Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) area inspections ...

34 downloads 142 Views 100KB Size Report
18 Jul 2017 - outcomes for children and young people. Please note the distinction between 'local areas' and 'local autho
Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) area inspections - overview Date

18 July 2017

Author

Tom Simon LGiU/CSN Associate

Summary Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) have been carrying out inspections of local areas’ Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) provision since April 2016 to monitor the new arrangements for SEND put in place by the Children and Families Act 2014. By mid-July 2017, 31 areas have been inspected and letters published of the inspectors’ findings. There are two briefings about these inspections. This briefing introduces the topic, reviews the outcome inspection letters and seeks to identify major trends and themes from the inspections. The Framework does not require the inspectors to grade each local area but does, where there are very serious matters of concern, require the local area to prepare a written statement setting out the actions the local authority and NHS partners are taking in response to the report which must include a timetable to complete the actions. The written statements of action and responses will be the subject of a second briefing. Key findings include: overall, the outcomes letters tended to be generally positive including the important issues of leadership and joint commissioning. However, the absence of key staff and sufficient funding was found in some areas. Some outstanding examples of joint commissioning were identified, although work was still at a developmental stage in several authorities. There was a lot of variance with the speed with which the Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans were transferred from the former statements, and new plans written, and questions were asked about their quality, often with an over emphasis on education, and the parent/carer voice not being recognised. Both good and patchy transitional arrangements were found as young people went from primary to secondary education. EHC plans for post-19-year olds were variable, but this often related to local available services. Again, variability was a theme when the education achievement gap between children with SEND and those who did not have SEND was looked at. And some areas struggled to provide an effective system of personal budgets. This briefing will be of interest to members and officers in local government, schools and healthcare with responsibility for implementing the SEND reforms and/or ensuring high quality of outcomes for children and young people. Please note the distinction between ‘local areas’ and ‘local authorities’. Local areas are essentially local authorities, plus the health services that are responsible for implementing the reforms. Clearly local authorities, with their traditional role in education, SEN, early years, youth provision and looked after children, play a very major role in their respective local areas.

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate. You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

Briefing in full Background The Children and Families Act 2014 introduced a series of reforms relating to special educational needs and disability (SEND). The reforms aim to improve the provision of services for children and young people with SEND, as well as giving them and their parents/carers greater control over how their needs are met, all the way up to the age of 25. The legislation has been followed up by joint Ofsted and Care Quality Commission inspections to see how well local authority areas are implementing the changes, as well as the general quality of their SEND offer using The framework for the inspection of local areas’ effectiveness in identifying and meeting the needs of children and young people who have special educational needs and/or disabilities (April 2016). The inspections are conducted under s. 20 (Joint Area Reviews), Children Act 2004. The Ofsted has published the letters sent to local areas that have been inspected so far, detailing the outcome of their inspections. So far 31 letters have been published, since May 2016. The first twenty were published on the gov.uk website and the rest on the Ofsted website. There are individual links to each of them later. This briefing introduces the topic, reviews the outcome inspection letters and seeks to identify major trends and themes from the inspections. The Framework does not require the inspectors to grade the local area but does, where there are matters of concern, require the local area to prepare a written statement setting out the actions the local authority and NHS partners are taking in response to the report which must include a timetable to complete the actions. A second briefing will look at the written statements of action and responses.

The reforms Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014 made changes to a wide range of issues relating to children and their families with the Special Educational and Disability (SEND). The provisions follow the Green Paper: Support and Aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability, published in March 2011, and its follow up Progress and Next Steps, published in May 2012. These are the headline points of the reforms: •

• • • •

Introduce Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans, based on a single assessment process, to replace SEN statements. The plans will support children, young people up to the age of 25, and their parents/carers. These replace statements of SEN, meaning that existing statements have to be changed into EHC plans. Make it so that the commissioning and planning of SEND services for children, young people and families will be run jointly by health services and local authorities. Extend the right to a ‘personal budget’ to children, young people and families with SEND, giving them more control over the services and support they access. Require that SEND services for children and families be made available in a clear, easily read manner. This is known as the ‘local offer’. Require local areas to involve families and children in discussions and decisions in relation to their care and education, as well as provide impartial advice, support and mediation services.

