Tabled by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take (1) to
increase the Special Educational Needs budget in the current
financial year, and (2) to ensure that this is a separate and
protected budget line in the education sector.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ritchie of
Downpatrick, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the
Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, we are already increasing high needs funding for
children and young people with more complex special educational
needs and disabilities by £1 billion this financial year to a
total of £9.1 billion as part of a schools funding allocation of
£53.8 billion. It is important that local authorities and schools
can use their budgets flexibly to assess what provision is
required for the young people for whom they are responsible.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there are currently more than 1 million children in the
UK with special educational needs. In a Written Answer from the
Minister received by my noble friend Lady Ritchie, it was
disclosed that the mainstream allocation, which is supposed to
represent £6,000 per student, was last year £4,136. As the
funding is discretionary per local authority, as opposed to being
allocated in a separate budget line by the Government, some
children will get even less than that £4,000. In view of this,
will the Government sort the problem by simply creating a
separate budget line for SEN funding that they can then provide
to local authorities in full?
(Con)
I understand the point the noble Lord is making, but we believe
it is very important that we give schools flexibility in how they
spend their money. Local SENCOs, head teachers and other
professionals working locally will be best placed to understand
the needs of pupils in the school and the support they
require.
(LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests in this area, as in the
register. Does the Minister agree that schools are not being
properly prepared to teach children they know they will get in
their classrooms on a regular basis? It is reckoned that, on
average, you will get three dyslexics, for instance, in every
mainstream class, and those with other special educational needs
will bring that up to five, six or seven pupils. Unless we get
more training for teachers to handle these problems, which they
know are going to occur, we will always be going back to this
budget. Would it not be much more sensible to prepare teaching
staff and the establishment to handle these things without going
to a special budget?
(Con)
I think the noble Lord would acknowledge that we are working in
that area. In particular, we have been supporting teachers in the
use of assistive technology, which I know is something close to
his heart, and by professional qualifications and training
focusing on all the areas to which he alludes.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the catastrophic
pressures and impacts on dwindling LA budgets, with countless
pressures on schools themselves. What assessment have the
Government made of the number of children with unmet needs?
(Con)
The Government have made a big commitment to increasing funding
in this area. High needs funding has risen by 40% over the past
three years, but we work proactively with local authorities which
are under particular pressure. We have a safety-valve programme,
where we provide additional funding to those local authorities
that can demonstrate they have a strategy for addressing their
overspend.
of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she understood the point
being made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy; I fear I did not
entirely understand her answer. She appears to be saying that it
does not matter that schools are not getting the money per pupil
originally intended for them because they have flexibility to
spend it as they wish. I do not quite see how those two things go
together. Could she explain?
(Con)
As the noble Baroness knows, schools get two amounts of funding
for children. In the current financial year, they will receive
directly almost £9 billion, and the notional SEN budget was £4.3
billion. We believe that it is best for them to decide how that
is spent. The noble Baroness will also be aware that we are
moving to the national funding formula, which will create greater
consistency and transparency in how those funds are used.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned flexibility. We agree that
schools should have flexibility to implement support for children
with special educational needs. I have frequently been told by
parents of children with special educational needs that the
budget for their child and the staff employed are increasingly
being used to cover staffing shortages in other areas and taken
away from their children. Is that acceptable in the flexibility
she talks about?
(Con)
My Lords, I cannot comment without knowing a little more of the
detail of the case. Perhaps the noble Baroness can share that,
then I will be happy to look into it. I think that she is hinting
at some of the strains in the system in terms of provision for
children with special educational needs and those children in
alternative provision. She will be aware that we published the
SEND and AP Green Paper in March, which looks to provide a system
that works for children but is sustainable. The consultation is
open until the end of July.
The Lord
My Lords, I recently visited a school in County Durham—not a
church school in this instance—where 25% of the children had
special educational needs. The head teacher pointed out to me the
significance of not only the teachers but the teaching
assistants, and the training that they too required, and said
that there was pressure on her budget to sustain that level of
staffing with some specialism. Can the Minister comment on
that?
(Con)
Again, different schools will approach these issues in different
ways. Our commitment is to give them sufficient funding to
deliver on the needs of children. However, the right reverend
Prelate will be aware that there is some discretion in how
schools define whether a child has special educational needs. One
thing that we hope will come out of the Green Paper is much more
consistency on that.
(Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister simply saying that equalisation of
funding will be a good thing? Is it not the case that
equalisation will mean that the poorer schools with the worst
problems will have less funding than they have at present?
(Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord: that was not the impression that I
sought to give. We are looking for a consistent approach to
funding so that children with the same level of needs in two
parts of the country get the same per-pupil funding, which is not
the case today. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that that is a
good ambition.
