CSIE welcomes the publication of “A statement is not enough”, the report on the special educational needs and disability review by Ofsted. This far-reaching review, commissioned in 2009 by the then Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), set out to evaluate how well the legislative framework and existing provision serve disabled children and young people and/or those said to have special educational needs. The review considered provision for young people of all ages up to 19, and the contribution of social care and health services.

The report puts forward a range of concerns about the current system and, alarmingly, states that the review found evidence that the way the system is currently designed contributes to its failings. It (the review) found a virtually unanimous feeling that the special educational needs system as it stands now is unfair: those who are able to make sense of it have quicker and greater access to resources and support. The report states that parents saw the current system as requiring them to ‘fight for the rights’ of their children and suggests that a simpler and fairer system is long overdue. It highlights what works well and makes specific recommendations that can pave the way to a more equitable and more effective system for the 21st century.

Concerns about the state of the existing framework of assessment and provision are far from new. In 2002 the Audit Commission had published a report raising concerns that statutory assessment is a costly, bureaucratic and unresponsive process which many parents find stressful and alienating, and which leads to inequitable distribution of resources and is at odds with inclusion (Audit Commission, 2002: Statutory Assessment and Statements of SEN: in need of review?) In 2006 the House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee published the report of its inquiry on special educational needs provision in England. The report called for a major review of SEN provision that would grant SEN a central position in the national education agenda. The report heavily criticized the then government for its unclear, if not conflicting, messages of commitment to inclusion and for its continued reluctance to review the SEN framework, which the report described as “no longer fit for purpose”. Last year the Lamb Inquiry into parental confidence in the SEN framework called for a major reform of the current system.

The report expresses specific concerns about the words that we use and about the way we routinely apply them to children. It points out that different agencies use different terms and that conflicting terminology is confusing and unhelpful. It also states that vast numbers of children are inappropriately identified as “having” special educational needs. CSIE applauds these statements and urges others to take note. It has, for a long time, been argued that “special educational needs are the needs that arise within the educational system rather than the individual, and indicate a need for the system to change further in order to accommodate individual differences.” (These are the words of Alan Dyson, now Professor of Education at the University of Manchester; this extract is from his article Special educational needs and the concept of change, published in 1990 in the Oxford Review of Education, volume 16, issue 1.) When adults are concerned about the progress of any child, it seems inappropriate to turn all attention on assessing the child. If a plant was not growing one would also look at the soil and if a cake was not rising one would also look at the oven. When children are not progressing, it seems self-evident that one should evaluate how the child learns AND how effective the learning environment is. The review found with alarming frequency that additional learning support focused on the completion of the task rather than on the actual learning, and that evaluations focused on whether a service was being provided rather than whether it was effective. This needs to change.

The report makes a strong case for the need to simplify legislation. It rightly points out that laws have been repeatedly amended, resulting in an excruciatingly complex set of regulations which at times is at odds even with itself. Ofsted has called upon the government to simplify legislation, so that the system is clearer for parents, schools and other education and training providers. The imperative for this is further highlighted by the fact that this is one of only seven recommendations which Ofsted has selected for the report summary. CSIE has been calling for clarification of legal issues for quite some time. We fully support Ofsted’s call to simplify legislation and trust that the forthcoming Green Paper will signal the start of this process.

The Ofsted report has missed an opportunity to link the two points mentioned above. There has been growing dissatisfaction with the term “special educational needs”, especially as it is often taken to imply a deficit within the child, and even Baroness Warnock herself has said that the term has outlived its purpose. So far it has seemed impossible to move away from this terminology, because it is written in to existing legislation. With the current call to simplify legislation, comes an opportunity to introduce alternative terminology that is clearer and more respectful to children and young people.

The way local authorities operate has also come under scrutiny. As previously reported in the CSIE Trends series, the Ofsted review team also found significant inconsistencies between local authorities: despite extensive statutory guidance, children and young people thought to have similar needs were not being treated equitably and appropriately across different authorities. Inspectors frequently found that pupils with a statement in one local authority were similar to those provided for at School Action Plus in another. The report expresses concern that in many authorities the pattern of local services has developed in an ad hoc way, on the basis of what has been done in the past, rather than from a strategic overview of what was needed locally. CSIE has produced The Welcome Workbook, a self-review framework to assist local authorities in such a strategic overview.

Another important contribution of this report is that it calls upon educators to focus on outcomes that are negotiated with young people and their parents. It clearly states what young people said they want for their future: successful relationships and friendships; independence, including choice about who they live with; choice about what to do with their spare time; and the opportunity to work. None of this is, of course, specific to disabled young people and/or those said to have special educational needs. Indeed, it seems shameful that these aspirations have had to be articulated in order to get people to listen. But listen we all must, and this is a wake-up call for anyone who may still think that “outcomes” are only concerned with academic achievement.

The report also raises a number of other concerns, such as over-reliance on medical diagnoses or the quality of provision for 16-19 year olds and weaknesses in transition planning. It also states what works well and makes recommendations for the future.

It follows from all the above that this report provides a clear and thorough overview of the current system, articulates what works well, makes weaknesses explicit and puts forward a series of recommendations for a fairer and more equitable system fit for the 21st century.

A report, however, is not enough. CSIE calls upon the government to seize the moment and act upon the findings of this review. It is high time that this country develops a system where parents no longer feel that they have to fight for the rights of their children.