Educational Research Theses : Online Communities and Partnerships
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships ... · Special Educational Needs...
Transcript of HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships ... · Special Educational Needs...
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
1 | P a g e
Feedback from Hampshire Parent Carer Network (HPCN) on the proposal from Hampshire
County Council (HCC) for Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP)
FEEDBACK REPORT
on the proposal from Hampshire County Council (HCC) for Special
Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP)
delivered to
Hampshire Children’s Services, HCC
date
20 April 2016
author
Wendy Davey for HPCN
The Proposal
The stated aim of the proposal is to reduce the overall number of EHC needs assessments
carried out by the Local Authority by 20-30% in order to avoid the bureaucratic and
administrative burden associated with that process.
The Local Authority (LA) acknowledges that the majority of applications lead to Education,
Health and Care Plans, but they also note that a number of these don’t require a lot of
additional funding and it is this type of EHC Plan the LA wishes to avoid.
To the best of our understanding the proposal is looking, in part, for a more cost-efficient
and timely way of delegating special educational provision than by undertaking the
statutory process.
(The SENP proposal does not cover any provision which is the responsibility of the National
Health Service [NHS].)
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
2 | P a g e
The Consultation
Hampshire are consulting on the above proposal to create a level of non-statutory Local
Special Educational Needs Partnerships for children and young people within full time
education requiring a maximum of 7.5 hours of Learning Support Assistance.
HPCN’s involvement in the consultation process
HPCN has publicized Hampshire Children’s Services SENP Consultation to its members via
the HPCN newsletter, website, social media channels, regional meetings, and two targeted
focus groups. (HPCN parent carer members all have a child or young person aged 0-25yrs,
with special educational needs and/or disabilities, and living in Hampshire.) HPCN has also
proactively encouraged HPCN staff, trustees, and regional representatives to participate in
the Consultation process. HPCN regional representatives represent the views of attendees
at monthly HPCN Get Together meetings all over Hampshire. Our representatives may also
work for Parent Voice, and they all have a lot of experience and knowledge of working with
a wide range of families. This means that they are not speaking just from their own
personal position but are able to speak about the wider impact on harder to reach families
who may not yet be in a position to respond to the consultation themselves.
What HPCN asked its team and its members
We asked our team and our parent carer members to speak up with their views about the
broad principle of an alternative to statutory assessment for the identification, provision
and funding of special educational needs for which less than 7.5 hrs of learning support
assistantance per week are required. We asked their views about the use of Inclusion
Partnership Agreements (IPAs) as an integral part of the proposed new process, and
whether they think that Local Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENPs) are a
practicable mechanism through which an alternative might operate.
We provided links to Hampshire’s own consultation documents. We also created our own
information sheet (appendix 1) and easy read guidance (appendix 2) in order to better
inform our members.
Respondents inputted by what method?
Some HPCN members responded by email.
Members also responded via attendance at two focus groups: Gosport - 15th March 2016,
and Alton - 16th March 2016). Phil Butler, Education Officer (Special Educational Needs),
Hampshire Children’s Services, and Gail Bedding, Chief Executive Officer, Hampshire Parent
Carer Network, attended both focus groups.
HPCN’s four regional representatives considered the views of HPCN members attending
monthly HPCN Get Together meetings and reported back verbally. HPCN’s staff and
trustees also discussed the proposal.
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
3 | P a g e
[Figure 1]
Response type Number Percent
Emails from parent carer
members
8 11.11%
Verbal feedback collected
from HPCN team including
staff, trustees &
representatives*
23 31.94%
Parent Carer members
attending regional meetings
28 38.88%
Focus Group (Gosport)* 8 11.11%
Focus Group (Alton)* 5 06.94%
Total respondents 72 100% **
* HPCN regional representatives have access to the views of parent carer members
attending their monthly meetings. Numbers vary across each month but, as a conservative
average, we can count 7 parent carer members attending each time (1 monthly meeting x 4
Hampshire regions) = 28
** percentages given are rounded down.
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
4 | P a g e
[Figure 2]
RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS
The legality of the proposed changes
One of the most commonly voiced members’ concerns was regarding the legality of the
proposed changes. Members were not reassured to learn that IPAs will not be legally
enforceable. Also, that IPAs will not enable a child/young person to be admitted to a specific
school.
