SCN0698

Written evidence submitted by Moorvision

 

 

  1. To the Commons Education Select Committee 2018 inquiry into support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities to review the success of the reforms introduced in the Children and Families Act 2014: The impact and implementation of part three of the Children and Families Act 2014.

 

 

Introduction

 

  1. Moorvision is a registered charity providing information, advice, support, educational advocacy and activities for families of vision impaired (VI) children and young people (CYP) aged 0-25 across Devon and Cornwall. Approximately half of our children have additional needs and VI.

 

  1. We are in a strong position to respond to this inquiry as we work closely with families in all areas of their child’s education. We have undertaken surveys and received anecdotal evidence to support our submission. We are not affiliated to any national charities and have no contracts with our Local Authorities (LAs).

 

  1. We wish to submit this information as we are seeing an increasing number of VI CYP failing to meet their educational potential.

 

  1. Moorvision views its response very much as the voice of the parent/carer and child/young person.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

  1. Our submission covers four areas of the enquiry with a particular focus on the voice of the parent/carer and child/young person.
    1. Assessment of and support for children and young people with SEND

 

    1. The level and distribution of funding for SEND provision

 

    1. The roles of and co-operation between education, health and social care sectors

 

    1. Provision for 19-25-year olds including support for independent living; transition to adult services; and access to education, apprenticeships and work

 

 

Background information

 

  1. VI CYP exist in a ‘double minority’ in the disability world. There are over 2 million VI people in the UK and over 25,000 VI CYP (aged 0-16) making them just 1.25% of the UK VI population. (1)

 

  1. VI CYP are also in a minority in the world of childhood disability. The graphic below, taken from the DfE Special educational needs in England: January 2018 (2) shows that the two least common SEND disabilities are MSI (Multi-Sensory Impairment (Deaf/Blind)) and Vision Impairment.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. This double minority means that VI CYP are:

 

    1. one of the lowest incidence groups in the SEND sector.

 

    1. often in educational placements where there is no or little expertise, experience or equipment.

 

    1. frequently not receiving services from the voluntary sector (who focus on older VI people – only 25-30% of Local VI Societies support VI CYP (3)

 

    1. frequently less well supported by SENDIASS (Independent Advice Services for SEND) as they do not have VI expertise

 

    1. frequently unable to access out of school activities, clubs, tutoring etc as staff do not have the expertise to provide for them

 

  1. Over 80% of information processed from the world is through vision (4). This can have a impact on a VI child’s education and development in every area including speech, understanding, movement and social skills and overall development.

 

  1. By the age of 7, VI CYP (with and without additional needs) are attaining below the level of their sighted peers and by age 11 this gap has widened further (5)

 

  1. VI CYP have a very wide range of abilities depending on the degree of sight loss and their additional needs which can include profound and multiple learning difficulties. VI CYP can also be gifted and talented. VI CYP have very specific needs in accessing education.

 

  1. VI CYP need a high level of very specialist provision to access the full curriculum through the appropriate medium. They also need support with independent living and mobility (habilitation) and social skills that sighted CYP take for granted.

 

  1. Due to the low incidence of VI in CYP, LAs need to provide specialist teachers for VI (Advisory Teachers for the VI or Qualified Teachers for VI) and qualified Habilitation specialists. They may also need specialist IT input and equipment.

 

 

Response, Evidence and Recommendations

 

Assessment of and support for children and young people with SEND

Response

 

  1. Moorvision does not believe the SEND reforms of 2014 have resulted in “simpler, improved and consistent help for children and young people with SEND” or “greater choice in decisions” regarding the assessment process.

 

  1. Many parent/carers do not:

 

    1. understand the EHCP assessment system or their entitlement to assessments.

 

    1. know that they can apply for an EHCP assessment on behalf of their child if the school won’t.

 

    1. understand or know they have a right of appeal if an EHCP assessment is refused.

 

    1. understand or even know they have a right of appeal if the EHCP assessment does not lead to an EHCP.

 

    1. understand or even know of the existence of the SEND Code of Practice, the Children and Families Act or the Equality Act.

 

    1. know that they have the right to name any placement on the EHCP and that it is the duty of the LA to prove that it is either an unsuitable placement for the child or an uneconomic use of funds.

 

    1. know of the existence of their LA SENDIASS (Support and Information for SEND) service.

 

    1. And, are frequently given incorrect information on all aspects of the assessment/placement naming process.

 

 

Evidence

 

  1. Quotes from Moorvision parent/carers and CYP follow:

 

  1. These quotes all relate to CYP who are registered SI (Sight Impaired) or SSI (Severely Sight Impaired).

 

    1. “School said they weren’t going to apply for an EHCP as they wouldn’t get any more funding for J so it wasn’t worth it.”

