Support and Aspiration: a New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability

Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability Consultation Response

Hertfordshire LA

Debbie Orton [email protected] Question 1

How can we strengthen the identification of SEN and impairments in the early years, and support for children with them?

More rigorous screening and early identification is welcomed. The sooner support can be put in place for identified needs the more likely that life chances can be enhanced.

However SEND cannot always be identified in the same way as a medical condition can be diagnosed and needs are relative to environmental and contextual factors.

There needs to be a better shared understanding of what is a complex need, a common approach to what is assessment and intervention across education, health and social care and understanding of what is good practice. At present families can often be given inconsistent and sometimes unrealistic messages and a common language such as in the Early Support Approach, needs to be promoted.

There also should be enhanced multi-agency training for early years practitioners and more specialist support and advice provided to early years settings.

Question 2

Do you agree with our proposal to replace the statement of SEN and learning difficulty assessment for children and young people with a single statutory assessment process and an ‘Education, Health and Care Plan', bringing together all services across education, health and social care?

A single process of assessment and joint planning would be welcomed, particularly for children with very complex long term needs requiring multi-agency involvement. A true joint approach is only likely to be achieved if the responsibilities of all agencies to deliver are set out clearly in law and can be enforced rather than relying on goodwill or local arrangements. An agreement or stated commitment from agencies to provide will not be enough as the legislation currently stands.

The existing framework for statutory assessments and statements is essentially already a multi-agency assessment process which should lead to co-ordinated plan of intervention. However this process is sometimes frustrated because the agencies do not have the same legal responsibilities to ensure provision is made (for example the long rehearsed difficulties regarding responsibility for provision of speech and language therapy).

Question 3 How could the new single assessment process and ‘Education, Health and Care Plan' better support children's needs, be a better process for families and represent a more cost-effective approach for services

The framework of the current statutory assessment process lends itself to being carried out as a set of discrete assessments with separate reports written by the different professionals involved at one point in time that is quickly out of date. It is often experienced as such by families.

A better process would be experienced by families if services worked together with the family to assess the child’s needs over time and draw up ongoing plans using a more dynamic and person-centred approach. This should focus on a set of agreed outcomes with shared accountability for delivering support. The plan would need to be reviewed and amended as a matter of expectation with updated assessments fed in as appropriate.

Statutory Education, Health and Care Plans should only be for those children with complex needs where multi-agency support is required. It would be helpful for there to be some clarity about the expected percentage of children that this process would be appropriate for. The Green Paper states this would be intended for those children currently with a statement or a learning difficulties assessment but these numbers and percentages vary greatly across the country.

It is also very likely that unless there are much stronger expectations of what will be provided by all mainstream schools and settings for children with significant SEND there will be more pressure from parents to ensure entitlement to support through a statutory assessment. It is not clear in the Green Paper how this would be mitigated against in the future and how decisions about ‘eligibility’ will be made.

Question 6a

What role should the voluntary and community sector play in the statutory assessment of children and young people with SEN or who are disabled?

Voluntary organisations can play a role alongside others to support parents where children have a statutory assessment. For example:

 Providing advice/acting as mentors to parents/carers/children particularly for less confident families

 Acting as independent supporters to parents who require it

 Providing information and guidance (through training, leaflets etc)

 Being part of moderation processes (eg participating in groups advising on decisions about statutory assessment, resource allocation)

 Collecting feedback about parents/carers/children’s experience of the process and outcomes

 Providing mediation if there are disagreements

Question 6b

How could this help to give parents greater confidence in the statutory assessment process? The Green Paper proposes that parents’ confidence will be improved if an independent element to the assessment process is introduced rather than the LA being both assessor and provider. Some parents may well feel reassured if there is a trusted voluntary organisation involved – even if it just helps to confirm that what they have already been advised is correct.

However it is important to remember that most parents are not dissatisfied and for many it is small things that maintain their confidence - phone calls being returned, accurate and consistent information being provided, being listened to and treated with respect, actions being carried out as agreed.

Improved transparency about provision and services available as well as funding, schools giving confidence to parents (through extension of the approaches such as in Achievement for All) and a lead professional role where needs are complex and a number of agencies are involved may all have a greater influence on parental confidence than having an independent element to the assessment per se.

Question 7

How could the proposed single assessment process and ‘Education, Health and Care Plan' improve continuity of social care support for disabled children?

