REPORTING ON THE EHCP PROCESS: PARENT PARTICIPATORY RESEARCHBren Prendergast bjpren.research@gmail.com

Acknowledgments: to all of the parents who took the time to participate in this research,

without whom, this report would not be possible.

ABSTRACT

The following paper is an inquiry as to how well the Special Education and Disability

reforms related to the Children and Families Act (2014) are being implemented by Local

Authorities, specifically the replacement of statements with Education, Health and Care

plans (EHCP). Emerging research is showing that the success of the reforms are, at

best, patchy. This research looks to law to explain the underpinning processes behind

the Statutory Assessment process and subsequent making of an EHCP. The results

show that the chance of having a legally-compliant EHCP is low, and that it is unlikely

that this is due to a ‘postcode lottery’ effect. This research has been undertaken to allow

parents to have an independent voice in the SEND reforms and this should be

considered as an opening gambit by parents towards an honest and constructive

conversation into the issues that surround those with Special Educational Needs and

Disabilities.

INTRODUCTIONChildren are not all born equal or remain equal; the human population is extremely

diverse. For a few children, their learning trajectory will differ from that of a typically

developing child. It may be from birth or from a life-changing event as they are growing

up. These children will require additional support so that they can access education,

achieve to the best of their ability and be included in the wider community. The purpose

of this research is not to question whether or not their ‘inclusion’ in mainstream

1

schooling is desirable or workable, as such arguments are rendered impotent if a child’s

needs have not be fully explored. This research is to give an insight of whether needs,

and therefore the provision to meet them, are being fully explored under the new

Children and Families Act (2014).

The Warnock Report (1978) investigated the educational opportunities of children with

additional needs, with some of her recommendations forming part of the Education Act

1981. Warnock referred to the education of children as needing to be a reciprocal one

with schools. Parents need to know what the school is providing in order to support the

school’s efforts, likewise, the insights of the parent is necessary to adequately assess

and provide for the child’s needs. The then new Education Act was written to seek to

identify these children, with a statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN) to be

made to detail the support they require. This would be a legal document maintained by

the local education authority (LA). A couple of years later, statements started being

issued. Statements have remained part of subsequent updates of the Education Act.

Statements were not without their issues. The Lamb Inquiry (20091) was set up to look

at how parental confidence in the SEN system could be improved. This also included

comment on the quality and clarity of statements. Lamb identified a system which could

on the one hand, produce well-supported children and on the other, represent a battle

for identification and support. Lamb considered that while the framework remained

relevant, the implementation was lacking. He identified significant failures to provide

statutorily required information.

Lamb (20091) called for a greater focus on children’s needs, upskilling of school staff to

meet those needs and better commissioning of services by LAs to provide earlier

identification and support. He stated that there were too many examples of vague,

unspecific statements which were poorly reviewed.

“Professionals who assess children’s needs and recommend what provision should be

put in place to respond to these must adhere to best professional practice so that

parents can have confidence in their judgements. We came across examples where

this was not the case and this led to a reduction in confidence in the assessment

process.”

2

(Lamb, 20091)

Lamb also called for training for LA officers to address the issue of spending too much

time assessing and providing easily quantifiable services, rather than keeping sight of

those most effective at delivering improved outcomes.

The result of the Lamb Inquiry was that in September 2014, the Special Educational

Needs and Disability (SEND) system was reformed with the implementation of the

Children and Families Act (CFA). Statements (and Learning Difficulty Assessments

(LDAs) for those aged 16-25 who were no longer in secondary schooling) were to be

replaced with a 0-25 EHCP. These would be a one-stop shop where the child or young

person’s health and social care needs would be detailed alongside their educational

ones. Unlike statements, where LAs had to follow a set format, only the sections of an

EHCP are set by law. Subsequently, each LA in England can produce its own format

and order for the plan.

The term ‘SEN’ is defined in law. Section 20 (2) of the CFA states:

A child of compulsory school age or a young person has a learning difficulty or disability if he or she-(a) has significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the

same age, or(b) has a disability which prevents or hinders him or her from making use of

facilities of a kind generally provided for others of the same age in mainstream schools or mainstream post-16 institutions.

Section 20 (3) relates to a child under compulsory school age who is likely to fall within

the remit of 20 (2). In such cases, the child will be deemed to have SEN. The definition

of Special Educational Provision is defined at Section 21 (1):

(1) ”Special educational provision”, for a child aged two or more or a young person, means educational or training provision that is additional to, or different from, that made generally for others of the same age in

(a) mainstream schools in England,(b) maintained nursery schools in England,

3

(c) mainstream post-16 institutions in England, or(d) places in England at which relevant early years education is provided

(2) “Special educational provision”, for any child age under two, means educational provision of any kind.

