Mr.
Gibb: The clause is about choice advisers. Amendment No.
47 would add to the requirement that local authorities provide advice
and assistance to parents regarding their preferred choice of school
the words, “such advice
to include full information regarding the provision of special schools
available in the geographical
area.” That would ensure
that choice advisers include information about special schools in an
area. There is
often an incentive for local authorities not to publicise fully their
special education provision, particularly in special schools, due to
the expense of the statementing process and educating challenging
pupils in special schools. Parents of such children should be able to
make meaningful choices, and they should be given information on the
full range of special needs provision in an area. Too often, parents
find out about special schools by
chance. Page 126 of
the regulatory impact assessment states that the legislation
will “ensure that help is
directed to those parents that require it most and local authorities
will have to promote measures that help disadvantaged
children.” Children with
special educational needs often come from the very groups whom the
clause is intended to
assist. Amendment No.
192 is a management-type amendment to ensure that choice advisers carry
out their role effectively. One way to achieve that would be to ensure
that best practice is disseminated to
them. Amendment No.
388 states that “no
person shall be appointed to provide such advice and assistance unless
he has demonstrated an understanding of special educational needs and
disability
legislation.” It has the
support of the Special Education Consortium, which
argued: “Where
advice and assistance is provided to parents, those providing that
advice and assistance should have a clear understanding of the
statutory duties owed to disabled children and children with
SEN.” It is
self-explanatory, and I hope that it will have the support of the
Minister. The Special
Education Consortium also supports new clause 46 and amendment No. 387.
The latter would amend the long title of the Bill to include the
provisions of new clause 46, which would bring in professional
standards for teachers. All those receiving teacher training or being
assessed to be a main scale teacher, senior teacher or head teacher
would be required
to “demonstrate an
understanding of special educational needs and disability
legislation.” The Special
Education Consortium believes that to be necessary because of a series
of Ofsted and Audit Commission reports that point to serious problems
in the area. In its 2004 report, “Special educational needs and
disability: Towards inclusive schools”, Ofsted
reported: “The
quality of teaching seen on the visits for pupils with SEN was of
varying quality, with a high proportion of lessons involving pupils
with SEN having important
shortcomings.” It
reported that, in a significant proportion of
lessons, “the teaching
for the lowest-attaining pupils had weaknesses which prevented those
pupils fully reaching their potential, even when the teaching for the
rest of the class was
good.” In its 2002
report, “Special Educational Needs: a mainstream issue”,
the Audit Commission
reported: “Many
teachers feel under considerable pressure, on the one hand to meet the
needs of individual pupils, and on the other to deliver a demanding
national curriculum and achieve ever-better test results; research
suggests that many feel ill-equipped forthis
task.”
The Special Education Consortium believes
that training is the key to resolving such difficulties. It
argues: “Improved
outcomes for disabled pupils and pupils with SEN are dependent on the
improved knowledge, skills and understanding of those working with and
for them. Training holds the key to this, and SEC believes that for
teachers, for school leaders and for staff working at every level of
the education service, SEN and disability should be a required element
in their training and
accreditation.” Of
course, the Government’s policy, as set out in their 2004
strategy document, “Removing Barriers to Achievement: The
Government’s Strategy for SEN,” says that it wants to
see “all teachers having
the skills and confidence—and access to specialist advice where
necessary—to help children with SEN to reach their
potential.” The strategy
also sets out the Government’s intention to
“work with the Teacher Training
Agency and higher education institutions to ensure that initial teacher
training and programmes for continuous professional development provide
a good grounding in core skills and knowledge of SEN and work with
higher education institutions to assess the scope for developing
specialist
qualifications.” In
light of that, I hope that the amendments and the new clause will have
the support of the Government.
Mrs.
Dorries: I want to speak about the responsibility of
authorities to inform parents about the special provision that is
available for their children. I was about to cite my experience when my
daughter, who will be 21 tomorrow, walked into the room, and I thought
that I was not going to be able to speak. However, she has just walked
out again. One of the reasons for authorities’ not informing
parents is the wording of the Special Educational Needs and Disability
Act 2001, which says that if a statement is maintained for a child
under section 324, he must be educated in a mainstream school unless
that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents. That puts a
presumption on the authorities to educate children in main
school. I know from
first-hand experience that, because of that presumption, authorities do
not inform parents fully of the special school provision that is
available. My daughter, who has not come back yet, was educated in a
non-maintained school—Kingham Hill school—in the
“Greens unit” in year 7. She ended up having to go there
because we, as parents, had no idea that special provision was
available for children with special needs of her type. Since I have
been an MP, many of my constituents have come to me with the same
problem; they are not aware of what is available for them and they are
not informed by the local education authority. Even when their children
are statemented, they are still not informed by the LEA that special
school provision could be given—and that is because, thanks to
the wording of the Act, mainstream school is the presumption.
