SCN0135

 

Written evidence from Parental Submission 27

 

  1. Call for Evidence: The impact and implementation of part three of the Children and Families Act 2014.
  2. Submission by parents of 3 children. Our family includes our 15 year old daughter who has an Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Pathological Demand Avoidance and Generalised Anxiety Disorder. We are submitting evidence because our eldest child has been badly failed throughout her secondary education. We hope this submission helps to prevent this happening to other children like her.
  3. NB our other two younger neuro-typical children, one in primary phase, one in secondary phase are exceeding educational expectations and doing well. Their school attendance is 100% (secondary) and 99.4% (primary).

 

Executive summary:

  1. Despite the well intentioned Children and Families Act 2014, austerity cuts and lack of specified provision continue to push those that are not neuro-typical out of education and out of society, affecting their life chances and mortality.
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/18/premature-autism-deaths-are-hidden-crisis-says-charity (March 2016)
  3. DFE Funding for pupils with SEN should be ring-fenced to the child. This is one of the main reasons that children with SEN are being let down. Academies usually spend it on increasing pupil capacity because this means more funding. Academies are a business after all.
  4. The EHCP process is NOT child-centred, support requested by children and advocacy by parents is frequently ignored, largely due to costs. Professionals, who have never met the child, make judgements about what is best for them, as opposed to what evidence says they need.
  5. Even when mental health support is recognised as being required, the waiting lists are long and the support offered is frequently short term, unsuitable and has a narrow non-individualised remit. No one wants to pay for the support that could ultimately help the child.
  6. Judgements by SENDIST or Upper Tribunals are ignored and a ‘risk’ is taken by LA’s. However as there are no penalties for LA’s to NOT do this. Even if they lose (and 88% of appeals are won in favour of the child) they have still affected the educational chances of that child and put them and their family through a very stressful process.
  7. https://specialneedsjungle.com/70million-council-costs-parents-send-tribunal/ (December 2017)
  8. Exclusions of children with SEN are at an all-time high in our area [local authority] along with a substantial increase in Home Educated pupils. Children are being failed.
  9. Parents often have no choice BUT to home educate their child and after 4 years of fighting for support which we failed to get, we will likely be joining this statistic. [links to local news stories]
  10. The ‘Banding’ our LA uses to allocate resources to an SEN Child is decided by a panel, behind closed doors and is not transparent to anyone. Attendees are unknown and there is nothing provided in writing as to why a particular band has been chosen, or, on what evidence it is based. It is also not appealable.
  11. The whole system is broken because even though 88% of SENDIST appeals are won by parents, the amount of time it takes to reach a hearing impacts on that’s child’s education and then the LA might ignore the judgement anyway, resulting in parents having to go back through the system.

15. There is no consequence for LA’s and schools and many parents, like ourselves, are struggling financially and cannot afford to get legal advice or support which LA’s have ready access to, through public funds.

16. Assessments should be reviewed to inform support needs. Our daughters last educational needs assessment was over a decade ago. The Tribunal raised this with the LA but of course there is no oversight so they simply ignored this.

  1. LA scrutiny panel representatives often do not understand the complex laws around Academies, SEN and the CAF act 2014. LA representatives falsely paint a rosy picture of inner processes such as ‘reducing CIN or EHCP costs’. This type of scrutiny is simply ineffective and does not work.

Recommendations:

  1. There should be suitable financial deterrents to those LA’s and schools who repeatedly abuse the EHCP system and fail to meet a child’s needs. This consequence would help to at least reduce the ‘risk taking attitude’ many LA’s have adopted due to budget cuts. The money could be put back into SENDIST to reduce waiting times or used to support the child’s education in some way.

19. Parents should be able to access free legal support in terms of ensuring the EHCP is fit for purpose and help them prepare for mediation or Tribunal Hearings. The system is unfairly weighted against parents as LA’s have ready access to their legal support and financial resources.

20. Mediation should be documented so tribunals can use the notes of a failed mediation to help them see where the barriers are.

21. More resources need pouring into SENDIST to limit the waiting time for parents and children. This would mean the children would get the right support quicker and give them a fighting chance at having a suitably supported education.

22. Consideration should be given to the emotional impact a child endures when parents are forced through a legal system. LA’s ignoring a child’s voice reinforces the child’s sense of worthlessness leading to disengagement.

