Webchat with Edward Timpson, children's minister, on the upcoming SEND changes; TUESDAY 15 JULY at 12.15pm

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

As lots of you will know, the Children and Families Act comes into force in September, and with it some changes to the systems around special educational needs.

We know this is a topic many MN posters are deeply involved with. You may remember we've previously had chats about this with Sarah Teather (when she held the relevant government post) and with Edward Timpson himself a while back.

Edward says: 'We've been preparing for the big changes happening in SEND from September. We've been working with local authorities, parents, children, young people and many of our partner organisations in health and education to reform the systems for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I've been looking forward to discussing these changes with you as I know that SEND is a topic of great interest to many Mumsnetters.'

We hope you can join us on the day; as ever, if you can't please post up your questions in advance.

Thanks
MNHQ

Zarabowden, can you point to any evidence of culture change, particularly in light of government cuts to LA funding? What on earth is there in this legislation which will persuade LAs to be any better at obeying the law than they are currently?

Yes I agree with Wasuup, if the challenges the children are experiencing can be fobbed off on the parents then the schools will do this, rather than offer support in my experience.

Mr Timpson, why did you post on the DfE website sample EHCPlans which blatantly failed to comply with the CAFA?

@inappropriatelyemployed

I have been very concerned at the absence of transparency and accountability throughout the reform process as well as the lack of genuine engagement with parents. Any 'engagement' which has taken place appears largely to have been limited to existing Parent Carer Forums (PCFs). Yet, clearly, not all parents are in PCFs, nor do they all want to be. It could be said that engaging PCFs is the easy option and that it simply provides a fig leaf to hide the reality that most parents don't know what is going on at all.

To make matters more opaque, the involvement of the third sector has eroded the usual mechanisms for public accountability. Charities have taken contracts to drive through Government reforms yet some seem very unwilling to question the changes or engage openly. Some also seem unwilling to explain to parents how and why they believe their implementation of the reforms for the Government will actually benefit our children and young people. As there is scant empirical evidence from the pilots to demonstrate any quantifiable improvement (there was, for example, precious little trialling of direct payments beyond what was already available e.g. DPs for transport), and as many LAs are already developing new blanket policy responses to deal with new assessments etc, it is hard to see what real difference parents will see or how the CFA reform process has been anything more than a fight to stand still and retain current rights.

That is the context, to my query, but my question for the Minister is twofold and specific:

(i) what empirical research evidence supports the contention that these reforms will improve outcomes for children and young people?

(ii) is it acceptable for the Government's strategic reform partner, the Council for Disabled Children, to refuse to engage with parents as in this example from the Educational Rights Alliance? The CDC has received hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money for its role: don't parents have a right to demand the utmost transparency and engagement in changes which affect their children?

Hi inppropriatelyemployed. I agree that, although Parent Carer Forums (PCFs) are representative of a large group of parents and their views, there are many more parents out there who want to be involved and have their say. To that end I regularly meet with parents (last week I met with a group of SEN bloggers, including SENJungle), as well as other organisations set up with parents involved, such as Contact a Family and IPSEA. We also have a group of young people with SEND, the self-styled EPIC group, who have worked with us directly to ensure we draw on their experiences too. As for CDC, they have been open and transparent about progress to date and their contract to manage the Independent Supporter Programme is in the public domain.

I don't think new ECHP or CODE will change LEA's attitudes to parent's or children. Nothing will change - the wheel didn't need reinventing.

Zara What change specifically will do this:

'people will see that prevention is better than cure, that investment of time, resources, and funding SAVES money, and they will come around and demand more and better care for our little ones.'

It isn't news to anyone. It has always been the case. How will the reforms change attitudes when there is such a short-term focus on budgets. Are the staff in early years REALLY going to be motivated to fund early intervention to save the adult social care budget money.

If this was the case. Truly the case. ABA would be supplied in abundance, for all children at risk of falling behind, not just those with autism.

@wasuup2014

You know that LEA's really stretch the boundaries of the Law and SENCODEOFPRACTICE and do everything they can to not provide for children's needs, don't you Edward? I have just been forced into my 6th tribunal for my child who has full time 1-1 and multiple complex needs. LEA's don't want to work with Parents. They fail children and famillies and push them to the limits.

We've purposely changed the system to make it less adversarial, but of course where a Council is breaking the law the Government has powers to intervene. I have also made it my business to meet with Councils who need to convince me that they are match fit come September 1st and can fulfil all their statutory duties.

Parents that attend PCF are "yes people" told to keep their real opinions quiet and they are told not to support anyone who has a complaint about the LEA - Do you know that Edward?

Mr Timpson: you claim to have engaged with IPSEA, yet you ignore their concerns about the CoP and the provisions for children over 16. That isn't engagement, is it?

I hope you will intervene when you hear what Gorden Birtwistle has to say on Thursday.....

My LA now says it uses SCERTS method. The SCERTS website says you need several days, training it needs to be done 25 hours a week and need to follow 2 manuals and parents must be trained too. The LA SCERTS training is a 3 hour course for schools who can pay for more training privately if they want, the parents don get to go on the course and noone gets the manuals. How can a LA say it's using the SCERTS method for autism and how can anyone expect this to make the slightest difference to the child's outcome? LAs spend lots of money making it look like they have an 'offer' but actually have zero impact. I would not have believed the sen marketplace worked like this of I had not seen it myself. It would t happen to adults with cancer to have in effect placebo treatments to look like intervention which in fact do nothing. Vast amounts of money wasted on pointless window dressing. Nothing will change with council cuts it getting worse.

