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

Where is the evidence that failure to trial DPs is driven by 'confusion'?

There is too much rhetoric. We need evidence. My experience, and that of others is, we ask, we get refused and have to fight for DPs. And we are the ones that know about them.

We have sought to obtain our own evidence. Many LAs are seeking to disguise DPs for transport or social care as SEN DPs.

What has been done so far isn't working. The Government isn't listening to you. You either do some drastic or get tarred with this mess.

@inappropriatelyemployed

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?

Hi inappropriatelyemployed, thanks very much for your questions.

I’m going to try and go through them one by one, but for the sake of this web chat I’ll keep my response as brief as possible so please feel free to contact me ([email protected]) if you would like more detail on anything I say.

As a charity, our role is to safeguard the interests of our particular stakeholder group and thus our actions and activities are driven by this principle. For the Children and Families Bill, this means ensuring that the aspirations set out in the SEN Green Paper in 2011 – with which we agree – are reflected in the legislation and that they work for children and young people with a learning disability.

As you say, the evidence base for reforms is critical and it’s important to acknowledge that these reforms come on the back of a large body of evidence (including the Lamb Inquiry) showing that the current SEN system is not fit for purpose.

We believe that the SEN Green Paper set out a valid basis for a new system but, in saying this, we are concerned that there is not enough opportunity for pathfinders to effectively trial the practicalities of this new approach. This was raised in the Education Select Committee evidence sessions that took place at the end of last year (www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmeduc/uc631-i/uc63101.htm) with the result being that the pathfinder period was extended by 18 months until September 2014. It is, of course, a major issue that reforms will continue to be trialled after the legislation is due to be passed, and we have made that clear to the government on a number of occasions and will continue to do so.

I appreciate that this is very frustrating; however, I can assure you that the campaigning work seen by the public is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is taking place behind the scenes.

With regard to money received from government, Royal Mencap is part of the SEN Consortium which has been funded to deliver SENDirect. Some local Mencap groups are also being funded to participate in the pathfinder areas, but these are independent of national Mencap and I wouldn’t want to speak on their behalf.

Many of the pathfinders have been highly effective in feeding up concerns about the reforms and how they will be implemented. For me, participation in pathfinder areas and the receipt of government money in this context shouldn’t be seen as an endorsement of government policy, nor should it compromise an organisation’s ability to question the reforms in general. As our work is driven by the need to ensure that the reforms work for children and young people with a learning disability, we have been clear that the reforms still require significant improvement if they are to meet the aspirations set out in the Green Paper.

You raise a very valid point and it really will be the acid test with regard to whether the reforms are effective or not. To me, it comes down to implementation and the necessary culture change that should accompany it. There is only so much a piece of legislation can do if the theory behind it is not faithfully enacted. For example, the principle in the Bill to involve families more in the system will only work if local authorities and those implementing it embrace this culture shift. If they do, issues like transparency and accountability will be in a position to be improved.

Once the reforms go through, translating these theories into practices will require a huge amount of work. Will it happen? I hope so. However, these reforms do provide professionals with an opportunity to assess their practices against a set of principles – like greater family involvement – and see how they can change for the better.

Sadly there is no additional money in the system aside from the transitional investment from government which equates to about £75k per local authority. We’ve raised this as a big issue because implementing a new system is bound to cost additional resources in terms of training, establishing new ways of working, etc.

While funding is certainly a valid concern, and we are, of course, strongly calling for more investment to be made, these reforms aren’t driven by the need to reprioritise any children or young people – the government has expressly said that those already on statements should be eligible to receive an EHC Plan. This, therefore, should not be a piece of legislation about saving money – more about redirecting existing resources to new areas.

Direct payments are a major issue. However, I have to say that, while I was aware that many parents were rejecting direct payments because of a lack of information about them, I was not aware that some parents are not being offered them at all despite requesting them. This should obviously not be happening and I would be happy to talk to anyone who has any issues with this (contact details above), or IPSEA are a good organisation to offer advice to families.

As you say, pathfinders trialling EHC Plans must maintain existing legal protections for families. The issue you mention has been raised with the DfE and they have sent a letter to local authorities clarifying the issue (www.ipsea.org.uk/AssetLibrary/News/(DfE)%20Letter%20to%20Pathfinders.pdf). I would urge anyone affected to show their local authority this letter to clarify the issue.

I hope that is helpful/answers at least some of the question you have.

