oracle Report post Posted January 26, 2006 (edited) Hi All I am cutting and pasting the uncorrected Oral Evidence from the last SEN Select Committee hearing. It is VERY long but this time round is well worth reading. I personally have huge concerns about the stand point of the DRC and Ms Russell and Ms Casserley who quite clearly know as much about autism as they can manage to write on a posatge stamp (twice) No one has told them that ASD has the largest numbers of children affected by the condition that any other disability otherwise how on earth could they being saying this at an enquiry? 'I would imagine the vast majority of children would thrive much better, in general, in a smaller environment. But, in broad terms, I would say that is the exception rather than the rule' I have been concerned about the DRC for some time now and this has only given me greater cause for concern. I have high lighted the position of these two people from the DRC in Red so that you can see how important their positions are. Carole UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 478-iv House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE EDUCATION AND SKILLS COMMITTEE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS Wednesday 18 January 2006 MR STEVE HAINES, MS CATHY CASSERLEY and MS PHILLIPPA RUSSELL MR JOHN WRIGHT, MS JULIA THOMAS, MS CHRIS GRAVELL and MR DAVID RUEBAIN Evidence heard in Public Questions 276 - 387 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. Oral Evidence Taken before the Education and Skills Committee on Wednesday 18 January 2006 Members present Mr Barry Sheerman, in the Chair Mr Douglas Carswell Mr David Chaytor Mrs Nadine Dorries Jeff Ennis Stephen Williams Mr Rob Wilson ________________ Memorandum submitted by The Disability Rights Commission Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Mr Steve Haines, Policy Manager for Education and Employment, Ms Cathy Casserley, Senior Legislative Advisor and Ms Phillippa Russell, Commissioner, Disability Rights Commission, gave evidence. Q276 Chairman: Can I welcome Steve Haines, Phillippa Russell and Cathy Casserley to our proceedings. It is very good of you to come and give us your time. This is a very important inquiry to us and we are trying to learn as much as we can about an area that this Committee has been away from for far too long. I want to divide the questioning into three sections and I want to start with looking at definitions and legislation on the whole notion of disabled people and pupils with SEN, and the relationship between those. Could I ask - to start with Phillippa: you know what the terms of reference of this inquiry are, what do you think we should be trying to get out of this session with you? Ms Russell: I hope we can use this session, which the Disabilities Rights Commission warmly welcomes, to explore some of the issues around the interface between the SEN framework and the disability discrimination legislation, in particular the implications of the forthcoming disability equality duty. I thought it might be useful to say a very few introductory words about the Disability Rights Commission and our role, because we clearly have a very specific role and duties. The DRC, just to introduce ourselves, was created by the Disability Rights Commission Act of 1999, and Section 2 of that Act sets out the following duties for the Commission - just to define our key roles. Firstly, and most importantly, to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people and, secondly, to promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. I think we are all ware that currently disabled people, including children and young people, frequently miss out on the life chances which are available to their non-disabled peers. Thirdly, to take such steps as are considered appropriate with a view to encouraging good practice in the treatment of disabled people. So we are very much about working with disabled people, with services structures, in order to maximise participation and equality of opportunity. Fourthly, we have a statutory duty to keep under review the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act 195 and, also, to produce statutory codes of practice on request from government. Clearly, this Select Committee's brief is of particular interest to us because nothing probably enhances the life chances of disabled people more than access to and support in appropriate education. So we very much look forward to the discussion. I do not know if you would like me to introduce my colleagues? Q277 Chairman: If you would. Ms Russell: I think the best way is if I turn to each of them and ask them just to say a word or two about themselves. Perhaps I should have said about myself, I am a Disability Rights Commissioner, I was Director of the Council for Disabled Children, I am now the Disability Policy Advisor to the National Children's Bureau, and I am the parent of a disabled son. Mr Haines: My name is Steve Haines. I am the Policy Manager for Education and Employment at the Disability Rights Commission. Ms Casserley: My name is Cathy Casserley. I am a Senior Legislation Advisor at the Disability Rights Commission. Q278 Mrs Dorries: Pro-inclusionists tend to be mainly those who are fighting on behalf of disabled groups. Do you think that there is a blurred definition between children with special educational needs, adults in terms of Asperger's, other autism and other disabled groups, and physically disabled children? It does seem to be that those who are fighting on behalf of inclusion tend to be the parents and support groups of physically disabled children, and the other children, the SEN children, seem to be swept up along with that. Mr Haines: There is a fundamentally different definition relating to disability and special educational needs in the legislation. When you say "physically disabled" that is obviously very much part of the group, but the definition of disability extends to long-term health conditions, it extends to autism and it extends to the whole breadth, really, of special educational needs. However, special educational needs defines itself even further in disability. Just two cases to illustrate the difference: a child who used a wheelchair in a fully accessible school would not necessarily be defined as having special educational needs. On the other hand, a child perhaps with emotional and behavioural difficulties who did not meet the definition of disability under the DDA would have special educational needs and not necessarily be considered disabled. There is also a different approach in the two definitions as well. Obviously, one - special educational needs - refers specifically to the education environment whereas, I think, disabled children and, perhaps, the social model definition which we tend to use, which is not necessarily reflected in the DDA, is one that identifies the environment as having disabling factors within it that can be removed. So there is a difference in the approach: one, special educational needs, is to put in the equipment and support which will perhaps help children over barriers, and the definition of disabled, which is about removing those barriers. Those two things need to be seen in co-existence when we look at the breadth of how