Educational Opportunities For All?

The photographs illustrate the age range covered by this report It should not be assumed that the children and young people in them necessarily have special educational needs.

ISBN 070859972 9 Published by. the Inner London Education Authority Typeset by. the GLC Supplies Dept (CRS) Produced by.' the Information Service (Publicity Unit) Printed by. Heffers Printers Ltd ©ILEA 1985

ilea

Inner London Education Authority

Educational

Opportunities

For All?

Report of the Committee reviewing provision to meet special educational needs, chaired by Mr John Fish, formerly HMI and Staff Inspector for Special Education.

Members of the Inner London Authority elected in 1981 set themselves four principal objectives. They resolved to maintain and improve the level of educational provision in Inner London; to reconsider existing arrangements for the education of 16-19 year olds; to expand provision for the increasing number of unemployed school leavers; and to examine the question of achievement in education from the vantage point of working class children and girls. The Authority is committed to the ideal that schools and other educational institutions should be open to all and to the principles of positive discrimination in the allocation of many of its resources, recognising that the most socially deprived should have proportionately the most support. Some of the most socially deprived areas in the country are to be found within Inner London, which is also one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world, with no fewer than 147 languages being spoken within it. It is all the more impressive that the last decade has seen a measurable year-on-year improvement in the average performance of London’s children despite the additional upheaval and stress consequent on falling rolls. The establishment of an adequately funded and staffed system of education is a vital step towards equality of educational opportunity. The overall improvement of levels of attainment has been one of the main goals of measures adopted by our education service since public education was first established. However, the relative pattern of attainment between children of different classes and groups has remained largely untouched by existing strategies. As part of an examination of this underachievement, the Members of the Authority have commissioned three committees of inquiry. The first, chaired by Dr David Hargreaves, considered the curriculum and organisation of secondary schools with particular reference to the needs of working class children. The second, chaired by Mr Norman Thomas, recommended strategies which would enhance the confidence and achievement of children of primary age and the third committee, chaired by Mr John Fish, has reviewed the range, quality and coherence of provision to meet special educational needs throughout the Authority particularly in the light of the Warnock Report (1978) and the 1981 Education Act and the Authority’s initiative to promote equal opportunities. The Committee have had a difficult task as the provision they have been considering extends across all phases of the Authority’s work. They have produced an extremely thorough and challenging report in a short time and we are grateful to them and particularly to their Chair, John Fish. Everyone concerned with education in Inner London will now need to consider the recommendations of the Committee.

Frances Morrell Leader

William H. Stubbs Education Officer

To Members of the Education Committee In the Summer of 1984 I was asked by the Leader of the Authority to chair a Committee to review the provision made by the Authority to meet special educational needs. I am pleased to be able to present the Committee’s comprehensive and agreed report, which was completed in a little over two terms. I draw attention to the time taken because the task set to the Committee could only have been completed as a result of considerable effort by a wide range of people. First we have received great help from every part of the London education service and from a wide range of other services and voluntary agencies. This help was given generously and speedily. Secondly the Committee would wish to acknowledge the considerable contribution made by Matt Dunkley, Clerk to the Committee whose efficiency, reliability and good relationships with members did so much to forward its work, The Committee would also wish to acknowledge the assistance provided to him first by Jacqui Newman and then by Michael Thompson, and particularly in the final stages by the word processor operators in room 376. Finally I wish to pay tribute to members of the Committee, who starting from different points of view, worked exceptionally hard to produce an agreed report, and throughout the Committees time provided me with sympathetic and sustained support. Yours sincerely,

The Commitee to Review Special Educational Provision John Fish

Chair

Jill Aitchison

Senior Lecturer, Southwark College, (now at City and East London College)

Stephen Armstrong

Deputy Head (formerly Head of Learning Support) Hampstead School

Shiv Banerjee

Senior Education Welfare Officer, Division 4 (Hackney) (formerly Division 5 (Tower Hamlets))

Jean Burroughs

Headteacher, Fulham Cross School

John Dowling

Divisional Educational Psychologist, Division 2, (Camden and Westminster)

Conrad Graham

District Inspector with Responsibilities for Special Educational Needs

John lngham

Principal Houseparent, Shaftesbury House School

Denis Mongon

Special Educational Needs Support Teacher, Division 6 (Greenwich)

Mike Oliver

Senior Lecturer, Avery Hill College

Philippa Russell

Senior Officer, Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children, National Children’s Bureau

Barbara Schofield

Headteacher, The Wycliffe School

Patricia Shields

Primary Advisory Teacher, Division 4 (Hackney)

Klaus Wedell

Professor of Educational Psychology (Children with Special Needs), University of London, Institute of Education

Robert Harvey

Assistant Education Officer, Secretary to the Committee

Matt Dunkley

Clerk to the Committee

Contents Part I The Committee’s Approach Chapter

Page Number

1 The Committee’s Perspective 2 The Background to the Committee’s Work 3 The Work of the Committee 4 Current Provision to Meet Special Educational Needs 5 The Evidence the Committee Received

8 16 22 29 46

Part II Current Provision Chapter

6 Provision for Children Under Five 7 Meeting Special Educational Needs in Primary and Secondary Schools 8 Provision in Units and Classes 9 Day and Boarding Special Schools 10 Post-School Provision 11 Inspectorate Advisory, Peripatetic and Support Services 12 Aspects of Assessing Special Educational Needs 13 The Parents Perspective 14 Voluntary Agencies, Health and Social Services 15 Management and Administration

57 70 91 101 124 144 158 166 185 198

Part III Future Developments and Recommendations 16 Policy, Planning, Management and Evaluation 17 Under Five, Primary, Secondary and College Provision 18 Provision in Units and in Special Schools 19 Inspectorate, Advisory, Peripatetic and Support Services 20 Interim and Subsidiary Recommendations

207 216 226 232 241

1 Aspects of Secondary Provision 2 Examples of Interesting Practices 3 Access 4 A Recording Scheme for Children Under Five 5 An Illustration of Divisional Organisation 6 A Flow Chart for Multi-Professional Assessment 7 List of Visits Paid 8 List of those Contributing Evidence 9 Bibliography Index

254 260 281 283 343 346 348 350 361 362

Appendices

PART I Chapter 1 The Committee’s Perspective Introduction 1.1.1 In February 1983 the Inner London Education Authority initiated a review of secondary schools. This was followed by the setting up of a committee to review primary education. Thus when the Committee to Review Special Educational Provision was set up in June 1984 it was the third in a series dealing with arrangements to educate children and young people. The report of the Committee chaired by Dr David Hargreaves “Improving Secondary Schools” was published in March 1984. The Committee chaired by Mr Norman Thomas produced its report “Improving Primary Schools” in January 1985. These two important reports provide a context within which this report should be considered. 1.1.2 The Committee’s terms of reference were:“To review the range, quality and coherence of provision to meet special educational needs in the Authority (in primary, secondary and special schools and in supporting institutions and services and in the context of post-school provision) particularly in the light of the Warnock Report and the 1981 Education Act and the Authority’s initiative to promote equal opportunities and combat under-achievement of children from all backgrounds, and to make recommendations to the Schools Sub-Committee through the Chief Inspector by Easter 1985”. 1.1.3 This report is presented in three Parts. Part I sets out the Committee’s approach to meeting special educational needs, the context of the Committee’s work, the current range of provision, the activities the Committee undertook and the evidence it received. Part II looks at current provision and services to meet special educational needs and outlines the issues identified by the Committee in respect of different elements in the range of existing arrangements. No recommendations are made in this Section. Part Ill deals with policy, management and areas of work requiring further investigation. It also includes the Committee’s recommendations. These are put together with comment in the last section because it is important to consider them as a whole in terms of their time scale, their relationship to each other and their development from the basic principles set out in Section I. The Committee’s Approach 1.1.4 The 1981 Education Act defines special educational needs in relative terms. A child has “special educational needs” if he or she has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her. He or she has a learning difficulty if he or she has a significantly greater difficulty than the majority of children of his or her age or has a disability which prevents or hinders him or her from making use of educational facilities generally provided in schools within his area or he or she is under five and would fall into the previous two groups if special educational provision were not made for him or her. Special educational provision is defined as provision which is additional to or otherwise different from provision made generally for children of the same age in schools maintained by the local authority concerned. 1.1.5 The ways in which primary and secondary schools meet a wide range of individual needs, set objectives and plan teaching programmes for all pupils including those with disabilities and difficulties, may determine the extent of many special educational needs. These needs, and the provision made for them can no longer be considered in isolation. Meeting special educational needs is an integral part of the education system for all children and young people, an aspect which is continually being influenced by all decisions made about primary, secondary, under five and post school provision. Thus the primary and secondary school reports have a particular significance for a review of special educational provision. Similarly the Authority’s initiatives to promote equal opportunities and combat under achievement also influence a school’s perceptions of special educational needs.

1.1.6 For these reasons the Committee’s work was in many ways more complex than that of the other two Committees. We had to consider their recommendations while also studying how special educational provision might be made in primary and secondary schools. The terms of reference also included a review of a wide range of special classes and units and an extensive special school system. It was necessary to consider this provision within a continuum of pre-school and post-school arrangements including further and adult education. Finally it was necessary to consider the contribution of many different professions to special education and to obtain the views of parents, young people receiving special education, and voluntary organisations. The Committee’s work was thus interrelated with that of the primary and secondary committees and more diffuse in the range and type of arrangements and interests covered by the term “special education’. Improving Primary Schools 1.1.7 We have read with great interest the report of the Committee set up to review the work of primary schools and note that it made references to our own work. It is not without significance that it endorses the definition of the aims of education in the Warnock Report, (1978). This report states that the aims of education for all children are: “first to enlarge a child’s knowledge, experience and imaginative understanding and thus his or her awareness of moral values and capacity for enjoyment; and secondly to enable him or her to enter the world after formal education is over as an active participant in society and a responsible contributor to it, capable of achieving as much independence as possible”. 1.1.8 “Improving Primary Schools” is a very helpful document in relation to our own terms of reference. The implementation of its recommendations will improve the work of primary schools in many ways, particularly the context within which many children who may have special needs are educated, and may well prevent such needs arising. If there is one limitation to its approach it is that the relationship between the effectiveness of schools and the existence of and the extent of special educational needs is not explicitly acknowledged. It would have been helpful to have had a more clear impression of how primary schools see their responsibility for meeting these needs and how they view the many advisory and support teaching services in the field of special education who work with them. However the work of our Committee had commenced while the Primary Committee was completing its work and it was perhaps natural that they assumed we would be covering these matters. 1.1.9 It is hoped that this report will be read in conjunction with “Improving Primary Schools”. For this reason it is not proposed to comment at length on it. We note and accept the comments on slow progress (277,278) and endorse the need for the early assessment of children with learning and behaviour difficulties in collaboration with external supporting services. Similarly the comments on group work and grouping for special tuition are ones we would wish to endorse. The approach to Progress and Development (Chapter 5) is of particular importance and, as we shall make clear later in this report, a school assessment policy including the identification of individual needs is of major importance. If systematic and effective it should overcome some of the reluctance detected by the Primary Committee to seek additional help and support to identify, assess and meet special educational needs. 1.1.10 The Committee’s recommendations for improved continuity between the work of schools catering for different age ranges, and in particular with respect to transfer from primary to special schools, will be particularly helpful to children with disabilities and significant difficulties. 1.1.11 The suggestions for grouping schools (3.70-3.75) will also be valuable in meeting special educational needs. The suggested pattern of staff responsibilities for the curriculum will be particularly helpful if it includes a teacher with appropriate training and experience in meeting special educational needs to work with the teachers concerned. We endorse the recognition that the network of advisory and support services is not well co-ordinated in some respects. The central importance of institutional development and co-ordinated in-service education focused in schools, is also strongly supported. This support is conditional however on the understanding that school development plans

will be incomplete without reference to meeting special educational needs and if the development of diagnostic procedures (2.91) does not include the assessment of all special educational needs. 1.1.12 The interaction of primary schools with the communities they serve and the association of their work with that of play centres and youth service provision are of particular value to children who may have special educational needs. Suggestions in the Primary Report with respect to these aspects of schools’ work are also supported. 1.1.13 Finally the statements made about parents’ views and their involvement in primary education are most important. The recommendation for the development of an active partnership between schools, teachers and parents is central to our concern. Only if steps are taken to implement the Primary Committee’s recommendations will the right conditions be created for partnership with the parents of the children with whom we are concerned. Improving Secondary Schools 1.1.14 This report’s particular concern with the need of under achieving pupils creates a new context within which to discuss special educational needs in secondary education. Its definition of four aspects of achievement is an important step towards broadening the basis on which an individual’s response to school is judged. Similarly its recommendations on the curriculum should provide more opportunities for less successful learners to achieve success and reduce the number of learning and behaviour difficulties which may become so marked as to require special educational provision. We consider the proposals made about parent/teacher partnership, transition from primary to secondary schools and taking advantage of cultural diversity to be particularly helpful to the children and young people who are the concern of our Report. We acknowledge and wish to emphasise the need for continuing education expressed in 3.14.4 and endorse the recommendation for a flexibility and interrelationship among all constituent parts of the educational service. 1.1.15 The Secondary Report touches directly and indirectly on a number of ‘special education’ issues. Indirectly the ways in which pupils are grouped from year to year and subject to subject will affect the nature and scope of special educational arrangements. More directly that Committee preferred ‘in class’ support work to withdrawal and separate special class groupings. Its comments on the need for greater provision in the 4th and 5th years of secondary schooling are particularly helpful. Since they made their comments on Off Site provision for disruptive and truanting pupils (3.16.38), and a recommendation about Complementary Education Centres, a working party has given further attention to the issues raised. The report of that working party submitted to the Chief Inspector and to our Committee forms a useful background to our work. 1.1.16 Above all, the encouragement to develop a whole school policy in which subject departments should delegate a member to link with specialist teachers* jointly to work with children with learning difficulties is to be strongly endorsed. All too frequently in the past special educational arrangements have been added on when most major decisions about a school’s organisation and curriculum have been taken. The Secondary Report supports our view that meeting special educational needs must now be an integral part of planning educational provision from the outset. Equal Opportunities and Meeting Special Educational Needs 1.1.17 The Authority has made clear its intentions to further policies which mitigate potential disadvantage and promote equal opportunities in respect of class, sex, and race. It has not, up to the present time, given similar expression to education policies to promote equal opportunities with regard to those with disabilities or learning difficulties. This issue will be discussed later in connection with the process of integration. At the outset it seems important to note that the Committee had a framework of equal opportunity initiatives within which to formulate recommendations. We did not have similar guidelines with respect to children and young people considered to be handicapped and thus had to formulate our own views on what stance to take. 1.1.18 It is undoubtedly true that if many of the intentions of equal opportunity policies are realised,

many more children and young people will have their needs met in schools and colleges. Many special educational needs may no longer arise. The same can be said of many of the recommendations of the Primary and Secondary reports but it remains true, at the time of writing, that many children are not receiving the additional help necessary to meet their special needs. There are circumstances which put children at a disadvantage so that their response to what is offered by schools may be perceived as limited or unacceptable. There are also cultural and linguistic differences which may often give rise to responses which schools perceive as limited. At present, additional or different provision offers an opportunity for many children and young people to feel accepted, to feel understood and to receive appropriate education. *We use the term specialist teacher to avoid unnecessary distinctions between meeting special educational needs and other teaching. A specialist teacher in this sense can be concerned with a subject or aspect of a school work including meeting special educational needs.

1.1.19 The Committee shares the Authority’s commitment to the view that its equal opportunities policies and the aims of education already outlined (1.1.7) can fully be achieved, for all children and young people, only within a system of comprehensive schools* and colleges. 1.1.20 The Committee accepts that there are limits to the special educational needs which can be met at present within comprehensive schools and colleges. Furthermore we accept that limited resources may also restrict what schools and colleges can offer children and young people whose responses to them are unacceptable. The needs of some of these children and young people cannot currently be met without detriment to the education of others. But the point we wish to stress is that the comprehensive principle implies that schools and colleges, by which we mean everyone associated with them, should continually strive to provide for more individual needs and to offer equal opportunities to all. Separate provision outside them, however good, should now be seen as an interim solution resulting from an inability to achieve these long term aims and not as a long term solution compatible with the comprehensive principle. The Committee’s General Philosophy 1.1.21 Children start out unequal in the physical, emotional, intellectual and social aspects of their lives. Positive approaches and high expectations, which have not always been common, are essential if all children are to have access to the same opportunities. The aims of education as set out in the Warnock Report (1978) and quoted in paragraph 1.1.7 imply that schools and colleges should be aware of and strive to mitigate the effects of these inequalities. From the outset members of the Committee recognised the importance of these aims and of attitudes to disability, to handicap and to special educational needs. We had to clarify our own views and develop a general philosophy on which to base recommendations for the development of services and provision for children and young people with special educational needs. We spent considerable time discussing the principles which should inform our work. The statements which follow represent an agreed set of aims, definitions and ideas which the Committee considers to be essential starting points from which to review current arrangements and to develop future services for children and young people with disabilities and significant difficulties. Basic Principles 1.1.22 The long term aims of education for all children and young people include the achievement of responsible personal autonomy and full participation in the communities in which they live. These aims are expressed practically in terms of employment, independent living and adequate financial and other arrangements which allow an acceptable range of opportunities, choices and life styles, The aims of education for children and young people with disabilities and significant difficulties are the same as those for all children and young people. They should have opportunities to achieve these aims, to associate with their contemporaries, whether similarly disabled or not, and have access to the whole range of opportunities in education, training, leisure and community activities available to all. Disabilities and significant difficulties do not diminish the right to equal access to, and participation in, society.

1.1.23 Equal access to and participation in society demands respect for children and young people with disabilities and difficulties and their families. Wherever they are educated, work and enjoy their leisure, these children and young people, like all others, whatever their race, class and gender, must be acknowledged as participants with current and potential abilities to contribute to society. 1.1.24 All those responsible for providing services to children and young people, whether or not they have specific responsibilities for those with disabilities and significant difficulties, should accept the aim of integration for all. Provision of services that are additional to or different from those available to all should be directed towards this aim. 1.1.25 It follows from these considerations that our definition of handicap is a dynamic and relative one. Disabilities and difficulties become more or less handicapping depending on the expectations of others and on social contexts. Handicaps thus arise from the mismatch between the intellectual, physical, emotional and social behaviour and aspirations of the individual and the expectations, appropriate or otherwise, of the community and society at large. Individuals with disabilities or significant difficulties may be handicapped by their own attitude to them and by the attitudes of others. Of equal significance, the degree to which the individual is handicapped is determined by the educational, social, physical and emotional situations which he or she encounters. Handicapping effects will vary from situation to situation and may change over time. *The committee uses the term comprehensive schools to include all nursery, primary and secondary schools.

1.1.26 Most children and young people are expected to move from stage to stage through education and training in a fixed chronological sequence and time scale. The handicapping effects of some disabilities can be increased if educational and social arrangements do not allow for flexibility in the time over which goals in development can be achieved. 1.1.27 It is also important to recognise that integration in society is a process not a state. It is not simply a question of placement in the same groups and institutions as others. It is a process which requires continued and planned interaction with contemporaries and freedom to associate in different groups. The potentially adverse effects of isolation and segregation, in whatever context, including comprehensive institutions, are now well known, including the risks to social competence and to the development of a positive self-identity. The process of integration should be actively developed wherever the individual lives, learns, works and enjoys leisure activities. Placement in the wider group or same institution as non-handicapped contemporaries, although an essential prerequisite to effective integration, does not necessarily result in the process being actively developed. The process of integration should form an essential element in all education wherever it takes place. Implications 1.1.28 The acceptance of the aims of education and of equal access to the same range of opportunities as others, together with the definitions of handicaps and integration, have a number of important consequences. These may be expressed as the need for positive approaches, ending discrimination, which result in:* (a) Changing attitudes, arrangements and approaches in schools, colleges and the community to minimise inequalities and reduce barriers which may have handicapping effects. (b) Early intervention with appropriate guidance, counselling, teaching, and arrangements to minimise handicapping effects of disabilities and significant difficulties. (c) The involvement of the individual and his or her family in planning and an informed choice of what services and arrangements should be made to meet special educational needs. (d) Developing services and provision which support the individual and his or her family as far as possible in the full range of social and educational institutions and facilities. This requires better

information being available and a genuine partnership between parents and professionals. (e) Long term planning to provide a coherent and continuous range of provision and services over all phases of early life, education and transition to adult and working life. (f) Creating opportunities for continuous interaction between those with disabilities and significant difficulties and their contemporaries within an overall strategy aimed at fostering personal development and social interaction in all educational institutions. Policy Development 1.1.29 These aims and consequences should be articulated in a policy and a strategy for children and young people with special educational needs. The means by which this policy and strategy is to be implemented should be clearly communicated to all concerned with education and related services. They should not only be made plain to professionals, families and individuals involved in special education but also to teachers, administrators and other professionals responsible for any form of educational provision. *The issues listed in paragraph 1.1.28 are considered equally important and their listing implies no hierarchy of concerns.

1.1.30 This policy should stress that the important human needs are common to all and of greater significance than the special needs associated with disabilities and difficulties. Unless and until this is recognised and accepted, those children and young people with special needs will continue to be marginalised, and efforts to achieve their integration into society will tend to remain limited. 1.1.31 Additional or different provision, for children and young people who need it, cannot be planned in isolation. Every major decision about the organisation, content and methodology of education has significant implications for those with disabilities and difficulties which may influence the extent and nature of special educational needs and the means necessary to meet them. Special Educational Needs 1.1.32 Within schools and colleges it should be recognised that most individual needs for additional or different provision are relative. They are relative to the extent that schools and colleges can and do provide for a range of individual differences in their organisation and regular programmes and in the attitudes of teachers to such differences. The ways in which goals are set, progress is assessed and values placed on different aspects of achievement all influence the extent to which learning difficulties may become significant. Attitudes towards pupils and students judged to be less successful learners, and the curriculum, methods and materials offered to them are particularly important in determining the extent to which many special educational needs may arise. 1.1.33 Special educational needs arise from learning difficulties and limitations of access to the educational provision made for all. Most can only be defined precisely by individual schools in terms of the flexibility of their approach to individual differences. The term learning difficulty’ used in the 1981 Education Act is interpreted in many ways. The Committee considers it important to stress that it is using the term broadly to include all aspects of learning and not just to refer to limitations in academic achievement. 1.1.34 Children and young people with special educational needs cannot easily be categorized. Originally categorized by disability and educational difficulty they are now entitled to have their needs individually assessed and met. The following paragraph describes some of the most common factors associated with special educational needs but these cannot and should not be used to define homogeneous groups of children. 1.1.35 The one common factor associated with special educational needs is the present inability of schools and colleges to meet the wide range of individual needs in their population. Other major associated factors include impairment of sight, hearing, speech and physical function, limitations in

cognitive and intellectual functions and emotional difficulties. There are also children whose illnesses and physical conditions may contribute to learning difficulties or limit their access to equal opportunities. 1.1.36 Children and young people may have the handicapping effects of their disabilities increased by social factors and educational experiences. These may also be increased by difficulties in functioning in a second language. Although factors such as social class, gender, cultural diversity and race are sometimes perceived by teachers and other professionals as possibly associated with special educational needs, they are not in themselves direct causes of these needs. 1.1.37 Although many professions will need to make contributions to minimising the handicapping effects of disabilities and difficulties, the contribution of the education service is the central feature of special educational provision. First and foremost special educational provision is now defined as the technology and methodology required to provide access for pupils with disabilities or significant difficulties, to the comprehensive curriculum and the emotional and social climate in which education takes place. These matters are the responsibility of all teachers, not just those with specific duties in connection with meeting special educational needs, since every teacher is a teacher of such pupils. Secondly, the contribution of the education service is defined as any variant of the comprehensive curriculum which may be appropriate, and the additional or different arrangements which may be needed to provide it. 1.1.38 The current range of services and provision for those assessed to need additional or different arrangements is wide. It has been built up over time on the basis of a special school and unit system for children originally assessed to need “special educational treatment”. Only relatively recently has the importance of a coherent service to meet special educational needs been recognised. It is now necessary to reorientate the patterns of provision to achieve the aims set out in previous paragraphs. 1.1.39 Provision to meet special educational needs should now be seen as a flexible service responsive to individually assessed needs. Its main function should be to provide additional or different arrangements’ for individuals in the most appropriate place in the closest possible association with educational arrangements for all children and young people. Multi-professional Assessment 1.1.40 The conditions and circumstances which give rise to special educational needs are varied. The way in which schools and colleges assess and record the progress of all children and young people is the basis on which most such needs are determined. Thus the assessment of needs for “additional or different” educational provision should be an extension of the procedures adopted by schools and colleges to record the progress of all. 1.1.41 The assessment of special educational needs should increasingly involve those in closest contact with the children and young people concerned. More weight should be given to the views of parents, the young people concerned and of the teachers and other professionals who work with them on a regular basis. The contributions of many services may also be necessary to supplement school and college based assessment. Decisions should be made as quickly as possible and, where at all possible, locally. They should take into account local provision and services. Delegated multiprofessional management of assessments, within Authority guidelines, should be the objective. 1.1.42 It is important to recognise that arrangements made by the education service cannot meet all the needs of children and young people with disabilities and difficulties. Other services, including health and social services, have important contributions to make but it is essential, in times of limited resources that these services do not use educational provision to fill gaps in their own services. Dissemination 1.1.43 Successful services and provision require effective means of informing parents, teachers and other professionals about what is available and of involving them in its planning and development. It

is necessary for a variety of professions to accept common aims and understand each other’s concerns and contributions. The importance of in-service education in this field cannot be overstressed. If all inspectors, teachers and professionals in allied fields are to understand and work together to meet the special educational needs of children and young people, joint planning and inter-professional training are vital. 1.1.44 It is important that the philosophy outlined by the Committee in these paragraphs is fully discussed. Many people indirectly and directly concerned with education are not yet fully aware of the issues, aims and objectives that have been stated. Achieving an understanding of and commitment to them is crucial to the future development of services and provision for children with special educational needs. Conclusion 1.1.45 In discussing the background to their work, and developing the basic principles outlined in previous paragraphs, members of the committee have become involved in a fundamental appraisal of the principles governing the provision of education for all. We have recognised and would wish to stress that meeting special educational needs is an integral aspect of education for all. 1.1.46 Schools and colleges currently have to meet a variety of special needs in their population, among which are special educational needs now defined by the 1981 Education Act. The Committee recognises special educational needs as one of a range of special needs which may include needs arising from giftedness, disadvantage and learning English as a second language. It is also recognised that the current range of special needs places great pressure on schools and colleges and that the means of meeting them have much in common. It is possible to see a similar progression in provision from separate centres, through centres in schools to support teaching in the ordinary classroom with a wide variety of services now targeted on improving the skills of the teacher in the ordinary school. In making its recommendations the Committee wishes to register its awareness of these pressures and its belief that there needs to be a coherent policy to meet all special needs including special educational needs, which recognises the total demands made on schools, colleges and teachers arising from many different interests. 1.1.47 Meeting special needs and special educational needs poses questions about equality of opportunities. Catering for individual differences within a comprehensive school and college system demands that providing equal opportunities and ensuring equal access to them are recognised as different issues. Identifying and meeting special educational needs are concerned with the second issue. Many children and young people with disabilities and significant difficulties need sustained help to make use of the opportunities available to all. Such help needs to be seen as positive. It is apparent to the Committee that many of the current arrangements are not seen as positive by parents and others not directly concerned with special educational provision, although those working directly with children and young people with special educational needs may be convinced of their positive value. A major challenge in meeting special educational needs in future is to encourage attitudes and develop arrangements compatible with the comprehensive principle which are seen by those who need them and their families as helping to afford access to those opportunities which should be equally available to all children and young people. 1.1.48 The remainder of this Report deals more directly with current provision to meet special educational needs and makes recommendations about its future development. These more practical considerations require however to be set within a framework of ideas and principles. It is for this reason that we consider this first chapter of our Report to be of the utmost importance.

Chapter 2 The Background to the Committee’s Work The Context in which Children and Young People are Educated in London General social factors 1.2.1 “Both Improving Secondary Schools” (ILEA 1984) and “Improving Primary Schools” (ILEA 1985) describe the general characteristics of the area served by ILEA. The Authority covers 114 square miles of Inner London with a population of about two and a quarter million people at a density of 20,000 per square mile. The Inner London area is noted for its diversity of housing and facilities, ranging from expensive residential areas to depressed and decaying inner city areas. There is greater social and economic disadvantage overall than in Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester. 1.2.2 The Department of the Environment produces tables showing those local authorities most affected by economic and social disadvantage based on eight indices. These indices are unemployment, overcrowded households, households lacking in basic amenities, pensioners living alone, single parent families, population change and the mortality rate standardised to allow for differences in the age structure of the community. The eighth index is the incidence of families whose head of household was born in the New Common wealth or Pakistan; although these households are not necessarily socially or economically disadvantaged, their number gives some indication of the population of children whose cultural needs and English language needs may require particular consideration in schools. Of the 11 local authorities that figure in the tables, seven are in Inner London. 1.2.3 The Authority’s publication “Children in Need” issued in February 1985 gives figures for index measures used by the Authority to allocate resources associated with special needs in the population. Table 2.1 (on page 9) gives comparisons between the percentage figures for the ILEA population in 1983 and 1985. As can be seen there have been increases in the percentages of children receiving free meals in primary and secondary schools, in the numbers of children for whom English is a second language and in parental unemployment. Figures for each Division had remained relatively stable in that Divisions 4 (Hackney) and 5 (Tower Hamlets) have the highest index figures at both primary and secondary levels and Divisions 6 (Greenwich) and 7 (Lewisham) the lowest. 1.2.4 While these general social factors have an important bearing on the provision of primary and secondary schools, as the two previous reports show, they are of particular significance for meeting special educational needs. Although the relationship between disadvantage and the incidence of special educational needs is not precise there are indications that the incidence of disabilities and significant difficulties is higher in disadvantaged family circumstances. The material produced by the National Children’s Bureau, based on the National Child Development Study, supports this view. Its publications Born to Fail’ (1973) and ‘Children in Adversity’ (1983) show that there is a close relationship between disadvantage and a limited response to schooling. Table 2.1: Mean Changes in ILEA Figures (‘Children in Need’ Page 2) Mean Primary

Mean Secondary Adjusted Percentages

Measures

1983

1985

Change 1983 1985

Change

Free Meals Large Families Single Parent Families Language Other than English

36.8 21.8 23.0

44.5 21.5 24.8

+7.7 -0.3 +1.8

32.7 27.0 24.0

39.6 25.3 26.4

+6.9 -1.7 +2.4

19.0

23.3

+4.3

14.7

18.6

+3.9

Non fluent English 12.9 Pupil Mobility (Years 2,3 and 4) 11.1 Disturbed Behaviour (intake group only) 17.7 Parental Unemployment 18.8

15.3

+2.4

5.6

7.8

+2.2

9.2

-1.9

6.1

6.2

+0.1

21.0 25.5

+3.3 +6.7

14.8 14.3

14.3 18.3

-0.5 +4.0

The Children and Young People 1.2.5 Although belonging to a one-parent family does not necessarily result in disadvantage, membership may have some importance for educational arrangements particularly when parent/teacher relationships are being considered. Employment, having to make special arrangements to come to school and many other factors may influence home/school relationships. It is, therefore, particularly significant that about one in four children attending ILEA schools come from one-parent families. This figure compares with one in seven nationally. Over two fifths of all children in ILEA schools qualify for free school meals, which is twice the national average. 1.2.6 English is a second language for an increasing proportion of children in Inner London. Currently the figure is one in six and 147 different languages are spoken at home. Although many children for whom English is a second language make good progress in schools, for others this presents difficulty. As will be discussed (Chapter 12) there are particular difficulties in assessing special educational needs and providing for them when the language of the home is other than English. 1.2.7 The number of pupils in primary and secondary schools has been falling in the last decade as Table 2.2 shows. Table 2.2: Total Number of pupils in Primary and Secondary Schools Date

Primary*

Secondary

January 1970 January 1975 January 1980 January 1985

249,627 229,848 175,645 157,302

163,668 177,767 162,924 125,019

*These figures include children Under Five.

1.2.8 Between 1970 and 1984 the number of children in primary schools fell by 43 per cent. There have been differences in different parts of the area covered by the Authority. It is anticipated that overall numbers will rise in the next few years but they will not get back to the 1980 figure before 1990. Numbers have fallen in secondary schools as the figures show. Between 1977 and 1984 there was a net reduction of 41 in the number of secondary schools. The report “Improving Secondary Schools” anticipates a continued fall in the number of pupils in secondary schools in most areas during the next decade. 1.2.9 The reduction in school rolls, amalgamations and closures in the primary and secondary sectors have been disturbing for all teachers, children and parents. Schools most likely to be closed or amalgamated are often in disadvantaged areas. All such changes are particularly unsettling for children with special educational needs and this should be taken into account in planning arrangements for them. 1.2.10 The numbers of people attending colleges of further education, full time, part-time and in the evening are given in Table 2.3. The data available did not distinguish students in the 16-19 age group from other students but the figures give some indication of trends. As can be seen the full time student group has increased by approximately 20 per cent while part-time and evening student numbers have decreased.

Table 2.3: Numbers of Full, Part-time and Evening Students in Colleges 1974/5 Full-time

Part-time

Evening

FHE maintained

22,499

45,003

39,498

Aided colleges excl polys

1,243

133

4,025

Maintained art colleges etc.

5,986

7,112

6,386

FE Colleges

1,148

4,866

4,380

30,876

57,114

54,289

1976/7 FHE maintained

22,881

40,382

37,003

Aided colleges excl polys

1,376

173

4,053

Maintained art colleges etc.

6,313

7,220

6,313

FE Colleges

1,601

4,736

4,272

32,171

52,511

51,641

1982/3 (latest available data) FHE maintained 26,152

42,640

31,650

Aided colleges excl polys

565

84

4

Maintained art colleges etc.

8,249

5,236

4,495

FE Colleges

3,124

4,377

4,960

38,090

52,337

41,109

1.2.11 The general social factors and characteristics of the school and college population, briefly outlined, should be recognised as having a bearing on the nature and number of special educational needs for which the Authority may need to make provision. Although the implementation of recommendations in the Primary and Secondary Reports will create a better educational opportunity for many children and young people, a high incidence of disabilities and significant difficulties may persist. Special Education in London 1.2.12 There is a long history of provision for children with disabilities in London. An “asylum for the deaf was opened in 1792 and one for the “indigent blind” in 1813. It is not proposed to review the development of special education in any detail as a succinct review of legislation and national developments can be found in Chapter 2 of the Warnock Report (1978). However it is important to recognise the long and honourable tradition of meeting the needs of children perceived as handicapped in the capital.

1.2.13 Since statutory education authorities were formed after the 1870 Education Act, the Boards and Councils responsible in London have been in the forefront of providing special education. The London School Board initiated arrangements for blind and deaf children in 1872 and by the early 1890’s there were 14 classes in ordinary schools for deaf children and 23 for blind children. The Board was also active in implementing an Act passed in 1899 relating to provision for defective and epileptic children. Special schools and classes were set up and from 1902 provision was made for delicate children in open air schools and classes and from 1907 for children with physical disabilities. The Authority appointed the first Superintendent of Special Instruction in the early 1890’s and the first Educational Psychologist in 1913. 1.2.14 In the period up to the beginning of the Second World War the London County Council, formed in 1902, was a leader in making provision for handicapped children in special classes and in day and boarding special schools. The pattern of provision also changed with a decrease in the number of schools for mentally deficient children from 93 to 28 between 1919 and 1939, and with changes in residential provision. The Education Act 1944 was the start of a new approach to providing special education based on categories of handicap and special schools and classes for each handicap. The Authority was again in the forefront in implementing the new legislation. 1.2.15 Rapid progress was made between 1947 and 1964. A report published by the Inner London Education Authority when it was set up in 1965 gives impressive figures. Over 1,300 new places were provided in day special schools and over 600 in boarding schools. A further 16 new special schools were included in building programmes at that time, 10 schools had been rehoused and 14 day schools established in redundant buildings. At that time the Authority was providing 9,296 places in 65 day schools and 16 units and 1,786 places in 28 boarding schools and four hostels. Provision in ordinary schools was also a matter of concern and the Authority issued a report on backwardness in schools in 1957. 1.2.16 Progress continued to be made in providing for special education in special classes into the 1970’s. A report “The Growth of Special Education” in London published at the time recounts the history of arrangements in London. Table 2.4 gives the changes in provision for some of the then categories of children given ‘special educational treatment’. Table 2.4: Numbers of Children Receiving Special Education Category

Date

Day Special School

ILEA Boarding Other Boarding School School

Total

ESN(M)

1960 1969

3463 4434

617 622

4119 5251

PH

1960 1969

1065 819

105 86

1160 905

Delicate

1960 1969

1504 1384

199 130

1703 1514

Maladjusted

1960 1969

143 509

262 487

39 195

486 396

891 1392

As can be seen, numbers rose sharply in the ESN(M) and Maladjusted categories during the period with numbers falling in the physically handicapped and delicate categories. This period also saw an increase in provision for maladjusted children in tutorial classes where numbers rose from 358 in 1960 to 557 in 1969. 1.2.17 A significant milestone was reached in 1970 when legislation made local education authorities

responsible for all children however severely handicapped. Children who up to that time had been categorised as “ineducable” were now to be provided with education. The ILEA was again active in developing special schools for these children in the 1970’s. 1.2.18 During this period there was increasing concern for children and young people whose disturbed and disturbing behaviour was disrupting the work of primary and secondary schools. In 1978 the Authority initiated a major programme of unit and peripatetic teaching provision for disruptive and truanting pupils. This programme has recently been reviewed. 1.2.19 Since 1974 the Authority has also been encouraging the development of provision for young people with special educational needs in colleges and adult education institutes. Much progress has been achieved. More recently it has set up a working group to review and promote provision in this phase of education. 1.2.20 In the first three quarters of the present century, London Education Authorities have had a deserved reputation for concern for children and young people now described as having special educational needs and for providing a range of special schools, classes and services and further education arrangements probably more wide ranging than anywhere else in the country. However, in the last decade there have been considerable changes in thinking about provision to meet special educational needs and about the ways in which such provision should be linked with the work of primary and secondary schools and colleges. One of the reasons for the existence of our Committee is that these changes in philosophy and practices have not been reflected clearly in ILEA policies for meeting special educational needs, at least in so far as they are perceived by teachers, parents and the public at large. This is why we give such emphasis to the principles stated in the previous chapter. However, it must be said that in spite of uncertainties in philosophy and practice the commitment of the Authority, its teachers and other professionals to meeting the needs of children and young people with disabilities and difficulties has continued to be admirable.

The Warnock Report (1978) and 1981 Education Act 1.2.21 During the period 1974 to 1978 the Government enquiry into special education took place. The publication of the report “Special Educational Needs’ by the Committee of Enquiry chaired by Lady Mary Warnock was an important milestone in special education. The ILEA had submitted detailed evidence to the Committee and to the Department of Education and Science during the consultations which took place between 1978 and 1981. 1.2.22 The Warnock Report (1978) initiated a reappraisal of the needs of children with disabilities and significant difficulties and embodied many of the ideas from which we have derived our statement of basic principles. Moves towards integration were encouraged and the importance of provision below the age of five was stressed. Continued and further education after the compulsory school period was also considered essential for many young people with special educational needs. All teachers should be helped to an awareness of these needs through in-service education as all would encounter the wider range of special educational needs the report defined. Perhaps most significant was the recognition of the needs of parents of children with disabilities and difficulties. The report strongly endorsed a partnership between them and teachers and other professionals, and recommended increased rights for them in assessment and placement procedures. 1.2.23 The publication of the Warnock Report (1978) stimulated many local education authorities to review their special educational arrangements. The ILEA was active in its consideration of the report’s recommendations. 1.2.24 Two pieces of legislation implemented those aspects of the Warnock Report (1978) the Government was prepared to accept. The 1980 Education Act started the process of providing parents with more information about schools and about special education. It was however the 1981 Education Act which initiated major changes. Special educational needs and provision were redefined, new

procedures for assessing needs were instituted and parents’ rights to participate in assessment procedures and to appeal against statements of provision were embodied in the new legislation. The 1981 Act built on the 1944 Education Act and provided a new framework for meeting special educational needs. The ILEA has instituted new procedures in line with the new Act in the process of implementing it. 1.2.25 The Warnock Report (1978) and the new legislation provide an important background to the work of this Committee and are included in its terms of reference. Much that is written in this report has as its basis the ideas generated by these two major influences on meeting special educational needs. Although change is unsettling, those working with children and young people assessed to need special educational provision have continued to give devoted service during recent years. The Committee has every confidence that its report will receive the same active consideration as has been given to the Warnock Report (1978) and that the implementation of its recommendations will continue the recent moves to improve arrangements to meet special educational needs.

Chapter 3 The Work of the Committee 1.3.1 The Committee was set up in June 1984 and held its first full meeting early in September 1984. Membership of the Committee was determined on the basis of the ability to contribute different experiences and points of view. It was not on the basis of delegates representing specific groups or organisations. The Committee included members working in primary, secondary and further education. It also included members working in day and boarding special schools and special educational advisory services as well as members of the schools’ psychological service, the education welfare service and the inspectorate team with responsibilities for special educational provision. Other members came from the field of teacher education, voluntary organisations and parents groups. Membership also included a parent of a young person who is handicapped, a disabled person and members of different ethnic groups. A Trade Union Official who is also a school governor was originally appointed but pressure of work prevented him from joining the Committee. 1.3.2 The work of the Committee was divided into two phases. During the Autumn Term 1984 members first visited all types of provision and then in small groups concentrated on different aspects of provision. In the Spring Term 1985 the Committee considered the evidence it had received and in small groups carried out specific enquiries. The latter half of the term was spent in drafting this report. 1.3.3 Because of the range and complexity of special educational provision, its fluid boundaries with the work of ordinary schools and colleges and its tangled interaction with health and social services and voluntary agencies, the Committee’s task was much more complex than that of the Primary and Secondary Committees. It was recognised at the outset that it would not be possible to carry out a complete review of special educational provision particularly with respect to evaluating its quality. Priorities had to be determined and it was decided that the major need was to develop a framework for future development. If recommendations could be made for this then many subsidiary issues would need to be worked out in detail after publication of the report. The starting point 1.3.4 It is important to affirm at this point that the Committee has reached its conclusions by going through a learning process which began at the first meeting and has still not ended. This process involved not only what was learned by individuals but the way we moved as a group towards cooperative and collaborative learning. We had the opportunity collectively to work through the conceptual and practical implications of the 1981 Education Act. We do not see the production of this report as the end of this process, but as an opportunity for all those concerned with meeting special educational needs to join in the next stage of the learning process, namely the consideration and implementation of this report. 1.3.5 At the first meeting, members of the Committee were asked to outline the major issues they

considered the Committee should study. These were discussed briefly and a paper prepared grouping the main areas of concern. This subsequently served as a basis for planning work and considering evidence. Although, as this report shows, not all issues were tackled fully in the time available, the summary which follows indicates the breadth of the Committee’s task and the wide-ranging implications of a review of special educational provision. Philosophy, attitudes and policies 1.3.6 Among the first questions to be asked was what definition of special education would be compatible with the Authority’s policies to promote equal opportunities in respect of sex, race and class. The current means of determining special educational needs, and provision to meet them might be viewed as stigmatising and segregative. Attitudes, terminologies and procedures need to be seen as positive, to be acceptable to parents and not be seen to stigmatise children and young people adversely. It was recognised that these issues are influenced by attitudes in society and the community beyond the Committee’s terms of reference but they were seen as crucial to the future development of acceptable educational arrangements for children and young people with special educational needs. Children and young people with special educational needs 1.3.7 The Committee decided that it was necessary to see if there were any significant trends in child health and social conditions which might influence the Authority’s future special educational provision. It would be necessary to see if there were any trends in the incidence of mental, physical and sensory disabilities and to determine whether any general changes in family and social circumstances were likely to affect the incidence of special educational needs in the school and college population. 1.3.8 The longer term planning of provision and services particularly for young children would also depend on information provided to the education authority by health and social services. The Committee decided to study what information was made available or collected as a basis on which to develop provision and services. Phases of education 1.3.9 The next group of issues that were identified related to phases of education and ranged from arrangements for children under five to services and provision in the post-school period. 1.3.10 Provision for under fives Early intervention is important in mitigating the effects of disabilities and disadvantageous circumstances. An important question, therefore, was what services existed for young children and whether they met known needs. During this period health, social services and voluntary organisations have a contribution to make as well as education authorities. Parents need information, counselling and guidance about developmental delays and disabilities. Many different professions are concerned with families, It was, therefore, important to find out what contribution was being made by the Authority, how it was co-ordinated with the work of other services and provision and how work with under-fives was linked with subsequent primary school provision to ensure a smooth transition for the individual. 1.3.11 Primary schools Although most marked disabilities and significant difficulties should be identified and assessed before the age of five, many of the commoner special educational needs only emerge when children are observed learning in infant and junior schools. Among issues to be tackled were how primary schools were informed about children to be admitted who had disabilities and difficulties, how the wider range of special educational needs are identified in schools and what services are available to help them with these tasks. Another question was how having assessed these needs with parents and health, social and educational advisory services, such information is used both for reconsidering a school’s programme for all children and in determining the kinds of additional or different arrangements which might be made for some of them. 1.3.12 The Committee also wished to know the main ways in which primary schools were making provision for special educational needs, whether there were written guidelines and what arrangements

were being recommended by inspectors and advisers to schools. It was known that many peripatetic and advisory teaching services existed and it would be necessary to examine their terms of reference, patterns of working and how their different contributions were co-ordinated to support class teachers in primary schools. 1.3.13 Children from primary schools attend a number of units and special classes inside and outside schools providing additional or different education. Questions about these arrangements included how the need for them was determined, by whom the placements were made and how their work was coordinated with that in the ordinary classes the children attend. The Committee sought to identify good examples of teacher interaction, joint programme development and joint working with individuals and groups. 1.3.14 It was also necessary to determine the management, professional development and advisory responsibilities of administrators, inspectors, psychologists and advisors for additional or different arrangements for children with special educational needs in primary schools, special units and special schools. Particularly important was the question of the co-ordination of approaches to the management, use, curriculum and development of special educational provision during this phase of education. 1.3.15 Secondary Schools Fundamental questions included what definition of special educational needs was being used by secondary schools and how this related to a school’s organisation, its general procedures for recording individual progress and what arrangements were made to match curriculum and teaching methods to children who appeared to be less successful and less motivated learners. The ‘whole school approach’ supported in general terms by the Authority raised general questions about its development, the responsibilities of subject teachers, those with pastoral care assignments and teachers helping to meet special educational needs. 1.3.16 The Committee also sought to identify the ways in which provision was being made, how it related to provision for cultural diversity and disadvantage and what models of good practice existed. The work of advisory and peripatetic services in secondary schools was also a major issue to be explored. Further questions concerned the use of clinics, classes and units inside and outside schools including methods of assessment, criteria for admission to them and the co-ordination of special help with the regular programme for the individual. Good examples of teacher interaction, programme planning and forms of provision should be sought. 1.3.17 It would also be necessary to determine management, curriculum and staff development responsibilities for provision and services for children and young people with special educational needs in secondary schools, units and special schools. The coherence in the approaches of different inspectorate and advisory services across the whole range of provision in this phase of education was a major issue to be studied. 1.3.18 Post-16 provision The Committee was concerned to identify policies for post-16 arrangements including knowledge about known and unmet needs, the relationship between provision in schools and colleges, the provision in youth training schemes for those who are handicapped and the contributions of voluntary agencies. Responsibilities for policy development in the inspectorate teams responsible for further education and special educational provision needed to be known as did those for administration, advisory teaching services and curriculum development. Criteria for approving courses and support arrangements needed to be studied. 1.3.19 Examples of good practice should be identified including courses, support arrangements and links between agencies. Counselling and advisory services inside and outside schools and colleges should be studied to determine the relative emphasis placed on course choice, general vocational education, personal development and work and other alternatives after completing further education. The links between services provided by education, health and social services needed to be explored.

1.3.20 Within Colleges of Further Education procedures for assessment, for developing provision and for overall policies should be identified together with the pattern of responsibilities for course development, student support and links with other services. Similarly provision in Polytechnics for students who are handicapped should be reviewed. 1.3.21 The work of Adult Education Institutes, the Careers Service and the Youth Service in respect of young people assessed as handicapped were identified as further issues to which attention should be given. Continuity 1.3.22 Given the existence of phases of education and different areas of responsibility, the Committee identified continuity of arrangements to be a major issue. Questions included what steps were taken to ensure a continuity in approach to children’s special educational needs particularly with respect to transfer between phases and between ordinary schools and units and special schools. Good examples of arrangements should be identified as should the procedures for transfer being promoted by inspectorate and advisory services. The relative responsibilities in this aspect of education of school staffs, advisory services, the inspectorate and administration needed to be determined. Support services 1.3.23 It was recognised that many services provided by education, social and health services and voluntary organisations provide support to children and students with special educational needs and to their parents and teachers. The questions which arose were how the contributions of these services to identification, assessment, support and programme planning were specified. The contribution they made and the ways in which different contributions were co-ordinated was a major issue. Within the education service it was necessary for example to identify the respective contributions of the schools’ psychological service, the careers service, the psychiatric social work service, the school social work service, and the education welfare service. Above all it was necessary to enquire whether support services were of the kind which pupils, students, parents and teachers want and need. Finally there was the question of the continuity of support and services over phases of education.

Separate units and classes 1.3.24 The Committee soon became aware of a bewildering array of units and classes inside and outside ordinary schools. Questions raised included their terms of reference and populations, how far their populations were different and who was responsible for admission to them. It was also necessary to see whether there was any overall planning and coherence in the array of facilities build up over time. Their functions, their links with ordinary and special schools, methods of assessment for entry to them were also to be studied. The involvement of parents in assessment and decision-making was to be ascertained as were their rights when full assessment’ procedures were not required before admission.

Special schools 1.3.25 There were a number of major questions about the future of the special school system. It would be necessary to see how far the present pattern of provision met currently assessed needs and what provision of this kind might be needed in the future. The setting of special schools within a comprehensive network of provision to meet special educational needs should be studied as should the contribution of other services. Development as resource centres needed to be considered in the light of existing links with ordinary schools and special units and classes. A particular issue was the future role of boarding schools and the effects of changing social services policies in child care upon the use of boarding schools for children with emotional and behaviour difficulties.

The Views of Consumers 1.3.26 A particular concern was the needs of parents of children and young people with disabilities and significant difficulties. What services were available in the early years, how were they informed about procedures and provision and how were they involved in decision-making? Did services take

into account the needs of single parent families, disadvantaged families and ethnic minority families and the views of young people? It was considered important to ensure that the Committee was well informed about consumer views and the contributions they might wish to make to developing special education services for their children.

In-Service Education 1.3.27 The field of in-service teacher education was considered to be vital to the development of arrangements to meet special educational needs. Two main aspects were to be studied, namely arrangements by which all teachers were made aware of special educational needs and the means by which they could help to assess and meet them, and the training provided and necessary for teachers meeting special educational needs in colleges, nursery, primary and secondary schools, units, special schools and advisory services. Was sufficient attention paid to the range of provision as a whole and to co-operation between elements? Similarly were the conditions and needs of parents included and was work with them given sufficient emphasis?

Management 1.3.28 The management of the wide range of provision over the period from soon after birth to the late teens was considered an issue of particular significance. It was necessary to explore school, divisional and central responsibilities as well as those of different professional groups for aspects of special educational provision. Were present management arrangements conducive to flexible provision to meet individual needs, were they understood by teachers and parents and were they coherent? The Committee would need to comment on existing responsibilities and if necessary suggest how they might be re-allocated to facilitate the planning, management and effectiveness of special educational provision.

Assessment 1.3.29 The Committee recognised that there were two interlocking aspects of assessment to be studied. These were the early, school based stages of assessment to determine and meet the wider range of special educational needs commonly arising in primary and secondary schools (Warnock Report (1978) stages 1-3) and the more comprehensive multi-professional procedures involved in full assessment and making statements (Warnock Report (1978) stages 4 and 5). These needed to be studied in practice to determine their relationship to provision, their completeness and the relationship between the early stages and the later more formal procedures. Behaviour 1.3.30 The current concern about pupils’ difficult behaviour in schools was recognised by the Committee. It would be important to determine what steps were being taken to seek solutions in ordinary schools, what support such schools needed and what other provision was necessary. It was also recognised that there were difficult borderlines between disturbed and disturbing behaviour, and between emotional and behavioural difficulties and delinquency. This area of work involved both education and social services and provision made by each service. Co-ordination between education and social services needed to be studied as did the range of provision made by the authority*. Integration 1.3.31 In addition to the philosophical and policy aspects of the process of integration already mentioned in 1 .3.5 there were a number of practical considerations to be studied. These included the steps being taken to establish necessary conditions in ordinary schools, the links between ordinary schools and special provision, and the different considerations to be born in mind in relation to specific disabilities and behaviour.

The range of provision to meet special educational needs 1.3.32 The wide range of provision made also includes, hospital schools, home tuition arrangements, and the use of non-maintained and independent schools and colleges outside the Authority. The

contribution of these schools, colleges and services needed to be studied. The main question was what steps should be taken to develop a co-ordinated and coherent range of provision. It was necessary to study borderline issues between different elements in the range, between provision for children who are and who are not the subject of statements made under the 1981 Education Act and arrangements involving the ILEA with other education authorities in the region. Aims 1.3.33 Finally the aims of special educational provision needed to be considered. Among the aspects considered important were whether current aims represented the needs of ordinary schools rather than those of parents, and children and young people with special educational needs and how far these aims represented a consistent approach from the early years to the end of education. A further issue was the relationship between short-term and long-term aims. Whereas in the short-term, overcoming learning difficulties and mitigating the effects of disabilities may be paramount in schools, in the long-term education, including arrangements to meet special educational needs, should prepare the individual for transition to adult and working life. Thus, many of the specific issues outlined in previous paragraphs are influenced by the long-term aims of arrangements to meet special educational needs. The Committee needed to know whether these were clearly defined and generally accepted or whether they needed restating to encourage necessary changes. It was this concern that led to the development of the basic principles outlined in Chapter 1. *At the same time as the committee started work a working party with which we shared as member, was setup to study off-site units for disturbed children and young people. Its report is considered in later chapters.

The pattern of the Committee’s work 1.3.34 While the Committee was identifying the scope of its enquiry, members were very busy in other ways. This section gives details of our activities during the period from September 1984 to Easter 1985. 1.3.35 The Committee held 15 full-day and 9 half-day meetings. It also met on 11 occasions to hear oral evidence. A residential weekend was also arranged to draft the final version of its report. This record of formal meetings was extensively supplemented by a large number of smaller and ad hoc meetings and discussions with many people with an interest in meeting special educational needs. 1.3.36 During the first six weeks of the Autumn Term 1984 all members of the Committee visited examples of the range of special educational provision in primary and secondary schools, units and clinics, day and boarding special schools and colleges of further education. During the remainder of the term small sub-groups, concerned with the primary phase, the secondary phase, special schools, under-five provision and post-school provision, carried out visits more sharply focused on provision in these phases. These sub-groups reported to the Committee at the end of 1984. Individual members were also active in making other visits to various facilities and services. 1.3.37 During all these visits and on other occasions arrangements were made to talk to children and young people receiving special educational help and to talk to their parents. Special efforts were made to meet parents from ethnic minorities. We also made a particular point of meeting parents who may feel less confident in expressing their views and who are sometimes made to feel they have little to offer. 1.3.38 Table 3.1 gives details of the number of visits paid and meetings attended by members of the Committee during the period the Committee was in being.

Table 3.1 Voluntary pre-school Provision Day Nurseries, Nursery Schools and Classes Junior and Infant Schools Secondary Schools Day and Boarding Special Schools Units Colleges AEI’s and Other Post School Provision Home Tuition Centres Child Guidance Units Assessment Centres Youth Centres Meetings with Governors, teachers group and centres Other professionals and voluntary organisations (other than during visits)

5 6 13 32 53 41 14 3 5 3 7

TOTAL

318

136

1.3.39 In the first part of the Spring Term 1985 other small sub-groups studied assessment procedures continuity between phases, management issues, the contribution of voluntary agencies and home tuition. Throughout the active exploratory phase of our work, we attended meetings of all kinds and held discussions with a wide range of administrators, professionals in the education, health and social services and voluntary agencies as Table 3.1 shows. 1.3.40 The Committee also commissioned two pieces of research and joined with an Authority working party in commissioning a third. Research and Statistics branch undertook an enquiry into parental attitudes to assessment procedures and special educational provision. The sample was confined to parents whose children were attending schools for moderate learning difficulties, for emotional and behaviour difficulties and for delicate pupils. It also included parents whose children attended units. The second enquiry looked at the population of tutorial classes, remedial classes, educational guidance centres and opportunity classes. This enquiry was conducted by Research and Statistics Branch using some of the main questions previously used in a study of the population of special schools initiated by the Branch before the Committee started work. This latter study was published while we were gathering evidence and the information was of considerable value to us. A working party set up by the Inner London Tertiary Education Board to consider provision for students with special educational needs post-16 joined with the Committee in commissioning an enquiry into the destinations of school leavers with special educational needs and the kinds of provision made by colleges of further education. The full results of this research were not available before the completion of our work. Nor were the results of a small study of the attitudes of parents of children with visual impairments to special educational provision. Research and Statistics Branch will be publishing the five studies mentioned. Evidence 1.3.41 The Committee sought to obtain evidence from all who might be concerned with meeting special educational needs and in July 1984 sent out over 5000 copies of a letter indicating its terms of reference and asking for written evidence. In addition two issues of Contact’ made the Committee’s work well known and asked for evidence. As a result over 550 submissions, many of them very detailed, were made to the Committee by early January 1985. Some respondents complained of a lack of time when the original deadline was set as 31 October 1984. This was extended but it was not always appreciated that the Committee was working within a very limited timescale. The Committee took some oral evidence in January and February 1985. 1.3.42 Different branches and sections of ILEA also provided valuable reports and information on different aspects of provision as did the inspectorate, the schools’ psychological service, the social

work services, and educational welfare service. Valuable as this was it did not present the Committee with a coherent picture of special educational provision. It did, however, illuminate a number of separate areas of work. 1.3.43 As a consequence of the report “Improving Secondary Schools”, and in consultation with the Committee Chair, a working party chaired by Mrs M. Metcalfe was set up in July 1984 to report on off-site units and other provision made as a result of the Authority’s initiative in 1978 to meet the needs of disruptive and truanting pupils. A member of our Committee was a member of the working party. Its report completed in January 1985 provided valuable information to the committee and many of its suggestions are developed in this report. 1.3.44 In the time available it was not possible to ensure that everyone who wished to be consulted was approached directly, but we hope that the wide publicity given to the review ensured that those who wished to let the Committee know their views could do so. Valuable material was made available, and the Committee would wish to thank all those who devoted considerable time and effort to submitting evidence.

Scope of the Committee’s work 1.3.45 Although every attempt was made to cover the extensive ground outlined in paragraphs 1.3.5 to 1 .3.32, it was not possible to go into many issues with the thoroughness which members of the Committee would have wished, nor was it possible to meet all those who wished to talk to them. In outlining the range of their activities, we hope that any limitations will be accepted as the result of limited time. We were however convinced that our major task was to develop a framework for the future development of special educational provision within which detailed consideration of many issues could be carried out. This further work should be part of the consultation process and involve all professional interests including many which were not represented on the Committee. For these reasons we did not think that an extension of the time available would be in the interests of those working with children and young people with special educational needs.

Chapter 4 Current Provision to Meet Special Educational Needs 1.4.1 When the Committee started work in the summer of 1984 its first steps were to identify the range of special educational provision made by the Authority and to discover how many children and young people were involved. These tasks proved difficult because no one area of professional responsibility and no one administrative section had all the facts. Furthermore there were problems of definition. It took some time to identify all the elements and services and to agree on the numbers of elements and individuals involved. Certain decisions were taken about what to include in the review. Although additional provision is made for teaching English as a second language and for gifted pupils, to be consistent with the 1981 Education Act definition this was not included. The Authority’s initiative to provide for disruptive pupils was included as were arrangements under Section 56 of the 1944 Education Act in social service establishments for children in care and those described as delinquent. The reason for this was the difficult borderline between provision for disruptive pupils and that for children and young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties. 1.4.2 The main emphasis of the Committee’s work was on services and provision for children of school age. However, its terms of reference implied that these should be considered in the context of pre- and post-school arrangements. For this reason the material in this chapter is arranged in nine sections as follows:

(i) Provision for children under five. (ii) Arrangements made by primary and secondary schools to meet the wider range of special educational needs defined by the 1981 Education Act. (iii) Children, the subject of statements whose special educational needs are being met in primary and secondary schools. (iv) Provision made in special units and classes in primary and secondary schools. (v) Advisory and peripatetic teaching services. (vi) Special Education provided full- or part-time in units detached from ordinary schools. (vii) Provision in day and boarding special schools and hospital schools. (viii) Section 56 teaching arrangements in hospitals, social service settings and elsewhere, and home tuition. (ix) Post-school provision and the youth service.

1.4.3 The range of provision described represents a major commitment by the Authority to meeting the needs of children and young people with disabilities and significant difficulties. The way in which provision is grouped and described in the following paragraphs represents a traditional approach to meeting special educational needs. The Committee’s general philosophy outlined in Chapter 1 would result in a different approach and if this is accepted and incorporated into the education service any future description would differ considerably. 1.4.4 In attempting to quantify provision, to give details of the teachers involved and the children and young people receiving services, we encountered certain difficulties. It is possible to give detailed information about special schools, but accurate figures about units are less easy to obtain for a variety of reasons. Similarly there is no accurate information about the total number of children and young people receiving special educational help in nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges and about the numbers of children being supported by advisory and peripatetic teaching services. There appears to be no one section in the Authority with overall data about provision and no regular means of bringing available information together. This chapter is an attempt to do so but it can only provide a general picture. There is a need for the Authority to bring together information about special educational arrangements at regular intervals as a basis for planning and for allocating resources. Provision for children under five 1.4.5 There are four main elements within a range of un-coordinated provision for under fives. These are: (i) nursery schools and classes provided by the ILEA, (ii) day centres and nurseries provided by borough social service departments; (iii) play groups supervised by borough social service departments; (iv) opportunity groups, other groups for specific disabilities and services provided by voluntary organisations which may also receive support provided by the ILEA, health services and borough social services departments. All of these facilities admit children with special needs of different kinds but the numbers with special educational needs are not accurately known. In the case of the Authority’s nursery schools and classes

they have access to many of the support services described in the following sections. There are currently eight teachers employed by ILEA available to work with the staff of day nurseries but they are not specifically employed to meet special educational needs. Some Divisions have appointed, or are about to appoint, jointly with Social Service Departments, pre-school development officers. 1.4.6 A number of different professionals work with under five provision including health visitors, social workers and district handicap teams where they exist. Not all are primarily concerned with known or emerging special educational needs although all play an important part in their identification and assessment. For the Education Authority, advisory teachers, peripatetic teachers for specific disabilities, educational psychologists and social workers give some time to work with under fives. 1.4.7 Special educational provision is made for children under five in all special schools except those for children with moderate learning difficulties, emotional and behavioural difficulties and those currently described as delicate. In January 1984 the following children were placed in special school nursery provision: Table 4.1 Children Under Five in Special Schools Disability

Number

Children with Visual Impairment Children with Hearing Impairment Children with Motor Impairment Children with Severe Learning Difficulties Children who are Autistic

27 31 40 147 6

Total

251

In addition 23 four year olds were also placed individually in other special schools. A number of other children under five are placed in speech and language classes and partially hearing units in nursery and primary schools. Finally in October 1984 there were three children, the subject of statements, who were in nursery schools and classes. An unspecified number of other children whose special educational needs have been recognised are attending day nurseries, nursery schools and classes and other provision for under fives. Arrangements made by primary and secondary schools 1.4.8 Primary and secondary schools have traditionally made some arrangements for children with learning difficulties and educated some children with less severe sensory and physical disabilities. However the 1981 Education Act makes explicit the duty to identify and provide for the wider range of special educational needs described in the Warnock Report (1978). In practice these needs can only be defined relatively and each school will determine them individually. Numbers will vary from school-to-school depending on the catchment area served and on the school’s regular programme. No estimates can be given for the total number of pupils receiving special education of this kind. A number of schools have given figures in their evidence to the committee but stress that the numbers of pupils they help is determined by the teaching time available. 1.4.9 No accurate figures are available for the number of teachers or the teaching time devoted to meeting special educational needs in primary schools from schools’ own basic staffing allocation or from additional posts allocated on the basis of the educational priority index to schools with particular needs. 1.4.10 Some information is available from the Staff Deployment and Curriculum Analyses returns made by secondary schools in the Autumn Term 1984. The average allocation of teaching time to what was described as remedial work was available for 145 secondary schools. The figures show that

10.3 per cent of available teaching time was allocated to this work in Year 1, 7.0 per cent in Year 2, 4.5 per cent in Year 3, 2.3 per cent in Year 4 and 1 .7 per cent in Year 5. Further details are given in Chapter 7 and Appendix 1. 1.4.11 The number of children assessed by school to have less severe special educational needs which are being met from the school’s resources is not known nor is the extent of any gap between identified needs and provision. This issue is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. The Committee was unable to undertake a systematic study in the time available. During visits to primary and secondary schools examples of arrangements were studied and whole school policies discussed but it was recognised that only reviews, full inspections of schools and planned surveys can provide detailed information. A lack of information about this aspect of the range of provision to meet special educational needs is recognised by the Committee as a major issue. Children in ordinary classes receiving special education provided by the Authority 1.4.12 Since 1982 a small but increasing number of children who are the subject of Statements, are having their special educational needs met within ordinary classes in primary and secondary schools. Table 4.2 gives the numbers of children and Table 4.3 summarises the additional provision being made. Table 4.2:

Children with Statements Educated in Primary and Secondary Schools 1982 - 5 1983 - 16 1984 - 30 1985 - 94 (first term only)

In February 1985 these 94 children (57 boys and 37 girls) were being supported by extra staff and the provision of equipment and of these 5 girls and 18 boys were in secondary schools, 32 girls and 39 boys were in primary schools. The help provided was as follows: Table 4.3

Provision Made Additional teaching time (1-4 half days) Additional Welfare Assistance (4.5-18 hours) Additional teacher and helper time Additional teacher and helper time and equipment Additional helper time and equipment Equipment Total

56 31 1 1 1 4 94

The range of special educational needs in the group was wide including moderate learning difficulties, speech and language disorders, visual impairments, motor impairments, Down’s syndrome and muscular dystrophy. This small but rapidly growing form of provision, for children the subjects of statements under the 1981 Education Act, is of particular interest in the context of pressures to integrate more children assessed as educationally handicapped and the increased willingness of primary and secondary schools to accept them. Provision in special education units located in primary and secondary schools 1.4.13 A variety of units has been set up by the Authority in primary and secondary schools. They vary in size and in the severity of the children’s difficulties which they are intended to meet. They can also be grouped according to whether or not a ‘full assessment’ (statement) is required before admission. Details are as follows:

Table 4.4:

Units where a statement is not required Primary Nurture Groups Withdrawal Units Primary Opportunity Classes Primary Units in Secondary Schools

37 21 13 50

Total

121

*As a result of initiatives to provide for difficult and disturbed behaviour units have been provided in secondary schools (on-site units) and elsewhere (off-site units).

The withdrawal units and secondary on-site units have developed as part of the Authority’s initiative to provide for disturbed and disturbing behaviour. Table 4.5:

Units where a statement is required Units for Children with Hearing Impairment Units for Children with Speech and Language Disorders Units for Autistic Children Units for Children with Perceptual Handicaps Units for Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties

14 8 2 1

Total

26

1

Units for children who are hearing impaired are provided in both primary and secondary schools and the unit for emotional and behaviour difficulties (The Wayford Unit) is attached to a secondary school. All other units are in primary schools. 1.4.14 The number of children in units varies over time and accurate figures are difficult to obtain. In the first group of units, figures are given for units in secondary schools in the report of the Working Party on off-site units which was completed in January 1985. This gives a figure of 2,506 pupils attending them part-time. 1.4.15 The second group of units vary in size depending on how many class groups are in each unit. Figures for January 1984 show 476 children attending units where children are the subject of statements of their special educational needs. Provision in Special Educational Units located outside Primary and Secondary Schools 1.4.16 Units of this kind are intended to meet special educational needs which cannot at present be met in primary and secondary schools and for which a statement is not required. They are all open for most of the working week although many have half-day sessions for liaison with families, schools and other services when pupils do not attend. Pupil attendance also varies, some attending units full-time and some spending sessions in their own schools combined with sessions in units. All pupils who attend this group of units are on the roll of a primary or secondary school. While many of the units are located on the site of ordinary schools they are administratively and professionally separate from them. They function independently with teachers in charge responsible for day-to-day management. Table 4.6:

Independent units organised by ILEA Classes for children with Specific Learning Difficulties Tutorial Classes Educational Guidance Units

27 52 11

Secondary Off-site Units Support Team Centres

38 2

Total

130

All these centres are fully maintained by the Authority. The first three kinds of units are the direct responsibility of the School Psychological Service and the last two, set up as a result of the disruptive pupil initiative, are the responsibility of divisional inspectors. 1.4.17 Two other kinds of detached unit exist in which the Authority provides education. They are: Table 4.7:

Independent Units organised by other Agencies Off-Site Units set up by Voluntary Organisations Intermediate Treatment Centres

12 37

Total

49

Intermediate Treatment centres are run by Social Services Departments. The ILEA provides teachers to work in both kinds of centre. 1.4.18 Thus there are 179 detached units, the majority for secondary age pupils. Tutorial and Classes for Children with Specific Learning Difficulties provide mainly for children of primary age but do include secondary age pupils. These two forms of units have been in existence for some years. Most of the others have been set up as a direct result of a specific programme to combat disruptive behaviour and truancy initiated in 1978. Classes for children with specific learning difficulties, tutorial classes and educational guidance units although teaching small groups will usually give assistance to a larger number of children in a working week. The figures for the total number of children taught each week are: classes for children with specific learning difficulties: approximately 20, tutorial classes: approximately 18 and educational guidance units; approximately 12. Other units vary in size and vary in the numbers attending from time-to-time during the year. About 1,600 children are probably receiving part-time special education in remedial classes, tutorial classes and educational guidance units. A further 1,600 young people are probably attending the other kinds of unit. 1.4.19 The numbers of teachers involved is considerable. Approximately 321 were involved in school support centres, support team centres, intermediate treatment centres, voluntary off-site centres, educational guidance centres and tutorial classes at the end of the Summer Term 1984. A further 27 were employed in classes for children with specific learning difficulties. Special schools 1.4.20 The Special Schools provided by the Authority cover a wide range of disabilities. Table 4.8: For

Special schools Day

Visual Impairment 4 Hearing Impairment 2 Motor Impairment 5 Delicate 10 Moderate Learning Difficulties 22 Severe Learning Difficulties 15

Day and boarding

Boarding

Total

1 1 1 — — —

— 1 2 3 2 1

5 4 8 13 24 16

Emotional/Behavioural Difficulties 10 Autism 3 Hospital Schools* 6

3 — —

20 1 —

33 4 6

Totals

6

30

113

77

* Four schools are in general hospitals and one each in hospitals catering for psychiatric disorders and mental handicaps.

1.4.21 These schools currently provide 9,331* places for children and young people and the number attending them in January 1984 was 7,774. The special school population has been falling since 1976 as the following table shows: Table 4.9:

Changes in the special school population

For

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

Change Since 1976

Visual Impairment Hearing Impairment Motor Impairment Delicate Moderate Learning Difficulties Severe Learning Difficulties Emotional/Behavioural Difficulties Autism Hospital

473 335 739 1,409 4,303 1,343 1,237 — 323

482 346 674 1,448 3,784 1,443 1,338 — 359

446 286 632 1,361 3,439 1,425 1,284 66 368

408 251 564 1,266 3,020 1,392 1,299 64 358

367 214 473 1,178 2,520 1,380 1,270 110 262

-106 -141 -266 -231 -1,783 +37 +33 +34 -61

Total — Special schools Total — School population

10,182 9,874 9,307 8,622 7,774 412,241 383,389 351,697 322,771 300,852

-2,408 -111,389

*DES Figures see chapter 9

As the table shows absolute numbers have fallen by 2,408 and they have fallen in all types of school except those for severe learning difficulties, emotional and behaviour difficulties and autism. However, if the special school population is considered as a percentage of the total school population the percentage of children in special schools has increased since 1976. In that year the special school population represented 2.47 per cent of the school population. In 1984 the percentage was 2.58. The decrease in overall number of children in special schools does not represent any positive shift towards a greater percentage of such needs being met within primary and secondary schools. 1.4.22 A further 206 pupils were being educated in 99 non-maintained and independent special schools in the year 1984/85. These children had the following special educational needs which at that time could not be met in the Authority’s special schools. Table 4.10:

Children in Non-maintained and Independent Special Schools Special Educational Need

Number

Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties Moderate Learning Difficulties Severe Learning Difficulties Delicate/Speech and Language Difficulties Visually Impaired Hearing Impaired Motor Impaired

66 9 25 25 10 44 17

Autistic Total

10 206

Thus the number of children having their special educational needs met in separate special schools is approximately 8,000 at the present time. 1.4.23 Approximately 1,670 teachers work in the Authority’s special schools. They are assisted by about 400 childcare workers in boarding schools together with nursery assistants and 250 general assistants in day schools. Section 56* Arrangements and Home Tuition 1.4.24 A number of teachers are employed by the Authority to work in settings other than schools or units, some provided by health and social services. The following centres are bases for work of this kind. Table 4.11:

Section 56 bases

Hospitals and Child Guidance Centres Social Service Establishments Home Tuition Centres Total

52 20 9 81

1.4.25 Provision is made in hospitals where the numbers of children needing education are too small to justify setting up a hospital school. The social service establishments include community homes and assessment centres but not Intermediate Treatment Centres listed under detached units. Home tuition centres exist in every division except one where a single centre serves two divisions. 1.4.26 The number of teachers employed in the first two kinds of centres is as follows: Table 4.12:

Teachers Employed

Child Guidance Centres Hospitals Social Services Establishments Total

28 48.8 77 153.8

*Section 56 of the Education Act 1944 provides for education other than at school and in this instance covers some arrangements in hospitals and others in social service institutions.

1.4.27 The number of teachers employed in home tuition varies from time to time. There are 21 fulltime appointments which include the head of service and teachers in charge of services in each Division as well as full-time deputies recently appointed. Between 600 and 700 other teachers are approved for home tuition and the evidence from the service suggests that the full-time equivalent of 1 78 teachers is currently employed in this field. 1.4.28 Accurate figures for children and young people being taught in hospitals and child guidance centres are difficult to quote since the numbers receiving such education vary over time. In the Summer of 1984 174 pupils were attending Section 56 Social Service Units and in the Autumn 1984 451 children were receiving home tuition. Overall about 1,200 children are being taught in this area of special educational provision. Advisory and peripatetic teaching services 1.4.29 A significant number of teachers is involved in giving advice to schools about special

educational needs and working directly with teachers and children to meet them. There is also a number of support teachers who supplement the staff of special schools. All these teachers are unattached. Some work to primary and secondary Inspectors, some to Inspectors with special educational responsibilities and some to educational psychologists. In the following tables some attempt is made to group these advisory, peripatetic and support teachers under the three forms of work but many combine the first two functions of advice and teaching. 1.4.30: Advisory and Special Educational Needs Support teachers Table 4.13 Designation

Number

Advisory Teachers for Special Educational Needs — Pre-school Special Educational Needs Support Teachers — Primary Special Educational Needs Support Teachers — Secondary Advisory Teachers for Special Educational Needs — Post-16

2 10 10 2

Total

24

All these experienced teachers have advisory and development functions including in-service education, in phases in the case of pre-school and post-16 advisers, and within a single Division in the case of primary and secondary phase support teachers. They work to members of the Inspectorate with special educational responsibilities. The primary and secondary support teachers are permanent appointments. Advisory teachers are seconded to the work for a fixed period of time. 1.4.31 Peripatetic teachers Table 4.14 Senior SPS Teachers for Children with Specific Learning Difficulties Peripatetic SPS Teachers for Children with Specific Learning Difficulties Peripatetic Teachers for Dyslexia Peripatetic Teacher Specific Learning Difficulty Peripatetic Teachers Visual Disabilities Peripatetic Teachers Hearing Disabilities Peripatetic Teachers Deaf/Blind Children (in SLD schools) Peripatetic Teachers Disturbed Behaviour

10 20 3 1 3 15* 3 47 102

*These figures do not include peripatetic work in Colleges carried out by the City Literary Institute.

The schools psychological service teachers work in Divisional teams linking with classes for specific learning difficulties described in paragraph 1 .4.16 and all work to members of the schools psychological service. The teachers concerned with specific disabilities work to inspectors with special education responsibilities. The peripatetic teachers concerned with disturbed behaviour mainly work in Divisions where an alternative approach to the use of off-site units has been developed. They work with teachers and children in primary and secondary schools and work to primary and secondary phase inspectors.

1.4.32: Other Advisory and support teachers Table 4.15 Advisory Teachers Specific Tasks Advisory Teacher for Severe Learning Difficulties Support Teachers 14-19 Severe Learning Difficulties Support Teachers Autism Curriculum Support Teachers (Specialist subjects) Typing and Communication Teachers Total

6 1 12 8 23 6.5 56.5

1.4.33 The first group of advisory teachers work either to individual inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities or to a deputy principal psychologist. Specific responsibilities are for in-service education, micro-computers, child care, emotional and behavioural difficulties, classroom observation procedures (COP) and resources for children with physical disabilities. Together with the advisory teacher the next two groups provide support in schools for children with severe learning difficulties and autistic behaviour. Individual teachers are assigned to work with particular children and small groups in schools and are deployed to meet changing needs in this kind of special educational provision. Curriculum support teachers work in a number of special schools where the staff cannot provide for elements of the curriculum such as craft design and technology and home economics. Each teacher will be in a particular special school for a number of days and half days each week to teach his/her specialist subject. The final group provide support for children with physical and communication difficulties. Post-16 provision 1.4.34 Little is known about what provision is made in comprehensive schools for pupils with special educational needs once the statutory school leaving age has been passed. Although the committee found one or two examples of specially devised curricula, little evidence was found of well-organized support systems for pupils in general courses. It seems likely that the majority of those who have experienced learning difficulties, or whose emotional and behavioural difficulties have caused problems to themselves and for their schools, leave at the earliest opportunity. 1.4.35 The situation in special schools is different. Pupils with severe learning difficulties usually stay at school until they are 19, whereas those in schools for moderate learning difficulties generally leave at 16. But in these as in other special schools, provision is flexible, and exceptions can be made to suit individuals. In 1983, 520 pupils remained in special schools over the age of 16; as Table 4.15 shows. Table 4.16:

Pupils in Special Schools over 16 Blind Partially sighted Deaf Partially Hearing Physically Impaired Delicate Moderate Learning Difficulties Severe Learning Difficulties Emotional/Behavioural Difficulties Autistic

11 19 3 1 59 17 100 266 37 7

Total

520

1.4.36 A significant proportion of young people with special educational needs enter the Authority’s colleges to continue their education. No data are available relating to those leaving comprehensives, but in 1983 31.7% of special school leavers came into ILEA colleges in 1984 that percentage had grown to 32.3%. Table 4.17 shows the first destination of all special school leavers in 1984. From this it can be seen that the largest single group approximately 38 per cent, entered further education in the Authority’s Colleges or elsewhere. Table 4.17:

The Destinations of Special School Leavers 1984 Number 33 11 248 42 98 7 79 67 88 21 69

Day Care Residential Care ILEA FE Non-ILEA FE Youth Training Scheme Sheltered Employment Open Employment Unemployed Remained in School at Other Not Known

% 4.3 1 .4 32.3 5.5 12.8 0.9 10.3 8.8 11.5 2.7 9.0

763

100.0

1.4.37 There were considerable variations between the destinations of young people from different types of special school. Table 4.17 below gives details: Table 4.18 Destination of school leavers by type of school Destination Day Care Residential Care ILEA FE Non-ILEA FE Youth Training Scheme Sheltered Employment Open Employment Unemployed Remained in School

Type of School/Percentages 1 2 3 4 0.5 31.1 0 2.9 .05 1.1 1.4 2.1 35.6 56.7 17.4 26.4 1.1 0 1.4 4.3 17.0 0 18.8 15.0 0.8 0 0 1.4 11.0 0 15.9 19.2 9.2 2.2 23.2 10.0 9.0 8.9 7.2 5.0

5 0 0 16.4 34.3 9.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 20.9

6 8.2 8.2 14.3 16.3 0 0 0 2.0 40.8

7 7 0 59.6 6.0 0 0 8.3 8.3 2.52

Other

1.4

0

1.4

2.1

10.5

8.2

8.3

Not Known

13.8

0

13.0

11.4

0

2.0

0

1. MLD - Moderate learning difficulty 2. SLD - Severe learning difficulty 3. EBD - Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 4. Delicate 5. VI - Visual Impairment 6. MI - Motor Impairment 7. HI - Hearing Impairment

1.4.38 A number of significant points emerged from this Table. About 71 per cent of all young people with moderate learning difficulties do not move into the labour market and only just over half

of this group move into further education. Only about 38 per cent of those leaving schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties receive any further education and training and only about 16 per cent enter employment. The largest percentage of young people to enter further education is those with visual disabilities. Of the 50.7 per cent who do, just over 34 per cent do so in colleges outside the Authority whereas the majority of hearing impaired young people enter one in other of the Authority’s further education colleges. None of the young people with motor impairment entered open or sheltered employment and of the just over 30 per cent who went to further education colleges the majority went outside the Authority. However with this group the largest percentage just over 40 per cent remain in school. From Table 4.17 it can be seen that only 10.3 per cent of all leavers entered open employment, an obviously significant figure with respect to leavers programmes in schools and further education. 1.4.39 The advisory teachers for special educational needs in further education have drawn up a directory of provision which lists centres designed for students with special educational needs in nonspecialist LEA colleges. This shows that of the 14 general colleges, seven make provision for students with severe learning difficulties; seven have courses for those with borderline moderate/severe learning difficulties; nine make provision for students with moderate learning difficulties; five have courses for students with motor impairments and other physical/health problems, though only two make special provision for students with severe physical disabilities; three colleges have full-time courses for students with a sensory impairment; and only one college offers full-time support provision for students with emotional and behavioural difficulties. 1.4.40 It is not known how many individual students with a special educational need are given systematic support within the mainstream curriculum though the number of students progressing from special’ provision and therefore in need of such support is undoubtedly growing, as is the number of students previously catered for in specialist colleges who are presenting themselves at their local colleges or at colleges known to provide appropriate support systems.

Services supporting special educational provision 1.4.41 A number of other services provide an essential contribution to the assessment of and provision for special educational needs. The ILEA provides some of these services, subsidises others and in the case of health services members of the professions concerned are seconded to work with the Authority. Some of these services are centrally deployed and others work on a Divisional basis. The LEA Services making a significant contribution to meeting special educational needs are the schools psychological service, the education welfare service, the careers service and the youth service. Health service professionals include physio, speech and occupational therapists and in the Authority’s medical department, psychiatric social workers and social workers. Brief descriptions of each service are given in the following paragraphs. Their work is discussed in more detail in Part II.

Health services 1.4.42 The Authority appoints a medical adviser to work with the 13 district health authorities in the ILEA area to attempt to ensure that they provide necessary child health services to schools and therapeutic services to special schools and units, and to advise the Authority on health matters. The medical adviser is assisted in respect of speech therapy by an adviser seconded to work part-time with the Authority.

1.4.43 A consultant child psychiatrist and a child psychotherapy adviser are seconded to work parttime with the ILEA. Together with a senior principal psychiatric social worker appointed by the Authority they are responsible for the work of the Authority’s 16 child guidance units, for psychiatric services to schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and links with other child psychiatric services in the area.

Social Work Services 1.4.44 Three different social work services are provided by the Authority, the psychiatric social work

service, a school social work service, both in the Authority’s Medical Department, and an education welfare service. These services are associated with schools. Although individual young people who continue their education in colleges of further education may benefit from them, their current terms of reference do not include support in further education. The relationships between the work of these three services, each separately directed by principal officers, will be discussed in later sections of this report.

1.4.45 Psychiatric social work service A senior principal psychiatric social worker is responsible for 80 psychiatric social workers who work in 16 child guidance centres and 33 day and boarding schools for children with emotional and behaviour difficulties. Members of the service work either primarily with schools or with child guidance centre teams. 1.4.46 School social work service A senior principal social worker is assisted by 14 full-time social workers appointed by the authority and 80 other social workers who are employed by borough social service departments but 75 per cent of whose salary is paid by the LEA. The first group of social workers provide services to the Authority’s other boarding schools. They work from County Hall. The second group is assigned to work with all day special schools, except those schools for children with moderate learning difficulties. They are based in borough areas and work with local social service department teams. 1.4.47 The Education Welfare Service The work of this Service has been reviewed and the recommendations of the Corrigan Report are currently being considered. A principal education welfare officer directs a service which is divisionally based with senior officers responsible for each Division. In all, 459 education welfare officers are employed by the Authority, including a number from different ethnic backgrounds.

1.4.48 The service makes three important contributions to special educational services. In day-to-day work with nursery, primary and secondary schools, officers are concerned with families whose children may have special educational needs. They may assist schools in the early stages of assessment and work with families whose children and young people receive special educational help in units and classes where ‘full assessment’ procedures are not required. Secondly, when ‘full assessment’ procedures are instituted they will often be the person to deliver the Authority’s official notification and play an important part in ensuring that parents know what is going on. They also have an essential contribution to make to assessment through reports on family and social conditions. Finally members of the service are attached to day schools for children with moderate learning difficulties which receive no regular services from the other two social work services.

The Schools Psychological Service 1.4.49 A principal educational psychologist assisted by two deputy principal educational psychologists directs a service currently employing 82.3 educational psychologists. The service works in Divisional teams each with a Divisional Educational Psychologist as a coordinator. Each member of the service is professionally accountable to the principal. The Divisional Educational Psychologists are not responsible for the work of other psychologists working in the Division. Every member of the service is responsible for work with individuals and their families. Individuals work in schools, units and child guidance centres each with a different balance of work. In addition, services are provided in social service establishments, regional observation and assessment centres and community homes with education. The equivalent of about 12 posts is taken up with this work, which is paid for by social services, although a larger number of psychologists provide their services on a sessional basis.

1.4.50 The schools’ psychological service is responsible for the management of teaching services of three types of provision: peripatetic teaching services and classes for specific learning difficulties; tutorial classes; and educational guidance units. The principal and his two deputies each supervise one type of provision and the deputy responsible for the specific learning difficulty service is also responsible for the Centre for Learning Difficulties. Four other senior educational psychologists with

responsibilities for hearing impairment, emotional and behaviour difficulties, severe learning difficulties and complex special educational needs work from County Hall.

1.4.51 The service is available to schools for a whole range of support and advice about the psychological aspects of individual development, learning and behaviour within which assistance with the assessment of special educational needs is a significant element. The service has major responsibilities in ‘full assessment’ procedures and in providing services to staff responsible for meeting special educational needs. As the title of the service implies it is not generally available to young people and staff in colleges of further education.

The Careers Service 1.4.52 All members of the Careers Service come into contact with young people with special educational needs. Its work has changed in recent years partly because of increasing youth unemployment but also because of the wide range of training and further education options which are available. The service is the main source of information, counselling and support in respect of these options during the transition from school to continuing education, training and work.

1.4.53 The Careers Service has a structure designed to meet the needs of the young people with whom we are concerned. There is an officer with special responsibilities for this aspect of the service’s work at headquarters, a specialist officer in each Division, and a small team which serves boarding schools based at the headquarters of the service. In all 15 officers work directly with special schools and assist colleagues working with secondary schools when their special skills are requested.

The Youth Service 1.4.54 The Youth Service has had a traditional role in providing opportunities for young people who are disadvantaged and more recently it has become active in providing for young people who may be disabled or handicapped in other ways. The Authority has appointed a senior youth officer with specific responsibility for this area of work. Major developments have included support for a variety of provision made by voluntary organisations and groups and funding specific projects. Attention is now being given to the ways in which the Authority’s own provision can respond to the needs of the young people with whom we are concerned.

Members of the Inspectorate with Special Educational Needs Responsibilities 1.4.55 Although all members of the Authority’s inspectorate are expected to make a contribution to the way schools and colleges meet special educational needs, a team under a senior staff inspector is primarily responsible for advising the Authority on special educational matters. The 13 members of this team are each responsible for one aspect of special educational provision and 10 work as inspectors responsible for advising on all special educational provision in ordinary schools and most special schools in their Divisions. Currently the aspects of special educational provision for which individual members of the team have responsibility across the Authority as a whole are visual impairment; hearing impairment; physical disabilities; severe learning difficulties; emotional and behavioural difficulties; home tuition; provision for children under five; child care; speech and language disorders; further education; Section 56 arrangements; and the Authority’s sessional course for teachers of children with special educational needs. Their responsibilities for units do not currently include off-site provision made within the disruptive pupils’ programme or provision made in tutorial classes, classes for specific learning difficulties or educational guidance units. They are responsible for other units and for Section 56 arrangements in hospitals and social service provision as well as for home tuition.

The School Population and the Percentage with Special Educational Needs 1.4.56 The total school population served by ILEA in January 1984 was 300,852. The number of children and young people covered by the arrangements described is as follows:

Table 4.19: Children Receiving Special Education

Kind of provision

Number/Estimate

1 Pre-School ‘Fully Assessed’ with Statements 2 Pre-School Not ‘Fully Assessed’

287

% of school population 0.10

Not known

Not known

3 Primary/Secondary Schools (a) ‘Fully Assessed’ with Statements 94 (b) Not ‘Fully Assessed’ Not known

0.03 Not known

4 Units within Primary/Secondary Schools (a) Fully Assessed (b) Not Fully Assessed

476 3,250

0.15 1 .00

5 Units located outside Primary/Secondary schools

3,400(E)

1 .0

6 Special Schools

8,000

2.65

7 Section 56 Arrangements

300(E)

0.10

8 Home Tuition

450

0.15

9 Post-16 Arrangements

Not Known

Not Known

16,527(E)

5.18

1.4.57 The teaching force in the education service excluding further education is given as 20,393 for the period under review. The number of teachers engaged in meeting special educational needs is considerable and it cannot be ascertained accurately in some cases. A summary of available information is given in Table 4.20. Table 4.20: Teachers with Specific Responsibilities for Meeting Special Educational Needs

Field of work

Number

Primary Schools’ Own Arrangements Secondary Schools’ Own Arrangements Units in Primary/Secondary Schools Units located outside Primary/Secondary Schools Support, Advisory and Peripatetic Services Special Schools Section 56 Arrangements Home Tuition (full-time and part-time full-time equivalent) Further Education

Not known Not known 183 348 194.5 1,670 153.8

Total

at least 2,727

178 Not Known

1.4.58 It is difficult to give precise figures of the numbers of children and young people receiving help to meet their special educational needs. However it is possible to give an indication of scale. Apart from arrangements made by primary and secondary schools to meet the wider range of special educational needs, the proportion of the school population in other forms of provision is approximately 5 per cent. The number of teachers employed full-time and the full-time equivalent number of part-time teachers is given in Table 4.20. From this it is possible to see that about 13 per cent of the teaching force in the school sector is specifically engaged in meeting special educational needs of all kinds. Resources 1.4.59 Using the 1984-85 Estimates of Expenditure as a basis for discussion it is possible to see what financial resources are devoted to meeting special educational needs. However, as with other data there is no comprehensive presentation of the figures as elements appear under a number of different headings. Table 4.16 gives some general figures. Table 4.21:

1984-85 Budget Figures

Out of a total budget of £923,293,000 the sums devoted to different sectors are: Primary Education Secondary Education Special Education Further Education

£ 187,815,000 261 930,000 55,425,000 222,828,000

1.4.60 The primary phase estimate includes 479 posts not in schools for peripatetic teachers and teachers in units not located in schools but does not specify how many are to meet special educational needs. Similarly the secondary phase estimate includes 669 posts for the same purpose without indicating how many are allocated to special educational provision. 1.4.61 The special education estimate does not include elements of Health Service costs given separately and these include the cost of some social work services to special schools. Similarly the budget for the Education Welfare Service includes some services to special education. The administration and inspection budget includes the costs of the school psychological service and of the inspectorate with responsibilities for provision to meet special educational needs. There is also an element of expenditure in the careers and youth services which is directly concerned with work with children and young people with special educational needs. Finally there is an element of the Further Education Budget which is devoted to provision for these young people in colleges of further education. On the income side there is also an unspecified amount received from neighbouring local education authorities for services provided in special schools and colleges for children and young people with special educational needs resident in their areas. 1.4.62 The estimate for special education in Table 4.21 represents about 6 per cent of the total budget but with the additions outlined in the previous paragraph the actual percentage is higher. It was not the Committee’s purpose to go into resources and finance in any detail. The intention in this section of the report is to indicate the extent of the Authority’s commitment to meeting special educational needs. The Committee would wish to recognise and support this commitment. Comment 1.4.63 The range of provision and services supported by the Authority is considerable. At present it represents a continuum from support in primary and secondary schools and colleges through units and special schools to provision in health and social service institutions and centres. It was very difficult for members of the Committee to get a full picture of the range and complexity of arrangements and even those who had worked for the Authority for some time had not seen the information in this chapter presented in a coherent form. Different administrative sectors, different professional areas of

work and different kinds of provision have in the past had rather a separate existence often with adventitious and personal links between them rather than planned association. Difficulties in assembling the data in this chapter and in ensuring as far as is practicable the accuracy of the figures indicate current discontinuities in responsibilities. One of the major issues discussed throughout this report is how to develop the coherence of arrangements to meet special educational needs and how to ensure that everyone working in education and associated services recognises their contribution within a coherent service.

Chapter 5 The Evidence the Committee Received Introduction 1.5.1 By the end of 1984 the Committee had received a substantial amount of evidence from a wide range of sources. Its work attracted considerable attention and it received much more evidence than the primary and secondary committees. Material continued to be sent in until the later stages of the Committee’s work and there was not always an appreciation of the tight time schedule within which it was working. All evidence received was read but late submissions could not receive such detailed consideration. The Review of Special Educational provision attracted evidence of quality which commented on important issues. It is for this reason that it was decided to summarise it in a separate chapter to conclude Part I of the report. 1.5.2 This Chapter attempts to present the balance and weight of opinion on particular aspects of provision to meet special educational needs. It also includes many suggestions made for the future development of provision and services. It is intended to reflect the climate of opinion within which the Committee was at work and to represent the views of the many groups and individuals as they were perceived by the Committee. 1.5.3 The sources of evidence include both consumers and those professionally responsible for a variety of educational, psychological, social and health services. They include voluntary organisations, professional associations, individual parents, and community groups. Sources of written evidence are listed in Appendix 8. 1.5.4 A great deal of the evidence received from teachers was concerned with descriptions of the philosophy, approach and character of provision to meet special educational needs in primary and secondary schools, colleges, special schools and units and of the work of a variety of services. The Committee wishes to acknowledge the importance and value of this evidence in briefing it about current arrangements. That kind of evidence is not summarised in later sections of this chapter. These are concerned with the comments made on major issues and with the suggestions made to the Committee for its consideration. Policy 1.5.5 One issue was a feature of a substantial amount of evidence. This was the Authority’s stance on the question of integrating children and young people with special educational needs in comprehensive schools and colleges. Much of the comment can be summarised in the words of the evidence from the Parents’ Campaign for Integrated Education. ‘If the Education Act 1981 is to be implemented properly in an authority the size of the ILEA then there must be planning as a whole with an unequivocal policy on the integration of children with special needs.” Many individuals and groups would support this call for a clear policy although not all would agree on what it should be. 1.5.6 The Children’s Legal Centre, and some other voluntary organisations and community groups, seek a strong commitment to total integration within primary and secondary schools and colleges. As the evidence of the Elfrida Rathbone Society states “We would call on the ILEA to pursue enthusiastically a policy as radical in its outlook and approach as that regarding multi-ethnic education, sex and race”. These submissions argue that the school system will not be fully comprehensive until it provides for all children and young people within the same schools and colleges.

1.5.7 Governors of primary and secondary schools submitted a number of resolutions supporting progress towards integration and both the Inner London Head Teachers’ Association and the Inner London Teachers’ Association gave qualified support to such progress. But all these submissions stressed the vital importance of adequate resources, in-service teacher education and better access to schools. These pre-requisites were often stated in such a way as to make it uncertain how strong support for progress towards integration really was and whether it was seen as an ideal aspiration or as a practical reality. 1.5.8 Most teachers in special schools favoured closer links with the comprehensive school system, as did many other submissions, but there were considerable reservations about the ability of other schools to provide adequately for the children and young people currently attending special schools. A strong view but not an isolated one was put by one special school staff as follows: “we feel that the dream of total integration is a dangerous fantasy which is being promoted in ignorance of the practicalities involved”. 1.5.9 Parents were divided in their attitudes to integration, with individuals and groups writing in support of particular special schools. Others favoured progress towards integration, with one letter saying “we have asked that K should be educated in an ordinary school. However it has not been an easy decision for us to make as it is clear that K and other children with disabilities are likely to have a very hard time in the ordinary school. So long as segregated schooling exists the resources available to children are bound to be concentrated there and not available to ordinary schools”. Although a wide variety of opinion was expressed in evidence, many would appear to agree with the Parents’ Campaign for Integrated Education who stressed the need for a planned and incremental approach to making progress towards integration. Assessment 1.5.10 The second most common theme was concern about the full assessment’ procedures introduced following the 1981 Education Act. Almost all different consumer groups, voluntary organisations and professionals considered that the process currently took too long for example. One parent said “I wrote requesting an assessment on 19 September 1983. Our papers are I believe, finally due to go before the Divisional panel. We are still a long way from our statement and already nearly 14 months have passed”. The evidence did not contain many practical suggestions for dealing with this problem. The Committee did subsequently obtain information about the time taken to complete full assessment’ procedures from the Authority and some other local education authorities. 1.5.11 Divisional and central panels for finalizing statements and deciding on placement in special educational provision were commented on in a way which indicated some confusion about the relationship between the two kinds of panel. Some parents thought they should be able to attend panels concerning their children and education welfare officers considered that their social concerns ought also to be represented on panels. 1.5.12 A specific and important issue was raised by voluntary organisations administrators support services and teachers. It concerned the assessment of children from different ethnic backgrounds for whom English is a second language. Unified Language Service staff said that they had been reluctant “to refer children for special education precisely because of their lack of confidence in the validity of formal assessment procedures (for children for whom English is a second language) and secondly in the knowledge that there is all too often an appalling lack of provision once that assessment has been made and perhaps placement recommended’. 1.5.13 The Advisory Centre for Education said that “Bilingual children whose first language is stronger than English should not be referred (for placement in special educational provision) on the basis of assessment unless the statement contains advice from an adult mother-tongue user of their language who is either a teacher, social worker, educational psychologist (or equivalent)”. The identification and assessment of special educational needs of children whose second language is

English and whose cultural background is different was presented to the Committee as a matter needing urgent attention. 1.5.14 Other aspects of ‘full assessment’ procedures noted in evidence, particularly from special schools, included the anodyne and limited nature of the information on the statement, the fact that there was often little or no social work information and that factual information about previous education was often extremely limited. Those responsible for assessments should be better informed about criteria for less common needs such as autism and for different kinds of special educational provision. Greater use should also be made of placements in special educational provision for the purposes of assessment. 1.5.15 A number of voluntary organisations and parents’ groups stressed the need for more and better information for parents about assessment procedures. At the same time parents would like to be trusted more by professionals. The Wandsworth Association of School Parents expressed a common wish. “We would like more recognition from the professionals of the contribution we can make to their understanding of and their ability to help our children.” 1.5.16 Finally the Education Welfare Service drew attention to their involvement in full assessment procedures and their important role in contacting parents when procedures were to be initiated. At present the reasons for assessment were not always known to them when they were asked to deliver letters to parents. This made it difficult to discuss parents’ queries and anxieties at a crucial stage in full assessment procedures. Parents 1.5.17 The contribution of parents to the education of their children was the subject of many comments. The National Association of Governors and Managers, making a broader point about policy, put the issue in these terms. ‘The ILEA which with some justice, prides itself on the level and quality of its provision for handicapped children, has sometimes been reluctant to accept innovative solutions to the problems of catering for special needs. This reluctance may be accompanied by a paternalistic style of administration that can be insensitive to parents’ reasonable concerns and demands.” A parents’ group said that parents were outsiders in policy making, curriculum matters and school organisation and as governors “were often made to feel they have to support decisions by autonomous headteachers who are intolerant of dissension”. The majority of parents do not have the means to press their views. 1.5.18 A wish for more information about provision and services was common because the choices available to parents were not always made clear. Decisions were difficult to take both because choice was limited, for example with respect to integrated alternatives, and because of limited guidelines and information about provision and services. One District Health Authority said this was particularly true for parents of children under five where statements were not likely to be made. It was said that many parents were unaware of their rights and the Authority should give more support to parents’ groups and voluntary organisations to enable them to assist parents to participate fully in assessment and procedures to decide where provision should be made. 1.5.19 Parents with children in special schools broadly supported the work of these schools making favourable comments on the care their children received as individuals. There were some criticisms of the long travelling times, the isolation, the low standard of achievements and the lack of some therapies. These views are summarised in a statement by the Wandsworth Association for School Parents who said that “gratitude for the child minding function of the school is in consequence heartfelt and it is difficult for parents to express any criticism of what the school has to offer in educational terms”. The Elfrida Rathbone Society commented that some parents were not always welcome in special schools and felt excluded from discussion of their children’s education. The Advisory Centre for Education noted that parents of children with moderate learning difficulties and emotional and behaviour difficulties, half those in special education, had no organisation to represent their views. Black parents were convinced that there was a disproportionate number of their children

in special provision. 1.5.20 There was considerable support for what was being done. Parents, however, considered that their difficulties in coming to terms with the discovery of their children’s disabilities were not always recognised, nor was the counselling necessary to enable them to accept the educational implications of such disabilities always available. They pointed out that it took time to assimilate and come to terms with professional assessments. Provision for children under five 1.5.21 Parents, teachers and other professionals stressed the importance of early provision for children with special educational needs. Many commented on the fragmented nature of current arrangements and the need for more co-ordination of educational and social service provision. New guidelines were required. The value of early educational intervention was not always recognised. As one health authority commented social service departments are still inclined to think that education starts at the age of five. 1.5.22 Educational psychologists commented that assessment arrangements were fragmented and there should be better links between the schools’ psychological service and under five provision. The work of advisory teachers and peripatetic teachers for particular disabilities was strongly supported but considered to be limited by small numbers of individuals covering too large an area and by a lack of provision for some disabilities. More teachers were needed to work with day nurseries and consideration should be given to the formation of small local support teams who could call on the help of the specialist peripatetic teachers. More home/school liaison teachers were needed for this age group. Current arrangements were not good at identifying and providing for less obvious developmental difficulties and for slow learners. 1.5.23 Governors of nursery schools support integrated arrangements but called for better coordinated professional services, more in-service education for the staff and more advisory teachers. Primary and secondary schools 1.5.24 Most comments related to either primary or secondary school arrangements to meet special educational needs but four general comments about the work of these schools were of interest. The Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults (MENCAP) suggested that progress could only be made when the attitudes of many teachers in primary and secondary schools were more positive towards the needs of children and young people with disabilities and difficulties. Support teachers for special educational needs considered that few schools had yet developed their whole school policies for meeting these needs and that guidelines were needed to encourage the development of these policies, The Inner London Teachers’ Association considered that too little attention had been paid to the wider group of children with special educational needs, the Warnock Report (1978) 20 per cent, and that more work should be done to develop the earlier stages of assessment outlined in that report. Finally as one child guidance unit stated “In our experience of working with so-called disaffected children the most significant component is a genuine commitment to keeping children in mainstream schools”. 1.5.25 A number of teams of inspectors responsible for curriculum subjects made submissions. In addition to describing their work they made two significant points. The first was that provision for their subject in in-service education for special educational needs was developing and the second concerned the need for more of this work with staffs of primary and secondary schools. Primary schools 1.5.26 A total of 24 primary schools and two nursery schools submitted evidence, covering all of the divisions. They included descriptions of current arrangements and suggestions for future development. The vast majority of submissions commented on integration and integrative measures in some way. A common theme was an acceptance of integration as a principle but only if backed by sufficient human and material resources.

