Written evidence from Anonymous (SEN 101)

Education Committee

Solving the SEND Crisis

Why I am responding

I am grandmother to, and advocate for, 2 young people with additional needs:

• 14 year old boy who is Autistic with ADHD, language and learning difficulties who has had an EHCP for 7 years. He attended a mainstream primary school for 5 years but since year 6 has attended a special school.

• 8 year old boy with ADHD who is at draft EHCP stage and attends a mainstream primary school

SEN support in mainstream schools should be on a statutory footing.

Agreed.

Improving outcomes for young people with SEND

Government, local authorities and educators must create, and role model a culture of inclusion and high expectations for SEND students.

The law relating to SEND is currently good. However, it is systematically and deliberately ignored by local authorities as there is no enforcement or penalties.

The single most impactful and cost-effective way to improve outcomes would be to hold Local Authorities to account, mandating that they correctly apply and uphold the law, with rigorous enforcement and punitive penalties for failure.

It is shocking that parents currently win 92-98% of all tribunals across the UK. Local authorities waste millions of pounds annually by forcing families to tribunal to have their children’s legal rights upheld. They do this to ‘save money’ as the SEND teams are not accountable for the council’s legal budget. If they delay providing support to a child they see it as a ‘win’.  Yet the long term consequences for the fiscal purse are dire with children failing to reach their potential, becoming unemployable, unable to live independently and reliant on statutory services. Imagine how your life would be if you had been denied 50+ weeks of education.

This happens routinely to our children, including my eldest grandson. We went to tribunal as the local authority refused to issue an EHCP. Just 2 weeks before the tribunal date they conceded, issued an EHCP and he is now not only within a special school, but within a nurture hub within this in a class of just 5 children. His needs, as set out by the Educational Psychologist report at the time, are complex. His case worker proudly told me that by forcing me to tribunal they had saved 51 weeks of support costs. My grandson lost a full year of education. We, as his full time carers suffered immense stress and also unnecessary cost. His case is not an isolated anomaly, but part of a stated strategy by our local authority – refuse to assess, then refuse to issue and see which parents fight this. This discriminates against our most vulnerable children where their families lack the ability and resources to fight the local authority.

Local authorities waste millions more in unnecessary correspondence, meetings and complaints arising directly due to their failure to act within the law. This is not isolated to our local authority, but endemic across all local authorities as evidenced by the tribunal statistics. This money would more than pay for the support our children need.

Their teams appear not to understand and/or correctly apply the law which leads to poorer outcomes. This has not changed in the 7 years I have had the misfortune of dealing with them. For example, just last week in response to a formal complaint I made over failure to adhere to legal EHCP timescales my local authority told me that they are proud that they meet the legal timeframes in 75% of cases. In their eyes failure to comply with the law in 25% of cases is not only acceptable, but to be applauded. Each delay results in additional weeks, months and in some cases years, that children’s outcomes are negatively impacted.

It is essential that sufficient funds are allocated to enable our children to receive the support they need in an appropriate education setting. Our local authority tells me that their unlawful approaches are in part driven by lack of budget to provide the support our children need. To stay within budget they are knowingly and intentionally depriving children of the support they are entitled to. Every child should receive the support they need. If the experts, including educational psychologists, occupational therapists, and school staff identify necessary support for these vulnerable children, then this must be provided.

It is likely that I shall be forced to tribunal again for my eldest grandson this year as the local authority is refusing to provide his special school with the funding needed to deliver his Section F provision. This then triggers a costly and time consuming process, including multiple communications, an emergency review, and then an expedited tribunal as he is in his GCSE years.  The combined costs of these are far greater than the funding required. This is a total waste of money and has life-long detrimental consequences for our child whose GCSE attainment, college place and future career are now all in jeopardy.

There is a dearth of appropriate special schools. This must be addressed. Our eldest grandson travels out of city because there is no special school in the city that provides a full GCSE curriculum to children with his level of autism and ADHD needs. This adds travel stress to his day and cost to the fiscal purse as his transport costs are higher. Proper analysis of needs and provision in localities with forward planning to ensure sufficient provision of the right type for children coming through the educational system is totally lacking.

Earlier diagnosis and identification of additional needs is required. This enables children to receive support at the earliest opportunity thereby increasing their life chances and reducing reliance on statutory support. This is also essential to enable proper planning for appropriate provision, budgets, and school places.

