Special Educational Needs (SEN)

The Bill’s focus should be widened to include all disabled children, including those without a statement of SEN.

The SEND Green paper set out plans for “a new single assessment process and EHCP by 2014 to replace the statutory SEN assessment and statement, bringing together the support on which children and their families rely across education, health and social care”. Clauses 36-45 of the Bill replace statements of SEN with EHCPs.

Following its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, the Education Select Committee recommended that the scope of entitlement to integrated EHC provision and assessments should be extended to disabled children, with or without a statement of SEN.

Despite the committee’s recommendation, the Government has chosen not to include disabled children without SEN within the scope of the Bill. This means that disabled children and families who do not require support in school or are not in education or training will not benefit from more integrated services - despite the significant amounts of time and effort that many have to commit to secure the care and support they need.

The entitlement to EHCPs should extend to all disabled 18 to 25 year olds, including those no longer in education.

We support clause 45, which states that a young person who still requires educational support while completing an apprenticeship could still be entitled to an EHCP.

We also welcome the fact that this clause states that EHCPs will not automatically cease when a young person leaves education or training. Local authorities must consider whether “the educational outcomes set out in the plan have been achieved” before ceasing the plan (45(3)). This could also mean that if a young person becomes NEET (not in education, employment or training) before completing their educational objectives (e.g. to go to college), the local authority might be required to maintain the EHCP.

We are concerned, however, that young people between the ages of 18 and 25 who may move in and out of education, or leave education altogether will not have access to a single plan and may lose access to support; this would include many young people who need palliative care who, owing to the complexity of their conditions, do not continue in education.

We are also concerned that, as they stand, the Children and Families Bill and the draft Care and Support Bill will bring about two different systems for young disabled people who transition from children’s to adult services in England: if a young person is deemed to have an SEN, their EHCP could continue until their educational outcomes have been achieved up to the age of 25; however, if they do not have SEN, their local authority will have a duty to assess a disabled child’s probable adult care needs before they reach 18, should they be requested to do so.

To resolve these issues, both Bills should be amended to ensure that young people up to the age of 25 continue to have access to an EHCP, regardless of their educational circumstances.

There are around 39,000 children and young people in England with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions, which mean they may require palliative care. Between them, they have a several hundred different conditions - some are well known, such as Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and cancer; others are rarer and have no name until recognised in an individual child. Many children have a range of different needs and require complex, individualised health interventions to manage their conditions. Many also need additional social care and education support.

We know from evidence that a disjointed system of care presents many challenges for families of children with life-limiting conditions. These families routinely deal with over 30 professionals from education, social care, health and other services. Communication between agencies is generally inadequate, leaving families burdened with the stress of navigating their way through an uncoordinated system.

This experience is common among families of disabled children. However, for families whose children’s lives are likely to be short, time wasted navigating through the system in this way can be particularly distressing. As one parent said at a recent event:

“It’s a minefield and you get frightened going through it. Services don’t join up and people don’t explain things to you. They don’t tell you what all the services actually do. By the time I had made it all fit together my child had passed away - that makes me sad that he could have had so much more out of life”.

All the evidence suggests that the best outcomes for children with life-limiting conditions and families are achieved when there is effective partnership working between parents and services and care is co-ordinated around the needs of the family.

The original SEND policy proposals included in the 2011 Government Green Paper ‘Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability - A consultation set’ out a vision of improved outcomes for children and young people who are disabled or have SEN. Under the new approach, the “adversarial nature of the system for families” would be minimised - potentially addressing many of the concerns we regularly hear about from parents and families of disabled children.

Together for Short Lives strongly supports the aspirations of the Bill, particularly those aimed at better integrating health, education and social care assessment; better integrating delivery for disabled children; and improving joint commissioning between local agencies. We also welcome the Government’s decision to act on some of our recommendations for realising these aspirations following their publication of draft SEND clauses in 2012.

We do, however, retain reservations about some important aspects of the Bill. The Green Paper offered a once-in-a-generation opportunity to join-up assessments and services for all disabled children. However, the draft SEND clauses which followed focused too heavily on education related services and did not provide an adequate framework to draw health and social care services into the system of support for children with SEN. The House of Commons Education Select Committee recommended that the Government broaden the scope of the clauses to reflect the original aspirations of the Green Paper. Ministers have not taken the committee’s advice - as a result, it is unlikely that the Bill will bring about the integrated assessments and care that the Government has promised.

Unless this is addressed, the Bill will simply replicate and reinforce the fragmentation in the current system. Research cited by EDCM and SEC has estimated that in the region of 25% of disabled children may not have SEN. Similarly, there are children who have specific health conditions, such as cancer, who would significantly benefit from a single plan and jointly commissioned services, but who would not meet the requirements of an SEN statement.

