SCN0127
Written evidence from Parental Submission 66
1.1. From our experiences we have the found the following:
1.2. The Local Authority frequently failed to adhere to the laws and regulations regarding the processes. They seemed to be trying to put as many obstacles in parents’ way in order to put off all but the most determined/knowledgeable/well-off parents and thus save money. This way they reduce the number of children for whom they have to provide additional resources. There appears to be no accountability for Local Authorities when they fail to adhere to the law and regulations.
1.3. Schools were given misinformation from the Local Authorities regarding the process, law and regulations for SEND. This included schools being berated for submitting ‘too many’ applications for EHC assessments, even when the criteria are met.
1.4. Mainstream schools are struggling to provide for all of the children with SEN. There is a lack of expertise in mainstream schools regarding how to meet their needs. Resources available to schools, e.g. outreach from local special schools and Educational Psychology (EP) services are overstretched, resulting in long waiting lists or insufficient provision. We were told that as our son’s school had already used up their year’s allocation of EP services so we could not secure any for our son, unless the LA agreed to undertake one as a part of an EHC assessment. Likewise, our son was on a waiting list for six months before his school received outreach support from the local special school. Once it was provided it made a significant difference in the ability of the school staff to meet our son’s needs but came far too late.
1.5. There is no culture of early intervention. It seems that things need to go disastrously wrong with a child’s welfare before they are deemed a high enough priority to receive help and even then, the fight for help is just beginning. By this time damage has been done, sometimes irreparably and it costs a lot more money to put things right.
1.6. The impact on families is substantial. It has left J’s mother (who is self-employed) unable to take on any work for periods of time, due to the need to be available to support J during the school day and the significant amount of work and resources required to educate herself in the law and regulations, to establish what J is entitled to and to fight for him to receive it. This has a large financial impact on the family. We were lucky that we could afford to do this but many other families do not have the resources to do so and their children will end up on the scrapheap and being a burden on the welfare state.
1.7. The stress on all family members cannot be underestimated, from the child himself not receiving the support he needs, siblings feeling side-lined due to the pressures on their parents and the emotional toll on parents and their relationships with each other and their children.
2.1. The Government must ensure that the LA promote and facilitate early intervention as soon as children begin to experience difficulties.
2.2. Government to provide adequate and ring-fenced funding so that the LA do not feel obliged to deny help to children with SEND, provide misinformation and use delaying tactics in order to prioritise.
2.3. LAs to be held accountable for following the existing law and codes of conduct.
June 2018