Children and Families Bill: a Senco speaks

I posted recently about my concerns about the Children and Families Bill and what it is going to mean in practice for our children.

©http://www.flickr.com/photos/howardlake/

These are not idle or theoretical concerns. The Bill brings the hope of greater parental choice over SEN provision which is very welcome. However, its promise is made in an unchanging administrative context of severe financial constraint and widespread disregard for the law on the part of some LAs. My concern is that LAs will recognise fewer children as having needs which warrant one of the new Education and Health Care Plans (EHCPs) and that children applying post the implementation of the Act, who may well have had statements previously, will now be told to look to school to have their needs met - all out of already pressurized school budgets. This affects ALL schools.

I am also concerned that it appears the Government, its auditors Mott MacDonald and LAs are vigorously pursuing the piloting of EHCPs for September 2013. Where is the law which permits this? The Education Act 1996 has not been amended as it was to allow for the piloting of SEN DPs. The charities involved don't appear to have questioned it. The result will be that, even if optional, EHCPs are, at this stage, unrecognised in law because they are not statements as required by the Education Act.

Of course, without a statement, a child's needs will not be legally protected and the provision s/he needs will not be enforceable. They will be no better off than if they were on SA+.

The problem with this is, as we know, that delegated funding to schools for SEN (which is what non-statemented children rely on) is not ring-fenced and can be spent on anything the school chooses. Further, schools' duty to support the child is only one to make their 'best endeavours'.

This Bill, and current Pathfinder practice, doesn't just need a few tweaks: it requires a wholesale rethink to enable it to address the realities of the SEN world. 

I am starting to conclude that its primary intention is in fact to reduce SEN costs. This week, my fears in that regard grew further when an experienced and very committed SENCO shared her thoughts with me about the impending changes and what it is already doing to practice on the ground. She says:

“When I recommended two statements continue in their current form at two recent Annual Reviews the LA decided at the panel meeting to cease them because the funding for support is now in schools for children who require less than 20 hours 1:1 TA time. We are not a Pathfinder authority. We have been told that there will be no more statements after April 2014 and that the Government want only 1.6% of children with the new EHCPs. This is what our LA have advised us.

So, presently, although the law has not changed, our LA is refusing to issue any statements they don’t think will convert to EHCPs (so must have an educational AND health component) and are ceasing all statements under 20 hours. Schools have to deal in-house with children they would normally have recommended for up to 15 hours statementing support because we have the (very notional ) funding to supply it. It’s a very large step back in time and it’s all about saving money.

The authorities we border with have continued the statements. Parents are confused as they have been told nothing. The changes are being rushed through with no proper foundation and despite the failure of Pathfinder authorities even with an 18 month extension to find a path.

The worrying thing is that saying schools have the cash means there is now no legally enforceable right to provision for these children. Also, this affects children who can’t get a place in a special school without a statement

As a SENCO the weight on my shoulders has reached new levels. Now I have to decide how much support to give where the LA used to assess and then put their wise heads together to make the decision. And I am an experienced teacher and SENCO. What decisions will all the new younger SENCOs still gaining experience make? Apparently this was what SENCOs said they wanted from the government consultation...I certainly did not."

 I am really grateful to this teacher for speaking out like this because what is being said is deeply   concerning and needs to be put to the Government for comment. Please contact me if you have been provided with similar advice in your LA area.

NB: The only valid reason for removing a statement is that the child no longer needs it. If any council is removing them solely because of an internal policy, that is illegal and could be challenged through the courts. A case could probably be brought in the name of the child so legal aid may be available

The 'Team (getting) around (their duties to) the child'

Aah, 'multi-agency working',  'joined up working', the 'Team around the Child' etc etc.

It all sounds so good and promises so much. A whole TEAM around YOUR child, dedicated to working together to improve actual, measurable outcomes for them. Fantastic.

I am sure there are many cases where this happens, but, if we don't acknowledge the fact that, for many parents, endless multi-disciplinary meetings lead to little in terms of actual benefit to their child, we deprive them of a voice and credit many children with a benefit they are not actually receiving. 

Here is one parent's story:

"I remember by first multi-agency ‘Team around the Child’ meeting. I was there, humble, hopeful, scared, on the verge of tears, desperate. It sounded wonderful though.  This person was going to 'advise', that person was going to 'refer', another person was going to 'monitor' and another going to 'send your son's case to a 'panel'', and someone else was going to send his case to a 'board'. Yet another person was going to put together a 'programme' and someone else was going to 'assess'. We were going to get 'support' and my son was to get 'therapy'. Someone else was going to 'investigate' the 'opportunities' that our LEA had for children such as my son, and someone else was going to 'liaise' with us.

