Written evidence from NASEN (CFA0101)

HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY

Dear Baroness Claire Tyler of Enfield and Children & Families Act 2014 Team

1.1.        This submission has been provided on behalf of the membership of nasen, the National Association for Special Educational Needs.

1.2.        In keeping with our organisational purpose and membership expertise, this response has been collated following two individual open meetings, specifically to support the call for evidence, along with a series of follow up conversations. Schools, colleges, academics, local authority representatives and experts in the field of SEND and education have contributed to discussion about Part 3 of the Act and the following questions:

1.              Has the Act achieved its goal of improving provision for children and young people with SEND, in all settings including mainstream schools, special schools and further education colleges
2.              If changes are needed, could they be achieved under the framework of the Children and Families Act 2014 or is new legislation required?
3.              If there were to be a Children and Families Act 2022, what should it include and what might be the barriers to implementation?

1.3.        The overall response was one of support for the original principles within the Children and Families Act 2014 while reflecting that successful implementation required more than legislation. The factors that hampered implementation were cited as by the lack of leverage from the local authority, leading to settings unable to ensure sufficient resourcing from the multi -agency partners, followed by lack of accountability for under resourcing, also described as lacking the resources to act lawfully. That was cited most frequently as the barrier to successful implementation, followed by the absence of an anticipated wider workforce plan. Workforce confidence remains an issue, particularly for early identification of needs of children with speech language and communication needs (SLCN) or autistic spectrum disorders (ASD).

2.             About nasen

2.1.        nasen – the national association for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) – is the leading membership charity that exists to champion, connect and support those working with and for children and young people with SEND and learning differences. A fully inclusive and equitable education must be the aspiration for all children and young people. We exist to champion, connect and support all those involved in the education community - from the early years to schools, post-16, specialist schools and wider settings - to make this a reality

2.2.        Our free membership network, leading campaigns, trusted experience and training are empowering a generation of knowledgeable and effective leaders and practitioners who are transforming outcomes for the learners they serve day in, day out. As we mark nasen’s 30th anniversary, we have worked in partnership with over 56,000 education practitioners across more than 10,000 schools and settings and are deeply committed to ensuring that our expertise in SEND is available to every school and setting in the UK

2.3.        nasen’s work spans the delivery of international programmes of support through to direct, ‘on the ground’ engagement with schools and settings in the UK. For further information, visit www.nasen.org.uk. Follow nasen on Twitter @nasen_org, Facebook @nasen.org or LinkedIn @the-national-association-for-special-educational-needs-nasen

2.4.        The nasen family includes:

1.              The Whole School SEND Consortium

●                    Whole School SEND is a thriving community network that connects schools, settings, teachers and educators with leading specialists and organisations to empower a more connected, confident and effective workforce

●                    Built on collegiality and collaboration, our network unites schools, settings, teachers and educators with leaders and specialists of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) to share solutions and effective practice at local and national levels

2.              The National specialist SEND Reference Group – a representative forum of specialist education providers from schools colleges and independent sector, along with professional associations and membership bodies, meeting with government departments to offer professional insights.
3.               The DME Trust – The Dual or Multiple Exceptionality Trust, jointly coordinated with Potential Plus UK

3.             Response to specific questions from the call for evidence

Q1. Has the Act achieved its goal of improving provision for children and young people with SEND, in all settings including mainstream schools, special schools and further education colleges?

3.1.        Data from the period post-implementation of the Children and Families Act 2014 to 2021 shows a year on year increase in numbers of children and young people in school identified with SEND Support needs or with an Education Health and Care Plan (source, DfE annual school census data). However, such an increase in numbers of children and young people identified with SEND needs is not an indication of success or whether the provision is improving.

3.2.        The quality of provision, whether in early years, mainstream, specialist or FE, depends on many factors. These include the quality of teaching, the identification of additional needs and learning differences at the earliest possible stage and fundamentally, once identified, whether the right support is available at the right time.

3.3.        The way in which funding is allocated varies between setting types as mainstream schools maintained by the local authority, schools as part of an academy or multi academy trust (MAT), special schools and further education colleges all have a different funding formula. Furthermore, funding varies according to the decisions made by the local administration or local authority in England.

3.4.        From the Act, specific refence will now be made to S19 and S 26

•                  S 19: Local authority functions: supporting and involving children and young people.
•                  S  26: Joint commissioning arrangements

S 19: Local authority functions: supporting and involving children and young people.

The views, interests and aspirations of the child & their parents or young person.

