Consultation Response Form

Consultation closing date: 9 December 2013Your comments must reach us by that date

Consultation on Draft 0-25 Special Educational Needs

(SEN) Code of Practice, Draft Regulations and Transitional

Arrangements

If you would prefer to respond online to this consultation please use the following link: https://www.education.go v. uk/consultations

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information regimes, primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998.

If you want all, or any part, of your response to be treated as confidential, please explain why you consider it to be confidential.

If a request for disclosure of the information you have provided is received, your explanation about why you consider it to be confidential will be taken into account, but no assurance can be given that confidentiality can be maintained. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Department will process your personal data (name and address and any other identifying material) in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Please tick if you want us to keep your response confidential.

Reason for confidentiality:

Name:

Please tick if you are responding on behalf of your organisation.

Name of Organisation (if applicable):

Address:

If your enquiry is related to the DfE e-consultation website or the consultation process in general, you can contact the Ministerial and Public Communications Division by e-mail: consultation.unit@education.gsi.gov.uk by telephone: 0370 000 2288 or via the Department's 'Contact Us' page.

Please mark ONE box which best describes you as a respondent

x Parent/Carer Child Young Person (16+)

School Headteacher/Teacher

Further Education Principal/Teacher

Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCO)

Governor Local Authority Parent Partnership

Educational Psychologist

Voluntary Organisation

Professional Association/Union

Health Commissioner Health Professional Health Provider

Early Years Provider Social Care Professional

Training/Apprenticeship Provider

Other

Please Specify:

This response form covers questions on the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, regulations and transitional arrangements. To enable you to identify which questions you wish to answer they have been split as follows:

Questions 1 – 27 cover the draft code of practiceQuestions 28 – 42 cover the draft regulationsQuestions 43 – 52 cover the transitional arrangements.

DRAFT SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS CODE OF PRACTICE

General

1 Is it clear from the structure of the draft Code of Practice where you can find the information you need?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

An alphabetical index and a glossary is a must. Also a frequently asked questions section might not be a bad idea.

Need a footer on every page to say which chapter you’re on. Wading through this document without knowing which chapter you’re reading at any one time is irritating and time-consuming.

Consider colour coding the chapters.

2 Is the guidance clearly written and easy to understand?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Like the use of the words must to show a statutory duty and should to indicate best practice. (These terms need to be included in a glossary with clear definitions – reference to case law?), BUT there needs to be far more ‘musts’ to ensure that education, health and social care are not able to interpret as they wish and wriggle out of providing provision.

Perhaps within diagrams the musts could be in a certain colour and the shoulds in a paler colour?

More diagrams would be useful to put information across more succinctly and for those who may find reading text more challenging. When parents consult the code, it is usually because there is a problem. That will mean it will be a stressful time and speed of accessing information is paramount. Wading through paragraphs of text to find the one sentence or section that is relevant can be extremely time consuming and tedious. The detail still needs to be included but I also feel that diagrams can get a host of messages across very quickly.

Wordy and repetitive in places, it is generally well written but there are many areas where more clarity is required. It definitely needs to be jargon-free and a glossary included so that you can quickly understand terms which may still be ‘foreign’ to parents such as ‘local offer’, ‘universal services’, ‘best endeavours’, etc.

Chapter 9 (Resolving Disputes) is quite a challenging read and confusing – and this is the one parents will potentially need to turn to most if they do not believe their child/young person’s needs are being met.

Addressing the consultation questions to specific sub-paras instead of just covering chapters would have made it easier to decide where to put particular comments – that is the reason that some answers may appear to be in the wrong place!

3 Are the statutory duties in the Children and Families Bill and the draft SEN regulations clearly explained?

Yes No x Not Sure

Comments:

Concerned that it may already be too late to influence draft SEN regulations by closing date of consultation on draft code.

P122 – I assume that this relates to the fact that there will be a statutory obligation on healthcare to deliver the provision as laid out in the plan? The draft code states: ‘Where a health service is specified in the EHC plan, the CCG (or where relevant NHS England) must (under clause 42 of the Children and Families Bill) ensure that the service is made available to the child or young person, until such time as the plan is reviewed to reflect changing needs or circumstances.’

If this isn’t indicating that there is a statutory duty on health to provide the provision outlined in the plan, then no it is not clear.

If this is the case (the fact that I am asking the question means that it is not 100% clear what the statutory duties are on Education, Health and Social Care) then I do not agree with the term ‘made available’ to the young child …. I think here it is simply a case of using the correct words which make it transparent to anyone consulting the code. Making something available and ensuring a service is actually delivered to an individual are two different things. We can make a hot meal available to a Free School Meals child but there is no guarantee they will eat it.

Social Care must have a statutory duty to deliver the support as outlined in an EHC plan.‘For social care provision specified in the plan, existing duties on social care services to assess and provide for the needs of disabled children and young people under the Children Act 1989 continue to apply’. Most parents will not understand the content of the Children Act 1989 and more than likely will not have the time to go and hunt it down at crisis point.

4 Does the guidance provide sufficient focus on the full age range from 0-25 including early years and post-16 as well as school-age children?

Yes No x Not Sure

Comments: Draft seems very schools-biased and therefore don’t feel confident that there is ‘sufficient focus’ on 16-25 or the myriad of issues faced by young people of this age range.

Very concerned about latest statistic that only seven per cent of people with a learning disability are in work. That is a national disgrace – not convinced that anything in this code is ‘sufficient’ to even begin to redress this inbalance.

One parent’s view: ‘My child is of school age and, not having experienced post 16 yet, I feel unable to comment.’

Chapter 1 – Introduction

5 Does Chapter 1 explain clearly the purpose of the Code of Practice, who it applies to and how it applies to them?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

1.2: Expiry or review date of the code – will this go before Parliament? Believe it must.

1.4: The strategic role to be played by parent carers and parent carer forums needs strengthening throughout the code. Co-production (which I thought was one of the buzz phrases of these reforms) only appears once. Should be more specific about the need for social care organisations to be involved.

1:5 Appeals process still quite complicated for parents – separate routes for health and social care goes against ‘tell once’ approach.

1.6: New wording needed: ‘There is new guidance on the need for a significant shift in culture to ensure young people with SEN and their families are part of all decisions being made.’

‘There is new guidance on the need for co-production with parent carers and young people and that both groups should be involved in strategic decision making and recognition of the value and need to work with local parent carer forums.’

Needs to be included: Parent carer representatives MUST be invited to sit on all local authority and school decision-making bodies relating to SEN and SEN issues.

There needs to be more balance around the recognition of the role of parents particularly when young people reach 16 – wording along the lines of ‘a recognition of the active role that parents and young people BOTH make to a successful transition to adulthood’. Without our involvement our children may unwittingly be setting themselves up to fail which is not acceptable. This point is reiterated several times elsewhere in this response document.

