SCN0375

Written evidence from Parental Submission 174

1       Executive Summary

1.1 We are a family that has experience of disabilities and SEN over 3 generations with experience of different LA’s over 3 decades. Currently we have a young person at the end of her SEND experience she is 24 (Eldest) she is in one Local Authority (LA1) and two in primary Child 1 and Child 2 they are in a different Local Authority (LA2). All three have been through the tribunal process over the last 4 years.

1.2 We have experience as members of the local parent forum that with our LA (LA1) was part of the SEND Pathfinder process. When this program for change started we had high hopes. It envisioned that we would be helping to develop a highly child/young person centric system for children and young people with SEN and their families that would be aspirational, inclusive and coproduced and open and transparent with the childs best interests at the heart at all times.

1.3 What SEND has evolved into is extremely harmful to SEN children/young people their families, schools, colleges, the LAs and the community in general. A culture has developed whereby it has become acceptable to marginalise children and young people with SEND by denying them an education. We are in the process of losing a generation of economically productive future SEND adults because it is becoming impossible for them to receive an adequate education.

1.4 A culture change is essential our children are no longer valued.

2       We would like to remind the Government and LA’s of the Core Principles with regards to SEND that appear to have been lost in the past 4 years.

Section 19 of the Act sets out the general principles that local authorities must have regard to

Specifically, Local Authorities must pay particular attention to:

• the views, wishes and feelings of children and their parents, and young people;

• the importance of them participating as fully as possible in decision-making and providing the information and support to enable them to do so; and

• supporting children and young people’s development and helping them to achieve the best possible educational and other outcomes.

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

3.1 Assessment is not comprehensive, many children have more than one condition that has a significant impact on their education. These secondary conditions are often not assessed, and provisions made for at all or in a timely manner.

3.1.1     Eldest is Post 19, diagnosed with complex needs at 4, with semantic pragmatic disorder at 5, with autism at 7, with dyslexia at 10, with ADHD at 16, with CVI at 17 and finally sensory processing disorder at 22. As a consequence, the only EHCP with an accurate description of her needs was finalised at 24. This has had a substantial impact on her learning.

3.1.2     Child 2 is 7, he has been exhibiting physical difficulties with movement. He has a diagnosis of autism. Assessment of these needs was denied by the NHS, the argument was the autism is primary and he would refuse to participate as such it would not be helpful. Intervention from the Educational Psychologist ensured a restricted assessment was done (NHS is limiting what staff can look at) mum also obtained a private assessment. Child 2 needed substantial OT intervention to help him sit, stand still, hold a fork etc. Needs that also effect education.

3.2 Assessment for EHCP is restricted.

3.2.1     LA1 for Eldest relied on outdated reports to inform her transition to the EHC plan. It took help from IPSEA who helped formulate the request using the right legal terminology to get the LA to meet its duties and do up to date assessments.

3.2.2     For Child 1 and Child 2 LA2 had failed to ensure the EHC plan was reviewed annually, the school failed to get up to date assessments done. As a consequence, school forgot Child1 was dyslexic and failed to provide provision for that dyslexia, as a consequence he was unable to engage in his learning. Mum has had to obtain private dyslexia tuition to enable him to learn.

3.3 In our experience the views, wishes and feelings of children, their parents and young people are not valued within the EHC assessment framework. The LA and school staff ignore the importance of them participating as fully as possible in decision-making and providing the information and support to enable them to do so.

3.3.1     LA2 and school staff failed to ensure Mum was made aware of professionals assessing her children, a statement has had to be included in the EHC plan. It states that the Parent must always be notified of visits and given the opportunity to discuss the findings.

3.3.2     LA2 attempted to use views obtained by Child 1 two years ago in the EHC assessment process.

3.3.3     In an Autism assessment report by LA2 the specialist implied Child 1’s views were not of value after witnessing him self talk. Self-talking is a common symptom in autism and does not reflect their mental capacity.

3.3.4     When Child 2 was teething, gaining new teeth after dental work, the school gave him a [redacted]. Much later mum was made aware of this, mum felt its use was inappropriate.  The school then stated the Child was given the [redacted] because he [redacted], they reported this to the Autism Specialist Teacher who recorded it in her report. As the child receives 1 to 1 support mum asked the LA’s Health and Safety to investigate. The school denied it had happened. School has either been untruthful to the LA’s Autism Specialist or to the Health and Safety advisor. As such mum is unsure whether incident occurred or not.  From evidence supplied by school in the Tribunal bundle it was written that the child was given the [redacted] because they were unhappy with him sucking on his shirt. When School is not being truthful it undermines the home school relationship. So does not including parents in decisions. As a result mum feels unable to trust the schools word.