Wrap multi-agency support (e.g. school, physical and mental health, social services, etc.) around children and families. It is so disjointed and siloed that children routinely fall through cracks and conditions worsen resulting in greater need.

The local authority’s relationship with families is adversarial whereas it should be a partnership to wrap support around each child. We feel we are in constant battle with the local authority to uphold our children’s legal rights. We never have a case worker for more than few months. They never meet our child, and typically only speak to us once a year at our EHCP annual review where it is clear that they haven’t even read the case file. As such meaningful discussions about how children could be better supported, including through community provision never take place.

Mainstream school staff receive insufficient training to identify and implement appropriate strategies to enable children with additional needs to access their education. Many of these are no/low cost inclusivity adaptations (environment, teaching resources, and approach), and would benefit all children, but require a skilled teacher to apply them. When in a mainstream primary school my elder grandson’s teachers received just 2 hours of training in autism and ADHD which was woefully inadequate.

School staff need comprehensive training in Autism, ADHD, dyslexia, adverse childhood experiences, trauma-informed approaches, emotional coaching, attachment theory, mental health first aid, etc. They also need comprehensive training in strategies to apply to create truly differentiated teaching and inclusive classrooms.

Schools need to be inclusive environments. Smaller class sizes, quiet corridors, places to eat away from dining halls which result in sensory overload, quiet spaces, ear defenders, visual prompts, precision teaching techniques, nurture hubs, differentiated curriculum and teaching, and similar need to be standard. All children would benefit from this approach.

For this to work schools need sufficient budget (which will pay back in the longer term through reduction in reliance and use of other services), sufficient qualified and experienced staff, and also immediate access to external expertise when needed. For example they need access to an Educational Psychologist to advise schools and support teachers as they implement strategies. It is impossible for schools to get ad-hoc advice from an Educational Psychologist or other experts when needed. Increasingly parents are told to apply for an EHCP as this is the only way to get and Educational Psychologist assessment. This was the case for our younger grandson where school’s requests for an Educational Psychologist visit were refused for 2 years. We will never know if getting support earlier might have reduced the level of need he has now.

Invest in evidence-based approaches that support SEND students, increasing their educational attainment, improving their mental health and wellbeing, and building critical life skills e.g. the mentoring programmes provided by charity Power2. Make these available to schools. Early intervention improves outcomes and reduces longer-term reliance and use of statutory services.

Address the CAMHS crisis. Children with additional needs frequently have social, emotional and mental health needs. Failure to address these has well evidenced repercussions.

Invest in assistive technology and make this available within schools to support students who would benefit from this.

Develop supported pathways for SEND students transitioning to further education, employment, or supported living. Transport must be provided as part of this for these young people. Many young people with SEND cannot take up their college place as transport is not provided and they cannot travel independently and/or by public transport (e.g. due to sensory or social communication challenges).

Rigorous inspection of SEND provision in mainstream and special schools with sharing of best practice.

Published outcomes data by local authority with ranked tables.

Education, Health and Care Plans  

• How can waiting times for EHC Plans be improved?

• As an immediate step, hold Local Authorities to account mandating that they correctly apply and uphold the law, with rigorous enforcement and punitive penalties for failure. If they consistently and correctly applied the law, then timescales would be met.

• Local authorities lose 92-98% of all tribunals which is truly shocking and evidences systemic maladministration and incompetence. It also creates a huge amount of unnecessary expenditure (millions of pounds), and staff time in preparing and providing document bundles, instructing lawyers, and defending cases they know they cannot win. Our local authority is regularly barred from tribunals for failure to submit the necessary paperwork.
• If they adhered to the law, including timescales, then the significant costs and time needed to deal with correspondence from families and schools chasing progress, mediation, appeals and tribunals would be vastly reduced. This would provide the time and money to do their jobs properly.
• To do the above local authority staff need a mindset change to remember that these are children’s lives that they are making decisions on. Failing to enable them to access their education has lifelong repercussions, including for the fiscal purse as this impacts their ability to gain employment and live independently, increasing their life-long reliance upon statutory services.
• Local authority staff need to be properly trained. The law applies to all local authorities. They cannot implement their own criteria. The law must be accurately and consistently applied.
• Local authority staff need to view families as partners and not adversaries. Most of us are reasonable people who simply want our children’s legal rights upheld. Early and constructive discussion would both result in more robust EHCPs, and faster agreement. Changing our case workers every year means that relationships are never built with either families or schools.