1.7: This says Inclusive Schooling (2001) guidance will cease to have effect under the new code. It was stated at the NNPCF Code of Practice Event held in Milton Keynes on November 26, 2013, by Andrew Baxter from the DfE that this guidance was now included throughout the code. But the Alliance for Inclusive Education Campaigns (ALLFIE) believes the code ‘does not reflect the underlying principle of presumption of mainstream education as stated in the Children and Families Bill’ and that ‘it removes all positive expectations on local authorities and schools to become more inclusive of a wider range of children and young people with SEN’, thus weakening the framework that has traditionally supported children and young people with SEN in mainstream education. ALLFIE believes this particularly needs to be included in sections 1.6 and 1.7. Also disregards importance attached to this guidance by the Lamb Inquiry 2009.

1:8: If definition of SEN has stayed the same why are local authorities being asked to lower the number of children being given education health and care plans as against those having statements? I believe 2.8% of school-age children currently have statements in Derbyshire and Government is asking the authority to maintain that 2.8% but across the 0-25 age range. This means, as is already being considered in Derbyshire, that the eligibility criteria for an EHC plan would have to be changed.This doesn’t compute – the needs of the vast majority of those children will not suddenly change for the better – they are more likely to change for the worst and those young people are more likely to require more support not less as they move out of formal education and into work and training.

1.9: In the light of the above issue mentioned in 1.6 regarding young people’s rights to make their own choices (16+), reference needs to be made here to the Mental Capacity Act with a link to further information on this.

Chapter 2 - Summary

6 Does Chapter 2 summarise how the principles described there are reflected in the Code of Practice?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

2.1: In the current code the expectation that a child’s needs will be met is a ‘fundamental principle’ (1.5). This is not stated clearly, prominently and in a straightforward way in the draft code.

Again the importance of the participation and co-production of parent carers and parent carer forums needs to be included here.

2.2: This clause refers to statutory rights of young people over 16 – these should not outweigh rights of parents to help in decision-making at this vital time.

Provision of information, advice and support should be ongoing for young people and parent carers not just something that pops up in times of crisis – part of a positive learning experience.

In the Greater choice and control for parents… section: lack of parity between children with an EHC plan and those without (but who still may have quite challenging identified additional needs) is wrong. An outcomes-focussed person-centred process should be available to all children and young people identified with SEN at whatever level.

Some woolly language again in this section – ‘when carrying out their statutory SEN duties, local authorities must do so with a view to making sure that services work together…’ Great to see the ‘must’ but ‘with a view to’ weakens it. Take it out.

And later on we see under High quality provision… section: ‘must use their best endeavours….’ – leaves it open to the ‘we tried but we couldn’t manage it’ excuse which is happening now and is just not good enough. Schools and colleges must ensure that provision is made for those who need it. Can we please ditch ‘best endeavours’ throughout: it waters down accountability and will only lead to conflict. (Understand that this phrase may have been defined in case law – if so, and if it is to be used, state what it means in case law in a glossary so that everyone is aware what it means).

For children currently receiving School Action and School Action Plus, LAs should be given a monitoring role to ensure all schools are meeting the needs of all their SEN pupils (not just those with EHC plans) – half a child/young person’s time in primary/secondary/post-16 could be lost waiting for an Ofsted inspection and by then irrevocable damage could have been done.

Chapter 3 – A Family Centred System

7 Is Chapter 3 clear about the information, advice and support young people in particular may need, and how agencies should work with them and their families?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

3.1: Rewrite needed: ‘Schools should ensure that ‘where practical’ pupils with SEN are represented on class and school forums. Remove the ‘where practical’. It’s a get-out clause to prevent inclusion and it’s already happening in mainstream schools. Same applies to colleges.

Again back to the importance of parent carer involvement in strategic decision making. It needs to be explicit that parent carers and young people must be involved in the commissioning process and reviewing of services. (Working well in Derbyshire - parent reps already on Disabled Children’s Commissioning and Planning groups – not the case in every authority – and our forum will be looking for more involvement in areas mentioned elsewhere in this consultation).

3.2: Where is the money coming from to pay for person-centred planning and joint working? The code should be precise about minimum standards/protocols about person centred planning and give details of how this will be paid for.

Again back to the decision-making capabilities of 16-year-olds - some will ‘pass’ the assessment of Mental Capacity Act but will not have the emotional maturity to make decisions about their future. Yet again, it is very concerning that the views of a 16-year-old with SEN will be given precedence over those of their parents. Default needs to be that parents will be involved in post-16 decisions. This does not detract from a young person’s decision-making rights. Many SEN youngsters will always need a level of assistance and advocacy and to exclude parents might make already vulnerable individuals even more vulnerable. And, more importantly, it is at odds with what happens for the majority of non-disabled children at 16.

Any parent of a difficult/child with emotional behaviour difficulties would likely put respite at top of requirements for local offer. However, a child at 16-25 would often want that spent on horse riding/go karting, etc. Could cause family breakdown if disagree/no respite.

Families these days are not necessarily a mum and dad and 2.4 children – the CoP should encompass more of the changing nature of ‘families’ – including carers/guardians. Families may need help at many points. Family circumstances should be considered and acted upon.

8 Is it reasonable to expect local authorities to provide the advice and support specified in Section 3.3?

Yes No x Not Sure

Comments:

Parents will often be cynical of the word ‘impartial’ when those giving the advice are often those paying for the services they recommend.Parent Partnership Service can never be completely impartial in the eyes of parents – in Derbyshire they are currently paid employees of the local authority. If outsourced, as elsewhere, then it is on a 2-3 year contract signed by the local authority, so again, this implies a bias. The local authority will still have the power to veto what services and information parents and young people receive. In the current economic climate of cuts there is widespread concern that commissioned services will not be sufficient to provide families with the level of support they need to navigate the complex SEN system.

Parent Partnership employees must be well versed in education law, be full time employees (not volunteers) and be approachable for all parents. Appropriate –and ongoing - training is vital. Concerns over effective resourcing and monitoring.

In terms of parent carer forums, need a statement about developing genuine partnership working and co-production as this is key to the delivery of effective participation. A link to reports about good practice and experience of forums in Pathfinder areas might be useful here as well as parent participation in general and details of NNPCF and Contact a Family website.

9 Does the Code provide an accurate description of key working?

Comments:

No. It does not say who could take on this role? In my opinion it should be an independent party (not someone from the local authority).

More clarity needed about key worker/working, which children will benefit (ie, only those with EHC plan or all SEN children and young people) and how will service be paid for and by whom?