1.5.27 A number of schools gave examples of children with special educational needs being integrated in their schools using available resources, since none were the subject of statements. In one school the ‘alternative use of resources’ (AUR) scheme was used to provide part-time teachers for remedial language work. 1.5.28 Generally schools identified nurture groups and peripatetic teaching support as useful, positive support for meeting special needs within the school itself. Peripatetic teachers were particularly valued, the only criticism being that there were not nearly enough of them, and it was very difficult to get their help authorised. Schools with nurture groups stressed their importance in reducing special educational needs within the whole school, and as the nucleus of their provision for meeting such needs. 1.5.29 Many schools identified the needs of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, and of those whose behaviour is disruptive, as the most difficult to meet within the school. Most schools felt that the withdrawal of the child part-time was the most appropriate way of dealing with disruptive and difficult behaviour and valued the work of tutorial classes. They reported that this resulted in better behaviour when the children were back in school and that referral to a tutorial class early in the school career had “saved” children from going to schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. 1.5.30 A number of schools had developed a whole school policy for meeting special educational needs, involving regular staff meetings and close liaison with parents and professionals. One or two schools had a written statement of their policy. Schools who had arrangements for working closely with parents particularly valued the work of home/school liaison teachers, and several schools felt the need for more of this type of provision. Equally, schools with a developed policy for meeting special educational needs stressed the value of careful record-keeping and regular staff discussion of children’s needs and development. This was said to be particularly conducive to the early identification of such needs. 1.5.31 A few schools expressed their concern at the potentially adverse effect of integrative measures on staff morale, already very low. On the other hand, schools detailed the benefits to staff, although acknowledging the extra time and commitment needed. A few schools also produced some interesting models for development. One head stated that every primary class should be able to meet the needs of one physically handicapped child within current resources. Another school suggested a clustering arrangement for children with special educational needs in units attached to the ordinary school linked with special schools. Many schools highlighted, and regretted, a complete lack of contact and liaison with special schools. 1.5.32 Other themes included the length of time taken to complete assessment procedures and the damaging effects of the time taken on parents and children, the little time available from the schools psychological service and other supporting professionals and the need for more expertise for identifying the special educational needs of children for whom English is a second language. There was support for the extension of PACT schemes and more in-service education about meeting special educational needs. The need for more information from health services and more attention to secondary transfer arrangements for children with special educational needs was also mentioned. Secondary schools 1.5.33 A number of submissions from those not working in schools suggested that some small secondary schools should be available in each Division because many children’s difficulties were increased when they had to function in a large complex organisation. Some professionals and governors identified a lack of provision to meet special educational needs in the fourth and fifth years. Governors were also concerned about suspension and expulsion procedures where young people had special educational needs. Some administrators and inspectors expressed doubts about the ability of many teachers to engage in effective mixed ability teaching. Special needs support teachers were in

favour of more support teaching but considered that the staffing implications had not been fully recognised. 1.5.34 A number of schools submitting evidence thought that mixed ability teaching facilitated the development of whole school policies to meet special educational needs. They reported a move away from separated special classes and withdrawal groups towards more support teaching within ordinary classes. The relationship between meeting all special needs and meeting special educational needs was not always clear with some evidence commenting on the integration of all additional teaching including work with children and young people for whom English is a second language. Some schools mentioned difficulties in making provision in the fourth and fifth years. 1.5.35 A particular point was made about the effects of falling rolls and amalgamations. It was difficult in these circumstances to maintain teaching hours for special educational arrangements. There was also a lack of time allocation for teachers to liaise with outside agencies and other forms of provision. In this respect the relative responsibilities of staff with pastoral care and special educational responsibilities was said not always to be clear. Some teachers responsible for meeting special educational needs thought the status of this work too low. 1.5.36 Specific suggestions included the need for guidelines for work with children and young people with physical and sensory disabilities, who, being the subject of statements, were being placed, with support, in ordinary classes. More PACT* type schemes were needed in secondary schools and there was a need for improved in-service education. Access to medical information needed to be improved. Finally there was a general concern that insufficient help was being given in primary schools and many teachers wondered why earlier intervention had not occurred in many instances. Post-16 arrangements 1.5.37 There were a considerable number of well documented submissions about post-i 6 arrangements for young people with special educational needs. These indicated a strong and growing awareness of the importance of further and continuing education for these young people both to ensure the best possible preparation for seizing employment opportunities and to improve the quality of life and range of interests for those who remain unemployed. Such provision was particularly important for those most severely handicapped. The National Bureau for Handicapped Students provided by far the most comprehensive review of what is required to develop provision of this kind. 1.5.38 The general view was that much progress had been made by the Authority but provision remained patchy with no certainty that individual entitlements to education up to 19 could be met at present. Provision for slow learners was said to be inadequate. A number of submissions considered that the administrative and inspectional responsibilities for this area of work were unclear and there was a need for personnel with specific responsibilities for this aspect of further and adult education. The current work of the Inner London Tertiary Education Board and of Divisional Tertiary Education Boards was noted with organisations, unions and colleges suggesting that the latter should have special educational needs sub-committees. The South East London Technical College (SELTEC) recommended ‘that each Tertiary Education Board establishes a permanent sub-committee to plan a comprehensive offer to students designated as having special educational needs”. Southwark College emphasised the need for systematic supporting arrangements for staff and students. *PACT = Parents, Children and Teachers.

1.5.39 Staff and governors of special schools wished to see improved links between schools and colleges as did colleges of further education. The importance of link courses in the final school years was emphasised. Liaison with further education presented particular difficulties for boarding schools outside the ILEA area and there was a suggestion that special taster courses should be arranged. One or two comments were made about the readiness for further education of school leavers by the Greater London Association for the Disabled and by Careers Officers. These comments suggested that many leavers were not sufficiently independent or well prepared to take advantage of what colleges had to offer.

1.5.40 Within colleges of further education both groups outside colleges and the staff of colleges commented on the necessity of having a senior member of staff responsible for arrangements and for the oversight of what is offered to students with special educational needs. More resources and better curricular materials were necessary both to support students on mainstream courses and for special elements and courses. Among these resources two were mentioned most often; the need for more adequately paid and trained general assistants; and the current lack of supporting medical psychiatric, social work and psychological services to colleges. Access to buildings limited what could be done as did lack of transport for a number of more disabled students. 1.5.41 Many working with the most severely disabled, including autistic young people and those with severe degrees of mental handicap, stressed the importance of continuing education after the age of 19. Adult Education Institutes also emphasised the needs of late developers and their contribution to equalizing opportunities. Adult Education Institutes needed more resources to contact families, particularly those in ethnic minorities, to provide escorts and to transport individuals to centres. Physical access problems should be tackled. Adult Education Institutes considered that they required more support from inspectors and advisory teachers to develop their work together with appropriate in-service education and better student materials. Special Units and classes 1.5.42 The variety of units inside and outside primary and secondary schools has been described in Chapter 4. Evidence from a variety of sources included comments on units in general and the work of different kinds of unit. Where admission does not depend on ‘full assessment’ and making a statement, a number of general comments were made. Some administrators and inspectors considered that referral and admission procedures were not clear to many and that guidelines were needed. Inspectorate responsibilities varied. There was a need to see all such provision as part of a Divisional network co-ordinated by a management group. Many submissions, including those of teachers working in units, stressed the need to rationalize unit provision as part of a service in which there was a recognised career structure and a recognised pattern of educational development and supervision. 1.5.43 The Advisory Centre for Education would wish to see unit provision replaced by arrangements in comprehensive primary and secondary schools, but recognising the time involved in making such changes recommended that ‘full assessment’ procedures should be instituted for admission. On the other hand a group of submissions from psychiatric services and child guidance units support such provision where it is closely linked with schools and would see units continuing to provide an important alternative to special schools for children and young people with emotional and behaviour difficulties. Some units should be more clearly designated for the 14+ age group. 1.5.44 Units of all kinds within schools received support with specific comment on working arrangements. These included the need for better planning before opening and a suggestion that, when staff are appointed to the host school, teachers’ attitudes to special educational needs and units should be taken into account. More provision was said to be necessary for speech and language disorders. 1.5.45 The staff of tutorial units strongly endorsed the value of these units as halfway houses and stressed their important role in assessment. They raised the problem of getting guides for some children to enable them to attend. The Governors of one primary school thought that these units should be less isolated and staff should come into schools more as opposed to children going out to units. This was stressed as a feature of support work by teachers working with disturbed children in one Division. Special schools 1.5.46 Provision in day and boarding special schools attracted considerable attention from all interested parties with the staffs of the schools themselves making many constructive recommendations. The most common issue raised was that the functions of groups of schools and of individual schools needed redefining in consultation with staff, supporting professionals,

administrators and governors. The next genera[ point concerned links between primary and secondary schools and special schools. At present these were fragmentary and arose from individual initiatives. Such links should be planned, developed through in-service education and should also include better interaction with local communities. A general area of criticism was the provision within them for children and young people from different ethnic groups. More support from multi-ethnic and English as a second language services was needed. The disproportionate numbers of black children in the schools needed continued and careful monitoring. 1.5.47 Curricular aspects of the work of special schools were mentioned by inspectors responsible for subjects. Provision for some subjects in special schools was patchy. Learning Resources teams including the Special Education Resource Team also mentioned difficulties in providing support to boarding schools. 1.5.48 There was a further group of suggestions about boarding special schools. The first issue concerned the relative responsibilities of education and social services and could be summarised in the words of the Socialist Education Association. It is essential that the ILEA identifies the special educational nature of the boarding element. It there is nothing specifically educational that indicates boarding placement, then the question arises as to whether or not the Authority is taking on a social service responsibility.” Both the school social work service and teachers in a social service regional observation and assessment centre elaborated this point. The first group of submissions suggested that if a child was functioning well in a day school, child care rather than boarding education should be provided and the second drew attention to the dangers of boarding education where the child had no secure home base. A second group of submissions drew attention to the work of child care staff recognising current Authority training programmes as important but drawing attention to the need for a senior professional post to develop this work. Domestic bursars pointed out that with only one post in each school there was no cover for sickness, absence and reduced working hours. The effect of new housing legislation on accommodation for residential staff was also a matter of concern. Finally for schools outside the ILEA area the transition of children from school to further education, work and leisure presented a particular problem. Suggestions for improvements included the provision of a hostel in London and the provision of taster courses for school leavers. 1.5.49 Schools for autistic children drew attention to the need for early identification and to the lack of psychiatric in-patient facilities which resulted in seriously disturbed children having no alternative to special schools. They also identified a lack of social service provision post-19 for these young people in terms of day centres and respite care for families. 1.5.50 The staff of schools for delicate children were particularly anxious for a redefinition of their functions and identified the problem that later admissions were resulting in fewer young people being returned to ordinary schools. They would welcome more part-time admissions and more teacher-time for home/school liaison. 1.5.51 Schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties would also appreciate clearer criteria for admissions. Some staff were in favour of both specialisation in the tasks of schools and some zoning arrangements to foster closer working relationships with a smaller number of child guidance units and Divisions. Because a high proportion of the population of most schools is of secondary age boys, the needs of children of primary age and girls are difficult to meet. Many children were admitted after long periods out of school, in units or on home tuition. Earlier, perhaps short-term admissions, were suggested and some supporting services suggested that some schools should concentrate on the 14+ age group. Other suggestions included that staff interchanges between day and boarding schools should be encouraged, that a better balance in school populations between children with conduct and neurotic disorders should be achieved and that more input from psychiatric teams was necessary. Better liaison with social services is necessary at the time of school leaving and after-care arrangements were unsatisfactory.

1.5.52 Many schools for moderate learning difficulties were looking to become resource centres but it was recognised that staff needed a better grasp of the work of ordinary schools. The use of short- term and assessment placements should be extended. Schools should have the advice of special educational needs support teachers and of multi-ethnic and English as a second language services. Some schools favoured a primary and secondary division, others thought that weekend residential provision was necessary and many considered that staffing time was needed to improve home/school liaison. 1.5.53 The staff of schools for severe learning difficulties were supported by other submissions in suggesting that being in one school from the age of two to 19 was undesirable. A primary/secondary split would be supported if travelling time was not increased. Some individual parents were apprehensive about such a split. Help was needed with children from ethnic minorities in these schools. More children with severe and multiple disabilities were being admitted as were those with marked behaviour problems. Some adolescents presented management difficulties. Better home/school liaison was necessary with staff time for this and for linking with other schools. Staff also felt that in-service education opportunities for them were limited. 1.5.54 Schools for children with physical and sensory disabilities supported the move towards being resource centres with closer links with primary and secondary schools. Some wished to become bases for peripatetic services. Most required more time for home/school liaison and links with other agencies. Schools for physical disabilities considered that they should be used as a bridge between hospital and ordinary school with flexible admission and discharge procedures and a teacher to link with hospitals. Hospital schools commented that it took too long to arrange home tuition for children leaving hospitals who were not yet fit to attend primary and secondary schools and, where it was necessary, support in these schools took too long to arrange. 1.5.55 A number of submissions from health service sources noted the high incidence of emotional, behaviour and psychiatric difficulties in schools for physical and sensory disabilities and severe learning difficulties and suggested that these schools needed more psychiatric team support. 1.5.56 Within all kinds of special educational provision the major contributions of nursery nurses, general assistants and other ancillary workers was recognised. The National Union of Public Employees considered that these workers currently receive little or no recognition in terms of status and conditions. Another submission stressed the need for in-service training for these members of school staff. Home tuition 1.5.57 Evidence received from teachers engaged in home tuition and a few other sources all suggested that this service was now dealing with a very high proportion of young people of secondary age and a high proportion of children with special educational needs. The home teaching service should be more closely integrated with other special educational arrangements. It should have the support services available to special schools and the children receiving home tuition should receive the same milk, meals and other additional services received by children in school. Supporting, advisory and peripatetic services 1.5.58 Many submissions supported the value of these services, particularly in the early school years. Some for specific disabilities and difficulties were too thinly spread. The major problem raised by a number of submissions was the lack of co-ordination of the work of all support services to primary schools including services to meet special educational needs. A specific problem was the lack of continuity in approach to issues where some teachers had full-time appointments and others were seconded for two year periods. Teachers working with behaviour difficulties commented on the overlap of their work with teachers concerned with learning difficulties. Primary advisory teachers asked for more training about meeting special educational needs as they were increasingly faced with being asked to assess learning difficulties. Advisory teachers for specific disabilities wished to see Divisional lists of translators and interpreters which they could consult when necessary.

The Schools Psychological Service 1.5.59 Members of the schools psychological service provided a great deal of evidence, much of which is included in the appropriate sections of this chapter. Other submissions also commented on its work. Members of the service recognised the need for close links with under five arrangements and for some attention to the ways in which the special educational needs of children from ethnic minorities are assessed. Effective means of reviewing special educational provision were required so that educational psychologists had more feedback about the effectiveness of their recommendations. 1.5.60 The relative responsibilities of the service and of inspectors with special educational responsibilities was an issue raised both by the service and others. There was also evidence that pointed to shortcomings in communication and collaboration between educational psychologists and inspectors which made for less effective support for pupils, teachers and schools. Respective roles should be reconsidered and joint working arrangements developed. A submission from the Socialist Education Association called attention to the need for the schools psychological services and inspectors with multi-ethnic and special educational assignments to work together on the assessment of and provision for meeting the special educational needs which some children and young people from ethnic minorities may have. Health and social services 15.61 Senior Clinical Medical officers in the new health districts coordinated replies from a number of professionals. The picture to emerge was relatively consistent. The incidence of marked physical and developmental disabilities is relatively stable. However community health services do not always know of all difficulties which may require special educational help if hospitals paediatric units do not tell them about cases. They in turn cannot inform Divisional Education Officers. Population mobility is said to cause difficulties in ensuring that disabilities are detected and followed up. The work of district handicap teams and child development centres is strongly supported and there is a wish to see a strong ILEA representation in such teams and centres by educational psychologists and teachers. There were some adverse comments about the way some of these professionals worked with health service personnel. 1.5.62 Most of the comments of psychiatric services have been included in previous paragraphs where they were representative of common concerns. These services thought they should be more involved in consultancy work with primary and secondary schools. 1.5.63 The three social work services working in the ILEA commented and were the subject of some comment. The Education Welfare Service, noting its role in the assessment and full assessment’ procedures, commented on in paragraphs 1.5.6-1.5.11, drew attention to the need for better training and preparation for this work. The school social work service sought a clearer definition of the contributions of the three services and the psychiatric social work service wished to see an increase in consultancy work with primary and secondary schools. All services made comments which are included in previous sections of this chapter. 1.5.64 Evidence from many sources commented on the need for improved liaison arrangements between, health education and social services if children and young people with special educational needs are to get the services they require and if children and their parents are not to be confused by very different approaches to service delivery and provision. As one consumer group, Camden CASE, stated “we need structured, uncluttered lines of communication between the school, the ILEA support services, the local borough social services and the local health authority”. Teacher Training and Professional Preparation 1.5.65 The value and importance of in-service education received widespread support from contributors in all field of work. Preparation for identifying and meeting special educational needs and multi-professional in-service education were both stressed. There was also a consensus that this work should be focused in schools and colleges as far as possible and should develop from staff development plans in institutions.

1.5.66 The demand for more extensive in-service education in the field was linked with a recognition that there should be better liaison between the many different providers of such professional development opportunities. A coherent pattern of courses and school focused programmes was necessary in which meeting special educational needs was much more closely related to other phase and subject provision. A specific example of the need for such links was given by the Centre for Urban Educational Studies which suggested that teachers with special educational responsibilities should participate more actively in its programmes. Management 1.5.67 A small but significant number of submissions concerned the management of special educational arrangements. A number of Divisions considered that there was a need for a Divisional Group to co-ordinate the planning, use and evaluation of special educational provision in their areas. Divisional management was associated with decentralisation. As one secondary school put it ‘The delivery of many of its (ILEA’s) services, including special provision could be assisted if the authority were more decentralised’. A comment made by the school social work service about social work is more generally applicable. “This arbitrary division of service responsibility within the Authority creates problems of boundaries, duplication and overlap of function.’ It was clear from much of the evidence asking for more information about services and procedures that present arrangements to manage and deliver special educational provision are not readily understood by many professionals and parents. Conclusion 1.5.68 This review of the evidence received by the Committee would not be complete without expressing the Committee’s appreciation for the quantity and quality of evidence it received, all gathered in a comparatively short time. It would also be incomplete without stressing that the material presented in this chapter is a selection of all the available material. It is intended as a balanced picture of the views of many different interests, professional perspectives and points of view.

PART II Introduction In this section of the report the Committee describes in some detail the current range of provision and services associated with meeting special educational needs and outlines the issues which have arisen as a result of its enquiries. No specific recommendations are made in this section.

Chapter 6 Provision for Children Under 5 The Range of Services 2.6.1 The ILEA, as the largest education authority, also represents the widest range of services for children under-five and for their parents. We were not aware of any coherent rationale within Authority, nor within the District Health Authorities and Social Services Departments working with it, for provision or for the reasons why some children used particular forms of provision in one Division and not in another. However, the diversity of what exists offers potential for a much richer and more flexible approach for this age group than would be possible elsewhere. 2.6.2 We found that young children are placed in day nurseries, including special units in day nurseries; nursery classes and nursery schools; classes in special schools; assessment units and child development centres run by the National Health Service; work-place crêches, particularly if attached to hospitals; playgroups and opportunity groups; and in a variety of provision provided by the voluntary organisations. Within the ILEA area voluntary organisations provide a range of services, including general family support, as well as specifically educational activities such as home-teaching programmes, nurseries or opportunity groups. 2.6.3 The Committee was interested in the rationale for placing some children in particular forms of provision. Where there were ‘panels’ or some other forum for discussion between education, health and social services, there appeared to be a rational basis for choice. In other instances children appeared to arrive at a particular form of provision without any advice from the Authority and, in some cases, to remain there well after they could have moved on to more appropriate provision. 2.6.4 We found that there was insufficient information for parents and professionals about the total range of provision and services for this age-group. Referral to specialist services, such as the Family Centre run by the National Association for Deaf/blind and Rubella Handicapped (SENSE) or to the KIDS Home Based Learning Programme were random and often depended upon the goodwill of individual paediatricians, health visitors or word of mouth from other parents. 2.6.5 Since the identification of the potential special educational needs of children under fives, and in particular in the under twos, depends initially upon medical assessment, it is important that paediatricians as well as those working in community child health services should receive better information about (a) procedures within the LEA for assessing the special educational needs of children in this age group and (b) the range of provision available. A simple directory for parents and professionals of all disciplines would appear to be needed and would save much confusion and uncertainty. 2.6.6 Those working in provision for young children with special educational needs, whether voluntary, social service, health or education, also said they would have welcomed more information on provision for all children in the age group so that they could identify key people with whom they might establish working relationships in the future. Surprisingly they also thought that they were uninformed about local provision to meet special educational needs provided by other agencies and that they could have better facilitated transition to other provision, in particular to nursery classes and nursery schools, if this information was readily available.

Meeting the Needs of the Under-Twos 2.6.7 Under Section 6 of the 1981 Education Act a child under two years, who may have special educational needs, may be assessed by the local education authority if his or her parents agree, and must be so assessed if the parental request is reasonable. Assessment may take whatever form the authority considers appropriate and it is open to the local education authority to decide whether to make or maintain a statement of the child’s special educational needs. Whilst most parents’ organisations, and many professionals, welcomed the idea of very early intervention, in practice there appear to be a number of difficulties. 2.6.8 Early identification of special educational needs for the under-twos is likely to depend on a medical diagnosis and willingness on the part of those making it to refer children and parents to the local education authority. As we note in Chapter 14, some health authorities are anxious to avoid premature labeling and are reluctant to refer a child until they themselves are sure of the nature of the child’s disability or developmental delay. Again early medical diagnosis of cerebral palsy or some other disability may not necessarily take into account the educational needs of the child and the potential of early educational intervention. 2.6.9 It has also been noted by Gaussen (1984) and others that many educational psychologists lack experience or skills in working with very young children. Although it would be dangerous to suggest that infant assessment should become an entirely separate area of expertise, we consider it is necessary to explore: (i) the availability of educational psychologists within the ILEA with a particular interest in and knowledge of the needs of the under-fives and in particular of children under two; (ii) the extent to which educational and infant developmental psychology is already contributing to paediatric assessment, with a view to establishing what criteria and scales can be used in determining whether a child under two might have special educational needs. We found that the large range of professionals involved in provision and services for young children with special educational needs were often confused about how such needs could be predicted and what assessment procedures should be used; (iii) the way in which the ILEA would assess potential special educational needs in a child under two and the nature of the Statement of them which they might make; (iv) the range of provision which such a Statement might specify; (v) With reference to the nature of the Statement, and the type of provision which it might specify, we came across no direct referrals from the ILEA to the Deaf/Blind Family Centre in Ealing; the KIDS Centre and the Elfrida Rathbone Under-Fives projects in Camden or to a range of other provision, including opportunity groups, providing by voluntary organisations. We did, however, see children from outer London local education authorities referred to and supported in voluntary provision. We consider that provision for very young children and their families may often be most appropriately made by a voluntary agency in the early years and were impressed by some of the home-visiting and early stimulation programmes we saw provided by such agencies. Attention should be given to wider use of the voluntary sector for this age group; (vi) home liaison or peripatetic teachers appear very popular with parents and other professionals when they are available. However, we only found two Portage schemes in operation within ILEA, one run by a voluntary agency, and the absence of such structured home-based learning schemes was mentioned by most of the parents of young children whom we met. We were impressed by the value placed by parents on these schemes and their ability to encourage positive expectations;

(vii) we are aware that paediatric, like psychological assessment must be tentative in reaching conclusions about subsequent educational progress from examinations in the 0-2 period. However, it seems likely that there will be growing parental pressure for services in this period and ILEA must, therefore provide clear guidelines for parents as well as for professionals about what forms assessment might take for this age group and what information should be recorded on the Statement if one is made. We assume that LEA would be most unlikely to initiate an assessment for children in this age group, but that parents, and possibly social services or child health services staff are more likely to do so in order to get specific help such as the services of a home liaison teacher; (viii) we are concerned that children under the age of two should receive special educational provision if this is appropriate. Those parents who have been involved in a Portage scheme or with a home liaison teacher clearly attest to their enhanced confidence in dealing with their child’s subsequent formal assessment and in any discussions with professionals. Since the anxiety and distress of parents at the first diagnosis of a disability or special educational need is well documented, we support the wish expressed by many of the parents’ groups which gave evidence to us that there should be practical help available literally from the moment of diagnosis if this is appropriate and acceptable for both child and parent. Assessment 2.6.10 There was general anxiety (and much misconception) amongst parents about the purpose and nature of assessment for children under five. We were told that the education welfare officer, who delivered the letter informing parents that ‘formal assessment’ procedures were to be started sometimes did not stay long enough to answer any questions. Most parents were unsure about the purpose and nature of their contribution to the Statement and extremely confused about the purpose of the examinations. Some parents felt that their child had already been assessed in hospital centres such as the Newcomen Centre or the Paul Sandifer Centre at Great Ormond Street, and could not see the relationship between those examinations and the 1981 Education Act procedures. We would suggest that simple and readable information should be made available on assessment, where it can take place and the purpose of particular examinations. 2.6.11 Parents whose children had been assessed at a specialist assessment centre, such as those mentioned above, had a more positive picture of both assessment and the professionals carrying it out. We surmised that this reflects the ability of members of an assessment team, as at the Mary Sheridan Centre (See Appendix 2), to interpret for each other and to ensure that the parents see a sequence in the services they are receiving. Many parents found the apparently random, and often isolated, examinations by people they did not know confusing and apparently bearing no relationship to each other. 2.6.12 Parents with English as a second language may be particularly disadvantaged in understanding information given during assessment. In general we thought that all parents should be encouraged, at their own discretion, to take another adult with them to assessment examinations or meetings to act as an interpreter if necessary, but also to reinforce and discuss what was said. Some voluntary organisations perform this role with great success and we saw a gap in parent counselling during assessment which clearly contributed to anxiety and disillusionment. This need was also recognised by staff in nursery schools who felt that, if staffing levels permitted, they would have liked to accompany parents to some examinations. 2.6.13 Since assessment for children under-five often coincides with the child’s attendance at a nursery class, school, day nursery or other provision, we felt that much more use should be made of the ongoing observation and assessment of the staff already working with the child. Although this may happen in some instances, most of the staff we met thought that the useful contribution they might make was largely ignored.

2.6.14 Many organisations giving evidence to the Committee identified the need for improving facilities for ongoing assessment. Although ‘snapshot’ diagnostic assessment is necessary, many children’s special educational needs will require continuous observation and assessment. In particular many children will benefit from assessment whilst attending nursery schools or class provision. At present additional resources for special educational provision follow assessment. Resources should be made available to support assessment placements, to assist staff, and to enable the child to be assessed alongside other children from the local community. Such assessment placements would also help parents to observe their child’s progress and to understand his or her special needs in an acceptable local context. We found clear evidence that parents wished that more consideration should be given to supported assessment in nursery provision. 2.6.15 In many cases, assessment will coincide with the time when parents first identify a potentially serious special educational need or disability in their child. A number of parents, who were vigorously resisting any idea of special education, told us that ‘we haven’t accepted this yet’. Acceptance and adaptation may take a considerable period of time and we were impressed by the work of voluntary organisations like KIDS, Elfrida Rathbone and Sunley House (Toynbee Hall) in working sensitively over a period of time with families of children whose special needs had been newly diagnosed. Parents will continue to be disappointed with even sensitively organised assessment procedures unless their counselling and personal needs are recognised and met, and the time take by some parents to understand special educational needs more fully appreciated by professionals. 2.6.16 There was considerable disquiet about the outcome of assessment, namely appropriate provision, particularly where a child is attending social service, voluntary or health services provision. When delays occur, staff and parents become disillusioned and are reluctant to see assessment as purposeful and relevant. 2.6.17 Parents thought that they were given inadequate information about the options for provision after assessment. Most felt that they needed simple and readable information on all relevant provision, with opportunities for and encouragement to make visits. 2.6.18 We found considerable evidence that nursery school and class staff would welcome the chance to accept more children with developmental delays and behaviour problems and to participate in ongoing assessment. However the staffing implications of such placements were made clear. Additional support will be necessary. Such support might take the form of an extra member of staff in each nursery school who might provide additional help in a variety of ways both to individuals and in the school as a whole. Alternatively additional staffing could be provided part-time on an individual basis. 2.6.19 Staff working in nursery schools and classes will need help in observing and formally recording a child’s progress. Similarly, non-educational staff may need guidelines in recording information which is relevant in an educational context. Attention should be given to providing a standard form for interdisciplinary assessment and recording. The form based on NFER research, used at St Leonard’s Nursery School (Appendix 4), is a useful example of interdisciplinary recording which is relevant to teachers, parents and any professional agency working with the child. The Provision of Services 2.6.20 Since assessment involves not only recording, but also an understanding of why children may appear to fail and what strategies may be used to help them, attention should be given to the organisation of services for the under-fives. At present there are small specialist teams covering specific disabilities, as well as home liaison teachers based in schools for children with severe learning difficulties. This provision is often fragmented and is frequently misunderstood by parents. There should be local teams which would represent all those working this field, as well as relevant professionals such as educational psychologists, school medical officers and social workers. 2.6.21 It is an advantage if such a team can work from a single base like the Mary Sheridan Centre, or

from the base of a district handicap or child development team in the health service or elsewhere. It is equally valuable if the team can work together in different forms of provision such as nurseries and nursery schools. Much more rational use could be made of the skills of peripatetic and home-liaison teachers if they were members of such teams or at least closely associated with them. 2.6.22 District Handicap Teams or Child Development Teams where they existed, seem to offer a useful focus for assessment. In one health authority, district handicap teams hold regular ‘clinics’ in schools and day nurseries. Staff and parents found this a convenient and acceptable way of discussing problems and meeting professionals with minimum disruption. A team base also makes the allocation of a ‘key worker’ easier for each parent and minimises the risk of confusion and fragmentation of services to a particular family. It was drawn to our attention that many families see large numbers of professionals in the early years. We met two such families who were in contact with nine or ten different professionals respectively. Clearly such families will be bemused by apparent conflicts in advice if they do not have access to a single worker who can ensure that there is a genuine rationale (and not a contradiction) in services provided. 2.6.23 Where there are already under fives liaison committees, special needs resource centres and teams should work with and through them in order to utilise all local services and avoid duplication. There has been considerable discussion about the use of special schools as resource centres. The Committee is in no doubt that such schools have much to offer but parents of children with special educational needs under five are often very reluctant to become linked with special schools. If a special school is to become a base for local teams and services for young children, some clearly separate and differently described accommodation is necessary. Confidentiality 2.6.24 Confidentiality was often seen as an important issue. The main problem did not appear to be confidentiality in communication with parents, although parents often thought they were “overprotected” and “fobbed off” with ‘we’ll wait and see’. The issue most often arose as a result of the different ways in which professionals work and their perception of the confidentiality of their own records. For example, it was a general complaint that teaching staff did not have access to medical records except through a sympathetic medical officer. Social services were often criticised, in particular social workers in child guidance, for sometimes not sharing valuable knowledge about the families. School-based staff thus felt that they made great efforts to contribute to assessment but received no feed-back about the relevance of their contribution nor about issues identified which should affect their work with families and children. We suspect that some of these problems reflected administrative arrangements within different agencies. Exchange of information seemed easier from within the specialist assessment centres, perhaps because information was centralised. Special schools seemed to find inter-professional confidentiality less of a problem than other schools. They had the advantage of more frequent contact with individual child health or social services personnel and the very specific nature of many pupils’ disabilities focused services’ intervention more precisely than would be possible with a broader range of special educational needs in other settings. Transition to Primary Education 26.25 Considerable anxiety has been expressed by a number of organisations about the ‘labelling’ consequences of making special educational provision before the age of five. Some parents appeared to have been advised not to accept any such provision in case their children were made the subject of Statements and placed outside nursery schools and classes. However, our observations did not bear this out. Children who attended special schools under the age of five appeared to be in general very severely handicapped. They could not have been easily accepted in nursery schools or playgroups without considerable extra support. Nevertheless, we consider that procedures for assessment and for such special educational provision were not always adequately explained to parents. Two parents whose children had attended ordinary nursery schools, but were unlikely to be accepted by local primary schools expressed their feelings of rejection and exclusion. Parents and professionals expressed anxiety about this issue. Information relating to ‘formal assessment’ procedures can pose problems, particularly where identification occurred whilst the child was in a form of under-fives

provision available to all children. Some heads of nursery schools thought that they had a difficult and unenviable task working with parents, particularly where they had inadequate access to medical and social services records and were not kept in touch with assessment procedures. 2.6.26 ‘Formal assessment’ procedures can take too long, particularly for children under five. Since additional resources can only follow from an agreed statement of needs and provision, some teachers in nursery and primary schools were nervous about accepting children who might be held on interim placements with no additional help for weeks or even months. We heard of some instances where parents were being asked to provide additional support pending the outcome of ‘formal assessment’. 2.6.27 Most nursery school, voluntary organisation and social services staff endeavoured to bridge the gap between under fives and school provision. Visits for half days to local primary schools and some special schools were common. In some instances we found staff from the full range of local schools visiting facilities for children under five and meeting children and their present staff. This crossing of the boundaries seemed particularly important where a place in a primary school was to be offered to a child who had, or might have, special educational needs. 2.6.28 However, we heard some complaints about delays in placing a child with special educational needs who was already ‘somewhere’. This problem appeared to be most acute where a child was attending either an assessment centre or unit or social services day-care provision. We identified two children of five and six who were still in special units in day nurseries awaiting places in schools. This seemed much less satisfactory, in view of the limited educational facilities, than where such children were kept longer in nursery schools or classes. In the latter cases, extra terms usually meant that a place had been promised and the nursery school was bridging a finite gap. However, staff in all types of provision expressed their anxiety about delays in making arrangements for subsequent provision. Parents became disillusioned; staff did not always know what activities would be appropriate and sometimes found the management of a larger child difficult; and a place was being occupied while other children were on a waiting list. 2.6.29 Most staff, particularly in nursery schools, thought that their own skills in observation and assessment were insufficiently utilised in assessment and in planning future provision. Some outstanding examples of systematic and interdisciplinary recording about particular children and collaboration between health, social services and education in so doing, were seen. We also found staff, particularly in social services provision, feeling too hard pressed to record or even systematically to discuss particular children amongst themselves. Poor contact with educational psychologists was often voiced as a reason for staff assessment being disregarded. Some staff also needed guidance about how to record, define goals, and how to make what they recorded available to the other professionals concerned with a particular child. 2.6.30 Staff felt strongly that they provided considerable information about a child moving into fulltime education. They felt equally strongly that information should be fed back to them about the child’s subsequent progress. This feeling was expressed in all provision including special educational provision, and was seen as a missing element in the development of appropriate programmes for the child aged between three and five. Staff also thought that parents of their children would have been reassured to know how particular children fared in full-time education. It was interesting to note that staff in special schools were considered better at providing this type of feedback. Voluntary organisations seemed to have fewer problems about feedback. Many had negotiated on behalf of parents and had good existing links with primary and special schools. Few had the problems of confidentiality which applied to professional agencies. 2.6.31 There was general dissatisfaction amongst parents and staff about the amount of available information on local provision. Parents felt that they would have appreciated more readable information on all local schools including special schools. They should be able to feel that they were involved in making a choice. Resistance to what was seen as bossy’ or authoritarian’ professional behaviour was often based on the feeling that a child was being shunted into a particular school

without a genuine examination of all available options. 2.6.32 Parents felt equally strongly about more appropriate information on their rights of access in primary schools. We were often asked if heads of primary schools could be compelled to accept a child who is the subject of a Statement; what responsibilities (and powers) governors had in supporting primary school placements, and how parents could discover which primary schools were supportive to special educational needs. Where a child was moving on from under fives to primary age provision, support from staff in the under fives provision was particularly valued. Many parents feared rejection from primary provision. Even those who feared the stigma of special schools referred to their positive attitude to parents and the children - She (the head) always is at the door to greet you in the morning. You can phone her anytime. I feel she really likes my child’. Most parents with children in nursery schools had the same positive feelings. With some notable exceptions, parents were much more worried about the attitudes of heads of local primary schools. Rightly or wrongly, they anticipated rejection and their anxieties seem likely to us to colour their subsequent relationships with the school. 2.6.33 We had clear evidence from parents that their feelings about transition to full-time education and their ability to participate in any decision-making, was directly and positively influenced by the availability of specific schemes like the Portage scheme or a Home Liaison Teacher in the early years, and also by the support of teachers in nursery school and classes and by staff and other parents in playgroups and opportunity groups.

The Integration of Children Under Five 2.6.34 Several parent organisations suggested that the role of the home liaison teacher might be extended to work more closely with nursery schools and nursery classes and to act as a bridge’ where a child with special educational needs was being integrated into such provision. It was felt that the trusting relationship established between parent and home liaison teacher should not be abruptly terminated when the child entered school. The Streatham Opportunity Group’s Parents Support Group commented: “This is a short-sighted retrograde step especially at the important primary stage of integration. At this stage parents are much in need of support and would value the continuation of intermittent home liaison teacher support.” We suggest that the role of home liaison teachers should be extended to cover transition to nursery class or school or primary provision. 2.6.35 We found varying attitudes to integration amongst the parents we spoke to. Attitudes bore no relationship to the severity of the handicap. Some parents with very severely handicapped children expressed great resistance to the idea of special education. Parents of young children with Downs Syndrome in general strongly favoured integration. Integration for such children under five did not seem to pose a problem, and parents described how their children attended, or had attended, the normal range of pre-school provision. They perceived attitudes on the part of the headteacher, playgroup organiser or head of the day nursery as being critical in making the integration work. Most parents felt that their children did however miss opportunities for speech therapy and special help whilst in integrated provision. But they felt the ‘models’ provided by other children to be very important for their children. 2.6.36 Some parents, whose children were in special provision, voiced the opposite views. In general they had made a conscious decision based upon ‘special help’ and ‘acceptance’. Some parents were very angry at bad experiences in other nurseries and schools and felt their children had been isolated, unappreciated and, in some cases, ignored if they sat quietly at the back of the class. However, they were concerned that children in special provision seem to be becoming increasingly ‘special’. The basis of these statements was confirmed by school staff, who expressed similar anxieties. Most parents whose children were in ‘special care’ were very anxious about the lack of stimulation and models of normal child development. These parents felt that the integration of the most able children had actually created enormous problems for the children and staff who remained in the special provision.

2.6.37 Parents expressed considerable anxiety about the present state of education in primary and secondary schools stressing that they felt large classes, lack of resources and, in some instances, inner city problems contributed to an inability to respond to special educational needs. Most thought that more integration was possible, but only with smaller classes and appropriate support. There was general enthusiasm for greater interchange between special provision and other schools. Links between a special school for complex learning difficulties and a primary school on the same site were greatly valued. Several parents felt that the special schools should initiate integration by inviting pupils from other schools in for selected activities. 2.6.38 Staff as well as parents felt that additional help was essential if children were to be effectively integrated. Most children with special needs in the under-fives provision we visited had some kind of individual programme. However, the amount of time which could be given to such a programme varied according to the other commitments of the staff concerned. We saw several instances of children with severe behaviour problems attending nursery schools on a very part-time basis. Their mothers felt that such part-time provision was inadequate and were anxious about attitudes of other parents. As we have already suggested, all nursery school classes should have an additional member of staff, preferably a teacher, but, if not, a trained assistant, to work with children with special needs and with other children in order to allow time for more work with individuals. 2.6.39 Most of those working in under five provision thought than only a small ratio of children with special educational needs could be integrated successfully without altering the nature of the provision itself. We were told of one headteacher whose generous attitude to children with learning difficulties actually turned parents of ‘ordinary’ children away to neighbouring primary schools. Whilst such stories may reflect hearsay rather than fact, they indicate the dangers of making a ‘normal’ environment too ‘special’ and the problems of staff whose client group is suddenly changing. They also indicate the need to have a ‘whole school’ policy for children with special educational needs and to ensure that other parents fully understand the policy and the special resources available within the school or class in order to achieve this policy. Pre-school Playgroups and Opportunity Groups 2.6.40 In recent years, the Pre-School Playgroups Association has become increasingly involved in the integration of children with a variety of special needs into locally based playgroups. Playgroups offer important models for parental involvement in the development and early education of their child. They are flexible and local resources and offer not only developmental play activities for the child but also friendship and participation for the parents. Playgroups (and opportunity groups, which offer specific programmes of integration for children with special needs and disabilities) have much to contribute to and share with other education services for the children under five. Circular 1/83 emphasises the need for partnership and sharing of expertise with Playgroups and opportunity groups, and we note that the LEA area is well resourced with the type of provision. 2.6.41 Many parents, whose children had attended integrated opportunity groups or playgroups, spoke highly of their satisfaction (a) with the provision of an ordinary under five educational environment for their child; (b) with the specific support which the child received for his or her special educational needs in an integrated setting and (c) the mutual support and friendship of other parents. Parents using the Streatham Opportunity Group, commented “Of the greatest importance is the network of communication links quickly established, which are ongoing, but alerted at times of crisis, resulting in a natural community support system rather than isolation”. Nursery Schools 2.5.42 Heads of nursery schools thought that on average about 8 out of 30 of their children might show special educational needs during their period in the school. They did not think that the majority of these children would need ‘formal assessment’. They were, on the other hand, concerned that lack of appropriate help might increase some difficulties, particularly behavioural difficulties, and inhibit

school success at a later stage. 2.6.43 We observed a number of children who were undergoing ‘formal assessment’ whilst attending ordinary nursery schools. The majority had speech and communication problems, or behaviour disorders. Nursery heads generally thought that they could accept more children with marked special educational needs provided that the general intake to the school came from stable local populations. Children with social problems, in particular those from homeless family accommodation and attenders on a short-term basis, were often seen as posing more immediate problems to staff than those with more specific learning difficulties. We did not see any Down’s children in the nursery schools we visited, although some schools had accepted them in the past and would do in the future. There were various mild physical handicaps, varying from club feet to severe asthma, but no children with severe mobility problems such as spina-bifida. 2.6.44 Whilst it is difficult to generalise, the majority of the heads of nursery schools thought that they could meet the needs of children with moderate learning difficulties without too much difficulty, but were nervous about physical disability despite the generally excellent ground-floor accommodation of the schools we visited, It was thought that spina bifida children with incontinence could not be managed without an assistant for that child, although some behaviour disordered children had problems of incontinence, and there was anxiety about managing calipers, accidents in the playground and the time spent on physical care. However, if practical help was provided, all schools were very willing to try and cater for the needs of more severely handicapped children. Several heads commented that they ‘wondered why parents did not ask us if their child could attend - we almost never see parents of handicapped children’. Another head had amazed a parent of a quite severely handicapped sibling of a pupil at a nursery school by enquiring “whether Kerry was down on the waiting list”. Our impression was that nursery schools and classes could and would accept the challenge of admitting more children with more specific special educational needs, providing that additional help could be provided where appropriate. They were in general strongly committed to a policy of community provision and to providing for a mixed ability range. Provision in Special Schools 2.6.45 The number of children under five attending special schools in LEA is declining; numbers are given in Chapter 4. All those children whom we saw had severe learning difficulties, frequently with additional handicaps. As we noted earlier, the criteria for using one type of provision rather than another were not always clear. Parents seemed equally divided between feeling relief that their child was placed where special help would be available and concern about the possible consequences of separating their children from other children of the same age. 2.6.46 Some children in special schools who are under five have very long days but a number attend part-time. Some headteachers thought that more part-time attendance was desirable, but that the school transport arrangements made this impossible unless parents could organise transport for themselves. 2.6.47 Children under five in special schools had good access to paramedical services and enjoyed high staff ratios. Some had specific nursing needs, such as the management of a tracheotomy. Others had more general care needs, such as the management of incontinence, which probably, with some additional help, could be managed in another setting. However, our observations confirmed that the younger children currently being admitted to special educational provision are in general severely handicapped, with complex problems. 2.6.48 The children had individual programmes and access to a very varied curriculum. Many of the classes for children under-fives were, however, very small and some parents expressed concern about lack of stimulation and contact with more able children. It has already been noted that some special school populations are becoming more ‘special’ and we also observed this trend in some of the special nurseries run by voluntary organisations. The staff in special schools to whom we talked felt that more links with local day nurseries, nursery classes or voluntary provision would be helpful but that

transport and time were major constraints. We saw some positive links between special schools and day nurseries, where the special school staff act as a resource and where there was potential for wider collaboration in actual activities. Child Health Services for Children Under-Five 2.6.49 The role of child health services in meeting special educational needs is discussed in detail in Chapter 14. However, no consideration of provision for the under-fives would be complete without a recognition of the central role which child health services play. For children in this age group, identification of disabilities or difficulties is likely to commence with paediatric assessment. Additionally the inclusion of the 0-2 age group within the aegis of the 1981 Act inevitably raises certain issues about the exchange of information between the health and education authority (with anxiety often expressed by the former about premature ‘labelling’) and about the referral of parents to voluntary organisations which might be able to help them. Additionally, child health services provide special facilities for inter-disciplinary assessment - such as child development or district handicap teams and a number of special assessment units - which education services can utilise in order to identify and make provision for the special educational needs of very young children. 2.6.50 We make special reference to the role of the health visitors in this section, because of their particular role of supporting families of a//young children within their local community. Many parents felt that it was very helpful to have a supportive professional who was available to all families and who had no ‘special needs’ label. The health visitor’s ability to visit at home was also seen as important, particularly to those parents who found it stressful to visit the local family welfare centres without considerable encouragement. Many parents felt that their real problems were not so much the disability as basic child care difficulties with regard to feeding, sleeping and generally managing a very young child. The health visitor was an obvious source of comfort and confidence. 2.6.51 We identified a number of day nurseries and nursery schools which had good links with local health visitors and others would have appreciated closer contact. Some used health visitors as interpreters for local families whose first language was not English and found this a particularly useful link. Problems identified in day care or early education could usefully be shared with a health services professional already involved with local families in the wider context. The growing number of health visitors attached to general practices also means that they can act as a bridge between primary and secondary child health services and the education services. 2.6.52 In a number of instances, health visitors sit on panels for determining admissions to under fives provision. Their knowledge of local families clearly enables them to contribute to decisions about priority admissions and to liaise with local families. However, it was drawn to our attention that it would be difficult to implement the Warnock concept of the health visitor as a ‘named person’ in view of the large case-loads currently carried by many health visitors and the high staff turnover in some parts of London. 2.6.53 The fact that nursery schools and classes have little input from either speech therapy or physiotherapy services, in contrast to special schools, can create problems. Where a child, who is otherwise responding well to the nursery school, needs physiotherapy for example, this can involve long periods out of school to attend hospital clinics. But there are other reasons why these services need to be available. Physiotherapists were felt to be important in these schools for solving practical problems, like holding pencils, and the use of calipers and mobility aids and for general advice about physical management. Some staff were very nervous about handling physically handicapped children, whom they perceived as fragile and needing protection. 2.6.54 School health services were generally appreciated, where information was exchanged. Teachers and parents found school doctors helpful but some felt ‘much more time’ would have improved communication. School nurses were much praised as being approachable, caring, offering common-sense advice and, as a teacher put it, “just being there”. We gained the impression that school nurses were particularly useful because they had wide knowledge of general health problems

and some teaching staff, and parents, admitted to lack of confidence in sometimes deciding as to whether performance or behaviour was caused by a special educational need or was, in fact, due to unrelated causes. Teaching and other care staff found some children, for instance with tracheostomies, cystic fibrosis or hydrocephalus, worrying in terms of their vulnerability and needed continuous reassurance that the child was ‘all right” and functioning normally. School health services clearly have a major role to play in supporting placements and giving the schools confidence to enable the child to participate fully in the school curriculum. The Role of Social Services and Education Welfare Service with Children Under-Fives 2.6.55 The role of social services in meeting special educational needs is discussed in more detail in Chapter 14. However, social services have a particular contribution to make with regard to the under fives since many of the children in this age group may be placed within social services provision or their families may be using various forms of day care, such as child minders, registered and controlled by social services. 2.6.56 We identified a number of children with special educational needs, who were using social services provision, usually in day nurseries and often in special units within day nurseries. We are aware that there may be a conflict of interests, where a child is placed in social services provision primarily for the needs of the mother (and in particular her need for full day care) and not necessarily for the primary purpose of meeting any special educational needs. Several social workers, and some health visitors, expressed their regret that day nurseries had become part of a ‘special provision’ network, with few children placed simply for day care. There was some anxiety about the high proportion of families, both parents and children, who presented social and emotional problems which placed heavy demands upon staff and which detracted from what could be a genuinely integrated form of provision for children under-five. 2.6.57 Some day nurseries have nursery teachers employed by ILEA. They were very highly praised and we had no doubt that the nursery nurses gained in awareness of developmental play activities and that small groups of children were able to get more specific attention. In the special units for handicapped children established within day nurseries, the staff in charge were usually qualified nursery nurses, or with nursing backgrounds. Whilst the physical standards of care were good, the greater availability of a nursery teacher (who usually has to spread his or her work across the whole day nursery population) would have been much appreciated in order to provide more stimulation and structured activities, Children in special units in social services provision appeared to have less access in general to such activities than they would have experienced in ILEA or voluntary provision. Since many children in special units are admitted because of the social, emotional or occupational difficulties of their parents (who may, therefore, have limited time at home to engage in stimulation and home-based learning programmes), we are concerned to maximise their development through greater sharing of care by social and education staff. 2.6.58 Some nursery schools have links with social services in providing ‘extended days’ with social services staff running pre- and post-school sessions for children of working parents or others with high priority social needs. Social services and school-based staff work together and the provision enables some mothers to use educational provision which their child care needs might have made impossible. Attention should be given to the practical needs of working mothers, since it was drawn to our attention that some parents choose other services or special school provision because of the fullday programme offered. Most nursery schools now offer full-days, but the balance between parents’ perceived needs and those of the child is often not adequately considered. 2.6.59 The role of the education welfare service in respect of provision for children under five was also discussed. Although the service has some involvement with nursery schools and classes the importance of home-school links during this period should be more widely recognised in training and assignments. Support to parents during ‘formal assessment’ during the early years is particularly important and the service is in a good position to provide it. During the early years some parents were very unclear about the duties of education welfare officers and they were not seen as particularly

concerned with special educational needs. Staff in nursery schools were most likely to have regular contact with education welfare officers and they were found useful where there were family difficulties. It was felt that it was particularly helpful to have a service which could and would visit the family home. However, some parents felt disquiet about how the education welfare officers themselves perceived the delivery of the letter about ‘formal assessment’ and felt that this home visit could have been better prepared for and handled. At present the education welfare service has little involvement with children under-five. Their work and training should be extended to this age group in order to provide more effective home-school links and to give parents more support during formal assessment’ in the earlier years. 2.6.60 In considering all the available evidence the Committee.considers that the following issues require attention: (i) there should be an adequate educational input into all day nurseries, which could involve both children going out to local ILEA provision and nursery teachers being appointed to work in day nurseries; (ii) there should be a greater input from educational psychologists into day nurseries and child minding services. At present this is largely influenced by the willingness of local authorities to pay for such a service. However, where District Handicap Teams exist and where they routinely meet in day nurseries, educational psychologists time and resources may be more easily shared. We found staff in day nurseries to be very anxious to have greater input from the schools psychological service particularly with respect to preventing behavioural difficulties; (iii) social services have an invaluable contribution to make to the assessment of children under-five. They have a special role to play where a child is in care of the local authority or where there are family difficulties. We have seen models for social services involvement outside London, in particular Avon’s guidelines for social workers with respect to the 1981 Education Act, and we consider that the ILEA should liaise with local Social Service Departments to produce similar guidelines and, in particular, to look at the potential of the social worker to act as a named person’. Working with Parents 2.6.61 Although the Committee considers the views and needs of parents in more detail in Chapter 13, there are a number of points of particular importance to parents of children under five which are summarised in the following paragraphs. 2.6.62 Parents value and need home based services and learning programmes for their children and would wish to see them more widely available. They would welcome more visiting by staff in underfives provision and such visiting should be encouraged particularly when a child is undergoing ‘formal assessment’ procedures. Parents need more information about procedures, provision and services for this age range including all facilities provided by education, health and social services and voluntary organisations in their area. 2.6.63 The need for counselling and time to work through the discovery of disabilities and difficulties in order to come to terms with them is clear and services should recognise this need. 2.6.64 Although parents have new rights (and duties) under the 1981 Act, most of the parents we met expressed doubts about how to contribute to the Statement. Indeed many adopted a ‘laissez faire’ attitude which produced conflicts later on because their views had not been expressed at a time at which changes could have been made. Attention should be given to the pilot project carried out by a small working group at the Department of Education and Science to develop a ‘parent profile’ which offers a model for examining how parents can be helped to articulate their perceptions of their own child and fully participate in assessment.

2.6.65 Parents from minority ethnic groups may be in a particularly disadvantaged position. Whilst interpreters are provided within the ILEA, some parents felt that their own culture was sometimes not appreciated and that assessment needed to be put in the context of their cultural aspirations and expectations. This special need can be met in a variety of ways. The voluntary sector and the ‘named person’ may be logical sources of support and counsel for families. 2.6.66 May parents felt that they themselves would have gained from parents workshops, adult education classes or seminars. We saw some excellent examples of parental involvement, particularly in the voluntary sector where such support ranged from structured home based learning programmes to meetings and workshops, and recommend that schools and the education service, in particular the school psychological services, should develop and extend this programme. Workshops on assessment, for example, would be of value to some parents. However, we were very conscious that some parents were unwilling or unable for a variety of reasons to attend any classes or courses and are concerned that any ‘parent education’ programme should recognise the need to deliver services directly to the family if necessary. Some of the most vulnerable parents we encountered had themselves received special education and were unlikely to join any group activity without considerable personal encouragement and support. Such families wanted and need a domiciliary support service. 2.6.67 We recognised the genuine anxiety of many parents who fear that ‘formal assessment’ of a child under five may act as a barrier to their child moving to provision in primary and secondary schools at a later date. It would be helpful if a special review were to be initiated for all under-fives with special educational needs when the child is rising five. We accept that some parents may wish, and should be accorded the right, to have a full re-assessment if they so wish, but consider that the time-scale of ‘full re-assessment’ procedures, might not be in the best interests of the child at this time.

Chapter 7 Meeting Special Educational Needs in Primary and Secondary Schools Introduction 2.7.1 The Warnock Report (1978) defined a wider range of special educational needs in the school population and indicated that up to one in five children might have such needs at some time during their school life. The report recognised that the great majority of these needs had been evident in primary and secondary schools for many years and that they should be met in those schools with the help of advisory and support services. The conditions in inner city areas such as that served by the ILEA can result in special educational needs being more widespread in schools and reaching higher percentages than 20 per cent in some schools. However as we have already stated in Chapter 1, special educational needs arise from a combination of circumstances which include not only individual disabilities and difficulties but also, and much more importantly, the curriculum, teaching materials, methods and social and emotional climate with which the individual is faced in school. There are therefore two significant points to make at the outset of this Chapter. First that the higher the percentage of special educational needs identified the more it becomes an issue of what the school is offering to all children, Secondly the relative nature of the majority of special educational needs means that schools determine the extent and kind of needs which arise by their organisation, curriculum, methodology, ethos and by the extent to which they cater for individual differences in pace and style of learning. 2.7.2 The two reports preceding ours, “Improving Primary Schools” and “Improving Secondary Schools”, recognize this in part but left to our Committee the task of looking at this aspect of their work. Many of the recommendations of those reports should create better conditions for learning for

many children who have difficulty in relating to what schools have to offer. Schools should create a broader base on which to judge achievement. The crucial issue, however, is to devise whole school policies which include the means by which schools identify special educational needs and make arrangements to meet them. A further issue is the way in which a continuity of approach is developed to meeting these needs as children move through schools and between schools. This Chapter looks at special educational provision in primary and secondary schools and at aspects of continuity. Primary Schools 2.7.3 In January 1985 there were 768 primary schools in the ILEA area. Of these 628 were county schools and 240 voluntary aided or controlled schools. There were 142 infant schools, 140 junior schools and 486 junior and infants schools. The report “Improving Primary Schools” recognised an increase in the number of junior and infant schools as the primary school population has fallen. In May 1983 approximately two thirds of all junior and infants schools had up to 210 pupils and 120 of them less than 150 pupils. That Committee recognised the difficulties that relatively small schools have in respect of curriculum development, although they offer many advantages for the personal care of individuals. Similar difficulties arise in meeting special educational needs. 2.7.4 The Committee’s approach to the question of special educational provision in primary schools was to pose six questions: (i) how do schools decide that children have special educational needs? (ii) how do schools prepare themselves to meet these needs? (iii) what do schools do to meet these needs? (iv) what outside resources do schools call on and what help do they get? (v) if there is a special unit in the school, how does it contribute to the work of the school as a whole? (vi) how are parents involved in meeting their children’s special educational needs? 2.7.5 Present trends in the curriculum practice of primary schools show features which are potentially suited to meeting the special educational needs of many children. The committee is aware of the value primary schools place on: (a) engaging children’s interests and personal experiences in their learning process; (b) practical experiences; (c) a wide range of purposeful activities and opportunities for closely focused work; (d) the joint importance of process and content of learning; (e) individual help; (f) the role of discussion as a tool for learning; (g) collaborative learning. There are other features which are not mentioned here. The committee would wish the following comments made on the primary curriculum to be viewed within the context of the trends described above. 2.7.6 The report ‘Improving Primary Schools” emphasises the importance of progression and continuity in children’s work from year to year. Within its curriculum a school has to decide on long and short term goals; on sequences of progression including progression in terms of concept formation and development; attitudes; ideas; knowledge and skills. The need for flexibility and for matching tasks to the individual implies that the sequence of goals in different curriculum areas may vary in respect of the needs of individuals and groups. It is very important for teachers to have a clear idea of progression in all aspects of the curriculum and to use this as a framework for evaluating individual progress. It is on this basis for assessing the progress of all children that it is possible to become aware of children who have special educational needs, either because they are making no progress or because their progress is significantly less than that of other children. 2.7.7 We accept the broad approach to the primary curriculum outlined in “Improving Primary Schools” and see this curriculum as contributing to the emotional, social and intellectual development

of children. A school’s curriculum, derived from the agreed aims of the school, should reflect the cultural, social and racial diversity of the pupils who attend it and the community it serves. This should enable all schools to provide rich and flexible curricula. 2.7.8 Curriculum progression will guide the teacher towards what to teach but not necessarily how to teach it. The teacher’s knowledge of the child, his or her background and his or her history form the basis of selecting a way of teaching that is likely to foster the child’s progress. The teacher’s awareness of his or her own and other resources available will indicate whether these are sufficient to provide the kind of teaching a child needs to make progress.

2.7.9 The Committee believes that this process of identifying stages in curriculum progression, matching methods to individuals and groups, and using available resources occurs intuitively to a greater or lesser extent in all teaching. However it is particularly important that teaching objectives and stages in curriculum progression are made explicit if children’s special educational needs are to be identified and met. Awareness of Special Educational Needs 2.7.10 The way schools decide whether children have special educational needs are currently limited in a number of respects. The Committee identified eight difficulties which were common to many situations. These were: i.

A lack of a written curriculum framework in schools indicating specific stages of progression accompanied by a recording system giving clear information about children’s levels of functioning and progress.

ii.

Many schools have an implicit idea of curricular progression but do not always articulate this in order to extend the range of teachers approaches to individual children, particularly those with different styles and rates of learning.

iii.

A lack of effective classroom organisation and management for the work of individuals and groups which would facilitate the meeting of special educational needs.

iv.

Teachers’ judgments of children’s special educational needs tend to overemphasise home background and other social and physical factors rather than the children’s achievements and development within a curriculum framework.

v.

Schools tend to regard the identification of children with special educational needs as tantamount to referring them for special educational provision, rather than seeing identification as the first stage of a process of experimental intervention in school which is carefully monitored.

vi.

Schools seem relatively well aware of children’s more obvious sensory, motor and health problems. They are not so aware of less easily detectable sensory, motor and health difficulties which also might have educational implications. In general the educational implications of impairments and health problems were not well understood and their contribution to learning difficulties not always recognised.

vii.

Special needs and special educational needs are not always clearly distinguished. In particular the needs of children for whom English is a second language and other needs perceived as arising from different cultural backgrounds are confused with special educational needs.

viii.

Schools are able to identify early behavioural difficulties which cause teachers concern but are more likely to manage behavioural difficulties in a relatively

superficial way without analysing them in terms of individual needs. Some emotional difficulties of a less obvious kind go unrecognised. Consequently many behavioural and emotional difficulties may become more significant and it may later be more difficult to give appropriate help.

2.7.11 The awareness of actual or potential special educational needs before entry to infant schools and departments is of particular concern. During visits members of the Committee asked about contact with parents, with other under five provision which children may attend, and with health visitors who may have worked with families in children’s early years. The report “Improving Primary Schools” drew attention to the need for primary schools to establish contact with school entrants and professionals who may have worked with them. Such contacts are important in enabling schools to prepare themselves to respond to individual needs from the outset. The Committee supports the importance of these early contacts which are discussed further in the section on continuity. 2.7.12 The Committee is aware of schools where arrangements are made for children to attend for a short period before the term in which they start to familiarise them with the school and to enable teachers to observe them. Such steps as these and close contacts with under-five provision all help children to settle in school and where special needs are evident to make an early start to meeting them. Identifying Special Educational Needs during the Primary School Years 2.7.13 Awareness was often limited by the lack of a curriculum framework within which progress could be judged. Schools need to discuss, develop, agree and write down not only the broad aims in each curriculum area but also the experiences, understanding of skills, concepts, knowledge and attitudes children are expected to develop. This curriculum development with clearly stated objectives and a sense of continuity from stage to stage has been achieved in some schools. In others intuitive awareness of such progression has been developed by a policy which results in member of staff teaching different age groups from year to year and thus building up a sense of continuity and progression. 2.7.14 The opportunity for an early awareness of childrens potential special educational needs which the school entry medical examination affords was not always realised because of inadequate communication between doctors and teachers. This was often made more inadequate where communication was limited with families where English was a second language. It was also apparent that doctors sometimes had little awareness of the need to evaluate the implications of the children’s physical condition for their learning. Teachers expressed a need to have access to medical information of relevance to childrens classroom functioning. This need was not being adequately met where opportunities for discussion with school health service personnel was limited. 2.7.15 A most important means of identifying special educational needs in these schools, as elsewhere, is a school’s record keeping procedures. Procedures which record progress and help to plan teaching are essential for the identification of special educational needs. The Classroom Observation Procedure (COP) is in use with top infants in some primary schools. The Committee was unable to evaluate its effectiveness as a tool for the early identification of special educational needs. The Report ‘Improving Primary Schools” comments on teacher’s heightened awareness of what to look for when they have mastered the procedures. 2.7.16 Parents are a significant source of information about their children’s progress and response to school. They can play an important part in helping schools to become aware of children who may have difficulties. The Committee strongly endorses the importance of close and continuing contact with parents, as a means of increasing a schools awareness of special educational needs, particularly those who find it less easy to communicate with others or for whom communication with others is made difficult. What Schools do to Meet Special Educational Needs

2.7.17 Most schools try to help children with special educational needs by increasing the amount of individual attention given to them or by work in small groups. Where children were withdrawn for group work by additional teachers, it was uncommon to find a good level of co-ordination between this work and the work that pupils were doing in class. However, some examples of effective links were found. Additional help may be given within the classroom by the class teacher, but many teachers were concerned about the undue attention they were giving to children with special needs. There was little evidence of collaborative learning in groups, or peer group tutoring in pairs, being used to help children with special educational needs. 2.7.18 There were some instance of collaborative work with parents, mainly along the lines of the PACT (Parents Children’s and Teachers) projects. There were few instances of parents actually helping children with learning in school. 2.7.19 Headteachers may allocate additional staff time to work with children with special educational needs. Some gain additional staff through the astute use of available budget allocations for extra staff resources such as support for second language teaching and the alternative use of resources scheme. This kind of help usually took the form of additional part-time appointments, often of teachers without special experience or training, to withdraw children from the ordinary class. Occasionally, these teachers would take small groups of children within a class. This kind of help tended to be most common in the first and second years of the junior school. It was relatively rare to find schools where this help was available within the infant school, although there were indications of a growing awareness that such early assistance was likely to be helpful. However, this approach is only really effective within a whole school management programme clearly directed towards meeting special educational needs. 2.7.20 Headteachers seemed sometimes uncertain about applying their management skills to maximising personnel resources and to achieving the necessary flexibility in doing so, for example, by team teaching to allow small and large group work; ways of using part-time staff to support teachers within their classroom; or of other ways in which teachers might provide mutual assistance for each other. Unfortunately, there appears to be a tendency for weaker class teachers to be allocated to work with children with special educational needs. 2.7.21 The Committee found some examples of schools where policies for special needs had been agreed by the staff and had resulted in a formulation of short and long term plans. School based inservice training of this kind played an important part in transforming practice and developing a conscious response by the school to the special educational needs of its pupils. 2.7.22 In a few schools visited, there was evidence of planning to use staff resources and extra teaching time in team work with groups of children. Where more than one teacher was working with a group it was possible to release one teacher from each team, during school time, to attend the schoolbased in-service education. That teacher then passed information on to the rest of the team. In one of these schools, Red lands Primary School, outside resource personnel were also used for in-service training. Details are given in Appendix 2. A further point is the importance of monitoring the effects of team teaching arrangements on the quality of learning and on meeting the needs of individual children. The organisation and management of collaborative teaching requires a great deal of thought and planning. The advantages of team teaching can only be experienced by all children if ongoing assessment of their needs is an integral part of the teaching. 2.7.23 Headteachers expressed different views on ‘full assessment’ procedures leading to Statements of special educational needs provision. Some see them as a way of forcing access to help for children within their schools, while others are reluctant to embark on them because of the possible segregating implications for their children. All headteachers seem to see the procedure as imposing an immense administrative load on them and this certainly seemed to cause some heads to be reluctant to start the procedure at all. As a result of this kind of delay in deciding to initiate ‘full assessment’ procedures, there is often an additional delay in help becoming available to children. This presents a conflict. If

the ‘full assessment’ procedure is started too early, the school is not encouraged to maximise resources to find school based solutions. If the procedure is started too late, its inherent time lag causes frustration to staff and families and delays urgently required help for the child. 2.7.24 The Committee is aware that schools appear to feel themselves currently bombarded by many demands for extending their curricular coverage and their work in many directions. However, if a school’s policy is to create an integrated systematic development plan, then the demands of the additional initiatives should act as guidelines within which schools can identify their immediate priorities. In doing so schools can also use the opportunity the guidelines provide for them to consider how they can be flexible and effective in their teaching of pupils with special educational needs. The use of Resources outside Schools 2.7.25 The work of advisory and support teaching services is more fully described in Chapter 11. But it is useful at this point to make a number of comments about their work with primary schools. The Divisional Special Educational Needs Support Teachers with primary school responsibilities are seen as a major source of support by the schools visited. Typically, they go into the classrooms to share the class teacher’s concern about children, to give their opinion about the significance of problems mentioned, and to offer advice on teaching and on access to other services. This kind of help is appreciated because it is practical and given in the classroom situation. However the effectiveness of this help is limited by the large numbers of schools to be helped by a single support teacher. Peripatetic teachers for children with specific learning difficulties work with individuals and small groups in primary schools. The senior teachers responsible for Divisional teams also work in an advisory role and one example encountered was of the senior teacher working with a class teacher to plan individual programmes for children with special educational needs. Peripatetic teachers of disruptive children usually see children individually withdrawn from their class. Their effectiveness appears to depend on the amount and quality of their contact with class teachers. The support scheme providing help to class teachers about difficult children in Division 5 was found to be much appreciated.

2.7.26 The functions, availability and impact of advisory and support teachers of all kinds varies considerably. Where these teachers go into the classroom, work closely with class teachers are accessible when needed and make practical recommendations, schools respond positively to their work. However there are gaps and overlaps in existing services which make it difficult for schools to know who to call upon.

2.7.27 Schools’ perceptions of the contribution of educational psychologists varied. Where psychologists had negotiated their time allocation, and the kind of contribution they might make, with schools comments were most appreciative. When psychologists were able to arrange regular consultation times with schools, they were able to consider individual children long before they presented major difficulties and were able to make recommendations about help within the school and then consider its effectiveness. Where there was not close collaboration with class teachers, and when contacts with schools were solely on the basis of individual referrals, the service was seen as less useful.

2.7.28 Education Welfare Officers were appreciated as a good source of knowledge about parent’s and children’s home background, but they tended not to be considered as resource personnel in connection with children with special educational needs. It appears that educational welfare officers have responded thoughtfully to the role they have been given in regard to involving parents in the 1981 Act assessments. However, they have expressed a wish for help to enable them to carry out their role in a more supportive way.

2.7.29 Other services such as health and social services are a potential source of support for primary schools. From the school’s point of view their usefulness is determined by a number of factors. These include whether the professionals who work in them (a) are willing to see children in school and talk

with their teachers; (b) whether they regard teachers as responsible partners in planning help for children; (c) whether they can make suggestions for actions which are capable of practical implementation in classrooms and (d) whether they remain working in the area and with the school for a sufficient period of time to know the school, its staff and community context well.

2.7.30 Schools made a number of points about health services. Teachers felt they were not in close communication with doctors. School doctors were more effective in evaluating the significance of children’s problems for learning when they understood the classroom context in which the children concerned are being educated. School nurses were seen as more accessible, very willing to listen to teachers’ concerns about children and helpful in making arrangements for further medical investigations and provision.

2.7.31 Child Psychiatric Outpatient Departments in hospitals differ in the amount of contact they have with schools. We came across one instance of a link between a school and a department where the psychiatric social worker acted as a valued advisor for the school, and provided access to the services available in the department. This was the result of regular meetings which the psychiatric social worker had with the headteacher of the school.

2.7.32 Teachers expressed the wish that speech therapy might be more available as a general resource in addition to the work they carried out with individual children. However, where a speech therapist did act in a consultative role, working through the teacher, it appears that they sometimes had difficulty in adapting their technical methods to what is practical for a class teacher.

2.7.33 Social workers are generally regarded as far too overworked to be available as a resource for classroom teachers, and to support parents and children. Teachers would value a more preventative involvement of social workers with some children’s families. We heard of initiatives taken by child guidance clinic staff to act in a direct consultative way with schools. For example, a psychotherapist from one clinic provides support for school staff through classroom observation. The psychotherapist and psychiatric social worker from another clinic ran courses for teachers on the emotional experience of teaching and learning. Schools value this kind of practical involvement in their day-to-day work.

Links between Primary Schools and Special Schools 2.7.34 Some links between special schools and primary schools were being developed. For example, a regular one day a week exchange of teachers had been arranged between a special school for children with moderate learning difficulties and a local primary school. The aim was to broaden the perspective and experience of both groups of teachers. Also, some special schools were calling on the help of a primary advisory teacher in order to develop their curricula. However, none of the primary schools included special schools as an outside resource whose support and advice they could seek. For example, some of the schools had children who had serious learning or behavioural difficulties. Although in many cases the teachers felt dissatisfied with either the level or quality of support from outside professionals, they had not thought of looking to special schools for advice. Identification of children’s special needs on leaving primary school 2.7.35 Teachers’ awareness of children’s special needs on leaving the primary schools is sharpened by their concern that certain children will not be able to manage the complexity of life in a secondary school. However, we found that in general primary schools were uncertain about either the organisation of provision in secondary schools to which their children transferred, or of the level of resources that might be available for those children with special educational needs. There was also evidence of uncertainty regarding the kind of information which secondary schools would find of use in making decisions about providing for pupils in the secondary school. Even the systematic procedure to review children’s special educational needs in the third year involving supporting professionals in Division 2 was limited in its effectiveness by a lack of knowledge of the secondary schools to which pupils would transfer, We saw examples of primary and secondary schools which

were making specific attempts to overcome these problems both by reciprocal visiting and, in one instance, by linking the actual curricula of the school; for example, children started a project in the primary school which they continued in the secondary school. Conclusion 2.7.36 These comments on primary schools need to be set in the context of the report “Improving Primary Schools” which studied the field in considerable detail. However the comments made in the previous paragraphs represent a number of important ways in which the recommendations of the Primary Report might be extended. Many also apply to secondary schools which are the subject of the following paragraphs. Secondary Schools 2.7.37 There are 80 county day, one boarding and 67 voluntary controlled, voluntary aided and special agreement secondary schools in the ILEA in January 1985, most of which provide for the 11-19 age range. Provision in schools for young people aged 16-19 can be in individual schools, in consortia of schools or in sixth form centres with arrangements varying from Division to Division. At present the Authority is undertaking a review in some Divisions of all 16-19 provision in schools and colleges. 2.7.38 The Authority effectively ended its procedures for selective entry to secondary schools in 1977. Since that time it has been operating a ‘banding’ system to enable individual schools to admit a crosssection of the pupil population. This system places children in one of three ‘bands’ at the end of the primary school phase. Children are allocated to ‘bands’ by primary schools on a basis which includes results obtained on a verbal reasoning test. Comments made on this procedure in the report “Improving Primary Schools” (2.2.72-2.2.76) are supported by this Committee. The admission of all pupils to secondary schools is based on parental preferences but some restrictions are placed on schools by formulae administered by Divisional Education Officers who determine how many children in each ‘band’ a school may admit. Children placed in ‘band 3’ are those considered by their primary schools to have the most limited achievements at the time they are placed in ‘bands’. 2.7.39 As the Secondary Committee’s report notes there have been many closures and amalgamations of secondary schools with a net reduction of 41 in their number between 1977-78 and 1983-84. This process is likely to continue until the early 1990’s. The point in mentioning this feature of secondary education is to register the disturbing effects of amalgamations and closures on staff and pupils. The sustained development of work in some schools has been seriously affected particularly where it is concerned with children and young people with special educational needs. 2.7.40 Although each school has a somewhat different approach to meeting special educational needs it has been possible from our visits, and the evidence submitted to the Committee, to identify some common threads and recurring concerns. 2.7.41 There are difficulties in being precise about what the staff of secondary schools mean when they talk about special educational needs and what, if any, aspects of their provision are specifically directed to this end. We were, for example, frequently asked whether we thought that the needs of ‘gifted’ or ‘bilingual’ children fell within special educational needs. Some schools held a strong belief that common sense and institutional structures required that special educational needs, ‘giftedness’, and bilingualism be looked at together as a unified set of issues. Sometimes this was associated with the wish to use resources more effectively. 2.7.42 Some schools described their response to special educational needs in terms of a specialist department or unit. Others referred to their ‘banding’ or streaming of pupils, and some to their mixedability work. Some county schools spoke of difficulties which arose from an imbalance of pupils in ‘Band 3’. Overall and unsurprisingly the schools spoke of special educational needs predominantly in terms of general learning difficulties broadly definable in terms of difficulty with literacy and to a lesser extent numeracy — and in terms of behavioural difficulties.

2.7.43 Only a few of the schools we visited had no formal structure for meeting these needs. Most had a department which had been called ‘Remedial’ but which now operates under a different title, examples including ‘Learning Support’, ‘Curriculum Support’, and ‘Special Educational Needs’. In one school a senior member of the department was called the “mixed ability adviser”. In some cases such a department co-ordinated the responses to both learning and behavioural difficulties but more commonly they concentrated on the former. As the report “Improving Secondary School” points out, the pastoral care of individuals within schools is an important aspect of their work. It is vital that all pupils, but particularly those with special educational needs, should be known by the staff as individuals and feel that an individual teacher or small group of them is readily accessible and concerned for them. Effective pastoral care arrangements are a means of ensuring this. Members of the Committee became aware of a dichotomy in the way schools’ viewed special educational needs. These were seen as either learning difficulties for which subject departments, supported by a ‘special educational needs’ department, were responsible or as behavioural difficulties for which staff with pastoral care assignments supported by some kind of unit were responsible. There is a clear need in such instances to see the close relationship between both kinds of difficulty and to develop links between subject departments, teachers with special educational needs responsibilities and teachers with pastoral care assignments so that a unified whole school policy is developed. Team work and effective communication between all members of staff are essential if schools are to integrate the various aspects of their work. The lack of such team work usually has an adverse effect on the ways in which children and young people’s special educational needs are met particularly where emotional and behaviour difficulties are evident. 2.7.44 We were struck by the enthusiasm with which ‘support’ work has been embraced where special educational needs staff, or others, work with particular pupils in their usual lessons with, and in addition to, their usual teacher. This raises a number of questions about the balance between ‘withdrawal’ and ‘support’ work, about individual and group orientated tasks, about the distinction between ‘support’ and ‘team’ teachings, and about evaluation. A more fundamental question, which some departments were asking, is why this activity is grafted on to the general curriculum and what impact curriculum development could have on the reduction and alleviation of special educational needs. 2.7.45 As well as endorsing support teaching the Secondary Report made clear its wish that subject departments should nominate a member of their team to link with teachers with responsibilities for meeting special educational needs (3.6.4). We endorse that recommendation. Members noted that a number of schools had already put this recommendation into effect. 2.7.46 Specialist provision for special educational needs was not evenly spread across the age range. There was a tendency for the ‘learning’ support to decrease through the first three years. There is then something of a crisis about provision in this area for the 4th and 5th years as the Report ‘Improving Secondary Schools’ noted (39.40). Individual or withdrawal help had usually ended by this time but some departments offered an option to which particular pupils would be guided. As a general rule, with few exceptions this was seen as an unsatisfactory compromise. Paradoxically, the response to emotional and behavioural difficulties increases during these two years as more pupils find themselves placed in some kind of unit. 2.7.47 It has been traditional for most young people with special educational needs to leave school at 16. Some pre-vocational courses in the 4th and 5th years provide preparation for this. The Committee was aware that some provision to meet these needs is developing in schools and that sensitive tutorial arrangements exist in the 6th and 7th years. However the Committee did not have time to study this aspect of the work of schools. Enquiries made during visits did not give rise to detailed information and the Committee recognises this as a gap in its knowledge at the time of writing. 2.7.48 Because it is difficult to be precise about what constitutes provision to meet special educational needs it is also difficult to say what proportion of a school’s resources, in terms of staffing and capitation, is allocated to this aspect of its work. Some reference to the allocation of teaching time to

what is described as remedial work occurs in the annual Staff Deployment and Curriculum Analyses returns made by schools to the Authority. The Committee was able to draw on some information from these returns made for 1984-85. Fuller details may be found in Appendix 1. 2.7.49 The following Tables and comments are based on returns from 145 secondary schools. It was possible to obtain information about three aspects of schools responses. These were: i.

the percentage of teaching time allocated to what is still unfortunately described in the Curriculum Analysis as “Remedial” work;

ii.

the variation of these percentages in different year groups;

iii.

the differences in the above data between schools which had ‘mixed-ability’ systems and those which did not.

We were also provided with data not available in the Curriculum Analysis so that it was possible to identify the percentage of children described as Band 3 in each year group in the schools. 2.7.50 Each school has a finite number of teaching periods which are allocated to contact with children in classes or groups. This figure is arrived at by multiplying the number of teachers by the number of teaching periods each week and deducting the number of teacher periods allocated to other work in the school such as preparation, pastoral care and administration. The figure arrived at for teaching contact periods is the one used in the percentages in Tables 7.1 and 7.2. Table 7.1: Distribution of Schools by Percentage Teaching Time for Remedial Teaching Remedial Teaching Percentage 0 From 0 to 5 From 5 to 10 From 10 to 15 From 15 to 20 Over 20 Total Schools Average Rm%

1 5 29 33 39 15

Number of Schools/Year 2 3 4 5

6

7 40 55 29 3 13

134 134 10.3% 7.0%

18 62 49 5 1 0

41 76 18 2 0 0

54 75 9 1 1 0

137 8 0 0 0 0

135 4.5%

137 2.3%

140 1.7%

145 0.1%

The average percentage of allocated teaching time declined from 10.3% in the first year to 1.7% in the fifth year. The fuller analysis in Appendix 1 shows that in Year 1 roughly two-thirds of the schools use between 4 and 16 percent of their available teaching time for ‘Remedial’ work. By the fifth year two-thirds of the schools used less than 2% of their teaching periods in this way. 2.7.51 There is an interesting comparison between the figures in Table 7.1 and those for schools with mixed-ability teaching in the first three years, (for more detail see Appendix 1). The ‘mixed-ability’ schools have a higher average allocation of time to remedial work in each of the years: Year 1, 12.4%; Year 2, 9.3% and Year 3, 7.1%. It is also notable that the rate of decline in the ‘remedial’ allocation is slower in these schools. It may be the case that whenever schools ‘band’ or ‘set’ their pupils then the creation of the smaller groups of less successful pupils absorbs staff and becomes, consciously or not, the means for meeting some special educational needs.

2.7.52 It is also possible to compare the number of pupils described as Band 3 in each year with the allocation of teaching-time for remedial work. We would however want to say that, although we find

this analysis of great interest, we do not want to give any impression that Band 3 pupils are necessarily those with special educational needs. Table 7.2: Percentage Remedial Teaching and average Percentage Pupils in VR Band 3

(Number in brackets is number of schools in that category) Remedial Teaching Percentage

Year 1

Average Percentage Pupils VR3 Year 2 Year 3

0 20 (5) 20 (7) 19 (18) From 0 to 5 21 (29) 21 (40) 23 (62) From 5 to 10 27 (33) 26 (55) 26 (49) From 10 to 15 26 (39) 26 (29) 32 (5) From 15 to 20 23 (15) 26 (3) 40 (1) Over 20 33 (13) 0 0 There is a slight but not outstanding trend (see Appendix 1) for the percentage of remedial’ teaching to increase as the percentage of Band 3 pupils increases.

2.7.53 There is also a low positive correlation between the amount of teaching time available to a school and the percentage allocated to remedial work. When a school’s staffing allocation is limited, and particularly in smaller schools, the limited amount of remedial’ work may be the result of first making arrangements to cover essential curriculum aspects for all pupils. However in some instances it may be argued that whatever the size of the school this area of work does not receive priority and is only resourced from what is left over when other aspects of the schools’ work are staffed.

2.7.54 We have already said that ‘mixed-ability’ schools make a higher average allocation to remedial work than other schools. Of the 28 schools where the first year allocation of ‘remedial’ periods exceeds 15%, 25 are schools where ‘mixed-ability’ organisation in these years exists (Table 7,1). In effect there seems to be a contrast between schools which choose to support mixed-ability work with some kind of special help and schools which presume that their banding or setting arrangements will allow subject departments to meet a wide but not necessarily full range of educational needs within the departmental staffing.

2.7.55 There appear to be anomalies in both approaches: one emphasises a bolt-on approach to meeting special educational needs which can undermine the idea that in a comprehensive school all staff are responsible for all kinds of children: the other makes distinctions between children’s abilities which are not always easy to understand.

2.7.56 A corollary to this situation lay in the number of schools with a high proportion of Band 3 pupils in their first year which committed a large proportion of their teaching time to ‘remedial’ work. In Table 7.2 this appears as 13 schools with an average Band 3 intake of about one-third which then use over one-fifth of their teaching time as ‘remedial’. Using the more detailed data (Appendix 1) it is possible to conclude that 11 of those 13 schools are using a mixed-ability approach. It is not always possible to know from the available data how much of this work is some form of support-teaching in class or is concerned solely with withdrawal groups. Nevertheless it seemed to the Committee that schools in this position should be as concerned to review their general curricular offering as to add specialist support to it.

2.7.57 The allocation of funds to special educational needs departments was made either by applying a formula to all departments with some elements of weighting or by less clear cut procedures without obvious criteria. There are drawbacks to both systems and the outcomes varied enormously. There are no guidelines on this matter and no useful ‘average’ or ‘typical’ cases to report. Nevertheless, although everyone remarked that extra resources would help, all the departments described their funding as at least satisfactory.

2.7.58 We asked staff about their formal qualifications or training in the field of special educational need. The replies ranged from little or nothing through to advanced diplomas and higher degrees. There seemed to be no identifiable formula for in-service professional development common to these teachers’ careers.

2.7.59 We encountered or received written comments concerning a small number of pupils in secondary schools for whom ILEA maintains a Statement. These divided into two types, individual pupils for whom special provision was being made and groups of children for whom special provision was made in one location. The individual placements were generally praised and we were impressed by the commitment of those closely involved, (parents, staff and pupils). This was often the reason why such innovative practices were successful. We were less satisfied with the planning and assistance provided for such ventures by some ILEA services. The requirements of pupils with, for example, no useful sight, moderate learning difficulties or spina bifida are very different, The provision of extra human resources in terms of teaching or general duties staff may need to be supported by the use of other resources ranging say, from technical aids to help with managing incontinence. It is this effective deployment of a sufficiently supportive package at the point of need which did not always seem to be well anticipated, assisted, co-ordinated, monitored or promulgated by advisory and support services. We trust that our recommendations and the increasing experience accumulated in this field will improve this matter. 2.7.60 The Committee saw notable examples of ‘group’ provision for children with special educational needs in secondary schools particularly units for children with hearing impairments, the work of one of which is described in Appendix 2. It also looked at one such unit for children with emotional and behaviour difficulties. The experiences of the latter convince us that there is no advantage in creating a unit which is institutionally attached to a school if it is geographically and administratively remote. Physical distance and organisational boundaries almost inevitably conspire to reduce genuinely integrative work and real advantage from the attachment to bare minimal levels. The most profitable ventures arise when pupils and staff in units are able to work in a close but clearly understood and agreed relationship with their peers. We felt that the support-teaching role developed by the unit for partially hearing children at Southfields School was an interesting illustration of this (see Appendix 2). We were pleased to note the clear distinction there between ‘support-teaching’ (when specialist staff support individual pupils in lessons) and ‘team teaching’ (when teachers share responsibility for the class). This work depends very much on the good relations which have been fostered between the unit and the rest of the school. Identifying Needs 2.7.61 Many secondary schools attempt to make an early identification of special educational needs by arranging visits by a senior member of staff, for example the Head of First Year and/or the Head of the Special Educational Needs Department, to their key feeder primary schools. Such visits were well spoken of and seemed to have incidental value beyond the identification of special educational needs. Schools also used the primary yearly summary forms, Banding and the London Reading Test as a means of identifying special educational needs. Each of these has limitations as an identifying tool, but we were particularly concerned to hear of the Banding System being used in this way. One consequence of the confusion about the role of existing material is a growth in local attempts to produce suitable ways of communicating necessary information. 2.7.62 We noted with interest the meetings arranged in Division 3 under the auspices of the Special Needs Support Teachers. These meetings enable representatives of secondary and primary schools to meet at Divisional Office and exchange information relevant to the special educational needs of pupils about to transfer. The attendance of representatives from all the secondary schools for a couple of sessions ensures that the primary school teachers can at least see someone from each secondary school in a single visit.

2.7.63 Some schools make immediate arrangements to provide for children identified in these early activities; others monitor their progress, and that of their peers, before making a later decision about intervention. Schools may be quite formal or informal in their monitoring of the early weeks and months in secondary school. To our surprise a small number persist in testing the first year cohort with, for example, Salford or Holborn Reading Tests. The Secondary Committee have already criticised this practice (3.3.7) and we would wish strongly to support their view. 2.7.64 There are a number of early warning schemes in operation in the Authority in different phases. Many are discussed elsewhere in this report and described in Appendix 2, but one innovation in Division 3 is particularly relevant at this point. After initial interest, the identification of special educational needs seems mostly to depend on ‘demand by crisis’ and to be a reactive system. In Division 3, there is an attempt to introduce a preventive, anticipatory model through “Early Warning Seminars”. These meetings draw together a group of participating staff including the educational psychologist, the special educational needs support teacher and specialist, pastoral, tutorial and management staff from the school, periodically to review whole classes. These meetings were highly regarded throughout the schools in which they occurred. 2.7.65 Systems of record keeping varied enormously in style and quality. It was not always clear how records concerning children with special educational needs related to or developed from the main school records, or how they would provide a basis for further action or assessment. One school was examining the possibility of having a co-ordinated, single computerised record which is very attractive given the paperwork often created by the assessment and recording of all special needs, including special educational needs. We would support such initiatives subject to satisfactory safeguards of the rights of parents and pupils including access and confidentiality. Support Services 2.7.66 The schools visited rarely commented on the work in secondary schools of inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities but the Committee, recognising the range of their assignments, assumed that much of their contribution was made in association with special educational needs support teachers. 2.7.67 The most frequently mentioned source of advice to schools was the schools psychological service. There was a paradoxical response in many schools where more time was said to be needed from educational psychologists while at the same time there was criticism of their contribution. The Committee recognises that different expectations by all parties and a lack of negotiation can give rise to difficulties. Schools made a number of observations on the work of educational psychologists. Those commenting most favourably noted good personal relationships and a clear contractual’ working arrangement. Others were less satisfied, complaining of the limited value of reports and the lack of time from their psychologist. More time appeared to be sought for the assessment of specific learning difficulties and in respect of what were seen as ‘gate keeping’ functions, namely to give access to special provision. There was also concern about the credibility given to information provided by the school. 2.7.68 Many schools mentioned the value of school attached education welfare officers. These officers and the special educational needs support teachers were usually described in favourable terms — though not all schools seemed to know about the latter. We were struck by the unanimity with which those to whom we spoke identified “time” as their most precious and scarce resource. Liaison and Co-ordination 2.7.69 Internal liaison and co-ordination was of varied quality. For example, some but not all schools could readily tell us how many pupils were at that moment receiving their education off the main premises or how many visits the educational psychologist had made this year and to what purpose. We were concerned by a number of cases in which the arrangements for liaison and co-ordination meant that the head of the special educational needs department had limited contact with psychological, social work and health services. This seemed wholly unsatisfactory.

2.7.70 When schools reported successful contact with outside agencies two threads constantly recurred: first there would be a reference to the personal qualities of the individual representing the agency and secondly to the practicality of the advice and support offered. 2.7.71 Contact between secondary schools and off-site units was quite different from that with special schools. We conjecture that this may be because the units often had a specific brief to return pupils to the school on whose roll they remained and that the schools frequently had a management role in relation to the units. We noted many of the difficulties confirmed in the Off-site Centre Working Party Report but would add that, where contact and continuity was favourably described by the schools, it was usually the case that that the units were providing a more school-focused service. 2.7.72 We were disappointed by the amount and type of contact between comprehensive schools and special schools. This was predominantly a question of individuals or small groups from the latter attending sessions at the former. There was little if any evidence of curricular development links in either direction. Parents 2.7.73 We were impressed by the lengths to which some teachers and schools went to create a ‘partnership with parents’, notably through such schemes as ‘PACT’. However, there were occasions on which it was clear that the attitude towards and contact with parents was less positive and frequent than is desirable if parents are to feel welcomed participants in their children’s education. Although some parents doubtlessly feel misunderstood by, and hostile, towards the school system and express their dissatisfaction in strong terms, it is important that schools continue to endeavour to involve them in decisions about their children and encourage their co-operation and goodwill. Issues 2.7.74 Our outline of the present arrangements in secondary schools for meeting special educational needs raises many issues. The list below includes those which seemed to us to be outstanding: i.

What can be done to avoid the current situation where many teachers feel that their responsibility for meeting special educational needs is an addition to their already full commitments and also, moreover, believe that this responsibility interferes with the pursuit of academic standards by which they are judged? More positively, what can be done to recognise their contribution to improved standards for all pupils and not just those more academically able?

ii.

Is it possible to produce a working definition of special educational needs which is clear about the position of the ‘gifted’ and children for whom English is a second language?

iii.

Is it possible to provide advice on the balance between withdrawal and support work in a school — including advice on the nature of ‘support’ and on where withdrawal can be timetabled?

iv.

What arrangements should secondary schools make to meet the special educational needs of pupils in the fourth and fifth years and then of pupils who will or otherwise might stay on beyond 16?

v.

Is there a model or are there models which can be commended for allocating teaching staff, scale points or funds to special educational needs work?

vi.

What improvements can be made in the notation of the curriculum analysis so that special educational needs work can be more explicitly noted?

vii.

What is the best basis for formulating the in-service education requirements of individuals or groups of staff, directly or indirectly involved in this field?

viii.

Should we, and if so how can we, ensure that advice, support and in-service education have as far as possible a practical, classroom focus?

ix.

What is the most effective way of communicating information about pupils with special educational needs between primary and secondary schools?

x.

What are the most successful ways of identifying and responding to special educational needs during the first year of secondary schooling and then thereafter?

xi.

What forms of record-keeping in relation to special educational needs fit most easily into schools’ general record systems and still provide an efficient basis for intervention or further assessment?

xii.

What internal management structure and points of contact should a school provide for liaison with outside agencies and institutions?

xiii.

What are the relative merits and most valuable models of work in an off-site, attached or unattached units, particularly but by no means exclusively the many units for ‘disruptive’ pupils?

xiv.

Could the present advisory and support services, including the schools psychological service and inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities be more usefully deployed?

xv.

Should and could the instigation and conduct of the full assessment procedure be quicker without being any less thorough?

xvi.

What steps need to be taken to ensure that arrangements for some secondary school pupils who are the subject of Statements are supported and efficiently and coherently managed?

xvii.

How best can the progress of such provision be supported, monitored and evaluated?

xviii.

How can the quality of communication and involvement with parents be enhanced to create a genuine partnership?

Innovation and Change 2.7.75 At various points in paras 2.7.29 to 2.5.54 we noted that a particular activity had impressed us or had been strongly recommended to us by its participants. We also noted one or two points which had seemed to us to be less than satisfactory. To some extent attention to these matters might resolve some of the issues raised in para 2.7.54. However, as we explained in the introduction to the report we do not intend to develop those arguments or to make specific recommendations at this stage. We have tried to provide a brief review of the current special needs provision within ILEA secondary schools and to identify the issues which seemed to us to have the greatest bearing on its range, quality and coherence. In the final section of the Report we make recommendations which we hope will help to resolve those issues. Continuity and Transfer Introduction and General Issues 2.7.76 This section examines the issues and practices regarding the major points where changes occur in children’s and young people’s education. These are the times when discontinuity is most likely to occur, with consequent changes in children’s attitudes, behaviour, learning etc. However, it is important to remember that discontinuity can occur through changes within schools as well as between them. The following discussion, although focussed on transfer between schools is also

relevant to practice at points of change within educational institutions. 2.7.77 The main aims of any transfer procedure are to enable the pupil or student to gain immediate access to the learning opportunities afforded by the new school and to facilitate a positive response to those learning opportunities. 2.7.78 At present there is no standard transfer procedure in ILEA regarding children and young people who may have special educational needs when they start school, or transfer between schools, or move from school to college. The best practice involves dialogue between those who know the child in his/her present context and those responsible for providing for his/her needs in the new context. This will involve a collaborative attempt to assess what the child’s needs will be in the new context. 2.7.79 Broadly speaking, pupils fall into three groups. For some it may appear that their needs will be met by the normal arrangements in the school. For others, there may be doubts as to whether the normal arrangements will be adequate or suitable and in these cases particularly careful and thorough monitoring of their adjustment and early progress will be necessary. There is a third group where it may appear quite clear prior to transfer that special arrangements of some kind will be needed. However, there is considerable research evidence that behaviour and learning responses are variable with changes of context. It is important, therefore, that these groupings are regarded as only preliminary and that there should be a flexible response to all children as needs arise, change or disappear. 2.7.80 There is continuing debate and uncertainty as to what information about individual pupils and students is relevant and should be passed on to a receiving school or college. The findings of a project on transfer from primary to secondary school now being carried out by LEA Research and Statistics Branch may provide some useful guidance but previous studies have pointed to the difficulties in making accurate predictions about children’s needs after transfer, particularly those related to social and emotional behaviour. Information passed on should be usable in the sense that it has teaching implications and provides knowledge of a child’s strengths as well as weaknesses. 2.7.81 There are risks of information transfer leading to children being labelled and stereotyped in a way that could produce negative expectations. These risks can be reduced if the information is expressed, as far as possible, in terms of children’s specific needs. 2.7.82 Apart from the practical benefits of the transfer of specific information, it also seems likely that, at a more general level, dialogue between teachers from sending and receiving schools can provide reassurance for teachers and pupils alike, leading to closer relationships and more positive learning responses. 2.7.83 The report ‘Improving Secondary Schools’ (3.3.4) refers to what are described as the diametrically opposed philosophies of continuity and the ‘fresh start’. The authors came down in support of the continuity philosophy and we agree with this in the sense that information from the primary school, whether from the records or direct from primary teachers, should not be ignored. However, we do not see that there need necessarily be a fundamental contradiction between the continuity and ‘fresh start’ approaches. Many difficulties might be overcome by attention to curricular continuity between phases. 2.7.84 For children who have been well adjusted and successful in their previous schools, continuity in curriculum and style of teaching as well as similarity in the social and emotional climate in the new schools, are likely to maintain good progress. This will apply to some children with special educational needs. Others, however, may have been making very little educational progress and may have had emotional or behavioural difficulties. Transfer may provide an opportunity within a different context for new methods, approaches and resources to be tried. This must follow a thorough appraisal of the effectiveness of what has been done for the child already. In some cases, ‘more of the same’, in the sense of building on from where the previous school left off, will be appropriate but in other cases something quite different may be indicated.

Starting Primary School 2.7.85 Attempts to smooth the transition from nursery school, voluntary organisation or social service provision to primary or special school are particularly valuable for children with special educational needs. We found a good deal of boundary crossing, staff from under fives provision visited the schools for half days and, in some instances, staff from the full range of local schools visited under fives facilities to meet children and their present staff. These visits seemed very important where a child with special educational needs was to have a primary school place. A particular issue which limits continuity is the fact that there is not automatic transfer from a nursery class in a primary school to that school at the age of five. 2.7.86 Staff in under fives provision felt that they provided considerable information about a child moving into full-time education but they did not get enough feedback about a child’s subsequent progress. This feedback was seen as a missing factor in developing appropriate programmes for children between three and five years old. 2.7.87 Whilst staff in under fives provision usually felt that they liaised well and provided information to the schools into which their children transferred, staff in primary schools, in general, only reported good communication where there was an attached nursery class. Little mention was made by infant teachers of communication with medical or social services, for example with health visitors, about children starting school. 2.7.88 The report “Improving Primary Schools” mentions (para 2.294) that some primary heads collect information about various aspects of a child’s development as reported by the parent e.g. the child’s ability to care for itself in various ways, to use a pencil or paintbrush, to lay a table. From our visits it appeared that much more use could be made of the information which might be gained from parents before their children are admitted to the infant school. 2.7.89 There appear to be potential difficulties in achieving a satisfactory transition from under fives provision to full-time education whether in a primary or special school. One source of difficulty arises from the length of time that the 1981 Education Act ‘full assessment’ procedures sometimes take. Where placement in an ordinary school with additional help is anticipated, delays in the assessment can lead to undesirable delays in the placement of a child until additional resourcing is obtained. In other cases children with special educational needs might be admitted provisionally without additional help. These difficulties suggest that more flexibility in providing additional resources for assessment or in urgent situations should be considered. Similarly there was some evidence that children with special educational needs who were already placed somewhere’, for example in an assessment centre or unit or social services day care provision, were sometimes subject to delays in placement. Again, more flexibility in the procedures and provision of resources may improve the situation. Transfer from the Infant to Junior Phase 2.7.90 Communication about children across the transition between infant and junior school is often a problem even where the departments are under the same headteacher. This seemed particularly likely when there were significant differences in organisation and teaching style between the two departments or schools. However, even where there appeared to be good communication we did not find a level of record keeping about the children’s curricular progress which would ensure a continuity of teaching appropriate to the children’s needs in any curriculum area. Transfer from Primary to Secondary School 2.7.91 Transfer from junior to secondary school is likely to constitute for most children the major point of change and the biggest upheaval of their whole educational career. This is especially true in Inner London, where most primary schools are considerably smaller than the national average and most secondary schools considerably larger. Despite this, there are at present no guidelines or

procedures designed to ease the transition of children with special educational needs. The transfer of school records does not operate as efficiently and effectively as it should (‘Improving Secondary Schools’ 3.3.3-3.3.9), and even at best is rarely seen as an adequate means of passing on information about such pupils. Nevertheless, anything more than the standard transfer of records is in general dependent solely on local initiative. The initiative to make records accessible to parents is to be supported as particularly important at this stage in their childrens lives. 2.7.92 Standard written records do of course have an essential role, and must be properly completed. We heard of some records on pupils with special educational needs which did not contain straightforward and obvious details such as the dates of referrals made in connection with ‘full assessments’, or the involvement of outside agencies for other reasons. It is clearly important that such factual details, the nuts and bolts as it were, of the case history to date, are fully and accurately recorded, and punctually passed on; a written document is the obvious vehicle for this kind of information. 2.7.93 It is fairly common practice for teachers in charge of special needs provision, and/or prospective heads of first year in secondary schools, to visit their main feeder primaries during the latter part of the summer term, although the purpose, scope and conduct of these visits varies widely. At best, they provide opportunities for teachers who will be dealing closely with particular pupils in secondary school to see those pupils functioning in their present context and establish personal contact with them. If nothing else, this at least assures the pupils that their problems will receive attention at their new school. These visits also allow dialogue with the pupils’ present teachers during which their probable future needs and possible ways of meeting them can be discussed. Opportunities for such discussion are invariably welcomed by teachers on both sides. 2.7.94 After such visits, secondary teachers sometimes make written summaries of what they have learned through their dialogue with pupils and primary teachers. The best of such summaries refer to strengths as well as weaknesses, to patterns of behaviour and emotional difficulties, to specific learning experiences, to teaching strategies employed, with an honest appraisal of their effectiveness and to the pupil’s own view of those experiences and strategies. These summaries are then disseminated within the secondary school, sometimes to particular colleagues and/or a few senior staff only, sometimes more widely, depending on the nature of the information, It is not always necessary or desirable for detailed or sensitive reports on individual children to be widely circulated as a matter of course; what is important is that such information is held and used as required by a teacher with particular responsibility for the pupils in question, and that it is known to be so held and able to be made available to colleagues as and when they need it. 2.7.95 Primary teachers’ thoughts about children who may have special educational needs in the secondary school often reflect their concern that certain children will not be able to manage the complexity of life in a secondary school system. However, the committee found that in general primary school teachers have little detailed knowledge either of the educational system operating in the secondary schools to which their children transfer, or of the level of resources that may be available for children with special educational needs. There was also evidence that primary teachers usually do not know the exact kinds of information which the secondary school find relevant in making decisions about special provision. This lack of knowledge and understanding of the secondary school context can be overcome if primary teachers are given the opportunity of visiting the secondary schools to which most of their children go. Ideally such visits take place before and after transfer. In the very few schools where visits are already taking place, the knowledge and understanding so gained enable primary teachers to make a much more informed and effective contribution to discussions with their secondary colleagues about particular children’s needs. We strongly support the recommendations made in “Improving Primary Schools” and “Improving Secondary Schools”; these will bring about much needed changes in practices. 2.7.96 There is no doubt about the value of dialogue between primary and secondary teachers especially where pupils with special educational needs are concerned. There are, however,

overwhelming practical difficulties in ensuring that such dialogue takes place about every pupil with special educational needs, when a single secondary school may have as many as 40 feeder primaries. A helpful innovation in Division 3 (already described in Improving Secondary Schools’ 3.3.5) has been the meetings arranged at Divisional Office for all their heads of special needs in secondary schools to meet teachers of fourth year juniors. These ensure that no pupil transferring within the division who may have special educational needs can be overlooked during the transfer process. Such meetings should complement and pave the way for visits by secondary teachers to primary schools. They should not be seen as an alternative to such visits since secondary teachers would not otherwise meet the pupils themselves in the context of the primary classroom. But they do provide a useful initial point of contact which has been welcomed by all. As one junior teacher remarked: “I have found it a great relief to be able to get over to a colleague exactly how I feel about a child, which is not possible in writing”. Written communication, however sophisticated the format, while essential and valuable in its own way, is not substitute for this kind of dialogue. Occasional Transfers between mainstream schools 2.7.97 There are many reasons why pupils change schools at times other than the normal transfer points, and obviously a proportion of pupils making such moves will have special educational needs of various kinds. Indeed, where a pupil changes schools for a reason other than geographical removal or parental whim, it is more than likely that the move will be associated with some kind of educational failure. Many sending and receiving schools do their best to communicate effectively in such cases, but it appears that these occasional transfers are more often than not haphazard and insufficiently planned. Moreover, any pupil, especially one with special educational needs, must start at a disadvantage when pitched into an unfamiliar environment where courses are already under way and all the other pupils are settled in. 2.7.98 At a local level, head teachers are often under pressure to do each other favours by accommodating each other’s ‘difficult’ pupils. The speed of these transactions, when parents are probably equally eager to give the pupil a ‘fresh start’ as quickly as possible, may preclude proper collaboration and preparation for the transfer. In cases where special educational needs are known or suspected, liaison is only likely to be fully effective when the receiving school is able to do at least as much as it would with its normal intake, i.e. arrange for a teacher to visit the sending schools to see the pupils in their present contexts, and talk with those who have been attempting to meet the pupils’ needs hitherto. it seems that this happens very rarely; communication by telephone is the most that schools usually do in such circumstances. Transfer between Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools and Special Schools/Units 2.7.99 The transfer process for children moving from nursery, primary and secondary schools to special schools is often sudden, abrupt and unplanned for. This situation arises in part because the present school is frequently unaware of the progress of the full assessment’ procedure and only learns to which school the child is to move a short time before the transfer takes place. For the child and the parent also, after months of uncertainty and, in many cases, worry, there is often little time to prepare for leaving the present school and starting at the new one. This shortage of time may in part explain why communication between the primary and secondary and special schools about children who are transferring is sometimes deficient. It is also sometimes negative as schools attempt to make a case for special provision. The separateness of the two systems probably also contributes to the problem, as does faith in the ‘fresh start’ philosophy. 2.7.100 However, another important explanatory factor appears to be the feeling amongst some teachers in nursery, primary and secondary schools that having written their contribution, i.e. the professional advice, to the ‘full assessment’, they have provided an adequate starting point for a special school to plan an individual educational programme. Similarly there appears to be an expectation amongst many special school staff that the Statement of special educational needs and accompanying advice should provide sufficient information and guidance for detailed teaching plans to be made. These feelings suggest a misunderstanding of the aims of a ‘full assessment’ and an overestimation of the extent to which it can provide a full school record.

