Special Educational Needs Indicative Code of Practice

CODE

Special Educational Needs – Indicative Code of Practice

Consultation– Feedback

Introduction

We are interested in your thoughts on how the Indicative Code of Practice supports the role of parent carer forums as well as the individual rights of children and families.

Please complete as many of the sections below as you can.

1.Forum Details

1.1 Forum Name: REACH Wokingham

1.2 Region: South East

1.3 Feedback Completed By:

(Please give us the names and role in the forum, EG: Chair, Co-Chair, Steering Group Member, Parent Members etc.)

Julie Monahan (Vice Chair and parent)

Judith Newman (Secretary and parent)

1.4 How many people were involved in collecting this view?2

1.5 Which of these best describe the extent your forum is working with your Local Authority and Health partnersin planning for and developing services to implement the SEN reforms? Please Select

1. / Information
2. / Consultation
3. / Participation
4. / Co-Production
5. / Other / x

1.6 If you have said “Other”, please provide us with more detail:

We are in the very early stages of working with the local authority on the reforms. We are hoping to be co-producing soon, but we are not there yet.

2.The Indicative Code of Practice In General

If you have any areas of concern regarding the indicative Code of Practice please tell us what they are.

2.1Concern 1
There are too many ‘SHOULDS’ and not enough ‘MUSTS’ which reduces the level of legal protection for children and young people and their families. The ones that we think have to change are:

2.2 – Planning MUST start with the individual ….
2.3 – Parent Partnership services MUST be available to all ….
2.4 – LAs MUST work in partnership with PCFs
4.2 – Information about how to seek an EHCP – 4th bullet point –“ any support available to families …” add “which MUST be impartial and at arms-length to the LA/NHS”.
5.1 – All children and young people MUST have an appropriate education (surely this is essential)
6.8 – If LAs decide an EHCP is not necessary the LA MUST provide feedback collected during the assessment process. Parents could request this information under the Freedom of Information Act, so why not provide it.

2.2 Concern 2
EHCPs

6.2 – Timescales for producing an EHCP – Exceptions – “Bodies providing advice…..” point c, it is worrying that the time to produce and EHCP can be delayed due to a missed appointment. Appointments are not always communicated timely and effectively, and it easy to miss an appointment when you have a disabled child e.g. a child with autism may not be cooperating that day, also a child with complex needs could be in hospital. The length of any delay should also be limited.
6.15 – Two weeks’ notice for an annual review meeting is not sufficient, and there is no requirement for reports to be obtained and circulated before the meeting. This would mean that parents would be attending a meeting at very short notice and with no prior knowledge of what is to be discusses or progress of their child.

2.3 Concern 3
The local offer is to provide information for parents on areas that are currently detailed as national guidance in the current code of practice. We feel that the following should still be detailed as national guidance in the code of practice:

4.2 Transport arrangements for children with SEN and with an EHCP. Parents need to have guidance on transport other than is given under local policy as this is too open to variation.
6.9 EHCP format. There should be a standard required format for EHCPs for the parts that are compulsory, but allow local variation for additional sections. The plans should also contain details on how the school should support the child to enable the outcomes to be achieved. If all local authorities have their own version of a plan then schools that take children from several local authorities will have difficulty in quickly assessing a child’s needs.

What solutions would you suggest to the concerns you have raised – this may include the work of your forum.

2.4 Solution 1
Change the SHOULD to MUST. Add the wording about impartial and arms-length support.
2.5 Solution 2
Delays must be considered in what is in the best interest of the child.
Delay should not exceed 6 weeks, unless in the interests of the child.
There should be a minimum notice of 4 weeks for an annual review meeting and reports must be obtained and circulated a minimum of 2 weeks before the meeting. Parents can obtain reports under the Freedom of Info Act, so why not require them here?
2.6 Solution 3
Make the guidelines on transport and the format of EHCPs part of national guidance rather than part of the local offer.

3.The Local offer

3.1Are you clear what the local offer should provide?

We are aware of what the local offer should provide, but we are not quite sure how it will look/work.

3.2In your local area, are you involved, or have you been invited to be involved in developing the local offer with other stakeholders?

Yes, we are involved in a working party with the local authority.

3.3Can you provide us with a practical example where your forum has or is making a difference in this area?

We are involved in a working party with the local authority. We will be consulting with our parents and are going to have working party of parents to review the offer as it progresses. We will then consult again with parents on the proposed final offer.

4.Any other comments

4.1Do you have any other comments that you would want to feed into the meeting that Parent Carer Forums are having with the Department for Education about the current Indicative Code of Practice.

We think that there are a lot of good changes and that the document is much easier to read than the current code of practice. Our concern is that it is not as robust at the current version as there are too many ‘SHOULDS’ and not enough ‘MUSTS’. This needs to change if it is going to make a difference to children with SEND, and not just make a difference to council budgets. The principles are good, and we really hope that the reality is too.

Thank you for taking the time to influence the Indicative Code of Practice.

NNPCF: SEN COP Consultation -June 2013 1