additional learning needs policy in the devolved polities of the uk: a systems perspective

Additional learning needs policy in the devolvedpolities of the UK: a systems perspectivejrs3_1207 28..36

Paul ChaneyCardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University

Key words: Additional learning needs, schools, devolution, policy, law.

Using a systems approach, this paper explores theimpact of devolution on additional learning needs(ALN) policy in compulsory phase education. Focusis placed on ALN/SEN Codes of Practice, theschools curriculum, teacher training, and the workof education inspectorates and tribunals. Analysisreveals that the move to quasi-federalism in the UKhas led to a raft of territorially specific policies andresulted in contrasting legal rights for pupils andparents. The prevailing policy discourse is one ofequality, inclusion and informed choice. Against thisbackground, and with a number of reforms ongoing,there is evidence of progress in embedding mea-sures to address ALN in the respective educationsystems. Notwithstanding this, analysis of the firstdecade of devolved policy and practice also revealsa number of shortcomings and challenges, includ-ing limitations in data-gathering and staff training –as well as questions about the level of cohesionbetween the three elements of education provisionidentified by systems analysis.

IntroductionThe UK’s devolution programme has potentially importantimplications for policy and practice on Additional LearningNeeds (ALN) because the founding Acts of the ScottishParliament, the National Assembly for Wales and NorthernIreland Assembly set out qualified lawmaking powers onthe promotion of equality in education and other devolvedmatters. Constitutional law also made the respective gov-ernments the lead authorities in meeting the UK’s humanrights treaty obligations in the respective state educationsystems; including the UN conventions on the Rights of theChild (UNCRC) and UN conventions on the Rights ofPersons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Rather than focusingon the policy outputs of the central government, the presentaim is to explore the under-researched development of ALNpolicy in the new ‘political spaces’ created by devolution.Current statistical analysis reveals the scale of the policychallenge facing the devolved administrations (as well asmarked variations in the proportions and numbers of pupilsin each territory – in turn, reflecting contrasting legal defi-nitions and data gathering practices). Thus, in Scotland,official data indicate that 44 176 pupils (6.5%) have addi-

tional support needs, about 1.4 per cent of pupils have alearning disability and another 1.4 per cent have social,emotional of behavioural difficulties (Scottish Government,2010).1 In Northern Ireland, the proportion of pupils withSEN has risen from 14.6 per cent in 2003 to 17.7 per cent in2007, and the proportion of pupils with statements hasincreased from 1.6 per cent in 1990 to 3.9 per cent in 2007(Department of Education for Northern Ireland, 2009a, b, c,p. 77). In Wales, the proportion of pupils with SEN is 17.98per cent of the total; a further 3.1 per cent on the schoolsrolls have statements of SEN (Statistics for Wales, 2009, p.2).

Against this background, the aims of this paper are: [1] toexplore how policy and law on ALN has developed in thedevolved polities – with reference to curriculum develop-ment, curriculum delivery and monitoring and evaluation;[2] to determine how quasi-federalism might be introducingcontrasting rights and entitlements to pupils in the devolvedjurisdictions of the unitary state; and [3] to examine thediscourse of devolved policy-making – in terms of values,goals and themes. Reflecting the divergent policy frame-works that have emerged following the move to quasi-federalism in the UK, the term Special Educational Needs(SEN) is being replaced by Additional Support Needs(ASN), and as noted, ALN. Although the locally preferredterms are used in discussing policy and practice in eachterritory, ALN is adopted here as this paper’s generic orumbrella expression when discussing cross-national policydevelopments.

The remainder of this paper is structured thus: following anoutline of relevant social theory and methodology, attentionis focused on legislative and policy developments. Institu-tional developments are also examined with reference to thework of tribunals and education inspectorates. This paperconcludes by evaluating current policy and practice in thedevolved polities.

Social theory and methodologyThis paper synthesises a number of inter-related conceptualand analytical perspectives in order to examine policydevelopments on ALN. By exploring developments in threepolities, it is part of the burgeoning literature of comparative

1 Total number of children identified.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs · Volume 12 · Number 1 · 2012 28–36doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01207.x

28© 2011 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

policy analysis (Geva-May, 2009). Inter alia, this presents‘study of how, why and to what effect different govern-ments pursue a particular course of action or inaction’(Heidenheimer, Johnston and LeVine, 1990, p. 3). Byoffering a cross-national perspective, it also adds to under-standing of the process of social policy divergence in quasi-federal states (Birrell, 2009). In addition, by focusing on thedevelopment of devolved public bodies such as tribunalsand teacher training agencies, the following discussionmoves beyond a discrete focus on government policy andrelates ‘the observed use of (policy) tools, repertoires andcapabilities to governance contexts’ (Harris and Milkis,1989; Howlett and Lindquist, 2004, p. 226). In turn, such a‘governance approach’ is consonant with the systems per-spective in educational research. As classic studies such asthat by Pfeiffer (1968) and Lave and Kyle (1968) explain:‘basic to the entire systems notion is the concept of a model,a simplified but controllable version of the real world. Thesystems approach, once the problem is defined, is to specifythe subfunctions and alternatives, build them into a totalsystem which can be evaluated and compared in terms ofbasic objectives’ (Pfeiffer (1968, p. 34). Recent applications– such as those advanced by Gaad, Arif and Scott (2006)and Arif and Gaad (2008)) – analyse three components ofeducation policy: curriculum development, curriculumdelivery and monitoring and evaluation. At the heart of thismethodology is policy discourse analysis (DeLeon, 1998;Edelman, 1988). This is part of a post-empiricist, interpre-tative approach that places an emphasis on the language ofpolicy documents in educational research (e.g., Lindbladand Popkewitz, 2000) in order that ‘ideas thus move to thecentre of policy evaluation’ (Fischer, 2003, p. 223). It is amethodology that allows an appreciation of how policy-makers formulate and construct problems, enables focus ontheir claims and rhetoric, acknowledges that policy docu-ments are complex exercises in agenda-setting power andthat policy issues may be framed in particular forms oflanguage reflecting the political viewpoints of those inpower. In terms of data sources, an exhaustive sample ofdevolved policy documents and legislation was compiledfrom the official publications of the devolved administra-tions and the websites of the ‘regional’ legislatures. Over100 documents were coded and analysed using appropriatesoftware2 in order to identify key policy aims and analyticalthemes. In addition, 24 policy evaluations and officialreports were also studied.