Transfer from School to College 2.7.101 We found very little evidence of practice related specifically to easing the transition from school to college of pupils which special educational needs, except for the provision of link teachers working between special schools and colleges. Many colleges run link courses with special schools. It might be thought that this would be an ideal basis for such students wishing to study full-time at college, but these link courses as they stand often do not lead naturally into full-time courses. This is partly because many of them are run in subjects already covered by school curricula, such as communications and numeracy. If the choice of subjects were more enterprising it would facilitate the subsequent transfer of students to a wide range of full-time college course. Link and Bridging courses run jointly by colleges and comprehensive sixth forms, such as CGLI 365 Vocational Preparation, are probably more effective in this respect, since they offer access to a much wider range of learning experiences at college. The co-operation of the school-based tutor on such courses with the teaching staff of the college should enable a close account to be taken of any special educational needs the students may have. However, vocational preparation courses, like CGLI 365, are not usually available to students from special schools. 2.7.102 Many young people now transfer from special school to further education college. At present there are no procedures for maintaining a statement beyond school to ensure continuity of provision. Much depends, therefore, on good communication and informal transfer of information from school to college. Where young people are attending college courses while still at school, or in the period soon after transferring to college, the provision of a link teacher was reported as immensely useful. This teacher, who accompanies the young people from special school, can provide support in classes, ensure breadth and relevance of the curriculum in both institutions and offer counselling, advice and practical problem solving to aid adjustment to a very different situation. 2.7.103 For students with special educational needs who require a direct transfer from full-time attendance at secondary school to a full-time college course, the process of admission and induction into college is likely to be much more daunting. Referral to a college is likely to come either through the Careers Service or directly from the school. In either case referral is easier when there exists a key person in the college through whom enquiries from all students and outside agencies can be channelled. A few colleges encourage prospective students to mention and discuss any special educational needs they may have, either on their application form or at interview. However, this practice is by no means universal, despite the obvious advantages to both sides. 2.7.104 Once students have been accepted by colleges, opportunities for discussion between those at school who know them at present and those at college due to take responsibility for meeting their needs would seem to depend completely on local initiatives on one side or the other. Such opportunities probably do not occur as extensively as might be wished. Even the transfer of written information may well be confined to what colleges request from schools, which is usually a reference from pupils’ Heads of House or Year. There is variation between the formats used for these references by different colleges: some ask questions about handicap, or particular kinds of academic or tutorial support that may be required, while others are less specific. If the right questions have not been asked, there is a real danger that appropriate or significant information will not be passed on. The transfer of any additional records, e.g., Statements of need, seems to be entirely at the discretion of schools, and practice varies widely. Conclusion 2.7.105 This Chapter has primarily been concerned with the settings in which the majority of children and young people with special educational needs are educated. While it constitutes only one of ten chapters in Part II it relates to some 90 per cent of all such children and young people. It is therefore particularly important that the issues raised receive close attention.

Chapter 8 Provision in Special Units and Classes Introduction 2.8.1 A wide variety of special classes and units have been set up to meet special educational needs. Some of these have been set up within primary and secondary schools and others outside then. Some provide full time alternative education and others part-time special help associated with continued attendance in ordinary classes. The range and extent of such provision has been described in Chapter 4. During the time the Committee was at work a separate review took place of provision of this kind set up as a result of the Authority’s initiatives to meet the needs of disruptive and truanting pupils. The report of that Working Party, completed in January 1985, has been considered by the Committee. The purpose of this Chapter is to comment on all provision in units and special classes, including those reviewed by the Working Party and to discuss issues common to this form of provision. Recommendations about this approach to meeting special educational needs are made in Part III. 2.8.2 Provision of this kind of arrangement has been increasing since the early 1 960s. It has been built up in a piecemeal fashion and takes many forms. It may be helpful to outline the main differences that are apparent in the current range of units and classes. It is important to bear in mind that the question of how far the work of units is linked with the work of primary and secondary schools and how far the process of integration is fostered is not dependent on their location or any of the other attributes classified below. Units and classes can be classified in the following ways: i.

according to location, whether or not they are located in primary or secondary schools;

ii.

according to the kind of special education they are intended to meet. Three broad groups are evident: classes and units for specific disabilities; those for learning difficulties; and those for emotional and behaviour difficulties;

iii.

whether or not ‘full assessment’ procedures and statements are required for admission;

iv.

according to responsibilities for oversight and management. Again three broad groups emerge, namely primary and secondary inspectorate responsibility; school psychological service responsibility, and the responsibility of inspectors with special educational assignments.

2.8.3 Table 8.1 shows the units and classes classified by these criteria. Table 8.1 Classification of Units and Classes Located in Schools 1 Requiring Statements (a) Specific Disabilities Units for Hearing Impaired Children — primary and secondary James Wolfe Unit for Deaf Children — primary Units for Speech and Language Disorders — primary Units for Autistic Children Responsibility - Inspectors with Special Educational Needs Responsibilities (b) Learning Difficulties — NONE (c) Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties

Wayford Centre — primary and secondary Responsibility — Inspectors with Special Educational Needs Responsibilities 2 Not Requiring Statements (a) Specific Disabilities — NONE (b) Learning Difficulties Opportunity Classes — primary Responsibility — Primary Inspectors (c) Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties Nurture Groups — primary Withdrawal Groups — primary On-site Units — secondary Responsibility — Primary and Secondary Inspectors with Schools Psychological Service involvement in Nurture Groups Located Outside Schools 2 Not Requiring Statements (a) Specific Disabilities — Unit for Children with Perceptual Difficulties. Responsibility — Inspectors with Special Educational Needs Responsibilities (b) Learning Difficulties Classes for Children with Specific Learning Difficulties — primary Responsibility — Schools Psychological Service (c) Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties Educational Guidance Centres — secondary Tutorial Classes — primary and secondary Responsibility — Schools Psychological Service Off-site Units — Authority — secondary Off-site Units — Voluntary Agency — secondary Intermediate Education Centres — Authority — secondary Responsibility — Secondary Phase Inspectors Intermediate Treatment Centres — secondary Section 56 Provision of Social Service Settings Responsibility — Secondary inspectors for Intermediate Treatment Centres and Inspectors with Special Educational Needs Responsibilities for Section 56 Provision

2.8.4 Aspects of management will be discussed in Chapter 15. It is however worth repeating that responsibilities for different kinds of unit within the same general area of special educational need rest with three different groups — primary and secondary inspectors, inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities and educational psychologists. The following sections of this chapter comment briefly on the work of the different kinds of units. The chapter concludes with a number of points which the Committee have identified as particularly important for the future development of units of all kinds. Specific Disabilities 2.8.5 Units for Hearing Impaired Children. These units were among the first to be developed, in recent times, to support children with disabilities in primary and secondary schools. Units are well established each a teacher in charge and each working within a primary or secondary school to serve an area of the Authority. One of the team of inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities is assigned all hearing impaired services including peripatetic teachers, special schools and units. 2.8.6 Units work independently within a particular school and within the policies developed for that school by the headteacher and staff. The degree to which the work of the unit, the teachers and the children, can be integrated into the host school varies and depends on positive attitudes, careful planning and good relationships with staff and visiting professionals. Members of the Committee considered the units in Culloden School and Southfields Secondary School to be good examples of such provision and details are given in Appendix 2. The work of the last named unit illustrates two important aspects of good working arrangements in units of this kind which have more general relevance. The first of these is the way in which the process of integration is fostered. All new staff appointed to the school visit the unit as part of their induction. Specialist teachers in the unit participate fully in the life of the school and engage in support or team teaching for the equivalent of one day per week. Pupils in the unit attend mainstream classes and the average period at the time of the visit was 67 per cent of the week. The second aspect is the way team teaching has developed as distinct from supporting individual children in ordinary classes. In one class attended by children with hearing impairments the class teacher and unit teacher exchange roles on a regular basis each planning and carrying out work with the whole class in turn while the other supports individual children who need such help. 2.8.7 Units for children with partial degrees of hearing loss are recognised as an important element in a range of services for hearing impaired children which enables many of them with special help to work with other children in ordinary classes as much as possible. Consideration of the technical aspects of this kind of work is outside the terms of reference of the Committee. It is necessary to distinguish these units from the James Wolfe Unit for children with more profound degrees of hearing loss. This was set up to provide special educational help in association with an ordinary school when a school for the deaf was closed. It is an initiative of an integrative kind which fits within the framework of the Committee’s principles as an alternative to separate special school provision but again its technical effectiveness is beyond the scope of its work. A major issue for the future is how far the provision made in the James Wolfe Unit, originally a relatively and hoc solution to a problem in that area of the Authority, is capable of development as a more general form of provision for children with severe degrees of hearing loss in the LEA. 2.8.8 Units for Children with Speech and Language Difficulties. These units are currently being set up in nursery schools, infant schools and junior schools. There are no units of this kind in secondary schools. They are broadly of two kinds units for language disorders and units for language delay. Classes are of the same size but in the former units there is one speech therapist per class and in the latter one speech therapist for every two classes. Provision for speech and language disorders is among the most recent made by the Authority. Admission is a result of full assessment and the decision of a central panel in County Hall which does not include a speech therapist. Children for

whom English is a second language may well have speech and language difficulties because of problems arising from having to use and relate to more than one language. The Committee considers that attention should be given to this issue. 2.8.9 These units present an example of the importance of health and education authority interaction. From the education point of view units are centrally administered and their work is assigned to an inspector with special educational needs responsibilities. From the health service point of view speech therapy is provided by the individual district health authority in whose area a unit is located. The speech therapy adviser to the Authority works with district health authorities, but there are differences in priorities and the timescale of planning between ILEA and district health authorities which create difficulties in establishing and maintaining the speech therapy element in such provision. 2.8.10 Such units appear to be meeting significant needs, which have become more widely recognised in recent years, in a way which has the potential for close association with the education of all children of the same age. Where progress is good and experience in ordinary classes positive, a move back into primary and secondary schools is relatively easy. More difficulty is presented by children whose speech and language disorders and difficulties persist or who may turn out to have other special educational needs. How to continue special educational provision beyond the age range of the units or how to provide for special language needs in other forms of special educational provision are matters requiring attention, Because children travel to the unit and establish relationships with other children in the host schools, it is not always easy for them to transfer back to their neighbourhood. We suggest that in the infant age range children should be able to remain in the classes in the host school until the normal time of transfer to junior departments. Learning Difficulties 2.8.11 Opportunity Classes. These classes were originally set up as the result of an initiative in 1969 to provide full time special education for slow learners in primary schools. Such classes were to have 20 children in the 8-10 age range who did not fall in the then ESN(M) category but were slow to learn and had limited achievements. Classes were to be a part of the primary school. Admission to them was to be agreed by the headteacher in association with educational psychologists and a stay of about two years was envisaged. The responsibility for such classes was originally assigned to inspectors with special educational responsibilities but now rests with primary inspectors. 2.8.12 There are currently 13 classes under this heading 4 in Division 9, 2 each in Divisions 1, 2 and 5 and 1 each in Divisions 3, 4 and 10. By this time many of the classes have changed, varying in size, in being full time or part-time and extending the range of difficulties they are trying to meet. Children in some of them also attend other special educational provision. 2.8.13 The Committee saw one such class which made a major contribution to the work of the school as a whole. Not only was it a resource available to help all teachers identify and meet special educational needs but the work of children in the class was closely related to that of other children in the school and individuals had links with individual classes. 2.8.14 However, this kind of arrangement presents a number of difficulties. The population for which these classes were originally set up to provide is not now the group receiving help. Classes are isolated from other forms of provision and other arrangements exist to meet these needs. Their educational development has been neglected in many instances and the effectiveness of their work in meeting individually assessed special educational needs is uncertain. Their continued place in a range of special educational arrangements should now be questioned. 2.8.15 Classes for Children with Specific Learning Difficulties. These classes are still more commonly known as remedial classes and their bases as remedial centres. They provide varying degrees of part-time help for children of primary age in the main. The classes form part of a service run by one of the deputy principal psychologists which includes senior peripatetic teachers of children with specific learning difficulties and other peripatetic teachers in each division as well as classes of

this kind. All teachers are part of the schools psychological service teaching service for specific learning difficulties. Educational psychologists are responsible in each Division for the classes and for deciding with the teaching service who should be admitted to them. 2.8.16 The major aims of the service and of the classes is to help children with specific learning difficulties in reading, writing and spelling. Other specific learning difficulties are included in the service brief but as yet get more limited attention. Children selected for help are expected to be of broadly average ability and to have learning difficulties stemming from perceptual and cognitive difficulties rather than adjustment or behavioural ones. Once selected they attend classes for a number of half-day sessions each week. One teacher may see up to 20 children in groups of 6-10 each week and have at least one half day session for follow-up work within the children’s own schools and homes. Although most units, (groups of classes), are on a school site, they are separate and children travel to them from an area around each unit necessitating the use of escorts in many instances. The work of escorts is very much appreciated by teachers but it is not always possible to recruit enough of them so that all children who need to can attend these classes. 2.8.17 Although learning skills and literacy are a major feature of the sessions held in these classes other activities are included in their programmes such as art and crafts and physical activities. Many teachers take an interest in children’s all-round development and would wish to work much more closely with individual class teachers than present circumstances allow. 2.8.18 This form of provision gives rise to a number of questions. Its relationship to the arrangements made by primary schools themselves to overcome learning difficulties is not always clear nor is the relationship with the work of peripatetic teachers for children with specific learning difficulties, formerly called peripatetic remedial teachers. The ways in which the work of such units can be linked with work with the same children in their own schools needs further exploration. Responsibilities for the educational quality of such provision are currently separate from those for other special educational arrangements in the same area and this is an issue common to other units which requires attention. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 2.8.19 Nurture Groups. Although included under the heading of provision for emotional and behavioural difficulties these groups are primarily intended as preventative measures. The development of the young children for whom they are intended has been directly or indirectly hindered by stress of different kinds. They are said to be without the experiences, personal organisation or self-control needed for effective participation in school. Within individual schools nurture groups provide a setting, part domestic and part pre-school, within which children can share structured experiences, develop trusting relationships and become secure enough to respond to the learning experiences provided by the school. A group of 10-12 children at any one time are the responsibility of a teacher and a helper and individual children usually receive special help for one or two years with the aim of being gradually reabsorbed within the school as a whole. For some children such groups may perform an assessment function, and where particular needs persist, they work with parents and other services to decide what further help might be necessary. A careful rationale for the work of such groups has been worked out by a member of the schools psychological service in collaboration with the headteachers and teachers concerned. 2.8.20 The concept of nurture work as normal pre-nursery learning for children who have not experienced many common domestic and material learning experiences, or whose stressful experiences have prevented them from profiting from them, is an important one. Much has been learned from this form of provision which could inform other special educational arrangements. It is early intervention with activities appropriate to a child’s developmental level which when effective enables him or her to respond to primary school programmes. Because it is based in schools, when the teachers work closely with others in the school, it can help teachers of other classes to gain insight and provide for children who might have special educational needs.

2.8.21 There appears to be a considerable variation in the way these groups are run and how the work in them relates to that of the school. One group was visited where there was careful selection of the children following classroom observation an discussion with the class teacher. The children were given support in managing experiences aimed at improving the social and independence skills required for full participation in the classroom. The nurture group teacher and class teachers worked closely together to plan and monitor the children’s development and there was evidence of good progress with the children higher up the school who had previously attended the group. 2.8.22 The work of some other nurture groups causes concern and there appears to be a need for a more comprehensive review of this form of provision than the Committee was able to undertake. In some instances children appear only to be ‘sheltered’ and ‘contained’ and not helped to develop through appropriate educational experiences and social demands. Some nurture group teachers seem cut-off from class teachers in terms of curriculum links and mutual support. In these cases the nurture group appeared to exist as added on special needs provision unrelated to the work of the rest of the school. 2.8.23 The intentions of nurture group provision accord with many of the Committee’s principles, work being based in schools, closely linked with activities in the child’s own class and providing a systematic approach to developmental difficulties. However the Committee has been made aware of some reservations. Some parents, particularly parents of black children dislike what they see as the regressive behaviour allowed in the groups. Others people have expressed doubts about the model of child development which underlies this kind of provision. Its position in a range of special provision and its rather separate existence have also been questioned in evidence. As an approach with a clear rationale aimed at preventing many difficulties becoming special educational needs it is to be endorsed. However the Committee hopes that the future development of nurture group work will include attention to the issues already raised and increased attention to the flexible contribution of such groups within the schools in which they are situated. 2.8.24 Withdrawal Units in Primary Schools. A number of these units have been set up in primary schools as a result of the programme to provide for disruptive children. The Committee received little evidence about their work nor was it possible to study them in any detail. In principle provision in schools should enable individual needs to be met more flexibly and enable teachers responsible for withdrawal and class teachers to work more closely together. Responsibilities for this kind of provision currently rest with primary inspectors and its setting within a range of provision for emotional and behaviour difficulties is not clear. A further study of the work and its place within special educational provision is necessary. These units should be closely linked to other special educational provision. 2.8.25 On-site Units in Secondary Schools. The Working Party on Off-Site Centres already referred to made a number of comments about this kind of arrangement. They noted the imbalance in on-site and off-site provision which in the Spring 1983 was 53 on-site units out of 147 on-site and off-site units and centres. The Working Party’s view was that on-site units provided ‘easier and quicker support to teachers and pupils by reducing pupil’s feelings of rejection, facilitating the pupil’s return to full-time mainstream schooling and easing the organisation of the pupil’s timetables”. However to be effective a whole school policy is necessary and careful procedures for admission, review and liaison with pastoral and subject teaching staff must be worked out. Suitable accommodation, resources, staffing and status in the school are other prerequisites. The Working Party considered an expansion of such provision and a contraction of off-site provision desirable. 2.8.26 The Committee included this form of provision within its general consideration of how secondary schools identified and made provision to meet special educational needs. On-site provision for children with behavioural difficulties was encountered in some schools. Provision was diverse with no common pattern of admission procedures, time span or curriculum criteria. There appeared to be no guidelines for such arrangements but there were examples of carefully planned arrangements to support the work of the school. This is another area of work where the major issue is the identification

and dissemination of good practice and the major need is a clear framework within which schools are expected to work if they set up this kind of provision. 2.8.27 The Wayford Centre. This is the only example of a unit in an ordinary school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties for whom ‘full assessment’ procedures are needed before admission. Technically part of a secondary school it is physically separate at some distance from it. The unit admits both primary and secondary age children although it is only possible to provide curriculum and other links for pupils of secondary age. The Committee received a report evaluating the unit and also visited it. Certain general points need to be made about this initiative. Its integrative purpose is seriously inhibited by the distance of the unit base from the host school and by the fact that the unit caters for a different age range from that school. Its relationship to other provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, whether or not ‘full assessment’ is required prior to admission to them, is anomalous. These comments are not intended as a criticism of the intentions behind such provision which broadly accord with the Committee’s views that there should be the closest possible association between special educational provision and comprehensive schools. They are yet another example of the need to look at provision as a whole within areas of the Authority. The present arrangements do not provide a suitable model for further provision. 2.8.28 Tutorial Classes. These are part-time classes for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. They were among the Authority’s first provision for these needs. Each class provides for about 18 children each week. Children attend in groups of up six for three or four half days each week. Teachers have two half days each week for liaison with children’s schools and with their parents and other agencies. Some teachers work on their own, others having non-teaching assistance providing a programme intended to foster emotional development. Mainly intended for children of primary school age, a relatively high proportion of children of secondary age now attend them (36 per cent Autumn Term 1984). 2.8.29 The therapeutic approach in these classes results in their relative isolation from other provision and services. This isolation has both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side teachers can provide a social and emotional climate different from that in school, or in the home, where individuals can be helped to overcome anxieties and a variety of emotional difficulties. On the negative side classes have been relatively uninfluenced by curricular developments in primary schools and more recent developments in this field of education which give more weight to the therapeutic value of well planned and appropriate educational activities. It has been noted on a number of occasions that teachers of these classes lack contact with advisers and inspectors and other teachers working with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. 2.8.30 In addition to the activities of the Working Party on Off-Site Centres which reported also to this Committee, Committee Members visited tutorial classes and received substantial evidence from them. They also discussed this kind of provision with headteachers. Although general criteria for admission to units have been defined there now exists some variation and the fact that admission only requires the approval of the unit teacher and the educational psychologist responsible for it means that there is no common pattern in their use. Among matters which the Committee consider require attention are teacher links with other forms of provision, an increased input by inspectors and advisers, redefined criteria for their use and a panel for admission at Divisional level. Specific recommendations are made in Part III. 2.8.31 Educational Guidance Centres. These centres, supported and administered by the schools psychological service, provide for pupils of secondary age with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The Working Party on Off-Site Centres did not see these centres as very different from off-site support centres. They recommended that they should be used only for pupils under 14 years of age, for short term periods of help, and that they should be integrated into the same system as that for other off-site provision.

2.8.32 The Committee visited examples of these centres. Again a major concern was the context of this form of special educational provision within the range available within a local area, an issue discussed at the end of this chapter. 2.8.33 Off-Site Support Centres. Two kinds of such centre currently exist, those provided by the Authority and those set up by voluntary agencies and supported by the Authority. It was the work of these centres which was the primary focus of the Working Party already referred to and the Committee is appreciative of the detailed report it received. It is not proposed to go over the same ground but to set the Working Party’s recommendations within its own framework for the development of special educational provision. While such centres continue to be necessary the Committee supports a number of the specific recommendations made by the Off-Site Centre Working Party. It endorses the suggestions that there should be at least three teachers working in and from each centre and that some of the staff should be encouraged to undertake support work in schools. It also agrees that centres should be subject to annual and quinquennial reviews and that they need access to the time of educational psychologists and education welfare officers. The Committee believes that the recommendations on in-service education are sound and that teachers working in centres should be linked with secondary schools and their departments. This form of support should be set within the Committee’s overall philosophy and the recommendations made in Part III. 2.8.34 Intermediate Treatment Centres. These centres for young people referred through Juvenile Courts and Social Service Departments were also reviewed by the Working Party on Off-Site Centres. Intended for pupils whose problems include non-attendance, they provide education and teachers are supplied by the Authority. We would support the Working Party’s recommendation that “a working party made up of representatives from the ILEA and the Boroughs be set up to examine the role and functions of teachers and educational input in Intermediate Treatment Centres and Section 56 units in a social service setting”. 2.8.35 The Children in Units. The Committee attempted to get some indication of the children attending units. Research and Statistics Branch carried out a survey in the Autumn Term 1984 of the population of Tutorial Units, Classes for Specific Learning Difficulties, Educational Guidance Centres and Opportunity Classes. Returns were completed by 93 of the 99 classes surveyed. Many of the questions used were similar to those used on the Survey of the Special School Population carried out earlier, so some comparisons can be made. 2.8.36 There were over 1,300 children in the 93 classes surveyed, 69 per cent of whom were of primary age and 31 per cent of secondary age. Educational Guidance units are for secondary age children but the other classes were thought to be for children of primary age. It was therefore significant to find that 37 per cent of all children in tutorial classes were of secondary age. The percentage of boys in these classes was 75 which was lower than the percentage in schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties, namely 87 per cent but slightly higher than in schools for children with moderate learning difficulties. The percentage of children in them eligible for free meals was just over 62 per cent compared with 45 per cent in primary schools and 40 per cent in secondary schools. Nearly 42 per cent of children came from single parent families compared with percentages of 25 in primary schools, 26 in secondary schools and 55 in schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties. 2.8.37 The ethnic background of pupils was compared with those in ordinary schools. Afro-Caribbean pupils are over-represented, 2.2 per cent compared with 15.7 in primary schools and 23.7 per cent compared with 16.7 per cent in secondary schools. Asian pupils were under-represented. 2.8.38 Teachers were asked about the expected destinations of their children after leaving the units. 67 per cent were expected to attend ordinary schools with a further 11 per cent able to do so with support. 12 per cent were expected to go to special schools of different kinds and teachers were undecided about another 5 per cent of children.

General Comments and Concerns about Units 2.8.39 In setting out the variety of units in Table 8.1, and in giving brief comments on them, it becomes apparent that many different forms have grown up to meet needs that were well defined at the time but have subsequently become less clearly differentiated. Each kind has similar characteristics and for each a similar range of issues now arise. These include their administration and educational development; criteria for admission; responsibilities for admission and discharge; their links with primary and secondary schools and with each other; and the age ranges they cover. Another group of issues concerns staff appointments, in-service education and career development for the teachers who work in them. There is the question of whether they are administered centrally or at divisional level. Finally there is the issue of whether they now meet needs appropriately and whether they should continue to exist. 2.8.40 The ways in which units may be differentiated outlined in 2.8.2 give rise to further questions. Units for the same kinds of special educational need are located inside and outside primary and secondary schools. Very broadly it can be said that units inside schools were set up to promote the process of integration. Units outside schools, although some times working closely with primary and secondary schools, were set up because conditions in these schools were not thought conducive to meeting special educational needs. They were considered to be relatively short term arrangements to prevent the need for special school placements and to return children to primary and secondary schools as soon as possible. A report by Research and Statistics Branch to the Schools Committee gives useful information about how many children were returned from off-site centres to schools and with what degree of success. Looking at the range of provision of this kind a paradoxical situation is evident. While some forms of arrangement for the same kinds of special educational needs are integrative in purpose some are designed to relieve schools of difficult problems. The educational purpose of unit provision needs reconsideration as part of a larger planning and management issue discussed in Chapters 16 and 17. 2.8.41 This issue is currently complicated by the way different forms of provision are planned and supervised. Some are seen as centrally managed services like classes for the hearing impaired, speech and language units, tutorial classes and classes for specific learning difficulties. Other on-site and offsite provision is managed at divisional level. Inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities have centrally managed services and some divisionally managed provision in their assignments. The school psychological service manages three kinds of off-site provision: educational guidance units, tutorial units and classes for specific learning difficulties. Primary and secondary inspectors are responsible for other units of different kinds. There does not appear to be any mechanism by which these different areas of responsibility are considered together. 2.8.42 Criteria for admission to different units are not widely known outside small professional groups and the procedures to assess and place children in units vary widely from ‘full assessment’ procedures through management groups to individual decisions based on school, unit and parent discussion. Each separate service has a rationale but when they are seen as a whole, overlap, gaps and a lack of common agreed policies become evident. 2.8.43 There appears to be considerable value in having some units located both inside and outside school whose main purpose is to work with primary and secondary schools and maintain as many children as possible in close contact with them. What is now needed is a unified approach to such provision set within an overall special educational needs policy. 2.8.44 The teachers working in visits frequently commented on the contribution of the guides who brought children to their units. This service was seen as an integral part of the help given in some units helping individual children to develop independence and giving them individual attention. 2.8.45 Comment on the units would not be complete without recognising the hard work and dedication of the teachers. The Committee has been impressed by the quality of much of the work seen both in terms of the sensitive understanding of individual children and the technical proficiency

of the teaching. However many teachers are working in relative isolation, particularly in off-site units, and career opportunities and career development for them is uncertain due to the fragmentary nature of provision and of responsibilities. A more systematic approach to their needs is required to maintain morale and quality. 2.8.46 In outlining the problems and issues in this final section no attempt has been made to make specific recommendations. These are made in Part III where they are related to issues dealt with in other chapters.

Chapter 9 Day and Boarding Special Schools Introduction 2.9.1 The contribution of day and boarding schools to the range of special educational provision was briefly described in Chapter 4. In this Chapter the Committee considers this kind of provision in more detail giving facts about the current special school population and discussing the major aspects of the work of special schools. Members of the Committee would wish to acknowledge the commitment and skills of the staff of special schools and the contribution they have made to the Committee’s work. Suggestions and comments in this Chapter and recommendations made in Part Ill are for the future and do not necessarily imply criticism of the present work of the schools.

The Schools 2.9.2 There are 109 special schools providing for children whose special educational needs have been determined by the Authority and described in Statements. 31 of the special schools are boarding schools. Table 9.1: Special Schools Title

Former Title

Day

Boarding

Total

Emotional/Behavioural Difficulties (EBD)

Maladjusted

13

20(+3a)

33

Average Roll (Jan ‘84) 37

Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD)

ESN(M)

22

2

24

104

Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD)

ESN(S)

15

1

16

86

Delicate

Delicate

10

3

13

89

Visually Impaired

Blind and Partially Sighted

4

1

5

73

Hearing Impaired

Deaf & Partially 3 Hearing

l(+lb)

4

54

Motor Impaired

Physically Handicapped

6

2

8

59

Autistic

Autistic

3c

1

4

2d



2

Hospital

17 (Complex Needs)

53

Total

78

31

109

Notes (a) There are three hostels attached to day schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties; (b) one day school for the hearing impaired has some boarders; (c) one school also includes language impaired children; (d) there are six hospital schools but only two deal with children having statements. 2.9.3 The average roll for special schools listed in Table 9.1 shows that most are small compared with the average roll in ILEA primary schools of 198 and of secondary schools of 852. The small size has advantages and drawbacks to which we refer later. Most of these special schools cater for the 5-16 age range although schools for severe learning difficulties cater for the 2-19 age range and individual schools may serve other age ranges. The length of school day varies in special schools and in practice is more affected by transport arrangements than educational considerations. 2.9.4 Table 9.1 shows some of the former titles used for special schools. We regard terms such as ‘maladjusted’ and ‘educationally sub-normal’ as totally inappropriate for children who have difficulties in the spheres of behaviour or learning. However, we see little advantage in attempting to replace the term ‘autistic’ by ‘complex needs’ and would advise the retention of the original title. The Special School Population 2.9.5 The Survey by Research and Statistics Branch of the population of special schools also included units for children who were the subject of statements. These units are described in Chapters 4 and 8. Table 9.2 shows the percentage of boys and girls in each kind of special school and unit and the percentage of the population in each. Table 9.2: The Pupils (from 1984 Special Schools Survey)

Type of School

% of No. Pupils Special School

SEX% AGE% Boys Girls Primary Secondary

EBD 1289 MLD 2519 SLD 1281 Delicate 1172 Visually Impaired 367 Hearing Impaired 214 Units for Hearing 314 Impaired Motor Impaired 473 Autistic 122 Language Units 110 Hospital 106

16.0 31.2 17.1 14.5 4.5 2.7 3.9

86.6 59.2 55.6 63.2 54.8 54.8 60.0

13.4 40.8 44.4 36.8 45.2 45.2 40.0

12.8 30.0 41.8 31.9 36.5 41.1 62.6

87.2 70.0 58.2 68.1 63.5 58.9 37.4

5.9 1.5 1.4 1.3

51.8 67.8 79.1 56.6

48.2 48.9 32.2 64.5 20.9 100.0 43.4 29.2

51.1 35.5 0.0 70.8

Total

100%

63.1% 36.9% 34.0%

8067

66.0%

2.9.6 Table 9.2 shows that approximately half of the children in special schools have moderate and severe learning difficulties, one-sixth emotional and behavioural difficulties and one-sixth of all of them are in boarding schools. There are marked differences in the percentages of boys and girls in the total special school population but there are larger discrepancies in schools for emotional and behaviour difficulties and language units. This pattern mirrors national statistics. The ratio of primary to secondary age pupils is also significant and it is interesting to note that the highest proportion of pupils of primary age are in provision for children who have visual, hearing and motor impairments

and severe learning difficulties. These are children whose difficulties may be more easily recognised at an early stage and which are less determined by the contexts in which they are educated. 2.9.7 Table 4.9 in Chapter 4 shows that 2.58 per cent of the ILEA school population was in special schools in 1984. The percentage of children in special schools in England and Wales was 1 .8 in January 1984. There are perhaps two relevant comments on this difference. First the Authority has traditionally been generous in its special school provision but secondly, and of more importance, the incidence of all special educational needs tends to be higher in inner city areas.

Table 9.3: Population of ILEA Schools Year

1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

Visually Impaired

Hearing Motor Impaired Impaired

475 480 591 484 463 474 482 786 420 488 457

407 410 441 477 551 606 645 699 719 726 734

1059 1039 1916 981 936 905 915 911 855 813 803

1563 1618 1564 1552 1534 1507 1510 1529 1489 1508 1515

720 719 705 723 714 710 605 569 532 532 527 521

804 758 719 595 666 634 623 572 564 518 473 448

1546 1437 1380 1396 1442 1404 1336 1290 1266 1244 1178 1109

Delicate

Special Total MLD SLD EBD School School Popu- Population lation 4147 601 8135 416950 4244 675 8139 414240 4329 661 8345 411452 4472 770 8497 410750 4567 854 8595 414520 4855 969 9049 419325 5050 979 9321 423289 5189 1011 9477 425685 5250 975 9508 425676 5157 1194 1026 10594 427209 4902 1255 1152 10502 424568

†ROSLA 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

465 466 481 482 483 473 447 419 408 392 367 337

4724 4568 4236 3961 3788 3628 3432 3208 3020 2780 2520 2350

1296 1295 1328 1422 1432 1414 1427 1387 1392 1370 1380 1340

1172 1158 1227 1257 1304 1338 1304 1285 1299 1360 1270 1144

10446 10069 9859 9675 9522 9308 8944 8851 8622 8363 7774 7392

428814 421271 412241 400958 383389 368112 351697 335817 322771 310294 300582 289713

*The totals are somewhat greater than the sum of the seven disabilities listed because of the addition of hospital schools, etc. †ROSLA Raising of the School Leaving Age

Table 9.4: Proportion of Children in ILEA Special Schools

Year

Visually Impaired

Percentage of Per 1,000 of Total School Population Hearing Motor Special School Impaired Impaired Delicate MLD SLD EBD Population to Total School Population

1.09 1.12 1.20 1.16 1.11 1.09 1.11 1.12 0.97 1.12 1.05

0.94 9.98 1.06 1.14 1.32 1.39 1.48 1.61 1.65 1.67 1.69

2.44 2.49 2.44 2.35 2.25 2.08 2.10 2.10 1.97 1.87 1.85

3.59 3.88 3.75 3.72 3.68 3.48 3.47 3.52 3.42 3.47 3.48

9.54 10.19 10.39 10.73 10.96 11.17 11.61 11.93 12.08 11.86 11.27

― 1.38 ― 1.62 ― 1.60 ― 1.85 ― 2.05 ― 2.31 ― 2.25 ― 2.33 ― 2.24 2.75 2.36 2.89 2.65

1.95 2.01 2.03 2.07 2.07 2.16 2.20 2.27 2.23 2.48 2.47

ROSLA 1974 1.07 1975 1.07 1976 1.15 1977 1.16 1978 1.26 1979 1.28 1980 1.25 1981 1.22 1982 1.22 1983 1.25 1984 1.21 1985 1.16

1.66 1.65 1.69 1.74 1.86 1.92 1.69 1.65 1.60 1.70 1.74 1.80

1.85 1.74 1.73 1.43 1.73 1.71 1.74 1.66 1.69 1.66 1.56 1.55

3.56 3.31 3.31 3.35 3.75 3.79 3.74 3.74 3.80 3.98 3.87 3.83

10.87 10.51 10.17 9.51 9.85 9.80 9.61 9.30 9.06 8.90 8.32 8.11

2.98 2.70 2.98 2.66 3.33 2.94 3.41 3.02 3.72 3.39 3.82 3.61 4.00 3.65 4.02 3.73 4.18 3.90 4.38 4.35 4.55 4.19 4.63 3.95

2.44 2.39 2.39 2.41 2.48 2.53 2.54 2.64 2.67 2.70 2.58 2.55

1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

2.9.8 Tables 9.3 and 9.4 show the population of ILEA special schools from 1963 to 1984. 2.9.9 The information has been presented in Tables 9.1 to 9.4 under the description of the needs for which schools provide. These should not be assumed to indicate categories of disability which were abolished by the 1981 Education Act. The Research and Statistics Branch report already referred to, makes the point that headteachers identify a variety of special educational needs in their schools and that a single disability label no longer describes the needs which special schools meet. 2.9.10 School descriptions are a legacy of traditional categorisation and, although they indicate major special educational needs, they do not indicate the complexity of the needs they are expected to meet. There are a number of characteristics of the population of children for whom a place in a special school is recommended. These include age, the primary and secondary ratio, the population of boys and girls and the combinations of disabilities and special educational needs which individuals have. Because the range of special educational needs which schools are expected to meet is not always clearly specified, this more complex pattern of individual special educational needs gives rise to difficulties in deciding which school might meet an individual child’s needs. It is necessary to develop clearer specifications of the provision individual schools are expected to make. This requires an analysis which reflects the nature and degree of special educational needs primary and secondary schools are unable to meet.

Social and Ethnic Characteristics of the Special School Population 2.9.11 The Research and Statistics Branch survey indicated a number of ways in which the special school population varied from that in primary and secondary schools. Unfortunately the survey grouped children from one parent families and those in the care of Social Services Departments together. This is a grouping which in the Committee’s view is inappropriate. The research shows that 25 per cent of all children in primary and secondary schools fall within this group compared with 36 per cent in special schools and 55 per cent in schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Parental occupations described as non- manual and skilled described the parents of 45 per cent of the primary and secondary school population but only 30 per cent of the special school population. The percentage was still lower, 23 per cent, in schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties with only 20 per cent of parents of children in schools for moderate learning difficulties being so described. These last two groups were chosen for a parental survey of attitudes by the Research and Statistics branch (referred to in Chapter 13). We feel that there is not currently sufficient support given by Social, Health and Voluntary Services to these groups. Ethnic Characteristics 2.9.12 Differences in the ethnic origin of pupils was also evident. The position in all special schools and in primary and secondary schools can be in form Table 9.5. Table 9.5: Ethnic Background of Pupils in Special and Primary and Secondary schools

Ethnic Group

Special schools Primary Secondary % %

Afro-Caribbean 16.5 Asian 8.4 English Scot Welsh Irish 60.5 Other 14.5

Primary & Secondary Schools Primary Secondary % %

18.7 4.4

15.7 11.1

16.7 8.3

65.1 11.9

55.9 17.3

61.5 13.5

2.9.13 The distribution of children from different ethnic backgrounds in schools for particular special educational needs is shown in the following table. Table 9.6: The Ethnic Background of Pupils in Different Types of Special Schools

Type of School

AfroCaribbean %

Ethnic background Other

Asian

EWSI

%

%

%

N

63.7 46.5 71.4 73.9

8.8 16.9 10.8 12.5

353 213 462 1157

12.4 11.8 15.1 19.8 15.2 15.3

1265 2504 1362 121 105 314

Visually impaired 13.9 13.6 Hearing impaired 26.3 10.3 Motor impaired 9.1 8.7 Delicate 10.2 3.4 Emotional/Behavioural Difficulties 24.9 0.5 Moderate learning difficulties 17.4 5.6 Severe learning difficulties 19.9 8.7 Autistic 25.6 2.5 Hospital 17.1 3.8 Units for hearing impaired 14.6 12.1

62.2 65.3 56.3 52.1 63.8 58.0

Total

Units for language impaired 43.6 Total number of pupils N 1429 % 17.9

2.7 460 5.8

42.7 5057 63.5

10.9 1020 12.8

110 7966

(From RS 962/84 “Characteristics of Pupils in Special Schools” P15)

The Curriculum 2.9.14 Although originally set up to deal with categories of disability, special schools have always given attention to curriculum development. However, the curricula of special schools have in the past been criticised for their narrow base. The Committee was therefore pleased to note how in recent years the Authority, schools and individuals have attempted to improve and broaden that base. Nevertheless what special schools can offer is limited by a combination of factors which includes their relatively small numbers of pupils and staff and the isolation of many schools from curriculum development in primary and secondary schools. What is offered often cannot encompass the wide range of pupils’ needs and the wide range of abilities or learning difficulties in any groups based on a single disability. 2.9.15 It is now much more evident that the curriculum offered in special schools is a central characteristic of their work rather than the particular disability or the difficulty for which they cater. This trend has been endorsed by the guidelines issued by the Department of Education and Science in October 1984. These identify three curricular approaches in special education.

and

(i)

the curriculum offered in primary and secondary schools mediated by specialist teaching, materials and technology;

(ii)

a modified curriculum similar in range to the ordinary curriculum with more limited objectives but not more limited expectations for children with moderate learning difficulties;

(iii)

a development curriculum for children with severe learning difficulties.

Although there is currently much debate about these different approaches their definition and their appropriateness, the need for curriculum determined special educational provision is generally endorsed. 2.9.16 There remain inherent problems in curriculum development in special schools. Increasing attention to the quality of what they offer, associated with high parental expectations is one of them. The Committee endorses the importance of the curriculum as a basis for all special educational provision and the move away from groupings solely on the basis of disability or significant difficulty. Members were aware of a number of valuable initiatives in schools to develop their curriculum and to make closer links with primary and secondary schools to extend the range of experiences they can offer. Special schools should continue to move towards a more precise statement of their curriculum framework and the ways in which individual progress is assessed within it. Furthermore, our subsequent suggestions for reorganisation and links with primary and secondary schools should substantially help all schools to address this issue. Teachers in Special Schools 2.9.17 Pupil-Teacher ratios in special schools are very different from those found in primary and secondary schools. The Authority has been generous in its interpretation of the DES guidelines issued in 1977 (Circular 4/74). Current ratios are as follows: Table 9.7: Teacher Pupil Ratios School

Ratio

EBD MLD SLD Delicate Visually Impaired Hearing Impaired Motor Impaired Autistic Language Units Hospitals: Maudsley Heathview

1:6 1:10 1:8.5 (1:6 in special care units) 1:8 1:8.5 (1:6 for non-sighted methods) 1:5 1:5 1:6 1:6 1:4 1:6

These figures compare with the pupil-teacher ratios in ILEA primary and secondary schools which are as follows— Primary 1:17, Secondary 1:12.8. In fact, for all special schools the actual pupil-teacher ratio (at January 1984) was 1:5.9. It must, however, be remembered that these pupil-teacher ratios in special schools are not necessarily to be taken as reflecting class size. An advantageous pupil teacher ratio permits specialist teachers to broaden the curriculum offer. Within primary and secondary schools and their supporting units and classes, the pupil teacher ratio may be equally as advantageous for some groups. 2.9.18 The current staffing ratios, however do not allow as much time as teachers would wish to create links with primary and secondary schools and support children with special educational needs in them. They do however provide opportunities for teachers from these schools to share their experience and learn from each other. 2.9.19 Nursery assistants work in classes for young children and general duties attendants support the work of teachers in other classes. The contribution of these members of school staff is highly valued by teachers and pupils. The Committee recognises the importance of support staff in special educational provision and commends the contribution they make. 2.9.20 It is obviously desirable that teachers working in special schools should have additional qualifications in aspects of meeting special educational needs. The Authority has been active in encouraging in-service education not only by seconding teachers to obtain special educational qualifications but also by providing sustained courses of its own. The Warnock Report (1978) noted that in 1977 the proportion of teachers in special schools in England and Wales who had an additional qualification in special education was about 22%. The ILEA with its policy of encouraging in-service teacher education and secondments on full-time courses, had about 30% of teachers qualified in January 1980 (Research and Statistics Report 793/81). This still leaves over 2/3 of the teachers in special schools without an additional qualification. Clearly, the authority would wish to increase the proportion of teachers having an additional qualification, and we would support this. 2.9.21 The small size of special schools is sometimes a limiting factor in the career prospects for teachers. The Authority has been active in increasing the number of posts above Scale 1. The Committee recognise both the problem and the steps taken to meet it but looks forward to career development being considered within the context of the whole range of special educational provision in future. The suggestions for developments set out in Part Ill should enhance prospects within a unified service to meet special educational needs. Day Special Schools 2.9.22 Table 9.7 shows the number of day schools and their accommodation and rolls. It would be helpful if accommodation figures were agreed between the Authority and the DES. The authorised

figure for each school as agreed by DES was the figure existing before the issue of Circular 4/73 which suggested better pupil-teacher ratios. Because the ILEA followed these DES staffing recommendations, the ILEA recommended accommodation figures were lowered. Table 9.8: ILEA Day Special School Provision Type

No. of Schools

DES ILEA Recog. Recog.. Accom. Accom.

1985 Roll (Form 7)

% Roll of Des Accom.

% Roll of ILEA Accom.

EBD

13

690

684

478

69.3%

69.9%

MLD

22

4272

3190

2186

51.2%

68.5%

SLD

15

1701

1356

1257

73.9%

92.7%

Delicate

10

1585

916

1026

64.7%

112.0%

Visually Impaired

4

468

357

266

56.8%

74.5%

Hearing Impaired

3

204

223

126

61.8%

56.5%

Motor Impaired

6

920

450

380

41.3%

84.4%

Autistic

3

91

91

86

94.5%

94.5%

Total

76

9931

7267

5905

58.5%

79,9%

2.9.23 Whatever the Authority’s response to the Committee’s recommendations, there appears to be a case for fewer schools to meet current needs but the Committee is aware of a number of factors which may make reorganisation difficult. These include the geographical location of schools see Table 9.9, the possibility of increased travelling time for children and transport arrangements in general. Some difficulties may be overcome by setting up more units for young children in primary schools. Careful planning will be necessary for any contraction of special school provision so that resources are effectively redeployed and the skills of teachers fully utilised in new arrangements. Table 9.9: ILEA Day Special Schools by Division Division

QuadEBD MLD SLD Del. rant

Vis. Hear. Motor Aut. Total

1. Hammersmith/ Kensington

1

1

2

1

1

1

―

―

―

6

2. Camden/ Westminster

1

1

2

2

1

―

1

1

1

9

3. lslington

2

1

1

1

―

―

1

1

5

4. Hackney

2

1

2

1

1

―

―

1

―

6

5. Tower Hamlets

2

2

2

1

1

―

―

1

―

7

―

6. Greenwich

3

1

3

2

1

1

―

7. Lewisham

3

1

2

2

1

―

―

8. Southwark

3

1

3

2

―

9. Lambeth

4

3

2

2

3

10. Wandsworth

4

1

3

1

1

13

22

15

10 3

Total

―

1 ―

1

10

―

6

―

―

―

6

1

1

1

―

13

―

1

1

―

8

3

7

3

76

Providing for Special Educational Needs in Day Special Schools 2.9.24 A very wide range of special educational needs is currently met in day special schools. These cannot be described briefly and the Committee makes no attempt to do so nor does it describe the work of different schools. This section is intended to highlight a selected number of issues to which the Committee wish to draw attention. 2.9.25 The Committee was impressed by the atmosphere and ethos of many of the schools that members visited. The commitment of all staff, the care and teaching skills in evidence and the children’s response to them were often highly commendable. While many schools were striving for educational achievements and the development of personal autonomy, the means of pursuing them varied dependent on the children’s disabilities and needs, institutional constraints and an individual school’s philosophy. 2.9.26 The Committee was not able to study the work of different kinds of special school in detail. A feature common to different kinds of schools was the development of appropriate communication techniques demanding time and attention from all the staff and children. We draw attention to this as issue of considerable importance in moves to make more provision in primary and secondary schools. The comments which follow concern particular issues to which the Committee’s attention was drawn. Progress towards integration will demand that the specialised equipment, methods and support services currently in special schools are made more widely available in other schools. The Committee recognises that groups who have specialised knowledge and experience of teaching children with different disabilities and difficulties will need to study how to transfer services and supporting arrangements now available in special schools to provide for children and young people in other settings. Schools for Children with Visual Impairments 2.9.27 Two aspects of the work of these schools illustrate the issues the Committee wishes to see considered. These are the techniques and equipment necessary for children with visual impairments to read and write, and mobility. Some children learn Braille and they indicated how slow and difficult it was to learn, and that the books were cumbersome. Older students said there was insufficient material for the subjects they wished to study but that Braille was useful for leisure reading. The Optacon and micro-writer may assist people with poor vision. The former scans one letter at a time on the printed page and gives an enlarged visual display and sensation to the fingertips. Reading with the Optacon is often a protracted business. The micro-writer is held in the hand and attached to a visual display and word-processor, permitting young people to study and produce work. Children with some vision required impeccable lighting, clear or large print and magnifying aids. Teachers indicated that it was imperative for the children to use whatever vision they had. 2.9.28 The other important aspect of work with children and young people who are visually impaired is training in mobility in their local environment and other situations they might meet. The Committee were impressed by the thoroughness of the programmes and the success of the young people

concerned in mastering them. 2.9.29 Progress towards integration will involve a close association between special schools and other schools and colleges to ensure that equipment, specialist teaching, including mobility teaching, and support is increasingly available to individuals within primary and secondary schools and colleges. Schools for Children with Hearing Impairments 2.9.30 Children with some of the most severe problems of communication were in the special schools for the deaf. Every effort was being made to use any residual hearing the children might have. The schools were soundproofed to minimise distracting extraneous noise. The children wore post-aural hearing aids outside the classroom but in most teaching situations they were using infra-red group hearing aids. 2.9.31 Deaf children were being encouraged to lip read and some were very proficient. They also used sign assisted English and finger spelling. There is controversy about the use of signing amongst professionals and parents since it is argued that the motivation to learn lip reading will be diminished. This report cannot enter into this controversy, other than to say that there should be access to both lip reading and signing across the Authority to allow the most appropriate provision to be made for the individual child. 2.9.32 The profoundly deaf need to be taught concepts which hearing children acquire naturally as they listen to words and phrases in a range of contexts. They have great difficulty in learning the ambiguities and idiosyncracies of the English language. Some very young deaf children seemed fluent readers yet these children have difficulty progressing through reading schemes because of the complexity of ideas and concepts. 2.9.33 If children whose parents and teachers are familiar with the/r language and culture have these great difficulties how much more difficult is the situation of a child with a severe hearing loss whose language of the home is not English. This is a very specialised issue to which the Committee was not equipped to give attention. However, it wishes to identify the issue as one needing particular attention by psychological and hearing impaired services with the help of the community. 2.9.34 The Committee draws attention to the question of appropriate equipment, and to the issues of teaching methods, learning difficulties and the particular needs of hearing impaired children whose first language is not English. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that these issues require urgent attention in this aspect of special educational provision. The second, and more important reason, is that they represent key aspects of integration. The successful examples of some units in primary and secondary schools which already exist show what can be achieved when the skills and resources of specialist staff are deployed within other schools. Children with Severe Impairments of Both Vision and Hearing 2.9.35 These children present a daunting challenge to teaching skills and the Authority employs a small group of teachers to give specific help to children with these special educational needs and their families. The Committee was made aware of disquiet about how and where provision was made for these children other than in an independent school for the hearing impaired. We note in Chapter 6 that the Authority is not apparently making use of the unit in Ealing. The Committee considers that further attention is needed to the kind of provision needed for such children and where it should be made. Schools for Children with Motor Impairments 2.9.36 Micro-technology has begun to help even the most severely physically disabled children to communicate and learn. Children are assessed to find the best voluntary controlled movement. Children were seen operating computers with a slight turn of the head or movement of the foot. Some children who had very little motor control had worked for many hours to master these operations. The work of the ILEA Resource Centre for Motor and Associated Communication Handicaps described in Appendix 2 has been outstanding in developing this work with children with severe physical

disabilities. 2.9.37 The schools for motor impaired children have been providing for more severe degrees of physical impairment over recent years and developing a wide range of techniques to foster communication and learning. Among these is the use of Bliss Symbolics, a system of communication which involves pointing at symbols and letters on a sheet with the finger or a pointer. The symbols are both general and personal to the child. 2.9.38 There is little co-ordinated work for children with these particular special educational needs when they are with their families. There is a need for home-school liaison teachers to assist in the children’s early learning and to support them when they enter day nurseries and nursery classes and schools. 2.9.39 A particular issue for schools of this kind is developing personal autonomy and social competence often a difficult task in a day school. The courses provided at Hatchford Park Boarding School are an important contribution to this aspect of education for young people with physical disabilities. 2.9.40 Two major factors currently inhibit progress towards an increase in the number of motor impaired children who can be educated in primary and secondary schools. The first is access to the buildings and this matter is discussed elsewhere in this report and in Appendix 3. The second is the support of individual children in primary and secondary schools. The resource centre already referred to and special schools for motor impaired children obviously have a role to play in supporting children in primary and secondary schools and this is an issue the Committee considers requires attention. Schools for Autistic Children 2.9.41 Many autistic children suffer severe communication difficulties and inability to form relationships. Many of the children have little spoken language and many others have severe learning problems. Some also exhibited ritualistic and bizarre behaviour. These children require intensive, dedicated help from their teachers and parents. In the majority of cases help to the age of nineteen and beyond is required, and the Authority should begin to discuss provision for this older age group, with social and health services. A particular issue is the early assessment of this kind of special educational need and the Committee was made aware of the need for more attention to this. Some of these children would formerly have been in psychiatric hospitals. Health, education and social services should continue to work closely together in developing services to assess these children’s needs and provide a coordinated educational, medical and social service programme to meet all their needs and support their parents with appropriate respite care and other services. Schools for Children with Severe Learning Difficulties 2.9.42 Children with severe learning difficulties have been the responsibility of local education authorities since April 1971. The proportion of pupils in schools for these children, compared with the LEA total school population, has grown each year since then (see Table 9.4). In 1972 the population was 0.275 per cent of the school population. By 1984 the percentage had increased to 0.455. This increase can be attributed to a number of factors, including the fact that children are no longer admitted to hospitals for the mentally handicapped unless they need medical treatment and many former patients have been transferred to community care and live at home or in other provision made by Social Service Departments. 2.9.43 Because of the increasing number of profoundly handicapped children in these schools there is a need to reassess the health service support they receive particularly in respect of nursing cover. Similarly the high incidence of family breakdown reported in the Research and Statistics Branch report suggests a more adequate level of social support for families is necessary.

2.9.44 When teaching and support staff ratios were fixed for these children the proportion of children and young people in schools with very severe and complex needs was smaller. In view of the increase in the percentage of such children in schools some reassessment of staffing levels may be justified. 2.9.45 Children in this group, follow a curriculum, within which tasks are finely graded. Every task is broken down into small steps, and tasks are concerned with all aspects of a child’s development. The Committee is most impressed by the advances made in this area of education, and by the dedication of staff who frequently had to deal with severe behavioural difficulties as well as severe learning difficulties. Delicate Children 2.9.46 Schools for Delicate Children have been dealing with an increasing wide variety of special educational needs. Two surveys have looked at their population and work. A specific study was carried out by the schools psychological service and the Research and Statistics Branch survey of the population of special schools also studied these schools. Delicate schools now include children with a wide range of health problems such as asthma, eczema and bronchial and heart conditions together with emotional and behavioural difficulties of the less aggressive kind. As part of the second of the two surveys, heads were asked to rate their children on a number of characteristics within guidelines developed by Research and Statistics Branch. The overall results were that about three quarters of the population was assessed as having learning difficulties and three quarters emotional and behavioural difficulties. However of the latter only 20 per cent displayed acting out problems whereas 43 per cent were thought to exhibit an above average level of anxiety and 12 per cent school phobia. The population is thus not only mixed in its needs but many children have a combination of many different special educational needs. It is often this combination rather than the degree of any one need which causes them to be placed in such schools. 2.9.47 These schools with their advantageous teacher pupil ratios, and multi-professional team of social worker, nurse, speech and physiotherapist, provide a relatively sheltered environment for many children who might be overwhelmed by the large primary or secondary school. They attempt to offer a curriculum within available resources which is as close as possible to that offered in primary and secondary schools. We found a particularly high degree of parental satisfaction with these schools. The Committee was aware that the precise role of this provision within a range of provision catering for needs associated with health and emotional difficulties remains unidentified. Nevertheless we felt that what is currently offered in terms of skills and attitudes should not be lost in the reorganisations which may follow our report although its eventual deployment can only be determined within overall planning. Children with Moderate Learning Difficulties 2.9.48 Schools for children with moderate learning difficulties provide for the largest proportion of the special school population, 31 .2 per cent, although the percentage of the school population for which they cater has been decreasing from 1 .21 in 1971 to 0.83 in 1984. The children concerned have a wide range of special educational needs as well as limited ability to respond to what primary and secondary schools currently have to offer. These needs are often associated with social and behavioural difficulties which tip the balance when the alternatives of provision in primary and secondary schools and special schools is being considered. 2.9.49 The staff of these schools expressed the view that more flexible use could be made of what they have to offer. They suggested that there should be more support for children with moderate learning difficulties below the age of five. In particular more work with families and nursery provision. 2.9.50 The curriculum these schools offer will naturally have common ground with that provided for less successful learners in primary and secondary schools and it is important that this is recognised by teachers in both. The Committee has become aware of initiatives mentioned later in this Chapter and in Appendix 2 where links have been formed and joint approaches to common difficulties developed.

Many of the children and young people in these schools are receiving care and education which is not at present generally available elsewhere. They are helped effectively to develop social and life skills as well as educational skills. The Committee wishes to see the staff from these schools increasingly developing and implementing such work in close conjunction with their colleagues in primary and secondary schools or colleges. Schools for Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 2.9.51 Except for two, these schools are among the smallest special schools with all the limitations on staffing and curriculum that result from a small school population with a limit of 50 on roll. They are difficult to staff with teachers of high quality both because of the demanding nature of the work and the rewards it is possible to offer within present salary structures. The proportion of children and young people with these special educational needs in the school population has been increasing. In 1963 the percentage was 0.14 and by 1984 had reached 0.49 per cent. In addition to children and young people in special schools there is also a wide array of other provision described in Chapters 4 and 8. The main issue for the Committee is the development of an appropriate range of provision into which the work of currently done by schools can be integrated. 2.9.52 Major difficulties arise in providing appropriate education when only 13 per cent of the population of the all age schools is of primary age and only 13 per cent are girls. The particular needs of these two groups require attention in any reorganisation which takes place. Difficulties also arise from the relatively later determination of the need to place individuals in these schools particularly when this results in admission over the age of 14. In future either the need should be identified earlier or specific alternative arrangements made for individuals in their final two years of schooling. 2.9.53 The staff of these schools expressed concern about what the Authority expected of them. There is a conflict between the administrative expediency of placing a child quickly in a particular school and the need for the school to maintain a balance of age range, offer an appropriate curriculum and plan a programme for work with the child’s family. The headteachers also pointed out that some Divisional and long term supply staff did not have the teaching skills necessary for the demanding work and were not committed to the team approach which is essential if a structured environment is to be provided for the children. 2.9.54 Headteachers of these schools expressed concern that there is a too high percentage of pupils with conduct disorders and delinquent pupils in their schools. Many consider that some of these, mainly older boys, would be more suitably placed in Social Service Department provision, such as Community Homes with Education (CHE5). The whole question of provision for children and young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties raises in fundamental issues about links with Social Service Departments and Health Authorities. Social Service Departments have facilities such as CHEs, Observation and Assessment Units, Community Homes and Intermediate Treatment: Health Authorities have access to psychiatric wards in hospital. Not by any means all children exhibiting aberrant or difficult behaviour can receive the specialised help they require in special schools or units provided by local education authorities. Children in Hospital 2.9.55 The Authority maintains six hospital schools and provides teaching arrangements in others. Two of the hospital schools admit children who are the subject of Statements while other hospital education provides for children whose medical treatment requires successive periods in hospital. One hospital school remains open throughout the year in order that young patients with acute conditions will always have the benefit of education to meet their particular needs, and children returning to the hospital with chronic conditions who have often missed regular schooling will receive consistent teaching from familiar people. Of the two hospital schools specifically associated with meeting special educational needs, one provides for children with severe learning difficulties and the other for children with psychiatric disorders in one part of the school and severe learning difficulties with associated emotional and behavioural difficulties in another.

2.9.56 Parents are frequently the point of contact between the child’s own school and the hospital school. However the teachers expressed a wish for closer contact with the other schools their children attend, many of which may be outside the Authority’s area. They would also welcome more knowledge of current educational practices and curriculum development particularly in secondary schools. Teaching and medical staff also work together in the development of curriculum elements related to the child’s experience in hospital. The work of the teachers and schools in providing a learning environment in the hospital was seen as very supportive by parents and children and by the medical staff. Regrettably medical staffing and resources within the Health Service mean that children cannot always be moved from their wards to the classroom areas available in hospital. These schools do not have General Duties Assistants, who could assist the movement of children to classrooms and help teachers to care for them. Boarding Schools 2.9.57 Table 9.10 shows the provision of boarding special schools.

Table 9.10: ILEA Boarding Special Schools Provision Type

No. of schools Accomm. 1985 Roll (Form 7) Rolls as % of Accomm.

EBD

20(+3)a

910

666

73.2%

MDL

2

222

164

73.9%

SLD

1

100

83

83.0%

Delicate

3

168

112

66.7%

Visually Impaired 1

100

71

71.0%

Hearing Impaired

1(+1)b

136

96

70.6%

Motor Impaired

2(+1)c

146

68

46.6%

Autistic

1

30

25

83.3%

Total

31

1812

1285

70.9%

a. 3 Day EBD schools have hostels attached. b. 1 Hearing Impaired school has a boarding section. c. 1 Motor Impaired school has a hostel attached. d. The figures for accommodation include hostels.

2.9.58 Of the thirty one boarding schools, only six lie within the ILEA geographical area. The remainder are sited outside London and there are historical reasons for this. The questions which now arise are as follows. Is boarding education advantageous, and if it is should it be provided away from the communities in which children live? The principle that supporting arrangements should be made in local communities suggests the need to justify the extent and range of current provision; a matter which the Committee considers warrants research and enquiry.

2.9.59 Adverse social circumstances, family poverty, a care order, and the support of a single parent, have each at different times in the past occasionally been proposed as reasons for a child going to boarding school. None of these is, in itself, an acceptable criterion, as distinct from a consideration of the children’s responses to the educational provision being made for them currently. A small group led by the Authority’s principal psychologist has recently considered criteria for boarding school

placement for children with emotional and behaviour difficulties. The recommendations of this group are presently the subject of consultation within the Authority. The criteria the group recommends are as follows: (i) Parents request residential placement, and the balance of professional advice is to concur with that request. (ii) Emotional factors, whilst not preventing the family from living together, interfere with educational progress and make long-term relief necessary to overcome learning difficulties or promote emotional and social development underpinning educational progress. There should be evidence, unless the child is in care, that it is reasonable to expect that at least some degree of contact can be maintained with the parents. (iii) The child has emotional or personality difficulties which require a consistent regime within a single environment for twenty-four hours a day during term-time, so that the child can benefit from the educational curriculum. In some cases, this may involve a more structured and predictable regime than can be provided in a day setting. (iv) Where learning difficulties or other barriers to educational progress are such that their resolution or containment demands that the whole life circumstances of the child should be under consistent and continuous educational influence during school terms. (v) The situation or occupation of the parents creates difficulty for day placement or the continuity of education, for example parents in the armed forces, working abroad or in entertainment and those with long-term illnesses. The production of criteria goes some way to clarifying the grounds on which boarding school provision is likely to be made in future but the Committee is of the opinion that a more detailed study of the educational basis for this form of special educational provision is necessary. 2.9.60 Boarding schools offer, as part of social education, a residential experience of communal life and of exposure to different adult models of behaviour. In some cases, placement away from home may relieve the child from family stress, whilst allowing the opportunity for casework intervention with the family. A necessary condition is that the parents and the child understand why the child is not benefiting from education whilst at home and agree to the residential placement. No children are placed in boarding school against the family’s wishes except where there is a care order or where there is a wardship order. It is important to recognise that it may take time and effort to convey to children and their parents the need for residential education. 2.9.61 Boarding schools can become isolated and institutionalised. For this reason the Committee urges that they have close contact with day schools meeting the same special educational needs as well as local primary and secondary schools. In the case of some schools this may mean contact with schools in another local education authority but the Committee is aware of examples of such contacts and would wish to see them extended to develop social skills and enhance curriculum opportunities. Some young people from boarding schools have been enabled to adjust to their local community by attending a day special school for their final year. 2.9.62 The use of hostels attached to Day Special schools, such as those at Beomund, New Woodlands and Willowfield Schools, are one kind of local provision. However, such provision has its drawbacks. Two groups, day pupils and boarders may develop rivalries. Secondly, the hostels close at weekends and it is sometimes desirable for children to be away from their homes for longer periods than five days at a time. Thirdly, the schools are usually close to the child’s home resulting in frequent contact with the home which may not always be appropriate. 2.9.63 Boarding special schools take children from all parts of the Authority’s area. There have been

suggestions that each division should use places in particular schools. This is particularly relevant to the twenty schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties and would have obvious advantages. Schools could link with schools and support facilities in the divisions and with local communities. There are however also disadvantages which need to be taken into account such as reduced flexibility in placing children. 2.9.64 Submissions were made to the Committee concerning ‘52 week” boarding provision. This is a misleading term since it involves responsibility for the overall care of children which we see as properly that of a social service departments. Since almost all the establishments concerned do in fact arrange holidays, albeit shorter than is usual, we feel the term “extended school year” is more appropriate. The numbers involved are small, for example, in November 1984 out of 769 children placed in boarding special schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties, only 10 were in four independent establishments offering an extended school year. In general, there are very good educational and social reasons for maintaining regular holiday contact with the family home or at least with the community where the child’s roots are. It is difficult to identify any specific pattern of individual special educational needs associated with a requirement for an extended school year. 2.9.65 Another topic which requires consideration is the possible use of boarding special schools for short stays for residential assessment or intensive short courses. Such arrangements could potentially be disruptive to those placed in the schools for longer periods. Such provision already exists for some sensory and motor impaired students. The use of hostels attached to day special schools might be considered in this context. 2.9.66 There are a number of major issues which arise in respect of boarding provision. These include the use of provision outside the London area, the alternative use of resources for supporting children and young people in their communities, and the relative responsibilities of education and social service departments for providing residential care. There are also a number of aspects of the way in which children and young people are reintroduced to their communities after residential education. This may be particularly important for some young people with physical and sensory disabilities who have spent long periods in special schools and who have few opportunities to form relationships with others in their home areas, but it is equally important for all who have been educated away from home. Child Care Staff in Boarding Schools 2.9.67 Approximately 380 child care staff posts exist in the 31 boarding special schools and in December 1984 about 330 of these posts were filled. The Committee has been made aware that there are inconsistencies in child-care ratios in schools. These ratios need to be related to the tasks a school is expected to undertake and the length of time schools function. Two specific examples illustrate some of the issues. If a school provides weekly boarding from Monday morning to Friday afternoon, its child care staff needs are different from that of a school open over the weekend. Secondly if a school has many older adolescents who may stay up relatively late at night, such a school needs more child care provision than a school for younger children whose evening is shorter. When the terms of reference for boarding schools are reconsidered there will be a need to look carefully at child care ratios. 2.9.68 Child care staff are appointed to the service as a whole and attend for interview at County Hall. Once appointed they go to schools for a further interview to determine in which school they will work. An exception to this procedure is made in the case of senior child care staff who are appointed to particular schools. There is considerable dissatisfaction about the former procedures and many head teachers, governors and child care staff would wish to see permanent appointments made locally to individual schools. This is a matter which the Committee considers should receive further attention. 2.9.69 It is essential to the provision of effective boarding education that child care staff and teachers work closely together towards common ends. In some schools this is clearly recognised. At the same time it is necessary to recognise the distinct contribution of child care in which the residential social worker is responsible for many aspects of social and personal development. These aspects are fostered

by the pattern of living arrangements, domestic responsibilities and recreational activities for groups of children in the school. Although the day to day work is carried out by the child care team, it must fit within the framework of a school’s overall aims. This work is also greatly enhanced by the contribution of domestic bursars in boarding schools who have responsibilities for food, clothing and medical care as well as the general management of services to support the work of the school as a whole. Child care staff led by the principal child care officer have key roles to play in children’s life outside the classroom and make a major contribution to the effectiveness and ethos of boarding schools. 2.9.70 The Authority has been active in developing training for child care staff and getting its course recognised as a residential social worker qualification. It now needs to be more active in developing child care provision and practices within boarding schools. Conditions of service of child care workers are not the same as teachers but efforts should be made to make them as similar as possible, particularly in regard to living arrangements, secondments for training and in-service course attendance. The future of this work and its links with other social work services provided by the Authority require further study and development. Use of Independent and Non-Maintained Schools 2.9.71 In 1984 there were 206 ILEA children with Statements of special educational needs in 99 independent or non-maintained schools. In addition the authority placed 114. students in 40 further and higher educational establishments. The disabilities of these children and young people can be seen in Table 9.11. The establishment used are spread right across the length and breadth of England, Wales and Scotland! They are situated as far afield as the Isle of Wight, Aberdeen, Broadstairs, Cornwall, Pembrokeshire and North Wales. Very many of them are schools and institutions with national reputations, used by many local education authorities. 2.9.72 The last column in Table 9.11 shows the vacancies in the Authority’s own special boarding schools. The ILEA is placing 320 students outside its own institutions at very considerable costs whilst it has 527 vacancies in its own schools. Yet this balance sheet is too simplistic. There are disabled students who need the specialised techniques found only in particular independent schools and colleges and some allowance must always be made for this. However, there should be an attempt to rationalise this situation by looking at what needs are currently met by provision outside the Authority and whether they could be met by a reorganisation of its own provision, and by a more effective use of resources. Table 9.11: Pupils with Special Educational Needs Placed in Independent and Non-Maintained Boarding Establishments in 1984 School

FHE

Type

Vacancies in No. Pupils No. Students ILEA Boarding Spec. School

EBD

37

66

―

MLD

7

9

SLD

13

Delicate*

10

Visually Impaired 6

―

244

10

27

58

25

6

7

17

25

3

6

56

10

4

20

29

Hearing Impaired

15

44

3

4

40

Motor Impaired

7

17

12

48

78

Autistic

4

10

2

2

5

Total

99

206

40

114

527

*This group includes epileptic and speech difficulties 2.9.73 Each school or college is visited by an inspector with special educational needs responsibilities before it is used by the Authority and a follow up visit to assess progress is made at least every two years. The Authority is now responsible for ensuring that an annual review of all children and young people who are the subject of statements is undertaken. It follows that the more such provision is used, the more will be the demand on scarce inspectorial time to evaluate its appropriateness. Links with Units, Primary and Secondary Schools, Colleges and Adult Education Institutes 2.9.74 Teachers in special schools expressed their willingness to make links with primary and secondary Schools and in some cases demonstrated that they had done so. They are aware that the small school cannot offer as broad a curriculum as the comprehensive school and that, if attitudes to disability are to change, then teachers and pupils in both kinds of school must share experiences and learn to respect each other. One day school for children with moderate learning difficulties helps children in primary and secondary schools by offering intensive help with basic subjects, particularly reading, whilst the other school take children for part of the week in subjects that the special school cannot offer. This type of arrangement is to be encouraged. Another school dealing with autistic children is on the same site as a primary school, and there is considerable interaction between the two schools, helped by the addition of a teacher half of whose time is allocated to fostering this interaction. 2.9.75 Staff in special schools and in primary and secondary schools often lack awareness of each other’s work. This lack of understanding makes links between them difficult to develop and the exchange of children fraught with difficulties. These include timetabling arrangements in secondary schools, curriculum arrangements in special schools, travel between schools and the fact that many children enter special schools over the age of 11 with few positive experiences of secondary schools. A link for them may be difficult before they have overcome a sense of failure and rejection. Links have generally been achieved through goodwill. Special schools with a link with other schools and/or Colleges of Further Education may have a teacher part-time in addition to authorised staffing with responsibility for the organisation, monitoring and evaluation of the link but there is no guarantee from year to year that this allocation continues. A statement of policy about links would give the approaches of the special school heads and teachers more weight and ensure that the responsibility for successful links lay with the staffs of both schools. 2.9.76 The purpose of links with Colleges of Further Education have changed in recent years and vary with different groups. In practice these arrangements are seen as preparation to enter Colleges courses and an encouragement to do so after school leaving age. The link course system has been particularly effective where individuals are supported in colleges by teachers in schools with time for this purpose and where colleges are well informed about their needs. 2.9.77 In Division 9 primary schools are grouped, some with a local special school. The teachers in all the schools work together on teaching techniques and the development of materials under the guidance of the primary and special educational needs inspectors. This is a development which is praiseworthy and the Committee would wish to see encouraged.

2.9.78 Links between special schools and the many kinds of units found throughout the authority are negligible. Schools and units with very similar populations, for example children with behavioural difficulties or learning difficulties, have little contact with each other for a variety of reasons discussed elsewhere in this report. The committee believes that there is a need for greater interaction. Links with Parents 2.9.79 Parents spoke highly of the home school liaison teachers attached to schools for children with severe learning difficulties. Visits are made to parents with children over two but under five. The work involves suggesting ways in which the child might best be helped through individual activities and advice is given on allowances and services. The parents appreciated the home — school liaison teacher because a positive forward looking view is taken of the child’s future, Not every severely handicapped child becomes known to the home-school liaison teacher. This service could usefully be extended to other kinds of special schools. 2.9.80 Virtually all the special schools make flexible arrangements, allowing parents to visit when they wish. This is to be commended. Some schools for children with severe learning difficulties and a number of children in other special schools had home-school diaries which are used to inform parents of the child’s activities at school and the schools of experiences at home. 2.9.81 Parents should now be much more involved in the annual review of their children. They may write down, or have written for them, their views about their child’s progress. If they wish they may attend review meetings. Every child has a mandatory re-assessment at 13½ and parents contribute to this and receive all the information from the teachers, other staff, education welfare officers, school medical officers, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers. Headteachers felt that mandatory re-assessments and annual reviews are very time consuming although they are helpful in planning the future for the child. They also felt that their secretarial help for minuting the review meetings was insufficient. 2.9.82 All special schools except day schools for children with moderate learning difficulties are entitled to a school based social worker. These social workers are popular with parents and helpful to the teachers. Many parents are reassured by their children’s attendance at special schools and with many members of society are appreciative of the physical and emotional environment they provide. Resources 2.9.83 Special schools are not included in the Alternative Use of Resources (AUR)* scheme which applies to all other ILEA schools. Headteachers of special schools can spend 10 per cent of the capitation allowance in a similar way but in the very small school this sum is insufficient to increase staffing for example by arranging extra hours for a general duties assistant. It is clear that many schools raise money to increase their equipment and provide extra experiences. There is a need to rationalise allowances for out of school activities in day and boarding schools to take account of children’s needs and the additional hours to be covered in boarding schools. *The AUR Scheme allocates a fixed sum in addition to the School’s basic capitation allowance, which schools can use at their own discretion to provide additional teaching support staff or resources. The amount of the sum varies according to the school’s position on the Education Priority Index.

2.9.84 The Learning Resources Branch provided the Committee with very useful evidence drawing attention to its work in the field of special educational provision. It particular contribution to special schools is of considerable significance. The Special Resources Team has seven media resources officers and a librarian. The members of the team are on call to the schools and make regular visits to day and boarding special schools to work with teachers and develop resources. As rolls have fallen classrooms have become available and are being redesigned as resource areas. The Team has also produced a book on places to visit, a manual of available resources and a occasional magazine through which good practice can be shared. A Consortium of four MRO’s designs and produces materials and equipment for children with severe learning difficulties. These were much in evidence

in the schools we visited. 2.9.85 The Committee wishes to draw attention to some aspects of the work of media resources officers which it suggests require development in future. Many boarding special schools find it much more difficult to make use of resources because the distances and time involved in travelling to the Authority’s resource centre. Media resources officers face difficulties in taking resources to these schools. A mobile resource bus has been proposed by those concerned and could help to solve these difficulties. 2.9.86 The second aspect relates to the contribution of the Branch to meeting special educational needs in primary and secondary schools. The Special Education Resources Team could play a significant part in supporting the work of teachers in these schools and providing materials for individuals with special educational needs who attend them. Similarly the work of media resources officers in primary and secondary schools includes concern for resources for children with the wider range of special educational needs. Thus the coherence of the special educational provision that the Committee is seeking to develop requires that the Learning Resources Branch continues to develop closer working links between the different groups in the service it provides, so that there is a continuity of resource provision for children with special educational needs wherever they are educated. 2.9.87 The LEA Resource Centre for motor and associated communication difficulties at Charlton Park and centres at Linden Lodge School and Oak Lodge School are well known inside and outside the Authority. These centres support children in other special, primary and secondary schools. They have resources officers, technicians and others who for example adapt computer programmes, transcribe or provide braille material and develop aids, equipment and materials to support individual children. The work of these centres is of considerable value and increasingly needs to support more individuals in primary and secondary schools. In general special schools are well resourced in terms of equipment and staffing. Transport 2.9.88 Most children under eleven years of age are transported to special schools by the Authority’s buses. Young people of secondary age with severe disabilities continue to use schools buses until they leave school. Other children and young people who live some distance from a bus route may be provided with a taxi or a guide and use public transport. Attendants travel with the children and often provide a valuable link with parents. 2.9.89 Transport to and from boarding schools is provided free of charge and the policy of maintaining close contact with families and frequent regular visits home represents a considerable financial commitment by the Authority. 2.9.90 The Authority’s buses are also used to transport children to off-site activities. However many schools have their own mini-buses as a result of generous charity contributions particularly by the Variety Club. These buses are serviced by the Authority. Useful contacts are also established with primary and secondary schools who borrow special schools mini-buses for off-site activities. Whenever possible special schools take classes and groups on public transport and train individuals in the use of public transport as part of their curriculum. 2.9.91 The Committee recognises the complex and generous transport arrangements made by the Authority. It has had its attention drawn however to a number of difficulties which arise in this provision. The journeys of some individuals can take a very long time where schools have a wide catchment areas. The school day is limited by transport arrangements. Extended day and after school activities can only be taken advantage of where children live locally, can use public transport, or where staff and parents can provide alternative transport. The late running or failure to run of particular buses is a major concern of parents who take their children to bus stops or meet them. During the day when buses may be used for off-site activities, arrangements are often inflexible and

difficult to alter when circumstances change. The Committee would wish to see particular attention given to four aspects of transport arrangements. These are: (i) how to let parents know if a school bus is not running; (ii) arranging a later running service at least one day a week for after school activities; (iii) allowing parents to travel to and from schools on buses occasionally and (iv) using the time spent in buses for learning and recreational activities. All these aspects are of particular importance for schools working in disadvantaged areas where there is little voluntary or other provision for the children and young people concerned and their parents. Support Services 2.9.92 All day and boarding special schools have a psychiatric or school social worker attached to them, except schools for children with moderate learning difficulties who have an education welfare officer attached. These latter schools have many children and young people who, with their families, have marked social needs and the Committee strongly urges that this omission should be remedied. Schools for emotional and behaviour difficulties also have a consultant child psychiatrist who works with them on a sessional basis and many have sessions from child psychotherapists. All special schools have educational psychologists allocated to them most of whom visit regularly. Schools for children assessed as delicate or motor impaired each have their own nurse and in many cases physioand occupational therapy sessions. The work of all school nurses is particularly appreciated by schools. All types of special schools wished to have an increase in the number of speech therapy sessions. This is a matter which requires further attention and the Authority might consider whether these needs can continue to be met indirectly by District Health authorities or whether it should consider making direct provision to meet these needs. 2.9.93 All special schools have the services of an education welfare officer but, except in the case of schools for children with moderate learning difficulties, they are not school attached. This results in complications since the children come from a larger catchment area than found in other schools. The boarding schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and with moderate learning difficulties were particularly critical of the lack of the direct services from the education welfare service. They rightly complained that their long term absentees did not seem to be investigated. School attached education welfare officers would be appreciated. 2.9.94 Schools valued the services of educational psychologists but often said that their visits were too infrequent. Staff often felt that too much time elapsed before children’s progress was discussed with them. 2.9.95 Advisory teaching services to schools vary in their contribution. Most schools appreciated the help of advisory teachers concerned with specific special educational needs such as visual and hearing impairment. Many would appreciate more input from multi-ethnic and equal opportunities teams. Specialist advisory teachers in areas of the curriculum have been very helpful to schools but the teaching of some subjects particularly science, design and technology and music would benefit from a greater input from these services. 2.9.96 The Unified Language Service has no formal involvement with special schools. There is a lack not only of a framework for English as a second language provision in special schools but also of guidelines for the teaching of pupils who are not competent speakers of English and who may also have special educational needs. Within the Authority, expertise in this area is at present scant: it is widely felt that such expertise needs to be built up as a matter of urgency through provision for cooperation between specialists in the two fields concerned, and the Committee shares this view.

2.9.97 The staff of special schools, particularly those for children who are delicate, motor impaired or autistic, urged that health and social services should co-ordinate their contributions to ensure that parents receive appropriate support and children’s needs other than for education are met from the earliest years. 2.9.98 All schools, particularly boarding schools, reported difficulties in obtaining support staff when members of the teaching staff, child care staff, bursars and other support staff were absent. The smooth running of small schools is very dependent on a quick and effective system to replace absent staff and attention needs to be given to this issue. Special School Reorganisation 2.9.99 There have been changes in the special school population in recent years. Progress towards integration and a falling school population will also alter the extent of provision which may need to be made. There will need to be a planned contraction of the system both because of changes which have resulted in the vacancies shown in Table 9.8 and other factors. Any changes should not be hasty or piecemeal and we make recommendations concerning them in Part Ill. 2.9.100 The Committee discussed the development of special schools as resource centres. We were aware of several definitions of such a role. In order to avoid any misapprehension or confused expectations about the work of resource centres, clear definitions of their work are a prerequisite to their development. Members do not consider that all special schools should necessarily become such centres, nor would they accept that special schools can become resource centres without careful preparation. The Committee would not wish to prescribe the means by which schools prepare to assume this function. Much will depend on local circumstances and on the particular special educational needs met by individual schools. The Committee anticipates that the resources currently available in special schools and most importantly the skills of all their staff will, in future, be employed more diversely. We have noted the involvement of such schools with groups of primary schools in Division 9 and in Part Ill we make recommendations about coherent divisional special educational needs services which will provide a setting in which the resources and skills of special schools can be made more widely available. 2.9.101 Teachers in the special schools have a knowledge of disabilities, services, teaching techniques and strategies, appropriate materials and management of pupils with complex educational needs. However, having this knowledge and the skills to use it is not the same as sharing it with other teachers. In-service work will be necessary to help them identify and promulgate the information they have. Many teachers in the special schools have formerly worked in primary and secondary schools, but some, possibly the most experienced, may have become distanced from the organisational difficulties and curriculum objectives of those schools. The use of teachers with experience of special schools or services in an advisory or consultancy role presupposes a willingness and ability on the part of teachers in primary and secondary schools to use such a resource. The latter group will need to be aware of the flexibility of organisation and the approaches to individual learning which are characteristics of the best special educational needs provision. 2.9.102 Staff from special schools have much to offer to a planned and sustained dialogue with primary and secondary schools and colleges about the curriculum, about methods and materials and about the needs of individual children and young people. That is why increasingly close links must be established. These links should broaden and enrich the contribution of teachers and other staff in special schools to the education service as a whole. However these moves towards staff working as part of a Divisional service to primary and secondary schools should not decrease the quality of what is offered to those children and young people who may be continuing to attend special schools.

Chapter 10 Post-School Provision Introduction 2.10.1 The Committee recognises that post-16 provision for young people with special educational needs should be looked at as a whole. However as we have noted in Chapter 7, post-16 provision in secondary schools is not an area of work about which we have received much information. Nor was the Committee able to fill this gap in the course of its work. As a result most of the following Chapter is devoted to a consideration of post-16 provision in further and adult education. 2.10.2 The principles outlined in Chapter 1 apply with equal force to the post-16 sector. What should be recognised is that because special educational needs are related to the context in which they arise, a change of context to further education may imply a change in needs. Thus all young people with special educational needs entering colleges should be offered provision appropriate to their new circumstances and not solely determined by the special educational needs they demonstrated in schools. Some of their previous needs may have disappeared and new ones may arise from the new situations they face. 2.10.3 Young people do not become different when they enter the post-school sector, but the committees and administrative sections which deal with their educational opportunities do change. In addition, definitions used within the period of statutory schooling may not be appropriate in the post school setting. When we refer to young people with special educational needs. in further education, we are aware that impairment, learning and behaviour difficulties persist but we are equally aware that their implications for responding to further education may need to be reassessed. As will be evident in later sections of this Chapter, their needs will be expressed in terms of the courses and support services they need and the courses and support services which are available to them. 2.10.4 On one principle the Committee is clear. The range of provision available to them should be the same as that for all young people and specially designed courses should exist only for those who are unable to make use of any other provision. 2.10.5 The transition from school to further education, work and adult life is a confusing period for many young people and their parents and is particularly difficult før those with disabilities and difficulties. The time scale of this transition is equally confused. Young people will leave secondary schools and special schools at the ages of 16, 17 and 18 plus and may enter further education at these ages. However facing them on leaving school is an array of provision made by colleges, Manpower Services schemes and voluntary local projects. The Youth Service and voluntary organisations may also offer training and support. Some attempt is now being made by the Authority’s Tertiary Education Board and by Divisional Tertiary Education Boards to coordinate school and college provision for the 16-19 age range. More will be said about each of the elements in this transitional stage. At the outset it is important to note that all young people and their parents, but particularly those with special educational needs require more relevant information about the options available to them and that those options need to be co-ordinated into a comprehensive and comprehensible range of provision and services. 2.10.6 Specifically the role of the Education Service should be to remove barriers to the curriculum and to provide the facilities and support systems necessary to enable all young people to participate successfully in further and continuing education. 2.10.7 Education in colleges and institutes differs from school provision in that there exists no tradition of special, segregated provision and therefore this sector provides an ideal ground for exploring various forms and degrees of participation in what is on offer to all. It is important at this relatively early stage of development for students with special needs in further, higher and continuing education, that this opportunity should not be missed. The Extent of Special Educational Needs

2.10.8 In order to plan and develop provision satisfactorily, some appropriate measures of need must be developed. It has already been argued that counting the numbers of children with problems is an unsatisfactory way of planning to meet special educational needs in schools. This doubly applies to colleges where the broad distinction between the 2 per cent and 20 per cent (Warnock 1978) does not apply. There is a need to develop appropriate means of determining the extent to which special educational arrangements are required which take into account the context in which they arise as well as the particular needs of individuals. 2.10.9 Some work is already being undertaken by the Authority’s 16-19 unit and the Inner London Tertiary Education Boards Working Party studying special needs in further education in conjunction with the Research and Statistics Branch. These groups need to continue to work with inspectors, advisory teachers in special educational needs in further education, and college staff to develop an appropriate basis on which to collect information which is sensitive to both met and unmet needs. 2.10.10 There is, currently, a general lack of information relating to provision made or needed to meet special educational needs in the post-16 sector. Of the 29,000 young people currently in school and colleges post-16, little is known about their special educational needs. A survey of the destinations of school leavers in July 1984 is being completed but full data was not available in time for this report. Some facts are known. About 520 young people stay in special schools over the age of 16, the majority of them with severe learning difficulties. Table 4.17 in Chapter 4 also indicates the percentages of special school leavers with different disabilities who proceed to further education. The number of young people with special educational needs staying on in secondary schools over the age of 16 is not known. Some data about the destinations of school leavers is also given in the Tables which follow. 2.10.11 Before commenting on those Tables it is necessary to raise one issue of principle. This is whether staying on in school, particularly in special schools, is a genuine choice for young people with special educational needs and their families. Do young people remain in special schools because there is no alternative in further education or because there is a choice of two appropriate 16-19 educational programmes? This is also linked with the value of changing to a different environment at 16 for some young people who may have attended the same small special school since before the age of five. The Committee is of the view that a genuine choice should exit for all young people with special educational needs at the age of 16. The existence of provision in schools does not remove the responsibilities of colleges to provide for students with special educational needs. Table 10.1: Young People over 16 in Special Schools in 1983 Disability Number Blind Partially sighted Deaf Partially hearing Physically impaired Delicate Moderate learning difficulties Severe learning difficulties Emotional and behavioural difficulties Autistic Total

11 19 3 1 59 17 100 266 37 7 520

Table 10.2: First Destinations of School Leavers from ILEA Day Special Schools in 1983 and 1984 1983 1984 Destination Number % Number 1984 % Day Care 33 4.4 33 4.3 Residential Placement 43 5.7 11 1.4 ILEA FE 240 31.7 248 32.5 Non ILEA FE 21 2.8 42 5.5 YTS 116 15.3 98 12.8 Sheltered Employment 3 0.4 7 0.9 Open Employment 115 15.2 79 10.3 Unemployment 95 12.5 67 8.8 Remedial in School — — 88 11 .5 Other Destinations 32 4.2 21 2.7 Not known 59 7.8 69 9.0 757

100%

763

100%

Table 10.3: Destinations by Type of School in 1983 Destination Day Residential Care/ Training ILEA Further Education Non ILEA Further Education Youth Training Scheme Sheltered Employment Employment Unemployment Other Not Known

1 1.2

Type of School/Percentages 2 3 4 5 37.0 2.6 0 2.1

6 4

7 0

8 0

2.3

5.0

1.7

3.4

14.8

30.0

100

16.7

38.4

49.0

14.9

20.1

21.3

46.0

0

66.6

0.3

0

0

2.7

25.5

5.0

0

0

21.6

5.0

16.7

12.0

8.5

2.0

0

0

0 15.2 12.2 1.2 7.2

0 0 0 4.0 0

0 23.6 22.0 1.8 16.7

0 20.8 18.8 12.0 10.1

4.2 10.6 2.1 8.5 2.1

2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.1

0 0 0 0 0

0 Open 16.7 0 0 0

5 0 0 16.4 34.3 9.0 2.9 2.9

6 8.2 8.2 14.3 16.3 0 0 0

7 0 0 50.0 0 0 0 8.3

1 Moderate Learning Difficulties 2 Severe Learning Difficulties 3 Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 4 Delicate

5 Visual Impairment 6 Motor Improvement 7 Autistic 8 Hearing Impairment

Table 10.4: Destinations by type of school in 1984 Destination Day Residential Care ILEA FE Non ILEA FE YTS Sheltered Employment Open Employment

Type of School/Percentages 1 2 3 4 0.5 31.1 0 2.9 0.5 1.1 1.4 2.1 35.6 56.7 17.4 26.4 1.1 0 1.4 4.3 17.0 0 18.8 15.0 0.8 0 0 1 .4 11.0 0 15.9 19.2

Unemployed Remained in school Other Not Known

9.2 9.0 1.4 13.8

1 Moderate Learning Difficulties 2 Severe Learning Difficulties 3 Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 4 Delicate

2.2 8.9 0 0

23.2 7.2 1.4 13.0

10.0 5.0 2.1 11.4

2.9 20.9 10.5 0

2.0 40.8 8.2 2.0

8.3 2.5 8.3 0

5 Visual Impairment 6 Motor Impairment 7 Hearing Impairment

The Current Extent of Provision 2.10.12 Detailed scrutiny of the Tables reveals the dangers of commenting on trends in the basis of only two year’s figures. The emergence of the remained in school’ category makes such a task impossible. It is also not known how many who moved into open employment’ retained that employment for any significant period of time. There are however, a number of comments which can be usefully made.

2.10.13 ILEA colleges of further education make substantial provision for young people with special education needs, being by far the largest provider in both years to which the Tables relate. The numbers and percentages of young people from all types of school suggests a growing awareness of special educational needs within the college setting. 2.10.14 However there are certain issues which both tables highlight. The small number of motor impaired young people in colleges is obviously a matter of some concern. This is partly a reflection of access to buildings but much can be done imaginatively and at relatively little cost if the will is there. None of the current methods of dealing with this problem (non-ILEA placement in special colleges, or a designated ILEA college in each sector, or remaining in the special school until 19) fits in with the principles outlined in this report and there this matter needs to be given systematic attention rather than an ad hoc policy being allowed to develop. 2.10.15 For those young people with moderate learning difficulties leaving special schools in ILEA, further education, youth training schemes and open employment are the three numerically most significant destinations; however only 11 per cent moved into open employment in 1984. This is clearly not surprising in the current climate but it must be emphasised that the majority of young people with mild and moderate learning difficulties leave secondary schools and little is known at the time of writing about their destinations. The usual range of college-based courses may be more accessible for them either on a full or part-time basis, than they are for young people with physical impairments though, obviously for different reasons. Therefore the range of courses for young people with moderate learning difficulties needs to be extended and to include pre-vocational and vocational courses. Opportunities for progression need to be developed in order that more of these young people can take up their entitlement to full-time education up to the age of 19. 2.10.16 The majority of young people with severe learning difficulties leave school either for further education or day care. There are two points to be made. First, places in adult training centres are not always readily available and secondly in some cases parents and young people are faced with the fact that if they do not accept a training centre place it may not be available when they have followed a further education course. Only five per cent proceed to residential care. What is not certain is whether this represents supported independent living in group homes or traditional forms of institutional care. However the figure does underline the importance of further education for personal development and independent living. 2.10.17 Nearly half the young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties receive no further education or training at all and this is obviously a matter of great concern. In most cases, what is

needed for this group is not a special curriculum but an appropriate support system to enable them to participate in the range of college courses. This would involve the development of tutorial support systems in all colleges, possibly along the lines of that provided at Kingsway Princeton College. For young people returning from residential schools, there needs to be systematic liaison between the school, the careers service and possibly the social services departments in order to ensure that an appropriate range of options are offered to the young people concerned. 2.10.18 We have no information relating to the numbers of young people entering further education some time after they have left school, but the experience of individual colleges suggests that the numbers are not insignificant. Many young people, particularly those who have experienced little success during their school years, leave school disenchanted with education in general. However, experience of the outside world sometimes persuades these young people that it would be in their interests to gain further skills; often a desire to learn comes later than at 16, and so they decide to come to college. This is a group which must not be neglected. Currently age-related entitlements to education limit their opportunities for properly supported full or part-time provision, and old notions of end-on phases of education militate against the development of patterns of continuing education. 2.10.19 The proportions of young people from the other types of special school going into locally based, integrated further education provision is relatively small. Building up link provision will be an important way of facilitating college planning and preparation. Such developments should be properly resourced particularly where young people with visual or hearing impairments may need specialist equipment. 2.10.20 It is obviously worrying that only a small percentage of special school leavers have as their first destination, open employment. Given the current situation, this is hardly surprising, but should not lead to the conclusion that these young people should accept ‘significant living without work’ as their prime objective. Nor should courses be organised on this assumption. Young people with special educational needs should have access to the same range of opportunities and choices as all young people and the aim of all provision is that they should be able to take up these opportunities in the same proportion as everyone else. To put the matter unequivocally, young people have the same rights of access to education, training, employment as everyone else, and only when they were so placed in the same proportions as all other young people, could policies be judged as wholly successful. 2.10.21 The Authority has a deserved reputation for initiatives to meet special needs in further education. Its responsibilities in this field stem from the 1944 Education Act which places the onus on parents and young people to seek the education up the age of 19 to which they are entitled. If those demands are not clear it is possible for a local education authority to neglect those with special educational needs. The Committee has been impressed by the Authority’s positive efforts to provide for such young people. This provision should be sustained and developed. Access 2.10.22 Having affirmed our commitment to all education being provided in one universal, comprehensive system, and also having looked at some gaps in existing FE provision, attention now needs to be given to some of the organizing principles around which the envisaged service might be based. 2.10.23 There are definite differences of opinion within the Authority as to whether certain institutions should be selected (or self-select) to become centres dealing with particular special educational needs. This is, to an extent, a resource question: it is sometimes argued that a critical mass’ must be achieved in any given college before sufficient resources can be allocated to provide properly supported provision. It may make good management sense to centralise rather than disperse resources, but it does not, we feel, make good educational sense. It is also wrong to assume that resources designed to improve the physical or educational environment for a number of individuals with special needs will not substantially improve situations for everyone else. A particular example is the question of access to and mobility in buildings. The Committees’ views on this issue are set out in

Appendix 3. There are many simple steps which can be taken which do not involve large sums of money and such steps help a wide range of users of institutional facilities such as the elderly, young mothers and the staff and not just those who are disabled. 2.10.24 While accepting that concentration of some resources may be necessary, we would wish to reemphasise the principle that all colleges should accept their responsibilities towards students with learning difficulties and disabilities, and that the creation of ‘special’ colleges or ‘centres of excellence’ should be avoided. To do this, all colleges need information, guidelines and supporting services. 2.10.25 Movement through the education service should not be regarded as a strictly chronological process. With added flexibility in the different sectors, and their administrative sections individuals could be enabled to construct programmes calling on school, further education college and adult education provision as appropriate. Such flexibility should be a major aim of the education service. 2.10.26 For young people with the wider range of special educational needs we are considering, there is a need to provide colleges with information about their school experiences and their achievements. The work being undertaken to develop pupil profiles should be of considerable assistance. Schools should provide these young people with a written account of their abilities and needs to assist colleges in making courses available to them. 2.10.27 A particular problem arises about young people for whom statements have been made about their special educational needs and the provision to meet them. These Statements continue to have validity up to the age of 19 if an individual remains in school but they do not if he or she goes to a college of further education. Statements have to be made as a result of a further ‘full assessment’ between 13½ and 14½ to plan individual transitions from school. The Committee believes that the educational provision specified in these Statements should also apply in post-16 provision in colleges and hopes the Authority will accept this principle. The Administration of Post-School Provision 2.10.28 The Inner London Tertiary Education Board and Divisional Tertiary Education Boards have begun the process of rationalising 16-19 provision in schools and colleges. A sub-committee of the former Board is currently looking at provision for young people with special educational needs. The Committee welcomes this initiative and hopes that its deliberations will assist the sub-committee in its work. The Committee wishes to make clear that course provision and resource allocation should be guided by current ILEA policies especially in the area of equal opportunities. However local Tertiary Education Board’s need specific guidelines about likely levels of provision, appropriate staffing ratios and support and equipment needed for young people with special educational needs. 2.10.29 Resource allocation must recognise that special educational needs are not necessarily met within special’ courses. Systems for allocating resources to support individuals must be devised, as a matter of urgency. Since colleges may take in students with learning difficulties or disabilities at any time during the college year, the system must have the flexibility to allow the immediate allocation of necessary resources. This implies that some resources will need to be held back and not allocated. 2.10.30 There is a need to look at the administration and development of post-16 provision. Although it is clear that the assistant education officer for further and higher education is responsible for all post school provision, there is an overlap in the 16-19 period particularly in respect of provision in special schools which comes under the assistant education officer for special education. There is a need for continued liaison about the development of a coherent policy for young people with special education needs between the ages of 16 and 19 so that school and college provision for them is jointly planned. 2.10.31 There are also some anomalies in inspectorate assignments. Some inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities in schools includes further education in their assignment and one is

responsible for the two advisory lecturers for special educational needs working with colleges. However their work load limits what they can contribute to further education. On the other hand inspectors with further education responsibilities generally have little experience of meeting special educational needs. Both in the colleges visited and in the evidence submitted an increasing need for appropriate inspectorial support was stressed. This can only be resolved by the creation of posts within the inspectorate with specific responsibility for this area of work including links between schools and college. 2.10.32 The two existing advisory teachers have provided an invaluable service. However their workload is heavy and increasing and further appointments may be necessary. While not questioning the principle of secondment, the breadth and complexity of the work suggests that longer periods of secondment should be considered as should the staggering of individual periods of secondment to provide continuity. 2.10.33 Initial and in-service education for lecturers in further education does not at present give sufficient attention to meeting special educational needs in this sector. Establishments responsible for initial training should ensure that teaching about special needs percolates the whole curriculum as well as providing modules on specific issues or aimed at meeting particular needs. In addition colleges and universities should be requested to provide in-service courses to meet the needs of lecturers already working in this field. Establishments could also provide short courses in particular colleges in collaboration with Authority staff. It is important to bear in mind both school and college responsibilities for 16-19 education and to provide in service education which includes both partners. Training and staff development courses should not neglect the needs of non-teaching staff and the awareness courses developed in the area of race and gender could provide useful models for courses for both teaching and non-teaching staff alike. Finally the needs of senior management should not be neglected and appropriate courses should be provided for them. 2.10.34 The support services generally available in schools— psychological, social work, medical and para-medical services are available in colleges only as a result of the goodwill of local professionals. They are not generally available as of right. Consideration should be given to the support services necessary to meet special educational needs in the post-school sector. Appropriate consultation with practitioners will need to be undertaken and an extension of the terms of reference of support services considered. 2.10.35 Governing bodies of colleges must ensure that colleges carry out their responsibilities in this area and consider whether members should undertake particular responsibilities for provision for students with special needs. 2.10.36 Links between schools and colleges are obviously of crucial importance as young people move from one sector to the other. It is important that professional and administrative boundaries should facilitate rather than hinder this transition. Throughout the authority a number of bridging and link courses to meet this need have been provided. These are further commented upon in later paragraphs. Provision in Colleges 2.10.37 The Authority’s policy for work in further and higher education has drawn on two reports, a Review of Vocational, Further and Higher Education issued in 1973 and Provision for Handicapped Students in Further and Higher Education issued in 1974. In an appendix to the first report, Appendix 2, the Authority provided guidelines for provision for ‘younger and less able and less advanced students’. Although much progress in college provision has resulted from the acceptance of these reports, the growth of post-school provision has been patchy and uncoordinated, and has lacked the commitment of clear Authority policy. Although the reports highlighted the importance of further education, the role and responsibilities of Colleges have never been made explicit, and an essentially ‘laissez-faire’ system operates to this day.

2.10.38 During the last decade post school provision has seen many changes. The old technical colleges have largely disappeared and been replaced by further education colleges with a greater commitment to serve the needs of younger, disadvantaged students. The Authority-backed ‘Appendix 2’ initiative was particularly important in this growth area and the successes of the ‘Curriculum Development Project’ have shown that development can take place in a coherent way. 2.10.39 The ILEA now maintains fourteen ‘general’ colleges serving every area of London, in addition to Art Colleges, Specialist Vocational Colleges, Adult Education Institutes, and Polytechnics. The range of opportunities is wider than in any other part of the country and the potential for fully comprehensive provision, therefore greater. 2.10.40 Further education colleges today serve an increasingly diversified student population: the number of young people choosing to continue their education in colleges is growing; more and more adults are ‘returning’ to education to pursue academic qualifications or to update their skills to match changing technology. Figures are given in Chapter 2. The colleges serve communities which are rich in the diversity of ethnic backgrounds, some of which also display many of the symptons of urban disadvantage high unemployment, poor housing and low incomes. 2.10.41 The growth of provision to meet special educational needs in the potential or actual student body has been characterised by ad hoc responses to perceived needs. Where individuals, often at lecturer I or lecturer II level, have promoted the interests of students with learning difficulties or disabilities, initiatives have been possible. Where Principals and Vice-Principals have pushed for development, provision has flourished. Where no individuals have taken a lead, little progress has been made. 2.10.42 Staff in further education colleges come from a variety of backgrounds which reflects the breadth of the curriculum offer. Some have come directly into teaching from university or after initial teacher- training; many have worked in industry and received their training as practising teachers; a minority move from schools into further education; few have any experience or preparation for working with students with special educational needs. Colleges also have many part-time members of staff with equally varied backgrounds. 2.10.43 It is in the nature of further education provision to respond quickly to changing needs. Change has probably never been more rapid than in the last ten years. Reorganisation, a decline in traditional areas of work, the growth of new areas and schemes such as the Youth Opportunities Programme and the Youth Training Scheme and the growth of work with the disadvantaged have all shown how further education can adapt to new demands. Although the stress involved in continuous change cannot be denied, providing comprehensive provision for students with special educational needs is not something additional but yet another instance of a need to which the characteristic flexibility of further education may be expected to respond. The Variety of Current Provision in Colleges 2.10.44 As may be expected where development has been uncoordinated, a wide variety of models exists but these can be grouped as follows: (i) Special course not intended to lead into mainstream courses of education or training. (ii) ‘Foundation’ or Bridging* course. (iii) Supported membership of mainstream provision. (iv) Unsupported membership of mainstream provision. *There are two ways in which the term Bridging is used in further education. There are Bridging Courses, initially funded by the EEC now funded by the school, which link schools and colleges and Bridging Courses of the kind described above which prepare students in colleges for entry to the range of other college courses.

It is important to note that provision and participation can be on a full-time or part-time basis. Further

Education Colleges serve more part-time than full-time students, and students with special educational needs, like any others, may be better served by being offered modes of attendance and study other than five days a week all-day provision. Provision for Young People with Severe Learning Difficulties 2.10.45 Special courses for students with severe learning difficulties are now well established within the Authority although certain schools still have no college to which they can automatically send appropriate students. Most full-time courses are preceeded by linked courses which provide the vital support necessary for successful transition. In many cases teachers from schools accompany pupils and teach alongside colleagues in college — a practice which could well be emulated in other linked courses for students with special educational needs. 2.10.46 The courses last for two years, so that students, who usually leave school at 19, have full-time education and use of LEA transport and some other services up to the age of 21. This extension is a welcome recognition of continuing need and serves as a model for all provision for students with learning difficulties or disabilities. 2.10.47 The curriculum offered on most courses is broadly similar; with a focus upon day-to-day living and social skills — cooking, using public transport etc. Less emphasis is placed upon literacy and numeracy, though many students come into Colleges with higher levels of literacy and numeracy skills than some young people with moderate learning difficulties. 2.10.48 Opportunities for these students when they complete courses are limited. Many may enter adult training and community education centres, if places are available; some stay at home. Few find work. 2.10.49 There is therefore an urgent need for development in continuing education and the adult education service will have a major role to play in this. Some Institutes (notably Southwark) have an extensive and well-developed range of classes, some integrated with other students. When coordinators of provision are appointed jointly by social services and education, this provision can be particularly well supported and provide models for co-operation between services which should be built upon in other areas of special need. 2.10.50 Another model for co-operation exists with the joint project between lslington Social Services and North London College. In this scheme adults, who attend the Centre come to college for three mornings a week for two years. Classes are often jointly taught by social services and college staff, and despite obvious difficulties such as disparities in salaries, the liaison removes false barriers between professionals. The scheme offers learning for independence and helps to prepare students for supported independent living. 2.10.51 One feature of provision for students with severe learning difficulties which is particularly commendable is the extent to which parents are involved in the courses their sons and daughters attend. Most colleges have well developed links with students’ homes and some have devised short courses for parents and helped to establish parent self-help groups. 2.10.52 Though courses for students with severe learning difficulties are now well established, teachers’ most often expressed concern relates to integration. Students share canteens, libraries and other college resources, but shared classes are more difficult to arrange. Team teaching is one way of overcoming the problem, and ‘option’ classes which do not form part of the core of other courses and in which activities are centred around individuals or small groups are likely to offer the most scope for integrated work. Such methods of working obviously have resource implications. With any course in which individually arranged integration is an important element of the curriculum, staffing allocations must allow for this.

