SCN0034

Written evidence from Parental Submission 57

 

 

Executive Summary

 

  1. I am submitting evidence as a parent of a child with SEND who has been through the assessment process, the transition process and has both medical and social care needs and has attended both mainstream and special provision. In summary, this submission will cover:

 

1.1.                      The misinformation given by services at each stage of the process

1.2.                      The inadequate and unequal distribution of funding which does not reach the child

1.3.                      The lack of a joined-up approach between sectors and services

 

 

Main Submission

 

1        

2        

2.1                        The assessment of and support for children and young people with SEND

 

2.2 When trying to apply for a Statement of Special Educational Needs (SSEN) in 2014, we were advised by school SENCO and LA staff that our child would not meet the threshold for assessment because she was not ‘far enough behind’ her peers. As soon as her attendance began to plummet as a result of anxiety based school refusal, we were advised that we would now be eligible to get an assessment of needs (even though this is not the legal threshold).

2.3 Once the assessments were complete, we were repeatedly told by the LA that we would be issued with an EHCP even though the reforms were not yet law. We had to forcefully state that we wanted a SSEN as per the existing legal framework.

2.4 Between the issue of the finalised SSEN in December 2014 and my child reaching Year 5 in September 2015, we received no additional support or guidance from the LA regarding the many hours per week my child was out of school (she was only able to access school for 45 minutes each morning). Despite repeated requests to the specialist Autism Advisory Service, both mainstream (where she was on roll) and special school, the LA SEN team and the LA Educational Psychologist and SALT, she received no education provision during these times. She has since been unable to attend school from May 2017 to the current time and again we have had no support in that time.

 

2        

3        

3.1                        The transition from statements of special educational needs and learning disability assessments to education, health and care plans

 

3.2 No Social Care assessment was conducted as per legal requirements and the Social Care section of the EHCP simply stated ‘not known to service’.

3.3 Transition took place within the legal time frames because our dedicated LA SEN Caseworker told us that it would be preferential for us to submit our child’s ECHP as part of a bundle in order for her to be allocated a place in Year 7 as it was considered a Secondary transfer. She suggested that if we waited for the Educational Psychologist’s assessment and report to be included (as we had requested), then our child may miss out on getting a place at the school as her case would be reviewed by Panel on its own and therefore attract greater scrutiny. Although this seemed outwith the legal framework, we did not want to jeopardise her place at the school. No Educational Psychologist report was included.

 

3        

4        

4.1                        The level and distribution of funding for SEND provision

 

4.2 There is no funding for any bespoke provision and the child is expected to fit the provision that the LA funds and makes available rather than creating the provision to meet the child’s needs. This is applicable to our experience in both mainstream and special school.

 

4.3 Considerable funding is diverted into outsourcing or developing in-house legal consultancy to fight parents rather than being ring fenced and directly available to support the child.

 

4        

5        

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

 

5.2 There is no co-operation between the sectors: health are willing to write letters in support of the child but are unable to attend multi-disciplinary meetings given the constraints on their time and overstretched services, despite their clinical judgment often being of pivotal importance.

 

5.3 Social Care refused to assess my child when I made a formal request. This was after they failed to assess at each of the following stages: from SSEN to EHCP and 2 further Annual Reviews. I had to write a letter requesting their reasons for refusal before they reconsidered. The LA has a policy about the criteria for a child to meet the threshold to qualify for support which is not what is stated in law.

 

5.4 The education sector takes the brunt of the administrative burden and the role of co-ordinating. The support the child receives depends greatly on the skill and knowledge of individual education professionals and is therefore inconsistent from setting to setting and area to area.

 

 

5.5 Because of this failure to join up services, it is left to the parents to broker across each service and to try to hold the LA accountable for their legal duty.

 

5.6 In each of these services, we have encountered more professionals who do not understand the law as contained in the Children and Families Act and the Code of Practice (or who choose to misinterpret it if they do understand the law) and we have been required to challenge these professionals by presenting them with the law as it is laid out in order to get our child’s needs met.

 

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

Not applicable

 

Recommendations

 

  1. Train all professionals involved in the EHCP process in the law with rigorous additional training for the LA. Ideally, make the training available to parents at the same time and reinforce the spirit of the Children and Families Act which is to provide the child with a holistic approach to meeting their needs and keep them and their wishes at the heart of the process.

 

  1. Ensure funding is spent on supporting the child and use Personal Budgets to effectively create bespoke provision, particularly where what the LA has made available is not what the child needs.

 

  1. Disincentivise and sanction adversarial approaches from Local Authorities and support and reward genuine co-production.

 

  1. Ensure the LA is accountable for overseeing all elements of necessary provision – whether that is from Education, Health or Social Care – as is their legal and fiscal responsibility.

 

 

 

April 2018