Not all children or young people with SEN will require an EHCP, because the

educational setting is able to make the provision themselves. These children under the

‘old’ law were allocated to either ‘School Action’ or ‘School Action Plus’ categories.

Under the CFA, there is just the one category of ‘SEN Support’. Just 2.7% of the school

population (221,000 children) held a statement in January 2010 (Long, 2016).

Parts of the law contained within the last Education Act (1996) remain in effect. Also,

those who still have statements and have yet to be assessed for an EHCP, continue to

come under the ‘old’ law up until 2018 (the exception being those with LDAs who should

transition by September 2016). Where the interpretation of the wording contained in law

is under dispute in an appeal court, the conclusion to that appeal creates case law. This

case law then sets the precedent, however, it remains dynamic and constantly

developing. It is expected that existing case law, where the wording is the same or

similar in both ‘old’ and ‘new’ law, will remain relevant under the CFA. Indeed, some of

the wording in the CFA and its Code of Practice (SENCoP) (2015) stems from case law.

The definition of SEN has not reduced under the CFA, nor has the criteria for requesting

a Statutory Assessment. The criteria can be found at Section 36 (8):

The local authority must secure an EHC needs assessment for the child or young person if, after having regard for any views expressed and evidence submitted under subsection (7), the authority is of the opinion that –

(a) the child or young person has or may have special educational needs, and(b) it may be necessary for special educational provision to be made for the child

or young person in accordance with an EHC plan.

Nobody should lose the support received under a statement due to the system changes;

it is expected that those with a statement will be issued with an EHCP (DfE, 2015).

While LAs may have their own policies in place regarding whether or not to secure an

EHCP, those policies cannot be stricter than what the law states. Ofsted (2010)

reported that criteria varied both between and within LAs.

4

A Statutory Assessment must be carried out before an EHCP can be written, regardless

of whether the child or young person already had a statement or LDA. The law does not

make any distinctions between those entering the ‘SEND system’ for the first time, or

those who had previously been assessed under the EA. The advices that constitute an

assessment are set out in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations

2014 (SEN Regs) at 6 (1) and 6 (2) (Appendix 1). It is this type of statutory information

that Lamb refers to as being significantly problematic to obtain. These reports provide

the backbone of EHCPs and statements before them; it cannot be determined whether

or not special educational provision should be made without them. Previously obtained

advices can be used, but only if the LA, the parents (or young person) and the report

writer considers them to be sufficient. However, older reports are unlikely to specify

outcomes, which are an integral part of the CFA. Section 19 (d) states that an LA must

have regard to support the child or young person ‘achieve the best possible educational

and other outcomes’. The advices are to provide a full identification of the child or young

person’s needs, which in turn forms Part B of the EHCP. The advices should then detail

the provision that is required to meet those needs for Part F. The SENCoP 9.69 states:

Provision must be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise [….]

Provision must be specified for each and every need specified in section B. It should be clear how the provision will support achievement of the outcomes

Both of these statements stem from case law. Case law is relevant in a number of

areas, such as when therapy is considered to be an educational need. Anything that

educates or trains is to be regarded as ‘educational’, therefore requires writing into Part

F of the EHCP (SEN Code of Practice (SENCoP) 9.74). If the cost of providing support

for an individual student in a mainstream school exceeds £6,000, the additional funding

is to be provided by the LA in the form of top-up funding. This is not the same as

suggesting that a student does not have SEN or does not require an EHCP if the cost of

provision is below £6,000. A pupil may require support which costs less that £6000, but

that support is not of the kind ‘made generally in … mainstream’.

5

In their review, Ofsted (2010) inspectors found that a statement itself did not guarantee

support for a child’s current needs, only the needs that were identified for their original

statement. Statements are reviewed yearly, so amendments should be made as

required to meet the child’s changing needs. Ofsted (2010) found that no one model

worked better for children with SEN/disabilities. They stated that:

“Achievements for disabled children and young people and those who had special educational needs was good or outstanding in 41% of the visited provision and in 36% of case studies. It was inadequate in 14% of the visited provision and 14% of the case

studies.”

