NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


A Finnish lesson that we must learn


IT WAS a pleasure this week to attend a lecture at the Houses of Parliament about the secrets behind the success of the Finnish education system. It was standing room only


Pete


Henshaw Editor SecEd


in Committee Room 14 as Dr Pasi Sahlberg, author of the book Finnish Lessons, presented his analysis as to why Finland has remained at the top of the OECD education league tables ever since their creation over a decade ago. With England facing a huge amount of educational policy


change and with an education minister who has insisted that he wants to learn from the best countries around the world, I was interested to see just how our current trajectory matched up to Finland’s recipe for educational excellence. Dr Sahlberg said that a “global education reform


movement” was spreading “like a virus” through many countries at the moment. He said the ideals of this reform were polar opposite to the Finnish approach. He listed four traits of these global reforms versus four


Finnish traits. You can read a full report on page one, but I want to consider here how England matches up to Finland in these four key areas. Surely, if Michael Gove is genuine in his ambition to learn lessons from the best in the world, there will be plenty of parallels. 1, Standardisation vs personalisation: In Finland,


students are assessed (by teachers) against their own abilities (not a national average or standard). In England, we have national tests and compare all students against a national, and increasingly academically focused average. There are no SATs or league tables in Finland. 2, School choice vs equity: In Finland, every school is a


nine-year comprehensive, all private schools and grammars were converted 30 years ago (it is now illegal to charge tuition fees). In England, we have many different types of school, including fee-paying and grammar and this is increasing with independent academy and free schools. Dr Sahlberg says that equity of access has been core to their success. Access to an education in England is, by comparison, far from equal. 3, Test-based accountability vs trust-based


professionalism: In Finland, students are assessed by their teachers and the curriculum is designed by schools. Teaching is held in such high esteem that applications are high. There is no inspection regime. In England, while the government talks often of trusting professionals, Mr Gove has more centralised powers than any secretary of state for education has ever had. The curriculum is nationally prescribed and inspection is becoming more and more aggressive with hugely punitive measures for perceived failure. 4, Competition vs collaboration: In Finland,


professional collaboration is held as the ideal around which teachers and schools improve. In England, schemes such as teaching schools and the work of the National College has seen a significant and welcome movement in this direction in recent years. Yet the fact remains that our schools compete fiercely for pupils and league table positions – how much does this prevent truly committed collaboration? So, how do we score? Poorly. Mr Gove wants a standard


academic curriculum for all, with continued heavy testing of pupils against national averages. He wants schools to be anything but comprehensive, holding up academies, free schools and private schools as the beacons of quality. He says he trusts the profession, but the Ofsted regime and his policies, most recently his move to performance based-pay (another policy which Finland has rejected), say otherwise. Mr Gove says he wants to learn lessons from abroad,


and often quotes our poor standing against the OECD’s top countries. But these countries (Finland, Korea, Canada, Japan) all prioritise equity of access to education as highly as improving achievement and quality. Mr Gove is ignoring everything Finland has to offer,


despite often quoting them as the ideal. Equality for all across our society is key to educational excellence. Dr Sahlberg’s book is a lesson for politicians everywhere. Sadly, Mr Gove is just not on the same page.


SecEd


• Pete Henshaw is the editor of SecEd. You email him at editor@sec-ed.co.uk or find him on Twitter (@pwhenshaw).


SEN overhaul


THE DEPARTMENT for Education (DfE) has confirmed that it is to go ahead with one of the biggest overhauls of SEN provision in recent history. Proposals outlined in the SEN


Green Paper published last year were this week formally confirmed by ministers, with the changes due to be implemented by 2014. Most notably, the plans will


see the rules on what constitutes an SEN tightened up. It comes after Ofsted claimed that many low-achieving students are being wrongly identified as having special needs. Formal SEN statements and


Learning Difficulty Assessments will be scrapped and replaced with a single Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) setting out the support that a child with SEN will need from birth to 25. The School Action and School


Action Plus assessments will also be axed, with the government proposing to introduce a single category of SEN. A DfE statement said: “Ofsted


reported in September 2010 that many children, particularly those in the School Action category, were wrongly identified as having SEN when their needs were capable of being met from good teaching and pastoral support. “We propose to introduce a new


single category ofSEN to make sure the right support to raise attainment is given to the right children and we will provide tighter guidance on which children should be identified as having SEN.” However, headteachers have said


that the plans could result in children with genuine special needs slipping through the net. Brian Lightman, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders,


Headteachers are worried that proposals to streamline SEN identification could be nothing more than an exercise in cost-


cutting. Pete Henshaw takes a look


said: “I’m most worried about those children with mild learning disabilities or behavioural problems who may in future slip through the net.Tightening the criteria for being identified as having a special need must not be a cost-cutting exercise. “At the moment, children


identified as having lower levels of special need receive targeted funding and support which they wouldn’t have access to otherwise. Whether or not they are identified with special needs, these pupils will still need additional support as well as excellent teaching.” The National Association of