The proposed single assessment and plan would need to have a statutory basis to ensure that where social care provision/support was needed up to age 25 that this would continue to be provided. At present parents/carers/young people often report concerns about continuity of such services post 16 and post 19.

Question 8

How could the arrangements for provision of health advice for existing statutory SEN assessments be improved?

The Green Paper seems to suggest that detailed medical advice may not always be needed as part of a statutory assessment. However this begs the question of why a statutory assessment (intended to be a multi-agency assessment) would be necessary in such a case? It may be possible to speed up the timescales by excluding medical advice but this would be against the spirit of the process and could result in some important medical information being missed. It is also important to note that often the medical advice consists of a number of professional reports of advice eg paediatrician, speech therapist, occupational therapist and where children have complex needs it is rarely the case that there is no health profession involved.

Question 9

How can we make the current SEN statutory assessment process faster and less burdensome for parents?

The proposal to reduce the timescale for the statutory assessment process to 20 weeks will put significant pressure on local authorities, particularly SEN teams at the decision making stage after advice is received and in drafting and finalising statements. It is unrealistic to suggest that this will not incur additional costs for local authorities and could potentially divert more resources into administering the process. The Green Paper could have said more about examples of successful practice where reliance on the statutory process has been effectively reduced but where children’s needs continue to be met well. For example this LA has a funding arrangement where it is no longer necessary for a child to have a statement in order to access additional resources in a mainstream school and therefore resources are available to meet needs earlier.

Question 13

In what ways do you think the option of a personal budget for services identified in the proposed ‘Education, Health and Care Plan' will support parents to get a package of support for their child that meets their needs?

Personal budgets could offer more control for some parents who choose this option. Using a personal budget approach may help some parents get what they feel is best for their child. It is difficult to see how this approach could be applied to educational provision however and may be more appropriate for some health or social care services.

There would be concern about how quality of services accessed by parents would be assured. There would also be a risk that overall costs may increase and the ability to plan coherent provision for all could be de-stabilised.

Question 15

How can we improve information about school choice for parents of children with a statement of SEN, or new ‘Education, Health and Care Plan'?

The requirement to provide a long list of schools to parents at proposed statement stage is confusing and misleading. Most parents want a good quality local school and they need guidance (often from a trusted professional in a school, service, parent partnership or voluntary organisation or another parent) that enables them to make an informed decision.

Local authorities should work with schools to produce good information for parents about what local schools provide and what outcomes are achieved.

In addition to provision for individual parents there are examples of LAs working with groups of parents. For example in Hertfordshire parents are involved at a strategic level alongside headteachers, officers and other agencies looking at what local schools and services provide and how provision can be developed.

Question 16

Should mediation always be attempted before parents register an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (SEN and Disability)?

In this LA every attempt is made to resolve disagreements and to avoid the need for a tribunal appeal. As the Green Paper suggests formal mediation involving face to face meetings is currently not frequently taken up by parents. Where it is it the formal process can require considerable time from Senior SEN officers and be costly if a series of meetings is required. It would also require a supply of skilled mediators and considerable funding. Thought would need to be given to what model of compulsory mediation would be practical and cost effective in the context of diminishing resources. There would also need to be consideration of who would be required to attend if mediation was compulsory – schools for example?

Question 22

What is the potential impact of replacing School Action and School Action Plus and their equivalents in the early years with a single category of SEN in early years settings and schools?

The Green Paper does not clarify the concept of SEN or its relationship to additional needs. A move to a smaller number of children being identified without clarity about what is meant by ‘complex’ needs could reinforce a within-child deficit model of SEN.

If fewer children are going to be identified as having SEN and needing provision that is additional or different there should be a more robust expectation/definition of what schools must ordinarily provide and exactly how they will be held accountable. The Green paper does not say much about this – how quality will be ensured or poor practice challenged.

Potentially there could be more pressure to access entitlement through a statutory assessment for greater numbers and for children with less complex needs than the current system.

It is not clear who be responsible in the future for deciding who requires an assessment and who will be responsible for managing and controlling resources, functions currently undertaken by the LA. There is a real risk that costs could escalate.

Question 25

Is the BESD label overused in terms of describing behaviour problems rather than leading to an assessment of underlying difficulties?

Yes, particularly at secondary phase where some children become ‘labelled’ as BESD when their presenting need was previously described differently.

