SCN0351

Written evidence from Sarah Riley

 

 

  1. This evidence is submitted by a teacher who is responsible and teaches for 35 students with Complex and Multiple Learning needs (PMLD) who form part of a 3-19 generic special school.

 

Assessment of and support for children and young people with SEND

 

  1. Routes for learning is an effective assessment system and used widely for students with the most profound learning disabilities. By giving each objective a score we have been able to use this for both formative and summative assessment. We have built on the work of Willow Dene School to create a school wide bespoke assessment system – Learning Journeys which has been adopted by a number of other schools.

 

  1. For students with CMLN there are 2 sections Footsteps based on Routes for Learning and Stepping Out, a modular assessment which covers 17 areas which allows us to record and measure the progress of our learners in the functional and social skills they need to live happy and healthy lives as independently as possible.

 

  1. My concerns are that many assessment systems sold commercially are based on neurotypical development and for those with the most profound disabilities measure experiences rather than learning ie B Squared. Also, assessment then becomes synonymous with curriculum.ie Equals

 

  1. While I applaud the work of the Rochford review in highlighting the issues of assessment for SEND, I am concerned that the Engagement Scale does not provide enough rigour to support less experienced teachers in evaluating meaningful progress for those who hardest to assess.

 

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

 

  1. In my authority the training was based around Person Centred Planning used in Adult Social Care consequently the transition meetings focused on Likes and admire, working well, not working well with no link to outcome and provision. There was little rigour to the process and no feedback on the quality of the converted plans.

 

  1. Subsequent research done while trying to improve the quality of our EHCP leads me to believe that parents/carers were not told they could ask for new assessments at conversion and there was no representative from SENSAP at the meetings.
  2. Although the timescale for completing conversions appeared to be met we have a number of plans which are still drafts more than 12 months after the conversion meeting.

 

  1. The full responsibility for writing, reviewing and administering the plans lies with the school and we now have 2 full time admin staff dedicated to this.

 

  1. There is minimal input from health and social care, however we are not allowed to put outcomes in the plans linked to these areas if there isn’t anyone in the meeting.

 

  1. We are discouraged from putting in that pupils need transport even if pupils will not be able to access school without it.

 

  1. Much time can be given to concocting outcomes that allow for physiotherapy or speech and language therapy provision to be put in because parents worry that it won’t be provided if it’s not in.

 

  1. Differing formats between authorities causes difficulty when pupil change areas.

 

  1. When new plans are created the quality of background information, aspirations and outcomes are very dependent on which SENSAP officer wrote the plan.

 

  1. The format of the plans is not fit for purpose, it would be more transparent to be able to directly see the Golden Thread between aspiration and outcome by creating a format that flows for each aspiration separately.

 

  1. Aspiration 1 – Strengths /Needs linked to this/Working/Not working well in this area/Outcome/Provision

 

  1. Aspiration 2 – Strengths /Needs linked to this/Working/Not working well in this area/Outcome/Provision Etc.

 

The level and distribution of funding for SEND provision

 

  1. The lack of  a statutory duty to provide transport to school for under 5’s and post 16 is negatively effecting access to education for those with the greatest disabilities.

 

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

 

  1. On an individual level staff try to forge relationships and work together in the best interest of the pupils particularly physiotherapy, but hands on time is reducing and the responsibility for the hands on work once again falls to education staff. We have to pay to train staff in the lifeguarding, hydrotherapy and rebound therapy that we are delivering as part of the physiotherapy programmes. We are also responsible for supplying and maintaining the equipment.

 

  1. Speech and Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy input is now reduced to episodes of care and allocated staff often lack the experience to effectively address the needs of the most complex learners.

 

  1. Fewer and fewer students are allocated a social worker and if as a social worker leaves they are not replaced and school is asked to pick them up as an Early Health Plan. Having a social worker allocated doesn’t seem to be linked to either individual or family need. As a school we currently have 2 family support workers dealing with Early Help Plans and are having to recruit for a 3 to meet need.

 

  1. There is very limited respite provision for students with CMLN and again school has to act as the base for the training to meet medical of pupil for respite provision staff.

 

  1. Pupil medical interventions during the school day used to be done by health staff but again they are pulling back from this to a more strategic and training role and education staff are now responsible for the delivery.

 

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

 

  1. There is only one provision within the authority for post 19 students with CMLN, which provides 600 hours for 3 years. The families of the 3 pupils due to transfer to post 19 this year have rejected this option as unsatisfactory.

 

  1. One has been offered 5 days in an neighbouring authority provision but agreement to fund has not yet been given.

 

  1. The second has requested a placement at an adult social care provision started and run by a group of parents who were dissatisfied with the lack of age appropriate provision for those who had graduated from the post 19 provision.
  2. This is a high quality provision meeting the needs of young adults with CMLN but is not deemed to be education so EHCP will cease when this is taken up. The parents and school have yet to receive a response from the student’s transition social worker about the process of applying for funding from social care to take up a place.

 

  1. The 3rd has an excellent transition lead who is a qualified learning disability nurse rather than a social worker who has secured a comprehensive bespoke package to meet his very complex health and care needs. Once again highlighting that the quality of provision at 19-25 depends on the ability of the parents/carers to advocate for the student and the experience and dedication of the allocated transition social worker.

 

 

 

 

June 2018