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate. You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

When the legislation became law in September 2014, it was described by the government as the biggest education reform in 30 years for children and young people with special educational needs and/or disability. It was claimed it offers simpler, improved and more consistent help for them. As these services and the implementation of the reforms are carried out by local authorities and healthcare providers, the actual impact of the reforms is hugely dependent on the effectiveness of these bodies.

The inspections Inspections of the effectiveness of local areas at implementing the reforms and maintaining a high quality SEND offer were began in May 2016. As the new regime covers both education and health/social care, the inspections are carried out jointly by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The inspections take place over one week (Monday-Friday), with the inspectors talking to children, parents and carers, local authority and NHS officers, as well as visiting a range of providers in the relevant area and analysing relevant data. For more information regarding the methodology used in the inspections, please see the front page of the inspection letters. The inspections look at three aspects of the effectiveness of the local area in relation to children and young people: 1) Identifying those who have special educational needs and/or disability. 2) Assessing and meeting the needs of those who have special educational needs and/or disability. 3) Improving outcomes for those who have special educational needs and/or disability. The inspection outcome letters are usually sent within 2 months and often much sooner. They always include the inspection’s main findings and also, for each of the three areas described above, strengths and ‘areas for development’. Where the outcome of the inspection is that there are ‘significant concerns about the effectiveness of the local area’, the local area is required to submit a ‘Written Statement of Action’ to Ofsted, outlining the steps that will be taken to address a list of weaknesses specified by the letter. This has happened for nine of the thirty-one areas for which the inspection letters have been published (to 13 July 2017). The local areas that have had inspection outcome letters published are: Brighton and Hove (May 2016)

Hillingdon (28 November – 2 December 2016)

Bolton (23-27 May 2016)

East Sussex (5-9 December 2016)

Gloucestershire (13-17 June 2016)

Leeds (5-9 December 2016)

Nottinghamshire (20-24 June 2016)

Suffolk (12-16 December 2016)*

Enfield (27 June – 1 July 2016)

Sandwell (16-20 January 2017)*

North Yorkshire (27 June – 1 July 2016)

Dorset (23-27 January 2017)*

Hertfordshire (4-8 July 2016)

Waltham Forest (23-27 January 2017)*

Stoke (11-15 July 2016)

Trafford (30 January – 3 February 2017)

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate. You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

Rochdale (19-23 September 2016)*

Gateshead (6-10 February 2017)

Herefordshire (26-30 September 2016)

Southampton (6-10 February 2017)

Bexley (3-7 October 2016)

Cambridgeshire (20-24 March 2017)

Hartlepool (3-7 October 2016)*

Middlesbrough (20-24 March 2017)*

Plymouth (10-14 October 2016)

Barking & Dagenham (27-31 March 2017)

Surrey (17-21 October 2016)*

Halton (27-31 March 2017)

Derbyshire (14-18 November 2016)

Northamptonshire (15-19 May 2017)

Sefton (21-25 November 2016)* *local areas that were required to submit a Written Statement of Action

The outcomes Comparing the inspection outcomes and identifying patterns is not necessarily a straightforward exercise, as one is not comparing like with like. Bexley and North Yorkshire, for example, have significant demographic and geographic differences, meaning the challenges they face at a basic level will vary. Furthermore, historically there is considerable variance in the approaches taken by different local authorities to fulfilling their SEND duties, so structures and programmes differ across areas. So other than the broad structure outlined in the previous section the inspection outcome letters do not follow a set pattern, as the points that need reporting on vary from area to area. For example, some letters refer to transitional arrangements between primary and secondary school for SEND children, but others do not. That said, there are key areas that frequently arose in the letters, either as strengths or areas for development, or sometimes both.

Leadership All the outcome letters refer to leadership in one way or another, with good and bad examples across a range of services, often within the same local area. For example, Bexley’s outcome letter is generally positive in relation to leadership, praising a set up that allows for leaders to plan for the future, but at the same time highlighting that the Designated Medical Officer (DMO) and Designated Clinical Officer (DCO) have not been appointed, leaving a gap in strategic planning. The most commonly raised points about leadership across the inspections were: • • • •

The level of awareness of leaders of the strengths and weaknesses of their services and processes. This is closely linked to the question of how effectively leaders used data to monitor the situation. The ability to plan for future service needs. The apparent level of enthusiasm for implementing the reforms and the energy/dynamism with which the reforms are being carried out. The appointment of key figures. A number of local areas had either failed to fill one or both of the DMO and DCO roles (Bexley, Enfield) or had made appointments that were lacking in some way (Hillingdon, North Yorkshire).

