The draft SEN bill is now out and will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny by the Education Select Committee. The committee last week issued a call for evidence with their cut off being noon on 11 October, but considering the questions being asked, it might be difficult for full answers to be given, considering the trials are only just about to get underway. Again, things seem, to me and many others, to be being done with undue speed.
The Committee says it may be unable to accept late submissions due to "tight deadlines". But why are deadlines tight? Who has imposed them? Can't this time-constrained person just say, "Yeah okay, made a mistake, have another month?" Go on, I bet you could if you really tried.
SEN lawyers are poring over the draft and are already making their voices heard about potential issues they that they believe will not benefit children. They have their chance to submit feedback in the call for evidence, as does everyone who has an interest - parents included.
Several people from local authorities and charities have said to me that the draft bill leaves them underwhelmed and doesn't go far enough, but I am sure the DfE would say that the key word is 'draft' and the final bill and its regulations will be informed by the outcomes from the trials. My view, that things are moving at too fast a clip, legislation wise, for that to truly happen, has not changed. Perhaps ministers or officials should sit in on some of the pathfinder meetings so they can truly see where things are up to. I'm sure they would be welcomed. In fact, they can sit next to me; I'll save them a seat between me and Ang, my Family Voice co-chair.
Some councils seem to be ahead of others, and the danger is that the DfE will pay more attention to them, when in fact, they may have rushed into trials without the proper ground-work having been done thoroughly enough. The whole process rather reminds me of the tortoise and the hare. I, for one, would rather have a rather more sedate and considered pace. Well, when I say "I, for one" actually, everyone else I speak to involved in the trials thinks the same as I do. That's EVERYONE. I'm really not sure why the government, who are aware of this disquiet, seem to think we're all just moaning minnies. I'm not talking about people who don't want the change to happen - these are people who have committed much time, energy and taxpayer money to this on all sides and truly want an end to the adversarial way that is still, as we speak, continuing.
In fact, tomorrow, I am accompanying a parent to a meeting with an Area SEN Manager regarding funding their chosen placement - and this is for a school that, albeit, independent, is well-recognised as a centre of SEN excellence, cheaper than most LA special schools and where the LA already funds many similar children. This child is only there because he wasn't given the help he clearly needed when the family applied, twice, in previous years and were refused assessment. I'm still hoping they'll see sense before we have to traipse over to the SEN office. In the draft bill, equal weight is being given for parents to ask for placements at non-maintained special schools as to any other placement so, hey, here's a crazy suggestion, why not show some forward thinking and start now?
Part of this problem, I think, stems from the fact that the pathfinder information and changes in culture have not trickled down to the people doing the day-to-day work in the LA SEN departments. In our authority, this is about to be addressed and not a moment too soon.
If you would like to give your feedback to the Education Select Committee, The questions being asked are below. Don't be put off if you don't think you can answer every question. Just give the feedback that you are able to. I think very few people will be able to answer every question. If you are a parent or carer of SEN/disabled children, your views are just as important as anyone else's; more so, in my opinion. If you have found the bill too impenetrable to comprehend, try reading the letter written by the former minister, Sarah Teather, to the select committee committee as this may help you understand the bill's clauses. There is also a guide for submissions to select committees here
1. Does the draft Bill meet the Government’s policy objective to improve provision for disabled children and children with special educational needs?
2. Will the provisions succeed in cutting red tape and delays in giving early specialist support for children and young people with SEN and/or disabilities?
3. What will be the cost?
4. What impact will the draft Bill have on current institutional structures?
5. What transitional arrangements should be put in place in moving from the existing system?
6. What can be learned from the current pilot schemes and how can these lessons be applied to the provisions of the draft Bill?
7. Is there anything missing from the draft Bill?
8. Whether it would be appropriate to move away from “special educational needs” and use the term “learning difficulties and/or disabilities” instead in the new system?
9. How the general duties on local authorities to identify and have responsibility for children and young people in their area who have or may have special educational needs (clauses 3 and 4) work with the specific duties in other provisions (clauses 5 to 11, 16 and 17 to 24)? Are they sufficiently coherent?
10. Should the scope of the integrated provision requirement be extended to all children and young people, including those with special educational needs?
