SCN0030

Written evidence from Parental Submission 11

 

  1. [Name], 59, parent of High-functioning/Asperger child
  2. Child now 14, diagnosed before 7 years old
  3. Multiple changes of school – staff ‘unable to meet needs’
  4. Child LITERALLY mis-handled by two schools, in one seriously
  5. Child educated under School Action Plus for 3 years – part time schooling – excuse of schools not to meet needs
  6. Misuse of exclusion rules to suit school/Head
  7. Primary carer: mother, former high-school teacher
  8. Theresa May said in April 2018 that children required 12 years of quality education to achieve their potential.
  9. Our child has not yet received ONE year of anything I would call ‘quality’ education!

 

POINTS IN BRIEF:

  1. Parent required to drive the process and ensure information is correct and appropriate.
  2. EHCPlans’ accuracy depends on information which may not have been provided.
  3. I have no information on the finance question, but do have a comment to make.
  4. Child with life-long condition deemed to have no health issues, despite medication and Psych intervention.
  5. Lack of co-operation/communication between Education, Health and Social Care – most likely money-based.
  6. Comment on 19-25 education of those ‘held back’

 

ASSESSMENTS:

  1. Child assessed some years ago but:

a)    Updating of EHCPlan has still required parental intervention to ensure that  the proper authorities (CAMHS Psychiatrist, Educational Psychiatrist and Autism Team)

b)    Some update assessments do not compare with old ones, so complete comparison cannot be drawn.

 

TRANSFER TO EHCPlan:

  1. The transfer was ‘done’ in 2015-16, but was incomplete.
  2. A review was conducted in 2017, but Plan was still incomplete: County having been asked to request certain information – which was not sought, and so not provided.
  3. I insisted , for current review,that we had to have child’s psychological reports updated (from CAMHS and Education Psychs)
  4. I insisted a member of the Autism Team should re-examine child, to determine actual needs, not those presumed by setting.
  5. I have had long consultations with setting staff to try to ensure the EHCPlan is fit for purpose.
  6. I note: Autism Team person explained they could write all sorts of helpful recommendations re needs of the child in their report, but the setting need only take these as ‘advisory’. In that consultants are now via [education consultancy] not County, these specialist advisors have no ‘clout’ to ensure that their recommendations are being taken up for the benefit of the child.
  7. The EHCPlan could be virtually worthless in the event of the previous comment. There are too many get-outs for (cash-strapped) authorities to hear/read into them  ‘could’ or ‘should’ instead of ‘must’ provide.
  8. All Statement to EHCPlan transfers were meant to be completed by now – I believe they are NOT all done in [local authority]. 
  9. IT WILL HAVE TAKEN ALMOST TWO YEARS TO TRANSITION our child’s Statement to an EHCPlan fully.
  10. SOME SETTINGS ARE REFUSING TO ARRANGE ASSESSMENTS, WHICH WILL DOUBTLESS LEAD TO AN EHCPLAN BECAUSE OR THE COSTS AND EFFORTS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.  SOME EVEN REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE A CHILD’S NEEDS.

 

LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDING ACROSS ENGLAND:

  1. As expressed above, I do not feel  I can respond to this  - however I have comments.

a)    I hear constantly – from other parent carers – that settings are saying they do not have enough money to provide X Y or Z for their child.... despite the Plan being in place

b)    Our child has had their setting changed several times, even for a couple of years out of County, including two specialist settings, incurring extra funding for the setting itself and for transport to go to and fro each day.

NO ONE from County has EVER made a check to establish whether:

i)                   the child has been appropriately placed;

ii)                 the child is settled in that new setting;

iii)               the setting is dealing with the child and their needs in an appropriate way

iv)               County is getting value for money from that setting for that child.

 

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN SCHOOL, SOCIAL CARE AND HEALTH CARE?

  1. I have acted as intermediary between health and education – because they do not have direct communication, and only I hold certain details required for the Plan – detail which should have been supplied from another body.
  2. As mentioned above, last year, the setting requested of County to, in turn, request a report from CAHMS – which never came.  I made a firm request for this for the current review (Apr 18), which did produce a report. This is not the Psych at fault: it is the setting not actually making the request correctly, or County not responding to the request.
  3. I queried at the setting (Apr 18) why our child was deemed to have no medical issues: the child has had multiple meltdowns in younger years, had serious relationship issues with one parent, has been on various medication, most recently Risperidone and Sertraline and has attended CAMHS (ie MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES!) for many years. Although not now medicated, they still access the service every 4-6 months.       The child also, most importantly, has Autism/Asperger’s. Some say this is not a medical condition, but it IS: a life-long condition affecting how the brain processes information. One which can have a profound effect on social interaction, their ability to hold down a job or keep a relationship going, even affecting their mental health...........  But they do not have anything to add to the health care section of the EHCPlan (??!!)
  4. I was informed that ‘Health’ does not like people putting things in that section that they have not agreed to first .THIS alone, in my view, proves that the separate service are NOT communicating with one another!  Needless to say, I shall push this point with the review, if County still want to omit ‘Health’ issues for our child’s EHCPlan.
  5. (Years ago, in the case of my elder son, now 36, I had a great debate with Education and Health over his then undiagnosed Autism – and I was seeking a diagnosis from a private institute. The institute knew they would be covered under the E111 (this was  in Germany). Both argued it was the other’s responsibility to pay for it (consultation only, not transport)..... Eventually, sense prevailed by them understanding that this was a health issue that affected his learning, not the other way round.) 
  6. Autism is a health issue, which can affect learning. It should AUTOMATICALLY appear in the Health section of the EHCPlan.

 

PROVISION 19-25:

  1. We are not at this stage with our son (14), but
  2. A couple of years ago, I gained agreement with County that our child would be educated ‘a year behind’ to enable them to try to catch up on his learning (they having been only part-time ‘educated’ for his first years, as explained above.) Our child’s birthday is [date], so most academic years finish before that date, (last exams usually being in June.)
  3. I had wanted to have them start school later but the only flexibility offered was to have them skip Reception and go straight to Year One. Not acceptable.
  4. The agreement, which I have in writing is in his Statement years, not EHCPlan, but spells out that our child would not be ‘rising 16’ at the end of Year Eleven, but ‘rising 17’.
  5. Now, there is another issue:
  6. The EHCPlan goes to a 25th birthday.  I already know of a young SEN man forced off a course he loved, before he could finish it, because he has reached that birthday. He was devastated.
  7. I wish to save our child that potential fate. Of course, they may be in some different situation by then, and the ‘law’ (I understand) only goes to 25th birthday ---- but as higher education terms finish before 19 July, he would still only be 24. The Plan should be flexible enough to cover those who have been ‘kept back’ for Educational (or Health... or Social Care!) reasons.
  8. So as our child has this agreement, it should be able to flex, to allow them to complete a course up until after the exam period when they will turn 26.
  9. Our child has been cheated out of a ‘quality education’ through a lack of training, understanding and provision, so he already does not have the leeway to gain the 12 years of ‘quality education’ necessary, as stated by our Prime Minister.
  10. It is bad enough for an SEND child to be obstructed in their education by their condition(s), without the system further compounding their difficulties in reaching whatever could be described as their ‘potential’.

 

  1. Additional note:  Although the Inquiry is seeking information from users of the EHCPlan system, many parent carers will have been excluded from the consultation by the rather complex stipulations laid down in the guidance. I found that there were things I felt you ought to know, despite them not quite fitting here.  However, this was much better than a survey would have been, as these do not usually offer all the questions to give one’s own comments about the subject.

 

April 2018