Frequently children and young people are labelled as BESD or identified for a statutory assessment because this may enable specialist resources to be accessed. There is often a significant difference in levels of identification of BESD between primary and secondary schools with resultant differences in how resources are allocated.

The issue is often about ensuring that appropriate approaches are in place for children and young people with difficulties in engaging in learning at school irrespective of a ‘label’. There needs to be a strengthening of what is expected in terms of core provision in schools and settings to engage all children who show signs of emotional and behavioural difficulties.

Question 26 How could we best ensure that the expertise of special schools in providing behaviour support is harnessed and shared?

By coordinating the expertise and resources in behaviour support services, PRUs and special schools more flexible responses to meeting these types needs could be achieved. The focus should be on enhancing capacity in mainstream schools and more could be achieved by partnership working and a shared set of outcomes. There is expertise in mainstream schools that can be shared with special schools.

Question 30

What might the impact be of opening up the system to provide places for non- statemented children with SEN in special free schools?

It is not clear how specialist places for non statemented children would be funded or why they would be needed. Specialist provision should focus on the most complex needs to get the best value from the available resources as this is more costly. To open the system in this way seems to contradict the view in the Green Paper that there has been an over- identification of children with SEN and that there should be fewer children identified as needing something additional or different to what is ordinarily available.

There is a risk that without careful regulation it will be difficult to ensure equity of provision, to safeguard the needs of the most vulnerable children and families and ensure provision is developed coherently and within available resources.

Question 31

Do you agree with our proposed approach for demonstrating the progress of low attaining pupils in performance tables?

Yes (but see below)

Question 32

What information would help parents, governors and others, including Ofsted, assess how effectively schools support disabled children and children with SEN?

More weight given to the voice of individual parents and their experience.

Longer term outcomes

More indicators of broader outcomes for children in terms of academic and social participation.

Longer term outcomes in terms of life chances and social inclusion

More information about how schools work with others to meet the needs of children with SEND in the local community Question 33

What more can education and training providers do to ensure that disabled young people and young people with SEN are able to participate in education or training post-16?

Young disabled people and young people with SEN must be empowered to as far as possible, make their own decisions as to where they will progress to after school and what learning programme they chose to do. They will need comprehensive and accessible information about the whole curriculum offer. This could also be in the form of taster days and link courses. Staff in education or training post-16 will have to be receptive to what the young person has to say and respond in a person-centred and creative manner, adapting and developing provision that best matches the young person’s choices. Young disabled people and young people with SEN have right to chose from the whole college offer and learn in an inclusive environment.

We feel that education and training providers could do the following:  Provide a wider and more flexible range of learning opportunities, in a wider range of learning environments, which allow young people to study in a way that suits them e.g. more practical/hands on etc.  Provide disability awareness training for all delivery staff (not just those who deliver on discrete courses), to enable them to deliver more confidently to young people with SEND More preparation for independent travel, e.g. travel training  Person centred planning that genuinely leads to outcomes for young people that they want  It has been recognised in Hertfordshire that young people with Aspergers Syndrome/High Functioning Autism who are able to achieve academically, need life skills provision within their college offer, in order to help them fully achieve – colleges need funding support in order to allow this to happen.  More access to brokered packages – incentives to utilise third party agreements by colleges and training providers would be useful.  Encourage commitment from senior managers and college Governors to adopt a more inclusive approach to education for young disabled people and young people with SEND.

In order to achieve the above, the Government will need to support education/training providers, in the following ways:  Allow more flexible use of budgets/pooling of budgets  Reduce the bureaucracy around Foundation Learning and the funding for achievement to training providers – this will allow them to be more flexible and to take on more young people with SEND are not and will never be, able to achieve a Level 2 qualification  Modify the funding methodology, to ensure that it is recognised that people with SEND need longer to achieve and they require different support than usually allowed for  A wider range of achievements able to be recognised – i.e. soft outcomes as well as qualifications Question 34

When disabled young people and young people with SEN choose to move directly from school or college into the world of work, how can we make sure this is well planned and who is best placed to support them?