Provision for Young People with Moderate Learning Difficulties 2.10.53 Most colleges run courses for students with moderate learning difficulties whether from secondary or special schools. The curriculum for these courses is often biased towards general education including social skills, though most aim to give a grounding in general work skills. A major aim of the curriculum is to support and speed the process of transition from school to adult and working life. 2.10.54 These courses are usually located in Departments of General Education, which is understandable given the core content of the curriculum, but the relative isolation of the courses within general departments goes some way towards explaining the greatest problem faced by these students: the lack of avenues for progression. Few pre-vocational or vocational courses exist and there are few appropriately staffed and supported Youth Training Scheme programmes. 2.10.55 One major cause of this large gap in the Authority’s provision is the lack of experience and expertise in specialist departments. One remedy must be a widespread programme of in-service education but, as with ‘special’ courses, much can be achieved by collaborative teaching where staffing ratios take into account the need for such a combining of expertise. Team teaching could also allow a greater degree of participation in other classes during the Foundation course.

Foundation Courses 2.10.56 Foundation Courses and courses which provide a bridge to other college courses are designed for those students for whom immediate entry into other provision is inappropriate for one reason or another. The aim of the courses is, or should be, to give the necessary preparation for successful transition to the range of college courses available to all. 2.10.57 One or two colleges offer Foundation courses for students with sensory or physical disabilities. It seems right that such provision should only be offered to the individual when immediate entry to other courses is inappropriate. Many students, particularly those with little experience of learning and living alongside non-disabled peers, require a foundation year. Hearingimpaired students may need time in which to develop the communication and study skills necessary for success in a ‘hearing’ college. Students with physical disability from the sheltered confines of special schools, where lack of access to neighbouring schools may have given limited opportunity for integration, often need time in which to develop social skills and self-confidence as well as learning skills. It is important to remember that for most disabled people many activities take longer, and some disabilities, such as spina bifida and hydrocephalus may have associated problems with memory and concentration span. The Foundation course can help the student to understand and cope with these learning patterns. 2.10.58 In some colleges Foundation courses make use of a generic title with different groups being distinguished by a number. This certainly gives this area of work identity, but there is a danger that provision for students with special educational needs will be seen as isolated and separate from the general curriculum. Support for Students with Special Educational Needs 2.10.59 If progression is the main aim of Foundation courses, and if colleges become more successful in achieving this aim, there will be increasing numbers of students in the future who will need at this stage not a special curriculum, but adequate support systems. 2.10.60 Properly supported participation in general course provision is relatively rare and provision is patchy. More opportunities exist, for example, for hearing-impaired students than for those who are partially-sighted. However support systems within colleges can only operate when students can reach buildings and get into them! Among major issues arising from current provision the following are particularly

significant: (i) Lack of suitable transport prevents many individuals from making use of educational opportunities within the LEA. This is particularly true of adults who currently have no entitlement to use ILEA transport. (ii) When they can be reached, the majority of ILEA colleges, whether purpose-built or otherwise, are not accessible to more severely disabled students. While the provision of lifts and the removal of steps in all buildings is an impossibility, many minor adaptions can be made to increase access and ease of use; for example the provision of ramps and hand-rails; texturing of top and bottom steps and brailled room signs. The Committees’ views on access are set out in Appendix 3. (iii) Visually-handicapped and hearing-impaired students need aids and equipment. Some colleges have been alert to all possibilities of gaining resources from outside the ILEA and where a commitment has been made to support students with disabilities, have also chosen to channel resources this way. (iv) Some students’ need is not for aids and equipment, but for pastoral and counselling support. This is particularly true of those with emotional and behavioural problems a large group for whom few opportunities exist within the LEA. These students for the most part do not need a special curriculum but supported access to general college courses. 2.10.61 One College has a member of staff, originally seconded from a special school but now a member of the college establishment, who provides a braille transcription service for blind students and also supports the students and their teachers in and out of the classroom in any other ways necessary. This support was provided to accommodate students who wanted to attend a local rather than a residential college. It is important that this choice is available to young people. Additional resources provided for such support should be part of the Authority’s services to colleges and not necessarily counted as part of college staffing ratios. 2.10.62 Kingsway Princeton College operates what it describes as ‘full-time tutorial’ provision. Three full-time tutors, all of whom are trained counsellors or psycho-therapists, are employed and each may have responsibility for up to 25 students. The service they provide is that of counselling. The students who make use of the service have personality difficulties manifesting themselves in a variety of ways. They are judged unlikely to be successful without the consistent support of the counselling service. Counsellors also liaise with subject teachers and tutors so that disturbing behaviour can be better understood and managed. Such provision might seem to be expensive, but looked at in the long term, measures which help these young people to rejoin and actively contribute to their communities must be more cost effective and educationally sound than any alternatives. 2.10.63 For many years students with disabilities have participated in colleges without supporting arrangements. Personal views on support need to be taken into account and some students wish to be independent of such arrangements. However a lack of supporting arrangements should not prevent individuals from attending colleges or limit their choice of college. Awareness of such needs is important and resources for supporting arrangements need to be available. Link Courses 2.10.64 Many special schools and colleges run linked courses for pupils in the 4th and 5th years. Such courses are potentially extremely valuable in that they can provide an introduction to college life, and help to prepare pupils for transitions from school. However, some courses are mounted with too little thought given by staff to their aims, content, teaching methods and evaluation. Some schools use several colleges, and some children attend more than one college on different links. This may provide variety, but for children who may anyway have a confused world picture such variety may not be in their best interests. Where a member of staff in a college has specific responsibility for organizing

linked courses, as in the City and East London College, liaison between institutions can be facilitated. Such an appointment does not, however, remove the need for close co-operation between teachers in the schools and the receiving college. Linked courses are also more likely to be successful where they form part of a carefully planned ‘college preparation’ or leavers’ course in the school. 2.10.65 Co-operation between schools and colleges can also provide opportunities for staff development. Schools have experience and expertise to offer colleges and jointly run in-service education could develop from school and college links. 2.10.66 Some colleges offer off-site, part-time provision for students who do not want to or cannot attend college. Such provision is made in day centres, adult training centres and youth clubs. It is important that such work should continue, and be properly resourced. It is also important that such provision should be mounted in liaison with Adult Education Institutes. College Organization for Students with Special Educational Needs 2.10.67 Few colleges have adopted a formal college policy in relation to special educational needs. It is important that each should do so first so that special needs may become a responsibility of the college as a whole, and secondly so that selection procedures, curriculum range and support systems can be developed and understood by staff and prospective students. The process of formulating a policy and setting up systems for its implementation also raises awareness amongst teaching and nonteaching staff of special educational needs. 2.10.68 A few colleges have set up committees to develop their response to equal opportunity initiatives. At present these groups are primarily concerned with race, sex and class issues. Whether such committees can also deal with equal opportunities for students with special educational needs is a matter for individual colleges. The Committee favours a holistic approach to all these special needs. Whether or not separate sub-committees are set up to consider special educational needs, it would expect Academic Boards to be active in developing a whole college policies to all aspects of equal opportunity initiatives. 2.10.69 In those colleges where most development has taken place this has undoubtedly been aided by the allocation of posts at senior level with responsibility for the promotion of provision for special educational needs. A few colleges have designated a Senior Lecturer as named person’ with responsibility for oversight and development of full and part-time courses, liaison with outside organizations, promotion of policy and initiation of in-house, in-service training. As far as can be ascertained no colleges have as yet given a Vice-Principal a responsibility for the promotion and oversight of provision for special educational needs. Such assignments to Vice-Principals had a wide effect on the way the Authority’s Appendix 2’ initiative was implemented. The creation of such posts, apart from obvious practical benefits, demonstrates the importance attached to the work by the college and gives structure and status to its development. 2.10.70 Most tutors for Foundation and Special Courses are of Lecturer 2 status, but in a few cases this is not so. It seems inappropriate that Lecturers 1 should have responsibility for curriculum development, assessment and record-keeping, contact with parents and outside organizations in addition to a heavy teaching load. Part of any tutor’s role must include the support of inexperienced colleagues, and this takes time! 2.10.71 Whatever specific responsibilities are allocated within a college, it is necessary that all teachers should recognise their responsibilities in relation to special educational needs. One college has included in its introductory information for teaching applicants words to the effect that all teachers may expect to find students with special educational needs in their classes. Such a practice could usefully be adopted by all colleges. 2.10.72 One of the greatest barriers to course development in most colleges is the difficulty experienced in arranging regular team meetings. This is particularly true where teachers work on

several sites and are members of many course teams. There may be no easy solutions, but colleges have a responsibility to commit resources and to timetable in such a way that meetings can take place. The importance of this cannot be overstressed. 2.10.73 All colleges visited or giving evidence stressed the importance of appropriate siting of courses. This was seen as crucial to the achievement of curricular aims, particularly that of integration. In too many instances Foundation or Special courses are housed in annexes and buildings isolated from main sites. This not only restricts the curriculum options available, it also affects the perceived status of courses (and teachers) and reduces, and in some cases removes, opportunities for functional and social integration. We have already mentioned access difficulties in 2.10.69 and they are discussed in Appendix 3. Where colleges have actively sought to accommodate courses and students with special educational needs, ways have usually been found to avoid locational isolation. This should be an aim for all such provision. General Duties Assistants 2.10.74 A vital non-teaching support for courses for students with severe learning difficulties is provided by General Duties Assistants. These assistants are in theory responsible for general assistance, and for maintaining back-up materials, but in fact their participation in the operation of courses extends far beyond this. Their status in no way reflect their importance to this element of the Authority’s provision. Admission Procedures 2.10.75 College selection and admission procedures operate in the interests of students with special educational needs most often when applicants apply or are referred directly to Foundation and Special courses. Where applications are fed through general selection and enrolment procedures, special educational needs may be missed and thus support services subsequently lacking. 2.10.76 It can be very helpful if colleges on their application forms invite applicants to state, in confidence, any disabilities they may have. This at least alerts the college to the fact that special support may be necessary, and specialist advice can be sought during or after interview. 2.10.77 Few colleges have as yet made explicit the ways in which special educational needs can be taken into account at the selection stage. Interrupted schooling, periods in hospital etc. may have limited opportunities for gaining academic qualifications. Just as entry qualifications can be different for mature students entering higher education, so it should also be possible to develop entry requirements which are flexible to take account of the effects of disabilities or ill-health and one of the purposes of interviewing should be to gather relevant information and determine what support services would be needed to enable the applicant to study effectively. It is important that interviewers should know what support services are available in the college and have access to information relating to opportunities elsewhere. 2.10.78 The presence of students with learning difficulties and disabilities in a college results in considerable additional work for all non-teaching staff. The ILEA can, and often does respond quickly to the need for new types of courses, and staff to teach on them. The Authority’s record in providing adequate non-teaching staff is not so good. One registrar and examinations officer submitted as evidence a three page list of additional duties undertaken by office and administrative staff. Such work has not as yet been recognised in any practical way. At a time when constant change and uncertainty increase stress for teaching and non-teaching staff alike the authority must ensure that goodwill is not stretched to breaking point. Unacknowledged burdens can only damage progress towards providing equal opportunities. Staff Development and Support 2.10.79 All colleges which submitted evidence stressed the need for altered initial teacher training and ongoing in-service education. Only a tiny minority of teachers have specialist training, few have any experience and many, understandably, are reluctant to take on work for which they have had no

preparation. The Authority is currently devising a programme of in-service education designed to reach all teachers in schools, but no similar programme has been proposed for teachers in further education. 2.10.80 Colleges are in the best position to know their own needs in relation to staff development. Those colleges already committed to meeting students’ needs articulate the need for staff development most forcibly; colleges which have not yet fully accepted their responsibilities feel less urgency. There are choices to be made in the approach to staff development. The Authority can concentrate inservice education opportunities on individuals or can give particular emphasis to college based work. In the first instance training individuals in conjunction with co-operative project work in their own institutions can stimulate development and prepare individuals to act as consultants. The college based model, based on institutional needs, can include a greater number of staff in in-service education, Both approaches are necessary but the in-house model needs to be given particular emphasis if all teachers are to be seen as contributing to meeting the special educational needs of students. 2.10.81 When students with physical, sensory, emotional or learning difficulties are integrated into general college courses, their presence almost always gives rise to extra work to the conscientious teacher. For some students this can involve lecturers in the preparation of work for brailling, writing summaries of class content for hearing-impaired students and liaison with peripatetic teachers. Much work is currently undertaken out of goodwill and some additional work probably always will be. However, if the Authority in pursuit of its Equal Opportunities Policy is urging colleges to accept their responsibilities towards students with special needs, it must acknowledge the additional work this may involve for staff. The resource implications in terms of time, skills and other resources must be recognised. 2.10.82 Invaluable support is currently offered to hearing-impaired students and their teachers by the peripatetic tutors from the City Literary Institute Unit for the Deaf. These tutors, who have specialist training, can support class activities, give intensive subject or language development tutorials and offer in-house training sessions for teachers. 2.10.83 Any peripatetic service is expensive by virtue of the fact that time must be spent travelling. While it may be possible to rationalise the use of teachers’ time to an extent, the service will probably always need to be relatively expensive if the Authority wishes to make a genuinely comprehensive curriculum offer post-16 and avoid the concentration of students in particular colleges for resource reasons. Adult Education 2.10.84 Although continuing education and the work of Adult Education Institutes is at the limit of the Committee’s terms of reference, the evidence it received and the work observed by members demands recognition. Adult education can and does play an important role in enabling young people with disabilities and severe learning difficulties to continue to develop their skills in a variety of ways. Other sectors of the education service can learn a great deal from adult education. Some of the best examples of social and functional integration seen by members of the Committee were occurring in adult education institutes. 2.10.85 Provision for adult education is non-statutory. What this means in terms of the curriculum offer is that Institutes must respond to the needs and demands of the community, or go out of business, It might be argued that those who make demands on the service are those who always know best how to use the system but the service in London has developed sound traditions of ‘outreach’ work and, though traditional courses still have a proper place in their programmes, provision to meet a wider range of local needs is growing. 2.10.86 Institutes in London differ from those in most other parts of the country in that they are ‘freestanding’ and not attached to further education colleges. This has given them the opportunity to

develop genuinely flexible systems which allow for speedy responses to perceived needs. 2.10.87 Over the past ten years, stimulated perhaps by the Russell Report (1973) adult education has placed increased emphasis upon provision for people in the community who have learning difficulties and disabilities and in many Institutes such provision constitutes a significant proportion of all work. 2.10.88 Provision made is so varied, and so tailored to meet community needs, that it is difficult to identify anything which could said to be ‘typical’ but certain examples may demonstrate trends in development. Providers of adult education seem to want to liaise more closely with other providers in their areas. A good example of this is the course ‘Widening Horizons’ mounted jointly by Southwark College and Southwark Adult Education Institute. The course caters for physically-disabled people, some of whom have previously been in institutions and for whom, as the name implies, the first aim is to broaden educational and life opportunities. The programme draws on the strengths of further and adult education to create possibilities for a group whose needs straddle the two sectors. 2.10.89 Many institutes offer educational programmes in adult training or community education centres. It was pointed out that sometimes poor staffing levels at the centres are relieved by the presence of teachers, or the withdrawal of clients for classes elsewhere. This provision often centres around ‘independent living skills’ including the use of public transport, which can support the slowly increasing provision of sheltered accommodation and group homes. Liaison with social service departments is discussed in Chapter 14. 2.10.90 Adult education is at the fore-front of the ‘self-advocacy’ movement which is growing in importance and credibility in this country. A good example of this can be found in the work being undertaken at the City Literary Institute where work with mentally-handicapped adults under the heading of ‘Creative Education’ includes sessions on ‘The Politics of Living’, group discussion and music-making. 2.10.91 Adult education services have also contributed to meeting special educational needs in another way. Institutes have new courses and groups for parents of children with such needs. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 13. 2.10.92 The promotion of integration is an increasing concern amongst adult educators: Southwark Institute has devoted a post for the development of integration and sees this as a priority as much for all its clients as for those with special needs. 2.10.93 This report has already stressed the importance of continuing education and obviously the adult education sector has a central role in this, complementing as it can provision made in further and higher education, colleges, the youth service and schools. The aim for the education service as a whole should be the removal of unhelpful notions about the chronological stages of education. The ILEA has a breadth and variety of provision which, linked imaginatively, can produce programmes to meet the needs of local communities and individuals which need not conform to sector stereotypes. 2.10.94 At a time when all non-statutory provision is vulnerable, the ILEA must ensure that adult education is allowed, and encouraged to continue its work for people with special educational needs in the communities it serves.

Higher Education 2.10.95 Higher Education was not strictly within the Committee’s terms of reference, but clearly students with special educational needs do enter higher education provision maintained by the Authority and what provision is or could be made was therefore of interest to the Committee. We recognise the important contribution made by disabled people to the development of provision in higher education. They have often created change by their challenge to institutions and by exercising their rights.

2.10.96 Understandably little evidence was received from this sector, and time constraints allowed only one visit to a polytechnic chosen at random so it is not known whether what was found represents a typical situation. 2.10.97 In the polytechnic visited, overall responsibility for student affairs is given to one Assistant Provost who thus has at least knowledge of all students with disabilities. 2.10.98 It was pointed out that, in common with the majority of the Authority’s buildings, physical access presents the first problem for some students though one or two sites are accessible, and the Authority has provided resources for hand-rails, ramps etc. 2.10.99 The number of disabled students catered for is small, but probably growing as ‘Access’ and other similar courses open new channels for progression into higher education. 2.10.100 All applications from students with significant disabilities are fed through the Assistant Provost who arranges an interview at which support and advisory personnel, as well as academic staff are present. The purpose of the interview, beside assessing academic and vocational suitability for the course, is to establish what supports would be necessary for the student to study successfully, and whether the Polytechnic can provide or arrange such support. As with mature students, entry requirements are flexible and can taken account of individual circumstances. 2.10.101 The polytechnic, though it was able to arrange for brailling of papers, the provision of tape recorders etc. for blind students, was not aware of the services offered by the City Literary Institute’s Unit for the Deaf, and felt that peripatetic support of this kind would be invaluable for hearingimpaired students. Here again, the number of applicants with this disability is likely to grow as increasing numbers of students successfully complete courses in further education colleges. 2.10.102 It was pointed out that there had been no involvement of inspectors in making provision for students with disabilities. What was being done stemmed from the interest and commitment of individuals giving time, for the most part, out of ‘goodwill’ and in response to demands made by disabled applicants. 2.10.103 The polytechnic has set up an Advisory Committee for Handicapped Students with representatives of non-teaching, as well as teaching staff and students. This committee, which acts to an extent as a pressure group, monitors provision, supervises arrangements for examinations and generally acts in the interests of disabled students. 2.10.104 Progress has been made and has resulted from student demand and the initiatives of concerned individuals and not in response to Authority guidance or policy. While not claiming to have achieved anything exceptional, this polytechnic has formally and informally responded to the needs of students with disabilities, and it is to be hoped that the Authority will encourage and promote positive responses in this and other polytechnics and colleges of higher education. Other Services linked with Further Education 2.10.105 The Committee also considered the contributions of a number of other services associated with further and higher education. The work of health and social services and most voluntary organisations is considered in Chapter 14. In the following paragraphs we comment on the work of the Learning Difficulties Support Service, the Careers Service and the Youth Service. Because of its close association with further education we also comment on the National Bureau for Handicapped Students. Some comments are also made on the contribution of the Manpower Services Commission. The Learning Difficulties Support Service 2.10.106 The Learning Difficulties Support Service was set up in 1977 as part of the Language and Literacy Unit to make provision for young people and adults with specific reading and writing

difficulties. It was recognised that many students on 0’ and A’ level courses, as well as those progressing from literacy provision, had undiagnosed learning problems which prevented them achieving success. 2.10.107 In the six years since it was set up, the Learning Difficulties Support Service has provided a service for students in further and adult education, and their teachers. Research studies suggest that up to 5 per cent of the population have specific learning difficulties so, although the number of students reached has increased, many more are struggling and perhaps dropping out who may have specific learning difficulties. 2.10.108 The service offers help in several ways; diagnosing and assessing the needs of students; providing short-term intensive tuition; and training tutors in colleges to recognise and deal with these difficulties themselves. Help is also given in making recommendations to Examination Boards on suitable concessions. This last function has grown in importance over the past two years. 2.10.109 Tutors from several colleges have been trained in diagnostic and in the preparation of appropriate remedial programmes tailored to individuals’ needs. For the provision to be successful, a certain amount of one-to-one’ work is necessary, particularly at the diagnostic stage, and at every stage small group work is essential. 2.10.110 One of the difficulties faced by the service is the problem of convincing the skeptical that diagnostic and remedial programmes work. This is compounded by the fact that when resources are precious, the intensive long-term help which may be needed is difficult to provide. All those who have worked with students with these particular learning needs are convinced of the effectiveness of remedial programmes, and of the need of an extended service. 2.10.111 Obviously no central unit can meet the needs of students in all the Authority’s colleges. For the support work to be effective there would have to be trained staff in each college together with a willingness to commit resources to help students who are currently failing in the courses of their choice. If the Authority accepts that it has a responsibility in this direction, the service as it currently exists should, perhaps, devote its expertise to staff training so that the provision to meet these needs may become local and immediate, as it should be if colleges are to respond to the learning needs of their own students. The Careers Service 2.10.112 The role of this service has changed substantially in recent years partly as a consequence of the very limited employment prospects for school leavers. As a consequence the Careers Service now offers counselling and support for individuals concerning the range of options available to them upon leaving school. In addition the service is the main source of information and access to the range of options that may be available. 2.10.113 The Careers Service has responded to these changes by re-organising its structure. There is a specialist Services Officer at Head Office, a specialist officer in each division, and a further specialist team based at Head Office servicing the residential establishments for young people with special educational needs. On the basis of our limited study of the service it is difficult for the Committee to be too precise. The Committee was impressed by the way the service is addressing a number of issues. Included among them are the following aspects with which the Committee was concerned: (i) the apparent lack of any adequate information base either within ILEA or the Careers Service about the full range of options available to school leavers; (ii) the definitions of special needs used by the service which tend to follows those of the special schools; (iii) the adequacy or otherwise of the training of Careers Officers for dealing with special

needs; (iv) the specialist/generalist problem. Does having specialists remove responsibility for special needs from non-specialist officers and does this go against the philosophy of integration? (v) the adequacy of the links between careers officers and careers teachers in schools and with college based careers officers; (vi) the lack of knowledge of local communities by those careers officers serving the residential schools; (vii) a tendency to underestimate the potential and capabilities of young people with special educational needs. 2.10.114 The Committee is not in a position to comment in detail on these issues but suggests that as a consequence of its report they are given continued attention. 2.10.115 The Careers Service in London is fairly complex and work in divisions is coordinated from the central office. Each division has specialists’ with responsibilities for particular areas of work: outreach, further education, 6th forms, unemployment and special educational needs. Those with responsibilities for the further education sector are attached to particular colleges and offer a service to all students. It is understandable that when a proportion of college students has learning difficulties or disabilities, it is not always clear which ‘specialist’ has responsibility for those young people. Such ‘grey areas’ can only be worked out locally, but it is very important that they should be worked out, so that young people with special educational (and employment) needs should neither fall through the net, nor be confused by relating to too many professionals. It is equally important that college teachers should understand the relevant roles and responsibilities and how these relate to their own place in a network of support. | 2.10.116 Some careers officers feel that their work in colleges is hampered by a lack of involvement in course and curriculum planning; if they are to be members of a team rather than additions ‘tacked on’ to the education service, there is a good case to be made for such involvement. Once again much can be done by local negotiation, but colleges could recognise and give status to their work by ensuring their inclusion on relevant committees and course planning teams. 2.10.117 The appointment of ‘specialist’ officers with responsibilities for young people with special educational needs demonstrates the importance attached to this work by the service. The danger of any such specialism is that others without such a designation will feel that their own responsibilities have been removed. This will be increasingly inappropriate as special educational needs come to be seen as part of a continuum, and not a separate and separating grouping. The role of ‘specialists’ in the future, we feel, should increasingly become one of support to practitioners concerned with all children and young people in schools and colleges. All initial and in-service training will need to reflect and support these new ‘generalist’ responsibilities. The Youth Service 2.10.118 This service has had a traditional role in working with young people who are disadvantaged, many of whom now fall under the umbrella of special needs. In addition the Warnock Report gave further impetus to work with special needs and a specialist youth officer was appointed with specific responsibility for this area of work. The major developments since have been to develop links with the voluntary sector and thereafter fund local projects directly. While this is obviously important and we would wish to encourage its continuation, there is also a need to look systematically at in-house provision and to ensure that this provision is also geared to meeting special needs. 2.10.119 The aims of the youth service of promoting education and personal autonomy seem

particularly relevant to special needs and we would hope that these aims will be increasingly pursued in integrated settings with a reduced emphasis in specific disabilities or segregated facilities. This will obviously have implications for training and support of youth workers. We were impressed that current developments in training and the establishment of a disability forum amongst youth workers are steps in the right direction. The relationship between the youth service and the inspectorate, particularly members with special educational responsibilities, has not always been clear and unambiguous. We would expect this relationship to develop into a coherent and fruitful partnership.

The National Bureau of Handicapped Students 2.10.120 Colleges setting out to make provision for students with special educational needs have been helped in many ways by voluntary organisations which have provided information support and practical advice. Most notably, the National Bureau for Handicapped Students has in recent years increasingly devoted its attentions to the field of further and continuing education and training for young people with learning difficulties and disabilities. 2.10.121 The Bureau, which was formed in 1975 with the prime aim of raising awareness amongst institutions in further and higher education of the need to make provision for students with disabilities, now offers a wide range of services to students and professionals. The Bureau has responded to the need to fill the gap which exists in relation to staff development by setting up regional support groups in which teachers with similar interests and needs get together to share concerns, carry out curriculum development and create their own staff development programmes. The Bureau also provides an extensive information service for students, those wishing to become students and their parents. Colleges wishing to contact others with particular experience or expertise would find the Bureau an invaluable communication channel. 2.10.122 The Committee also wishes to acknowledge the full and particular evidence the Bureau provided for this review. Its contribution was of considerable value in identifying the issues discussed in this chapter. Manpower Services Commission 2.10.123 The Committee did not have an opportunity to evaluate in a systematic way the nature of the relationship between Manpower Services Commission and educational provision and accordingly what follows are issues which seem of general importance as a result of our work in the post-school sector. (i) The Commission’s definition of handicap is based upon the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 which is at considerable variance with definitions of special educational needs currently operating in education. (ii) There is concern that Youth Training Scheme alternatives to education, particularly Mode A and Bi schemes, do not always met special educational needs in a systematic and nondiscriminating way. There are also specific concerns over (a) how much influence the staff of the Commisssion should be able to exert over the curriculum; (b) the lack of differential funding for special educational needs courses; (c) the emphasis on ‘value for money’ and the monitoring procedures involved, (d) how quality is judged and (e) age limits which may still be too inflexible adequately to meet special educational needs. 2.10.124 It is necessary to emphasise that these were issues brought to the attention of the Committee. They are recorded as a means of signalling a need to consider them within the comprehensive development of provision and services for young people with special educational needs in the postschool period.

Priorities and Potential Developments 2.10.125 Summarising the main focus of the Committee’s concerns about post-school provision, a number of points should be made. All teachers involved with students who have special educational needs are probably aware that changes in curriculum models and methods of assessment must affect their students as much as any others. The introduction of the Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education will need close attention if existing foundation courses are not to miss any possible benefits which standardised accreditation may bring. New methods of assessment, particularly profiling, can be used to highlight and record strengths and aptitudes. Students today must cope with very different longterm expectations from those of their predecessors, and the development of our provision must promote opportunities for continuing education in a way not hitherto necessary. 2.10.126 Gaps in existing provision and services should be filled and anomalies between arrangements in schools and colleges need to be removed. The Tertiary Education Boards have considerable potential for dealing with these issues and creating a comprehensive and relatively barrier-free range of provision for young people with special educational needs over the age of 16. 2.10.127 We have not in the previous sections in this chapter made specific reference to the needs of students for whom English is a second language. However, as elsewhere in the report, it is necessary to draw attention to the difficulties faced by such students when they also have special educational needs. The Committee hopes that attention will be given to this issue. 2.10.128 Overall what is needed is a clear Authority commitment to provide for students’ special educational needs wherever they continue their education post-i 6. This commitment, combined with the resources to carry it out, will carry forward the Authority’s pledge to provide ‘an education service for the whole community’.

Chapter 11 Inspectorate, Advisory, Peripatetic and Support Services (including Home Tuition) Introduction 2.11.1 A wide variety of different professional groups of all levels of seniority and experience is concerned directly and indirectly with services and provision to meet special educational needs. The range of such services is described in Chapter 4. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the responsibilities and working arrangements of these groups. Over the years many separate territories and spheres of influence have been established in the inspectorate, advisory and peripatetic teaching services and in the school services/psychological, social work and other services. Although these services may be clear about their objectives, the complexity of current provision is not readily understood by those who most need such services. The relative functions of each service and the relationships between them are unclear to many. 2.11.2 One of the fundamental questions addressed by the Committee was what coherence there was in the advice given to schools from the wide variety of different sources which currently exist. Advice and support about special educational needs cannot be dealt with in isolation. The advice given by a primary inspector, a primary adviser, a reading adviser, specialists in multi-ethnic education, an educational psychologist and a peripatetic teacher for specific learning difficulties (remedial teacher) bears on the same curriculum areas, the same potential range of materials and teaching techniques. No amount of stress on the fact that one person may be concerned with the work of the class as a whole and another with the difficulties of individual children deals with the main questions. These are: (i) How consistent is the advice given by everyone advising schools?

(ii) Have those responsible for the different services planned together? (iii) Have the different teachers working with the same schools worked out common areas of concern and approaches in any systematic way? It seems unreasonable to expect hard pressed schools to make sense of uncoordinated messages from many sources. 2.11.3 It may be helpful to summarise the functions performed by different professional groups working with schools. Individuals and groups will carry out different combinations of these functions which are: (i) advice to the Authority; (ii) the evaluation of the quality of provision and the identification and dissemination of good practices; (iii) general advice to schools, units and other provision about curriculum development, methods and materials; (iv) staff development and in-service education; (v) advice to individual teachers about aspects of their work; (vi) advice to schools and teachers about the particular needs of individuals or groups of children including aspects of multicultural education and the needs of children for whom English is a second language; (vii) assisting schools and teachers to develop and carry out a variety of assessment and recording procedures which are sensitive to cultural factors, sex differences and social background; (viii) working with individuals and small groups in collaboration with their class teachers to overcome learning and behaviour difficulties and other specific disabilities; (ix) working with parents and keeping schools and teachers informed about the home circumstances and out of school life of children; (x) providing links between schools, units, other forms of provision and agencies; (xi) supplementing the teaching resources of special schools. The list is not exhaustive. The first four of these functions will be built on the professional skills and experience of individuals and groups and, in the case of the inspectorate and schools psychological service on inspections, quinquennial reviews and surveys. The Inspectorate 2.11.4 The Committee paid most attention to the work of inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities but also discussed working arrangements with senior inspectors responsible for primary, secondary and further education. Inspectors responsible for subjects and particular aspects of education also produced evidence. The Committee was aware that the Chief Inspector was carrying out an active review of the work of the inspectorate and expects this report to contribute to that review. 2.11.5 The main purpose of discussion with primary and secondary phase inspectors was to discover what general guidance was given to schools about how they might meet the wider range of special

educational needs. Phase inspectors appear to rely heavily on the advice and help of inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities. Some very general advice has been issued about meeting special educational needs in secondary schools by an inspectorate group with special educational needs responsibilities. However no authoritative joint guidance has been given to schools up to the present time. The fact that the Reports “Improving Primary Schools” and “Improving Secondary Schools” did not give substantial attention to the ways in which special educational needs might be met in these schools is an indication of the present separation of primary and secondary concerns from special educational concerns. 2.11.6 One major issue relates to the way in which advice and help from inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities is viewed by phase inspectors. It is increasingly recognised that the relative nature of most special needs requires that provision for these needs must be an essential consideration in the development of a ‘whole school’ policy. Any ‘whole school’ policy which omits such a consideration cannot claim to be providing an appropriate education for all its pupils. If provision for special educational needs is not to remain marginalised, or confined to only certain departments or faculties, the inspectorate needs to unite, regardless of phase or subject responsibilities, in giving assistance and support to schools with their colleagues with special educational needs responsibilities. The claims of specialist subject areas should not compete with, but be consistent with and complement, the claims for ‘whole school’ policies towards meeting special educational needs. Inspectors with special educational needs assignments need to be involved in the development of such policies. They are also seen as responsible for advice about remedial departments and assistance to teams specializing in meeting special educational needs in a similar way to inspectors with subject responsibilities. The balance of attention to be given to whole school issues and to specific issues relating to specialist provision requires systematic attention from both phase inspectors and inspectors responsible for particular subjects and areas of school work. This is essential if heads of schools are to get coherent advice and support and are not to be left to resolve specialist claims themselves. 2.11.7 Similar issues exist between teams with responsibilities for special educational needs and those responsible for other special needs such as multi-cultural education. English as a second language, equal opportunities and giftedness. This is because many of the same approaches to helping individuals and groups occur in each field of work. Schools need help in reconciling the different needs for support teaching, withdrawal and other arrangements likely to be suggested in respect of each special need. A coherence in approach needs further development. 2.11.8 Members of the inspectorate concerned with further education have also relied on the team with special educational needs responsibilities for their support in developing arrangements in colleges and adult education institutes. It is important that the further education team take part in developing this aspect of college and institute policies and the Committee makes recommendations about this in Part Ill. 2.11.9 The Committee was made aware of a number of useful initiatives by individuals and groups to deal with the discontinuities described. During the time the Committee was at work a Conference of primary inspectors, inspectors with special educational needs assignments and educational psychologists was held at Avery Hill. This Conference identified common concerns and made a number of proposals for future action. Its uniqueness as an occasion for joint work underlines the fact that limited attention has been given to common issues in the past and that the need for joint initiatives is now recognized. 2.11.10 Another significant initiative in the primary field has been in operation in Division 9 during the past two years. A primary phase inspector and an inspector with special educational needs responsibilities, together with the primary advisory teacher and the primary special educational needs support teachers, have been running a course entitled Framework for Learning. This course, jointly planned fits meeting special educational needs into a framework of classroom management skills and primary school curriculum development. The course is associated with jointly planned work in selected primary schools where primary and special educational needs advisory teachers work

together towards common ends. This initiative, which appears to be unique, is an approach that the Committee hope will become more widespread. In some Divisions special educational needs support teachers for secondary schools have become involved in Divisional and school-based work within the Authority’s ‘Effective Learning Skills’ programme. This is another example of a coordinated approach by various advisory and support services. 2.11.11 Inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities have a wide range of duties both Divisional and Authority wide. In addition to traditional work with special schools, some special units, home tuition and Section 56 arrangements, they are now required to work in primary and secondary schools and colleges. Some review of their work load and priorities is essential. The present force of inspectors does not have the necessary time to give to all aspects of the range of special educational provision and services. It is therefore important that inspectors responsible for primary and secondary education become increasingly well informed about special educational needs and provision in their schools and use colleagues with special educational responsibilities sparingly as consultants. There is a similar issue in further education outlined in 2.1 0.32. In the long run primary, secondary and further education inspectors will need to develop a coherent approach to special educational provision in their phases as part of their normal work with schools and colleges. 2.11.12 Relationships between inspectors with subject responsibilities and those with special educational needs responsibilities also present some difficulties due to the lack of time and the difficulties in finding the right means to develop collaborative work. Here again the more subject inspectors can be helped to feel confident about advising specialist teachers about appropriate methods and materials for children with the wider range of special educational needs in primary and secondary schools the easier will be the task of colleagues with special educational responsibilities. Relative responsibilities may need redefining and in-service education needs recognized. 2.11.13 The Committee recognise that the issues outlined in previous paragraphs are receiving attention from the inspectorate. It has received much help particularly from the special educational needs team and would wish to acknowledge it. It is the Committees view that many hard working individuals will be helped to develop their contribution and lessen their frustrating experiences if a clear conceptual framework for an approach to meeting special educational needs in primary and secondary schools and colleges is developed, discussed and generally accepted. The Schools Psychological Service 2.11.14 The work of the school’s psychological service is varied and permeates all aspects of educational provision except further and continuing education, for which it is not staffed. Its primary purpose is to provide the education service with advice and assistance about the psychological aspects of child development, the nature of developmental, learning and behaviour difficulties which may arise and about how these difficulties might be assessed and overcome. As well as working with schools and units of all kinds educational psychologists provide services to child guidance units, child development teams and local and regional observation and assessment centres run by social services. 2.11.15 The service is led by a principal educational psychologist assisted by two deputy principals. Senior members of the service have authority wide responsibilities for some aspects of work and others act as Divisional educational psychologists coordinating the work of 5 to 8 psychologists in each Division. The service represents a relatively loose federation of different interests and responsibilities with common general objectives. Within individual assignments, educational psychologists have freedom to develop their own work in association with others in their area. 2.11.16 Members of the service provided considerable material for the Committee and took part in many helpful discussions. General guidelines for their work exist and regular conferences ensure current issues are explored but it could not be said that the service has an agreed and accepted approach to some of the major issues discussed in this report. The major contribution of the service to assessment is discussed in the next Chapter. The issues to be discussed here include its contribution to the development of special educational provision, its management functions, its in-service training

functions and its relationships to the inspectorate and to advisory services of all kinds. 2.11.17 The work of the service with schools of all kinds has given rise to some concerns. There appears to be a variety of approaches and methods used by different educational psychologists. This variation has advantages when individuals use strategies and methods best suited to their skills but it can have disadvantages. These arise when variations cause confusion or misunderstanding between educational psychologists and parents and teachers. It is necessary for the service to develop a framework of policies and practices within Authority guidelines for special educational provision. 2.11.18 Priorities for recruitment to the service are being established and these are important. The Committee would wish to endorse the need to recruit more educational psychologists from different ethnic backgrounds who speak one of the foreign languages in common use. The schools psychological service is in consultation with community groups and is currently giving particular attention to its work with ethnic minorities and children and parents for whom English is a second language. The Committee endorses these efforts, considering them to be very important to the understanding of the educational needs of the children concerned. It would support the need for additional resources for projects in this area of the service’s work. 2.1119 It would be helpful if educational psychologists were to negotiate more fully the nature of their service to schools. The Committee have been impressed by the response of schools to arrangements whereby psychologists contract to provide a number of sessions each term. The negotiations we have in mind should result in a clear agreement with schools about the nature and extent of the service to be provided within the service’s guidelines. They should include an attempt to match school needs to what the service can offer and contracts agreed should be reviewed annually by the educational psychologist and the staff of the school. 2.11.20 Because of the major part played by educational psychologists in developing assessment procedures, in schools and in ‘full assessment’ procedures the service is in a good position to bring together information about what special educational needs should be met and the kind of provision necessary to meet them. Thus a close working relationship with inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities is vital if the authority are to receive consistent advice both at central and divisional levels. Although the relationship is evident in working groups, panels and other ways, the Committee did not receive the impression that the two services had developed an agreed and coherent approach to meeting special educational needs. Their working arrangements sometimes showed as unhelpful separation in dealing with common concerns. 2.11.21 This separation was particularly evident in the management of three kinds of provision for which the school psychological service is responsible. These are tutorial classes, educational guidance units and classes for children with specific learning difficulties. Each is the responsibility of the principal educational psychologist or one of his two deputies. Teachers working in these units are considered members of the schools psychological teaching service and in the case of the specific learning difficulties there are teams of peripatetic teachers working under a senior teacher in each division. Their in-service education and career development are the exclusive concern of the schools psychological service although assistance from other specialists is sought on some occasions with inservice training. 2.11.22 The provision made in these three ways for learning difficulties and emotional and behaviour difficulties tends to be quite separate from other provision made in schools and other units in the same Division. Access to these units is via educational psychologists who are also responsible for the nature and quality of what is provided. Discontinuities are evident. The work of the Centre for Language in Primary Education and of advisory teachers of reading is quite separate from that of the service for specific learning difficulties which also currently concentrates on reading, writing and spelling difficulties. The work of tutorial classes and educational guidance centres is in no way linked to the work of other units for emotional and behaviour difficulties and of day special schools for children with similar problems. Members of the Committee questioned whether this separation should continue

to exist. The Committee believes that special educational needs provision made by the schools psychological service’s teaching service would benefit if it was more closely linked with other special educational needs provision. We also believe that the supervision of all such arrangements and the support of teachers should involve inspectors, including those with special educational responsibilities as well as the schools psychological service. 2.11.23 Members of the schools psychological service are not currently contributing as much as they would wish to the systematic evaluation of different forms of special educational arrangements. This appears to be due to two reasons. The first is that this is considered the function of Research and Statistics Branch, and the second that time is not allocated for the work. Educational psychologists are equipped with many skills which would enable them to make a sensitive appraisal of the effectiveness of different kinds of provision and more use might be made of these skills to evaluate new initiatives. This is particularly necessary with respect to the special educational needs of different ethnic groups and children for whom English is a second language. Secondly when contributing to assessment procedures which result in children being placed in provisions outside their own areas, educational psychologists get very little systematic feed back about the outcomes of their recommendations. This is a matter which justifies some attention both to improve the assessment of individual special educational needs and the effective use of provision made for them. 2.11.24 Like many other services the school psychological service is involved in staff development and in-service education. The contribution of different professional groups at central and divisional level is not always well coordinated. It seems particularly important that what educational psychologists have to offer is not seen as separate and specific but woven into a comprehensive approach to in-service education. Advisory and Support Teaching Services 2.11.25 Advisory Teachers for Special Educational Needs in Pre-School Provision. Two teachers are seconded for two years to work with nursery schools and classes, helping the staff to identify and meet special educational needs. Their work is of considerable importance but the amount they can achieve is limited, both because of the limited period of secondment and the wide area and range of provision for under 5’s they have to cover. They work to a member of the inspectorate with special educational responsibilities which include this area of work. It seems probable that it takes nearly half the time available for the teachers to know their field and after a year of effective work they return to other duties. It would be helpful if individual periods of secondment could overlap. Issues related to pre-school provision are dealt with in Chapter 6. 2.11.26 Special Educational Needs Support Teachers. As a response to the Warnock Report (1978) and the 1981 Education Act the Authority appointed teachers to work with primary and secondary schools to support and help to develop their provision to meet the wider range of special educational needs. Two teachers work in each Division, one with primary schools and one with secondary schools. These two teachers work to the Inspector with special educational needs responsibilities in each Division. The work of this group of teachers is just developing. In practice they are only able to work in a limited number of schools at any onetime, but they are also involved in a variety of in-service education provision in their Divisions. Their functions are to help schools define their response to special educational needs and support teachers in meeting these needs. 2.11.27 Their work is helped where schools have a defined policy to meet special educational needs, and have identified the help they need. These teachers not only help colleagues with specialist responsibilities for meeting special educational needs but also work with class and subject teachers. There remain uncertainties about the co-ordination of their work with other advisory teachers in the primary field and advisory teachers responsibilities for subjects in secondary schools. At present they have no remit to work with teachers in special schools and units. It would be helpful if some members of the team had not only expertise in meeting the needs of children and young people for whom English is a second language but also knowledge of and

familiarity with a range of different cultural backgrounds. 2.11.28 In many respects current patterns of work have developed from individual initiatives and although the broad scope of their work has been defined, detailed guidelines for its development have not yet been produced. Future progress in developing support work of this kind requires an appraisal of their work and the identification of priorities. 2.11.29 Advisory Teachers in Further Education. Two teachers are seconded to work with schools and colleges to support work with young people with special educational needs for the post-16 period. These are the first appointments of their kind and the creation of the posts gives recognition, however limited, of the need of advisory support in the further education sector. This support of college provision is of considerable importance, but two individuals cannot hope to respond to all the demands which could be made of them. Working as they do to an inspector with special education responsibilities, they are also somewhat isolated from further education and thus cannot fully participate in work related to whole curriculum’ issues in ways which could be beneficial to all. The importance of their work needs to be recognised in a growth in numbers of appointments and a redefinition of their place in the education service. 2.11.30 Peripatetic Teachers for Sensory Impairment. Three separate services exist responsible to different inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities. A small service of three teachers is concerned with visual impairment, working to support children and teachers in under five, primary and secondary schools. A service of similar size works with deaf/blind children in nursery schools, classes and special schools for severe learning difficulties. A larger service of 15 teachers works with children with hearing impairment, from the time such disabilities are discovered throughout the school period when such children attend nursery primary and secondary schools. There is some concern that these children’s needs are not adequately met at present. These are centrally managed services providing for the whole authority area. 2.11.31 The particular issues which arose in discussing their work were their links with special schools, particularly those for visual and hearing impairment, and their links with more general peripatetic services, particularly in the early school years. There would appear to be grounds for considering a unified service of schools, units and peripatetic services in the case of both visual and hearing impairment to provide flexible provision and support within sectors of the Authority. 2.11.32 Peripatetic Teachers for Specific Learning Difficulties. The service for specific learning difficulties has already been mentioned in paragraph 2.11.22. A senior teacher in each division is assisted by peripatetic teachers totalling 20 in all. There are also three teachers with specific responsibilities for dyslexic children. These teachers work closely with educational psychologists. There are some differences in the way they work in different Divisions. In some Divisions senior teachers can accept referrals direct from schools and arrange for teaching help. In other all referrals come to the educational psychologist who authorises peripatetic help or placement in special classes. 2.11.33 The service is appreciated when it works closely with class teachers and supports their work. There remains some uncertainty about its specific client group within the wider range of learning difficulties of which schools are aware. As has been already mentioned the work of these peripatetic teachers is not always closely coordinated with those of other advisory teachers working in primary schools. 2.11.34 Peripatetic Teachers for Children with Behaviour Difficulties. These teachers are employed as a result of the Authority’s initiative to provide for disruptive children. A number of Divisions decided to use resources for peripatetic work as opposed to setting up off-site centres. A total of 48 teachers are employed in this work, the majority supporting children in primary schools but some working in secondary schools. The work of such teachers comes under primary and secondary phase inspectors. The nature of this work was not studied by the Committee. The Working Party on Off-Site Centres noted the professional isolation of some of the teachers. It was impressed with the

multi-disciplinary team approach developed in Division 5. The Working Party said that careful consideration of the conditions necessary for successful peripatetic work was necessary. Teachers needed to be carefully selected, and trained and supported. The Working Party recommended a wider adoption of peripatetic work subject to these conditions. 2.11.35 Unattached Teachers for Severe Learning Difficulties. A force of 20 teachers and one advisory Teacher for complex difficulties, work in special schools for severe learning difficulties. Twelve of these are allocated to schools to provide extra help with the emotional and behaviour difficulties of young people in the 16-19 age range and eight to work with autistic children. This form of support to supplement the resources of special schools is the responsibility of the inspector with a special educational needs responsibilities including schools for severe learning difficulties. 2.11.36 Advisory Teachers with Specific Tasks. A number of responsibilities advisory teachers are seconded to work with members of the inspectorate with special educational needs responsibilities and with the school psychological service. Areas of work include specific learning difficulties and classroom observation procedures. These seven appointments extend the advisory and in-service training work of individual inspectors and of the school psychological service. 2.11.37 Unattached Curriculum Support Teachers. As with severe learning difficulties a number of teachers work part-time for specific periods in special schools to support their work by providing a general reinforcement of resources or by providing specialist subject teaching or technical help. Altogether 41 .5 teaching posts are taken up with this work. 2.11.38 Co-ordination. No attempt has been made to give details of advisory and peripatetic services other than those that fall within the range of special educational needs provision. However in view of the comments in the Primary and Secondary Reports and of this Committee there would appear to be a need to review the work of all advisory and peripatetic services as a whole to see how their work may be coordinated and made more coherent from the point of view of teachers, parents and other professionals. This must also involve those with particular experience of children from different ethnic backgrounds and those responsible for multi-cultural education. 2.11.39 Social Work Services. Descriptions of three different social work services, two of them in the Medical Branch, were given in Chapter 4. Their current patterns of work are unco-ordinated and gaps, overlaps and discontinuities occur. Before turning to these it is necessary to look in a little more detail at each of them. 2.11.40 The Psychiatric Social Work Service. This service originally specially trained to work in hospitals and child guidance clinics as a separate social work profession has now in most areas been incorporated in social service departments. The ILEA service has maintained its clinical and therapeutic emphasis through in-service education and a concentration on a relatively narrow but important area of work with emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children and their families. The current team is divided into two by areas of work. Just over half the psychiatric social workers work primarily in child guidance units and the remainder work primarily with day and boarding schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties but also spend some sessions in child guidance units. 2.11.41 Psychiatric social workers work in clinics and also work in nurseries, nursery schools and primary and secondary schools not only in respect of individual children attending clinics but also as consultants to school staffs about childrens difficulties. This work is limited to a few schools in the area of each child guidance unit but is a type of work that staff of those units wish to see grow. Psychiatric social workers working with day and boarding schools are primarily concerned with working with the families of children who attend them and working with the staff of the schools, as part of a psychiatric support team. Because children attend such schools from all over the Authority area it is often not possible for psychiatric social workers in clinics to follow up children placed in special schools and discontinuities occur.

2.11.42 The School Social Work Service provides full time social workers employed by the authority to work with all other boarding schools, A further team of social workers employed by borough social service departments, 75 per cent of whose salary is paid by the Authority, work with all day special schools except those for moderate learning difficulties. They provide support for the school staff and the families of children who attend these special schools. Because there is a significant incidence of emotional difficulties in almost all special schools the nature of the work of this service in schools is not dissimilar from that of the psychiatric social work service. The service has an advantage in being linked with local borough social work teams and can bridge gaps between education and social service departments. The Committee was impressed by the universal praise for the value of school based social work. 2.11.43 The Education Welfare Service. This service provides a wide range of support for nursery, primary and secondary schools and provides the social work support to day schools for children with moderate learning difficulties. Its work has recently been reviewed and changes leading to close attachments to schools are likely. A number of important aspects of the work of this service in respect of assessment are discussed in Chapter 12. This service is a major source of information about families and about their difficulties which is available to nursery, primary and secondary schools and the wide variety of units which now exist. The work of education welfare officers is vital to special educational needs provision in many ways, particularly in encouraging the participation of parents, helping them to understand the system and supporting them in their relationships with schools. 2.11.44 The education we/fare service has been active in recruiting members from ethnic minority communities and with /anguages which facilitate communication with them. The Committee wishes to endorse this recruitment po/icy and to see it extended as far as possible so that there are members of the service readily available with appropriate ski//s to work with all communities.

Conclusion 2.11.45 The current areas of responsibility of the three social work services have been built up overtime. It is time they were reviewed as a whole to look at the interfaces between different aspects of their work with schools. The Committee heard about, but did not have time to study, discontinuities in responsibility and work with families which suggest that at central and Divisional level the work of each needs to be better coordinated with the other. One aspect of the review should be a clearer identification of different kinds of social work intervention and a rationale for the work of different members of each service. The Committee would hope to see the recruitment policy of the education welfare service endorsed in 2.11.44 extended to the other social work services. The Home Tuition Service 2.11.46 This service is included in this chapter because it was originally peripatetic in nature with teachers working in children’s homes, their own homes and other places. More recently it has developed its own form of institution the home tuition centre and permanent staff have been appointed to the service. 2.11.47 The Authority has produced clear guidelines which cover nine different grounds for providing home tuition. These are: (i) physical where the condition makes the child unfit for school for six weeks or more; (ii) pregnancy/schoolgirl mother — for up to six weeks beyond the confinement; (iii) psychiatric where a child is being seen by a psychiatrist who recommends home tuition; (iv) awaiting special school placement or under assessment for special educational needs;

(v) psychological request by an educational psychologist on psychological grounds; (vi) expulsion with longer than three terms of school life remaining up to six weeks’ home tuition while other arrangements are being made; (vii) expulsion during last statutory year of education home tuition permitted to the end of school life; (viii) expulsion from special school — home tuition while review taking place; (ix) other circumstances authorised by assistant education officer (special education). The clientele has been changing with an increasing percentage of children and young people having special educational needs. 2.11.48 Just over 1,200 children received home tuition in 1982/83 and in June 1984 the number of children and young people receiving it was 576. It may be assumed that all the children falling within categories i, iii, iv and v have special educational needs. A high percentage of all those receiving home tuition came into those categories and thus have such needs. There is no doubt that the percentage is actually higher since other categories also include children and young people with special educational needs. In the Autumn Term 1984 451 children were receiving home tuition an average of 15 per 10,000 of the school population. By the Spring Term of 1985 the number was 648 showing a build up in the use of the service over the school year. 2.11.49 The teacher-in-charge of the service is assisted by teachers in charge in each division each of whom has a full time deputy. Home tutors are appointed to a panel and there are currently 625 on call of whom almost 450 work regularly. Teachers-in-charge work from home tuition centres of which there are nine (Divisions 9 and 10 share a centre). The centres provide for work with about half the children receiving home tuition and for group work with some of them. 2.11.50 The home tuition service is increasingly being used for children undergoing full assessment procedures and awaiting special school placement, currently over 36 percent of all children taught by it. The increasing use of centres is resulting in their taking on the characteristics of part-time off-site centres, particularly as the behaviour of the majority of children receiving home tuition has resulted in their being inacceptable in their schools. 2.11.51 One matter drawn to the attention of the Committee is the small number of children and young people for whom English is a second language who receive home tuition even in areas with a high percentage of such children and young people. We do not know the reasons for this. The service should have staff able to communicate with different ethnic groups. It should give attention to these particular needs in its recruitment of staff and establish links with ethnic minority communities. 2.11.52 The particular issues which arise when considering the service are its relationship to other special educational provision, its lack of planned support from the school psychological service; the education social work service and other advisory services; and the procedures and length of time needed to obtain authorisation for home tuition is some instances. Because of its growth as an alternative to school and unit provision, albeit temporary, it would seem necessary to explore whether schools and units of different kinds might provide what some of the children appear to need. 2.11.53 The home tuition service needs to be better integrated with other provision at Divisional level and it could be an advantage if the same group responsible for authorising other out-of-school provision was responsible for making decisions about home tuition. Central control could be maintained by a quota system of hours based on Divisional needs. Similarly the allocation of resources to the service needs rationalization taking into account the number of children dealt with by each Divisional service.

2.11.54 It would be unwise to underestimate the value of home tuition as a part of special educational provision provided it is used with discrimination. The current work of the service owes a great deal to devoted teachers who work with children where difficulties are complex and produce much educational work of quality. The examination preparation of some pupils and the results obtained reflect great credit on all concerned. Comment 2.11.55 Members of the Committee were impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of the many teachers and other professionals in the advisory and support services that they met in the course of their work. The comments made should not be taken to reflect on the quality of work but only on its direction and co-ordination. One recurrent theme runs through the previous section of this Chapter. Separate services work within their own terms of reference without relating the work they do to that of other services and provision dealing with children and young people with similar needs. There is a need for co-ordination in planning and service delivery. It can also be seen that, by and large, these services cease to be available when young people leave school and continue their education in colleges, as increasingly they are choosing to do. This situation is obviously anomalous given the statutory entitlement to education up to the age of 19 and the Authority’s commitment to providing equal opportunities. Students with special educational needs post-16 are more likely than their peers to need support of various kinds, and services should be available to them wherever they continue their education. Staff Development and In-Service Education 2.11.56 As part of its study of special education provision the Committee considered staff development and in-service education. An important reason for drawing attention to staff development and in-service education is that both are necessary if this report is to be understood. As well as collecting information about current courses, it also considered future plans, particularly the course being prepared for all teachers to increase their awareness of special educational needs. Four separate aspects can be distinguished namely: (i) School and college focused work (ii) Divisionally arranged courses (iii) Centrally arranged courses (iv) Courses provided by universities and colleges. It has to be said at the outset that there was not sufficient time to study this topic as fully as the Committee would have wished and much of the comment which follows is based on incidental experiences and discussions. Nevertheless certain issues have emerged to which the Committee consider attention should be paid. 2.11.57 In-service education can exert a major influence on ideas and practices, particularly when it is school focused and related to the practical problems facing staff of all levels and professions. It is the Committee’s view, based on a wide range of visits and discussions, that current arrangements are often diffuse and uncoordinated in the field of special educational needs provision. This is not to criticise the level of resourcing devoted to staff development and in-service education. It is however a fact that because clear policies for meeting special educational needs do not exist, a coherent framework for in-service education in the field is hard to detect. 2.11.58 The Committee recognises that there is a continuing need to provide opportunities for staff of all kinds to increase and update their skills, ideas and knowledge in specific areas, In the field which is our concern this will include attention to the educational needs of children and young people with specific disabilities such as visual or hearing impairment, and to those associated with significant

learning and behavioural difficulties. A particularly neglected area for all teachers, support staff and support services is that of in-service education for working with parents. Staff .need guidance on understanding parents’ concerns about their children, on giving practical advice, what the parents’ contribution should be and how to support parents who are having difficulties with their children. These are no longer discrete fields of study nor are the target groups for such studies always distinct. It is for these reasons that in-service education concerned with the assessment of and provision to meet special educational needs, whatever its form, should not be seen as separate. Arrangements for it should be set within overall Authority guidelines. School and College Focused In-Service Education 2.11.59 Staff development should rest on three principles. Every teacher should accept the need to continuously update knowledge and skills and be an active learner. Every school or college as a community should accept responsibility to develop the knowledge and skills of its members. Inservice education should be planned to meet the needs of all children and young people in the school or college or who will come to that school or college. This requires that all educational institutions have a staff development plan, understood by all staff both in terms of what they might contribute to it and what they might expect from it. 2.11.60 The Committee have become aware of efforts in a number of schools and colleges of all kinds to develop school and college based in-service education and these are to be commended. Some special schools have been particularly active in this way. In the Committee’s view guidelines for a school or college staff development policy should include a written statement of it, a senior member of staff with responsibility for putting it into effect, and opportunities for all staff to contribute to and benefit from it. Such a statement should embody agreed aims for meeting all special needs including special educational needs. The staff development plan should include arrangements for the induction of new staff, for team teaching and support teaching and for disseminating good practices. There should be a record of staff attendance at in-service education sessions in school or college and outside them and a means of identifying future training needs. The reason for stating these requirements is to stress that meeting special educational needs should be part of a whole school policy of which staff development is a major element. 2.11.61 Attention has already been drawn (2.11.6) to the difficulties schools have when a number of separate specialist interests and services wish to make on impact in their work. The need for a coordinated and coherent approach by advisory and support services is stressed in a number of places in this report. Such coherence is equally important in school focused in-service education. Few good examples appear to exist other than the ones quoted in 2.11 .10. However the Committees recommendations for team working in Part Ill should result in a better match between school or college determined priorities and those of an integrated Divisional special educational needs service. Divisionally Arranged Courses 2.11.62 Within Divisions in-service education is provided by different inspectorate groups, by advisory and support teaching teams and by the schools psychological service within Authority guidelines. Although a widely representative advisory committee exists in each Division to approve courses and school focused in-service education, the Committee gained the impression that current inservice arrangements reflected the fragmented uncoordinated pattern of service delivery to schools. No mechanism appears to exist for a planned pattern of staff development at this level with respect to meeting special educational needs. 2.11.63 With particular respect to meeting special educational needs there does need to be a planned approach in which all schools, units, services and colleges are involved. This planned approach should be developed in collaboration with primary, secondary and tertiary phase inspectors as well as subject and special interest groups.

Centrally Arranged Courses 2.11.64 The Committee is aware of active steps being taken to co-ordinate in-service education and of a widely representative advisory committee which plans and approves courses. All further education in-service education arrangements are also approved centrally. We confine our comments to special educational elements within overall programmes. At present there are two groups developing inservice education, inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities and the schools’ psychological service. Both groups have substantial contributions to make this work but there appears to be a need for closer co-operation in planning between them and between both groups and the rest of the inspectorate. 2.11.65 One major initiative in preparation is an awareness of special educational needs course for all teachers. The Committee welcomes this initiative but has a number of comments to make about it. It is helpful that the course has been prepared in such a way that tutors can select appropriate material to suit different groups and that an opportunity will be offered to all teachers to follow the course. Some reservations result from the fact that the material was prepared by a special educational needs group without full consultation with other inspectorate and advisory services and in the absence of a clear authority policy on provision to meet special educational needs in primary and secondary schools. The Committee is also concerned about the number of teachers who will be able to take advantage of the course when sessions are arranged outside school hours. No arrangements have apparently been made for similar work with the staff of colleges of further education and adult education institutes. Similarly all inspectors and advisory teaching staff as well as staff already concerned with special educational needs provision, may also need opportunities for such awareness training. The initiative is to be welcomed, such a course is necessary, but it does represent another example of a separate initiative not apparently set within a context of other educational developments. 2.11.66 A particularly important part of the Authority’s provision is the one-term course for teachers of children with special educational needs run twice a year (TOCSEN). Such a course can provide a valuable extension of staff development at a level beyond basic awareness. It also provides an opportunity for teachers in primary, secondary and special schools to work together. We understand that the special educational inspectorate is currently reviewing its structure and operation. We welcome the intention to provide continuing support for teachers who attend these courses. There will be a need to ensure that this course also encompasses the principles and priorities outline in this Report. Its relationship to other in-service education, particularly the short awareness course discussed in the previous paragraph, need to be clearly established. Provision by Other Agencies 2.11.67 The University of London Institute of Education, Polytechnics and Colleges of Higher Education all provide in-service education for teachers who wish to improve their qualifications and knowledge about special educational needs. The Authority’s secondment procedures for these were not studied. The main point the Committee wishes to make about such provision is that these institutions need to be brought in to the planning of the Authority’s in-service education for meeting special educational needs. This is necessary so that their wider perspectives can be brought to bear and because they need to know the Authority’s policies in order to plan their work and develop appropriate units of study and courses. The intention that such co-operation should take place is clearly stated in Circular 4.84 from the Department of Education and Science. It is essential, if one term courses concerned with meeting special educational needs in primary and secondary schools, are to contribute to the Authority’s resources that close co-operation on the part of the Authority with institutes of higher education should increasingly be fostered. The Training Implications of this Report 2.11.68 There are a number of in-service education implications in this report both for the Authority’s programme and for providers of longer courses. The Committee hopes implications for the latter form of course will be considered by institutions of higher education in partnership with the Authority. Inservice education, in addition to existing arrangements, will be necessary if the broad

recommendations of this report are accepted. It will have implications for class and subject teachers to consider how special educational needs can be met within their classes, and what forms of collaboration with other teachers meeting such needs are effective. Subject teachers will need to give continued attention to the adaptation of the curriculum and to methods and materials for children and young people with special educational needs in their schools and colleges. Heads and Principals will need opportunities to study appropriate forms of provision within their schools and colleges and be prepared to lead on the development of whole school and college policies which include provision to meet special educational needs. 2.11.69 Outside nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges there will be other training needs. Advisory, support and peripatetic teachers will need to increase their skills, study collaborative patterns of working together and develop their own contribution to in-service education. Teachers from special schools will need further training to prepare them to work with and in other schools and colleges and to carry out support teaching. 2.11.70 Administrators and the variety of other support services, social, psychological, education welfare and school health services, will need opportunities to join with teachers in in-service education to develop multi-professional work. There will also need to be training for the management groups mentioned later in this report. 2.11.71 Of no less importance, are the needs of the many general assistants and other staff working with teachers and children in special schools, units and other schools. Their contribution is vital and their opportunities for training are poor; steps need to be taken to improve them. 2.11.72 Finally the Committee wishes to stress the crucial importance of inter-professional training for all who work with children and young people with special educational needs. In initial and award bearing courses of all kinds professionals of one discipline should be introduced to the work of others and wherever possible take part in education and training with others. Voluntary organizations have played an important part in developing inter-professional training through their conferences and courses and the Authority, in partnership with other institutions and voluntary agencies, should seek to develop inter- professional training, a necessary prerequisite for effective co-operation in meeting special educational needs.

Chapter 12 Aspects of Assessing Special Educational Needs Introduction 2.12.1 The Committee’s terms of reference were explicitly concerned with provision to meet special educational needs. However current approaches stress the close interrelationship between provision and assessment. Provision is only likely to be effective when it is linked to a skilled assessment of specific individual needs. Assessment is only appropriate when it leads to suitable arrangements to meet such needs. In the past and to some extent currently assessment is too often associated with placement in additional or an alternative provision. It is because the Committee recognizes the need to associate assessment with appropriate educational programmes, rather than the places where these take place that a separate chapter is devoted to the subject. 2.12.2 The Committee was made aware of widespread concern about how special educational needs are identified and assessed. Some of these concerns have been summarised in Chapter 5 and they were echoed time and time again when members met parents and professionals from all social and ethnic groups. Most comment centred on what were seen as the long drawn out procedures for full assessment’ which may result in making a Statement of special educational needs. The framework for these procedures was laid down in the 1981 Education Act and the Authority has been implementing its own detailed procedures since April 1983, But comment also referred to the earlier less formal

ways in which special educational needs were assessed in primary and secondary schools and in respect of placement in the array of units provided by the Authority. 2.12.3 The topic of assessment raises many basic issues about human behaviour and how it is to be judged. It also involves questions of attitude and of expectations about levels of performance not related to individual differences. Many of the current difficulties which have led to the Authority’s initiatives with respect to race, class and gender arise from negative assumptions about the achievement of different individuals and groups in society. There are many different techniques to assess individual learning and educational skills but many are still insensitive to cultural factors which may influence performance. Before turning to the specific issues related to assessing special educational needs the Committee considers it important to register its awareness of these important background issues. The Committee also wishes to make clear that the purposes of different forms of assessment must be stated. The purpose of assessing children in respect of actual or potential special educational needs is to provide appropriate education for them, not to place them in groups, classes or schools. 2.12.4 It is important to recognize that there are three inter-related aspects of assessment only one of which, ‘full assessment’ procedures, appears to have received detailed consideration by professionals concerned with provision to meet special educational needs. These three aspects are: *The committee wishes to emphasise that all assessment should be comprehensive and as full as possible. However the Authority uses the term full assessment’ to describe its procedures leading to making a statement of needs and provision under Section 5 of the 1981 Education Act.

(i) the means by which schools assess and record the progress of all children; (ii) the means by which schools and of services assess the wider range of special educational needs defined by the Warnock Report 1978; and (iii) ‘formal assessment’ procedures which need to comply with legislation and regulations. The relative and context bound concept of special educational needs already outlined in Chapter 1 makes it imperative that these three aspects are considered together and that a continuum of assessment procedures is recognized. Formal ‘full assessment’ procedures will only become effective when they are an extension of sound schemes to identify and assess the full range of special educational needs. The latter schemes must themselves be a development of reliable procedures within schools for assessing and recording the progress of all children. These procedures and schemes need to take into account the four aspects of achievement outlined in “Improving Secondary Schools” and must be clear for everyone to understand. A dialogue with parents about their children’s response to education and a school’s response to their children should be developed from the earliest years if they are to understand the nature of special educational needs, as they arise. Assessment and recording for all 2.12.5 All schools are expected to have written statements of the curriculum they offer and the ways in which the progress of individuals over time is to be assessed and recorded. This should include a clear statement about the purposes of assessment and means by which the progress of individuals is to be related to the continuous development of knowledge, skills, ideas and personal characteristics within the school’s curriculum framework. This aspect of schools’ work has already been discussed in Chapter 7. 2.12.6 There are many common faults in the practical expression of these principles. Most common among them are the tendency to make global judgments for example in awarding grades, a lack of factual information in records of children’s experiences and skills and a tendency to see records as designed to inform others rather than as a basis on which to plan the work of classes, groups and individuals being taught by the person making the record.

2.12.7 The Committee did not study this aspect of the work of schools as it was outside their terms of reference. However it was recognized as an essential pre-requisite to any scheme to assess special educational needs. Effective, economical and comprehensive assessment and recording procedures for all children should be an integral part of a school’s work and a measure of its educational quality. The relationship of work currently in progress in other parts of the education service, for example on pupil profiles, to assessment procedures for special educational needs should be recognized. Those professionals more directly concerned with these latter procedures should be acquainted with general assessment procedures and the development work currently taking place. The Assessment of Special Educational Needs in Schools 2.12.8 Special educational needs arise from a school’s inability at a given time to provide appropriately for individuals through their normal curriculum, organisation and methodology. Thus the precise definition of the wider range of such needs can only be made in individual schools. When learning or behavioural difficulties become marked, and when children fail to make progress, further investigation may be necessary. Schools thus need to extend their assessment and recording procedures. 2.12.9 This extension of procedures to determine the nature of special educational needs and the means to meet them involves looking at the information already available, carrying out further investigations where necessary and seeing what changes might be necessary in teaching the individual. These further investigations should involve the teacher with special educational needs responsibilities in the school and may involve support services of all kinds. Schools might call on the expertise of psychological, educational welfare, health and social services as well as peripatetic teaching services. Thus a comprehensive assessment of the more common special educational needs, leading to additional help in the school is the first extension of a schools assessment and recording procedures for all children. It should not be a separate added on system of assessment but should be derived from the cyclical process of teaching, assessing and modifying teaching which is expected in all fields of education. 2.12.10 School based assessment of this kind needs to be coordinated. It is envisaged that teachers responsible for provision to meet special educational needs in larger schools and those who may work with groups of smaller schools would undertake this work. In addition to information available in school it will be necessary to include the views of parents about their children in general and about their present response to school in particular. It is important that this resource is fully utilised. Similarly education welfare officers and other professionals may also contribute their knowledge and skills. The result in most instances should be a plan for the individual which is regularly reviewed in partnership with the child’s parents. 2.12.11 Many schools need guidance to develop these second level assessment procedures and at present guidelines do not appear to exist. This is an area of work to which educational psychologists and advisory and support teachers can make a significant contribution. There needs to be an active approach to developing school-based assessment procedures, Teams at authority level which include primary and secondary phase inspectors, inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities and the school psychological service should produce guidelines. Teams representing similar interests at Divisional level can then implement these guidelines through work in individual schools and other forms of in-service education. It is the Committee’s view that lack of attention to this kind of assessment has contributed to confusion about ‘full assessment’ procedures many of which are at present not based on well prepared information from schools and from teachers in direct contact with the children concerned. 2.12.12 Where it is not possible to provide for children within the school, and or when more detailed assessment is thought to be needed, ‘full assessment’ procedures may be initiated. But for the majority of children with special educational needs, all that will be necessary will be the school’s special educational needs provision, supplemented by peripatetic teaching services and other support services

as required. Assessment for Additional Provision Outside Schools 2.12.13 Although the majority of special educational needs should be met in primary and secondary schools, the current range of provision in units and classes of different kinds requires that decisions are made about provision that is additional to and different from that available in schools. ‘Full assessment’ is not currently required before children are admitted to many of the units and classes described in Chapter 8. At present the forms of assessment and the criteria used to make decisions are varied and often unclear and unstated. Significant improvements would result from the school-based assessment procedures outlined in the previous section. However even when a statement is not necessary assessment by a school’s staff alone will not be sufficient. Additional information will be necessary from other professionals who work with the school who, in particular instances, might include the school’s educational psychologist, peripatetic and support teachers and educational welfare officers. The move to place children in part-time or full-time provision which supports primary and secondary schools should be based on systematic assessment prior to making a recommendation for such provision. This assessment should pay specific attention to the contexts in which individual children’s special educational needs arise. 2.12.14 There are two aspects of this procedure which should also receive attention. The first is that clear and acceptable criteria for the use of unit provision should be determined and made widely known to schools and those working with them. Secondly the objectives of such placements should be made clear by the assessment. At present where criteria have been developed by services and units they are not always known to others or adhered to. The positive expectations of such provision for individuals are not always clearly stated. 2.12.15 Schools and the professionals working with them must make out a clear and positive case for additional or different provision based on adequate assessment, which is comprehensible to parents from all social and ethnic groups. Parents should be involved in decision-making and have their views considered. It is not suggested that ‘full assessment’ procedures are necessary for such placements but there appears to be a strong case for common procedures to ensure that the information on which entry to units of different kinds is based is comprehensive and that specified needs can be set alongside agreed criteria for admission to each unit. Decisions should be taken by professional groups similar to panels concerned with children who are the subject of Statements. ‘Full Assessment’ Procedures 2.12.16 These procedures are initiated when the Authority decides that they are necessary and when it is likely that the Authority will need to make provision that is not generally available in or to all schools. ‘Full assessment’ procedures are currently required when the Authority needs to determine the provision necessary to support individuals in nursery, primary and secondary schools, before admission to some units (see Chapter 8) and before admission to special schools. 2.12.17 The new procedures required by the 1981 Education Act are complicated and take time. They take time because more people are expected to provide information and because parents are consulted more directly and have time to consider their response. A flowchart of full assessment procedures prepared by the Authority in the light of the 1981 Education Act and the 1983 Special Education regulations is to be found in Appendix 6. It shows the maximum time period which might be involved if parents take up the full time available to respond and appeal to a local committee and to the Secretary of State. 2.12.18 The Committee made enquiries of a number of other local education authorities about their procedures and found that, although the time taken varied with different children, they were able to complete procedures in many instances, much more quickly than the ILEA. It was also provided with some information about the average time taken in different Divisions of the Authority. It is therefore of interest to look at a number of features in current arrangements to see what might be done to reduce the time taken and keep parents in closer touch with procedures as they carried out.

2.12.19 The first question to be asked is how effectively and sympathetically parents have been kept informed by schools about their children’s progress. This should be an ongoing process for all children but it is particularly important as soon as difficulties become apparent to the school. Secondly, where assessment procedures have been extended to identify special educational needs, parents should also be involved in discussion about their nature and how they might be met. Thus when the first approach is made to the Authority to recommend ‘full assessment’ there should be comprehensive information already available. Moreover parents should be aware that the recommendation is to be made and familiar with the reasons for it. This does not always appear to be the case at present. 2.12.20 When the Authority decides to make a ‘full assessment’ it writes to parents informing them of this, give details of procedures, names an officer to whom they can refer, and invites them to submit any evidence or comment on their children’s difficulties. This letter is normally delivered by an education welfare officer. This stage is often crucial in the smooth introduction of procedures. It is therefore important that the person who delivers the letter is familiar with both the child’s difficulties in school and with the full assessment procedures so that he or she can deal fully and sympathetically with any questions parents may have. It is regrettable that our evidence leads us to believe that too many letters are delivered by officers who do not know the child’s difficulties and therefore feel unable to discuss the situation with parents. This is an issue which needs attention. 2.12.21 During the assessment phase parents may be asked to present their children for medical and psychological examinations and advice will be collected from other sources which may involve contact with families. Such occasions can appear threatening to parents so that they are reluctant to attend them. Appointments may be inconvenient or not kept and delays may occur. The education welfare service can often be of considerable assistance, if involved from the outset, in helping parents to overcome their anxieties and facilitating their attendance with their children at examinations. Information is required on a form devised by the Authority from schools, health services and the schools psychological service and other services such as social services where appropriate. Education welfare officers who know children’s home areas, and may know their families may have a great deal to contribute to assessment but the evidence to the Committee suggests that they are not always asked to do so at present. 2.12.22 The professional advice is brought together and if a statement is to be made by the Authority, educational psychologists complete the first stage of the process. They prepare a summary of the child’s special educational needs to be included in the Statement. This is considered by a Divisional panel which then drafts a Statement of the provision to meet these needs. For some forms of provision the Statement is then passed to a central panel to determine provision. If there are any major disagreements in the professional assessments of needs educational psychologists arrange case conferences before the draft Statement of special educational needs goes to a panel. In the Committee’s view any major disagreement between the professional assessments and parental views of their children’s needs should also be grounds for a case conference to which parents should be invited. If parents are involved in discussion at this point some of the difficulties outlined in the next paragraph may be overcome. A further issue of considerable importance at this stage of the procedure is the status of professional reports and of parental views. The Committee is strongly of the view that all submissions by professionals and parents should be accorded equal status. 2.12.23 A number of issues arise at the time statements are being made. Delays may occur when drafts are passed to and from central and Divisional panels. Secondly some professional reports may not be in acceptable forms or include sufficient information and delay is caused when they are referred back. The question has also been raised as to whether the preparation of Statements of needs is an appropriate use of psychologists’ time. However, by far the most outstanding issue is the involvement of parents at this stage. From their point of view, decisions are being made about provision without discussion with them. and without their knowing the range of options available. The Authority is following procedures laid down in Department of Education and Science Circulars but

the result is that parents are presented with a draft statement often specifying provision which can only be challenged and not discussed. The Committee is of the opinion that some means need to be found to involve parents at the stage where decisions about provision are being made and to give them opportunities to visit and consider the range of options available to them. 2.12.24 The panels which meet at Divisional and Authority level are relatively new but the Authority is already reviewing their work. The issues which have been brought to the Committee’s notice concern the quality of the information presented by schools and others giving professional advice and the relationship between decision-making at Divisional and Authority level. Guidelines on completing assessments and Statements were issued by the Department of Education and Science and Circular 1/83 included a checklist for assessment and recording. The Authority is now considering the inclusion of a checklist with its assessment forms and this might be a useful step in improving the quality of the reports which contribute to full assessment’ procedures. 2.12.25 Time delays and difficulties occur when decisions cannot be made at Divisional level without reference to County Hall and when individual special educational needs do not fall neatly within the scope of Divisional and Central panels. Two specific examples may illustrate the problems. The decision to provide additional teaching and other support for children, who are the subject of statements, in primary and secondary schools is currently taken centrally. Yet the statement is first considered by the Divisional panel and the knowledge of individuals and schools is Divisional. The Divisional panel has to make a case for such provision. It is understandable that the Authority would wish to exercise some influence over this kind of provision, which is relatively new and currently increasing. Nevertheless the time delay which may occur is frustrating and the actual arrangements will often need to be made and supervised at Divisional level. Control could be exercised by guidelines about when such provision is appropriate and quotas of teaching and non-teaching hours within which Divisions should work. If more provision is to be made in classes in primary and secondary schools for children whose needs have been ‘fully assessed’, then attention needs to be given to current procedures so that as far as possible decisions are delegated within clearly define Authority policies to those with most knowledge of local circumstances. 2.12.26 The second example is where a child has a specific disability such as hearing impairment associated with another special educational need such as a moderate learning difficulty or an emotional and behavioural difficulty. The relative roles of Divisional and Central panels may be uncertain in such instances. In the long run it will be an advantage if Divisional panels can call on specialist advice and not always have to refer papers to Central panels. Mechanisms need to be found to build up the specialist knowledge and experience of Divisional panels about complex and specific disabilities so that informed decisions can be made at local level. 2.12.27 The Committee also considered the procedures for appeal about statements of special educational needs and provision to local appeals tribunals. Members recognise that appeals can only be made about provision and some of them would wish to see the Tribunal’s findings binding on the Authority. Although the Committee did not reach a decision in this point it did agree that more information, together with appropriate guidelines for action, should be made available to parents and professionals about appeals procedures. 2.12.28 Staff who work with children and young people, whose special educational needs are being ‘fully assessed’, are concerned about the length of time involved. The effects of the delay before their needs can be met, and of uncertainty about the future, on children, young people and their families often seriously exacerbate the child’s difficulties. 2.12.29 To summarise this section the Committee considers that further attention needs to be given to ‘full assessment’ procedures. Attention is also necessary to the extension of school’s assessment and recording procedures along the lines described in paragraphs 2.12.5 to 2.12.6. ‘Full assessment’ procedures need to be built on a sound basis of school assessment extended in collaboration with supporting services. The time taken at present to complete many ‘full assessments’ is too long.

Further delegation to Divisions should be considered and decision making at local level developed through in-service education and supporting arrangements in the case of less common special educational needs. Central decision making should be reduced to the absolute minimum. 2.12.30 A main objective must be to enable parents to feel that their views and wishes are considered at a level where they can identity with and relate to professionals and administrators. When decisions are made by what is seen as a remote central authority parents feel alienated from the procedures. Parental partnership will only become a reality at the local level. Assessing the Special Educational Needs of Children of Different Cultures 2.12.31 Assessing special educational needs is a complex process with all children but it is particularly difficult when children and their families do not use English as their first language and when their home culture is not understood by those making assessments. The Committee has received significant evidence about this issue from many sources and members have been very active in making contact with parents from the wide variety of ethnic minority groups whose children attend ILEA schools. They have made a particular effort to discuss assessment with parents of children with special educational needs. The result of these activities has been to convince the Committee that this aspect of assessment requires urgent attention. 2.12.32 During the time the Committee was at work, assessment was one of the many issues discussed by the Ethnic Minorities Section of the Equal Opportunities Sub-Committee. The Schools Psychological Service also held a conference with members of black and other ethnic minorities to establish communication and a constructive dialogue. Assessment was one of the many issues discussed. The Committee was also aware of and support the Authority’s initiatives to create equal opportunities and combat racism and underachievement. It has to be said, however, that up to the present time very little progress has been made in establishing assessment procedures to identify special educational needs which take into account cultural and racial differences, linguistic and learning difficulties where English is not the language of the home and which are readily understood by parents. The Committee was made aware of confusion and a general lack of confidence in the way assessment procedures were carried out with children and parents from different cultures. 2.12.33 As with other children and their families the crucial stage is when disabilities and difficulties first become apparent. The more obvious and severe disabilities will often first be identified by health services and although this report is not directly concerned with their work, many of the points discussed in later paragraphs also apply to health service arrangements. The more common and sometimes less obvious special educational needs are first detected in schools by class teachers and by multi-ethnic and English as a second language services. Effective communication and appropriate information are essential at this point. The relationships which schools make with parents from diverse cultural backgrounds are thus very important. Many of the suggestions made in “Improving Secondary Schools” and “Improving Primary Schools” will create better conditions. But there are important issues which need to be addressed with respect to meeting special educational needs. 2.12.34 The first of these is the language of communication. Although every attempt should be made to increase the number of teachers, psychologists and other professionals from other cultural backgrounds who speak other languages there will continue to be a need for interpretation. Interpret at/on, however skilled may not be sensitive to parental concerns or to cultural and racial factors. It is for this reason that the Committee suggest that parents should be positively encouraged to bring a relative or friend with a good knowledge of English to all assessment occasions. To supplement this a positive advance might be made if individuals trusted by the community and working in community centres could be identified, offered opportunities to study procedures and provision and be nominated as individuals to he/p parents in all their contact with the education service but particularly when assessment procedures are carried out. The development of a group of people in each cultural community, familiar with the authority’s policies and provision, who could act as guides for parents and supporters in their contact with professionals would, it is suggested, help to improve relationships and communication and establish greater confidence that cultural issues were more seriously

considered. 2.12.35 Where assessment takes place is also a significant issue. Clinics and schools may not be places where children and parents feel comfortable. Sometimes the home may be appropriate but more use might be made of cultural community centres where parents may feel that they are supported by familiar surroundings. Parents will also be helped in coming to terms with their child’s special educational needs by contact with other parents whose children have similar difficulties. The values of centres such as Sunley House (described in Appendix 2) is recognised by those who live in the area. Every effort should be made to help parents from the same community, whose children may have special educational needs, to form mutually supportive groups. Multi-cultural and community education services could play an active part in developing such groups in association with professionals concerned with meeting special educational needs. 2.12.36 Finally the procedures and materials used to make assessments at all stages, including full assessments’ require continued attention by all concerned. Those responsible for multi-ethnic education, meeting special educational needs and psychological services need to work together to produce schemes for assessing learning difficulties of all kinds which take into account cultural variation language, race and class and which lead to appropriate educational provision and programmes to overcome them. Assessment for Post-16 Education 2.12.37 After leaving school young people have a choice about enrolling in further and continuing education. The Post-school field is described and discussed in Chapter 10. However there are issues about assessment which are appropriate to this Chapter. These relate to two different groups of young people, those whose special educational needs have not been the subject of Statements and those whose needs have been defined by a Statement. 2.12.38 In the past many of the individuals in the first and larger group have not chosen to continue their education. Youth unemployment, youth training schemes and the efforts of colleges to provide for them have resulted in many more young people with special educational needs entering colleges. When and how their particular needs are assessed has become a matter of concern. It is partly related to guidance procedures in the final years of school and partly to admission procedures in colleges. Because many assessment and support services which are available to schools, such as the schools psychological service, are not available to colleges, there is currently a lack of support for the development of appropriate assessment procedures. More work is needed to enable colleges to assess special educational needs. Assessment is not only necessary to devise appropriate programmes for individuals but also to help the college to develop appropriate provision. The Committee considers that more attention needs to be given to this aspect of college work. Inspectors with further education and special educational needs responsibilities, together with lecturers responsible for work with these students and non-specialist colleagues and psychologists need to look at this issue together. 2.12.39 A particular and difficult issue arises with young people who are the subject of Statements at the age of 16. By regulation they will have had another ‘full assessment’ between 13½ and 14½ to help to plan their future. If they remain in school the Statement continues in force until the age of 19. If they leave school and enter further education the Authority ceases to maintain a Statement. This situation creates anomalies. Parents may opt for continuing in school because special educational provision is assured. Although the Authority has been active in supporting students with disabilities and difficulties in further education there is no contract to provide particular services of the kinds implied by making a statement. The Committee believe this situation should be dealt with and make recommendations to this effect in Part III.

Conclusion 2.12.40 The close and necessary relationship between assessment and provision has resulted in the Committee considering this aspect of special educational provision in some detail. Effective

assessment procedures are necessary for two main reasons. These are first to ensure that individuals get the special educational help which is appropriate to their needs and secondly, but of no less importance, to see what needs are not being met by the provisional normally made by schools and colleges and thus to modify their approach. 2.12.41 This chapter has outlined a number of aspects of assessment and suggested areas requiring attention in the future.

Chapter 13 The Parents’ Perspective The Background to Parental Involvement 2.13.1 Recent Government reports from Plowden to Warnock, have highlighted the need for collaboration between parents and professionals. In the 1970s, the Bullock Report commended the involvement of parents in early reading and language activities. The 1976 Court Committee emphasised that it could see no better way to help children than to help their parents to share in their growth and development. The same report stressed the need to establish a constructive partnership with parents. The Taylor Report in turn proposed parental participation in school management and accountability and Warnock, in 1978, not only headed a major section ‘Parents as Partners’, but made such partnership a central theme in all its recommendations. 2.13.2 Since the 1967 Plowden Report, there have been several surveys which have confirmed that over the past fifteen years there has been a marked trend towards parent participation and parental presence in schools. Parent participation has also changed in nature, moving from minimal contact through open evenings, fund raising activities and similar activities to home reading schemes; parents rooms; home liaison teachers; parent workshops and, in the case of special educational needs, parent participation in assessment with new rights to access to information relating to education decision making. 2.13.3 Parents’ rights and representation in education have also changed. Some of the Taylor Report’s recommendations were implemented in the 1980 Education Act. All maintained schools now have parents and staff as elected representatives on Governing Bodies. Hence parents have the opportunity to influence both curriculum and management within an individual school. Parents have the right to express a preference for the school which they wish their child to attend and there is an appeal system which is binding on the LEA except in the case where children are the subject of Statements. LEAs must now publish information regarding schools and the rules governing admissions. In effect parents’ rights to access to the educational process are given a major impetus and those rights, and expectations of informed choice, undoubtedly affect parental perceptions of the 1981 Education Act and its implications for children with special educational needs. 2.13.4 The 1981 Act has been greeted variously by parent organisations. For some it is a potential charter of rights and a pattern for future partnership. For others it is perceived as ‘street level bureaucracy’, with pedantic and time-consuming procedures and little real choice, In practice the 1981 Act reflects a process of evolution in terms of participation by parents in education. It confers responsibilities on parents as well as rights. It offers a structural framework for shared decisionmaking. However the new legislation poses a number of wider issues for parents. We need to examine how parents can be most effectively informed and involved in the new assessment procedures. Many parents will need the ‘named person’ to act as interpreter and guide. Meeting the special educational needs can be a complex interdisciplinary procedure. Making the system accessible to all parents, including those in minority ethnic groups, poses a major challenge. Meeting special educational needs in the ordinary school requires that teaching staff make new reciprocal relationships with parents. 2.13.5 In effect, partnership will involve a full sharing of knowledge, skills and experience. A commitment to partnership will rest on the acceptance of the basic principle that children will make better progress if their parents can work with professionals and if decision-making is a shared process.

But partnership will also necessitate ensuring that the parents are comfortable with the professional concerned. They must feel equal partners in access to knowledge, resources and expertise. Parents are different from professionals. They have a unique knowledge of, and commitment to, a particular child. Any effective meeting of special educational needs requires that this unique contribution is given equal weight in assessment and decision-making. 2.13.6 In many respects the 1981 Education Act challenges schools as well as local education authorities in terms of a more open sharing of information, of greater parental involvement in schools and a recognition of the non-educational factors, such as housing, unemployment or emotional difficulties, which may impede such involvement. Recent years have seen the blurring of the traditional inter-professional boundaries, with an emphasis on whole-child and whole-family approaches. 2.13.7 Teachers have traditionally focused on children’s needs. The development of a family orientated approach, particularly where the interests of parents and children may diverge, may necessitate close links with other family services. There may be a need actively to encourage the participation of parents whose self-image may be poor and whose self-confidence is limited. Many parents of children with special educational needs require counselling and support. Present arrangements, which parents may perceive as deficit dominated often encourage negative attitudes. These may be expressed in the following terms. “I don’t know which side they (the professionals) are on” or ‘Assessment is like the MOT Test — every time my child fails on something different”. Negative perceptions may be inaccurate, but they reflect attitudes which will colour parental responses to assessment or provision. 2.13.8 Particular issues which have arisen in the years following implementation of the 1981 Act include: (i) The interpretation of local education authority policies on issues, such as integration, to parents, and to voluntary and other professional agencies who will be concerned with counselling and advising parents. (ii) Administrative arrangements for the ‘named person’ of the Warnock Report, in order to provide a ‘key worker’ approach to the complex co-ordination of information which accompanies formal assessment under the 1981 Act. (iii) A new and positive attitude by local education authorities to voluntary organisations, which are not only service providers, in particular for the O-5s and post-school age groups, but which can act as parent counsellors and, if necessary, as parent advocates. (iv) The implementation of the role of ‘parent’ when a child is in the care of a local authority. Whitehead, during the debates on the 1975 Children’s Act, highlighted the need for a psychological as well as administrative ‘parent’ for children in care. The conclusions of the Short Report (1984) suggest that provision is still inadequate and that the broader role of ‘parent’ needs exploration. (v) Greater awareness of the wider cultural, religious and personal preferences of some groups of parents, which will need to be incorporated into appropriate special educational provision. 2.13.9 The 1981 Act offers parents new opportunities for actual participation in assessment and decision- making and in their children’s education. Over the past decade, the Portage Home Teaching programmes have been something of a growth phenomenon. The work of the Newsom in the Child Development Research Unit, Nottingham and of Mittler, Cunningham and McConachie and their colleagues at the Hester Adrian Research Centre in Manchester have similarly shown that parents not only have unique knowledge of their own child but that they can also utilise this knowledge in making

informed decisions and in sharing in intervention. 2.13.10 There has been much discussion about whether parents are ‘professionals’, ‘clients’ or ‘just parents’. In practice these arguments would be better directed to looking at what Wolfendale has called the ‘equivalent expertise’ of parents in complementing professional skills. Parents, as parents, have a unique and holistic perspective on their child’s development. If this can be seen as ‘equivalent expertise’, designation as professional or client — is unnecessary. Parents must be an integral part of any effective assessment. Their participation in subsequent educational and other intervention programmes, if this is required, is also essential. 2.13.11 One helpful initiative has been the outcome of a working party convened by the Department of Education and Science, which has drawn up guidelines for ‘parental profiling’. The ‘parental profile’, as outlined by Wolfendale presents the parents’ perception of the child at home as well as their views on their child’s special educational needs. Broad headings offer a framework for the organisation of information and the concept offers considerable potential for positive partnership with parents. Parental views on Assessment 2.13.12 Although the removal of the old categories of handicap has been generally welcomed by parents as much as by professionals, we are aware that some parents are experiencing greater problems in understanding their child’s special educational needs as a result. Whilst parents wish to avoid stigmatising and generalised labels applied to their children, many parents expressed to us their desire to have a definite diagnosis for the problem; to understand the causation, if known, and in particular a recognition of their feelings that the absence of a clear-cut diagnostic label might mean that professionals were simply concealing the truth. Most parents felt that they were not given the whole truth; that things were kept from them; and that explanation from different professionals appeared to give contradictory messages. 2.13.13 Some confusion about the quality and quantity of information provided undoubtedly arises from the present fragmentation and, in some cases duplication, of assessment services. Parents who saw large numbers of professionals frequently had difficulty in balancing the views of different professionals even when they concur. In some instances parents clearly misunderstood the nature of the professional carrying out particular examinations. The role of the educational psychologist, despite the special explanatory literature now available from LEA was most misunderstood. Many families assumed that the psychologist was some kind of doctor’ or, even more worryingly, a psychiatrist or someone who deals with mad people’. Fears about labeling as ‘mentally ill’ were very real. Additionally some parents ascribed to psychologists the powers which formerly applied to doctors in general in being able to organise special educational provision and to determine immediately the type of the school which the child would attend. In these circumstances the nature and purpose of the psychological tests used would often be misunderstood and parents disappointed at what they saw as a lack of interest in producing instant solutions to their child’s problems. 2.13.14 Many parents will bring to assessment their own perceptions and experience of their child and his or her development from contact with other services and earlier examinations. District Health Authorities now have a duty to inform parents and local education authorities, if they consider that a child might have special educational needs. Many doctors hesitate prematurely to designate a child as having such needs and are reluctant to discuss potential special educational needs when the child is very young. Clearly many parents whose children are diagnosed as having an actual or potentially handicapping condition, particularly in the under five period, will seek information on future development from all professionals with whom they are in contact. It is important that local education authorities and district health authorities ensure that information given by each agency is compatible and that parents fully understand the distinction between medical and educational assessment. Written information material, however high the quality, will be inadequate for some parents and attention should be given to ensuring that time is allocated for discussion and verbal explanations about procedures and the professionals involved in them.

2.13.15 A significant number of parents, and voluntary organisations, have expressed concern about the mechanisms for active and positive parent participation in the new assessment procedures. It is generally recognised that parents can impart vital information, make informed observation and complement professional skills. However, many parents are uncertain what information should be imparted and are unclear about how they might contribute to the draft statement. Circular 1/83 notes that: ‘Professional advisers will be aware of the views of parents . . . and parental involvement in assessment provides the opportunity to reach an agreed understanding of the nature of the child’s learning difficulties.’ Issues to be considered in the effective implementation of what is still a new piece of legislation in reaching ‘agreed understanding’ include: (i) The question of who guides and assists parents in presenting their evidence and expressing their views. (ii) The existing parental knowledge, understanding and appraisal of the problem or disability in terms of the child at home and in school. (iii) Prior knowledge and experience of the parents regarding educational provision. (iv) The existing relationship between parent(s), schools and other agencies. (v) Any family factors, such as illness, unemployment, single parent status, which may affect the discussions. 2.13.16 If parents are to be asked to contribute information about their child, professionals participating in the assessment process also need to develop skills in: (i) Acting as developmental, diagnostic and interpretive advisers. (ii) Training and assisting parents to observe, record and comment on their child. For those parents who cannot read, or who do not speak English, recording may involve direct communication through the professional concerned, or a volunteer or other suitable observer. (iii) Imparting information regarding formal procedures and local statutory, voluntary and educational provision. (iv) Maintaining respect and sensitivity to the parents’ anxieties and concerns. 2.13.17 Many parents have told us that they would have appreciated more structured guidance in making their contribution to the draft statement. Those who were shown the work on parent profiles’ carried out by the DES working party already mentioned and published by the Polytechnic of North East London* found the proposed guidelines for parents simple and easy to understand. 2.13.18 The Down’s Children Association, in addition to a number of local authorities and health authorities has done some work in piloting the ‘profile’. It has also been tried out successfully at the Mary Sheridan Centre where members have found the broad guidelines helpful and parents have found it easier to organise their particular knowledge of their child in terms of their children’s special educational needs. 2.13.19 Attention should be given, preferably in conjunction with the voluntary organisations, to

developing a ‘parent profile’ model for parents whose children are undergoing assessment in order (a) to reduce the number of parents who are failing to contribute to the assessment process, but may have strong feelings about their children’s needs and (b) in order to enable parents to make a contribution which is seen to be relevant, important and which can be balanced with the professional advice provided with the Statement. 2.13.20 We consider that some parents would benefit not only from guidance from the designated officer of ILEA but from the support of a ‘named person’, discussed in later paragraphs, in framing their contribution and in recording their perceptions of their child. 2.13.21 An almost universal cause of complaint and anxiety amongst parents was the length of time taken for formal assessment (see also Chapters 5 and 12). Initial information led many parents to anticipate a fairly rapid decision-making process. Many were concerned and annoyed at the delays entailed in reaching any decision. Particular concern was expressed by parents of children under five, who anticipated and feared that a statement might not be agreed before the child started full-time education. A number of parents expressed concern that additional resources were not available during assessment and felt that assessment should offer an opportunity, with an adequate level of support, for the observation of children in nursery, primary and secondary schools. 2.13.22 A factor often not fully appreciated during the assessment process was highlighted by a number of parents, who talked about their own ambivalent feelings about having a child with a ‘handicap’ or ‘special educational need’. Research by the Hester Adrian Research Centre and other agencies has highlighted the time taken by many parents to adapt to and accept the implications of a child’s disability. Many families will need counselling, information and practical help over a considerable period of time in order to reach a point where they are able to work actively with professionals in helping their child. A number of the younger parents whom we met were very explicit about the need for time ‘to come to terms with the handicap’ and with their reluctance to accept services which in anyway reinforced the ‘handicap’ image of their child. 2.13.23 Many parents participating in the assessment process will themselves have doubts about their abilities to be good parents. Precisely because many children with even relatively minor disabilities need to be elaborately taught skills which other children acquire spontaneously, parents may feel inadequate. Without proper help and support in acquiring the necessary skills, and in accepting slower progress then in siblings, parents may easily feel dissatisfied not only with themselves, but with the parenting role. Those parents we met who had been involved in a Portage Home Teaching scheme or who had received a high level of support from peripatetic teaching services for the hearing and visually impaired or home-liaison teachers appeared noticeably more confident about their role in assessment and with reference to their expectations for their child’s educational process. Although there has been no comparative study of parents who used under fives services such as the Portage scheme and parents whose children’s difficulties were identified once they were in schools, it appears likely to us that the parents who experienced earlier support are better prepared to work as genuine partners. As one parent told us, “there is a great need for confirmation of the parent’s ability to cope with a difficult situation . . . parents need sympathetic support, reassurance and respect from professionals if they are to develop the self-confidence necessary to fully share in the assessment of their child”. *Wolfendale (1984), Parental Profiling and Parental Contribution to Section 5 Assessment and Statementing, NELP, Department of Psychology.

2.13.24 The Committee recognises that some parents do not have these skills to negotiate with professionals on their own behalf although almost all have the potential to do so. For some a cycle of disadvantageous circumstances leaves them with little time or energy to participate fully in their children’s education. For others from different cultures and with a limited command of English there will also be difficulties in making their views known. These issues need further consideration by services who need to take them into account in the planning of provision.