 

    1. “We were told that because A wasn’t at least 2 years behind academically that she wouldn’t get an EHCP so the school weren’t going to bother applying.”

 

    1. “We asked the school if we could apply for the EHCP as they didn’t have a SENCO in post at the time and they said no.”

 

    1. “We were told we had to find two local sixth form colleges and be formally turned away before we could list an out of county special VI school on our daughter’s EHCP. The lady from Moorvision later told us that wasn’t true.”

 

    1. “We were turned down for an EHCP so didn’t think there was anything else we can do.”

 

    1. “My SENCO didn’t understand how to fill in my new EHCP – I had to explain it to her.” (student aged 15)

 

 

Recommendations

 

  1. School staff and VI Advisory staff to have regular professional development to ensure that they are fully up to date with the current SEND law so they are not giving false information.

 

  1. Ensure parent/carers of SEND children are better informed about their child’s rights.

 

  1. Make the EHCP application system far more transparent and easier for parent/carers to understand.

 

  1. Parent/carers need to access some sort of ‘myth busting’ information to ensure they do not fall prey to the problems above.

 

 

The level and distribution of funding for SEND provision

 

Response

 

  1. Moorvision does not believe that the SEND reforms of 2014 have resulted in “simpler, improved and consistent help for children and young people with SEND” or “greater choice in decisions” regarding the level and distribution of SEND provision.

 

  1. LA funding cuts have had a profoundly negative effect on the service provision for VI CYP.

 

  1. Outsourcing of VI advisory and habilitation services to private companies may save LAs money but rarely results in improved service.

 

  1. The number of Qualified teachers for VI has reduced meaning larger caseloads, longer waiting times to access the service, longer intervals between visits and an increase in the criteria for accessing the service.

 

  1. Many VI services (including Devon) have combined with their HI services with one head for both, further diluting the service.

 

  1. Within schools, reduction in the number of teaching assistants, lack of specialist VI teaching assistants (almost unheard of in mainstream schools) and SENCOs (Special Education Needs Coordinators) frequently being reduced to one per school or being shared amongst schools have resulted in a marked drop provision for VI CYP in mainstreams schools.

 

  1. The failure to make Habilitation statutory has resulted in many children not having the mobility and independent living skills to continue into HE or employment.

 

  1. Parent/carers have little understanding of funding formulae for schools and the financial relationship between schools and LAs. They are told things such as, “We don’t have any extra funding to support your child” and are unable to question it.

 

 

Evidence

 

  1. Quotes from Moorvision parent/carers and CYP follow:

 

  1. These quotes all relate to CYP who are registered SI (Sight Impaired) or SSI (Severely Sight Impaired).

 

    1. “We have just been told by the hospital that L will never be able to drive but the LA tell us that she is not bad enough for their support. I don’t understand.”

 

    1. “Our QTVI only visits once a term. Our son’s sight is getting worse by the day and in a term a lot can change. No one seems to know what to do.”

 

    1. “We have just been told by Moorfields that our son has RP (Retinitis Pigmentosa). The school asked us what they should be doing. They didn’t have any idea and nor do we.”

 

    1. “Since our school became an academy instead of having 3 SENCOs there is just 1. There are 2,400 children in our school. We only see the SENCO at review meetings and can never get hold of her in between when things are going wrong which is all the time.”

 

    1. “J’s primary school has joined up with others. They share one SENCO between 3 schools. We can’t ever find her.”

 

    1. “There are some really nice TAs at our daughter’s school but none of them know about sight loss. They don’t know how to enlarge work and are always taking our daughter away from lessons to read aloud to her in the library. She misses friends, can’t ask her teacher questions and never has time to finish her work.”

 

    1. “Our school has lost half of its TAs. Now only the children who misbehave get support so they don’t disrupt others. My child shares a TA with several other children and rarely gets the support he needs. At this rate he will end up as one of the naughty ones.”

 

 

Recommendations

 

  1. SENCOs, TAs, LSAs and any other staff working with VI CYP need to receive compulsory training – VI is so rare in CYP that they more than likely will have not worked with a VI CYP before.

 

  1. Funding awarded to LAs and schools for VI CYP needs to be ring-fenced to meet their specific needs.

 

  1. Consideration should be given to funding more VI Unit schools – ie. VI unit/resource bases set in mainstream schools. There are approximately 30 of these VI units in the country and they provide an excellent and cost-effective way of meeting the needs of VI CYP, especially at secondary level. They concentrate experience, expertise, equipment and other resources and reduce travelling time of VI advisory staff.