3.4 Data Protection laws regarding childrens reports are not being followed.

3.4.1     By LA2, Child 1’s vision records had been merged with that of another child, who was a girl, and her needs were described as the boys. Mum did not get sight of the report until she made a subject access request. She provided the LA with medical evidence that the report was inaccurate. This report was not corrected. It fed in to future reports on vision. The contents caused harm and contributed to the breakdown of the boys’ placement. Inaccurate records were provided to SENDIST as part of a tribunal for EHCP.

3.4.2     The local hospital had also failed to ensure Child 1 and Child 2’s ophthalmology records were accurate while converting written records to digital. Reports were written for LA2, for the EHC plan and used in the Tribunal, that were not accurate and caused harm to the boys. The LA used these reports to update its records which were used to inform both EHC plans.

3.4.3     LA2 has refused to provide accurate vision reports unless it is ordered to do so by SENDIST even though it has been provided with documentary evidence to show they are inaccurate.

3.4.4     The LA has admitted to SENDIST that it has provided inaccurate reports.

3.5 LA’s are not supporting children and young people’s development and helping them to achieve the best possible educational and other outcomes. It is alarming how difficult it is to get support for SEND children and young people. It is particularly shocking the attitude that has recently developed with regards to the admittance of SEND children and young people into schools and colleges.

3.5.1     In our case Mum asked for a transfer over a year ago, Child 1 and Child 2 have waited 18 months to move school. The boys current school was promised the boys would be moved last November by the LA. From documentation received it appears LA2 changed its mind, even though the current placement was not appropriate.

3.5.2     The LA sent incorrect information to two schools with units resulting in the boys not being allocated a place.

3.5.3     Mum requested boys’ information from school and LA, it showed the SENCOs from the schools had interpreted the information regarding Child 1’s offset wrong.

3.5.4     Mum informed the school of the problem and was told that’s a pity because he would have had a place at the unit if the information had been accurate.

3.5.5     Mum has had to go to SENDIST to get the boys transferred.

3.6 Mediation is used by LA’s as way of delaying assessment and meeting of a SEND childs/young persons needs.

3.6.1     LA2, after agreeing substantial needs and provisions in Mediation, changed their mind and refused to provide mum or the tribunal with the EHC plan that they had worked on. The LA is only now engaging with the EHCP process because they have been ordered to do so.

3.6.2     In our experience, LA’s are subverting the Core Principles and are putting all their efforts into avoiding complying with them.

3.6.3     Not all mediators are independent.

3.7 Schools and colleges are actively trying to stop SEND children and young people from attending them.

3.7.1     One school ignored Mums many requests for a visit by email and phone.

3.7.2     One school attempted to persuade mum not to request that school is named on the EHCP during a visit.

3.7.3     Currently it appears that an active policy of segregation of our disabled children from the able-bodied community within education is being applied. As such the effect on the able bodied is that their attitudes to disability hardens.

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

4.1 For the Eldest, in LA1, it took 3 years to transition to an EHC plan. Access to the specialist teachers available for assessment up to 18, is clearly restricted for post 19, making it difficult to ensure EHC plans are accurate and meet need.

4.2 Information on the Local Offer for Young people in LA1 is exceptionally poor making it very difficult for young people to know what their rights are. It is much easier for an LA1 to provide Young people with a poor service.

4.3 In Eldest’s case it was necessary to go to tribunal to get a suitable EHC plan.

5       The level and distribution of funding for SEND provision.

5.1 It feels like it has become an easy choice for LA’s and the Government to restrict SEND funding and funding that impacts on SEND. It feels like disabled children and young people have become the first to be considered when cuts are to be made. LA1 has substantial reserves, yet cuts to services are still being made. The decision appears now to be driven by politics rather than austerity. LA2 has savaged it’s SEND department yet has funds for building. They are at different ends of the political spectrum.

6       The roles of and co-operation between Education, Health and Social Care sectors.

6.1 They do not talk to each other and it appears have little respect for each other.

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

7.1 Access to education Post 19 is shockingly bad. Eldest says nightmare from hell.

7.2 Due to the delay in assessment, support and the continuous battle to get your SEND child an education, it is common for young people to finish education at 18 still behind their peers. They need extra learning time to catch up with their peers. 

7.3 It is becoming practically impossible for a young person with SEND who is Post 19 to continue their education. With changes to funding for FE there has been a substantial reduction in courses available to the cohort in general which has affected those with SEND. That includes access to basic English and Maths.

