around what comes across as an inadequate system.This does not build trust. If provision for SEN and aninclusive ethos were a more fundamental expectation in thejudgement of school performance, then perhaps individual‘consumer rights’ would be less of an issue.

Contradictions . . . and a missed opportunity to getsectors working togetherWithin Camden, I have chaired schools forum for 4 years.This has given me a unique insight into the ways that schoolfunding works. One clear understanding I now have is thatthere is one pot. The more schools demand SEN fundsattached to one child, the less there is to distribute forpredictable SEN needs. If we all support parental applica-tions for expensive private residential settings, this drainsthe one pot. Critically, this Green Paper is proposed in aclimate of cuts . . . when working together is even moreimportant. The tone of the paper is of new initiatives andopportunities, but the reality is diminishing resources andhealth care fragmenting. ‘Provision choices’ are not ‘costneutral’. Specialist provision tends to cost more – so, ifparents want it, where is the money coming from? If LAsare to be the ‘champion of vulnerable children and theirfamilies’, how does this square with demands from confi-dent parents managing personal budgets and plans? Asschools become academies and free schools are set up, willthis weaken central SEN provision and support? As LAbudgets reduce, how will head teachers work together toensure a better shared understanding of need and goodpractice? As resources reduce, who will ensure equalaccess? Who will ensure quality and standards? Who takesthe lead when things go wrong?

So, in conclusion, I feel worried for mainstream. All aroundus, new sorts of schools with more freedom and controls



(over admissions and inclusion?) are appearing. We are notspecial schools; we are not resource bases with admissionscriteria. Although some parents may start to look elsewhere,armed with their new budgets and powers, I am sure that

less powerful, more vulnerable families will simply con-tinue to opt for their local, ‘ordinary’ school and leave usorganising provision. Will we be in a position to offer themthe best possible support?

Chapter 4: Support and aspiration: the SpecialEducation Needs and Disability (SEND) GreenPaper, 2011: a personal view from an LA officerjrs3_1217_4 117..131

Debbie Orton

IntroductionI have always worked in the field of SEN – as a teacher, asan educational psychologist and as an LA officer. Last year,I was seconded into the National Strategies SEN team, so Ialso have had the opportunity to work with colleagues in anumber of LAs regionally and nationally.

Professionals and parents are familiar with the long-standing tensions inherent in the current SEN system. Irecall reading the previous department’s SEN guide forparents and concluding that any parent reading it wouldanticipate having ‘a battle’ to get what their child needed, asthere were so many references to ‘disagreements’ and‘appeals’ throughout.

We know that too many parents are frustrated by the system,but frustrations are also experienced by LA officers, schoolsand other front line professionals.

Will the proposals in the SEND Green Paper resolve these?In my view, the test will be whether we end up with animproved system for all – rather than for a few.

Current context for LAs and SENDAt times when hearing what is said about LAs and SEN, itwould be easy to form the view that LAs go out of their wayto do a poor job and get things wrong in this area.

LAs do have a difficult role maintaining a good local SENsystem, let alone trying to develop and improve it. There area lot of roles that LAs currently carry out, and it is not clearfrom the Green Paper how or by whom these will be donein the future.

These are some of the functions we currently try to do wellin order to improve outcomes for children with SENDwithin the current framework:

• working at a number of levels with parents, children,schools and settings;

• managing expectations;

• making the right decisions;• ensuring resources are controlled, distributed equitably

and targeted to need;• providing/commissioning specialist services;• developing provision in a coherent way;• monitoring quality and challenging poor practice and• responding to concerns.

To manage all of these functions effectively, a robust stra-tegic approach is needed with support and commitmentfrom the highest level in an LA.

The context for LAs is particularly challenging at present.The public sector cuts have meant an industry of restruc-turing with much broader roles for LA officers. AlthoughLAs may have different issues to tackle and differentdegrees of savings to make, overall, there are fewerresources and this is affecting managers and front line staff.

For example, in most Las, the school improvement serviceis greatly slimmed down, and its role in relation to supportand challenge regarding SEND issues is likely to have beenreduced.

There also seems to be a lot of reinventing of the wheel.Some LAs who have previously integrated their SEN ser-vices with social care disability services are now separatingout the management of these services again, while someothers are now planning to join them together for the firsttime.

Relationships between LA services, partner agencies,schools and settings are changing rapidly, and there are stilla lot of uncertainties about the academies and free schoolsand the precise implications for SEND.

