---

Special Educational Needs (Information) Bill

Yes. That is another very good idea, which we should explore further in Committee. The Government recognise the needs, to which I referred, in chapter 3 of 2004’s ““Removing Barriers to Achievement”” report. There is a specific commitment to working with the Teacher Training Agency to improve awareness among teachers of the signs of SEN. The Education (Special Educational Needs) (Information) (England) Regulations 1999—Members may recognise the title—amends the Education Act 1996, just as my Bill does, so we have been here before. The regulations state that schools must provide information on how resources are allocated to and among pupils with SEN, and on how their needs are identified and kept under review, yet parliamentary questions on this issue still go unanswered. There are further commitments in the ““Removing Barriers to Achievement”” report that I hope my Bill will bring into sharp focus. For example, is enough being done to develop training? I of course welcome the recent announcement of £18 million of funding to support teachers who want to specialise in SEN, but it would be desirable for money to be found to train all teachers to spot the most common forms of SEN. The report also talks of a new ““cadre”” of teachers who will become change champions for SEN in schools. Through the framework set out in my Bill, we can predict and provide progress on this laudable objective. It is my firm belief that the Government are well aware of the major challenges facing schools in delivering SEN provision and are working hard towards meeting these challenges. Indeed, when I first held discussions with colleagues on what could be done to improve available information on outcomes for SEN pupils, it quickly became clear that the Government are on the same page as many campaigners. However, I want this Bill to push things forward. That is why I call on Ministers to extend the current categorisation of SEN under the pupil level annual school census down to school action level. That would change the status quo whereby only statemented children and children at school action-plus level have their type of SEN recorded. The latest available figures show that of the 19.2 per cent. of children identified as having SEN, 2.9 per cent. are statemented and 16.4 per cent. are at school action-plus or school action level. Of this 16.4 per cent. of children who have a recognised SEN but no statement, about two thirds are at school action level. Therefore, for almost half of all children identified as having SEN, there is no indicator of what type of SEN they have. For as long as this situation persists, it will be difficult to see the full scale of SEN in our education system. By extending the recording of the type of SEN to school action level, we will place an onus on teachers to identify and consider more carefully the type of need a child has, rather than just acknowledging that the need exists. That would be a bonus to both the work force and pupils. Extending categorisation would provide a clearer picture across the board—for parents, campaigners and the Government. I welcome the piloting of a census of the education work force. If extended, that would initiate a system that would enable us to monitor effectively the huge range of skills available to children across the country within our education work force. It should also enable accurate recording of the skills possessed by special educational needs co-ordinators. Ensuring that all SENCOs are teachers and that newly appointed SENCOs hold a valid qualification is another step toward improving outcomes that has already been taken, and which should be welcomed. It reflects the promises given in ““Removing Barriers to Achievement”” and, should my Bill be passed, I hope that consideration will be given to how the work force census can reinforce the delivery and monitoring of support for and eventual outcomes for children with SEN. I mentioned at the start of my speech that several organisations are very supportive of the Bill, and it would be helpful to draw on some of their comments. The Special Educational Consortium, which represents some 100 member organisations from the charitable and voluntary sector, says that this issue"““is so important, as we can only improve expectations by improving data on children’s progress.””" In its report on SEN, Ofsted made it clear that low expectations are a significant factor in the underachievement of children with SEN. It states:"““Currently there is insufficient information available to adequately identify the scale of SEN within our schools and monitor the effectiveness of the support SEN pupils receive.””" My Bill seeks directly to address this issue, and I hope that those points have helped to reinforce its objectives in the minds of all Members here today. The statistics show that children with SEN are eight times more likely to be expelled from school, and that young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are twice as likely to have no qualifications if they have SEN. That is a terrible waste of talent, so let us ensure that we can keep an eye on these statistics, and, hopefully, watch them improve.