Ofsted (2010)

Ofsted (2010) considers that the key to good outcomes are linked to good teaching,

tracking and evaluation of interventions, along with high aspirations. Lamb (20091)

states that we cannot, and should not have a system where parents are relied on to

police it. The recommendations that Lamb put forward as the result of his enquiry are

significant change in four key areas:

communication and engagement with parents rather than standard information;

a reduction in the specific SEN requirements in favour of covering SEN and disability in information for all children;

an increased focus on outcomes for disabled pupils and pupils with SEN; tighter quality assurance and accountability for meeting streamlined

requirements. (Lamb, 20092)

METHODThis research was designed to give parents an independent voice regarding their

experiences of the SEND reforms. Whilst the Department for Education (DfE) has

produced statistics regarding output and timescales for producing EHCPs, discussion of

quality or compliance is lacking (DfE, 2016). Similarly, DfE commissioned research by

Skipp and Hopwood also did not examine quality or compliance. The sole purpose of an

EHCP is to identify the “educational or training provision that is additional to, or different

6

from, that generally found in a mainstream school for others of the same age”. This

places a legal obligation on the LA to then make such provision.

An online survey was set up and shared through social media (Appendix 2). The

questions relate directly to SEN Reg 6 (1) & (2), the SENCoP 9:69 and S19 of the CFA

(as discussed above). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. As the

SEND reforms were predicated on the Lamb Report about parental confidence, it was

considered necessary that parental views were also collected. The survey included a

link to a personal online blog and gave an email address specifically set up for the

purpose of this research. This was to demonstrate transparency and to give parents the

option to ask questions at any point if they wished to do so (no parent chose to do so),

as well as directing them to where they could view the completed report. The reporting

was anonymous and considered as meeting ethical standards. The questions posed

were fundamental to the LAs duties (and by extension, the medical professionals

contributing to the plan). The purpose was to look at compliance to the legal process.

The survey link was placed on a personal social media, then cascaded by other social

media users. Promotion of the survey link was handed over to parents. No legal or

advocacy services were approached to promote the survey, to minimize the possibility

of negative bias. The survey was open over a four-week period, from the end of April to

the end of May. There were 218 responses, of which only one was not relevant (the

EHCP process had not yet commenced). One-hundred and eighty respondents chose

to make comment on their experience. Participants were not required to name their LAs,

to remove any fear of identification or reprisal, and to ensure anonymity. The LAs

named account for around a third of the LAs in England (Appendix 3).

RESULTSAll the respondents were either undertaking or had completed the assessment process.

A very small minority of participants did not respond to all questions. Similarly, a few

participants selected a category and ‘other’, ‘other’ usually clarifying their answer. In

instances where more than one response was given, the most relevant choice was used

e.g. ‘independent school’ followed by ‘other’ with the clarification of ‘special’, was

allocated to ‘independent’.

7

i. School stages were represented in the following amounts: Under 5 n=16; KS1

n=24; KS2 n=59; KS3 n=56; KS4 n=30; Post-compulsory school age n=32.

ii. Students in mainstream accounted for 40% of the responses and 20% of students

were in special schools. This rises to 37% in special schools if units, independent

and residential schools are included as ‘special’, i.e. not mainstream. 10.5% of

students were not in educational settings due to exclusion, anxiety, no post-16

placement or because they were receiving education in the home arranged by the

LA (EOTAS). (Table 1)

Pre-sc

hool

age

Maintained

-main

strea

m

Maintained

-spec

ial

Acade

my-main

stram

Acade

my-spe

cial

FE/si

xth fo

rm

Electiv

e home-

educa

tion

Educa

tion o

therw

ise

Indepen

dent

scho

ol

Exclud

ed/ou

t-of-s

choo

l/NEET

Unit

Reside

ntial

Internsh

ip0

10203040506070

6

64

3624

7 10 8 12

29

115 4 1

Educational Setting

Table 1

iii. Just under half of the responses (96) were transfers from statements or LDAs, 93 were parental requests, 16 were from teachers and 11 were from another professional. It would be expected that ‘other professionals’ would be more involved in early years children, and that those in ‘transition’ from a statement would feature more highly in older children and post-16 students. Parental requests at post-16 were perhaps higher than expected, however, parents of children with LDAs may have requested a reassessment for an EHCP rather than wait for the LA to do so. It would be consistent with advice given by advocacy services such as Independent Parental Special Educational Advice (IPSEA) (2016). Additionally, the type of

8

support available in college may not be the same as in school, so an assessment might be undertaken for the first time (SENCoP 9.15). (Table 2)

Parent Teacher Other professional Transition0

5

10

15

20

25

30

EHCP by Request Type and Stage

Table 2

iv. In order for an EHCP to be written, a full statutory assessment of needs must be

undertaken. It is the outcome of that assessment that the LA must base its decision

on whether or not an EHCP should be written. The LA should consider the range of

advice required to enable a full assessment to take place, with the underpinning

principle of ‘tell us once’ to avoid a family having to give the same information

multiple times. Any advice obtained must be sufficient, with the parent supported to

understand the full range of assessments available (SENCoP 9.47). SEN Reg 6 (1)

& (2) sets out the range of evidence required. Just because, for example, a child is

not known to social care, it does not mean that they are not eligible for services. It is

unlikely to be appropriate for social care to write a report stating ‘not known to this

service’ without a discussion of the child first, then providing appropriate advice.