10 a) The ‘Independent Supporters’ described in Chapter 3 are intended to provide support for children, parents and young people through the Education, Health and Care assessment and planning process. 

Do you agree that this sort of support should be available to children, young people and parents if they ask for it?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Confused. How are they different to a keyworker? How is this cost covered? There is no guarantee of an independent supporter? So how is it decided who gets one and who does not?

People should not have to ask for this support. It should be an essential part of the local offer and turned down if not required.

10 b) What might help ensure such support is available to families that need it?

Comments:

A guarantee of proper and sustainable funding.

Alternatively, given budget shortfalls, it might have to be prioritised so that those parents with SEN themselves could access an independent supporter. After that it should be an open set of eligibility criteria which are easy to understand and non-ambiguous.

Chapter 4 – Working Together Across Education, Health and Social Care

11 Does Chapter 4 describe clearly how the new joint commissioning arrangements will support children and young people with special educational needs?

Yes No x Not Sure

‘Comments:

The diagram was useful – but the commissioning cycle has no reference to the parent carer/child/young person/or strategic participation by these groups.

This is a very wordy chapter and I would like to see more use made of diagrams to make the message clearer.

4.1: Clause 27 of the Children and Families Bill is mentioned and who should be consulted; this wording should be changed to reflect the shift towards participation and co-production of parent carers, parent forums, children and young people.

Under Joint Commissioning arrangements the should in ‘Partners should also consider how they will respond to children and young people who need to access services swiftly’ needs to be a must. If it needs to be swift there is no time for ‘should’!

The section on social care needs to be linked to carers rights and the Care Bill. It currently only refers to carers’ needs in relation to outcomes for children. Parent carers are faced with being left with a low level of rights compared to other carers as things stand – this is completely unfair and unjust. The work done by parent carers is incalculable – responding to this consultation on top of the day-to-day responsibilities of supporting a disabled child/ young person is a case in point.

Following needs changing:

‘The joint commissioning must also include arrangements and responsibilities for securing outcomes and personalised services, specifically: …. Securing the education, health and care provision specified in EHC plans…’

This should read ‘securing the education, health and care provision for ALL children and young people with SEN…’ not just those with an EHC plan.

Under Adult Social Care section, when it refers to the Care Bill and states that it ‘will ensure that young adults are not left without care and support as they make the transition between child and adult social care and support systems’. Does this refer only to those with EHC plans? Under the new, and excessively wide range of disability, difficulty and need which will fall into the SEN Support category there will be young people who may not have accessed social care before but who will need that support as they move into adult life. How is this going to be addressed? How are they and their parents going to feel assured that those needs will be met if this sentence means what I think it means?

Knowing little of the ins and outs of how services are commissioned and how local authorities, health and social care work, this chapter is becoming increasingly hard to comprehend.

4.3: Reference made to the health and wellbeing board – are there parents of SEN children/young people represented on these boards? If not, why not? There should be.

Draft in this section says health and wellbeing boards ‘should’ consider the needs of vulnerable groups including those with SEN and, later, ‘should also consider the experiences of children young people and families…’ Again, surely both of these are ‘musts’?

One way this could be achieved would be by engaging strategically with local parent carer forums.

Reference to partners in this section and the following ones should explicitly include parent carers and forums.

4.4: ‘Making best use of resources’ – what happens where there is a minimal demand for a service and it is decommissioned? How are those children’s/young people’s needs going to be met? (‘Partners should assess whether there are any activities which do not contribute to their local priorities, and decide which services should be commissioned or decommissioned, in consultation with children and young people with SEN, their parents, or representative groups.’)

It should read ‘in participation’ with children and young people with SEN, their parents, or representatives, not ‘in consultation with’.

4.5: Personal Budgets – there needs to be a clearer obligation on parties to show transparency of how personal budgets have been calculated. Currently code states on page 40: ‘Partners must set out their arrangements for agreeing personal budgets and should develop and agree a formal approach to making fair and equitable allocations of funding.’

Where is the accountability for, for example, when a personal budget falls short of meeting the needs of the child/young adult? Parent reps need to be involved in setting of budgets and implementation.

12 Is the role of the Designated Health Officer described clearly?

Yes No x Not Sure

Comments:

Is this a new post with new funding attached, because, if not, not sure who would be willing to do this on top of any existing responsibilities because it appears to be a big job?

Chapter 5 – The Local Offer

13 Does Chapter 5 describe clearly the purposes of the local offer?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Terms participation or co-production rather than consultation should be used throughout this chapter.

5.1: The code should specify how the local offer can be offered, i.e. authority-wide not per school/college as this is likely to create an even bigger postcode lottery than an authority-wide offer would.

The abolition of School Action and School Action Plus to be replaced by SEN Support leaves provision for the majority of children and young people with SEN (83%) unregulated and in the hands of individual local authorities and leaves the majority of parents even more powerless because of the unenforceability of the local offer.

If this exercise is supposed to help and make things easier for parents it would have been better to set national criteria with some scope for local variation. As it stands this seems a recipe for confusion, chaos and confrontation particularly given the ridiculous timescale within which non-Pathfinder authorities are working.

Collaborative: Parent carer forums should be specifically mentioned here

Transparent: ‘the local offer must be clear about how decisions are made and who is accountable and responsible for them’ - what does this mean exactly? How decisions are made about what? What constitutes the local offer? Who is eligible, etc?

They can, for example, use the local offer to set out the support available for disabled children and young people who do not have SEN, but I think this makes things more confusing when we’re given to understand children with a disability but no SEN are not covered by this Bill.

5.2: What are ‘universal services’? Terms like this will not necessarily be understood by parents, hence the need for a glossary.

Under Education, health and care provision section, the dreaded ‘best endeavours’ rears its ugly head again. This is the get-out clause that every mainstream school relies on to avoid having to provide support for children and young people with SEN – and here it is again

14 Is the guidance clear about what local authorities and their partners must do to develop, publish and review the local offer?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

The local offer should show if it’s been amended from the previous year so that parents can see if there’s been a shift in focus, reduced services, etc. The participation of parent forums should be made explicit in connection with any review of any service – no fait accompli please.

Regarding the organisations the LA has to consult with to develop and review its local offer, it should also have to consult with specialist groups such as the National Deaf Children’s Society, Royal National Institute for the Blind, specialist medical support groups, Afasic, ICAN, who may understand far more about a child’s needs than a school’s governing body or even their paediatrician.

Need clarity on how the local offer will be monitored and the role of Ofsted inspectors in ensuring that appropriate outcomes for all young people are being achieved.

Chapter 6 – Early Years, Schools, Colleges and Other Education and Training Providers

15 Does Chapter 6 make clear the importance of involving children, parents and young people in decision making?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

6.1: Yet again, the dreaded ‘best endeavours’. As previously stated this is the get-out clause that every mainstream school can use to avoid having to provide support for children and young people with SEN – what do you mean by it? More clarity and in a glossary please.

