214037 1 A
C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
18 June 2015
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
2004
Welsh Assembly
Cambridge Education, Demeter House, Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2RS, United Kingdom
T +44 (0)1223 463500 F +44 (0)1223 461007 W www.camb-ed.com
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description
RE ISSUE Jun 14 AS ORIGINAL TB KH RE ISSUE TO CLIENT
Issue and revision record
Information Class: Standard
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.
This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
Chapter Title Page
Executive Summary i
1 Context 1
1.1 PURPOSE ________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 CONTEXT AND KEY ISSUES _________________________________________________________ 1 1.3 Special needs policy and legislation _____________________________________________________ 1 1.4 Creating the conditions for inclusion in schools ____________________________________________ 4 1.5 Defining inclusion ___________________________________________________________________ 6 1.6 School organisation _________________________________________________________________ 6 1.7 Classroom processes ________________________________________________________________ 7 1.8 Professional development ____________________________________________________________ 8 1.9 References to Context section _________________________________________________________ 9
2 THE CORE THEMES 13
2.1 METHODOLOGY __________________________________________________________________ 13 2.2 FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE CORE THEMES _______________________________________ 14
3 Reducing the reliance on statements of SEN 16
3.1 Summary - of good practice, innovation, strengths to build upon ______________________________ 16 3.2 Summary – of development needs _____________________________________________________ 16 3.3 Discussion – broad overview of the theme _______________________________________________ 16 3.4 References on Theme 1. ____________________________________________________________ 19 3.5 Specific observations in regards to the Welsh Authorities ___________________________________ 20
4 Increasing capacity 24
4.1 Summary - of good practice, innovation, strengths to build upon ______________________________ 24 4.2 Summary – of development needs _____________________________________________________ 24 4.3 Discussion – broad overview of the theme _______________________________________________ 24 4.4 References on Theme 2 _____________________________________________________________ 27 4.5 Specific observations in regard to the Welsh authorities ____________________________________ 28
5 Demonstrating the value added 31
5.1 Summary - of good practice, innovation, strengths to build upon ______________________________ 31 5.2 Summary – of development needs _____________________________________________________ 31 5.3 Discussion – broad overview of the theme _______________________________________________ 31 5.4 References for Theme 3 _____________________________________________________________ 33 5.5 Specific observations in regards to the Welsh authorities ___________________________________ 33
6 Inclusion policy and strategy 36
6.1 Summary - of good practice, innovation, strengths to build upon ______________________________ 36
Contents
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
6.2 Summary – of development needs _____________________________________________________ 36 6.3 Discussion – broad overview of the theme _______________________________________________ 36 6.4 References on Theme 4 _____________________________________________________________ 40 6.5 Specific observations in regards to the Welsh authorities ___________________________________ 41
7 CONCLUDING COMMENTS 44
7.1 The current situation ________________________________________________________________ 44 7.2 The authority action plans ___________________________________________________________ 45 7.3 Options for co-ordinated all Wales action ________________________________________________ 45
Appendices 47
Appendix A. List of participating Authorities ________________________________________________________ 48 Appendix B. Reference Group __________________________________________________________________ 49 Appendix C. National experts and advisers ________________________________________________________ 50
i 214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
This report on the work of the ‘Modernising the Management of Special
Educational Needs’ project brings together a number of strategic policy objectives
of the Welsh Assembly Government. The Right Honourable Rhodri Morgan AM in
a ‘Better Country’ sets out a new vision for Wales and makes the point that ‘to live
in a better country you have to create the conditions for it’. Jane Davidson,
Minister of Education and Lifelong Learning in ‘A Learning Country’ emphasises
the vital importance of ‘creating an enterprising and creative culture’ that can
‘break down the barriers to learning’. She goes on to suggest that this is
necessary for Wales to be considered ‘internationally renowned for being a
Learning Country’.
What this study highlights above else is the vital importance of creating the right
conditions for success in widening educational opportunity and in creating greater
equity in the education system for all young people in the country. To do this
Welsh Local Education Authorities and their schools will need to work as a tight
cohesive unit sharing details of good practice, daring to be innovative while being
confident enough to share learning for the benefit of all. This study shows not only
that this can be done but also that the climate of collaboration in Welsh Education
can now support this in a sustainable way.
The challenge for the Welsh Assembly Government is to develop a policy and
performance framework, which raises aspirations despite genuine concerns about
capacity and capability. If Inclusion is fundamentally about creating equal
opportunities (and not just about location) so that young people with learning
difficulties can access the same educational offering as that of their peers, then
what kind of national policy is needed and what kind of guidance should underpin
that beyond what ‘Inclusive Education’ already provides? This point is brought into
sharp relief in ‘Extending Entitlement in Support of Young People in Wales where
clear reference is made to ‘a universal network of services for young people’ that
‘should contribute to equal opportunities and supports those facing difficulties.
The starting point for this debate is education outcomes. In Wales, as this project
shows, there is not yet a comprehensive and systematic mechanism for
Executive Summary
ii 214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
evaluating the learning outcomes and achievements of young people with special
needs in schools. There is also no basis to judge whether the investment at
different levels of organisation at individual pupil level, pupil group, teacher, and
faculty, school, and LEA level is ‘adding value’. To deal with this in isolation from
the many other aspects of providing education for young people would create
further fragmentation in the education system. An overarching framework is
needed but what should it look like and what should it do?
The framework might, for example, contain national standards about priority
aspects of education service delivery for young people with special needs and
each priority could be supported by a Strategic Key Performance Indicator (SKPI).
Welsh Assembly Government’s Education and Lifelong Learning Committee is
currently reviewing special educational needs in relation to early identification and
intervention and as part of phase two of this review will consider the whole of the
statutory assessment and statementing framework currently in operation.
It is an emperative of the National Assembly to work within a framework of
evidence based policy development and as such the use of KPIs reflects the
National Assembly’s strong commitment to measuring outcomes as well as
outputs so such a suggestion is very much in line with government thinking. Such
KPIs would provide the basis for constructing local determined targets, but not so
many that the service is overwhelmed and not so few that the targets do not
impact on the agenda for change that each authority has identified. To mark clear
blue water from the English System of target setting, progress might be monitored
and reviewed through a system of peer review and self-regulation. Such reviews
could be used by Estyn and in so doing streamline their activity or possibly allow
more time for debate about judgements and their implications for improving
educational opportunity for young people and their achievement.
Whatever framework is decided on it is clear that one is needed which can meet
national and local policy aspirations around ensuring that all children get a good
deal from the education on offer wherever they happen to live in the country. The
Cambridge Education/Welsh Assembly Government/Welsh LEA study is just the
first step in what could be a radical new direction for governance at all levels in
Welsh Education for young people with SEN. There has never been a better time
iii 214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
to achieve this in Wales. The Education system is at a cross-roads! It is time to
make a decision. Grasp this agenda or go with the status quo. Which way now?
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
1
1.1 PURPOSE
The overall purpose of this study was to enable all Welsh authorities, in partnership with the Welsh
Assembly, to examine creativity and innovation shown by LEAs in responding to contemporary challenges
with respect to the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) within mainstream schooling.
1.2 CONTEXT AND KEY ISSUES
Local Education Authorities in Wales have demonstrated through their development plans a commitment to
developing inclusive provision for the education of all pupils. The move, which can be witnessed in Wales,
towards an increasingly inclusive education system, is directly in accord with developments across Europe
and most of the world. In 1994 the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education (UNESCO 1994) affirmed a commitment to ensure that all children and young people received
an education appropriate to their needs and that this should, wherever possible, be provided alongside
their peers, regardless of need or ability. In developing a response to this intention, policy makers have
had to take full account of the unique culture, which exists, within nations, as well as responding to the
historical development of special education and the prevailing socio-economic and political climate. Whilst
much of the development of special educational needs provision in Wales mirrors that to be seen in
England, there are variables and conditions within the country which have required particular attention.
Amongst the features which characterise provision in Wales, the requirement to address teaching in Welsh
media schools, and the mixture of urban and rural communities have inevitably led to a range of responses
to addressing pupils with special educational needs. In considering the background to recent
developments in this area it is essential that attention is given to both the influences of policy from outside
of Wales and those geographical and social features which are unique to the county. It is equally
important to consider what is known about creating special needs provision within an inclusive framework
from the available research and literature, whilst contextualising this within recent legislative and policy
initiatives.
1.3 Special needs policy and legislation
Whilst it is important to address the development of special educational needs within a Welsh context, this
cannot be divorced from the wider perspective of the UK and indeed Europe. Recent reviews of special
educational needs provision across Europe (Meijer 1998, 2003) indicate a common trend of policies which
aim to support mainstream schools in becoming more effective in supporting pupils with special
educational needs. It is not surprising to find that different countries have adopted a range of policies in
moving towards a more inclusive education system. Clearly there are distinctly different challenges to be
faced by largely rural countries with relatively small populations (such as Finland or Norway) from those
which exist within densely populated areas of Europe such as the Netherlands. In urban environments
where it is often possible to distinguish a critical mass of pupils of similar needs, there has been a
tendency to built discrete provision in units where expertise can be invested to provide for pupils who
challenge conventional approaches to teaching. In most instances where these units are attached to
mainstream schools this has provided opportunities for some joint teaching of pupils with special
educational needs alongside their peers. In more rural communities there are instances of individual pupils
1 Context
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
2
who have required specialist provision, which has not been available within their local communities. In
such situations, and where the local schools have been unable to meet individual needs, pupils have often
been provided with residential schooling of a specialist nature. Most European countries, whilst
progressing towards increased provision for pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools,
have found it necessary to maintain a mixed economy of provision. Some countries currently have less
than one percent of their pupils in segregated provision, whilst others have up to six percent in special
schools (Meijer 2003). Whilst there has been a decrease in the number of pupils attending special schools
or other segregated provision across Europe, most countries have felt the need to retain some specialist
schools. Wales, which has a mixture of urban centres of population and more rural districts, presents a
similar picture to other countries within Europe (see table 1).
Percentage of pupils with SEN in segregated provision (from Meijer 2004). Figures for Wales taken from
Schools in Wales: General Statistics 2004.
Table 1.1: Table 1
<1% 1 – 2 % 2 – 4% >4%
Greece
Iceland
Italy
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Austria
Denmark
Ireland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Sweden
UK
Wales
Finland
France
Belgium
Germany
Switzerland
The need to provide a range of educational provision has been clearly acknowledged within both the UK
legislation and that specifically pertaining to Wales. Excellence for All Children (DfEE 1997), reiterated the
commitment of the UK Government to adopt policies and procedures which would result in more pupils
who had previously been educated in special schools receiving their education in the mainstream. This
important document also recognised that for some pupils, either as a temporary measure, or in some
instances for the long term, specialist provision would need to be made. However, where segregated
provision was deemed necessary, it was expected that there would be a commitment to closer liaison and
partnership with mainstream schools. All pupils were seen as having an entitlement to access to their
mainstream peers and the Secretary of State charged LEAs with the responsibility to put into place a
mechanism which would ensure greater collaboration between mainstream and special schools. The
Welsh Office in issuing The BEST for Special Education – Green Paper on Special Educational Needs in
the same year endorsed this approach. The six themes contained within this paper set out a clear
intention to promote greater inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools and
to strengthen partnerships between schools, and with parents and other agencies in order to affect this
aim. In January 1999 Shaping the Future for Special Education - An Action Programme for Wales
provided the foundations for moving forward towards inclusion through proposals for increased
professional development opportunities for teachers and other professional colleagues and through the
monitoring of targets set for LEAs in the development of special needs policy. This document, in common
with Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action (DfEE 1998) set an agenda for future
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
3
developments in special educational needs education and paved the way for major amendments to
legislation for the management of assessment, identification and school placement of pupils.
Inherent in much of the legislation of the past ten years has been a commitment through the support and
development of schools in addressing special educational needs to a reduction in the number of special
educational needs statements being issued. A feature of these developments has been an anticipation
that through increasing the skills of teachers and other colleagues in addressing a range of special
educational needs, and by reviewing the ways in which resources are allocated and used, it will become
easier to address the needs of a diverse school population. As more pupils identified as requiring
specialist teaching approaches enter or are retained in mainstream schools, it becomes increasingly
necessary to support school staff through the provision of effective continuing professional development.
This need has been acknowledged through the introduction of specialist standards for teachers of pupils
with special educational needs (TTA 1998) and more recently through the introduction of the Higher Level
Teaching Assistant qualification. However, a reduction in statements will not be achieved until such time as
teachers and school managers feel confident that they are well equipped in terms of both professional
skills and resources to address the needs of a broad school population. The conditions required to
promote inclusive practice in schools are only now becoming clear following considerable research in this
area (see table 2). It is recognised that there is much that LEAs can do to support the development of this
practice and it is evident from both LEA and national policy documents reviewed that there is a
commitment to furthering inclusion through a carefully planned series of actions.
A reduction in statements is clearly dependent upon putting into place structures and procedures, which
support schools in gaining confidence in meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse school population.
In research commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills, Pinney (2004) reported that over
the five year period from 1999 – 2003 the proportion of pupils with statements of special educational needs
in England had remained broadly constant at approximately 3% of the population. However, she
acknowledged that there was a wide variation across LEAs with a range of 1.1% of pupils to 4.8% across
English authorities. In England during the five year period of the study 56 LEAs had reduced the number
of statements issued, 91 had increased this number and 3 had maintained the level of statements. A
similar pattern of constant level of statements issued has emerged in Welsh authorities. Over the same
period as that studied by Pinney, (1999 – 2003) there has been a small increase in percentage of
statements from 3.3 – 3.4% (Welsh Assembly Government 2003) (see Table 2).
