Special Educational Needs (SEN)

all children are entitled to an education whether they are requiring special needs or not. There are many levels of special needs from the child with severe difficulties to the child who excels at everything and needs more to stimulate their brain. So please think seriously about the cuts you are going to make.

I believe schools and other institutions have a duty to secure special educational provision for their students, at the moment they are using their best endeavours, which is not good enough. Schools should provide what a child needs. Local Authorities must be able to provide the services and not just display them on paper. All teachers should receive a minimum amount of training on dyslexia through initial teacher training and on going professional development modules.

The Code of Practice needs to be statutory and needs to set out inter alia obligations on health from birth (including through the whole process of identification of needs and diagnosis and early intervention etc) to 25.

The reality in relation to appeals is that it is expensive, difficult and time consuming. If the new SEN rules are to be generally in line with the principles in Clause 19, such action should be extremely exceptional. Currently too many families are having to go to Tribunal because of buck passing from health to education and vice versa, with children and young people caught in the middle.

The SEN system needs to be equitable and fair: it needs to be transparent as to how children and young people will have their needs met without families having to fight.

Local Authorities cannot alone be responsible for the health needs of disabled children with or without SEN. To make any sense to the lives and needs of disabled children and young people with SEN, this health provision will need to extend to all areas of health where their needs have to be met – in primary, community, acute and specialist care.

By their nature children with neurodisabilities in particular will have a complex range of health needs that have to be met to ensure the wellbeing and development of these children. Additionally, health must also be responsible for dealing with health issues that impact on behaviour and learning in a timely manner (e.g. ear infections, physical needs, sleep needs etc). This currently does not happen without parents battling and fighting for these health services.

This was supposed to be what Part 5 of current Statements provided for, although as this was non actionable, it was largely ignored.

There seems to be being created a new category of SEN above School Action Plus and above where Statements currently start with no clear legal framework either. This arises from a view emerging in some areas that EHC Plans would only be available for those on “packages” above £12,000 pa. This relates in part to the new SEN funding changes being implemented from April 2013. That is a lot - some parents are being told already that half of all statements will disappear – this is not inspiring confidence in the system and there seems to be no basis for it in this SEN legislation. Additionally, those funding provisions raise concerns about funding for children with high levels of need (the funding is too low) and for post 16 young people. Those concerns remain and until resolved will impact negatively on the whole SEN system going forward. Personal budgets need to be optional as the legislation makes clear.

This duty needs to be on health as well as the Local Authority in respect of the health aspect of the EHC. Otherwise there is no reason for them to comply

The bill does not make it a duty for LAs to provide services for children with special needs, they only have to use their best endeavours. this is not enough, children with special needs have a right to get the support they need in order to ensure they reach their full potential in life. in addition as a parent of a child with dyslexia i would like all teachers to have some basic training in recognising and supporting children with dyslexia in order that they are not lost in the system or worse 'mislabelled'. thank you.

The Local Offer obligation needs to be a joint obligation on health and the LA. That is because it will not work without both being key parties. This is in particular the case for those at School Action Plus, but also for those with disabilities and SEN and long term health conditions. It will also need to include all health services especially those that interface with education and social care. This is because health needs impact on learning and behaviour, especially when not identified and addressed. These include areas like problems with sleep, eating, feeding and so on. These are health not social care or education needs.

There is also a tendency when focussing on educational provision of thinking only from 9-3. But children with SEN and disabilities need to be thought of 24/7. That is one of the potential values of a new joined up approach across health education and social care.

Defining the local offer – definitely not lists, and fundamental to all the changes. Without the right frameworks, links to joint commissioning, involvements by schools/colleges etc, services for children with SEN and disabilities (e.g. therapies, specialist teaching, resources etc) could easily disappear. While broad principles are being worked on and developed, but locally we have been developing our own that will matter to parent carers and families:

• SEN 0-25
– Family and child centred
– Early Intervention and Prevention
• Trust and confidence of parent carers
– Social model of disability
– No fighting for services
– Equity - accessible to all
• Defining roles correctly at all levels
– who qualified to do what/when?
– Joined up/Joint working/partnerships
• Outcome focussed
– individually and across services
• Quality – defined by parent carers
• Parent participation and coproduction
• Resourced and based on data and needs

Unless there is a specific duty on health, they will not do this.

It is good that schools and academies are included, but is unclear to what extent they will cooperate and what the remedies would be for children and young people if they do not.

The huge stresses from getting and making provision work already, which looks like it will become hugely more difficult in the new system – where will accountability and responsibility lie? If this is designed to be enforced by individual families, that would be wrong and would create great inequities in the system. It is also unaffordable – e.g. these cases would need lawyers (no legal aid) which is unaffordable for most.

This must also mandate parent participation and co-production by Local Authorities and Health with their local Parent Carer Forums.