Results of the research have been reported under ‘five key advices’ and ‘four key

advices’ as not every child or young person will have needed all advices, e.g.

‘advice and information from any other person that the local authority thinks is

9

appropriate’, ‘advice and information from any person the child’s parent or young

person reasonably requests that the local authority seek advice from’ etc. ‘Four key

advices’ relate to: parental; educational; medical and; educational psychology. ‘Five

key advices’ includes social care.

Paren

t/YP

Educa

tiona

l

Medica

l

Educa

tiona

l Psy

cholo

gy

Social C

are

Other p

rofes

siona

l

Transit

ion (Yr9

abov

e)

Profes

sional

at pa

rent

reque

st

Senso

ry

Other p

rofes

siona

l0

40

80

120

160166 166

102

132

5163

14

56

2655

Advices included in assessments

Table 3

In nearly a quarter of assessments, neither educational nor parental/young person advices were included. Half of those assessments had both of these advices missing. Educational psychology advice was obtained in 61% of cases and medical advice in just less than half. Less than 25% of EHCP assessments included social care advice. Four key advices were seen in 61 assessments and five key advices in 26 assessments. (Table 3)

v. Parents were asked if the reports were gained specifically for the purpose of writing the EHCP. Old advices should only be used if the LA, the parent/young person and the writer considers them to be ‘sufficient’. For a report to be considered sufficient, it ought to be recent and clearly detail needs, provision and outcomes. One hundred participants stated that their reports were gained specifically for the assessment process, 63 responded some, 50 responded none and 5 were not applicable.

The 100 yes responses have been broken down further to examine how many of the advices from the 5 key pieces were obtained during each assessment, i.e. out of the

10

following: parent/young person; educational; medical; educational psychology and social care. One respondent’s assessment included transition advice only. (Table 4).

Five Four Three Two One Transition0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

15

2927

18

10

1

Number of advices specifically obtained by the LA

Table 4

vi. Fundamental to establishing whether an EHCP is required, or if a school can meet a student’s needs from their own resources, is the provision that is required for the student. Parents were asked if the reports were ‘explicit in what provision is required (e.g. James should have 45mins of direct therapy by the Speech Therapist per term, with 10mins per day delivered by a Teaching Assistant)’. Out of the 217 responses, 17 parents reported that all of their reports were explicit and 58 said some were. However, not all advices stated in SEN Reg 6 were obtained. One assessment had no advices obtained by the LA at all, one only had advice from a professional that the parent requested and one solely had an Educational Psychologist’s report.

Whether or not the reports gained were explicit was cross-referenced with those where ‘four key’ and ‘five key’ advices were sought (n= 61). (Table 5)

11

Yes Some No0

5

10

15

20

25

3

8

21

1

10

18

Specificity for assessments with 4 and 5 key advices

4 main advices 5 main advices

Table 5

vii. Section 19d of the CFA discusses outcomes for the child or young person. Advices obtained by the LA for the EHCP process should all state the outcomes that the recommended provision should achieve. Forty-one responses stated that outcomes were clearly specified. Twenty-four of these included educational psychology advice; 7 included educational psychology, parental/young person, education and medical advice and a further 4 also included social care advice. Out of the 41 responses, educational advice was not sought in 7 assessments and educational psychology advice was not sought in 15 assessments. In 3 cases, neither educational nor educational psychology advice were sought by the LA.

viii. SENCoP 9.69 is based on case law which states that in very many cases, it would not be possible to fulfil the requirements of specification and staffing appropriate to meet a child’s needs unless hours per week are set out. Teaching Assistant hours were set out in 44 EHCPs.

ix. Section 19 (a) of the CFA states that a LA must have due regard to ‘the views, wishes and feelings of the child and his or her parent, or the young person’. Participants could answer ‘yes, ‘some’ or ‘no’. Fifty reported yes, 80 reported some, 84 reported no and 3 were not applicable.

Table 6 cross-references those who responded ‘yes’ with the reports obtained.

12

Parental Educational Medical Educational Psychology

Social Care05

101520253035404550

43 44

29

37

18

Views, wishes and feelings and advices sought

Table 6

The data can be further broken down to those who answered ‘yes’ and had 5 key advices (n=9) and 4 key advices (n=8).