I fully support the amendment.
The Bill should provide for LEAs to have a duty and a responsibility to
inform all parents of what special provision is available, and for the
presumption to be not on
mainstream school but on where parents want their children with special
needs to be educated. Annette
Brooke: I have a great deal of sympathy with the
sentiments underlying the amendments. The hon. Lady has spoken
passionately about something that we all know happens, albeit some of
the parents who attend our surgeries have the ability to research
schools and come to ask for funding while others have not managed to
get all the information. Often, the schools in question come under the
next-door authority or something like that. I accept that there are big
issues. We have made
enormous improvements in the teaching of those with special educational
needs in all sorts of ways, such as greater professionalisation of
staff, but nobody can deny that we have a long way to go. I am very
much in favour of inclusion, but I believe that the pendulum has swung
a bit too far towards mainstream education, so I have a certain amount
of sympathy with the amendments.
My questions concern the draft
code of admissions. I imagine that it covers—it certainly
should—the first two amendments in terms of the information that
is to be provided and the monitoring that is to take place to ensure
that it has been provided, and I seek the Minister’s assurance
that special educational needs will be fully covered by its
provisions. I
understand exactly where the last amendment is coming from; there are
so many examples. I recently asked all the local education authorities
in our vicinity whether they had considered the kitemark for dyslexia
in all their schools. One replied that it had never heard of it;
another replied that it was working on a much wider kitemark for
special educational needs, which seemed a good thing; a third replied
that it did not want to know. It was very variable, which is why there
is a lot more to be done to achieve a whole-school engagement with all
the issues surrounding special educational needs. However, the wording
here leads me to ask what the professional standards for teachers shall
require, how and by whom.
Mrs.
Dorries: Does the hon. Lady agree that inmany
teacher training schools, particularly on the postgraduate certificate
in education courses, some teachers receive as little as one
hour’s training on children with special needs? Some have none
at
all.
Annette
Brooke: I certainly cannot claim to be entirely up to date
on this, although my daughter trained about 10 years ago and she
certainly chose to get the whole special educational needs
qualification once she was a practising teacher. That perhaps shows
that she personally felt that there were huge deficiencies in what she
was presented with. We are also looking for ongoing professional
training, because teachers appreciate different aspects of teaching the
more experienced they become. There are difficulties with the wording
here and the prescription, but I am sympathetic to the aims of the
amendment. There is good practice around and I should like to be
assured that the Government are spreading that message. Iam
not at all sure about the wording of amendment No. 388. I will leave
that for the Minister to comment upon.
Jacqui
Smith: As we have already discussed,clause 39
will ensure that local authorities provide better advice to parents to
help them to make decisions about the choice of school for their child.
Amendment No. 47 would require local authorities to give parents
information on the availability of special schools in their area.
Clearly advice to the parents of children with special needs will be a
key part of the role of choice advisers, as I will outline in a moment.
But it is already the case that under the special educational needs
code, when local authorities make a statement, they must provide
parents with a list of all primary and secondary schools and maintained
special schools. In addition, they must provide parents with a list of
non-maintained special schools and independent special schools that
have been approved by the Secretary of
State.
Mrs.
Dorries: Does the Minister not accept that this does not
happen and that local education authorities simply do not do
this?
Jacqui
Smith: I certainly cannot accept that all local
authorities always do not do it. A reason for having it in the special
educational needs code is to make it absolutely clear in statutory
guidance that that is what should happen. In circumstances where it
does not, it is wrong and complaints should be
made. Meg
Hillier (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op):
My right hon. Friend may not be aware that Mossbourne
city academy in Hackney takes all children with autism as a priority.
The aim within the family of schools in Hackney is that each school
will
take their responsibilities to children with special educational needs
properly. I am sure that she would agree that that is a good model for
what the Bill
outlines.
Jacqui
Smith: Once again my hon. Friend has demonstrated good
practice with respect to academies in those
circumstances.
Mrs.
Dorries: Will the Minister give
way?
Jacqui
Smith: No, not for the moment.
[Interruption.] Okay I will, although I can never
guess what the hon. Lady is going to
ask.
Mrs.
Dorries: Would the Minister clarify whether it is a
responsibility for academies to take children with special needs? Is it
not the case that there is no responsibility when a child has been
statemented for an academy to accept him or
her?
Jacqui
Smith: I did not know that the hon. Lady would ask a
question that we have covered already. I made it clear that academies,
through their funding agreements, have to fulfil the legislation with
respect to children with statements. So, yes they do have
to. 7
pm Sitting
suspended. [Continued
in column
639]
| 
