Funding Inclusive Education

The Economic Realities

Alan J. Marsh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351765503
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Social Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This title was first published in 2003.Funding for pupils with special educational needs has created resource management difficulties for schools and budgetary control problems for LEAs. Special educational needs is a frequent area of LEA overspending. These issues are particularly important as the development of inclusion and raising attainment for all pupils are key Government priorities. Many LEAs are now considering revisions of their funding formulae for additional and special educational needs during Best Value Reviews and Fair Funding consultations. This stimulating and accessible book examines the policy context for formula funding and the design and accountability issues for the construction of a revised formula. One of the central themes is the idea that a funding formula should be viewed as a key instrument of policy to assist in delivering specific inclusive policy objectives to meet the additional and special educational needs of pupils.

Chapter 1
Introduction

Aims, Key Questions and Chapter Structure

The main aim of the book is to investigate the principles and practice for allocating additional resources by formula funding, to provide inclusive education for pupils with additional and special educational needs (AEN/SEN) but without statements within the context of Fair Funding and Local Management of Schools (LMS). There will also be two subsidiary aims. The first subsidiary aim is to investigate how the purposes underlying differential funding for special educational needs affect the rules for allocation embodied in a funding formula. The second subsidiary aim is to examine the funding relationship for non-statemented special educational needs and pupils with statements in an attempt to develop a coherent approach to resourcing throughout the continuum of SEN. Each of the subsidiary aims is addressed through more specific key questions (see Table 1.1).

The book is in two main parts. Firstly, in Chapters One to Four, a theoretical component provides the key questions, a thorough analysis of the conceptualisation of special educational needs, an examination of the principles for evaluating a funding formula and provides a critique of Fair Funding/LMS and its effects on special educational needs. Secondly, in Chapters Five and Six, there is an empirical component, which presents evidence from two national surveys and case studies from two LEAs.

In Chapter Onethe aims and key questions are formulated. Chapter Two discusses the conceptualisation of special educational needs and also examines the two main purposes for allocating additional funding for special educational needs i.e. effectiveness and equity. Chapter Three presents a set of criteria against which school funding formulae should be judged. Chapter Four attempts to draw out the historic association between special educational needs with provision and funding by consideration of the pertinent government circulars of guidance relating to both of these areas.

The empirical and technical component of the book will focus on the areas of resource definition, resource allocation and resource management. Chapter Five considers current practice for funding AEN/SEN within LEAs by exploring two national surveys.

Chapters Sixexamines the resource allocation issue of how the quantity of resources allocated for specific forms of special educational need is determined. Chapter Seven provides the summary and conclusions. It will draw on the findings to the key questions listed in Chapter One. Particular attention will be paid to Coopers and Lybrand's (1996a) fourth strategic policy area of resource monitoring and accountability.

Table 1.1 Summary Table to show Aims, Key Questions, Methods and Chapter Structure

Main aim: to investigate the principles and practice of allocating additional resources by formula funding, to provide inclusive education for pupils with additional and special educational needs (AEN/SEN) within the context of Local Management of Schools (LMS) and Fair Funding.
AIMS	KEY QUESTIONS	METHODS
First subsidiary aim: to investigate how the purposes underlying differential funding for additional or special educational needs affect the rules or principles for allocation embodied in a funding formula.	Q1 How does the conceptualisation of special educational needs impact upon inclusion policy within Local Education Authorities? (Chapter Two)	Evidence will be presented from the literature about how the conceptualisation of SEN can be viewed from two main policy discourses i.e. 'special needs pupil' and 'school and teacher effectiveness' discourses.
	Q2 What contradictions and tensions are apparent when the purposes of providing additional funding for special educational needs are examined? (Chapter Two)or criteria should be considered when evaluating a funding formula and how do they relate to the purpose of the additional funding? (Chapter Three)	Further evidence will be presented from the research literature about the main purposes and principles which should be considered in detail when constructing or designing an AEN/SEN formula for inclusive education.

Second subsidiary aim : to examine the funding relationship between pupils with additional and special educational needs but without statements and pupils with statements in an attempt to develop a coherent approach to resourcing inclusive education throughout the continuum of SEN.	Q4 What have been the historical arrangements for funding pupils with additional and special educational needs? (Chapter Four)	Reference will be made to the government circulars of guidance and other research evidence from the literature relating to the arrangements and provision for special educational needs.
	Q5 What is the current practice in LEAs with regard to resource definition, resource allocation and resource management? (Chapter Five)	Two national surveys will be scrutinized to consider current practice in LEAs for resourcing additional and special educational needs (AEN/SEN) and will look at the areas of resource definition and resource allocation.
	Q6 What is the relationship between additional and special educational needs and resource levels and how does this match professional views? (Chapter Six)	Case studies will be presented from two LEAs (Whiteshire and Mercia, 8 schools in total) to examine the different levels of additional teaching arrangements provided for AEN/SEN pupils with and without statements. The school's special educational needs policy will be examined in detail and views will be sought from relevant professionals on the proposed resources thought to be necessary to meet the needs of specified pupils.

Q7 Is it worthwhile for LEAs to differentiate financially between different levels of need? (Chapter Six)

Key Questions 1 to 3 (Chapters Two andThree) relate to the first subsidiary aim i.e. to investigate how the purposes underlying differential funding for additional or special educational needs affect the rules or principles for allocation embodied in a funding formula (see Table 1.1). The DfES guidance (DfES, 2001b) on the Distribution of Resources to Support Inclusion provides assistance with the distinction between the terms of additional educational needs and special educational needs.

