Professor Sue Buckley:

I spoke about different issues. For the general allocation model, one needs the best information available on special educational needs in a particular school. Another means of attaining feedback from staff is required if one does not use the free school meals system. These children might not have been assessed under the big picture that the general allocation model is supposed to support. The better we train staff and develop the big model of inclusive schools so that there are well-trained staff with the flexibility to help any child, the better. Many able children have additional needs. If we have such a structure we may not require assessments and statements. That argument has been made in the UK but each time it gets to that point, disability groups are immediately up in arms and meet in council because their experience suggests that if they do not retain statements for the most vulnerable children, their needs will not be met and schools will not be motivated to take them. Money also matters. Teachers in schools are not going to take children if they do not think they will be accompanied by sufficient resources. The current UK Government would like to get rid of statements and move towards a different system but the experience of disability groups is that statements have provided a wonderful legal protection. Once a need is set out on the statement it becomes a legal requirement and the education system has to provide for it. Individuals can go to tribunals to ensure provision. The individualised education plan, IEP, in the United States provides a similar legal structure to our statements. There appears to be a consensus that a formalised assessment is needed to protect the child.