we are going to approach supporting disabled children in school. Q279 Mrs Dorries: Do you think there are local authorities who are blurring the boundaries then? It seems to me that they, also, are not making definitions between the two. Mr Haines: One of the things that we know, and the DDA is a relatively new legislation (it is worth remembering the Act only came in in 2001) is that awareness across the board of what the definition of disabled children means and how authorities and schools should be dealing with disabled children - the whole concept of making reasonable adjustments - is something there is very little awareness of. The Ofsted report of last year showed a lot of that and showed that accessibility planning had not really taken place in over half of the schools. So it just shows there is a low level of awareness. Perhaps there is a distinction we need to make between the actions that local authorities are taking and, perhaps, those that they are not taking because the awareness of the definition is quite low. Q280 Mrs Dorries: Do you think the SENDA 2001 Act has made the situation worse for children with special educational needs, and the children with EBD? Do you think it has made life, for those children, worse or better? Mr Haines: I think it has definitely made life better. One case that the DRC supported was a child who had been reprimanded by the school, an independent school, on a number of occasions. The educational psychologist was brought in and defined the child as having autism. When the educational psychologist wrote to the school and said: "This child is autistic and you need to make the reasonable adjustments that that child requires in order to stop this exclusion of the child from the school", the head teacher immediately excluded the child permanently. Q281 Mrs Dorries: You are citing one case but 27 per cent of autistic children every day are excluded from school because of their autism, and one case is not enough to justify the statement that the SENDA Act is better. Mr Haines: There was a specific case where the DDA was used to combat the discrimination that that child experienced in that school. I think, as we get a greater understanding of the legislation, as we have more test cases, then that situation will improve. Q282 Mrs Dorries: The problem is that a lot of parents cannot get to the point of testing because they do not have the financial means. Do you think that there is a blurred boundary of definition between physically disabled children and those with SEN? Ms Russell: I think there can be blurred boundaries, and if a child is appropriately assessed and his or her individual educational needs identified and met appropriately then it is not so much blurring as recognising what additional support that child might need. I think that there is great confusion, often, in the public about who is disabled, and who is not, which is not always helpful, but a key objective of the Disability Rights Commission is that we can move to a society where everybody - disabled people - can participate fully as active citizens. I think that sometimes we can become obsessed with definitions rather than looking at the needs of individual children and, very importantly, about how we build the capacity of schools to manage diversity. You were asking the question about whether the SEN Disability Act had made a difference. I think it has made a real difference and many schools and other education services, or Early Years services, are beginning to plan strategically and develop capacity, which is absolutely crucial. We have a long way to go but it seemed to me to be an important marker inasmuch as it formally recognised the needs of disabled children in education and the need to plan strategically. Chairman: I do not wish to seem obsessive about this but could witnesses and my team speak through the Chair. Q283 Mrs Dorries: A thousand apologies. It seems to me that a large number of physically disabled support groups have campaigned very effectively on behalf of physically disabled children but, unfortunately, they have taken the legislation and the whole issue of inclusion way past the level where it supports children with special educational needs and is having a detrimental effect on those children. We can quote you lots of figures and statistics to back that up. Do you not agree that is the case? Ms Russell: I think that is a very challenging question. I think there is no doubt that there are different views about the possibility of inclusion now for all children amongst different organisations or groups of disabled people. However, I think that we always need pressure groups, if you like, to challenge the system and look to the future. I do not think that the inclusion debate has been detrimental, with regard to the campaigning you refer to, to the education of children with special educational needs. I think part of the challenge of inclusion is that we do realise the need for a properly trained workforce, for building capacity in schools, for high-quality support services and for a greater willingness to value the diverse abilities of children within the school system. I think we are on the road working towards inclusion, but the balance of individual needs with the broader interests of children in a particular group will always be challenging. Q284 Mr Chaytor: Could I ask Cathy about the relationship between the DDA and the SEN framework? Do you think there is a complementary relationship or are there contradictions and anomalies between the two sets of legal approaches? Ms Casserley: The intention, certainly when the disability discrimination provisions were brought in, was that they would be complementary, and that was specifically why it was that the Disability Rights Taskforce recommended that education be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act because it was not originally, and the Taskforce recommended that auxiliary agency services and physical features should not be covered by the anti-discrimination provisions and that, instead, what they should focus on is blatant prejudice, for example when someone is excluded because of their disability, and, also, the way in which teaching is organised - so things that would not necessarily have resource implications. I think there are two main issues around that and how it is worked. Firstly, there is a lot of confusion about definitions, and I think the blurring in particular happens when people are trying to bring cases. What happens often is that schools or education authorities will say: "We do not accept that this person is disabled under the Act" because they are actually thinking of the special educational needs framework, rather than the DDA. I think that is one aspect in which it jars, somewhat. The second issue is that there do appear to be cases where pupils have particular needs which might not be classified as educational needs. So, for example, a pupil has a medical need - they may need to have injections, for example, in the day and may need assistance with that - and that is not necessarily the sort of thing that would be picked up in relation to the special educational needs system. Certainly there might be scope for doing that but the approach to the way in which