A couple of months later and I realised that some if not ALL of the above was happening in terms of moving funds and delegating money to people's case-loads, but yet not one single OUTCOME had occurred for my son.

In fact we hardly saw anyone, they were all busy referring, and investigating and writing programmes or whatever. I hung around here a bit complaining and apologising and thinking ' Oh, he's only little, we have lots of time'. But a short while later I realised that it was good as it was ever going to get unless I started to demand better. 

Against my nature, my upbringing and my previously held beliefs I began to challenge the provision and the system and what I began to see shocked me to the core.

There are a lot of busy people, defending their paperwork and their meetings and shuffling money around, perhaps making speeches over Christmas dinner about their virtuousness. They are incredulous at the very idea you challenge their commitment to your child, yet the extent of their role seems to be simply to 'manage' them and their families through the education system for as cheap as possible.

There is no commitment to the role of these children in society as an adult, like there is with non-disabled children."

Too often, parents demanding evidence of outcomes for 'interventions' are seen as 'challenging', 'difficult' or even 'vexatious'. Why? We demand this every day in our school system for every child, in league tables and SATs etc etc. Ofsted demands it: the Government demands it. 

It is the very least our children deserve.

Meeting needs or protecting funds?

A parent recently sent me this account of the process of identifying her son’s needs which I think is, sadly, shared by many. The process described doesn’t bear any relation to that required by the Education Act. Will this change with the Children and Families Bill? I have yet to hear the Government, or any group involved in the reform process, point to one concrete proposal which will prevent these types of practices.

There is much said about the need to change ‘cultures’ in the SEN system. But how will the Bill actually do this? The law is already clear about what should happen, it just isn't always followed. This 'culture' does not arise because of the personal preference of individuals in the system: it is about saving money.

So, will the reforms provide LAs with lots more money to support the needs of children with SEN? 

I'm guessing NO.Perhaps we need to be honest about that as not only are we failing children if we aren't, but it doesn't benefit those doing their level best within extraordinarily tight budgets to pretend it's just about a culture shift.

The parent tells me:

“This is a link to the College of Occupational therapists [COT] and a report they produced into Dyspraxia.   

Although this report is from 2003 it makes very interesting reading and nothing appears to have changed since this report was made.  It shows how important the COT considers DCD [ie Dyspraxia], and the poor outcomes for children with this difficulty if they are not supported or provided with therapy.

In our own service I found that although we were referred to the OT for assessment, that it took 2 years before we were seen.  That was because of how the NHS OT service prioritised children, and those with DCD were always being bumped to the bottom of the list by children with needs considered to be more severe. 

©http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysight/

When my son was finally seen and assessed he was not given a formal diagnosis.  I was told he had motor co-ordination difficulties.  He received no 1:1 OT therapy at all.  The OT service did eventually give me a list of 'exercises' to do at home with him.  However this was too little and too late because by then he had already refused school and I personally think he had had some sort of breakdown.

It was the CAHMS Psychiatrist who asked him to do some simple movements and stated in her report that he had dyspraxic tendencies.

None of these difficulties had been included in his Statement.  And at that time I was just becoming more aware of the fact that each and every need should be included in the Statement etc.

So I wrote to his OT asking her to clarify if "Co-ordination Difficulties" actually meant "Dyspraxia" and asking her to confirm the diagnosis made by the CAHMS Psychiatrist.  I also asked for details of what 1:1 therapy he would receive for Dyspraxia.

©http://www.flickr.com/photos/76657755@N04/

I received a letter back from the OT confirming Dyspraxia.  She then informed me that the NHS did not fund OT therapy for Dyspraxia and therefore he would not receive any 1:1 therapy.

Again I used the COT report, and the letter from the OT to prove that his needs had not been identified.  Even though every professional involved actually knew he had it and knew it was not in the Statement and knew that his needs were not being met [the same applies for his eventual diagnosis of Dyslexia and Sensory Processing Disorder].

All I can conclude is that needs were not being identified or diagnosed due to the funding implications of them”

SEN Panel says ‘NO’

Following my comments about SEN Panels in my post ‘Applying for a statutory assessment’, I wanted to share with you the experience of one parent which further feeds my suspicions about their real purpose.