2.13.25 Problems in communication between professionals may cause problems for parents. Parents who had access to a specialist assessment centre or to a District Handicap or Child Development Team had less difficulty in participating in assessment procedures and seemed more likely to feel confidence, and know by name, the professionals working with their child. 2.13.26 Some parents and parent groups expressed their concern about confidentiality and assessment. Although all parents received the professional ‘advice’ on which the draft statement was based, a number informed us that they wished they had seen the reports on which the advice was based. These parents did not believe they had had all the information to which they felt entitled. We gathered that some schools invite parents who have received the draft statement to attend a multi-disciplinary meeting at their child’s school which includes all those who have submitted reports and recommendations. Parental Attitudes to Integration 2.13.27 Many parents expressed their desire for a coherent policy on integration within the ILEA. However, a number expressed considerable anxiety about what they saw as the deficiencies of primary and secondary schools in meeting the needs of children already in them. Class sizes, concern about teaching standards and lack of appropriate training and support were all raised as issues to be tackled if integration was to be effective. Anxiety was expressed about any random attempts at integration which would ‘cream off’ more able pupils from the present special schools and leave the remaining most severely handicapped pupils even more isolated and in smaller units. Integration is not only a civil rights issue for parents. It is a complex balance between positive discrimination and the ordinary educational environment. Many parents will experience critical periods, for example during assessment, when the child with special educational needs is rising five and when he or she is approaching school leaving. Parents have their own broader family needs and life-styles which will directly relate to how they can work as partners in the context of special educational needs. 2.13.28 Parents of younger children seemed most likely to have very strong views on integrated provision. Many wished their children at least to enjoy nursery school or class provision and felt that ongoing assessment in an integrated setting would enable more children to move on to primary and secondary schools. Some parents of children under five expressed great concern about the delays in carrying out formal assessment procedures, and hence the delays in providing extra resources which might be essential in order to ensure that integrated provision had a good chance of being successful. These parents felt that resourced assessment placements could not only demonstrate the positive and possible in terms of integration but would allay parental anxiety about early labeling. Parents of children under five, were also concerned that all under fives should be fully re-assessed when rising five in order to avoid the retention of a child in special provision where this was no longer necessary. 2.13.29 Parents whose children had been identified as having special educational needs whilst in a nursery, primary or secondary school expressed a variety of concerns about integration. Some felt relief that their child was in a special school environment and making progress. Their experience of ordinary schools had been rejecting, negative and unhelpful. Others, in particular Afro-Caribbean parents, felt that their children had been unhelpfully labelled and that the primary and secondary schools should have provided help. Parents who had themselves experienced special education were particularly negative and saw their child’s placement as confirming their own poor self image and repeating their own disappointing educational experiences. 2.13.30 Some parents actively sought highly specialist educational environments for their children, for example schools for the visually and hearing impaired with academic reputations. For these parents ‘segregation is a way to later integration’ and they were influenced by the availability of a peer group, particularly when a child primarily used signing, or by a school’s success in public examinations. It would be inappropriate to generalise because many parents were very satisfied with the work of special units or other strategies for integration into primary and secondary schools. Most parents of children with sensory impairments felt that much more integration was possible and desirable but that:

(i) there must be safeguards in terms of availability of trained teaching staff and special equipment; and (ii) their children must also have access to a peer group with similar disabilities. 2.13.31 A number of parent organisation, like the Parents’ Campaign for Integrated Education in London, considered that the present falling rolls in London schools offer an opportunity for reorganisation in order to develop and active policy for integration. The need for resource bases for integrated arrangements was recognised and the Campaign commented that: “We would like to stress that parents would prefer an incremental approach to reorganisation so that each step may be carefully monitored before proceeding to the next. There are many parents who trust the special school system which at present exists in the ILEA. We wish to see proper account being taken of these parents’ views. However, we believe . . . they should not be used as an argument against change. An initial step towards the integration of all children with special needs would be the integration of small groups of children from special into mainstream schools for part of the week with teacher from the special school overseeing integration.” 2.13.32 Many parents’ concerns about integration related to their feelings that they had been given insufficient information on the full range of education available in ILEA and that the assessment procedures had not sufficiently clarified the rationale for recommending one type of provision rather than another. 2.13.33 In considering integration, it is clearly important to look more specifically at parental attitudes to existing special school provision. The Research and Statistics Branch survey of parental attitudes in a selected group of special schools and units found that 80 per cent of parents interviewed considered the special school successful or very successful in developing their child’s strengths. 80 per cent were pleased or very pleased with their child’s progress and 68 per cent were satisfied with their child’s education and schooling in general. However 26 per cent of parents felt that schools were not successful in helping their children to overcome difficulties and acquire skills. Those parents who were not satisfied pinpointed a number of specific areas of concern such as lack of academic skills in writing and reading and social and study skills. 2.13.34 Although there is no comparative study of attitudes of parents of children with special educational needs in primary and secondary schools, another Research and Statistics Branch study of attitudes of parents of pupils, in the first year of secondary school, found similar percentages of parents (14%) who were not pleased with their child’s progress in school. Hence the dissatisfied parents of children in special schools were numerically little different to those in the school population as a whole. 2.13.35 In looking at parents views on their child’s special educational provision, it is important to differentiate between the different types of special schools. The study referred to above found around 40 per cent of parents of children attending schools for moderate learning difficulties and for emotional and behavioural difficulties were not pleased with their child’s progress. In contrast 86 per cent of parents of children attending delicate schools were satisfied with their children’s schooling. 2.13.36 Attitudes of parents whose children were in units of special classes were also diverse. All parents of children in remedial classes thought they developed their children’s strengths. But these parents were somewhat less satisfied with their child’s overall education. 25 per cent of parents of children attending remedial classes and 56 per cent of parents of children in educational guidance centres expressed generally negative responses to this question. 2.13.37 Of the ethnic groups included in the survey Afro-Caribbean parents were significantly less happy with the special educational provision provided for their children. They considered that they

were insufficiently informed prior to their child’s admission to special educational provision (42% as compared to 13% of other parents) and displeased with the decision to place their child in the present school or centre (38% as compared with 12%). They were also more likely to consider that they had inadequate contact with the teachers at the present school or centre (33% as compared with 8%). This substantial degree of dissatisfaction with the route to and the provision made for special educational needs highlights an important area of work in not only developing more effective information networks but also in encouraging parents to share more positively in their child’s educational experiences. Afro-Caribbean children are over represented in schools for children with emotional and behavioural disorders. Parental concern and antipathy to this form of provision is recognised. What is less clear is what forms of support for parents of children, with what are perceived by schools and others as emotional and behavioural difficulties, would be most acceptable and effective. Parents of Children with Moderate Learning Difficulties and Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties 2.13.38 We have considered parents of these children separately from other parents of children with special educational needs, because there is clear evidence that these parents are the least likely to be satisfied with the arrangements made for their children. Additionally many parents of children in these groups may be socially disadvantaged. The family context may have considerable impact not only on the family’s overall lifestyle but on parental confidence, self-image and perceptions of any special help offered. Additionally we are well aware that parents of children in these groups are least likely to have regular contact with self-help groups or voluntary organisations and may, additionally, be the least well equipped to satisfy their own information needs and to feel ‘partners’ rather than clients in the assessment process. 2.13.39 We have noted from the ILEA Research and Statistics report that 65 per cent of parents in their study with children in special schools and units had their child’s special needs identified between 6 and 10 years old. The identification of special educational needs when a child is in a primary or secondary school which occurs in most instances, may cause strong feelings of rejection by the school, anger at the school’s inability, often seen as unwillingness, to cope and ambivalent feelings about accepting special educational provision. We met a number of parents who had themselves attended schools for children with moderate learning difficulties and were made very conscious of their feelings of the stigma resulting from attending them and having children who also attended special schools. These feelings were quite separate from their observations about the quality of the special schools many recognising that their children were happier; were doing better and that staff were more ‘tolerant’, ‘caring’ or ‘interested’, particularly when the child had behaviour problems. However, we were also struck by the strong feelings that the ordinary schools had ‘given up too easily’; ‘left children sitting in corners’ and ‘could have coped if they had really wanted to’. If parents feel that their children are rejected by primary and secondary schools it is not difficult to understand the negative feelings of Afro-Caribbean parents of children in schools, for moderate learning difficulties and emotional and behavioural difficulties which the ILEA Research and Statistics Department has identified. These parents are substantially more dissatisfied than other parents. Anxieties about ‘labeling’ and racial prejudice clearly highlight wider dissatisfaction with referral to special educational provision. 2.13.40 The statistical relationship between social factors and different types of special educational needs found in special schools has been described briefly in Chapter 9. This relationship is of considerable importance in planning effective family support: (i) Families who are socially disadvantaged are less likely to have access to voluntary organisations or to printed information on provision and services. (ii) Parents who are members of ethnic minorities appear to be less likely to receive support or relevant information from national voluntary organisations. (iii) Single parent families may have heavy pressures in day-to-day life that inhibit their

active involvement in assessment or in the school which their child attends. (iv) Parents who have themselves experienced educational failure are more likely to be found amongst the parents of children with moderate learning difficulties and with emotional and behavioural difficulties. They may need sensitive support and encouragement in order to become more involved. (v) A higher percentage of children in special schools and units are in the care of local authorities or are members of families supported by social service than is the case in primary and secondary schools. Social service departments need to be active in linking with natural parents, substitute parents and the education authority when decisions are made about these children’s education. Children with Moderate Learning Difficulties 2.13.41 We met a number of parents whose children were attending schools for children with moderate learning difficulties who were paying for private tuition. Whilst many parents may choose to provide additional tuition in collaboration with schools in, for example, a second language or for religious reasons, we were concerned, however, that some parents were paying for tuition, usually for the traditional reading, writing or arithmetic, with little or no liaison with the child’s school. The reasons given for using this kind of help were usually based either on a misunderstanding of the special school curriculum, or a feeling that adequate teaching standards and expectations were not maintained, or because the parents desperately wished to accelerate their children’s development and to be involved in their education. The ILEA research referred to above identified a significantly larger number of Afro-Caribbean parents who were dissatisfied with the educational standards of the special school. This concern, together with parents opting for additional education, appears to indicate the need for a closer partnership between schools and parents which might be fostered by: (i) More effective links between home and school not only in terms of general contacts but also with regard to sharing knowledge of the child’s current school programme and with suitable activities for the parent to generate at home. A number of parents of children at schools for children with moderate learning difficulties complained to us about the lack of homework’, the absence of which was perceived as indicating a poor regard for the pupil’s ability to learn. The use of reading schemes such as PACT in schools has shown the value of shared activities and we consider that parents would gain from such participation. (ii) More visits to homes by school staff. Although teaching staff have frequently expressed concern to us at the ethics of intrusion, where a family may see such visits as an encroachment on privacy, parents have universally expressed their desire to us for such visits and for the opportunity to speak about their child and their concerns on their own territory. We met a number of parents, particularly those who had themselves received special education, who were extremely reluctant to visit the special school but who agreed that home/school contact would be useful. (iii) Showing sensitivity in designing home/school links and choosing methods of communication which are acceptable to parents. We met a number of parents whose literacy skills were limited, including several participating in adult literacy schemes. Written communications and home- school diaries would be inadequate for these families, but staff awareness of parents’ reading difficulties would be unlikely unless the parents had actually met the teaching staff. Difficulty in reading should be considered as a possible factor in poor parent/school contacts. (iv) We have seen some impressive links between parents and schools, where local voluntary agencies, in particular the Elfrida Rathbone Society, have been able to assist in starting and maintaining a parent-teacher association and also in running parent groups. Many people will need considerable encouragement to become involved with their child’s school and

the use of voluntary organisations as a catalyst should be considered. (v) Every effort should be made to ensure that parents of children in these groups receive appropriate information, Citizens Advice Bureaux can provide simple information on benefits, housing, etc. Socially disadvantaged parents may be quite unable to help their child unless their own problems are dealt with first. Whilst schools clearly cannot take on responsibility for wider family problems, they can be major sources of information. Parents should be actively encouraged to claim all benefits and allowances for which they or their child may be eligible. We met one special school Parent Teacher Association which was itself, with the support of a local Elfrida Rathbone group, preparing information materials for its members. Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 2.13.42 The Committee is particularly concerned, about the needs of parents of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Although ILEA research has shown that 70 per cent of all pupils in any type of special school or unit have some behavioural or emotional difficulties, those actually placed in special provision for these needs are likely to have the more severe difficulties. In many instances their parents will also experience major behavioural disturbances at home and feelings of failure as a parent are commonplace. Many parents of these children have seen their children excluded from a range of provision. Children may be unpopular in their neighbourhood and families may be isolated and disturbed. We found it indicative of the problems which these special needs create that we had difficulty in meeting groups of parents and those parents whom we did meet tended to have children who had other significant problems or handicaps. No voluntary or parents’ organisation appears to represent their interests. We consider that this group of parents will be particularly in need of clear and readable written advice and that many parents will need counselling and support in coping with their child’s difficulties. Clearly the school social worker has a major role to play in this area. Parents’ Attitudes to Social Services and the Education Welfare Service 2.13.43 The Committee comments on aspects of the work of Social Service Departments in Chapter 14. It is important to emphasise that comments in this section relate to how parents perceive the contribution of social work and social services when their children have special educational needs. Apart from parents whose children were already attending special schools, we found little understanding of the potential contribution of social services departments to meeting special educational needs. Indeed most parents considered that social services involvement would only occur if the family was experiencing marital, housing or other non-educational problems. Some parents perceived social work involvement as stigmatising and reflecting badly on the family’s quality of parenting. However, these general views were not reflected in families whose children attended special schools. The social worker attached to the school was recognised by teachers and parents as a source of practical advice and counselling. School-attached social workers were much more likely to visit the family home and to be seen to be of immediate practical use with information on benefits; respite care; holiday play schemes, and a range of local services. Additionally many school-attached social workers including education welfare officers had good links with local voluntary organisations. More attention should be given to the feasibility of social work attachments to primary and secondary schools in order to extend the social work role in meeting special educational needs. 2.13.44 Many parents found the role of social services confusing at certain chronological points in their child’s life. Some children under five would be attending social services day nurseries or using child minders. These parents were sometimes uncertain about the purpose of particular kinds of provision. In some instances parents indicated that they had chosen a particular kind, for example a day nursery, because of the longer day and the absence of school holidays. For single parents such considerations may result in a choice of provision which may not be in the best interests of the child. Some parents spoke highly of social work support in providing staff for an extended day’, at a nursery school in White City, or for arranging child minders before and after the school day in order to enable a child to attend a particular nursery school or nursery class. Many parents were unaware that social

services could help in this way. Education welfare officers could also assist parents in making use of the most appropriate provision in their areas. 2.13.45 The parents of young people between 16 and 19, particularly when the young person had a severe physical handicap or severe learning difficulties expressed considerable anxiety about the relationships between education and social services in terms of provision. Some felt that they had a difficult decision to make about accepting an adult training centre or day centre place as opposed to a place at a college of further education because of the lack of statutory duties on social services department to provide day care and the current short-fall in day care places in some London boroughs. 2.13.46 Many parents of adolescents were acutely anxious about the transition from children’s to adult services. Parents who had received practical help and family support from social services, in particular respite care, were particularly worried about gaps in provision for older children. 2.13.47 Some parents felt that social services could perform a useful role in negotiating between the interest of parents and those of the young adult — when conflict might arise about choice of placement. 2.13.48 Although we are aware that there is a significantly higher number of children and young people in care amongst the population of some special schools, we did not directly encounter any of the parents, or substitute parents, of these children and young people. Some parent groups expressed concern about support for foster parents. In view of the current trend away from institutional placements for these children and young people, they suggested that their contribution to assessment and involvement in the school placement should be actively encouraged and supported by social services. 2.13.49 Social services have a particular role to play when a child attends a residential school. Parents of children attending ILEA residential schools have the support of social workers. Some parents with children attending residential provision not maintained by the ILEA, felt that they had less access to social work support, particularly when plans had to be made for their child’s education or provision after leaving school. 2.13.50 Some concern was also expressed about the ability of social workers to communicate effectively with members of ethnic minorities particularly where English was a second language. This aspect needs attention especially where children and young people have special educational needs. 2.13.51 We encountered a general lack of awareness amongst parents about the role and purpose of the education welfare service. Although education welfare officers normally deliver the formal notice of assessment, many parents were confused by their involvement and, indeed, regarded the education welfare service as being concerned only with school attendance and other administrative matters. Few schools seem to provide information for parents on the scope of the education welfare service and their role needs to be more clearly defined and explained to parents. Some parents spoke highly of individual officers who had helped their families and whom they saw as negotiators on their behalf with the school or with LEA. Parents — The Role of Child Health Services 2.13.52 The Committee considers aspects of health service provision in Chapter 14. In this section the views of parents are expressed as they were presented to members of the Committee. The majority of younger children with severe special educational needs will have been first identified by child health services. Many children referred for ‘formal assessment’ will have already been assessed in paediatric outpatient departments, child development centres of other specialist facilities. The child health services, therefore, have a vital role to play in utilising their knowledge of the child and sharing it with the local education authority. Parents’ attitudes to educational assessment are likely to be coloured by their earlier experience of medical assessment.

2.13.53 We are concerned, however, at the fragmentation and duplication of some assessment services, which leads to many parents to believe that the medical assessment was in fact the ‘formal assessment’ required by the 1981 Education Act. Additionally, information is often inadequately exchanged between staff working in medical and educational contexts. We were impressed by the success and mutual support of the services offered by the Mary Sheridan Centre, which is partnership funded and administered jointly by health, education and social services, and by the input which such coordinated assessment can have to schools and to the home. The viability and practicality of a team approach to assessment of this kind should be carefully examined. District Handicap Teams are functioning in six areas of ILEA and they similarly encourage information exchange and can be a useful model for utilising scarce professional resources. They are also able to provide a direct service to education and social services provision and to meet regularly in provision made by those services in order to help and advise staff. A team approach offers greater continuity to parents and seems better able to relate to wider services in the community. Some parents complained about the poor information exchange between hospital and community based child health services. 2.13.54 We were very concerned about the problem of confidentiality between education, social services and health services staff. We had good evidence that important information was not being professionally exchanged and that this frequently exacerbated problems with parents who assumed that information was being shared between relevant agencies. Access to and the exchange of relevant medical information, and the implications of disabilities and health conditions for education, is vital if special educational needs are to be appropriately assessed and met. The staff of schools need to be active with health service colleagues in developing appropriate and effective procedures. We have found little evidence of good quality information being passed to primary schools from services for children under five. This appears to relate less to the non-availability of such information than to problems of systematically recording information on individual children in a way which is relevant to future action, and to difficulties over confidentiality. Parents found evidence of medical information not being transferred worrying and leading to loss of credibility. 2.13.55 Parent groups also noted marked disparity between District Health Authorities with regard to the availability of speech therapy and physiotherapy. Some authorities made paramedical services widely available to ILEA, social services and voluntary provision. Others had noticeably cut back on such provision. All parents greatly valued the practical support of speech therapists and physiotherapists and asked for more support. It was also pointed out that speech therapy services had little capacity to communicate where the language of the home was not English and thus the needs of some children were not being met. 2.13.56 Parents’ attitudes to health visitors varied. Where there was regular contact, and in particular when the health visitor had knowledge of disability, there was considerable satisfaction. Parents appreciated local professionals who provided a service for all children and who could visit the home. However, some parents had more negative experiences. They were critical of high staff turnover and lack of continuity and, in some instances, of lack of knowledge about a particular difficulty. Some parents also criticised the slow referral rate from assessment in a paediatric department, or following discharge from a neonatal unit, to local community health services and claimed the health visitor visited much too late’. 2.13.57 In general comments about child health services are as varied as the parents making them. We did, however, realise that, for some parents with children with complex disabilities (such as spina bifida and hydrocephalus or epilepsy and mental handicap), the consultant paediatrician or paediatric neurologist was the most constant professional factor in their child’s lives. These parents were much more likely to discuss their child’s educational difficulties with child health services and to ask for particular information to be included in advice for the draft statement. Some parents perceived their child’s hospital consultant as the person most likely to support them in seeking an integrated placement. The statutory duties laid upon child health services by the 1981 Act primarily relates to community child health services. But for those parents with severe disabilities, the role of hospitalbased paediatric services could be seen as paramount.

2.13.58 Although child health services statutorily end at 16, we had evidence from parents of adolescents that they were continuing to receive help from these services after their child’s sixteenth birthday. Many parents expressed considerable anxiety about the lack of co terminosity between health, education and social services, with regard to the transition to adult services. Those parents whose children had ongoing medical needs were particularly concerned at the maintenance of an appropriate medical and paramedical input into further education and other post-16 provision. When the young people concerned needed monitoring and regulating of treatment for conditions like epilepsy, or needed aids and appliances or advice on conditions like Cystic Fibrosis or diabetes, parents considered that adult health services were unlikely to understand the educational implications of the child’s conditions. ILEA Research and Statistics evidence shows that 20 per cent of children attending special educational provision have a medical condition required regular treatment. We consider, therefore, that parental concern about provision for health service input into post-16 provision outside school is justified and needs exploration. Parents from Minority Ethnic Groups 2.13.59 In view of the varied ethnic origins of pupils in London schools, we were concerned to explore any special difficulties which families from minority ethnic groups might experience in gaining access to services and during the assessment of their children’s special educational needs. 2.13.60 Parents whose mother tongue was not English emphasised the problems of communication and the lack of suitable information material during the assessment process. Even when an interpreter was available, knowledge of language might be of secondary importance to the family’s cultural and personal experiences. A number of studies of families with handicapped children have identified feelings of guilt, stress and bewilderment at the first identification of the children’s difficulties. Whilst these studies have offered solutions in terms of sympathetic counselling linked to practical help, we were aware that families of minority ethnic group children might experience the same conflicting emotions but might also lack the support network of the voluntary and statutory services because of problems of language. For example, some families interviewed in a small exploratory study in ILEA also felt that their child’s disability must reflect some failure on their own part. Some of these families had significant difficulties in understanding the cause of their children’s disabilities and difficulties and in working with services to meet them. Parents were very caring and highly motivated, but ideas about appropriate help might be influenced by personal experiences. Without adequate information and access to a trusted professional fluent in their mother tongue, some parents in the survey had low expectations of what the education service could provide in order to help their children. If the parents had come from countries where special educational provision was rare, and where appropriate care would be seen as physically looking after children, resolving or alleviating their pain’ would seem the most appropriate course of action. Our discussions with these parents left us in no doubt of the crucial role of professionals who could communicate in the mother tongue and the need to ensure that a/I parents receive written and verbal information which they can fully understand, in order to enjoy a positive partnership with local services. 2.13.61 Most parents had very positive pictures of medical staff, in particular doctors either in the school medical service or in paediatric departments. Therapists were greatly valued as having practical value and for being able to model’ appropriate treatment for the child. General practitioners were felt to be less helpful because of pressures of time. Health visitors, where they had some knowledge of disability, were seen as friendly and supportive and their ability to visit at home was appreciated. However, parents again emphasised the need to be able to understand the medical advice which was given and the importance of having contact with a professional who could communicate in their own mother tongue. Many parents were anxious about comments or information exchanged in a child health service setting because they had difficulty in understanding what was being said. Parents in turn were often inhibited in exchanging information on a child because of communication problems. 2.13.62 Parents who needed interpreters were very concerned that their views might be neither fully understood nor adequately recorded. Where a centre, often run by a voluntary organisation, was

available such as Sunley House (Toynbee Hall), there was a high degree of satisfaction at the way in which information and practical help could be given. We were very impressed by the use of parent groups as a strategy for helping parents, and for the additional resources available through a group, such as introduction to local services; help with English; access to adult education and the ready availability of trusted interpreters. Some parents who had recently arrived in the United Kingdom were very isolated and valued the support of a centre or voluntary organisation in providing them with a social context and in arranging outings and other social activities for parents and children. We also noted that groups could make effective use of scarce resources such as speech therapy and that parents quickly developed skills and confidence through shared activities. 2.13.63 As noted in other sections, we were extremely concerned that Afro-Caribbean children were over-represented in some forms of special educational provision and that their parents were least likely to feel satisfied with their children’s progress at school. Afro-Caribbean parents seemed to be particularly dissatisfied with all services and to feel that their children were assigned disproportionately to special provision. These parents felt a sense of rejection by the ordinary school community and some commented that lack of self-esteem was commonly felt in ordinary schools by children who had no special educational needs. Some parents felt that even within primary and secondary schools, their children children were much more likely to be allocated to the ‘bottom groups’ and to remedial classes. A submission from the Inner London Black Teachers’ Group noted that in any proposals for integration of children with special educational needs, parity of esteem for all pupils ‘should be a major objective’. 2.13.64 Parental anxiety about under-achievement mirrors the conclusions of the Swann Report (1985) on the need to look at whole-school policies for developing a curriculum appropriate to a pluralist multi-cultural society with ‘a framework of commonly accepted values, practices and procedures’. ILEA has an active policy of equal opportunities, which are also essential in meeting special educational needs in the most appropriate way for the child and for his or her family. We were aware that many parents anticipated stereotyped attitudes towards their children’s difficulties within the education system and that experiences of racism or prejudice within what the Swann Report called the ‘added dimension’ (the impact of socio-economic factors, such as housing and employment and attitudes to black parent within that provision) must influence their expectations of education services. 2.13.65 We were concerned at the feelings of alienation and rejection experienced by some of the parents from minority ethnic groups. Whilst it is difficult to generalise, and there were important differences in feelings and experiences between different groups of the ‘black’ community, there was clear indication in our evidence that parents do not find services satisfactory and that they perceive them as labelling. We were particularly concerned that such a high proportion of Afro-Caribbean parents, 57 per cent as compared to 22 per cent of other parents with children in special educational provision, were not happy with the way in which they were told of their child’s special educational needs. 42 per cent of these parents, as compared to 13 per cent of all parents, were dissatisfied with the amount of information provided and 33 per cent (compared to 8%) with the amount of contact with teachers in their children’s present schools. 2.13.66 In view of the above comments, we consider parents from minority ethnic groups will be helped to participate more fully if the Authority and schools provide: (a) Culturally acceptable and appropriate information material on ILEA procedures. (b) More encouragement to come into school and to be more closely involved with the curriculum. For some parents this will require particular attention to the language of communication and interpretation. (c) More attention to existing parent/school links, such as Parent Teacher Associations, in order to encourage minority ethnic group parents to join and meet other families.

(d) Encouragement to parents anxious about assessment procedures to take friends or relatives to meetings and examinations. (e) Informed and acceptable befriending, information and counselling to minority ethnic group parents through the implementation of the role of the ‘named person’ discussed in the next section. 2.13.67 We were also made aware of the need to ensure that teaching and other staff fully understood cultural factors which might constitute barriers to meeting special educational needs. Parents of a Moslem girl might, for example, object to their child being examined by a male doctor. Jewellery, barred in principle at school, may have religious or other significance. Mothers may be unable to attend meetings at school, or invite a home teacher or other peripatetic worker, into their own homes without an escort. Equally mothers may be unaccustomed to using public transport on their own, particularly when complicated journeys with other younger children are involved. Professionals also need to know when to involve an interpreter. The practice of using older children may be acceptable on occasions, but parents naturally will not wish to discuss some personal or confidential matters through family members. Information for teaching staff in the Health Education Council leaflets (available in 12 languages) and reference to the Ethnic Switchboard, which can arrange referrals on issues such as welfare rights, community services, etc, will help parents, particularly when the family concerned is isolated and not part of one of London’s larger minority ethnic groups. 2.13.68 Overall the response which we received from parents from ethnic minority groups, and the comments which we received from professional and voluntary organisations working with them, made us aware that the meeting of special educational needs for these children will necessitate careful thought about specific linguistic and cultural needs and an appraisal of current approaches to working with all families to ensure that families from minority ethnic groups feel genuine respect and concern for their views. There is a need for greater input into staff training in all disciplines and at all levels in order to ensure that coherent overall strategies are developed which are appropriate, acceptable and which convey positive feelings about ‘reconciling the concerns and aspirations of both the majority and minority communities along genuinely pluralist lines’ (Swann Report). The focus of the 1981 Education Act on partnership and participation with parents offers a genuine opportunity for exploration of positive steps fully to involve parents from different cultural backgrounds in their child’s assessment. Without positive steps to involve parents, the procedures will be perceived as labeling, negative and segregationist. Who Speaks for Parents? 2.13.69 In the context of parental involvement, a number of new roles have been discussed with regard to the implementation of the 1981 Act. First, the Warnock concept of the ‘named person’ — essentially counsellor and adviser — is incorporated in a limited form in the Act, but is undefined in function in the accompanying circular and regulations. Secondly, there is a move in the wider coordination of services for children and their families towards a ‘key worker’ model which ensures that parents do not drift from one professional to another and that any recommendations are actually implemented. Thirdly, the American idea of the ‘citizen advocate’ is seen by some to be inherent in any legislation which has an appeal procedure. Although the citizen advocate is certainly not wholly concerned with confrontation, being usually much more concerned with negotiation and consultation, the idea of advocacy is seen by many professionals as being threatening and potentially damaging to their relationships with parents. Fourthly, the ‘designated officer’ of the local education authority has a particular role with regard to advice to parents. Many parents, and, indeed some professionals, have confused this role with that of the ‘named person’. In practice all four models of parent advice and support outlined above are mutually compatible. In practice parents will vary greatly in the level of support and advice which they require. We are confident that many parents will already have their own network of support, particularly if they are members of a national voluntary organisation. But in many other instances the parents have social, language or other difficulties in their own lives, there may be no such support network, and a large group of parents may be unsupported, confused, isolated and much more likely to be dissatisfied with what is offered.

2.13.70 The Committee is convinced, from its contacts with many parents and parent organisations, that there is a need for a designated person, outside the education authority, to provide appropriate information; talk through any problematic issues, and to make the parent feel confident and comfortable at any time. Although many parents will indeed be guided and helped by a ‘key worker’ or, indeed, may obtain sufficient information from the designated officer of the LEA, we had clear evidence that many parents needed an extra resource in order to be able to assume the role of ‘partner’ rather than ‘client’ and to fully understand the procedures involved. Additionally many parents felt that they wished to talk through their anxieties with a neutral person, who had not responsibility for service delivery and who would be more likely to be sympathetic to the parent’s cultural, personal and social background and, if possible, to have a particular interest in the child’s special needs. In Chapter 14 on the role of the voluntary organisations, we have considered using the resources of the voluntary sector in order to perform this role. We have been impressed by the success of the ‘parent counsellor’ who advises and supports parents in the USA, with reference to the procedures of Public Law 94:142. The parent counsellor is accountable to a ‘parent coalition’, which is a voluntary organisation, with state funding. Although we do not propose an exact replication, we consider that this role has proved its efficacy in not only increasing parental satisfaction but in facilitating successful outcomes to assessment. 2.13.71 Some groups of parents are not well served by the existing special needs’ organisations. The dissatisfaction expressed by parents of children with moderate learning difficulties and emotional and behavioural difficulties, already referred to clearly demonstrates their need for counselling, reassurance and commitment during the assessment processes. Although organisations like Elfrida Rathbone are highly effective where they have local groups, they cannot at present serve this large population. Our model of a voluntary organisation resource presupposed not only that some of the existing ‘handicap’ organisations could extend their roles, although their titles might appear stigmatising to some parents, but that other organisations not necessarily associated with education such as community groups, citizen advice bureaux and similar sources of local support might become involved. Diversity would be essential, particularly in the more deprived inner-city areas where the voluntary sector may be smaller and parents less able to travel. 2.13.72 Although the 1981 Education Act makes a requirement in Section 7 that parents should be given the name of a person who is able to help them when the draft statement is made, Warnock envisaged the role of the named person as commencing when formal assessment began. We would agree that it is in the process of early identification and assessment that most parents experience the greatest anxiety and stress. When they come from minority ethnic groups, have previous poor experiences of statutory services, or when there is parental disagreement about the need for assessment, the ‘named person’ would appear to be most needed. 2.13.73 With reference to parent support at the start of formal assessment procedures, we are concerned that at present parents perceive early information on assessment to be inadequate when it comes through the ILEA. This relates not only to parental confusion about the sometimes transient involvement of the education welfare officer who delivers the formal notification, but also with wider anxieties about the implications of the assessment, A number of parents told us they needed time in order to come to terms with their child’s difficulties. Where the family was already supported professionally, and there was a key worker’, even if the key worker came from a non-educational agency, parents felt much more comfortable. However, the majority of parents will not already be in touch with a network of professional supporters unless their child has an obvious disability. Whether or not a separate role of ‘named person’ is implemented, we are concerned that education welfare officers should be given sufficient training and support in working with families with children with special needs. Potentially offering an invaluable link between family and school, their role will be diminished without opportunities for wider contacts with other relevant professionals who already work with the family and without sufficient allocation of time in order to establish a trusted relationship with the family concerned.

2.13.74 We recognise that the implementation of the broad concept of ‘named person’ or ‘befriender’ is complex; that it requires organisation and co-ordination; and that it should not duplicate the contribution of agencies and individuals already involved with the family. However, we are concerned that the very real needs of parents for additional support and guidance from the start of the assessment process should be recognised. In particular those parents whose children experience difficulties whilst in nursery, primary and secondary schools or who have the less ‘acceptable’ problems of behavioural and emotional difficulties may be very isolated without some strategy for ensuring that they have access to the kind of informal and informed support which the voluntary sector can offer. Where the parents themselves have language problems; have attended a special school or are illiterate, written information will be inadequate and new approaches are needed to reinforce confidence and avoid alienation. 2.13.75 The function of the role of the named person will vary according to family needs, wider professional relationships and the specific problems of the family concerned. However, certain specific tasks are likely to be required. These include: (i) Directing the parents to sources of information and help, and interpreting such information if necessary. (ii) Acting as an enabler, encouraging negotiation and endeavouring to avoid confrontation unless essential. (iii) Providing a direct link with the education authority. Many people will need encouragement and support in making enquiries or participating in assessment. The ‘named person’ can act as bridge builder and, if necessary, put queries on the parent’s behalf. (iv) Acting as a liaison person with other statutory and voluntary agencies, not as the key worker who would have professional accountability for the delivery of services, but in terms of obtaining information on the availability of help from services and from the voluntary sector. (v) Acting as friend and counsellor. Although some parents may regard the definition of ‘friend’ as patronising, may parents have told us that they did need a ‘friend’, at least in the early stages, and that liking and being liked was very important. 2.13.76 The functions listed above could be compatible with existing professional involvement with a family. In principle therefore the role could be played by professionals or representatives from a voluntary organisation. However, we are concerned that such a person should not act in a vacuum and have commended a model for appointing an informal ‘panel’ of ‘named persons’ to be based within ILEA and to include individuals with a range of experiences and interests. As noted in Chapter 14, the Committee recognises that such a panel would need access to accurate and adequate information in order to be effective and acceptable. It would also have to have some accreditation from the ILEA, and its work would need to be coordinated, perhaps by a voluntary organisation or an employee of the Authority whose responsibility would be to provide an effective link between the panel and the Authority. There are precedents for using disinterested members of the public in this way and citizens advice bureaux are one example. The Committee think that this idea should be explored and evaluated through pilot projects. 2.13.77 Because of the small number of cases which have so far gone to appeal within ILEA, the Committee received no systematic response from parents on this subject. However, a number of parents and voluntary organisations wished to stress their desire for ILEA to regard appeal committee decisions as binding on the authority, as they would be under the 1980 Act appeal proceedings.

Parental Views on Encouraging Partnership 2.13.78 It is perhaps helpful to summarise suggestions stemming from parents. A number of parent organisations and individual parents indicated strategies and particular services which they felt would facilitate partnership. These are listed below: (i) An increase in the availability of under fives services (in particular home teaching programmes such as the Portage Project). (ii) An extended implementation within ILEA of the role of the ‘named person’. (iii) More information for parents on (a) the full range of provision for all age-groups within Divisions and (b) information on voluntary organisations. (iv) Adult Education classes, workshops and courses for parents on a range of topics, including assessment; the implications of particular special needs; behavioural and other problems. (v) More home-school visits not only when children are under five but in subsequent school years. (vi) More parental involvement in schools, particularly in sharing the child’s educational programme and in understanding the curriculum. (vii) More assessment placements, with adequate resources and with full parental involvement. (viii) More shared observations and record keeping between parents and schools. (ix) More training and support for parent governors particularly in ordinary schools, with regard to helping parents of children who are identified as having potential special educational needs. (x) Involvement of parents and parent organisations in the preparation of information material for parents. (xi) Continuous attention to the special language or cultural perspectives of families from minority ethnic groups. (xii) Recognition that many parents have low incomes, social and other problems which may inhibit partnership. Partnership may necessitate opportunities to meet relevant professionals out of regular school hours and the careful timing of examinations. (xiii) The nomination of a ‘key worker’ where a child is receiving services from a number of professionals in order to avoid conflicting advice and confusion. (xiv) Simple guidelines for enabling parents to contribute to the draft Statement and to record what is relevant from their personal knowledge of their child. (xv) Respect for differences of opinion and time in which to discuss them. (xvi) Reduction in time taken for ‘formal assessment’. (xvii) Encouragement to take a friend or relative to examinations and interviews.

Chapter 14 Voluntary Agencies, Health and Social Services 2.14.1 The partnership between the education service and other services and agencies is a particular feature of comprehensive special educational needs arrangements. A review of such provision would be inadequate without attention to shared concerns. Voluntary agencies and health services provided considerable evidence for the Committee but social service Departments made a disappointing response to the Committee’s request for evidence from them. The Committee brings together information and comment on these three important partners of the education service in this chapter. The Voluntary Sector The Range of Provision 2.14.2 The voluntary sector is large and diverse within the ILEA area. Not only is London the headquarters for many national organisations but the diversity of the voluntary sector has given rise to many initiatives in local communities within it. Some organisations provide services or range of services and others set themselves more limited objectives. Provision of many different kinds is made as the following list shows. These are: (i) Organisations concerned with specific disabilities which provide advice, for example on benefits, aids and services. (ii) Organisations which provide services ranging from play groups and play schemes to childcare, residential education and residential care for older children, young people and adults. (iii) Counselling and support services which may be related to a particular disability or may be more general. (iv) Community groups, some of which may provide for a specific minority group. (v) Organisations specifically for young people rather than their parents. These include the National Association of Young People in Care (NAYPIC); Gateway Clubs sponsored by MENCAP and the Self-Advocacy Scheme of that organisation; Physically Handicapped Able Bodied (PHAB); an integrated leisure scheme and the Children’s Legal Centre where children and young people can obtain legal advice. (vi) Self Help Groups, which are often small and very local and may consist of a small cluster of local parents or consumers of a particular service. Some may operate locally but have advice and support from a central office as in the case of Contact a Family. (vii) Providers of general information like Citizens Advice Bureaux and most of the main disability organisations. (viii) Organisations primarily for parents such as Home Start and Parents Anonymous. These may be concerned with particular disabilities or be related generally to parent education, advice and support. Some like the Family Rights Group, could be seen as parallel organisations to NAYPIC or the Childrens Legal Centre while others like, the Parents Campaign for Integrated Education, are more concerned with policies and practices which promote better provision. Yet others like the Elfrida Rathbone projects are designed to give more confidence to parents who may lack social skills and whose own experiences have been difficult.

2.14.3 The diversity and breadth of provision within the voluntary sector in London means that any consideration of special educational needs provision must take account of its richness in order to avoid duplication of actual services, particularly in the pre-school field; to utilise the knowledge which many voluntary agencies have of local needs; and how to help parents and children; and because the voluntary sector has always been innovative. Many of its self-help and early education projects demonstrate importance principles in delivering flexible and personal services. The Voluntary Sector as Service Provider 2.14.4 Voluntary organisations provide a number of direct services for the under fives, including opportunity groups, pre-school playgroups, nurseries for particular disabilities and a number of centres which provide counselling, home teaching programmes and a variety of other activities. Examples include the KIDS Centre in Camden, Sunley House (Toynbee Hall), (both described in an appendix 2); the SENSE Family Centre in Ealing for deaf/blind children; the Beacon Day Nursery in lslington (for mentally handicapped children). 2.14.5 We found one of the very few portage-style home teaching programmes based within a voluntary organisation (the KIDS Centre). Their home-based learning programme was very much appreciated by families and by local professionals and the home visitors liaised closely with ILEA home liaison teachers and with health and social services staff. 2.14.6 SENSE, through their family centre in Ealing, also operate a home teaching scheme, with families additionally using the Centre for developmental play sessions and for specific teaching. Parents of deaf/blind children from the LEA area were using the Ealing service, which is Londonwide in its catchment area, and felt that the service offered bridged an important gap for a minority of children with very complex disabilities. 2.14.7 We were impressed by an Elfrida Rathbone scheme in Camden, for mothers of under fives who had themselves received special education. Mothers using this service felt that they were very illequipped to get the best ut of education services; lacked confidence; and found the support of the scheme’s workers essential in discussing their own and their children’s special needs. This scheme worked closely with other local agencies. 2.14.8 A large number of voluntary organisations in London provide recreation and leisure facilities for children and young people. Activities run by the Handicapped Adventure Playground Association* and Toy Libraries, as well as the PHAB clubs and MENCAP’s Gateway Clubs perform not only an educational role for children and young people but also help parents in developing appropriate leisure activities and in providing “a break”. Many of the organisations offering play and leisure facilities work with the statutory agencies. *This Association provides a wide range of play schemes for children with special educational needs which both supplements the work of schools and provides holiday schemes for children with their parents.

2.14.9 A number of organisations offer a personal advocacy service for children and young people. The National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) is already involved not only in establishing local groups but also in representing young people rather in the role of the ‘named person” when difficulties arise with professional services. Some specific disability organisations like MENCAP are also developing self-advocacy schemes, at present, mainly in the post-16 age group. 2.14.10 A number of young people with special educational needs use provision run by voluntary organisations in the post-16 period, usually when a residential element is required. A number of London young people attend Lufton Manor, the rural training and further education unit run by MENCAP, or the vocational training courses run by the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for the Disabled. The Clubs and hostels provided by the Elfrida Rathbone Society and the Pathways Scheme helping to support mentally handicapped people in employment are also important voluntary initiatives. The majority of voluntary organisations providing a service for the post-16s cater for specific and complex

disabilities and combine education with social skills and independence training as appropriate. The National Bureau for Handicapped Students also provides a wide range of services. These are described in Chapter 10. 2.14.11 A number of London children also attend residential special schools run by voluntary organisations. Details are given in Chapter 9. It seems unlikely, in view of falling rolls and places within ILEA’s own residential schools, that the use of voluntary organisations’ schools will continue at the present level except for children with severe or complex difficulties. 2.14.12 A major, but hidden, contribution to special educational needs is made by those organisations which offer counselling and personal support to families. Amongst the disability organisations, Contact a Family runs local groups, serviced by a community worker, which offer a variety of activities and support to parents with children with a range of special educational needs. KIDS provides similar support through its centres in Kensington and Camden. A number of organisations like MENCAP, the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, the National Deaf Children’s Society, the Spastics Society and Elfrida Rathbone provide counselling and befriending as part of a range of services to help families and children with particular difficulties. One clear omission is that of emotional and behavioural disorders, where parents do not fit into the traditional “disability” model but where parental needs may be very great. 2.14.13 A number of organisations provide general support for vulnerable families. These organisations are not disability-orientated, but their strategies may be very effective in meeting wider family needs. Examples include a range of mother and toddler groups, drop-in centres and services like Home Start which focus upon building up parents’ confidence to be parents. Examples include Camden’s “Under Twos Project”, a drop-in centre sited in an area with poor housing with a high proportion of homeless families and a significant number of young mothers, and Parents Anonymous, a telephone counselling service for parents who feel that they are at risk or injuring or abusing their children. 2.14.14 The Warnock concept of the “named person” recognised the need to provide parents with additional support and advice if the philosophy of “parents as partners” was to be effectively implemented when meeting children’s special educational needs. Although the 1981 Act has been diversely perceived as prescriptive and inflexible for parents — or as a “parents’ charter”, it is clear that it does embody a broad concept of civil rights and a firm recognition of the role of parents in assessment and education decision making. Parental involvement, which carries responsibilities as well as rights, will inevitably have considerable implications not only for the professionals and administrators who are responsible for making the system work, but for parents and children. The role of the “parent counsellor” in the USA’s Public Law 94:142 has clearly demonstrated the need to provide impartial, neutral but informed advice and counselling for parents whose child may have special educational needs. 2.14.15 The role of the “named person” is undefined in the 1981 Act, but in Circular 1/83 (expanding Section 7 of the Act), it is stated that parents should be provided with “the name of a person to whom he (the parent) can apply for information and advice about his child’s special needs”. The Circular goes on to express the view that “the Secretary of State hopes that LEAs will ensure that the person or persons selected will have knowledge of the education services and be familiar with the kinds of difficulties experienced by children with special educational needs. It is also important that they should be able to establish good relationships with parents”. 2.14.16 We consider that voluntary organisations have a major role to play in implementing the concept of named person, the primary function of which is that of enabler. Voluntary organisations already have extensive experience of providing this enabling and advisory role. Many, whilst having

their major commitment to consumers, are highly professional and are staffed by well equipped and experienced professionals. Their multiplicity of interests and community involvement, and experience in utilising volunteers, must entitle them a major role in developing local resource and information centres. 2.14.17 We do not consider that the kind of person we have in mind can operate in a vacuum. Recruitment, informal training and support will be vital. In the Committee’s view voluntary organisations are well equipped to provide flexible training, which will prepare and support the new role. “Training” in this context could mean information on the statutory basis of special educational provision and the new assessment procedures; an outline of the role, and its limitations, which we have in mind; information on the network of other voluntary and statutory agencies; information on handicapping conditions and their educational implications; and information on local provision. 2.14.18 At present parents are most likely to get help of this nature if their children have a specific disability served by one of the specialist organisations. However, after some consultation, we have no doubt that those selected to form a “cadre” of named persons could also be given information and training to prepare for work with the wider and often unsupported groups of parents whose children have moderate learning disabilities; emotional and behavioural disturbances, or who are identified as having potential special educational needs, without apparent cause, whilst attending a school. 2.14.19 The ILEA might give consideration to developing a panel of volunteers who could come from a variety of backgrounds but whose commitment would be to performing the enabling role of the Warnock “named person”. Such a “cadre” would require a coordinator and would need to work between parent, the voluntary and statutory sectors and the ILEA. We are convinced that much of the present parent dissatisfaction reflects the absence of this co-ordination and we are convinced that the voluntary sector could and would accept a major challenge in implementing this function of informed befriending. 2.14.20 The role of the “named person” has often been perceived as that of “citizen advocate”. The concept of the “citizen advocate” is well established in the USA and in the Netherlands and is being developed for mentally handicapped people through the Advocacy Alliance, MENCAP and the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children. The “citizen advocate” in the above contexts is usually a long-term volunteer, recruited, trained and supported by a voluntary organisation. 2.14.21 There is anxiety in some professional circles about the introduction of a non-professional “outsider” into statutory procedures. However, there are precedents in the magistrates service; prison visiting; and the citizens advice bureaux for trained and supported volunteers providing information and neutral and responsible support. We consider that the involvement of voluntary organisations in order to assist with recruitment and training, and the provision of information and practical help, would be vital, but since the implementation of the 1981 Act is a duty for the LEA they would need to work closely with ILEA in order to ensure the effectiveness; the accuracy and the availability of the service provided. The Role of Child Health Services Introduction 2.14.22 After the 1974 reorganisation of the National Health Service, those child health services which had been provided by local authorities became the responsibility of the Area Medical Officer on behalf of the Area Health Authority. The school health service and services for children under five were brought together under the supervision of the Area Specialist in Community Medicine (Child Health). The tripartite division of medical care established by the National Health Service Act 1946 remained. Primary care for children was divided between the general practitioners providing mainly therapeutic care; the Senior Clinical and Clinical Medical Officers largely providing a preventive service; arid secondary care provided in hospital by consultant paediatricians and their staff. The 1982 National Health Service reorganisation then transferred Area responsibilities to the District Medical Officer and the post of ASCM (CH) was abolished.

2.14.23 Since the Court Report was published in 1976, the integration of therapeutic and preventive child health services has been an agreed aim. However there have been professional differences about the means. An increasing number of general practitioners are seeking to provide a comprehensive service for all the children on their lists. At the same time a growing number of health visitors are being attached to general practices and there is a growing involvement of the Clinical Medical Officer in the primary care team. In addition, consultant paediatricians are becoming increasingly interested in primary as well as secondary care. The British Paediatric Association is now committed to working towards the establishment of a bipartite rather than a tripartite child health service and envisages parity of esteem between the preventive community work and the curative role of the hospital based child health services, recommending that there should be at least one consultant paediatrician with a special interest in community child health in each District Health Authority. Duties Under the 1981 Education Act 2.14.24 The 1981 Education Act requires that each District Health Authority designate a senior medical officer and a senior nursing officer to co-ordinate health service provision with regard to the new procedures. Prior to the 1982 reorganisation of the National Health Service, the Specialist in Community Medicine (Child Health) appeared to be the relevant medical officer. With that role abolished by reorganisation, and with delays in appointing senior medical officers with responsibility for child health, a growing debate has emerged about how primary and secondary care in community child health services should be organised. Any consideration of the new procedures must be considered in the context of the wider debate about what the Court Report on Child Health Services (1976) described as “the body of knowledge and practice, both preventive and therapeutic, which can be recognised as educational medicine”. With respect to procedures which relate to the 1981 Act this means: (i) The early identification of conditions which may have educational implications. (ii) If the health services consider that a child might have special educational need, they have a duty: (a) to inform the parents; (b) to inform the local education authority; (c) to inform parents of any voluntary agency which might offer advice and support. (iii) The designated medical officer in a District Health Authority, together with his or her counterpart the designated nursing officer, have a duty to co-ordinate child health service advice relating to the assessment of the child in question. Such advice might come from a hospital-based paediatrician, a medical examination related to the immediate assessment; a child psychiatrist; a physiotherapist; a speech therapist and, indeed, any person connected with the child. Nursing advice could include advice from health visitor, school nurse, district nurse; incontinence adviser or any nursing service of relevance to the child and his family. (iv) When a child’s special needs are identified whilst at school, the school health service will have a vital role to play not only in providing information on the child’s health needs in an educational setting, but also in identifying special educational provision which may be required in order to help the child develop and function most effectively. School doctors and nurses, particularly in special schools, may have close and ongoing relations with teachers and child and frequently work closely with parents. (v) The role of the health visitor is central in identifying young children with potential special educational needs. Many health visitors are increasingly taking an active part in

surveillance and screening programmes and in some cases in actual early education programmes such as the Portage Scheme. Some divisions in ILEA have specialist health visitors, who co-ordinate health visitor and other services for children under five. These duties of the health service pose a number of questions. 2.14.25 The school health service and its present and future function and development is currently under discussion. The contribution of health services to education, to be effective, will need to be part of a continuing and comprehensive service of health surveillance and medical profession from infancy to adolescence. It has to recognise and ensure the proper management of a variety of medical, surgical and neurodevelopmental disorders which may affect a child’s learning and social development at school and at home. The debate about wider involvement of general practioners in the educational aspects of a child’s special educational or disability needs, and the discussion about the desirability of a consultant-led community paediatric service to replace present clinical medical officer grades, highlight the complexities of a child health service input into education. 2.14.26 A characteristic of the ILEA geographical area is that it covers 13 District Health Authorities and that it also contains a large number of specialist teaching hospitals, most of which have considerable expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of specific disorders or disabilities. Many London families retain contact with teaching hospitals outside the Division within which they are living. Liaison with child health services, particularly when the District Health Authorities are usually not coterminous with ILEA Divisions, and with the local authority social services departments, causes problems in communication and can greatly increase the time which is required to collect all the relevant advice for a ‘formal assessment’. In a number of inner urban areas, such as Tower Hamlets or Hackney, families may be living in temporary ‘homeless family’ accommodation or be unaware or unable to register with a general practitioner. Recent work by the Centre for the Study of Primary Care in Hackney has clearly confirmed the earlier conclusions of the Black Report that many poorer families are not registered with a general fractioned; use hospital casualty departments for any routine medical needs and are frequently not in contact with health visitor or hospital-based paediatricians. 2.14.27 The 1981 Education Act for the first time gives child health and education services a duty to identify, and, if necessary, to make special educational provision for, children between birth and the age of two years who might have special educational needs. In the light of the legal requirements regarding this age group, guidelines still need to be clarified with District Health Authorities in the following respects: (i) the criteria to be used by District Health Authorities for referring children to the LEA as being under two and likely to have special educational needs; (ii) the information given to parents of the under twos about possible provision made by the LEA for this age group; (iii) the nature of the assessment and form of Statement to be used for any assessment of the under twos, local education authorities having no duty to follow the standard form of assessment required for those children of two or over; (iv) agreed procedures for giving parents information about voluntary agencies likely to be able to help them. 2.14.28 Early identification poses a number of problems, not least the dangers of premature labelling of very young children who may show significant delays in development. Although assessment for the over twos will frequently start from a need perceived by parents, a psychologist or teachers working within an educational setting, assessment for the under twos will almost invariably begin with a paediatric assessment and there are important implications for effective liaison between hospital or

centre-based paediatric services and the ILEA. The implications of the paediatric assessment will have considerable impact upon the type of provision made for a very young child. A paediatric assessment may also, if based in a child development or assessment centre, be made on the basis of observation and continuous assessment which will provide detailed information on a particular child. It is generally agreed that there are currently few reliable psychological tests for the under twos and that there are equally very few educational psychologists with expertise in working with very young children. Hence health service input into assessment of very young children is essential in helping the child, the family and the education authority in determining what help, if any, is required. 2.14.29 It has been drawn to the Committee’s attention that child health services seem best coordinated with reference to assessment and input into educational settings when there are coordinating mechanisms, such as district handicap teams (which exist in six District Health Authorities) or where there are assessment centres like Mary Sheridan, which is jointly managed by health, education and social services. In both cases assessment can be taken to where the child is; parents are continuously involved and specialist hospital paediatric and community health services can work side by side. Of equal importance, such coordinating mechanisms can ensure that help continues to be made available once a child is placed in some form of provision. Some District Health Authorities are also holding regular clinics in day nurseries, ordinary and special schools and occasionally within provision offered by voluntary organisations. Such collaborative procedures greatly assist the mutual exchange of information; encourage record-keeping; avoid “snap shot” assessments; and can be provide a problem-solving service for particular children whose management may pose problems. We note that there is a move to developing regional policies for all child health services and anticipate that agreed regional policies will facilitate a more effective co-ordination between child health services and education. 2.14.30 Since a significant proportion of very young children with special educational needs will attend some child health service facility for a period of time, usually as part of an assessment, we are concerned that the allocation of educational psychologist’s time should be sufficient to be involved in assessment in these settings and to ensure partnership with the ILEA. The Mary Sheridan Centre offers a particularly useful example of such partnership in assessment. 2.14.31 It has already been noted in Chapter 6 that arrangements to meet provision for children’s special educational needs may be made by a variety of agencies, including child health and social services and the voluntary sector. In order to ensure that there is a rationale in placing a child in one type of provision rather than another, we noted the “panels” and “forums” for under fives service providers which have been developed in some Divisions. The majority of under fives will be placed in some type of provision before formal assessment is carried out and, indeed, often before it is initiated. It is important that children are placed appropriately and that there is a sequence in the provision which they use. Again, the Mary Sheridan Centre demonstrates a useful model for supported placement of a young child with special educational needs. Health Services to Schools 2.14.32 There is currently an ongoing debate about how school health services should operate and about their links with primary care providers. Our own visits have confirmed that the school doctor and the school nurse can be major sources of advice and support for teachers, parents and children. However, their time seems to be more freely available in special schools and we were frequently told that more routine contact in nursery, primary and secondary schools would have been appreciated. One major contention in some, but not all, schools was that of confidentiality of medical records. Headteachers felt that there must be parity of information exchange in order to help children and we encountered at least two schools where medical records were stored in head teachers’ rooms but were locked away. In some schools confidentiality did not seem such a problem. But we recommend that consistent procedures are agreed in order to ensure that teachers receive adequate information about the educational implications of childrens’ medical conditions.

2.14.33 There is a need to look at more effective ways of recording medical and other information in a way which is relevant to education services. We saw at least two excellent examples of inter-agency observation and recording, the information also being shared with parents on request. These two schemes (Grenfell and St Leonard’s Schools) are described in Appendix 2. Provision of Paramedical Services 2.14.34 The Committee was very concerned by the variations within District Health Authorities in provision of services such as speech therapy and physiotherapy. In some Authorities, these were made generously available not only to special schools but to ordinary nursery schools and classes and to provision made by voluntary organisations. In others, there was a shortfall even in provision for children with severe difficulties. The present situation should be reviewed so that the variations between District Health Authorities should be identified with a view to getting a more equitable distribution of resources. Services for Families from Minority Ethnic Groups 2.14.35 We were concerned that many families from minority ethnic groups had difficulty in understanding the organisation of child health services and the advice which they received. Although the Health Education Council has produced information material in a number of languages, we did not hear references to this advice and many families expressed their anxiety about interpreting information given to them. We are concerned that not only should interpreting services be generally available, but that there should be positive recruitment policies for professional staff in health and social services from the ethnic backgrounds which are most common in particular areas. Where there are large numbers of a particular ethnic group, this would greatly facilitate communication and confidence in the services available. We are also concerned that more opportunities should be given to other professional staff to learn the languages with which they are frequently in contact. We have met teachers, doctors and health visitors who have learned Bengali and other languages in order to work more effectively with families, and consider that this option has been insufficiently explored. 2.14.36 Adequate communication is essential when parents wish to be involved in a programme to help their child. It is also vital when aids and appliances are required which may need adjustment, maintenance or regular checking. In addition to wishing to see more professionals acquiring fluency in other languages, we are also aware that adult education can play an important role in helping some minority ethnic groups. We commend the adult education courses in English, which focus on health topics, provided at Sunley House (Toynbee Hall). Provision of Aids and Appliances 2.14.37 We found a generally high level of provision of aids and appliances in special schools. However, a number of nursery, primary and secondary schools complained that they had considerable difficulties and delays in obtaining basic equipment for children with special educational needs. Common complaints were of lack of suitable aids to assist with toiletting and personal hygiene needs, for example hoists, changing tables; difficulties with regard to the disposal of waste (such as incontinence dressings), and the need for more simple day-to-day advice on and provision for simple aids such as special cutlery; educational aids and modified chairs. Many of these difficulties could have been solved simply and cheaply if the services of the occupational therapist had been more freely available. We saw instances of occupational therapists providing practical help in special schools and felt that they had invaluable advice to share with teachers integrating a handicapped child into an ordinary school. 2.14.38 Evidence from Research and Statistics Department shows that at least 20 per cent of children attending special educational provision have medical conditions, apart from any handicap, which affect school performance. These ranged from life threatening conditions like cystic fibrosis to intermittent conditions generally controlled through medication such as asthma or epilepsy. The impact of these conditions varied from increased absence from school for medical treatment such as postural drainage, for cystic fibrosis, and inattention or feeling ill in class. The impact of any chronic condition on educational progress must be carefully monitored and we consider that schools should

take account of the need to consider patterns of ill health in relation to educational performance. Since children with handicaps are also more likely to have periods of poor health and hospital treatment, attention should also be given to compensatory teaching after periods of absence and liaison with the hospital teaching service where appropriate. 2.14.39 We were concerned at the problems encountered by colleges of further education in obtaining appropriate health service input, in particular in providing speech and physiotherapy. We are aware that this difficulty is caused by the transition to adult health services at 16, but note that services are usually informally extended until 19 for pupils attending schools. Since many young people with special educational needs will have specific problems requiring medical support, we hope that attention may be paid to remedying a situation in which paramedical personnel are either employed as teaching staff in colleges, or there is a shortfall in services. Parents’ Experience of Health Services 2.14.40 Parents’ attitudes to services are explored in greater detail in Chapter 13. However, a number of issues specifically relating to child health services arose in discussions which although involving some repetition, stress issues to which the Committee’s attention was drawn. These are: (i) There is considerable confusion about the duplication and fragmentation of assessment procedures. Many parents do not fully understand the distinction between assessment initiated in a paediatric and in an educational setting. Where there was a team approach, there was less confusion. Some parents considered that their children were subject to endless examinations and were confused about the prognosis as well as about the procedures. Information made available for parents should emphasise the distinction between paediatric and educational assessment. (ii) Many parents are confused about the actual roles of people working in child health services. The educational psychologist employed by ILEA is frequently perceived as a psychiatrist. In some district handicap teams and child development centres we found that parents were allocated a “key worker”. Where there was a person who could relate to the parent and act on their behalf, we found much greater satisfaction. (iii) Parental experiences of health visitors varied. Many found them helpful, willing to get information and a “normal person” to visit the home. Others complained that health visitors knew too little about disability; visited too late and too little, and one mother claimed that she had to comfort the health visitor who visited her because she was upset by the handicapped child! It appeared that parents were more satisfied where a specialist health visitor was available. Specialist health visitors seemed to be generally highly regarded and seemed particularly well informed about other services. (iv) Parents whose culture or language were different found problems in understanding some of the medical advice given to them and were more likely to be frightened of the procedures used. We felt that it would be helpful to encourage parents to take friends or relatives for all examinations and visits, in order to ensure that information was understood. (v) Many parents still perceive paediatric assessment as being concerned with deficits, not assets in their child. A number of parents felt that they were given very pessimistic pictures of their children. Conversely some parents felt that it was the paediatrician, school doctor or nurse or health visitor who encouraged them to think positively and who had high expectations of a particular child. Clearly many paediatric assessments will be disappointing to parents because they will confirm anxieties about a disability, such as a life-threatening illness like cystic fibrosis or a sensory handicap. There is good evidence from a number of research studies that most parents experience a sequence of feelings ranging from anxiety and disorientation to adaptation and a desire to be a full partner in helping their child. We consider that parents need more access to counselling and advice

following paediatric assessment and that the 1981 Education Act’s requirement with regard to voluntary organisations could be an important factor in providing such support. (vi) On a positive side we found some parents who had received considerable personal support from child health services. We note that general practitioners and paediatricians have important advantages over many other professionals active in child health and education services. They are more likely to remain in post for most of the child’s critical years and hence can offer continuity. We found parents whose children had disabilities which required regular medical input, such as hydrocephalus and spina bifida, were most likely to be satisfied. (vii) A few children have behavioural problems or severe acute illness, such as tumours, which pose major problems in childhood. In some of these instances, we found parents who found child health services their major source of practical help and of respite care. Although an acute ward would not be the ideal choice for respite care, some families were able to cope with very difficult children because their paediatrician, alone of all the caring agencies, would admit the child for short periods. (viii) Many parents felt that they received insufficient information about their child’s medical needs or problems. However, it was clear that many other parents were being given detailed information, and in some circumstances written reports, relating to their child’s assessment and progress. (ix) A few parents expressed anxiety about the written material they did receive. One mother explained how she had campaigned within her hospital for parents to receive written reports. But, she admitted wryly, her first batch of reports frightened her so much because she did not understand the medical terminology that she almost regretted her request. This issue, raised at a parents’ meeting, led to agreement that any potentially frightening or technical written information from ILEA or health services should if possible be provided with an informed person to answer questions and queries, and allay anxieties. (x) The parents who were most dissatisfied with all services were those whose children had emotional or behavioural difficulties or who presented a variety of difficulties without any clear-cut label. These parents were clearly more likely to be disappointed by the failure of child health services to identify a cause, and hence by implication a treatment. Staff in a variety of child health settings also told us that they were aware of the isolation of many of these families and of the lack of voluntary agencies to help them. (xi) Speech therapists and physiotherapists seemed to be held in universally high regard by parents. Their immediate practical skills, and their ability to work in a variety of settings, were greatly valued and they were seen as sources of advice on a range of issues well beyond the treatment they were offering. Parents were greatly concerned at the low level of provision in some areas and also at the difficulties of ensuring adequate input into ordinary schools. Some parents had chosen special schools simply because of the level of speech and physiotherapy. We also received clear indication from under fives provision in general and from staff in other schools that they needed much greater involvement by speech therapists. 2.14.41 The major issues requiring attention are agreed procedures for the referral and assessment of children under two, and for the use of a variety of provision under five, better information for schools about the educational implications of medical conditions and the more even distribution of therapeutic services. The work of specialist multi-professional assessment centres and teams which can coordinate a wide range of expertise into a coherent whole for parents and provide ongoing support should be extended. Social Services Departments 2.14.42 Parents perceptions of social work services have already been discussed in Chapter 13. This

section specifically relates to the work of Borough Social Service Departments. Comments in the following paragraphs are inhibited by the limited response of those Departments to the Committee’s request for their views. 2.14.43 The statutory duties involving social services under the 1981 Act revolve around three areas: assessment, contributions to the Statement and its duties acting in loco parentis to those children in its care. There is a fourth area which is relevant to special educational needs which also should be considered: the social services department as a provider. Each of these aspects needs to be considered separately. 2.14.44 With regard to assessment, when the education authority decides formally to assess a child it must notify the social services department of its intention. The social services department will then be able to consider whether they know of any problems affecting the child and to indicate whether they have any information relevant to this assessment of the child’s special educational needs. The social services department is required to nominate an officer responsible for ensuring that an appropriate contribution is made. 2.14.45 The education authority is also empowered to seek advice “where it has not been volunteered”. This implies a reactive approach on the part of social services departments but we would hope that these departments would also be pre-active. If the early identification of special educational needs is to be given appropriate priority, then social workers may on some occasions, and with some families and children, be in a crucial position in this respect. In such cases, it is important that this information is shared with other agencies. 2.14.46 While in theory then, social services departments should be in a position to be both pro-active and reactive, in practice this response tends to be limited and bureaucratic, We would not wish to minimise the severe constraints under which such departments operate. However, it does seem to us, that if the “inter-authority and inter-professional collaboration” stressed in Circular 1/83, is to become a reality, then all social services departments in London need to review their procedures in these areas. 2.14.47 Certainly the response of social services to this Committee’s request for evidence is most disappointing both in terms of numbers and content. What responses there were largely confined themselves to comments on ILEA’s educational provision rather than discussing their own procedures. It therefore seems that these departments have not worked out an appropriate role for themselves, either in theory or practice. We would commend to all departments the report produced by Avon social services department entitled “In Tandem” and urge that they undertake a similar exercise. 2.14.48 In making a formal contribution to the Statement, Circular 1/83 provides a checklist which may or may not be used. However, social services’ response to notification of assessment can be criticised on three counts: (i) often they do not respond at all; (ii) when responses are made, they are often late in arriving; (iii) social workers do not always appear to realise that Statements are available to the parents and reports may therefore contain judgmental or inappropriate comments. 2.14.49 The social services department also has an important role to play when the child concerned is in the care of the local authority, and it is clear that a disproportionate number of such children have special educational needs. Circular 1/83 clearly places an onus on social services “to involve the child’s natural parents according to the circumstances of each case”. If contact between the child and the parents is being maintained, even though the local authority has assumed parental rights, then the natural parents should be involved in the procedures of the Act. Where children are being fostered, then foster parents should be accorded the same rights. For those children in residential care, the social services department should nominate a particular person to assume the parental role. We are fully in accord with this recent advice given by the Children’s Legal Centre (Newell 1983) which states “it is most important that all these connected in any way with children in care ensure that social services departments make adequate arrangements for the proper representation of those with special educational needs under the new law”.

2.14.50 Finally, social services may be statutorily involved with the Act as service providers in that Statements may specify any non-educational provision which the education authority is “satisfied with be made available by a district health authority or social services authority or some other body”. In practice this is most likely to involve provision in the under five or post-school sectors. 2.14.51 Social services provision for the under fives is usually made in day nurseries and sometimes in special units within these day nurseries. This provision is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. Three points need to be re-emphasised here however: First, there is not enough of such provision; secondly, such placements may meet the needs of the mother rather than the child; thirdly, the range of complexity of the problems in these nurseries makes the pursuit of special educational outcomes difficult. There needs to be more cooperation between education and social services in order to provide a more coherent service. The co-operation between some nursery schools and social services in providing extended days for working mothers is a good example of such co-operation. 2.14.52 In the post-school sector, social services often provide an alternative to education with their Adult Training Centres (ATCs), recently redesignated Social Education Centres (SECs) to incorporate recent general trends away from the possibility of obtaining work, for many young people. As a Committee we have not had time to consider in any detail the provision offered by such centres and so cannot comment in any detail. We are concerned however that for some young people with severe learning difficulties, there is a choice on leaving school which can have profound long term implications. In a nutshell to opt for education post-16 may mean that a place at a Social Education Centre may not be available when the course has been completed. We have seen examples of cooperation between colleges, adult education and social education centres and we would hope that liaison mechanisms can be developed by all concerned so that social services and education provision can be seen as complementary rather than competitive. 2.14.53 Having considered in some detail issues relating to statutory responsibilities of social services, we need now to focus on some general issues that are pertinent to the interface between education and social services. One major issue of concern was the feeling that on occasions, ILEA residential provision was being used to fill gaps in social services support for families and communities. Thus a number of children end up unnecessarily in residential provision because the appropriate social worker support, home help, family aides and so on were not available. In addition, some families have come to rely on LEA boarding provision for respite care either on a phased or emergency basis. We firmly believe that residential education provision should only be provided to meet educational need and we have noted in Chapter 9 the new criteria for admission to boarding schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties which stress this principle. We also recognise that provision cannot be changed suddenly and that families must be guaranteed alternative, appropriate provision before any existing service is withdrawn. Social Services Departments, ILEA, the Health Authorities and voluntary organisations will need to get together to work out the implications and plan strategies to deal with the changes that will come about as a consequence of only providing educational provision to meet educational needs. 2.14.54 Another issue which gave us concern was that parents usually did not feel that the social worker had a role to play and where they had been involved with families, comments about them were usually negative. The survey of parents carried out for us by Research and Statistics Branch found “most parents were under the impression that the social services department only deals with families having housing, financial or marital difficulties. Four parents had, in fact, social workers allocated to them for reasons other than their childrens’ disabilities. These parents did not feel that this involvement on the part of the social services department had brought any help in coping with the problems of children with special needs”. This comment captures the general feeling of inadequacy of social work support. 2.14.55 We did, on the other hand, hear some good things about social workers. However favourable comments were almost exclusively about those social workers who were school based, serving the

day special or boarding schools. Clearly this has implications for the way the social work service should be organised in the future. It was disappointing to find that liaison and co-ordination between the social work service provided by ILEA, albeit in its three separate parts, and the support provided by the London boroughs were practically non-existent. Elsewhere we have commented on the rationalisation of social work services within ILEA and clearly the links between the two services need to be rationalised also. Bearing in mind that the majority of special educational needs occur and will continue to be met in nursery, primary and secondary school, we would hope that any such rationalisation should be aimed at providing school-based social work support for all children with special educational needs, wherever they happen to be educated. 2.14.56 The issue of confidentiality is also important. The whole tone of the Act and subsequent circular is one of openness and sharing and we endorse this. Thus we believe that social services should only give professional advice which is educationally relevant and there should be no “unofficial” or “informal advice” which does not appear on the Statement. In addition, the parents, and indeed the child in some circumstances, should be invited to any multi-disciplinary teams meeting to review progress, plan for the future and so on. Many parents are not used to such meetings and may find them overpowering and hence they are unable to make a proper contribution. We feel there is a definite social work role in supporting and enabling parents and children to make meaningful contributions to such team meetings and case conferences. This role stops short of the key worker, named person or “advocate” role which we consider in more detail elsewhere. On the whole, we do not feel that the social worker is the right person to take on such a role, certainly given their current knowledge and expertise or the current way services are structured. General Issues in Multi-Professional Work 2.14.57 While it is beyond our brief to consider such issues in detail, the meeting of special educational needs does require multi-professional work to be done well and we therefore need to consider some of the issues involved. To begin with, the range and complexity of services are often beyond the scope of any one individual, be they professional or consumer, to cope with and understand. At various points we have discussed ways of overcoming this but the fundamental question remains: should we aim to make services less complex or provide more satisfactory ways of working within the complexity? Clearly the present situation is not satisfactory for often the consumer is blamed for his or her failure to understand the systems rather than the systems blamed for being too complicated. 2.14.58 In organisation terms, the problems of co-terminosity need to be raised. Should all services be reorganised along co-terminous lines? In addition to geographical boundaries, there is also the problem of age boundaries; child health services stop at 16, children come out of care at 18, entitlement to full-time education stops at 19, and so on. Clearly if joint planning and joint provision are to be operated successfully then the problem of these differing boundaries needs to be looked at. 2.14.59 For services to operate effectively through proper co-ordination, the professionals from each service need to understand each other better. For us, this inevitably implies that professionals need to come together for some parts of their training, both at initial and in-service levels. This would go some way towards breaking down narrow definitions of professional roles and tasks which currently inhibit inter-professional collaboration and co-operation. 2.14.60 Finally there are questions about how services should be resourced. Specifically, should ILEA be putting resources into social services provision (like day nurseries) or health service provision (like child development centres)? For us, the ultimate answer to that question is that services for all children should be provided within the same comprehensive framework and should only be special in the sense that it properly meets the needs of the child, not special in that it is a different service or a service provided in a different place.

Chapter 15 Management and Administration Introduction 2.15.1 When considering the work of the different elements and services which make up the range of special educational provision, the Committee became aware of a number of aspects of the Authority’s management and administration which gave rise to comment. Present arrangements are linked to the history of special education and the adaptations which have been made as the provision and services grew into their present range. The next Chapter in Part III will set out the Committee’s recommendations for change. In this Chapter we describe briefly the administration of the Authority’s education service, for those unfamiliar with it. We then go on to discuss the current pattern of arrangements and some of the issues brought to the Committee’s attention. Finally we summarise the main aspects of management and administration which the Committee considers require attention. 2.15.2 Members of the Committee began by asking what kinds of decisions are made about each form of provision and who makes them. It is a measure of the current complexity and diversity of special educational arrangements, that getting a complete picture proved to be a difficult task even for members with a long experience in the Authority’s service. Even at the end of its work, the Committee cannot vouch for the absolute accuracy of the information given in the chart on page 169. However it is considered to be a useful illustration of the current pattern of responsibilities and possible minor inaccuracies do not detract from the points the Committee wishes to make. Administrative Arrangements 2.15.3 The education service is to the responsibility of elected, co-opted and additional members who form its Education Committee and various sub-committees. It has also set up a wide range of consultative committees which enable individuals representing professional groups, parents, governors and other interests to comment on and contribute to the Authority’s policies and practices. In the field of special educational provision there are groups including head teachers and governors of special schools. The Committee would wish to commend these consultative arrangements. 2.15.4 The education service is administered and managed by the Education Officer assisted by three Deputies responsible for the following Branches: (a) further and higher education and community education and careers, (b) schools; (c) resources. He is also assisted by the Chief Inspector and two Chief Inspectors for (a) further and higher education, community education and careers and (b) schools. Special educational provision falls within the responsibilities of all these senior officers of the Authority. 2.15.5 The Community Education and Careers Branch is responsible for the Youth Service, Adult Education and the Careers Service. The Youth Service has an officer with responsibilities for developing services for young people who are handicapped. There is a language and literacy unit within the Adult Education Service among whose responsibilities is the coordination of literacy work in the post-school sector. Finally the Careers Service has a team with responsibilities for work with young people with special educational needs. 2.15.6 The Further and Higher Education Branch has responsibility for provision for all students including those with special educational needs. The Authority’s Inner London Tertiary Education Board (ILTEB) and Divisional Tertiary Education Boards (TEB) have been set up to give advice on the provision to be made in schools and colleges between the ages of 16 and 19 and on the allocation of resources. The Inner London Tertiary Education Board has set up a working party chaired by the Assistant Education Officer for Secondary Education to make recommendations about meeting the

special educational needs of students in the 16-19 phase of education. 2.15.7 The Further and Higher Education Branch like the Schools Branch has a number of sections dealing with aspects of administration. However a 16-19 unit, which has been set up to develop course approval and resource allocation procedures for this phase of education, is currently based in Schools Branch. It works not only with other sections of that Branch but also with all Further and Higher Education Branches. In one sense it provides an important administrative link between school and post-school provision. 2.15.8 The Schools Branch of the Authority has Assistant Education Officers for primary, secondary and special education. Within the Branch there are three Divisions for (a) Resources and Management, (b) Special Education, Welfare and Special Units and (c) Curriculum Support. Special educational matters relating to schools are dealt with by a number of sections of these Divisions as follows: 1. Resources and Management (i) A section (SB4) for (a) the management of day and boarding special schools; (b) home tuition centre (c) units for partially hearing and language impaired children (d) planning provision for special educational needs. 2. Special Education, Welfare and Special Units (i) A section (SB6) for (a) assessment of handicapped children (b) casework (c) home tuition arrangements (d) admissions to day schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties (ii) A section (SB7) for (a) casework (b) placing children in boarding schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties, moderate and severe learning difficulties and autism (iii) A section (SB8) for (a) casework (b) placing children in boarding schools for visual impairment, hearing impairment and multiply handicapped children (iv) A section (SB1O) for (a) aspects of the education welfare service (b) liaison with health and social services (c) alternative education for disruptive pupils (d) intermediate treatment and CH(E)s (e) tutorial classes (f) classes for children with specific learning difficulties (g) other special units

2.15.9 Teaching Staff Branch is responsible for pay and conditions for teaching appointments in the Authority including those in special educational provision. Establishment Branch is responsible for the pay and conditions of non-teaching appointments. Learning Resources Branch supports many aspects of the education service including special educational provision. Within this Branch there are two specific groups, the Special Educational Resource Team and a Consortium concerned with resources for schools for children with severe learning difficulties. 2.15.10 The work of the Inspectorate and Schools Psychological Service are discussed in Chapter 11. Members of these teams work with all the Branches outlined in previous sections. 2.15.11 There is a Medical Department which serves both the Greater London Council and the Education Authority. Within this Department there is a Medical Adviser to the ILEA, a consultant psychiatric adviser, a senior principal child psychotherapist, a senior principal social worker (psychiatric services), a senior principal social worker (school health service) and a speech therapy adviser. All these senior professionals contribute to special educational provision directly or indirectly by facilitating health and social services to special schools and units of all kinds as well as being concerned with consultancy and advisory services to all other parts of the education service. 2.15.12 The Authority’s area is divided into ten Divisions. The Divisional Education Officer and his or her staff are responsible for implementing the Authority’s policies in each Division, working in association with governors, schools, parents, borough authorities, District Health Authorities and local communities. The Divisional Education Officers are the Education Officer’s representative in the Division carrying out the day-to-day administration of the education service. Their offices also act as a centre for information and advice about all aspects of the education service. 2.15.13 The foregoing paragraphs describe the current pattern of administrative arrangements and the elements being contributed to special educational provision by different Branches and Sections. The following parts of this Chapter concern the way in which responsibilities are exercised in practice. Responsibilities and Decisions 2.15.14 The Committee considered ways in which to describe the patterns of responsibility and decision making. In the end it was thought that a chart (see page 169) might convey the points it wished to make in the clearest form. The chart is an attempt to show where responsibility for certain kinds of decisions or activities lies. It was compiled from pooled knowledge and experience of the system and after brief discussions with officers and professionals. As has already been said, it is a measure of the complexity and diversity of the field that even given our familiarity with the subject completing the chart proved to be a difficult and sometimes disputatious task. 2.15.15 It was impossible to prepare a chart which is strictly accurate; not only are there local variations in practice but the question, ‘who is responsible for...’ can produce replies referring to different administrative levels. The chart therefore represents the points at which we believe, to the best of our knowledge, effective responsibility lies. 2.15.16 When compiling the chart we considered whether to include advisory and support teachers of all kinds. However it was found that a simple principle currently operates. All advisory subject and phase teachers except special educational needs support teachers can, through contact with the inspectors to whom they work, contribute to the work of all schools including special schools and colleges. On the other hand the special educational needs support teachers can only work with primary or secondary schools depending on their appointment and cannot work with special units or schools. 2.15.17 It seems to us that the chart demonstrates the historical growth of special education provision within different sectors of the education service. The administrative arrangements to service that

provision have had to encompass the central and divisional organisation of the Authority, a variety of services within those organisations, and distinct specialisms within the services. We return to these points later in the chapter. Administrative Issues 2.15.18 The second stage of this exercise was to ask people directly involved in administration what they thought the current issues and difficulties were. The Committee also acquired relevant information from senior officers who gave oral evidence to it on a wider range of matters. Some of the written evidence received also had a bearing on these issues. We decided that it would also be useful if a small group from the Committee spoke to other people currently working in this field. 2.15.19 This smaller group spoke to the Section Heads of Schools Branch described in 2.15.6. They visited six Divisional offices and met with Divisional education officers, and their assistants, Divisional Educational Welfare Officers, Divisional Educational Psychologists, Divisional Inspectors (primary, secondary and special education). It was not possible to meet all these people at each Divisional Office. There were visits to see the Divisional Panels preparing Statements. Parents were also consulted in meetings with the Authority’s Parents Consultative Committee, Parents Campaign for Integrated Education, the Wandsworth Association for School Parents and with individuals. 2.15.20 The way these issues were approached inevitably meant that we have focused on areas which are seen as a problem by administrators and parents. Before considering those in any more detail it is important to record our appreciation of the efforts made by the administration to create a valuable service and of the continuing efforts to make the administration of provision to meet special educational needs coherent and more closely aligned with other aspects of the education service.

Placement

•

'0 0

.c

~

:i

1

(I)

i;'

C

Panels

(I)

I I:J)IIl

ell

ell

e

-•..

'ij()

.§ 8 e 'lU u·

e

.:t:

=>

III

8e

• •

:9

•= ::s!

SEI

:c ()

::I ~

(3 'i:

'ij ::I

0

-

I­

SPS

::1:9 -g::l w~

SPS

~~

~1 Central Panel SPS

Ic! c .2

'0 ••

(3 ·e ~:s;:

•

i

j

r:

1: ell

E

~

::I

..

0

a.

I

.!!!

()

::I

i ell

I­

5~

a!:i

(1)::1

.

::I

1::

- Schools Branch

•

~ -g

0

c

u

ell (I)

••

(3

::I

'ij

1~

SPS

FHE Insp

N/A

~

SPSI SEI

J

01

Tic

Principal Academic Board

E ·c

Head and Govs

FHE1

01

Primary

School

DO

Head & Govs

DO

SB4

Tic

NIA

Estab 1A Estab 5B EO/CEC3

Div. EO ILTEB TEBs

Principall Senior Admin. Officer

R",C'",..,nC';

Governors Principal

FHE4

DO

S84

00+

01

GDA Provided

Head

&SB

01

CJ)i

oil ~

1::

~ c

i'2

> •

•

.:t:

Il.

0

E :J:

::I

!

~

0

i

~:; 0

z

Head

~(I) e :::>.

61!=

SPS

.:t:.!::

.c=>

oa:

Schools

:;.~

~~

Panels

:U!

Cc .!Ii .c

Heads

.!I~

Central Panel

DI

::I

SPS

SEI

:i

SPS

SEI

&. a.

SPS

Head and Govs

Head

SPS

Tic

Head

01

Tic

SEI

SEI and

SB4

Tic

Tic

SRT and SPS

SB4

Tic

Curriculum

Tic and SPS

S810

Head and Govs

Tic and SPS SB10

Head and Govs

HiT Govs

SB10

Head and Govs

HiT Govs

SB10

Head

Head

SB4

Head

Head

DO SB4

Tic

Head

Administration (General)

Tic

School

DO

Schools

DO TS5

SEI

SB

- Divisional office

Educational

Inspectors with Divisional i=<.,srYlnQihil

DO

SEI-- Inspectors

01

Head

Head Tic

Insp

-

Head SRT

DO

DO

Head & Govs

Education

00&

Tic

Schools

DO

Central

Tic

Support (NonTeaching Staff)

DO

Manag't Gtee

- Not Appllcaole

Staff Branch

- Further and

TS

00&

Tic

SB4

Head

SB4

Head

SB4

DO

SBW

Gtee

NIA

TS5

Expenditure Levels

C'tee Policy

N/A

TS5

SEI

------

N/A

TS5

SEI

Service

N/A

DEO - Divisional Education Officer

FHE

DO

N/A

TS5

SPS

Schools

Estab Estab Branch SB4

DO

TS5

SEI

SPS

- Headteacher

- Senior Remedial Teacher

Teacher in charge

HT Tic

DO

DO

TS5

TS5

SPS

Education Board

SB

DO

TS5

SPS

SB4 OEO

Local Responsibility for Finance and Accounts

Inspectorate Function

I

Supply Staff

DO TS5

Head & Govs

DO

Teaching Staff Admin

Head & Govs

London

Education and Careers Branch

DO

Appointment

CEC ILTEB -

SRT

- Tertiary Education Board F"t"h - Fst"hli"hment Branch

TEB

2.15.21 In the event there was some agreement about the central issues, many of which can also be identified from the chart or from other aspects of the Committee’s work. Two seemed to be outstanding. 2.15.22 The first of these concerned the extent to which decisions about the delivery of a service can be made close to its point of delivery. The chart suggests that many decisions about staffing and resourcing in special provision not attached to comprehensive schools are made at County Hall by a central Branch. The argument was put to us that locally administered services would be able to respond more quickly to local demands. Those who put this argument claimed that services for particular kinds of disability, special school administration, provision for disruptive pupils, home tuition and a unified education welfare and social work service would be better operated within a Divisionally based administration. The point was also made that educational psychologists working in Divisions should be accountable to the Divisional educational psychologist. 2.15.23 There as another view that the administration of these services is itself a specialist function which could not be carried out at a local level. We could recognise the need for specialist advice to be available for administrative staff from time to time but were impressed by claims that this could be organised locally. We were however concerned by the apparent lack of coordination between services which were provided locally. These seemed to have a degree of school-based and serviced-based autonomy which precluded any coherent Divisional strategies. 2.15.24 The second outstanding issue was the need for some clarification of roles both across particular administrative activities and within particular elements of the service. This most obviously applies to the use of provision and service and to inspectorate responsibilities. The second row of the chart shows the extent to which placement decisions can be made by groups or individuals from within different parts of the education services. The row beneath shows that inspectorate responsibilities for provision to meet special educational need is divided amongst specialist inspectors, divisional phase inspectors and the schools psychological service. Similar points were made in the evidence we took. Overall it seemed that there is firstly a need to review the manner in which decisions to use provisions and services are made for pupils who are not the subject of statements but who are to receive something additional to or different from what is available in primary and secondary schools. Secondly there is a need to clarify working arrangements between the different inspectorate teams. Thirdly it will be necessary to deal with the anomaly by which an educational psychologist may be responsible for administration, placement and inspection in particular areas. Fourthly liaison between administrators, inspectors and the schools psychological service should be improved at Divisional levels. 2.15.25 The fear was expressed to members of the Committee that delegation to Divisions would result in no central control of aspects of special education where it was necessary. We understand this concern and recognise that central planning and management are essential if provision from Division to Division is to be coherent in range and quality. However proper delegation involves such planning and management and there are alternatives to present arrangements which we discuss in Part Ill. 2.15.26 Another issue which was raised with the Committee was the quality of contacts between parents and all aspects of the education service. A number of points have been made about working with parents elsewhere in this report but it is important to recognise that officers of the authority play a significant role in conveying the authority’s views to parents and in enabling them to feel partners in their children’s education. 2.15.27 It was also said that there would be no central control of the methods or resources employed by Divisionally based services and that some at least was desirable. We accept this last point but feel that the Authority could exercise its central responsibility through the use of guidelines for approaches and quotas for resources. 2.15.28 A number of other issues were raised with us. Some of these were not directly concerned with

administration and are dealt with elsewhere in this Report. Amongst others which should be mentioned was the widespread concern about the time taken over full assessment’ and the ability of schools to initiate these procedures on their own professional judgment when they are in disagreement with one of the advisory/-support services. 2.15.29 It is evident that some of the issues raised to members of the Committee are self contradictory and some inevitably have some degree of self justification in the way they were presented. It is impossible for many of the individuals who commented to have an informed overview of the range of provision and services made by the Authority but this does not detract from the importance of their views. We have attempted, in this

brief description of administrative arrangements, to present a description of the current situation and the major concerns of those who manage it at different levels. More or less explicit in the majority of the issues raised was a wish to see a unified coherent service derived from central policy guidelines but administered as far as possible by delegation to Divisional level. There was a common view that this was not at present the case. We have stressed the need to think of education as a continuous process. For this to become a reality new ways must be found to facilitate interaction between different administrative sections. This may call for new structures to support a unified education service.

Tensions within the System 2.15.30 Before we moved on to consider what recommendations should arise from this brief review of administration we tried to examine what pressures existed within the present structure to sustain its complex and sometimes anomalous features and which we would have to understand before identifying a strategy for change. 2.15.31

It also seemed to us that the complexities and anomalies within the present system can be best understood in terms of tension or tensions within its structure. Broadly speaking the most notable tensions arise from pressure along and across two lines of force. One of these arises from the allocation of central and divisional functions within the authority, which can be characterised as County Hall juxtaposed with Divisional Offices. The other arises from the nature of specialised services. How far is a specialist service professionally isolated or a co-operative partner in a comprehensive service? In effect, how impenetrable does a specialised service make its boundaries?

2.15.32

This situation is illustrated by selected examples in the following diagram where the vertical axis represents central/local control and the horizontal represents specialist/non-specialist status.

Graphical Representation of Managerial Tensions

Table 15.2:

+

(B.1 )

(C.2)

(A.2) (E.2)

(D.2)

---l

« II f-

Z

W

---l

U

0

II

(C.3)

f-

z

0

---l

U

«

u 0

---l

t

(A. 1) (D.1 ) II

(C.1 ) (E.1 ) LOW

HIGH SPECIALISATION

•

(i)

Appointments and administration for special schools is divided between points (A. 1) and (A.2). Some work, for example with children with moderate learning difficulties, is done locally with little specialist reference; some is done centrally with the presumption of greater specialist input.

(ii)

Decisions about home tuition (Division 3 excepted) are made at a point (B.1) with high central control but little claim to specialist requirements except for provision on psychological or psychiatric grounds.

(iii) Decisions to use day schools for children with emotional and behaviour difficulties may follow this procedure: local panel (C.1) to SB6 (C.2) and then back to the Schools' Admissions Meeting (C.3) organised on a sector basis. 171

(iv) Boarding placements are recommended by the local panel (D.1) although the details including the identification of particular schools require central decisions, (D.2). Similar processes are pursued for all provision for children with hearing impairments placements and for provision for pupils who are the subject of Statements in primary and secondary schools. 2.15.33 The advantage of this kind of analysis is not just that it offers a straightforward way of thinking about the administrative structure but that it enables us to compare the location of an administrative function with the type of service it supports. Quite simply we can ask whether a particular service and its administration are similarly located and specialised. Our presumption is that ideally they should be. 2.15.34 We did not have the time to produce a more comprehensive analysis of every administrative role and doubt whether it would be valuable to do so. We have instead confined ourselves to reporting, as faithfully as possible, the issues raised with us and to describe as far as we were able, key features of the administrative structure. However, the insight provided by that information and the perspectives outlined are used extensively when we produce specific recommendations in the next part of this report.

PART III Chapter 16 Policy, Planning, Management and Evaluation Introduction 3.16.1 The third part of this Report is concerned with the steps that the Committee consider should be taken to implement policies based on the principles set out in Chapter I. These recommendations are concerned with both the long-term and short-term development of special educational provision. We strongly urge that all short-term measures that are taken are consistent with longer-term aspirations. However before turning to these suggested changes we make a number of general points of which it is easy to lose sight when concerned with administrative and professional issues. For whom is provision made 3.16.2 In their visits and discussions members of the Committee have constantly stressed that the main objective of their work is to improve provision and services for children and young people with special educational needs and their families. It is all too easy to lose sight of their needs, their wishes and their aspirations when professional interests and administrative arrangements are being discussed. The main criterion by which future developments should be judged will be the extent to which children, young people and their parents understand them and feel they are in their interests. 3.16.3 The ILEA, although not unique in this respect, serves a population which is culturally diverse and beset by many social and economic pressures. Many people find it difficult to function effectively in such circumstances. Currently children, young people and their families are met with a bewildering array of educational services. When special educational needs arise they may be met by a large number of different professionals whose different responsibilities may be barely understood. Every effort needs to be made to reduce the complexity of services and provision and to increase accessibility to information about them. A major aim should be to simplify procedures so that they are more readily understood by those with special educational needs and their families. Teachers in Schools and Colleges 3.16.4 Teachers are currently beset by many demands to increase their professional skills and to discuss and implement new national and local authority policies. They are attempting to respond in a climate of opinion across the country which gives them little credit for the progress being made and in which criticism appears to outweigh commendation. This report will make additional demands on a

hard pressed profession which in London is already attempting to equalize opportunities and combat racism. The Committee would wish to record their awareness of this fact. We hope that our recommendations, although involving extra work in the short term, will provide genuine relief from some current frustrations in the long run. 3.16.5 The direction of development, set out in the Committee’s principles, requires a recognition that special educational needs are relative. They are relative to the ability of schools and colleges to meet the range of individual needs of the children and young people who attend them. This approach involves all teachers in understanding how special educational needs may arise and how their work may influence whether they arise or not. The concept of handicap outlined in Chapter 1 implies that such needs arise from situations and climates in homes, schools and colleges and not solely from individual difficulties or limitations. 3.16.6 Thus the attitudes of all teachers are an important factor in determining special educational needs and provision to meet them. The Committee has become aware of many positive attitudes in schools and colleges which members would wish to see more widespread. Positive and informed attitudes are crucial to the implementation of the Committee’s report. Its specific recommendations should be seen as a recognition of what is being achieved by teachers and not as criticisms of their work which is often difficult and demanding. Policy and Planning 3.16.7 The Authority has made clear its overall policies for equal opportunities with regard to race, sex and class. It has not yet made clear its intention with respect to the disabilities and significant difficulties, which children and young people being educated by the Authority may have. In the Committee’s view this is of equal importance. We recommend that the Authority take immediate steps to reformulate its equal opportunities policy to include children and young people who may have special educational needs. 3.16.8 There are two aspects of this overall recommendation which give rise to questions. First, what is the Authority’s policy for making special educational provision? Secondly, if the Authority strongly endorses the comprehensive principle, why has it no stated policy on the integration of children and young people with special educational needs in schools and colleges for all? It is necessary to separate two related aspects of these questions, the development of a policy of any kind and the specific question of a policy for integration. The first aspect relates to the currently fragmented pattern of responsibilities and provision. Part II provides the basic information available to the Committee and the issues related to different kinds of arrangement. As can be seen, policy development where it occurs is currently related to different aspects of the range of provision such as special schools, offsite centres and services for specific learning difficulties. It is also the concern of different administrative and professional groups. What is now needed is a unified and comprehensive approach to meeting special educational needs which is readily understood not only by professionals but also by governors, parents and the general public. The Committee, with its relatively limited time for consultation, recommends the framework within which such a policy should be developed. We recommend that as an immediate priority the Authority develop, through consultation, a policy for the development of provision to meet special educational needs which covers the whole range of arrangements in schools, colleges, units, special schools and elsewhere. 3.16.9 The major feature of that policy should be the Authority’s approach to the issue of integration. At present this is very uncertain. More provision is being made for individuals and groups within nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges but the percentage of the school population attending special schools has been increasing until very recently. This is an issue where aspirations and long term objectives need to be distinguished from practical considerations and short term objectives. The Committee is in no doubt about the principles involved namely, that the right place for children and young people with special educational needs to be educated is where they retain regular contact with all their contemporaries. If alternative or different provision is to be made elsewhere for the time being this should be because it is not possible fully to implement the comprehensive principle.

We recommend that Authority adopt a policy which aims to meet all children and young people’s special educational needs within nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges. 3.16.10 The Committee recognises that there will be circumstances which this may not be practicable in the short term or even for a small number of children and young people in the longer term. Therefore we recommend that whenever or wherever alternative or different provision is made outside nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges this be closely linked with such schools and colleges and seen as supportive and supplementary to their work. 3.16.11 A policy for special educational provision cannot be separated from other education policies because of the relative nature of special educational needs. Any major decisions about education for under fives, primary and secondary education and further and continuing education has implications for children and young people with disabilities and significant difficulties. We recommend that procedures be instituted to include special educational needs considerations in an integral way within all the Authority’s policies for educational provision. 3.16.12 A distinction has been made in Chapter 1 between special needs and special educational needs. The Committee recognizes the pressure on schools and colleges to provide for a variety of special needs including those which may arise from learning English as a second language, giftedness and social disadvantage. The initiatives to meet these special needs have much in common with meeting special educational needs. They include in-service education, advisory teaching services, support teaching in ordinary classrooms and withdrawal for specific purposes. The common elements in these demands on schools and colleges need to be recognized. Policies to meet them need to be considered as a whole. We recommend that the Authority develop consistent and common policies with respect to additional and supportive provision to meet all special needs in schools and colleges including special educational needs. 3.16.13 In formulating a strategy for implementing recommendations 3.16.8 and 3.16.9 the Authority will need to consult widely about the mechanisms to achieve it. In the short-term the needs of individuals will not be met by hasty and piecemeal implementation. Planning is essential and an incremental approach most likely to succeed. We recommend that the Authority draw up plans for integration, in consultation with all concerned, to make provision within primary and secondary schools to meet the needs of those children and young people currently in separate provision. These plans should be set within a defined time scale. 3.16.14 In Chapter 4 the range and extent of special educational provision currently made has been described. When the Committee sought information for this Chapter it became apparent that no one section of the Authority had complete information about provision, staffing, resources and the numbers of children receiving special educational help. Without such information in a coherent form it is difficult to plan future developments. Bearing in mind the Committee’s view of the relative nature of special educational needs, such information should not simply be concerned with the characteristics of individuals but should take into account variables in the situations where special educational needs arise. We recommend that steps be taken to collect information and statistics in a coherent form which reflects the total range of special educational provision in all schools, colleges and elsewhere. The basis for collecting such data should reflect not only the individual nature of special educational needs but also factors in the contexts in which children and young people learn. 3.16.15 A number of aspects of planning will be included in the recommendations about management in the next section of this chapter. However, the Authority needs to have an overall plan for the development of special educational arrangements within policy guidelines. The Authority’s plan should involve all phases and aspects of educational arrangements made by the Authority. It also needs to take into account the contributions of health and social services, voluntary agencies and consumers. We believe that it is unrealistic to rely on a broadly based series of working groups, representing different sectional interests, to develop a plan for special educational provision and

services. We consider there to be a need for a small section in Development Branch to prepare practical plans to implement this report. We recommend that a detailed plan be prepared for the responsible sub-committees of the Authority setting out proposals for developing special educational arrangements in line with the principles and recommendations of this report. Management 3.16.16 Chapter 15 has described the present system of management for different kinds of special educational provision. Responsibilities are fragmented and decision-making is not always related to an appropriate level of management. The Committee considered that many existing practices and procedures needed to be reconsidered, Separate areas of responsibility should be reviewed and more coordinated working arrangements between administrators and other professionals established. Delegation 3.16.17 The principle aim of changes should be to delegate responsibilities within firm guidelines established by the Authority to the nearest practical point of service delivery. A second aim should be to ensure that decisions about using provision full- or part-time outside schools should only be made by small groups of professionals in consultation with parents and not by individuals or single elements of the education service. Thirdly every attempt should be made to develop coherent special education teaching services outside schools with possibilities for career development. Present arrangements result in too many isolated individuals and groups who work to inspectors and psychologists who may have insufficient time to develop the quality of provision and the professional expertise of teachers. More team work with clear teacher leadership is required. 3.16.18 The Committee recognized that there were two different aspects of meeting special educational needs which influenced current arrangements. On the one hand there are the common learning and behavioural difficulties and minor physical and sensory disabilities to be found in every school. On the other hand there are the less common and more complex, physical, sensory and other disabilities and less common forms of provision such as boarding schools for which Authority planned provision is necessary. It is easier to delegate responsibility for the former than the latter. Nevertheless we are convinced that clear cut, well planned delegation is necessary. We recommend that the Authority accept the principle of delegating decisions about assessment, placement, and the development and use of provision and services to a local level within Authority-wide guidelines. 3.16.19 An example may illustrate the principle. The Authority has established guidelines and criteria for home tuition. At present each decision to provide six hours’ weekly tuition for children of primary age, and ten hours for children of secondary age, has to be referred to County Hall except in one Division of the Authority. In this Division decisions are made at local level, an initiative which has never been fully evaluated. There seems to be no clear reason why the decision to arrange home tuition could not be delegated to small groups within each Division. Budgetary control could be established by allocating quotas of hours to each Division as well as monitoring the application of the existing guidelines. This example could be followed in other ways if the principle of delegation recommended by the Committee is accepted. Schools and Colleges 3.16.20 The delegation we have in mind is based on the acceptance of responsibility for meeting special educational needs by all teachers. In Chapters 7 and 12 we have drawn attention to the importance of the important cyclical relationship of teaching, assessment and further teaching based on assessment for the effective education of all children and young people. Before going on to consider other aspects of delegation the Committee wishes to emphasise that the first and most important place to meet special educational needs is in the classrooms of all schools and colleges. All advisory and support services should have as their primary aim the provision of information, materials and support to enable teachers to carry out this responsibility. We recommend that all teachers accept responsibility for meeting as far as possible the special educational needs which may arise in their classrooms and be enabled to do so in collaboration with the network of advisory

and support services available to them. 3.16.21 We also apply the same principle to all schools and colleges, which should accept the primary responsibility for meeting the majority of special needs which arise. Again, advisory and supporting services should work in ways which enable them to do so and which provide practical help towards their teaching, and in the management and organisation of the school’s arrangements to meet special educational needs. We recommend that all primary and secondary schools and colleges accept responsiblity for meeting the special educational needs which arise within them in collaboration with the network of advisory and support services available to them. Clusters of Schools 3.16.22 The Committee is convinced that more responsibilities should be delegated to Divisions and this issue is discussed in later sections. It is also convinced that further delegation is necessary if provision and services are to be well coordinated and easily understood by teachers, parents and others. The Committee has considered the clustering of primary and special schools in one Division and the recommendations for primary school clusters in the report Improving Primary Schools”, and considers that clusters should be developed, to include under five provision, primary and secondary schools, which link with tertiary provision. These clusters would serve a geographical area. The number of primary and secondary schools and associated under five provision in any cluster would be a matter for discussion. One possible model for the development of the clusters we have in mind is that provided by the Report ‘Improving Primary Schools” (3.72). That report suggests that a cluster might comprise three secondary schools and the primary schools that mainly contribute to those schools. The main point we wish to make is that a small number of schools should be enabled to work together to develop mutually supportive arrangements to meet special educational needs and provide a focus for the deployment of supporting services. 3.16.23 The main purpose of this proposed development is to enable the staff of a small defined group of schools to feel responsible for all the children on their rolls. The first response to a child’s special educational needs will always be from within the school. Support is available from advisory and other specialist services, where needs are more complex. There will be advantages if the advisory personnel involved relate to a small group of schools which they can get to know well and by which they become well-known. Such personnel should as a result also be able to collaborate more effectively with each other. Within such a cluster of schools it should be possible for heads and teachers with special educational needs assignments to meet and establish effective communication. This will facilitate the development of common approaches to meeting special educational needs and will ensure that when pupils with more complex needs transfer to other schools within the cluster, their needs are already known to the receiving schools. Each cluster might be served by an educational psychologist, a peripatetic teacher for specific learning difficulties, a peripatetic teacher specializing in work with disruptive pupils and a number of education welfare officers. Social and health service personnel could be linked to the cluster. Where special units existed or were set up in schools or outside them the staff could also act as a resource to schools and link with other special education teachers. Similarly local voluntary organisations and community groups would have a point of reference. Parents would also have a local group of professionals to whom they could relate. 3.16.24 The main functions of a cluster organisation are seen to be: (i) the sharing of responsibility for most special educational needs which arise in the schools in the cluster and developing means of identifying and meeting them; (ii) providing a continuity of concern over the children’s education in particular by facilitating close under five and primary school links and close secondary and tertiary education links in each cluster together with sensitive procedures for transfer from primary to secondary schools; (iii) to assist local decision making about the forms of provision to meet special educational

needs which are most appropriate for a group of schools and associated under five and post school arrangements. These decisions would be taken within Authority and Divisional guidelines; (iv) to provide a focus for service delivery so that members of all services advising and supporting schools and associated tertiary provision, including health and social services can deploy staff to work with a small group of schools. Schools in their turn would be enabled to work with a known group of supporting professionals. 3.16.25 A number of additional points need to be made. First the cluster could become, as it has become in Division 9 in another form, an important forum for curriculum development, in-service education and staff development. Meeting special educational needs would become an integral part of the cluster’s overall educational purpose. Secondly objections have been made on the basis of parental choice of schools, and of the number of primary schools transferring children to a single secondary school, that close links are not possible. In the Committee’s view strong cluster links should be formed between schools of all kinds. Parents should be made aware of them and in time their choice will be made in the knowledge that closer links exist between some schools than others. Thirdly further and adult education services are very responsive to community needs. Although they serve wider areas than the clusters we have in mind it is important that they have strong links with them. 3.16.26 It would also be possible for some specialist services to be shared within the cluster. These would be concerned mainly with meeting the needs of children with learning and behavioural difficulties. On the assumption that five or six clusters are created in each Division, preliminary consideration leads us to believe that posts currently deployed in provision such as opportunity classes, nurture groups, tutorial classes, and the ‘disruptive pupils scheme’ could over time be re-allocated on a cluster basis providing a service to all schools in a cluster. The same principle could be applied to some peripatetic teaching services. 3.16.27 The Committee assumes that a coordinating group of headteachers or their representatives together with an educational psychologist and education welfare officers might be established calling on other services when appropriate. It might also be possible for a group of governors of schools to maintain some oversight of the cluster special educational needs arrangements. The importance the Committee attaches to developments of this kind lead it to recommend that the principle that special educational needs arrangements should be based on clusters be adopted. A first step will be to develop provisional guidelines for the work of clusters, set up a small number of such clusters supporting them with appropriate resources and arranging to evaluate their development. The Committee consider this should be an urgent priority. We therefore recommend that a number of clusters be established, supported by the allocation of resources, and that their work be evaluated at the end of a two year period. This experimental approach should not prevent the further development of clusters within the Divisional plans we recommend in the next section of this Chapter. Nor should it delay the continued revision and elaboration of guidelines and the longer term evaluation of the work of clusters. The Committee envisages a rolling programme within Authority guidelines which is constantly reviewed in the light of experience gained from the pilot projects we recommend. Divisional Management 3.16.28 The Division is an essential unit for the consideration of special educational arrangements. It provides a focus for schools, services and the community and is a large enough unit to be relatively self-sufficient in provision to meet the great majority of special educational needs. At present Divisional responsibilities for meeting these needs are ambiguous. Phase inspectors in Divisions are responsible for provision in primary and secondary schools and for off-site units and peripatetic services for disruptive children. Responsibilities for other supplementary provision rests with educational psychologists in the division but overall responsibility rests in County Hall. Some day special schools are the responsibility of inspectors with Divisional special educational assignments, others are not. Some forms of unit, for example units for partially hearing children, are centrally

managed. Admission criteria and decisions to use provision similarly rest with different individuals and groups at both Divisional and Authority level. There is an urgent need to clarify and re-allocate responsibilities within Authority-wide guidelines. 3.16.29 We recommend that Divisions be responsible for all provision in their areas to meet special educational needs other than in boarding schools. We also recommend that Divisions be responsible for all admissions to any form day of special educational needs provision located in the Division. Where day special schools and units serve more than one Division, the Division should be allocated a quota of places on which to base plans for provision and services. 3.16.30 One of the main issues is how to incorporate decisions about special educational needs arrangements within a general consideration of educational provision for all children. The Committee is reluctant to suggest arrangements which might result in an unwelcome separation between general and special provision and services. In suggesting a Divisional Management Group the Committee hope that this will consider arrangements to meet special educational needs as an integral part of its other responsibilities for education in the Division. This group should include the Divisional Education Officer, primary and secondary inspectors working in the Division and the Divisional inspector with special educational responsibilities, as well as the Divisional educational psychologist and the Divisional education welfare officer. It should also maintain contact with health and social services, voluntary organisation and consumer groups. The Committee is strongly of the view that such a group should collect information about the extent of special educational needs arising in the Division, review the available provision and plan its development in the light of changing circumstances. The group should monitor all referrals to provision outside primary and secondary schools. When disproportionate numbers of children are being put forward for provision outside primary and secondary schools it should investigate the circumstances and see what can be done to help schools prevent needs from arising. This will require an informed and flexible use of available resources of all kinds. We recommend the establishment of a Divisional Management Group to be responsible for special educational arrangements within each Division. 3.16.31 Given that the Authority sets out clear guidelines along which special educational needs provision should be made and that Divisional responsibilities are clearly defined, then Divisional management groups will have a number of important tasks. The first of these will be to plan and coordinate all special educational provision and services within their areas. We recommend that Divisional Management Groups shall develop and keep under review a plan for special educational needs provision and services in each Division within the Authority’s overall guidelines and report annually to the Education Officer. 3.16.32 A number of services work relatively independently within Divisions and different responsibilities for provision for children and young people in a Division rest with different inspectors and psychologists. Some services and arrangements have teachers clearly responsible for them, such as the services for children with specific learning difficulties and the home tuition service, and others do not. It is important that educational services are teacher led. In the Committee’s view some responsibilities of inspectors and educational psychologists could be delegated if some units and peripatetic services were organised in such a way that there is a responsible teacher in charge. We therefore recommend that the principle of having a teacher responsible for defined groups of classes or peripatetic teachers be extended to cover other full and part-time provision in Divisions and other peripatetic teaching services. 3.16.33 Divisional management will also need to consider how to link together provision within a Division for particular special educational needs such as learning difficulties and emotional and behavioural difficulties. The pattern of arrangements to coordinate service delivery can only be developed locally within Authority guidelines. Further comments and suggestions are made in Appendix 5. Working groups may be necessary in the short term. Similarly small groups of teachers in charge may be necessary to coordinate service delivery to schools and colleges. We recommend that the Divisional Management Group set up sub-groups or teams to co-ordinate different

areas of work and patterns of service delivery. 3.16.34 Many professions and services such as the schools psychological service, the education welfare service, the careers service and the youth service are professionally directed from the centre to develop a uniform pattern of service delivery for the Authority as a whole. Some of these services have members with Divisional responsibilities for coordinating the work of colleagues working in the Division. Divisional management of each of these services is essential. We recommend that all Authority wide services delegate responsibilities within their own guidelines to individuals who would be responsible for the work of each service in Divisions. We also recommend that the Divisional Education Officer as the Education Officer’s representative in the Division be responsible for coordinating the work of these services within Divisions. The Divisional Management Group and sub-groups should include representatives of these services. 3.16.35 The way in which decisions are taken to use provision and services within a Division requires consideration. At present a panel exists to complete the drafting of a Statement of needs and provision for some children and to arrange admission to provision for which a Statement is required. No similar group exists to decide on the admission of children full-time or part-time to the variety of provision which exists outside primary and secondary schools for which a statement is not required. We recommend that no decision to use such provision for individuals be made by a single profession or individual except in emergencies and that a thorough assessment of needs should have been carried out before admission. Decisions should be taken by a small multi-professional groups similar to the panels which already exist. We recommend that each Divisional Management Group set up a small panel, either as a separate group or associated with the panel which completes Statements, to be responsible for all admissions to full or part-time provision outside primary and secondary schools and to authorise home tuition. Such panels should also be responsible for reviewing the outcomes of the decisions they make. 3.16.36 We also wish to draw attention to the considerable difficulties which arise in meeting the special educational needs of some children and young people when local Borough boundaries, which define Social Service Department areas, and District Health Authority boundaries are not coterminus with Divisions. We hope that these services will recognise their obligations to work closely with the Divisional Management Group we have recommended. In any changes which the Authority might make in Divisional boundaries we also hope that every effort will be made to develop areas which are coterminous as far as possible with those of other services which work closely with the education service. Services for More Than One Division 3.16.37 The Committee recognises that there are some kinds of provision and services which cannot easily be located in every Division. These include arrangements for children with physical and sensory disabilities, autism and perhaps speech and language disorders. They also include provision in boarding special schools. Such provision and services are currently managed centrally. The idea of some educational arrangements, including special educational needs provision, being considered on the basis of a number of Divisions rather than Authority-wide is not new. Because it is difficult for some services and special schools to make effective links with 10 Divisions the Committee considers that further attention should be given to the development of some arrangements on a sector basis. 3.16.38 Although detailed consideration will be given in the following chapters, the issue may be illustrated by two examples. The first concerns services for the hearing impaired. If schools, units and peripatetic services were to be combined into one service and divided into teams, it would be possible for the head of a team to link with two or three Divisions, provide specialist input to panels and develop close working arrangements with Divisional provision of all kinds. Secondly if the boarding schools for emotional and behaviour difficulties were organised in groups it would be possible to develop a small range of different regimes and age ranges. This would also facilitate closer links with a small number of Divisions, day provision for similar children, psychological services and clinic teams, thus mitigating many current discontinuities and frustrations.