Considering geographical boundaries
There is apprehension that, if these proposals are approved, Hampshire will be operating an
assessment process specific only to its own area. There is concern that IPAs won’t be
transferable outside of the LA.
A question of clarity
HPCN members generally feel that there is already ambiguity/lack of clarity in the public
domain around what level of learning disability and health issues need to be evidenced before
an EHC Plan might be secured (and that a basic ‘high incidence’/’low incidence’ list is not
enough). There seems to be confusion amongst parents and carers as to whether the
“eligibility criteria” for either an EHC Plan or an EHC needs assessment has changed. There is
concern that introducing a second tier of non-statutory provision will further complicate the
system.
RESPONDENTS
parent carer members HPCN team members regional meeting attendees
focus group GOSPORT focus group ALTON
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
5 | P a g e
Current standards of learning support assistance
There is a general lack of parental confidence in the assessment for, appropriateness, and
standards of learning support assistance support hours currently being delivered and
funded by schools for children and young people with special educational needs (eligible for
SEN Support) within the mainstream education setting.
Respondents observe that the Hampshire’s proposal for a second tier system depends
entirely on school based assessment and provision. The proposal does nothing at all to
address this key lack of confidence.
There is a generalized feeling that it is highly unlikely that any changes to the existing SEN
legal framework will happen in the near future and that the situation will not improve.
The reported high level of EHC assessment requests
Respondents gave feedback regarding (what they view to be) contributing factors to the
overloading of the administrative and financial capacity of the HCC Special Educational
Needs team.
They felt that lack of clarity around eligibility criteria leads to a large number of parents
feeling compelled to gain additional ‘professional/specialist’ evidence of learning needs
prior to seeking a full (EHC) assessment, and that this is responsible, in part, for making the
process more complicated than it need be. They state that a higher level of specificity (for
instance, sample case studies) and information would enable parents and SENCos to
understand the process better and to request the most targeted, appropriate and cost
effective additional support. (Parents also suggest that more detailed information could be
posted online at the Local Offer.)
Parent carers report that, in their view, some schools are requesting an EHC assessment to
secure additional funds for a child because they are failing to meet the needs of the child,
rather than following a parental request.
Also, that some children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds may be being
incorrectly assessed as needing SEN support for emotional, social and behavioural
difficulties by some schools.
Also, that some schools are asking for an EHC assessment in the hope that it will lead to the
transfer of the child to special school (and at the same time presenting parents with
unrealistic hopes and expectations).
Respondents question whether HCC is doing enough to make mainstream schools senior
leadership and management, and governors (not just SEN governors—full board buy-in is
needed) fully aware of the schools duty to use and to prove that they have used their ‘best
endeavours’ for children and young people BEFORE they direct parents towards an
assessment for an EHCP (in the hope of getting additional funding).
Respondents also suggest that the increase in requests for an EHC assessment is in line with
rises in the general population, and in line with a broadening of eligibility criteria (special
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
6 | P a g e
educational needs must be ‘probable’ in order to be assessed for a Statement of SEN, but
must only be ‘possible’ in order to be assessed for an EHCP), and that the LA is at fault if it
did not predict and plan for this contingency (especially as a pathfinder authority that had
advance practice in implementing the new framework).
Funding implications
There were many questions related to funding implications. Respondents felt that the
funding allocated to LSENPs (£30k each per 8 regions) might not be sufficient.
Parent carers felt anxious about budgets for the following year and then the next. They
asked if the money is allocated across a three or five year plan? Where would the money
come from? Or will the money run out? Or will the assessment boundaries be raised so
that the supported child suddenly finds themselves unsupported? Is the money ring fenced
for the individual child? How will the school be monitored on how the money is spent? If a
Head Teacher signs off the IPA are they answerable? Is the money ring fenced for the
individual child - is the school monitored on how the money is spent? Will parents be able
to go direct to Partnership if they feel the school is not supporting the child in the right way
with the extra money?
