Changing for the Better – The Oxfordshire Experience

1. Changing for the Better – The Oxfordshire Experience Simon Adams

2. Oxfordshire • 155,700 (0-19) children and young people. • 234 primary schools, 34 secondary schools, 13 special schools and 1 PRU • Contrasts: • Oxfordshire is the most rural county in the South East region. Over 50% of people in Oxfordshire live in settlements of less than 10,000 people. • There are ten areas within the bottom ten per cent of all areas in England with high child poverty • Three of the five Districts score in the top ten per cent of affluence nationally

3. Where We Were • “Stalinist” approach to SEN • Bureaucratic • Wasteful use of resources • Mistrusted • Unfair • Opaque • Unknowing

4. What Were We Doing? • Investing in ICT and data e.g.SIMS,EMS, • Reshaping SEN services • Linking with other agencies • Adopting an area approach • Reducing out-county places • Retaining special schools, widening their role and creating consistency in admissions • Reducing transport costs • Reinvesting in services and schools

5. What Did We Want? • Fairness • Embedded inclusive values • Resources linked to need • Early intervention • Flexibility of response • Expert advice to teachers • Parental and school confidence • and… effective financial management

6. A Change of Authority Culture • No instant miracle cures • Clarity of values and purpose • Efficiency and effectiveness • Acquiring, cleaning and using data • Consistency, openness and fairness • Involvement, challenge and support • Letting go – decisions and resources

7. What Do Statements Provide? • Multi-professional information and guidance on a child’s needs • Targeted resources for individuals • Parental confidence and security • A requirement for special schools

8. But … • All that information is available without a Statement • The resources can be available without delay and for all children with SEN • Services can be linked to need not bureaucracy • Parental confidence can be secured by the school and the knowledge that a Statement is available • Around 90% of assessments were requested by schools not parents • LA maintains ultimate legal responsibility but schools actually educate children, not LAs

9. And.. • The very existence of Statements marks out children as different – it is not inclusive • There is an artificial divide between those with and those without Statements • Statements can contribute to certain children being seen as someone else’s responsibility • Funds residing with central authorities impose a barrier to schools meeting needs • Low correlation between Statements and SEN

10. So Statements… • Aren’t fair, • Aren’t effective • Are bureaucratic and costly • Waste SENCO and service time • Leave educational decisions to bureaucrats • Hamper effective school level decisions • Don’t match resources to need • And are are rigid and restrictive

11. A Reminder “Trusting the professional judgement of teachers is at the core of, and essential to, the efficient tackling of SEN” “Decisions on spending should be taken at the lowest possible level” “In no area is (the) commitment to excellence and equality of opportunity more important than in the area of SEN and inclusion”

12. National (English!) Picture • Statutory Assessment and Statements of SEN in Need of Review? Audit Commission 2002 • LEA Strategy for the Inclusion of of Pupils with SEN. Ofsted 2002 • Reducing Reliance on Statements. An Investigation into LA Practice and Outcomes. Anne Pinney (for DfES) 2003 • Removing Barriers to Achievement. DfES 2004

13. Reducing Reliance on Statements “Explore, with schools, the delegation of the statementing budget in order to ensure practical support is available to meet children’s needs as quickly and flexibly as possible” Oxfordshire SEN Strategy 2004

14. Key Elements • “With schools” • “Budget delegation” • “Practical support” • “Quickly and flexibly”

15. Not… • Doing to schools • Cutting budgets • Removing support • Being cumbersome or rigid

16. What We Did • Built on accepted approaches • Improved LA practice • Encouraged confidence through openness • Innovated together • Listened and responded • Shared aspirations

17. The Working Group • Governors, unions, heads, officers, advisors, EPs, Parent Partnership • Agreed aims and principles • Opened the books to scrutiny • Created a huge range of models • Produced innumerable drafts

18. Consulting • Informal/formative consultation to engage key parties and encourage feedback • Briefings and workshops – politicians, parents, teachers, heads, governors • Refined, rethought and redrafted

19. The Model • Delegate most/all the Statementing budget to secondary schools • Delegate much of the Statementing budget to primary schools • Maintain the existing criteria for statutory assessment • Retain and strengthen SEN Services

20. The SEN Index • A measure of socio-economic deprivation* - 30% • School assessment of SEN (SEN registers) - 30% • A measure of attainment of school intake - 40% (End of key stage 1 and 2 results). * includes Children in Public Care or with English as an Additional Language (EAL).

21. Socio-economic Measure • All pupils traced, via postcodes, to areas of 300 to 400 houses. • Each area has an Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI), based on factors such as the number of families receiving income support. • From this an overall score for the school is calculated. • The formula also includes a small element for EAL and in Public Care.