Additional Analysis

x. Only five respondents answered yes to all of the questions 5-9. None of these

assessments included all of the advices that should have been obtained under SEN

Reg 6. Advices sought are as follows: parental advice (n=3), educational advice

(n=5), medical advice (n=2), educational psychology advice (n=3) and social care

advice (n=2).

xi. Twenty-six respondents reported that their assessments included all 5 key advices

(some also had additional advices). However, parental responses to questions 5-9

varied. None of the assessments at KS4 and Post-16 included transition advice.

13

DISCUSSION

The Children and Families Act (2014) promised an overhaul of the system that identifies

children and young people’s special educational needs, assessing and making provision

for them. The EHCP was to be a unified document, which included health and social

care needs alongside educational ones (Long, 2016). This followed on from the ‘Call for

Views’ (2010) from the then Children’s Minister Sarah Teather. Options included

support for young people post-16 and to ‘improve diagnosis and assessment to identify

children with additional needs much earlier’ (Long, 2016). The Lamb Inquiry (20091)

uncovered significant failures on the part of LAs in providing statutorily required

information, which not only is key to identifying needs much earlier, but also an

essential part of determining whether an EHCP is required. The CFA was not to be a

‘rebranding’ exercise, but one that brought about real reform. Michael Gove stated that

the CFA would be informed by early lessons from trialing the suggested new system by

pathfinder authorities. However, early reports made it clear that the timescales imposed

were insufficient. The pathfinder program was extended by 18 months, with a new end

date some six months after the CFA gained Royal Assent.

Although not intending to be a rebadged statement, an EHCP essentially follows the

same principles that were established in various Education Acts, with the appending of

some health and social care. A new language of ‘outcomes’ replaced ‘objectives’. The

CFA purports to have a stronger focus on high aspirations and improving outcomes, but

whilst objectives could be appealed in the SEND tribunal, outcomes cannot. If LAs will

not negotiate with families to amend outcomes, the only course of action for parents is

to launch a Judicial Review.

This research has shown that it is parents who take the lead in applying for an EHCP,

with only 16 requests coming from the school. The reasons for this are beyond the

scope of this research, but raises questions regarding the relationship between parents

and schools, and how reciprocal that relationship is for children and young people with

SEND. Outside professionals appear more involved with requests for pre-school

children, which may be expected where children’s needs are more complex.

14

The ability to gain statutorily required information remains a concern. Only 26

assessments (12%) included parental/young person, educational, medical, educational

psychology and social care advice; the underpinning advices that inform an Education,

Health and Care plan. Even when social care was discounted, the figure only rose to

28%. The research results also uncovered that too many reports were unquantified,

unspecified and did not include outcomes. This leads to vague and unspecified plans, in

the same way as Lamb reported vague and unspecified statements. How many advices

were obtained, and how specific and quantified they were, appears to be completely

random. There were no discernible trends between age, stage, placement or local

authority. An additional area of concern was the lack of transition advice for those in

Year 9 and above. SENCoP 9.49 states:

From Year 9 onwards, advice and information related to provision to assist the child or young person in preparation for adulthood and independent living’.

Two of the young people requiring transition advice were in residential settings; there appeared to be no forward planning for independent living. Accessing education post-16 was also a concern.

‘The LA decided, without having done any EHC need assessment, that our child did not need to stay in education because the course proposed did not meet their criteria, i.e.

that it must be substantially different from a Life Skills course, must be educational, and they should ensure they could attain a level beyond the initial start point’

This point has since been argued and clarified in the Upper Tier tribunal, with case law

establishing that the young person may still benefit from special educational provision

and that progress, however small, may be valuable.

It may be fair to argue that a number of students with EHCPs will not need or meet the

criteria of social care services, however, if information about the child or young person

is not shared, eligibility would not be known. Both education and social care fall under

the remit of the LA. Less than a quarter of assessments overall included social care

advice and less than a half of assessments included medical advice.

‘Health professionals are VERY reluctant to get involved/offer input etc, son has lots of consultants/HC professionals involved and no-one wrote a report!!!’

15

The lack of meaningful, or any, input from health and social care was noted by Skipp

and Hopwood (2016). They stated that many health professionals detailed their child’s

condition but did not translate this into implications for education. One parent in Skipp

and Hopwood’s research had her transition meeting abandoned due to none of the

required documentation being obtained. This research shows that a great many

transition meetings have proceeded without advices in place, or possibly, as Skipp and

Hopwood have reported, delayed meetings due to Educational Psychologists having to

work through a backlog.