Statements issued in Wales 1999 – 2003
Source
Schools in Wales: General Statistics 2003
Table 1.2: Table 2
1999/200
0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03
Number of pupils with statements of special educational needs as percentage of total school population
3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
4
1999/200
0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03
Percentage of pupils with statements of special educational needs attending mainstream schools (including special classes/units)*
76.0 75.3 74.6 74.6
* Those pupils not attending mainstream schools were identified as being in:
Maintained special schools
Non-maintained special schools
Independent schools
Pupils referral units
Other than in school
When considering the trend in the number and allocation of statements, it is important to consider the
many challenges which are presented to LEAs. Trends in England indicate that there are greater numbers
of pupils being given an early diagnosis of specific needs, such as autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) or
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and that this has significantly impacted upon the issue of
statements with regards to these specific pupils. Parental demands have undoubtedly been influential in
influencing the statements given to pupils with a clear diagnosis. It may be that those LEAs which have
developed effective specialist provision to address the needs of these populations have increased their
effectiveness with regards to assessment and diagnosis, thereby skewing the numbers of statements
issued. A more detailed study of pupils with statements of special educational needs in Wales would be
helpful in identifying trends and supporting appropriate responses.
The Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (Wales) (2002) and the Handbook of Good Practice for
Children with Special Educational Needs have made clear the procedures to be followed with regards to
the assessment and monitoring of pupils with special educational needs. Both of these documents have
further endorsed the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) in asserting the rights of pupils
not to be discriminated against. The introduction of School Action and School Action Plus has further
strengthened assessment and management in schools and should, in time, begin to impact upon the
allocation of statements. However, it is, as yet, too early to be able to make accurate assessments with
regards to the impact of this legislation.
1.4 Creating the conditions for inclusion in schools
In recent years our understanding of the conditions which schools can create in order to support inclusion
has been better defined through research in the field. Whilst the onus upon changing teaching approaches
and implementing school based policies and procedures for the support of pupils with special educational
needs remains with schools, it is clear that there is much which can be achieved at Local Education
Authority and National levels in order to provide effective support.
For much of the recent past the focus of consideration in respect of promoting greater inclusion has been
upon a debate of rights and ethics. Policy documents and statements at both national and local levels
have affirmed a commitment to developing more inclusive schools. However, there has been less
attention given to the identification of the conditions required to support the development of inclusive
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
5
practice, or to assessing how effective those practices in place have been. Dyson (1999) has suggested
that we can identify two distinct discourses of inclusion. The first of these he describes as a discourse of
rights and ethics, one in which we have now for many years debated the moral imperative of establishing a
more equitable society through the increase of inclusive systems. This discourse has provided a means by
which we have increased our understanding of the rights of all children to belong and to participate fully in
all aspects of social and educational life. It has centred upon a belief that policy decisions should be
founded upon an understanding of the rights of individuals and that policy makers must promote changes
in existing systems and procedures to affect a more inclusive education system. This debate has been
dominant throughout Europe, the USA and Australasia for many years (Meijer, Pijl and Hegarty 1994,
Booth and Ainscow 1998, Ballard 1999) and has done much to generate consensus about how we should
regard young people who have previously been denied their right to an appropriate education. However,
whilst this discourse has proven to be useful in heightening awareness and promoting a campaign for
social justice, it has patently failed to provide advice to teachers and others who are charged with the
responsibility of putting an inclusive education system into practice.
Dyson recognises the limitations of the discourse of ethics and rights when presenting his second
discourse, that of efficacy. Whilst we have increased our understanding of societal obligations to provide
improved educational opportunities for children and young people with special educational needs, our
ability to deliver an education which is fully efficacious for those students who present the greatest
challenges to teachers remains limited. Whilst in many European countries the majority of teachers
endorse a philosophy of inclusion, many continue to have apprehension about how they can deliver an
effective education for students who challenge their established approaches to teaching. In his important
work in this area Dyson recognises that this remains as a major area in need of exploration by teachers
and researchers. In order for inclusion to succeed, teachers must be empowered with the confidence and
belief that they will be able to address the needs of all students in their classes.
LEAs in Wales, as elsewhere in the UK have conducted a thorough debate about inclusion and this has
resulted in individual authorities providing detailed policy statements related to this area. These
statements have, in many instances, referred to policies from within social services and health and have in
the best practice resulted in a collaborative approach to considering educational inclusion within a wider
social inclusion agenda. There is a general recognition that moving towards greater inclusion is a complex
issue and one which will make demands upon resources and require changes to policy and procedure.
Within documents produced by the Welsh LEAs there is an acknowledgement that inclusion is not simply
an issue of placement and location. Whilst it is possible to place more pupils with special educational
needs into a mainstream environment, this is not a guarantee of effective learning and demands a shift of
focus towards pedagogy and management at classroom and whole school levels. It is not surprising to
see that in most LEA policy documents there is a commitment to inclusion, which is based upon a
philosophical discussion of pupil rights and equal opportunities. LEAs acknowledge that many pupils who
have in the past been educated in special and segregated provision may benefit from mainstream
education alongside their peers. Most LEA documents fall short of discussing in detail how schools will be
supported in developing inclusive practice and how the effectiveness of inclusion will be measured. This is
by no means a problem exclusive to Wales. Indeed, it has been argued that current approaches to
defining school effectiveness based largely upon academic outcomes, has mitigated against the process of
inclusion (Booth, Ainscow and Dyson 1997, Lunt and Norwich 1999, Rose and Howley 2001).
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
6
Sebba and Ainscow (1996) suggested that there is a need to consider the development of inclusive
schools in relation to four specific issues – defining inclusion, school organisation, classroom processes
and teacher professional development. Many of the approaches towards developing a more inclusive
education system can be related directly to these four themes. It is, indeed possible to identify the
influence of these areas in relation to the development of inclusion in Wales and consideration of these can
be useful in both describing the current situation and informing a way forward.
1.5 Defining inclusion
The progress of inclusive schooling has been to some extent hampered by a lack of clear definition.
Florian (1998) in a lucid analysis of terminology has suggested that it is not easy to plan for developments
towards a more inclusive education system if the indicators of successful inclusion are not clear. Whilst
earlier discussions of inclusion focused on locational issues and assumed that placement of pupils in
mainstream schools was the core defining feature, later interpretations have been more concerned with the
provision of appropriate learning experiences (Clough 1998, Wilson 2000, Rose 2002). Whilst earlier
discussions of inclusion focused upon physical access, there has been a significant recent shift towards
the provision of an appropriate curriculum and examining teaching strategies and approaches which
enable pupils with special educational needs to learn alongside their peers (Byers and Ferguson 2003,
Howley and Kime 2003, Kinder and Harland 2004). This focus upon classroom practice finds favour with
teachers and is beginning to provide evidence of how specific approaches aimed at meeting the special
educational needs of the minority can have overall benefits for greater numbers of pupils.
In documents produced by Welsh LEAs there is clear evidence of a determination to clarify definitions of
inclusion, though in many instances these remain focused upon locational concerns. However, several
authorities have undertaken evaluations of specific approaches to classroom management and the
introduction of specialist teaching approaches. These evaluations are beginning to inform policy
development and to examine the ways in which greater support can be provided to schools.
1.6 School organisation
National policy statements from the late 1990s recognised that whilst there would be a continuing move to
ensure that more pupils received their education in mainstream schools, that there would still be a need for
specialist schools for a minority of pupils. In 2003 the Department for Education and Skills in England
published the Report of the Special Schools’ Working Group (DfES 2003). This report emphasised that
whilst there was a perceived need to maintain some special school provision, it was imperative to ensure
that special schools worked more closely with mainstream schools in their area. Partnerships between
special and mainstream schools have been in many instances long established (Jowett, Hegarty and
Moses 1988, Fletcher-Campbell 1994, Rose and Coles 2002). However, the majority of these
arrangements have been made on an ad hoc basis formulated upon the goodwill of the schools involved.
The promotion of such partnerships by LEAs on anything more than a tacit basis has been relatively rare.
There is evidence in some documentation from Welsh LEAs of an intention to build further links between
mainstream and special schools. However, there is a lack of clarity of models to describe the purpose of
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
7
such arrangements and in particular there are few indicators of how LEAs will measure the success of
such ventures. Certainly the commitment to support collaboration is in evidence, there remains much to be
done to ensure that this is achieved in a way which benefits all parties and to develop criteria through
which to measure the impact on inclusion.
In common with most LEAs there has been a development of a continuum of provision across Welsh
authorities. Many mainstream schools have specialist units or other forms of provision. These play an
important role in enabling pupils with special educational needs to gain social access to their peers, and in
many instances, actively promote learning in groups of diverse abilities. Inspection reports of Welsh
schools demonstrate that these units are integral parts of a whole school approach to addressing a wide
range of special educational needs.
1.7 Classroom processes
Approaches to teaching which ensure that the needs of all pupils are addressed in every classroom
remains the greatest single challenge to inclusion. Recent research has focused upon school
effectiveness in an effort to assess those conditions, which have enabled whole school efforts towards
attaining an inclusive approach (Ainscow 1997, 1999, Giangreco 1997, Florian and Rouse 2001). These
have demonstrated the necessity of gaining a whole school community commitment to inclusion and have
suggested a move away from a concentration upon individual pupil needs towards the creation of a school
ethos, which is welcoming and supportive of all learners. This approach has led to the promotion of whole
school self evaluation packages such as the Index for Inclusion (Booth, Ainscow, Black-Hawkins, Vaughan
and Shaw 2000) and the Inclusion Quality Mark (Coles and Hancock 2002) both of which have found
favour at both individual school and LEA levels throughout England and Wales. Some Local Education
Authorities have felt the necessity to develop their own inclusion evaluation packages which respond
specifically to local policies and initiatives (see for example the Derbyshire Framework for Evaluating
Educational Inclusion (2004)). However, whilst this technocratic approach to developing inclusive schools
has an undoubted value, as with other management tools, it is subject to the usual challenges of school
change and maintenance of continuing practice. Whilst most schools have shown a commitment to
becoming more inclusive, this can be severely impaired if there is inconsistency in evidence at the
classroom level.
Many schools have endeavoured to introduce teaching approaches which have been seen to have been
successful for specific groups of pupils. In Wales, as elsewhere in the UK, evaluations have been
undertaken of schemes such as Assertive Discipline (Canter 1992) or the TEACCH approach to working
with pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (Schopler and Mesibov 1995). Several of the ‘specialist’
approaches and techniques, which have been developed, were first used in segregated provision and
teachers have had to be innovative in adapting them for use in the mainstream. Whilst there is much
anecdotal evidence to suggest that some of the approaches used in inclusive schools have been effective,
there is an urgent need to gain greater empirical evidence in order to be able to evaluate these systems
with confidence. Publications are emerging which do provide helpful advice to schools on interpreting a
variety of specialist approaches in mainstream schools (Mesibov and Howley 2003, Byers and Rose 2004),
and it is possible to discern a considerable shift in teaching approaches in some schools in order to
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
8
accommodate a more divers school population. Documents produced by several Welsh LEAs provide
evidence of the introduction of specialist teaching approaches which are being encouraged and evaluated.
The evidence from these evaluations needs to be effectively disseminated in order to ensure that
innovative practice becomes more widespread.
At present there is only limited evidence to suggest that pupils with special educational needs benefit from
distinctly different pedagogical approaches (Lewis and Norwich 2001, Allan 2003). Some Welsh LEAs
have provided evidence of careful planning to enable teachers to share their classroom practices and to
identify how these have impacted upon the learning of their pupils with special educational needs. This
practice appears from the evidence obtained to be variable and needs to be further encouraged in order to
increase awareness of teaching and learning opportunities for the benefit of greater numbers of teachers
and pupils.
1.8 Professional development
Evidence suggests that many teacher apprehensions about inclusion can be alleviated through the
provision of focused professional development (Rose and Coles 2002, Sheehy, Rix, Nind and Simmons
2004). With the introduction of specialist standards for teachers of pupils with special educational needs
(TTA 1998) the importance of enabling all teachers to gain expertise specific to this area was
acknowledged at a national level. More recently, the recognition of the importance of providing good
quality professional development to teaching assistants has led to the introduction of standards for the
Higher Level Teaching Assistant (DfES/TTA 2003). This focus upon continuing professional development
has been generally welcomed as a means of ensuring that all teachers and other professional colleagues
gain a more thorough and consistent understanding of special educational needs issues. Local Education
Authority documents from across Wales provide a clear indication of a commitment to professional
development to support policies of increased inclusion.
The nature of continuing professional development is a matter in need of greater consideration if its impact
upon inclusion is to be sustained. In the past, sending a teacher on a course to gain specific skills and
understanding was the norm. Increasingly there is a move away from this system, with its inherent
problems of dissemination and the challenge of gaining consistency of practice, towards a more whole
school based approach. In some schools the special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO) has
invested considerable time and effort in gaining skills, knowledge and understanding which has greatly
enhanced their own professional development. Whilst this continues to be valuable, there is an increasing
recognition that in some instances this leads to other staff abdicating their responsibilities for pupils with
special educational needs and placing too much onus upon the skills of the SENCO. Whole school
approaches to professional development provide an opportunity for staff to share ideas and information
and to relate these directly to their own context. There have been a number of recent publications
(Derrington and Groom 2004, Wall 2004) which have provided practical training advice aimed specifically
at working in individual schools or with clusters of schools. Several Welsh LEAs have produced their own
training materials and are using these effectively in schools. It is important that consideration is given to
the structure, which supports the development of inclusive training, and the means by which its impact may
be measured.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
9
Teachers who have worked in inclusive classrooms for some time report that professional development is
most effective when provided in three stages. At stage one, teachers need to develop an awareness of the
challenges, which they may face. This needs to be undertaken prior to their encounter with the challenge.