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate. You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU



The availability of sufficient funding levels to undertake the reforms and provide required levels of service was criticised in some cases (Derbyshire, Leeds).

All of the local authorities required to submit a Written Statement of Action saw their leadership criticised in the letters.

Joint commissioning One of the key underlying concepts behind the reforms is that for children and young people with SEND, their needs often straddle the fields of education and health/social care. Therefore, the joint commissioning of services should help address these needs more effectively. It is an important test of leadership for local authorities and healthcare providers, as for it to work well, effective leadership is required from all parties, as is the ability to work together across fields. The quality and extent of joint commissioning varies considerably across areas. Brighton & Hove stands out as being particularly strong. As a result of effective working relationships and a familycentred vision, joint commissioning is possible without the need for Section 75 legal agreements between the local authority and NHS services. The inspection letters were generally positive about joint commissioning in most areas, with the most common criticism being that the approach is at an early stage of development and needs more time to function as expected (North Yorkshire, Sefton). There are also some criticisms of joint commissioning in relation to particular services, such Rochdale in relation to children and young people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

Joint working Related to joint commissioning is joint working, i.e. providers of different services working together to meet SEND requirements. EHC plans (see below) are the most prominent area of joint working under the reforms, but the inspection letters highlight other examples as well. Bexley has a newly opened children’s development centre to enable joint working by multi-agency and multidisciplinary teams. Bolton’s ‘early help’ assessment process is held up as a good example of joint working across the education, health and care workforce.

Education, health and care plans All of the inspection letters referred to EHC plans for a range of reasons. The plans are a central part of the reforms and represent a major piece of work for local areas to get right, both in terms of transferring existing SEN statements into EHC plans and setting up new plans. A very common area for either praise or criticism was the speed at which local authorities were (a) transferring statements and (b) setting up new plans. For the latter, the 20 week statutory time limit was often referred to. For example, Gloucestershire has succeeded at issuing all new EHC plans within the 20 week time limit, whereas Hartlepool, one of the areas required to submit a Written Statement of Action, had too many plans taking longer than the time limit. Hartlepool had however managed to transfer existing statements in a timely manner. By contrast North Yorkshire is the other way round – doing well with new plans, but slow at transferring statements. This shows how local area performance tends to be patchy in all the inspections. Speed is one thing; the quality of the plans issued is another. Sefton, also required to submit a Written Statement of Action, was criticised for issuing EHC plans that were “too generic” and lacking input from healthcare professionals. Plymouth, although weak in some ways, is issuing

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate. You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

EHC plans that are well balanced between education, health and social care requirements (and doing so in a timely manner). There are two recurring weaknesses with EHC plans: 1) Over emphasis on education in the plan, to the detriment of education and social care needs (Herefordshire, Nottinghamshire) 2) Parent/carer voice not being recognised (Gloucestershire) In general, a strong performance in relation to EHC plans will mean that existing statements will be transferred in a timely manner, new ones issued within the 20 week limit and that the plans will be well-balanced and take into account parent/carer voice.

Waiting times for key services There are a large number of assessments (in addition to EHC plans) and services that local authorities need to provide one way or another as part of their SEND work. Criticism of long waiting times is a common feature of the inspection outcome letters. Most local authorities have long waiting times for at least some aspect of their offer. For example, Rochdale was found to have long waiting times for some therapy services and Sefton was generally criticised for waiting times being too long. Better performing areas were also criticised in this regard – Plymouth, which has a lot of good practice, has long delays for services related to ASD and services offered by the CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services). Leeds has long waiting times for ASD and speech and language therapies, but has reduced its waiting times for CAMHS services.

Transitional arrangements The transitional arrangements for children and young people with SEND moving between different stages of their education was referred to in many of the outcome letters, with the switch from primary to secondary being the most common one to feature. There are two good examples which shows the multi-faceted and complex nature of this issue: •



Bexley – the outcome letter praised the clear guidance that is sent to all schools in relation to SEND and the effectiveness of SENCOs at implementing the guidance at early years and primary level. However, the inspection also identified that performance at secondary level is less good, resulting in additional requests for statutory assessments of children starting at secondary school and some students not being properly supported at this stage. Brighton & Hove – shows that sometimes doing something well can reveal additional difficulties. In Brighton, because of successful inclusion practice, some children with ASD needs are not identified at primary level and struggle to make a successful transition to secondary level.