educational provision is provided is quite patchy geographically. The Disability Discrimination Act, strictly speaking, should not be picking that up because it is excluded, but the issue is then who does pick that up? So we do think there might be gaps and this is an area that we are looking at, at the moment, particularly in light of the forthcoming Single Equality Act (?), and one of the things we are looking at is whether or not the DDA actually is fit for purpose in that sense. We do think there are some issues there about what it is that is excluded and whether or not the two working together are meeting all the needs of disabled pupils. Q285 Mr Chaytor: Do you think the fact that they have got different theoretical backgrounds is part of the problem? Would it be better if there was a common philosophy which underpinned the legislation? Ms Casserley: I think that there is a difficulty. Certainly one of the reasons, I think, for low awareness of the Disability Discrimination Act in schools is that they are coming from two different angles. One is about a needs-based approach, the other is about a rights-based, equality approach. I think there are many different definitions, for example, of disability in a wide variety of contexts, and when you are dealing with a system that is meeting particular needs which are resource intensive you do not necessarily have the same definition as you do for an anti-discrimination provision which is about tackling prejudice, and those sorts of barriers. So I do not necessarily think, and this is something we have not reached a conclusion on and my colleagues may have something to say on this, we need a completely common framework but what we do need is for the two frameworks that exist to work properly together and meet all the needs of disabled pupils. Q286 Mr Chaytor: In respect of the review that the Commission is doing at the moment about the anomalies that have been highlighted, what is your thinking on that? Are there specific examples of issues that could be handled better or where the relationship between the two forms of legislation could be better integrated? Ms Casserley: One of the things we are looking at, at the moment, in particular, are the gaps. So where, for example, the parent of a disabled child has not been able to get the assistance their child needs through the statementing process or through special educational needs provision, whether or not there would be a case for extending the Disability Discrimination Act provisions slightly to cover that is an issue we are looking at at the moment, and those gaps, particularly around medical needs. That does seem to be a prime example of that. I think there are also issues in relation to independent schools and the way in which provision is made in those. Q287 Mr Chaytor: Finally, in terms of how other countries handle this, are there particularly good models from other countries that have managed to get the system working better than we have that any of you are aware of? Ms Russell: I cannot answer in great detail but I am currently doing a piece of work for the European Union which is a comparative study of services for disabled children in eight member nations. I could certainly give you detailed information in future but I cannot at the moment. However, I think that many of the challenges facing us are also facing them. Perhaps the biggest challenge is putting the jigsaw pieces together of a disability rights legal framework. There is no equivalent to the DDA but there are some human rights legal possibilities within the context of their provision. I think this challenge lies in, say, putting together the SEN or education piece of the jigsaw, the human rights or disability discrimination piece of the jigsaw but, also, as in this country, acknowledging that disabled children often have needs in other areas. Therefore, you may be endeavouring within the statutory assessment process to put together an assessment under the framework for the assessment of children in need, because there may be social care issues - you may be looking at the health needs of the children - and I think it will be interesting to see whether the further roll-out of Every Child Matters and the working towards a common assessment framework can help us bring these different pieces together to give us an integrated assessment system which leads to joined up working and avoids the current dislocation of crucial provision, like support for medical needs, which Cathy has already referred to, and which can thereby interfere with both the SEN needs of the child and also, of course, appropriate provision for including the child with a disability within the full life of the school. Q288 Chairman: Can I ask Phillippa, where do you look for the right expertise for this overview in terms of the needs of a child with disability and special educational needs? I am looking at the evidence on this and I am puzzled by what sort of superhuman person it is that can pull all this together. It is quite a difficult area, is it not? Ms Russell: It is a very difficult area, which is why I think there are often so many problems with statutory assessment and a statement. A statutory assessment process genuinely intends, or endeavours, to provide an accurate picture of the child and any additional support needs that he or she has. However, I think part of the challenge is actually drawing together all the information that will exist about children. I would say, with my disabled son, that I probably now have 65 box files (he is now an adult) of assessments and reports, but very often the information has not been presented in a way which was relevant to his educational progress. I think that is an on-going challenge for us. I hope that the development of children's trusts will make it easier to get relevant information on the integration of health, education and social care for many of these children, but I think at the moment assessment can still often be too bureaucratic. Q289 Chairman: You think the new arrangements coming in might actually cut through that? What we constantly hear is that there are well-intentioned and quite expert people out there but there is an enormous amount of bureaucracy in the process. Ms Russell: Yes, and I think there are, perhaps, some interesting models we might look at: for example, particularly with younger disabled children, the emergence of the key worker, somebody who can help bring together all the relevant information on the child and actively engage the parent or child, as appropriate, and hopefully thereby provide relevant information in an education setting. If a child is to develop in education and flourish and become an active citizen, which is our ambition, then the relevant professional advice needs to be presented in a way which schools and others can use. Q290 Chairman: Do you think there is a danger - I know from when I was much more active in the disability area as a Shadow Minister - in the view that a lot of teachers have, certainly, in the child population, which is a stereotype of what a person with disability looks like? I certainly know, in those days, long before your legislation and your personal organisation existed, that people always thought of people in wheelchairs