There is also a new language in evidence that is not yet wellunderstood: social enterprises, mutuals and cooperatives,for example. Then there is commissioning and health andwell-being boards. And for support services, there is a lot ofpreparation for an environment of trading that is new tomany working in SEND.



In this period of change and real pressure from the cuts, it isof concern that anecdotal evidence suggests that there seemto be fewer LAs retaining a high level post for an officerwith a strategic overview of all aspects of SEND. I thinkthis is a worry because the different aspects of SEND allhave to work in balance together – individual casework,provision development, the quality of what happens inschools/settings, resourcing strategy and support servicedelivery. Someone needs to understand the implications andimportance of that and try and make it a reality.

Although the SEND Green Paper gives a role for LAs, it isnot that clearly described, and the complexities of thecurrent functions are not really acknowledged.

The Green PaperThere are things in the Green Paper that I am pleased to see,and it is good that some of the frustrations and tensions inthe system are recognised.

Reducing bureaucracy and improving assessment andplanning 0–25A single process of assessment and joint planning would bewelcomed, particularly for children with very complex,long term needs requiring multi-agency involvement.

We need to have a different model of assessment over timerather than a snap shot approach, and it needs to be muchmore clearly linked to intervention and outcomes.

However, a true joint approach is only likely to be achievedif the accountabilities of all agencies to deliver are set out inlaw rather than relying on good will or local arrangements.

The existing framework is essentially a multi-agencyassessment process that should lead to a co-ordinated planof intervention. This process is often frustrating, however,because agencies do not have the same statutory responsi-bilities to ensure provision is made – for example – thelong-rehearsed difficulties over responsibility for speechand language therapy.

A focus on the early years and post-16I am pleased to see these areas picked out as separatestrands as they can sometimes get lost in SEND overall.

The argument for early intervention is clear, but there needsto be a better understanding about what is a complex needand what support and provisions are effective and available.There are often very different approaches to assessment andintervention across agencies, and parents can be given con-flicting advice that undermines their confidence right fromthe start.

There should be enhanced multi-agency training for earlyyears’ practitioners and more support for early years’ set-tings to improve capacity for meeting complex needs, and itwould help if there were common expectations of goodpractice across agencies.

I would like to see more focus on longer term outcomes foryoung people with SEND. Decisions can be made aboutprovision for children with SEND at a point in time, butthese are not informed by evidence or consideration abouttheir impact on longer term life chances. If parents are tohave more control about decisions, they need to have infor-mation to guide them.

Although I welcome the focus on post-16 provision in theGreen Paper, it is not clear how the very good objectiveswould actually come to pass as there is little detail.

A recognition that the label SEN can result inlow expectationsThe practical use of the label SEN across schools and LAsis so variable that comparisons are not particularly usefuland an acknowledgement of its overuse is welcomed.

However, a move to identifying a smaller group of childrenwithout clarifying numbers and what is meant by ‘complex’could result in more pressures to access entitlement througha statutory process for children with less complex needsthan currently identified through the ‘statementing’ process.

If fewer children are going to be identified with SEN, thereneeds to be a more robust expectation of what schools willordinarily provide and how quality of provision will beassured and challenged.

The introduction of a local offerI like the emphasis on providing parents (and others) withgood information about local services and provision so theyknow what to expect.

There are examples of LAs involving parents from the startin developing services and provision, and these show a goodimpact on parents’ confidence.

The acknowledgement of the positive impact of awhole school improvement approach to SENDThe Green Paper refers to the positive outcomes from thefunded pilots of the AfA approach, particularly regardingthe structured conversations with parents of children withSEND.

I am pleased to see that the aim is to disseminate thepractices more widely, and we will need to see whetherlessons learned will become embedded elsewhere withoutthe additional funding.

There is a role for the LAI am glad there is a role for the LA and that it will retainsome core strategic functions. The Green Paper also saysthat LAs will continue to ‘play an integral role in supportingindividual children with SEND’, but there are no detailsabout what exactly this will be – particularly with the pro-posals around a new assessment process.

LAs are still supposed to be ‘the champion’ of vulnerablechildren, but we will need to see what this means inpractice.



There is not a lot of ‘flesh on the bones’ for many of theideas in the Green Paper and a lot of emphasis on develop-ing details through pilots. However, I am concerned thatsome ideas in the Green Paper may result in the opposite ofwhat is intended.