All of these questions need answers if minds are to be put at rest.
POSITIVE IDEAS MOVING FORWARDS
Whilst there is an unfortunate, generalized feeling amongst our membership that the
system will not change for the better, and that things are unlikely to improve, our members
do think that clearer information, criteria and support for schools, along with a better
fostering and promoting of best practice is key to improving outcomes, and they make a
range of pragmatic and positive suggestions to this end.
Some schools are providing good support for children and young people including
timely/early intervention and meeting needs through good practice, avoiding placing a child
unnecessarily on the SEN register or through the EHC assessment process. These schools
should be encouraged to share best practice.
There should be School-to-School Support (StSS) from regional teaching/special schools to
mainstream schools, increasing expertise in teaching SEN in schools, leading to better
tailored use of already existing funding.
Area training/refresher opportunities through teaching/special schools to mainstream
schools, increasing expertise in teaching SEN in schools, leading to better tailored use of
already existing funding.
Area training/refresher opportunities through Teaching/Special Schools for mainstream teachers and LSAs, possibly doing training sessions with parents and SENCos. Improve awareness of the need to optimise the physical learning environment for children
and young people with SEN within mainstream schools as necessary with appropriate
guidance/support from Special schools regarding sensory issues/separate quiet areas/time
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
7 | P a g e
out zones, to minimize behavioural problems—and with a budget for the school to carry out
necessary works.
Where schools have lower than average numbers of children and young people with SEN on
their register, this should be compared to other similar schools in the local authority in
order to understand why.
Some members who feel positively about IPAs note that existing SEN Specialist Leaders in Education (SLE) could have a place on each regional IPA Board for guidance/parental contact, and informally monitor quality/issues or encourage peer support between schools in each area. Also, that an independent supporter/representative should be placed on the IPA panel. Also, that there be a neutral/independent presence of advocate—like an Independent Review Officer Quotes from respondents can be found on pages 10 & 11 of this report.
OUR CONCLUSIONS
One of the most commonly voiced concerns was about the legality of the changes proposed
in the proposal’s associated consultation documents. The majority of members are not
happy to consider participation in an alternative non-statutory system which offers no legal
protection, and which schools are at liberty to reject.
Respondents feel that the current system is appropriate and that it is the LAs duty not to
create another system, but to find a way to make the existing one work better. They think
that two parallel systems, each with their own rules and demands, one statutory and one
not, would be confusing.
There is a general lack of parental confidence in proposed IPA’s. Again, regarding duties
under the law, respondents observe that the agreements carry no legal obligation, and that
schools/colleges can refuse to admit children and young people with an IPA. Many
respondents think that the current proposal would simply introduce a non-statutory hurdle
to the process of statutory assessment. They are concerned that they would be expected
to first exhaust a non-statutory process before availing themselves of the statutory process
(which would not be legal).
Respondents are concerned by Hampshire’s acknowledged failure to meet statutory
deadlines and they agree that something needs to be done. They report that there is a real
and pressing need for action around the appropriate and timely provision of special
educational support for children and young people in mainstream schools who receive less
than 7.5 hrs additional support per week.
The general lack of confidence in (mainstream) school assessment and provision for children
with special educational needs is concerning and needs to be tackled. To this end HPCN
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
8 | P a g e
suggests that there needs to be more engagement with the cohort of parent carers who have
children in mainstream settings, in order to further solicit their views (possibly facilitated via
HPCN’s Talk Together meeting network).
Respondents would like to see more clarity around the eligibility criteria for EHCP
assessment. We think it would be beneficial to make it clear to parent carers that
assessment criteria have not changed significantly, and that:
the Education Act 1996 used ‘probably’ has and the Children and Families Act 2014 uses ‘may’ have so, if anything, the eligibility criteria has widened.
the fact is that the additional funding a child or young person requires or might require is at or below a certain monetary or other level cannot preclude the Local Authority from carrying out an EHC needs assessment, and that
if, on a balance of probabilities, a child has or probably has special educational needs then an EHC assessment should be made.
