Live webchat about the impact of the Children and Families Bill on children with additional needs, with Mencap and the Special Educational Consortium, Tuesday December 10 at 1pm

[RowanMumsnet]

We're pleased to announce that James Robinson, Policy Officer at Mencap, and Matthew Dodd, coordinator of the Special Educational Consortium, will be joining us for a live webchat on Tuesday December 10 to discuss the Children and Families Bill and its potential impact on children with additional needs.

As many of you will know, the Children and Families Bill has been making its way through Parliament and is about to enter the Report stage in the House of Lords - meaning that unless something major happens, it will become law at some point early-ish next year.

The Bill seeks to make changes to things like adoption law, the care system and the family courts system; but in this webchat we're going to be concentrating on the changes it will make to the provision of education and social care to children with additional needs.

Some fairly major changes are proposed, including:

· The replacement of statements of special educational needs with Education, Health and Care plans

· The extension of legal entitlements into the further education sector and potentially up to the age of 25

· Stronger duties on health, education and social care services to work together and jointly plan and commission services

Many organisations working with disabled children and young people have expressed concerns about some aspects of the bill, fearing that many of the reforms will not fulfill the Government's stated intention of creating a more joined-up, less adversarial system for children and young people with special educational needs or disabilities. For example, there is no duty on local authorities to deliver the social care services identified in Education Health and Care plans, and no single point of appeal. (See SEC's Briefing for the House of Lords, which goes into more detail).

We know that many Mumsnetters have been active in analysing the Bill and feeding back to Parliament on its provisions, so we hope you'll join us on Tuesday to discuss its possible impact and what might happen next. As ever, if you can't join us live on the day, do please post up your advance questions here.

Thanks
MNHQ

It seems to me that the major charities are currently obsessing about the social care aspect while neglecting to tackle the real, underlying issues with this Bill head on. Social care is important, but this looks like fiddling while Rome is burning.

My questions would be:

1. Where is the evidence base for these reforms? There is none. Why have charities not taken issue with that? Why has it taken parents and parent groups to pursue research issues - see research undertaken by Merton Mencap Why have the major charities not been undertaking this objective research with the money received from the Government?

1. Why have the major charities been taking this Government money to implement these reforms, thus aligning themselves with the reforms rather than objectively questioning their intention and application? The attempt to 'consult' with children and young people on the reforms was an exercise of contrived propaganda to benefit the Government: it was appallingly inaccessible for amny children with SEN.

1. The SEN system is not fit for purpose because of a lack of money but also because of a failure of genuine transparency, accountability and legal enforceability. How can the CFB improve the situation when it will change none of these factors? The DfE is wholly dismissive of the problems see here

1. The reality of the political context to these reforms has been naively overlooked. Thus, talk of direct payments being a choice for parents between 'marmite' and 'jam' incensed many. The reality is THERE IS NO MONEY. Plus, this is a Government that has launched a whole-scale 'war on welfare', damaging the lives of many disabled people and using arguments about the 'deserving poor'. Isn't this just more of the same? David Cameron has already described the reforms as concerntrating on those who 'really' need it. This is surely about cutting budgets.

1. LAs are not trialling DPs. They are not even telling parents about them. I and others have had to contemplate JR to even be allowed to apply. This is a huge waste of public money. Why are charities not screaming about this?

1. Some are trialling EHCPs yet these are not legally binding documents. Offering them without a statement is unalwful. What are charities doing about this?

1. What on earth is 'a sustainable marketplace for SEN'? What is SENDirect, how is it supposed to work, how did it come about, how much money are charities making from it and why are they involving themselves in it without parents? The site clearly talks of 'LA partners' and not parents. Is the intention that private organisations will tender competitively for contracts?

We need a moratorium on the bill now. This Government isn't listening to you. It's tying your charities up in meetings, and glad handling, photo opportunities while talking co-production and other jargon.

There is clear evidence that LAs are going to start dumping kids of statements as they raise the threshold for legally enforceable provision with the intro of EHCPs. Schools are already struggling with funding changes see here

There is no more money. How do you really think this is going to play out?

