La marginalidad

The about-turn the LEA was forced to make has significance in the context of a discussion about inclusion. It is noteworthy that in the LEA’s first letter its motivation was a commitment to inclusion. Because the LEA was forced to withdraw its proposal, inclusion now became associated with a discredited

proposal. This could have given the impression to parents that inclusion was somewhat suspect.

Furthermore, having raised the need for a whole school inclusion policy, one would expect that the LEA would explain what this meant and also give schools guidance as to how to write and implement such a policy. The appropriate means to disseminate such advice would have been the SEN Handbook mentioned earlier and released as a new version in September 2003 (Keystone LEA, 2003d) (or some other complementary documentation). However, a close examination of the Handbook revealed that there was no mention of a whole school inclusion policy despite the fact that the new

funding system was explained in detail (Keystone LEA, 2003d). Nor was such an explanation evident in any other LEA documentation. So although the impression was created that the reference to a ‘whole school inclusion policy’, now part of all Statements of SEN issued by the LEA, would be followed through to school level in the form of documentary detail and advice, this simply did not happen.

Earlier on reference was made to the fact that the first consultation letter to parents (Keystone LEA 2003e) was distributed in March and that it stated that the proposals were to be implemented by the 1st of April, less than a month away. Parents would not only have reacted with alarm because of the short time, they would also have gained the impression that the LEA was trying to rush through its proposals. Giving people a short time in which to respond gives the impression that one has something to hide. These circumstances were certainly not ideal for raising the subject of inclusion.

In the struggle between parents and the LEA, inclusion was not the cause. However, it certainly became implicated in the conflict. The description of the way the LEA tried to change the wording on Statements also illustrates potential conflict of a different kind, namely conflict between the call for greater inclusion and the strictures of the Statementing system. If inclusion is associated with breaking down barriers between pupils, and the Statementing

system as shown, works on the basis of individualized and bureaucratized support, conflict will arise.

5.6 Conclusion

The examination of key policy documents on SEN and inclusion issued by Keystone LEA has shown that the complex and contradictory nature of government policy on these themes is also evident, even compounded, on the local level. Keystone issued a set of proposals to schools about funding pupils with Statements of SEN. However, when examined more closely, there were significant flaws in the proposals, not least in relation to the distinction between SEN and AEN. On the other hand the set of proposals made to parents/carers about the wording on Statements met with significant

opposition – including from the DfES. Consequently the LEA was forced to withdraw these proposals. The LEA’s two sets of proposals were meant to be sides of the same coin. However, with one set of proposals withdrawn and replaced, the LEA’s overall plans were thrown into some disarray. The next section will deal with the views of key LEA professionals who were to a greater or lesser extent involved in drawing up the plans and who were instrumental in implementing them.

There was another very serious purpose to this chapter. It was trying to show that underlying the very technical and highly complex funding formula shifts were significant changes to the ways a range of important groups of pupils were to be taught and supported through their difficulties. In other words, funding shifts for children and schools are not about funding per se. Such shifts are about the changed reality for children and schools affected by those shifts. In this sense, I think, funding shifts reveal changing political priorities. Seen in this light the funding mechanism was not merely about the allocation of funding to schools, it was really about how particular pupils could become ‘losers’ and therefore be deprived of educational support deemed necessary to help them.

Two important and fundamental shifts were identified beneath the complex changes proposed. The first was that schools could struggle to have sufficient funding to cover the support for all pupils with Statements. In turn and

second, in order for schools to allocate sufficient funding to pupils with Statements, other categories of pupils, with serious need of support, like pupils with English as a second language, could be deprived of the necessary support. The new system therefore held the distinct danger that schools could face harsh choices as to the pupils they could support – despite the fact that all the pupils could have identified and in that sense legitimate needs.

