SCN0644

Written evidence from Ms Anita Devi

 

 

My Background:

 

  1. Previous SENCO & Senior Leader (Middle School) … taught EY to Post grad (UK & Overseas)

 

  1. Panel member, The Audit Commission, AEN/SEN VfM Toolkit (2007)

 

  1. Previous LA SEN Advisory Teacher (working in 80% of schools\ 45% strategic capacity building & 55% casework)

 

  1. Ten years active involvement in nasen (local officer and national advisory board)

 

  1. Senior Lecturer/ External Examiner: National SENCO Award (various institutions)

 

  1. Founder and developer of SENCO Masterclass Programme, SEND Review Portal, SENDCoP Postcard & #senco5aday

 

  1. Panel contributor to SEND

 

  1. Co-presenter National SEN Finance and funding briefings

 

  1. Prince2 Practitioner / person-centred thinking tools / SEN Legal Foundation Training completed

 

  1. Previous SEN School Improvement Advisor (secondary & PRUs)

 

  1. Education Consultant (Schools, LAs, Federations, MATs) – Current (I’ve worked in more than 15 LAs & led change in both Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders before Sept 2014, as well LAs who have failed Local Area Inspections)

 

  1. Sat on Panel, trained Panel members and Advice Writers contributing to EHCA

 

  1. 2017:  Influential Education Leaders Award (Cambridge) Jury decision based on SEND Leadership Pipeline work

 

  1. LA SEN Finance / Provision Reviews (cross phase) – Current

 

  1. ITT/ ITE SEND Specialist (NASBTT SEND ITT Toolkit – launched 2017) – Current

 

  1. Trustee for Healthwatch – Current

 

  1. Lead #TeamADL (multi-agency) – Current

 

  1. PhD Student on SEND leadership in schools – Current

 

  1. Expert Education Network member for UNESCO (UK) – Current

 

  1. Lead and Co-facilitator of British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society (BELMAS) SEND Research & Interest Group - Current

 

 

Summary:

 

  1. The thrust of my submission is around proportionate response and managing change for improvement.  For me, ongoing improvement is part of the continual dialogue.

 

  1. The aspirations of the SEND Reforms were ambitious and misunderstood by many on three grounds:

 

22.1.                 Managing legislative change, whilst also carrying on ‘business as usual’.  This was never going to be an easy process.  Early comments by those in leadership as to ‘this being a fragmented system’ did not help.  Any form of national change like this will bring about uncertainty and disruption.  This has not been managed well.

 

22.2.                 Personnel changes over 2011-18.  Very few local authorities had people in place to see the full cycle of change through.  With each new leader came a new way of working.  This was coupled with several changes in education, local area structures and wider society.

 

22.3.                 Many of the much-needed changes identified in the Lamb Inquiry 2009 required a change in ways of working and a change in culture.  Not all of these can be enshrined in law.  I undertook a review (as part of my PhD studies) – recommendations of the Lamb Inquiry 2009 have been delivered in terms of the system.  What is missing is the cultural shift.

 

  1. Going forward, we need a proportionate response by all to enable a cultural shift and trust to grow as part of the change cycle.

 

 

Assessment of and support for children and young people with SEND

 

  1. The construct of ‘additionality’ is misunderstood and overrated in the discussions around SEND.

 

  1. 1.24 (p25) SEND Code of Practice 2015 makes it clear: High quality teaching that is differentiated and personalised will meet the individual needs of the majority of children and young people. Some children and young people need educational provision that is additional to or different from this. This is special educational provision under Section 21 of the Children and Families Act 2014. Schools and colleges must use their best endeavours to ensure that such provision is made for those who need it. Special educational provision is underpinned by high quality teaching and is compromised by anything less.

 

  1. High quality teaching makes the baseline for additionality clear. This is the setting’s inclusive offer, where ‘reasonable adjustments’ are applied (Equality Act 2010).  Many settings have not articulated this.  Yet Regulation 53 and Section 30 (C & F Act 2014) requires local authorities to be clear on this.

 

  1. It is possible for a child to have a special educational need and disability (e.g. hearing impairment, Asperger’s etc) and not need ‘additionality’, as needs are met through high quality teaching / inclusion.

 

  1. Recommendation 1:  Settings to undertake annual theory of change dialogue to define quality first teaching that is cohort responsive.  In doing so, they must involve all stakeholders.  This process takes a day and gives children and parents/carers a voice in defining inclusion in the setting.  The process is called a Provision Review.  Setting Leaders can be trained to deliver this, so no ongoing external specialist costs for this process.