‘We are 53 weeks into what should have been a 14 week process, deadlines don’t appear to matter and neither does a need assessment, the excuse is “a huge backlog”

the whole process is a complete shambles’

‘[Assessment] not yet complete, months of waiting for an ed pych report and no-one actually cares’

‘They did consult with an ed psych, who did a report, but they didn’t see my child, just rang the school for info!’

Many parents reported that the assessment process took longer than the 20-week

timescale to assess and complete the EHCP. In common with Skipp and Hopwood

(2016), some of the parents in this research have had to drive the process and in many

cases, gain their own reports. Lamb (20091) also considered that statements were often

poorly reviewed.

‘I requested the EHCP….. his plan is still at the draft stage, more than 12 months after the needs assessment started…... there has been no Annual Review… in the meantime

he has been permanently excluded’

The purpose of statutorily required information is to provide a full description of a child’s

needs which will identify what provision is required. Lamb (20091) stated that

professionals who assess children’s needs and recommend provision should do so

adhering to best professional practice. The SENCoP calls for high quality provision.

Seventeen parents reported that all of their advices were specific and 58 said some of

theirs were. Where responses indicated that advices were sought at the 4/5 key level

(n=61) only 4 had advices which were all specific and 39 had no specificity at all.

SENCoP 9.69: provision must be detailed and specified for each educational need.

16

Some parents resorted to using the SEND tribunal to gain appropriate provision. The

recent online furor surrounding a particular solicitor firm that represents a number of

LAs in tribunal defending parental appeals, highlighted the paradox within the SEND

system. LAs on the one hand have been given money by government to assist in the

implementation of the reforms and on the other, are spending on solicitors for tribunal

appeals. Two social media users (Keer and AUNYorks) investigated various LA

contracts with this solicitors firm, the LAs implementation grants and payments to the

Information, Advice and Support Services (IASS, an arms-length Statutory Service set

up to support parents). One particular LA received a grant of £331,479 in 2015/16 and

had a live contract with the solicitor’s firm for £300,000. They allocated just £77,127 to

their IASS. Many councils have since terminated their contracts (Gentleman, 2016), but

it is not yet know what their alternative arrangements will be. While LAs might argue that

their spending on defending appeals comes from a different budget, it is all tax-payers

money designed to support those with SEND. One parent who lives in a LA where this

solicitor’s firm was under contract, indicated that no reports were obtained for her child’s

transition to an EHCP on the advice of that solicitor. Additionally, the child had no

educational placement. Placements can be an issue.

‘We’re currently in week 25 [of the EHCP process] still with no school placement…… it has not been child centred, it has been cost-centred’

Lamb (20091) linked best professional practice by those assessing children’s needs and

recommending their provision with levels of parental confidence. A lack of advices

feeding into the EHCP process is therefore likely to undermine confidence in the

system. The quantity of negative comments by parents strongly support this position.

Section 19(d) of the CFA states that a LA must have regard to improving educational

and other outcomes. Professionals giving advice for an EHCP should not only be

reporting on what provisions is being recommended, but also on the outcomes of the

provision. Of the 217 responses, only 19% of reports stated outcomes. A similar amount

of plans contained Teaching Assistant hours (20%). It is very hard to see why Timpson

and Ellison (2016) would assert that they are ‘boosting the life chances of children with

SEND’.

17

When asked if parents thought that their views, wishes and feelings were taken into

account throughout the process, only 50 parents replied yes while 84 stated no. While

the measures used differed, it would be difficult to argue that overall, parents were

satisfied as reported by Skipp and Hopwood (2016). Timpson and Ellison (2016) also

state that they are receiving feedback from parents who state that the new system is

making a real and lasting difference to them. Again, it would be difficult to argue that this

is the case for the majority of families in this research. Moreover, one has to question

‘lasting difference’ when the system has not yet been in place for two years.

However, there was some very positive feedback from parents even if they were a very small minority.

‘It was a very smooth process’

‘It was a very useful and interesting, process. It took much longer than 20 weeks but it was well worth it. We were treated with care and respect throughout’

‘I was put off applying for a long time by other people’s horror stories and by previous school not supporting us. But I wish I had applied earlier. Cannot fault them in any way.

Have stuck to timings with good communication throughout’

These comments were made regardless of the compliance of their assessment process.

Timpson and Ellison (2016) acknowledge that EHCPs vary considerably across the

country. While they state that 90% of EHCPs were completed within 20 weeks, they

make no mention of the quality or legal compliance of these plans and this is a major

oversight, potentially leaving children and young people without support and completely

ignores the feedback from the Lamb Inquiry (20091). There were numerous mentions of

assessments taking beyond 20 weeks in the parental comments section of this

research, including mention of the need to lodge a Judicial Review.

