I've seen a number of responses so far. Some are concerned about the legal issues raised by the bill, believing that it reduces the statutory protection for special educational needs and children. I have no legal expertise whatsoever and so am not in a position to offer any analysis of this, but from the position of having background knowledge from working within the pathfinder, some of those potential issues highlighted do not seem completely accurate. However, having said that, these opinions are a vital addition to the responses so that the select committee has as wide a range of opinion as possible to consider.
As a parent-carer forum, Family Voice Surrey, for which I am co-chair, has approached our response from our experience as parents of children with SEN and disabilities and from our knowledge of the Surrey/SE7 pathfinder . Our response is broadly similar to other parent-carer forums who have had the same experiences. It would be wrong for us to include any legal issues as that is not our area of expertise and simply parroting the views of others is unnecessary when they can speak for themselves.
Parts of the bill are clumsily worded, so that if you have been working on the pathfinder, you might understand what the intention is, but it has not been stated clearly or in sufficient detail and this is a huge shame. Quite possibly this is an indication of it being put out too soon with insufficient consideration of the fact that SEN is a hugely complex and broad area. This failure has led some to believe that the government is trying to strip away SEN support by the back door. Again, there may be a Mr Burns figure rubbing his hands with glee in the dark corridors of the Treasury at the prospect of saving money on the backs of disabled children, but this is quite a cynical view. Which is not to say it isn't true.
My co-chair, Angela Kelly, and I recently took part in an interview with SQW who are evaluating the SE7 (South East group of pathfinder authorities) for feedback and we reiterated our view that the reforms will not be what they might if the pace continues as it is. Corners will inevitably be cut with the trials in some areas to meet artificial deadlines and so a thorough testing of the proposals will not have been carried out. And let's remember who these reforms are supposedly intended for - the stated aim is that they end the adversarial system and benefit children with special needs and their families. It is not, claim the DfE, a cost-cutting exercise in itself.
But SEN is not just about statements, it is about providing the right solutions for children with complex needs, early intervention, transition, personal budgets and more. With the new EHCP, this will also bring in NHS health and psychological support from CAMHS. It is a massive undertaking and even though people are working very hard to try to make this happen, rushing it for political reasons (for what other reason can there be?) is detrimental to getting reform right.
Even the select committee deadline of today is patently ridiculous - some of the questions being asked as simply unanswerable because there simply has not been sufficient time for any trials evidence to be generated, let alone collated.
Some of the issues with the bill include the problem that only education is at present enforceable, so health and social care have no statutory duty of their own to fulfill the requirements set out in an EHCP. Which means it won't happen. Also, the issue of compulsory mediation before an appeal can be launched is hugely problematic - it will delay the process unacceptably. And if a young person has finished education but still has health and social care needs, would they still have a plan up to the age of 25 in the same way as they probably would if they had educational but not health or social care requirements?
It is, of course, a draft bill and one can only hope that all the submissions made to the select committee are carefully considered and taken on board and the required amendments made. When the results of the pathfinder begin to filter through, further detail can be added to the draft bill. I would hope that whoever is in charge of setting the bill's deadline would have the courage to say, "Okay, we do need more time. We were aiming for early 2014, but let's take another six months". Does that type of courage exist in the DfE? You tell me.
Here is a list of the responses I have come across so far, with links. If you have one you'd like to share, please leave a link in the comments.
- IPSEA's responses - this is their list of documents
- Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (pdf)
- Ed Yourself - brief commentary and further links
- EDCM campaign about disabled children only benefitting from the changes if they have a special educational need (SEN)
- Link to EDCM and SEC response
- NASEN - initial response
- Find out more about the SEND pathfinder here
- Ambitious About Autism initial response
As I find more, I will add them here. Read the draft legislation here
- Chaos, mistrust, poor inclusion, and no communication: How Kent’s SEND provision has failed its disabled children and their families - November 10, 2022
- Ofsted and ONS offer further evidence that lack of funding, training and specialists damages children with SEND - November 8, 2022
- No specialists = No support: The future for children with SEND is bleak without a trained workforce to support them - November 3, 2022