We'll said IE, it will be most interesting to hear the responses to the above from the web chat........... I hope there will be an honest response.

Welcome and thank you for coming on.

These are my comments and queries:

1. Consultation and collaboration with parents is purported to be the answer to creating a more joined-up, less adversarial system for children and young people with special educational needs or disabilities.

Parents who don't have access to expert independent support may be "persuaded" to accept less than their children need and are entitled to.

It is vital that parents have expert independent support throughout the process. There is much talk of key-workers, but in reality they are employees of the commissioning bodies.

1. Social Care

At a pathfinder meeting, a commissioning social worker moaned about how unreasonable parents are with their demands, and depleting her budget. Why? Because an exhausted mother had asked for a respite worker which they had assessed and agreed she needed. The social worker turned to the child and asked who he would like to look after him if mummy wasn't there. The child unsurprisingly said Nanna and this was noted as "the child's request". Nanna lived 15 miles away, had no transport and was a full-time carer for her invalid husband.

The mother did not receive respite. How will this change with the new plans?

1. Pathfinder trials

Most LAs are not trialling SEN DPs. FOI requests have shown an average of 1-2 per pathfinder LA.

Is this because there is no demand for them? In my experience, it is because LAs are not telling parents about them, even though it is compulsory when a new statement is issued or amended. I have personally asked 4 times for information, only to be fobbed off each time.

My worry is whether the low number of SEN DPs during the trial will be presented as a lack of interest from parents.

1. Lack of awareness

I run support groups locally and on social networking sites. Most parents are confused about the changes ahead. The more well-informed think it's all about extending statements to 25. Some think they can get DPs to pay for TAs to support their children. And a few even think that Health must provide the support their children need (see more later on Health below)

There are an increasing number of parents asking if they should go on the trial. Some of them have asked Parent Partnership who have advised them to do so. My concern is whether PPs have presented the legal pros and cons.

EHCPs are not legally binding documents, and any that are issued before Sep 2014 will need to be reassessed.

The message about the new EHCPs is not getting through.

Charities should present clear advice to parents.

1. Health

Joint commissioning is supposed to be one of the big Pluses of the new process. So where is it going wrong?

• There will still be no single point of appeal
• Commissioning bodies will have the right to call for a reassessment anytime they want to. So if you've finally got your plan described, specified and quantified, and perhaps gone through tribunal, Health could turn round the next month and ask for it to be changed. They can do this.

So my question is How are you standing up for the right of children and families?

Thank you

place marking for this one.

This is brilliant. Thank you MNHQ and Mencap.

Questions to follow.

I have two burning questions at the moment:

Many Local Authorities have been reporting back to the Government, their own Local Councillors and even Council Officers that parents are finding Direct Payments confusing and difficult to manage, and yet from These FOI Requests it appears that there are hardly any Direct Payments being trialled.

1. Who is responsible for uncovering the truth to ensure that what Local Authorities report about the pathfinders is trustworthy and reliable and not made up to forward their own agendas?

My second question is very simple (or at least it should be).

2. How would you envisage I would get Direct Payments to employ a highly trained and qualified teaching assistant to be my child's 1:1 at school instead of the more expensive untrained babysitter he currently has? I have no desire for the on-costs nor 'help' from brokers or agencies.

Thank you.

Thank you for doing this webchat.

No question as yet, but marking my place.

Thank you for doing this. My question is how do you see "medical hours" working. I have a ds who has cerebral palsy. We live in an area where they had a system of medical hours for children like ds who need hours to access the curriculum, rather than 1-1 for more obvious educational needs, as after all ds can't learn if he can't get to the classroom. There was a perfectly good system here within the current law to allow this, and yet no-one has a clue what will happen with this for September when ds will start school. We have are applying for a statement because we know it is now the only way to get the funding, but a statement is not what we need. In our case joining health in has meant getting health needs covered has become much harder. Surely this is not what was intended but is instead just another way of saving money... How can their be a sensible system when no-one in the health system has a clue what they can do to actually get in to the schools to see the children, where the education physiologist basically said this was a waste of his time as the issue is ds can't walk, and where if statements are going to provide physio (our main need) ot and salt there are no physios, ots and salts to support children! The old system wasn't perfect but this seems to all be designed to save money.

