| home |  |
SEN articles & info | |
catalogue | |
search | |
downloads | |
contact us |
|
|
||||||||||
|
16. There are wide variations between LEAs in making statements. In some LEA areas fewer than 2% of pupils have statements; in others the proportion exceeds 4%. The reasons for such variation include underlying differences in the socio-economic make-up of different areas, and the extent to which LEAs specifically delegate funding for SEN so that schools can provide for children without the need for statements. In some parts of the country there is substantial movement of children with statements between LEAs. But these factors do not explain the full extent of the variation.
(The actual paper includes 3 graphs showing %s in Metropolitan Districts, New Unitary Authorities and Non-Metropolitan Counties and Inner and Outer London)
England Average 2.8%
17. There are similar variations between schools' practices in placing children on their SEN registers or at particular stages of the Code. In January 1997, 4% of primary and secondary schools in England (800 schools) assessed 40% or more of their pupils as having SEN whilst 9% (1900) identified fewer than 5% of their pupils as having SEN.
(Paper includes a graph showing variations between schools in proportion of children identified as having SEN, January 1997)
18. The view is sometimes expressed that these variations would be reduced if there were national criteria for statements or for each stage of the Code of Practice. We are not convinced that this is so. LEAs' local criteria for statements are often very similar, but do not seem to lead to uniformity of decision making. It is not self-evident that the introduction of national criteria would have any greater impact. However, we do not discount the arguments in favour of more national consistency, and would welcome views. One possibility would be to publish a non-statutory guide, drawing on the existing criteria used by LEAs.
National expectations for numbers of statements
19. We could, alternatively, set a national expectation of the proportion of
children who might benefit from statements, and perhaps of the proportions of
pupils to be expected nationally at stages of the Code of Practice. These could
not override the duty to meet individual children's needs. They would therefore
not operate as strict quotas: there could be legitimate reasons why LEAs - and
certainly why individual schools - should deviate from them. But, on this
model, we would expect LEAs and schools, as well as those involved in resolving
disagreements, to have regard to them in setting their criteria for assessing
needs. For example, we might adopt a national average expectation that say 2%
of children would have statements, with an expected range between individual
LEAs from say 1.5% to 2.5% according to factors such as their socio-economic
characteristics and local approaches at stage 3. We might expect LEAs to set
out - perhaps in their Education Development Plans - what they would do to take
such expectations into account.
QUESTION: How might we secure greater national consistency in making statements, or in supporting children at the other stages of the Code of Practice?
Content of s tatements
20. A statement must set
out both a child's educational and non-educational needs and the provision to
be made in each case. The distinction between the two is often unclear. Speech
therapy, psychological support or provision of specialised equipment, for
example, can benefit a child's educational progress even if provided for health
reasons. We favour dropping this distinction. But we recognise that this would
require changes to LEAs' statutory responsibility for implementing statements,
or to the arrangements for funding provision under a statement. Possible
changes in funding of therapy services are discussed in Chapter 7.
21. Where children are placed in a special school or unit, there may be other questions we need to ask about the content of statements. For example:
| home | |
SEN articles & info | |
catalogue | |
search | |
downloads | |
contact us |
© Inclusive Technology Ltd 1998 - 2005
31/08/2000