modernisation of sen in wales 214037 1 a c:\users\bro26451.mottmac\desktop\wales sen...

$: Modernisation of SEN in Wales 214037 1 A C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx 18 June 2015 Modernisation of SEN in Wales Modernisation of SEN in Wales 2004$
Modernisation of SEN in Wales

2004

Welsh Assembly

214037 1 A

C:\Users\bro26451.MOTTMAC\Desktop\Wales SEN Study_FINAL.docx

18 June 2015



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


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.



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



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


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


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


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?



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



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



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



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



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).



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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


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


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



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;



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.



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



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



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



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



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.



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)



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



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).



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.



24


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.


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.


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



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.


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



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.



31


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.


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.


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



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



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


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



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.)


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



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.



36


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.


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.


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



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.



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



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:



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



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


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



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


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



43

involving other agencies usually statutory agencies. These include a Young People’s Forum at which

voluntary agencies are also represented.



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



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



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.



47

Appendices

Appendix A. List of participating Authorities ________________________________________________________ 48 Appendix B. Reference Group __________________________________________________________________ 49 Appendix C. National experts and advisers _________________________________________________________ 50



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



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



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