  1. Local scrutiny panels need to be replaced with INDEPENDENT panels that can challenge LA decisions and offer insight to OFSED/CQC inspectors.
  2. Assessments should be comprehensive, evidenced and informed and undertaken regularly particularly at key transition points in the child’s life.  IF LA’s do not want to adhere to them, they should provide an explanation in writing, which is evidence based, as to why they are not being adhered to.
  3. ’Banding’ panels allocating the High Needs Block should be transparent, evidence based and decisions made should be recorded, shared and challengeable. This could make a difference as to whether a school can facilitate the support a SEN child needs.
  4. To avoid the postcode lottery for services, consideration should be given to there being a national framework for EHCP’s, banding and commissioned services to make it clearer for LA’s on their responsibilities and to aid OFSTED / CQC inspections.
  5. Funding for mental health services and educational psychologists, for children with SEN, MUST be prioritised in both schools and LA’s.
  6. Procedures for SEN complaints and tribunals for children should be simpler and far quicker. Situations can quickly deteriorate as a consequence.

 

June 2018

1         Assessment of and support for children and young people with SEND:

1.1       My daughter, born 2003 and diagnosed with ASD, was assessed for a Statement of SEN in 2008. It was agreed she had support needs and these were outlined in her statement of SEN. (My daughter has not had another educational needs assessment since 2008, despite transition to secondary phase (2013/14), and new diagnoses of PDA and GDA (2016) and a transition to EHCP (2017).

1.2       We had a Child in Need Assessment and Direct payments were put in place in 2012 to pay for a carer. We have had a Direct Payment family plan created in 2013 and this has not been reviewed or changed annually, since.

1.3       At that time there was a lot of support for children, schools and parents in terms of access to clinical and educational psychologists, ASD specialists, and alternate provisions for anxiety and socialisation. There were good working relationships to achieve the best outcomes for the child. This is non-existent now. The support available then, enabled my daughter to achieve good scores in primary SATS (5 in maths & reading and 4 in English and writing).

1.4       My daughter suffered an unprovoked attack by another pupil on 1st September 2014, her first day of secondary school at a specialist ASD placement. The trauma suffered was immense and she never went back. Eventually the LA provided 5 hours of 1:1 tutor support for her, for 2 years, after naming a mainstream provision in her statement of SEN and forcing us to go to SENDIST and Upper Tribunal. We won at UT but the school place we sought was withdrawn due to how long the legal process had taken.

1.5       In 2016 the LA had agreed for my daughter to try a small out of county school. This started in September 2016, reduced to very part time 3 weeks later and ultimately failed in June 2017. The school could not provide or agree to the consistent 1:1 support she needed, which was indicated in her statement of SEN but DID NOT transfer to her EHCP. Legislation said my daughter would not lose out during a transfer, yet she did.

1.6       My daughter has been out of school again since June 2017 having had a mere 9 months of part-time secondary provision in 4 years.

1.7       The LA refused to amend the EHCP to reflect this need and both Social Care and the SEN Education department ignored our pleas for help. The school offered an Educational Psychologist, but only after my daughter refused to attend. This again came down to funding and didn’t happen. My daughter is still on the school roll, despite not attending in nearly a year. This means the local stats WILL NOT reflect her failed education as the LA do not want her to come off the schools roll.

1.8       After a two year ‘hands off approach’ by the LA and Children’s Disability Social Care a single assessment was started in March 2016 and lasted for 7 months (not the 45 days it should be). It was vague and meaningless. Another assessment was done following our complaint starting in 2017 but was undertaken by a student social worker who left her post. It was never concluded. A second stage complaint followed and another single assessment was started in January 2018 and concluding in March 2018. We took our complaint to a third stage panel and although it was mostly favourable to ourselves, the LA do not have to adhere to it and have chosen not to, in our case.

1.9       My daughter was assessed for PDA and diagnosed with Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA) and Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in June 2016. This report was concluded in October 2016 and is a comprehensive 32 page document. It was ignored until our THIRD single assessment in March 2018, which itself, has ALSO been ignored (June 2018).

1.10   My daughter remains mentally and physically unwell, has lost 9kg in weight during this time frame and is out of school and accesses 1 hour of education a week at best, yet is still on school roll and as such, invisible to OFSTED & CQC inspectors.

2         The transition from statements of special educational needs and Learning Disability Assessments to Education, Health and Care Plans

2.1       My daughter’s statement transfer began in November 2016 whilst she was part time at a small mainstream out of county school.

2.2       Our daughters EHCP went through 3 drafts as support was vague, not specific and it did not mention the need for a 1:1 consistent TA. We had many meetings and my daughter’s anxiety increased and her mental health deteriorated.  We had no social worker to help, nobody did anything.

2.3       The EHCP was finalised by the LA without our knowledge on the same day (June 19th 2017) that my daughter stopped attending school. The LA did nothing to help support my daughter and removed provision that said she needed a consistent full time 1:1 TA which the tribunal insisted the LA put in. Because the LA would not agree to this, the school would not facilitate this. The placement failed simply due to a lack of a consistent TA which my daughter herself had asked for which was previously described (and successful) in her statement of SEN.