This research clearly demonstrates that Statutory Assessments are not being

undertaken correctly, and routinely so. Lamb (20092) called for tighter quality assurance

and accountability for meeting streamlined requirements and communication and

engagements with parents. The person at the frontline for the LA is the LA officer and

Lamb (20091) also called for training to address the issue of spending too much time

assessing and providing easily quantifiable services, rather than keeping sight of the

most effective at delivering improved outcomes.

18

CONCLUSIONS

The current SEND system lacks monitoring and accountability. Additionally, without

EHCPs which are specified and quantified, it is difficult to see how the outcomes for

children and young people will be improved. It would appear that children and young

people are caught in a lottery based on the ethos and skills of individual schools they

attend, rather than by proper identification of needs and provision by the local authority.

Ofsted (2010) stated that simply having a statement does not guarantee support. Poorly

reviewed statements may mean that recommended provision is out-of-date, similarly, if

few or no new advices were sought for those transitioning from a statement or LDA to

EHCPs, these too will be out-of-date before they are written. School themselves may

also be providing poor quality teaching and that is an area that LAs should be

monitoring. Parental confidence in the system is being undermined by the lack of

advices and a lack of quality within those advices. A good range of good quality advices

is less likely to bring parents into conflict with their LAs, reducing the need for LAs to

spend money defending tribunals. Money saved could be made available to spend on

good quality advices and training for schools. The fact that some parents experienced a

smooth process, and others did obtain a good selection of advices, indicates that the

framework of system itself is not the issue (other than the issue of appealing outcomes),

as Lamb (20091) indicated, it is the implementation and monitoring that is the problem.

Recommendations

A robust monitoring system of both the quality of advices written and

compliance of the Statutory Assessment

Mandatory accredited training for LA SEND officers, similar to the National

SENCO Award

The same training to be available for parents, young people and professionals

to raise participation, improve information sharing and increase confidence

The attendance of the LA officer at Annual Reviews and Interim Reviews if

the parent, young person or educational placement requests it, to intervene

early if the child or young person’s needs are changing

Ring-fencing of the SEND budget

19

REFERENCESDfE (2015) ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0-25 years’ p15 [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf (accessed 23 February 2016)

DfE (2016) ‘Statements of SEN and EHC plans England: 2016’ [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525774/SFR17-2016_Main_Text.pdf (accessed 26 May 2016)

Gentleman, A. (2016) ‘Council cancel special educational needs contracts with law firm over ‘gloating’ tweets’ in The Guardian [online] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/14/councils-cancel-contracts-with-law-firm-tweets (accessed 24 June 2016)

IPSEA (2016) ‘Transition’ [online] https://www.ipsea.org.uk/what-you-need-to-know/transition (accessed 08 June 2016)

Keer and AUNYorks [online] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jMOUpIEJMZ76W-MuGmGmqMdpx_s7ZRuh20zO3fGtMvA/pubhtml (accessed 21 June 2016)

Lamb, B (20091) ‘Lamb Inquiry: Special Educational Needs and parental confidence’ [online] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationdetail/page1/dcsf-01143-2009 (Accessed 20 May 2016)

Lamb, B (20092) ‘Lamb Inquiry: Special Educational Needs and parental confidence, report to the Secretary of State on the Lamb Inquiry Review of SEN and Disability Information’ [online] http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/9042/1/Lamb%20Inquiry%20Review%20of%20SEN%20and%20Disability%20Information.pdf (accessed 20 May 2016)

Long, R (2016) ‘Special Educational Needs: support in England’ [online] http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07020/SN07020.pdf (accessed 08 March)

Ofsted (2010) ‘The special educational needs and disability review: A statement is not enough’ [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413814/Special_education_needs_and_disability_review.pdf (accessed 08 March 2016)

Skipp, A. and Hopwood, V. (2016) ‘Mapping user experiences of the Education, Health and Care process: a qualitative study’ [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518963/Mapping_user_experiences_of_the_education__health_and_care_process_-_a_qualitative_study.pdf (accessed 01 May 2016)

Timspon, E. and Ellison, J. (2016) ‘Our reforms are boosting the life chances of children with SEND’ in Special Needs Jungle [online] http://www.specialneedsjungle.com/edward-timpson-and-jane-ellison-our-reforms-are-boosting-the-life-chances-of-children-with-send/ (accessed 21 June 2016)

20

Appendix 1

SEN Reg 6 (1):

(a) advice and information from the child’s parent or the young person; (b) educational advice and information—

(i) from the head teacher or principal of the school or post-16 or other institution that the child or young person is attending, or