rather than a range of disabilities. What percentage of people now are wheelchair users? I remember a statistic from sometime ago, but what is it now, roughly? Ms Russell: I am not sure what the current statistic is with regard to children and young people but I think it is very small. Many disabled children will have a mobility problem but, of course (and this is where I think you make a very valid point about stereotypical views of disabled children, young people - people - and about what they can or cannot do), there is huge diversity ability as well as disability. This is where I hoped, and still hope, that the SEN Disability Act will make a difference because the accessibility planning duties, of course, require attention not only to the physical environment, which, once right, is right for at least one generation, but, also, access to the curriculum, and to information. Stereotypes, particularly around risk, can cause enormous problems. Disabled children are all too often excluded from a range of activities in the life of schools and other services because of presumptions about risk rather than a careful assessment of their abilities and what they need to actively participate. We are a very risk-averse society, so this is part of a bigger problem. Chairman: We have looked at that very closely in a report on out-of- school education and the importance of disabled children being able to have access to that. Thank you very much for that. Let us move on. Q291 Stephen Williams: I want to ask some questions about the legal duties placed on schools and LEAs, firstly by the Disability Discrimination Act, which places a duty on all public authorities to promote accessibility for equality for disabled people. It has a disability equality duty within that Act. Perhaps I could start with Commissioner Mrs Russell. Do you think that is a realistic proposal for schools, in particular? Ms Russell: I think it is absolutely realistic. I know there were some initial concerns and I would, with your permission, like to turn to my colleague Cathy after I have responded. There was some initial concern that this would be a burdensome duty but I do not see it in any way as burdensome. Firstly, the disability equality duty and the requirement to develop disability equality schemes is something which good schools would be doing largely already within their accessibility planning and other planning duties. Secondly, it is a reasonable and proportionate duty because the school will start from where it is; it will take advice and it will set, hopefully, ambitious but definitely achievable targets in a staged way. Fourthly, and most importantly, we are not going to improve access and inclusion unless we adopt a strategic approach across schools rather than always focusing on the individual child and whether he can be slotted into the jigsaw picture. So I think it will actually be a duty which will help schools and I believe that if that duty is delivered well it will not only benefit disabled pupils and those who are working with them, it will actually benefit the whole community because one will be working towards a more inclusive school and getting the active participation of all concerned. Might I look, with your permission, Chairman, to Cathy? Ms Casserley: I would really just echo what Phillippa said. There is the duty itself contained in the Act which is obviously about promoting equality of opportunity, and, clearly, that is what schools should be doing anyway so it should fit into what they are doing. The duty to produce the disability equality scheme, very clearly, is tied up with the planning duties and, as Phillippa said, those schools which are already taking those responsibilities seriously should have relatively little difficulty in producing a scheme and in making sure they set out what their actions are. Finally, the way in which the requirements of the disability equality scheme have been set out means that they are quite flexible; they are not actually that prescriptive. You have to look at what steps you are going to take to promote equality of opportunity, you have to set out what steps you are going to take to gather evidence, for example, on the educational opportunities of disabled children, and that is something obviously which schools would want to be doing anyway, but it does not prescribe exactly the way in which they have to do that. Certainly we think that the responsibilities of schools and what they have to do already was taken into account when these duties were actually framed. Q292 Stephen Williams: If I can stick with Cathy, Chairman, as she is a barrister and has a textbook with her as well! LEAs had to have accessibility plans in place by April 2003 but when Ofsted had a look at this towards the end of 2004 they found fewer than half the schools had such plans in place. Why is there not more pressure on schools to fulfil their legal duties? Ms Casserley: I will say something and then I will probably turn to my colleague, Steve, also, to comment on this because I know he has had a lot of involvement. I think one of the issues generally about the Disability Discrimination Act provisions is that there is a low awareness of them and a low awareness of what they require and what schools have to do under them. There is also no real way of enforcing that planning duty. Again, one of the advantages of the disability equality duty is that it ties in with the accessibility plans, it covers a lot of the same ground but there is actually a process for challenging a school in those circumstances if it does not actually fulfil its duties. So, again, I think the disability equality duty should make a significant difference. Q293 Stephen Williams: Did you say there was no way of enforcing this duty? Ms Casserley: Certainly not by an individual, no. Q294 Stephen Williams: Is that because the legislation is flawed, or ---- Ms Casserley: The actual process behind the accessibility plans, if they are properly carried through, is a very good way of ensuring accessibility. The problem, I think, with it is that there has not been any enforcement of it. Obviously, that is not just an issue for individuals taking cases but that is also an issue for inspectorates in how they deal with that and the recommendations they make on the back of that. So certainly, I think, the way in which they are enforced or are not enforced has been a problem. Q295 Stephen Williams: So to encourage enforcement, are you saying, someone would need to go through the courts to set some legal precedent? Ms Casserley: There is not a mechanism, other than taking a judicial view, for enforcing that aspect of the duty, and it was never intended to be enforced by any individual; it was merely intended as a duty upon the school which it should comply with in respect of what it does. Mr Haines: I would echo very much what Cathy has just said there. The other aspect to do with this, I think, is again about awareness within schools. We have been working with the DfES to produce accessibility planning guidance and hopefully that will show schools and LEAs the best way to approach these duties. That is another important aspect of it - the inter-relationship between LEAs. I think we are concerned about the increasing autonomy