Complex needsIt is not really clear how SEN is going to be conceptual-ised in the future. The Green Paper proposes a move tofewer children being identified, but this could result in aretrenching to a medical, deficit model of SEN. This couldincrease the pressure to label children with ‘conditions’ togain access to resources. There could be more pressureon statutory processes, resulting in more bureaucracy,particularly if the school’s offer to all pupils is notstrengthened.

An important source of confidence for parents comes fromthe school. What incentives will schools have under anew system to give parents a confident message thatspecial needs will be met without recourse to a statutoryprocess?

Parental choiceThere is strong emphasis on parental choice and personalbudgets in the Green Paper. What is not clear is what thelimits will be on parental choice and who will make thedecisions. If expectations are unrealistic, frustrations willcontinue.

It would also be important to look at the evidence fromdirect payments experience for disabled children to seewhether children’s needs are better met and whether parentscan easily access the services that they want to purchase. Isthere evidence that would suggest that some types andlevels of needs may not actually be better met through thesesorts of arrangements?

FundingA national funding band framework may seem rational, butit may actually result in greater difficulty in controllingresources over time. I have worked in LAs with and withoutbanding systems and in my experience resources cannot bemanaged effectively by relying heavily on this approachalone.

There is a tendency, even with a lot of time and energybeing put into moderation, for there to be drift up the levelof bands over time to gain more resource. Again, it is notclear from the Green Paper who will be making ultimatedecisions about who gets what and how resources will bemanaged.

A coherent modelThere are good ideas in the Green Paper, but it does hangtogether as a coherent model. Maybe this is not surprisingas many of the ideas still have to be tested in practicethrough the pilots.

However, although there are some references to examplesof good practice, there could be more made of other modelswhere groups of schools and/or parents have workedtogether to influence developments by a gaining a bettercommon understanding of the ‘bigger picture’ of SEND.

An example of a local strategic approachI work in a large LA with a 0–19 population of 260 000 and500 schools. There is slightly below average identificationof SEN and about 4000 children with statements. Abouthalf of these children attend special schools, and about 170placements are in out-county specialist independent /non-maintained schools. In total, approximately £80 millionwas spent on SEN overall last year.

We have a strategy for SEND and inclusion with four inter-dependent aspects:

• universal monitoring, challenge, support andintervention;

• specialist and targeted support and training;• resources and funding and• developing special provision locally.

In relation to the last bullet point, we are investing a lot ofenergy at present in implementing a model, whereby localstakeholder groups led by head teachers can have real influ-ence over the development of SEN services and provision intheir local area.

The vision is for each community (each area has a 0–19population of approximately 20–25 000) to take responsi-bility for meeting the needs of children and young peoplewith SEND locally. This will include accountability for acommissioning and delivery plan for their community andalso budget responsibility. The area delivery groups will beled by heads and include parents, LA officers, parents andpartner agencies.

The groups will work within an overall strategic frameworkset by our LA members and will be guided by agreedparameters, a detailed data set for their area and their avail-able area budget. The chairs of the groups will meet regu-larly to ensure collective responsibility across the LA. Also,the LA and the stakeholder overarching steering group will‘sign off’ the area delivery plans.

Success will be measured against a set of outcomes includ-ing how well needs are met locally, children’s attainmentand progress, including wider outcomes, stakeholderinvolvement, parental confidence and value for money.

We believe that this collective approach to managing SENDcould have benefits for partnership work, managingresources, achieving common understandings and expecta-tions and, most importantly, that children’s needs will bebetter met within their local community. This could help toaddress some of the tensions in the current system.



Chapter 5: Summary of discussions insmall groupsjrs3_1217_5 120..134

Peter Gray summarised some of the key points from the threepapers as an introduction to the small group discussion:

1. Extent and process of ‘regulation’ in an increasinglyderegulated/market-driven system.a. What should be the limits to ‘choice and diversity’?b. How should one address Kate Frood’s questions,

for example, avoiding ‘who shouts loudest’; howwill the process work with a diminishing LA role/capacity?

2. Definition of SEN:a. Are too many pupils identified as having SEN – but

how few? In relation to Brian Lamb’s concernsabout loss of individual entitlement; Kate’s concernabout bias towards categories/parental pressure/disability and Debbie’s concern about definition/numbers of ‘complex/significant needs’.

b. Who/how many need to be individually identified?c. Who/how many need to be individually assessed?d. Who/how many need to have their (and their

parents’) entitlements protected?3. Inclusion – ‘removing the bias’:

a. How far? (no evidence of real change in specialschool %) – Kate’s point.

b. What should all mainstream schools be expected todeliver? (not just for new ‘school-based SEN’category but also for more complex needs).

c. Point made by all speakers about how (moreexpensive) special school provision/places canrealistically be expanded without any cost tomainstream (within a finite/decreasing overallbudget).