For example, a teacher who is to receive a pupil with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) into
their classroom, needs an awareness of the implications of this condition before working with the pupil. At
stage two, teachers need specific techniques and awareness of how to work in order to address the
individual needs of the pupil in an inclusive context. This is best delivered once the teacher has met the
pupil and worked with them for a while in order that what they learn through the professional development
can be related to their own working context. Finally, after having taught the pupil for a period of time the
teacher needs support in reflecting upon what they have learned, how they have applied this and how they
may generalise their learning to other situations. Investigations into the provision of inclusive education
tend to suggest that this staged approach is seldom followed through. Many of the development plans for
Welsh LEAs have an indication of planning for professional development. An opportunity exists to take this
forward in a manner which is effective and which enables an evaluation of overall impact to be made.
1.9 References to Context section
Ainscow, M. (1997) Towards inclusive schooling. British Journal of Special Education 24 (1) 3 – 6.
Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. London: Falmer.
Allan, J. (2003) Productive pedagogies and the challenge of inclusion. British Journal of Special Education
30 (4) 175 – 179.
Ballard, K. (1999) (Ed.) Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability and Justice. London: Falmer.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., and Dyson, A. (1997) Understanding inclusion and exclusion in the English
competitive education system. International Journal of Inclusive Education 1 (4) 337 – 355.
Booth, T., and Ainscow, M. (1998) (Eds.) From Them to Us. London: Routledge.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M, and Shaw, L. (2000) Index for Inclusion. Bristol
Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Byers, R, and Ferguson, L. (2003) Policies for promoting literacy: including pupils with severe and
profound and multiple learning difficulties. In C., Tilstone, and R., Rose. (Eds.) Strategies to Promote
Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Byers, R., and Rose, R. (2004) (2nd edition) Planning the Curriculum for Pupils with Special Educational
Needs. London: David Fulton.
Canter, L. (1992) Assertive Discipline: Positive Behaviour Management for Today’s Classroom. Santa
Monica: Canter and Associates.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
10
Clough, P. (1998) What’s special about inclusion? In P., Clough (Ed.) Managing Inclusive Education: From
Policy to Experience. London: Paul Chapman.
Coles, C., and Hancock, R. (2002) The Inclusion Quality Mark. London: Public Sector Matters.
Department for Education and Employment (1998) Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of
Action. London: DfEE.
Department for Education and Skills (2003) The Report of the Special Schools’ Working Group. London:
DfES.
Department for Education and Skills/Teacher Training Agency (2003) Professional Standards for Higher
Level Teaching Assistants. London: TTA.
Derbyshire Local Education Authority. (2004) Derbyshire Framework for Evaluating Educational Inclusion.
Derby: Derbyshire County Council.
Derrington, C., and Groom, B. (2004) A Team Approach to Behaviour Management. London: Paul
Chapman.
Dyson, A. (1999) Inclusion and inclusions: theories and discourses in inclusive education. In H., Daniels
and P., Garner. (Eds.) World Yearbook of Education: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan Page.
Fletcher-Campbell, F. (1994) Still Joining Forces? London: NFER.
Florian, L. (1998) Inclusive practice: what, why and how? In C., Tilstone, L., Florian, and R., Rose. (Eds.)
Promoting Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge.
Florian, L., and Rouse, M. (2001) Inclusive practice in English secondary school: lessons learned.
Cambridge Journal of Education. 31 (3) 399 – 412.
Giangreco, M.F. (1997) Key lessons learned about inclusive education: summary of the 1996 Schonell
memorial lecture. International Journal of Disability. 44 (3) 193 – 206.
Howley, M., and Kime, S. (2003) Policies and practices for the management of individual learning needs.
In C., Tilstone, and R., Rose. (Eds.) Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Jowett, S., Hegarty, S., and Moses, D. (1988) Joining Forces : A Study of Links between Ordinary and
Special Schools. London: NFER Nelson.
Kinder, K, and Harland, J. (2004) The arts and social inclusion: what’s the evidence. Support for Learning.
19 (2) 52 – 56.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
11
Lewis, A., and Norwich, B. (2001) A critical review of systematic evidence concerning distinctive
pedagogies for pupils with difficulties in learning. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 1 (1).
Lunt, I., and Norwich, B. (1999) Can Effective Schools be Inclusive Schools? London: Institute of
Education.
Meijer, C.J.W., Pijl, S.J., and Hegarty, S. (1994) New Perspectives in Special Education. London:
Routledge.
Meijer, C.J.W. (Ed.) (1998) Provision for Pupils with Special Educational Needs. Trends in 14 European
Countries. Middelfart: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Meijer, C.J.W. (Ed.) (2003) Special Education across Europe in 2003. Middelfart: European Agency for
Development in Special Needs Education.
Mesibov, G., and Howley, M. (2003) Accessing the Curriculum for Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders.
London: David Fulton.
Pinney, A. (2004) Reducing Reliance on Statements: An Investigation into Local Authority Practice and
Outcomes. Research Report 508. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Rose, R., and Howley, M. (2001) Entitlement or denial? The curriculum and its influences on inclusion
processes. In T, O’Brien (Ed.) Enabling Inclusion. Blue Skies…Dark Clouds? London: The Stationery
Office.
Rose, R. (2002) Including pupils with special educational needs: beyond rhetoric and towards an
understanding of effective classroom practice. Westminster Studies in Education 25 (1) 67 – 76.
Rose, R., and Coles, C. (2002) Special and mainstream school collaboration for the promotion of inclusion.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2 (2).
Schopler, E., and Mesibov, G. (1995) Learning and Cognition in Autism. New York: Plenum.
Sebba, J., and Ainscow, M. (1996) International developments in inclusive education: mapping the issues.
Cambridge Journal of Education 26 (1) 5 – 18.
Sheehy, K., Rix, J., Nind, M., and Simmons, K. (2004) Perspectives on inclusive education: learning from
each other. Support for Learning. 19 (3) 137 – 141.
Teacher Training Agency (1998) National Standards for Special Educational Needs. London: TTA.
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) London: The Stationery Office.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
12
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (1994) Salamanca Statement and
Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Wall, K. (2004) Autism and Early Years Practice. London: Paul Chapman.
Welsh Assembly Government (2002) The Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (Wales). Cardiff:
The National Assembly for Wales.
Welsh Assembly Government (2002) Handbook of Good Practice for Children with Special Educational
Needs (Wales) Cardiff: The National Assembly for Wales.
Welsh Assembly Government (2003) Schools in Wales: General Statistics. Cardiff: The National Assembly
for Wales.
Welsh Office (1997) The BEST for Special Education – Green Paper on Special Educational Needs.
Wilson, J. (2000) Doing justice to inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education 15 (3) 297 –
304.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
13
The four core themes were organised as follows:
Reducing the reliance on statements of SEN
Evaluation of any formal policies or strategy initiatives in this area
Inclusion strategies that resolve tensions in the legislation
Inclusion or support programmes that reduce reliance on statements of SEN
Emerging practices which address the competing interests of stakeholders.
Increasing capacity
Evaluation of any formal policies or strategies in this area
Collaborative projects that significantly enhance the capacity of mainstream
schools
Utilisation of the expertise of special schools and units
Cluster school arrangements
Relevant and related professional development programmes
Innovation in the utilisation of central support services and commissioning strategies at school-action
plus stage.
Demonstrating the value-added
Evaluation of any formal policies or strategies in this area
Indicators that identify and quantify aspects of value-added provision whether whole authority or school
based
Effective evaluation processes for emerging inclusive provision.
Inclusion Policy and Strategy
Evaluation of any formal policies or strategies in this area
The effectiveness of strategic planning
Multi-agency planning and initiatives.
2.1 METHODOLOGY
All 22 Welsh Authorities joined the study. This provided the maximum possible geographical spread and
included the full mix of both small and large authorities. See appendix A for a full list of participating
authorities.
The scope of the study was assisted and agreed by ADEW SEN sub-group who acted as an informal
Reference group – see appendix B.
During the first visit, the information-gathering part of the work, each participating LEA was asked to
provide a CE consultant with data which included various performance indicators and initiatives which
related to the agreed four core areas at an initial structured interview. They also spent considerable time
ensuring that they fully described the LEA’s approach to SEN inclusion.
2 THE CORE THEMES
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
14
The information from these discussions and supporting papers was followed up at a further structured
interview between a CE consultant and an officer or officers at each LEA where supplementary questions
were asked about matters arising from the initial meeting and documentation review. LEA’s were not
asked to complete questionnaires, although the consultants collected their information according to a
standard schedule. At this second meeting additional time was spent on clarifying the policy and strategy
framework within which many initiatives were emerging and on further exploring issues of emerging good
practice and/or particular concern.
The information subsequently collected by the CE consultants was scrutinised and analysed in various
ways by a team of national experts and advisers – as listed in appendix C. The initial analysis by this team
established the framework for the feedback reports to each authority and each consultant was brief in
regards to the framework for their report, any specific issues requiring attention by the authority, and the
developments which could be utilised as good practice.
The final reports with action plans were subsequently taken back to each authority by their allocated CE
consultant, models of good practice were confirmed for utilisation and the reports were checked for
accuracy.
In parallel with the collection of data by CE consultants a scrutiny of LEA documentation, including
development plans, inclusion policies and evaluation of specific approaches to the management of pupils
with special educational needs was undertaken. This enabled the researchers to gain a profile of provision
and priorities across Wales. It was also useful in confirming the broad range of often innovative practice
which was in evidence, and to demonstrate how local approaches had been adopted to address specific
needs in different areas of the country.
A review of recent research based literature was carried out in order to inform the interpretation of the data
collected and also to place developments in Wales in a broader UK and European context. This review
was helpful in confirming the advances which have been made towards inclusion in Wales and confirmed
that these were broadly in line with developments in other countries of a similar nature.
This final round of meeting reports together with the 22 action plans were then further scrutinised and
analysed by the team of national experts. The final detailed findings of this team are described within the
remainder of this report, according to the agreed themes.
The emerging themes from this analysis are to be presented initially to a conference of all participating
authorities and the Welsh Assembly in October 2004. This event will provide the opportunity for challenge
and discussion as well as important additional feedback to the participating LEA’s.
The presentations to the October conference together with the comment received will be re-examined by
the national team and written up to inform the final, published version, of this report.
2.2 FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE CORE THEMES
Each of the sections in relation to the findings on each theme will comprise the following headings;
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
15
Summary from the research of good practice, innovation and strengths to build upon
Summary from the research of the key development needs of the Welsh authorities
An overview of the theme from a Welsh, UK and broader perspective which also includes sections on –
– The key aspects of the theme that one would seek to examine in every authority
– References to aid further research and development within the theme
Specific observation in regards to the theme directly from research with the Welsh authorities including
examples of good practice.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
16
3.1 Summary - of good practice, innovation, strengths to build upon
84.6% of authorities have strategies of some form in place to decouple statements from funding
The vast majority of authorities are undertaking individual projects or related assessment work to
reduce the reliance on Statements of SEN
A significant number of authorities have reduced the number of statements of SEN in the past 2 years
65% of authorities put forward examples of good practice in the area of co-operation with mainstream
schools to further inclusion provision
All authorities work in partnership with schools on admissions and exclusions policies.
3.2 Summary – of development needs
Virtually no authorities have a formal policy in regards to reducing the reliance on Statements of SEN
tied in to a related, agreed operational strategy
64% of all authorities see this aspect of work as the most significant in supporting the inclusion agenda,
and believe it to be their most important aspect of future work
75% of authorities acknowledge that they have a development need in the area of reducing the tension
between standards and inclusion.
3.3 Discussion – broad overview of the theme
LEAs in Wales have made a commitment to increase educational inclusion. Part of this intention is related
to a reduction of statements of special educational needs as mainstream schools gain confidence in
addressing a diverse school population. Currently in Wales 3.4% of the total school population has a
statement of special educational needs which is a similar figure to that seen in the UK as a whole. Pinney,
in her recent research into reducing reliance on statements conducted for the Department for Education
and Skills (2004) showed that the range of statements maintained by LEAs in England was between 1.1%
and 4.83% of the school population as a whole. When examining figures related to the issuing of
statements, Pinney’s research makes clear the need for some caution. Her research indicated a clear
trend of the characteristics of authorities, which had succeeded in reducing the numbers of statements
issued, was lower levels of deprivation. This is an important factor which needs careful consideration when
making judgements about the performance of LEAs in this area. As in Wales, the proportion of pupils with
Statements of special educational needs in England has remained fairly constant over the past five years.