James

James, thank you v much for responding. I have raised this with the DfE and they are not remotely concerned and even criticised me for having to threaten a judicial review to be allowed to apply for DPs. A senior person from a charity was also advised to 'talk' to me about this.

If there isn't effective evidence available and the changes are potentially detrimental, you should draw a clear line in the sand and tell the Gov no further at this stage.

Telling families it is up to them to show LAs a letter from the Gov t to ensure they get enforceable protection is, with respect, not good enough

The Gov should ensure that NO pathfilnder offers unlawful provision in an unenforceable EHCP. Not harried parents who may or may not have access to such documents.

All charities should be standing up for parents and saying that too.

@inappropriatelyemployed

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?

Hi again innappropriatelyemployed,

In response to question 7 above, I spoke to SENDirect and they were happy to respond directly to your point. Please see what they said below:

What is SENDirect?

SENDirect will be a national online brokerage service offering families of children with special educational needs and/or disabilities (CYPSEND) support selecting and purchasing services using personal budgets. . It aims to ensure that all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities get the support they need to thrive and to choose the right services should they wish to access a personal budget.
SENDirect will be the first service of its kind offering:
• An Online Marketplace: allowing families to find compare & purchase services online.
• Accessible Information: giving families access to research, and legislation needed to intelligently commission on their child’s behalf.
• Market Development: Analysis of unreturned searches/ purchase data, used to encourage the creation of new /different services meeting families’ needs.

How did it come about?

The SENDirect product idea resulted from conversations about the potential impact of the Children & Families Bill on children and young people with Special Educational Needs and/ or Disabilities and their families.

There are 3 main groups of stakeholders affected by these factors children & young people with SEND and their families, Commissioning Authorities and Service Providers.

Consultation undertaken with these stakeholders (Cordis Bright 2012, Exploring Choices) identified clear financial and social benefits to a service that could do the following things:
• Allow viewing, comparison & purchase of services using geographical, price, service type and child’s requirements as search criteria.
• Offer families the chance to review services according to criteria that is important to them.
• Support providers who are used to commissioners working as intermediaries to advertise services directly to families.
• Compile details on search data – (in particular unreturned searches) in order to support commissioners to understand what new/ different services families want.
• provide tools and information to support families or nominated professionals to manage personal budgets
• provide a forum for families and professionals to undertake a dialogue about relative benefits of different types of services
All beneficiaries stated in addition to the above functions to be effective a service would need to:
• be portable/ accessible from anywhere
• be easy to use and
• Require minimal maintenance & be instantly updateable.

How much money are charities making from it?

Is the intention that private organisations will tender competitively for contracts?

SENDirect has received grant funding from the Department of Health and the Department of Education. The terms of this grant funding clearly state that this money can only be used on developing the SENDirect service and not to subsidise any core activity of any consortium member charities.

Equally it is not the intention or function of SENDirect to promote particular charities or groups of providers in order to secure further revenue. Instead it would aim to support all providers to have an equal platform on which to communicate with parents. Asking for a consistency of information from providers is intended to increase the information available to families to allow them to make informed choices, not in any way to limit their choice.

Why are they involving themselves in it without parents?

The site clearly talks of 'LA partners' and not parents.

The use of the term Local Authorities, has been used to describe geographical areas, not to limit the partnerships developed in these areas. Expressions of interest to be a partner area were released to Parent Carer Forums and Local Authorities on the same day. Local Authorities were only long- listed as partners, if they also provided a reference from their parent carer forum, representatives of parent carer forums, health bodies and local authorities were interviewed as part of the shortlisting process. In addition groups of parents from each area contributed to the consultation that shaped our web specification, and will continue to be key contributors to shaping SENDirect. Any parent regardless of if they live in a pilot area is welcome to shape our progress through being an expert advisory panel member – you can register here.

Thankyou for the feedback on the wording of the website – it is misleading and we will work to correct this in order that it is clear that parent carers are valued partners.

@DisAstrophe

Which of the proposed changes are you confident are improvements?

Which changes are you most worried about?

Thanks DisAstrophe,

I've never been asked that before!

In my view, the best aspects of the Bill are the extension of entitlements to young people in college, apprenticeships, and those who are not in education, employment or in training. This is a major change and something that, if successfully implemented, could make a real difference.

The biggest concerns for me are the lack of accountability, particularly the lack of a single point of appeal. As currently set out, parents or young people will potentially need to appeal to three separate agencies (education, health and social care) about the contents of EHC plans. This looks like a recipe for massive confusion

Matthew

I still don't understand what you are seeking to do with this 'brokerage'. Is it needed or wanted?