Head Teachers also fears that the plans are a bid to slash the numbers of children eligible for financial support. General secretary Russell Hobby added: “Statements of SEN are used to secure resources and attention for children who need it most. Reducing the number of children with statements will reduce the number of children receiving such support. Parents should be worried about this and the government should think twice before reducing schools’ ability to differentiate their provision. “The fact is there are indeed


more children with special needs. More children are surviving to school age with serious conditions than before; and we increasingly recognise some behaviour patterns as being treatable conditions that


SEN overhaul: Other reaction


The National Deaf Children’s Society “This announcement comes at a time when families are seeing support for their children vanish, along with aspirations for their futures, as the staff and budgets that enable deaf and other disabled children to achieve are cut. The government’s latest proposals show no real plans to protect these services, which are right now being swept away in a tidal wave of local authority cuts. While we welcome more choice and control for parents in principle, in reality there will be little support left for parents to choose from.”


Education law firm Browne Jacobson


“The current system is already seen to favour those parents who are better placed to argue for improved provision or have the funds to pay for expert reports to reinforce their arguments. It is unclear whether personal budgets will change this position and whether those who do not take the budget will receive a second rate service. If that is to be the case, then the stated aim of the government to eliminate inequalities in education would be seen to be failing.”


Special needs association Nasen


“Nasen does have a concern about the replacement of School Action and School Action Plus with a single assessment process and believe that schools will need advice and support on how to implement this new process. We also recognise that there may be


would have been dismissed or ignored in previous eras. This is progress. A too simplistic approach will let some children slip through the net.” Mark Lever, chief executive


of the National Autistic Society, also dismissed claims of an over- identification of SEN: “There has been much media hype over identification of SEN, but for children with autism this is not a picture we recognise. Many parents we speak to have faced a huge battle to get their child the educational help and support they need. “With the government pledging


to change how it identifies SEN, there is a danger that more children with autism will fall through the gaps in the education system.” Despite these concerns, the


plans for a single EHCP have been largely welcomed by unions and special needs charities. The EHCP will mean that children face one assessment process covering their education, health and care and that local authorities and health services will be required to jointly plan and commission this support. Parents of an SEN child with an


approved EHCP will also be able to request a personal budget, if they prefer, enabling them to buy-in the specialist support identified in the plan. They will also have a legal right to seek a place for their child in any


state-funded school of their choice – something that Mr Lightman warned could be costly for schools. He said: “It is right that parents have a greater say in how money is spent, butSEN provision is very expensive and highly specialised, and for parents to state a preference for any state-funded school is going to be costly. This is one area in which local authorities should have a role in planning and locating provision and co-ordinating admissions.” Other proposals include a new


mediation service for families who are unhappy with the support provided, while plans to give children a right of appeal if they do not like the support they are receiving will also be trialled. Local authorities will also be required to publish a “local offer”, detailing the support which is available to help SEN children. The government is currently


piloting its reforms in 20 local authorities with an interim evaluation due in the autumn and a final report next year. Children’s minister Sarah


Teather said: “The current system is outdated and not-fit-for-purpose. Thousands of families have had to battle for months, even years, with different agencies to get the specialist care their children need. It is unacceptable they are forced to go from pillar to post – facing agonising delays and bureaucracy to get support and equipment. “It is a huge step forward to


require health, education and care services work together.”


Further information


For an overview of and updates on the DfE’s SEN strategy, visit http://www.education.gov.uk/ childrenandyoungpeople/sen/ a0075339/sengreenpaper


some over-identification of SEN and we must ensure that we use this opportunity to offer all children and young people who are experiencing difficulties the best educational opportunity that we can. This will mean empowering our teachers through high quality training and professional development to meet the individual needs of all of their pupils.”


National Union of Teachers


“The proposed Education, Health and Care plans will not address the current problem of waiting times for children. They will not assist teachers who struggle to access educational psychologists, speech and language therapists or SEN advisory teachers, many of whose posts have been cut or greatly reduced. Sarah Teather should wait for the outcomes from the current SEN


pathfinders before jumping to conclusions about what will work. Taxpayer money is being invested in SEN pathfinders across the country. The findings should not be second guessed.”


The Children's Society


“The government’s aim to create a simpler and more joined up system for SEN and Disability support is very welcome – the current system can be complex and difficult to navigate for families already under a lot of stress. It should make things simpler and better for the child if they have a single plan, joining up education, health and social care services – but it'll only work if all agencies involved have a statutory duty to provide the services.”


SecEd


www.sec-ed.com


6


SecEd • May 24 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16