(ii) where this is not available, from a person who the local authority is satisfied has experience of teaching children or young people with special educational needs, or knowledge of the differing provision which may be called for in different cases to meet those needs, or

(iii) if the child or young person is not currently attending a school or post-16 or other institution and advice cannot be obtained under sub-paragraph (ii), from a person responsible for educational provision for the child or young person, and

(iv) if any parent of the child or young person is a serving member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, also from the Secretary of State for Defence;

(c) medical advice and information from a health care professional identified by the responsible commissioning body;

(d) psychological advice and information from an educational psychologist;(e) advice and information in relation to social care; (f) advice and information from any other person the local authority thinks is appropriate; (g) where the child or young person is in or beyond year 9, advice and information in relation

to provision to assist the child or young person in preparation for adulthood and independent living; and

(h) advice and information from any person the child’s parent or young person reasonably requests that the local authority seek advice from.

SEN Reg 6 (2):

Where it appears to the local authority, in consequence of the medical advice or otherwise, that the child or young person in question is either or both –

(a) hearing impaired(b) visually impaired

and any person for who advice and information sought as provided in paragraph (1)(b)is not qualified to teach children or young people who are so impaired, then the advice sought shall be advice given after consultation with a person so qualified.

Appendix 2

21

BREN PRENDERGAST, PARENT, SEND ADVISOR, SPECIALIST TEACHER   I AM CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INTO THE EHC PLAN PROCESS AND LOCAL AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY DUTY. THIS RESEARCH IS AIMED AT PARENTS AND YOUNG PEOPLE. THE MORE RESPONSES I GAIN, THE BETTER PICTURE WILL EMERGE, SO PLEASE SHARE WIDELY.THERE ARE 9 QUESTIONS IN TOTAL AND AN OPTION TO ADD FURTHER COMMENT AT THE END. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO NAME YOUR OWN LOCAL AUTHORITY IN THE COMMENT BOX IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE IN DOING SO.THE SURVEY WILL CLOSE ON 28TH MAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING PART.

* 1. What educational stage is the child or young person at?

Pre-school (under 5)

Key Stage 1 (Yrs 1/2/3)

Key Stage 2 (Yrs 4/5/6)

Key Stage 3 (Yrs 7/8/9)

Key Stage 4 (Yrs 10/11)

Post-compulsory school age

* 2. What type of educational setting is the child or young person attending?

Not yet at school

Maintained - mainstream

Maintained - special

Academy - mainstream

Academy - special

FE/sixth form college

Elective home education

Education otherwise

Independent school

22

Excluded

Other (please specify)

* 3. Who requested the EHC plan?

Parent/family member

Teacher

Young person

Another professional

Transfer from a statement

* 4. Which of the following advices did the Local Authority obtain (listed in Section K)? Tick all that apply.

Parental/young person

Educational

Medical

Educational psychology

Social care

Other professional

Transition (if in Yr 9 or above)

Professional requested by parent/young person

Sensory (if hearing/visual impaired)

Other (please specify)

* 5. Were the reports gained specifically for the purpose of writing an EHC plan?

Yes

23

No

Some

* 6. Were the reports explicit in what provision is required (e.g. James should have 45mins of direct therapy by the Speech Therapist per term, with 10mins per day delivered by a Teaching Assistant)?

Yes

No

Some

* 7. Did the reports recommend clear outcomes?

Yes

No

Some

* 8. Is the EHC plan quantified in terms of Teaching Assistant hours?

Yes

No

Other (please specify)

* 9. Do you think that your views, wishes and feelings were taken into account throughout the process?

Yes

No

Some

* 10. Would you like to add any further comments about your experience of the EHC plan process? Feel free to name your local authority here if you feel comfortable doing so.

Thank you for taking part

24

Appendix 3

Local Authorities named by parents (n=61)

BedfordBirminghamBlackburn with DarwenBlackpoolBoltonBradford Brighton & HoveBristolCambridgeshire Cheshire West & ChesterCornwall Croydon CumbriaDarlingtonDerbyshireDorsetDevon DudleyEalingEast Sussex Enfield

HackneyHampshire Haringey Hertfordshire Isle of WightKirkleesKent LambethLeeds LeicestershireManchesterMedwayNottingham NorfolkNorthamptonshireN Hertfordshire N Yorkshire RedbridgeRotherhamRichmondSomerset

South GloucestershireStaffordshireSt HelensSheffield Stockport Suffolk Surrey Swindon Trafford Tower HamletsWalsall WandsworthWarwickshireWest BerkshireWest Sussex WiganWiltshireWirral York

25