@bialystockandbloom

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?

Hi Bialystockandbloom

Thanks for the question on how we influence change.

To my mind, there is no doubt that the Department for Education actively considers the points that SEC and others make (otherwise I really wouldn’t want to do this job). Sometimes they will accept our points and sometimes they don’t. While we may disagree with the approach they decide to take I think it would be unfair to say they don’t listen.

You also asked about personal budgets and direct payments. I agree 100% that the draft Code is very unclear about how this will work. For example: how will local authorities decide how much funding to allocate for a particular service and how can parents and young people challenge this? The section in the Code on personal budgets is one of the areas that we feel needs a lot more work.

Matthew

@bialystockandbloom

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?

Hi bialystockandbloom, thanks for your question.

To add to Matthew’s point, I think, as charities who work very closely with our stakeholders, we have a lot of valuable expertise to bring to the table and it is in the government’s best interests to listen to those who do know a lot about the practicalities of the SEN system.

I think we have to be fair to the government who have generally engaged with the sector and continue to do so. There have been some major changes to both the Bill and the Code of Practice as a result of this such as the duty to deliver the health support set out in an EHC Plan. Also, if you look at the difference between the indicative draft Code of Practice (media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/s/sen%20code%20of%20practice%20indicative%20draft%20for%20committee.pdf) and the draft Code of Practice (www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251839/Draft_SEN_Code_of_Practice_-_statutory_guidance.pdf), you can see that there has been a lot of development. Would we like them to change more? Absolutely and we’re dedicating a lot of effort to continue to push for improvements to the reforms.

James

Senmerryground;

My DP experience

1. Can I have DP info
2. No we are not doing that
3. Law says you have to send me it as you are Pathfinder
4. No we are not doing that
5. Can I apply
6. No we are not doing DPs
7. Law says I am entitled to info and to apply
8. No we are not doing DPs
9. I shall get a lawyer to write to you as this is ultra vires and judicially reviewable

10. We are not doing DPs and DfE says what we are doing is super 11. Send pre action protocol letter 12. Call from senior charity staff asking for details of my experience - can only say, I want to apply and they won't let me and they are breaking the law. Told there is lots of confusion 13. Ten months later get DPs. 14. Write to DfE who tell me it is disappointing I felt it necessary to apply for JR

Yup, a clearly accessible system with LAs really wanting to offer DPs.

Stuck in the middle of yet another DP battle now. Asked for DPs in JULY. Yes, let's see how that pans out.

Where is the evidence going to come from if no one is allowed to trial them and what on earth are you going to broker?

Sorry too many posts - will duck out and let others have their say

@inappropriatelyemployed

Telling families it is up to them to show LAs a letter from the Gov t to ensure they get enforceable protection is, with respect, not good enough

The Gov should ensure that NO pathfilnder offers unlawful provision in an unenforceable EHCP. Not harried parents who may or may not have access to such documents.

All charities should be standing up for parents and saying that too.

Hi inappropriatelyemployed,

I agree that it should not be up to parents to have to do this. The letter itself was sent to pathfinders in order to clarify what they should be doing legally. If this continues to happen despite pathfinders having a clear directive from the government, then, absolutely, charities and others should hold them to account for it.

James

@fightingourcorner

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?

Hi Fightingourcorner,

Guidance and legislation is part of the solution, but only part of it. As you say, pubic bodies do not always follow what the law says so it is vital that we get other things right. For example:

• Changing the culture of how the health service and local authorities work together
• Making sure teachers have the right skills and attitudes
• Making sure we have an education system that recognises and values the achievements of all children

Matthew

But they don't follow the law deliberately.

You have to hit this head on.

It's not because they're confused, or they think their policy is the law or because their 'hearts and minds' need winning over.

It is because they have one way of doing things and not enough money to do it that way. So every challenge to their budget is fought by whatever means necessary.

By letting kids go without provision, and let the parents chase them through JR or LGO.

By forcing matters to Tribunal even when they know they will fail as the 6-8 month wait saves money they will never have to spend.

By leaving complex kids languishing out of school, because they alternative is thousands in education costs.

They know this is unlawful. The Education Act is clear about individual needs. It's not enforced and parents police the whole system and we are tired beyond endurance of doing so.

We need to start calling a spade a spade if there is to be any real change.

It's all about the money.

@senmerrygoround

Why does support end when children are unable to attend school? How will the EHCP change this?