Research reported by Ainscow (1999) highlighted the concern expressed by representatives of several
LEAs that the generous allocation of resources to pupils with statements, detracted from the ability to
provide adequately for other pupils with special educational needs. This he suggested, led to an insatiable
demand for statutory assessment as a means through which parents and headteachers could acquire
additional funding for pupils for whom they had concerns. Ainscow goes on to say that the delegation of
funding to schools has served an important function in increasing transparency and fairness with regards
to allocation of special educational needs funding which has become open to scrutiny through inspection
processes. Ainscow does highlight particular challenges with regards to the content of statements and the
ability to deliver services. Often, he suggests, statements may identify a requirement for provision such as
speech therapy, which is in very short supply. Furthermore, the priorities and working practices of
therapists may not always conform to those of education and in particular individual schools. This, states
3 Reducing the reliance on statements of SEN
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
17
Ainscow, is a reason for considering how multi-agency approaches to the management and delivery of
special educational needs services can be improved. It is also implied that a multi-agency approach may
have a significant impact in enabling the reduction of reliance upon the statementing process.
Traditional models of providing support for children and young people have been based upon a tripartite
model of management through discrete education, health and social services. This approach has recently
been reviewed at both national and local levels, leading the consideration of how future services might
provide a more cohesive framework based upon collaboration between professionals representing all child
focused disciplines. Valuing People: A Strategy for the 21st Century (DoH 2001) has set an agenda for the
development of services which maximise life potential for children with special educational needs. The
need to examine allocation of resources and iniquitous differences which exist across the UK had been
earlier emphasised by the Audit Commission Report Special Educational Needs : A Mainstream Issue
(Audit Commission 2002) which recognised that in too many instances the services provided to children
and young people depended upon local priorities and agendas of the past, which had determined the
availability or lack of critical services. There has been a commitment to address these inadequacies in
existing services, as stated within Every Child Matters (DfES 2004a and b) the new Childrens Bill and the
Children’s National Service Framework which establishes standards for child care and provision and has
the overarching aim of setting national standards and improvement of the delivery of social and health care
for children and young people, by appropriately trained staff within a co-ordinated and multi-agency remit.
Where progress has been made, parents and professionals have welcomed the development of integrated
children’s services. The establishment of effective channels of communication within new services which
encompass the roles of previously separate disciplines enables greater strategic planning of provision, and
the development of comprehensive services which are understood by both recipients and providers of
special educational needs resources.
Whilst Welsh authorities within their special educational needs policies and strategic plans acknowledge
the need to work with other agencies, it is evident that moves towards a more integrated children’s service
are for the most part at an early stage of development. Protocols have been established between
education and social services for joint placement of students in many instances, and there are regular
references to the planning and provision of specialist services such as speech therapy for pupils with
special educational needs. There are examples of good models of co-operation across services where
specific programmes of action have been established (see for example the management of Sure Start in
Blaenau Gwent) and these may provide useful working models for increased future collaboration.
There is clear evidence from Welsh LEA policy documents that structures are in place to develop multi-
agency approaches to assessment and the provision of support which should enable schools to gain
confidence in addressing a broad range of special educational needs. However, the development of these
services is variable across the LEAs and the implementation of procedures is likely to take some time in
order to have an overall impact. Lacey (2000) points out that multidisciplinary working has been an
avowed priority for many years, yet there is evidence that this is still perceived as a major challenge by
most authorities. The Joseph Rowntree research report (1995) into multi-agency working found low levels
of consumer satisfaction in respect of the services being provided for young people experiencing
difficulties. Lacey acknowledges that there are many difficulties related to the clarification of the roles and
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
18
responsibilities of members within multidisciplinary teams. She also recognises that in the past, legislation
designed to address special educational needs issues have often been focused upon a single agency,
such as education or social services. Derrington and her colleagues (1997) found in their research that
members of all agencies perceived that there were advantages in working more closely together and
expressed a desire to develop greater collaboration. Many LEAs have recognised this positive desire and
are now putting into place structures, which will lead to integrated children’s services. However, there
remains a danger that these services will fail to function effectively unless attention is given to creating
working conditions conducive to greater collaboration. McConkey (2003) urges authorities to ensure that
they put into place the physical structures such as joint location of services as well as developing a more
inclusive philosophy if multidisciplinary team work is to be expected to work. A measure of the success of
these services may be an ability to overcome the difficulties associated with meeting the requirements set
out in statements. More importantly, a closer liaison between professionals within multidisciplinary teams
may have an effect of pre-empting the need to issue statements as a result of improved assessment and
intervention procedures.
In most LEAs an ongoing audit of special educational needs has provided data regarding the nature of the
school population and its distribution across schools. Figures suggest that there has been an overall
reduction in the population of pupils with moderate learning difficulties (MLD). Increases in numbers of
pupils identified with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD) and autistic spectrum disorders
(ASD) in some authorities reflects a wider pattern seen throughout the UK and indeed further afield
(Pinney 2004). Caution needs to be taken when interpreting this data. As schools have gained greater
confidence in addressing special educational needs it is possible that those pupils previously given a label
of MLD have been assimilated into the general school population. Similarly, improved assessment and
identification procedures may well be responsible for increased detection of pupils with more complex
needs association with ASD or other conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
The revised Special Educational Needs Code of Practice has been effectively implemented across the
country. Professional development related to implementation of the Code of Practice and support
networks for Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCO) have ensured that schools have moved to
implement new procedures effectively. Estyn’s reports from schools in Wales indicate that where support
for the role of the SENCO has been strong, schools have gained in confidence in addressing issues
related to retention and inclusion. There is evidence that in some LEAs the delegation of resources to
schools has enabled schools to further build capacity for the management of pupils with special
educational needs. Schools have been encouraged to increase their expertise and to consider teaching
approaches and resources, which enable all pupils to learn effectively. However, it is not always clear how
schools are being required to account for the use of resources and procedures for gauging impact are in
some cases less than transparent. In some instances a focus upon curriculum initiatives such as the
Youth Access Alternative Curriculum, supported by Welsh Assembly funding has ensured that pupils who
might otherwise be excluded from accessing learning are being efficiently managed without recourse to a
statement of special educational needs.
Continuing professional development related to the management of pupils with special educational needs
has been provided across Wales, though opportunities to access this appears variable. In some LEAs
support for school self evaluation through use of procedures such as the Index for Inclusion or Inclusion
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
19
Quality Mark has been encouraged. This approach has been encouraged through national initiatives and
would benefit from an evaluation in order to gain data related to impact upon teacher confidence and
potential for reduction of statements.
In order to reduce reliance on statements a number of actions need to be maintained and in some
instances increased in intensity. These should include:
A continued commitment to the continuing professional development of all school staff, providing a focus
upon teaching approaches and classroom management for the promotion of inclusive practice.
Clarification of admissions and exclusions policies within LEAs and the establishment of clear criteria
related to placement of all pupils.
Further development of interagency working to ensure effective multi-disciplinary assessment and support
procedures, which work in direct collaboration with teachers in classrooms.
The development of procedures to evaluate the impact of evaluative procedures such as the Index for
Inclusion.
The implementation of procedures to monitor the impact upon assessment and support of pupils with
special educational needs of increased resource allocation to schools.
3.4 References on Theme 1.
Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. London: Falmer.
Audit Commission (2002) Special Educational Needs: A Mainstream Issue. London: The Audit
Commission.
Department for Education and Skills (2004a) Every Child Matters. London: DfES Publications
Department for Education and Skills (2004b) Every Child Matters: Next Steps London: DfES Publications
Department for Health (2001) Valuing People: A strategy for the 21st Century. HMS
Department of Health (2003) Getting the Right Start: National Service Framework for Children. London:
Department of Health
Derrington, C., Evans, C. and Lee, B. (1997) The Code in Practice: The Impact on Schools and LEAs.
Slough: NFER.
House of Lords (2004) Children Bill, London: The Stationery Office
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
20
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (1995) Multi-agency Work with Young People in Difficulty. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
Lacey, P. (2000) Multidisciplinary work: challenges and possibilities. In H., Daniels. (Ed.) Special Education
Re-formed: Beyond Rhetoric? London: Falmer.
McConkey, R. (2003) Reciprocal working by education, health and social services: lessons learned for a
less-travelled road. In M., Nind., K., Sheehy, and K., Simmons. Inclusive Education: Learners and Learning
Contexts. London: David Fulton.
Pinney, A. (2004) Reducing Reliance on Statements: An Investigation into Local Authority Practice and
Outcomes. Research Report 508. London: Department for Education and Skills.
3.5 Specific observations in regards to the Welsh Authorities
3.5.1 General Issues:
There is a general thrust, across Wales, for the movement of students with statements into mainstream
provision.
There appears to be a clear desire, stated by officers, to reduce the number of statements overall
There are virtually no formal policies available to reduce the reliance on statements, but there is much
evidence of schemes and innovations which will have this outcome.
There is little evidence of formal policies to reduce numbers of statements but excellent evidence in
some authorities where the development of good quality inclusive provision has achieved such a
reduction
Many of the prime strategies may be termed “funding” strategies in that they target funds to specific
inclusive developments. The prime examples are those of funding School Action Plus, learning
support units/classes in mainstream and targeting the work of learning support teams or special school
staff
This area of development is still one of concern to parents, many of whom feel that the statement is
their prime safeguard to ensure effective funding support for their child.
3.5.2 In regards to reducing tension between higher standards and inclusion:
In discussions most authorities acknowledge that this tension is likely to lead to SEN students being
vulnerable in mainstream schools without effective support and intervention by the authority
There is an overall high emphasis on raising awareness to reduce tension
It is acknowledged by most authorities that SEN should be seen as a central theme of school
improvement (very varied across Wales with some SEN support very separate from School
Improvement Team)
A considerable effort is being made in many authorities in regards to the development of achievement
outcomes which are non NC related
Direct (and heavy) support is provided by most authorities for schools with students with the level of
greatest difficulty as perceived by mainstream schools (EBD)
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
21
The issue of tension between results and inclusion is perceived to be of far less significant in
authorities which have a collaborative rather than competitive stance amongst their heads. This
collaboration shows itself best in a wide range of authorities where the heads operate exchange
arrangements between themselves for young people with behavioural problems
There appears to be less tension in the system in authorities with well managed and formally monitored
deployment of their Learning Support Services
It is clear that authorities having close communication with, and involvement of Heads in, decision
making establish a more trusting relationship and reduce tension in the system
A small number of authorities did not perceive a tension between standards and inclusion. These
authorities tended to be those that either have a good range of inclusive provision available, or are
working in a very structured and targeted manner with their support teams and in partnership with
headteachers
It is clear from a range of authorities that they see continuing professional development as a prime tool
to reduce tension in this setting
A belief in some authorities that tensions are reduced due to the emerging clear and transparent ways
of funding
Tension is also reduced in authorities where delegated funds are accurately tracked, pupil outcomes
evaluated, and effective reporting is undertaken (Blaenau Gwent).
3.5.3 In regards to Joint work on admissions/exclusion practice to support SEN
inclusion:
This is the most consistent area of cohesive partnership across all authorities, the greatest area of
partnership and support between schools and their authorities
It is the most direct area for effective partnership with and between headteachers
The research indicates it is the single largest SEN group where considerable evidence is available of
attempting to provide support and direct intervention to offset the need for statements
This area also has many good examples of cross service involvement
It is the most “knowledgeable” area where stakeholders are aware of, and involved in, finance and
resource allocation
There are a range of good practice models in regard to SEN, Inclusion or Assessment and Placement
Panels
This is the area of work which best illustrates the proposition that to gain effective inclusion good
relationships between stakeholders are essential
There are some examples now emerging of research on inclusion and achievement. All authorities
acknowledge the need for effectively managed and reported research, and there is a need to develop
this process on a “shared” basis across Wales.
3.5.4 Strategies to avoid perverse incentives (that increase demand for
statements):
There is considerable development in many authorities in meeting need through the code of practice
Evidence clearly indicates there is far greater involvement of central and support services directly with
and in schools at COP stages
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
22
There has been delegation of funds in a wide range of authorities for some time. This delegation of
funds is now starting to be interrogated and evaluated far more effectively with schools and authorities
examining precisely how monies have been targeted at specific pupil need
This issue is one which provides most examples of “pump priming” funding to schools, especially at the
stage of “School Action Plus”
There are examples of successful “matched funding” schemes, especially at SAP stage
The majority of authorities have developed a form of guidance and advice on COP processes which
operate consistently as a whole authority approach
The vast majority of authorities recognise the need to reduce the reliance on statements and to reduce
the statementing mechanism as the prime tool for allocating resources
It appears from the research that authorities with well managed and well targeted learning support
services which also have a number of in-mainstream school resource classes have managed to reduce
the overall level of statemented students
Within this area the most frequently cited issue to prevent tension is that of effective communication
linked to shared responsibility and establishing working practices which share skills, responsibility and
understanding.
3.5.5 Examples of good practice.
Pembrokeshire has made significant inroads into reducing the number of statements. This goes hand
in hand with the delegation of resources to schools and the work undertaken in building the capacity of
schools. Numbers of statements have reduced from over 700 just after LGR to just over 600 now. This
year only 22 statements have been issued as against 40+ last year. There have been no tribunals in
the last two years and no permanent exclusions. Officers identify the delegation of statementing
funding as being the principal means by which perverse incentives have been avoided. Schools have
been given the authority, the responsibility and the money ‘up front’. Agreement was reached with eight
secondary schools based on their funding level through statements and school action plus three years
ago. An equivalent funding block was given to them and guaranteed for a three year period. This has
just been re-negotiated for a further three year period.