Huge concern about the lack of a consistent approach by which children who fall in the very wide category of SEN Support needs-wise will have their needs recorded, provision specified, outcomes identified and the establishment of a clear reviewing process. There needs to be some clear NATIONAL structure and guidance on this process in the same way that it has been given in relation to EHC plans.

Without it a vast number of children, young people and their parents and providers will be in vulnerable positions with a lack of clarity of what they should or could expect. Even with current clarity in relation to School Action and School Action Plus collective experience shows that adherence is inconsistent and having no framework within which those with SEN Support have their needs, supports and outcomes recorded is of significant concern. This must be amended if the stated intention of delivering high aspirations to all children and young people with SEN is to be delivered.

6.2: Under support for children and young people with SEN - reference to ‘regular’ review. How often is regular? – a definitive ruling on this included in a glossary would help.

6.3: Under Cognition and Learning – this may not be the right place to add this but cognitive development assessment – all children with suspected SEN should undergo one to highlight strengths and weaknesses. One parent’s experience: ‘A large part of my son’s provision and wording within his statement comes from the scores he obtained in his cognitive development assessment. It should be commissioned at the time of an assessment for an EHC plan. But how could it be used for children with SEN without a plan? It has been a crucial document to support my son’s education and yet he was given one in a very hit and miss way, it wasn’t planned as part of an overall assessment.’ This view is wholeheartedly endorsed by many other parents whose children have undergone such an assessment.

16 Is the guidance clear about what education providers should do to identify and support children and young people of different ages to achieve good outcomes?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

There is talk about monitoring progress but IEPs have gone – why does the CoP not give guidelines for best practice of how progress should be reviewed and communicated to ensure optimum interventions and outcomes? Anything used by pathfinders which has been effective?

Hit and miss testing to show progress – either within school or used by external agencies (some I’ve seen with my son have even been US based and have used the terms dime and cent!) No consistency.

Involving specialists – ie, the old Action Plus – if the child ‘is making little or no progress’, what is considered ‘little’ and how will it be measured without an IEP? Too woolly. Why does it have to be only considered if they are making little or no progress? They could still have SEN but be making progress. LA could cut support based on the fact the child is making progress (they take the support away and the progress disappears)

Involving parents …- ‘Where a pupil is receiving SEN support, schools should meet parents at least termly to set clear goals, discuss the activities and support that will help achieve them …’

‘Where a pupil is receiving SEN support, schools should meet parents at least termly to set clear goals…’

The ‘shoulds’ here need to be musts.

‘Use of data and record keeping – It is for schools to determine their own approach to record keeping…’Does this mean each school will invent their own methods? Surely this should be standardised otherwise fear loss of clarity, more difficulties for parents and young people and tribunals.

Clear goals? All targets in IEPs are supposed to be SMART in the current CoP but it seems to be down to the individual SENCo as to whether they are or not. Needs to be more specific. A ‘good’ SENCO will no doubt continue to adopt traditional methods of IEP/SMART targets, others will be left to their own devices, which is concerning.

Role of SENCO – very woolly about key responsibilities of the SENCO (page 79). Many SENCOs spend a lot of their time teaching (in some instances as much as 100% with SENCO tasks completed at the end of the day – not acceptable!) as they have to be a qualified teacher. Schools are stretched already so will make use of their teaching time. Need a guideline for how much time they should spend teaching as a maximum? Giving SENCOs managerial status in schools is a MUST – at the most many of them are simply ignored by teachers.

‘The school should ensure that the SENCO has sufficient time and resources to carry out these functions. This should include providing the SENCO with sufficient administrative support and time away from teaching to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities in a similar way to other important strategic roles within a school’. The ‘should’ needs to be a must. How will this be monitored? Whose responsibility? What should parents do if sufficient time and resources are not being allocated? It should be made a duty on the school to inform parents of the amount of time their SENCO will spend on that duty and for parents to be able to challenge that decision through the governing body.

6.5: The role of impartial information… - ‘Schools have a duty to secure independent, impartial careers guidance for pupils in 8-13.’ What does 8-13 refer to?

6.6: ‘best endeavours’ – refer to previous comments above.

6.7: Funding for SEN support – How can parents feel assured that funding for SEN support will be sufficient in the current economic climate when local authorities are facing unprecedented cuts of 30% or more?

Very concerned that it is not stated clearly that SEN budget should not be used for other school spending priorities. Why is this funding not ring-fenced? Without such a guarantee parents are always going to be sceptical – how can they be assured money is being spent where it should be? Who monitors schools on this?

6.8: ‘Children and young people without an EHC plan can be placed in special schools and special post-16 institutions in the following specific circumstances:…’ – in the following four bullet points there are clauses in brackets which refer to decision making by the young person at 16+ and by the parent in the case of a child. As has been raised earlier guidance that 16-year-olds with SEN are best placed to make decisions about their future in isolation from their parents is very much a cause for concern and again this needs to be addressed and amended (both here and anywhere else it may occur – in case I have missed it elsewhere, which is highly likely given the length of the document!)

Above also seems inequitable and don’t understand under what circumstances a child who has not been fully assessed would be placed in a specialist provision?

Chapter 7 – Assessments and Education, Health and Care Plans

17 Is Chapter 7 clear about how to carry out assessment and planning for children and young people 0-25, including helping children and young people prepare for adult life?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

7.3: (Page 94) –when considering a statutory assessment – ‘local authorities should (MUST needed) pay attention to a. the views, wishes and feelings of the child and his or her parents, or the young person.’ They do not have to invite views at this stage. Believe this happens with current code. Feel this is wrong. Would also be keen to see parental representation on assessment panel to help monitor decision-making.

‘Where a young person is aged over 18, their age and whether remaining in education or training would help them to progress, building on what they have learned before and helping them to make a successful transition to adult life’

This implies that just because they’ve reached 18 they shouldn’t be encouraged to continue in education/training, when plans cover up to 25 anyway. Why at 18 make this decision?

Where LA decides not to assess it currently must inform parent that appeal right is not affected by mediation. This is not included here but is in relation to finalising a plan

(P121). Believe it should be included here too.

7.4: Under a) Participation in decision-making- this section should specify participation and co-production both of the assessment and development of EHC plans.

Under c) Co-ordination – ‘Families should have confidence that those overseeing the assessment process will be impartial and act in their best interests.’How? Why is the body holding the budget also in charge of the assessment? Conflict of interest issues. Again parental representation is required on assessment panel.