3.16.39 At this level there might need to be a small coordinating group to develop common policies which take account of particular special educational needs and common patterns of service delivery. Inspectors with responsibilities for provision for specific disabilities and senior psychologists would need to work with heads of services. The Committee is not recommending a particular model but does consider that services developed in this way could be a means of bringing specialists in closer contact with Divisions. Authority Responsibilities for Co-ordination 3.16.40 The Committee has made a number of recommendations in paragraphs 3.16.7-3.16.15. By recommending delegation to clusters and Divisions, the Committee had in mind the need to diminish direct responsibilities at the centre and release time to carry out the development of a unified pattern of provision and services to meet special educational needs. This would include developing policy guidelines, planning, allocating resources and monitoring and evaluation. These are essential aspects of central management. Day to day decisions about extra teaching hours for individuals are not. The Authority will need to consider how the management of special educational provision and services should be fitted in to the management of the education service as a whole. There will be a need for a small central team for policy development and evaluation. Certain groups will need to work together with primary inspectors and inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities to develop arrangements in primary schools; secondary inspectors, subject inspectors and inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities to develop arrangements in secondary schools and inspectors with further education and special educational needs responsibilities to consider post-school provision. Similarly multi-cultural teams, equal opportunity teams, and special educational needs teams will need to look at common issues in service provision and common practical guidelines for schools. The special educational needs team will need to develop coherent advice on the development of provision and services. Delegation within the defined guidelines should free central teams for policy development and evaluation. 3.16.41 There will continue to be matters which will need to be managed centrally but these should be kept to a minimum. These would include the development of provision for children with very complex problems, the use of non-maintained and independent boarding schools and staffing ratios, resource allocation and staff development. These would be in addition to collecting comprehensive data on the incidence of special educational needs, the number of children receiving special educational help of all kinds, and the use of different forms of provision. Evaluation 3.16.42 The quality and coherence of special educational arrangements can only be judged as a result of systematic procedures to evaluate provision and services. The Committee has been made aware of review and inspection procedures and some specific reports on different types of arrangement. At all levels there is very limited feedback about the results of special educational needs provision. Individuals who recommend placements often get little idea of how successful they may have been. Innovations occur with little monitoring or self-evaluation of their work and special units and schools are expected to justify their own existence. Little information appears to be available about the outcomes of different forms of provision in respect of individual children. It is possible for the Committee to comment on the quality of the work they saw but not its effectiveness. There is a need to institute more systematic procedures for reviewing the work of special educational needs provision and services. 3.16.43 The work of the Research and Statistics Branch has been of great assistance to the Committee. It has the capacity to study educational issues within a research framework and could make further contributions in the field of special educational needs provision. However it is not currently geared to evaluating special educational arrangements where a detailed knowledge of disabilities and difficulties and the progress of individuals is required. On the other hand the schools psychological service has the necessary skills if time can be found to use them. We would wish to see more small scale properly planned evaluation studies of particular forms of special educational needs provision and recommend that the schools psychological service be involved in carrying these

out. Conclusion 3.16.44 This Chapter has dealt with the Committee’s major suggestions for policy development, management and evaluation and we have made a number of specific recommendations consistent with the principles set out in Chapter I. These should provide a framework for considering the more detailed recommendations to be found in the following chapters.

Chapter 17 Resources and Provision in the Early Years in Primary and Secondary Schools and in Colleges and Adult Education Institutes Introduction 3.17.1 The Committee recognize that the Authority commits considerable resources to provision to meet special educational needs and would wish to endorse this commitment. In this chapter we consider the allocation of resources and make recommendations for the future development of existing provision. 3.17.2 In an earlier chapter it was noted that there were two opposing trends evident in the present pattern of special educational provision. On the one hand there are arrangements in schools, colleges and elsewhere whose purpose is to maintain and support children and young people with special educational needs in the same educational provision as all other children. On the other hand there are arrangements which are certainly seen by schools and colleges as a means of relieving them of children and young people whose difficulties interrupt the provision of education for all, or for those for whom they acknowledge that they cannot provide. It is necessary to reconcile these opposing attitudes in future. The current confusion results from changes that are not widely recognized. In the past special educational provision could be summarised as moving individuals away from comprehensive primary and secondary schools and colleges towards more and more separate provision. More recently the trend has been to see such arrangements as moving towards schools and colleges by providing more support to them and more co-operative arrangements with them to meet individual special educational needs. This latter trend is the one the Committee would wish to see strengthened. The Committee has already recommended (3.16.9) that any special educational needs arrangements made outside nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges should be developed as supporting provision to such schools and colleges and be linked as closely as possible to them. Resources 3.17.3 Brief details of the resources devoted to special educational arrangements were given in Chapter 4. The current arrangement of the budget does not make it easy to get a complete picture as some provision for this aspect of education is included in primary, secondary, further education, health, CEC and administrative sections of the budget. Overall there is a considerable commitment of resources. We recommend that at least the same percentage of any budget be committed specifically to special educational needs provision in future. 3.17.4 Resources devoted to the education of all children should increase support for children and young people with special education needs indirectly. The current trend to make more provision within nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges, and to deliver services to them from units and special schools’ will require resources. A changing pattern of service delivery can require more resources if it is developed while traditional forms of separate provision are maintained. It is also important that innovative work is more appropriately resourced on that account. Extra resources facilitate proper consultation, planning and preparation in unfamiliar circumstances and thus increase the chances of such innovations being successful. It is also important that resources are available to

allow time for the dissemination throughout the Authority of what is learned from innovative work of this kind. It is therefore necessary to look at the present allocation of resources as a whole and not solely in relation to particular services and forms of provision. The Committee has already recommended the delegation of responsibilities to Divisional level (3.16.23 and 3.16.24) and this implies resource management at that level within strict Authority guidelines. 3.17.5 There is one particular step which could be taken to release resources for more work of an integrative kind. As will be discussed later, there will need for a contraction in the current system of special schools and in some areas of off-site provision. This will be necessary for two reasons, first the continued fall in the school population, and secondly the increasing number of children being supported in primary and secondary schools. Some closures and amalgamations will be necessary. Any resources saved by closing schools are at present simply taken out of the budget. We strongly recommend that resources released by changes in special school provision be devoted to building up services to nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges and supporting individuals with special educational needs in them. If this recommendation is accepted then the recommendations made in later sections for improved services should be possible with teachers from special schools trained and redeployed for new responsibilities. Information 3.17.6 There is a major need for better information about provision and services to be made available to parents and professionals. The committee has become aware of local initiatives and has been impressed by the Directory recently prepared and issued in Division 2. Such information is not always readily available. There are two kinds of information and two target audiences. Information is needed about provision and services and about assessment arrangements and this information is needed by parents and by professionals, particularly those in health and social services. 3.17.7 When parents first become aware that their child has a disability or special educational needs, they are helped by knowing what services and arrangements are available in their area. Professionals also need to know the range of provision if they are to give sound advice and share their information with others. There is a clear need for local directories which set out the provision made for all children by all agencies and also set out those arrangements that are being made for children with special educational needs special educational needs in this phase of their lives being defined by the need for planned intervention and not just general care and education. We recommend that steps be taken to prepare local directories of educational services and provision where these are not already available. These directories should be prepared for parents and made available to representatives of ethnic minorities who should be encouraged to communicate the information to parents who need it. The Committee is not in a position to recommend how local areas might be defined or who might prepare such directories but it is envisaged that Divisional directories might be appropriate and that a small group drawn from education, social and health services and voluntary agencies might prepare them. Access 3.17.8 The question of access to schools and colleges for children with physical and sensory disabilities is a matter of concern. The issue is too complex to be dealt with in detail here, so further comments have been included in Appendix 3. However, we recommend that all educational establishments carry out an access survey of their facilities and services. In addition, further attention should be given to the creation of a small number of ‘barrier free’ schools and colleges across the authority. Lastly, the principle of a ‘barrier free environment’ for all new educational establishments should be accepted forthwith. Provision for children under five 3.17.9 The importance of early education for children with disabilities and developmental difficulties is now widely recognised. Their needs have been discussed in Chapter 6. They are similar in many ways to those of children with other special needs from disadvantaged social situations and to those of children whose language of the home is not English. Under five provision is essential if such children

are to make a successful start in primary schools. 3.17.10 The London area is comparatively well served by provision made by the ILEA, Social Service Departments, Child Health Services and Voluntary Agencies for a wide range of young children. However there are different emphases on care and education and an uneven spread of expertise. Parents find it hard to understand the complex pattern of services and provision. The Primary Committee in its report (para 1.19) recognised that it could not study this phase of education in sufficient detail, although our Committee members gave considerable time to special educational needs arrangements within it, there is, in this Committee’s view, a need to review all provision for children under five. This review should look at all the provision made by the Authority, by Social Service Departments, by the Child Health Services and Voluntary organisations who should participate in it and should take into account the specific recommendations made in the following paragraphs. 3.17.11 The assessment of special educational needs under five is not readily understood by parents and professionals in health and social services. Procedures need to be made clear. The pamphlet prepared by the Authority ‘Special Educational Needs Information for Parents’, issued while the Committee was at work is a useful start but this is mostly concerned with needs arising during the compulsory school period. A similar pamphlet concerned with procedures and provision for children under five, including arrangements for children under two, is required and we recommend that one be prepared. 3.17.12 Other aspects of assessment which require action concern the procedures themselves. With very young children many parents are reluctant to accept that their children have disabilities and developmental difficulties. This may be due to their attitudes to services of different kinds and to professional attitudes as well as to their own attitude to their children’s disabilities. Even when disabilities are obvious, parents need help to come to terms with them. They need time and counsel to understand and cope with the emotional and practical implications and to accept an active participation in planning to meet their children’s needs. Services of all kinds need to take this into account. Parents may get considerable support from other parents and parents’ groups. They may also be helped if initial placement in nursery schools, classes and other facilities are for assessment in the first instance so that they can observe their children’s responses before final decisions are made to make Statements of their needs. We recommend that all parents whose children are being assessed to see if they have special educational needs should be accompanied by another adult if they wish. Although the recommendation appears in a section on provision and services for children under five, the Committee considers it should apply to all ‘full assessment’ procedures at any stage of a child or young person’s education. Many voluntary organisations are in a good position to assist and support parents of children and young people with special educational needs and in the Committee’s view they should be invited to do so. We therefore recommend that the Authority invite Voluntary Organisations to provide support and assistance to parents during assessment procedures and other contacts with the education service at any stage of their children’s education. 3.17.13 During their children’s early years parents also need time to come to terms with the disabilities and difficulties which may arise. During these years time may also be needed to assess the nature of special educational needs over a period of time. For these reasons we recommend that greater use be made of assessment placements involving planned intervention over time in the years before the age of five. 3.17.14 There is a need for more systematic observation and record keeping in provision for children under five. The special educational needs support teachers working in this phase have given valuable support to teachers about these aspects of their work. The Committee was impressed by the example of multidisciplinary recording in use at the St Leonard’s Nursery School (Appendix 4). The form used, based on research by the National Foundation for Educational Research, is a useful means of recording which is relevant to teachers, parents and other professionals and agencies. We recommend

that there be a standard form for inter-disciplinary assessment and recording along these lines. 3.17.15 Multi-professional assessment involves teamwork which is often facilitated when there is a single base like the Mary Sheridan Centre, or where a district handicap team exists in which educational psychologists and teachers are involved. The latter can be particularly effective when it holds ‘clinics’ in nurseries and schools. We recommend that multi-professional teams be set up locally, where they do not already exist, along the lines described in Chapter 6 and that wherever possible they operate within settings which are familiar to children. 3.17.16 The work of home-school liaison teachers, pre-school advisory and support teachers and peripatetic teachers for specific disabilities is particularly important in the early years. At present services are thinly spread and uncoordinated. When possible an increase in numbers is required. More importantly their work needs to be developed on an area team basis and be available to all facilities for children under five. We recommend the formation of area teams of home visiting and peripatetic support teachers in which peripatetic teachers for specific disabilities work as consultants. Members of these teams should be linked to the clusters recommended in the previous chapter. It is probably most practicable to set up one or two pilot projects in the first instance and evaluate their work. If this were done at Divisional level, the Divisional Management Group could be responsible for team work. It is surprising that the only examples of providing parents with teaching programmes, as in the Portage Scheme, known to the Committee are being carried out by a voluntary agency and in Division 10 (Appendix 2). Such work is now well established in other areas. The Committee endorses the importance of such schemes which enable parents to participate in their children’s early education. Members also recognise that many home liaison and home teaching services do valuable work helping parents and providing educational approaches they can adopt. However it is necessary to distinguish this work from a properly managed scheme where a small professional group ensures that a number of individuals with different backgrounds work with parents in a systematic way. This is why we recommend that home visiting teaching arrangements to provide systematic early intervention programmes for parents and their children be made more widely available in the Authority. 3.17.17 The development of a range of provision and services for children below the age of five involves education, social and health services and voluntary agencies. A rationale for the placing within this range is also essential as are small panels or groups to make informed decisions. We recommend that the Authority, in co-operation with Health and Social Services and voluntary agencies, develop a plan for provision for children with special educational needs under the age of five, and that it set up appropriate mechanisms, at a local level, for interprofessional cooperation. Provision in Primary and Secondary Schools 3.17.18 Attention is turned first to provision made for the wider range of special educational needs in primary and secondary schools. The Committee recognises that many aspects of identifying and meeting these needs are common to all schools and that the suggestion already made for collaborative work within clusters should lead to a more unified approach to these aspects. However the Committee is strongly of the view that every school should be responsible for fully assessing and meeting the majority of special educational needs and that it is necessary for each phase to assume this responsibility in a slightly different way. 3.17.19 Some children will enter primary schools with special educational needs which have been identified in nursery schools and classes and elsewhere but the majority of children with the commoner and less marked special educational needs will only be identified by their response to what primary schools have to offer. The first group will be helped where there is an exchange of factual and appropriate information between nursery schools and classes and infant schools and departments and a continuity of concern and support from advisory and supportive services. The Committee’s recommendations, however, are primarily concerned with the second group. The Report of the Primary Committee “Improving Primary Schools” stressed the need for early identification and

considered that the majority of children showing difficulties in school should have been identified and assessed by the end of their eighth year: Similarly the Report “Improving Secondary Schools” (Appendix 3 paragraph 2) discussed this issue. In Chapter 12 of this report the importance of a school’s assessment and recording procedures was stressed. The sensitive assessment of special educational needs can only be done within a framework of curricular progression within which all children’s progress is monitored. Records of experience and progress on which teachers can plan future work are an essential context for the assessment of special educational needs. Schools need to extend to their procedures for all children, adding information where learning difficulties arise. They need to develop their own assessment and recording procedures for special educational needs. But they will need help from advisory and support services to do so and guidelines from the inspectorate and inspectors with special educational responsibilities. We recommend that guidelines for the early stages of assessment of special educational needs be developed and that each school be encouraged to develop its own procedures based on its own curriculum with the assistance of advisory and support services. 3.17.20 The school’s own records plus the additional material obtained from extending assessment procedures to identify special educational needs should be kept in a folder which is open and available to parents who should be invited to contribute to it. It is essential that schools recognise that it is not possible to make a comprehensive assessment for any kind of provision outside them without adequate information about a child’s experiences in school, and his or her progress and response to what is on offer presented professionally by those who have most contact with the child. A variety of supporting services may have made a contribution to the schools work or to work with individual children before referral for ‘full assessment’. It would therefore be helpful if schools kept a record of all visits by advisory and peripatetic teachers, educational psychologists, education welfare officers, health and social service personnel which indicated the purpose and outcome of visits and the forms of intervention to help the school on the individual which were suggested. We recommend that all schools keep a register of the visits of all advisory and support service personnel recording the nature of the visit, the children who were discussed and the recommendations of the visitors. Provision in Primary Schools 3.17.21 We have already drawn attention in Chapter 7 to the importance of a curriculum framework which clearly indicates how individual progress is to be judged. Similarly the organisation and management of a wide range of activities including team teaching and collaborative learning are an essential basis for meeting the variety of individual needs of children in primary schools. 3.17.22 Each primary school will also need to develop its own response to assessed special educational needs and this will require both staff time and knowledge. The Committee accepts the broad lines of argument of the report Improving Primary Schools” in respect of curriculum responsibilities. That is to say, in larger schools there will be sufficient teachers to cover the areas of responsibility set out, but in smaller schools there would need to be an arrangement like that advocated by the Primary Committee where a curriculum consultant works with teachers in a group of schools as well as teaching in one of them. The Committee would wish to apply the same principle to a teacher with responsibility for special educational needs. The time needed for work of this kind should be recognised in staffing allocations. We recommend that teachers be designated and trained to be responsible for advice on special educational needs as well as class teaching responsibilities and to be a member of a group of similar curriculum leaders in larger primary schools or in a group of smaller primary schools, and that time be allocated for this work. 3.17.23 The Committee gave some thought as to whether it might recommend that primary schools produce a plan on how they propose to meet special educational needs but decided against it on two grounds. First the Primary Committee recommended a school development plan and to require a separate one would add an unreasonable burden on schools but secondly, and more importantly it would not be consistent with the Committee’s integrative stance. Thus the recommendation we make builds on the Primary Committee’s recommendation. We recommend that the development plans prepared by schools, if the Primary Committee’s recommendation is implemented, include a

statement on how the school proposes to assess and meet special educational needs from its own resources and in co-operation with its supporting services as pail of its overall development. 3.17.24 Transfer from infant to junior departments and schools and from primary to secondary school is a particularly sensitive time for children with special educational needs. Early thought needs to be given to the effects of change for the individual. Three schemes have been noted in this report as practical steps to help transitions. They are the Top Infant Learning Themes Scheme (TILT) in Division 3, the third year junior review in Division 2 and the transfer conferences in Division 3 described in Appendix 2. Planning to meet special educational needs in the next phase is considered very important by the Committee which also endorses the recommendations made in the reports “Improving Primary Schools” and “Improving Secondary Schools”. Transfer arrangements are discussed in Chapter 7 and recommendations are made in Chapter 20 Section 4. Provision in Secondary Schools 3.17.25 The organisation of secondary school teaching has a significant influence on the way in which special educational needs may arise and be met. Procedures for identifying them and providing for them cannot be considered in isolation. Schools are asked to meet a variety of other special needs which may arise from giftedness, social disadvantage and English as a second language in their populations. A whole school policy to meet the educational needs of all children who attend it is therefore essential. The Committee are aware of the efforts of many schools to develop such policies but they are equally aware that schools are not always receiving compatible and consistent advice as to how they might meet all these diverse needs within existing resources. The Committee believes there is a need for the inspectorate to tackle this issue. We recommend that a small working group of secondary phase inspectors, multi-cultural and equal opportunity inspectors, inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities and educational psychologists be set up to develop guidelines for whole school policies for teaching organisation and management which are compatible with meeting a variety of special needs including special educational needs. We would expect this group to consult with primary and further education phase inspectors on aspects of continuity. 3.17.26 The Authority will then need to look at a staffing funding and service provision structure which supports special educational needs provision in secondary schools. At present there are no agreed principles about how such provision should be made and how it might be protected as school rolls fall. Schools allocate significant proportions of teaching time to meeting special educational needs as the Tables in Appendix I show, but such time is often the first to be cut when essential areas of the curriculum have to be covered. The move towards support teaching in ordinary classes and away from separated remedial classes also makes it difficult to maintain a level of provision. Classes cannot easily be left without teachers, but when there are two teachers in a class, one may be seen as less essential. The present form of the Curriculum and Staffing Analysis is not sensitive to the different ways schools may be meeting special needs including special educational needs. Nor does it show clearly how basic staffing ratios are used as distinct from the use of additional teaching resources allocated for specific purposes. The Committee has recognised the need for a whole school policy which is flexible and in which the ways in which schools meet all special needs may be an integral part of their organisation and allocation of resources. Nevertheless ways need to be found to describe this work more clearly in annual returns. We recommend that work to evaluate support teaching and estimate its staffing costs be undertaken as a matter of urgency. The development of acceptable models may make such work more easily defensible in the face of staffing pressures. 3.17.27 There are three aspects of the work of secondary schools about which the Committee wish to make recommendations. We recommend that every secondary school appoint a Head of Special Educational Needs provision at a sufficiently senior level to contribute to the management of the school as a whole and the development of arrangements in collaboration with other teachers. A further consideration is the contribution of subject departments and faculties to meeting special educational needs. We recommend that in all subject departments or faculties, one teacher be given the responsibility for developing the department’s work with less academic children and

those with special educational needs. We also recommend that there be a special educational needs resource base centrally located in each secondary school from which to develop support teaching and in which to carry out withdrawal work in addition to those developed by departments. 3.17.28 These recommendations are not new and in many schools such arrangements exist. However there are aspects of existing patterns of work which require further attention. Most of the time allocated to meeting special educational needs occurs in the first two secondary years. It falls of from the first year and little is provided in the fourth and fifth years. It is important that special educational needs are assessed and met in the first year and particularly necessary that needs that cannot be met by the school are recognised so that other arrangements can be made while there is plenty of time. Nevertheless many of these needs may persist and others may arise at any time. Some individuals may need help and support throughout their school career. The Committee has not been able to find satisfactory examples of longer term provision. We therefore recommend that much more attention be given to supporting young people with special educational needs in the fourth and fifth years of secondary schools. 3.17.29 Supporting bases and classes within secondary schools have been set up to meet a variety of special educational needs but most often for children with emotional and behavioural problems. The Committee has considered the Working Party Report on Off-Site Centres in Chapter 8. It is generally in favour of much more provision for the young people concerned within secondary schools. We recommend that every secondary school develop specific provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties which may include a support base. Where necessary resources should be transferred from off-site unit provision. Consultation with Governors and staff will be important but less significant if every school has such arrangements rather than only some of them. 3.17.30 The Committee’s attention has been drawn to the question of the size of secondary schools. Many professionals in supporting services and parents identify the large size of some schools and the complexity of their organisation as a source of stress and a factor in the emergence of some special educational needs. Other contributions suggest that size as such is not significant and that it is the attitudes of all who work in schools, management systems, and efforts made to be responsive to individuals which are most important. The Committee is not sure how to define large or small in relation to secondary schools and their capacity to provide the necessary range of curriculum options and special arrangements for particular groups. Members feel they should record this issue which is somewhat outside the Committee’s terms of reference. We consider, however, that every attempt needs to be made to make the children and young people with whom we are concerned feel valued in schools and to feel that all staff have their interests at heart. Post-School Arrangements 3.17.31 However comprehensive services and provision during the compulsory school years, the educational needs of children with disabilities and significant difficulties will not be completely met without further and continuing education preferably well into the twenties. The Committee considered this aspect of the education service in Chapter 10. Although not the primary focus of its work the Committee considers it important to make recommendations about its development as it is recognized that for all young people, especially those with special educational needs, a pattern of continuing education should increasingly be developed. During its work the Committee maintained links with the Authority’s 16-19 Unit and the sub-committee of the Inner London Tertiary Education Board considering provision to meet special educational needs. The Committee also jointly commissioned some research into the destinations of school leavers and college provision from Research and Statistics Branch. Unfortunately results were not available in full before this report was written. Some information about the destinations of school leavers in 1984 was made available and is included in Chapter 10. 3.17.32 The Authority has been active in making provision for young people with special educational

needs in colleges of further education and in adult education institutes and the progress made has been significant. Nevertheless there remain gaps in provision, an uneven distribution of provision across the Authority area and a lack of overall policy development. We recommend that there be a clear commitment to 16-19 provision for all young people with special educational needs within the overall policy development recommended in Chapter 15. No individual with these needs should be denied appropriately resourced and supported provision during this period of their lives. The commitment should continue whether young people remain in school or attend colleges and whether or not they have Statements made of their special educational needs. The Committee acknowledges the progress already made by the Authority in making provision within further education. 3.17.33 The Committee is impressed by the Authority’s commitment to provide for young people with severe learning difficulties up to the age of 21. For other young people, to attend colleges over the age of 19 involves the payment of fees and using public transport. Individuals with disabilities and significant difficulties are not always in a position to afford the cost of courses or to use public transport. It is for these reasons that the Committee would wish to see the Authority extend to other young people with special educational needs the same provision and services as are available to those with severe learning difficulties. We therefore recommend that the present provision and services available up to the age of 19 be extended to the age of 21 for young people with special educational needs. The Committee does not envisage that the numbers of young people covered by this recommendation will be large but it should make a significant difference to the lives of individuals particularly those who are most handicapped after leaving school. 3.17.34 The current range of provision and services has been described in Chapter 10. It will be recognised that some colleges have developed as resource centres for particular disabilities, supporting work in other colleges. This may be a helpful approach. However others have developed special units for young people with particular disabilities. There has been a tendency to believe that special’ colleges should be developed in which particular special educational needs are met. This is an approach which the Committee considers is inappropriate within its general principles. We therefore recommend that no ‘special’ colleges be designated and that provision and services be made available within all further education colleges. 3.17.35 Most of the current provision has been developed to meet the needs of young people leaving special schools. There is less certainty that young people with the wider range of special educational needs, leaving secondary schools will find appropriate provision. This is particularly true of less successful learners, those with learning difficulties and young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties. We recommend that more attention be given to the needs of these potential students without delay. 3.17.36 The present system of tertiary education boards at Central and Divisional levels is supported as an important initiative to rationalise provision in schools and colleges and to ensure that opportunities are equally available in all areas. The sub-committee of the Inner London Tertiary Education Board set up to consider meeting special educational needs is also an initiative the Committee would wish to endorse. There is also a need for similar groups to work at Divisional level. We recommend that the Authority set up similar sub-committees of Divisional Tertiary Education Boards. The central group should be responsible for producing guidelines for special educational provision for Divisional sub-committees and colleges. These should encourage the development of a similar variety of opportunities in each area of the Authority and also ensure that provision for young people with less common disabilities can have their needs met in their own areas as far as possible. To date provision for special courses has been made but the need for resources to support individual students on general courses has not been taken into account. As yet no mechanisms have been established for this purpose. We recommend that a system of resource allocation be devised which enables support to be given quickly and effectively to individual students with special educational needs on general college courses.

3.17.37 Administrative and inspectorial responsibilities for special educational arrangements also require clarification for those working in the field. The Committee endorses the principle that these responsibilities should be part of other further education arrangements and not separate from them. Thus although the experience of those concerned with special educational provision and services during the school period should be available, the primary responsibility should rest with further education administrators and inspectors. There is a particular training need in this respect. All further education inspectors, including those with subject responsibilities will need further preparation to be able to advise colleges and subject departments about this area of their work. We recommend that steps be taken to develop the expertise of those responsible for further education in respect of meeting special educational needs. 3.17.38 The work of colleges with students with special educational needs requires continued development. At present there are inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities who have further education in their assignments and two advisory teachers. This arrangement, although a beginning, does not provide a sufficiently sharp focus for development. It is now necessary for a member or members of the inspectorate with further education responsibilities to be given this task. We recommend that the Authority appoint a further education inspector to be responsible for this aspect of the work of colleges and adult education institutes. The Committee assumes that the specialist knowledge currently available with in the special educational team would also be available to the person appointed. 3.17.39 Each college should develop its own policy and provision to meet special educational needs within Authority’s guidelines. A few have written statements and have senior staff responsible for this area of their work. We recommend that all colleges have a written statement of their arrangements for students with special educational needs and have a senior member of staff at vice-principal level with responsibility for the development and oversight of this aspect of their work. We also recommend that Governing Boards of Colleges each have one member who is conversant with this aspect of college provision to represent its interests. 3.17.40 The question of the external services colleges will need in order to support special educational provision is discussed in the next Chapter. However the nature of their provision is dealt with here. There are broadly three kinds of arrangement which are most common namely (a) tutorial and other support for individuals following any course available to all students; (b) bridging and preparatory modules or courses to enable individuals to follow those courses and (c) separate special courses, for example, for students with severe learning difficulties. The Committee believes that the general principles outlined in Chapter 1 apply to colleges and we recommend that every effort be made to support individuals on courses available to all students and that supplementary modules or courses be developed towards this end. Separate special provision within colleges and elsewhere should be kept to a minimum and always provide opportunities for interaction with other students. 3.17.41 Provision during the 16-19 age range will need to be followed by continuing educational opportunities. We are aware of many of the initiatives taken by adult education institutes and strongly support the initiative taken in Southwark where a joint social services and education appointment has been made to further this work in an integrative way. We recommend that the Authority continue to develop educational opportunities for those who are handicapped, at least into their middle twenties and beyond and that an appropriate proportion of available resources be devoted to this end. 3.17.42 There has been a tradition of standing advisory committees in post-school education. These committees include both further education personnel and members currently working in elsewhere in the field concerned. The Committee believes there is a need for a group to advise the Authority on provision to meet all special needs in further and continuing education. With respect to special educational needs, such a group could provide a useful forum to which voluntary organisations could contribute. The dangers of setting up a separate committee are recognised. It could be seen as taking

responsibilities away for other groups which should also be considering multi-cultural, equal opportunity and special educational needs whatever their technical field of interest. However on balance we recommend that a Standing Advisory Committee for special educational needs in further education be set up for a period of five years when its work and its continuation should be reviewed. Conclusion 3.17.43 This Chapter has made major recommendations about special educational provision for the early years, in primary and secondary schools and in colleges of further education and adult education institutes. There currently exists a wide range of full and part-time special educational provision outside these comprehensive institutions. This is considered in Chapter 19.

Chapter 18 Provision in Units and in Special Schools Introduction 3.18.1 In this Chapter we consider arrangements made inside and outside primary and secondary schools in special units and classes, the range of special school provision and provision elsewhere. This Chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter 17 as many of the recommendations made there also apply to special schools and units. The provision of special arrangements inside primary and secondary schools and colleges is consistent with the Committee’s long term aim of integration, a process which it wishes to see strongly promoted. Provision outside them is not. However the Committee recognises that practical steps to promote integration will take time and for some time it will be necessary to have full and part-time units outside primary and secondary schools. During this period their work should be closely linked with those schools to support integration and not to become unnecessary segregative in the way they work. 3.18.2 The Authority has traditionally made extensive provision in day and boarding special schools. The staff of these schools have built up an impressive range of skills, techniques and materials which are an important resource. Again in taking its stance on integration the Committee recognises the value of this work and the necessity to retain the high level of skills within the special education system. While some special schools may continue to be necessary, most should now be moving towards a close association with primary and secondary schools with the eventual aim of using staff skills to support arrangements within them. This implies that primary and secondary schools should be moving towards an understanding of the special educational needs currently met in special schools. In this sense some of the Committee’s recommendations in this chapter should be seen as short term recommendations to be set within the overall policy for special education provision which the Authority will need to develop in response to this Report. Units and Classes 3.18.3 The Committee strongly supports the continued development of units located in primary and secondary schools provided they are well planned and their programmes offer the maximum opportunity for the children in them to associate with their contemporaries and join in the work of other classes in the school. The teachers in charge of such units should not only be full members of the school staff contributing to the school as a whole but also be members of cluster and Divisional groups. We recommend that units in schools cater for age ranges similar to those of their host school. Criteria for admission should be clearly stated and assessment and admission should involve support services outside the school as well as the school staff. A distinction should be made between units which serve the school, usually in secondary schools, and units which serve an area. In the latter case admission should be via the Divisional panels suggested in Chapter 16. 3.18.4 One other recommendation is made by the Committee about provision inside primary schools. The system of opportunity classes, set up in 1969 for a specific purpose, does not now serve these purposes satisfactorily. In all instances, needs and provision have changed since that time and, for the

reasons stated in Chapter 8, a new approach is needed. We therefore recommend that opportunity classes, in their present form, be discontinued and the skills of the teachers and the financial resources involved be made available for other forms of provision to meet special educational needs in primary schools. 3.18.5 There are a number of grounds for the extension of unit provision within selected primary schools provided it is well planned and supported. There are currently difficulties in meeting the needs of primary age children in some schools for moderate learning difficulties and some schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties. These difficulties arise from the preponderance of secondary aged pupils. For this reason we recommend that steps be taken to set up units for children of primary age with these special educational needs within primary schools. Such units should at least initially be linked with special schools whose senior staff should be responsible for the professional support of teachers-in-charge and for the curriculum to be offered. 3.18.6 The variety of off-site provision also requires some reorganisation so that there are clear criteria for admission and so that units cater for either primary or secondary age children, and in the secondary age range, either the first three years or years four and five. The Committee recognizes that there will be exceptions to this principle in individual cases but it should be adhered to for the majority of children. We recommend that all such units be linked as soon as possible with an individual primary or secondary school within a Divisional plan. Such links should be established to facilitate interaction between teachers in units and schools and between children. They should also be seen as part of the support to ordinary schools and provide assistance with meeting special educational needs in those schools. At the same time primary and secondary schools should provide enrichment for the curriculum and resources of the units. 3.18.7 All teachers in units should be considered part of a Divisional team coordinated by the Management Group, with sub-groups lead by teachers responsible for groups of units and teachers and accountable to the Management Group. A recommendation to this effect is made in Chapter 16. The Committee are concerned both to preserve the identity of different kinds of unit or teaching service where they continue to serve a useful purpose and to overcome the present fragmentation of provision. Within Divisions, mechanisms need to be found to bring together all those working with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties in primary and secondary schools, units and special schools to consider approaches to common problems, to understand each other’s work and to help in the development of an appropriate pattern of Divisional provision. Similar arrangements need to be made for those concerned with learning difficulties. We recommend that the work of all units located inside and outside schools be coordinated and evaluated at Divisional level by the Management Group already recommended. 3.18.8 Two other aspects of unit provision should also be mentioned. As with special schools they need social work, psychological and, on occasions, psychiatric support services available so that teachers can get appropriate help. Means should be explored to link local, child guidance unit teams to units within Divisional areas. Secondly as the result of the Off-Site Centre report and our Report some units may be closed or amalgamated. It will be important for the morale of teachers in primary and secondary schools if any resources released are directed to supporting the work of these schools and are not just absorbed into other educational sectors. Home Tuition 3.18.9 The Home Tuition Service has developed an increased variety of approaches to the needs of individual children in recent years. Over two thirds of all the children for whom they now provide have special educational needs. In addition to traditional home teaching services for children who are ill, the service is now supporting children in schools, teaching children, whose behaviour is unacceptable in schools, while their needs are being fully assessed and teaching groups of children in home tuition centres. In some respects these centres have become alternative part-time schools providing individual education programmes. The service is not linked closely with other special education although organised Divisionally. Reference has been made to the authorisation of home

teaching in paragraph 3.16.35. The increasing use of home tuition while children and young people are being fully assessed needs to be studied to see whether support in schools or assessment placements might be more appropriate in individual instances. Secondly the service should have much closer and clearly stated links with other support services available to schools such as those provided by the schools psychological and educational welfare services and child guidance units. We recommend that the Home Tuition Service be much more closely integrated with other special educational arrangements in each Division. The authorisation of home teaching should be delegated to Divisions within Authority guidelines and quotas, and the future development of the service should be considered within the context of all Divisional provision to meet special educational needs. Special schools 3.18.10 The Authority’s extensive provision of day and boarding special schools is now greater than demand. The grounds for a contraction of this element of special educational provision are twofold. The school population is continuing to fall, and even if the same percentage of children were to be admitted to special schools, fewer will be needed. But, if the progress towards more provision within primary and secondary schools is to continue and be speeded up as the Committee hopes, still fewer schools will be necessary. However the successful development of the process of integration will only take place if the valuable contributions of all the staff working in special schools is utilized and active steps are taken to enable them to contribute to and work in collaboration with the staff of primary and secondary schools and if the staff of these latter schools recognise the value of what the staff of special schools have to offer. 3.18.11 There will, however, be a longer term need for a few special schools to provide specific services to meet particular needs. Others may develop an active supporting role to primary and secondary schools within the Divisional arrangements we recommend. The Committee is not in a position to make precise recommendations about the future shape of special education provision. This will need to be worked out within the Authority’s policy, when adopted. There are however certain general recommendations the Committee would wish to make which should apply to all special schools. First for a variety of reasons we recommend that primary and secondary provision be separate. The increasing number of young children who are being supported in nursery and primary schools, the small groups of primary age children in many special schools and the recommendation for the development of units made in paragraph 3.18.5 means that fewer primary places will be needed. Where setting up primary special schools would result in long travelling times consideration should be given to arrangements which support individual pupils in local schools or to the establishment of units in primary schools. These arrangements would be linked to and supervised by the teacher responsible for a Divisional or sector service. Such arrangements are preferable to retaining small numbers of children in schools with a high proportion of secondary age children. 3.18.12 The second general concern is the relationship of day special schools to primary and secondary schools. The Committee have been impressed by a number of innovatory links that have been built up as a result of individual initiatives and would like to see these extended. It is for this reason we recommend that every day special school depending on its age range be formally linked with a primary or secondary school and, while all age schools exist, with both. We also recommend that the and regular reports be made on such links to the governors of the schools concerned. The reasons are the same as those advanced for similar links between units and schools set out in 3.18.6. 3.18.13 Where the numbers of schools allow it, all day special schools should be part of Divisional special educational arrangements. This would enable them to link with clusters of primary and secondary schools and other special educational provision. It would also encourage a move towards joint working arrangements with other facilities, be a necessary stage in developing as local resource centres and an important first step in promoting the process of integration. The contraction of the system should allow more time to be released to foster closer links with primary and secondary schools. It is important that this time is an integral part of the responsibilities of some teachers and

included in staffing allocations. 3.18.14 Turning to day and boarding schools which provide for children with physical and sensory disabilities, it is necessary to consider their future contribution within an integrative policy. For these schools the Committee envisages two main changes. First they should be linked with unit and peripatetic teaching provision to form unified services; Each service should be divided into sections each with a head of service responsible for arrangements within a small number of Divisions including contributing to Divisional panels completing Statements. Secondly they should move towards supporting more children within primary and secondary schools. Each unified service should be the responsibility of an inspector responsible for provision for the specific disability concerned. A unified service should prove more flexible in meeting individual special educational needs wherever they occur, and moving more children towards the primary and secondary schools will involve changes in staff responsibilities within the same team and not a handover from one separate form of provision or service to another. We therefore recommend that peripatetic teaching services, unit provision, and special schools for children with physical and sensory disabilities be reorganised into a unified service with specific elements of the service under responsible teachers to work to a small number of Divisional Management Groups. Boarding Schools 3.18.15 The Committee recognizes the difficulties inherent in the work of boarding schools and the quality of much of the work taking place in them. The Committee accepts that residential provision will continue to be necessary for some young people whose adverse circumstances hinder their educational progress. We differentiate these young people from others for whom boarding education is provided as a means of centralising resources. The group of boarding special schools raises complex issues some of which we have noted in Chapter 9. The Committee could not produce specific recommendations which might resolve them. Some issues are endemic to inner city areas in the current social and economic climate. Others relate to the contradictions inherent in educating children and young people from city cultural, class and ethnic backgrounds in schools situated in communities with very different class, ethnic and cultural characteristics. We however recognise that our general recommendation is made more in hope than expectation. We recommend that Divisional Management Groups, in collaboration with the Authority, negotiate with Health and Social Services to ensure that when residential provision is necessary for children and young people, this is made so that links with their homes, and local communities and with local services are as close as possible consistent with meeting the individual’s special educational needs. 3.18.16 There is also one general aspect of the work of boarding schools which requires immediate attention. This is arrangements for residential child care. The Authority has done much to provide training for residential child care staff which is appropriate and has encouraged senior staff to take responsibilities for developing this aspect of the work of boarding schools. However there is an absence of overall planning of residential facilities and practices. To make physical changes involves many different branches of the Authority. There seems no one person responsible for developing residential child care practices, including small group and independent living arrangements for older pupils, and for directly supporting the professional development of child care staff. The Committee was made aware of a move to make an appointment of this kind. We recommend that there be a senior staff appointment at Inspector level to be responsible for residential child care staff and this aspect of boarding school work. A major task would be to co-ordinate and develop facilities and practices which foster personal and social living skills and independence. A second task would be staff development and the building up of appropriate child care responsibilities and areas of work within schools. It may also be helpful if those in the child care service were linked with the unified social work service recommended in the next chapter. Residential and field social work form a partnership in the best social work departments and this partnership might be fostered in the Authority. It could be of particular significance in work with parents of children in boarding schools. Schools for Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 3.18.17 Suggestions have already been made about children of primary age with emotional and

behavioural difficulties. The Committee envisages that existing day schools would in future cater for the secondary age range working closely with other local schools and provision. The group of boarding schools outside the Authority’s area present a number of problems which require resolution. The Committee recognizes the difficulty of the work being done and the quality of much of this provision. The need for residential provision for young people is likely to continue where adverse circumstances hinder a child’s educational progress and where parents, who have difficulties, can only manage their children with the assistance of such provision. The Committee found that the criteria for using boarding schools were not well defined. We noted in paragraph 2.9.59 the initial steps being taken to produce criteria and we anticipate the need for further work in the light of this report. 3.18.18 One issue which requires further work is the relationship of boarding provision to child care arrangements made by social service departments. A decrease in social service facilities and resources is said to result in pressure to use boarding special schools as alternatives. The Authority needs to maintain a dialogue with social service departments on this question as we recommend in 3.18.14. 3.18.19 Although individual schools have different regimes there is no current plan for different approaches to children and young people with emotional and behaviour difficulties and terms of reference for individual schools are largely self developed. We recommend that the Authority consult with schools and associated professionals and construct guidelines for the work of individual schools which would take into account particular special educational needs. The Committee has in mind that three or four different kinds of approach might emerge so that some schools would have a more structured regime and others a regime more appropriate for neurotic and phobic children. Some might offer examinations courses and others an appropriate education for less able children. There also appears to be a strong case for some schools staffed to deal with a 14-18 year age range. Boarding schools for children with moderate learning difficulties, because of the degree of social and emotional needs of their children, should be included in the reorganisation. 3.18.20 Currently boarding schools of this type may receive children from all over the Authority’s area. They may have to work with 10 Divisions, numerous clinics and an indefinite number of day schools. Some effort needs to be made to link them more closely with local services. Bearing in mind the degree of specialization suggested, links with single Divisions would not be practicable. However it should be possible for schools to have links with services in two or three Divisions. We recommend that groups of schools with different terms of reference be linked with limited numbers of Divisions. 3.18.21 There are three other aspects of boarding school provision which the Committee consider need attention. A rather ad hoc pattern of arrangements has developed in which some schools otter residential education five days a week and some seven days a week. Schools appear to have the same staffing for residential care in the first two cases. The Committee considers that a reappraisal of current arrangements is necessary. It supports the need for children and young people in these schools to have the greatest possible contact with their homes but this contact should not result from a lack of genuine choice where schools adopt inflexible patterns of closure. We therefore recommend that boarding schools should be staffed to remain open seven days a week and that they be open seven days a week so that a genuine choice exists as to whether a child goes home at weekends or not. The question of schools being open over holiday periods for an extended year is a difficult one where educational and social service interests become confused. Educational recommendations are being made for this more extensive residential care and education partly as a result of a marked reduction in provision by social service departments. This is an issue which requires much further study. 3.18.22 Associated with the issue of extended year boarding provision is the question of joint education and social services provision both day and residential. There would seem to be a case for discussing jointly planned and financed provision for some young people who are the concern of both services and the Committee would wish to see this issue explored. However the Committee recognises the Authority’s difficulties in dealing with a number of social service departments.

3.18.23 Finally a number of residential placements continue to be made in non-maintained and independent special schools. Although a strict check is made on all such placements and some may continue to be appropriate, it is necessary to study what needs are not being met by the Authority’s wide range of provision. The Committee is aware that this also involves questions about the degree of parental choice which is possible when special educational arrangements are made. When reconsidering the functions of the Authority’s boarding schools it is suggested that this matter receives attention so that resources devoted to such placements outside the Authority’s provision are redeployed as far as possible within special educational provision in ILEA. Day and Boarding Special Schools 3.18.24 There are further number of aspects of day and boarding special school provision which the Committee considers require attention. The first is that in response to the 1980 Education Act schools have prepared their own rather general statements of what they provide. As part of the contraction and reorganisation of this form of special education provision it is important that new statements of the provision made by individual schools are prepared. We recommend that new statements of the precise curriculum and other services provided by individual special schools be prepared by schools in collaboration with other professionals who work with them and the Authority. Such statements should be made within a common framework devised by the Authority. 3.18.25 These statements should include the nature of the curriculum to be offered which should be developed in close collaboration with primary and secondary school curriculum groups. Particularly in the case of schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and moderate learning difficulties and delicate children, the curriculum they offer should be as similar as possible to that offered to children of the same age and abilities in primary and secondary schools. 3.18.26 These curricula should also include particular attention to the Authority’s equal opportunities initiatives, the needs of children from different cultures and those for them English is a second language. The educational needs of the small minority of girls in some schools should receive particular attention. We recommend that equal opportunities services and multi-ethnic services including the unified language service should work more closely with special schools and that these schools should give increased attention to these aspects of their work. Conclusion 3.18.27 Further subsidiary recommendations are made in Chapter 20. In the next Chapter the Committee sets out its major recommendations about Inspectorate, Advisory, Support and Peripatetic services.

Chapter 19 Inspection, Advisory and Support Services Introduction 3.19.1 The variety of inspection, advisory and support services provided by the Authority has been set out in Chapter 4 and in Chapter 11, where a number of issues were discussed. It is at this point that the Committee makes recommendations about these services based on that discussion and on the recommendations made in the previous three chapters. 3.19.2 There is now a general need to redefine functions of services, and the levels and kinds of intervention they make, if the available resources are to be used effectively within the general framework set out in this report. One general point has to be made at the outset. Separate territories and spheres of influence have been established by tradition which were based on the idea that special educational needs were the result of disabilities and deficiencies in the way individual children and young people functioned in school. The major implication of this report is that they are a result of a mismatch between the child and the situations with which he or she is faced. Educational situations determine the nature of special educational needs.

3.19.3 Advisory and support services have two broad functions with respect to special educational needs. On the one hand they contribute to the awareness of how they arise in schools and by working with teachers may prevent some of them occurring. On the other hand services become involved when such needs are identified and work with teachers to develop appropriate methods and materials for individuals and groups. These two aspects are closely related and a division of responsibilities between advisory and support services which (a) work with individuals and which (b) work with teachers and schools is no longer valid. Currently members of services with either one of these responsibilities get drawn into the other. A peripatetic teacher working with an individual must also work with his or her teacher and be sensitive to the class room context. An advisory teacher working with a class teacher inevitably gets drawn into discussion about the needs of individuals. It is for these reasons that the Committee stresses the need for greater coordination in the work of advisory and support services. The recommendations already made about clusters and Divisional teams require that, at a local level, all members of advisory and support services need to plan joint working arrangements to enable schools to receive consistent and coherent advice and support. The Inspectorate 3.19.4 The inspectorate has played a distinguished part in developing the quality of education in the Authority. Its procedures for inspection for reviewing the work of schools and colleges and developing in-service training make a significant contribution to the continuing development of a service sensitive to the needs of all children and young people. In the evidence collected by the Committee two particular issues arise. The first is how well primary, secondary and further education inspectors, with phase and subject responsibilities, are informed about special educational needs and the means of providing for them and what advice they are giving to schools and colleges about this aspect of their work. The second is how coherent approaches are being developed to meet a variety of special needs, including special educational needs, in schools and colleges. More collaborative work is required to tackle these two issues. We recommend that steps be taken to ensure that all members of the inspectorate are conversant with the issues covered in this report and that they have the basic knowledge with which to advise schools and colleges about assessing and meeting the wider range special educational needs. Close working arrangements with inspectors with special educational assignments and the schools psychological service will be necessary to achieve this. 3.19.5 Just as phase and subject inspectors need to come together to see how special interests can be combined in coherent curriculum advice to schools and colleges, so it is equally necessary that phase, multicultural, equal opportunity and special educational initiatives are presented in a compatible way to all schools. Members of the inspectorate with these latter responsibilities and with subject responsibilities and of the schools psychological service will have to come together to forge common approaches. This is difficult within the context of the many demands made on individuals. We recommend that a working group be set up to develop guidelines for a common approach to meeting a variety of special needs including special educational needs in schools and colleges. 3.19.6 The Committee recognises that the functions of the inspectorate are currently being reviewed and would hope its concerns would be part of that review. Recommendations made in Chapter 15 with respect to clusters and Divisional Management groups will affect all members of the inspectorate. The Committee is aware that a major question is what can be given up if new patterns of work are to be developed. This is not a question to which the Committee has answers but it hopes that some of its proposals for delegation may result in more time being available. 3.19.7 The responsibilities of the group of inspectors called ‘special education inspectors’ has changed rapidly over recent years. At first a smaller team was primarily responsible for all special schools. As these increased in numbers some special schools were assigned to inspectors in Divisions. The team was then increased in size and became responsible for all special schools. Over this period some units located inside and outside schools were included in their assignments while others were not. At the same time the importance of meeting the wide range of special educational needs within

nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges has been recognised and this aspect of provision has been included in their remit. Thus inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities now have a complex pattern of work. Inspectors working in Divisions are responsible for the special schools and some units as well as being available to colleagues in respect of provision to meet special educational needs in all other schools. At the same time each has an Authority wide responsibility for one aspect of special education and is assigned a number of boarding schools, including nonmaintained and independent special schools. A small group also work from County Hall with specific Authority wide responsibilities. The Committee recognises that the development of the high quality of the Authority’s provision for children and young people with severe learning difficulties owes a great deal to such an appointment. Other promising developments described in Appendix 2 have also been initiated by the team. 3.19.8 The recommendations already made will be of major concern to this group of inspectors. The Committee believe that they should make an increasing contribution to planning and developing special educational arrangements in cooperation with inspectors with other responsibilities and the schools psychological service. What they now need to do is to consider the recommendations of this report and provide coherent advice to the Authority and the inspectorate about the future pattern of services and provision. One specific point which needs to be considered is the description of those working in the team. The term ‘special education inspector’ no longer represents the range of responsibilities and more importantly it does not recognise the contribution of other inspectors to this field. We recommend that in future the description be inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities. The Schools Psychological Service 3.19.9 This service makes and will continue to make a significant contribution to special educational arrangements. This contribution is set within its general responsibilities to advise the education service about the psychological aspects of education and about individual development. The service currently represents a federation of individual professional interests. There is a need for a clear statement of the service’s views on major issues such as special educational needs provision in nursery, primary and secondary schools, the process of integration and the future of special schools. The service is currently developing its response to the Authority’s equal opportunities initiatives and it is important that it contributes to the special educational needs aspects of these. In our view the developments of the service’s views should be carried out in close collaboration with the inspectorate particularly members with special educational needs responsibilities. We recommend that the schools psychological service develop and implement a coherent approach, acceptable to its members, to meeting special educational needs within the framework of the Authority’s overall policy. 3.19.10 The schools psychological service manages three forms of special educational provision, tutorial classes, a teaching service for children with specific learning difficulties and educational guidance units. These work in relative isolation from other provision. Recommendations have been made for the coordination of provision at Divisional level and these arrangements should be included in any reorganisation. The valuable contribution of psychologists to the work of these units should continue particularly with respect to support for the teachers working in them and their in-service education. However, we recommend that the schools psychological service no longer be solely responsible for the separate management of any form of special educational provision. 3.19.11 Some aspects of the co-ordination of psychological services have been discussed in Chapter 11 Co-ordination at Divisional level occurs but the delegation of responsibilities to this level is not always clear. Given that the service develops guidelines for the work of its members, which while allowing for the exercise of individual skills, result in a consistency of approach to common problems, then this delegation should be more clear cut. We recommend that the service be organised on a Divisional basis. All psychologists working in a Divisional team should be accountable to the Divisional Educational Psychologist who would be a major contributor to the management and decision making groups already recommended.

3.19.12 The resources of the service are concentrated primarily on the compulsory school phases of education although some effort is made to provide a service to arrangements for children under five. The importance of early intervention, recognised by the service, should now be translated into increased attention to work in the early years. We recommend that steps be taken to train and allocate more members of the service to work with children under five, their families and other professionals who work with them. 3.19.13 The schools psychological service is not currently providing a service to colleges of further education and adult education institutes. Although some thought has been given to this issue and some individual contributions are made, it is now time to consider how the service can extend its terms of reference to include this work. We recommend that the service provide support for post-school provision of all kinds. 3.19.14 Assessing and meeting the special educational needs of children from ethnic minorities, and those whose first language is not English, has been receiving attention from the service in recent months. Active steps should continue to be taken to develop this aspect of its work including specific projects to explore issues and in-service education. Appropriate recruitment to the service is recognised as necessary and should receive further attention. 3.19.15 This Committee has suggested ways in which the schools psychological service might respond to children with special educational needs who are under five, students with such needs in colleges of further education, children receiving home tuition and children for whom English is a second language and from different cultural backgrounds. We have also recommended more involvement in the evaluation of special educational provision. There will be a need for the service as a whole and for Divisional teams to establish priorities and plan service delivery. We therefore recommend that Divisional teams of educational psychologists review their work, establish priorities and report annually to the principal educational psychologist on the way in which priorities are implemented. It is not clear to us how far the developments outlined can be met by retraining and reassignment, in the light of other recommendations in this Report, or whether additional appointments will be necessary. 3.19.16 We do not consider that the title ‘schools psychological service’ now conveys the breadth of its work nor would it be appropriate if this Committee’s recommendations are adopted. We considered a number of alternatives but were unable to decide on one of them. We do however suggest that a change of title be seriously considered. Social Work Services 3.19.17 The Authority provides or supports three different social work services, two administered by the Medical Department. Each has a different range of responsibilities in respect of clinics, special schools and nursery, primary and secondary schools, Currently no services are provided to further education although some work is done with individuals during the transition from school to further education. The Psychiatric Social Work Service, the School Social Work Service and the Education Welfare Service, all presently work independently in their own territories with little evidence of a cooperative planning of service delivery. Nor do there appear to be very clear guidelines about the nature and level of the services to be delivered to children and young people with special educational needs and their families. The Education Welfare Service has been the subject of a recent review but the work of the other two services has not apparently been subject to scrutiny. There are strong grounds for developing a more unified approach to social work provision, embracing all three services, particularly that aspect of the work associated with meeting special educational needs. We recommend that steps be taken to develop a unified social work service within the Education Department in which the special skills of the three present services are retained but coordinated in their delivery to schools and clinics on a Divisional basis.

3.19.18 As with the schools psychological service, provision of support for young people and their families is not systematically available when they are attending colleges of further education and adult education institutes. Such support is particularly important during the transition from school to further education. Similarly the staff working with young people with special educational needs in post-16 provision would value social work support. We recommend that the proposed unified service should have responsibilities for services to post-school provision when staff, parents and young people require them. 3.19.19 We have already mentioned the importance of contacts with families where English is a second language or where the culture is different. These become even more significant when special educational needs arise. The education welfare service has been active in recruiting members from different cultures and with different language skills. The unified service we recommend should continue to regard this aspect of recruitment as having a high priority. We recommend that the unified service ensure that it has workers able to communicate effectively with the major cultural groups. The use of social workers with these skills should be organised in such a way that they are available in all areas and can be called upon across Divisional boundaries when necessary. 3.19.20 The Psychiatric Social Work Service has the same basic training as the other services but has, through post-qualification courses and in-service education developed skills important for work in child guidance units and special schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties. In the useful evidence provided for the Committee it is evident that many child guidance unit teams are developing consultancy work in nursery, primary and secondary schools. However this is limited by the available time and in any event could not be available to all schools. Work in child guidance units and the special schools is relatively separate although steps have been taken to make closer links between workers in the two fields. Special schools value the attachment of psychiatric social workers to them and the contribution they make. The staff of schools would like to see more contact between their attached social workers and families before children and young people are admitted. While the special skills of this service remain available they should be used within an overall plan. The linking of boarding schools with Divisions already recommended should assist planning. We recommend that psychiatric social work services not allocated to boarding special schools be deployed on a Divisional basis, within the unified service we recommend, with one member of each Divisional team responsible for linking with Divisional management groups and panels. The service should develop its consultancy work within a Divisional programme of in-service education and school focused development work. 3.19.21 The School Social Work Service should develop along the same lines with members, who are part of Divisional social work teams, with particular responsibilities for forging links between other social workers and education welfare officers and Borough Social Service Departments. We recommend that those social workers not allocated to boarding schools be deployed on a Divisional basis as part of the unified service we recommend. 13.19.22 The Education Welfare Service is organised Divisionally with teams under a Divisional Education Welfare Officer. A move towards attachment to individual schools has been recommended and the Committee strongly supports such a move. With respect to the wider range of special educational needs the service can provide schools with important information about families and provide, where necessary, an important bridge between home and school. Where ‘full assessment’ procedures are to be instituted the service plays a crucial part in ensuring that parents know how schools see their children’s difficulties and know what the ‘full assessment’ procedures entail. It is therefore vital that all members of the service are familiar with assessment procedures of all kinds and with special educational provision whether full assessment is necessary or not for admission to it. We have a number of recommendations to make about this service. We recommend that all members of the service receive in-service training about the Authority’s special educational needs provision and assessment procedures. The Committee looks forward to the service becoming part of a unified social work service to schools and to the implementation of the review of its work that has recently taken place. Attachment to schools and groups of schools is essential if the bridges outlined above are

to be built effectively. We recommend that members of the service be attached to the clusters of nursery, primary and secondary schools already recommended. Senior members of the service should play a part in the Divisional management of provision and services outlined in Chapter 17. We recommend that the Divisional Educational Welfare Officer be a member of the Division Management Group and be represented on all panels considering special educational provision outside primary and secondary schools. 3.19.23 The actual and potential contribution of education welfare officers to the assessment of special educational needs has been discussed in earlier chapters. We are concerned that their contribution should be fully developed particularly as soon as assessment procedures are initiated. We recommend that the education welfare service be involved by schools in their extended assessment procedures so that relevant information about family circumstances can be made known to schools, and families assisted to participate in assessment procedures when special educational needs first emerge and when ‘full assessment’ procedures are initiated. Information available to members of the service should be made known and members of the service need to know the grounds for assessment if their contacts with families are to be helpful. We therefore recommend that the Divisional Education Welfare Officer ensure that members of the service are well informed about the reasons for ‘full assessment’ procedures and ensure that reports from members contribute to them where a child and their family is known to the service. Advisory and Support Teachers 3.19.24 Special educational needs advisory and support teachers work with under five provision, in primary and secondary schools and in further education. Only two advisory teachers work with under five provision and they are seconded for two year periods. Permanent appointments are made in each Division for the primary and secondary phases and two teachers are seconded to the field of further education. All these teachers work to inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities. There also primary advisory teachers, and advisory teachers working in the secondary field working to phase and subject inspectors. These teachers are primarily concerned with curriculum and staff development and do not work directly with individual children, although the evidence suggests that they are often consulted about them. There are also senior peripatetic teachers of children with specific learning difficulties who work to educational psychologists in each Division. The Committee is aware of arrangements in one or two Divisions to bring together all advisory and support teachers to discuss common concerns and to coordinate that work. These initiatives are strongly endorsed by the Committee which wishes to see close cooperation developed between all those working with schools at cluster and Divisional level. We see personnel forming part of a coordinated service arranged according to the following considerations: (i) The degree of specialisation with respect to the particular forms and severity of special needs. (ii) The relative proportion of their work which focuses on individual children or on consultative or in-service work. (iii) Their administrative responsibility within particular patterns of advisory and support work at cluster, divisional, or sector level. (iv) Their responsibility for secondary and tertiary, or primary and pre-school age phases. (v) The permanent or temporary nature of their employment for these tasks. The grouping, deployment and responsibilities of members of these services should be regularly reviewed to ensure their effective contribution to meeting the needs of children, teachers and schools

as a whole. It should also be coordinted with the work of teachers in units and special schools who may have responsibilities for support work in local schools. We recommend that the work of advisory and support teachers of all kinds be coordinated at Divisional level, and that priorities for their work be determined by inspectors working in the Division within Authority guidelines so that services provide coherent and compatible advice and support to schools. 3.19.25 Some issues arise where some advisory and support teachers are permanent appointments and some are seconded. We do not question the issue of secondment in principle but do consider that Authority wide responsibilities and those covering more than one Division, in the fields of special educational needs provision, take time to assume because it is necessary to become familiar with a large number of people, schools and agencies. We consider that short-term secondments in these services may be of limited value. Much of the first year of a maximum two year seondment can be taken up with coming to terms with what is required. Preparation is necessary for the advisory and support role as well as for the return to the previous appointment. It is also important that individuals should be able to develop and fully utilize the skills and experience they gain on secondment. We hope that our recommendations for co-ordination and flexibility in services will help with these issues and that individuals will be able to perform different roles at different times from the same appointment. The work of advisory teachers in further education is very clearly appreciated by colleges but the present allocation for two posts of this kind is insufficient. 3.19.26 The introduction of primary and secondary special educational needs support teachers is recognised by the Committee as an important initiative in developing special educational needs provision in schools. However clear terms of reference for their work were not developed at the outset and much has depended on individual initiatives. No criteria for coordinating and evaluating their work currently exists. The time has now come to develop general guidelines for their work, its boundaries and its relationship to other services to schools in the light of the Committee’s recommendations. We recommend that the work of special educational needs support teachers be coordinated and evaluated and terms of reference for their work developed and disseminated. Peripatetic Teachers of Children with Special Educational Needs 3.19.27 Teachers of this kind fall broadly into two groups, those concerned with specific disabilities such as those of vision and hearing, and those with responsibilities for learning and behavioural difficulties. The former work within an Authority wide service and the latter in Divisional services. With regard to services for specific disabilities such as vision, hearing and motor impairment we recommend that peripatetic teachers work within a reorganised service including special schools and units along the lines suggested in Chapter 16, and recommended in 3.18.4, providing a Divisional consultancy service. 3.19.28 Recommendations have already been made in Chapter 3.17.3 for Divisional teams for under five provision. These teams should work with all kinds of provision made by education, health, social services and voluntary organisations, and with assessment centres of all kinds, to ensure that early intervention programmes are widely available to parents and the staff of under 5 provision and to provide continuing support in their use. 3.19.29 The more general peripatetic services available at Divisional level also require co-ordination so that teachers currently working to phase inspectors, inspectors with special educational needs responsibilities and educational psychologists are all part of a unified service to schools accountable to the Divisional Management Group. It will also be necessary to appoint teachers in charge of services as is the case with the schools psychological service teaching service for children with specific learning difficulties who can co-ordinate specific areas of work within a Divisional framework. This is recommended in Chapter 16. More study is necessary of kinds of intervention which are successful in meeting special educational needs, for example, the relative effectiveness of short-term intensive work as opposed to arrangements for less frequent sessions over a longer period. We recommend a study of the patterns of work and effectiveness of different advisory, supporting and peripatetic teaching services to determine which forms of intervention are likely

to be most appropriate to meet different special educational needs. 3.19.30 Peripatetic teachers can also provide valuable support to post-16 provision. Some of the services to schools provide some help to colleges, as does the centre for the hearing impaired at the City Literary Institute. If the recommendations for post-16 provision already made in Chapter 17 are to be fully effective consideration will need to be given to the development of peripatetic teaching and support services in this phase of education. Child Guidance Units 3.19.31 Mention has already been made of the consultancy work of psychiatric social workers who are members of these terms in 3.19.10. Consultancy and support work with day schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties is also provided by these units. However other special schools, including those for children with moderate learning difficulties and units for children with behavioural difficulties also need support from child guidance teams. We recommend that links between child guidance units and all special educational provision in their areas be established including links with home tuition services so that all teachers in these facilities can call on the services of a designated multi-professional team. Social Services 3.19.32 The Authority’s links with social services and the need for joint planning have already been discussed. The main purpose of this section is to draw together suggestions for the consideration of social service departments when children and young people in their care may have special educational needs and when they have responsibilities for provision and services for children below the age of five and young people over 16. These matters were discussed in Chapters 5, 10 and 14. 3.19.33 The Committee would hope that social service departments recognise the importance of education for children in their care particularly the value of early intervention through systematic educational programmes in playgroups and nurseries. Although sufficient education services are not currently available to supply all the needs of children in these groups who may have disabilities and developmental difficulties, progress is being made. The Committee urges social service departments to be active in identifying children’s special educational needs with other services at an early age and seeking provision to meet them in close collaboration with the education service. 3.19.34 Where children and young people who are in care, or whose families are receiving help from social service departments, are the subject of ‘full assessment’ procedures, it is important that departments are active partners. This requires social workers to be familiar with LEA assessment procedures and with the rights and responsibilities of parents in these procedures. Social work contributions to assessment may be vital in determining the appropriate provision. We recommend that the Authority take steps to see that social service departments are given relevant information about procedures, provision and services and that social service departments ensure that such information is made widely known to their staff. 3.19.35 When young people with disabilities and significant difficulties leave school, especially boarding special schools, there is a particular need for social work support during the transition to employment, further and continuing education and training, or in current circumstances, unemployment. The Committee have been made aware of a number of gaps in this transition and urge that the Authority and social service departments study the particular needs of young people considered handicapped during this period to see what can be done to provide appropriate social services to young people and their families. Health Services 3.19.36 There are three major areas of the work of health services to which the Committee wishes to draw attention. These have been discussed in more detail in previous chapters. They are provision in the period before the age of five, health services to primary and secondary schools and health services in the post-school period.

3.19.37 In the pre-school period the Committee has been impressed by the value of multi-professional centres like the Mary Sheridan centre and by the work of District Handicap Teams or Child Development Teams particularly when they visit nurseries and schools and work closely with them in the assessment of special educational needs. The Committee are strongly of the view that work of this type should be extended and that there should be child development teams working with the education service in every District Health Authority area. 3.19.38 Most special schools in the ILEA area have adequate health service provision although there is an uneven provision of some paramedical services. The importance of these services must be recognised by District Health Authorities and given a proper priority within their resource allocation. However the main issues brought to the Committee’s notice are related to services in primary and secondary schools. These include the relatively infrequent follow up of individuals with medical conditions identified in the examination made on entry and the lack of information about the educational implications of these conditions made available to schools. A dialogue is necessary since schools need to make clear their concerns and needs and health services need to be well informed about children’s education. This is not simply a question of locked confidential medical filing cabinets in schools. The Committee accept the need for proper confidentiality of information given by parents and children to doctors and nurses. The main point is that where a child’s condition known to the health services might affect his or her education then active steps need to be taken to ensure that teachers know the implications of conditions and treatments. Parents should not be encouraged to think that schools need not know about health problems which may affect their childrens’ safety and progress in schools. The Committee hope that this aspect of the work of school health services will receive continued attention. 3.19.39 Because health services in general have not always been able to provide continuity between schools and colleges and between child health services and adult services, young people between 16 and 19 may lack appropriate services. This is particularly true in colleges of further education who do not find it easy to call upon appropriate health service support for young people with special needs of all kinds. When the school health service ceases to have responsibilities no other service seems readily available. We recommend that the Authority takes active steps to discuss the issue with District Health Authorities to see what can be done to provide health services to further and continuing education institutions attended by young people with special education needs. Conclusion 3.19.40 This and previous three chapters have been concerned with the Committee’s major suggestions and recommendations for provision and services for children and young people with special educational needs. The final chapter of this report sets out other interim and subsidiary recommendations linked with the Chapters in Part II.

Chapter 20 Interim and Subsidiary Recommendations Introduction 3.20.1 The four previous Chapters have set out the Committee’s major recommendations for the future development of provision and services. The Committee also wishes to make a number of interim and subsidiary recommendations. These are directly linked to the discussion of current provision, services and issues in Part [I, but many apply more generally. The way the Committee worked, in the short time at its disposal, resulted in some areas of work being studied in greater depth than others, but the number of recommendations made in each section does not reflect the attention given to each aspect of provision and services. Some of the recommendations are interim and all should be implemented within the general framework outlined in Chapters 16 to 19. 3.20.2 The reason for this form of presentation is that the Committee did not wish to see the inclusion

of these recommendations in Part II because this might interrupt the flow of the report and reduce the impact of Part III. The recommendations which follow are grouped under the chapter headings of Part II of this report. References to paragraphs in those chapters are also given. The Committees Reports ‘Improving Primary Schools” and “Improving Secondary Schools” have, in making their recommendations, identified those to whom they are addressed and who would take the lead in their implementation. Because of the wide range of individuals, groups, institutions, and statutory bodies who will contribute to the implementation of this Committee’s recommendations to a greater or lesser degree, we have not felt it appropriate to attempt to ascribe responsibility and have indeed felt that in many cases it may have a restrictive effect. We however recommend that reports on progress in the implementation of these recommendation’s be made to appropriate sub-committees in the usual way. Chapter 6 Provision for Children under five 3.20.3 (i) Paediatricians and those working in community health services should receive relevant information about (a) procedures within the ILEA for assessing special educational needs and (b) the range of provision available to meet them. (2.6.5) (ii) Provision for very young children under two may in some cases be most appropriately made by a voluntary agency and the Authority should support such provision. (2.6.9v) (iii) Clearly presented information should be made available to parents about assessment procedures and the purpose of particular examinations. (2.6.10) (iv) Resources should be available to support assessment placements to assist staff and to enable children to be observed and assessed alongside other children. (2.6.14) (v) Local teams should be formed representing all those working with young children to assess and plan the use of available provision and services. (2.6.20) (vi) The role of home liaison teachers should be extended to cover the transition to nursery classes, nursery schools and primary provision for all young children with special educational needs. (2.6.34) (vii) Attention should be given to the practical needs of parents, particularly working parents, when provision and services to meet special educational needs is being considered. (2.6.58) (viii) The work and training of education welfare officers should be extended in order to provide more effective home-school links and to give parents more support during formal assessment’ in the early years. (2.6.59) (ix) All services should recognise the need for counselling and time for parents to work through the discovery of disabilities and difficulties and to come to terms with them. (2.6.63) (x) The Authority should liaise with local social service departments to produce guidelines for social service involvement in assessment. (2.6.60 iii) (xi) Review procedures should be initiated for all children under five with special educational needs before their entry to full-time education. (2.6.67)

Chapter 7 Provision in Primary and Secondary Schools 3.20.4 (i) Attention should be given to the continued development of assessment and recording procedures in schools which both inform subsequent teaching and provide an effective basis on which to extend the assessment of special educational needs. (2.7.15 and 2.12.7) (ii) The educational implications of disabilities and health conditions should be better understood by members of the school health service and by the staff of schools. Even minor conditions may affect a child’s learning. The contribution of the school health service to assessment and supporting children with special educational needs in primary and secondary schools also requires attention. A more effective dialogue between school staff and health service personnel should be developed. (2.7.14) (iii) A report to Governors should always include a comprehensive section on the special educational needs identified by schools and the provision being made to meet them. (iv) There should be an extension of parent participation schemes of all kinds (e.g. PACT) particularly where children appear to have learning difficulties. (2.7.18 and 2.7.73) (v) The curriculum framework developed by primary schools should clearly indicate how individual progress is to be judged, by its specification of stages and sequences of learning, so that emerging special educational needs may be more easily and immediately identified. (2.7.9) (vi) Aspects of primary and secondary education, which are causing concern in respect of how children’s special educational needs are met, should be the subject of ‘action research’ by groups of teachers. These groups should identify common difficulties and investigate them with the object of developing practical school based solutions. (vii) Opportunities should be created for team teaching where class teachers and teachers with responsibilities for meeting special educational needs share the planning and teaching. This will not only be to the advantage of the children being taught but also of mutual benefit to the teachers concerned. (2.7.22) (viii) Schools should evaluate the effects of team teaching on the quality of learning and on meeting individual needs so that the ongoing assessment of children’s special educational needs and the means to meet them becomes an integral part of the planning, organisation and management of team work. (2.7.22) (ix) Schools should have a rationale for working with advisory and support services. This should result in a plan for making the best use of what these services have to contribute to the work of staff and children, and to the curriculum. (2.7.25 2.7.33) (x) The disturbing effects of closure and amalgamations on children and young people with special educational needs should be recognised and steps taken to see that provision to meet these needs is a defined element in reorganisation plans. (2.7.39) (xi) The relationship between special needs and special educational needs require clarification with respect to the ways in which schools meet them. Primary school

development plans and whole school’ policies for secondary schools should include attention to this relationship. (2.7.41) (xii) With the increasing development of mixed ability teaching more attention should be given to the support which teachers need to meet special educational needs within mixed ability classes. (2.7.54) (xiii) The respective and collaborative roles of staff with pastoral care and special education needs responsibilities in secondary schools require clarification. (2.7.43) (xiv) Forms for recording Curriculum Analyses and Staff Deployment used in secondary schools require modification to record more accurately and flexibly a schools response to special educational needs. (3.17.26) (xv) Attention should be given to the way in which the progress of children in primary and secondary schools, who are the subject of Statements, is reviewed and statutory reassessment procedures carried out. (2.7.59) Continuity and Transfer 3.20.5 (i) Whenever a pupil transfers from one school to another at a normal point of transfer or at any other time, headteachers should ensure that a written record is sent to the new school if possible well in advance of the pupil. (2.7.80) (ii) Written records of pupils who have had, have or may have special educational needs should contain the following elements: (a) precise, chronological, factual details of any special provision made, and of the involvement of any services or agencies outside school; (b) information on progress and achievement in different curriculum areas that will be useful in making future teaching plans; (c) an account of strengths as well as weaknesses; (d) specific details of how pupils’ needs have been perceived and assessed, of measures taken to meet those needs and an evaluation of the success or otherwise of those measures; (e) examples of pupils’ work. (2.7.92) (iii) Teachers of infants, when new pupils are admitted, should obtain from parents their perceptions of their children’s needs and development to date, and give these perceptions due regard alongside information from other sources. (2.7.11) (iv) There should be a source of funding to enable the temporary use of additional resources for special educational provision for assessment purposes pending the completion of a ‘full assessment’. (v) Each Division should arrange annual Primary/Secondary Transfer Conferences according to the model already established in Division 3, to enable teachers of 4th year juniors to discuss the special educational needs of their pupils with the Heads of special educational needs or learning support departments in the secondary schools to which the majority of their pupils transfer. (2.7.96)

(vi) Provision should be made for regular reciprocal visits by teachers in neighbouring primary and secondary schools so that they may become familiar with the curriculum and organisation of each others’ schools. Among many other advantages this will facilitate constructive and relevant dialogue concerning the special educational needs of pupils transferring between the schools concerned. (2.7.93-95) (vii) Provision should be made during the summer term for secondary teachers who will have specific responsibilities for pupils with special educational needs in the following September to visit these pupils’ primary schools in order to see them functioning in their present context and to discuss with the pupils themselves and with their teachers any special educational needs that might arise at secondary school and possible ways of meeting them. (2.7.93) (viii) When a pupil transfers from one school to another within the same phase, the headteachers concerned should arrange a meeting between themselves and/or teachers in their schools so that there can be a full discussion about how the pupil’s needs may best be met in the new school. (2.7.98) (ix) When a pupil is to transfer from a primary or secondary school to a special school, the Head of the pupil’s present school should arrange (a) for additional written records, over and above the advice associated with the Statement of Need, to reach the special school well in advance of the pupil and (b) an opportunity for dialogue between a teacher in the present school who knows the pupil well and a teacher in the new school. This recommendation applies equally to day and boarding special schools. (2.7.99) (x) Procedures for transfer from special school to primary or secondary school should be clarified, and they should include provision for a visit by a teacher in the primary or secondary school to the special school before transfer takes place. This recommendation applies equally to day and boarding special schools. (2.7.99) (xi) Colleges should ensure that requests made for information about prospective students both from the students themselves and through reports from schools include questions designed specifically to elicit information about any special educational needs the students have at present or may have at college. (2.7.102) (xii) The transfer of relevant written records or individual students from schools to colleges should be made an automatic part of transfer procedures, and where prospective students have or may have special educational needs provision should be made for meetings between teachers in schools with knowledge of such pupils and college tutors. (2.7.102) Chapter 8 Provision in Special Classes and Units 3.20.6 (i) The staff of all units located outside schools should become part of Divisional teams led by teachers of seniority and experience. (2.8.39-44) (ii) Particular attention should be given by appropriate inspectors and advisors to curriculum development in units. (2.8.39-44) (iii) Criteria for the admission of children to units located outside schools should be clearly stated. (2.8.42) (iv) Procedures for admission to and discharge from units should be reviewed and

redefined within the Authority guidelines and Divisional plan recommended in Chapter 16. (v) The work of units should be evaluated as should the response of individuals to them. (2.8.39-44) (vi) The teaching staff of off-site units including Educational Guidance Units should not be less than three as recommended by the Off-site Centre Working Party. (2.8.33) (vii) The Authority should review with District Health Authorities the planning of speech therapy provision in speech and language units to ensure that arrangements for appropriate staffing are made well in advance of their being established. (2.8.9) Chapter 9 Provision in Special Schools 3.20.7

(i) Special schools should be subject to quinquennial review procedures. (ii) Special schools should take part in the Alternative use of Resources Scheme (AUR) which applies to other schools. (2.9.83) (iii) Criteria for admission to all special schools and kinds of special schools should be redefined. (2.9.10) (iv) The recognised accommodation of special schools should be renegotiated with the Department of Education and Science. (2.9.22) (v) The career development of teachers in special school should receive particular attention within the reorganisation of special education suggested in Chapter 16. (2.9.21) (vi) The particular needs of girls and children of primary age should be urgently reconsidered in relation to their small numbers in some special schools. (2.9.5) (vii) The reorganisation of special school provision should be carefully planned to make full use of existing resources. (2.9.23) (viii) Capitation and out of schools activity allowances should be reviewed to deal with current discrepancies. (2.9.83) (ix) Specific attention is required to the particular needs of hearing impaired children from homes where English is a second language. (2.9.33) (x) Further attention is needed to appropriate provision for children with a combination of hearing and visual impairments which are severe. (2.9.35) (xi) Current provision in day and boarding schools for children and young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties should be rationalised. There should be a degree of specialization to reflect the pattern of needs and the age ranges of pupils recommended to attend them and closer links with Divisionals services. (2.9.63) (xii) Child care staff in boarding schools should be linked with the proposed unified

social work service on similar lines to those that exist in social service departments. (2.9.70) (xiv) Close links should be forged between special schools and units for children with similar special educational needs. (2.9.78) (xv) All special schools should provide teacher support to young people on linked courses in colleges of further education. (2.9.75) Chapter 10 Post-School Provision 3.20.8 (i) Once the entitlement to full-time provision and associated services to the age of 21 is established, the Authority should consider extending that entitlement up to the age of 25. (ii) The work of Research and Statistics Branch should be extended to take fuller account of post 16 provision. Research into the destinations of all school leavers should include desired as well as actual destinations. (2.10.9) (iii) The allocation and resourcing of provision for special educational needs should be guided by the principles outlined in Chapters 1 and 10, whatever mechanism is used. (iv) The Inner London Tertiary Education Boards and Divisional Tertiary Education Boards should strive to achieve a flexibility within mechanisms for course and resource allocation which will allow individual needs to be met. The allocation of a budget ‘ear-marked’ for meeting special educational needs to each local Divisional Tertiary Education Board could allow for local decision-making on resource allocation in response to expressed needs. Such a budget could be used for additional teaching hours, aids and equipment. (2.10.28) (v) The current course approval forms allow for resourcing of special educational needs within ‘special’ courses. No satisfactory mechanism exists for resourcing support systems for students on other college courses. The budget suggested above should also be used for this purpose; information could be gathered in two ways: (a) All ‘special’ courses should be asked for information on likely destinations of the students. Where these involve a further course (i.e. a progression) resources needed to support such progression should be specified. (b) At the end of the academic year and/or at the beginning of a new session, colleges should be invited to give details of all students with special educational needs not in category (a) who will be following general college courses. The estimated resources needed to support each student should be listed. (c) Some mechanism for ensuring speedy delivery of resources should be devised. (2.10.29) (vi) Teaching hours allocated for special or foundation courses should reflect the need for small group work, team teaching and course team meetings. (2.10.55) (vii) The Authority should ensure that there are sufficient Foundation and Bridging courses throughout the Authority to cater for students with sensory and physical

disabilities. (2.10.58) (viii) The Authority should examine ways in which the services offered by schools, colleges and adult education institutes can be used flexibly to meet individual needs, and should establish new systems for assessing fees and recording placements for resourcing purposes. (2.10.25) (ix) Levels of clerical and administrative support in colleges should be increased in line with additional work arising from provision for special educational needs. (2.10.78) (x) The Authority should recognise that there may always be a need for residential placements for a few young people. Funding for such placements in non-ILEA establishments should only be reduced as appropriate alternative placements within the Authority become available. (xi) Each college should be issued with guidelines on provision for students with special educational needs. These should include appropriate staffing ratios, the siting of courses, the equipment and aids available and support and advisory services which can be called upon. (2.10.29) (xii) Initial training for all further education teachers should include preparation for meeting special educational needs. This should be an integrated and coherent part of the whole course. All Institutions at which teachers are trained should use current skills and expertise from relevant fields of practice. (2.10.33) (xiii) The Authority should make in-service training relating to special educational needs for teachers in the post-16 sector an urgent priority; this should be of two types (2.10.79): Authority-run courses for teachers specialising in, or wishing to specialise in prevision for students with special educational needs. Institutionbased and designed in-service education programmes for all teachers who may have students with special needs in their classes. This latter type should form the core of staff development initiatives, and colleges mounting such programmes should be resourced with visiting teacher hours. (2.10.79) (xiv) When Authority budgets are fixed, a sum should be allocated for resourcing inhouse, in-service education. The allocation of these resources to institutions should be based on provision made or planned, and evidence of staff development proposed. (2.10.79) (xv) In-service education should involve both teaching and non-teaching staff in colleges. (2.10.79) (xvi) Appropriate in-service education for subject inspectors should be made available. (2.10.79) (xvii) The Authority should mount programmes of management training in relation to special education needs. (2.10.79) (xviii) Each college should have a written policy on provision to students with special needs. This policy should make explicit selection procedures, the support systems available for staff and students and avenues for pregression. (2.10.67) (xix) In each institution a senior member of staff of at least Vice-Principal status should have overall responsibility for the development of provision for students

with special educational needs. This responsibility should form a major area of work. The model of Vice-Principals with responsibility for ‘Appendix 2’ work serves as example. (2.10.67) (xx) Each college should have a member of staff of at least senior lecturer status whose responsibilities include the oversight and co-ordination of provision to meet special educational needs. This person should work to the vice principal with overall responsibility and act as a first point of reference for students, staff and outside agencies about this aspect of the college’s work. (2.10.69) (xxi) The Authority should initially extend entitlement to use of ILEA transport to the age of 21 for all students with severe special educational needs. Students on 21 hour courses beyond this age should have the same entitlement. (xxii) Each college should produce a plan of each of its sites indicating access paints and facilities available for disabled students. Each should also undertake minor works and improvements following guidelines issued by the Authority and should be appropriately resourced. (2.10.23) (xxiii) Special Foundation and Bridging courses should be: (a) situated in main college sites; (2.10.73) (b) designed to provide maximum opportunity for integration and progresssion; (c) make links with the adult education sector in order to promote opportunities for continuing education. (xxiv) Departments biased towards pre-vocational and vocational education should be asked to review their curriculum offer with a view to creating increased opportunities for students with special educational needs. (xxv) Colleges’ interview and selection procedures should be examined and if necessary re-designed to ensure that proper account can be taken of applicants’ special educational needs. (2.10.76) (xxvi) Selection interviews should be used to establish what support, for example tutorial support, aids and equipment, will be needed for the applicant to study effectively. (2.10.77) (xxvii) Status and responsibilities of General Duties Assistants in Colleges should be reviewed. (2.10.74) Chapter 11 Inspectorate, Advisory, Peripatetic and Support Services 3.20.9 (i) The initiative developed in Division 9 for joint in-service training and work with schools by inspectors with primary and special education responsibilities and primary advisory teachers and special educational needs support teachers (primary) should be extended to other Divisions. (2.11.10) (ii) Educational Psychologists should develop contractual arrangements with all the schools with which they work. (2.11.19) (iii) The contributions of the schools psychological service to staff development and

in-service education should be planned and coordinated within Authority and Divisional programmes. (2.11.24) (iv) Advisory teachers for special educational needs in further education should work to the further education inspector with similar responsibilities recommended in 3.17.35. (2.11.29) (iv) Social work support should be available to schools for moderate learning difficulties. (2.11.42) (v) The support of child guidance unit and psychiatric teams should be available to all special schools on a planned basis. (vi) All special schools should have a school attached education welfare officer. (2.11.43) (vii) The education welfare service should produced a booklet for parents describing the work of education welfare officers, including special reference to their work in the area of special educational needs. This booklet should be made widely available to parents. (viii) Advisory and support services should be available to students with special educational needs in post-school institutions. (2.11.55) (ix) Divisions should prepare plans for in-service education including provision to meet special educational needs within Authority guidelines. (2.11 .63) (x) The Authority should consult with institutions of higher education over the development of their contribution to in-service education. (2.11.67) Chapter 12 Aspects of Assessment 3.20.10 (i) The Authority should ensure, as far as practically possible, that the staff of schools and other services convey to parents, children and young people a positive attitude to assessment and to provision to meet special educational needs. This should emphasise the contribution made to special educational needs by the contexts in which they occur. (2.12.3) (ii) The Authority should continue to emphasise the importance of effective and comprehensive assessment procedures to judge the response of all children to the education they are receiving, which take into account the broader concept of achievement outlined in “Improving Secondary Schools” and which contribute to their subsequent teaching. (2.12.4) (iii) The Authority should issue guidelines on the ways schools’ assessment and recording procedures for all children can be extended to investigate special educational needs and provide indications of how they can be met within primary and secondary schools. (2.12.11) (iv) Where schools think full or part-time provision elsewhere may be necessary, they should prepare a systematic appraisal of children’s special educational needs including their strengths. (2.12.15) (v) Where full-assessment’ procedures are to be initiated education welfare officers should be fully briefed about children’s needs and school’s views before they meet

parents to deliver the letter required by statutory procedures. (2.12.20) (vi) Education welfare officers with knowledge of different cultural backgrounds and languages should be able to work outside their own areas and be available across working and Divisional boundaries where their skills and experience can help families from different cultural backgrounds. (2.12.34) (vii) More information in their own language or through brief representatives of their cultural communities should be made available to parents for whom English is a second language. (viii) Parents, particularly those who are members of ethnic minorities, should have some choice in where their children’s special educational needs are assessed. (2.12.35) (ix) Parents should be involved in discussions about the options available to them and their children at the time statements are being prepared. (2.12.22) (x) The schools psychological service should engage in further work on the assessment of the special educational needs of children and young people from ethnic minorities. The project they have proposed in Division 5 should be supported. (2.12.32) (xi) Assessment in the later stages of schooling should identify special educational provision which might be necessary in further education. Where a young person is the subject of a Statement and chooses further education rather than schooling such an assessment should have the status of a Statement. (2.12.39) Chapter 13 The Parents Perspective 3.20.11 (i) The Authority and District Health Authorities should ensure that the information given to parents by each of them is compatible and that parents understand the distinction between medical and educational assessment. (2.13.14) (ii) Attention should be given in cooperation with voluntary organisations, to developing a model for parental contributions to assessment. (2.13.19) (iii) Closer links should be developed between schools and parents where children have special educational needs. (2.13.38-42) (iv) The viability and practicality of team approaches to assessment of the kind available at the Mary Sheridan Centre and through some District Handicap Teams should be carefully examined and extended. (2.13.53) (v) Access to all the exchange of relevant medical information concerning the educational implications of disabilities and health conditions should be improved and coordinated. (2.13.54) (vi) The role of the named person’ should be further explored by the Authority and an extension of work of this kind undertaken. (2.13.69, 2.13.76) (vii) There should be an increase in the availability of Adult Education Classes, workshops and courses for parents with children and young people with special educational needs. (2.13.78)

(viii) Parental involvement in schools particularly in contributing to their children’s education and understanding the curriculum should be extended. (2.13.78) (ix) More use should be made of adequately resource assessment placements with full parental involvement. (2.13.78) (x) Governors, including parent governors should receive more training and support to understand the special educational needs of children and help necessary for them and their parents. (2.13.78) (xi) More attention should be given to the needs of parents whose circumstances and experiences make them less able to express their views and participate in assessment and special educational arrangements. Means should be found to facilitate their involvement in their children’s education. (2.13.78) Chapter 14 Voluntary Agencies, Health and Social Services 3.20.12 (i) Voluntary organisations should play a major role in enabling parents to understand special educational needs and provision and providing them with information and support. (2.14.16) (ii) Voluntary organisations should be invited to assist with the formation of a group of volunteers who would be helped to develop the skills necessary to advise and support parents of children and young people with special educational needs. (2.14.17) (iii) There should be agreed procedures between the Authority and District Health Authorities about: (a) Criteria for referral of under twos to ILEA (b) Information provided for parents (c) Referral to voluntary organisations. (2.14.22) (iv) There should be agreed procedures for assessment and for making statements appropriate for children under the age of two. (2.14.24) (v) Procedures for the referral of children under five to ILEA social services, health services and voluntary provision should be clarified. The use of panels for deciding about appropriate provision should be investigated in order to rationalise the use of available services and provision for children under five. (2.14.31) (vi) Attention should be given to the medical support of children with special educational needs in nursery schools, day nurseries and schools. Where ongoing assessment is taking place a specific medical input may be invaluable. Some schools and day nurseries feel under-supported in this area. Conversely others have a high level of support. The practice of District Handicap Team meeting periodically in education and social services provision is strongly endorsed. (2.14.29) (vii) The development of specialise assessment centres like the Mary Sheridan Centre, Lambeth, which can coordinate a range of expertise for the under-fives and which can provide ongoing support within the child’s placement should be given priority. There appears to be considerable duplication and fragmentation in assessment at

present, particularly for children under-five, and a rationalisation of resources could make services more acceptable for parents and more accessible for professionals. (2.14.29) (vii) The provision of paramedical services should be reviewed and ILEA in discussion with District Health Authorities should endeavour to equalise the availability of these services within and across Divisions. (2.14.34) (ix) Particular attention be given to the needs of minority ethnic groups not only in providing interpreters but in ensuring that health services provided through schools are fully understood and utilised. (2.14.35) (x) The health requirements of young people in further education appears to suffer because of the current lack of input into education by adult health services. This has serious consequences for the availability of paramedical services and attention should be given to rationalising such provision. (2.14.39) (xi) Social services departments should review procedures for contributing to the assessment of special educational needs particularly where children and young people are in their care. Procedures similar to the Avon Authority’s ‘In Tandem’ Scheme should be developed. (2.14.46-47) (xii) The Authority should coordinate post-i 6 arrangements with social service departments to ensure that further and continuing education and social service provision to complementary and not competitive in relation to the choices young people have to make. (2.14.52) (xiii) Health, social services and the Authority should discuss their priorities for developing services for children and young people with special educational needs particularly below the age of five and over sixteen to ensure that there is comprehensive provision which is appropriately used by all agencies. (xiv) Health and social services should be urged to increase their efforts to recruit personnel from ethnic communities so that parents of children and young people with special educational needs may be helped to understand the information given to them and may have better opportunities to communicate their concerns effectively with the help of personnel sensitive to their language and cultural differences. Research and Evaluation 3.20.13 Throughout this Report we have raised issues which clearly require further research. In addition many of our recommendations will require effective monitoring and evaluation. We have not been able to define or give attention to all these areas in detail. One such area for example is the provision and progress of children who are the subject of statements and who are being educated in primary and secondary schools. The Committee would wish to emphasise that research monitoring and evaluation at all levels from the classroom (3.20.4vi) to the institute of higher education are essential to a successful implementation of its report. We therefore recommend that relevant research is undertaken at all levels by teachers, schools, services, facilitated by the Authority, in association with appropriate institutions of higher education, to monitor and evaluated developments which stem from this report. Conclusion The Committee has reviewed the range, quality and coherence of provision and services to meet

special educational needs and made recommendations for future developments. We are confident that our proposals are consistent with the Authority’s wish to provide equal opportunities for all within the education service. It is important to recognize that this report is based on the belief that special educational needs and handicaps are relative to the contexts in which children and young people are educated. The principles outlined in Chapter 1 are fundamental to the recommendations made. The aims of education are the same for all and the common human needs of children and young people are of greater significance than their individual abilities or difficulties. Children and young people learn, and develop self esteem, when they receive praise, encouragement, approval and affection. They overcome difficulties when they are educated in an environment which accepts them as individuals and does not discriminate against them on the grounds of sex, race class or disability or when they are less successful in schools and colleges. The attitudes of all those with whom children and young people with special educational needs come into contact are therefore at least as important as the provision and services made for them. We hope that our Report will help to generate, in the educational community, more positive attitudes to the children and young people with whom we have been concerned and make access to equal educational opportunities a reality for all.

Appendix 1 Meeting Special Educational Needs in Secondary Schools 1.1 In this Appendix the Committee gives further details of the analysis of Schools’ Curriculum Analysis and Staff Deployment returns and an example of the special needs and special educational needs which are currently evident in one secondary school. Before turning to the statistical analysis it is perhaps useful to look at a single school. Special Needs in a Secondary School 1.2 The school in question is neither representative and nor was it chosen at random. The main reason for the choice was the availability of detailed evidence because this is regularly submitted to Governors as part of the head’s report. The Committee is grateful to the Chair of Governors and the head for permission to use this data. 1.3 The purpose of providing the information which follows is to illustrate in a practical way the special needs and special educational needs which arise in one school. It is not suggested that the information is necessarily typical although that the needs identified and the actions taken to meet them are common to many schools. 1.4 The school is a girls secondary school which is situated in an area which is not at either extremes of the social disadvantage indicators used by the Authority and described in Chapter 2. The number on roll in Years 1-5 in February 1985 was 550. 1.5 The special educational and other special needs being investigated, met or otherwise dealt with at that time are located in the following Table. It illustrates the scope of the needs and the different agencies involved in working with the school. 1.6 In summary a recognised need or difficulty has been identified in 225 of the children attending the school and they are neither confined to any particular ethnic group or to one of the LEA bands of ability. 1.7 The special needs identified have to be set alongside the changing intake of the school particularly in respect of the Heritage Language of pupils. The schools figures show that the proportion of children entering the school for whom English is not the first language has risen from 19.5 per cent in 1981/82 to 27 per cent in 1984/85. Although this may be due to families in some ethnic groups choosing a girls school rather than a mixed school, and although such pupils may not have special educational needs, they have special needs which have to be met. In total 162 girls speak 27 different languages. 1.8 Finally details of heritage languages do not indicate other multi-cultural needs which may arise as part of the school population is of Afro-Caribbean origin.

Table 1.1: Particular individual needs and actions

Need or Action

1

2

Suspected or Confirmed Non-Accidental Injury

1

3

Referral to the Educational Psychologist (a) Referred (b) Pending

— 23

7 —

Children on Whom Case Conferences have been held

—

Referrals to the Education Welfare Service (a) Referred (b) Pending

Year 3

Total 4

5

1

5

3 5

3 —

7 —

20 28

3

—

3

4

10

17 13

19 —

27 —

33 —

47 —

143 13

Referred to or on the books of Social Service Departments (know cases) (a) Referred (b) Pending

1 16

8 —

8 —

3 —

9 —

29 16

Pupils in Truancy Projects

—

4

8

0

—

12

Behaviour and Learning Difficulties—Withdrawal 25 17 7 15 10 74 and in Class Support (24 withdrawal and 21 in class support timetabled periods of 55 minutes) Withdrawal for English as a Second Language Work— 8 9 4 2 2 25 Withdrawal and in Class Support (20 withdrawal and 16 in class support timetabled periods of 55 minutes) Attending a Language Centre

1

5

1

5

—

12

Off-Site Provision Child Guidance Unit Tutorial Class IT. Centre Projects Support Units (a) Attending— (b) Pending

— — — — — —

2 1 — — — —

— — — — — —

1 — — — 5 1

— 2 2 8 5 —

3 4 2 8

Exclusions 1-3 days Pregnancy

— —

4 —

5 —

4 1

1 —

9 1

Suspension Upheld

—

—

—

1

—

1

Curriculum Analyses and Staff Deployment

1

1.9 This section provides fuller information about the data derived from Schools Staff Deployment and Curriculum Analyses. The Committee wishes to thank Mrs Hilda Coles who prepared this data and commentary. 1.10 The data was compiled from the ‘Curriculum Analyses’ returned by ILEA secondary schools at the beginning of the 1984/85 academic year. The limitations of the data for identifying ‘remedial’ or special educational needs work in full are outlined in the main text. (Chapter 7). 1.11 Some schools did not breakdown their ‘Remedial’ provision by year and are therefore shown in the category “some”. No account has been taken of the provision made in special units by a small number of schools. 1.12 ‘Total teaching periods’ were standardised by dividing the total teaching periods for each school by the number of periods in a school’s week. 1.13 The following Tables present in full the data summarised in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 in Chapter 7. 1.14 Product moment correlation coefficients were calculated in order to assess the possible relationships between some of the identifiable factors. There was, in a number of cases, a low to correlation which was statistically significant. Two illustrative examples derived from the data are provided in Table 1 .5.

Table 1.2: Distribution of schools by per cent remedial teaching Percentage of Remedial Teaching 0 Less than 1 From 1 to 2 From 2 to 3 From 3 to 4 From 4 to 5 From 5 to 6 From 6 to 7 From 7 to 8 From 8 to 9 From 9 to 10 From 10 to 11 From 11 to 12 From 12 to 13 From 13 to 14 From 14 to 15 From 15 to 16 From 16 to 17 From 17 to 18 From 18 to 19 From 19 to 20 From 20 to 21 From 21 to 22 From 22 to 23 From 23 to 24 From 24 to 25

1 5 1 8 10 10 6 2 9 8 8 5 14 6 8 6 5 4 2 1 3 6 3 1 1 2

Number of Schools/Year 2 3 4 5 7 3 4 11 7 15 11 14 8 11 11 10 6 3 8 2 1

18 5 9 16 17 15 15 12 8 11 3 1 1 1 1 1

41 10 24 22 11 9 10 4 2 1 1

54 15 26 20 9 5 3 3 1 2

6 137 5 2 1

1 2

1 1 1 1

Number of Schools Some Provision No Data

134 11 3

134 12 2

Mean Remedial % Standard Deviation

10.3% 7.0% 6.0% 4.1%

135 11 2

137 10 1

140 8

145 2 1

4.5% 3.4%

2.3% 2.4%

1.7% 2.5%

0.1% 0.3%

NOTE The decline in percentages from Year 1 to Year 3 may be more apparent than real where school organisations change to setting for subjects and sets of less successful pupils may be seen as meeting some special educational needs. Similarly the organisation of courses and options in Years 4 and 5 may include similar provision not specified on the returns. Table 1.3: Distribution of mixed ability schools by per cent remedial teaching Percentage of Remedial Teaching

Number of Schools/Year 1 2

—0 From 0 to 5 From 5 to 10 From 10 to 15

10 21 28

1 4 18 14

3 1 7 14 14

From 15 to 20 From 20 to 25

14 11

3 0

1 0

Number of Schools Some Provision

84 7

40 7

27 5

Mean Remedial % Standard Deviation

12.4% 5.5%

9.3% 3.9%

7.1% 4.2%

Table 1.4: Per cent remedial teaching and average band 3 and average total teaching periods Percentage of Remedial Teaching

YEAR 1 Band 3 TTP No. Percent of Schs

YEAR 2 Band 3 TTP Percent

YEAR 3 No. Band 3 TTP of Percent Schs

—0 Less than 1 From 1 to 2 From 2 to 3 to 4

28 30 From 10 to 11 to 12 24 From 12 to 13 to 14 26 From 14 to 15 to 16 18 26 29 23 24 28 From 21 to 22 From 22 to 23 From 23 to 24 From 24 to 25

20 28 0 19 40 41 46 45 52 8 8 28 51 26 48 32 42 43 33 49 38 52 38 36 35 36

30 47 0 36 10 10 6 2 9 23 30 51 14 49 8 56 5 4 2 1 3 6 49 53 79 68

5 1 0 8 21 21 23 29 24 56 57 5 28 6 24 6 23 0 29 1 25

20 26 20 20 44 46 44 41 45 11 11 25 45 26 52 37 90 0 51 1 47

30 45 38 43 7 15 11 14 8 26 24 46 6 40 8 82 1 0 1 1 1

7 3 4 11 24 24 24 30 27 50 51 10 23 3 30 2 0 0 0 40 0

19 33 18 21 40 5 22 47 9 22 48 16 From 3 48 17 From 4 to 5 48 15 From 5 to 6 46 15 From 6 to 7 47 12 From 7 to 8 54 8 From 8 to 9 11 From 9 to 10 3 23 86 1 From 11 51 1 42 57 1 From 13 34 1 40 79 1 From 15 0 0 From 16 to 17 0 0 From 17 to 18 0 0 From 18 to 19 47 1 From 19 to 20 0 0 From 20 to 21

Some Provision

26

51

11

26

49

12

26

21 21 25 23 25 45 55

No. of Schs

3 1 1 2 50

11

NOTE The Band 3 percentage is derived from other data and not the Staff Development and Curriculum Analyses.

Table 1.5: Average remedial teaching by band 3 and total teaching periods

Band 3 Percentage

YEAR 1 Total teaching periods L35 35 — L 55

RM% No.

RM% No.

55+ RM% No.

Total RM% No.

L 20 20 to 29.9 30+

5.9 9.0 13.1

8.7 13 10

12 11.2 10.6

10.6 25 19

12 11.3 15.6

8.0 16 8

43 10.7 12.4

54 37

Total

8.6

42

10.5

56

12.0

36

10.3

134

VR 3% Percentage

YEAR 2 Total teaching periods L35 35 — L 55

RM% No.

RM% No.

55+ RM% No.

Total RM% No.

L 20 20 to 29.9 30+

4.1 7.2 7.9

18 19 5

5.1 6.6 8.0

11 31 14

7.5 8.3 11.2

13 15 8

5.4 7.1 8.9

42 65 27

Total

5.9

42

6.7

56

8.7

36

7.0

134

VR 3% Percentage

YEAR 3 Total teaching periods L35 35 — L 55

L 20 20 to 29.9 30+ Total

RM% No.

RM% No.

55+ RM% No.

