Doran Review publishes interim report
As you will have seen from my previous blogs, I am chairing an independent and strategic review of learning provision for children and young people with complex additional support needs.
Today, I am publishing my interim report. This is for anyone with an interest in the review and will outline why it is being undertaken, what it is aiming to achieve and emerging themes following its first phase. It also sets out what I feel are the key questions we need to answer in the second phase.
These are:
- What are the barriers to the efficient interaction between local and national provision and how could these be improved?
- How can we improve assessment and decision making, recognizing the importance of effective and efficient collaboration across Education, Social Work and Health services and with children and families.
- What lessons can we learn from other international models and from research to deliver better outcomes for children and young people.
- What role should the Scottish Government play, including the use of national funding, in ensuring that every child and young person in Scotland has their additional support needs identified, prioritised and met, across all provision including local authorities, the independent sector, and the grant-aided special schools?
I would very much welcome any comments you may have on these key questions.
A key aspect of the second phase will be further engagement with all stakeholders and I will pay particular attention to seeking the views and experiences of parents, carers and children and young people.
I am planning to make my final recommendations to the Scottish Government in the Spring of 2012. Between now and then my focus will remain on what is in the best interests of Scotland’s children and young people. In retaining that focus, I believe this review has the potential to have a significant impact on the experiences and life chances of the children and young people who most need our support in order to realise their potential.
Peter Doran
Chair, Doran Review
www.doranreview.org
Previous blogs by Peter Doran
Review launched for children & young people with additional support needs
The Doran Review
9 comments
Is it just me – or does the education industry ( and lets face it is an industry) spend 90% of its time on 10% of the problem. When will we see anything meaningful on teaching mainstream subjects to mainstream kids? Or maybe I am jumping the gun – someone care to point me in the direction of the cost of this report to the public purse.
Hi Fraser,
The reason is that this group (while comparatively costly and difficult to educate) are even costlier and difficult to maintain through life uneducated.
Leaving aside any questions of equity, straight economics means that it makes sense for the state to try and get this right.
I think the cost of the Report works out at about 10% (by coincidence) of the annual cost of keeping one teenager in prison.
@frasershaw
Thank you for your comment. Throughout the review process I have been, and remain, keen to welcome all views however challenging or controversial. In response to your comment, I cannot accept your suggestion that children and young people who have complex additional support needs are a percentage “problem”. All young people have the right to be fully included in our school system and in society. This review is about ensuring that all barriers to that inclusion which can be removed are removed. As for cost, this review has been mostly sustained, to date, by the time and energy given freely by individuals and by organisations that share the vision of the review as detailed in the interim report. The full financial costs of the review will also be available when the review is completed.
Peter Doran
Chair, Doran Review
Mr Doran
Im sorry I dont understand your comment. Everything is a percentage of something – unless of course you have unlimited resources? I read the review and found it worthy. But very short on practicalities. I fully support opportunity and inclusion for all – but thats a really easy thing to say – less easy to do – unless you are going to examine how it will be delivered? otherwise this report is a purely “political” statement. I think Mr Rutherglen is absolutely correct that good provision for those in need should be massively cost effective whilst at the same time improving the lives of the individual and raising the country as a whole thats not in contention – and I am not saying that this report is not a good idea or not worth doing.
The thrust of my argument – bearing in mind that sources of real information for the general tax payer parent are limited to websites such as this – is that the information is massively biased away from the three Rs and normal everyday teaching of core subjects and core pupils. I am sick of reading about gaelic and other minority interest educational issues being pumped up out of all proportion (I admit that would have been a better direction to take a swipe).
When will I see a simple article on what the education department is doing to improve the teaching of HIgher grade physics? There seems to be a huge amount of effort put into shiny websites that say very very little about anything. Other than proclaiming how good everything is – its marketing pure and simple – and Im not sure I want my taxes spent on promotion – I would prefer some simple Facts
So not to criticise the actual content Mr Doran – but where is your counterpart in the mainstream? I apologise that yours was the entry that got it in the neck – It is an important area – but unless we churn out plenty of engineers and scientists from the mainstream – there will be no taxes in the future to pay for it all.
@frasershaw Once again thank you for you comments. Of course we would all agree that improving every aspect of our education system is important and I remain committed to ensuring that this review delivers improvements for the children and young people who have complex additional support needs. Some of the points you raise, however, are outwith the scope of my review and I trust you will understand why I will leave those points aside.
@frasershaw Thanks for your comments, I’m currently working on improving the Engage For Education website and looking to ensure we cover all areas of education, and specifically that our discussion is as much focused on what the community would like to talk about as well as anything topical.
I think your suggestion of focusing on specific subjects is a really good one and wonder if other Engage readers feel the same? Next week on Engage we will be asking for future discussion suggestions. I would be grateful if you would add any more ideas of anything you would like to see discussed or highlighted on Engage there, or tweet it to us meantime at @EngageForEd.
Thanks,
Andy Thomson, Engage Community Manager.
I think Andy Thomson’s initiative is to be welcomed. Some points for discussion could include:
* ensuring that politicians of all stripes when challenged on this forum actually answer FULLY and CLEARLY the questions of their electorate
*the use of moderation
*partisanship amongst civil servants
*SQA and the great qualifications mystery
I look forward to the coming week!!
The differing views of Messrs Doran and Frasershaw may not matter all that much anyway as most Education Authorities are currently cutting support and support staff to the bone (if not beyond). Likely results include: massive increase in challenging behaviour; more students of all levels of need suffering; further teacher disillusion; more irate parents and carers.
On the Interim Report itself, I thought the approach was logical and considered overall but I felt that it gave the impression of having been driven by a publication deadline rather than allowing it the space and time to arrive at settled conclusions.
Central to addressing any issue is assessing its scale and nature and this is still “work in progress” in terms of national need. Similarly the available education resource to meet this need is unclear, particularly in the LA Sector (where the line between “complex” and “additional” needs are most blurred).
I feel more work is needed to take the currently available information to a position where it can be reasonably robust.
I wouldn’t quibble with the generality of the summary conclusions except for “current (National) funding is inequitable and lacking in evidence of effectiveness”. This statement is true of ASL provision in all Sectors. If anything the Independent Schools’ structures mean that (as they are stand-alone cost centres) they are at least easier to account for expenditure.
Of course, the next time data under Sections 26A & 27A (1) (d) of the 2004 Act (as amended 2009) are published all may become clear.
An area where there is still a gaping hole is any robust assessment of the impact on these children and the consequential savings to the state in the future. Again this is a feature in both “additional” and “complex” needs.
I trust that whatever conclusions the second stage of the Review comes to that it will be soundly based on an objective assessment of all Sectors’ contributions to meeting need and finds a way to defuse the institutional vested interests (on all sides) that currently seem to drag children, parents and carers into a gratuitously confrontational decision making process.