Bridgend LEA has a low level of statements in Wales at 1.6% of the school age population and 1.1% of
0-19 years. The LEA has worked pro –actively to break the historical link between a Statement and
provision especially in terms of money/funding. Instead they work on the principle of providing the
appropriate support for the individual at the school action plus level. School action plus runs currently
at 10%. Each child is given an individual action plan that identifies a greater range of more flexible
support than that within a Statement. In 2002 the LEA received £2.9 million European Objective 1 Bid.
This was used to provide a teacher in each of the nine comprehensives, the special schools and the
PRUs to work as a fulltime Youth focus co-ordinator. Significantly permanent exclusions dropped,
reduced the pressure on applications on PRU and special school admissions and cut down on the
levels of disruption to other youngsters. A further bid has been made for two years extension.
The Neath Port Talbot Educational Psychology Service in consultation with Schools and the voluntary
sector have published Entry/Exit Criteria and Statutory Guidelines for School Response. The latter
identifies what the panel will be looking for under the various criteria. The expectations of how
resources allocated, through the delegated budget, should be used at school action and school action
plus are stated in the ‘Funding Arrangements for Children with SEN ‘ (2002).
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
23
In Swansea tension is diffused because the resource allocation system is seen to be equitable. A
banding system is worked with clear and transparent groups, A-C funding is provided for the school. C
– H will be a statement reflecting specific needs. There is an overlap at band C as there may be family
or health factors that necessitate a Statement but these are few. There are also a few H bands which
are out of county placements and these present severe challenging behaviour, some sensory
impairment and severe autism. There is no EBD school in the area. Children with hearing impairment
are also sent to specialist school placements.
The Vale of Glamorgan has done a great deal to establish a Youth Access Alternative Curriculum,
supported by Welsh Assembly funding. The scheme offers schools up to five free places; if schools
want more they have to contribute the pupil’s AWPU. Approximately 100 pupils benefit from the
scheme. One outcome has been to reduce the number of permanent exclusions – in 1997/1998 these
ran at a level of approx. 40 per year; now there are fewer than ten per year across the full age range.
There is evidence in Rhondda Cynon Taff that members of the Peripatetic Learning Support Service
work closely with classroom teachers and classroom support staff to maximise the impact of their
expertise, both for children and the staff. Their quality of record keeping enables them to demonstrate
to staff and parents the gains made by pupils who receive their services. Using this evidence they work
for their planned withdrawal. The Head of Service notes that parents remain reluctant to agree to
withdrawal of their services, fearing a dip in their child’s performance gains, but their efforts to enable
class teachers and support staff to maintain the same quality of personal support persuades parents to
accept the necessity of their reallocation to other children with greater needs.
Gwynedd operates a Re-integration panel for KS3 & 4 students, including 2 secondary heads, LEA
inclusion officer, Senior EWO, SSD rep. and rep from YOT.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
24
4.1 Summary - of good practice, innovation, strengths to build upon
The majority of authorities (77.8%) encourage and can indicate examples of collaboration between
mainstream and special schools or units
The majority of authorities share expertise from central and specialist support services with mainstream
schools to enable greater inclusion
75% of authorities offer sound quality Continuing Professional Development in the inclusion area to
mainstream schools
Over 70% of authority Support Services have policies and practice in place to enhance capacity
through school-action plus
Over 84% of all authorities provided examples of practice in multidisciplinary working models.
4.2 Summary – of development needs
Virtually no authorities have an agreed overall policy and supporting strategy in this area
Few authorities offer “pump priming” finance to support the development of inclusion capacity
The vast majority of authorities recognise the need to further develop joint policies, practices and
funding schemes with cross service partners (health and social services) and the voluntary sector.
4.3 Discussion – broad overview of the theme
The demands made upon schools to address an increasingly diverse population in recent years have
intensified. In England, the Department for Education and skills requires that LEAs maintain a capacity to
develop and implement policy for the education of children and young people with special educational
needs (DfEE 2000). This demands that priorities are set, plans for allocation of resources drawn together
and a strategic overview maintained. Development plans from Welsh LEAs indicate that they have
prioritised the promotion of inclusive education and that this has had some impact upon the ability of
schools to address a wide range of special needs issues. A survey of Ofsted reports indicate that schools
in Wales have responded positively to initiatives, which have been intended to further inclusion and that
LEAs have endeavoured to provide the resources required to support schools. A range of variables
influences the challenges faced by Welsh authorities. Those managing a population distributed over a
large rural region are confronted by difficulties, which differ greatly from others in geographically smaller
and more intensely populated areas. This is an important consideration when evaluating how the capacity
to develop a more inclusive education system may be addressed. Research from countries which have
sparsely populated regions report the difficulties and expense of providing services to support pupils with
special educational needs (Sharkey 1997, Bennet, Gash and O’Reilly 1998). In particular there are
challenges regarding the development of localised and accessible services. In urban areas where there is
sufficient critical mass in respect of numbers of pupils with special educational needs within a population, it
is often possible to provide specialist services which are easily accessible. This is a far greater challenge
with regards to more widespread and less populous areas.
Geographical consideration also impact upon the ways in which appropriate training may be provided for
teachers and other professional colleagues. The provision of continuing professional development for
school staff has been widely acknowledged as an important factor in increasing capacity to manage pupils
with special educational needs. Mittler (2000) has emphasised the need for a continuum of professional
4 Increasing capacity
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
25
training for teachers which includes a focus upon special educational needs management in initial teacher
education and is continued through further development opportunities prepared jointly by LEAs and
colleagues with expertise in higher education. Tilstone (2003) takes this suggestion further by suggesting
that whole school training programmes should become the way forward for promoting understanding of
special educational needs in a shared context where teachers and other professional colleagues can
discuss teaching approaches and management issues in relation to specific known pupils. The capacity to
address the needs of an increasingly diverse school population will not be achieved simply through the
provision of additional resources and LEA based training courses. Both resources and courses need to be
clearly focused upon the point of need and to be aimed at addressing identified challenges and involve all
colleagues who work in the school situation. It has been suggested (Skidmore 2004) that schools with a
high commitment to professional development of staff are likely to be more effective in the promotion of
inclusion. However, his research indicates that professional development is likely to be more effective
when based in schools and focused upon the specific special educational needs challenges confronted by
a whole staff.
The devolution of the majority of funds for training to schools has left many LEAs feeling powerless in
respect of determining school responses to inclusion. However, officers and inspectors in LEAs remain
better placed than other colleagues to gain an overview of practice in schools across an area. The
dissemination of good practice is often dependent upon this being identified by an individual representative
of an LEA who can then provide the facility for sharing this across the region. Capacity within an LEA is
dependent upon an awareness of practice across schools and a commitment to ensuring that this is
effectively shared.
A strong commitment to supporting increased inclusion is in evidence throughout policy documents
supplied by all Welsh LEAs. Similarly, each of these LEAs provides some indication of the positive
procedures being developed to increase the capacity of schools to address this critical issue. Resources
devolved to schools, in line with national policy has been regarded as an important factor in enabling
schools to increase their ability to manage and retain pupils with special educational needs. It is evident
that all Welsh LEAs have made a commitment to allocation of previously centrally held funds for pupils with
special educational needs. The means of assessing the impact and effectiveness of this devolution of
funds is not always clear. The levels of statements issued across Wales as a whole has remained steady
over the past five years. There are examples within some individual LEAs of a reduction in numbers of
statements issued and suggestions from within those authorities that funding allocation has been a critical
factor in enabling this to be achieved. The realignment of resources was one essential factor for the
reduction of statements emphasised in the report of research conducted by Pinney (2004). In her survey
of schools in England, 23 of the 24 responding LEAs saw the delegation of a greater share of special
educational needs funding to schools as being an important factor in reduction of reliance on statements.
A more detailed examination of those authorities in Wales who have achieved a reduction in statements
may be helpful in providing exemplification to other LEAs who may have been less successful in this area.
However, the variable nature of areas served by LEAs is bound to be a factor here and should be taken
account of in any study undertaken. There is no guarantee that procedures developed in one authority will
automatically transfer to another.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
26
Several LEAs have reviewed their approach to managing their special educational needs support services.
These services continue to play an important role in supporting pupils with special educational needs and
in some instances are enabling teachers to gain confidence through directly sharing their expertise in the
classroom alongside class teachers. An emphasis upon early identification and intervention both as a
preventative measure and in order to begin educational support early has been identified as a priority in
some authorities. The development of early intervention practices is potentially an area, which could have
a positive impact upon special needs provision and may also enable LEAs to plan ahead with regards to
the development of provision. Papps and Dyson (2004) in a study of the costs and benefits of early
identification and intervention argue that it is possible to identify positive characteristics, which emerge
from early intervention programmes for some pupils. However, they also suggest that too little attention
has been given to cost benefit analysis which could provide useful data for LEAs embarking on work in this
area. This point is one which may be worthy of further discussion in those Welsh LEAs undertaking early
intervention programmes.
In some LEAs the development of outreach provision from specialist schools is also being seen as a
means of supporting an increase in the capacity of these schools to provide for a diverse school
population. This, along with the clustering of schools has become an established strategy designed to
strengthen and pool expertise for the benefit of a greater number of pupils and their teachers. The
dissemination of innovative models of such practice would have potential benefits for others who are
considering embarking upon this route. Where studies into the future role of special school have been
conducted (Rose and Coles 2002, Zalaita 2004) the researchers have emphasised that for the small
number of students who remain in segregated provision there is a need to ensure that they do not remain
isolated from their peers. Whilst outreach models based upon special schools may provide an opportunity
for utilising the undoubted skills of special school teachers, it is important to maintain a focus upon how
opportunities for participation in learning alongside their peers may be provided for pupils in special
schools.
There are examples of innovative practice in implementing specialist teaching approaches in some
mainstream schools. The development of structured approaches to teaching pupils with autistic spectrum
disorders, and approaches to managing disruptive behaviour are just two areas where there is evidence of
the importation of specific teaching methods into mainstream classrooms. Opportunities need to be
provided to assess the effectiveness of these approaches and to disseminate examples of good practice
across the country. Where such evaluations have been conducted they have often provided useful
information about the efficacy of approaches which has enabled LEAs to plan for allocation of resources
and focus of continuing professional development. Jordan, Jones and Murray (1998) have produced a
useful commentary on intervention programmes used with pupils with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).
With a narrower focus, Doyle (2001) assessed the effectiveness of nurture groups in preparing pupils for
reintegration to a mainstream environment. Both of these studies concluded that whilst there is much of
merit in the use of specific interventions, there is a need to be clear about how they will be used, monitored
and assessed for their impact.
Specific populations of pupils with special educational needs understandably challenge some LEAs. In
particular, where there are small numbers of pupils with complex needs, which are not easily addressed in
a mainstream environment decisions have to be made regarding their placement and the provision of an
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
27
appropriate curriculum. An examination of LEA policy documents reveals that some have a clear view of
the future role of special schools whilst others have not, as yet defined their future. For some pupils who
require residential placement, provision is having to be made at a considerable distance from their homes.
Discussions about regional residential provision, particularly for pupils with social emotional and
behavioural difficulties have been undertaken and the urgency of this matter is acknowledged.
Increasing the capacity of schools to provide a more inclusive education system has been prioritised by
LEAs throughout Wales and considerable progress has been made. In order to further this initiative LEAs
should consider:
An audit of the continuing professional development needs of all school staff and the further development
of training opportunities directly related to teaching in inclusive classrooms.
The dissemination of innovative teaching practices, which have proven successful for teachers working
with pupils with specific special educational needs.
The development of procedures to provide data related to the efficacy of use of devolved resources to
schools for supporting the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs.
An evaluation of the emerging models of school clustering and the use of special educational needs
support services and the dissemination of findings from such a study.
A projection of numbers requiring specialist provision in order to asst in the development of policy and
planning for future segregated provision to work in close partnership with mainstream schools in the future.
This should include a focus upon residential provision within an integrated multi-disciplinary model
4.4 References on Theme 2
Bennet, J., Gash, H., and O’Reilly, M. (1998) Ireland: integration as appropriate, segregation where
necessary. In T. Booth, and M, Ainscow (Eds.) From Them to Us. London: Routledge.
Department for Education and Employment (2000) The Role of the Local Education Authority in School
Education. London: DfEE
Doyle, R. (2001) Using a readiness scale for reintegrating pupils with social, emotional and behavioural
difficulties from a nurture group into their mainstream classroom – a pilot study. British Journal of Special
Education. 28 (3) 126 – 132.
Jordan, R., Jones, G., and Murray, D. (1998) Educational Interventions for Children with Autism: a
Literature Review of Recent and Current Research. Research Report RR77 London: Department for
Education and Employment
Mittler, P. (2000) Working Towards Inclusive Education. London: David Fulton.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
28
Papps, I., and Dyson, A. (2004) The Costs and Benefits of Earlier Identification and Effective Intervention.
Research Report 505. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Pinney, A. (2004) Reducing Reliance on Statements: An Investigation into Local Authority Practice and
Outcomes. Research Report 508. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Sharkey, M. (1997) Integration in Norway of children with special educational needs. Reach, Journal of
Special Needs Education in Ireland. 11 (1) 43 – 53
Skidmore, D. (2004) Inclusion: the Dynamic of School Development. Buckingham: Open University.