My question is about eligibility criteria for EHC Plans. The draft SEN Code of Practice appears to suggest that only children and young people who require top-up funding from the High Needs block would qualify (e.g. see page 92: “This is likely to be where the special educational provision required to meet the child or young person’s needs cannot reasonably be provided from within the resources normally available to mainstream early years providers, schools and post 16 institutions.”). The statement in the transitional document that “the overwhelming majority of children and young people with statements and LDAs will require EHC plans, unless local or individual circumstances have changed ” is extremely worrying in that respect – presumably local authorities could argue that the recent changes to funding arrangements constitute a change in “local circumstances”?

The question I'd like to ask is really just how confident are you that your policy statements/views/input into consultation process is actually being listened to - and more crucially - being acted upon?

The policy statements re the Second Reading and the COP raise very valid concerns. Will the govt take a blind bit of notice or will they just nod and smile and ignore it? Have they taken notice of you in any meaningful way so far during the drafting process?

I also second starlight's question re Direct Payments - how do you envisage this working? How much actual independence will parents have in choosing support for their children? This part of the Bill seems unbelievably cloudy and cloak-and-daggers. What do you think?

I echo the thanks given for asking for comments and organising this and Hothead's point about hearing what these groups intend to do or what their line is on the Bill as it stands.

I have to say duties on health, education etc to 'work together' actually alarm me as many parents have experience of block contracted provision and 'blanket policies' already. Won't we just end up with a united front of health and LA services saying: we don't offer these types of services or we don't offer them for these types of children?

Again it is all about the money and there is a real need to think about the reality of the economic context of these proposals. There is no more money.

Final point, with so much seeming annoyance and outrage at the draft COP and the way the progress of the Bill is being dealt with, why not demand a moratorium in a united front with the other charities? It would make the point that charities will not be railroaded and that there is deep unease at these reforms. Even if it doesn't achieve anything, you will have lost nothing. Why not make a stand?

I understand IPSEA is calling for a moratorium. On Human Rights Day, make a stand for children's rights.

i am sorry to miss the live chat, but would echo what the previous poster said.

Please, on #humanrightsday, join with IPSEA and make a stand for children's rights.

I do have concerns that LA's can just simply continue to ignore guidance and statutory duties and will not be held accountable whilst children with SEN (and their families) suffer.

When I have raised various matters with my LA they say 'it's just guidance, not statutory' to enable them to wriggle out of any wrongdoing.

As SENmerrygoround has said there are concerns about children not receiving a full time education. Again,I have had concerns about this and found that complaining gets you nowhere. Parents are told that we can go to the LGO if we're not happy with the LA response but the LGO have even advised me that although the LA have broken the law there is 'no fault' found. How can that be right?

So, can you please tell me what is the point of laws and codes of practices being put in place if LA's can simply choose to act as they wish anyway with no accountability?

Test

Hi

James Robinson, Policy Officer at Mencap, and Matthew Dodd, coordinator of the Special Educational Consortium, have arrived and are itching to answer your questions on the Children and Families Bill and its implications for families with SEN children. Please do join in, and if you're tweeting remember the #thisismychild hashtag

If IPSEA are right - which they usually are in my experiance - what on earth is going to happen when my son reaches 16 years old and the LA start sending all documents to him - not me! Will I have to go to court to remain in the conversation? This is just outrageous. What will Mencap and SEC do about it?