Additional learning needs/special educational needs –codes of practiceSince 1999, the issue of meeting additional learning needsin an effective manner has seen distinctive legal and policydevelopments in the devolved territories and the move awayfrom the UK-wide provisions on SEN as set out in theEducation Act (1996).3 In each territory, curriculum deliv-ery has been guided by separate statutory codes of practice.In the case of the SEN Code of Practice for Wales, the

definition initially used was that set out in the 1996 Act.4

However, shortly after its creation, the National Assemblyfor Wales used its secondary legislative powers5 to issue arevised Code of Practice requiring education providers toadhere to a range of general principles. Policy discourseanalysis reveals an emphasis on inclusive education provi-sion (e.g., ‘special educational needs should normally bemet in mainstream early years settings, or schools’); arecurring participatory theme (e.g., ‘the views of parentsand their children will be listened to and taken intoaccount’); and an emphasis on broad-based curriculumcontent (e.g., ‘children with special educational needsshould be offered full access to a broad, balanced and rel-evant education based on the National Curriculum’ (WelshAssembly Government, 2004, p. 2). However, the revisedCode has been subject to a number of criticisms:

Case law has established that . . . [it] has relativelyweak legal force because LEAs must merely ‘haveregard’ to it . . . there is no statutory requirement forLEAs to provide advocacy services for children withSEN . . . [thus] the current system does not allow forlocal a dispute resolution mechanism (Association ofDirectors of Education in Wales, 2007, p. 4).

In response, the Welsh government introduced an actionplan following the recommendations of a cross-partyreview of ALN (National Assembly for Wales, 2007). Here,the emphasis is on ongoing assessment of a pupil’s require-ments with ‘new statutory assessment arrangements basedon a continuously assessed record of need’. However, tra-ditional fixed-point assessments – statements – will con-tinue to be available ‘for those parents that wish to use themto help clarify provision and process but should be limitedto those children with the most severe and complex needs’.In order to implement reform, the Assembly gained primarylegislative powers in this area.6 As a result, the governmenthas announced that it will legislate to ‘strengthen the statusof the ALN Code of Practice, reform the ALN StatutoryAssessment Framework and extend the range of individualswith the right to appeal to the SEN Tribunal for Wales’.7

Recent policy and law has replaced the pre-existing defini-tion of SEN with ALN, defined as ‘persons who have agreater difficulty in learning than the majority of persons ofthe same age as those persons’.8 According to the Welsheducation minister, this definition ‘had been drafted in thebroadest possible terms and could enable the Assembly, byMeasure (the name of primary legislation equivalent to UKand Scottish Acts), to (also) make provision for personswhose difficulty in learning was as a consequence of socialcircumstance, e.g., looked-after children and young carers

2 Nvivo9.3 As enacted via the Education (Scotland) Act (1996) and Education (Northern

Ireland) Order (1996).

4 Section 312.5 Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (Wales) Order (2002).6 The National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Education and Train-

ing) Order (2008).7 NAfW, Record of Proceedings, 20 September 2007, Proposed Additional Learning

Needs LCO Committee, pp.5–6.8 National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Education and Training)

Order (2008), Matter 5.17.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 28–36

29© 2011 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

or emotional difficulties’.9 In addition, the themes of part-nership working, capacity building and policy monitoringare central to the devolved administration’s ‘Strategic Pri-orities for Change’ that details ongoing measures:

• To build the capacity of all providers, and especiallymainstream schools, to identify, assess and meet needsof learners with ALN (training strategy, support forSENCOs/ALNCOs, whole-school/LEA trainingprogrammes, specific guidance).

• To build in monitoring and evaluation of outcomes forlearners with ALN as part of an inclusiveself-evaluation framework.

• To improve the quality of partnership working withparents and learners, including the provisionof . . . [new] mediation, advocacy, complaintsprocedures) (Welsh Assembly Government, 2008a, b, c,d, p. 3).

Together, these developments signal the territorialisation ofservice delivery standards and monitoring in wake of devo-lution; a trend underlined by further scheduled governmentaction that includes the establishment of an InclusionQuality Mark for Wales under draft proposals for new leg-islation to be introduced in 2013 (Welsh Assembly Govern-ment, 2008a, b, c, d, p. 4).

