DfE sets out plans for SEND accountability

The Department for Education (DfE) has published a report setting out how local authorities and clinical commissioning groups will be held accountable for the special educational needs and disability (SEND) reforms. The full report can be found here.

We have previously written about the faltering implementation of the SEND reforms.

The markers of success

Within the publication, the DfE stresses that the success of the reforms relies on local authorities acting properly. The markers for success are listed as being:

• A person-centred and joined-up approach to identifying and meeting the needs of children, young people and their families.

• Engagement and participation of young people and families so that they have greater choice, feel that they are in control and are being listened to and their concerns are resolved swiftly.

• A clear understanding of what support, services and provision are available and how to raise concerns or seek redress when there are concerns.

• Use of effective practice, data and wider intelligence and independent assessment to drive improvement.

• Clearly-defined and understood roles, responsibilities and accountability.

The DfE sets out that with national and local bodies working together, supported by independent assessment, there will be an improvement in the prospects and chances for children with SEND.

In terms of accountability, the DfE have not really come up with anything new. The plans involve the collection of data, including details of appeals to the SEND Tribunal and monitoring of attainment data.

Accountability

The DfE sets out that improvements and accountability will be achieved through:

• Independent assessment by Ofsted and Care Quality Commission.

• The DfE making use of powers under Education Act 1996 to investigate any complaint about a local authority failing to comply with its legal obligations.

• Local authorities working together to model best practice.

• The establishment of regional leaders – local authorities which will guide their neighbouring local authorities to establish an effective SEND system.

• The creation of SEND reforms guidance books and parent support groups.

• The development of case studies for local authorities to consider and implement.

Will this make any difference?

This most recent publication is simply a repeat of everything that has been said before. That is that local authorities really should be engaging with parents and children positively to encourage cooperation and drive towards best possible outcomes for children with SEND.

It is unlikely that restating the purpose of the SEND reforms will change anything.

In January we noted the lack of accountability and questioned what function Ofsted would have to enhance accountability. That question remains unanswered.

Whilst it is helpful to have an inspection body, it is unclear what remedial powers Ofsted will have. There is no clear explanation of what Ofsted can and will do if it finds a local authority is failing to act with the letter, or the spirit, of the law.

The current difficulties that parents are contacting us about are the same as always, plus newly created difficulties:

• The Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) is vague in terms of support that will be provided. There is no clarification about the number of hours of therapy, frequency and required qualifications of the person giving therapy. Phrases such as “intervention as deemed appropriate by Speech and Language Service” are still being used.

• Parents and local authorities are not agreeing about school placements, often because local authorities consider parents’ preferred placements to be an inefficient use of public resources.

• Transition from Statement to EHCP is resulting in Statements, which are very old, simply being transposed into the format of an EHCP. There is a failure to reassess the child, even if the last full assessment was many years ago.

• Social care and health teams are not engaging with the SEND system – they are simply saying that they have no knowledge of the child. This shows a failure by the teams to assess the child and provide advice about whether there is a role for them.

• SEN Officers continue to rely on local authority blanket policies rather than considering each individual child’s needs. Policies such as not providing 1:1 support in special schools are still rife.

• Whilst mediation is suggested, local authorities are taking the same stance as they always have done – they make a decision via a Panel and that decision is final. That Panel will not attend mediation and, therefore, it is unlikely that mediation itself will result in any great changes.

• Local authorities are expecting schools and experts to substantially write EHCPs for children.

Conclusion

Rather than plans for accountability, this publication just reiterates intention of the reforms and plans for inspection. What action will be taken if inspections conclude negatively is unclear.

Special Educational Needs Jungle recently provided Ed Timpson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, with parental feedback about SEND reforms which mirrored the above list. Ed Timpson’s response was that it appeared clear that there was a significant way to go but that he was confident that local authorities would get it right.

We attended Kidz in the Middle last week, 19 March 2015. During that day we spoke with dozens of parents who all repeated the same concern; nothing has changed.

It should be recognised that the SEND reforms are significant and require local authorities to approach matters in an entirely different way. This requires training, expenditure and additional work. The DfE’s current input into reforms stands at around £3.5million. It may be that this is insufficient.

As it stands, it appears that it is as likely as ever that parents will disagree with their local authority about the provision their child will receive. The scope for that disagreement has only increased as the EHCP covers more areas. Little seems available, beyond appealing to the Tribunal, for parents to challenge local authorities, no matter how clearly unreasonable their approach may be.