 

  1. Parent/carers need to have access to easy to understand information about how SEND is funded in school and what their CYP is entitled to.

 

  1. Statutory services currently outsourced to private companies should be brought back into LA control once the contract has expired.

 

 

The roles of and co-operation between education, health and social care sectors

 

Response

 

  1. Moorvision does not believe that the SEND reforms of 2014 have resulted in “simpler, improved and consistent help for children and young people with SEND” or “greater choice in decisions” regarding the roles of and cooperation between education, health and social care sectors.

 

  1. Previous to EHCPs, parent/carers used to complain that their child’s statement did not include health or social care. Subsequently, parent/carers complain that their child’s EHCP does not include health or social care in anything other than words, if that.

 

  1. Parent/carers do not understand the sections on health and social care and neither to many of the professionals.

 

  1. The expense of transferring all children from Statements to EHCPs should be justified by improved outcomes from these new plans but this is rarely witnessed.

 

  1. Crucial Habilitation services are recommended in the SEND Code of Practice but are not mandatory. Habilitation is frequently delivered under social care but can also be delivered via education or health and in some cases a combination of more than one department. The place for Habilitation on the EHCP is therefore unclear.

 

  1. In many rural areas, including Devon, VI CYP services are split both geographically and contractually:

 

Area

Education

Health

Social Care

Habilitation

Devon

Babcock Learning Development Partnership

Devon, Plymouth, Torbay, North Devon NHS Trusts

Devon County Council

Virgin Care

Plymouth

Plymouth City Council

Plymouth NHS Trust

Plymouth City Council

Plymouth City Council contracted to Guide Dogs

Torbay

WESC Foundation

Torbay NHS Trust

Torbay Council

Not currently available

  1. Devon has one County Council and two Unitary Authorities whose services are divided as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. As you can see, attempting to get the relevant professionals around the table to discuss a child’s EHCP can be extremely difficult.

 

 

Evidence

 

  1. Quotes from Moorvision parent/carers and CYP follow:

 

  1. These quotes all relate to CYP who are registered SI (Sight Impaired) or SSI (Severely Sight Impaired).

 

    1. “In 10 years of education, no one from the eye hospital has attended or had input into our child’s EHCP.”

 

    1. “Who are Babcock – don’t they build boats?” (Babcock won the contract for Devon’s VI education with no parent consultation or information)

 

    1. “Why are Virgin looking after my child? They can’t even get my broadband sorted.”

 

    1. “I don’t understand what the care bit of T’s EHCP means. Why is it there?”

 

    1. “Who should come to A’s review meeting – no one at school seems to know.”

 

    1. “K’s school really don’t understand what’s wrong with her eyes.”

 

    1. “No, I have never heard of Direct Payments.”

 

    1. “F has had no Habilitation input for 18 months even though it is mentioned on his EHCP.”

 

 

Recommendations

 

  1. The entire EHCP process including ongoing reviews needs to have input from ALL areas of education, health and social key. A key person from either the school or LA should be tasked with ensuring this happens – not the parent/carer.

 

  1. Local Authorities need to ensure that they provide clear information in their Local Offer and directly to parent/carers of children with SEND about who provides what – especially in areas where all or some of the work is contracted out.

 

  1. Parent support organisations including SENDIASS need to inform parent/carers of this information.

 

  1. Better information needs to be given to parent/carers about the health and social care sections of their child’s EHCP

 

  1. Habilitation needs to become a statutory duty

 

 

Provision for 19-25-year olds including support for independent living; transition to adult services; and access to education, apprenticeships and work

 

Response

 

  1. Moorvision does not believe that the SEND reforms of 2014 have resulted in “simpler, improved and consistent help for children and young people with SEND” or “greater choice in decisions” regarding the Provision for 19-25 year-olds.

 

  1. Moorvision feels that the problems discussed in this section stem not just from the transition process at age 19 but also in the failures still experienced at ALL stages of VI education including the age 14 transition and the transition to Further Education at 16.

 

  1. FAILURES LEAD TO FURTHER FAILURES and we do not feel it is appropriate to separate the stages as they are inextricably linked.

 

  1. Any VI CYP who is not getting their academic (or habilitation/social) needs met at school and/or an adequate transition experience from age 14 is not going to have the relevant qualifications, skills or experience to access as wide a choice of post 19 options as their sighted peers.