In Scotland, post-devolution legislative developments havealso seen a broadening of those covered by additionalsupport need (ASN) policy. Thus, the Education (Addi-tional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act (2004) sets outsupport measures and duties on education providers that arealso broader in scope than previous SEN legislation.10 Itincluded a new legal definition of ASN:

A child or young person has additional support needsfor the purposes of this Act where, for whateverreason, the child or young person is, or is likely to be,unable without the provision of additional support tobenefit from school education provided or to beprovided for the child or young person.11

Under the Act, a revised system for identifying and address-ing the ASN of children was introduced. It also conveyednew legal rights and duties on public bodies that contrastwith the other UK jurisdictions. For example, parents andpupils gained the right to request a specific type (or types)of assessment or examination for ASN,12 education authori-ties were required to produce a co-ordinated support planfor pupils (CSP)13 and have in place arrangements for ensur-ing that the additional support remains adequate to meet theindividual’s needs.14 Duties were also placed on educationauthorities when establishing an individual’s ASN ‘to seek

and take account of advice and information or views fromothers, including other agencies and the child or youngperson and their parents’ and to arrange for independentmediation services to be provided to seek to avoid orresolve disagreements. The prevailing policy discourseassociated with these changes is one of ‘empowerment’ and‘informed choice’ (Scottish Government, 2009a, b, p. 5).The associated ASN Code of Practice asserted that educa-tion authorities should adhere to a number of values andprinciples, including:

• Taking a holistic view of children and young peopleand their circumstances, and what they need to growand develop and achieve their potential;

• Taking into account issues of diversity and equality andensuring that outcomes do not discriminate;

• Working in partnership with parents (ScottishExecutive, 2005, p. 34).

Further legislative change has been introduced via the Edu-cation (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act(2009).15 This, and the associated ‘Supporting Children’sLearning Code of Practice’ (Scottish Government, 2009a,b) made a substantial number of changes to the prevailinglegal and policy framework, including: an extension of thepower of ASN tribunals to enable them to specify a timescale for placing a child in the school specified in a placingrequest; requiring Scottish ministers to secure the provisionof an advocacy service; and extending the rights of parentsof children and young people with ASN to enable them torequest a specific assessment (e.g., educational, psychologi-cal or medical) at any time. The main significance of thesedevelopments is that they signal a major shift away fromuniversal welfare policy in the unitary state – for, as noted,‘devolved’ legislation is conveying contrasting legal rightsand service entitlements to parents and pupils in thedevolved jurisdictions of the UK.

In Northern Ireland, the SEN and Disability (NorthernIreland) Order (2005) also revised the pre-exiting policyframework.16 ‘Inclusion’ and ‘participation’ were keythemes in the policy discourse. Thus, the ‘Supplement tothe Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment ofSEN’ (Department of Education for Northern Ireland, 2005,p. 43) stated that:

In seeking to develop inclusive schools, Boards andothers should keep the following principles in mind atall times: [to] develop their cultures, policies andpractices to include pupils; with the right training,strategies and support the majority of children withSEN can be successfully included in mainstreameducation; an inclusive education service offers choiceand incorporates the views of parents and children;the interests of all children must be safeguarded; [to]actively seek to identify and remove barriers tolearning and participation.

9 NAfW, Record of Proceedings, 18 October 2007, Proposed Additional Learning

Needs LCO Committee, pp.8–9.10 Education (Scotland) Act (1980); Education (Scotland) Act (1996).11 Section 1.12 Section 8.13 Section 2.14 Section 4.

15 Received royal assert in 2009 due to come into effect in autumn 2010.16 The Education (Northern Ireland) Order (1996).


30 © 2011 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

As in the other devolved nations, further reforms areongoing. The process began in 2006, and its latest phase isa series of policy consultations on ‘Every School a GoodSchool: The Way Forward for Special Educational Needsand Inclusion’ (Department of Education for NorthernIreland, 2009a, b, c). According to the Belfast administra-tion, the motives for reform include the need ‘to address thebureaucracy attached to the current SEN framework . . . andthe inconsistencies and delays in assessment and provision’(Department of Education for Northern Ireland, 2009a, b, c,p. i). The current policy proposals are articulated within adiscourse of promoting equality (e.g., ‘this framework isbased on the premise of equality of opportunity for all’) –and they include:

• Placing a greater responsibility on all schools toprovide for the early identification of the diversity ofneed, assessment, planning and delivery of supportprogrammes;

• Placing a statutory duty on Education and SkillsAuthorities to ensure that schools are effectivelymeeting their responsibilities;

• Developing and introducing a revised Code of Practiceto support the implementation of the revised framework(Department of Education for Northern Ireland, 2009a,b, c, pp. v–vi).

Schools curriculumIn terms of curriculum development, following devolutionin Wales, human rights have shaped education policy fol-lowing the commitment made by the Welsh government in2000 to apply the principles of the UNCRC in respect of allpolicy matters. Devolution has also seen an increase inofficial guidance and teaching resources on the inclusion ofpupils with ALN and disabilities (ACCAC, 2001; WelshAssembly Government, 2001). Key policy documents havealso emphasised an individualised approach to educationprovision (e.g., ‘access to education and learning opportu-nities which address their individual needs’; Welsh Assem-bly Government, 2006, p. 31). Analysis of the FoundationPhase curriculum for 3–7-year-olds (Welsh Assembly Gov-ernment, 2008a, b, c, d) (introduced 2008–11) also revealsa broadening and deepening of the level of instruction toeducation providers on meeting ALN.17 It is notable forarticulating ALN policy in terms of the discourse of humanrights and emphasises the need for education providers tobroaden access to the curriculum for those with ALN(Welsh Assembly Government, 2008a, b, c, d, p. 8). Asnoted, devolution has seen greater policy emphasis onsupport materials for teachers in relation to ALN as evi-denced by the revised National Curriculum for 11-to-19-year-olds (introduced 2008–2010) that has beenaccompanied by ‘A Curriculum for all Learners: Guidanceto Support Teachers of Learners with Additional LearningNeeds’ (Welsh Assembly Government, 2010). This tooemploys a human rights discourse – as well as providinginclusive teaching strategies and curriculum models forlearners with complex needs.