2.0 3.9 6.4 3.4

3.1 4.9 5.8 4.7

3.5 4.5 8.4 5.4

16 23 4 43

12 30 14 56

Table 1.6: Product moment correlation coefficients (i) Band 3 pupils and percentage of remedial’ periods Year One Year Two Year Three

r = 0.29 (p.01) number of cases 134 r = 0.34 (p.01) number of cases 134 r = 0.43 (p.01) number of cases 135

(ii) Total teaching periods and percentage of ‘remedial’ periods. Year One Year Two Year Three

r = 0.23 (p.01) number of cases 134 r = 0.29 (p.01) number of cases 134 r = 0.25 (p.01) number of cases 135

8 18 10 36

Total RM% No. 2.7 4.5 6.8 4.5

36 71 28 135

Appendix 2 Introduction 2.1 When members of the Committee were visiting a wide range of provision and services they identified a number of interesting practices which they would wish to see more widely known. There may well be other examples not brought to the committees attention. In the sections which follow a number of innovatory schemes, practices and arrangements are mentioned. Some are described in detail, some briefly and the purpose is to provide examples which illustrate aspects of the Committee’s report. Provision for Children Under 5 2.2 The Sunley House Project at Toynbee Hall Sunley House, which is part of Toynbee Hall, provides a key service for Bangladeshi mothers who need extra help and support, in particular if their children have special needs. Fathers also use the Centre for counselling and advice, for example on housing and similar matters. Among the children present there are always six or seven with special needs. Apart from school holidays children coming to the Centre are generally of pre-school age. Toynbee Hall would, resources permitting, open the Centre not only Monday-Friday but also on Saturdays. The Children have a variety of developmental play activities. Children normally attend for the whole day, and a very simple, (and cheap) lunch is provided. Mothers bring their own. Great emphasis is laid on helping mothers to cope with handicapped children correctly, and to teach skills like feeding. Regular home visits are also made by the staff to offer help and support. The Mothers can and do attend a variety of classes throughout the week. These include play, health for the family, general housekeeping, practical skills for living in London; English as a second language and motivation classes. The latter are designed to make the mothers more confident about moving around, making friends, and generally coping with life in an inner-urban area. The mothers and children within the Toynbee Hall catchment area are overwhelmingly of Bangladeshi background, and neighbouring schools are made up entirely of Bengali speaking children. Consequently as might be supposed, the mothers and children attending the Centre similarly are of Bangladeshi background, and the staff are all bilingual in Bengali and English. The staff consists of a Director, an assistant, a Bangladeshi woman doctor and a driver/secretary, together with a small number of volunteers. The Adult Institute provides a part-time teacher of English as a second language. Negotiations are in progress with the Tower Hamlets Adult Education Institute for assistance with salaries. The Principal and Head of the Languages Department have been specially sympathetic, and the Institute has been helpful during the summer programme. It is much to be hoped that the assistance will prove possible, conceivably retrospectively, and with a reinforced staff. There is no doubt that the Centre has much to offer. It has a reputation for successful work with mothers and children including children with special educational needs. It has the potential to expand this work and among planned activities is the use of the centre as an Assessment Centre for pre-school and primary aged children. This is an innovative project which could be extended to other areas. 2.3 THE KIDS Family Centre, 13 Pond Street, London NW3 Background The Centre was founded in 1977. It is one of two family centres run by KIDS and has the central philosophy of helping parents to help the child within the family and to provide a personal service for

any families with children with a variety of special needs who live in or near Camden. ‘Special needs’ are flexibly defined and can mean handicap, developmental delay or social and emotional problems. On average there are about 87 families with their children on the Centre’s register. Age at referral varies from 24 hours to 20 years. There is no fixed period for attendance at the Centre. Participation in any activities will be maintained as long as the family needs them. The Centre works very closely with all local and professional and voluntary agencies. Families using the Centre come from a variety of backgrounds and currently include Chinese, Malaysian, Middle Eastern, African and UK parents. Staff The Centre is staffed by a director (who is also clinical psychologist); a qualified teacher; a nursery nurse; a speech therapist; an administrator and a part-time secretary. Volunteers are used for a number of activities and the medical students from the Royal Free Hospital (which is over the road) are often involved. Admission Procedures Referrals come from social services, GPs, health visitors, voluntary organisations and frequently from the Royal Free. Parents can and do refer themselves. An initial interview is always arranged prior to admission (usually at home). Great attention is paid to parents’ expressed needs, since the Centre aims to develop an individual programme for each family and to build up confidence and capability, the Centre’s descriptive leaflet notes ‘our services are designed to be non-addictive’ and parents are actively encouraged to use all statutory and voluntary services in Camden which are appropriate to their needs. Each child has a file which is open to parents and in which progress is carefully monitored and reviewed every six months. Parents share in writing reports on their child’s progress and in defining goals. In planning a programme, one member of the Centre staff is named to act as key worker and to ensure that objectives are achieved. Reports (with parents’ consent) are sent to any professionals already working the child. Links with other services The Centre has good links with local nursery, primary and secondary and special schools. Local health visitors, social workers and other professionals visit as appropriate. Centre staff are increasingly in contact with the local schools psychological service and with the education welfare service, with particular reference to ‘formal assessment’ procedures. There are links with the local social services respite care scheme and with the Royal Free Hospital. Management The Management Committee has representatives from health education and social services, as well as parents and members of local voluntary organisations serving on it. A clinical psychologist is used as a consultant for staff development and support and for professional advice. He is a member of the Management Committee. The Home Based Learning Service The central service available to parents of pre-school children is the Home Based Learning Service. This is a structured teaching programme modelled on Portage programme. Teaching objectives are carefully selected in order to choose appropriate skills for each child. Parents receive regular weekly or fortnightly visits (of one hour) from a trained Home Adviser. Activities are programmes to take no more than 15-20 minutes a day and participation by other family members is encouraged. The clinical psychologist has overall responsibility for the programme. When a child joins the service, the principal physician (child health) and any other professionals already working with the child are all informed and receive copies of the six monthly reports. Every effort is made to tailor the programme to individual family needs. It is not intended to compete with attendance at day nurseries, nursery schools, childminders or playgroups. The programme can be used with non-family caretakers and is adapted to current stresses or to language, cultural or literacy needs.

Other activities (a) The Centre provides general advice, information and counselling. It has comfortable accommodation, with a kitchen and large sitting room, and is used as a base for a number of parent support groups. Parents can be visited at home and a variation on the Home Based Learning Scheme is for staff to visit three weekly or monthly with a modified programme. Developmental play sessions are designed for parents of young children and aim to guide parents in appropriate play activities which will help to develop the cognitive, expressive and social skills of their child. These sessions include a weekly group for toddlers; individual weekly sessions and parent and baby groups. (b) The Centre runs a number of recreational activities in holidays, including a summer playscheme. Volunteers (in particular Royal Free medical students) have developed a pilot scheme to offer babysitting for younger children and recreation and companionship for adolescence and young adults. This scheme is called Spectrum and is a separate organisation from the Centre. (c) A number of special activities are run for brothers and sisters, including periodic Family Days on Saturdays and activities in the school holidays. (d) Staff can accompany parents and child for professional visits, visit children in hospital and take part in case conferences organised by other agencies. Parents are always asked for consent before any information is shared outside the centre. (e) Volunteers are used to ‘pair’ physically handicapped children into youth clubs, play centres and other integrated leisure activities. At present 19 volunteers are linked to children and young people. General Comments KIDS is funded through charitable fund-raising (by the head office of KIDS); urban aid; grants from Camden Social Services, and currently a DHSS grant under the ‘under fives initiative’ in order to establish and evaluate an early intervention programme using trained parent counsellors. Parents are increasingly using the Centre staff to help them with regard to the 1981 Act ‘formal assessment’ procedures. Parents using the Centre who met members of the Committee warmly endorsed the Centre’s combination of practical advice, professional support and counselling role in helping them, and their children, to feel more confident, and capable and to use local services as effectively as possible.

2.4 The Mary Sheridan Centre, South Western Hospital, Landor Road, London SW9 Background The Mary Sheridan Centre was established in 1982 to assess pre-school children within the West Lambeth Health Authority, who have (or are thought likely to have) special needs. Provision can be made for the occasional assessment of older children with complex needs if required. The Centre is jointly funded and managed by Health, Education and Social Services and has a well equipped nursery class with facilities for individual therapists and professionals as required. The Centre is open in term time only and is staffed by an educational psychologist; a specialist health visitor; a speech therapist; a physiotherapist; a nursery teacher and assistant (employer by ILEA); a social worker (who is based in social services special services section) and a secretary. Management The Centre is accountable on matters of policy to the District Handicap Team. The educational psychologist, teacher specialist health visitor and social worker are all members of the District Handicap Team and liaison is close with regard to referrals, ongoing assessment and review and community links, Regular monthly meetings with professionals working in the local community with pre-school children ensure that services are coordinated and not duplicated and that parents’ and childrens’ needs are fully met.

Assessment Referrals to the Mary Sheridan Centre come from various sources, including nurseries, nursery schools and classes, GPs and health visitors, etc. Children are assessed on a two-four week block placement, attending from 9.30 am to 1.30 pm. One parent attends throughout. Much of the assessment is based on continuous observation in the playroom where the child’s stage of development and ability to relate to others is observed whilst the child is involved in various activities. A toy library operates two days a week and in school holidays so that developmental play activities can be maintained at home. Many of the children are initially referred because of language delay or disorder and a significant proportion of children have mothers who are themselves depressed and communicate little with their children, or come from single parent disadvantaged homes where there has been little opportunity for spontaneous stimulation and play. Places for assessment are usually available within three to five weeks of referral and children have a full medical beforehand to identify any physical, sensory or major developmental problems. Parents are encouraged to participate throughout the assessment and the physical environment is warm and friendly. The specialist health visitor visits all families after assessment to ensure that they have fully understood what has happened. She or the family’s own health visitor then follow up every two months. They will contact the child’s present nursery or other placement if necessary. Children are usually reviewed at five. Liaison Members of the Centre liaise fully with other services and facilities in the community. These include nursery classes in special schools and primary and secondary provision; social services day nurseries; home liaison teachers; peripatetic teachers for the partially sighted, the hearing impaired and the physically handicapped; health visitors; the Hilda Lewis Regional Assessment Centre and other specialist assessment centres such as the Newcomen (at Guys). Resources for the treatment of any special needs identified during assessment exist within the community and it is considered to be important that the members of the multi-disciplinary assessment team also work within the community and can work towards a realistic provision for a particular child. Parents Many of the families living in West Lambeth have major economic problems, with a high proportion of depressed single parents. A number come from minority ethnic groups and may have difficulties in communication with professionals. Parents participation is an essential part of assessment, but presents difficulties for some families where time has to be taken from work. Transport is provided for those parents who have other small children or would find it difficult to attend. It is hoped that the supportive atmosphere of the Centre is reassuring to parents, many of whom lack confidence in their parenting skills and need positive encouragement and interest. Parents are encouraged to share in the assessment and observe their child’s progress. The role of the educational psychologist An ILEA educational psychologist spends five sessions a week as a member of the staff of the Mary Sheridan Centre. She acts as team coordinator and chairs the assessment conference. Because of her participation in the Centre’s activities, she is well placed to gain parents’ confidence and discuss ‘formal assessment’ procedures with parents informally during their child’s placement at the Centre. She also liaises with other ILEA educational agencies including other educational psychologists, teachers in ordinary and special schools, home liaison and peripatetic teachers and additionally with day nurseries, family centres and any other facility where a child may be involved. Senior Clinical Medical Officers The role of the members differs from most other District Assessment Centres, where a single consultant community paediatrician usually sees all referred children. West Lambeth Health Authority allocates responsibility for surveillance of children with special needs to five senior clinical medical officers for different geographical catchment areas. These SCMOs carry out the medical assessment

of children admitted to the Centre and attend the final multi-disciplinary conference on the findings and recommendations for each child. Children may, if necessary, be referred for further medical or psychiatric opinions and there are close links with a range of child health services within the health authority, and outside. Administrator/Secretary The Centre’s administrator/secretary is a key team member, arranging admissions; coordinating information to and from agencies with a child undergoing assessment; coordinating the use of the Centre for meetings; arranging transport, meals and general administration matters and, most importantly, acting as a consistent friendly but informed link with parents. Conclusion The Mary Sheridan Centre provides a focus for inter-disciplinary assessment of young children with their parents and in close co-operation with community services. Parents seem to feel more comfortable with a period of continuous assessment and to develop confidence and understanding during the two and a half weeks they spend in the Centre. Every effort is made to work closely with the places where children already attend and to identify clearly extra resources (often already available within the community) needed in order to maximise the child’s development. The Centre is able to give informed support to parents whose children will be ‘formally assessed’ under the 1981 Act and it can encourage them to play an active and positive part in that assessment. 2.5 A Pilot Portage Scheme in Division 10 Two small scale pilot Portage Schemes have been set up in Wandsworth — each with a supervisor (a District Clinical Psychologist in West Wandsworth and an Educational Psychologist in East Wandsworth), and each reporting to a single Management Team comprising senior representatives from Education, Health and Social Services and a Portage Teacher representative. It is envisaged that each pilot scheme will be able to offer a Portage Service to 4 or 5 families. Three families have now been allocated Portage Teachers. Evaluation will be carried out after 8-12 months—by assessing how many new skills the children have learned and through the use of a parental questionnaire focusing on the usefulness and value of the scheme. Essential features of the scheme Home Teachers, trained in a three day workshop, visit parents once a week. Initially the Portage Checklist, comprising 580 developmentally sequenced skills, is completed. Emerging skills are identified, and the home teacher and parents together devise an appropriate teaching strategy. This is recorded on an Activity Chart. The supervisor meets with the home teachers once a week or once every two weeks. This is a group discussion, and successes are shared and difficulties examined. Additional workers may be invited if particular problems arise e.g., a speech therapist to help with language or an occupational therapist to help with motor control. A management team meets once every 3 or 4 months. Progress reports from the supervisor are discussed. This also provides an opportunity to raise any difficulties encountered with the agencies represented by the management team, for example, funding for special equipment for a child with physical disability or gaps in nursery provision. Members of the management team should be representative of the main agencies concerned with the provision of services to pie-school children with special needs, namely Health, Social Services and Education. It is important that these individuals are able to direct resources to families as and when necessary, and are able to influence executive decisions at a senior level. Children of Primary Age 2.6 TILT

“Top Infant Learning Themes” (TILT) is an initiative originally introduced by the Senior Peripatetic Teacher for Specific Learning Difficulties in Division 3. The aim of the project is to create a responsive and if possible preventative approach to children’s learning difficulties at the top infant stage, without falling into the trap of premature labeling. A teacher from the school psychological service teaching service will visit each participating school (about one third of the schools) at least three times in the year. At the first meeting the Top Infants’ Class Teacher will discuss all pupils in the class with the visiting teacher. It is a condition of this meeting that the Head must be present. Supply cover is provided for the classroom teacher. A standard record form, is used. The school is responsible for the maintenance of notes and records arising from the meeting. Follow-up would include a range of possibilities from whole-class to individual programmes, dependent on identified need and available time. The intervention is monitored and supported anyway through the two remaining compulsory visits, usually organised on a termly basis. The scheme’s value is spoken of predominantly in terms of the advantages arising from an ‘outside’ perspective on the pupils, teacher and classroom. 2.7 Division 2: Multidisciplinary review of 3rd year junior children The beginnings of the present procedure go back about 8 years when a lot of concern was being expressed by secondary teachers about children transferring from primary school who should, in their opinion, have been previously placed in special schools, these children, it was said, had been overlooked and their special educational needs had not been identified and assessed in the primary school. The Review, which originally took place in the 4th year and was then moved to the 3rd year, was conceived as a sort of ‘safety net’ to identify children whose special educational needs could not be met in a secondary school. It is now felt that the problem expressed by secondary teachers, i.e. the needs of children with serious difficulties were being overlooked, was exaggerated but nevertheless the Review seems to have other useful functions: children with less serious special educational needs come to light for whom plans are made to provide help before secondary transfer. Those children who seem to be ‘at risk’ regarding transfer to secondary school can either be followed up by the educational psychologist or the headteacher of the primary school will undertake to liaise closely with the head of 1st year about the children’s apparent needs. The Review also has an important function as its name indicates in reviewing the special arrangements made for children previously identified and assessed. The method used is straightforward. Class teachers complete a simple check list which provides a framework for the teacher to consider each child in her class. No testing is required. The checklist provides a rough screen for children experiencing various problems or difficulties which are grouped under three headings: Learning Behaviour and Health. The checklist provides the basis for discussion at a review meeting when each child is considered. This meeting is attended by the 3rd year class teacher(s), headteacher, educational psychologist, education welfare officer, school doctor and school nurse. The chairperson (usually headteacher or psychologist) summarises the action agreed for each child who is discussed. The procedure which was carefully negotiated with all the agencies and services involved, was first piloted in about 20 junior schools and has now been operating in all the Divisions’ junior schools for 3 years. The scheme is seen as supportive of the class teacher, and the multidisciplinary meeting is valued in bringing together the support professionals and teachers into more integrated, collaborative work. Another benefit seems to be that some schools have used this example to develop their own systems for identifying monitoring and planning for children with special educational needs.

Obviously the scheme also has limitations that in part derive from the difficulties in making predictions and forward planning with regard to secondary school particularly as the secondary school to which each child will transfer is not definitely known at the time of the review. 2.8 Culloden Partially Hearing Unit (Culloden Primary School) This Unit is of special interest because of the very high degree of integration (locational, social and functional) of the children. The Unit does not exist as a separate room with a separate special educational programme. The children are based in normal classes and follow the normal curriculum with the support of the specialist teachers. The Unit teachers usually work in the classroom, assisting the children by facilitating communication and advising the class teacher. There is some teaching in small withdrawal groups to prepare for or follow-up on normal classwork but these groups may include children without hearing difficulty. The special education programme therefore provides for continuous access to the normal curriculum. There is very close collaboration between Unit teachers and class teachers on the educational programme although the class teacher directs the work. The Unit is supported by the usual professionals the most important being the speech therapist as the major difficulty for the children is in language and speech. More information on the effectiveness of the Unit is required before extending the concept to other Units. In particular, the children’s speech and language development and progress needs to be compared with that of children in more separate provision. However, there seems to be sufficient evidence that with a positive commitment from a staff group it is possible to bring about almost total integration of children with partial hearing impairment consistent with meeting their special needs. 2.9 Larkhall Junior School with Integrated Autistic Unit Larkhall is a junior school in South London which, in its mainstream curriculum, deals with learning difficulties by co-operation and joint planning between class teachers and the member of staff with special responsibility for special educational needs. Parents are actually involved in any special or remedial programmes, as are all teachers, each of whom is regarded as a teacher of special needs. Records include description of any learning difficulties together with details of measures taken, but no labels are used. Within the main building is a base-room for eight autistic children between the ages of five and nine. This unit has been in the school for three years, prior to which it was housed in a hospital. The unit is staffed by one full-time teacher, with contributions from other teachers as part of their normal timetable. There are two nursery assistants and a dinner helper. The unit also benefits from active and readily available support from a team of psychiatrist, psychologist and social worker who meet teachers once a fortnight to discuss each child’s progress. A weekly diary is kept of each child’s activities and progress and this is summarised at regular intervals for on-going records. Parents are welcome in the school and unit at any time and there is a special ‘parents’ room which can be used by parents as they wish, with or without children. Children in the unit share all facilities of the school, and individuals join mainstream classes on a regular basis. PE sessions are mixed. Children from the main school come into the unit formally to help, or informally to play with the autistic children. Members of the unit are obviously regarded as full and, in a sense, ‘ordinary’ members of the school and their presence in this setting seems to be of benefit to them and their peers in terms of social interaction and kindly acceptance of one’s fellows.

Children of Secondary Age Primary/Secondary Transfer 2.10 Primary-Secondary Transfer Conferences Division 3 has initiated a system designed to improve communication between primary and secondary school on matters concerning special educational needs. The main focus of this activity is ‘Primary- Secondary Transfer Conferences’ during the Summer Term. For these, the teachers of all fourth year juniors are asked to fill in a form for any pupil they are asked to use a generous interpretation whom they consider to have special needs. They are asked to bring these forms to one of three afternoon conferences; they may choose which one but no supply cover is available for the exercise. At these conferences each secondary school is represented by a Head of Department responsible for meeting special educational needs or a representative. The primary teachers then circulate around between the appropriate secondary school representatives handing on and discussing forms of children who will be transferring. Support for this activity is excellent and it is generally well spoken-of. The main difficulty seems to be transfers which cross Divisional boundaries. It is also worth noting that it is not a simple matter to finance the absolutely necessary and productive tea and biscuits! 2.11 Early Warning Seminars (EWARS) EWARS have similar aims to the TILT Scheme described in 2.6, but predominantly in the secondary sector. They provide a forum in Division 3 secondary schools at which a broad range of personnel may discuss pupils who are causing concern. Initiated through the school psychological service the meetings now encompass that service, the secondary special educational needs support teacher, education welfare officer, members of the school staff with specialist responsibilities for special educational needs, pastoral managers and form tutors. They may be an open forum, within the constraints of the timetable, and discussion is on a fairly informal albeit serious level. The purpose of the meetings is to agree upon a suitable, early plan of intervention when a pupil’s behaviour or performance causes concern. The presence of all potential interests helps to ensure that duplication and ambiguity are reduced to a minimum. The system does require a high priority in the ‘diaries’ of those outside the school, and in the commitment of the school to allow staff to get to meetings held on-site. The system is spoken of warmly throughout the Division 3 secondary sector. 2.12 Southfields School Unit for Partially Hearing Pupils Two aspects of the work of this unit and its relationship with the host school are considered good examples of practice where such units are established. Integration This is seen as a two-way process, both at (a) staff and (b) pupil level, and considerable thought and effort has gone into it. (a) Staff All new staff to the school visit the partially hearing unit as part of their induction. Efforts are made also to acquaint all staff with the work of the Unit on a regular basis. Recently a questionnaire was sent out to all staff on the integration of pupils from the unit and an analysis of the returns, views, queries and difficulties, was published in the school’s staff newsletter.

The Unit staff participate as fully as possible in the life and development of the whole school, e.g. by being form tutors, teaching pupils in other classes and sitting on committees and working parties (Equal Opportunities and Anti-Racist Policy formation for instance) including the Staff Association, Unit staff also now engage in support or team teaching in mainstream classes for an average equivalent of one whole day per week each. (b) Pupils Unit pupils now attend other classes on average for 67 per cent of their week, a significant increase over previous years. This goes hand in hand with the increase in unit staff time devoted to support and team teaching. Integration into Maths is a recent development and there is interesting team teaching going on in this area. Unit pupils also belong in a full and normal way to tutor and year groups within the school, and there is no passing of responsibility for them by tutors or year heads to the teacher in charge of the unit, who insists that her pupils are always dealt with through the normal channels. Pupils from other classes now join small groups taught in the unit for CSE English and History where it is felt to be appropriate to their needs, and with parental consent. Team Teaching Support teaching, where Unit staff go into classes to support individual pupils (both hearing impaired children and others) has been developing for some time. A clear distinction is seen between this and TEAM TEACHING, where all responsibility for the class is equally shared. An impressive example of the latter has recently been initiated with a 4th year Maths group containing a few pupils from the unit. The Maths teacher and the unit teacher exchanged roles on a fortnightly basis. One plans and mark the work and leads the class as a whole during that period while the other acts in the support role for any individual pupils in need of it. Both teachers speak highly of the insights they are gaining as a result. Obviously not all classes can have the luxury of two teachers, but the value of the work in terms of experience gained will stand both of them in good stead in the future, as well as being of immediate benefit to the pupils in this class, who were clearly pleased with the arrangement. 2.13 William Penn School — Records William Penn School seems to have addressed the question of disseminating information about special educational needs with some thoroughness. Two substantial booklets are circulated to staff ‘Information for record cards (including first year special educational needs)” and “Register of pupils with special medical needs.” The staff is now studying methods for storing information on a central computer record and for disseminating it to staff. The initial experience appears to indicate that the systematic information being made available to teachers is influencing the way they are responding in curricular terms to the needs identified. 2.14 An Example of Individual Integration (Names are not given on the interests of the pupil and his family) In September 1983 a blind boy (A) transferred from primary to secondary School. The Authority provided then and continues to provide a 0.5 teacher, some additional secretarial help and a range of specialist equipment to enable the school to meet his needs. The support teacher has so far been able to ensure her pupil’s successful integration into the full curriculum and all aspects of school life. This success also owes much to the skill, imagination, adaptability and dedication of the teachers directly concerned, and to support from his parents, his fellow pupils and his primary school teachers, who cooperated helpfully at transfer stage. An initial difficulty was that for a number of reasons the support teacher was appointed too shortly before transfer for adequate preparation to be completed in advance. She is well qualified and experienced in teaching the blind, but had had no direct experience of full scale integration such as this; neither had any of the teachers at the secondary school. Because there were also no precedents for this work in the Authority, no guidelines were available, and it was left to the support teacher to

find out what she could, mainly through reading, and also through contacts elsewhere in the UK and abroad. Unfortunately, it has not yet been possible for any detailed monitoring or evaluation of this work to be carried out (see 3.15.31). It is regrettable that there appears to be as yet no general framework for support or evaluation of innovative work such as this across the Authority. The support teacher’s work up to now has fallen into two phases, the first of which consisted of preparation for A’s entry into the school. This included visiting A and his family, reading his records, consulting the area peripatetic teacher, visiting his primary school (to observe him in class and consult his teacher) and visiting the secondary school for discussions with the Head, Deputy Head (including timetabled time to coincide with her 0.5 engagement), class tutor and all of A’s prospective subject teachers. She wished in addition to become familiar with the geography and organisation of the Secondary School, and to check on potential safety hazards (e.g. steps with no handrail). There was insufficient time for ordering books and equipment and preparing materials. Even had things run more smoothly, with sufficient allowance for planning and preparation, there are important issues about equipment in a case such as this, where complicated and expensive (and sometimes untried) apparatus is involved. Such machines should if at all possible be used on a trial basis to test their suitability in a particular context before purchase, but ongoing instruction in their use, and facilities for on-the-spot repairs and maintenance would need to be provided. No such provision has been made at the secondary school. It might be more sensible for large and expensive equipment to be operated and maintained by specialists at a convenient centre (e.g. a special school) and thus be available to several potential users, while simpler machines — microcomputers, recorders etc. — could be available in individual schools and serviced by school’s own audio-visual aids departments. The second phase of work has been supporting A during his first year at secondary school. By observing him both in and out of lessons, it was possible to predict difficulties before they occurred and through simulation help him acquire the capability and confidence needed to overcome them. The aim was gradually to withdraw full support in lessons where practicable, and to use the time so gained for various administrative and preparatory tasks. It remained necessary, however, for the support teacher to spend considerable amounts of her own time on preparation and administration, outside the hours of her 0.5 engagement. Had she been a fulltime employee of ILEA, with perhaps a similar 0.5 commitment to another pupil in another school, she probably could not have done all that was necessary within the framework of resources provided. In addition, liaison with A’s subject teachers, to plan and evaluate lessons, has had to take place before school or at breaks or lunchtimes; it has not been possible for time to be officially allocated to this essential work. Another point which has educational as well as social implications, is that A’s full integration, on his own, at secondary school denies him any regular contact with other blind children and adults in an educational context. It would be beneficial for him in all sorts of ways to have the opportunity for such contact, but it is difficult to see how this could be arranged within the present framework without diminishing the extent of his integration. In the first year, A’s class was taught as a mixed ability group, where possible in their own tutor group room. Having to move around the school site more extensively for different lessons as he moves up the school, although necessitating further support to facilitates confident, independent mobility, is not seen as too great a problem. More serious are the implications of his being set in different groups for different subjects according to ability, and the differences in teaching style which he will inevitably encounter. When he is confronted by more didactic, whole class oriented approached, it may become very difficult for him to engage in the work with the same degree of independence as at present, and it may become more difficult for the support teacher either to bring about changes in methodology to take account of his presence in a class, or to mediate between the existing methodology and his needs.

Despite the favourable responses of staff and pupils and the climate of goodwill and support that has been engendered, there is understandable apprehension about the future. Two issues arise from consideration of this experience. The first is whether the provision made by the Authority for A, though generous, was adequate, particularly with respect to back-up from outside the school, and above all with respect to teacher time, especially given that this was to be the first attempt at integration of a blind pupil at a comprehensive school in the ILEA. The second issue concerns all the useful and positive things that have been and will go on being learned at the secondary school while A remains there. It is to be hoped that the benefits of all this experience will be felt not only by A, his peers and his teachers, but also more widely by others. This will happen provided that interest and support is shown by those outside the school responsible for overseeing this work and relating it to similar practice elsewhere. Links between Special Schools and Primary and Secondary Schools 2.15 Richard Cloudsley/Prior Weston Link Richard Cloudsley School for children with physical disabilities and Prior Weston (JMI) school are situated in adjacent streets, within a short distance of one another, close to the Barbican development. Both are modern buildings. Prior Weston has a reputation for innovation and Richard Cloudsley has a happy and dynamic atmosphere. It is not surprising that they should have attempted to improve communication arid relationships between the two institutions. A very full review of the subsequent activities has been provided by a member of the Richard Cloudsley staff. Her account is difficult to paraphrase but constructively identifies (amongst other things) three factors which are important: (i) practical difficulties ranging from transport arrangements to the role of General Assistants. (ii) a three tier response to integrative placement which is characterised as: (a) philanthropic enthusiasm (b) realistic tension (c) rejection (by either party) The teachers’analysis is far more accurate and detailed. (iii) A survey of teacher attitudes to integration which is insightful and informative. Overall the initiative and the account of it provide valuable material for considering the pre-conditions of an integrative approach. 2.16 Link between King’s Acre, Infant and Junior School and Paddock School for children with severe learning difficulties The aim of the King’s Acre Project has been to bring a group of children with severe learning difficulties into regular contact with a group of children in a primary school environment and in so doing expose them to the rich stimulation of the language, physical activity, play and general behaviour of the primary children. The project began in January 1981 with five Paddock pupils visiting King’s Acre on one afternoon a week for classroom activities, country dancing and playtime. This link has now extended to include every class in Paddock School, At the beginning of each year the staff of both schools meet to structure the link and to plan new developments and expansion of the project.

There has also been increased social contact between the schools and sharing of activities including the production of a musical play for the Special Schools Music Festival in 1984. For the Paddock children the benefits have been an increase in attention to their work and an improvement in behaviour and motivation. The gain for the King’s Acre children is their heightened awareness of the needs of children less fortunate than themselves. The staff of both schools have profited from the exchange of teaching techniques and use of educational materials. A teacher has been appointed at Paddock whose responsibilities include co-coordinating and monitoring the project. 2.17 Queensmill School for primary children with complex needs and Queen’s Manor Primary School, an initiative in co-operation The two schools are housed in one building which is of the familiar turn of the century design. This is an advantage not only because the children and teachers are in close proximity but that the local community regards the two schools as one. The initiative in co-operation began with the acceptance in principle by the staffs of both schools that the children with complex needs should receive some of their education alongside and with the pupils of Queen’s Manor, that some resources could be shared and that the children should take part in the community life of both schools. The Authority approved this development and made three major resource decisions, the establishment of a shared school library, the establishment of a nursery unit at the Queen’s Manor School and the appointment of a teacher half time for liaison and support work between the two schools. This post is reconsidered annually. The liaison teacher shares a class with another teacher in Queensmill and has responsibility for music. Despite some apprehension about the response of children to their respective contributions, both teachers feel the class is as well settled as can be expected of children with a wide range of learning difficulties. The children benefit from having a man and woman teacher and from the varied approaches to teaching within an agreed plan. The liaison teacher supports individual and very small groups of children in Queen’s Manor School classes, organises the sharing of resources and develops link projects. Our observation was that the children of both schools were clearly benefiting socially and educationally. The teachers have accepted the challenge and have developed wider perspectives. Difficulties and doubts are openly discussed. Queensmill School has the support of a number of other professionals including a clinical psychologist. The techniques and ways of looking at children’s work and behaviour broaden the Queensmill teachers repertoire of strategies and through discussion and example those of the Queen’s Manor teachers as well. It was evident at these schools that the work of the general duties attendants is very important to the success of the Queensmill children in their own schools and in the co-operative ventures. There are and will continue to be difficulties of priorities for the children, management problems and sometimes painful thoughts about principles and attitudes. However, the sensitivity and thoroughness with which the head teachers have prepared the scheme and the dedication of the liaison teacher, in implementing it are the foundation of its success so far.

2.18 Elizabeth Burgwin School (Moderate Learning Difficulties) and Hammersmith School (Secondary Mixed), Division 1 The schools have a link which works to their mutual benefit and they are seeking to extend it. Since 1977 Elizabeth Burgwin has sought to place pupils in primary and secondary schools on a parttime basis for perhaps one session in one subject per week. As the scheme became more firmly based it proved possible for pupils to profit from fuller participation in the secondary schools for up to nine sessions per week. A special reading workshop was started for pupils to enable them to succeed in the secondary school. The scheme has resulted in over 40 pupils attending secondary schools, 32 of whom have been re-assessed and transferred on a full-time basis. —

Parents are closely involved in the referral process, whether the referral originates from the unit or the school. Diagnostic testing is carried out, a programme is arranged, and a parental consent form is drawn up, agreed and signed. The schools are considering a similar workshop for mathematics. Outcomes of the link Effective links between a ‘special’ unit, a special school and a secondary school provide foundation for achieving full integration of pupils into the latter provision. The fact that the links work to the mutual benefit of each establishment (the reading workshop; the plans for a mathematics workshop; the opportunities for pupils with moderate learning difficulties to benefit from the secondary school and secondary pupils to receive specialised remedial assistance) would appear to be a key factor and an essential ingredient for the success of such links. In this example the link has served the best interests of the pupils of both institutions; and each operates as an effective ‘resource’ for the other. Ideally every off-site unit/centre or ‘special’ school and every primary and secondary school could develop this effective co-ordination of provision since it provides the best elements of the separated provisions whilst using every opportunity to co-operate, combine, share and exploit teaching resources and expertise. Special Schools 2.19 Grenfell School — Curriculum and Record Keeping The organisation is very structured from pupil groupings and timetabling to curriculum content and teaching methods, and how the progress is monitored. The record system is very detailed and has been designed to cover the pupils life at the school. Assessment is continuous throughout each year and each yearly record has a different colour code so that progress in every area can be easily seen and is open to parents. Within this structured framework regular weekly help is provided with a wide range of disabilities. Each teacher has to produce for each children a forecast of work programme every term, which should reflect the school curriculum and set short term targets for each pupil. These forecasts can be used by the headmaster and teachers to question how far these targets are being met. There are also a number of specialist rooms with a teacher in charge of each room, class teachers are timetabled and expected to use these rooms (Maths, Science, Craftwork, Music, Home Economics, Needlework and Resources room), the apparatus and the worksheets be available in each room. Once a year teachers are required to fill in a review form for each child which is part of the school’s annual review procedure. 2.20 Hatchford Park — Leavers Courses Hatchford Park runs short residential independent courses for school-leavers who normally attend

ILEA day special schools for children who are motor impaired or delicate. The duration of these courses ranges from 2 weeks to 1 term. Special emphasis is placed upon developing independence in terms of personal care and mobility. Careers guidance and counseling is arranged. Careful consideration is given to each students’disability and the implication of it for work, marriage, parenthood and relationships with the opposite sex. A wide range of leisure pursuits and visits are made through LEA youth clubs, where appropriate work experience placements are arranged. Constant efforts are made to combat underachievement and to promote equal opportunities. There is a high level of support available through the various LEA support services and close contact is maintained throughout with parents and the referring schools. Currently applications for places on these courses exceed the places available. Positive feed-back from the referring schools, parents and students themselves suggest that the experience gained on these courses have been highly beneficial. For many students who also have learning difficulties these courses are too short. 2.21 Crusoe House School for Children with Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties Team Teaching The particular strength of this school’s example of team teaching, established in November 1982 by the Deputy Head, is that it has an in built monitoring and record keeping system for each child. Children carry out individual assignments in English and Maths after Assembly. After the morning break an integrated day is followed by two parallel classes in the Middle School. Team members consist of the teachers from the ‘section’, a class assistant, and at times the deputy head or remedial teacher. Specific responsibilities are allocated to three members of the team: one for taking charge of the lesson itself, another as facilitator available for giving out materials to the children, or working with them, and if necessary for removing difficult children from the class; and finally an adult to act as observer using a check list of social and study skills to record observations of each child. The team meets regularly each week to evaluate the week’s work, discuss concerns about individual children and to plan for the coming week. An assessment of each child is carried out weekly. The Headteacher (for senior students) and the Deputy (for Junior/Middle School pupils) review the records of every child in each lesson. End of term reports are sent home. Other meetings crucial to the team teaching system of the school are: (a) Teaching and Psychiatric Staff’s weekly meetings to review children’s progress and discuss management issue. (b) Weekly meetings on observation of children — attendance by teaching staff is voluntary. 2.22 John Milton Primary School This school in Battersea offers educational, health and social services to the local community. It was evident that the way in which these services were coordinated by the headteacher and staff offered the children and their families much greater continuity than is customary in primary schools. The Health Clinic This is staffed by a doctor, who is also the school doctor, a health visitor and a nurse. The staff offer advice to mothers of under five children who live locally. The Health Clinic premises are used by this club in the afternoons. Parents, grandparents and childminders can visit the club with under five children. The adults can enjoy social contact confident that their children are also developing social and play skills under the expert supervision of a play leader and her assistant. Less experienced parents and adults learn how to play with and manage their children and which play materials and toys are valuable and give their child most pleasure.

The Nursery Class Children can enter the Nursery Class from three years old. This school is fortunate in that all the children can expect to enter the reception class. This occurs after the child is 4.9 and before he or she is 5.3. The Nurture Group A few children continue to need time to adjust to the more structured learning environment of the infant school. Great care is exercised when these children are selected to ensure that the nurture group reflects the balance of race and sex in the rest of the school. Other children who, if there were sufficient places, might have entered the nurture group, receive individual support in the regular classes. The Family Workshop Adults and children on one morning a week take part in activities together. These include cooking, toy making and woodwork. The adults can seek advice on housing, budgeting and welfare rights. The family workshop is staffed by two people who respond to the short and long term needs of those using the service. The Extended Day Care Project This service is financed by Wandsworth Social Services, It is staffed by a project leader and nursery assistant. Care is provided for twelve under-five children, whose parents are working or in Further Education, from 8.00 am to 9.00 am and 3.30 to 6.00 pm every day. This service is available during the holidays. The Play Centre Children over five years old and under twelve may attend from 3.30 pm to 6.00 pm. The activities which although recreational are seen as building on the child’s experiences in school. The Play Centre is staffed by a Superintendent and four other staff of which two are teachers at John Milton and one is a primary helper and lunchtime supervisor. Conclusion Advantages of this range of service are that very young children become familiar with people in the school before they enter it. Relationships which children have developed before they are five can continue to grow throughout the child’s primary years. However the staff of the school have been thwarted to some extent in developing the quality of these services and extending them by a lack of flexibility of management within the education services and between educational and social services, for example in the staffing of the under-five provisions. Nevertheless the Headteacher and staff of John Milton have a tremendous commitment to their community school. 2.23 The ILEA Resource Centre for Motor and Associated Communication Handicaps The ILEA is providing an extremely valuable and pioneering service to a small range of severely physically handicapped children, not all of whom are directly the responsibility of ILEA. Utilising computer hardware and software with advances in micro-technology, it provides a stimulating educational experience for many children who would otherwise be little more than passive recipients of what was provided. The work is fully described in material produced by the Centre. The work of the Centre gives rise to a number of issues discussed by the Committee elsewhere. Among then are: Resources

The room is currently small and more space is needed. There are plans to extend by building an extra room.

Staffing

The original Director was instrumental in developing the quality of the Centre’s work. The teacher/programmer is currently a Scale 1 which is a poor reflection of the skills and expertise provided. The recent appointment of a technician has helped considerably. In terms of equipment, the centre clearly does well in comparison to other authorities, but more could be provided. It is perhaps disturbing that most of the children have to rely on local charities to provide them with their own computers. The developing this extremely valuable resource is particularly important not only to the work of special schools but also in support of children who may be integrated into other schools in future.

Philosophy

The centre is based in a special school and this is seen as an important element in its work. However it already operates as a resource base and its work could be developed in support of children in primary and secondary schools. It is not difficult to imagine it continuing to do so without it being based in a special school. The crucial issue is that there needs to be some short-term residential provision to allow time to work with the children.

Further and continuing education 2.24 The City Literary Institute There are three areas of interest and relevance: (i) Classes for the deaf (ii) Classes for stammerers (iii) Classes for those with Severe Learning Difficulties. In all of these areas the City Literary Institute has acquired a national reputation for its work. It serves as a national, regional and local resource centre for the education of young people and adults who are hearing impaired. The work with stammerers is based on a non-medical model of stammering and the City Literary Institute employs the only speech therapists outside the Health Service in the country. Given the need for more speech therapy services throughout special needs work, this approach to such work should be expanded. In short, if speech therapy is to be based upon an educational rather than a medical model, then speech therapists should be employed by Education Authorities and based in schools and colleges. The final aspect of the work concerns work with people with severe learning difficulties and worthwhile attempts are being made to develop courses in self-advocacy. The City Literary Institute also serves as a training resource for professionals and others and does excellent work in this area. While such a concentration of resources could be seen as segregative and against the spirit of our principles, much excellent work is done and the Institute is aware of the need to provide local courses to meet local needs and to spread its expertise as widely as possible. Therefore its current work and future development should be encouraged. 2.25 Joint-Funded Lecturer II post — Mental Handicap Project co-ordinator in Southwark In 1979, Southwark MENCAP approached Southwark Adult education Institute with a view to increasing the educational provision at Crispin House Day Centre (a centre for mentally-handicapped people in Bermondsey.

As a result of initiatives taken by the Principal of the Institute in co-operation with Social Services Officers, an arrangement was made that a post should be jointly funded by the ILEA and Social Services. When appointed, the post-holder had these advantages: (a) greater credibility in both camps and access to resources from both agencies. (b) greater accountability (c) greater flexibility of working arrangements and access to clients. The desired increase in educational opportunity in the day centre took place, and once well established, the project moved its base to a little-used adult education institute branch close to the centre the Grange Arts Centre which has since thrived as a creative arts centre and has built-up its student numbers, both mentally-handicapped and non-handicapped, to the point at which much integration is now taking place. —

The majority of adults attending Crispin House now spend one or more sessions as full adult students at the Grange; some go on to community-based activities elsewhere, with the support of social services and the day centre. The speed with which all this happened, and the success of the project are directly related to the initiative to joint-fund the post in response to parental pressure for greater educational opportunities for their mentally-handicapped sons and daughters. Support Services 2.26 Hackney Learning Resources Centre — Division 4 The centre has been in use since September 1983. Apart from the many resource materials available on loan to schools in the Division; the centre is used as a base for in-service education and consultative sessions held fortnightly for teachers. Special Educational Needs Support Teachers (Primary and Secondary) co-ordinate the work of the centre. As a further service to schools in the Division, the centre produces a series of pamphlets in which practical advice and information are given on various topics, e.g., ‘Tests and Assessment’, ‘Spelling and Handwriting’, ‘Sensory Impairment’. Similarly, the centre publishes a Special Educational Needs Journal which “attempts to highlight current issues and provide information and promote awareness and discussion within the Division”. The editorial committee of the journal has representatives from special primary and secondary schools, the schools’ psychological service and special educational needs support teachers. A handbook describing Special Educational Needs provision in the division has also been produced. 2.27 Division 5 School Support Team The work of this team in Tower Hamlets has already been documented in D05 School Support Unit Evaluation: Phase I (June 1981) and Evaluation Phase II (June 1983). The Schools Support Unit was set up in January 1979 as part of the Authority’s initiative to deal with disruptive pupils. The area chose to go for a peripatetic support model as distinct from setting up off-site centres. A team of 12 peripatetic teachers, a teacher in charge, an educational psychologist and an education welfare officer with a clerical assistant provides a service to schools in the area. Children can be referred by any school in Tower Hamlets, and all secondary schools use the service as do the vast majority of primary schools. Each of the peripatetic teachers deals with approximately two secondary and five primary schools (much like a ‘cluster’ suggested in this report) and has a case load of about 20 children. Twice as many boys as girls are referred and perhaps two thirds of the work is in

the secondary phase. Peak ages of referral have been found to be 10 and 14. Any disruptive child is accepted except the chronic non-attender. The teachers are selected for their experience in primary and secondary schools experience or qualifications in dealing with behaviour difficulties and their liaison skills. All have a three weeks induction programme, and throughout there is continuous in-service education. For example the whole team meets for one afternoon a week for casework presentations, and there is continuous support from the senior education welfare officer (who is a trained social worker) and the educational psychologist. Staff morale and expertise was high during the visit. The watchwords of the techniques used can be summarised as formulation, intervention and evaluation. Formulation The teacher attempts to make a written statement of the factors, in behavioural terms, operating in the disruptive behaviour of the referred pupil. The children are rated on a well thought out check list devised by the team and also on the Bristol Social Adjustment Guide (“The Child in School”) and the child is observed in the classroom. This ‘diagnostic’ period might take two weeks after which a scheme to help is formulated. Intervention Five main areas of intervention are used: (i) with school management staff; (ii) with teachers; (iii) with teachers and the pupil; (iv) with the pupil alone;fic (v) with the pupil and the parents. This could lead to children changing their curriculum, tutor group or even school and sometimes the involvement of other agencies. Work with teachers involves discussion of classroom management, and often the establishment of a planned and consistent management strategy for the whole staff towards the individual concerned. Sometimes a monitored behaviour programme is initiated and monitored and occasionally the support teacher will take the class or part of it. The support service has one small off-site unit which is used only occasionally for some children to attend part-time. Normally children attend for either 3 or 5 half days and for no longer than 8 weeks. Social skills training is an important component of the work undertaken in this unit. Parents are always made aware of the intervention being attempted, and parents are sometimes helped, particularly to make contact with the school. Evaluation To assess the effectiveness of any form of intervention, it is necessary to evaluate. This can lead to a change of procedures if current ones are not working, or a complete withdrawal if successful. The checklist and social adjustment guide are repeated to see what change has been affected. Conclusions The School Support Team has developed system of a practical help to pupils and teachers. It is working effectively and can be regarded as a model for future Authority developments. Selection and training of suitable staff are crucial elements in the scheme, and efforts at evaluation and stringent recording make it a praiseworthy scheme. The checklist of potentially disruptive classroom behaviour could be more widely used across the authority. Collaboration between Services Division 5 Liaison Group

2.28 About three years ago it was decided to form a liaison group of representatives of special needs teams working in primary and secondary schools. The purpose was liaison and information sharing at field work level. The constituent groups represent were: School Psychological Service Speech Therapy Service School Support Unit Service Unified Language Service Remedial Teaching Service (SPS Teaching Service) Special Educational Needs Support Teachers More recently a representative working to transform off site IEC’s into school based support was added. A request from tutorial group teachers to send a representative was agreed at the December meeting of the group. Members recognised that the co-ordination of different services at management level was difficult and outside their terms of reference. The Divisional SE Inspector with special educational responsibilities gave support to the Liaison Group informally, decreeing that it could not be an official Divisional committee which minuted its meetings but it should keep a record of business. The main purpose of the meetings held once a term is to share information about developments in each field to understand each others working practices and to explore collaborative arrangements. A termly newspaper is circulated to schools. At a meeting of the Liaison Group the following business was discussed: A one day conference on second language, language and learning difficulties. The preparation of a booklet about support services to schools. The next edition of the newspaper. The need for a Divisional Special Education Resource Centre The Divisional co-ordination of In-Service education. Changes in service personnel and responsibilities. The group also asks administrators and other professionals to attend meetings for discussion. Discussions in the Liaison Group are reported back to meetings of members of the different Services and matters are brought to the Liaison Group by representatives after discussion at individual service meetings. The Liaison Group represents a genuine innovation which aims to increase the awareness of members of different special needs advisory and teaching services to ordinary schools of the work of other services. It also provides a forum for discussing working practices and collaboration. Through its newspaper it also informs schools of its work and of developments in the field. In-Service Education Redlands Primary School based INSET

2.29 This school, which has 90% of children from ethnic minority groups (mostly Bangledeshi), has found a very interesting way of organising the school that has particular advantages for arranging inservice training during school hours. The teachers work in teams which are responsible for children divided according to age: Team 1 Rising 5’s 7 year olds (infants) Team 2 7-8 year olds (1st and 2nd year juniors) Team 3 9 year olds (3rd year juniors) —

—

—

Team 4 10 year olds (4th year juniors) Each team is evolving its own flexible system of co-operative teaching so that children work with a variety of teachers each offering different strengths and interests, in group sizes appropriate to the needs of the child or the activity. All the teachers have an equal opportunity to specialise, share their skills, e.g. by working together with a group of children, or to sometimes work in depth with a very small group. This system makes it possible to release from teachers and ancillary helpers the teams, to attend extensive training opportunities within school running through the week, without disrupting or neglecting the teaching programmes of their pupils. There were six different INSET sessions a week going on at the time of our visit, each lasting approximately an hour and a half. Two of these sessions were focused on aspects of special educational needs work and another two were concentrating on the needs of children for whom English is a second language. One teacher attends each session from every team. That teacher then helps other members of her/his team in planning activities in that area. The representative of a team might be an ancillary helper as the INSET is designed to support them as well as the teachers. The sharing of the INSET with the rest of the team is facilitated by weekly meetings of three quarters of an hour at the end of a school day. By having a different team meet each day it is possible for the children from the team that is meeting to spend this time with teachers from other teams, usually joining in singing or story activities before going home. The INSET activities are run partly by the staff themselves but support workers are also involved e.g. a peripatetic teacher from the Division 5 Schools Support Team was jointly running one of the INSET programmes on behaviour management. Although this system is not yet time tried it is commendable in providing a cohesive whole school INSET model that can operate during normal school hours. In-Service Education to meet special educational needs for primary and special school teachers in Division 2 In September 1984 the Divisional Educational Psychologist and District Inspector with special educational needs responsibilities began a programme of in-service education aimed initially at primary and special school teachers. The plan is that over the next two years, two teachers from each primary and special school in the Division will have been trained in teaching children with learning difficulties. Primary schools in Division 2 are grouped in six clusters of primary schools for in-service education to which two special schools are attached. Each term the course will be run for one cluster. The course itself was developed in Coventry by the Advisor for Special Education and an Educational Psychologist, as part of a broader initiative know as ‘SNAP’ (Special Needs Action Programme). The course was designed to train a suitable member of staff from each primary school to act as coordinator for pupils with special needs in their schools. After taking part in the course the tutors are expected to use the materials with their colleagues with a view to each school evolving a policy for dealing with children’s learning difficulties. The course content covers the following stages: setting priorities, writing objective(s), assessing the child, working out the teaching steps (if necessary), planning the teaching method and recording progress. The emphasis in the course is more on what to teach than how to teach. The course is delivered through small group workshops. Some slight modifications to the course have been made in Division 2 but the teaching follows closely the conceptual framework of the original. The course is being tutored by special educational needs

advisory teachers, special school teachers and educational psychologists. The pyramid dissemination envisaged in this course requires the support and involvement of headteachers and this has been sought through an initial introductory meeting for all the headteachers in the Division and by channeling communications about the course through the headteacher. A number of headteachers attended the first course themselves. Another attempt to sustain and extend the course into the schools has been made through inviting two teachers from each school, to support each other and maintain continuity should one of them leave the school. A questionnaire evaluation of the first course indicated that the objectives approach to teaching children with learning difficulties was very well received by the teachers. This in-service education seems to be innovative in its broad attempt to move primary schools towards using a trained special needs coordinator to help formulate a policy on the identification of, support for and review of children with learning difficulties as well as providing primary school and special school teachers with a resource colleague in their school who they can turn to for advise and help. 2.31 Framework for Learning — An In-Service Training Programme, Division 9 This programme, now in its third year, is jointly planned by the Divisional Primary and Divisional Special Education Inspectors who have developed a coordinated approach to how children learn, to classroom organization and management and to meeting special needs of all kinds. The special educational needs support teacher (primary) and the senior primary advisory teacher work closely together and involve other advisory teachers. The sessional course was originally for invited groups from primary schools and clusters but is now open to all. In association with the course, schools with difficulties get concentrated and coordinated inputs from all advisory services. There is a formal termly meeting at division 9 of all advisory teaching services. This appears a unique example of primary/special education co-operation and coordination of effort. Employment Experience 2.32 The Harrington Project This project is an MSC sponsored scheme providing opportunities under the Youth Training Scheme for young people with learning difficulties. The scheme provides a basic grounding in horticultural and other work orientated and social skills in the real situation of a working market garden. There are two points of note with regard to this project; firstly, it is a good example of co-operation between various statutory and voluntary agencies (MSC, Social Services Departments, Health Authority, Local Residents Group etc); secondly the project workers employed have no formal or specialist training in working with those with special needs but are trained horticulturalists. The work is therefore purposeful and meaningful and there is no attempt to patronise the trainees. The course lasts a full year and the trainees get a thorough grounding in the skills of horticulture as well as social skills and literacy and numeracy work. A private firm, Harrington Gardens, has been formed and takes on some of the trainees upon completion of the course. About 20 per cent of the trainees go into open employment, about 20 per cent into sheltered employment and about 60 per cent have nothing though some may eventually find places in adult training centres. Obviously the Project cannot stand outside the general economic situation but within its limited terms, it offers a very worthwhile experience for a small number of people each year and is a good example of inter-agency co-operation.

Appendix 3 Some Thoughts on Access to Buildings 3.1 Any long-term policy geared towards providing equal opportunities for all, must include a commitment to the provision of a ‘a barrier free environment’ in order that people with physical and sensory impairments can participate in the same activities as everyone else. In addition it has to be recognised that the concept of a ‘barrier free environment’ means more than just ramps, lifts and wide doors. It is also about the provision of facilities (for example, textured pavements, braille books, computers, radio microphones) and services (for example, care attendants, interpreters and guides). Finally in the context of education, it implies the provision of a curriculum that is accessible to all. It has to be acknowledged that a barrier free environment is not achievable in the short-term and what follows are suggestions about how moves in that direction might be made. 3.2 Much of ILEA’s educational activities take place within an infrastructure of buildings and facilities which already exists and which was established before an awareness of the needs of people with disabilities existed. Even if sufficient resources were available, which they are not, such an infrastructure could not be dismantled overnight and re-built in such a way that it would meet everyone’s needs. However access to all educational establishments could be considerably improved and it is suggested that all such establishments should conduct a survey of their existing buildings, facilities and services. Such a survey would both identify currently provided access points, services and facilities and also highlight deficiencies in provision. Information would then be available systematically to plan how improvements might be made. 3.3 Some of the improvements could be made with limited or no additional expenditure. Putting signs up about accessible entrances, services available, altering timetabling or teaching arrangements, changing the use of rooms and so on, can all be done mainly by commitment rather than money. Other small improvements could be financed within allowances available to individual institutions. Finally, major improvements would need to be programmed by the Authority within its prescribed capital expenditure. 3.4 We do not expect staff in establishments to become instant experts in access and suggest that they need to utilise experience already available. Access surveys should be carried out in consultation with local disability groups and care should be taken to ensure that the needs of all impaired people are considered. Organisations like the Centre on Environment for the Handicapped and the Access Committee for England, both based at 126 Albert Street, NW1 can also be called upon for specialist advice. The Department of Education and Science publication “Access for the Physically Disabled to Educational Buildings” provides much useful information. 3.5 The second step in our proposed strategy concerns the adapting of a small number of existing schools and colleges to make them ‘barrier free’. We recognise both the dangers of segregation in this strategy and that such an approach takes the pressure off surrounding establishments to do anything at all about access if there is a specialist facility nearby. However, we feel that a small number of such establishments should be so adapted and understand that plans for one school are currently well advanced. We would wish to re-iterate however that this strategy should not be adopted in isolation but in conjunction with the general steps we have already outlined. 3.6 The final step in our strategy involves an acceptance of commitment to the principle that no new parts of the educational infrastructure should be constructed with any barriers to full participation for people with disabilities. There is not the time or space to discuss the legal situation regarding public access to new and existing buildings but we would merely wish to affirm that any equivocation on this principle is incompatible with an equal opportunities policy. 3.7 We hope these thoughts are helpful and constructive and while we would not wish to minimise the resource issues involved, we have no doubt that many of the current barriers exist in people’s minds.

Most members of the Committee undertook visits during our work with the disabled committee member and no concessions were made for example in arranging visits to only those places which were accessible. If staff adopt the same attitudes to disabled children and students who turn up at their establishments as were adopted to the disabled member of this Committee, then many of the problems of access can be quickly resolved.

Appendix 4 INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENTAL RECORD Name

D.O.B.

Address

Date admitted Age

Telephone Position in Family

Primary School Transfer Date

Circumstances relating to admission

Referrals Attendance Health GP

H.V. Initial Median

School Dr. Final

Vision Hearing Speech Teeth Bladder Control Bowel Control Other General aspect Comments Parents discussed this record. 2. To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

Independence

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

1 CLINGY - totally dependent on adult, does not attempt to attend to own needs. 2 CONSTANTLY needs adult help and approval. 3 UNADVENTUROUS sticks to a few well-tried activities. 4 TACKLES new tasks, quickly loses interest without adult presence. 5 SELF-SUFFICIENT seeks adult help to solve problems or new activity. 6 ENJOYS new experience, confident and independent.

Relationships with staff 1 TIMID new approaches staff. 2 AVOIDS contact with staff. 3 CLINGS to one adult. 4 OVER-RELIANT on staff, needs constant approval and praise. 5 RARELY consults or asks adult for help. 6 INDEPENDENT uses staff only when in need of help. 7 RESPONSIVE chatty, friendly and responsive.

Behaviour in adult-directed group 1 DISRUPTIVE needs “anchoring” 2 FIDGETY elicits verbal control. 3 DEMANDS attention. 4 SWITCHES OFF 5 PASSIVE ENJOYMENT 6 STRIDENT, interested but calls out, cannot share attention, wait, turn or listen quietly. 7 ENJOYS AND PARTICIPATES yet takes turns, listens to other children and adults.

Relationships with other children 1 WITHDRAWN remote, rarely interacts. 2 DISRUPTIVE interaction usually negative, unable to share. 3 RELATES only to one or two other children, lost without them. 4 PARALLEL play, watches with interest but does not join in. 5 CO-OPERATES to fulfill “task”. 6 ENJOYS playing with other children, but self-focused, likes to direct and organise. 7 CONSIDERS others point of view, plays co-operatively in imaginary situations. Propensity to Talk 1 QUIET does not initiate talk with other children, single word responses. 2 QUIETLY responds to other children but does not initiate talk with staff. 3 CHATTERS but inconsequentially flits, inappropriate responses. 4 BRINGS UP points of interest but does not follow up. 5 CONDUCTS conversation, to the point, does not expand. 6 OFTEN opens conversation with children and adults, listens, responds, maintains and enjoys talk.

Concentration and Persistence 1 FLITS round activities, rarely settles. 2 LONG PERIODS at one activity but low involvement. 3 DISTRACTIBLE, rushes about, rarely sits down unless directed. 4 STAYS at sand/water dough/collage but not more demanding tasks.

5 NEEDS adult encouragement but often completes activity. 6 FINISHES most activities spontaneously, can blot out distractions. To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

THE FAMILY Self awareness 1 Responds to first name 2 Responds to surname 3 Tells first name 4 Tells surname 5 Tells age 6 Tells age next birthday Parent awareness 1 Tells mothers name 2 Tells fathers name 3 Tells mother sex 4 Tells father sex 5 Tells mothers work 6 Tells fathers work Sibling awareness 1 Tells siblings names 2 Identifies their sex 3 Identifies baby’s sex 4 Tells age of siblings 5 Can order siblings by age 6 Aware of own position in siblings 7 If baby expected, shows insight. Extended family 1 Aware of generations 2 Explains relationship to grandparents 3 Explains relationship to aunts 4 Explains relationship to uncles 5 Explains relationship to cousins 6 Explains relationship to friends and neighbours THE ENVIRONMENT Familiar Roles 1 Milkman 2 Dustman 3 Shopkeeper 4 Postman 5 Teacher 6 Doctor G.P. 7 Lollipop person

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

Plants and Animals 1 Has a pet 2 Aware it needs food and shelter 3 Aware it reproduces 4 Aware of animals we eat To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

5 Aware of wild animals 6 Land/sea/air animals 7 Aware plant needs water 8 Aware plant needs light 9 Aware plants can be food 10 Aware of allotments, farms 11 Aware of seasons Familiar Places — can explain 1 Home function of rooms. 2 Shops 3 School 4 Park or garden 5 Roads 6 Hospital 7 Cinema Travel 1 Aware of walking distance 2 Bicycle 3 Buses 4 Trains 5 Cars 6 Ships 7 Ferryboat 8 Aeroplane 9 Helicopter 10 Submarine 11 Rockets To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

Circle appropriate comments active lethargic uncoordinated agile hesitant fluid speedy erratic sedentary timid skilful athletic boisterous clumsy accurate confident fearful

Balance 1 Walk 2 metres along 5cm wide line 2 Walk backwards 3 Stand with eyes closed 4 Walk sideways 5 Walk along balance bar 6 Hop 7 Stand on one leg eyes open 8 Stand on one leg eyes closed Co-ordination 1 Jumps up and down both feet at same time 2 Stairs climbs up/down 2 feet to a step 3 Stairs — climbs up/down alternate feet 4 Run and kick standing ball 5 Skip alternate feet 6 Run and jump over objects 7 Work swing unaided 8 Skip using rope fluently Co-ordination with a partner 1 See-saw on rocking-boat 2 Hold partners hands and move sideways 3 Hold partners hands and move in a circle 4 Throw and catch a ball. 5 Steer truck while partner pushes 6 Push truck while partner steers 7 Pull truck with passenger Agility 1 Run round in a circle 2 Crawl through a barrel 3 Run and collect objects 4 Climb through frame horizontally 5 Dodge in and out 6 Use stepping stones one at a time 7 use stepping stones alternate feet 8 Confidently dim onto and jump off apparatus Eye/Hand/Leg Co-ordination 1 Steer a truck in figure of 8 2 Pedal a tricycle 3 Roll a ball 4 Kick ball from standing To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

5 Throw a ball overarm/underarm

Checking key

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

6 Throw bean bag at a target 7 Bounce a ball, hand-patting 8 Stop, control and kick a moving ball Strength 1 Pull empty truck 2 Load truck with large wooden bricks 3 Pull loaded truck 4 Push loaded truck To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

Laterality

1st

2nd

3rd

1 Preferred Hand 2 Preferred eye 3 Preferred ear 4 Preferred foot

Modelling “plastic” substance (clay, dough, plasticene) 1 Can cut with a tool 2 Roll a sausage 3 Roll a ball 4 Conservation of volume? 5 Makes representative model Water/dry sand 1 Splasher; spills 2 Misdirects flow 3 Controls flow 4 Uses spout on jug 5 Uses funnel 6 Uses tubing 7 Pours accurately from small to large container 8 Pours accurately from large to small container stops in time 9 Pours from jug to bottle 10 Conservation of volume? Buttons 1 Unable to fasten 2 Some fastened, with difficulty 3 “One up/one down” 4 Readily, easily, accurately Wet sand 1 Uses hands only 2 Uses tolls

Problems

3 Fills container 4 Makes castle from a mould 5 Builds landscape” as basis for further play, e.g., with cars Manipulative Dexterity 1 Threading beads, clumsy, drops beads or lace more than once. 2 Laborious, hit-or-miss, beads threaded but without strategy. 3 Methodical and accomplished with finesse. 4 Can follow a pattern-card. Paper-weaving 1 Unable 2 Laborious, unfinished 3 Strategy methodical task accomplished

Sewing 1 Unable 2 Attempts 3 Able

To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Other Clothes 1 Shoes/boots match feet 2 Buckles unfastened 3 Buckles fastened 4 Hat and coat on 5 Hands into mittens 6 Hands into gloves 7 Fastens open-ended zip 8 Shoe laces (rare) USE OF TOOLS Scissors 1 Handedness 2 Single-handed grip 3 Open and shut blades single-handed 4 Makes parallel snips along paper edge 5 Can cut paper in half 6 Can cut out drawn circle or triangle 7 Can cut out picture from a magazine 8 Can cut cloth in half 9 Can cut thread Pencil skills — technique 1 Handedness 2 Palmar grip 3 Immature finger grip 4 Constantly shifts grip 5 Grip too tight 6 Grip too loose

Checking key

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

7 Wrong angle 8 Pencil held too near tip 9 Pencil held too near end 10 Efficient and comfortable grip, at viable angle to paper Paint Brush — technique 1 Drips, splashes, little control 2 Applies paint haphazardly, no interest in outcome 3 Uses colours at random 4 Uses single colour throughout 5 Controls amount and flow of paint on brush 6 Uses several colours purposefully 7 Predicts outcome 8 Representation — talks about 9 Strategy developed (e.g., filling in outlines) 10 Intentionally mixes colours To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

Hammer 1 Handedness 2 Hits a target circle 3 Hammer flat a nail already fixed in wood 4 Fix and hammer a nail into wood until firm 5 Join two pieces of wood using a nail Pencil Skills — meaningful use 1 Traces circle, triangle, cross 2 Copies vertical line, horizontal line circle square triangle 3 Draws between guidelines straight wavy spiral 4 Joins dot-to-dot 5 Draws representation 6 Captions drawings verbally Paint Brush — meaningful use 1 Unrecognisable blob/stripe splash 2 Empty circle 3 Head with features 4 Head, face and arms or legs 5 Head, face, arms and legs 6 Head, face, arms, legs, body, details, etc.

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

7 Houses, cars, etc. Jigsaws — Level of difficulty 1 Inset board with knobs 2 Inset board without knobs 3 Early tray jigsaw 9-12 pieces 4 10-15 piece interlocking jigsaw 5 25 piece interlocking jigsaw Jigsaw — technique 1 Random, no persistence 2 Trial and error 3 Picture matching 4 Shape matching (small puzzle, upside down) 5 Strategy — finds edges, pieces, corners, etc. To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

Junk modelling 1 Technique random 2 Technique inefficient 3 Technique uneconomical 4 Disorderly 5 No interest in outcome 6 Appreciates relative size and shape 7 Appreciates 3 D symmetry 8 Selects junk to fit together” 9 Produces named and recognisable model 2 — Dimensional collage 1 Technique random 2 Technique inefficient 3 Technique uneconomical 4 Disorderly 5 No interest in outcome 6 Appreciates symmetry 7 Appreciates visual balance 8 Produces a pattern 9 Produces a named representation Linked Construction (Lego, sticklebricks) 1 Technique haphazard 2 No interest in outcome 3 Produces a named model by trial and error 4 Tells intentions, uses skill and strategy to construct recognisable named model 5 Uses axles, nuts, bolts, wheels, etc. Small building blocks VERTICAL BALANCE — Constructs tower of 4

unable shaky firmly ALIGNMENT

unable shaky straight

HORIZONTAL — road — bricks laid end to end misaligned well aligned Large scale “constructions” 1 Appreciates need for balance 2 Appreciates need for alignment 3 Appreciates symmetry 4 Appreciates relative size 5 Appreciates relative weight 6 Uses triangular, cylindrical and irregular blocks effectively To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

Play with Large scale building blocks 1 Co-operates with another child 2 Incorporates furniture, cartons, etc. 3 Construction used as basis for imaginative play. To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable 2. To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

1 Classification Matches 1 Identical objects 2 By colour red, yellow, blue, green, other 3 By shape circle, triangle, square, cross

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

Sorts (small wooden figures) Into 2 groups 2 Into 3 groups

Explains Grouping

Sorts (wood, plastic, metal objects, dolls house furniture) Explains grouping 1 By colour 2 By size 3 By function 4 By material 5 By other principle Sorts familiar pairs 1 cup and saucer 2 shoe and lace 3 knife and fork 4 soap and flannel 5 toothbrush and toothpaste 6 paintbrush and paint pot 7 paper and crayons

Explains grouping

Sorts geometrical solids (mathematical and environmental) 1 spheres 2 cones 3 cubes 4 cuboids 5 hexagonal prism 6 triangular prism Names 1 sphere 2 cone 3 cube 4 cuboid 5 hexagonal prism 6 triangular prism To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

2 Number concepts One-to-one correspondence 1 Can you give each big block a little one? 2 Can you give each big block a little one? 3 Can you give each big block a little one?

Up to 2 2—5 More than 5

Number conversation (Count blocks into box, close lid and ask child how many?)

1 Up to 2 2 2-5 3 More than 5 Counts by transferring objects 1 Up to 2 2 2-5 3 More than 5 Numerical recognition (circle) 0 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8

9

Can write 0123456789 Name Development of language skills To be completed after observation, tick all applicable items please turn over if further comments are necessary. Dates recorded

1st (blue) 2nd (Red) 3rd (black)

Checking key

1 Speech articulation 1 Defect suspected/referred/confirmed/n.a. 2 Speech clear and intelligible to strangers 3 Shows frustration if not understood Speech maturity Sounds e.g., tat” for cats

Grammar

confusions omissions substitutions

me do it growed other

2 Auditory Skills Discimination 1 Hearing defect suspected/referred/confirmed/n.a. Identification of familiar sounds (use tape) 1 Telephone 2 Ice-cream van 3 Fire engine/ambulance 4 Doorbell 5 Train 6 Plane 7 Ship’s hooter Musical instruments

*able †approaching ‡unable **not applicable

1 drum 2 cymbals 3 plucked string instrument 4 recorder 5 Piano 6 Jingle bells 7 bowed string instrument Matches 3 pairs of shakers Discriminates loud/quiet (Use same sound, change intensity) Tap Clap Voice child’s name 1 2

2 sounds identified as high-pitched 2 sounds identified as low-pitched

Auditory memory Can the child repeat these rhythms? 1 3 even beat sequence 2 3 quick and slow” beat sequences 3 3 ‘quick, quick slow” bet sequences 4 3 “slow, slow, quick, quick” sequences 5 Can the child repeat a non-familiar nursery rhyme? — with words in order — tune approximate 6 Computer skills level I? Verbal memory — for a story Tell a non-familiar story ask the child to retell it. 1 No attempt to recall or retell it 2 Isolated, unrelated incidents recalled, no linking, no story sequence. 3 “Gist” of story told, some details 4 Thread of story retold in sequence with awareness of central characters and events. 5 As 4 plus expression, characterisation, projection. Comprehension of adult Language used for classroom organisation 1 Heeds remarks addressed to him by name 2 Heeds remarks addressed in his direction (e.g., “children playing with the sand etc.”) 3 Heeds remarks addressed to his “group” (e.g., “Will Mrs X’s group come to the quiet room”) 4 Listens to adult’s instructions in a class situation (e.g. song, ring games, birthday party) 5 Follows a simple individual instruction (e.g., “Put your cup on the tray”) 6 Follows a 2-part instruction (e.g., “Pick up the plasticene and given to Mrs X”) 7 Follows a complex instruction (e.g., “Ask Mrs X for the registers and bring them to me in the book corner”) ...

Child’s expressive use of language (after Joan Tough) Self maintaining

Does he use language to: 1 Ask for help 2 Ask for adult intervention 3 Justify his behaviour 4 Criticise others 5 Threatens others Organising activities 1 Monitoring own actions (running commentary) 2 Directing himself 3 Directing others 4 Collaborating with others Reporting out of school experiences 1 Passing reference to incidents 2 Sometimes tells sequence of events, e.g., family visit 3 Always eager to tell experiences, which he has understood and reliably communicates. Developing reasoning 1 Explains a process “How”, e.g., getting dressed 2 Recognise cause and effect “WHY/BECAUSE” 3 Analyses a practical problem verbally, e.g., “The truck won’t move cos there are too many people in it” 4 Suggests course of action to solve it e.g., “If A and B get out, then the truck can move” 5 Reflect on events and draw conclusions e.g., 1.0. “Would you give a baby a knife to play with?” “No he might cut himself” 6 Recognise a principle, e.g., All sharp things aren’t safe for babies. Predicting 1 Verbally anticipates events, e.g., “Mummy’ll come after storytime”. 2 Anticipates in detail and in sequence, e.g., “We’re going to have a film instead of story and if there’s time we’ll have another one — teacher, can we have “Rapunzel”?” 3 Anticipates problems, and suggests possible solutions, e.g., “If Paul breaks the bricks and our school hasn’t any more money for toys I’ll give you my money teacher — or we could get some out of the Fruit Money box and go and buy some toys.” 4 Anticipates alternative courses of action. . .or 5 Predicts consequences of action, e.g., “Hide our Batman cloaks in the box then the afternoon children won’t know where they are and we can have them on again.” Projecting Puts himself in another’s place. 1 Projects into other people’s experience and situations, e.g., “My Dad’s going to Saudi and he’ll be all by himself and not at home”. 2 Projects into others feelings, e.g., “He won’t like it and he’ll want to come home”. 3 Projects into a situation never experienced e.g., “It’s all hot there and thirsty - but I haven’t been”. Imagining — use of symbolic language 1 Initiates own imaginative play. 2 Joins in another childs’imaginative play. 3 Initiates and others join his imaginative play. 4 Based on real life. 5 Based on fantasy. 6 “Transforms” object, e.g., brick into gun, for imaginative play. 7 Can use words only to represent objects e.g., “There’s a shark and an octopus in the river —

where’s my ray gun? kpowl kpow!”. 8 Spontaneously acts out imaginary roles and sustains character for some time. Book skills leading to reading 1 Picture interpretation Does the child grasp the central meaning of a picture? Ask “What’s happening here?” 1 Little interest or comprehension. 2 Single word labels of objects depicted, child focuses on them in turn, without suggesting their interrelationship. 3 Child reports details, but no context or framework. 4 Child grasps and expresses “skeleton” of central meaning. 5 Child fully explains central meaning, elaborates in detail and may predict what happens next. 2 Picture card sequencing Ask child to arrange the cards to tell the familiar story. 1 In appropriate response. 2 Shuffles cards, arranges face upwards but at random, no interpretation of pictures. 3 Treats cards as discrete items, interprets pictures, but in isolation. 4 Tells gist of story, but cannot use cards to illustrate his story. 5 Visually sequences cards, but unable to tell the story. 6 Approximate attempt at both sequencing and retelling, some errors. 7 Reveals understanding of the sequence of events depicted by ordering cards correctly and retelling the story. 3 Technique in using books Ask child to bring you a familiar picture book from the book corner and to tell you or teddy, or another child, the story. 1 Locates book correctly. 2 Brings book to adult. 3 Book held upside down. 4 Book held right way up. 5 Book used ‘inconsequentially”, as an object, little interest 6 Pages riffled, several turned together. 7 Beginning located. 8 Pages turned left to right. 9 Pages turned singly. 3a Telling story technique — using picture book 1 Unable. 2 Pages used in isolation — sequential nature of story not appreciated. 3 Child races through story, making little use of pictures. 4 Child uses pictures, approximately matching to his words and retells “gist”. 5 Pictures/story well synchronised but terse. 6 Pictures/story well synchronised, story told with expression, elaboration and enjoyment.

Appendix 5 The Development of Service Delivery Models 5.1 The Committee spent some time discussing whether to provide specific models for service delivery. The main disadvantage was that any published model might become a fixed pattern to be simply accepted or rejected rather than a basis for discussion. We give a sample model in an appendix emphasising firstly that it is a sketch and secondly because to place it in the main report might interfere with the process of planning and developing services which reflect local circumstances. 5.2 The Divisional Management Group (3.16.30) would establish arrangements to coordinate and monitor areas of work and patterns of service delivery. it would also be responsible for staff development, in-service education, planning and the use of provision. Some officers and professions might be involved in all these activities and social services and health service representatives in some of them. 5.3 There would need to be another group of heads of Divisional teaching services (3.16.32) with heads of teams serving more than one Division (3.16.38). Members of this group would have the important task of providing professional advice to the Divisional management group and sub-groups and to each others service. It is assumed that appointments would be made at a sufficiently senior level to carry out these important functions. 5.4 The Committee envisages that in addition to the two existing Divisional services, namely the schools psychological and education welfare services, there might be four Divisional teaching services for learning support, for emotional and behavioural difficulty, for severe and complex learning difficulties and for health and home tuition needs. Teams servicing more than one Division whose leaders would work with these other form of teaching services might include those for children with motor, visual or hearing impairments, autism and speech and language disorders. 5.5 A first step in establishing Divisional services would be for the Divisional Management Group to ask particular special schools, units and peripatetic services to collaborate within current institutional patterns of work. The Group would then produce a programme for creating unified services. Table 5.1 illustrates one model of how this might be achieved. 5.6 Each service would operate within Divisional guidelines and the Divisional Education Officer would be responsible for coordinating the work of teaching services and schools psychological and educational welfare services. The aim of each service, facilitated by the Divisional Management Group would be to negotiate a pattern of service delivery to primary and secondary schools within clusters which included peripatetic, unit and other provision within a common framework. 5.7 The deployment of teaching and available resources within each teaching service is envisaged as the responsibility of the head of service within guidelines. Thus the opportunity for teachers to have different responsibilities over a period of years in a unified service would reduce artificial boundaries between teaching, support and advisory work and resolve some difficulties in current arrangements for secondment. 5.8 The Divisional Management Group would decide on the allocation of available resources to Divisional teaching services and to clusters and schools. We anticipate in the longer term a shift of some resources from Divisional teaching services to schools and that the boundaries between learning support and emotional and behavioural services may become less clear so that they might ultimately amalgamate. 5.9 Each service would have an internal management structure designed to respond to local demands reflecting the needs of different phases of education. That structure would also have reflect the links

between phases for example focusing on pre-school and primary needs and secondary and tertiary needs in order to provide continuity from the under five to the post school period.

Table 5.1: A possible scheme for divisional services The lines on this diagram represent some of the potential for links between services in this scheme and should not be read in this context as lines of management.

Education Welfare Service

l Schools

Divisional Teaching Services

Psychological 1 service I

I Teaching

: services rfor more I than one I division

, . I I

----

Learning Support services

Emotional/ Behavioural difficulties

Health and home tuition

Examples

Peripatetic and unit services for specific learning . difficulties

Peripatetic staff

Home tuition staff

Hearing motor

Various units

'Delicate' schools

E.B.D. Schools

Hospital teaching services

Severe and Complex learning Home liaison teachers

S.LD. Schools

MLD. Schools

:

I

Heads of divisional services

I

J i

,

Heads of divisional teaching services

!

-I Divisional Management Group

258

Visual impairment Boarding provision Heads of these services

APPENDIX 6 Flowchart of Assessment Procedure Under the Education Act 1981 WARNOCK ASSESSMENT (several professionals involved) Stages 1-3 completed

Section 5

LEA decideJchild has SE needs and they may have to determine SE provision

~

2 weeks (a) (b) (c) (d) 5 weeks

2 weeks

writes to parent to advice they propose to assess details of procedure name of officer parents' right to submit evidence or make representation _____ _ _____ parent makes

I

representation

LEA decides to assess and tells

parents why

~ 10 weeks

WARNOCK ASSESSMENT Stages 4 and 5 completed

1 ---------------

LEA considers evidence and ..... decides: (a) (b)

1 week

~

l

special educational provision is necessary



special educationaJ

provIsion IS not ~ necessary

Sec. of State LEA to reconsider

I

~ parent appeals Sec. of State

1 Section 7

LEA makes 'proposed statement' of special

5 weeks

(Papers send to school) (School says will see parent and pupil)

1 Sec. of State supports (appeal fails)

1

LEA sends 'proposed statement'

to parents and informs parent of right of representation

3 weeks

!

(parent visits school)

(a)

parent makes representation to LEA

2 3 2 6 3 41

28 weeks

259

(b)

weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks

Parent requires a meeting

Meeting takes place Parent requires further meeting Meetings held Parents makes representation

! 3 weeks

considers representations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , LEA decides:

J

(a) sticks to statement

Section 8 1 week

4 week

(b)

modifies statement

(c)

l~

!

1 week 4 weeks

(several professionals involved)

withdraws statement

LEA informs parent

parent appeals to LEA appeals committee

+

appeals committee hears representations

+

appeals committee decides: - - - - - - - - - - - - . . (a) to confirm 'he special educational provision specified in the statement

(b)

to remit the case back to LEA for reconsideration

(c)

to direct the LEA to cease to maintain the statement

+

2 weeks

Parents appeals to Sec retary of State

8 weeks

Secretary of State consults LEA

+

t

Secretary of State decides:

1 week

(a)

l~ (b)

To confirm the special educational provision in the statement (appeal fails)

statement

~

~

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL (after arrangements PROVISION TAKES PLACE with school 67 weeks

260

ORDINARY EDUCATION PROVISION TAKES PLACE

APPENDIX 7 List of Visits Paid by the Committee Members of the Committee visited the following places during the course of their work: Abbots Wood Off-Site Unit Gloucester Junior School Battersea County School Greenmead Primary School Battersea Sports Centre Greenwich Education Guidance Centre Beacon Nursery (MENCAP) Grenfell School Beormund School Griffin Manor School Bowden House SchoQI Grove House School Bradstow School Hackney Education Guidance Centre Brechnoch Opportunity Class Hackney Support Centre Bredinghurst School Haggerston School Brent Knoll School Hammersmith County School Bridge House Support Centre Hammersmith Home Tuition Centre Brixton Child Guidance Unit Hammersmith Support Centre Brixton College Hammersmith and West London College Bromley Hall School Hampstead School Burlington Danes School Handicapped Adventure Playground Association Burrow Hill School Fulham Palace Cambridge House Project Handicapped Adventure Playground Association Camden/Westminster Education Guidance Centre Wandsworth Canonbury Child Guidance Unit Harborough School Cardinal Vaughan School Hatchford Park School Careers Service, Connaught Street Haverstock School Partially Hearing Unit Carlton Primary Tutorial Class Hawthorn Cottage School Central Foundation Boys School Heathlands School Chalcot School Highbury Fields School Chartfield School Highbury Grove School Charlton Park School Holland Park School Cherry Garden School Holland Villas Tutorial Class City Literary Institute Holloway School City of London Polytechnic Holy Trinity School Colebrooke School Home Tuition Centre ILEA Division 8 Comet Nursery (Southwark) Cotton Street Project Home Tuition Centre ILEA Division 9 Crofton Sixth Form Centre (Lambeth) Crusoe House School Home Tuition Centre ILEA Division 10 Culloden Partially Hearing Unit (Wandsworth) De Beauvoir JM School Horizon School De Lucy Primary School The Huddleston Centre Diagnostic Centre, Ebury Street Hurlingham and Chelsea School Dromenagh School Hyde Farm School Earls Court Child Guidance Unit Ickburgh School Eastgate Off-Site Unit ILEA Resource Centre for Motor and Associated Ecclesbourne Primary Tutorial Class Communication Handicaps Eleanor Palmer Primary School Intermediate Education Centre, Tower Hamlets Elfrida Rathbone Camden Home Stimulation Project Islington Education Guidance Centre Elizabeth Burgwin School Islington Green School Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School Jack Tilard School Eltringham Remedial Centre John Aird School Enborne Lodge School John Milton School Fleet Primary School KenSington Emperors Swimming Club Forest Hill Child Guidance Unit KenSington Support Centre Franklin Delano Roosevelt School . Kidbrooke School Fulham Cross School Kids Centre Fulham Education Guidance Centre Kings Acre JMI School Garnett College Kingdale School Garrett Green School Kingsway - Princeton College Gatton Tutorial Class Laingdon Family Centre George Orwell School Larkhall JM&I School Gloucester Infants School Latimer Education Guidance Centre

261

Laycock Primary Partially Hearing Unit Lewisham Education Guidance Centre Lillian Baylis School Linden Lodge School Livingstone Nursery School Lower Clapton Child Guidance Unit Manpower Services Commission Margaret Press Assessment Centre Mary Hughes Day Nursery Mary Sheridan Assessment Centre Maudsley and Bethlem Hospital School Mayfield School Mayville Off-Site Unit Maze Hill School Meadowgate School MENCAP London Region Offices Meridian Partially Hearing Unit Montem Junior Remedial Class Mount Carmel School National Bureau for Handicapped Students New River School Northcote Lodge School Northcraft School North London College Northwold Primary Remedial Class Norwood School Oak Lodge School Old Kent Road Tutorial Class Our Lady's Convent High School Overland Day Nursery Paddock School Parkwood Hall School Plessey Off-Site Unit Pre-School Unit, London Hospital Providence House Off-Site Unit Queen Elizabeth" Jubilee School Queensmill School Rachel Keeling Nursery School Richard Cloudesly School Richard of Chichester School Rose Cottage School Rosemary School

Royal Free Hospital School St Aloysious' School St Edmunds School St Leonards Nursery School St Mary's (0167) Junior School St Michaels (Camden Town) Primary School St Pauls Way School St Stephens IT Centre Samuel Rhodes School Sedgehill Partially Hearing Unit SENSE (National Association for Deaf, Blind and Rubella Handicapped) Family Centre Shawcroft School Sir John Cass School Skinners Company Girls School South East London Technical College (SELTEC) South London College (Cotswold Annexe) South Thames College Southfields Partially Hearing Unit Southvale (Section 56) Unit Southwark Adult Education Institute Southwark College Stockgrove Park School Stormont House School Streatham Opportunity Group Sunley House Families Centre (Toynbee Hall) Sussex Centre Remedial Class Templars School The Thursday Club Tutorial Classes Divison 5 (Tower Hamlets) Vanburgh Primary Tutorial Class Wanstead House School Waterfield Reading Centre Remedial Class The Wayford Centre Webber Row Teachers Centre Wedgewood School Wentworth Nursery William Ellis School William Penn School Wood Lane School The Wycliffe School

262

APPENDIX 8 Evidence Received by the Committee The following is a list of those who responded to the Committee's various requests for evidence. The vast majority of evidence came in the form of written submissions, many of them very detailed, in response to the widely publicised general request for evidence during the Autumn term of 1984. Other submissions were in response to specific requests for oral evidence from the Committee, or in less formal discussions with individuals or small groups of members. We have attempted to distinguish between personal submissions and those made by individuals on behalf of others, and have listed the latter by the name of the group or organisation rather than the individual. We are very grateful to everyone who responded to our invitations for evidence in such large numbers and with submissions of such high quality. Carol Ackroyd Parent Acland Burghley School Governors, Staff, Learning Support Department Linda S Adams Senior Houseparent, Woolverstone Hall School Miss S. Adams - District Physiotherapist, Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Health Authority Adamsnll J & I School Governors Advisory Centre for Education (ACE) Advisory Team for Geography and Environmental Studies (ILEA) Miss J. R. Ainsworth - Headteacher Sellincourt Junior School Brian Akhurst - Inspector with Responsibilities for Special Educational Needs Albermarle Primary School Governors Alexandra Priory School - Governors Ros Ali -- Holly Court School Allfarthing Primary School Governors Julia Allton Senior Lecturer, Tower Hamlets AEI Alma JM & I Schools - Governors Anerley School Governors Elizabeth Appleyard -- Supply Teacher Ashmead JM & I Schools Governors Monica Askay - Teacher in Charge, Monson Remedial Class Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association (AMMA) Association for all Speech Impaired Children (AFASIC) Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus (ASBAH) Avery Hill College - Staff Malcom Bain - Inspector with Responsibilities for Special Educational Needs Balham Nursery School - Staff and Governors Bangladeshis' Educational Needs in Tower Hamlets (BENTH) Matilda Barker - Divisional Educational Psychologist, ILEA Division 4 (Hackney) Mr R. B. Barnes - Headteacher, Great Stony School Mrs Jean Barratt District Speech Therapist (Wandsworth Health Authority) Rosemary Bates - Teacher, Phoenix School Battersea Child Guidance Unit Child Guidance Team Battersea County School Reading Department Miss P. Bayes - Psychiatric Social Worker Maggie Beach Teacher in Charge, Islington Green School Sanctuary Beatrice Tate School Staff Belleville Primary School Governors Alice Bellfield - Vice Principal, The Central Institute of Adult Education Beormund School Governors Denise Bennett Teacher, Montem Remedial Class Gee Bernard - Community Social Worker and ILEA Member Bessemer Grange Junior School Teaching Staff and Governors Bethnal Green Nurseries Governors Mr R. N. Bhattacharyya -- Adviser, Multi-ethnic Inspectorate Mrs M. Biller Headteacher, Dulwich Wood Nursery School Rosaleen J. M. Birks de Mock - Deputy Head, Crusoe House School

263

Margaret Biscoe - George Orwell School Black Action Group (Wandsworth) Bloomfield Learning Centre (Guys Hospital) - Staff Dr M. Bommen - Consultant Paediatrician, Leon Gillis Centre Roger Booker - Divisional Educational Psychologist, ILEA Division 6 (Greenwich) Tony Booth Open University School of Education Mrs B. A. Bouldstridge - Acting Head, Nansen School Bowden House School - Staff and Governors Marjorie Boxall - Educational Psychologist Mrs E. M. Boyd Headteacher, Honeywell Infants School Bradstow SchOol Staff Bradstow School Parents Association Mrs J. A. Branston - Swaffield Junior School Brent Knoll School - Staff Brixton College - Academic Board Broadwater JM & I School - Governors Bromley Hall School Staff Helen Brown Parent Mary Brown Teacher in Charge, Old Kent Road Tutorial Class Bebb Burchell ILEA Equal Opportunities Officer Naomi Burgess - Educational Support Department, Holloway School Burrow Hill School Staff and Governors Camden Campaign for the Advancement of State Education Camden Committee for Community Relations Camberwell Child Guidance Unit Child Guidance Team Birgit Carolin - Young People's Adviser, Greenwich Park School Catford School - Governors Jo Cameron and Parents of Children attending Streatham Opportunity Group Central Consultative of Headteachers for Special Schools Boarding School SUb-Committee Central Foundation Girls School - Special Needs Faculty Central Psychiatric Team -ILEA Medical Department Centre for Urban Educational Studies Chalcot School Governors and Staff Herman Chan-Pensley - Senior Educational Psychologist Claire Chappell- Senior Remedial Teacher, ILEA Division 2 (Camden and Westminster) Dr Clive Charlesworth Consultant Psychiatrist, Eastbourne Health District Charlton Park School Parents Chartfield School - Staff Cherry Garden School Staff Chesterton Junior School-- Governors Cheyne Centre for Spastic Children Childcare Staff on the BSS Part 2 Course Child Guidance Unit Teachers The Children'S Legal Centre Mrs Anne E. Christopherson - Chair of Governors, James Wolfe Primary Schools City of Birmingham - Education Department City and Hackney Health Authority Community Health Services Unit City Lit Centre for the Deaf City of Westminster Social Services Department Clapham Park School Governors Tony Cline - Principal Educational Psychologist John Cockett Centre Team Leader, Greenwich Young People's Theatre Hilda Cole ILEA Teaching Staff Branch Margaret Cole - Home/School liaison teacher Margaret Cole Senior Remedial Teacher, ILEA Division 2 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Colebrook School - Staff Mr D. M. Collins, Divisional Education Officer, ILEA Division 5 (Tower Hamlets) Mrs Philippa Collins Teacher in Charge, Globe Remedial Class Lynne Conolly - Head of Partially Hearing Unit, Sedgehill School The Consortium (Resources for Severe Learning Difficulties) ILEA Learning Resources Branch 264

Consultative Committee of Headteachers of Schools for Children with Learning Difficulties Consultative Sub-Committee of Headteachers of Schools for the Motor Disordered Coombe Hall School- Staff Mary Cook Home Tutor, ILEA Division 4 (Hackney) Philippa Cordingley ILEA 16-19 Unit Mr J. N. Cordwell- Assistant Divisional Education Officer, ILEA Division 5 (Tower Hamlets) Carole Coster - Special Educational Needs Support Teacher ILEA Division 4 (Hackney) David Coulby - Teacher and Governor Jacquie Coulby - Acting Head, The Redlands Primary School John Coulston - Headteacher, Rose Cottage School Mr D. Cox and Mrs P. S, Cox Parents Mrs Joan Craddock - Senior Principal Social Worker (Psychiatric Services) Miss S. L. Crane - Director of Nursing Services (Community) Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Health Authority George Crowford - Psychiatric Social Worker Dr Andrew Crowcroft - Consultant Psychiatric Adviser to ILEA George Crowther -- District Inspector with Responsibilities for Special Educational Needs IVlr F. J. Dale - Peripatetic Teacher for Children with combined defects of sight and hearing Dr Jonathan Dare Consultant Child and Family Psychiatrist, Kings College Hospital Daubeney JM & I Schools - Governors Martine Davey Houseparent, Linden Lodge School Colin Diamond - Acting Head, Special Educational Needs Department, Sir William Collins School Nat Diamond - Educational Psychologist Ditton Place School Staff and Governors Division 10 (ILEA - Wandsworth) - Conference on Special Educational Needs Dog Kennel Hili Schools - Governors Mr M. J. Donovan Headteacher, Warnham Court School Steve Downey - ILEA Principal Learning Resources Adviser (Media) Downsview School - Staff Dromenagh School Governors Durand J & I Schools Governors Mr David Dyer - ILEA Divisional Office 1 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Dyslexia Clinic - St Bartholomews Hospital Eardley JM & I Schools - Governors Eardley Infants School Staff Eastwood Nursery Schools Govemors Edmund Waller Schools - Governors Education Welfare Service ILEA Division 1 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Education Welfare Service ILEA Division 3 (Islington) Education Welfare Service Working Party - ILEA Division 8 (Southwark) Education Welfare Service - ILEA Division 9 (Lambeth) (Conference on) "Educational Psychology and the Black and Ethnic Minority Commnunities" Steve Edwards- Divisional Educational Psychologist ILEA Division 10 (Wandsworth) Effra Nursery Schools - Governors Christine Egerton - Careers Officer, ILEA Division 10 (Wandsworth) Elfrida Rathbone School - Staff Elfrida Rathbone Society - Camden Office Eliot Bank Primary School - Governors Elm Court School - Staff Elizabeth Burgwin School - Staff and Governors Eltringham Reading Centre Staff Ricky Emmanuel Psychiatric Social Worker Enborne Lodge School Governors Angela Enock Deputy Head, St Clement's and St James CE Primary School Ethelburgh Primary School ~- Governors Jenny Evans London Institute of Education Eveline Lowe JM & I Schools- Governors Gordon K. Everill- Teacher in Charge, Meridian Partially Hearing Unit .Mrs Joan Farrelly - District Inspector with Responsibilities for Special Educational Needs Anthony Feiler - Educationalpsychologist

265

Denis Felsenstein - Senior Staff Inspector (Secondary) Fernhurst Schools - Governors Graham Fisher - Senior Lecturer in Special Education, Avery Hill College Mr L Fisher - Governor, George Rainey School Dr John Foley Neurologist, Cheyne Centre for Spastic Children Forest Hill Child Guidance Unit - Child Guidance Team Miss Iris Forrester - Governor Michael Foskett - Principal Houseparent, Green Stony School Sally Foskett -~ Teacher, Great Stony School Miss K. Francis Specialist Youth Officer (Handicapped) Miss P. V. Francis -~ Headteacher, Winton JM & I School Dr A. L. Frenkiel Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Health Authority Furzedown School - Governors Jane Gabb Teacher. Weaversfield School Dr Gabella Assessment Unit, St Ann's Hospital Derek Ganley -- Divisional Educational Psychologist, ILEA Division 8 (Southwark) George Green's School Staff George Rainey School - Staff Mrs C. Gibbons - Governor Moira Gladwish - Teacher GLC Disability Resource Team Brian Goacher London Institute of Education June Gordon~Walker Teacher, Elm Court School Gordonbrock JM & I Schools Governors Mrs D. M. Gould Chair, Local Advisory Committee, ILEA Division 5 (Tower Hamlets) Ralph R. Gower Staff Inspector (Religious Education) Mr W. Gowland District Inspector (Secondary) ILEA Division 2 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Grafham Grange School Governors Fiona Graham - Superintendent Physiotherapist (Paediatrics), Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Health Authority Dr Rosemary Graham Wandsworth District Health Authority Granton ,.1M & I School- Governors Greater London Association for Disabled People (GLAD) Great Ormond Street Hospital School -- Governors Roberta Green - District Speech Therapist, Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Health Authority Mrs S. Green ILEA Schools Branch 9 Greens End IT Centre - Staff Greenwich Young People's Theatre Mrs Eva Gregory Senior Principal Social Worker (School Health Service) David Griffiths - Headteacher, Grafham Grange School Matthew Griffiths Advisory Lecturer (Special Needs in FE) Grinling Gibbons Primary School Governors The Grove Nursery School Governors Mrs B G. Habermehl - Headteacher, John Donne JM & I Rose Hacker - Governor Hackney Action for Mentally Handicapped People Hackney Adult Education Institute - Staff Hackney Council for Racial Equality Mrs S. A Haffenden -- Parent and Governor Dr David Hall- Consultant Paediatrician, St Georges Hospital, Medical School Mrs P. A. Hall - Headteacher, Bessemer Grange Infants School M. Hames NUT Representative, ILTA, Sub~Committee for Home Tuition Wallace Hamilton Child Psychotherapist Adviser (ILEA) Merril Hammer - Advisory Teacher (Special Educational Needs INSET) Hammersmith Child Guidance Unit - Child Guidance Team Bryan Hanson - Teacher/Warden, Springwel/ House Residential Centre Bob Hancock Senior Staff Inspector (Special Education) The Handicapped Adventure Playground Association Ltd (HAPA) Mr M. Haque - Member, ILEA Equal Opportunities, Staff and General and Schools Sub~Committees Harborough School - Staff, Psychiatric Team, Governors and Parents 266

Mrs Mary Hardy Senior Nurse, District Handicap, Victoria Health Authority Tim Harper - Educational Psychologist Dr Elizabeth Harris -- Consultant in Child and Family Psychiatry, Earls Court Child Guidance Unit Mrs Mary Harris - Maths in Work Project Mrs P. Harrop Assistant Divisional Educational Psychologist, ILEA Division 2 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Rose Harrison -- Parent Mr J. A Hart - Deputy Divisional Educational Psychologist, ILEA Division 5 (Tower Hamlets) John Hart - Acting Senior Staff Inspector (Special Education) Trevor Hartnup - District Principal Child Psychotherapist, Wandsworth Health Authority Hatchford Park School Governors Mrs Unity Harvey - Hospital Teacher Heads of 'Delicate' Schools Heads of Special Needs Departments ILEA Division 10 (Wandsworth) Headteachers of Schools for Children with emotional and behavioural difficulties Headteachers of Schools for Children with Severe Learning Difficulties Dr C. D. Heath Chairman, West Lambeth Health Authority, Special Needs Team Heathermount School-- Staff and Governors Heathlands School Staff, Governors, Parents and Children Mr J. H. Henley- Parent Hertfordshire County Council- Education Department Mr H, J. Hewitt -- Warden, Teachers Centre for Special Education, Webber Row Mr D. Hicks - Senior Staff Inspector (General Duties) Iris Hill ILEA Divisional Office 10 (Wandsworth) R. Hill- Headteacher, Grove House Primary School Barbara Hilton- Inspector for Further and Higher Education Hitherfield J & I Schools Governors Geoffrey Hodson Inspector for Drama Fred Hogbin -- ILEA Schools Branch Holbeach Primary School - Governors Mrs Pat Holland Peripatetic Teacher Home and Hospital Tuition Service, ILEA Home Tuition Teaching Staff, ILEA Division 8 (Southwark) Annie Hopewell- Special Educational Needs Support Teacher, ILEA Division 3 (islington) Horniman Primary School Governors Hornsey Rise Child Guidance Unit Child Guidance Team Ruth Howard - ILEA Schools Branch Hoxton Child Guidance Unit --- Child Guidance Team Mrs J, E. Hull -- District Inspector with Responsibilities for Special Educational Needs/for Under Fives with

Special Educational Needs Catherine Humphreys -- District Speech Therapist, Tower Hamlets Health Authority John Hutchings Divisional Educational Psychologist ILEA Division 5 (Tower Hamlets) Mr R, D, Huxtable Headteacher, Hatchford Park School Hyde Farm School Staff and Governors Hydeburn School Governors Mrs Dolly Hyne -- Parent and Governor Inner London Black Teachers Group Inner London Teachers Association (ILTA) ILTA Sub-Committee for Home Tuition Islington Community Team for People with a learning disability (Mental Handicap) Islington Educational Guidance Centre Staff Islington Family Service Unit Islington Green School- Staff Trisha Jaffe- Head of Learning Support, Stoke Newington School Trevor Jaggar -- Chief Inspector (Schools) James Wolfe Unit - Staff R, L. Jenkins Head of Special Education Needs Support Department, Haberdasher's Aske's Hatcham

Boys School John Aird School John Ball School -

Staff Governors

267

John Collett Barge - Staff John Evelyn Primary Schools Governors John Ruskin JM & I Schools - Governors John Stainer School Governors Dr M, E. 0, Johns - Consultant Child Psychiatnst, Tavistock Child Guidance Training Centre David Jones - ILEA Schools Branch 4 Joyce Jones -ILEA Schools Branch 7 Mrs M. Jones Secretary, Wandsworth Association for School Parents Tom Jupp Inspector, Further, Higher and Continuing Education Ken Jupp Headteacher, Lexden Springs School (Essex LEA) Fran Kahn - Special Educational Needs Support Teacher, ILEA Division 8 (Southwark) Dr E, Kangeson - Principal Medical Officer, Camberwell Health Authority Fiona Kelly - Under-Fives Co-ordinator, MENCAP London Region Kelvin Grove Primary School - Governors Paul Keogh - Principal Psychiatric Social Worker John Kettle - District Inspector with Responsibilities for Special Educational Needs Vivien King Special Educational Needs Support Teacher, ILEA Division 10 (Wandsworth) King's Acre School - Governors Kingsdale School - Staff Kingsway Princeton College Staff Ms J, M. Landsell Specialist Teacher in Charge, Waterfield Remedial Class Betsy Langford Teacher, Latimer Remedial Class Lambeth Action for Handicapped Children Lambeth Campaign for the Advancement of State Education Lambeth Tutorial Classes - Staff Lauriston Primary School - Staff Ian Lebens - Teacher in Charge, Culloden Partially Hearing Unit Lee Manor J & I Schools - Governors Robert Lee - Senior Houseparent, Hatchford Park School Leeds City Council - Department of Education Doris Leibowitz PrinCipal Psychologist, Gloucester House Child Guidance Training Centre Day Unit Diane Leston Speech Therapy Adviser, ILEA Medical Department Ron Letheren - Senior Staff Inspector (Primary) Lewisham Bridge Primary School - Governors Lewisham Education Guidance Centre Staff Linda Liddy - Houseparent, Wandstead House School Linden Lodge School Staff S, M. Lindquist - Teacher Sue Lines - Teacher Mrs V. J. Lockwood -- Parent London Borough of Bexley Directorate of Education London Borough of Brent - Education Department London Borough of Croydon -- Education Department London Borough of Greenwich -- Directorate of Social Services London Borough of Haringey -- Education Department London Borough of Islington - Social Services Department London Headteachers Association Mr J. S. Longden - Parent and Governor Wendy Longman - Teacher in Charge, Greenwich Remedial Class Loughborough School -- Governors Mrs Kather Lowers - Headteacher, Penwortham Junior School Kate Luffingham - Headteacher, Harelrigge Primary School Sylvia Lucas - Headteacher, Kingsmead School Lyndhurst Primary School Governors James MacDougall - Assistant Education Officer (Further and Higher Education) Richard MacMullen -ILEA Schools Branch Cath Maely-- Houseparent, Charlton Park School Philip Maggs Deputy Principal Educational Psychologist Miss B. L. Maltby - Divisional Education Welfare Officer, ILEA Division 3 (Islington) Margaret Press Assessment Centre Staff 268

Marlborough Education Unit - Staff Mrs Elizabeth Martin Organiser ILEA Home and Hospital Tuition Service Irene Martin - Educational Psychologist Dr Elizabeth Mason Registrar in Community Medicine, Paddington and North Kensington Health Authority Mathematics Support Team ILEA Liz Maudslay Lecturer, North London College Maudsley and Bethlem Royal Hospital School - Staff Mayfield School Staff Maytree Nursery Governors Maze Hill School -- Staff Dr Alan McClelland - Consultant in Adolescent and Child Psychiatry, Wandsworth Child Guidance Unit Elizabeth McGovern Equal Opportunities Officer, ILEA Meadway School - Staff Meadowgate School -- Staff Noor Miah and Bengali Parents at "Khela Ghor" Robin Millar Director, ILEA Learning Difficulties Support Service Barry Mitchell - Principal Education Welfare Officer Mrs Barbara Moar - Headteacher, Tidemill Primary School Mr P. Modgil- Psychiatric Social Worker Jeni Modica -- Special Educational Needs Support Teacher, ILEA Division 4 (Hackney) Eva Molony Educational Psychologist Nithiakalyani Moodley Headteacher, Royal Free Hospital School David Morgan Senior Remedial Teacher (1983-84), ILEA Division 4 (Hackney) Morpeth School Support Department Mowlem JM & I Schools - Governors Mrs Kathleen Muir Governor Peter Munro - Headteacher, Greenvale School Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain and Northern Ireland David Mycroft - Divisional Educational Psychologist, ILEA Division (Islington) Dr M. Nasirullah Consultant Psychiatrist, Gideon School Nathaniel Heckford School-- Psychiatric Team National Association for Deaf/Blind and Rubella Handicapped (SENSE) National Association for Remedial Education (NARE) National Association of Governors and Managers (NAGM) National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teacher (NAS/UWT) National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) National Bureau for Handicapped Students (NBHS) National Deaf Children's Society (West and South West London Branch) National Federation of the Blind UK/Association of Blind and Partially Sighted Teachers and StudentsJoint Education Committee National Union of Public Employees (NUPE) Nell Gwyn Nursery School -- Governors New River School - Staff New Woodlands School - Staff Peter Newell- Children's Legal Centre Dr C G. H. Newman Consultant Paediatrician and Director, Leon Gillis Centre Mr B, S, Nicholson Staff Inspector for Design and Technology Ruth Nixon -- Senior Lecturer, South East London Technical College Sue Norgate -ILEA School Branch 6 Northcote Lodge School - Governors Ockenden Venture IT Project -- Staff John Ogden Principal Adviser, London Boroughs Children's Regional Planning Committee CarolOhony Advisory Teacher for Profoundly/Multiply Handicapped Children Margaret Oke - Educational Psychologist Alice Onion Teacher Orchard JM & I Schools -- Governors Orchard Lodge Regional Resource Centre (Southwark) Staff Oxfordshire County Council Education Department Paddington College -- Staff