 

  1. 38% of VI CYP aged 16-25 are NEET – not in employment, education or training – almost double the amount (20%) of 16-25-year olds in the general population (6)

 

  1. For VI CYP with no or few additional needs the main barriers to accessing higher education from 18+ are:

 

    1. poor quality of provision throughout their education experience

 

    1. poor quality of 14+ transition advice, especially for FE

 

    1. Partial post 16 options offered by LA careers advisors who may not advise on suitable out of county placements

 

    1. poor expectations from teaching staff

 

    1. poor access to past exam papers/multiple problems with exams (7)

 

    1. poor access to work experience

 

    1. poor habilitation support leading to reduced mobility/independence skills

 

    1. the withdrawal of the EHCP for HE

 

    1. the lack of experience and expertise of HE establishments

 

    1. the lack of experience and expertise of Disabled Students Allowance assessors (8)

 

  1. For VI CYP with complex additional needs, the move from the education system to the care system often happens too early and is fraught with difficulties, many parent/carers not understanding their child’s rights. Many CYP who have been in long term residential special school places suddenly find themselves at home with far fewer opportunities to be active and parent/carers who struggle to meet their needs.

 

 

Evidence

 

  1. Quotes from Moorvision parent/carers and CYP follow:

 

  1. These quotes all relate to CYP who are registered SI (Sight Impaired) or SSI (Severely Sight Impaired).

 

    1. “Our child’s careers officer had not heard of the Royal National College for the Blind (out of county specialist placement) and was certainly not keen to support our application for it.”

 

    1. “We have struggled with D’s education from year 7 upwards. He is so behind now that we feel there is no chance of him ever getting to university.”

 

    1. “K’s school seems to have no idea about exams.”

 

    1. “My daughter could not read her SATs papers.”

 

    1. “Exam time was so stressful – half the papers were not prepared on time and the rest were full of errors.”

 

    1. “I really wanted to do triple science at GCSE but my school said I had to do double science as it would be easier for them to adapt the work for me.” H, 14.

 

    1. “At GCSE choice time, our daughter was told she couldn’t take Geography as it was too difficult to adapt for her and was put in lower sets for all subjects despite the fact that she is very bright.”

 

    1. “At two of my university interviews, the staff didn’t seem to have any idea about how they would be able to provide materials for me.” R, 17.

 

    1. “We knew way more than our DSA assessor about what sort of equipment there was to help us at uni.”

 

    1. “DSA awarded me a notetaker but 10 weeks into my course they still haven’t found anyone. I am thinking of quitting the course as it is too difficult.”

 

    1. “I wish the EHCP carried on until 25. D will never be 25 – he will always have a learning age of about 3 so why does he lose the EHCP?”

 

    1. “The transition from education to care has been the most stressful thing we have ever dealt with and we have had to take legal advice.”

 

 

Recommendations

 

  1. Extension of EHCPs beyond 19 to Higher Education and a seamless transition to Care.

 

  1. FE and HE provisions to have trained VI specialists to support VI students

 

  1. VI students to be assessed by VI trained DSA assessors.

 

  1. Careers advisors to be VI trained, UK wide and impartial

 

  1. Schools to ensure VI CYP receive the same opportunities for work experience as other students

 

  1. Educational experience to be improved from day 1 to ensure that VI CYP can attain their potential when they reach 16 and 19.

 

 

Conclusion

 

  1. This may not be the most professional of submissions but it directly reflects the voices of parent/carers and their VI children.

 

  1. Vision Impairment in CYP is a very low incidence/high impact disability. VI CYP have very specific needs. If these needs are met, outcomes can be very positive. Parent/carers from The Young Vision Alliance state: Our children have the right to an inclusive, high quality education just like every other child ... (10)

 

  1. A small group of VI CYP with very articulate and determined parent/carers do reach their potential. For the majority of families, the complexity of navigating the education, health, social care and often legal system is too difficult and their children suffer.

 

  1. Since 2014, LA budget cuts, continued outsourcing of services to private companies (who have shareholders to pay) and changes to how SEND funding is spent in schools have had a serious and negative impact on the educational and life skills of VI CYP.

 

  1. The issues in this submission need to be addressed urgently before we consign an entire generation of VI CYP to a lifetime of not being able to reach their potential.

 

 

(1) RNIB Information and Statistics

(2) Incidence of SEND

(3) Local Provision for VI CYP

(4) Our dominant senses

(5) Sight Impaired at Seven and Eleven

(6) 16-25 Statistics for NEET

(7) Quality of Accessible Exam Papers

(8) Experience and Expertise of DSA Assessors

(9) RNIB list of VI unit schools

(10) Young VIsion Alliance Our Futures-Matter-Report

 

 

April 2019