In Scotland, the prevailing policy discourse in relation tothe current review of compulsory phase education is one of‘inclusive education’, ‘early identification’ of ASN and,individualised support. For example:

Children and young people are entitled to have theiradditional support needs identified and addressed atthe earliest possible stage. Planning mechanisms, suchas personal learning planning, individualisededucational programmes (IEPs) and co-ordinatedsupport plans (CSPs), can help to ensure that eachchild or young person with additional support needscan achieve positive and sustained educationaloutcomes (Scottish Government, 2010, p. 21).

Partnership working with parents is another principal policytheme (e.g., ‘parents are fully involved where children andyoung people need additional support that is detailed inIEPs and CSPs’; Scottish Government, 2010, p. 51).

In Northern Ireland, the schools curriculum is also currentlyundergoing reform. The policy discourse here is notable forits emphasis on the need for effective performance mea-sures for ALN (e.g., the proposed ‘indicators of effectiveperformance’ include the need to demonstrate that ‘a clearcommitment exists to promoting equality of opportunity,high quality learning, a concern for individual pupils and arespect for diversity’; Department of Education for North-ern Ireland, 2009a, b, c, p. 22). The discourse also articu-lates ALN policy in the context of human rights (e.g., toensure that the current ‘reform agenda . . . is consistent withArticles 28 and 29 of the UNCRC’; Department of Educa-tion for Northern Ireland, 2009a, b, c, p. ii). As in the otherdevolved polities, there has been emphasis on introducingnew teaching materials and guidance on ALN into theschools curriculum [e.g., Department of Education forNorthern Ireland, 2005; Department of Education forNorthern Ireland, Education and Training Inspectorate andDepartment of Health, Social Services and Public Safety,2006) – as well as fostering a collaborative approach tomeeting ALN (e.g., ‘the needs of the children are promotedthrough joint assessment of need and met in a coordinatedand integrated way’ and, that ‘school policy and manage-ment arrangements for collaborative planning guide andpromote consistent practice at all levels and inform effec-tive classroom practice’; Department of Education forNorthern Ireland et al. (2006), pp.9–15].

Teacher trainingIn the wake of devolution, there is evidence of revisedmeasures to cover ALN in teacher training programmes ineach territory. For example, General Teaching Council forWales’s Statement of Professional Values and Practiceasserts that its aim is to ensure that teachers are ‘committedto providing equal opportunities to pupils, colleagues andothers regardless of . . . special needs’ (General TeachingCouncil for Wales, 2006, p. 31). This is articulated in termsof human rights in the education system as a whole (e.g.,‘the principles of the UNCRC are included across theschool curriculum, they will be covered in Initial Teacher

17 See the Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Stage) (Wales) Order

(2008), Section 3 (1–2).



Training (ITT) – as providers have to ensure that knowledgeand teaching of the relevant curriculum’; Welsh AssemblyGovernment, 2009, p. 36). Despite this, government itselfacknowledges that significant further work remains to‘ensure all teachers have the necessary skills on entering theclassroom to identify and meet a range of learner’s needs’(Department for Children, Education and Lifelong Learn-ing, 2009, p. 24). In response, an ‘Empowering TeachersTask Group’ has been established to consider ALN trainingin relation to initial teacher training, Early ProfessionalDevelopment and Continuing Professional Development(CPD).

In Scotland, policy has placed greater emphasis on mea-sures to improve teacher training [e.g., a two-year actionplan by all Initial Teacher Education (ITE) establishmentsto embed inclusive approaches to teaching for pupils withASN] and introduced a new qualification (e.g., ‘the additionof five new areas to the CPD Framework, including autismand dyslexia, in order for teachers to gain formal recogni-tion for expertise in teaching children with ASN’; ScottishGovernment, 2008a, b, p. 34).

In the province, the General Teaching Council of NorthernIreland’s ‘Code of Values and Professional Practice’ listspromoting equality as one of nine ‘core values of the pro-fession’ (General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland,2004a, b, p. 2). However, the policy discourse reveals offi-cial awareness of current shortcomings. For example:

Universities need to increase the proportion of time onthe Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE)courses devoted to developing all of the studentteachers’ understanding and teaching competence tomeet the needs of pupils with SEN. Further, it shouldbe a priority that student teachers receive additionalsystematic support in this area when they enter thesubsequent stages of induction and early professionaldevelopment (Education and Training Inspectorate forNorthern Ireland, 2007a, b, c, p. 56).

Illustrating the developing nature of post-devolution policyon ALN, the executive’s current policy consultation high-lights that:

It is proposed that providers of ITE consider how bestto ensure that all beginning teachers have . . . apractical understanding of how to adjust and tailortasks to suit the ability of their pupils. It is alsorecognised that it will be necessary to provideappropriate CPD of teachers in order to furtherdevelop teachers’ skills and strategies for meeting thediversity of needs (Department of Education forNorthern Ireland, 2009a, b, c, p. 22).