4. Alternatives to statements:a. How will this work? What does ‘independent

assessment’ really mean?b. What are education health and care plans? (Scottish

Coordinated Support Plans or ‘statements plus’)?c. What are practicalities of the new funding approach

(given existing evidence/concerns – Meijer’sEuropean research about resource allocationsystems)?

Below is a summary of points and conclusions from thediscussion groups:

Group 1:This group comprised mainly LA officers andcommissioners. Discussion covered how the media coveredthe Green Paper in limited terms, for example, that allparents will have personal budgets and the reduction of thenumber of pupils with SEN. The Green Paper seems to besetting up conflicts and says little about the role of LAs in

regulating needs identification and provision planning. Howwill the assessment of needs take place: throughindependent assessors and what role is there forexperienced professionals? How will it be ensured thatadvice will be written adequately? What standards will beset about advice providing? Who will interpret theassessment advice in LAs? Can the special needs of pupilsbe assessed in education, without provision being made forthem? Is this unlike in social care and health provision?How will change be made to assessment without change inprimary legislation? There is some naivety about the GreenPaper proposals. As regards personal budgets, there is thematter of managing the expectations of parents: Is it mainlyabout complex needs? And will head teachers want parentsto appoint assistants in schools for their children, andperhaps interfere with school provision?

Group 2:Discussion in this group was about the ideological nature ofthe Green Paper, for example, in the position aboutremoving the ‘bias to inclusion’. Also, if there is to be lessregulation by LAs, then there will be less power locally,meaning more power nationally or at school level. As fordefinitions of SEN, do we need to define SEN and is morework needed over this? How will the banding systems foradditional resourcing work? There has also been little talkabout the disability legislation in the Green Paper. How areand will cuts in services affect the quality of teaching forpupils with SENDs? It was unclear what schools will beexpected to do; where will support and challenge comefrom? Who will be responsible for assessing SENs? Somethought that it was too demanding to ask schools to assesscomplex needs, for example, language difficulties. TheGreen Paper had not addressed how needs were to beassessed if the identification had to be reduced to 10%.

Group 3:The GP was also seen as ideologically driven. How wereprofessionals to be valued? What role was there for qualityteaching? How about Masters level minimum qualificationsfor all teachers and universities working with schools? Couldevery teaching assistant be expected in time to be at degreelevel? ‘A can do attitude’ was needed.

Group 4:Where was the evidence of the ‘bias to inclusion’ assumedin the Green Paper? There had been no change in specialschool provision numbers. Will there be more specialschools in the form of more ‘free special schools’? Will thissignal that ordinary schools are not the right place for pupilswith SEN? How will the new conditions suggested in GPabout the efficient use of resources affect placement



decisions? There has also been little mention aboutprovision in the early years for children with SEN/disabilities or human rights in the equality legislation.There is a need to remove the dual system of SEN anddisability framework in line with European andinternational rights.

Group 5:This group discussed the intricacies of regulating provision,the conflicts in the systems and the pressure points. Therewas little recognition in the Green Paper of what goodpractices had worked. There were still issues aboutassessing SEN, how to communicate with parents and howis education related to health services? There was a nestingof decision-making in the system and this depended onwhere responsibility lies.

Concluding comments by paper presentersDebbie Orton commented that the seminar had revealedsome common ideas about tensions arising from the GreenPaper proposals. She raised the question of whether thiswould focus attention on the respective roles of LAs,schools and parents. Kate Frood said the seminar had rein-forced her wish not to become an LA officer. The tensionsbetween what has been shown to work in schools (like hers)and the ideology in the Green Paper were hard to reconcile.Brian Lamb concluded by saying that the seminar hadrevealed the tensions between the government’s aspirationsto change the culture, but that the mechanisms weresuspect, as reflected in the seminar discussions. He thoughtthat government knows where it wants to go, but that theGreen Paper was a messy compromise with resolutionexpected in the pilots.



Documents

SEN Green Paper 2011: progress and prospects : Policy Paper 6, 6th Series, June 2011