Respondents would like to see better forward planning by the LA in relation to a continuing
rise in the general population (directly impacting on a rise in the Hampshire population of
children and young people with special educational needs), and a keener anticipation of the
fact that the eligibility criteria for ECHPs is probably wider than the eligibility criteria for
Statements of SEN (again, probably resulting in a higher number of future assessment
referrals).
We reflect our members’ concern that Hampshire must not introduce a localized level of
assessment which is different to that of other local authorities, especially those directly
across its borders. One purpose of some of the changes in the Act was to remove artificial
boundaries between “in area/out of area” provision which used to exist (e.g. it is easier now
to request that an “out of county” maintained school be named in an EHC Plan). Hampshire
sits in an area where there is considerable overlap with a large number of neighbouring
authorities (Surrey, West Sussex, Southampton, Portsmouth, Berkshire, Dorest &etc.) and it
is not clear how this system might affect children feeding in and out of these areas.
To summarize, the proposed LSENP system would exist to provide support to children and
young people who currently have the benefit of the protections of a statutory system but at
less expense to the Local Authority. However, this by necessity changes the way need and
provision is determined and delivered. The creation and existence of an alternative system
of delivering support which circumvents the one set out by Act of Parliament is extremely
disconcerting to our members. We collectively find it difficult to reconcile an
acknowledgement that the authority is not fulfilling its statutory duties with a proposal that,
in order to fulfil its statutory duties in respect of some children and young people with
SEND, the authority will circumvent the statutory process entirely for others.
On 11 November 2014, shortly after the Act came into force, the Minister, Ed Timpson,
wrote to all Lead members, Chief Executives and Directors of Children’s Services to say: ‘The
[Children & Families] Act places the views, wishes and aspirations of children, parents and
young people at the heart of the system and requires a culture change in the ways in which
professionals work with families and with each other. I am writing to seek your personal
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
9 | P a g e
support in making these changes happen in your authority.” In light of this message, if the
LA does not have the resources to carry out their statutory duties then HPCN would like to
see the LA putting the case for an increased budget to Councillors.
Given the collective input from our parent carer and team members, our current view has to
be that the existing SEN Support and statutory EHCP processes are appropriate and suitable
and that the LA has a duty to operate within the legal framework (so recently devised as
part of the Children & Families Act 2014, with parent participation) in order to most
effectively meet the special educational needs of our children and young people in
Hampshire.
We would like to see the LA liaising with other local authorities and regions who are more
successfully meeting time deadlines for assessments, in order to progress best practice
here.
We need to be absolutely clear that, however the proposal progresses, any non-statutory
route cannot be compulsory.
This feedback document will be uploaded to HPCN’s website.
Hampshire Parent Carer Network gratefully acknowledges input from Independent Parental Special Education Advice. HPCN continues to welcome all opportunities to work alongside the local authority in order
to participate in finding the best way forward for all of our children and young people with
special educational needs and disabilities.
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
10 | P a g e
some of the things that
HPCN parent carer
members said …
… a more dynamic process that enables support to be put in place for less complex cases much quicker than would be possible under the full EHCP route would be a good thing … my concerns are around the quality of assessment of children to ensure that areas of need are not missed ...
The level of funding remains a concern,
and I would be looking for reassurances that
children identified as having the need for this
type of additional support will not be
disadvantaged through lack of funding.
If Hampshire establishes the so-
called IPAs it may mean that it is
operating different assessment
criteria to surrounding
authorities, resulting in EHCP
thresholds becoming higher in
Hampshire than in neighbouring
counties, and this has real
implications for our many
Hampshire families living on or
across the thirteen County
borders.
… an adequate system is already
in place to deliver to the needs of
children and young people with special
educational needs. If the LA and schools
are failing to meet their duties under the
law, then that is concerning. All
necessary resources should be place to
inform and support schools and speed up
the existing assessment process.
