The school has a small number of children on the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Register, one of whom has a Statutory Statement of SEN, and one has recently been awarded an EHCP. The year has seen a period of tremendous and fundamental change in the policy and practice that underpins the SENCO position with the new changes to legislation being introduced, such as the new Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Code of Practice: 0-25 years (DfE/DH, 2015) and the statutory requirement for all schools to have a published SEN Information Report that is linked to the county Local Offer (DfE/DH, 2015 p59). The previous six months have seen me undertake an application through the revised EHCP process as a result of which I consider I am now able to provide a better service to both pupils and parents and so more ably support the policy intent.
The first coalition government in 70 years led to an agreed position on the importance of education and a plethora of legislation and policy which included the Code of Practice (DfE/DH, 2015), the SEN Regulations 2014 and Part III of the Children’s and Families Act, 2014 which were the ‘biggest SEN reforms for just over three decades’ (Cheminais, 2015). This collection of policy provides the new SEND statutory framework (DfE/DH, 2015) minefield within which new SENCOs such as myself, must navigate. The analysis within this reflection focuses specifically on the EHCP and its implementation; the EHCP is designed to provide a holistic plan that seeks to draw together all elements of the education, health and social care system together with the child and the parents as a ‘one stop shop’.
As far back as 2007, the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee published a report which identified low parental confidence in the SEN assessment system as a key issue to be addressed (HOC 1077, 2007). As part of the longer term nature of the response, the Lamb Inquiry (2009) was established to investigate how this might be improved (DfE, 2009); a number of the recommendations were taken forward in what became the Green Paper titled ‘A new approach to special educational needs and disability: a consultation’ (DfE, 2011). Whilst not formal policy, the Green Paper was a direct result of an OFSTED review in 2010 of SEN and Disability, which examined SEN support for children and young people (OFSTED, 2010). The Green Paper proposed changes which sought to increase early intervention and assessment, provide more control to parents, children and young people, provide clearer guidelines for teachers in schools, and to link more of the relevant support services to deliver a collaborative service (DfE, 2011). In consultation the Green Paper found that the system ‘…offered ‘disproportionally poor’ opportunities for people with SEND whose parents find the system to be ‘bureaucratic, bewildering and adversarial’2 (Pearson, Mitchell and Rapti, 2015). In September 2014, the Children and Families Act became law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6). Within it the SEN and Disability Code of Practice provided statutory guidance for all organisations, working with children and young people from ages 0-25. The Code of Practice is multi-faceted, but among its propositions is one which essentially supports a general presumption that children and young people with an EHCP should be at the centre of the new process (DfE/DH, 2015). Within the Code of Practice the EHCP replaces the current statement of SEN and Section 139a Learning Difficulty Assessment (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/21).
The main differences include:
• It runs from birth to aged twenty five.
• It establishes parents, carers, children and young people at the heart of the changes, all of whom have more engagement and involvement in the process.
• It focuses on outcomes to be achieved for each child and young person rather than the emphasising the input.
• The legislation applies equally to all schools including free schools and academies.
• It must now include the health and social care needs as well as the educational elements for each child to ensure there is a more coordinated assessment process across education, health and care services.
• It gives those with an EHCP the offer of a personal budget.
Examining each in turn we can see that there are policy and application changes in each of these areas that are important. Firstly, the increased age range recognises that young people have SEN requirements [before and] beyond schooling (through to further education and/or work) (Cheminiais, 2015) which will continue to need to be addressed if they are to make a valuable contribution to society as the Act espouses. Scientific research based on the early stages of life has shown that there is a ‘demonstrable interaction between the social and physical environment in which a baby grows up, and the way the physical structure of its brain develops’ (Fox, et al, 2010). This implies that the first few years of life are pivotal in the development of a child’s cognitive and emotional characteristics. The research further states that ‘by five years of age, the gap in achievement…is already visible’ and by extending the age range the SEN Code of Practice aims to ‘enhance outcomes for children with SEND by five’ (Peacey, 2015). This wider window of opportunity for the identification and the provision of support raises questions of how, when and by whom will this be enacted; this is not something the Act deals with and given shrinking local government resource budgets seems some way off. Whilst the implementation of this may seem slightly impractical, at least the new code makes a step in the right direction.