Rose, R., and Coles, C. (2002) Special and mainstream school collaboration for the promotion of inclusion.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2 (2)
Tilstone, C. (2003) Professional development of staff: steps towards developing policies. In C., Tilstone,
and R, Rose. Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Zelaieta, P. (2004) From confusion to collaboration: can special schools contribute to developing inclusive
practices in mainstream schools? In F., Armstrong and M., Moore (Eds.) Action Research for Inclusive
Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
4.5 Specific observations in regard to the Welsh authorities
4.5.1 General issues:
Whilst virtually none of the authorities has a formally agreed policy of increasing inclusive capacity
within the “statementing band” there is considerable evidence in most authorities of the development
and enhancement of inclusive provision.
4.5.2 Collaborative projects to enhance mainstream capacity:
The utilisation of special schools as “Key Learning Centres” to lead the development of inclusive
provision with such aspects as outreach provision, support services, training and assessment of
provision is very mixed across Wales. There are some examples of outstanding lead practice, some
emerging, idiosyncratic work, and some where the special schools are simply deemed “not ready” to
accept the role
There is a consistently good range of examples of effective collaboration between a wide range of
support services and mainstream schools e.g. speech therapy, pd services, central support services
A wide range of examples were put forward of improved collaboration between SEN central services
and mainstream advisory or school improvement teams
There is a steady emergence of “inclusion units” alongside mainstream schools across the welsh
authorities with a pleasingly wide range of SEN groups involved
There is some evidence of either an unwillingness of special schools to support and lead the inclusion
agenda, or of the authorities not having sufficient confidence in then to do so
Early intervention strategies are well established in a wide range of authorities
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
29
A wide range of authorities have supported and sponsored the concept of clusters of school working
together to meet SEN need
There are a range of examples of mainstream and special schools working in partnership, with some
special schools offering an outreach service to support SEN students in mainstream schools
Several authorities are currently giving serious consideration to co-location projects as a part of future
building proposals, predominantly in the secondary sector.
4.5.3 Supporting capacity at school action plus (SAP):
Considerable evidence has emerged that most authorities invest heavily in training and accreditation
at SAP stage for teachers and teaching assistants
Some authorities are targeting their training programmes in this sector to meet either unmet need,
schools perceived priorities or the need to recover or retain students in-authority
Continuing professional development is seen by most authorities as the urgent short term process to
invest in as an enhancement to the inclusion agenda
Considerable number of authorities provided evidence of schemes at SAP which could be deemed to
be “team-teaching” across different divides, whether special school and mainstream, support service,
teaching assistants, or specialist support services including speech and physiotherapy
There are an increasing number of authorities who now review and reallocate learning support
resources on an annual basis
Overall a wide range of authorities have made significant progress in developing collaborative ways of
working at the SAP stage. There are some sound examples of multi-agency working at this stage of
support.
4.5.4 Increasing capacity within the department:
General perception within this sector of a restriction in staff resources and a nervousness that this may
be exacerbated by future withdrawal of external grant (including EU) funding. Having said that there
were a wide range of examples given of approaches that could enable increased capacity. These
include;
Annual performance work reviews incorporating SEN issues which could be utilised with all education
staff
The emergence of cluster working with groups of schools and their associated support staff
The emergence of joint planning mechanisms with mainstream colleagues, social services, health
colleagues and the voluntary sector
Emerging policies to change the focus of central support staff and to target their work at special needs
partnership developments.
4.5.5 Examples of good practice.
Rhondda Cynon Taff has, over the last five years, significantly developed its inclusive provision. From
the original 36 MLD classes in mainstream schools in 1996 there are now 46 resource classes that
provide general learning support and a network of specialist class provision has been built up in
primary and secondary schools to increase mainstream SEN provision.
A Ceredigion Secondary school has employed an additional teacher to work with pupils with SEBD.
Officers believe that all 15 pupils who this teacher works with would have been referred for statutory
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
30
assessment. The Secondary school employs 3 outreach workers (2 secondary 1 primary) from project
funding to work pupils with SEBD. This has reduced the number of referrals to the behaviour support
team
In Neath Port Talbot ‘Therapy Managers’ are utilised to discuss service delivery issues and exchange
information e.g regarding school organisation plans, school numbers, and joint training on how to write
advice. This is seen as effective as other professionals want to join in. A Children’s interagency forum
meets 6 weekly and focuses on strategic issues to plan support for a whole range of children. It has
undertaken a mapping exercise regarding resources e.g are the resources in the right location for the
predicted need. It has established a joint funding protocol for equipment, resources and tri-partite
funding for special school provision. The LAC team includes education, health and social services
officers operating from the same base. There is an Intensive Therapy Team managed by CAHMS, and
there is a social services Rapid Response Team for Children on the edge of being ‘looked after’.
Flintshire are currently pump priming special schools at 35K each for inclusive opportunities. 85% are
in mainstream for half/full day per week
Conwy currently employ 200+ LSAs supporting individual children in mainstream settings effectively
reducing numbers in special schools. In the next 2-3 years the number on roll is expected to fall from
c180 to c150 places.
Cardiff provides considerable accredited training for teaching assistants, including induction training
and NVQL3 for teaching assistants. Cardiff, is writing a paper outlining its model for training teaching
assistants. Teaching assistants are developing specialisms.
Pembrokeshire have invested £343,000 in building up a speech and language therapy team based in
the local Health Trust. 75% of the funding went direct to Health. This has enabled the establishment of
a dedicated team of therapists and assistants attached to families of schools, working closely with a
specialist teacher. It enables early screening and identifies priorities for intervention in the first year of
schooling. Training and follow up consultancy is provided for teachers and LSAs to help them carry out
recommended programmes.
In Newport there are links between the mainstream and special school with pupils on the role of one.
This includes sharing of specialist facilities and attending the other establishment part time.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
31
5.1 Summary - of good practice, innovation, strengths to build upon
64% of authorities believe that mainstream school based provision provides added-value
A significant number of authorities are developing performance indicators for social and/or learning
outcomes for inclusive provision.
5.2 Summary – of development needs
The vast majority of authorities have no effective financial model to evaluate and report on added-value
in regards to inclusive provision
70% of authorities acknowledge the urgent development need to evaluate the added value of central
support services and of differing forms of provision
Over 80% of authorities recognise the need to financially measure the learning outcomes of inclusive
provision – Learning related - 87.5%; Socially related - 83.3%
Relatively few authorities formally or externally review and evaluate individual or new inclusion
schemes that appear to add value.
5.3 Discussion – broad overview of the theme
Welsh authorities are in a strong position to be able to identify the progress made towards a more inclusive
education service. Documentation reveals that baselines have been well established and will enable
officers within the authorities to assess both the pace and effectiveness with which procedures are
developed and implemented. Self review procedures are in place across authorities and the data being
collated through this process is being used to indicate the progress made towards targets established in
inclusion policies. Performance indicators for inclusion services have been identified and are being used
efficiently to demonstrate LEA performance against national indicators (see for example Flint, self-review
of the inclusion service 2003). From this data is possible to see how value has been added to the special
educational needs services provided and the ways in which adjustment of service have impacted upon
quality.
In some cases, inter authority strategies for evaluation have been implemented to begin the process of
assessing the impact of deployment and management of special educational needs resources. The use of
electronic procedures such as ESIS has been introduced in some areas and one authority has invested in
action research through the Improving Quality of Education for All (IQEA) scheme developed with
Nottingham University. In most instances LEAs have concentrated their efforts in specific areas such as
the management of behaviour, the efficacy of nurture groups or the development of writing skills in order to
assess the impact of measures put into place.
It may be argued that many of the initiatives towards developing a more inclusive education system are at
too early a stage to benefit from detailed evaluation or analysis. However, Norwich (2000) has argued that
an early stage of assessing the efficacy of systems put into place must be a clarification of what is meant
by inclusivity and what its intended outcomes might be. Criteria for judging the success of initiatives must
be put into place if there is to be an effective means of determining the validity or otherwise of policy and
practice. Barton (1998) suggests that it is important that we keep in mind that inclusive education is not an
end in itself but should rather be seen as a means of establishing an inclusive society. This suggests that
5 Demonstrating the value added
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
32
LEAs will need to view the successful outcomes of inclusion, not only in terms of what happens in schools,
but also in respect of the adjustment of pupils to life outside school and after they have left the formal
education system. Recent studies, such as that conducted by Polat and his colleagues for the Department
for Education and Skills (2001) have begun to consider how successfully pupils with special educational
needs transfer from school to post school life. The collection of data related to post school placement,
employment and dependency should be used to inform education authorities about the efficacy of systems
put into place. In the DfES report cited above parents and pupils commenting on how well they had been
prepared for transition from school presented a mixed picture and series of emotions. In this English
study, parents of pupils from special schools were overall more satisfied with preparation of pupils for
transition than were those whose children attended mainstream school. The availability of data relating to
the effectiveness of the education provided to pupils with special educational needs could be well used to
inform school practices as a whole.
The evaluation of specific procedures such as the use of assertive discipline and positive behaviour
management training (Conwy) or the review of progress in Supported School Self Development (Cardiff), is
being systematically managed across the authorities. Information gathered through these reviews is being
effectively used to disseminate good practice, modify procedures and support further development.
Similarly projects such as the Improving Quality of Education for All (IQEA) programme, implemented by
Swansea LEA has enabled an authority to identify a means of measuring value added based upon
developmental priorities established by individual schools
As yet there is little evidence of the collection and analysis of performance data to inform LEAs of the
impact of procedures for inclusion or the monitoring of pupil progress. There are examples from individual
schools and some clusters of schools of the use of data from procedures such as the P Scales but at LEA
and national level this is at an early stage of development. In most LEAs the assessment of added value
appears to be part of the role of advisers, but often they are working without clear procedures,
expectations of criteria by which to make judgements. Individual schools are beginning to engage
effectively with target setting processes, and in some LEAs the principles established in the DfES
document Supporting the Target Setting Process (2001) are in evidence in development plans.
Byers (1999) has argued that it will not be possible to assess the successful outcome of procedures put
into place to promote inclusive schools and the curriculum provided to pupils until there has been a
meaningful debate about current priorities and future aspirations. Furthermore, he suggests that unless this
debate engages with parents, carers, a wide range of professionals and the pupils themselves it will be
largely meaningless. Such a debate should become the focus of development planning to ensure that
LEAs are in a position to be able to make judgements about the value added by the systems which they
have introduced to support inclusive education.
LEA development plans provide a clear indication of commitments to developing greater inclusion and in
some cases have set clear targets for reduction of statements, and development of provision. There are
many examples of innovative initiatives to support LEA policies but few indicators of how the effectiveness
and impact of these will be measured. Where data bases have been established these rely upon
quantitative data which indicates trends in important areas such as school exclusions, or changes in
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
33
patterns of placement. There is less assurance in providing a detailed analysis of the qualitative factors,
which may be influential upon these quantifiable details.
Individual officers and other representatives of LEAs and from within schools are able to articulate a
number of ways in which special educational needs provision and procedures are adding value to schools
and the lives of pupils. There is a need to formalise procedures for the establishment of added value and
to move beyond the anecdotal model which currently prevails. In order to do this, LEAs should:
Establish data bases, which clearly show the progress, made by pupils with special educational needs.
Support these data bases through the collation of qualitative data which exemplifies effective practice and
presents information which can be disseminated within and across authorities.
Consider how effective use may be made of national initiative such as the P Scales to provide comparative
data, which may inform further practice. In undertaking this procedure, work with schools to establish a
validated approach to using such comparative data.
Discuss with schools the forms of data which may be of most use to them in planning an appropriate
curriculum to meet the needs of a diverse population, and work with them to identify procedures for
collection and collation of this data.
5.4 References for Theme 3
Barton, L. (1998) Markets, managerialism and inclusive education. In P. Clough (Ed.) Managing Inclusive
Education: From Policy to Experience. London: Paul Chapman.
Byers, R. (1999) Experience and achievement: initiatives in curriculum development for pupils with severe
and profound and multiple learning difficulties. British Journal of Special Education. 26 (4) 184 - 188
Norwich, B. (2000) Inclusion in education: from concepts, values and critique to practice. In H, Daniels
(Ed.) Special Education Re-formed: Beyond Rhetoric. London: Falmer.
Polat, F., Kalambouka, A., Boyle, W.F., and Nelson, N. (2001) Post 16 Transitions of Pupils with Special
Educational Needs. Research Report 315. London: Department for Education and Skills.
5.5 Specific observations in regards to the Welsh authorities
5.5.1 General issues:
This is the weakest theme across all Welsh authorities
This development need has to be met quickly to enable decisions to be taken on a more informed
basis with an understanding of the financial implications as well as educational and social implications
of differing forms of provision
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
34
There is considerable evidence that authorities are attempting to develop indicators which effectively
identify progress in the social sector and outside traditional academic regimes, but little to indicate that
value-added is seen as a true “value for money” tool which can and should inform decision making and
policy on the true cost of good inclusive (or separate) initiatives
Currently, across Wales, there are few systems in place and data collection is under developed.
5.5.2 Indicators which evidence added value to learning:
Many authorities still utilise the Annual review as the prime value added tool. Some authorities are
now working to develop these outcomes into agreed indicators for benchmarking
All authorities recognise the need to monitor the effectiveness if intervention for SEN students. There
is increasing evidence of sound practice developing in regard to the monitoring of processes such as
statementing, exclusions, and attendance. The more “accepted” monitoring of learning outcomes
(social skills, literacy, and numeracy) is still primarily evaluated through the annual review.
5.5.3 How the gains are measured:
A wide range of behaviour tools are being utilised or developed, behaviour checklists are the most
common
A range of mainstream schools supporting SEN students recognise the need to monitor success on a
basis of actual skill gain (whether academic or social) rather than on the normal Government basis of
relative gains.