“If nothing happens in a consistent and
coordinated way for my daughter quickly
the chances are we’ll be having to consider
special schools rather than mainstream,
which presumably is an even greater cost
to the system? Timely and appropriate
intervention surely would be the more cost
effective solution?”
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
11 | P a g e
I am really concerned HCC are trying to
restrict EHCPs and then another stab at
restricting loads more when reaching
college level.
There needs to be joined up [support] with Health
so there are better and timely assessments
(diagnosis) in a holistic way. So what system will
there be to enable school to refer cases to health
for assessments in a timely manner?
The idea of having a Local Special Educational Needs
Partnership with a budget sounds like a really good idea, and
I would be very interested in understanding more about how
it could work, and how funding decisions would be made. …
My main concern with any solution is that it would need to
deliver to children with needs quickly and ensure that the
funding delivers specialised support in the classroom that
will benefit the child in a targeted way. … The last thing
anybody would want is yet another tier of inaccessible
bureaucracy—that delivers nothing and costs everyone an
awful lot of time. Five hours would make all the difference
for my daughter.
I would support the broad
principle of an alternative to a
statutory assessment for children
with less severe needs.
“It feels like there needs
to be some legal advice
issued on behalf of
parents regarding this
proposal.”
“I would say that this is a way of them trying to make some levels of support not legally enforceable.”
I am extremely alarmed to read
about the changes that
Hampshire are proposing to
EHCPs for many many reasons
(not least of which is I don’t see
how what they are proposing is
legal).
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
12 | P a g e
Appendix 1
HPCN parent carer members – WE NEED YOU – to speak up about proposed changes to
Special Educational Needs Education, Health and Care Assessments
HPCN parent carer members – WE NEED YOU – to speak up about proposed changes to
Special Educational Needs Education, Health and Care Assessments
Hampshire County Council is proposing to make changes in the way it assesses and provides
support to children and young people with special educational needs who require a
relatively low level of additional funding. The proposal is for an alternative to the current
process that would allow the identification, provision and funding of some special
educational needs without the need for statutory assessment and an Education, Health and
Care Plan (EHCP).
This is important. Hampshire Parent Carer Network (HPCN) needs you (our members) to
speak up with your views on the new proposals.
If you live in the Basingstoke /East Hants or Fareham/Gosport regions you can get involved
by attending an HPCN focus group at one of the following venues:
SEN CONSULTATION FOCUS GROUP 1: GOSPORT
15th March 2016
10am – 11.30am
Nimrod Community Centre, GOSPORT, PO13 8BE
TO ATTEND: contact [email protected] or call HPCN on 01962 859849
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
13 | P a g e
SEN CONSULTATION FOCUS GROUP 2: ALTON
16th March 2016
10am – 11.30am
Alton Maltings, ALTON, GU34 1DT
TO ATTEND: contact [email protected] or call HPCN on 01962 859849
(travel expenses & a £15 remuneration will be paid to attendees by HPCN)
READ ON TO FIND OUT MORE about the background to the proposed changes and HOW TO
HAVE YOUR SAY, even if you are unable to attend a focus group:
Background
Hampshire County Council state that there has been a large increase in the number of
requests for assessment of children and young people with special educational needs. They
say that,whilst the majority of applications lead to the provision of an Education, Health and
Care Plan which brings additional funding (top up funding) to the school or college, about
40% of cases result in an amount of additional top up funding which is small.
Hampshire states that the increase in assessment requests is placing an unmanageable
burden on the Special Educational Needs Service. They claim this has led to some significant
delays to the assessment process with associated delays for identification and provision of
special educational needs and provision of the necessary additional funding.
The Schools Forum (which includes Further Education [FE] representation) has considered
this matter and a copy of a paper discussed at their meeting of 20 October 2015 is attached.
The outcome was the establishment of a Working Group representing schools, FE colleges,
support services and parents tasked to explore an alternative to the current process that
would allow the identification, provision and funding of some special educational needs
without the need for statutory assessment and an Education, Health and Care Plan. The
Working Group is chaired by Mike Elsen, Head Teacher of Sharps Copse Primary School but
all phases of education including pre-schools and FE colleges are represented. Hampshire
Parent Carer Network is also represented, but this does not mean that HPCN currently
endorses, or does not endorse, the proposal. We are independent of Hampshire County
Council and guided by our members’ collective voice.