of schools to lose that link with the LEAs and how they can work together to make schools accessible over time. The other issue here is, obviously, to do with building schools for the future and making sure that that new stock of schools is built accessibly in a way that does include disabled children. Q296 Stephen Williams: You said you were worried about LEAs and schools having a weaker link which might undermine ---- Mr Haines: I think there is a concern about how that link might affect more strategic planning of how schools and LEAs work together to improve inclusion. Stephen Williams: Chairman, it might be an interesting point for our other investigation on at the moment. Q297 Chairman: Can we push you on that? As I understand it from the legislation, and indeed the proposals in the White Paper, local government will not lose their existing remit over special educational needs. Mr Haines: That is something that we will have to see how it pans out in practice. Q298 Chairman: There is nothing in the White Paper that takes away the present local government role in special educational needs. That is a fact; it is not what we should expect, surely? There is no plan to change that relationship. Mr Haines: I think what concerns me is being shown with academies at the moment and how that distance, by having the funding agreement by the Secretary of State, seems to perhaps undermine the legislation and how it would work in practice. We have certainly seen it, in the admission of children to academies where they are named in the statement, starting to cause some problems. Chairman: We are going to come to academies in a moment. As we understand it, trust schools will have the same powers as foundation schools, which are several hundred, as you know. They have the same responsibilities. We are going to come to academies in a moment, so hold back on academies. Q299 Stephen Williams: While we are on awareness, and I will stick with Mr Haines, do you think the Department itself is viewing this problem with enough urgency and has given enough advice down to the LEAs in then asking them to pass it on to schools? Mr Haines: The roll-out of Moving Barriers to Achievement is something that is going ahead and we fully support that. The accessibility planning guidance that I just mentioned goes alongside reasonable adjustment guidance as well, and we are very much welcoming those going into schools. The Teacher Development Agency is certainly bringing in extra training for initial teacher training around working with children with special educational needs. We would like to see a bit more disability equality training in there as well, but that that continues is a very positive step. On your point about whether there should be more onus on schools to put these duties in place, I think that will really show with the support for the disability equality duty which will be central to cohering (?) a lot of these duties and giving schools an action plan in how they can address a lot of these problems together. So that is where the importance should lie. Q300 Stephen Williams: If I can go back to some of the legal duties and, perhaps, Mrs Russell or Ms Casserley will want to pick this up, is the requirement on schools to remove the causes of potential discrimination perhaps a step too far for schools, and how will they define what potential discrimination is? Ms Russell: I think there will need to be, obviously, clarification about what areas of potential discrimination might be relevant to a particular school situation, but I think a core duty within the accessibility planning arrangements is anticipating what those barriers, what the areas of potential discrimination, might be and we are not only looking at physical access - important as it is - we need to look at the whole life of the school. The Government's extended schools programme and the forthcoming promises and delivery of youth matters are absolutely crucial to disabled young people because they really do extend opportunities for participating in sport, drama, and homework clubs - the life of the school. Of course, those new services are not covered by the SEN framework, so schools, for example, will need to consider how they will actively include and promote equality of opportunity for disabled pupils. However, we are talking about accessibility planning duties and we will be talking about disability equality schemes which, as Cathy said, are anticipatory, are flexible and reasonable. I hope that schools really will work with all relevant partners. There is some very encouraging work out now about the use of inclusive school councils in mainstream and special schools engaging disabled pupils in actually identifying what they see as potential barriers, where they see lack of opportunity. So I think we are on a learning curve and, as Steve said, the DfES, the Disabled Rights Commission and the Council for Disabled Children have been working on the accessibility planning and reasonable adjustment projects, and I think nothing actually encourages success like good, working examples of schools which have embraced the accessibility planning duties, the equality of opportunity duty and find that it benefits all pupils. Q301 Chairman: Can I apologise to you, Steve Haines? I realised I have a question at the back of my mind which I have for the next set of witnesses on academies. Do you want to articulate a little more your concerns about academies in relation to special educational needs as opposed to disability? Mr Haines: I think, really, the focus on academies is on tackling the outcomes for certain children who face disadvantage. That children with special educational needs are at the centre of the focus of academies, I feel, is really important. What we should be looking at is not just meeting needs but, rather, looking at the kind of structures we have to see how they can promote equality of outcome. My concerns are really focused on where funding agreements mean that academies are not as responsible to that legislation as perhaps they might be. I am sure your witnesses later will be able to give you more detail on that. Q302 Mrs Dorries: I wonder if you can just clarify that point again. We have heard evidence in this Committee that, in fact, academies have no obligation to take children with special educational needs and there is no statutory duty for them to be named in a statement. In that case, how can the focus of academies be on children with special educational needs if they have no obligation? Mr Haines: I think that is exactly my concern, yes. The focus really should be on promoting equality of opportunity for children with special educational needs, and that these are the very systems that should support that, whereas it seems to have missed the opportunity to focus there and, instead, almost watered down that duty in relation to those children. Q303 Mrs Dorries: So your statement that the focus of academies is on special educational needs - the fact they have that - is that your opinion or is that based on some kind of evidence? Mr Haines: I know that this will be focused on later by some of the witnesses who have a legal understanding of the situation, but what seems to be coming through what I am hearing through various