Supporting the vulnerable with their education

Following the recent Education Select Committee report, there are a great many questions still to be answered in terms of the processes that will support many of the policy objectives. Only time will tell if the policy changes do improve the provision for those children with SEND. The draft Bill is welcomed as it means that the Government is committed to supporting our most vulnerable young people.

The concept of joint commissioning is very welcome but our concern is that health and social care will not have the same emphasis as that of education. Therefore is this just the old system that replaces ‘statements’ with ‘Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans.’ It also needs to be acknowledged that this Bill is being introduced alongside the most radical reform of the education system that many have seen. The Academy and Free School agenda, national funding reform, national curriculum and assessment changes including the introduction of the phonics check, distribution of Pupil Premium, significant changes to the Early Years Foundation Stage and the introduction of two Ofsted frameworks in one year all need to be considered alongside these SEND legislative changes.

Central services
Consideration also needs to be taken in regard to the lack of central services at local authority level as well as the major, radical changes currently being undertaken across the health service. Who is going to be responsible for compiling EHC plans? Who will re-write all the statements? Are there enough specialists, such as speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, and health visitors, to support schools.

If schools are going to have to commission these services do they have the skills and expertise to effectively challenge professionals if they are not offering the service they are paying for?

We welcomed the inclusion of Academies and Free Schools into the draft provisions as this clarifies the current confusion around the responsibilities of Academies and Free Schools towards young people with SEND.

There is a very clear understanding that if you are a child born with a disability or additional need or this is identified at the 2 year development check then it will be relatively easy for professionals to work together to formulate an education, health and care plan to meet individual needs. What is concerning those of us who work in the sector is how will schools access a plan once a young person is in full time education? The current process working through the three stages of school action, school action plus and formal assessment clearly offer a system (all be it very bureaucratic and open to local interpretation) that schools can follow. There does not appear to have been any consideration of how this process will work under the new provisions. There is also no indication of time-scales.

Will it be the SENCO’s responsibility to manage this process and if so how can they engage with other services? Will the paperwork and required evidence be reduced?

In many local authorities the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is being used. Will this remain or be replaced by EHC plan? This could actually lead to far more bureaucracy if not co-ordinated together.

Unanswered questions
There are also still many questions about the input from other services if the plan is primarily an education plan. It also leads to an assumption that maybe this will be how numbers are limited and only the most severe and complex two per cent will ever get an EHCP.

The 0-25 should be commended – this should support many families whose child was falling through the net at 16 when transferring out of education. There will now be some reassurances up to age of 25. However, what that provision will look like and who will provide it is still a question that needs to be asked.

The funding question
There is a very strong feeling that at a time when funding is being reduced additional costly layers are being added to the system. In the short term it could increase cost as parents, families and schools get to grip with the new system. Will more parents fight to get a plan because a school is not able to meet their child’s needs? If mediation is a compulsory element of the process will this not just add another expensive layer if the outcome is still the tribunal? There also needs to be very clear guidance on who will provide the mediation and who will pay for it.

The cost of moving all statements to plans will be incurred by local authorities that are already seeing a significant reduction in their budgets and hence staffing. Where is the training and professional development going to be funded from? Without this schools will not be able to meet the challenges and changes of the implementation of new systems.

Consideration also needs to be given to personal budgets and where the money to fund these is coming from. If this is funding that would have gone to schools but would now go directly to parents how can schools plan their provision? Who will support families in making financial decisions about the support their child needs?

We would also look for some cross‑party agreement that will ensure that after 2015 election everything would not be changed again. This would have significant financial implications.

The impact on current institutional structures
Current structures have already been severely impacted by budget cuts at local authority level. This is resulting in schools having to commission and/or ‘buy-back’ services which are becoming increasingly reduced. Some local authorities no longer have any Educational Psychologists (EP) and schools are having to look to the private sector for support. On an economy of scale this is going to be considerably more costly. It also begs the question about quality assurance. How will schools know what is value for money?

Another key concern is that these changes will actually drive up the number of requests for statements in the interim period. As schools and parents begin to consider the implications of the new legislations alongside the funding reforms they may well decide to look for support through a statement in the intervening years (2013 – 2014).

It is welcoming that non-maintained special schools can be named in the EHC plan but there is no consideration for the Independent sector to be named. Currently nearly five per cent of those young people with a statement are educated within the Independent sector. Will this provision still be available for those families who request a place in an Independent school?

Transitional arrangements
There needs to be a very clear implementation plan at national, local and school level to ensure that everyone who needs to be on board is. There are significant training implications for all stakeholders who will need to have a very clear understanding of not only the policy but also the process and procedures that go alongside it.

Parents and families will also need support throughout the transitional period. Those whose child is already in receipt of a statement will need reassurances that the move to a plan will have no adverse effect on the support their child will receive. There will also need to be very clear guidance on how personal budgets and allocated and used and who is accountable for ensuring this.

With the current radical reforms within the health and social care sector there needs to be very clear guidance on roles and responsibilities. Within all of this change will it be the individual child who misses out?

Professionals from all three sectors will need to work very closely together – this means looking at common terminology, joint training and seeking a joint strategy for funding and deployment of resources.

Consideration must also be taken into account in regard to the training for future teachers (Initial Teacher Training) to ensure they have the knowledge, skills and understanding to support all children in school.

Although the EHC Plan from 0-25 is very welcome however there is still very little on support for those at 16+. What will be the role and responsibilities of FE and HE or employers be? How will the funding for this sector be distributed? Will there be appropriate education, training or employment opportunities for all young people with SEND up to 25?

Meeting the child's needs
There is still need for clarification on how those children who are not identified in early childhood will be able to access an EHC plan – where will those identified with BESD get their support especially with many underlying emotional and social difficulties and mental health issues. If a school will be expected to meet the needs form their own resources then a great deal more training and professional development will need to be available to ensure that teachers have the skills to meet the child’s needs

There is very little acknowledgement of the role of the voluntary and community sector.

There is a feeling among nasen’s respondents that this draft Bill is a watered down version of the original proposals within the Green Paper. There appeared to be a very clear commitment that education, health and social care provision would have equal responsibility in ensuring that services were provided when needed. However, the legislation does not appear to have such a robust commitment to this.

We were very pleased to see that the role of SENCO would remain. We would like the SENCO regulations to be taken further to include that not only should SENCOS be qualified teachers but they should also be members of the senior leadership team. In order to continue the overwhelming success of the National Award for SEN Co‑ordination we would seek for the funding to continue year on year to support new to role SENCOS in achieving this award.

Further information
www.nasen.org.uk