For example:

Therapies
My son has Aspergers and due to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is unable to attend regularly. He is not receiving S&LT and OT clearly described, specified and quantified in his sen statement. His SENCO shrugged her shoulders and said it was nothing to do with the school. The LA said as he was not attending regularly they would not provide his statemented 1-1 therapy which can be delivered away from school.

Alternative provision
Children are entitled to a full-time education, but if they are unable to attend regularly, or at all, if you're lucky you may get 5 hours home tuition a week. Even this is often hard fought, and many barriers are put up to delay and obstruct such provision.

How will this change?

Hi senmerrygoround, thanks again for your questions.

I’d say it’s strange that professionals were saying SLT/OT is not to do with the school when it’s listed in a statement as being an intervention that pertains to someone’s education. The local authority must ensure that, if it is specified and quantified in the statement, they provide it and this will be the case in the new system.

I have to confess that I might have to look into the response to your other question in a bit more detail and get back to you about it off thread ([email protected]).

James

I have to agree with IE - LA's know they are breaking the law but also know that no one will hold them accountable for it. It is all about saving money by avoiding having to put in place the right provision for a child with disabilities or SEN. The system stinks quite frankly and no-one seems to care.

Thank you for your replies Matthew and James.

Just picking up on your response to starlightmckenzie question:

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!!

Ha ha believe us when we say that that's nothing compared to going to tribunal

I wonder if some of us would have the same battle at the beginning of the process though, re specification of TA's training and expertise. Especially those (like me) who have had an ideological battle with LA/school about the type of support provided for my ASD son.

Anyway, if you don't mind, another question:

Are you happy that the detail re specification and quantification of provision (ie part 3 of SEN Statements) is as robust as it should be? At the early stages this was extremely weak wasn't it. Do you think it's tight enough now?

Yes. It has taken me 6 months to get the LA to agree to put in place provision for my son despite agreement of all parties supporting him and his school.

6 months without education save what I could afford to supply myself.

Now they are arguing with themselves about how they are going to fund it. Will it be DPs or something else?

The fact that he still has NO education save what. I am supplying is immaterial.

The fact that we asked for DPs in July doesn't seem to make any difference to the speed of their response.

It's all about shifting the buck and trying to get another dept to pay for provision.

And this is a Pathfinder Champion!

It's time to get real and call for a moratorium on this nonsense.

@muchadoaboutsomething

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.

Thanks Muchadoaboutsomething,

The Government's intention is that the reforms will strengthen the way health and education work together. I don't think there is anything in the reforms that will stop the type of agreement you are talking about from continuing to take place (in fact I think the Government wants to encourage more of these types of arrangements).

I think you are also referring to the duty on health commissioners to secure the 'health' part of EHC plans. This was added in by the Government when the Children and Families Bill was in the House of Commons. I think major problem with the new duty is that health commissioners have a veto over what goes into an EHC plan and parents and young people have very little right to challenge this decision.

Matthew

Hi All

Just to say Matthew and James are going to stay on for the next 10 mins or so to cover all the outstanding questions.

K

Why not let the Government speak for itself on its intentions?

Charities should be setting out their own case clearly and their own red lines on brokerage and DPs, on rushed consultations and lack of enforceability etc

Would be great to have them comment on whether they think standing united with IPSEAs demand for a moratorium would help children?

@bialystockandbloom

Thank you for your replies Matthew and James.

Just picking up on your response to starlightmckenzie question:

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!!

Ha ha believe us when we say that that's nothing compared to going to tribunal

I wonder if some of us would have the same battle at the beginning of the process though, re specification of TA's training and expertise. Especially those (like me) who have had an ideological battle with LA/school about the type of support provided for my ASD son.

Anyway, if you don't mind, another question:

Are you happy that the detail re specification and quantification of provision (ie part 3 of SEN Statements) is as robust as it should be? At the early stages this was extremely weak wasn't it. Do you think it's tight enough now?

No problem bialystockandbloom,

The draft Code is now much stronger on this point. It states that provision in EHC plans should be 'detailed and specific, and should normally be quantified'. This effectively replicates the current guidance. While our members are unhappy with a number of aspects of the draft Code, this has not been one the issues flagged as a major concern.

As you point out though, LAs are already expected to quantify and specify provision and that doesn't always happen!

Matthew

@inappropriatelyemployed

Would be great to have them comment on whether they think standing united with IPSEAs demand for a moratorium would help children?

Hi inappropriatelyemployed,

I don't think IPSEA are calling for that. They are members of SEC and I'm not sure that is their position.

Matthew