networks that we are in contact with is that there is that lack of onus on children with special educational needs. I would have to find more evidence for you on that. Q304 Chairman: Would Cathy Casserley like to come in on that? The word "legal" was mentioned, so I thought perhaps you wanted to say something. Ms Casserley: The word "legal" was mentioned but my legal experience does not stretch to academies. Chairman: You are the sort of witness we like, those who say they do not have an answer! Q305 Mr Chaytor: Can I ask a follow-up question to Steve about that? In your experience, can you make any generalisations about the way in which different categories of school respond to the needs of children with SEN? Mr Haines: It is a very mixed picture out there, and I think the Ofsted report from last year really showed that. What is important is not necessarily the category of school but the approach of the school, and the schools that are best at inclusion are ones that have a very inclusive ethos, and who consider the outcomes and achievements of all children, whether disabled children or non- disabled children, as of paramount importance. So it is really the approach that is important rather than the categories. Chairman: Let us move on to an outcome focussed system of provision, and Jeff Ennis is going to lead on this. Q306 Jeff Ennis: Thank you, Chairman. I would like to ask the witnesses, first of all, how can we better achieve an education system with high expectations for all disabled pupils? Ms Russell: I, personally, and I know many others, have warmly welcomed an outcome focussed approach to education and, indeed, to all children's services. I would define that as ensuring that all pupils gain not only the necessary academic qualifications (or maximise the academic opportunities if they are not able to get academic qualifications) but, also, gain life skills which will enable them to have a fulfilled adult life. Within Every Child Matters we have the five key outcomes for all children, and the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report on improving the life chances of disabled people very clearly set out concerns about the numbers of young disabled people who come through the system and do not necessarily have the skills and abilities that will enable them to go into the world of work. I think an outcome focussed approach is a holistic approach; it is ensuring that all pupils are engaged to the maximum level of their ability within the life of the school. However, if I might just refer to my own son's personal experience, his ability, notwithstanding significant disabilities, to have his own home and be part of the local community depended not only on having access to a good education in the traditional sense of the word (he has severe learning difficulties) but in the acquisition of good communication skills and the understanding of personal safety, the ability to work in a team with others, and the ability to travel to a limited extent independently. I think we do need to make sure that we include disabled young people in all the initiatives which are around at the moment. If I might quote a couple of statistics which give us a warning about the importance of this, last year, the 2004 DfES Youth Cohort noted that disabled 16-year olds are twice as likely as their non-disabled peers to be in neither education or training or in employment, and that really is not satisfactory. Nor is it satisfactory at the moment that 21 per cent of disabled people 16-24 have no qualifications compared to 9 per cent of non-disabled people. In this context I would like to make a strong plea for the recommendation that disability is not a disqualifier for success in adult life, and I am including within my definition of disability people with learning disabilities, be it mental health problems or a range of impairments which might seem very challenging. Nonetheless, these are people with talents and we need to be absolutely certain that we are looking at those long-term outcomes, and access to further education training and higher education is important. It is the Every Child Matters agenda, and I hope it will apply equally to disabled children and young people. Q307 Jeff Ennis: Just a follow-up to what Phillippa has just said, obviously within the mainstream school settings etc, or within special schools, the young people with disabilities are protected from the outside world to some extent. When they reach adulthood - and it is following on the point you were making about the doubling of the number of young adults with disability who are not in training or employment, or whatever - will the Every Child Matters agenda really impact on this, what I call, transition phase from the protective environment of the school into the adult world? Ms Russell: I hope that it will. There are big challenges around transition. I think the transition arrangements 14-19 are probably one of the most important, but also probably the most variable forms of provision that young disabled people, or indeed any young people, go through. In some areas, the Audit Commission has noted, we have a postcode lottery; Connexions is working well and there are a number of initiatives. There are some interesting partnerships around between special and mainstream schools. For example, Beaumont Hill Technology College, which is a generic special school up in Darlington and which operates on a campus basis, is doing some very exciting work with young people who are in mainstream schools and enabling the staff there to develop the specific skills to ensure that they actually do well. Every Child Matters is a challenging agenda but we must be absolutely sure that young disabled have bright futures, and futures, and I know because the transition information network is supported by the Council for Disabled Children that young disabled people with whom we consult are particularly anxious about what comes next, and many with good school experiences, be it mainstream or special, are worried they might not get the support and training in order to be ambitious, to make choices about their life after school and to actually go on and achieve. One challenge here, of course, is that many young disabled people have missed significant amounts of schooling because of hospital treatment etc, and we do need to be absolutely sure that the lifelong learning journey is open to them and that their education and training opportunities are not cut short prematurely. Q308 Jeff Ennis: We have focussed, to some extent, on the Every Child Matters agenda that the Government is working to. The other major SEN document, of course, within mainstream schools is Removing Barriers to Achievement. Are these two strategies fully complementary with each other or is there anything missing between the two strategies? Ms Russell: I think the strategies are complementary and I think they are right. If Every Child Matters and Removing Barriers to Achievement can be delivered in the spirit in which they were developed, and that has to be over a period of time, they will work well. However, I think we need to be vigilant at every stage to make absolutely certain that disabled children and young people are fully included at every stage and within every