• The legal framework is the same across England for every local authority. Therefore, create centrally mandated simplified policies, processes, systems, templates, staffing structures and training for all local authorities to follow. Make use of these compulsory not optional. Use AI to make these efficient, effective and accurate.

• There may be benefits in centralising all or most of the work required for EHCPs within specialist national centres. This should be explored.
• Take this opportunity to review the whole EHCP system. As a parent who has to navigate this daily, and as a management consultant, I can identify obvious, quicker and more efficient ways to get young people the educational support they need.

• Artificial intelligence properly applied could reduce worktime and errors significantly e.g. in decision making and drafting EHCPs.

• Empower and fund schools and local authorities to provide interventions and support which may reduce the need for EHCPs.

• Provide schools with access to Educational Psychologists whenever they need them

• Schools no longer have the necessary budgets to call upon the expertise that they need. In many instances EHCPs would not be applied for if an Educational Psychologist was available to advise schools outside of this process and support teachers as they implement strategies. The only way to get an Educational Psychology review in our area is to apply for an EHCP. It is impossible for schools to get advice from an Educational Psychologist when needed any other way.

• Some of the EHCP process delays occur due to lack of availability of Educational Psychologists both for assessment of needs and annual reviews. Resolve this.
• More efficient multi-agency systems and multi-agency working to wrap effective support around the child. Excessive time is wasted requesting existing reports that if held centrally could be immediately accessed. This would be facilitated by having national specialist centres as outlined above.
• Create ‘task teams’ to go into local authorities and clear backlogs. I am a management consultant and it is obvious to me just how inefficient our local authority EHCP team is and why. I am confident that people with my skills could resolve this very quickly.
• Expedite tribunal cases and those referred to the Ombudsman and get rid of the backlog. Please note that much of the backlog is caused by the incompetence of local authorities in failing to comply with the existing law.
• Support schools and families through the process to avoid and reduce delays caused by not understanding the process and information requested. This needs to be undertaken in a nurturing and partnership way. At the moment most parents feel they are fighting the local authority and there is no trust.

• What can be done to support parents, carers and children or young people before, during and after the EHC Plan process?

• A centralised system where families can access their child’s case, download documents, see exactly where their case is up to and communicate with their case worker (provides audit trail).
• Simple, accurate, jargon-free explanations of the process, timeframes and what is required from them. Create simple online resources (in multi-media formats), that can be accessed at anytime that explain exactly what to do and when with templates for letters, etc.
• Friendly, nurturing independent support to help families when they need it. It should be remembered that many SEND conditions are hereditary, therefore parents often have additional needs and need support too. Our local SENDIASS is very good but I am aware that this is not the case nationally and many families distrust ‘services’ based on lived experience.
• Specialist on-demand drop-in SEND advice and support for parents and schools pre-EHCP to put in place support that may eliminate or delay the need for an EHCP.
• A named consistent case worker who builds a partnership with the family, is their single point of contact, and who has the necessary skills, training and experience to correctly apply the law and process and guide them through it. Must be easily contactable by phone, email and whatsapp and respond to family quickly.
• Specialist advocates/helpers to practically help families through the process, including completing paperwork, reviewing and responding to draft plans, and representing them in meetings.
• Emotional support for families. The process is incredibly stressful.
• Family friendly communications and meetings which recognise the crucial role families play and that they are the experts in their child.
• Comprehensive, accurate, Simple, jargon-free, unambiguous EHCPs with expert non-judgmental support for families who need help to understand these
• Opportunities for family to ask questions about the draft EHCP before responding to it in-person, via video call, phone call or email and receive honest, accurate, jargon-free responses.
• Ongoing help to learn about and navigate associated services (e.g. transport) and other available support e.g. short breaks. In an ideal world all of this would be dealt with by the same case worker. Wrapping support around the child and family reduces reliance on EHCP provision.
• Ensure the voices of families are genuinely heard e.g. co-development of policy, processes and services; feedback, continuous improvement, complaints, etc.