5.5.4 How the innovative schemes are evaluated:
A detailed audit of all SEN provision across the whole of Wales was undertaken in 2003
There are a wide range of individual projects being evaluated locally, with aspirations that they can be
later incorporated into a data base. Some of these initiatives include;
– Utilisation of P-scales at foundation level
– Individual school value-added data analysis
– IEPs for school Action and School action Plus
– Detailed analysis of Statements
– Fisher Family Trust information
– PULSE as a tracking tool
– FISS analysis (Flexible Inclusive SEN Support – Blaenau Gwent.)
5.5.5 Examples of good practice.
Caerphilly, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taff have developed a comprehensive self-
evaluation tool which addresses both progress through SA SA+ and statements, incidence of different
SEN and deployment of recourses, and the management and impact of SEN provision in schools.
Development representatives included officers, educational psychologists, head teachers and
SENCOs. The benefits of the model will include the ability of the LEA and schools to monitor trends
and to compare practice across the participating authorities and to evaluate and strategically plan the
allocation of resource. The ESIS model framework is an IT software –based solution which will be
rolled out and used by all schools from September 2004. It is proposed to move this to a bi-lingual
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
35
medium as soon as possible. The package runs in tandem with the ESIS Self-evaluation software and
support package ‘CRIS’.
Monmouthshire have introduced monitoring visits to schools specifically on outcomes with advice to
link advisors from the school improvement division. There is a specific programme of visits to look at
funding what has gone in and what the outcomes are. Box reviews have also been introduced, used to
focus on teaching and learning. Now this new system is evolving to include more data, finance,
attendance, SEN etc.
In Swansea LEA the IQEA project – Improving Quality of Education for All, Nottingham University -
lead by David Hopkins promoted action research in schools. Projects have focussed for example upon
writing skills and issues associated with bullying and harassment. Information about types of bullying
and recorded incidences were fed back to the Anti–bullying group and back to schools highlighting the
issues that need to be resolved at school level. The Educational Psychologists team have produced a
pack of guidelines for research methodologies and given out to support staff in schools Other grants
for small scale research such as from GTCW have been a bed rock to encourage such activity.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
36
6.1 Summary - of good practice, innovation, strengths to build upon
The vast majority of authorities have a formal inclusion policy or statement in one form or another
87.5% of services undertake some form of strategic planning with partner agencies in regards to at
least one group of pupils with SEN.
6.2 Summary – of development needs
The form in which the inclusion policy or statement has been established in authorities is enormously
varied in regards to policy status, whole council importance, breadth of inclusion and related
importance to funding allocations
In very few authorities is there an “overarching” strategy which indicates the manner in which all
inclusion policies and practices will be co-ordinated into a cohesive whole for actual service delivery
60% of authorities recognise the need to make both the co-ordination of children’s services and multi-
agency working more effective in regards to inclusive provision
Less than 50% of authorities believe that their multi-agency planning has any impact on inclusive
provision
Over 90% of authorities believe that more effective data (individual pupil, school and authority
provision) should inform the future development of inclusion policy and strategy.
6.3 Discussion – broad overview of the theme
Across the UK and Europe where policy has been seen to be effective it has provided a sound rationale for
developing inclusive schools within a local context. Such policies have further identified those procedures
which will be necessary to enable progress to be made towards a clearly stated objective within an
inclusive framework, have provided a timetable and the training foundations upon which inclusion may be
effectively developed.
It is important that each education authority builds upon existing good practice and recognises the many
achievements of teachers, education officers and other professional colleagues in relation to inclusion,
which have been accomplished in recent years. There is evidence throughout Wales of good practice in
addressing many of those conditions, which must be created in order to support an inclusive education
system. These include the development of continuing professional development opportunities to
strengthen both the awareness of teachers and other colleagues and the skills which they need to support
pupils with special educational needs in a variety of settings. Similarly, some education authorities (e.g
Powys)have made clear statements regarding the future development of special schools within an
inclusive education context. The clarification of this issue has not been consistently addressed throughout
Wales and may remain as an obstacle to the further development of a cohesive service to address the
needs of all pupils.
The local context in which authorities are working will inevitably impact upon the development of inclusion
policies. Those authorities dealing largely with an urban population may find it easier to centralise services
whilst ensuring that they are accessible to all users than will be possible in some rural areas of Wales. The
policies produced by Welsh authorities do vary considerably in their approach towards inclusion. This
should be regarded as a strength as most have given careful consideration to the demographic and
6 Inclusion policy and strategy
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
37
geographical features which influence provision and have been focused upon the provision of a service to
meet the needs of a carefully described local population.
Strategic plans from Welsh Authorities have identified priorities in relation to the provision of facilities,
continuing professional development opportunities and communication with service users in order to move
towards an inclusive education policy. The distinction between policy and strategy is a critical one. The
confidence of teachers, other professional colleagues and parents will only be assured when a series of
strategies, which will ensure that there is movement towards an agreed vision have been put into place.
Whilst all authorities have established comprehensive policies for the promotion of inclusion, the strategic
means through which the outcomes defined within these policies will be achieved is not always assured.
Where clarity has been achieved a process of identifying actions to address the inclusion objectives
established within policy documents has been put into place along with the means to evaluate progress.
Good practice also demands that training needs and resourcing requirements are identified early in order
to give confidence to those working within the education authority and others who are recipients of
services. Several authorities, including Cardiff and Torfaen have well established models for linking
strategic plans to policy. However, the presentation of timetables for the achievement of policy goals is less
secure throughout Welsh authorities. Whilst all strategic planning is related to a timeframe, it is evident that
the ambitious statements set out in the policy statements of many LEAs will take a long time to achieve. In
order to establish stability and confidence for colleagues working within the education service it is essential
that acknowledgement is given to the fact that because of resource needs and further development of
professional skills, some of the objectives of policy will not be achieved for some considerable time.
Welsh authorities have recognised the importance of the role which professional development must play in
supporting the promotion of inclusion. There is a noticeable concentration of training to be provided for all
teachers in the areas of teaching and learning with considerable emphasis upon working within inclusive
classrooms. In addition, there are examples of training provided in specific areas such as emotional
intelligence (Blaenau Gwent), thinking skills initiatives (Torfaen), or assertive discipline (Conwy) which
recognise the value of these processes in enabling teachers to address a range of challenging needs in
the classroom. Behaviour support plans submitted by the authorities are generally strong, having not only
identified the difficulties which many schools face, but also providing a clear course of actions to be taken
which will ultimately influence the success of inclusion policies.
The process of monitoring and evaluation of progress towards inclusion policy targets is well established in
Welsh authority development plans. There is also evidence that in recent years this evaluative process has
been used effectively to support further developments and to respond to national initiatives. In several
documents (e.g. Cardiff Education Strategic Plan) the processes of evaluation makes effective use of
performance data which is collected systematically on a regular basis. The impact of these evaluations in
terms of influencing modification of procedures to support inclusion policy is evident in most authority
documentation.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
38
A review of inclusion policies from across the UK and Europe which have been seen to impact upon
successful provision for pupils with special educational needs indicates a number of common
characteristics, these may be identified as (see for example Bauer et all 2003):
Clarity of purpose
Well defined objectives
Strategic plans which are transparent in their approach to meeting policy objectives
Comprehensive training programmes for staff at all levels
Identification of resource needs
Timetabling which includes short medium and long term financial planning
Procedures for monitoring and evaluation of progress
Welsh authorities compare very favourably with their counterparts elsewhere in the UK and across Europe
in having establish a framework which reflects this critical pathway of policy and strategy development.
Local Education Authorities in Wales have made a strong commitment to furthering educational inclusion.
Ofsted (2000) emphasised the need to regard educational inclusion in the widest possible terms. That is
not only encompassing pupils with special educational needs but also giving due regard to those from
minority ethnic or faith groups, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers and those described as gifted or
talented. Whilst most LEAs have given consideration to each of these issues they are often separated and
practices from differing professionals working on specific aspects of inclusion are not always shared.
There is a recognition that this cannot be achieved in isolation from other influences upon the lives of
children and young people and that this requires a multi-agency approach to the development of policy and
procedures. Some LEAs have moved towards the establishment of integrated children's services and
others are undertaking a strategic review to provide the basis for developing new and more inclusive
management structures. There are a number of instances where the status of multi-agency panels and
groups has not been made clear and has led to confusion or dissatisfaction about what can be achieved.
Research conducted by Lacey (2001) concluded that in many instances attempts to develop inter agency
partnerships were hampered by inadequate attention being given to a consideration of the differing
perspectives and working practice of the individual agencies. Each agency is likely to have developed its
own perceptions and approaches to working in independence from others working within the same
geographical locality. Until each agency has a clear perception of the perspectives of others and is
prepared to share, develop and adopt changes based upon mutually agreed principles, there will remain
difficulties in developing effective multi-agency working. Dyson (1998) also emphasised that successful
inter-agency working would depend upon shared aims which were powerful enough to counteract very
different core purposes. The wider social inclusion agenda may well be an important factor in enabling
differing agencies to come to together to fulfil their obligations towards children and young people who
have been previously marginalised. In some authorities specific initiative such as interagency panels for
looked after children or procedures developed through CAMHS are setting new agendas for more inclusive
approaches to collaborative working. However, this is not a consistent pattern and in some instances the
lessons learned from such initiatives are not being carried forward to inform wider developments and
policy.
Fagg (2003), whilst recognising that LEA powers have been considerably eroded in recent years, believes
that in matters of policy and strategic planning, schools still look to them to provide a lead. She states that
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
39
the interface between LEAs and schools, whilst changing as a result on national policy, remains a critical
one in enabling the implementation of inclusion policy to benefit the wider population within an area. The
overview maintained by LEAs should provide a sound foundation for the planning of resources and long
term provision which ensures inclusive practice. Fagg points out that it is still the officers within LEAs who
are likely to have the broad view of an authority, which enables them to make decisions about use of
resources that may need to be provided by independent providers such as charitable organisations, and
enables them to provide informed advice to parents and carers.
LEAs in Wales have consulted widely on inclusion, involving school staff, parents, charitable and support
groups and other agencies. This commitment to consultation is reflected in the sensitivity evident in policy
documents related to this area. Whilst all LEAs have issued statements of policy related to inclusion, the
definitions and terminology being used is not consistent or clear. This lack of clarity is not surprising when
considering the recent history of change in relation to special education. A focus upon integration following
the publication of the Warnock report (1978) tended to view changes in locational terms. Discussions
centred upon the movement of pupils from special to mainstream schools rather than considering those
aspects of teaching, which would promote successful learning for all pupils. Jenkinson (1998) emphasises
that much of the debate in this area has centred upon issues of the rights of pupils to be educated
alongside their peers. This has, quite rightly, been a persuasive standpoint adopted by advocates of
inclusion and has been highly influential in respect of LEA policy. However, many researchers have
expressed concerns regarding the gap which exists between inclusive education policy and the reality in
schools (Kidd 2001, Carrington and Elkins 2002). Recent research has began to focus upon those
conditions which need to be created in schools in order to foster inclusive practice (Florian and Rouse
2001, Rose 2001, Avissar 2003). This later research has recognised the importance of the rights issues
surrounding inclusion, but has shifted the focus towards issues of teaching and learning and has sought to
identify how teachers can create more inclusive classrooms. Case study evidence from successful
inclusive classrooms should be a major consideration in informing the direction in which policy proceeds in
the immediate future.
Debates continue about the future development of provision and there are issues surrounding the future
role of special schools and the nature of special educational needs support services. This issue relates
closely to the lack of available data about the efficacy of existing systems and procedures which need to
be further developed in order to inform planning and policy. At a practical level, LEAs have done much to
support teachers and other staff in promoting inclusive classrooms. Continuing professional development
initiatives, the support given to school self-evaluation procedures such as the Index for Inclusion, and the
clustering of schools to pool expertise are just a few examples of the ways in which LEAs have supported
schools. However, interviews with LEA representatives indicate that initiatives are sometimes developed
on a local basis rather than being strategically driven in order to maximise benefits to a wider school
population. A clear example of this relates to the links, which have been established in some authorities
between special and mainstream schools. Where there are examples of good practice this is often based
upon informal arrangements made between schools rather than as a result of strategic planning.
Whilst policies for the promotion of inclusion are strong across LEAs, strategies for implementing and
evaluating these policies tend to be less refined. In order to progress this area LEAs should:
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
40
Clarify their relationships with other agencies charged with supporting pupils with special educational
needs and communicate roles and responsibilities to schools and parents.
Collect and make use of data regarding the efficacy of current initiatives designed to promote inclusion and
use this information to inform further planning and to establish criteria for assessing progress towards the
implementation of existing policies.
Clarify intentions with regards to the future role and development of special schools as part of an inclusive
education system and the admissions criteria for these schools.
Continue to support school self evaluation procedures and the identification of professional development
needs to support implementation of inclusion policies.
6.4 References on Theme 4
Avissar, G. (2003) Teaching an inclusive classroom can be rather tedious: an international perspective,
Israel. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 3 (3) 154 – 161
Bauer,l., Olgerisson, G., Pereira, F., Pluhar, C, and Snell, P. (2003) Key Principles for Special Needs
Education: Recommendations for Policy Makers. Middelfart: European Agency for Development in Special
Needs Education.
