SCN0589
Written evidence from City of York SEN Services
1.1. LAs are assessing a much larger number of children than pre SEND Reforms, in some areas the numbers of requests have doubled in 4 years, often with no matching increase in capacity within SEN Services such as Educational Psychology (EP) Services.
1.2. The inclusion of the phrase ‘may have SEND’ and ‘may’ need provision within an EHCP has made it difficult to decline requests. But once we have assessed need, parents/carers have an expectation that they will receive an EHC Plan.
1.3. We have noticed spikes in requests to assess at key transitions eg pre-school to Reception, KS2-KS3 (biggest spike) and KS4-FE, so it isn’t just about the age range increasing to 25 years.
1.4. There has been an increase in parental requests for statutory assessment.
1.5. More schools are telling us that they are really struggling to meet SEND/additional needs and do not have the human resources (eg TA support/SENCO time) to implement the graduated response.
1.6. EPs are required to write advice for all statutory cases. It has been more difficult to see the unique contribution of the EP when the case is predominantly medical/physical, with no other educational needs, and there are specialist teachers or CAMHS colleagues involved who can offer more specific expertise. LAs may need to look carefully into who needs to be involved in certain cases when services are so stretched – to share the load.
1.7. Parents have reported that the process is a real improvement on the statementing process.
“For me it was really straightforward and simple. Very easy. My friend went through the previous system and I thought it was going to be awful.”
1.8. School colleagues have found the new process to have helped improve their practice:
“My verdict is despite the workload they are definitely worth it, a huge improvement and a much more holistic way of working with children. Thank you to everyone for their support.”
2.1. Issues of staffing capacity in both schools and LA have held up the transfer process. We are aware that in some LAs they have had to cut corners, using EHCP writers who do not know the child and the quality of the EHCPs has therefore varied. This has not happened in York.
2.2. There was insufficient capacity within SEN Services/Health and Social Care to treat the transfer process as a new EHC Needs Assessment, as the SEND Code of Practice intended.
3.1. A perceived reduction in budgets available to schools has created a situation where schools feel they have to put in for an EHCP in order to top up their SEN budgets.
3.2. Schools have reduced the number of classroom TAs available to undertake interventions prior to requesting statutory assessment which makes it difficult for them to implement and evidence a graduated approach.
3.3. There still isn’t the breadth of provision to meet needs in many areas. In York we are lucky to have a model of mainstream schools with attached Enhanced Resourced Provisions (ERPs). However, they are often over-subscribed and parents are still making requests for special schools, which are fast-becoming full to bursting. Schools are finding it difficult to say that they can include children and young people (cyp) with a wide range of layered needs in mainstream. This can then have implications as some parents feel they need to home educate or cyp are placed in special schools because there are no available places in inclusive mainstream options.
3.4. The number of assessments has increased as a direct result of the SEND Reforms, but LAs have not been able to allocate equivalent increases in funding for SEN Services. The yard stick that is often highlighted by the government is the number of EHCPs issued, but funding decisions should be based on the number of assessments required since this is the costly part of the process.
4.1. We have had good support from health and social care colleagues in the development of the EHCP and agreement over their contribution.
4.2. However, there is limited input in the EHCNA process from health/CAMHS/Social Care due to their capacity issues, so often the only services attending My Support Plan (MSP) Reviews, Coordinated Assessment Meetings (CAMs) or Annual Reviews are education reps.
4.3. York now has good returns of advice within statutory timeframe from most health colleagues. CAMHS have not been commissioned to write reports for statutory assessments so this is typically missing information even if the cyp’s primary area of need is related to mental health.
4.4. Having health and social care representation on the EHC Panel has been really useful and very much appreciated, but typically they do not have the time to stay for the entire meeting.
4.5. The DMO and DCO role have been really valued and improved our joint working.
4.6. Parent feedback includes feedback on EHCP:
“It represents a joined up picture of what we believe will support her. It feels joined up all the way through. It feels like a partnership approach. I am wedded to a partnership approach as the SEN Code of P states. Some of those partnerships have been challenging a long the way- so it really feels joined up’
‘All pulling in same direction. An exemplar of good practice. I have given the plan to others. The structure helps the meeting. There was a massive difference when it was introduced in meetings’
5.1. Feels like it is still very early days and there is currently not the range of providers available to create good quality local offers. In York we have greatly increased our local offer for young people 19-25. In the last 4 years we have reduced numbers going out of city from 19% to 8% of the HN learners. Work continues to develop high quality provision locally. In order to do this we need to be able to fund 5 day provision with opportunities to develop independence skills with overnight provision. Funding reforms will impact on flexibility to use SEN funding to support education for 19+.
5.2. Work-related alternatives for post 19 such as internships, apprenticeships and employment are limited.
5.3. We are working hard to create bespoke personalised education/social care packages and to encourage FE providers to offer courses at entry level for Post-19 young people with highly complex needs, but often parents choose residential because they can offer a range of therapies on site.
5.4. FE providers sometimes tell parents and young people that they do not have element 2 funding to provide ‘SEN Support’ so young people feel they have to make requests for an EHCP to secure support in an FE environment.
5.5. There are sometimes issues when young people transfer from children’s to adult services and different processes/thresholds and funding streams are used. It sometimes feels as if the 0-25 age-range only applies to education.
June 2018