  

'SEN Panel says NO'
 Cartoon by roystoncartoons.com

“We had a meeting in school to discuss my son. About 15 people attended. My son had been out of school for about 9 months at this point. The LA Inclusion Officer said that she wanted to submit some paperwork to the LA SEN Panel to seek funding for a suitable adult to take my son out of the home for things he would enjoy.  She said she could not get it ready for the next Panel meeting [which was in two weeks time], so would get it submitted to the Panel after that.  She went on and on about how she wanted the paperwork to be immaculate so that it was not turned down for any reasons by the Panel.

Six weeks later I found out, via the Parent Partnership, that the funding had been refused on the grounds that the Panel wanted more information of my son’s needs and how the funding would be used.  So the Inclusion Officer hadn't made the paperwork immaculate had she?  Then I asked "who" had been on the Panel.  It turned out that it was this same Inclusion Officer, her boss the Senior Inclusion Officer and a Specialist Teacher!  

So what happened is that the LA Inclusion Officer put together the paperwork [and this surely would have been in consultation with her senior Inclusion Officer].  They then decided to submit the paperwork to the Panel [ie. themselves], then decided to turn down the funding they had requested of themselves because they decided they needed to ask themselves more questions!  So I submitted that to SEND as evidence that they were attempted to look like they were doing something, whilst all the time they were really just trying to delay doing anything at all.  

After all, how can you submit a request for funding to yourself, and then turn it down because you have not given yourself enough information about how that funding will be used?”

SEN Funding reform: what difference does it make?

I am hugely indebted to a very wise parent who has written this piece for the blog on the funding reforms which affect every school.

When reading this, it is important to remember that whatever is being provided at School Action and School Action Plus level [categories which are due for abolition with the Children and Families Bill] is not legally enforceable.  Only Statements are legally binding. This makes it essential that Statements are worded unambiguously [see 'What should be in a statement?'].  Provision must be quantified and specified in terms of hours of support, staffing arrangements, therapy input, professionals involved, hours per term etc. Note further that there is no 'cap' on what amount of money is needed to fund a Statement: SEN provision is about meeting the child's individual SEN. 

SEN Funding reform: what difference does it make?

Background

Parents of children with SEN frequently get drawn into discussions about the cost of provision for their child.  They are often assured that their child’s provision is ‘very expensive’ and that there isn’t a single child in the County who gets as much support as they do.  Other parents are told that funding ‘is not their concern’ but often feel that they are being dismissed, rather than reassured that their child’s needs will be met, whatever the cost. 

©http://www.flickr.com/photos/howardlake/

The Government has implemented a reform of schools funding, beginning in 2013.  This includes a reform of SEN funding arrangements.  Many parents are anxious to know how this ‘affects’ their child.  The short answer is: It doesn’t.  Why? Well, because parents should never have to consider the cost of meeting their child’s needs (except if they’re forced to tribunal by a Local Authority, when they’ll be expected to cost every single element.  Nice irony there).  The SEN Code of Practice makes reference to cost of provision only in terms of ‘efficient use of resources’ when provisions are compared.  In other words, if there are two provisions which are equal in suitability, the Local Authority is entitled to choose the cheapest. What they are not entitled to do is refuse to meet needs because they are expensive, or to use unsuitable provision because it is cheap.  

So, in one sense, funding is irrelevant.  However, some parents like to know the nuts and bolts of SEN provision.  To understand the new funding arrangements, it’s helpful to understand the old funding arrangements.

How was it?

Previous to the funding reform, each Local Authority could choose how it funded SEN provisions.  Some Local Authorities preferred to give a large pot of money to each school for SEN provision (known as a delegated budget), but in return, expected those schools to provide a significant amount of support to a child under School Action or School Action Plus, before approaching the Local Authority for help.  Other Local Authorities gave a smaller delegated budget to schools, but would step in and help much sooner.  This meant that in some Local Authorities, a child would be expected to have 15 or 20 hours 1:1 support, say, funded by the school, with the Local Authority topping up as necessary.  Some Local Authorities devised ‘Bandings’ and ‘SEN Matrix’ to determine if a child’s needs were sufficient for particular amounts of funding.  Other Local Authorities would divide children’s Statements of Educational Need into ‘High Incidence’ Statements and ‘Low Incidence Statements’.  They would expect High Incidence Statements (Statements where the main need was very common across the population, such as Speech and Language Needs or Moderate Learning Difficulties) to be funded by the school, out of the delegated SEN budget, and would directly fund Low Incidence Statements (Statements where the main need is uncommon across the population, such as Hearing Impairment or Visual Impairment).