initiative. There is no doubt that if Removing Barriers to Achievement is to succeed then we need the multi-agency approach, the collocation of services and the better joining up of health and social care, etc, in order to support progress in education. It is a challenging agenda but I think we are on the right path. Q309 Jeff Ennis: What sort of timeframe do you think we are on in terms of delivering that joined up approach, shall we say, that you would be satisfied with as a Commissioner for the DRC? Ms Russell: I would like to ask my colleagues, and I suppose all of us would like to say "tomorrow" but saying "tomorrow" would be unrealistic. I am well aware, having been around in this field for a number of years, that progress has to be sustainable; that we have to be absolutely clear that all partners understand their responsibilities but, also, know that they can act in more creative and dynamic ways. The life chances report, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report, hoped that the ambition set out in that report would be achieved by 2025; I hope that we could achieve earlier. I think one of our challenges will be maintaining the momentum. For example, achieving real inclusion across the education system is a process and we have to learn from experience. So my main concern is that any new programme has the timeframe and the support within that timeframe for delivering and evaluating progress, recognising that new challenges will come along the way. One point I would want to make is that the pattern of childhood disability is changing; we are seeing more young people with very complex disabilities. The national service framework is important in offering direction as to how we might address those needs, but we need to be absolutely sure that they are not excluded and that they do get education and support appropriate to their needs. Q310 Chairman: There is a view that the way to really energise the system, if you want to take any particular category of student and get something done about their situation in giving them the fullest educational provision you can, is to make it particularly rewarding for schools to take them; in other words, a premium following a particular student. What do you think of the view? Is there enough of a premium? If a child with special educational needs or a child with a disability goes into a school, is there a sufficient premium to make that child, in a sense, attractive to the school, both to accept in the first instance but, also, to provide a full level of facility? Ms Russell: I think you are making a very important point. I think that there has been an encouraging development over the last few years on celebrations of schools and pupils that are doing well, but we need to do more. I am aware that many mainstream schools are worried about the league tables, they are worried about how they demonstrate success and celebrate progress - and all children do make progress in a good school. I would like the reward, the recognition of achievement, to be much more widespread. I know that good schools' value of progress in their pupils may not necessarily be in achieving formal academic accreditation, although I hasten to say that the Disability Rights Commission is worried that many disabled pupils who could achieve, for a variety of reasons, do not get the examination results one would have expected, but I think the premium, as you call it, or the celebration is very, very important. I certainly hope that we will see more rewards, if you like, incentives, to schools to think accessibility and inclusion. Q311 Chairman: Do Steve Haines or Cathy Casserley want to come in on that? Mr Haines: I would echo very much what Phillippa said. I would also add that, perhaps, rather than an extra premium that has to be added, the mainstream policy should encourage schools to give the best to disabled children and children with SEN that attend that school. Ms Casserley: I do not have anything to add; I would just echo what Phillippa and Steve have said. Q312 Chairman: Can I then just shift the discussion, for a moment, because I realise what a valuable group of witnesses we have with us. In terms of this balance between SEN and disability, are we getting it right? That is the big question. Are we getting it right? We started off with the big question, so let us come back to it. If we are not getting it quite right what new initiatives do we need? Ms Russell: Just giving a personal point of view, if I may, firstly, I think, as we said earlier, we are looking at a jigsaw of provision, in particular the SEN framework and the disability duties, but there are other assessment processes and services that may need to fit into that picture. I think we need to improve the sharpness and the relevance of our assessment processes so that we understand which framework we are using when. Secondly, I think that greater awareness of the accessibility planning duties and the forthcoming disability equality duty will make, hopefully, the inter- relatedness of the two much clearer to schools. Thirdly, I think that we have a real issue in a more complex education system, and I would include the Early Years provision there as well because we have, of course, major developments now in terms of children centres, the Childcare Bill plus, of course, Government promises on Early Years education where proper inclusion and accessibility will be crucial. I think we need to take a strategic view and a regular review of how the system is actually working. If we use the strategy set out in Barriers to Achievement we do have a means by which we can measure progress, but I think the Disability rights Commission has an important role here as well, to assist the Government in understanding how the disability duties interrelate with other duties in protecting and promoting the overall human rights of disabled pupils. Q313 Chairman: The theme today in all our discussions and our questioning has been about inclusion. We started this inquiry partly because we have been away from special education for too long but also because of the very famous speech and pamphlet by Baroness Warnock. What do you believe in terms of this view that Baroness Warnock put to us when she gave evidence, that perhaps we have gone too far on the inclusion side; that a good provision of special schools is very important and very appropriate for a lot of student; that perhaps some people are pushed into mainstream because of the inclusion doctrine rather than getting really the right kind of education they want in a special school? Ms Russell: I do not think the inclusion agenda has gone too far. I think a lot of people would say it has not gone far enough, inasmuch as we are still learning how we can include all disabled pupils effectively in mainstream provision. Whilst we are on that learning curve, special schools or specialist provision will obviously have a place, but I think one can already see some encouraging evidence of co-location and strong partnerships between special and mainstream provision. We have to build capacity in the workforce. Parents pick special schools because they do not in general have confidence that the mainstream schools will deliver the specialist additional support their children