At a time when local authority budgets are under increasing pressure, we seek assurance from the Government that they recognise the impact of local cuts on SEND services. Local authorities will need considerable support and resources to ensure these reforms can make a practical difference at a local level.

To ensure that the Bill realises the aims of the Government’s original Green Paper:

The Bill’s focus should be widened to include all disabled children, including those without a statement of SEN.

The Bill should make clear what disabled children can expect from local services through a ‘duty to provide’ and a national framework for local offers.

The entitlement to Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) should extend to all disabled 18 to 25 year olds, including those no longer in education.

The duties on health services to contribute to integrated assessment and delivery need to be clearer and more explicit in the Bill.

Children of any abilities are always going to be our future so how can this not be passed?

I have many concerns with the proposed Children and Families Bill. In theory the single EHCP sounds like a great idea but when looked at in detail it doesn't seem that different from what we have now. As the authority only has a duty to provide what is specified in the Education section of the EHCP the rest of the plan is meaningless. For those children that have social care needs a separate core assessment will still be required. This just doesn't make sense to me as this is essentially still an education only plan. However the new EHCP will erode current rights. Special academies will be able to admit children without an EHCP. There is a loss of the requirement for time limits to respond. There is a loss of requirement for the minimum level of professional evidence to be collected during the assessment. If a personalised budget or direct payment is made it is not clear whether the duty has been fulfilled then or when the provision is actually delivered.

Also a shorter time scale for a child SEN assessment should be compulsory in my opinion no need to wait 18 months wait to have a child education phIycologist. County Down Northern Ireland current waiting time scale..... This time can damage the child confidence and stop the personal education progress.

Been a younger student and adult student. As a younger student, I found that being at a specialist college like RNC I had the opportunities I wouldn't have had in mainstream. Such as, Full access to documentation in braille, having specialist training in mobility and living skills, having the understanding from very highly qualified staff, having the support and understanding staff and support from peers who are "in the same boat" as me. I came to RNC as a young and imature student and left as a compitent and mature adult. I felt ready to take on employment, that's exactly what I did. I'm certain I could not have achieved this in mainstream.

As an adult student (RTU) Residential Training Unit: I came to RNC to embark on a new career, as I was made redundant in my previous 10 year employment. I learnt how to use a computer, I didn't have a clue when I came here. With all the specialist equipment such as speech and the use of a braille display I was able to fulfill further qualifications in this area. After training at RNC for a year, I gained employment within the college as Braille transcription operative. Again I had all the support and specialism I needed. I received the training that only a specialist college like RNC can offer. I know that, on both occasions, RNC has changed and shaped my life to what it is today. I have seen this happening for many many other students since I have been working here. I feel so passionate that this continues for many other people young and adult in the future. I sincerely hope that a wonderful place like RNC will continue to give so much success for up and coming students.

I am deeply concerned, as a mother, a former arts lecturer and a dyslexic. I was a high achiever in creative subjects, I also had parental support and I have taught many individuals with varied special needs. I have also seen how if needs are not properly addressed children slip through the net, bright children with SENs miss out because planning time and individual learning targets cannot accommodate the needs of all children. The Baccalaureate would have taken many children backwards not forwards in terms of progression, a talent artist or a child with dyscalculiar or dyslexia would not have fitted the constraints of this system. The needs of all children must be met, often schools do not have the breadth of understanding or SEN training to meet additional needs and many children go without statements, these are children not deemed to have special needs but children who do need support. I fear this bill will decrease, not increase the support available for children with varying needs in the UK

My son & daughter are dyslexic both have assessment from ed psych, both at different secondary schools. I am appauled at the lack of knowledge, understanding & support available. Teachers must be properly trained to identify & support children with dyslexia, and schools should be required to provide a level of meaningful support.

My son who is 9 years old is dyslexic and attends a state funded school. I believe that it should be the duty of the school and the local council to secure special educational provision for their students rather than simply use "best endeavours" which permits the school to sidestep its responsibilities to dyslexic students. Schools must provide - rather than simply try to provide - services for dyslexic children. Schools should have to provide what a child needs.

Also, local Authorities should have a duty to provide the services outlined in the local offer rather than just say that the services exist. And most importantly, I believe that all teachers should receive a minimum amount of training on dyslexia through initial teacher training and continuing professional development modules. My son who is severely dyslexic is given one to one assistance with a teaching assistant who does not even have a teaching certificate - that is not good enough. He is three years behind and I believe he would have a much better chance of catching up if he had specialist help or if his teachers were taught how to teach dyslexic students.