Under f) Cross-agency working – ‘Consideration should be given to: The range of professionals across education, health and care who need to be involved and their availability’ – One parent’s view: ‘A lot of the professionals involved in my son’s care are part-time staff which makes any joined-up working very challenging. Feels like a pipe dream at the minute.’

7.5: Some parents would rather retain the 26-week period if this would ensure a better quality outcome - rather than a more rushed approach in 20 weeks.

Specific requirements (P98) – parents given 15 days to consider a draft EHC plan. Is that working days or just days?

‘The parents or young person should be informed if exemptions apply so that they are aware of, and understand, the reason for any delays’ – should be a must.

7.6: Diagram should be amended to cover points raised above about parental involvement.

7.7: (P101) Consideration should be given to the LA sourcing information from specialist groups which understand more specifically about medical conditions when carrying out a statutory assessment for an EHC plan.

There needs to be more information on outcomes and how those are arrived at with support from whom?

Needs to be more accountability for LAs’ decisions on whether to issue an EHC plan or not. ‘It is helpful for local authorities to set up moderating groups to support transparency in decision-making. Such groups can ensure consistent decisions are made about whether to issue EHC plans.’ Too woolly. Needs to be accountability. Too many statements are turned down currently without any real logical explanation being given to parents/schools. Not acceptable. Again parent representation needed.

7.8: Do parents currently receive a copy of all the professionals’ advice during a statutory assessment? I don’t know. Parents need to feel confident that ALL advice is being considered and the LA is not just cherry picking what it sends to parents.

7.9: Who writes the EHC plan?

Content of EHC plans – pages 103 -107

Current code reflects case law which requires high degree of specificity in terms of hours, provision, etc . Draft code does not require quantification in terms of hours (but should be a MUST if case law on meaning of specify is to be adhered to). Concerned that this has also been left out of draft regulations.

Current code also reflects case law where it says LA must match needs and provision – don’t think this is expressly said in draft. Needs to be added.

In chart on page 105: ‘Provision should be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type of support and who will provide it.’ Woolly. Why have we lost ‘specified’ and ‘quantified’ and why has the word ‘normally’ been added? What does ‘normally’ mean? That will be used against parents for quantifying support.

‘In some cases, flexibility will be required to meet the changing needs of the child or young person.’Acceptable if it is in the interest of the child and not the service, but how can this be proved by a parent? Accountability/transparency concerns.

Still on section on P105, there should be reference to speech/language therapy as it has been an unclear area for many parents over the years whether this is education or health.

Current code advises specifying any special examination provision. It is not mentioned here. Why not? It must be – this is vital to fulfilling potential. Could this not be construed as disability discrimination?

P106 – ‘Provision should be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type of support and who will provide it.’ Amount and frequency of provision not mentioned, nor hours. Again given specificity required by case law this needs clarifying.

P108 - With ongoing EHC plans, need something about adding relevant information to the appendices.

Needs to be clearer guidelines regarding updating plans. Statements have remained in place without any amendments for years and therefore are not useful documents for a parent to use for judicial review if support is not provided. When should a plan be updated? What are the criteria for amendment following a review?

P109 – ‘Health or social care provision made wholly or mainly for the purposes of education or training must be treated as special educational provision.’Who decides what ‘mainly’ means? Could be another hurdle for parents to jump over. This is also confusing regarding the statutory duty on social care which I thought only applied to health and education?

7.10: Parents have ‘at least 15 days to give views….’. Currently have right to meeting with an officer and then the 15 days starts from after that meeting. The meeting part has been omitted from both draft regulations and draft code. Why? It is a useful stage for both the LA and parents/young people to gather information.

Parent and young people are to be notified that they can request a particular school and advised where they can find information about schools ‘that are available’ (WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, particularly in terms of parental choice?) but they are not required to be informed of the conditions under which the LA can refuse the request. Where is the transparency that the draft code purports to be requiring in this?

7.12: Requesting a personal budget – (P116) ‘Direct payments must be set at a level that will deliver the provision specified in the plan’. On face value this is great but in the current economic climate how will it be achieved? Also need more clarity about what parents/young people can do if budget doesn’t meet need.

P129 – professionals across education, health and social care must co-operate with local authorities during reviews. There should be examples of what is meant by co-operation. Attendance at the review? They ‘must’ be invited but should the meeting still go ahead if they cannot attend?

Again consider more diagrams and less words – coloured box to show ‘must’ and different coloured box to show ‘should’.

18 Is the guidance clear about the importance of engaging children, young people and their parents in decision making on assessment, planning and reviews?

Yes No x Not Sure

Comments:

P130 - There should be parental representation on EHC panel that decides whether to keep, amend or cease to maintain plan.

Transfer between phases of education (P132) – ‘However transfers between post 16 institutions may take place at different times of the year, and the review process should take account of this. Should be a must.

19 Is the guidance on the content of Education, Health and Care Plans helpful?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

There is nothing here that says children and young people who already have statements should automatically get an EHC plan. Transitional arrangements have stated: ‘Our expectation is that the overwhelming majority of children and young people with statements and LDAs will require EHC plans, unless local or individual circumstances have changed?’

What does ‘local circumstances’ mean? It would appear to mean that local authorities are being given the green light here to tighten their thresholds – this is exactly what is being looked at in Derbyshire, the thinking being that the only way it can meet the Government’s call for it to maintain the same level of EHC plans as statements (2.8%) is to make EHC plans only available to those children and young people with the most complex needs and who are in receipt of input from at least two and normally three of the agencies (ie, education, health and social care). Given that EHC plans cover a greater age range (0-25) than statements this means children who would qualify for a statement now would not qualify for EHC plans if this proposal were adopted. Many parents see this moving of the goalposts as completely unacceptable because in the majority of cases the level of need will be there but provision offered will not give parents or young people the same level of statutory rights as would be provided with an EHC plan.

With no standardised format for EHC plans and the opportunity for each local authority to design their own this will lead to less clarity and enforceability. There should be a standard template used for EHC plans (as with statements) so that when parents are seeking advice it will be more straightforward but also if parents move house and get a new plan from a new authority it will look essentially the same. Why has more time not been allocated to allow Pathfinders to share which approaches are working and then an ideal template for EHC plans could be produced? Also with no set template there is likely to be greater confusion about which agency is responsible for providing what type of services and support.

Greater guidance is also needed about specificity of provision, including quantification of provision (ie in terms of hours and frequency of service) linked to outcomes.

Use of SMART targets by local authorities could be abused: these could be set so low in order to provide evidence that an EHC plan is no longer required or that agencies providing services and support could be challenged to meet a child or young person’s SEN in other ways.