Schools are required to support the diverse learning needs of different groups of pupils. These include pupils with special educational needs as defined in section 312 of the 1996 Education Act and those with other additional needs for whom some form of additional or different educational provision is required. Where the term Additional Educational Needs (AEN) is used in this guidance it is taken to include all children and young people for whom some form of additional or exceptional educational provision is required. Children with severe or complex special educational needs are included within this wider group (para. 1.4.1).

Key Question 1. How does the conceptualisation of special educational needs impact upon inclusion policy within Local Education Authorities?

A fundamental issue of concern to this book is a full consideration of the concept, definition, identification and measurement of special educational needs. A review of the literature appears in Chapter Two. Particular attention is paid throughout the thesis to Galloway, Armstrong and Tomlinson's (1994) set of policy discourses, which provide a good basis for viewing the problem of how special educational needs should be conceptualised. Galloway et al. consider that the confusion over the term 'special educational needs' is not essentially one of identifying criteria, but rather of deciding when the term is appropriate. They describe three areas of policy discourse which have emerged about the causes and the solutions to the 'problem' of widespread low and/or under-achievement. This book will concentrate on two of these areas. Firstly, the 'special needs pupil' discourse which places emphasis on a careful assessment of the individual pupil to determine whether extra support is required in order to meet the needs of that child. This discourse concentrates on identifying the supposedly fixed characteristics of children with special needs and is predicated on the notion of help for the individual child.

Secondly, the 'school and teacher effectiveness' discourse which is based on research demonstrating the impact of schools on their pupils' progress and behaviour (e.g. Rutter et al., 1979; Mortimore et al., 1988; Smith and Tomlinson, 1989; Sammons, Hillman and Mortimore, 1995). This discourse has grown in response to the overemphasis of 'within-child' variables or the concentration on individuals' deficiencies observed in the special needs discourse. The 'school and teacher effectiveness' discourse sees special needs less as a social construct than as the product of the failure of various aspects of the educational system to respond to real differences between children. This discourse is concerned with the whole school context and uses research which demonstrates the impact of schools on their pupils' progress and behaviour. Although there are important differences between the 'special needs pupil' discourse and the 'school and teacher effectiveness' discourse, the contrast should not be over elaborated, as school effectiveness research does not ignore the powerful impact of pupil background factors such as socio-economic status of pupils. School effectiveness studies demonstrate the strength of the statistical links between such factors and prior attainment measures in value added studies and argue that it is because of these strong links that 'like with like' comparisons with schools (which explicitly control for intake differences) are more appropriate than raw league tables of test or exam results (see Fitz-Gibbon, 1996). The concept of differential school effectiveness is also important and is discussed in more detail by Sammons et al. (1993) and Sammons (1996). Differential school effects concern the existence of systematic differences in attainment between schools for different pupil groups (those with different levels of prior attainment or different background characteristics), once the average differences between these groups have been accounted for.

A third discourse is also described by Galloway et al. namely the 'school failure' discourse, which is essentially a political variant of the school and teacher effectiveness discourse and sees the problem as poor teaching and outdated ideology.

In this book I shall reflect on the role that the discourses have played in the policy and practice of formula funding for inclusive education. It became clear to me that the discourses also constitute a theoretical basis for attaining an objective (Fulcher, 1989 p.8). If the 'special needs pupil' discourse occurred in relation to formula funding for inclusion and special educational needs, there should be evidence of factors and assessment information relating to the individual pupil. On the other hand if formula funding and special educational needs were to proceed according to the 'school and teacher effectiveness' discourse, it would be expected to have a focus on curriculum delivery and on the teacher's work rather than with individual pupils.

Significantly, during the fieldwork for this book, a general election took place in May 1997 and the new government quickly published a White Paper Excellence in Schools (DfEE, 1997a) in July 1997. The White Paper was felt by Hattersley (1997) to be based on the assumption that 'bad schools' are the products of poor teachers, who too often accept low levels of achievement as the inevitable fate of children from working class homes. This comment by the former deputy leader of the Labour party, echoes Galloway, Armstrong and Tomlinson's (1994) view that the 1988 Education Act was also based on the 'school failure' discourse. The Green Paper on special educational needs Excellence for all Children (DfEE, 1997b) published 3 months later in October 1997, built on the Code of Practice (DfEE, 1994a) with its emphasis on the 'special needs pupil' policy discourse. The two governmental papers give a good illustration of the importance of Key Question 1. This issue of the conceptualisation of SEN is a constant and important thread throughout this book.

Key Question 1 considers the impact on the development of the concept and the scope of special educational needs by the 1944, 1981, 1988, 1993, 1996 and 2001 Education Acts. The discussion will encompass children's rights and the definition, identification and measurement of special educational needs. It will also consider the views of educationalists who feel that a radical reconceptualisation of the state of provision for special needs is necessary (e.g. Dyson and Gains, 1993).

Throughout this book there is a complex interplay of tensions, A technical perspective of formula construction has to be balanced against a thorough analysis of the issues and consequences of following such an approach e.g. Barton, 1993. Such an analysis has been attempted inChapter Two. Additionally the research reported in this book demonstrates that LEAs are moving towards more needs driven formulae to match provision and resources with identified needs (see Chapter Five). However this approach carries the danger of labelling or classifying learners in a way that places the emphasis on a 'child deficit' model of SEN without due regard to the contextual variables.

The outcome of following an approach resulting from the 'special needs' discourse is that there may be a reinforcement of disempowerment for both children with special educational needs and their...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The Conceptualisation of Special Educational Needs and the Purposes of Providing Additional Funding
• 3 Funding Principles
• 4 Historic Funding of Special Educational Needs and the Relationship with Formula Funding
• 5 Funding Methods used by Local Education Authorities to Determine Special Educational Needs
• 6 The Continuum of Funding and Special Educational Needs
• 7 Summary and Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index