Tribunals and inspectoratesWith regard to the third element in Arif and Gaad’s (2008)systems analysis framework, monitoring and evaluation,devolution has seen the growth of tribunals and other bodieswith remits that extend to ALN. Allied to the emergence of

contrasting legal rights related to ALN, this points to theincreasing territorialisation of administrative justice and themonitoring and regulation of ALN policy. Following devo-lution, the grounds for appeal to tribunals vary betweenterritories; in each the devolved administrations have broad-ened the groups that may appeal. Created in 2003, the SENTribunal for Wales (SENTW) provides evidence of policyinnovation. In response to the findings of a critical UK-wideUN report on human rights that highlighted that childrenhad no direct right to appeal the decisions of a tribunal(UNCEDW, 2008, p. 15), primary legislation passed by theNational Assembly in 2009 made children in Wales the firstin the UK to gain such a right (Welsh Assembly Govern-ment, 2008a, b, c, d).18 There is some evidence of improvingpolicy delivery on ALN; for over the recent years, there hasbeen a decreasing trend in the number of cases brought toSENTW (2005–6, 150; 2006–7, 118; 2007–8, 94; and2008–9, 92); however, 77 per cent of all appeals that went toa full hearing were upheld.

In 2005, the ASN Tribunals for Scotland replaced the pre-existing administrative structures, allowing parents andyoung people to make reference to the Tribunal with regardto a range of circumstances including an education authori-ty’s decisions and (alleged) failings in relation to a child oryoung person’s co-ordinated support plan. Here too, there isevidence of improvement in policy delivery for the numberof referrals to the tribunals has decreased from a peak of 76in 2007 and 2008 to 54 in 2009 and 2010; the majority werein relation to issues around the provision of CSPs (Addi-tional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland, 2010, p. 34).Elsewhere, the SEN and Disability (Northern Ireland)Order (2005) increased the rights of appeal for parents tothe SEN and Disability Tribunal for Northern Ireland,19

including cases of alleged failure of education boards toassess formally a child’s SEN – and refusal to make astatement of SEN. Further legal duties have been placed oneducation boards to comply with orders of the SEN tribunalwithin set time limits.20

In addition to the foregoing tribunals, the state educationinspectorates in each polity operate to monitor schools’performance in relation to the respective policy frameworkson ALN. For example, inspection guidance in Walesemphasises the need for ‘access to a broad and balancedcurriculum which includes the subjects of the National Cur-riculum and other curricular provision’ (Awdurdod Cymw-ysterau, Cwricwlwm ac Asesu Cymru, 2003, p. 59). InScotland, the policy discourse is one of legal rights andduties [e.g., to assess how schools ‘comply and activelyengage with statutory requirements and codes of practice-. . . (and) fulfilling statutory duties’] (Her Majesty’s

Inspectorate of Education, 2009, p. 21). In NorthernIreland, the Common Framework for Inspection (ETINI,

18 Education (Wales) Measure (2009).19 Section 23.20 Section 6.



2008, p. 20) has a similar legal tone, requiring inspectors toassess ‘the implementation of the Code of Practice forSpecial Educational Needs’.

Evaluating progressA number of official studies and policy evaluations provideinsight into the effectiveness of post-devolution measures tomeet pupils’ ALN. In Wales, the education inspectoratefound that ‘most children and young people with SEN(were) receiving good provision and achieving good stan-dards in learning and behaviour in mainstream and specialschools; (and that) effective support (was) provided forpupils with severe and complex needs and disabilities’(Estyn, 2007a, p. 39). Yet it also identified a range of prob-lems, notably in relation to the monitoring of the curriculumwith shortcomings in official data gathering, including that‘information on learning outcomes for pupils with SEN isnot summarised for the purpose of measuring the overalleffectiveness of provision’. It continued, ‘most authoritiesare making good progress in improving the quality andaccessibility of basic information about individual pupils.However, the data currently held is (sic) incomplete andoften inaccurate’ (Estyn, 2007a, pp. 8–9). In response,further official guidance on best use of assessment informa-tion for pupils with ALN was published in 2010 (WelshAssembly Government, 2010, p. 41). Despite the policydiscourse of ‘partnership working’, a further shortcomingidentified was the limited co-ordination between differentbodies in the education system:

Authorities do not have a comprehensive overview ofthe provision that they make, or of the costs of thatprovision, for all pupils with SEN. This means thatschools, authorities and the Welsh government areunable to link information about provision withinformation about learning outcomes and costs forpurposes of evaluation (Estyn, 2007a, p. 10).

The latter point was underlined by another study thatreferred to ‘wide variation in the reported level of spendingby councils on SEN and in the way they plan and deploySEN budgets. There is little correlation between thesefactors and the quality of provision’ (Wales Audit Office,2007, p. 5). A recent government consultation on reformingthe law on ALN in Wales (Additional Needs and InclusionDivision, Welsh Assembly Government, 2007) found thatalthough some parents were generally happy with currentarrangements, ‘overall, there was widespread criticism’.Concerns expressed included a dearth ‘of knowledge andskills of mainstream teachers and support assistants, lack ofcommitment and empathy of school staff to meeting theSEN of pupils and inadequate resource allocations’ (Addi-tional Needs and Inclusion Division, Welsh Assembly Gov-ernment, 2007, pp. 5–9).

In Scotland, the education inspectorate’s study of how localauthorities were responding to the provisions of the Educa-tion (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act(2004) found that while they ‘are developing effectivemechanisms to support children and young people with

ASN’ – there was also a series of issues and shortcomings,including those related to monitoring the curriculum:

The need to ‘combine assessment and recordingprocedures, including care plans and IEPs, to ensureconsistent approaches in meeting all supportneeds . . . to give parents more information aboutCSPs . . . [and] Improve the consistency with whichthe legislation surrounding CSPs is interpreted’ (HerMajesty’s Inspectorate of Education, 2008, pp.2–5).