7:11: Requests for a particular school…- ‘b. The attendance of the child or young person there would be incompatible with the efficient education of others, or the efficient use of resources’ - what does this mean? Needs spelling out in glossary what this means (any case law definition available?) because it is a get-out clause for LAs and schools. Some academies are already not accepting SEN pupils and presumably this will allow them to carry on in the same vein unless disability discrimination cases are launched.

Direct payments (P119) - Nothing obvious about whether you can revert back to not having a personal budget after deciding to have one. What happens if money allocated does not cover provision required – code says it must, but in current economic climate education, health and social care could simply turn round and say resources are there. What recourse do parents have in this instance?

7.13: Finalising the draft EHC plan (P121): ‘When changes are suggested to the draft plan and agreed by the local authority and the parents or young person, the draft plan should be amended and issued as the final plan as quickly as possible. The final plan should be signed and dated by the local authority officer responsible for signing off the final plan.’

Why is there no time limit here? ‘As quickly as possible’ is not specific enough and has always been a problem for parents. It normally means ‘when we can get round to it’.

7.14: All children under compulsory school age – ‘A local authority should conduct …’ MUST required here.

Similarly in Children aged under two section the ‘should consider’ relating to Portage needs to be a MUST.

Throughout this section (7.14) when relating to assessments being carried out and provision being supplied the shoulds need to be musts.

P126 – ‘Where a young person who had an EHC plan before entering custody is released from custody the EHC plan must be maintained and reviewed. Local authorities should start the review when planning for the young person’s release and in ideally within a month of the young person leaving custody.’

Surely this review should be in place and available from day one of release to avoid any chance of reoffending in the interim?

7:16 - P132: Preparing for adulthood reviews – shouldn’t we be making reference to using young person advocates here so that we can elicit opinions/views from the young adult? Omission of parents again here.

7:17 - P133 - Requesting a reassessment – a LA must initiate a reassessment if a parent (or other relevant party) asks for one. What would be the grounds for an LA to reassess? (The cynic here would say that because too much money is being spent which would have nothing to do with the needs of the child.) Needs to be far more

specific about reasons why an LA can decide not to carry out a reassessment.

7:22 - P139 – ‘The parents or young person’s preferred school or college might be further away from their home than the nearest school or college that can meet the child or young person’s SEN. In such a case, the local authority can name the nearer school or college if that would be deemed appropriate by the local authority. If the parents prefer the school or college that is further away, the local authority may agree to this but is able to ask the parents to provide some or all of the transport funding.’Very woolly!

7.21 Disclosure of an EHC plan – ‘It is important that teachers or other educational professionals working closely with the child or young person should have full knowledge of the child or young person’s plan.’

This should read ESSENTIAL –I am flabbergasted that this has been worded like this. It is essential that all teachers or other educational professionals working closely with ALL children or young people with SEN (not just those with EHC plans) should have full knowledge of that child or young person’s individual needs.

‘Local authorities may also give access to the plan to persons engaged in research on SEN on the condition that the researchers do not publish anything derived from, or contained in, the plan which would identify the child, young person or parents concerned.’

This MUST only be allowed with the parents or young person’s approval.

7.22 ‘Transport should only be recorded in the EHC plan in exceptional cases where the child has particular transport needs.’

Accessing suitable transport is a key aspect of SEN provision and as such must be an integral part of an individual EHC plan. If this is only included in ‘exceptional circumstances’ this also limits those with EHC plans to use a personal budget to access suitable transport. Transport needs should be included as a standard requirement in EHC plans.

20 Is the guidance appropriate and relevant to professionals across education, health and care?

Yes No X Not Sure

Comments:

Given the anomalies it throws up for parents, cannot see that it can be, unless professionals are happy with loopholes that avoid accountability, transparency, putting the needs of the child or young person first and giving parents a co-production stake.

21 Does the guidance adequately reflect the essential features of the Inclusive Schooling guidance which is being replaced?

Yes No x Not Sure

Comments:

Because not fully au fait with Inclusive Schooling it is quite hard to comment. Aware that inclusivity has been addressed in several sections of the draft but would like to reiterate ALLFIE’s concerns that ‘the entire content of the Inclusive Schooling Guidance has been omitted…This means LAs no longer have a duty to promote inclusive education at a strategic level in their areas.’ As has previously been said this is of concern as some academies are already turning SEN pupils away. Surely this is discrimination and should be seen as such and addressed by the code?

22 Does the guidance cover the necessary features of the Learning Difficulty Assessments guidance which is being replaced?

Yes No x Not Sure

Comments:

One parent’s view: ‘I have no experience of LDAs, so feel less able to comment.’

Draft seems to concentrate more on school-age children and be far less specific about the 16-25 age range which is a very great concern.

Chapter 8 – Children and Young People in Specific Circumstances

23 Does Chapter 8 provide sufficient information about support to be provided for children and young people in the specific circumstances described?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

8.2 - Very confusing – if a looked after child already has a care plan which includes a Personal Education Plan and a Health Plan why is this simply not being re-worked/re-named as an EHC plan as all the elements are potentially already there. Why does the draft code say (P141): ‘It is important to ensure the annual review of an EHC plan coincides with one of the child’s Care Plan statutory reviews.’

This apparent duplication appears to be an administrative nightmare and a complete waste of time and money and flies in the face of the intention of the reforms to make the system simpler and easier to manage. This is completely baffling.

No reference to traveller families and their children.

24 Are the duties of local authorities and others towards children and young people in specific circumstances explained clearly?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

See previous answer.

Chapter 9 – Resolving Disputes

25 Does Chapter 9 provide sufficient support and information to help parents and young people understand the different routes for appeals and complaints?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Left feeling confused and worried by this chapter. Much more clarity needed.

9.3: Effective disagreement resolution services – how are LAs supposed to commission this service with no extra funding? How is it to be financed? It says that the service should be impartial but confused as to whether the LA is then supposed to set targets and review it? Surely conflict of interest? There is already great concern and disaffection about impartiality of Parent Partnership Services where LAs hold the purse strings. This is yet another example and is not something that parents will welcome.

9:5 (P166) Mediation: ‘The local authority representative(s) should have the authority to be able to make decisions during the mediation session.’ Guidance required on who this person is likely to be? What level of authority/expertise? Parents need to know the person who is in the room from the local authority is qualified to be there.

Three different routes for appealing decisions – to education, health and social care? Thought whole point of reforms was single point of access. It would appear that this has been disregarded with regard to disputes. All appeals, regardless of which section

of the EHC plan they fall into, should go through one central body; anything less is doing no favours to de-stressing the situation for parents, children and young people.

26 Is sufficient guidance given on what makes effective disagreement resolution and mediation services?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

If the LA appoints a mediation service then many parents will not regard them as impartial.

