SCN0023

Written evidence from Lisa O’Leary

SEND reforms

1. I am a relatively new SENCO in a mainstream semi rural school in a geographical area with limited physical resources. I have 20 years plus experience in teaching in a variety of roles. My submission covers:

1.1.                      Difficulties and limitations of the assessment process in practical use

1.2.                      Funding is insufficient, there is a lack of parity and clarity

1.3.                      Cooperation between professionals is ineffective in real terms again due to funding and pressure on services

2. The assessment process is arduous and heavily reliant on “what have you done already” rather than what is the learning experience like for the child. Cycles of APDR have to fail before formal assessment for EHCP, this means the child has to fail. As a professional watching a child fail knowing this is the only way the LA will offer further financial support to put effective strategies in place is disheartening at best. Watching a child struggle emotionally with the fallout of this failure and watching a parent fight and struggle to manage this is soul destroying.

3. Schools need a simpler process and not to be working with a LA that is so financially pressed it forces schools to jump through hoops. What a struggling child with a history of learning needs requires is prompt and supportive action. Schools need to be supported to provide good quality interventions at all stages of the process.

4. Funding for SEND provision is insufficient. The very first thing we need to do is get rid of the “notional” £6k……notional funding? What does that mean? It means that it is not based on the level of need in schools, nor on the number of students with additional needs. It means this money does not exist. It confuses parents who believe this money is ring fenced for their child when it is not. If K codes are going to be funded then this needs to be transparent and clearly ring fenced in the school budget.

5. There should be a national agreement on high needs funding, it should not be a LA lottery, it should be statutory, consistent across the country and agreed and distributed promptly by central government.

6. In reality there is little co-operation between education, health and social care sectors in mainstream schools under the new EHCP system. The burden falls on schools to make a case for statutory assessment, the burden falls on schools to review and implement the majority of provision. Where a student does not have a physical disability there is little formal additional support. Services such as Education Psychology, Behaviour Support, Autism specialist teams, CAMHS are either so stretched they will only take referrals for extremely high risk students or they charge for their services which mean schools have to make difficult choices….often it is students where serious damage has already been done who access these services. Surely our resources should be directed also at preventing escalation of SEMH issues at an early stage.

7. In summary the profile of high needs in schools has increased significantly in the last 5 years in my experience. SEMH needs are becoming worrying high. The push for universal high academic achievement regardless of need limits true inclusion. The move away from mainstream schools offering vocational qualifications and pathways limits choice and opportunity for our SEND students, we are shoe horning young people into a one size fits all mould. Demands on teaching staff to meet the range of needs are enormous. There are scarce resources in terms of special schools and specialist services outside of large cities. Funding is at crisis point.

June 2018