|
|
|
|
There are a number of measures in the SEN area which are being taken forward some of which will be considered by the new national advisory forum. Scottish Ministers announced the forum in their response to the Riddell Advisory Committee Report. The announcement was welcomed widely and the Forum held its first meeting on 28 March under the chairmanship of Peter Peacock, Deputy Minster for Children and Education. Membership of the Forum was drawn from over 50 nominations received from individuals and organisations and is listed at Annex A.
Remit
The Forum's remit has been drawn in general terms to allow a focus on broad strategy and policy issues, while not precluding examination of specific issues of concern in the SEN area.
Its remit is set out below:
Priorities
At its first meeting on 28 March the Forum agreed that its initial priority would be an examination of the Records of Needs process. Further areas suggested included inter-agency working; disability discrimination rights of appeal; and specialist qualifications for teachers. The Forum agreed to give further consideration to priorities at its next meeting in June.
Method of operation
The forum will have an initial life of three years and will meet at least twice per year. Information on its work will be posted on an Advisory Forum web-site. Details of how to send views on SEN issues to the Forum are included at page 18.
The consultation exercise on the Riddell Advisory Committee Report revealed a broad welcome for Scottish Ministers' proposal to amend legislation to require education authorities to provide for children who are unable to attend school because of ill-health. An appropriate amendment has been included in the Standards in Scotland's Schools, Etc. Bill.
The Scottish Executive will issue guidance to all local authorities in autumn 2000 on the education of children who are too ill to attend school.
There was disappointment, however, that the Ministerial response to the Riddell report suggested that there was no need to review the general legislative framework on special educational needs. Several respondents expressed a view that existing special educational needs legislation is based on an out-dated deficit model and that it does not reflect the children's rights model as set out in the Children Scotland Act 1995. Concerns over a possible conflict between this children's rights model and the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 also surfaced in the recent consultation exercise on the draft Education Bill currently before the Scottish Parliament.
Scottish Ministers have listened to these concerns and have sought to reflect a children's rights model by including within the Education Bill a specific right for every child of school age to be provided with school education by a local authority. They are also bringing forward a provision which would establish a presumption that school education will take place within a "mainstream" school, subject to this being in the best interest of the child; compatible with the efficient education of the children with whom they are educated; and that the costs of inclusion in mainstream school are not disproportionate. This presumption will not affect a parent's right to make a placing request to another mainstream school or to a special school.
There was particular concern expressed during consultation on the Riddell Report that the Records of Needs process should be reviewed. Views were expressed by a number of local authorities and professionals that the current process is too cumbersome, time-consuming and discriminatory in practice. Parents expressed concerns over the time taken to open Records, variations in recording rates, and the lack of statutory appeal rights over provision to meet children's needs. Ministers have noted these concerns and have agreed that the Records of Needs process should be reviewed.
The National SEN Forum will examine the current Records of Needs process and will advise on how this can be improved or updated.
In December 1997 the UK Government established a Disability Rights Task Force "to consider how best to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people within the context of our wider society". The Task Force's remit covered school education, youth services and further and higher education (including adult education), vocational training and qualifications.
The Task Force took the view that there should be an overarching principle that disabled children have a right not to be discriminated against in school education and recommended that new duties should be placed on all providers of school education not to discriminate, "without justification", against disabled children on the grounds of their disability.
Legislation on disability matters is reserved to the UK Parliament and the UK Disability Rights in Education Bill will take forward the Task Force's education recommendations. Consultation on the proposals to be contained in the Bill is currently underway and is being conducted in Scotland by the Scottish Sensory Centre on behalf of the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). Officials in the Scottish Executive Education Department are liasing closely with officials in the DfEE to ensure that Scottish interests are fully addressed, as the draft Bill is prepared.
The Bill will apply new duties in Scotland to education authorities, grant-aided and independent schools. It will place duties on education providers not to discriminate unfairly against children and students with disabilities; to make reasonable adjustments to policies and premises where existing arrangements discriminate against such children and students; and to provide appropriate alternatives where such changes are not possible.
The Scottish Executive will take forward the devolved issue of a duty on education authorities to plan to improve provision for disabled pupils.
Over recent years the integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream schooling has increased significantly. In particular, children with hearing or visual impairment are now commonly found in a mainstream setting. Teachers of such pupils in special schools or special classes are required by the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956 to be qualified teachers and to hold a special qualification. However there is no mandatory requirement for an appropriate specialist teaching qualification where children are taught in the mainstream setting.
Ministers have previously indicated that consideration would be given to the often conflicting views on whether mandatory arrangements should be extended to teachers in mainstream schools. This will be done as part of the wider review of the 1956 Schools Code.
The Scottish Executive has invited views on this and other issues in Improving our Schools: Consultation on the Schools Scotland Code by the end of June 2000.
Following the Riddell Advisory Committee Report Scottish Ministers indicated their support for the Committee's recommendation that current Government financial support for seven grant-aided special schools should re-allocated to the local authorities. Grant-aid to the schools is continuing in 2000-01 and the Scottish Executive has undertaken a series of meetings with the schools and with CoSLA to discuss future arrangements.
The Scottish Executive will announce decisions on revised funding arrangements for grant-aided special schools in the light of discussion with the schools and with CoSLA.
As mentioned at page 8 above the Scottish Executive will review current funding issues and supply of speech and language therapy and occupational and physiotherapy services The arrangements for this review are under consideration.
The Executive will also issue guidance, in consultation with CoSLA, on bringing the length of the school week for pupils attending special schools and units into line with their counterparts in mainstream provision
Discussions will also take place on issues relating to the supply and funding of trainee educational psychologists. This follows the commitment given by Ministers to review the position after two years following the announcement in 1998 of additional funding to increase the number of trainee educational psychologists from 24 to 34 per year.
|
|
|