Any Other Comments

27 Please provide any further comments on the draft Code of Practice here.

Comments:

How will SEN young adults at 25 be assessed to see if outcomes have been met, so that support services can learn from interventions put in place, etc?

Still a lot is left to the discretion of a local authority which does not give reassurance to parents. Too much flexibility, not enough accountability throughout.

How will support needs met be measured, i.e. an EHC plan will be discontinued if those needs have been met and the outcomes reached. Who decides this? Is it just when educational outcomes have been reached? What about health and social care needs too? Parental representation needed on any panels making these decisions.

Why is there no legal duty to have a SENCO in a college?

No reference to SSSEN services? Highly regarded in Derbyshire primary schools. Inability to understand why these services aren’t available to secondary sector in our county and elsewhere.

P91 – ‘Increasingly, Speech and Language Therapists (SALTs) provide direct advice and guidance on appropriate interventions that teachers, teaching assistants and parents implement and they monitor’ - This doesn’t mean it is correct just because that is generally what happens. There are insufficient SALTs (many work part-time) and yet there is a growing number of children with speech and language and communication needs. Teaching staff cannot deliver (nor should they be expected to) the same level of service with just a few hours of training. Not all parents will be able to implement guidance given and some may not be able to understand it themselves.

Will Connexions (career advice service in Derbyshire) be disappearing? No reference to them.

Following reviews of plans it should be made clearer why a plan may be amended or not amended by a LA. Many statements contain things like nappies needed when they aren’t but the LAs hold off changing the statement to reduce administrative tasks. It makes the statement meaningless.

Transition points – from a post-16 institution to a university! Universities should be included. Have the Pathfinders reported on any cases where plans have ceased after a young adult (younger than 25) has taken up a university place? How straightforward is applying for Disabled Students Allowance at university? What happens when the amount does not meet the needs? Does this support always arrive in time before the course starts?

It is confusing to read that EHC plans ‘replace’ statements; implies that all children on a statement/LDA will be getting a plan which don’t believe will be the case in practice. LAs will be trying hard to reduce the number of plans compared to statements simply because of current economic climate.

DRAFT SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS REGULATIONS

The Special Educational Needs (Local Offer) Regulations (Clause 30 and chapter 5 of the draft SEN Code of Practice)

28 Do the draft regulations set out clearly what local authorities are required to do to prepare, publish and review their local offer?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

The Special Educational Needs (SEN co-ordinators) Regulations (Clause 62 and chapter 6 of the draft SEN Code of Practice)

29 Do the draft regulations set out clearly the requirements on schools in relation to the qualifications and experience, role, functions and responsibilities of their Special Educational Needs Co-Ordinator (SENCO)?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

The Special Educational Needs (Information) Regulations (Clause 65 and draft SEN Code of Practice)

30 Do the draft regulations set out clearly what information schools are expected to publish about their arrangements for identifying, assessing and supporting children with special educational needs?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

Remaining in a special school or post-16 institution without an Education, Health and Care plan Regulations (Clause 34 and chapter 7 of the draft SEN Code of Practice)

31 Are the draft regulations clear about the circumstances in which a child or young person without an Education, Health and Care plan may remain in a special school or special post-16 institution following an assessment of their needs?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

32 Are the draft regulations clear about what should happen where a child or young person without an Education, Health and Care plan remains in a special school or special post-16 institution following a change in their circumstances?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

Education (Special Educational Needs) (Assessment and plan) Regulations (Clauses 36, 37, 44 and 45 and chapter 7 of the draft SEN Code of Practice)

Are the draft regulations clear about what action a local authority should take regarding:

33 a) Education, Health and Care assessments?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

33 b) Education, Health and Care plans?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

33 c) Timescales for Education, Health and Care plans?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

33 d) The transfer of Education, Health and Care plans?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

33 e) Reviews and reassessments?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

33 f) Ceasing to maintain Education, Health and Care plans?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

The Approval of Independent Educational Institutions and Special Post-16 Institutions Regulations (Clause 41 and chapter 7 of the draft SEN Code of Practice)

34 Are the draft regulations clear about which institutions can be approved for the purposes of requests to be named in an Education, Health and Care plan and the matters the Secretary of State will take into account in giving and withdrawing his approval?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

The Special Educational Needs (Personal Budgets and Direct Payments) Regulations (Clause 49 and chapter 7 of the draft SEN Code of Practice)

35 Are the draft regulations clear about the arrangements for seeking a Personal Budget and the local authority’s duties in respect of Personal Budgets?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

36 Are the draft regulations clear on the arrangements for direct payments?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

The Special Educational Needs (Appeal) Regulations (Clause 51 and chapter 9 of the draft SEN Code of Practice)

37 Are the draft regulations clear about the circumstances in which appeals may be brought?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

The Special Education Needs (Mediation) Regulations (Clause 52 and chapter 9 of the draft SEN Code of Practice)

38 Are the draft regulations clear about how arrangements for mediation are intended to work?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

The regulations may cover “requiring a local authority to pay reasonable travel expenses and other expenses of a prescribed description, up to any prescribed limit”.

39 a) What expenses do you think it would be reasonable for the regulations to cover?

Comments:

See above

39 b) Should there be prescribed limits and, if so, how much should they be?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

The Special Educational Needs (Children’s Rights to Appeal Pilot scheme) Order (Clause 54) 

40 Does the draft Order set out reasonable arrangements for local authorities to pilot giving children the right to appeal to the Tribunal?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

41 Will this provide a sufficient basis on which to decide whether to extend the right to appeal across England?  

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Have answered ‘No’ in light of responses above but am concerned that it may be too late anyway to influence regulations by closing date of consultation.

Any Other Comments

42 Please provide any further comments on the draft regulations here.

Comments:

Believe it may already be too late to influence regulations by closing date of this consultation. Also think it is virtually impossible to expect parents to have read and commented on the code let alone the regulations and to be able to decipher legal jargon/format unless they have legal training Just have to hope that someone with appropriate expertise has been able to comment with parents in mind.

TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Transferring Children and Young People with Statements of SEN and Learning Difficulty Assessments to Education, Health and Care Plans

43 Some children and young people will be undergoing special educational needs assessments on the current system on 1 September 2014. Should that assessment result in a statement/Learning Difficulty Assessment or an Education, Health and Care plan? Please explain the reason for your opinion.

x Statement/Learning Difficulty Assessment

Education, Health and Care Plan Not Sure

Comments:

In Derbyshire where I live I do not believe enough time is being allowed to implement the new system. Pathfinder authorities have had far more time and they may well be in a position to transfer in September 2014.

Pace of Transition

44 Do you agree that the overall period for transition from statements of SEN to Education, Health and Care plans should be three years? Please explain the reason for your opinion. If you do not agree, please say what timeframe you think would be appropriate.