The Working Group proposes that there should be established Local Special Educational
Needs Partnerships with a budget to meet the needs of those children and young
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
14 | P a g e
people with special educational needs who require a relatively low level of additional
funding. The statutory process would continue to be available but mostly for those children
and young people with more severe and complex needs. It is also proposed that Inclusion
Partnership Agreements (IPAs) should be re-launched and extended to include FE colleges.
IPAs have been used by some schools for many years to set out special educational needs
and the provision necessary to meet those needs for children and young people whose
needs are less severe/complex. Details of the proposal are set out in the attached document
which suggests how the Local Special Educational Needs Partnerships might operate in
practice.
Hampshire’s consultation is about the proposals set out in the paper to the Schools Forum
and the proposals for Local Special Educational Needs Partnerships put forward by the
Working Group. In particular, you may wish to comment on:
Whether or not you support the broad principle of an alternative to statutory assessment for the identification, provision and funding of special educational needs for which low levels of additional funding are required.
Whether or not you feel that Local Special Educational Needs Partnerships are a practicable mechanism through which any such alternative might operate.
The use of Inclusion Partnership Agreements as an integral part of the proposed new process
Any of the detailed proposals by which it is suggested Local Special Educational Needs Partnerships might operate.
How to have your say
We do appreciate that you may not be able to attend a Focus Group. Responses can also be
sent by e-mailto [email protected] or by post to Hampshire Parent Carer Network,
KAYAK, Winnall Valley Road, Winchester SO23 0LD
WHAT IS A FOCUS GROUP?
A focus group is a marketing research technique that involves a small group of people
(usually 6-10) who share things in common. For instance, in this case, members of the
group will all live in Hampshire and their families will include a child or young person with
special educational needs. A focus group participates in a discussion which is led by a
moderator (a group leader). In this case, the topics for discussion will be linked to
Hampshire’s proposal to make changes in the way it assesses and provides support to
children and young people with special educational needs who require a relatively low level
of additional funding.
HPCN Feedback : Special Educational Needs Partnerships (SENP) : April 2016
15 | P a g e
Appendix 2
Education and Health Care Planning in Hampshire
Hampshire Children’s Services want to reduce the bureaucracy and administrative burden
associated with Education, Health Care Plans. Their proposal is to create a lower level of
non-statutory Local Special Educational Needs Partnerships for children and young people
with “low level additional funding needs”. These are defined as children in full time
education requiring a maximum of 7.5 hours of Learning Support Assistance. It does not
cover any provision which is the responsibility of the National Health Service (NHS).
Special Education Needs (SEN) funding via this route will not include children and young
people with an Education, Health Care Plan (EHCP), they will have an Inclusion Partnership
Agreement (IPA) instead. Each area will have a budget limit giving a total amount that they
can allocate.
Advantages:
children with significant SEN needs, but who would possibly do not meet the
Hampshire threshold for an EHCP, may have funding allocated to their education
setting (school, college etc) more quickly;
the local authority will free up some of the backlog of statutory assessments and be
able to get nearer to statutory time deadlines for the assessments of the most needy
children;
families could gain the SEN help they need for their children without going through
the stress of statutory assessment and missed deadlines for an EHCP (currently
taking an average 28 weeks instead of the statutory 20 maximum);
money spent by the county on bureaucracy of statutory assessments (currently
between £2000 and £5000 each1) can be used more effectively to fund actual SEN
support in the classroom.
Disadvantages:
an IPA is not statutory and has no legal standing;
there is no legal obligation for a college or school to take a child/young person with
an IPA in the way that an EHCP sets up obligations;
the establishment of IPAs in Hampshire could mean that Hampshire is operating
different assessment criteria to surrounding authorities, resulting in EHCP thresholds
being higher in Hampshire than other authorities.
1 Schools Forum report for the Director of Children’s Services, 20 October 2015