SCN0590

Written evidence from Family Voice Somerset

1. Family Voice Somerset, are a group of families providing peer support to other families. Based on their engagement, employment and coproduction with stakeholders local authority, CCG, schools and other VCSO. Especially before and during the implementation of the children and family’s act 2014.

The evidence to inform discussions around the following key areas:

1. The assessment of and support for children and young people with SEND

• Our LA has slowly shrunk the support for schools, students and families over the last ten years. This includes in all the simple areas, that also have very simple strategies for support. This is providing great evidence that the children in our county are achieving less and with greater increasing gaps for the children who have significant higher level of SEND.
• The schools are removing children from SEN registers and informing parents and students that this is because they have less funding. As a county our families have the written evidence of this.
• The health system are siding with schools, if schools say there is no need, this is having a greater impact in later years for more mental health support for the young person, due to the young persons needs NOT being met.
• Arguments are happening within establishments, and between agencies over a child having SEND needs. All for the sake of funding.
• The teacher advisory support services are not being used due to needing to purchase their services. The advisory teams are being cautious on their assessments and advice in fear of the schools not wanting to purchase their specialist opinions.
• Assessments of children are not written in a clear and concise format. They used to be hidden from families when the schools used to write evidence of needs, now that is not needed the schools are less interested.
• Dyspraxia is no longer diagnosed, dyslexia support or advice is never available.
• Our county closed the visual perception clinic which was the only place for colorimetry glasses and visual difficulties assessments.
• The assessments for SEND are not conducted in further education, even though a child has been receiving high needs funding for a decade.
• The SEND COP, makes reference to EHA Early Help Assessments, this is for the child to receive any learning support currently under or from the local authority’s business ( business set up as separate entities) Families must complete this family intrusive safeguarding form to receive the support or assessment from the agencies who are there to advise the school to meet the needs.
• When academies start trading between schools or with new organisations to deliver assessments or support, they will not need or use the EHA multi org protocol.
• If the send reforms were what we had been promised, then the schools would not be forcing students into part timetables, home education
• Children are being discriminated and victimised by adults, for just being who they are. Many of the children know what they want to achieve and what they struggle with. These are the children who work harder than the higher achievers.
• These children are being pushed into poverty, before they turn 18 years old because of the unrealistic high expectations the children are expected to achieve
• EHCP’s should have an outcomes section based on the PIP assessment, to actually see something that is specific, measurable and accountable
• Needs assessments were not being conducted nor based on a template of essential areas.

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

• These are of poor quality,
• The parent involvement has been poor.
• The timings have not been kept with in a reasonable timeframe.
• The health and care input has been a battle field, whilst departments argue with the families over who delivers what equipment or trained support staff.
• The transition from Statements to EHCP was cynical in the extreme.
• The LA routinely did not update Education Statements therefore many were years out of date at time of transfer. They did NOT write to parents to inform them of EHCP process and transfer and rights, said they did and i’m Sure there will be a letter on file etc, remember reading in some notes once all parents written to... but I have been asking anyone I come across who transferred and they all say same thing, no letter etc.
• As parents we did not understanding the national and local process. They denied needs assessment for many, so out of date statement and no needs assessment heading into shoddy plan.
• They conducted transfer review meetings but blocked getting needs assessments, this is parents, children and young peoples rights that’s were denied.
• The delay, go over time and block at panels.
• The multi organisations seem to have all colluded to minimise needs, against there own previous reports. Including on equipment that used to be provided.

3. The level and distribution of funding for SEND provision

• This is not disclosed in further education for high needs funding students.
• This is not disclosed in schools for high needs funding students
• This is not disclosed for children under element two funding.
• Equipment is a big problem, with the LA trying to make schools buy specialist equipment.

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

• I’m sure they will have decide what this should look like when the next SEND reforms in many decades happens.
• These sectors are dissolving rapidly that it is impossible for them to decide on what their roles can be, their reluctance for co-operation is a frequent public display.
• Should a child really be denied the simplest of equipment, from a pen grip to a suitable size appropriate mobility aid?

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

• This is very much at the mercy of the local FE provider to decide and deliver. Some courses are not actually a course, but years of enrichment with no actual qualifications.
• Further education providers are purposely submitting students into GCSE retakes for three years, even though they say the student will not pass the exam, just so they can meet targets. And creating a disposable student.
• The college’s are not interested and are refusing to see their role in simple requests to help with living skills, such as showing the student where the bus timetable is in college.
• The local authority are leaving EHCP’s outcomes blank, purposely so the college’s can write their own plan to suit in delivery of how they wish to meet outcomes. This is not being done with the local authority and the student co-productively.
• Housing and social care assessments and support is not happening.
• Needs assessments were not being conducted nor based on a template of essential areas.
• Using the PIP assessment would offer some tool of continuity.
• The EHCP is effective as a blank piece of paper, handed to colleges to decide what they would like to write in their, based on their own 3 months of observations for a course that is not accredited. Even though the students are now starting their fourth year with the college.
• Adults social care leave the partnership trust to handle the mental health social care workers for autism, they are not conducting needs assessments nor are they engaging with the EHCP case workers.

6. The cost of court cases by the local authorities should be included with in funding regulations

June 2018