In addition, the inspectorate’s latest study found that ‘spe-cific provision for those with social, emotional and behav-ioural needs was less effective’ (Her Majesty’s Inspectorateof Education, 2010). Yet its overall conclusion was that‘almost all authorities now had well-established stagedintervention approaches to managing the additional supportneeds of children and young people’ (Her Majesty’s Inspec-torate of Education, 2010, p. 8).

In Northern Ireland, an early post-devolution policy evalu-ation found that in 83 per cent of the schools studied, theprovision for pupils with ALN ‘was judged to be satisfac-tory or better’. Yet, as in the other devolved territories,curriculum monitoring was an issue. It concluded that‘there is a need to ensure that procedures are in place formonitoring and reviewing the policy, provision andprogress being made in relation to SEN’ (Education andTraining Inspectorate for Northern Ireland, 2002, p. 7). Asubsequent review of the inclusion of pupils with state-ments of SEN in mainstream schools (ETINI, 2004, p. 21)found that, inter alia, ‘many parents felt that the transferfrom primary to post-primary schools . . . was a particularlydaunting time. A number commented that there was inad-equate support available’. It also referred to the fact that ‘asignificant majority of parents felt that communication withthe Education and Library Boards’ officers was difficult;many talked of being passed ‘from pillar to post’. In addi-tion, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, 2006,p. 45) concluded, ‘there is more to be done to build a fullyaccessible, diverse education system in Northern Irelandwhich realises the potential of all pupils’. Furthermore,shortcomings in staff capacity and skills were identified.Thus, the Education Department itself acknowledges that:

Increasingly over time, the implementation of thecurrent SEN framework has resulted in anover-reliance on external support by schools tosupport pupils with SEN . . . it is the perception ofmany teachers and SENCOs that they are ill-equippedto deal with the increasing diversity of need in theirschools (Department of Education for NorthernIreland, 2007, p. 22).

Subsequently, a review of practice in Primary Schools(ETINI, 2008, p. 15) found that notwithstanding positiveelements, curriculum monitoring and pupil participationissues persist: ‘in the majority of schools, the children arenot involved in the setting of their targets and do not have anopportunity to identify and record their strengths within the



Individual Education Plan. In these instances, the childrenare not sufficiently engaged with their learning and do notachieve as well as they could’. Lastly, despite the policyrhetoric on early assessment of ASN, the Northern IrelandCommissioner for Children and Young People has advo-cated a policy review owing to:

Delays and difficulties in having a child assessed for astatement of special educational need; mainstreameducation is not prepared, resourced nor trained tomeet the individual needs of children with SEN(Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children andYoung People, 2009, p. 8).

In response, again, underlining the developing nature of theALN policy framework in the province, the government’scurrent review of compulsory-phase education acknowl-edges that ‘there is much within our education system thatneeds improvement . . . we must do more to achieve equityin our system’ (Department of Education for NorthernIreland, 2009a, b, c, p. i).

Summary and conclusionConstitutional reform and the move to quasi-federalism inthe UK have resulted in the territorialisation of policy onALN. Here, the intention has been to explore policy devel-opments in the new political spaces created by post-1998and 1999 devolution in Scotland, Wales and NorthernIreland – where, it is argued, there has been a dearth ofpolicy research. In contrast, a burgeoning body of workrelates to the situation in England (see for, e.g., Hodkinson,2009; Pearson, 2008; Vickerman and Coates, 2009). Argu-ably, Wales has seen the greatest change. Prior to 1999, thecountry was largely covered by an ‘England and Wales’ orUK policy framework. Since then, an increasingly distinc-tive legislative and regulatory context on ALN has emerged.Notwithstanding this, in all territories, there has been amove away from the former, centralised SEN policy pre-scriptions generally based on the Education Act (1996).Application of Arif and Gaad’s (2008) systems analysishere allowed examination of three components of educationpolicy: curriculum development, curriculum delivery andmonitoring and evaluation. With regard to the former, ineach territory, the school curriculum has undergone majorrevisions following devolution. New curricula prescribenationally specific frameworks for teaching and learning.Notably, analysis shows that greater policy emphasis hasbeen placed on the provision of guidance and support mate-rials for ALN than was the case prior to devolution– and thata human rights discourse has shaped curriculum develop-ment in each polity.

In terms of curriculum delivery, in each case this has beenguided by separate statutory codes of practice. Overall, theprevailing policy discourse has been one of meeting indi-vidual needs, inclusion, participation, and informed choice;as well as that of promoting equality and human rights. Oneof the most notable aspects of curriculum delivery is theway that it has been shaped by successive laws passed bythe devolved legislatures. The significance of this is that

such enactments have placed contrasting legal duties oneducation providers, teacher training bodies and tribunals –with the effect that pupils and parents in each devolvedpolity have contrasting rights in relation to policy on ALN.This is a major discontinuity with the largely centralised,universal approach to policy that characterised ‘traditional’social policy on this matter in the 20th century.

Examination of the post-devolution monitoring and evalu-ation arrangements reveals that the development of the‘regional’ state has been accompanied by the growth/development of territorially specific ALN tribunals. Policychanges in each polity have had the effect of extending therange of those entitled to appeal to the respective tribunals.The creation of the SEN Tribunal for Wales is notable inmarking the re-emergence of a distinct Welsh jurisdiction.Separate state education inspectorates are a further featureof the ‘regional’ state and have a duty to monitor and evalu-ate ALN policy delivery. Overall, the territorially specific‘infrastructure’ regulating ALN policy further underlinesthe existence of contrasting rights and entitlements betweenterritories following devolution.