2.4       In fact after attending the Upper Tribunal, our case formed part of case law with [name of judge] stating: [case reference]

2.5       “The Tribunal that rehears the Statement should look again at the Statement to ensure that it is sufficiently specific to explain the obligations the Local Authority has to provide for the pupil's SEN.”

2.6       “A SEN Tribunal should not rubber stamp a Statement that is inadequate. The Statement that was accepted in this case was vague on the who, what, when and how long details that are meant to spell out the Local Authority's duties to the statemented pupil. The language of paragraph 17 of the Statement, for example, is certainly less than clear. It requires the Local Authority to provide funds to the school for a full time [LSA], but this is only to assist the school in providing the pupil with access to a full time [LSA] . Paragraph 17 does not actually say that E will get a full time, designated LSA, as the F-tT assumed in [20], but that a LSA who works full time will be engaged.”

2.7       Despite this the LA continued to take a ‘risk’ and ignore the judgement(s). The EHCP my daughter has is out of date, incomplete, and vague in many areas as the LA is hoping we are just too exhausted to continue fighting. They are probably right because using the system available to us for the past 4 years has achieved nothing good for my daughter.

2.8       We tried mediation to avoid going to SENDIST. It failed. We asked for an individual education budget but the LA refused the two courses we asked for (Criminology and Maths Functional skills 2). The time frame for us being able to go to SENDIST has passed and my daughter now has an EHCP which is out of date, non-specific, vague and does not reflect her actual needs.

3         The level and distribution of funding for SEND provision

3.1       Our LA uses ‘banding’ to quantify High Needs Block SEN funding. The additional funding my daughter gets was interestingly only increased to a band 5 just before we went to SENDIST in 2015. This has a value of £5600 p/a to a school. It is not enough to pay for a consistent full time 1:1 TA which my daughter needed.

3.2       Core subject Assessments from the 1:1 tutor done in October show that since her high academic achievements at primary school, she now is assessed as follows: Maths – Grade 2-3, English – Unclassified, Science – Grade 2-3. It is clear my daughter has been failed as she has lost a lot of progress academically.

3.3       All secondary schools in our area are academies. These are education businesses who see the value in profit (i.e. those pupils who need the least amount of resources to be able to achieve excellent results)

3.4       The £10’000 the school can claim for each SEN pupil from the DFE is NOT ring-fenced to the child and schools spend it however they like, usually by creating extra places as this brings in more money to the business. It is no surprise that the school (as a business) were unwilling to pay for a full time consistent 1:1 TA for our daughter as it would be an uncertain outcome (in terms of measurable results) that cannot be done with £5600.00.

 

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

4.1       There is little co-operation between these roles in our experience. Each department believes it is another’s responsibility and wants to ‘pass the buck’, possibly to protect their own budgets. Time moves on and nothing gets resolved.

4.2       With no identifiable co-ordinator responsible, co-production between departments is confusing and slows progress.

4.3       SENDIASS are limited as to what they can do and can only advise us to go to SENDIST following the next annual review. We have been there before and despite the law and judgements it did not change anything for our daughter.

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

5.1       I cannot speak to this as my daughter is still, in theory, in secondary phase for the next 9 months at least.

 

Summary:

 

  1. A gatekeeping, fragmented culture has significantly fractured the system which was designed to help the most vulnerable children in our society, achieve.  Attitudes towards children with SEN remain largely unchanged with an emphasis placed on ‘parenting’ being the cause of many difficulties as opposed to acknowledging the disability itself.

 

  1. It is much cheaper (for both schools, professionals and Local Authorities) to force parents onto a ‘parenting course ‘as opposed to paying to remove any barriers the child experiences, to learn, or grow or participate in society. It is also a useful delaying tactic.

 

  1. We are fortunate in that we have never been forced onto one of these courses but then we have two other neuro-typical children who are doing well in school who we regularly have to offer up as proof. We know of many parents that are forced onto multiple courses. Refusal to participate in these courses frequently means parents cannot access support for their child’s due to their own ‘refusal to engage’ with professionals advice.

 

  1. The system needs a radical overhaul. Local authorities, Schools and professionals should be held up to account and fined if they are culpable of systematic neglect in terms of meeting a child’s needs. Businesses are fined all the time for wrongdoing and this is no different but has a much higher human cost on individuals, families and society overall.

 

  1. Presently, the only people who pay the cost of these failings are the child and their family in reduced life chances, decreased mortality rates, and decreased income and life chances.

 

  1. As a family we have no idea what our future holds for us or in what direction we are heading. Only one of us has been able to work since 2014, due to our daughter being out of school all this time and we are supporting a family of 5 on just one wage. We are financially at breaking point.

 

  1. Our daughter currently has no plan for her future at all and having been so badly let down by professionals, she has completely disengaged and feels worthless and a failure.

 

  1. The long term impact on the child and family is far too high and has to change.

 

 

June 2018