IPSEA has released its views on the draft Code etc today here

@Homsa

My question is about eligibility criteria for EHC Plans. The draft SEN Code of Practice appears to suggest that only children and young people who require top-up funding from the High Needs block would qualify (e.g. see page 92: ?This is likely to be where the special educational provision required to meet the child or young person?s needs cannot reasonably be provided from within the resources normally available to mainstream early years providers, schools and post 16 institutions.?). The statement in the transitional document that ?the overwhelming majority of children and young people with statements and LDAs will require EHC plans, unless local or individual circumstances have changed ? is extremely worrying in that respect ? presumably local authorities could argue that the recent changes to funding arrangements constitute a change in ?local circumstances??

Hi Homsa

That’s a really important question about eligibility criteria for EHC assessments.

In the Children and Families Bill, the threshold for an EHC assessment is exactly the same as for a statutory assessment now. Legally, nothing will change.

However, in the draft Code of Practice, as you rightly point out, the threshold for an assessment is described as when provision “ cannot reasonably be provided from within the resources normally available to mainstream early years providers, schools and post 16 institutions”. This is different from how it is expressed in the current Code where there is far more detail about when a local authority should undertake a statutory assessment (pages 80-89).

This is particularly worrying because we know that some local authorities are publicly stating that they are going to issue less EHC plans than statements of SEN. Legally, the threshold for assessment will be the same for an EHC plan as for a statement, so this should not be the case. That is why it is so crucial that the Code of Practice clearly explains the legal duties in the Children and Families Bill. SEC feels that the draft Code of Practice needs a lot more work until it does this.

You can see our statement on the draft Code of Practice here:www.councilfordisabledchildren.org.uk/what-we-do/special-educational-consortium/read-our-latest-briefings

Matthew

Which of the proposed changes are you confident are improvements?

Which changes are you most worried about?

If the COP needs a lot more work, why not demand a moratorium to let the Gov know this is not good enough and will not be tolerated.

@senmerrygoround

Welcome and thank you for coming on.

These are my comments and queries:

1. Consultation and collaboration with parents is purported to be the answer to creating a more joined-up, less adversarial system for children and young people with special educational needs or disabilities.

Parents who don't have access to expert independent support may be "persuaded" to accept less than their children need and are entitled to.

It is vital that parents have expert independent support throughout the process. There is much talk of key-workers, but in reality they are employees of the commissioning bodies.

1. Social Care

At a pathfinder meeting, a commissioning social worker moaned about how unreasonable parents are with their demands, and depleting her budget. Why? Because an exhausted mother had asked for a respite worker which they had assessed and agreed she needed. The social worker turned to the child and asked who he would like to look after him if mummy wasn't there. The child unsurprisingly said Nanna and this was noted as "the child's request". Nanna lived 15 miles away, had no transport and was a full-time carer for her invalid husband.

The mother did not receive respite. How will this change with the new plans?

1. Pathfinder trials

Most LAs are not trialling SEN DPs. FOI requests have shown an average of 1-2 per pathfinder LA.

Is this because there is no demand for them? In my experience, it is because LAs are not telling parents about them, even though it is compulsory when a new statement is issued or amended. I have personally asked 4 times for information, only to be fobbed off each time.

My worry is whether the low number of SEN DPs during the trial will be presented as a lack of interest from parents.

1. Lack of awareness

I run support groups locally and on social networking sites. Most parents are confused about the changes ahead. The more well-informed think it's all about extending statements to 25. Some think they can get DPs to pay for TAs to support their children. And a few even think that Health must provide the support their children need (see more later on Health below)

There are an increasing number of parents asking if they should go on the trial. Some of them have asked Parent Partnership who have advised them to do so. My concern is whether PPs have presented the legal pros and cons.

EHCPs are not legally binding documents, and any that are issued before Sep 2014 will need to be reassessed.

The message about the new EHCPs is not getting through.

Charities should present clear advice to parents.

1. Health

Joint commissioning is supposed to be one of the big Pluses of the new process. So where is it going wrong?

• There will still be no single point of appeal
• Commissioning bodies will have the right to call for a reassessment anytime they want to. So if you've finally got your plan described, specified and quantified, and perhaps gone through tribunal, Health could turn round the next month and ask for it to be changed. They can do this.