3.5.        The perspectives of children and young people, those with lived experience, are an important indicator of the success or otherwise of provision intended to improve outcomes

3.6.        The principles within the legislation remain relevant, however the actions required to secure the views, wishes and feelings of the children and young people are not consistently implemented.

•                  The youngest children (pre-reception) are least likely to be afforded a voice or agency, nor are their SEND needs consistently identified before statutory school age. The pre-reception sector offers the educational entitlement for most two- and three-year-olds, along with a significant proportion of four year olds.
•                  Older children and young people at age 16- 19 are not consistently enabled to share their views, wishes and feelings through Education Health and Care plans due to inadequate attention to updated the EHCP at key transition points, when moving from one setting to another.
•                  Their EHCP is more likely to be updated if they are moving from a school to another school, and less likely if moving to post-16 training or Further Education. This is a particular issue for mainstream colleges without access to additional support for students.
•                  Older young people are not routinely encouraged to consider higher education as an option, despite the funding available through Disabled Student Access (DSA), therefore their views and wishes will be moderated and ambitions limited.
•                  Examples include limiting ambition to GCSE or equivalent. For young people with Visual Impairment attending specialist provision, funding for their support at a specialist college ceases post- GCSE or BTEC, despite a wish to gain A levels.

3.7.        The Act places the duty for ‘supporting & involving’ with the Local Authority, for all ages 0-25. The legislation could make this clearer for each phase, setting out how and when this can be delegated to a key person to enact.

3.8.        The Act could be enhanced by revising the paragraph 19 principles. setting out separately and distinct for:

•                  Children and young people
•                  Parent or guardian, including Kinship care
•                  Corporate parent for those children and young people who are looked after (LAC)
•                  Ministry of Justice for those young people within the secure estate.

S 26: Joint commissioning arrangements

3.9.       This is an area of legislation that requires amendments as the accountability lies with the local authority to provide an assessment and an Education, Health and Care Plan.

The resources for implementation are dispersed (commissioned) across more than one entity within the multi-agency partnership

3.10.   The nasen membership in schools, whether mainstream or specialist, report a shortfall in practitioners with skills to assess, identify and support speech language and communication needs (SLCN). The most frequently cited therapeutic service required to support SEN Support or ECH Plans includes speech therapy. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) reported (Feb 2022) of a global shortage of qualified therapists. Schools and nasen members also report significant delays in securing assessments or advice from educational psychologists and health practitioners. There is evidence that schools in specialist and mainstream settings are utilising their school budgets to employ specialists with social care, health or psychology backgrounds, described as providing tiers 1,2 and 3 services. While this is solution focused, it is not a sustainable solution in the long term nor does it address the lack of clarity and accountability in decision making.

3.11.   Our nasen membership and collaborations report that local authorities do make decisions about school places in keeping with national policies and process for admissions, however this is more complicated and less transparent when seeking to maximise the specialist provision in their local areas. This is due to how the funding models work, how resources are distributed to schools and local authorities.

3.12.   Joint commissioning between the local authority and partner commissioning bodies varies across the country. The legislation requires amendment to reflect the current commissioning landscape, whereby local authorities do not have the authority to:

•                  Make decisions about and build additional specialist settings.
•                  Select an academy provider, for example with proven credibility for inclusion. Where schools within local authority control ( LA maintained) require improvement, autonomy sists with their governing body to make their own choice of academy provider.

Q2. If changes are needed, could they be achieved under the framework of the Children and Families Act 2014 or is new legislation required?

3.13.   Our membership at nasen expressed concerns about the impact on children and young people, if new primary legislation is required. The length of time to prepare a Bill seemed to outweigh the benefits, along with the inevitable disruption caused when implementing change.

3.14.   However, as set out previously, the Children and Families Act 2014 requires amendments to the following sections to accommodate the necessary changes.

•                  S 19: Local authority functions: supporting and involving children and young people
•                  S 26 Joint commissioning arrangements
•                  Related 2015 Code of Practice – revise the language, for example move from ‘should’ to ‘must’.

Q3. If there were to be a Children and Families Act 2022, what should it include and what might be the barriers to implementation?

3.15.   From the membership discussions, the following themes were identified for inclusion in new legislation:

•                  Greater powers for Ofsted inside the school gate.
•                  The need for an additional regulator specifically for SEND

Submitted by Annamarie Hassall, Chief Executive Officer

The national association of special educational needs – nasen

annamarieh@nasen.org.uk

May 2022

5