 

  1. Some would argue the SEN Information Report is supposed to deliver this.  It doesn’t.  An annual theory of change dialogue should be at the beginning of the year (defining provision going forward).  SEN Information Report is at the end of the year (i.e. this is what we did).  This aligns with setting development cycle and supports local accountability through discussion.

 

  1. The purpose of additionality needs to be clearly understood.  There are 8 reasons, why a setting may put in short-term additional support and only one is SEN.  This is rarely communicated to parents/ carers.  Nor is the fact, that short-term interventions can be a means to supporting children and young people become independent, whilst addressing a need.  Too often, additional resource is seen as a long-term requirement.  The terminology ‘scaffolding’ needs greater emphasis.  An example could be a child with Autism, who needs a short-term social story intervention to be safe crossing the road.  In this case, an EHCP is not needed for this provision.

 

  1. Where interventions are not available in settings, leaders should consider options on the Local Offer. This is currently lacking.

 

  1. Recommendation 2:  Settings clearly identify short-term provision vs long-term and state purpose behind the additional provision.

 

  1. Having clearly articulated in plain English high-quality teaching (inclusion) and short-term interventions, settings and families are better placed to either apply for EHCA or top-up funding.  The latter provides access to immediate resource that a child can use with increasing independence (e.g. visualiser).  It isn’t always about putting an additional adult in the room. Top-funding may also lead to additional resources, that can be provided off-site e.g. hydro therapy pool.

 

  1. The financial administration cost of an EHCA / EHCP process is about £6,000.  Surely a better use of public funds is to ensure families have what they need.  It doesn’t have to be costly either.  For respite care, a single mother with two boys diagnosed with Autism simply needed a trampoline in her garden.  Similar case in Milton Keynes.  Young lad with physical development mis-match (but able bodied) needed equipment for the garden, to develop gross motor regulation.

 

  1. The process of EHCA needs to be better articulated by all.  Too often the phrases ‘applying for an EHCP’ or ‘rejected for an EHCP’ are used.  This is inaccurate. The decisions of EHCA and then EHCP are separate decisions, with distinct thresholds.  EHCP is not an automatic given following an EHCA.  Nor does an EHCP necessarily have to come with additional funding.

 

  1. Recommendation 3:  There is a need to strengthen the voice of the professional in advice writing.  I recently asked parents for their top tips in advice writing.  This is what they said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. If an EHCP is granted it needs to be clear, provision stated on the plan is for a year, until the annual review.  Chapter 9 in the SEND Code 2015 is confusing in this.

 

  1. It would be far more cost effective for local authorities to update EHCPs annually (currently key-stage bound) than go through all the Tribunals.  Parents would also be clear, this is in place for year, until we review again.

 

  1. Recommendation 4:  Update Chapter 9 and reconsider the longevity of provision and the plan.  The current model does not allow for increasing independence and this is detrimental to the child, young person as move towards adulthood.

 

 

Transition from Statements & LDAs to EHCPs

 

  1. I was involved for one local authority in defining the plan for the transition of statements to EHCPs.  Not an easy task and very dependent on the system you inherited under the old Code. Nationally, I do think we failed in this area and raised expectations beyond what were able to deliver.  This was in fact due to legislative timelines.  The outcome poorly written EHCPs.

 

  1. It should be noted, there are many children and young people who have n EHCP, who don’t need one and others who need one and don’t have it.

 

  1. Recommendation 5: Moving forward, each local authority needs to undertake an independent deep dive quality assurance activity of EHCPs.  However, this needs to be in relation to Recommendation 4. 

 

  1. Recommendation 6:  There is a need to concurrently strengthen quality and use of Local Offer.  Currently tokenistic.

 

 

SEND Funding

 

  1. I do not believe ring-fence funding, or a Pupil Premium type model is the answer.  This would add perverse incentives and take us back to SA, SA+ and ST ideology.

 

  1. I do believe there is a lot of wastage across the system, due to limited understanding and not exploring a wider range of support options.

 

  1. Recommendation 7: There isn’t evidence to suggest settings or local authorities consider a wide range of support options for children and young people.  So often more cost-effective solutions are not included in plans (e.g. Jack on the TV programme #school Biofeedback technology should have been considered).  This requires flexible input from specialists, using a cost-effective commissioning model.  Do look at the #TeamADL Commissioning model.

 

  1. There is general poor approach to effective commissioning, at all levels.  Chapter 3 and outcomes-based accountability is not understood by budget holders.  In one authority (high number of out of authority EHCP placements), we used Porter’s Forces to evaluate and RAG rate non-maintained independent schools (NMIS).  This enabled the NMIS to be held to account for the £234K they were receiving per child.  Provision in the plan for a year only (Recommendation 4), would ensure this.