So what have you done about councils who, for instance, have been telling parents that they can't have statutory assessments before September?

Instead, early years ignore the children and hope they can push them into the schools budget. Schools ignore them until they have been so damaged they can be excluded and the problem of the LA's education budget. The Education department ignore them for as long as they can so that they can be pushed into the social care budget.

Joining up across services horizontally isn't enough, it has to be done vertically.

@StarlightMcKenzie

Dear Edward,

My Husband would like to know if you have read this:www.mumsnet.com/onlinechats/professor-richard-hastings

and what you think of it, and whether we can have any hope that the UK will adopt this cost effective and efficient a model of education that works for ALL children regardless of SEN or any other difficulty.

And whether you agree with Professor Hastings when he says '"Solve education generally, and we'll solve the issues for children with special needs."

Many thanks.

Thanks for alerting me to this. I haven't read this chat but will make it my bedtime reading tonight! I do agree however that the best way to support children with SEN is to ensure we have outstanding education for ALL children, irrespective of their needs or background.

'but of course where a Council is breaking the law the Government has powers to intervene'

THIS. This is the central most important aspect of any reform like this as is the faith of the public in it. But what does it look like. How has it changed from the failing model so far?

I agree that the legal enforcement (tribunal) system is hugely neglected in the reform process, particularly regarding the Health and Social Care elements, but the fact that there is a personalisation agenda, and that Parent Carers have a much stronger position and are referred to as EQUAL partners throughout the COP in supporting and Coproducing the delivery systems for our C&YP is a leap forward...

I appreciate there are some big failures in the potential that could have been the new SENDCOP, but there are three fundamental themes that are a great product of this reform

1. PERSONALISATION - great for the kids at the centre of this if delivered right!
2. RECOGNITION OF PARENT CARERS - we get more opportunities to support and influence the changes in the system and the delivery of the services.
3. SEND - the fact that it is Special Education Needs and Disability is a major step forward...

@wasuup2014

Many Children are being failed. I don't know if you realise the size and scope of this tragedy.

I understand your frustration wasuup2014. I fully appreciate the scale of the task we have all set ourselves. With over 2.6 million children and young people with SEN we cannot underestimate how much work needs to be done to achieve the culture shift our green paper back in 2011 made clear was needed. For that reason these reforms, which are about putting families at the centre and giving them more choice and control, are a top priority not just for me but the Department and Government as a whole.

Ah, but as long as you understand that what makes education "outstanding" for one child does not make it "outstanding" for all. There are an awful lot of schools ranked "outstanding" by OFSTED who fail abysmally to meet the needs of children with ASD for example.

I don't know if you do understand what it is like to have a child self harm, or a child bullied, or a child cry themselves to sleep at night because they don't want to go to school anymore...........

Zara, if you think that the tribunal system is there to enforce provision in statements, I'm afraid you con't know how the system works. They have no such jurisdiction.

The only way to enforce is by way of the Ombudsman (slow and very patchy in quality) or judicial review through the courts. Legal aid is available for in children's names for the latter purpose, but since the Government's wholesale decimation of legal aid it is difficult to access.

The headmaster of London secondary School recently via email refused a disabled parent disability aids, then when brought up on it, the head refused to apologise and blamed it on his union rep.

@zarabowden

I agree that the legal enforcement (tribunal) system is hugely neglected in the reform process, particularly regarding the Health and Social Care elements, but the fact that there is a personalisation agenda, and that Parent Carers have a much stronger position and are referred to as EQUAL partners throughout the COP in supporting and Coproducing the delivery systems for our C&YP is a leap forward...

I appreciate there are some big failures in the potential that could have been the new SENDCOP, but there are three fundamental themes that are a great product of this reform

1. PERSONALISATION - great for the kids at the centre of this if delivered right!
2. RECOGNITION OF PARENT CARERS - we get more opportunities to support and influence the changes in the system and the delivery of the services.
3. SEND - the fact that it is Special Education Needs and Disability is a major step forward...

Thanks zarabowden for setting some of the wider benefits of these reforms. I've been adamant all along that this is about changing the experience of families rather than making them fit into a system. Although the legislation we've passed is key to achieving this, the real difference will be made through successful implementation. The £70 million we gave Councils this year, as well as the £45 million since announced on top (plus £30 million next year and the £30 million for Independent Supporters) will help support Councils do just that.

We and thousands of other famillies have experienced abuse and discrimination by the system supposed to protect us and support our children for years. We can't see that this will change. Convince us in a few words that things will change for the better quickly as possible.. Please and thanks for responding.

wasup2014 - we are not yes people - we do not tell reps to people please.

We are representing a PROPORTION of our local area, therefore our personal agendas cannot be used UNLESS truly relevant and potentially vital to informing change and understanding.
We actively encourage our membership and reps to draw on personal experience and use that in a positive and constructive manor.

Please do not think that we are merely a 'Square Blob' as this is not the case at all!

I am a parent of a child with profound and hidden difficulties - I want to carve the best path for her imaginable, being a yes person is counterproductive!

What parents find really frustrating is that there is NOTHING in this legislation which has the capacity to bring about the culture change you refer to, Mr Timpson. If you had made the local offer enforceable, it might have achieved that.

When you post unlawful EHC Plans on your website which are uncannily similar to the vague, unspecified statements regularly produced today, that makes it even less likely that there will be any sensible culture change.