11. Should other types of schools and institutions be included in the duty on schools to admit a child with an education, health and care plan naming the school as the school to be attended by the child?
12. Do the provisions for 19 to 25 year olds provide a suitable balance between rights, protections and flexibility?
13. Do the provisions achieve the aim of integrated planning and assessment across agencies?
14. How could the power given to the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to the practicalities of the assessment and planning process be best utilised to achieve the aim of integrated support?
15. What impact will the new powers provided for in the clauses have on young people’s transition into adult services?
16. Should the provisions in this bill relating to portability of social care support reflect those for adults contained in the Care and Support Bill?
17. How could the provisions in the bill be used to reinforce protections for young people with special educational needs who are in custody or who are leaving custody?
Please note that submissions need not address all the questions but only those areas on which you have evidence to contribute. Where your comments relate to specific draft clauses, please identify the relevant clause clearly in your submission.
Please note: The submission should be sent by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org and marked “Pre-Legislative Scrutiny: SEN”. The Committee’s strong preference is for submissions in electronic form, although hard copy originals will be accepted. Hard copy submissions should be sent to Caroline McElwee, Committee Assistant, at: Education Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA
Each submission should: be no more than 3,000 words in length; have numbered paragraphs; and (if in electronic form) be in Word format or a rich text format with as little use of colour or logos as possible.
For Data Protection purposes, it would be helpful if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Is your MP on the select committee?
Committee Membership is as follows:
- Mr Graham Stuart (Chair), Conservative, Beverley and Holderness
- Neil Carmichael, Conservative, Stroud
- Alex Cunningham, Labour, Stockton North
- Bill Esterson, Labour, Sefton Central
- Pat Glass, Labour, North West Durham
- Damian Hinds, Conservative, East Hampshire
- Charlotte Leslie, Conservative, Bristol North West
- Ian Mearns, Labour, Gateshead
- Lisa Nandy, Labour, Wigan
- David Ward, Liberal Democrat, Bradford East
- Craig Whittaker, Conservative, Calder Valley
- WEBINAR RECORDING: Will the SEND Improvement Plan fix provision for disabled children and young people? - March 16, 2023
- Can you legislate for love? The Government’s plans for children’s social care aims to - February 3, 2023
- Don’t make it harder to get EHCPs warns Equality and Human Rights Commission as DfE considers “raising the bar” - January 26, 2023
Would it be appropriate to submit evidence of how it has taken nearly 2 years to sort out my sons lack of education and to get him the right transport and how the only school that could be found was an hours junior away from home. Maybe if the reform is done properly it will save other parents the need to give up their job after 24 years of service to look after their child then have to meet travel costs of the hour long journey that they cant afford.
Thanks for your comments, Lee.
My issue with all of this, is that the language used will generally put off 90% of the population – and give the other 10% a headache! As a uni graduate I still struggle to understand the phrasing, or to know what to write which will be listened to – and of course whilst I hope the future improves for all Special Needs children, my main area of concern is that it will be better for my daughter as she grows up. But how do I ensure that, how do I give a decent reply when I can’t cut through the bumpf and jargon in the first place?! 🙁
You make very good points, Stephanie. The questions are not that easy to answer. I’m sure you have valuable feedback, though. Just answer what you can but read the Teather letter first as it’s easier to understand.
Educational special needs, child protection, juvenile offending, family justice……. are all part of the same problem. The legislation that covers them all is section 17, section 4 Part 1 Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of the Children Act 1989. The legal instrument that should have been used to integrate them all in the language of “social inclusion” are regulations under section 7(2) of the same act setting out the correct understanding of section 1(3), the “welfare checklist” of family law, originally applied by the Probation Service in all court proceedings.
Special Educational Needs are actually run by the Probation Service. In Suffolk, the Connexions Service, which is supposed to support ESN is presented as a mainstream careers service, in conjunction with the Job Centre, but in fact includes “Catch 22”. Catch 22 is presented as a care leavers service, for children leaving local authority care, but in fact is for juvenile re-offenders accommodated by the Foyer Charity.
The legal instrument that should used to support all children and families in all circumstances, section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, has been secretly monopolised by the Probation Service and everybody else has been left to wrestle, with no legal protections, with the local authority.