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].)


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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?”


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).


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

mailto:[email protected]


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



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.



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

hpcn feedback : special educational needs partnerships ... · special educational needs...

Documents