269

Paddington Integration Project -- Management Committee Paddington and North Kensington Health Authority District Handicap Team Parents Campaign for Integrated Education in London Britt Parker - Headteacher, Conway Infants School Major M, C, Parkes - Service Children's Education Authority, Ministry of Defence Parkwood Hall School ~- Staff Ted Patten - Educational Psychologist Dr J, B, Pearce - Consultant Psychiatrist, Guys Hospital Dorothy Pennington - Headteacher, Green Acres Primary School W. Pennycook -- Teacher in Charge, Tutorial Class I, Tredegar Road Margaret Penton - Information and Advice Officer, Southwark Pentwortham Junior School - Staff Peripatetic Teachers - ILEA Division 2 (Camden and Westminster) Peripatetic Teachers for Children with Behavioural Problems, ILEA Division 7 (Lewisham) Peripatetic Teachers for the Visually Handicapped Linda Perry - Teacher in Charge, Vauxhall Remedial Class Phoenix School - Staff Pine End School- Governors Mrs S, A. Pinson Parent and Governor Dr Betty Powe Principal Physician (Child Health) Victoria Health Authority Patricia Potts Open University, School of Education Roy Price - Divisional Education Officer, ILEA Division 3 (Islington) Primary Support Team -ILEA Division 1 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Mr M. R, Prior - Modern/Community Languages Inspector Psychiatric Social Workers attached to ILEA Boarding Schools For Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties Mrs p, Pullen - District Inspector (Primary) Dr M. E, Purkiss - Specialist in Community Medicine, Lewisham and North Southwark Health Authority Queensmill School-- Staff Mr A. I.Rabinowitz - Deputy Principal Educational Psychologist Mr A. Ralph - Curriculum Coordinator and Examinations Officer, Hawthorn Cottage School Redriff School - Governors Albert J, Reid Senior Educational Psychologist Mrs C, Rennell Headteacher, Old Church Primary School Richard Cloudesly School Staff David Richards St Richard of Chichester School Janet Richardson - Parent and Governor Robert Browning School - Governors Mr J. L. Roberts Head of Child Care, Heathermount School Alastair Robertson -- Educational Psychologist Gwyn Robins - Divisional Education Officer, ILEA Division 2 (Camden and Westminster) Ann Robson Unified Language Service Elizabeth Robson Director, Fulham Education Guidance Centre Phil Robson - District Inspector with Responsibilities for Special Educational Needs/Inspector for Hearing Impaired Services Sally Robson - Teacher and Governor Graham Rodbard - Teacher, Wandstead House School Roehampton Child Guidance Unit -- Child Guidance Team Ronald Ross Primary School Governors Mrs P 0, Roome - Parent Rosemary School - Staff Dr Euan M, Ross Consultant Paediatrician, Hammersmith and Fulham Health Authority Rotherhithe School -- Governors Helen C. Rouse -, Headteacher, Franklin Delano Roosevelt School Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR) Royal Free Hospital School ,- Staff Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults (MENCAP) Miss C. A. Rumney Headteacher Sydenham School Mrs E. Rust Headteacher, Kingsgate Infants School Anne Ryan - Unattached Teacher for Children with Specific Learning Difficulties

270

Judith Ryan Head of Learning Support, Hampstead School Barry St John ~ Houseparent, George Rainey School St Johns School ~ Governors Samuel Rhodes School Staff and Parents Mr M, Samuels ~ Headteacher, Enborne Lodge School Ian Sandbrook ~ Headteacher Ann de Saulles - Information and Advice Officer, Southwark Mrs J, Saunders ~ Parent Mr A 1. Schofield Teacher Schools Psychological Service- Divisional Team, Division 2 (Camden and Westminster) Schools Psychological Service Divisional Team, Division 3 (Islington) Schools Psychological Service ~ Divisional Team, Division 6 (Greenwich) Schools Psychological Service Divisional Team, Division 7 (Lewisham) Schools Psychological Service Divisional Team, Division 8 (Southwark) Schools Psychological Service ~ Divisional Team, Division 9 (Lambeth) Schools Psychological Teaching Service -, ILEA Division 1 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Schools Psychological Teaching Service ILEA Division 6 (Greenwich) Schools Psychological Teaching Service for Children with Specific Learning Difficulties, ILEA Division 5 (Tower Hamlets) Schools Psychological Service Remedial Teachers ILEA Division 9 (Lambeth) School Social Work Service --ILEA Medical Department Schools Support Team ~ ILEA Division 5 (Tower Hamlets) Science Advisory Team ~ North London Science Centre M. S. Scotney -- Headteacher, Tower Bridge Primary School Caroline Scott Study Centre, Quintin Kynaston School Sebright ...1M & I School Governors Secondary Heads of ILEA Division 7 (Lewisham) Sedgehill School - Governors Mrs Linda Selby Parent Sellincourt JM School- Staff and Governors Christopher Sewell Barbara Shand -- Crofton Sixth Form Centre Anne Shapson ILEA Schools Branch 8 Lin Shaw Head of Learning Support Department, Quintin Kynaston School Shephall Manor School- Staff and Psychiatric Team Mr A Sheriff - Special Educational Needs Support Teacher (Secondary) ILEA Division 7 (Lewisham) S, Simmons - Teacher Kingsdale School Chris Sinha -- Avery Hill Col/ege Sir John Cass's Foundation and Redcoat Church of England Secondary School Staff Skinners Company's School for Girls -- Governors Maxine Slater Teacher, Great Stony School Mrs C. Smith ~ District Inspector (Secondary) ILEA Division 1 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Dr Isabel Smith Medical Adviser (ILEA) Socialist Education Association South London College Cotswold Branch Southwark Adult Education Institute- Staff Southwark College Staff Southwark Unattached Teachers in the NUT Special Educational Needs Support Teachers (Primary) Special Educational Needs Support Teachers (Secondary) Special Education Resources Team, ILEA Spencer Park School - Governors Mrs Louisa Spivack Parent D, J. Stanbury ~ Headteacher, Forest Hill School Staplefield Place School- Staff Frances Stenlake ~ Parent and Governor William Stephen -- Head of Faculty of Education, Garnett College Mr 1. J. Stephens - Directorate of Administration and Legal Service, London Borough of Lambeth Mr M. Stevens ~ Principal Youth Officer, ILEA Stillness School - Governors

Stockg rove Park School - Staff Stockwell and Clapham Law Centre Streatham and Tooting Institute Staff Richard Stubbs Teacher, Rye Annexe Support Centre Sunnyhill JM & I - Staff and Governors Susan Isaacs School -- Governors Swaffleld Primary Schools - Governors Mrs S. Swan Speech Therapy Manager, Victoria and Paddington and North Kensington Health Authorities Will Swann - Open University, School Education

Barry Taafe-District Inspector with Responsibilities for Special Educational Needs, ILEA Division 4 (Hackney)

Tony Talt Senior Lecturer, South East London Technical College

Denis Taylor -ILEA Establishment Branch

Paul Taylor Manager, Putney YTS Workshop

Mr F. V. Terry - Divisional Education Welfare Officer, ILEA Division 4 (Hackney)

Thomas Tallis School - Special Needs Department

Marjorie Thomas Advisory Head, ILEA Home Economics Team

Norman Thomas - Chair, ILEA Committee on Primary Education

Ms M. Tingle

Tower Hamlets Health Authority -- Child Development Team Sheila Trainer - Learning Resources Adviser (Libraries)

Miss S. P. Tuch - Teacher in Charge, Family Centre Education Group

Carolyn Turney - Assistant Divisional Education Officer, ILEA Division 10 (Wandsworth)

Tutorial Class Teachers ILEA Division 2 (Camden and Westminster)

Tutorial Class Teachers ILEA Division 4 (Hackney) Tutorial Class Teachers -ILEA Division 6 (Greenwich) Dr Shelagh Tyrell Child Health Specialist, Paddington and North KenSington Health Authority Unified Language Service (ILEA) Mrs M. S. Utting - Headteacher Robert Browning Primary School Dr Alice Vakil - Senior Clinical Medical Officer (Child Health) Wandsworth Health Authority Mark Vaughan - Spastics Society Vauxhall College - Staff Mr B. Wadland - Divisional Education Welfare Officer, ILEA Division 1 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Roy Wadsworth - Divisional Education Officer, ILEA Division 8 (Southwark) Tahera Walji -- Student Claire Walker -- Educational Psychologist Mrs C. Wallis - Divisional Educational Psychologist, ILEA Division 1 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Mr L. Wallis Governor Walworth School- Governors Wandsworth Association for School Parents Wandsworth Borough Council - Social Services Department Wandsworth Council for Community Relations Wanstead House School - Staff Richard Ward - Headteacher, Dromenagh School Mr E. H. Warn - Headteacher, Hawthorn Cottage School Watergate School -- Staff and Governors Dr Jane E. M. Watkeys - Principal Medical Officer, Camberwell Health Authority Mary Watkinson Teacher in Charge, Stepney Green Tutorial Class Miss M. Watts -. Divisional Education Officer, ILEA Division 1 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Wayford Centre - Support Team Jean Wayman - Educational Psychologist Wedgewood School - Staff Charlotte Wedgewood - Teacher in Charge, John Burns Tutorial Class Harry Welburn - Development Youth Worker John Welton - London Institute of Education West Hill Primary School Staff Ms C. Whatford - Headteacher, Abbey Wood School Dr Lorna Wheelan - Consultant Psychiatrist, Kings Col/ege Hospital (Belgrave Department) Martin White - Head of Department, Communications and Liberal Studies, South East London Technical College Mrs P. A. White - Principal Careers Officer, ILEA White City Child Guidance Unit - Child Guidance Team

272

Whittington Hospital School - Governors Eva Wickham - Educational Psychologist William Ellis School - Staff Miss A S. Williams - Headteacher Greenmead Primary School Mrs Pauline Williams Parent Mrs Williams ILEA Teaching Staff Branch 5 Ms K. E. Wills -- Special Educational Needs Support Teacher, ILEA Division 1 (Hammersmith and Fulham) Windmill School -- Staff and Governors Wood Lane School - Staff Woodstock School Governors Ann Woolf Teacher in Charge, Gloucester Road Remedial Class Mr T. Woolgar - Headteacher, Mortimer School Mrs J. M. Wright -- Teacher, Greenvale School Jill Wright -- Senior Remedial Teacher, ILEA Division 4 (Hackney) The Wycliffe School -- Staff Miss E. Young Domestic Adviser, ILEA Establishment Branch Androulla Zannidou - Special Needs Support and Liaison Teacher Andrew Zbrorowski - Senior House Parent, Bradstow School Dr H. Zeitlin - Senior Lecturer in Child Psychiatry, Westminster Children's Hospital

273

APPENDIX 9 Bibliography A Language for Ufe (The Bullock Report) HMSO (1975) A New Partnership for our Schools (The Taylor Report) HMSO (1977)

Born to Fail, National Children's Bureau (1973)

Capital and Revenue Estimates 1984-85 ILEA

Children in Adversity, National Children's Bureau (1983)

Children in Need, ILEA (1985)

Children and their Primary Schools (The Plowden Report) HMSO 1966

Fit for the Future (The Court Report) HMSO (1976)

Gaussen, The Educational Psychologist and the under 2's, AEP Journal (1984)

Healthier Children: Thinking Prevention, Royal Col/ege and General Practitioners (1982)

Improving Primary Schools ILEA 1985

Improving Secondary Schools ILEA 1984

In Tandem. Avon Social Services Department 1984

Mittler, p, and McConachie, H, (1983), ed, Parents, Professionals and Mentally Handicapped People, Croom Helm. Newell p, Special Education Handbook, Advisory Centre for Education (1983) Newsom, E. (1976), Parents as a resource in diagnosis and assessment in The Early Management of Handicapping Disorders, ed, Peter Woodford, Associated Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam Policy Statement. Response to Heathier Children: Thinking Prevention British Paediatric Association (1983) Provision for Handicapped Students in Further and Higher Education ILEA (1974) Research and Stastistics Branch Reports; Survey of qualifications of teachers in special schools 793/80

Schools Support Programme, The Integration of Pupils into Main Stream Schools 968/85

Characteristics of Pupils in Special Schools 962/84

Review of Vocational and Further Education ILEA (1973) Russell p, The Education Act 1981 - The Role of the Named Person National Children's Bureau (1983) Short Report - House ofCommons, 1984, Second Report from the Social SeNices Committee Session 1983-4, Children in Care, (Chairman Renee Short), HMSO Special Educational Needs (The Warnock Report) HMSO (1978) Special Educational Needs Information for Parents ILEA (1985) The Growth of Special Education ILEA (1971) Ulrey and Rogers (eds) Psychological Assessment of Handicapped Infants and Young Children, Thieme Shalton USA Wolfendale, Parent Profiling and Parental Contributions to Section 5 Assessment and Statementing, Psychology Department North East London Polytechnic (1984)

274

Index note The numbers referred to after entries are firstly to the section, the second number is to the chapter and thirdly to the paragraph number. Thus 1.2,3 would stand for para 3 in chapter 2 of section 1. 'A' before a number indicates the entry is to be found in the Appendix at the back of the report, The only abbreviation used is SEN for special educational needs, The alphabetical order is letter by letter. Tables and sub-sections of paragraphs have not been separately indexed

Access

Advisors

barrier free policy 3,17,8; A3,1-7 colleges of further education buildings 2.10A, 23, 60; 3,17,8 curriculum A3.1 equality for all 1.1.22-23, 47; A3,1-7 limited creating special educational needs 1,1 ,33 post-16 to education 2,10,6 technology and methodology for 1.1,37-39; 2,7,1

administration of 2.15,16 co-ordination of services 2.11 ,38, 55: 3.19.3, 24 evidence, points made 1,5,58 pre-school for SEN teacher secondment 2,11.25 recommendations 3.19,24-26; 3,20,9 secondment policy 3,19,25 special schools input 2.9.96 statistics for SEN 1A.29-30, 32-33, 57 support services 1AA2-43: 2,11,25-28 work of 2,11,25-28 See a/so Inspectorate, Peripatetic teachers and Support services

Administration accuracy of information on 2.15.2, 15 aims and objectives 3.16.2 allocation of central and divisional functions 2,15,31; 3,16,28; 2.15.22-25,27,29; 3.16,18-19,24: 3,17A assessment and Statements delays 2.12.24-26 assessment procedures, time taken in different divisions 2,12,18 central management matters 3,16A1 central policy guidelines, need for 2.15.29: 2,16,18-19,24,31 chart 2,15,14-17, 21-22, 24 complexity of service 3,16.3, 8 Divisional level decision making 2,15,22-25, 27, 29;

Advisory Centre for Education (ACE) evidence 1,5,13, 19, 43

Advocacy 'citizen advocate' US model 2,13,69, 2,14,20 self-advocacy 110.90: 2,14.2,9,20

Advocacy Alliance 2,14.20

3.16,18-19,24: 3,17A

Afro-Caribbean

education service arrangements 2,15.3-17 flexibility for post-16 need 2.10,15, 16, 18.25 in-service training 2.11 .70 liaison with inspectors and educational psy­ chologists at divisional levels 2,15.24 rationalisation of 16-19 provision 2.10.28-36, 30 service delivery see Service delivery special educational provision 2.15,1-2, 20-34 support services delegation of responsibilities 3.16,34 units for special needs 2.8.39,41

integration, parents views 2.13.29 over-represented in schools for emotional and behavioural disorders 2,13.37, 39, 63 special educational provision, views on 2,13.29, 39, 41,63,65 see also Ethnic minorities

Aims of education comprehensive system for 1.1 ,19 principles of Committee 1,1.21-28, 45-48 Warnock report 1,1,7, 21

Appeals

Adult Education

'citizen advocate' model 2,13,69 committee decisions should be binding 2, 13,77 procedure flowchart 2,12.42 Statements of SEN 2,12,27

administration 2,15.5 continuing education role 2.10,93 learning and literacy unit 2,15.5 Russell Report (1973) 2,10.87 special educational needs provision 1.2.19; 1.3.21; 2.10A9-50: 84-94; 3,17A1

Assessment annual reviews, parents involvement 2,8.81 association with appropriate educational programme 2.12.1, 3 centres 1A.25; 26.24; 2.14,28 confidentiality of records 2,6.24; 2.13.26 co-ordination of child health services 2,14.29

Adult Education Institutes provision for community needs 2,10.84-89

Adult Training Centres 2,10.16, 89: 2.14.52

275

early school-based stages 1.3.29 educational psychologists' role 2.11.20 education welfare service contribution to 1.4.48; 1.5.63; 3.19.22-23 English as a second language, 1.5.12-13; 2.6.12, 66; 2.12.31-36; 2.13.16; 59-68; 3.19.14 examinations, parents'attendance 2.12.21 factors of race, class and gender 2.12.3, 15 formal procedures 2.12.2, 4, 12, 16-36; 2.13.52-53 fragmentation and duplication of services 2.13.53; 2.14.40 guidelines for early stages in school 3.17.19 home tuition for children undergoing 2.11.50 hospital centres 2.6.10 information directory, need for 2.6.5-6, 10 information needed by parents 2.12.23; 2.13.13, 14, 22 inter-professional approach 1 1.41; 1.3.29; 2.14.56 inter-related aspects 2.12.4: 2,13.54 labelling fears 2.6,25,49,68; 2.9.9-10; 2.13.12, 28 medical 2.13.53 notification to parent by letter 2.6.10, 60: 2.12.20; 2.13.51,73 nursery staff contribution to 2.6.13, 29 ongoing assessment, call for 2.6.14 outcome, disquiet over 2.6.16 paediatriC 2.6.9; 2,13,52, 56-57; 2.14.28, 29,40 parent counselling during, need for 2.6.12 'parent profile' model by DES 2.6.65; 2.12.24; 2.13.11; 17-19 parents attitudes to 1.3.40; 2,6.9-12; 2.13.7, 12-26 parents' contribution 1.1.4; 2.6.65; 2.12.10,19, 21, 23, 30; 2.13.12-20, 25 parents need to be informed in advance of 2.12.19 parent support at start of 2.13.72-75; 2.17.12 parents' views, importance of 1.1.41: 2.6.65; 2.12.10,19,21,23,30; 2.13.15-17 primary schools heads' views 2.7.23 procedure, evidence 1.5.10-16, 18, 20 procedure flowchart 2.12.42 recommendations 3.20.10 residential, use of boarding schools for 2.9.65 school based procedures 2.12.8-15; 3.17.19 school policy 1.1.9 schools initiation of procedures for 2.15.28 social services contribution to 1.1.42; 2.6.29; 2.12.21; 2.13.54; 2.14.43-47; 3.19.34 special units for 2.6.49 standard form for interdisciplinary 2.6.19 Statements of SEN see Statements teams, specialist, focus for 2.6.22 time taken over 2.6.26; 2.7.89; 2.12.2, 17, 23, 25-26. 28, 29; 2.13.21; 2.14.26; 2.15.28 under fives 2.6.2-5, 10-19, 25-26; 2.13.21, 28; 3.17.11-12; 3.20.3

under-fives assessment placements 3.17.3 under-twos 2.6.5, 7-9, 49; 2.14.24-31, 41; 3.20.3 units and classes admission without full 2.12.13-15 workshops for parents recommendation 2.6.67 young people's views, importance of 1.1 .41

Assessment units delays in placements 2.7.89 under-fives in 2.6.2

Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus 2.14.12

Attitudes comprehensive principle 1.1.47 issues influenced by 1.3.6 integration, parents to 2.13.27-33 parents from ethnic minorities 2.8.23; 2.13.29, 37. 59-68 parents to assessment 13.40; 2.6.9-12; 2.13.7. 12-26 parents to child health services 2.13.52-58: 2.14.40-41 parents' to children attending schools for behavioural problems 2.13.35,38-41 parents to educational guidance centres 213.36 parents to educational psychologists 2.14.40 positive approaches to change 1.1.28. 47 teachers; 1.1 .32

Austistic children health and social services support for parents 2.9.98 Larkhill Junior School with integrated unit A2.8 schools for 2.9.41 services arrangements on a sector basis 3.16.37 unattached teachers for severe learning difficulties 2.11.35

Banding system for secondary schools 2.7.38,61 Beacon Day Nursery, Islington 2.14.4 Behavioural difficulties administrative decision making 2.15.32 Afro-Caribbean children and 2.13.37, 39, 42, 63 criteria for boarding placements 2.9.59; 2,14.53 child psychiatrists and psychotherapists consultants 1.4.43; 2.9.93 delicate children 2,9.46 educational guidance centres 2,8.31-32 group organisation for provision 3.16.38 nurture groups 2.8.3, 19-23 parental attitudes of children attending 2.13,35, 38-41 parents' dissatisfaction with services for children 2.14.40 post-16 unattached teachers service for 2.11.35 provision fragmented 2,11.22 school leavers destinations 2.10.11-12 276

schools for 2.9.51-54 secondary schools need to develop provision for 3.17.29 team teaching in Crusoe House School A2.21 transfer from primary to secondary school cause of 2.7.84 tutorial classes 2.8.28-30 solutions to in ordinary schools 1.3.30 under achieving pupils 1.1.14 units and classes for classification 2.8.3-4 units attached to schools recommendation 3.18.5, 7 units on and off site, statistics 1.4.13, 16 Wayford Centre 2.8.3, 27 see also Disruptive pupils and Emotional Difficulties

2.15.5 organisation of 2.10.115-117 role change 2.10.112 school leavers with SEN liaison with 2.10.17, 113

Black Report 2.14.26

under-fives in 2.6.2: 2.14.28

Boarding schools

Newsoms' work 2.13.9

Centre for Urban Studies evidence 1.5.66

Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education 2.10.125 Child care staff in boarding schools 2.9.67-70,99 Child development models of normal development 2.6.35-36

Child development centres Child Development Research Unit, Nottingham

child care staff 2.9.67-70; 3.18.15 criteria for 3.18.17 guidelines for individual SEN recommendation 3.18.19 links to cut down isolation 2.9.61, 63; 3.18.14, 20 non-maintained and independent schools placement 1.4.22; 3.18.23 outside ILEA area problems 3.18.17 provision 2.9.58-66; 3.18.14-26 recommendations 3.18.14-26; 3.20.7 staffed to remain open all week 3.18.21 statements of provision in response to 80 Act 3.18.24-25 statistics 2.9.2-10, 57, 64 vacancies 2.9.72 see also Special Schools

Child Development Teams 2.6.21-22, 49; 2.13.25; 3.19.37

Child Guidance Centres consultancy work in schools development 2.7.33; 3.19.20 links with special educational provision 3.19.31 provision for SEN, statistics 1 .4.24 psychiatric social workers in 2.11.40-41; 3.19.20 pupils taught in, statistics 1.4.28 teachers employed statistics 1.4.26, 28

Child health services

"Born to Fail" 1.2.4 Buildings access and mobility in colleges of further education 2.10.4, 23, 60 policy for ILEA A3.1-7

Care, children in boarding provision relationship to arrangements for 3.18.18 residential child care staff development 3.18.15 role of 'parent' 2.13.8 social workers role for SEN 2.6.57, 61; 2.13.48; 2.14.43,49; 3.19.32-34 special school pupils 2.9.11; 2.13.40

Careers Service administration 2.15.5 contribution to meeting SEN 1.3.21; 1.4.41, 52-53 delegation of responsibilities recommendation 3.16.34 evidence 1.5.39 officers with responsibility for SEN 2.10.113, 117;

277

Court Report recommendations 2.14.23, 24 Education Act 81 statutory duties 2.13.14,57; 2.14.24-31 emotional and behavioural difficulties, links with other services 2.9.54 English as a second language 2.12.33; 2.14.35 ethnic minorities view of 2.13.61; 2.14.35-36, 40 evidence, points made 1.5.61-64 information collecting 1.3.8 information directories of local provision 2.6.5; 3.17.7 integrated placement, support for sought by parents 2.13.57 Medical Department personnel contribution to 2.15.11 multi-disciplinary approach 2.14.56-60 organisation of 2.14.22 parents' attitudes to 2.13.52-58; 2.14.40-41 post-16 provision extension for 2.13.58; 2.14.39; 3.19.39 primary and secondary care 2.7.29-30; 2.14.22, 23, 24; 3.19.38 provision 1.4.42 recommendations 3.19.36-39; 3.20.14 regional policies development 2.14.29 school based assessments, assistance with 2.12.9, 13 secondment of professionals to work with ILEA

1.4.41, 42-43 special educational needs, contribution to 1.3.23, 42; 2.12.21; 2.13.54; 2.14.23-24 speech and language difficulties, units for 2.8.9 teaching hospitals expertise 2.14.26 written information for parents 2.14.40 see a/so School health services

link courses with special schools 2.7.101; 2.9.76, 103; 2.10.19, 31, 36,44,64-66 models of provision defined 1.10.44 policy development for SEN 2.1067-73: 2.12.38 post-16 pupils with SEN 1.4.36: 2.10.11-12, 28-36; 2.12.37-39 provision for special educational needs 1.3.18-20; 1.4.39; 2.10.13-19; 2.12.38-41 3.17.39 recommendations 3.17.31-42: 3.20.8 social work services support 1.4.44 'special' colleges rejected 3.17.34 Statements not maintained for post-16s 2.12.39 statistics of pupils 1.2.10-11 student pastoral and counselling support 2.10.60, 62 support for students with SEN 1.4.40; 2.10.59-63, 74,81 support, non-teaching from General Duties Assistants 2.10.74 Transfer from secondary school 2.7.101-4 tutorial support systems development 2.10.17, 62; 3,17.40 vocational courses CGLl365 2.7,101 written statement of SEN for students with 3.1 7.39 See also Further education and Post-16 in-service courses on SEN 2.11.67

Child health trends 1.3.7 Child psychiatrist advisor 1.4.43; 2.9.93 Child psychotherapy adviser 1.4.43; 2.9.93 "Children in Adversity" 1.2.4 "Children in Need" (ILEA 1985) 1.2.3 Children's Legal Centre evidence 1.5.6 service 2.14.2

Choice information required for 2.6.31; 2.13.32 school by parent 3.18.23

Citizens Advice Bureau advice service 2.13.76: 2.14.2 parent support for SEN proposal 2.13.71 volunteers working in 2.13.76; 2.14.21

Committee conclusions reached through learning 1.3.4 evidence on major issues summarised 1.5.5-67 evidence received 1.3.41-44; 1.5.1-4,68 implementation of report recommendation 3.16.15 information collecting problem 3.16.14 issues identified 1.3.6-32, 45 limitations of work 1.3.45 membership 1.3.1 pattern of work 1.3.34-40 philosophy of 1.3,6 terms of reference 1,1.2, 6; 1.3.6 recommendations 3.16.7-15; 3.20.1 work of, organisation 1.3.2-3, 5

City and East London College linked courses 2.10.64

City Literary Institute Centre for Hearing Impairment 2.10.82, 101; 3.19.30; A2.24 work with mentally handicapped adults 1.10.90

Class ILEA policy on 3.16.7

Clinical Medical Officers primary and secondary care 2.14.22, 23, 25

Colleges of further education

Community

access to, and mobility in buildings 2.10.4, 23, 60; 3.17.8; A3.1-7 admission procedures for SEN students 2.10.75-78; 2.12.38 course developments for SEN 2.10.72-73; 3.17.38, 40 destination of school leavers with special needs enquiry 1.3.40; 2.10.10, 11-12; 3.17.31 evidence, points made 1.5.37-41 external services support 3.17.40 foundation courses 2.10.55, 56-58, 59 health service input 2.13.58; 2.14.39 independent and non-maintained placements 2.9.71-73 lecturers see Lecturers in FE

primary schools interaction with 1.1 .12

278

Community Education and Careers Branch 2,15.5

Community Education Centres 2.10.89 Community Homes with Education (CHE) placement of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties 2.9,54 provision for SEN 1.4.25

Community School John Milton Primary School A2.22

Complementary Education Centres 1.1 .15

Comprehensive schools see Secondary Schools

Deaf/blind peripatetic teachers for 2.11.30-31 provision 2.9.35 SENSE Family Centre, Ealing 2.4.6. 9; 2.14.4, 6

Contact a Family 2.14.12 Continuing education 2.10.18,25,93; 3.17.41, 42

Delicate children health and social services support for parents 2.9.98 Hatchford Park leavers course A2.20 nursing and therapy staff 2.9.93 parental satisfaction with schools 2.9.47; 2.13.35 schools for 2.9.46-47

Counselling colleges of FE 2.10.60. 62

Court Report child health services integration 2.14.23, 24 parents' role 2.13.1

Department of Education and Science model for 'parent profile' for assessment 2.6.65; 2.12.24; 21311,17-19

Crusoe House School team teaching A2.21

Department of Environment Culloden School

tables of economic and social 1.2.2-4

unit for hearing impaired 2.8.6: A2.8

Disability Curriculum access for special educational needs 1.1.37; 2.7.1 adaption to meet SEN 2.11.68 analyses data A 1.9-14 delicate children schools 2.9.47 'Effective Learning Skills' programme 2.11 .10 Grenfell School (special) A2.19 moderate learning difficulties 2.9.50 multi-cultural development 2.13.64 post-16 courses for moderate learning difficulties 2.10.53-55 post-16 courses for severe learning difficulties 2.10.47 post-16 for SEN 2.10.33,72-73,125: 2.12,40; 2.15.7 post-16 foundat'lon courses 2.10.56-58 primary schools 2.7.5-9; 2.11.10; 3.17.21-23 secondary schools 2.11.10,60,68; 3.17.25 severe learning difficulties 2.9,45 small primary schools problems 2.7.3 special schools 2.9.14-16, 96-97; 2.11.37; 3.18.24-26 unattached curriculum support teachers 2.11.37 whole school policy including SEN 1.1.16; 2.11.6, 60, 68; 3.17.25, 26 written statement of 2.12.5

Day care provision of social services 1.4.5; 2.7.89 Day Centres provision for SEN 1.4.5

Day nurseries nursery nurses' role 2.6.57-58 social services use for social problem families 2.6.56-57 special units 2.6.2; 2.6.57-58 see also Nursery schools and classes

adaption and acceptance by parents 2.13.22-23 aids and appliances provision 2.14.37 aims of education and 1.1.21-28 analysis of pupils in special schools by 2.9.2-10 categorization of, unsuitable 1.1.34-35; 2.13.12 classification of units and classes 2.8.3 disadvantage family circumstances and 1.2.4, 11 ethnic minorities view of 2.13.60 factors to be considered 1.1.35-36 handicapping, degree of 1.1.25-26 labels 2.6.26,49,68; 2.9.9-10; 2.13.12,28,29; 2.14.28 parents' attitude to child's 2.14.40; 3.17.12-13 statistics by category in independent special schools 1.4.22 statistics by category of special school pupils 1.4.21 statistics by category of special schools 1.4.20 trends affecting needs 1.3.7 under fives placement statistics 1,4.7 units for specific disabilities 2.8.5-23

Disadvantage educational special needs arising from 1.1,46 tables of economic and social 1.2.2-4

Disruptive pupils off-site provision 1.1.15; 1.2.18 peripatetic teachers for 1.2.18; 2.7.2; 2.11.34 primary schools 1.5.29; 2.7.25; 2.11.34 secondary schools 2.11.34 secondary school on-site units 2.8.25-26 withdrawal units in primary schools 2.8.24 see also Behavioural difficulties Emotional difficulties Off-site units and Withdrawal units

District Handicap Teams 2.6.21-22, 49; 2.13.25; 2.13.53; 2.14.29; 3.19.37 279

District Health Authorities

coordination teams recommendation 3.16.33 Management Committee recommendation 3.16.30-35; 3.17.16; 3.18.7,14; 3.19.20, 23, 28 A5.2-9 services co-ordination within recommendation 3.16.34

areas differing from Social Service Departments 3.16.36 Community Child Health 2.14.23 duties under Education Act 1981 2.13.14; 2.14.24-31 ILEA geographical area and 2.14.26 medical adviser appointed by ILEA 1.4.42 physiotherapy provision 2.13.55; 2.14.34 post-16 needs 3.19.39 provision for under-fives 2.6.1; 2.14.22; 3.19.37 school health services resource allocation 3.19.38 speech therapists provision 2.8.9; 2.9.93; 2.13.55; 2.14.34 See also Child health services

Down's Children Association 'parent profile' piloting 2.13.18

Drop-in centres 2.14.13 Dyslexic children peripatetic children 2.11.32

Education Act 1944

Disturbed behaviour see Behaviour difficulties

Section 56 arrangements 1.4.23-24

Division 2

Education Act 1980

Directory of SEN 3.17.6 in-service education to meet SEN A2.30 third year junior review 3.19.24; A2.7

information to parents initiation 1.2.24 parents' rights and representation under 2.13.3

Education Act 1981

Division 3

assessment procedure flowchart 2.12.42 assessment procedures 2.12.17 child health services statutory duties 2.13.14,57; 2.14.24-31 guidelines for social worker 2.6.61 learning difficulties definition 1.1.33 major changes introduced 1.2.24 'named person' 2.6.52, 61,66; 2.10.69; 2.13.4, 8, 20, 69,72-76; 2.1414-21 parental involvement and 2.13.3-9, 69; 2.14.14 social services statutory duties 2.14.43-46 special educational needs definition 1.1.4, 46 Special educational provision definition 1.1.4 support teachers for SEN appointments 2.1.26-27

Early Warning Seminars (EWARS) A2.11 Special Needs Support Teachers meetings 2.7.62, 64 Top Infant Learning Themes Scheme (TILT) 3.19.24; A2.6 transfer conferences 3.19.24; A2.10

Division 4 Hackney Learning Resources Centre A2.26

Division 5 liaison group of special needs teams A2.28 School Support Team A2.27

Division 9 Framework for Learning course 2.11.10; 3.16.25; A2.31

Educational guidance centres

Division 10 pilot portage scheme A2.5

Divisional Education Officers 2.15.12, 19; 3.16.35 Divisional panels

enquiry by Research and Statistics Branch 1 .3.40; 2.8.35-38 parental attitudes of children in 2.13.36 Schools Psychological Service responsibility for 2.8.31-32; 2.11.21, 22 statistics 1.4.16, 18, 19

work of 2.8.31-32

drafts of Statements of SEN made by 2.12.22-26; 2.15.19,32; 3.16.35 motor and sensory impaired contribution to 3.18.16 units outside schools, admissions to via 3.18.3

Divisional Special Educational Needs Support Teachers 2.7.25 Divisional Tertiary Education Boards special educational needs sub-committees proposal 1.5.38; 2.10.5, 28; 3.17.36

Divisions administration of 2.15.12, 19,22-24,31; 3.16.28 allocation of functions 2.15.31; 3.16.28 decision making recommendations 2.16.18-19; 3.16.24,28,29-36; 3.17.4 280

Educational psychologists administrative responsibilities anomoly 2.15.24 assessment role 2.13.13 boarding schools use criteria 3.18.17 day nurseries and child minding services recommendations 2.6.61 liaison with administrators and inspectors at divisional level 2.15.24 parents attitude to 2.14.40 primary school, contribution to 2.7.27 secondary schools, work in 2.7.67 special schools allocation 2.9.93, 95 Statements preparation 2.12.22, 23 under twos testing 2.6.9; 2.14.28, 30; 3.19.12 see also Schools Psychological Service

Education welfare service advice to parents on provision for under fives 2.13.44 assessment, contribution to 1.4,48; 1.5.63; 2.7.28; 2.12.21; 2.13.733,19.22-23 attachment to individual schools 3.19.22 clusters of schools attachment to 3.19.22 delegation of responsibilities recommendation 3.16.34 delivery of letter informing parents of assessment 2.6.10,60; 2.12.20; 2.13.51,73 evidence 1.5.16 families with special needs support 2.13.73; 3.19.23 home visiting 2.6.60; 3.19.22-23 in-seNice training 2.11.70; 3.19.22 multi-ethnic recruitment policy 2.11,44, 45; 3.19.19 parents need for information on role of 2.13.51 primary schools, work in 2.7.28 provision 1.4.44, 47-48; 2.11.43-44 school based assessment, assistance with 2.12.9, 10, 13 secondary schools 2.7,68 special schools for moderate learning difficulties attachment 2,9.93, 94 special schools, work for 2.9,94 under-fives and 2.6.60 unified seNice development 3,19.17, 22 voluntary organisations, links with 2,13.43

Elfrida Rathbone Association clubs and hostels 2,14,10 evidence 1,5.6, 19 parent counselling 2,6.15; 2.13.71; 2,14.2; 2.14.7, 12 parent-teacher links 2,13.41 under-fives projects 2.6,9

Elizabeth Burgwin School for Moderate Learning Difficulties links with Hammersmith Secondary School A2, 18

Emotional difficulties administrative decision making 2.15.32 Afro-Caribbean children and 2,13,37, 39, 42, 63 child psychiatrists and psychotherapists consultants 1.4.43; 2,9,63 criteria for boarding placement 2.9.59; 2.14.53 delicate children 2,9.46 educational guidance centres 2,8,31-32 group organisation of provision 3,16.38 nurture groups 2,8,3, 19-23 parental attitudes of children attending 2,13.35, 38-41 parents' dissatisfaction with seN ices for children 2,14.40 post-16 unattached teachers service for 2.11,35 provision fragmented 2,11.32 school leavers destinations 2.10.11-12, 14-21 schools for 2,9,51-54 secondary schools need to develop provision for 3,17.29 team teaching in Crusoe House School A2.21 281

transfer from primary to secondary cause of 2.7.84 tutorial classes 2,8 .. 28-30 units and classes for classification 2,8.3-4 units attached to schools recommendation 3,18,5,

7 Wayford Centre 2.8,3, 27 see also Behavioural difficulties

English as a second language additional and supportive provision policy 3.16.12 assessment of children with 1.5.12-13; 2,6.12, 66; 2,12,31-36; 2.13,16.59-68 definition of SEN which makes position clear 2.7.74 excluded from Committees review 1.4.1 health seNices 2.12.33; 2,14.35 health visitor's role 2,6.51 home tuition 2,11 .51 ILEA statistics 1.2.6 inspectorate input 2.11,7 lack of framework and guidelines for SEN 2.9,97 medical examinations, communication problems 2.7.14 'named person' to assist 2,6.66; 2.13,66 needs arising from 1.1,46 parents of SEN children, supportive groups encouragement 2,12,35 Parents should be accompanied by English speaking friends to inteNiews 2,12.34 parents' views of assessment 2.13.59-68 post-16 students needs 2.10.127 professionals need for 2,12.34; 2.13.60, 67; 2.14.35-36 proposals in Hargreaves and Thomas reports 2.12.33 Schools Psychological SeNice work 2,11 ,18; 3,19.14 social seNices 2,13,50; 2,14,35 special schools curriculum 3,18.26 speech and language difficulties in addition to 2,8,8 speech therapy problem 2,13,55 support teachers for SEN 2,11.27 tables of economic and social disadvantage 1.2,3-4 see also Ethnic Minorities and Multi-ethnic

Equal opportunities access to, and participation in society 1.1,22, 47 advisers input to special schools 2.9.96 burdens of progressing towards 2.10.78 colleges of FE courses 2.10.68, 81 schools psychological seNice response 3.19.9 special educational needs policy 1,1,16-20; 3.16.7-8 ILEA policy 1,3.6; 2,11,55; 2,12.32; 2,13,64; 3.16.4,7

inspectorate input 2.11 .7 special schools curriculum 3.18.26 teams to develop in-seNice provision and common guidelines 3.1640

response to changing needs 2.1043 Standing Advisory Committee for SEN proposal 3.1742 see also Colleges of Education and Post-16

Further and Higher Education Branch 2.15.6-7

Establishment Branch 2.15.9

Gateway Clubs 2.14.2, 8 Ethnic minorities General Practitioners

assessment discussions 2.12.32 black parents criticism of nurture groups 2.8.23 child health seNices and 2.14.35-36 cultural factors influence 2.12.3, 31, 36; 2.13.8, 67 disability, view of 2.13.60 health seNice, view of 2.13.61; 2.14.40 integration views 2.13.29 parents accessibility to education 2.134 parents views 2.13.59-68 Schools Psychological SeNice and 3.19.14 special schools, attitudes to 2.13.37 special schools, percentages in 2.9.11-13 special units, percentages in 2.8.37 statistical relationship with SEN 2.9.11-13; 2.1340 Swann Report 2.13.64, 68 referrals on issues arranged 2.13.67

health visitors attachment to 2.6.51; 2.14.23 homeless and poor families not registered with 2.14.26 involvement in educational aspects of child's SEN 2.14.25 support for parents with disabled children 2.1440 see also Child health seNices and School health s8Nices

Giftedness additional and supportive provision policy 3.16.12 Education Act 81 recognition of SEN 1.146 exclusion from Committee's review 1.4.1 inspectorate input 2.11.7 secondary schools and 2.741, 74

Governors

Falling rolls opportunity for integration 2.13.31 secondary schools 1.2.8-9, 11 special schools 2.9.100; 2.14.11; 3.17.5, 26; 3.18.10

Families adverse social circumstances and boarding placement 2.9.59 confidentiality of records 2.6.24, 30 fragmentation of seNices to 2.6.32 homeless children problems 2.6.43 involvement to meet special needs 1.1 .28 one parent 1.2.5; 2.9.11; 3.9.59; 2.1340, 44 support from social seNices using special schools 2.14.53 support seNices 1.1.28 voluntary sector counselling and personal support 2.14.12, 13 see also Parents

clusters of schools 3.16.27 colleges of FE responsibilities 2.10.35; 3.17.39 linked special and ordinary school, report to 3.18.12 parent and teacher representation 2.13.3 Statemented children placement in ordinary schools, responsibilities 2.6.32 Taylor Report 2.13.1,3

Greater London Association for the Disabled (GLAD) evidence 1.5.39

Great Ormond Street Hospital Paul Sandifer Centre 2.6.10

Grenfell School recording of inter-agency obseNations 2.14.33; A2.19

Hackney Centre for the Study in Primary Care 2.14.26

Family Centre 2.6,4, 9 Hackney Learning Resources Centre A2.26 Foster children

Hammersmith School

special educational needs 2.1449

links with Elizabeth Burgwin School for moderate learning difficulties A2.18

Further education advisory teachers for SEN 3.19.24 administrative responsibilities for SEN 3.17.37 advisory teachers for SEN 2.11.19 colleges of see Colleges of FE inspectorate input 2.11.8 recommendations 3.17.31-42; 3.20.10

Handicap definition 1.1.25 Hargreaves report see Secondary schools

Handicapped Adventure Playground Association 2.14.8 282

Hatchford park A2.20

schools for children with moderate learning difficulties 2.13.41 see also Parents

Health services child see Child health services

Health Education Council

Home Start 2.14.2, 13

Information to Teaching Staff 2.13.67 multi-language leaflets 2.14.35

Home tuition

Health visitors admission panels for under-fives provision 2.6.52 attached to general practices 2.6.51: 2.14.23 identifying SEN 2.14.24 links with nursery provision 2.6.51 'named person', Warnock recommendation 2.6.52 parents attitude to 2.13.56; 2.14.40 role 2.6.50

Hearing impaired academic special schools 2.13.30 City Literary Institute centre for 2.10.82, 101; 3.19.30; A2.24 colleges of FE aids and equipment 2.10.60 Culloden Primary School School partially Hearing Unit 2.8.6; A2.8 integration process 2.8.6; 2.9.34; 3.18.8 James Wolfe unit for profound loss 2.8.3, 7 peripatetic teachers for 2.11.30-31; 2.12.23; 3.19.27 placement decision making 2.15.32 post-16 provision 3.19.30 services arrangement on sector basis 3.16.37-39 Southfields School Unit for Partially Hearing 2.7.60; 2.8.6; A2.12 techniques and equipment in schools 2.9.30-34; A3.1 unified service development 3.18.16 units for 2.8.5-7 with visual impairment proVision 2.9.35,2.14.6

administrative decision making 2.15.22 assessment, children undergoing receive 2.11.50 children receiving statistics 2.11.48 English as a second language 2.11.51 evidence, pOints made 1.5.57 guidelines for providing 2.11.47; 3.1619 pupils receiving statistics 1 .4.28 recommendations 3.18.9 service 2.11.46-54; 3.18.9 Statemented children statistics 1.4.56

Home Tuition Centres role 3.18.9 statistics 1.4.24, 25; 2.11.49 teachers employed statistics 1.4.27, 57; 2.11.49

Hospitals creches for under-fives 2.6.2 provision for SEN, statistics 1.4.24, 25 schools 2.9.2, 7, 55-56 teachers employed statistics 1.4.26, 28 teaching hospital resources 2.14.26

Hostels attached to day special schools 2.9.2, 62. 65

Impairments

Hester Adrian Research Centre, Manchester

hearing see Hearing impaired motor impairment see Motor impairment visual see Visual impairments

Mittler, Cunningham and McConachie's work 2.13.9,22

Higher education independent and non-maintained placements 2.9.71-73 in-service courses on SEN 2.11 .67, 68 provision for SEN 2.10.95-104

Improving Primary Schools (Thomas Report)

History of special education in London

Improving Secondary Schools (Hargreaves

1.1.1,5-13,18,45; 2.7.2, 3,6-7,11,36; 2.11.5; 2.12.33; 3.16.22; 3.17.19, 22, 24

1.2.12-20

Report) 1.1.1,5-13,18,45; 2.7.2, 43, 45, 46, 83; 2.11.5; 2.12.33; 3.17.19, 24

Home-based learning schemes 2.6.9,63 Home-School Liaison Teachers 2.6.9, 20, 21, 33-34; 2.9.79; 2.13.23; 3.17.16

Information

Home/school relationships

complete needed for planning future development 3.16.4 directories of local provision recommendation 3.17.7 ordinary schools special educational help,

Education welfare services role 2.6.60 ethnic minorities 2.13.66 nursery provision 2.6.63 one parent families and 1.2.5 283

Integration

inaccurate 1.4.4, 11 quality of, for parents 2.15.12,26,28; 3.16.3 under-fives provision 2.6.4, 17 see a/so Parents

Inner city problems 2.7.1; 2.9.7; 3.19.14 Inner London Black Teachers' Group 2.13.63 Inner London Education Authority (I LEA) area seNed, characteristics of 1.2.1-4; 2.14.26; 3.16.3 Budget figures 1.4,59-62 changes of thinking not reflected in 1.2.20 designated officer for 81 Act 2.13.20, 69, 70 heath and social seN ices resourcing 2.14.60 Warnock Report evidence 1.2.21 see a/so Administration and management Inner London Head Teachers' Association evidence 1.5.7

Inner London Teachers' Association evidence 1.5.7

Inner London Tertiary Education Board administration 2.15.6 comprehensive planning for students with SEN 1.3.40; 1.5.38; 2.10.5, 9, 28, 126; 2.15.6; 3.17.31; 3.17.36 work of, evidence 1.5.38 In-seNice see Teacher training

Inspectorate advisory teachers with specific tasks secondment 2.11.36 anomolies in assignments for SEN 2.10.31 functions review 3.19.6 in-seNice courses, SEN inclusion in overall programmes 2.11.66 liaison with administrators and educational psychologists at divisional level 2.15.24 management co-ordination 3.16.40 polytechnic courses. no involvement in 2.10.102 post-16 assessment and provision development 2.12.38 post-16 responsibilities clarification needed 2.15.24; 3.17.37-38 recommendations 3.19.4-8; 3.20.11 school based assessments, guidelines proposal 2.12.11 Schools Psychological SeNice, co-operation with 2.11.20-23; 3.19.4-5 special educational responsibilities 1.4.30, 55; 2.7.66; 2.8.3; 2.11.4-13; 2.15.10; 3.19.4-8 TOCSEN teachers of children with SEN courses review 2.11.66 in-seNice courses on SEN 2.11.67 284

Adult Education Institutes 2.10.84, 88, 92 Afro-Caribbean parents' views 2.13.29 aim for all 1.1.24 autistic unit, Larkhill Junior School A2.9 case study of blind boy A2.14 child health services support for 2.13.57 colleges of further education 2.10.73 comprehensive principle and 1.1.20; 3.16.8 delays in placement in ordinary schools waiting on resources 2.7.89 Education Act 1981 implementation 2.13.8 Framework for Learning course 2.11 .10; 3.16.25; A2.31 further, higher and continuing 2.10.7, 81 hearing impaired 2.8.6; 2.9.34 human needs of disabled 1.1.30 links between colleges of FE and special schools 2.7.101; 2.9.76.103; 2.10.19, 31, 36. 44, 64-66 links between comprehensive and special schools 2.7.72; 2.9.16, 18.50; 2.9.16, 18,50, 74-75, 103; 3.16.10, 22-27; 3.1812, 13; 3.20.5: A2.15-18 links between primary and special schools 2.6.37,48; 2.7.34; 2.9.16, 18.50, 74-75, 77. 101, 103: 3.16.10; 3.16.22-27; 3.18.12; 3.20.5; A2.15-18 motor impaired 2.9.40 nursery schools and classes 2.6.18-19 parents' attitudes 2.13.27-33 'parity of esteem' for all pupils objective 2.13.63 partially hearing unit, Culloden Primary School A2.8 policy, for 1.5.5-9, 26; 3.16.8-11, 13, 20-21; 3.172,4,5,18-42; 3.18.1-2,10, 16 post-16 3.17.34 post-16 severe learning difficulty classes 2.10.49, 52 practical considerations 1.3.31 primary schools 2.7.24 process not a state 1.1.27 resourcing 1.5.26; 2.6.38; 2.9.26; 3.17.5 sensory impaired 2.13.30 social interaction 1.1.28 Southfields School Unit for Partially Hearing 2.7.60; 2.8.6: A2.12 special schools reorganisation and 2.9.100 statemented children in ordinary schools, provision for 2.12.25; 3.20.13 statemented chIldren in ordinary schools statistics 1.4.12 statistics show no positive shift towards 1.4.21 steps being taken to establish 1.3.31 under-fives 2.6.34-39; 2.13.28 units inside school to promote 2.8.40 visually impaired 2.9.29 whole school policy must include SEN 1.1.16; 2.11.6,60,68 youth seNice 2.10.119

Larkhill Junior school with Integrated Autistic Unit A2.9

Intermediate Treatment Centres Inspectors responsibility for 2.83-4 statistics 1.4.1 7 teachers, statistics 1.4.19 Working Party on Off-Site Centres review 2.8.34

Learning difficulties

Inter-agency co-operation Harrington employment project A2.32 recording of observations, Grenfell School 2.14.33; A2.19 see also Inter-professional and Multi-professional

Inter-professional assessment and recording. standard form for 2.6.19 assessment, approach to 1.1.41; 1.3.29 autistic children's needs 2.9.41 child health services facilities for 2.6.49 confidentiality of records 2.6.24, 30 early warning schemes for SEN 2.7.64 liaison group of special needs teams, Division 5 A2.28 medical and educational co-operation 2.6.11, 21; 2.13.53; 2.14.29, 30, 31; 3.17.15 primary school 3rd year junior review 3.19.24; A2.7 record keeping for under fives 2619; 2.14.33; 3.17.14 teams for assessment on local basis 3.17.15 training 1.1.43; 1.5.65; 2.11.72 under-fives placement 2.6.3 under-fives prOVision, inter-professional co­ operation plan 3.17.17 voluntary organisations contribution 2.11.72

Classes for 2.8.3,11-18

physical condition revealed by medical exams,

implications 2.7.14 provision fragmented 2.11 .22 secondary schools 2.7.42 social problems 2.6.56-57 special educational needs arising from 1.1 .33 Top Infant Learning Themes (TILT) 3.19.24; A2.7 see also SpeCific learning difficulties

Learning Difficulties Support Service 2.10.106-111

Learning Resources Branch special educational provision 2.9.84-86; 2.15.9

Learning Resources Centre Hackney A2.26

Lecturers in further education allocation of post for SEN 2.10.69-71 initial and in-service training 2.10.33, 55; 79-83 'named person' designation 2.10.69 variety of backgrounds 2.10.42

Local Authorities tables of economic and social disadvantage 1.2.2-4

Intevention early to minimise handicap 1.1.28

Management

Islington Social Services

arrangements for special educational needs 1.3.28: 2.15.1-2 central decision making matters 3.16.41 central team for policy development and evaluation 3.16.40 education service 2.15.4; 3.16.16, 40 evidence, points made 1.5.67 existing practices and procedures review 3.16.6 groups, training for 2.11.70 see also Administrators

classes for severe learning difficulties 2.10.50

James Wolfe Unit 2.8.3, 6 John Milton Primary School community school activities A2.22

KIDS Centres 2.14.4, 12; A2.3 KIDS Home Based Learning Programme 2.6.4, 9, 15; 2.14.5

Manpower Services Commission definition of handicap 2.10.123 relationship with educational provision 2.10.123 schemes 2.10.5. 43

King's Acre School link with Paddock School for children with severe learning difficulties A2.16

Kingsway Princeton College tutorial support systems 2.10.17,62

Mary Sheridan Centre description of A2.4 medical and educational co-operation 2.6.11, 21; 2.13.53; 2.14.29, 30, 31; 3.17.15; 3.19.37 'parent profile' piloting 2.13.18

Labelling of disability 2.6.25, 49, 68: 2.9.9-10; 2.13.12,28,29; 2.14.28 285

Meals, free

Multi-Cultural

ILEA children statistics 1.2.5 tables of economic and social disadvantage 1.2.3-4

curriculum development 2.13.64 inspectorate input 211.7 special schools curriculum 3.18.26 support teachers for SEN 2.11.27 teams to develop in-service provision and guidelines 3.16.40

Medical examinations, implications for learning 2.7.14; 3.19.38 records 2.6.19; 2.14.33; 3.19.38 see also Child health services and SchOOl health services

Multi-disciplinary see Inter-professional

Multi-ethnic advisers input to special schools 2.9.96 colleges of FE courses 2.10.68 educational psychologists 2.11.18; 2.12.36 Education Welfare Service recruitment policy 2.11.44, 45; 3.19.19 schemes for assessing learning difficulties 2.12.36

Medical Adviser to the ILEA 1.4.42; 2.15.10 Medical Department serving GLC and ILEA 2.15.10

Multi-professional MENCAP

aim to reduce complexity 2.14.57-60 in-service education to develop 2.11.70 see also Inter-professional

counselling and befriending 2.14.12 Gateway Clubs 2.14.2,8 Lutton Manor 2.4.1 0 Self-Advocacy Scheme 2.14.2,9,20 Southwark Institute joint funding for courses for severe learning difficulties 2.10.49; A2.25

Named person 'citizen advocate' US model 2.13.69: 2.14.20 college of FE designation 2.10.68 English as a second language support 26.66; 2.13.66 health visitors' case-loads 2.6.52 informal panel proposals 2.13.76; 2.14.19-21 parents use of 2.13.4, 8, 20, 69, 72-75; 2.14.14-21 social worker to act as recommendation 2.6.61 US model of 'parent counsellor' 2.13.70; 2.14.14 voluntary sector role 2.14.16-21

Mental handicap see Severe learning difficulties

Methodology Access curriculum by 1.1.37

Moderate learning difficulties National Association of Governors and Managers

administrative decision making 2.15.22 parental attitudes 2.13.35, 38-41 post-16 courses 2.10.53-55 school leavers destinations 2.10.11-12, 15 schools for 2.9.48-50 social needs of many pupils 2.9.93

evidence 1.5.17

National Association of Young People in Care (NAYPIC) 2.14.2,9

National Bureau for Handicapped Students Mother and toddler groups 2.14.13

evidence 1.5.37; 2.10.122 range of services 2.10.120-122; 2.14.10

Motor impairment

National Child Development Study 1.2.4

access to, and mobility in colleges of FE 2.10.4,23; 3.17.8 Hatchford Park leavers course A2.20 health and social services support for parents 2.9.98 ILEA Resource Centre A2.23 integration progress 2.9.40; 3.18.16 nursing and therapy staff 2.9.93 peripatetic teachers for 3.19.27 resource centres 2.9.87 services arrangement on sector basis 3.16.37-39 techniques and equipment in schools 2.9.36-40 unified service development 3.18.16 'Widening Horizons' course Southwark College and AEI2.10.88 286

National Children's Bureau disadvantaged families research 1.2.4

National Deaf Children's Society 2.14.2 National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) standards form for interdisciplinary assessment and recording 2.6.19; 3.17.14

National Health Service child development centres 2.6.2 child health services 2.14.22, 24

statemented children in, statistics 1.4.13-15, 56 statement not required, statistics of children in 1.4.16 statistics 1.4.16-18 support services recommendations 3.18,8 voluntary organisations run, statistics 1.4.17, 19 working party report 1.3.43; 2.7.71; 2,8,1,25,33,34, 40; 3.17.29; 3.18,8 see also Units attached to schools

National Union of Public Employees (NUPE) evidence 1.5.56

Newcomen Centre assessment 2.6.10

Non-teaching staff improvements in training 2.11.71; 3.18.15 residential child care practices 3.18.15

One parent families 1.2.5; 2.9.11; 2.9.59; 2,13.40. North East London Polytechnic

44

Parent Profiling and parental contribution 2.13.17

Opportunity classes North London College

development of 2.8.11-14 discontinuance recommended 3,18.4 enquiry by Research and Statistics Branch 1.3.40' 2,8.35-38 integration policy 2.6.41 primary statistics 1.4.13 role of questioned 2.8,14 under-fives placement in 2.6.2

classes for severe learning difficulties 2.10.50

Nursery nurses employment in day nurseries 2.6.57-58

Nursery provision health visitors link with 2.6.51 home visiting by staff 2.6.63 statistics of placements 1.4.7 supported assessment, need for 2.6.14

Parents, Children and Teachers (PACT) 1.5.32, 36; 2.7.18, 73; 2.13.41

Nursery schools and classes

Paddock School

aids and provision for SEN 2.14.37 assessment, contribution of staff to 2.6.13, 29 extended day offered in conjunction with social services 2.6.59 feedback on child's progress in primary school 2.6.30; 2.7.86 guidelines for recording information 2.6.19 integration, staffing implications 2.6.18-19 interdisciplinary assessment, standard form 2.6.19 proportion of children with SEN 2.5.42 provision for SEN 1.4.5; 2.6.2, 42-44 recommendations 2.6.61; 3.16.10-11, 22 shortage of provision for SEN 2.14.51 social problem children 2.6.43 speech and language difficulties, units for 2.8.8-10 speech therapy and physiotherapy services 2.6.53 transition to primary schools 2.6.27, 34 see also Day care, Opportunity groups, Playgroups and under-fives

links with King's Acre Infant and Junior School A2.16

Nurture groups black parents criticism of 2.8.23 Inspectors responsibility for 2.8.3 work of 2.8.19-23

Off-Site units classified by criteria, 2.8,3-4 contraction of 3,17.5; 3.18.8 evidence, points made 1.5.42-45 links with ordinary schools 2,9.78; 3.18.6 no advantage if geographically remote 2,7.60 provision commenced 1.2.18 recommendations 2.8,33-34; 3,18.6-7; 3.20,6 secondary schools contact with 2.7.71 secondary, statistics 1.4.16 287

Paediatricians assessments 2,6.9; 2,13.52, 56, 57; 2.14.28, 29, 40 primary and secondary care 2.14.22, 23, 25, 26

Paramedical see Physiotherapy and Speech therapy Parents adaption and acceptance of child's disability 2.13.22-23 additional support pending assessment 2.6.26,63; 3.17.12 adult education courses on SEN children 2.10.91 annual reviews of children at special schools, involvement 2.9.81 anxiety over present state of education 2.6.37 assessment contribution to 1.1.41; 2.6.65; 2.12.10, 19, 21, 23, 30; 2.13.12-20, 25 assessment examinations attendance 2.12.21 assessment procedure evidence 1.5.15-16, 18, 20, 32 assessment, recommendations 3.20.11 attitude to assessment 1.3.40; 2.6.9-12; 2.13.7, 12-26 behavioural and emotional difficulties of children dissastisfaction with services 2.14.40 black parents criticism of nurture groups 2.8.23 child health services, attitude to 2,13.52-58; 2.14.40-41 choice, information required for 2.6,31; 2,13.32; 318.23 consumer view of special education service 1,3.26

counselling, need for during assessment 2.6.12, 15, 65; 2.13.7, 8, 22 delicate schools, parental satisfaction with 2.9.47 designated officer guidance 2.13.20, 69, 70 dialogue about children's response to education 2.12.4,10 disabtlity of child, attitude to 2.14.40 education service contacts with 2.15.12, 26, 28 Education Welfare Service role, lack of information on 2.13.51 effective involvement 1.1.43; 2.6.14 Government reports encouraging collaboration 2.13.1 health and social services co-ordination of support for 2.9.98 health visitors, attitude to 2.13.56; 2.14.40 helping schools with information on SEN 2.7.16 home-based learning schemes appreciation 2.6.9 Information for Parents on SEN pamphlet 3.17.11 information for, quality of 1.5.17-18; 2.15.12, 26, 28; 3.16.3 information on child's progress 2.12.19 information required before draft Statement 2.12.23, 30; 2.13.13, 14,22: 3.17.6-7 information requirements for under-fives 2.6.4-6, 17, 63; 2.13.14 integration, attitudes to 2.13.27-33 multi-disciplinary team meeting attendance 2,14.56 ordinary placement for statemented children rights 2.6.32 'parent profile' model for assessment by DES 2.6.65; 2.12.24: 2.13.11,17-19 partnership with professionals 1.1.28; 2.13.5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 23-24 partnership with schools 1.1.13; 2,13.78 positive help for children 1,1.47 post-16 severe learning courses involvement 2.10.51 recommendations 3.20.11 records, school, contribution to 3.17.20 resource to help parent become partner rather than client 2.13.70 rights and representation 2.13.1-11 secondary schools contacts with 2.7.73 single 1.2.5; 2.9.11; 3.9.59; 2,13.40, 44 social services, attitudes to 2.13.43-51; 2.14.42-56 special needs of child dialogue before formal assessment 2.12.19 special schools, attitude to 1.3.40; 2.13.27. 29-30, 31,33-42 special schools links with 2.9.79-82 Statements, contribution to 2.6,10; 2,12.22, 23, 30; 2.13.15, 17 Statements, restricted information on advice fears 2.13.26 status of views accorded by professionals 2.12.22, 23, 30 teacher in-service training for working with 2.11.58 transition of under-fives to primary school 2,6.25-33; 2.7.11-12 288

unemployed, tables of economic and disadvantage 1.2.3-4 unique knowledge of child, sharing of 2.13.9-10 US model of 'parent counsellor'2.13. 70; 2.14.14 use of unit provision for children, involvement in decision making 2.12.15 visits encouragement 2.6.17 visually impaired children, parents' attitudes study 1.3.40 working mothers and day care 2.6.56, 59 workshops on assessments recommendation 2.6.67 written information on health, attitude to 2.14.40

Parents Anonymous 2.14.2, 13 Parents' Campaign for Integrated Education 1.5.5,9; 2.13.31; 2.14.2; 2.15.19

Parents Rights Group 2.14.2 Parent Teacher Association 2,13.66 Partially hearing

see

Hearing impaired

Pastoral care colleges of FE 2.10.60 secondary schools 2.7.43

Paediatric assessments 2,6.9; 2.13.52, 56, 57 Peripatetic teachers area teams formation 3.17.16 behaviour difficulties 2.11.34 co-ordination of services 2.11.38' 3,19.27-29 disruptive children, work with 2.7.25-26; 3.19.27 further education 2.10,83 lack of co-ordination of work 1.5,58; 2.7.26; 2,8.18 liaison with specialist teams 2.6.21; 3.19.27-29 number of 1.4.31, 56; 2,7.25 recommendations 3.19.27-30; 3.20.9 responsibilities for, recommendation 3.16.32, 33 school based assessments, assistance with 2.12.9, 13 Schools Psychological Service responsibilities for 2.11.21 sensory impairment 2,11.30-31; 2.13.23; 3.19.27 specific learning difficulties 2.11.21, 22, 32-33; 3.19.29 unified service development 3.19.27-29

Personal advocacy service 2.14.9 Phobic children 2.9.46; 3.18.19 Physically Handicapped Able Bodied (PHAB) 2.14.2,8 Physically impaired

see

Motor impairment

Physiotherapy District Health Authorities provision 2,13,55; 2,14,34 nursery school input 2,6.53 shortage of 2,14,40

Playgroups social services provisions for SEN 14.5 under-fives with SEN placement in 2,6.2

Plowden Report parent participation encouragement 2,13,1, 2

Policy recommendations administrative procedure and management organisation 2,15.22-29 advisory and support teachers 3,19,24-26; 3.20,9 admission to provisions outside primary and secondary schools 3,16,35 assessment, aspects of 3.20.10 boarding schools 3.18.14-26 budget, percentage for special educational provision 3,17.3 bUildings access, barrier free 3,17,8 changes of thinking not reflected in ILEA 1.2.20 child guidance units 3.19.31 child health services 2.14,4 1 clusters of schools 3,16,22-27, 40 coherent need for, despite pressures 1,1,46 continuity and transfer between schools 3.20.5 development policy and strategy 1,1 .29-31, 45-48 Divisional administration responsibilities 3.16.29-36 Divisional Management Group recommendation 3.16.31, 33, 34, 35 Education Act 1981 2.13.8 equal opportunities to meet SEN 3.16.7-8 Ethnic minority parents help to participate in education 2.13.66-68 health services 3.19.36-39; 3.20,12 home services resourcing 2.14.60 home tuition 2.11 .52, 53; 3.18.9 information and statistics collection3.16.14 information directories 3.17.7 in-service courses co-ordination 2.11,62-72 Inspectorate recommendations 3.19,4-8; 3.20.9 integration 1.5.5-9, 26; 3.16.8-11, 13, 20-21; 3.17.2; 3.18.1-2,10,16 management practices and procedures review 3.16.16-19 multi-disciplinary approach 2,14.57-60 named person panel of volunteers 2.13.76; 2.14.19 off-site units 3.18.6-8 parent partnership encouragement 2.13.70, 78; 3.20.11 Peripatetic teachers 3.19.27-30 post-16 assessment procedures 2,12.38-41 post-16 provision 2.10.125; 3.17.31-42; 3.20.8 primary schools provision 3.17.18-24; 3.20,4 proviSion, additional and supportive 3.16.12 psychiatric social workers 3.19.20 school social work service 3,19.21 289

Schools Psychological Service 3,19,9-16 secondary schools provision 2.7.74, 105; 2,15.24; 3,18.1; 3.20,4 health services 3.20,12 research and evaluation 3.20.13 social services 2,6,61; 2.11,45; 2,1455; 3,19,32-33 Social Work Services 3,19,17-23 special educational needs, unified and comprehensive approach to 3,16,8-9 special education development plan 316,15 special education integral to all education provision 3,16,11 special schools 3.18.10-26; 3.20.7 support services 3.19.24-26; 3.20.9 teachers meeting SEN in classroom 3.16.20 teacher responsibility for defined groups or classes 3.16.32, 33, 34 under-fives provision 3.17.9-17; 3.20,3 units and classes, future of 3,18.3-8; 3,20.6 voluntary agencies 3.20,12

Polytechnics access to buildings 2,10.98-99 Advisory Committee for Handicapped Students 2,10,103 in-service courses on SEN 2.11.67 provision for special educational needs 1,3.20; 2,10,96-104

Portage schemes 2,6,9, 33; 2,13,9, 22; 2,14,5; 2,14.24; 3,17.16; A2.5

Post·16 advisory lecturers workload 2.10.32 advisory teachers for SEN secondment 2.11.29 assessment procedures 2,12,38-39 choice for pupils with SEN 2,10.11, 20, 61; 2.13,45, 47; 3,17.32 comprehensive schools provision 14.34, 36; 2,10.1 development of FE proviSion, 2.10.22-27, 30, 125-128 employment experience Harrington project A2.32 entering some time after leaving school 2,10.18 entitlement to education for all to age 192,10.21, 27; 2.11,55 evidence, points made 1,5,37-41 extension to 21 of provision for severe learning difficulties 3,17.33 extent of need for SEN 2,10,8-11 flexibility of service 2.10,15, 16, 18, 25 Learning Difficulties Support Service 2,10,106-111 links between secondary and tertiary provision 3,16.22,24 medical requirements of post-16s 2,13,58; 2,14.39; 3,19.39 needs of young people 2,10.2-4 opportunities continuing to mid-twenties for SEN 3,17,41 provision for special educational needs 1,3,18-21 ; 2.10,1,4,13-21,37-43,44-46; 3,17.32-35

pupil profiles 2.10.26 pupils statistics 1.4.35; 2.10.11-12 ratinalisation of provision 2.10.28-37 recommendations 3.17.31-42; 3.20.8 resource allocation 2.10.22-27, 28-30; 3.17.16 school-Ieavers destinations sUNey 1.3.40; 2.10.10, 11-12; 3.17.31 school leavers transition needs 319.35 School Psychological SeNice extension to 3.19.13 'special' colleges rejected 3.17.34 staying on in special schools 210.10, 11-12 support seNices requirements 2.10.34; 2.11.55 training in SEN for lecturers, non-teaching staff and senior management 2.10.33 voluntary sector prOVision 2.14.8-10 wider range of special needs, catering for 3.17.35 see also Colleges of further education, Further education, Higher education and Post-16 Pre-school see Under fives

Pre-School Playgroups Association integration policy 2.6.40

Primary schools advisory and support seNices 2.7.25-33; 3.19.24 Afro-Caribbean parents' views 2.13.63 aids and appliances provision for SEN 2.14.37 assessment, heads' views 2.7.23 child guidance clinic consultation initiative 2.7.33 community, interaction with 1.1.12 cluster of, recommendation 3.16.22-27, 40; 3.17.16, 18; 3.18.3, 13 curriculum see Curriculum development plan to include meeting SEN 3.17.23 dialogue with secondary schools before transfer of SEN pupils 2.7.93-94, 96 disruptive children 1.5.29; 2.7.25; 2.11.34-35 educational psychologists contribution to 2.7.27 education welfare seNice and 2.7.28 evidence, points made 1.5.24-32 feedback of information of children with SEN to parents 2.6.30; 2.7.86-87 identifying SEN 2.7.10,13-16; 3.17.19 Improving Primary Schools, Thomas Report 1.1.1, 5-13,18,45; 2.7.2,3,6-7.11,36; 2.11.5; 2.12.33; 3.16.22; 3.17.19,22,24 inspectorate for SEN guidance to 2.11.5-7 integration 2.7.24; 3.16.21; 3.17.2, 4, 5, 18-24; 3.18.1,10,11,13,16 less severe SEN provision not available 1.4.4, 11 links with special schools 2.6.37,48; 2.7.34; 2.9.16, 18,50, 74-75, 77, 101, 103; 3.16.10; 3.16.22-27; 3.18.12; 3.20.5; A2.15-18 non-Statemented children with SEN provision 2.15.24 provision for special educational needs 1.3.11-14; 1.4.8-9, 11; 2.7.4, 17-24; 2.11.26; 2.15.24 parents as a source of information on SEN 2.7.16 programme for children with SEN 2.7.25 290

psychiatric social workers contacts 2.7.31 recommendations 3.17.18; 3.20.4, 5 record keeping, importance for identifying SEN 2.7.15,91-92; 3.20.5 review of 3rd year juniors by multi-disciplinary team 3.19.24; A2.7 secondary schools, little knowledge of 2.7.95; 3.20.5 secondary teachers in charge of special needs visit to feeder schools 2.7.93-94 social seNices support 2.7.29 social workers and 2.7.33 Special Education Resources Team support role 2.9.86 speech and language difficulties, units for 2.8.8-10 speech therapists in 2.7.32; 2.14.40 statemented children in, statistics 1.4.12, 56 statemented children, provision for 2.12.35; 3.20.13 statemented children, rights of parents to ordinary placement 2.6.32 Statistics of pupils in 1.2.7-9 statistics of schools 2.7.3 support teachers for SEN 2.11.26-27; 3.19.26 tables of economic and social disadvantage 1.2.3-4, 11 teaching time devoted to SEN not known 1.4.8-9 Top Infant Learning Themes (TILT) 3.19.24; A2.7 transfer conferences, Division 3 initiative 3.19.24; A2.10 transition from infant to junior 2.7.90; 3.17.24; 3.20.5 transition for under fives 2.6.25-33, 34; 2.7.11-12, 85-89; 3.20.5 transition to secondary schools 2.7.35, 61; 2.7.76-84,91-96; 3.19.24; 3.20.7 units and classes classification 28.3-4 units attached to recommendations 3.18.3, 5. 11 units, detached, statistics 1.4.16-18 units for behavioural and emotional difficulties 3.18.5, 7 units, statistics of children 1.4.13 visits by under-fives 2.7.85 withdrawal units 2.8.24, 40

Prior Weston (JMI) School link with Richard Cloudsley School for Physically Disabled A2.15

Professionals advice for Statements, reports before for 2.13.26 aims and objectives 3.16.2 assessment seNices duplication 2.13.13 communication between 2.13.25 confidentiality of records 2.6.24, 30; 2.13.26 delegated multi-professional management of assessments 1.1.41 English as a second language 2.12.34; 2.13.60, 67; 2.14.35-36 effective involvement 1 1.43 information requirements 3.17.7 inter-professional see Inter-professional involvement, degree of, in comprehensive seNice

2,15.31-33

'key worker' model 2.13.59, 70, 73; 2,14AO

organisation of services for under fives 2.6.20-23

partnership with parents 1.1.28; 2.13.5, 8, 10, 11,

16,23-24

range and complexity of groups for SEN 2.11,1-3,

21,23

reports for Statements of SEN, quality and status of

2.12.22,23

reports status in relation to parents' views for

statement 2,12.22, 23, 30 under five provision 1.4.6 see also under invidividually named

Psychiatric social workers child guidance teams consultancy work 3,19.20 support for SEN provision 1AA1, 43, 44, 45; 2.7.31; 2.9.93; 2.11 AO-41 unified service recommendation 3,19,17, 20

Queen Elizabeth Foundation for the Disabled 2.4.10

Queen's Manor Primary School links with Queensmill School A2,17

Queensmill School for primary children with

complex needs

links with Queen's Manor Primary School A2.17

Racism

Provision achievement of objectives 1.1.43 additional and supportive policy 3.16.12 adult education see Adult education aims of special education 1,3.33 autism see Autistic children boarding schools see Boarding schools Careers service see Careers service changes of thinking on 1.2.20 classes and units, wide variety of 2.8.1-4; 39-46 colleges of further education see Colleges of further education consumer view see Parents continuity of arrangements 1.3.22, 23 falling rolls 1.2.8-9, 11 day care by social services 1.4.5; 2.7.89 delays in transition for under-fives 2,6.28; 27.89 evaluation, need for systematic procedures 3,16A2 health services see Health services higher education see Higher education joint planning 1.1 A3 management see Management long term planning 3.1.7-8 nursery see Nursery provision 1.4. 7 patterns of 1.1.38-39; 1,3,32 polytechnics see Polytechnics post-16 see Post-16 Primary schools see Primary schools progression of 1.1.46 range of 1.4.1-36; 2.12,13 secondary schools see Secondary schools Section 56 bases 1.4.23-24 social services see Social services Special schools see Special schools support services see Support services teacher training see Teacher training under fives see Under fives under-twos see Under twos voluntary organisations see Voluntary organisations youth service see Youth Service

Provision for Handicapped Students in Further and Higher Education 19742.10,37 291

ILEA policies 2.12,32; 3,16A, 7 Swann Report 2,13.64,68

Reading schemes PACT 1,5,32, 36; 2,7,18,73; 2.13A1

Reading tests Holborn 2,7,53 London 2.7,61 Salford 2,7,63

Records confidentiality 2,6.24, 30; 2,13.26; 2,14,32, 56 Grenfell School (Special) A2,19 health and social services 2.13,54; 2,14,32, 56 Individual Developmental Record A4 medical 2,6,19; 2,14,33; 3.19.38 primary schools for identifying SEN 2,7,15; 3,17,19, 20 primary to secondary transfer 2.7.91-92; 3.20.5 procedures common to all pupils 1,1 Ai progress assessment 2,12,5-7, 8 pupil profiles 2.10.26; 2.12,7 recommendations for continuity and transfer 3.20.5 register keeping by schools of visits by support services 3,17.20 secondary schools identifying SEN 2.7,65; 3,17.19, 20 under fives 2.6.19; 2.14.33; 3.17.14 William Penn School systematic information gathering A2.13

Redlands Primary School in-service training 2.7.22; A2.29

Remedial allocation of teaching time in secondary schools 1.4.10; 3,17.26 enquiry by Research and Statistics Branch 1.3.40 inspectorate advice for 2.11.6 Learning Difficulties Support Service 2.10.109-110 parental attitudes of children in 2.13.36 part-time education in. statistics 1.4.18 specific learning difficulties 1.4.16, 18, 19; 2.8,15-18

Research and evaluation

St Leonard's Nursery School

recommendation 3.20.13

standard form for interdisciplinary assessment 2.6.19; 2.14.33; 3.17.14

Research and Statistics Branch attitudes of parents in the 1st year of secondary school 2.13.34 attitudes of parents of children with visual impairments study 1.3.40 destination of school leavers and college provision 3.17.31 medical condition of children in special education 2.13.58; 2.14.38 parental attitudes to special schools enquiry 1.3.40; 2.13.32-34, 39; 2.14.54 population of special schools enquiry 1.3.40; 2.9.5, 9,11,42,46; 2.10.9 population of tutorial and remedial classes etc 1.3.40; 2.8.35, 40 special education arrangements evaluation 2.11.23; 3.16.43 transfer from primary to secondary school study 2.7.80

School health services appreciation of 2.6.54 functions under discussion 2.14.25, 32 in-service training to develop multi-professionalism 2.11.70 primary and secondary care 2.7.29-30: 2.14.22, 23, 24: 3.19.38 school doctor 2.14.40 school nurses 2.9.93; 2.14.32, 40 see also Child health services

Schools amalgamations and closures 1.2.8-9; 2.7.38; 3.17.5 cluster of, recommendation 3.16.22-27,40; 3.17.16: 3.18.3, 13 falling rolls 1.2.8-9,11; 3.17.5, 26; 3.18.10

Schools Branch administration 2.15.8, 19

Residential schools see Boarding schools

School social work service 1.4.44,46; 2.12.9, 13;

Resources - Resource Centres budget figures 1984-85 1.4.59-62 budget, percentage for special education provision 3.17.3 centres for motor and communication difficulties 2.9.87 delays in placement in ordinary schools 2.7.89 ILEA Centre for Motor and Associated Communication Handicaps A2.23 innovative work 3.17.4 integration requirements 1.5.26; 2.6.38; 2.9.26; 3.17.5 Learning Resources Branch work with special schools 2.9.84-86 mobile resource bus for boarding schools proposal 2.9.85 ongoing assessment requirements 2.6.14 secondary schools 3.17.26 service functions redefinition to use effectively 3.19.2 social and health services by ILEA 2.14.60 special education during period of change 3.17.4: 3.18.2 special needs centres 2.6.23 Special Resources Team 2.9.84-86 special schools as centres 2.6.23; 2.9.101-103 special schools capitation 2.9.83

Review of Vocational, Further and Higher Education 1973 2.10.37 Richard Cloudsley School link with Prior Weston (JMI) School A2.15 292

3.19.17,21

Schools Psychological Service advisory teachers with specific tasks secondment 2.11.36 assessment, formal, contribution to 2.12.21-22 assessment, dialogue with ethnic minorities on 2.12.32 classes for children with specific learning difficulties 2.8.15-18 contribution to meeting SEN 1.4.41, 45, 49-51; 2.15.10; 3.19.10 coordination of provision at Divisional level! 3.16.38; 3.19.10-11 delegation of responsibilities recommendation 3.16.34 early years, training for 2.6.9; 2.14.28,30; 3.19.12 educational guidance centres 2.8.31-32; 2.11.21, 22 English as a second language 2.11.18: 3.19.14 equal opportunities response 3.19.9 ethnic minorities, work with 3.19.14 evaluation of SEN arrangements 2.11.23 evidence, points made 1.5.59-60 in-service courses, SEN inclusion in overall programme 2.11.66 Inspectorate co-operation with 2.1.20-23; 3.19.4-5 peripatetic teachers, responsibilities for 2.11 .21 post-16 provision recommendation 3.19.13 recommendations 3.19.9-16 school based assessments 2.12.9, 11, 13; 3.16.43 teachers in Divisional teams statistics 1.4.31 title change recommendation 3.19.16

tutorial classes 2,8,28-30; 2,11.21, 22 units and classes responsibilities 2,8,3-4 work of 2,11,14-24; 3,19,9; 3.19,15 see also Educational psychologists

Secondary schools advisory teachers for SEN 3,19.24 Afro-Caribbean parents; views 2.13.63 aids and appliances for SEN 2,14,37 allocation of funds to SEN departments 2.7,57 Annual Staff Deployment and Curriculum Analysis returns 1.4,10; 2,7.48-57 Band 3 pupils 2,7.49 'banding' system for entry 2.7,38, 61 cluster of, recommendation 3.16.22-27, 40; 3.17.16; 3.18.3, 13 comprehensives, equal access to 1,1.47 dialogue with primary schools before transfer of SEN pupils 2,7.93-94,96 disruptive children 2,11.34 early warning schemes to identify SEN 2.7.64; A2.11 educational psychologists work in 2,7.67 education welfare service and 2,7.68 equal opportunities provision 1,1.47 evidence, points made 1,5,24-25, 33-36 falling rolls 1.2,8-9, 11 feeder primary schools visit by special needs teachers 2,7.93-94 fourth and fifth year SEN support 3,17.28 identification of SEN 2.7.61-65; 3,17,19, 25 Improving Secondary Schools (Hargreaves) 1.1,1, 5, 6, 14-16, 18, 45; 1.3.43; 2,7.2, 3, 43, 45, 46, 83; 2,11,5; 2.12.33; 2.17.19, 24 inspectorate for SEN guidance to 2,11,5-7 integration 3,16.21; 3,17.2, 4, 5; 3,18,1,10,13,16 issues raised for meeting SEN 2.7.74,105; 2,15.24 less severe, SEN provision not available 1.4.4, 11 liaison and co-ordination internally 2,7.69 links with special schools 27,72; 2.9,16, 18,50; 2.9,16, 18,50, 74-75, 103; 3,16.10, 22-27; 3,18,12, 13; 3.20.5; A2.15-18 links with tertiary provision 3,16.22; 3,20,5 non-Statemented children with SEN provision 2,15.24 outside agencies contacts 2,7.70 parental contacts with 2.7.73 pastoral care arrangements 2.7.43 post-16 provision for SEN 1.4.34, 36; 2,10,1 primary teachers knowledge of secondary schools 2,7.95 provision for special educational needs 1.3.15-17; 1.4.8-11; 2,7.40-60; 2,11.26; 2,15.24; 3,17.26, 27 recommendations 3,17,18-20, 25-29; 3.20.4, 5 record keeping 2.7,65, 91-92; 3.20,5 Remedial work, allocation of teaching time 1.4.10; 2,7.43, 49-56 sixth forms link and bridging courses with special schools 2,7.101 size as a source of stress 3,17.30 speCial educational needs development 293

recommendations 3,17.21-24 Special educational needs resources 1,1 .20 Special Education Resources Team support role 2,9.86 special needs identification in ordinary school case study A1.1-8 speech therapy provision 2.14.40 Statemented children in, statistics 1.4.12, 56 Statemented pupils, provision for 2,7,59-60; 2.12.25; 3.2013 Statistics of pupils in 1.2,7-9 support teachers for SEN 2,11.26-27 tables of economic and social disadvantage 1.2.3-4, 11 statistics of schools 2.7,37 support teaching evaluation 3.17.26; 3,19.26 teaching time devoted to SEN not known·1.4.8, 10-11; 3.17.26 transfer conferences, Division 3 initiative 3.19.24; A2,10 Transfer to college 2.7,101-104: 3.20,5 transition from primary schools 2.7.35,61; 2.7.76-84, 91-96; 3.17.24; 3.20.5 units see Off-Site units and Units attached to schools withdrawal and support work, balance 2.7.74 Section 56 basis 1.4.23-24

Segregation adverse effects of 1.1.27 specialist educational environments 2,13,30

'Self-advocacy' MENCAP scheme 2,14.2,9 movement, 1,10.90

SENSE National Association for Deaflblind Rubella Handicapped Family Centre 2,6.4, 9; 2.14.4, 6

Sensory impairment see Deaf/blind, Hearing impaired and Visually impaired Service delivery advisory and support services 2,11,55 aim of integration for all 1.1.24 changing model for SEN resourcing 3,17.4 clusters of schools advantages 3.16.24 common patterns of particular SEN. need for 3.16.39 decision making distance from point of 2,15.22-23 Divisional SEN co-ordination recommendation 3.16,33 local services precluding divisional strategies 2.15.3 models for development A5,1-9 Schools Psychological Service 3.19.15 social work services 3.19.17

Severe Learning Difficulties City Literary Institute classes A2.24 consortium concerned with resources for schools for 2.15.9 extension to 21 of provisions and services 3.17.33 post-16 courses 2.10.45-52 school leavers destinations 2.10.11-12, 16; 2.14.52 schools for 2.9.42-45 unattached teachers service 2.11.35 Sixteen to nineteen see Post-16

Social disadvantage additional and supportive provision policy 3.16.12 characteristics of pupils in special schools 2.9.11-13; 2.13.40; 3.18.14 class, ILEA policy 3.16.7 inner city problems 2.7.1; 2.9.7; 3.19.14 parents of children in schools with moderate learning difficulties 2.13.41

Social Education Centres (SEC) 2.14.52 Socialist Education Association

rationalisation and changes needed 2.6.61; 2.14.55 recommendations 3.19.32-35; 3.20.12 record keeping problems 2.6.29; 2.13.54 school based assessment, assistance with 1.4.44. 46; 2.12.9,13 school based social workers 2.9.82, 93; 2.13.43; 2.14.55; 3.19.17, 21 schoolleavers with SEN liaison with 2.10.17; 3.19.35 social work services provided by ILEA 1.4.44 special schools use of 2.14.35 Statements of SEN, contribution to 2.14.43,48; 2.14.50 under-fives prOVision, inter-professional co­ operation plan 3.17.17 under fives transition to primary schools 2.6.27 under-fives with SEN role 2.6.55-59

Social Services Establishments Community Homes with Education (CHE's) 2.9.54 provision for SEN, statistics 1.4.24, 25 teachers employment statistics 1.4.26 varied provision for SEI\J 2.9.54

Social workers

Evidence 1.5.48. 60

Social services areas differing from District Health Authorities 3.16.36 assessments, contributions to 1.1.42; 2.6.29; 2.12.21; 2.13.54; 2.14.43-47; 3.19.34 Avon SSD report In Tandem on 1981 Education Act 2.14.47 boarding school child care 2.9.69-70 Borough Social Services Departments 2.14.42 children in care with SEN 2.6.57, 61; 2.13.48; 2.14.43,49; 3.18.18 confidentiality of records 2.6.24, 30; 2.14.56 day centres, nurseries and play groups provision for SEN 1.4.5; 2.7.89 Education Act 1981 statutory duties 2.14.43-46 emotional and behavioural difficulties, links with other services 2.9.54 English as a second language problem for 2.13.50; 2.14.35 evidence, points made 1.5.61-64; 2.14.47; 2.14.1 foster children with SEN role 2.14.49 information directories of local provision 1.3.8; 3.17.7 in-service education with teachers to develop multi­ profeSSionalism 2.11.70 Intermediate Treatment Centres statistics 1.4.17 joint provision with education exploration 3.18.22; 3.19.32 Medical Department personnel contribution to 2.15.11 multi-disciplinary approach 2.14.56-60 mUlti-ethnic recruitment recommendation 3.19.19 nursery school links to provide extended day 2.6.59 parents' attitudes to 2.13.43-51,2.14.42-56 post-16 provision 2.14.52; 3.19.18 primary schools, support 2.7.29 294

Education Act 1981 guidelines 2.6.61 workload makes them unavailable to primary schools 2.7.33

South East London Technical College (SELTEC) evidence 1.5.38

Southfields School unit for partially hearing 2.7.60; 2.8.6; A2.12

Southwark Institute courses for severe learning difficulties 2.10.49; A2.25 integration work 2.10.88, 92

Southwark College evidence 1.5.38 joint social services and education appointment 3.17.41

SpastiCS Society 2.14.12 SpeCial educational needs age of child when identified 2.13.39 arrangements for, coherent approach required 211.7,9,68; 2.19.2 awareness courses for all teachers 2.11.65 behavioural and emotional difficulties, boarding placement criteria 2.9.59; 2.14.53 Central panels role 2.12.25, 26 children in care 2.6.57, 61; 2.13.48; 2.14.43, 49 coherent picture, difficulty in drawing 1.4.63 complex patterns of individual need 2.9.10 definition 2.12.8; 3.16.12 dialogue with parents and school response to child for 2.14.4, 10 discontinuities. initiatives to correct 2.11.9

divisional panels drafting Statements of 2.12.22-26; 2.15.19,32; 3.16.35 early identification 2.6.50; 2.7.64; 2.14.24: 3.17.16; 3.19.12,28,33 factors to be considered 1.1.35-36 ethnic minorities 2.13.59-68 financial resources devoted to 1.4.59-62 foster children 2.14.49 grouping schools 1.1.11 'in-class' support work 1 1.15 Framework for Learning, in-service programme for Division 9 2.11.10; 3.16.25; A2.31 independent living skills 2.10.89 inner city areas 2.7.1; 2.97 issues raised in meeting 2.7.74,105 Learning difficulties providing 1.1.33 medical condition in addition to affecting educational performance 2.13.58; 2.14.38 multi-disciplinary approach 2.14.56-60 parents who themselves have experienced 2.13.29, 39,40; 2.14.7 post-16 see Colleges of further education, Further education and Post-16 primary schools see Primary schools procedures to determine within school 2.12.8-15 professional groups concerned with 2.11.1-3, 21-23; 2.15.24 pupil statistics 1.4.21, 56, 58 range of 1.1.46, 63; 2.7.1; 2.12.23 relative nature of 1.1.32-33; 2.7.1; 2.12.4 staff development policy guidelines inclusion 2.11.60 teachers' attitude 3.16.6 teacher training see Teacher training teams to develop in-service provision and common guidelines 3.16.40 transfer procedure from primary to secondary and 2.7.7-84 under-fives see Under-fives unified and comprehensive approach,need for 3.16.8-9 units and classes, admissions without full assessment 2.12.13-15; 3.16.35 voluntary sector resources 2.14.3 Wamock Report 1.1 .4 whole school policy 1.1.16; 2.11 .6, 60, 68; 3.1 26

Special education in London, history of 1.2.12-20 Special education provision

see Provision

Special Education Resource Team 1.5.47; 2.15.9

Special Needs Action Programme (SNAP) A2.30 special schools absent staff, difficulties in obtaining support staff 2.9.99 administration recommendations 3.18.13 advice from variety of sources 1.11 .1-3 295

age range catered for 2.9.3 aids and appliances provision 2.14.37 Boarding schools see Boarding schools contraction of numbers of 2.9.23; 3.17.5; 3.18.10 curriculum approaches 2.915 day schools provision 2.9.24-26; 3.18.10-13 day schools statistics 2.9.2-13 destination of leavers, statistics 1.4.36, 37-38 Divisions, numbers in by type 2.9.23 evidence, pOints made 1.5.46-56 health services 3.19.38 history of 1.2.15-17; 3.17.2 hostels attached to day special schools 2.9.62, 65 independent and non-maintained placement 2.9.71-73 integration of most able effect on 2.6.36, 48; 2.13.27 joint provision with social services exploration 3.18.22 link courses with colleges of FE 2.7.101; 2.9.76, 103; 2.10.19,31. 36, 44, 64-66 links with comprehensive schools 2.7.72; 2.9.16,18, 50,74-75; 3.18.12; A2.15-18 links with primary schools 2.6.37, 48; 2.7.34; 2.9.16, 18,50,74-75,77, 101, 103; 3.18.12; A2.15-18 medical conditions of pupils apart from handicap 2.13.58; 2.14.38 non-maintained and independent, ILEA pupils in statistics 1.4.22; 3.18.23 parents attitudes to 1.3.40; 2.13.27, 29-30, 31,33-42 parents links with 2.9.79-82 percentage of total school population 1.4.21, 56, 58; 2.9.7,8,3.16.9 positive attitudes to parents and children 2.6.32 post-16 pupils statistics 1.4.35 provision for special educational needs 1.3.25; 1.4.4; 2.9.2-10, 57-66 pupils statistics 1976-84 1.4.21, 56; 2.9.2-10 recommendations 3.18.10-26; 3.20.7 reorganisation, effect of falling rolls and integration 2.9.100; 3.18.10 resource centres role 2.6.23; 2.9.101-3; 3.18.13 separation of primary and secondary recommendation 3.18.11 social and ethnic characteristics of pupils 2.9.11-13; 2.13.40 social services use of 2.14.53 statemented children statistics 1.4.56 Statement no real guidance for teaching plans 2.7.100 statements of provision in response to 1980 Act 3.18.24-25 statistics 1.4.20: 2.9.2-13 support services 2.9.82, 93-99 support staff importance 2.7.19 titles of, changes recommended 2.9.4 transfer from ordinary schools to 2.7.99-100 teachers see Teachers transport arrangements 2.6.45; 2.9.3, 89-92 unattached curriculum support teachers 2.11.37

under-fives, classes for 2.6.2, 45-48 voluntary sector control 2.14.11 see also Autistic children, Behavioural difficulties, Delecate children, Emotional difficulties, Hearing impaired, Learning difficulties, Moderate Learning difficulties, Motor impaired; Severe learning difficulties Visually impaired

parents' information requirements before draft 2.12.23 placement decisions administration 2.15.24, 32 post 16 education in college of FE provision 2.10.27; 2.12.39 professional advice, reports for, parents wish to see 2.13.26 secondary school pupils 2.7.59-60 SOCial services contribution to 2.14.43, 48. 50 special schools provision for 2.9.2, 5 special schools use of for teaching plans 2.7.100 statistics 1.456 status accorded to professional reports and parents views 2.12.22, 30 time taken over 2.6.26: 2.7.89; 212.2.17,23,25-26, 28, 29 units, statistics of children in 1.4.13-14, 56 valid to 19 if individual remains at school 2.10.27

Special learning difficulties advisory teachers with specific tasks secondment 2.11.36 classes for children with 1.4.16, 18, 19; 2.8.15-18' 2.11.21 dyslexic children 2.11.32 Learning Difficulties Support Service 2.10.106-111 peripatetic teachers for 2.11.21, 22, 32-33; 3.19.29 Research and Statistical Branch survey 2.8.35-38 Schools Psychological Service responsibilities 2.11.21 see also Learning difficulties

Streatham Opportunity Group's parents Support Group 2.6.34, 41 Sunley House (Toynbee Hall)

Speech and language difficulties City Literature Institute classes A2.24 resource centres 2.9.87 services arrangement on a sector basis 3.16.37 units in nursery, infant and junior schools 2.8.8-10

information and practical help for ethnic minorities

2.13.62; 2.14.36 parent counselling 2.6.15; 2.14.4 provision for children under 5 A2.2 suitable for interviews 2.12.35

Speech therapy

Support services

adviser assistance to medical adviser 1.4.41 District Health Authorities provision 2.8.9; 2.993; 2.13.55; 2.14.34 English as a second language problem 2.13.55 increase in number requested 2.9.93; 2.14.40; 3.20.5 nursery schools input 2.6.53 opportunities for in ordinary school 2.6.35 primary school, work in 2.7.32 units for speech and language difficulties 2.8.8-9

co-ordination 2.11.6,38, 3.19.3 delegation of responsibilities recommendation 3.16.34 Divisional Special Educational Needs Support Teachers 2.7.25 evidence, pOints made 1 .5.58 health service advisors 1.4.42-43 in-service training to develop multi-professionalism 2.11.70 off-site units recommendations 3.18.8 provision 1.1 .28 recommendations 3.19.24-30; 3.20.9 school based assessment, assistance with 2.12.9, 11, 13 School Support Team. Division 5 A2.27 special educational needs, contribution to 1.3.23 special schools 2.9.93-99 statistics 1.416, 19 teachers 2.11.15-54; 2.15.16; 3.19.24-26

Staff see Non-teaching staff

Statements of Special Educational Needs appeals procedure 2.12.27 appeals procedure flowchart 2.12.42 disagreements, case conferences before Divisional panel draft 2.12.22 drafts compiled by Divisional panel 2.12.22-26; 2.15.19,32 first stage completed by educational psychologist 2.10.22 independent and non-maintained schools placement 2.9.71-73 maintained for pupils in primary and secondary schools 2.15.32 maintenance of beyond school, no procedures for 2.7.102 ordinary school placement statistics 1.4 .12, 56 parents' contribution 2.6.10; 2.12.22, 23, 30; 2.13.15, 17 296

Swann Report 2.13.64, 68 Taylor Report parental partiCipation in school management 2.13.1,

3

Teachers advisory for SEN statistics 1.4.29-30; 32-33. 57 attitude importance in determining SEN 1.1 .32; 3.16.6 child guidance centre employment 1.4.26

Teaching Staff Branch 2.15.9

curriculum support, statistics 1.4.33

deployment data A 1.9-14

Divisional Special Educational Needs Support

Teachers 2.7.25 further education advisory secondment 2.11.29 home liaison 2.6.9, 20, 21, 33, 34; 2.9.79; 2.13.23 home tuition statistics 1 57 hospital employment 1.4.26 link between special school and college 2.7.102 ordinary schools for SEN 1.4.57; 2.12.9 peripatetic see Peripatetic teachers primary school designation for SEN 3.17.22 qualifications or training for SEN 2.7.58 records confidentiality 30 responsibilities should include meeting SEN in classroom 3.16.20 responsibility for defined groups recommendation 1.1.37: 3.16.32 Schools Psychological Service Divisional teams, statistics 1.4.31 severe learning difficulties 2.11.35 social services establishment employment 1.4.26 Special Needs Support Teachers 2.7.62 special schools. career development 2.9.21 special schools qualifications 2.9.20 special schools ratios 2.9.17-18 special schools, statistics 1.4.23, 57 statistics employed in units and centres 1.4.19, 57

support staff for special schools, statistics

1.4.29-30, 33, 57

support teachers for SEN in primary and

secondary schools 2.11.26-27; 3.17.26 unattached curriculum support teachers 2.11.37 units, working in 2.8.39, 44-45; 3.18.7 workload increase 3.16.4-6

Technology access to curriculum by 1 .1.37 ILEA Resource Centre for Motor and Associated Handicaps A2.23 motor impaired 2.9.36 visually impaired 2.9.27

Tertiary Education Boards administration 2.15.6 sub-committee to plan comprehensive offer for SEN students proposal 3.17.31 : 3,17.36; 1.5.38; 2.10.5, 9, 28, 126; 3.17.31; 3.17.36

Therapeutic services 1.4.42 Thomas report see Primary schools

Top Infant Learning Themes (TILT) 3.19.14; A2.7 Toy Libraries 2.14.8 Transfers between mainstream and special schools 2.7.99-100 between mainstream and special schools 2.7.99-100 between mainstream schools 2.7.97-98 conference, Division 3 initiative 3.19.24; A2.10 infant to junior schools 2.7.90 primary to secondary school 2.7.35, 61; 2.7.76-84, 91-96: 3.17.24; 3.20,7 school to working life 1.1.28; 1.3.22. 33; 2.10.5 secondary school to college 2.7.101-104; 3.20.5 under-fives to primary schools 2.6.26-33, 34; 2.7.11-12,85-89; 3.20,5

Transport college of FE students difficulties 2.10.60; 3.17.33 special schools 2.9.3, 23, 89-92

Teacher training awareness of SEN for all teachers courses 2.11.64-65

centrally arranged in-service courses 2.11.64

divisionally arranged in-service courses

2.11,62-63 guidelines for staff development policy 2.11.60 . in-service courses in SEN in other agencies 2.11.67

in-service education 1.1.43; 1.3.27; 1.5.65-66;

2.11.24. 26, 56-60

in-service education for working with parent

2.11.58

in-service for special teachers to share skills

2.9.102

in-service framework for learning 2.11.10;

3.16.25; A2.3 in-service to meet SEN, Division 2 A2.30 INSET at Redlands Primary School A2.29 Lecturers in FE see Lecturers in FE multi-professional development 2.11.70 staff development 2.11.56, 59 TOCSEN teachers of children with SEN twice yearly courses 2.11.66

Truanting unit and peripatetic teaching provision 1.1 .15; 1.2.18; 1.4.18; 2.8.1 see also Off-site units

Tutorial classes enquiry by Research and Statistics Branch 1.3.40; 2.8.35-38 Schools Psychological Service responsibility for 2.8,28-30; 2,11.21, 22 statistics 1.4.16, 18, 19; 2.8.35-38 work of 2.8.28-30

Under achieving pupils ethnic minorities parents views 2.13.63, 64 ILEA policy 2.12.32 special educational needs 1.1.14

Under-fives admission panels for prOVision 2.6.52 advisory teachers for SEN 2.11.25; 3.19.24 assessment 2.6.2-5.10-19; 2.13, 21, 28; 3.17.11-12 assessment placements with planed intervention 297

3,17,12, 13 assessment, support for parents during 2,17.12 assessment, time taken anxiety 2.1321, 28 clusters of schools recommendation 3,16,22-27, 40; 3,17,16 co-operation between educational and social services 2.14,51 delays in transition to primary schools 2,628 diversity of provision 2.6,1-6; 2,14.51; 3,17.10 early identification of SEN 2.6.50; 2.7.64; 2.1424; 3,17.16; 3.19.12, 28, 33 evidence pOints made 1,5.21-23 fragmentation of services 2.622 health services 2.6,49-54; 2.1422-23; 3,17,10-11, 17; 3.18.37; 3.19.37 home-school liaison teachers 2.9,79 home visiting teaching arrangements 3.17.16 individual programmes for 2,6.30, 38, 63; 2.7.86 information directory requirement 2.6.5-6,63; 3.17.7, 11 information on range of provision 2.6A-6, 63; 3,17.7, 11 information to primary schools from health and social services 2,13.54 integration 26,34-39: 2.13.28 labelling consequences of assessment 2.6,25,49,68 2,1328 liaison committees 2,623 organisation of services 2,620-23; 3,17.9-17; 3.1928 placement rationale 2,6.3; 2.14.31 pre-school development officers 1 A.5 primary school feedback 2,7.86-87; 3.20.5 professionals work with 1.4.6 provision for 1.3.10: 1.4.5-7; 2.6.1-6; 2.14.31; 2.14.51 recommendations 3.17.11-17; 3.20.3 schemes described A2.1-4 social services role 2.6.55-59 special review when rising five recommendation 2.6.68 special schools attendance 2.6A5-48 speech therapy provision 2,14.40 Statements, non-educational provision 2.14.50 Statements statistics 1 A.56 statistics of placement by disability 1 A.7 teams, specialist 2.6.20-23 support teachers, team co-ordination 3.17.16 transition to primary school 2.6,25-33, 34; 2.7.11-12, 85-89; 3.20.5 visits to primary schools before transfer 2.7.85; 3.20,5 voluntary sector direct services 2.14,4-7 voluntary sector resources 2.14.3 see also Day care, Nursery schools and classes, and Playgroups

Under-twos assessment 2.6,5, 7-9, 49; 2.1424-31,41: 3,20.3 Camden's Under-Two Project 2.14.13 identification of SEN 2,14,27-31 information pamphlet on SEN, need for 3,17,11

labelling fears 2.1428 paediatric and psychological testing 2.6,9, 49 psychological tests 2,1428 voluntary provision 2.6,9

Unified Language Service no formal involvement with special schools 2.9.97

Units and classes admissions without full assessment 2.12,13-15; 3,16,35 located in primary and secondary schools 1.4.13-15 located outside schools 1.4.16-18 provision for SEN 1.324 see also Off-site units and units attached to school

Units attached to schools behavioural and emotional difficulties extension 3,18,5,7 children without statements statistics 1.4.13-14 criteria for admission 3,18.3 evidence, points made 1.5A2-45 primary schools 3,18,3, 5, 11 recommendations 3.18,7: 3.20,6 secondary schools 2,8,25-26, 40; 3,18,7 Statemented children in, statistics 1.4.13-15, 56 variety of provisions 2,8,1-4 see also Off-site units

Units for specific disabilities

41

Units located outside school see Off-site units Variety Club mini-buses gifts 2.9,91

Visually impaired academic special schools 2.13.30 aids and equipment for 2.10,60; A3.1 braille transcription service in FE and HE 2.10.61, 101 integration case study of blind boy A2,14 integration progress 2,929; 3,18,8 and Statistics parents' attitudes, enquiry by Branch 1.3,40 peripatetic teachers for 2,11,30-31; 2.13,23; 3,19.27 programme for 2,9,28 techniques and equipment in schools 2.9.27-28 unified service development 3.18.16 with hearing impairment provision 2.9.35; 2.14.6

Voluntary organisations counselling and support for families 2.14.12, 13: 3.17,12 direct services 2,14A-13 diversity and range of services 2.14,2-3 English as a second language, support during assessment 2.6.66 innovative 2.14.2,3 inter-professional training 2.11.72 LEAs attitudes to 2,13.8 named person role 2.14.16-21

off-site units run by 2,8,33-34 off-site units statistics 1.4.17, 19 parents counselling during assessment 2,6,12, 15 parent support role 2,13.70,71,74,75,76 post-16 projects 2,10,5 recommendations 3.20,12 special educational needs contribution to 1,3,23; 1.4.5; 3,16,15 under-fives provision, inter-professional co­ operation plan 3,17,17 under-fives transition to primary schools 2.7.27 under-twos provision 2,6,9

Wandsworth Association of School Parents evidence 1,5,15, 19; 2,15,19

Warnock report aims of education 1,1.7. 21 assessment procedure flowchart 2,12.42 history of special education 1,2,12 milestone 1.2,21-23 'named person' 2,6,52, 61 , 66; 2,10,69; 2,13.4, 8, 20, 69,72-76; 214,14-21 parent participation theme 2,13,1, 2; 2,14,14 wider range of SEN identified 2,7,1

Wayford Centre attached to ordinary school taking 'fully assessed' pupils 2,8,3, 27

William Penn School record keeping for SEN A2,13

Withdrawal units Inspectors responsibility for 2,8,3-4 primary schools 2.8.24

Wolfendale, Sheila parents' role research 2,13,10, 11, 17

Work-place creches 2,6.2 Youth Opportunities Programme 2,10.43 Youth Service administration 2,15.5 contribution to meeting SEN 1.4.41, 54; 2,10,118-19 delegation of responsibilities recommendations 3,16,34 disability forum establishment 2,10,119 integration developments 2,10,119 provision for special educational needs 1,3.21; 2.10,5 specialist youth officer 2,10,118

Youth Training Scheme 2.10.43, 123

299