7.3.1     Our nearest college has stopped doing A Levels,

7.3.2     The next nearest college does not offer Level 3 BTecs in the Eldest’s chosen subjects, substituting instead for shorter one year Access to HE courses that are particularly unsuitable for those with SEND. 

7.3.3     The next college that offers the course was not keen to make the provisions necessary to enable Eldest to have a successful placement. An example of it’s attitude can be seen in what happened for the [redacted] show. The college closed access to the SEND facilities so that filming for [redacted] could take place, leaving its vulnerable students (who are children in need) without a safe space to go to.

7.4 FE full time courses are now squeezed into two or two and half days allowing no flexibility for those with SEND to accommodate their reasonable adjustments and provisions that would enable them to complete a course successfully. E.g. processing delay can be a particular problem, as such students require extra time. With additional time to study and process work students can achieve high grades, without, quite simply they fail. On Eldest’s previous course there was no opportunity available for extra time to study or process information, classrooms were booked up and so was support.

7.5 As less adults are now participating in FE Post 19, so SEND students have to study with Post 16’s. Not an ideal environment for adult study.

7.6 LA1 is reluctant to do individual study programmes unless the student has very low attainment. Students with SEND with high attainment still need additional skills to be as independent as possible. Eldest has discussed individual programmes with LA1 on several occasions over 3 years and each time was put on a standard course without account for her needs.

7.7 Colleges do not want SEND post 19 students. Eldest’s EHC plan was finalised in November 2017. The college delayed an environment audit for 3 months, therefore Eldest was unable to start her course.

7.8 Having agreed a classroom for her to work in the college then notified her she would start after Easter moving between classrooms each time. It is written into the EHC plan that she cannot manage change, this would have been impossible to do.

7.9 Eldest has had to delay starting her course to September in the hope a permanent classroom will be provided this course is usually done in a group not individually. Eldest is not wanting to be taught separately.

7.10                    Eldest asked instead to start her business distance learning course. She is still waiting for a response. The course is for 18 months, her EHC plan runs out on her 25th birthday which is under a year. At which point she loses access to much of what was fought for in the tribunal for so long.

7.11                    The delay has had a devastating impact on Eldests education. She has been unable to maintain college placements without the necessary provisions and adjustments to enable her to study. Eldest was on track to achieve Level 3/ A level equivalent in her chosen subject. She would have possibly progressed further.

8       Recommendations

8.1 Ring fence SEND funding at LA’s and education establishments. Remove the ability of LA’s and educational establishments to cut SEND services.

8.2 Set a fair and specific level for SEND funding that will cover all SEND services and meet the needs of all SEND children and young people.

8.3 Remove the potential for LA’s and Educational establishments to blame SEND children and young people for difficulties in funding services. Currently they are being scapegoated and it is unpleasant to see and experience.

8.4 There needs to be an enforced cultural change within education with regards to the attitudes that have recently developed during austerity with regards to those with disabilities and especially children and young people with SEND. To be frank it is discriminatory.

8.5 The undermining of legal aid for SEND and discrimination cases has made it particularly difficult for families of SEND children and young people to challenge injustices. As such they have been left defenceless in the face of this ongoing disablist cultural change.

8.6 Actively promote inclusion at all levels of society especially in LA’s and educational establishments.

8.7 Actively show the value of educating SEND children and young people.

8.8 Actively show that they belong in the wider community and benefit that community.

8.9    All children and young people to have a comprehensive assessment of needs, medically and educational, so that comorbidity is established as soon as possible.

8.10                    Monitory Sanctions and naming and shaming for LA’s who choose not to provide up to date and accurate reports

8.11                    Give SENDIST the authority to penalise LA’s for data protection breaches or at the very least notify the Information Commission.

8.12                    Sanction LA’s schools and colleges who are actively avoiding providing SEND education for children and Young people.

8.13                    Make it mandatory that Local Offers are independent of LA’s. Ring fence funding for Local Offers. Make a mandatory standard for Local Offers compulsory with sanctions if they are not met.

8.14                    From personal experience of having to sue the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for disabled discrimination and data protection breeches and winning, we are not confident in it’s ability or willingness to protect SEND children and Young People from injustices [redacted]

8.15                    Instead give SENDIST and OFSTED the teeth necessary to oversee and enforce the cultural change essential to bring our education system back at least to the more inclusive place it was at prior to the changes introduced through the expansion of the Academy schools, reduction in funding to FE colleges and the changes introduced by Part 3 of the Childrens and Families ACT 2014.

June 2018