 

  1. Recommendation 8:  A clear commissioning model for system leaders at all levels. This is how we improve the system, not create a new one.

 

  1. Funding fluctuations is a part of life, in any context.  In surplus times, there is a need to invest and save.  In shortfall, a need to either reduce cost or look at additional revenues of income and different models of working e.g. Social Enterprise. There is also a need to consider the Social Value Act 2012 in commissioning.

 

  1. Over the SEND Reforms 2011-18, substantial funds have been given to charities to create structures and sub-structures. 

 

  1. Recommendation 9:  There needs to a review of DfE funding given to Third Sector organisations 2011-18 and going forward, this needs to include a dialogue as to whether this is an effective use of resources or does it lead to the creation of monopoly organisations? Monopoly cultures serve to discourage stakeholders from seeking cost-effective alternatives.

 

  1. Many of the organisations funded by the DfE, also speak out against the system negatively.  I find this does not uphold the values of Public Life.  More to the point, it aggravates new comers to the process, who are still trying to deal with their circumstances and navigate the system.  Each case law brings a new twist to navigate and with it fear, by all.   Too many people trying to tinker individual elements of the system; rather then using the wider system to influence individual aspects.

 

  1. Recommendation 10:  If funding to Third Sector is continued, it needs to be an impact-phase model.  By this I mean, Phase 1 of the delivery is given to at least three partners.  Depending on impact, Phase 2 funding is only given to two of the three partners.  Phase 3 funding is only given to one partner; again, depending on the result and impact of Phase 2.  Such a model would negate risk of being over reliant on organisations and would serve to create an impact-driven system of cost-effective resources.  As I understand it, funding is currently given to the winning tender and accountability is weak.  If an organisation does not deliver, there is little the DfE can do.  The money has been spent.

 

 

Integration of Education, Health & Social Care

 

  1. This is about more than just funding.  It’s about ways of working and language.  Most local authorities in principle agree on an integrated model.  However, they can articulate what that looks like.  Working with easier Inc, we have developed a person-centred approach to

 

  1. The DMO / DCO (p50 SENDCoP) has a significant role to play.  In some areas this is working well, in others it is not.

 

  1. Cheshire West and Chester – DCO practice is worth looking at.

 

  1. Wirral – Social Care on panel is a system that is working well.

 

  1. I’ve worked with both these local authorities.

 

  1. Professionals cannot speak out about issues or cases; rightly so.  In effect, the voice in the media is predominantly parents/ carers and solicitors.   They should have a voice.  However, when good examples are provided, this is often shouted down. Almost to imply, “If we recognise the system working in some parts, it negates our fight”.  Not at all, we need to celebrate what’s working.  The new Social Care What Works Portal will help, as does EEF (education) and NICE (health).

 

  1. Recommendations 11:  In a variety of ways, let’s celebrate elements of the system that are working.  Success breeds success.

 

  1. I am a Trustee of Healthwatch and have used this as an opportunity to understand the healthcare system.  There are lots of resources available to upskills peoples understanding and knowledge e.g. King’s Fund.

 

  1. Clear signposting must be a big part of supporting families.

 

  1. Recommendation 12:  Either at school or local area level, appoint a person to host open surgeries for signposting for resources.  Most of the SENDIAS providers are caught up in caseload.  Is there a more strategic role they could play?

 

 

0-5- and 19-25-year olds

 

  1. This by far is the weakest elements of the system, in the change process.  A variety of systems sit behind this including lack of personnel (e.g. EP Supervisors) and defining a new part of the system, as opposed to refining 5-19 years.

 

  1. Two-year-old checks are not consistent across the country nor is provision.  Commissioning needs be looked at differently (see Report by Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists, Jan 2017).  At #TeamADL, we have started this process, but it is early days.

 

  1. With a high reliance on EHCPS, young people considering vocational routes is limited.  We have started to address the vocational route aspect, using local role models. Again, this is a work in progress for national scale up. None of our projects have replied on government funding, yet they have had impact. The Portal was piloted 2017-18.  In 2019, it will be sustained through a CIO (non-government grants).

 

  1. General Recommendation:  To ensure ongoing development & the voices of all stakeholders continue to be heard and shared with DfE independently, the fixed term appointment of a national SEND Champion or Commissioner would help to highlight both good practice and areas for development, system-wide.

 

 

Conclusion

 

  1. The system is not perfect.  However, a proportionate response by all helps us focus on innovative solutions, not just repeating the problems, over and over. There are several matters that need addressing; not of all these can be met by the law or central government.  Like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we must all play our part.

 

  1. It’s time for change and a more considered approach to SEND, not just re-active.

 

 

December 2018