need. We are working towards, I hope, an inclusive and accessible society and that must include education, but I personally would not want to backtrack on inclusion; rather I would say that we need to learn, both from the UK experience and from international experience, how we can include more children to recognise that good inclusive schools are actually good for everybody. If you include a disabled pupil well, then other pupils will benefit. Thirdly, some children do have very complex needs and special provision will be absolutely crucial to their educational process and progress. I think we are also looking at some interesting challenges for special schools. Some special schools already are largely operating on an outreach basis to build competence and confidence in mainstream. It is a learning curve, but I personally would be very unhappy if we turned the clock back. I think we are actually learning as we go towards the achievement of high quality education with maximum inclusion for all pupils. I would just turn to my colleagues briefly and ask whether they would like to complement what I have said. Mr Haines: Again, I would agree with all of that. I think we do need to focus on the ongoing improvements of the school system as a whole. Promoting separate schooling should only really be done, following the Salamanca statement of the UN, in those exceptional cases where it is necessary and an appropriate environment and setting for that child to be able to develop. On the whole, the efforts still need to continue towards giving schools the skills and the framework with which they can promote inclusion. Q314 Chairman: What is your take on Baroness Warnock's position? Mr Haines: I do not think I could comment directly on Baroness Warnock's position. Q315 Chairman: Why could you not comment directly? It is right in the centre of your life and work experience, is it not? Mr Haines: I think Warnock identified some of the concerns that are out there, especially amongst parents of disabled children. But we do need to ensure that the reality for the disabled child is that they are given the opportunity to interact with non-disabled peers. It has a very long-term benefit and we need to promote the independent living in the future of that child as they become an adult. I think some of the statistics that Phillippa quoted earlier regarding those not in employment, education or training at 16 are also echoed at 19, where there is not sufficient transition coming from special schools, and we see that blip that is reflected in the Prime Minister's Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People report which shows a great increase at 19, where children are leaving special schools. We need to consider the disabled adult of the future as well as the disabled child of today. Q316 Chairman: Cathy Cassrley, what is your view on the Warnock review? Ms Casserley: I think I have the same view as Steve, that she identified a number of issues, but the key thing is to make sure that disabled pupils have the same opportunities as other pupils. That is not being done at the moment and it needs to be. Q317 Chairman: Coming from certainly the two of you - and I am coming back to Phillippa Russell in a moment - there is a rather negative attitude - or "as the last resort" - to special schools. That is what I am getting. Is that right? Surely in some situations a special school would be the right environment to bring on all the talents and make someone fit for a greater role in society. Ms Casserley: As Steve said in the Salamanca statement ---- Q318 Chairman: He was being a bit reluctant to answer. Ms Casserley: Certainly there are exceptional circumstances where special educational needs or a special school may be the most appropriate forum, but my view is that a lot of the education that goes on in special schools goes on there because the provision is not being made in mainstream and often parents feel that the way they will get the most for their child is actually to have the resources focused and to have that child educated in a different school. That often points to a failure of the mainstream system, rather than it being much better in a special school. Q319 Chairman: It is a totally different argument that some children thrive with a particular set of special needs in a smaller environment. "Small is beautiful" EF Schumacher called it. Is there not an argument that sometimes that big environment of 1,000, or perhaps a 2,000 school environment, however good the inclusion, is not the right environment for a particular student? Ms Casserley: My view is probably that that is in exceptional circumstances. I would imagine the vast majority of children would thrive much better, in general, in a smaller environment. But, in broad terms, I would say that is the exception rather than the rule. I have to say I am expressing a personal opinion now, so I should probably hand over to my colleagues. Q320 Chairman: Phillippa, this is the most offensive the three of you have been. I do not want to make it offensive, but I am putting the question to you. You seem reticent to criticise or even to come back and tell me what you think about Warnock and you are a bit reticent to say what you really believe about special schools. Am I right, or am I being unfair? Ms Russell: I hope I was not being reticent, because I recognise Baroness Warnock's genuine concerns and we know that there is variable practice within mainstream and indeed within some special schools. But I would want to reiterate my point that we are on a learning curve. We do at least believe that every disabled child is educable - and my son is old enough for me to have seen him rejected as uneducable before we got the 1970 Education of Handicapped Children Act. We are on a learning curve, inasmuch as some children do have very complex disabilities and special educational needs and at the moment special schools may be the place where they will indeed get the support and education that they need, but, because we are learning as we go, not only will mainstream schools hopefully develop more capacity - and I am looking to the future - but special schools themselves will develop different roles, where they perhaps become specialist support teams or outreach service - and one sees much more collaboration between the two. We know at the moment that some children are in special schools because mainstream has sadly failed them, and we have to address that fact. Q321 Chairman: But it is okay if a local authority has no special schools at all. See seno Edited January 26, 2006 by carole Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
call me jaded Report post Posted January 26, 2006 You can listen to this by clicking on archives, selecting 'committees' and typing 'special educational needs' into the search box, here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/ I having trouble actually working out the meaning of Ms Casserley's statement. Hoping for enlightenment when I hear her say it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
call me jaded Report post Posted January 26, 2006 Well it's about an hour in and I've still no idea what she meant, but it was said without conviction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