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Given that this legislation seems to be driving the localism agenda (rightly or wrongly!), it should be up to the individual authority to decide so that it is able to provide the best possible quality service to all children, young people and their families. That will depend whether an authority has been a Pathfinder or not. Timescales suggested may (or may not!) be suitable for Pathfinders, but entirely unworkable for the rest of the LAs.

45 Do you agree that Learning Difficulty Assessments should be phased out within two years? Please explain the reason for your opinion. If you do not agree, please say what timeframe you think would be appropriate.

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

As previous answer.

The Process for Transition

46 Do you agree that local authorities, following consultation with young people and parents, should determine the best point in any given year to transfer a statement of SEN/Learning Difficulty Assessment to an Education, Health and Care plan, and that this should replace the usual annual review?

Yes No x Not Sure

Comments:

Need flexibility, depends what age, stage of education child or young person is at. Agreement of parent carer forums essential here for sake of transparency.

47 Do you agree that where a child or young person makes the transfer from a statement of SEN/Learning Difficulty Assessment to an Education, Health and Care plan, their plan should be written using the principles set out in section 7.9 of the draft SEN Code of Practice?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Given issues raised earlier in this document regarding this section of the code it would have to be a no until all concerns are satisfactorily addressed.

48 Do you agree that the right to request an Education, Health and Care Plan should be limited to new referrals during the three year transition period? If not, why not?

Yes x No Not Sure

Comments:

Answered ‘no’ because what is already in place in statement may not be working. Three years is too long to wait to remedy something that isn’t working – it relates to almost half a child’s period in primary or secondary education and as such is totally unacceptable. (This would also be true of anyone aged 16-25).

Phasing the Transition

49 a) Do you agree that government should establish a broad framework setting out the slowest acceptable rate of transfer from statements of SEN to Education, Health and Care plans? If not, why not?

Yes No x Not Sure

Comments:

LAs must be given the freedom to transfer as and when they are ready and proper systems are in place.

49 b) If yes, which of the two proposed frameworks for transfer from statements of SEN to Education, Health and Care plans do you support? Why do you support this option?

Option 1: Transfer at end of key stage

Option 2: Transfer at end of current phase x

Not Sure

of education

None of the above Other (please specify)

Comments:

Have answered ‘not sure’ because not clear what ‘current phase of education’ means. If it means at the end of primary education, or at the end of secondary education, for example, then that might be a possibility BUT what must be highlighted here is that many children and young people with SEN find change extremely difficult and therefore the majority (if not all) are going to need more support not less (certainly in the short term) to enable them to make transitions as smooth and stress-free as possible. This does not always work very satisfactorily under the present system.

50 Do you agree that young people with Learning Difficulty Assessments should be able to request to transfer to an Education, Health and Care plan at any point during the proposed two year transition period? If not, why not?

Yes No x Not Sure

Comments:

People should be free to seek the best option that meets their needs – so they should be able to stick with the LDA if everything is okay, but request a transfer if it isn’t.

Implementing the Local Offer

51 Which approach to implementing the local offer should be adopted? Please explain why.

Option 1: Introduce all local offer requirements from September 2014

Option 2: Introduce all local offer requirements from April 2015

Option 3: Introduce the local offer progressively from September 2014

Not Sure x None of the above Other (please specify)

Comments:

Introduce all local offer requirements as and when it has been proven by Pathfinders that there are offers out there that are actually workable and have the support of a majority of parents. These then could be used as a template by non-Pathfinder authorities.

Local offer will be dependent on criteria for EHC plans and how they are delivered, so those surely must come first.

Any Other Comments

52 Please provide any further comments on the transitional arrangements here.

Comments:

If these reforms are to truly benefit the children and young people they are designed for, them more time has to be given to all concerned to get the right systems in place. Pathfinders should be allowed to report back, best practice should be showcased and then other authorities would be able to cherry-pick which systems best fit their areas and implement.

Given current economic climate and small amount allocated to non-Pathfinder authorities to roll out these reforms really very unsure how anything can be done within the time frame Government is suggesting.

53 Please let us have your views on responding to this consultation (e.g. the number and type of questions, whether it was easy to find, understand, complete etc.).

Comments:

The answer to all of the above is a resounding NO.

This is a horrendous consultation response document. It has taken me four entire days to complete. I have done it so that I can provide a completed questionnaire to other parent carers in Derbyshire who want to be involved in the process but quite simply have not got the time to fill it in.

The answers are collated from the views of other parent carers and from meetings attended via Derbyshire Parent Forums at county, regional and national level.

In many cases caring for a child/children or young person with special educational needs and disabilities is more than a full-time job and many parent carers also work to support their families. In no way do they have the opportunity I have had to be involved in meetings/briefings/parent forums. This is not because of a lack of interest or concern on their part; it is because it is not possible to fit anything else in. The only reason that I have been able to be involved to the degree I have is because I have been able to put my part-time work on hold (as I work for my husband’s company) and my children are in school for most of the time at the moment.

It is really hard to know where to put which answer because questions overlap and some comments may quite simply be in the wrong place. Having provided an answer for as many questions I am still left with nagging doubts about areas which I don’t have the information/experience to comment on.

What all this highlights is how wrong it is to try to implement change of this magnitude in this fashion. The speed of implementation is entirely inappropriate for the majority of people who will need to use the CoP.

Thank you for taking the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to acknowledge individual responses unless you place an 'X' in the box below.

Please acknowledge this reply. x

E-mail address for acknowledgement

Here at the Department for Education we carry out our research on many different topics and consultations. As your views are valuable to us, please confirm below if you would be willing to be contacted again from time to time either for research or to send through consultation documents.

Yes No 

All DfE public consultations are required to meet the Cabinet Office Principles on Consultation

The key Consultation Principles are:

departments will follow a range of timescales rather than defaulting to a 12-week period, particularly where extensive engagement has occurred before

departments will need to give more thought to how they engage with and consult with those who are affected

consultation should be ‘digital by default', but other forms should be used where these are needed to reach the groups affected by a policy; and

the principles of the Compact between government and the voluntary and community sector will continue to be respected.

Responses should be completed on-line or emailed to the relevant consultation email box. However, if you have any comments on how DfE consultations are conducted, please contact Carole Edge, DfE Consultation Coordinator, tel: 0370 000 2288 / email: carole.edge@education.gsi.gov.uk

Thank you for taking time to respond to this consultation.

Completed responses should be sent to the address shown below by 9 December 2013

Send by post to: Ministerial and Public Communication Division (CSDSD Team), Department for Education, Area 1C, Castle View House, East Lane, Runcorn, Cheshire WA7 2GJ.

Send by e-mail to: SENCodeOfPractice.CONSULTATION@education.gsi.gov.uk