• How can the EHC Plan process be made non-adversarial?
• As an immediate step, hold Local Authorities to account mandating that they correctly apply and uphold the law, with rigorous enforcement and punitive penalties for failure. If they consistently and correctly applied the law much of the conflict with families would disappear.
• Stop ignoring parents. Our local authority doesn’t respond to communications. You cannot call them – their telephone number is the council’s call centre who can only pass on a message which in my 7 years of dealing with them has never been replied to. Managers refuse to provide their email addresses (they have asked our local SENDIASS not to provide them to parents). Emails to both the team and individual case workers go unanswered and on occasion are deleted without being read despite these relating to time constrained processes. This results in parents needing to make formal complaints.
• Have a dedicated properly trained case worker (we have had 9 different case workers in 7 years), who stays with the family throughout their child’s education, and builds a genuine, respectful partnership which recognises that families want what’s best for their children and that they are the experts in their child’s needs. The case worker must be easily contactable by phone, email and whatsapp and respond to family quickly. They must engage the family in constructive discussion to ensure they are able to contribute fully and this includes when drafting and amending plans.

• Our experience (other than that described below), is that the information we receive is inaccurate and often unlawful, that lip service is paid to our views, we are patronised, treated as an inconvenience, our intelligence is insulted, and we are routinely disrespected. Local authority staff are routinely confrontational. They should be respectful and remember that these are our children’s lives and futures that we are dealing with.
• We had one excellent case worker for 2 years. She proactively contacted us, responded quickly to communications, ensured we understood what was happening and when, kept her word, and helped us to contribute fully. We did not always agree, but were able to discuss and resolve these instances respectfully. We jointly rewrote his EHCP at the annual review to make it clearer and stronger. She brokered a move to a special school. She thought about our child holistically and arranged other support services, including short breaks. The positive impact on our child was immeasurable and our stress lifted hugely. Sadly she left and her replacements have all been appalling. They are juniors with negligible training or experience and woefully inadequate supervision. They are adversarial and incompetent. Shockingly in our local authority this is the norm.

• Use independent specialist mediators to support constructive dialogue when disagreements occur. This should be available to all families and case workers  at anytime, and does not refer to the formal mediation process following refusal to assess or issue a plan.
• Where an EHCP is declined, support family and school to implement necessary support without this and signpost/support family to apply for other available services e.g. early help, short breaks.

• What alternatives are there to the EHC Plan process?

• There will always be children who require more support than mainstream schools can provide within available resources, therefore an efficient effective system to enable them to quickly access this support in a stress free way is essential. This could be achieved by

• Multi-agency panels of experts reviewing cases with input from professionals, schools and families; determining support needed and directing local authorities to immediately provide it.
• A non-adversarial mediation style process bringing together families, school, professionals and specialist trained mediators to agree on support needed, which is then binding on the local authority.

• School and family be given immediate access to expert advice whenever needed e.g. educational psychologist, SALT, occupational therapy, CAMHS, etc. This should include regular drop-in opportunities for ad-hoc advice.

• Require local authorities to provide additional support when requested by school or a professional, without the need for an EHCP e.g. SALT, specialist interventions and therapies.

• Mandate that schools must develop and deliver detailed, individualised support plans for children who need more than ordinarily available provision but less than an EHC Plan. School must be given the resources to deliver these.

What can be done to reduce the disproportionately high exclusion rates for students with SEND?

• Much of this has been covered above e.g.
• Earlier diagnosis and identification of need
• In-depth teacher training
• Access to expert advice and support for schools
• Inclusive school and classroom environments
• Differentiated curriculum and teaching
• Better pastoral care
• Constructive alternatives to exclusion that address root cause
• Timely access to necessary support and adjustments. Children are most frequently excluded because they cannot cope with the school environment or teaching style.

• Personalised behaviour policies. Our child does not want to be in school. He is clever. So he went through a phase of figuring out which behaviours got him excluded so that he would be sent home whenever he wanted to be. The educational psychologist instructed school not to exclude him whatever he did and to reinforce that nothing he does will result in him being excluded. Over time this behaviour stopped as it didn’t give him the desired result and he reengaged with school and his learning.

What steps can local authorities take to ensure funding is in place to meet the transport needs of post-16 students with SEND?

Whilst I don’t know the answer to this, as a parent I can emphasise how important it is. Our child wants to go to college. However, he cannot travel independently and neither can he travel on public transport due to sensory overload. Our local authority’s policy is not to fund his transport. This would prevent him from going to college, which in turn would prevent him from pursuing his chosen career (which is a realistic aspiration), and living independently.

January 2025