The change was brought about by one seemingly small but highly significant shift which was proposed by the LEA and then implemented. That shift was the overall budget would henceforth be finite. What this meant, as was spelt out in one of the documents sent to schools, was that if some of the affected pupils had to get more, the rest of the pupils governed by that funding pot would get less. Thus if the number and needs of those pupils who were

designated as having SEN difficulties were to rise, the consequence would be a fall in the financial allocation to those who had other difficulties eg were coming to school hungry because they were eligible for free school meals. Funding systems, decided by LEA officials and offered to headteachers who were being consulted, were therefore the pretext for a more brutal change for a range of schoolchildren deemed to be in need.

The last serious consequence about the new proposals was that it would also create a winners and losers situation between schools. Those schools who had a greater proportion of pupils which attracted funding would be the winners, those who had a lesser proportion of such pupils would be the losers. How headteachers responded to being winners and losers will be covered in the next chapter.

Appendix to Chapter 5

A timeline showing when key documents produced by and for the LEA were issued

The timeline indicates the time period of the research. It also gives an indication of the pressure the LEA was under during the period. June 2002

SEN Finance and Strategy (Clarion Consulting Limited 2002) report

produced. This was a report written by external consultants (Clarion) brought in by the LEA to review its provision for SEN.

November 2002

Executive Report (Clarion Consulting Limited 2002a) of (Clarion Report) SEN Finance and Strategy sent to headteachers. Letter (Keystone Council 2002c) states that Headteachers discussed the report at briefing meetings in July 2002

21 October 2002

Council Cabinet Briefing Meeting adopted the following

Principles for Inclusion – Special Educational Needs (Keystone Council 2002d)

29 October 2002

Letter (Keystone Council 2002e) sent to all schools, Keystone consultation with schools about funding for pupils with Statements

Including Consultation Paper, Fair Funding Scheme Proposed Changes for 2003/04 (Keystone LEA 2002b), dealing with Funding system for schools as a whole – Final formula to be implemented in April 2003

Also sent on same date: Briefing Paper (Keystone LEA 2002a) Fair Funding Review of SEN/AEN funding mechanisms in Keystone (Dealing specifically with SEN/AEN funding)

22 Jan 2003 – Letter to Headteachers (Keystone LEA 2003i)

Re: Fair Funding Scheme – Proposed Changes to Formula 2003-04

(Keystone Council 2003j). This report included provisional funding allocations for all schools. (with details of schools who were ‘winners’ and ‘losers’).

7 March 2003 Letter to Parents (Keystone LEA 2003e) setting out ‘important changes to funding for pupils with special educational needs’ to start from April 2003(!)

21 March 2003 Letter from DfES to Director of Education (DfES 2003a). Specification quantification and in Statements of Special Educational Needs. Letter was warning that Keystone would be failing in its statutory duty if it were to continue with its proposals to change the wording on statements.

25 March 2003

Letter to Headteachers – Report on Fair Funding Consultation (October 2002 and January 2003) (Keystone Council 2003l)

The accompanying report (Keystone LEA 2003m) confirmed that schools would receive a ‘top-up’ allocation only for ‘high band Statements’, and that SEN/AEN would be formula funded.

1st April 2003

New Banding Document published (Keystone LEA 2003a).

Title: Banding System – For Pupils with a Statement of Special Educational Needs. (with cash value for bands)

Circa April 2003

Letter to Parents/Carers (Keystone LEA 2003f).

This letter confirmed that the Statements would remain unchanged. Meaning New Banding document cannot be used.

8 April 2003

SEN and Inclusion Strategy – Discussion Paper (Keystone LEA 2003h) SEN Strategy Group

September 2003

Handbook for Special Educational Needs and Inclusion (updated version) (Keystone LEA 2003d)

Autumn 2003

Special Educational Needs Inclusion Strategy (Keystone Council 2003k) Sub-titled Consultation on Policy and Provision for Pupils with SEN in Keystone

Document of 47 pages (excluding 3 Appendices) Requesting comments by December 2003

September 2003

6

PROFESSIONALS’ VIEWS ON SEN AND INCLUSION IN