Second, the empowerment of the parents/child is at the centre of the changes (Packer, 2015) and represents one of the direct outcomes of the Lamb Inquiry and Green Paper recommendations. Under the new code, local authorities are bound to have regard for the child and the parents and therefore all parties have the right to contribute to the process. However there are elements of the code that may prove difficult to implement; for example when dealing with young people over the age of sixteen the young person’s views will override that of the parents, and additionally the new plans will have no force when it comes to special arrangements for university students (Roberts, 2013) (Harris, 2015). Whilst undoubtedly providing a greater sense of inclusion it should be noted that this empowerment only really comes into play with the provision of the relevant information and support to the parents. So whilst the inclusion of both the parental and child contribution is key, other enabling factors within the wider sphere of the whole of government i.e. social care and health, must also act to inform. Without this the process is arguably more daunting and demanding than the previous SEN Assessment and as Harris has already commented on the previous procedures; ‘Many local authorities did their best to be obstructive, and the system’s complexities often cut out all but the most tenacious (and, very often, wealthy) parents’ (Harris, 2015).
Third it is hard to recognise at this stage the likely impact of any allocation of a personal budget; once again the potential for poor information to preclude a positive outcome is apparent. Any attempts to direct spending in a specific area will have to be done so with the greatest care to ensure that there are no unintended and potentially damaging consequences elsewhere. Moreover, without a forcing function across all of the domains, the inability to properly resource and enforce the EHCP underlines the fragility of the process. This is particularly relevant in the health sphere where ‘Health … remains a law unto itself’ (Friel in Harris, 2015).
Fourth, perhaps most fundamental is the change from input to output focussed measures. Outcomes are new to the EHCP and are defined as ‘the benefit or difference made to an individual as a result of an intervention … and can relate to education, health and/or social care. Outcomes should be SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bounded’ (Boyes-Turner, unknown). Outcomes are particularly important as they allow an assessment of the validity and efficacy of the EHCP which is agreed by all parties. Of note outcomes can be specified in individual fields but the EHCP process is specific in that the holistic approach taken means there should be outcomes that encompass all elements and should be identified at individual, service and strategic i.e. wider levels (Code, 3.31). The output focus of the EHCP requires the whole of the education, health and social care support system to work together to deliver the requisite effect and one which can be measured. This has received some fervent criticism however, in that it is argued that it is this very ‘personalisation’ of the plan and the ‘limiting’ of it to setting outcomes that reduces its ability to be progressive (Veck, 2013). Some have argued that this nature of the EHCP makes it restrictive: setting outcomes for individual children means that there can ‘no longer be an educational space that may bridge the life of an adolescent…to the community they will participate in’ (Veck, 2013).
In the short period I have been employed as SENCO, the new SEN and Disability Code of Practice (2015) has been at the centre of my professional activity. With one child in school under the extant statement process, in parallel with a second under an EHCP, there are some stark differences but more similarities than might appear at first glance. In terms of similarity, the child remains at the centre of the process, but what is noticeable is the increase in number of stakeholders, all of whom have a view and an expectation that requires formal recognition and will need to be managed accordingly. That said, the EHCP further empowers the parents and their ability to influence the process from start to finish; it is questionable as to whether this may or may not always be in the interest of the child. Whilst parents normally have the best interests of their child at heart, the majority are not educational experts nor budget experts nor health professionals or social workers. Additionally, as a result of the statutory empowerment of the parents, adversarial contact has the potential to increase, not decrease as was designed. As an example if the area of personal budgets is further developed to allow parents greater control over their application, this is likely to create both opportunities and risks for the school. Key to this process being successful across all domains is the provision of timely and accurate information uniquely to the parents, but equally important across education, health and social services in support of the EHCP.
The implementation of change was overdue; undoubtedly parents’ confidence in the existing process was low (Lamb Inquiry) and there was pressure on the government of the day to do something. Criticisms of the new process include the speed at which it was introduced and ‘glaring holes and potential dangers’ (Friel in Harris, 2015),but it is probably just too early to be definitive on the new process just yet. In setting out to deliver an all-encompassing strategy that caters for the 0-25 year age group, enable greater parent power, provide clearer guidelines and deliver a multi domain approach, the DfE have only been partly successful. There is little evidence of early assessment or intervention and it is difficult to forecast forward to see how this will affect children post sixteen. Whilst there is greater confidence in the increase in parent power, whether this proves to be a benefit is yet to be seen. In addition, taking the previous statement process with 6 sections and no health or social service inclusion and replacing it with the EHCP, with 12 sections and health and social services, who must now be considered and consulted, makes for a more complex, not less complex process; arguably complexity that may further confuse anxious parents. A wider cross government approach over a longer period should provide benefits and efficiencies to the individual and the organisations providing support. Time will tell.