Why change it?

The Government felt that this system was too complicated, too confusing and did not achieve the aim of high-quality SEN provision.

The document “School Funding Reform: Next steps towards a fairer system.” Says:

“These reforms aim to encourage the development of high-quality and innovative provision, to improve transparency, and, particularly in relation to SEN, to empower young people and their families and to increase choice.

3.1.2. To achieve this, we need a set of funding arrangements for pupils and students with high needs that is responsive to the needs of individual pupils and students, and is supported by clear information in the form of a local offer about the high needs provision available in schools, colleges and other providers. Furthermore, we must avoid perpetuating or creating potential perverse financial incentives that may prevent young people receiving the educational experience that is right for them.

3.1.3. The current funding system falls some way short of this. Since different types of providers are funded in different ways for high needs provision, the current system contains potential perverse financial incentives to place pupils and students in one type of provider over another. Furthermore, the complexity in the current funding arrangements means it is difficult for young people and their families to understand what provision is available to them and to exercise meaningful choice.

©http://www.flickr.com/photos/59937401@N07/

3.1.4. For these reasons, we will reform education funding arrangements for high needs pupils and students. We will ensure that funding for high needs provision is arranged on an equivalent basis across different types of providers. This approach will also ensure that funding arrangements are transparent and that there is clear and accessible information about available provision for commissioners, providers, and young people and families. This will help to improve choice for young people and their families, remove potential perverse incentives, and thus ensure pupils and students with high needs get the support they need to fulfil their potential. We are working towards the introduction of these reforms from financial year 2013-14.”

In other words, the Government aims to ‘level the playing field’ across providers of SEN provision.

What now?

In School Funding Reform: Next stepstowards a fairer system, the Government has defined ‘High Needs Pupils’.

“3.1.8. In July, we proposed to define high needs pupils and students as those requiring provision costing more than around £10,000 per year. We deliberately chose a financial threshold to define a pupil or student with high needs, as opposed to an assessment-based threshold – such as having a statement of special educational needs (SEN) – since the latter could create perverse incentives if assessment was linked directly to additional funding. For example, this could create additional pressure for unnecessary statutory assessments.

3.1.9. High needs pupils and students include: 

a) pupils aged from birth to 19 with high-levels of SEN in schools, Academies or other settings;

b) those aged 16-25 with high-level learning difficulties or disabilities (LDD) in FE; and,

c) school-age pupils placed in AP.”

So, the definition of ‘High Needs pupil’ is ‘costs more than £10,000 per year to educate.’  Funding has been reformed using the High Needs Funding Matrix and is as follows:

Mainstream Schools:  Will get their usual funding from school budget. A sample Budget Share shows each element.   They will get a delegated budget for SEN, based on the number of children in the school, deprivation indexes and ‘low attainment’ calculations.  A sample Notional SEN Budget shows each element.

Schools who have children with ‘high needs’, defined as costing £10,000 or more to educate, will need to use £6,000 of their Notional SEN budget, plus the ‘Age-weighted Pupil Unit’ value from the main budget.  The Local Authority will make up the rest of the agreed cost.  For example, Child A needs provision costing £15,000.  Using the budgets above, the school gets £2,470.59 per pupil.  They would need to use this amount, plus £6,000 from their Notional SEN Budget.  This totals £8,470.59.  The Local Authority would top-up the school with the remaining £6,529.41.

Special Schools, High Needs Units or Resourced Provision : These types of provision get ‘Place led funding’ rather than ‘Main block’ and ‘SEN’ budgets.  They will get £10,000 per pupil.  Any provision in excess of £10,000 will be topped up by the Local Authority.

Alternative Provision: These provisions will also be given ‘place led funding’, but will receive £8,000 per pupil, with the LA topping up any provision in excess of £8,000.

What difference does it make?

For most people, the changes in financing SEN provision will make no difference at all.  The SEN Code of Practice is clear that children with SEN must have their needs met.  However, there are some benefits:

• No longer can Local Authorities hide behind bandings/incidence/diagnosis or categorisation of Statements.  The bottom line is that schools must use their budgets to meet the first £6,000 of needs and then the LA has to make up the rest of the cost.
• Comparing different provisions should be much easier – the ‘cost’ of such provisions has been made level.
• It may be helpful to get confirmation in writing from the school that your child is receiving as much as they can provide under delegated funding.