We feel that the following needs to happen:  The allocated Personal Adviser needs to meet with the young person regularly and needs to help them to start to apply for appropriate jobs in the final term of school/college.  Schools and Colleges need to make better links with their local Job Centre Plus Office and the local Disability Employment Adviser (DEA) in particular.  Schools and Colleges need to make good links with local Voluntary and Third Sector Organisations  Job Clubs or similar for young people with SEND  Last year we trialled a Job Brokerage Scheme for young people with SEND leaving college and looking for work. This was very successful, but was very labour intensive.  We need to ensure that we have sufficient, well qualified staff to support young people with SEND looking for work.  We need SEND Employment and Training Advisers or similar – these members of staff to have a reasonably sized caseload; they will contact employers and advocate for specific young people, they will help them completed application forms; make telephone calls; attend interviews; liaise with families; get feedback etc. This is very staff/time intensive but works well.  Need more supported employment/social enterprises  Young People with SEND need more focussed Work Experience  Travel Training is important to allow young people with SEND to access employment  Mentor/Job Coach that provides ongoing support to YP and employer Place and train models – internship models  Greater responsibilities for local authorities to be an exempla employer  Post-16 FE funding should focus on job outcomes rather than accreditation to encourage providers to support young people into the world of work. The Wolf report recommends that funding and performance measures should promote a focus on employment outcomes rather than on the accrual of qualifications

Question 35b

How might supported internships work best?

There needs to be clarity on how internships are classified - they are too often regarded as opportunities found by rich parents for their children or as ways of employers getting free labour. Should they be classed as work programmes leading to employed status, or are they a FE learning programme in which case there should be clear progression and some sort of outcome for the young person at the end of the programme?

Apprenticeships must include paid employment, so it seems fitting that any similar opportunities for young people with SEND, should include paid employment also.

Question 36

How can employers be encouraged to offer constructive work experience and job opportunities to disabled young people and young people with SEN

Employers need to be asked what they need in this process. Support to help employers develop in-house roles such as job coaches will embed the supported employment approach and spread the cost. There is expertise in supported employment agencies that can support employers. Some education and training providers have a good track record in working with employers and there is much to learn from their experience. That being said all providers are finding it harder in the current economic climate to find work experience and job opportunities.

 We also feel that employers need to know about what is available to them to support young people with SEND e.g. Access To Work etc. through an entitlement to services

 by supporting agencies with the skills to do this

 Increased flexibility and pooling of budgets – this will need different government departments to make it easier for agencies to invest in better education opportunities for young people aged up to 25 with special needs, increasing their independence and reducing the need to rely on expensive services in health or social care in adult life.

Question 37

How do you think joint working across children's and adult health services for young people aged 16 to 25 could be improved?

Through an entitlement to services

By supporting agencies with the skills to do this

Increased flexibility and pooling of budgets – this will need different government departments to make it easier for agencies to invest in better education opportunities for young people aged up to 25 with special needs, increasing their independence and reducing the need to rely on expensive services in health or social care in adult life.

Question 40a) Do you agree with the following three core features of the role of local authorities in supporting children and young people with SEN or who are disabled and their families?

Yes all

Question 40b)

Are there others? If so, please specify.

There are currently a number of functions that the LA carries out and it is not clear how it is proposed these will be done in the future

How will quality of provision be assured?

Who will deal with concerns/complaints from parents if things go wrong?

Who makes decisions about statutory assessments?

Who will consider whether the three conditions for decision making about parental choice of school are met?

How will resources be controlled?

The role of the LA regarding individual children with SEN is not defined

In Hertfordshire the LA is providing strategic leadership by working in partnership with schools, parents and other stakeholders to develop collective ways of working to improve services and provision to better meet needs. We believe this will continue to be an important and needed role for the LA in order to ensure coherence in provision.

Question 47

How do you think SEN support services might be funded so that schools, academies, free schools and other education providers have access to high quality SEN support services?

Funding should be retained centrally within local authorities to ensure equality of access and quality of services. There needs to be a clear definition of SEN support services as several services without that title spend a high proportion of their time with children with SEN.

Question 58

How do you think a national banded funding framework for children and young people with SEN or who are disabled could improve the transparency of funding decisions to parents while continuing to allow for local flexibility?

This would seem like a backward step and could lead to increased costs. Many LAs have abandoned these approaches. Transparency about budgets could be achieved in other ways – by involving parents in strategic developments for example. If independent assessment is part of the process it is not clear who will determine support and provision levels and ultimately how costs would be controlled. This process could lead to greater disagreement and tension in the system not less.