In terms of evaluating progress against the pre-devolutionsituation, there is evidence of some advancement inembedding ALN in the component parts of the respectiveeducation systems – including the curriculum, teachertraining and inspections regimes. Despite this, significantshortcomings can be identified including limitedco-ordination between different education bodies in eachsystem, incomplete information on learning outcomes forpupils with ALN, limitations in data-gathering, monitoringand record keeping, shortcomings in staff training andexpertise, as well as issues over the adequacy of resourcesto deliver policy aims. These challenges underline the needwithin each territory for consistent approaches in meetingall support needs, ensuring reliable practice across educa-tion authorities, as well as consistency in interpreting eachcountry’s prevailing policy guidance and legislation. In amanner that resonates with the international literature(Hokal and Shaw, 1999), the present analysis raises ques-tions about the level of cohesion between the three ele-ments of education provision identified by systemsanalysis. Ongoing curriculum reviews and further sched-uled reform of policy and practice may address theseissues – and means that the full impact of the post-devolution territorialisation of ALN policy is, as yet,unknown. It is therefore argued that the past decade can beseen as a transitional phase; one marked by a shift awayfrom a largely centralised policy framework in the UK,and characterised by increasing capacity of the devolvedadministrations and legislatures to develop and regulatedistinctive ALN policies. From a UK perspective, theresult is policy divergence and a shifting rights framework.Reflecting the fact that the new governance arrangementshave been in place for little over a decade, key challengesremain before devolution can be said to have fully deliv-ered significant and universal improvements in terms ofpolicy outcomes for pupils with ALN.



AcknowledgementThe author would like to acknowledge the support of theEconomic and Social Research Council in funding workreported on in this paper. ESRC project: L219252016.

Address for correspondencePaul Chaney,Cardiff School of Social Sciences,Cardiff University,CF10 3WT,Wales.Email: [email protected].

ReferencesAdditional Needs and Inclusion Division, Welsh

Assembly Government (2007) PreliminaryConsultation on Options for Change to theFramework for Statutory Assessment and Statementsof SEN. Cardiff: ANID/WAG.

Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (2010)Fifth Annual Report of the President of the AdditionalSupport Needs Tribunals for Scotland. Edinburgh:ASNTS.

Arif, M. & Gaad, E. (2008) ‘Special needs education inthe United Arab Emirates: a systems perspective.’Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,8 (2), pp. 111–7.

Association of Directors of Education in Wales (2007)Written Submission from ADEW on Proposal for aGovernment Legislative Competence Order (LCO)Relating to Education and Training (AdditionalLearning Needs). Cardiff: NAfW.

Awdurdod Cymwysterau, Cwricwlwm ac Asesu Cymru(ACCAC) (2001) Equal Opportunities in the SchoolCurriculum in Wales. Cardiff: ACCAC.

Awdurdod Cymwysterau, Cwricwlwm ac Asesu Cymru(2003) A Curriculum of Opportunity: DevelopingPotential into Performance. Cardiff: ACCAC.

Birrell, D. (2009) The Impact of Devolution on SocialPolicy. Bristol: Policy Press.

DeLeon, P. (1998) ‘Models of policy discourse: insightsversus prediction.’ Policy Studies Journal, 26 (1),pp. 147–61.

Department for Children, Education and LifelongLearning (2009) DCELLS Single Equality SchemeAction Plan Progress Report March 09–Sept 09.Cardiff: DCELLS.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland (2005)Supplement to the Code of Practice on theIdentification and Assessment of Special EducationalNeeds. Belfast: DENI.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland; Educationand Training Inspectorate; and Department of Health,

Social Services and Public Safety (2006) Standardsand Guidance for Promoting Collaborative Working toSupport Children with Special Needs. Belfast: DENIet al.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland (2007)Every School a Good School: The Way Forward forSpecial Educational Needs and Inclusion. Belfast:DENI.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland (2009a)Every School a Good School: The Way Forward forSpecial Educational Needs and Inclusion. Belfast:DENI.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland (2009b)Policy Proposals Consultation Document EverySchool a Good School – The Way Forward forSpecial Educational Needs and Inclusion. Belfast:DENI.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland (2009c)Indicators of Effective Performance. Belfast: DENI.

Edelman, M. (1988) Constructing the Political Spectacle.Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Education and Training Inspectorate for Northern Ireland(2002) A Survey of the Provision for Pupils withSpecial Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools.Belfast: ETINI.

Education and Training Inspectorate for Northern Ireland(2007a) Review of Teacher Education. Belfast: ETINI.

Education and Training Inspectorate for Northern Ireland(2007b) Special Educational Needs in the Pre-SchoolSector. Belfast: ETINI.

Education and Training Inspectorate for Northern Ireland(2007c) An Evaluation of the Provision for SpecialEducational Needs in Primary Schools. Belfast:ETINI.

Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (2006)Disability Discrimination Code of Practice forSchools. Belfast: ECNI.

Estyn (2007a) Evaluating Outcomes for Children andYoung People with Additional Learning Needs.Cardiff: Estyn.

ETINI (2004) The Inclusion of Pupils with Statements ofSpecial Educational Needs in Mainstream Primaryand Post-Primary Schools in Northern Ireland.Belfast: ETINI.

ETINI (2008) Education and Training InspectorateNorthern Ireland (2008) An Evaluation of theProvision for Special Educational Needs in PrimarySchools 2007–2008. Belfast: ETINI.