Carrington, S., and Elkins, J. (2002) Bridging the gap between inclusive policy and inclusive culture in
secondary schools. Support for Learning 17 (2) 51 - 57
Dyson, A. (1998) Effective Communication between Schools, LEAs and Health and Social Services in the
Field of Special Educational Needs. London: DfEE.
Fagg, S. (2003) The role of LEAs in promoting inclusion. In C. Tilstone, and R. Rose. (Eds.) Strategies to
Promote Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Florian, L., and Rouse, M. (2001) Inclusive practice in English secondary schools: lessons learned.
Cambridge Journal of Education 31 (3) 399 - 412
Jenkinson, J. (1998) Mainstream or special. London: Routledge
Kidd, R. (2001) Theory into practice in inclusion: the views of a practitioner. In T., O’Brien (Ed.) Enabling
Inclusion. Blue Skies…Dark Clouds? London: The Stationery Office
Lacey, P. (2001) Support Partnerships: Collaboration in Action. London: David Fulton
Ofsted (2000) Evaluating Educational Inclusion: Guidance for Inspectors and Schools. London: Office for
Standards in Education
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
41
Rose, R. (2001) Primary school teacher perceptions of the conditions required to include pupils with
special educational needs. Educational Review 53 (2) 147 - 156
6.5 Specific observations in regards to the Welsh authorities
6.5.1 General issues:
The “feel” across the authorities is that of having a “core” belief in inclusion, often underpinned by an
inclusion statement, and then a “scattergun” range of inclusion strategies, pilots or developments which
do not feel to be within a single, cohesive, targeted, funded or managed strategy
This view is “furthered” by the view of the research team in regards to the leadership in regards to
inclusion. There is no consistent group of key professionals leading the inclusion initiative. In one
authority the Director of Education may lead the whole initiative, whilst in another it might be the
Principal Educational Psychologist (PEP). Whist an “Inclusion Manager” of some form and PEP or SEP
are inevitably in a lead (inclusion) group, the remainder of the management teams are varied in
regards to their professional backgrounds, experience of inclusion and level of seniority
Whilst every authority has an example of multi-agency work, inevitably in regards to specialist SEN
groups such as vulnerable children, there is little evidence of a real multi-agency dimension to the
establishment of overall inclusion policy and practice. The research does not provide an indication of
the establishment of a meaningful multi-agency dimension to the drive towards integrated children’s
services across Wales.
6.5.2 How does the strategic planning process work?
The majority of authorities have an “SEN” strategic plan. There is evidence that most authorities
review this plan on an ongoing and reported basis. For most authorities these plans are the “Education
Department” plan and there is limited evidence to suggest these plans are “corporate” or multi-agency
developed or owned
A range of the SEN plans do not incorporate the prime inclusion agenda.
6.5.3 Strategic planning with partner agencies for vulnerable children?
The majority of authorities have examples (some limited) of joint funding initiatives, normally for specific
group of students
There are a wide range of examples to joined up multi-agency planning on specific projects, training,
vulnerable children, child protection, speech and physiotherapy and early intervention schemes provide
most evidence
The good examples of joint multi-agency project work are not replicated consistently at a higher,
corporate level in regards to joint policy and strategy establishment for Inclusion
Fragmentation in regards to policy establishment and service delivery is perceived to be a problem in
most authorities.
6.5.4 How successful is multi-agency planning?
As a general issue is still not to a standard that authorities would wish across Wales, even where good
practice is emerging
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
42
There is a general acceptance that relationships and joint planning are improving considerably with
Social Services
There is also a recognition that joint work with health services needs much time and attention
Many authorities mention that they would appreciate the evolvement of a multi-agency Regional
Planning Framework providing it has a clear and transparent mandate
A general perception is held by education authorities that even where there is good practice in
partnership with Social Services they are not seen to have available (or make available) the resources
to make the joint process work effectively
There are a number of good examples of joint authority work in regards to provision and initiatives, with
one example of a single, shared SEN administrative resource.
6.5.5 What range of data is used to inform policy and strategy?
Not perceived to be a historical link in most authorities between utilisation of data to inform policy and
strategy. It is perceived that most policy developments have historically been based on the belief in a
philosophy (inclusion is a good thing), a political will (we are as a council committed to inclusive
provision), financial imperatives (we can not afford to keep paying for out county placements or small
special schools) or external pressures (Parents demands through the statementing and appeal
procedure process)
A range of authorities have considered the pattern of provision in similar authorities across England
and Wales
A range of authorities are becoming more confident in benchmarking with colleague authorities in
regards to a range of factors including funding, statutory process times, proportion of students at
different stages of the Code, delegation levels etc
6.5.6 Examples of good practice.
Anglesey and Gwynedd provide a model for the joint authority management and administration of SEN.
Carmarthenshire established an Inclusion strategy group met to conduct a strategic review. There was
very wide representation (24 reps) from schools officers, parents voluntary sector heath and social
services, using workshops and sub-groups to generate strategy. This was followed by a workshop for
elected members in February. A definition of inclusion and the values underpinning this have been
determined and consulted upon.The intention was that the process would be a genuinely collaborative
attempt to bring about holistic change, to achieve wide ownership pf the strategy and project plan, and
to bring everyone up to a common threshold. A handbook is under development and inclusion
conferences are planned. The conferences are linked to a programme of training and additional CPD
that head teachers can buy into.The outcomes of the review are now being transformed into a
development plan. Strategic priorities have been identified and project planned. Senior managers from
other services have been involved in the planning so the process links to other corporate plans.
Neath Port Talbot has established an LAC team with education, health and social services personnel
working from the same base and using the same information base ensures that a seamless service is
provided. It is the pilot authority for Integrated Children’s System for LAC. It is being developed locally.
The Intensive Therapy Team and Rapid Response Team are examples of partnership working
Newport has established an SEN policy group which includes school improvement, head teachers and
SENCOs. It meets termly to debate policy and developments. A range of partnership groups is in place
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
43
involving other agencies usually statutory agencies. These include a Young People’s Forum at which
voluntary agencies are also represented.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
44
1. The advances made in Wales confirm that they are broadly in line with developments in other countries
of a similar nature. Some authorities have sound and innovative strategic plans but other are less well
prepared. There is not an overall readiness across the authorities to enable consistent and rapid
change to be made as a country.
2. In regards to the willingness of the authorities to encompass inclusion fully there is an enthusiasm and
commitment to enable developments in this difficult area of change.
3. With regard to the ability of the authorities to move forward singly and as a group it is clear that the
majority of authorities would appreciate being able to move forward in this sector in a consistent and
supportive manner with their neighbouring authorities. The challenges of change in this sector linked to
the high level of funding demanded by the students needs and the high public profile and challenge
engendered by any alteration to the style of provision make it imperative to work as a more cohesive
national team.
7.1 The current situation
This section provides a simple set of oversight statements on each of the key aspects of the research in an
attempt to enable further discussion and development.
Leadership – Leadership in this sector is committed, passionate and knowledgeable but in regards to
overall management systems and processes is far too mixed in regards to level of authority, knowledge
base and cohesion. There is no consistent management team for Inclusion issues across authorities.
There is no consistency in regards to reporting inclusion matters through to members.
The multi-agency dimension of SEN has a range of examples of good practice but virtually none in
regards to true joint planning and delivery of SEN services for overall Inclusive education provision.
Examples of excellent practice are invariably in the sector of the “hard” end of the market requiring joint
funding initiatives.
Amount of development – There is a considerable and laudable amount of development in regards to
inclusive provision. It is, however, far too varied and isolated in regards to inclusion as a cohesive,
overall, education strategy for a whole authority.
The attack is again exemplary with many small groups or even individuals driving forward significant
and much needed initiatives in many authorities is on many fronts not necessarily in a cohesive,
concerted manner
Common core developments – The strongest common core across authorities has been in the areas to
exclusion, absence and behaviour management in mainstream schools. Outside that general theme
there has been little commonality in regards to core activities otr themes across authorities. It is
imperative to identify those developments that work and create a national priority order for
development.
Variety of experience available to call upon – The research has clearly indicated that there is a wide
range of good practice to call upon. It is vital that this be utilised in a managed manner to enable
change to be more effective and timely and to prevent re-invention of the wheel!
There are a range of examples of cross-authority and cross-agency good practice. In a country with
authorities of such different size and composition it is vital to build on these emerging examples of
good practice.
7 CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
45
There is a desire to develop effectively for both quality of provision and financial reasons. Officers at all
levels indicate a clear desire to effect change in this sector and make more effective provision available
for the students in their care.
There is a clear willingness to share expertise and skills base with colleagues in other authorities and
sectors. There is, in some cases, a certain “guardianship” of developments or an element of
“complacency” in others, but this is in very few authorities or individuals and is not the general situation.
There are some authorities in which are well able and competent to play a national lead in taking the
inclusion agenda forward. This role may be best utilised in regards to knowledge and expertise in
regards to a certain aspect of inclusion.
7.2 The authority action plans
In regards to the action plans fed back to each individual authority -
1. Overall there was evidence of good self awareness and need for developments in most authorities.
2. Simple but clear action plans were made available for each authority which built upon their own self
evaluation, the consultants knowledge of the SEN sector generally, and the response to the four key
themes.
a. the action plans overall provide some considerable evidence of an ability to move forward rapidly
given some appropriate guidance and support.
b. The priority order for developments were remarkably consistent and reflect the prime
development needs identified in each of the four themes.
c. The action plans do confirm the willingness and desire to move this sector forward rapidly, and
also recognise the pragmatic need to more effectively utilise what is a restricted financial
resource in a more effective manner.
7.3 Options for co-ordinated all Wales action
Range of issues for assembly and authorities to consider –
Is there any “enhanced” value in considering developing inclusion within a partnership framework which
might;
Agree the outline framework for an inclusion policy (for Wales)
Agree the framework for an implementation strategy for the policy
Agree targets within the core areas investigated for each authority over a time period (depending on
the stage that each is at currently)
Facilitate the establishment of the standards and working procedures required for children’s services
and cross-agency work
Identify commonality in regards to funding mechanisms in regards to different SEN groups.
Benefits from this type of approach might be:
Prevention of duplication when new initiatives are trialled
Enablement of more effective sharing of effective processes
Enablement of more effective use of limited development monies
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
46
Creation of a Whole-Wales culture of inclusion
Creation of greater confidence for all stakeholders (especially parents) in the quality and effectiveness
of emerging inclusive provision
Provision of more cost effective services cross-boundary or between large and small authorities.
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
47
Appendices
Appendix A. List of participating Authorities ________________________________________________________ 48 Appendix B. Reference Group __________________________________________________________________ 49 Appendix C. National experts and advisers _________________________________________________________ 50
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
48
Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council
Bridgend County Borough Council
Caerphilly County Borough Council
Cardiff County Council
Carmarthenshire County Council
Ceredigion County Council
Conwy County Borough Council
Denbighshire County Council
Flintshire County Council
Gwynedd Council
Isle of Anglesey County Council
Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council
Monmouthshire County Council
Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Newport City Council
Pembrokeshire County Council
Powys County Council
Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council
The City and County of Swansea
Torfaen County Borough Council
Vale of Glamorgan Council
Appendix A. List of participating Authorities
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
49
Mike de Val Torfaen County Borough Council
Jim Kinge Torfaen County Borough Council
Phil Monaghan City & Council of Swansea
Gareth Price Bridgend County Borough Council
Mair Read Ynys Mon County Borough Council
Mark Provis Carmarthenshire Council
Mair Watkins Welsh Assembly Government
Deryck Jones Welsh Assembly Government
Heather Reid Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Kathleen Boyce Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Phil Bowker Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council
Appendix B. Reference Group
Modernisation of SEN in Wales
214037///1/A 18 June 2015 C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx
50
The National Study Team
AZHAR MOBIN
Azhar Mobin is Director of LEA Services Division in Cambridge Education overseeing its LEA consultancy
programme, its developing range of strategic partnerships and its support for LEA self-evaluation. Az is
Project Director of ‘Learning and Development from Experience’ The Modernisation of SEN in Wales, and
a consultant to LEAs on inclusion strategies.
Previously, after 10 years of policy and wide-ranging operational responsibility in 3 different LEAs. Az
became LEA inspector for SEN with the Audit Commission. He was an original member of the Audit
Commission SEN Study team for 'SEN: A Mainstream Issue' and a major contributor to the SEN Self-
Evaluation Handbook 'Managing Special Educational Needs'. He was a member of the DfES Working
Party that developed the National Performance Framework for SEN and co-author of the January 2002
LEA Inspection Guidance on SEN Inclusion.
CAROLINE COLES
Caroline Coles (M.ED,Adv dip,Cert.Ed) Managing Director of Special and Inclusive Services. Caroline has
previously been headteacher of two schools,one of which was a Beacon Special School and Key Learning
Centre supporting inclusive education in mainstream schools. She has been principal Education Advisor
for a National Charity and has published several books in for mainstream and SEN including the Inclusion
Quality Mark. Caroline has advised the Government in the area of Inclusion, Special Educational Needs
and Remodelling.
RICHARD ROSE
Richard Rose Cert. Ed., Adv. Dip. Ed., MA, EdD. Is Professor of Special and Inclusive Education and
Director of the Centre for Special Needs Education and Research at University College Northampton.
Richard has taught in mainstream and special schools in four English LEAs, including nine years as head
teacher, and was Inspector for Special and Primary Education in Northamptonshire for three years. He has
conducted research into several aspect of special education for many agencies at local, national and
international level and his work has been published in numerous books and academic journals.
Appendix C. National experts and advisers