22. School Assessment Of SEN • Schools provide total number on SEN register. • SEN registers are checked against previously submitted data. • Analysed against the other two elements of the index (which have a very strongly correlation). • Where SEN registers fall outside the expected level, which may be for perfectly valid reasons, schools are contacted. • If necessary, follow up visits take place.

23. Pupil Attainment • For primary schools the KS1 performances for reading, writing and maths in the previous summer are converted to points and averaged. • For secondary schools the performance at key stage 2 is used: English, maths and science are pointed and averaged. • The resultant scores are ranked and the lowest 10% of pupils weighted at 2 points. The next 10% are given 1 point and the remaining 80% are given zero. • As a one-year score is volatile scores are averaged over a number of years.

24. Applying The Index • Secondary Schools Funding for all pupils with SEN, including those with statements, is delegated to secondary schools using the SEN Index. • Primary Schools For most primary schools funding is delegated to provide up to 15 TA hours p.w. or equivalent. • Small Primary Schools For the hundred primary schools with the smallest whole school budgets, funding equivalent to 5 hours of additional provision is delegated.

25. Top-up Funding • Funding is retained centrally to top–up provision for individual pupils in primary schools with needs beyond the provision already delegated to schools. • Top-up funding is considered by a panel of heads officers and services when a statement is being drawn up or following an annual review. For small primary schools, a request may be made for additional funding. • Clear, agreed evidence on use of existing delegated funding is then considered by a panel of heads, officers, Senior EP, SEN service managers

26. What Is Expected Of Schools? • Provide for all their pupils’ needs from delegated funds (plus top-ups in primary schools) • Maintain and review plans and provision in line with the SEN Code of Practice • Carry out self evaluation audit at least three yearly but usually annually • Maintain SEN register as part of SIMS school data and allow electronic collection by the LA

27. What Is Expected Of The LA? • Top-up funding for primary age pupils • Provision of special school places, as appropriate • Continue to monitor school performance • Provide free SEN specialist service advice, training and, where appropriate, in school teaching/support e.g VI and HI • Comply with legislation on existing Statements • Carry out statutory assessments where requested • Provide feedback to schools on data collected

28. Monitoring • The LA has a statutory duty to monitor the use of resources delegated to schools for SEN. • An annual inclusion profile is provided for every school containing contextual, resources and progress data on vulnerable pupils. • This information is used to prioritise schools for further support to help raise achievements of vulnerable pupils and to safeguard their rights and entitlements. • On a three yearly cycle all schools are supported, by officers and advisors, with their Inclusion Self-evaluation (From Audit to Action).

29. Did It Work?

30. Statutory Assessments

31. Number of Assessments 2005-2008

32. Were Parents Satisfied?

33. Outcomes • Delegation of all statement funding for secondary schools and partial for primary schools with: • Greater autonomy for schools • Strengthening of self evaluation and monitoring procedures • Reduced bureaucracy increased school time and funding • Central SEN services retained • Performance measures and outcomes remain good: • Tribunals remain low compared with statistical neighbours and nationally • Inclusion in mainstream is high • Very low user of out county/area placements • Improved pupil performance • School level review of all delegated SEN funding resulted in: • - head teachers agreeing to not increase the overall delegated funding

34. External Evidence “Overall it was very difficult to find differences in the way the children where treated with and without statements. Children were regularly reviewed whether they had a statement or were on School Action Plus and had similar access to interventions and support. Similarly, parent feedback was not distinguishable between the two groups”. Oxford Brookes University Research Study for the Lamb Enquiry 2009

35. Other Judgements • 100% of statements completed within 26 weeks, with and without exceptions • Regional Adviser describes Oxfordshire as having ‘very good practice in terms of SEN systems and budget management’. • Identified ‘as an area where good practice has been developed in managing SEN/AEN resources and using data to measure impact’. Audit Commission 2009 • OFSTED judged 65% of schools good or outstanding in SEN

36. OFSTED “How effective, efficient and inclusive is the provision of education, integrated care and any extended services in meeting the needs of learners?” OFSTED Overall Effectiveness Judgement

37. Time To Think Again? “There is no correlation between the socio-economic profile of LAs and the level of Statements. However there is a strong link between the socio-economic profile and the proportion of pupils with SEN overall. This confirms the link between SEN and deprivation, but points to the influence of local policy on statementing practice”. Reducing Reliance on Statements – Anne Pinney 2003

38. ..and finally… You can't motivate people to do things, you can only demotivate them. The primary job of the manager is not to empower but to remove obstacles. S. Adams* *Scott Adams