SCN0291

Written evidence from SEND Family Voices

 

 

PROBLEMS WITH TRANSFER FROM STATEMENT OF SEN TO EHC PLAN

  1.         A draft EHC plan was submitted to parents before professional reports were even submitted and in one case before an assessment had even been carried out. Therefore the draft EHC Plan was issued without the inclusion of recommendations and provision from professional reports. The local authority’s panic to meet the statutory deadline of March 31st 2018 was the overriding consideration.
  2.         The draft EHC Plan submitted to parents was also based on the wrong version of the Statement of SEN.
  3.         The draft EHC Plan did not include existing provision of 30 hours a week of HLTA support. When questioned by parent as to why the hours were missing, the parent was told verbally “We don’t do that any more” and then told in writing as below:-
  4.         “The reason the 30 hours of HLTA support has not been included is that as you will see from the template, we include the total top up funding rather than specifying hours of support to allow this to be used flexibly by the school as xx’s needs and therefore provision may change over time. We are not proposing to reduce any support, this will remain the same. I have contacted our finance team to ensure the correct amount is given and will ensure this is added at either the amended plan or final plan stage.”
  5.         Instead, a budgetary figure was included in the draft EHC Plan. (Please note parents had not requested a Personal Budget).
  6.         Paragraph 9.69 of The SEND Code of Practice clearly states (P166):-

6.1.           “Provision must be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise, including where this support is secured through a Personal Budget.”

  1.         Without specificity of provision, there is nothing to enforce. What is said in emails and phone conversations about not reducing levels of support is totally irrelevant. If the specificity of provision is not actually stated clearly in the EHC Plan it is very difficult to enforce provision and means children and young people potentially miss out on vital provision. IPSEA notes in its EHC Plan checklist Section F that:-

7.1.           “Note that provision must normally be quantified in terms of hours etc. This is a legal requirement. Exceptions to this, i.e. cases where flexibility is needed to meet the changing needs of a child/young person, are extremely rare in the experience of IPSEA (we could not think of actual casework examples).”

  1.         The parent also sent the local authority SEN team a document written by the very active parental SEND Support group. The document had been drawn up in a face to face meeting with the local authority SEN team, whereby it was agreed that specificity of provision would be honoured. Despite this, the SEN team was clearly not abiding by the agreement made at the meeting.
  2.         The Parent also sent the SEN team a case law update on specificity as per link below

9.1.           https://www.senexpertsolicitors.co.uk/site/news/the-quantification-and-specification-again

  1.    The SEN team then responded in writing with the following:-

10.1.      “I have spoken to my manager and as an exception I will include the 30 hours in to xx EHCP along with any additional amendments you request and advice from the professional reports we are awaiting.”

  1.    It is not an exception. It is the law.  There is no accountability whatsoever when Local Authorities do not obey the law. It is not the parent’s job to be totally on top of the law and the legal process in order to avoid being misled and misinformed on critical SEND support by local authorities. This is not feasible and many parents simply do not have the capacity to take on this level of legal and management expertise as well as looking after their child with special educational needs. Seemingly Local authorities are allowed to ignore the law and the SEND legal process without redress or accountability and it is the children and young people that miss out.
  2.    During this very stressful time it was extremely difficult to make contact with the SEN team and yet the legal process and imminent deadlines ticked on and were fast approaching. There was often simply no response to emails. Out of office emails from the SEN team stated that due to the statutory deadline of March 31st, there would be a limit to the emails that could be answered.
  3.    In addition, very lengthy response times were deemed to be acceptable, citing the number of emails received and using the words “I will aim to respond to your email within 7 days of my return.” A response time of 7 days represents nearly one and a half working weeks. Clearly staffing levels are inadequate and yet this statutory deadline has been known about for 4 years. Again there is no accountability on the local authority.
  4.    The report written by the Visual Impairment team omitted provision which was clearly stated in the existing statement of SEN. The VI team transferred only some and not all provision from the statement of SEN into their report for the draft EHC plan.
  5.    Reports from professionals were very poorly written and did not include outcomes or specific provision or look ahead to the next phase of education or preparing for adulthood. One professional did not understand that EHC Plans do not continue into higher education but do continue into further education. 
  6.    A mental health professional working with our daughter did not know how to write a report including outcomes and so the parent resorted to sending IPSEA (and other) information on how to write outcomes, plus the paragraphs relating to outcomes in SEND Code of Practice. The mental health professional said it was not her role to do this as below:-

16.1.      “In terms of outcomes, my manager suggested that this is something that SEN officer would need to do - we usually provide a summary of work completed, which can then be used as a basis for deciding what the outcomes might need to be.”

  1.    Parent believes this to be untrue and that it is the professional’s duty to provide outcomes based on expertise in their field and work with that young person, not an SEN officer who is not an expert in mental health. The report provided is therefore meaningless.
  2.    The SEN team did not chase reports beyond an initial request. Parent then took on the task of chasing all reports.
  3.    The SEN team did not keep parents informed on status of their chasing up reports.
  4.    The SEN team did not keep parents informed on the status of setting up speech and language assessment. 
  5.    Neither the SEN team nor the Visual impairment team sent parents the amended and updated VI report.
  6.    The SEN team sent the wrong version of Section A template to parent. 
  7.    Despite a valid parental request for a Speech and language therapist assessment under the clearly stated legal process defined in the EHC needs assessment process, the SEN team did not set up an assessment and the parent constantly had to chase for updates. Despite the EHC transfer review phone call taking place 22nd November 2017, it was only on March 13th 2018, nearly 4 months later, that the SEN officer told parents that an assessment was “complex” citing capacity, the fact that our daughter had been discharged some years previously, daughter’s age (17) and the fact that the school was out of borough.
  8.    The excuses used not to provide an assessment were completely invalid as our daughter has already received speech and language therapy, out of borough, when attending the same school. Parents protested again and an assessment was finally carried out on April 26th. Parents had to chase for a copy of the report which was finally sent out in early June.
  9.    As a result of the appalling experience outlined above, the parents declared the first EHC draft plan invalid and have refused to be rushed into an EHC Plan.
  10.    In addition this is far from the first time that the parents have had real difficulties with the local authority, the visual impairment team and with the SEND process as a whole. It has been a battle for over 16 years and it is just getting worse.

 

June 2018