For further information, the Council for Disabled Children has just published this very handy and detailed guide.

Rights not needs

From "citizen autistic"a film by William Davenport, www.talkstoryfilms.com

Don't you loathe it when people talk of 'SEN children'? 

Schools might say 'our SEN children make good progress' or 'we don't have the resources to support SEN children' and LAs might say 'we provide excellent services for our SEN parents and children''.

Even charities might talk of children with SEN as if they are a breed apart. A separate, and often optional add-on, to the mainstream agenda. A group that needs a 'special' bill, a 'special' department, and, most often, a 'special' TA.

Well, of course, our children are special. But not in the way they mean. And the more we emphasise the 'specialness' of children with additional needs in our schools, the more we are saying to those schools, to our teachers, and to education commentators generally: it's ok, you don't need to bother with these kids, they are a specialist subject.

They are not. And while we hear lucid and proper debate about the risks of religious segregation or racial or homophobic bullying in our schools, when do we ever hear about disability discrimination and disability segregation and exclusion as part of the mainstream education agenda? Never.

Is it all in the name? The term 'special needs' was introduced over thirty years ago by the Warnock Report which advocated the inclusion of children with SEN into mainstream schools.Today, inclusion remains poorly defined as a concept and this makes its success or failure difficult to measure. But, in its most basic sense, inclusion is about rights: the child’s right to participate fully in education and socialization and a society’s duty to accept all children within its education system. This, in turn, can promote acceptance of diversity in the broader community because inclusion is not the same as ’integration’, which implies a normalizing of children with SEN: inclusion promotes respect for difference.

Perhaps, the evolution of a SEN model to address the ‘needs’ of children is to blame. It is distinct, for example, from the broader model of legislative action on disability equality which rests on the empowerment of the individual through the elimination of discrimination and prejudice and the protection of rights. This arises from a social model of disability which focuses not on the effects of impairments that disable people but the barriers they experience. It demands legal obligations to identify and remove the barriers to inclusion, enabling people with disabilities to have control over their own lives This ‘affirmation model’ of disability stands in stark contrast to the deficit discourses of ‘special educational needs’ where parents and children are left begging schools and LAs to recognise and then meet their 'needs' - please, if you could be so kind.

©http://www.flickr.com/photos/riacale/

These issues must be part of the mainstream agenda not least because they affect so many of our children and young people. One in five pupils – 1.7 million school-age children in England – are identified as having SEN. But they must also be mainstreamed because most categories of SEN are capable of falling within the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act. This is part of our human rights framework and under it, children have RIGHTS not NEEDS and these rights are not dependent on what a school or LA think a child 'needs'. 

In reality, unlike disability, the term ‘special needs’ is no longer neutral: it may even be used as a term of abuse. Articulating SEN issues in terms of rights can only improve the lot of children. Children with SEN form an extremely vulnerable group. Statistically, they are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, they are much more likely to be absent or excluded from school, and they achieve less well than their peers, both in terms of their attainment at any given age and in terms of their progress over time. Irrespective of the Equality Act, parents frequently report relentless daily battles for simple reasonable adjustments to be made for their children with schools who see these adjustments as 'special treatment'. LAs appear to pay no attention to the Act when organising or delivering very basic levels of SEN provision which enable children to access education. 

This all matters because,over the last five years, outcomes for this group of children have changed very little. Ofsted’s report in 2010, Local authorities and home education, details how children with SEN may end up being withdrawn from schooling because of a failure to meet their SEN.  It also found that, even when in school, children with SEN may be excluded from participation in the day to day activities of, or the social opportunities that school provides. 

Would we tolerate this widespread, persistent, and often low-level daily discrimination based on other protected characteristics (under the Equality Act): gender, race, religion? This is a problem for our education system and our society so it is unacceptable that SEN issues continue to be hived off and sidelined away from the mainstream agenda in education. Look at the Children and Families Bill for example. How many head teachers or ordinary teachers have any idea what it will mean?

So what would happen if we spoke of children’s educational rights rather than their special needs?Take a moment to look at the case of a ten year old disabled pupil from St Hilary’s Primary School in East Kilbride who won his case to access after school guitar classes under the Equality Act. Perhaps, emphasising rights not needs in schools, will help us build a genuinely inclusive environment.