Fischer, F. (2003) ‘Beyond empiricism: policy analysis asdeliberative practice.’ Chapter Seven In M. A. Hajer &H. Wagenaar (eds), Deliberative Policy Analysis:Understanding Governance in the Network Society,pp. 54–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gaad, E., Arif, M. & Scott, F. (2006) ‘Systems analysisof UAE education system.’ International Journal ofEducational Management, 20 (4), pp. 291–303.

General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (2004a)Code of Values and Professional Practice. Belfast:GTCNI.



General Teaching Council for Scotland (2004b) Code ofValues and Professional Practice Building DynamicProfessional Communities. Livingstone.

General Teaching Council for Wales (2006) AProfessional Development Framework for Teachers inWales. Cardiff: GTCW.

Geva-May, I. (2009) Comparative Policy Analysis.London: Routledge.

Harris, R. & Milkis, S. (1989) The Politics of RegulatoryChange. New York: Oxford University Press.

Heidenheimer, A. J., Johnston, M. & LeVine, V. T. (eds)(1990) Political Corruption: A Handbook. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (2008) QIs to BeUsed in Inspections from January 2008. Edinburgh:HMIE.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (2009) Policy onEquality and Diversity. Edinburgh: HMIE.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (2010) Out ofSight, Out of Mind. Edinburgh: HMIE.

Hodkinson, A. (2009) ‘Pre-service teacher training andspecial educational needs in England 1970–2008: isgovernment learning the lessons of the past or is itexperiencing a groundhog day?’ European Journal ofSpecial Needs Education, 24 (3), pp. 277–89.

Hokal, A. & Shaw, K. E. (1999) ‘Managing progressmonitoring in United Arab Emirate schools.’International Journal of Educational Management,13 (4), pp. 173–9.

Howlett, M. & Lindquist, E. (2004) ‘Policy analysis andgovernance: analytical and policy styles in Canada.’Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Researchand Practice, 6 (3), pp. 225–49.

Lave, R. & Kyle, D. (1968) ‘The application of systemsanalysis to educational planning.’ ComparativeEducation Review, 12 (1), pp. 39–56.

Lindblad, S. & Popkewitz, T. S. (2000) Public Discourseson Education Governance and Social Integration andExclusion. Analyses of policy texts in Europeancontexts, Uppsala Reports on Education 36, Uppsala:Department of Education.

National Assembly for Wales (2007) Education LifelongLearning and Skills Committee Policy Review ofAdditional Learning Needs. Cardiff: NAfW.

Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and YoungPeople (2009) Submission to UN Committee onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights on theImplementation of the International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights in NorthernIreland. Belfast: NICCY.

Pearson, S. (2008) ‘Deafened by silence or by the soundof footsteps? An investigation of the recruitment,induction and retention of special educational needscoordinators (SENCOs) in England.’ Journal ofResearch in Special Educational Needs, 8 (2),pp. 96–110.

Pfeiffer, J. (1968) New Look at Education SystemsAnalysis in Our Schools and Colleges. Poughkeepsie,NY: Odyssey Press.

Scottish Executive (2005) Supporting Children’s LearningCode of Practice. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Government (2008a) Curriculum for Excellence:Building the Curriculum 3 – A Framework forLearning and Teaching. Edinburgh: ScottishGovernment.

Scottish Government (2008b) Disability Equality Scheme2008–2011. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Scottish Government (2009a) Additional Support Needs(ASN) Mediation Service Providers Scottish QualityStandards. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Scottish Government (2009b) Supporting Children’sLearning Code of Practice. Edinburgh: ScottishGovernment.

Scottish Government (2010) School Inclusion –Additional Support Needs, High Level Summary ofStatistics Trend. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Statistics for Wales (2009) Pupils with Statements ofSpecial Educational Needs. Cardiff: Statistics forWales.

United Nations (2008) Convention on the Elimination ofDiscrimination Against Women. New York: UnitedNations.

Vickerman, P. & Coates, J. (2009) ‘Trainee and recentlyqualified physical education teachers’ perspectives onincluding children with special educational needs.’Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14 (2),pp. 137–53.

Wales Audit Office (2007) Good Practice in SpecialEducational Needs Funding. Cardiff: WAO.

Welsh Assembly Government (2001) Wales – TheLearning Country. Cardiff: WAG.

Welsh Assembly Government (2004) Children and YoungPeople: Rights to Action. Cardiff: WAG.

Welsh Assembly Government (2006) The LearningCountry: Vision into Action. Cardiff: WAG.

Welsh Assembly Government (2008a) Cabinet WrittenStatement – The School Effectiveness Framework:Moving Forward, Jane Hutt, Minister for Children,Education, Lifelong Learning & Skills. Cardiff:WAG.

Welsh Assembly Government (2008b) Foundation Phase:Framework for Children’s Learning for 3 to7-Year-Olds in Wales. Cardiff: WAG.

Welsh Assembly Government (2008c) SchoolEffectiveness Framework – Guidance. Cardiff: WAG.

Welsh Assembly Government (2008d) Voices andChoices: A Proposed Right for Children to Appeal tothe Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales.Cardiff: WAG.

Welsh Assembly Government (2009) Single EqualityScheme 2009–12. Cardiff: WAG.

Welsh Assembly Government (2010) Curriculum forAll Learners: Guidance to Support Teachers ofLearners with Additional Learning Needs.Cardiff: WAG.



additional learning needs policy in the devolved polities of the uk: a systems perspective

Documents