By Jim Bowyer, CEO The Skylark Partnership
Listening to the obituaries of Sir Tim Brighouse, it was not surprising to hear that as a child he had been ‘school phobic’ at his first secondary school and successful at his second. Listening to him at any conference was always uplifting and it always felt like the education philosophy he espoused was based on an understanding that everybody matters, a philosophy that those of us working in SEND and AP education fully understand. The day before Sir Tim’s death the latest version of the statutory guidance for educating children who cannot attend school because of their health needs was published by the DfE. So what does this mean for children today who, while we no longer describe them as school phobic, find schools a place of fear?
The latest guidance is more detailed than its 2003 predecessor, the link to statutory guidance for schools is reinforced by the outlining of a school’s initial responsibilities. It also emphasises how continuing access to education for children who are ill is covered by the Equalities Act and that schools should make reasonable adjustments for students whose illness affects their attendance, which should help schools justify a more flexible approach to meeting student needs, especially if this is seen as a positive when schools are inspected.
The role of the LA as commissioner and quality assurer is emphasised, and there is far more detail around how provision should be funded with a strong implication that schools should make a contribution to the cost of LA provision, in tandem with the funding from high needs budgets. The clarity on aligning what should happen with regards to funding in cases where children are removed from a school’s roll with the guidance for children who are excluded is new and does provide some safeguards for preventing the off rolling of ill children by schools.
The clear definition of ‘Hospital Education’ is unsurprising, coupled to the contents of the funding paragraph, it prepares the ground for long awaited clarification and adjustments to the national hospital education funding, last altered over 10 years ago. LAs and providers would do well to have a comprehensive understanding of how the hospital education element of the high needs block was calculated at the time of the move from the previous LA recuperation funding method in preparation for any future changes. This clear definition does not acknowledge the advances in health care provision that mean in more cases, children's health care plans are delivered outside of hospitals. This may help to clarify funding but harks back to historic health care delivery.
Due to it being included in the 2006 Pupil Registration legislation, disappointingly the guidance does not remove the ability of schools to remove children who are ill from their roll.
Most schools follow good practice in including and supporting children who are ill, however while this remains an option, it will mean that off rolling will still be a risk for some.
The previous versions of the guidance also had a greater emphasis on provision being a temporary situation, supporting the most desirable outcome for children being a return to their school. There has always been a tension in this sector between the most successful outcome being a return to school and successful engagement with AP being the next best option. It was a tension that providers had in the most part come to terms with and used to help students reengage with ‘mainstream’ provision after GCSEs. While reintegration to school is included, the expectation of a child returning to school does not feel as strong in the new guidance. This is unfortunate: long established effective practice has been to set the ambition for a return to school when the student is ready; this guidance does not feel as supportive of this approach.
Overall, the guidance builds on previous versions, it strengthens the right of children to receive education while reducing the emphasis on children returning to their school at the earliest opportunity and prepares for more clarity on funding mechanisms. An evolution rather than a revolution.