So my question is How are you standing up for the right of children and families?

Thank you

Hi senmerrygoround,

Really good questions. I completely agree about the keyworker role. Mencap believes it is an absolutely vital one to not only help families participate in decision effectively, but also to help them navigate their way through the new system.

The draft SEN Code of Practice talks about both a keyworker role and also an Independent Supporter role which would provide “help through the statutory process, from requesting an assessment through to the agreement of the EHC Plan and any associated personal budget”. This could be incredibly useful for families but, at the moment, this is “subject to availability” so councils don’t have to provide it. We think they must do. Also, as you say, it is local authority commissioned and we don’t see how full independence can be guaranteed if this is the case.

With regard to the respite/short breaks point, first, that sounds like a wholly unhelpful reaction from the commissioner – short breaks are a vital service and it is completely unreasonable to expect a family to care for someone all hours of the day without getting the breaks they need to continue to do so.

In terms of how this could change, as the plan covers education, health and social care, short breaks and other social care provision should be factored into the support someone needs and, where necessary, listed in the plan. At the moment, there isn’t a duty to provide the social care someone is assessed as needing, but we are working very closely with the government at the moment on addressing this. If there is a duty to do this, this could ensure that the family gets the short breaks it needs. I’d also add that, while children are to be more involved in decisions about them under the reforms, it is still the parents’ final say so until the person is 16 or older.

Re DPs, I believe the government is aware that the apparent lack of demand from parents is driven by confusion as to what a budget can be used to buy from all parties concerned. Given the huge uptake of personal budgets in social care, for example, I’d be very surprised if the demand in pathfinder areas is as a result of a lack of interest.

I completely agree with the need for clear advice. We are very aware that the success of the new reforms is largely based on families being aware of their rights and how the system works. There is information on both the Council for Disabled Children and Mencap’s websites and SENDirect is being developed to help provide the information that families need. I see one of the main roles of charities in the coming months as being able to provide families with information about the changes, so any advice that anyone has on the best ways to get information across to parents would be very welcome.

In terms of your final point, we are campaigning very strongly about the lack of a single point of appeal which seems nonsensical in a supposedly holistic system. We are continuing to make really strong representations to government and there is likely to be a substantial debate in the House of Lords on this on the 7th January.

On the other point you make, I will look into it and get back to you if that's ok.

James

@StarlightMcKenzie

I have two burning questions at the moment:

Many Local Authorities have been reporting back to the Government, their own Local Councillors and even Council Officers that parents are finding Direct Payments confusing and difficult to manage, and yet from These FOI Requests it appears that there are hardly any Direct Payments being trialled.

1. Who is responsible for uncovering the truth to ensure that what Local Authorities report about the pathfinders is trustworthy and reliable and not made up to forward their own agendas?

My second question is very simple (or at least it should be).

2. How would you envisage I would get Direct Payments to employ a highly trained and qualified teaching assistant to be my child's 1:1 at school instead of the more expensive untrained babysitter he currently has? I have no desire for the on-costs nor 'help' from brokers or agencies.

Thank you.

Hi Starlight,

Great questions.

The evaluation of the pathfinders is being undertaken by a research organisation called SQW (www.sqw.co.uk/). They are independent of the Department for Education and have been contracted to do the work. SQW’s methodology is set out in their reports on pathfinder progress. I think that any problems with the evidence from pathfinders would be identified by SQW in the course of the research, as they are an experienced organisation.

In terms of personal budgets, the legislation as currently set out, the following process would need to take place:

• Your child’s Education Health and Care plan would need to specify the teaching assistant and the qualifications and training that they need to support your child.

• You would need to request a Direct Payment for the teaching assistant and the local authority would need to agree to your request. If it agrees to a Direct Payment, the local authority would then allocate an amount of money for you to secure the teaching assistant.

• Because the teaching assistant would be working in the classroom you would also need to get the agreement of the headteacher

• You would then need to employ the teaching assistant.

Quite a process!!

Matthew