Derbyshire and Enfield are both areas with more patchy performance overall, but that do well with transitional arrangements. Note: transitional arrangements do not simply refer to information about the child or young person making the transition, it can also include transferring specialist equipment and making sure parents/carers feel supported.

Safeguarding The safeguarding of children and young people was referred to in many of the letters in positive terms, i.e. that the local authority was succeeding either with its safeguarding arrangements generally or with some specific aspects of it. However, some of the letters do not refer to © Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate. You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

safeguarding at all, which is an odd omission for such a fundamental aspect of the duty of local authorities. One can only assume that if there a local authority had a weakness in this regard it would be mentioned and that the absence means the safeguarding measures were at least satisfactory.

Post-16 and post-19 provision These are key areas: the reforms include a duty of local areas to provide EHC plans to young people up to the age of 25. As this duty is new, it is not surprising that it is fairly common for local area performance to be weaker at post-19 level. North Yorkshire is a helpful example as its post16 performance is identified as being effective, with strong links between schools and colleges, but its post-19 provision as not well established in some areas, with parents reporting insufficient places for young people to engage in meaningful activities. By contrast the personal learning pathways available in some towns in the area do meet the educational needs of specific people in those places. The key measure is of course the number of young people with SEND who are in education, employment or training, particularly in contrast to national averages. Some of the inspection letters report on this, but others do not. Surrey, which was required to submit a Written Statement of Action, is improving at both post-16 and post-19 level, to meet the national average on the key indicator and offering an increasing range of activities.

Academic outcomes Another key measure of the success of the educational provision, and by implication the health and social care as well, where relevant, are academic outcomes for children and young people with SEND across the age ranges. The inspection letters frequently looked at the following aspects: • • • • •

Quality of schools, including both special and mainstream schools, the latter being looked at with a focus on the SEND provision Gap between SEND and non-SEND children and young people Rates of progress, compared to expectations Comparisons with national averages Absenteeism and exclusion rates

Stronger local areas tended to do well in all or most of these (Herefordshire) and, conversely, the weaker local areas tended to do poorly in all or most of them. This is unsurprising as there are links between each of these indicators. However, the inspections did reveal some variable outcomes. Bolton is generally very strong in many ways, but has a large gap in academic outcomes between children and young people with SEND and those without SEND. In Enfield pupils with SEND tend to do as well or better than their peers in other areas of the country, but have higher rates of persistent absenteeism.

Specific areas of need The inspection letters taken together make it clear that the list of services that local areas need to provide is a long one. This is a major reason why all of the local areas have numerous ‘areas for development’. For example, local areas need to provide services for children and young people with ASD, Downs Syndrome, who are blind or partially sighted, hearing impaired or who have a range of speech and language difficulties. For each of these, local areas need to have robust services that will identify, © Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate. You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

assess and meet the needs of the children and young people. This has to be done across age ranges, which is an important point as, for example, meeting the needs of a three-year-old and a twelve-year old with ASD tends to present a different set of challenges. Another area that tripped up some local areas is making sure that home educated children and young people who have SEND have their health and social care needs met. Both Stoke and Bolton have done well in this area, whereas Brighton & Hove, which was one of the stronger local areas overall, had some weaknesses in this respect.

Personal budgets One of the ways the reforms seek to give more control to parents and carers is through personal budgets. Under section 48 of the 2014 Act, where a child or young person has an EHC plan, then if requested the local area should provide a personal budget to meet the cost of a particular service need set out in the plan. This can take the form of a direct payment to the family. Essentially it gives parents the ability to ‘shop around’ for the service they want, rather than being provided by the local area. The inspection letters make it clear that some local areas have struggled to get an effective system in place, with the most common problems being a lack of awareness on the part of parents/carers. Gloucestershire was criticised for the low take up of personal budgets, despite information being provided to families. Parents told inspectors they did not understand the information or recognised the benefits that a personal budget could bring. Although in Rochdale the personal budgets that were arranged were deemed to be very effective, the take up was again very low, due in part to a lack of awareness among parents that they are entitled to one.

Parent/carer voice The requirement to involve parents, carers and children in discussions about their care and education is an important part of the reforms, as is the requirement to provide advice, support and mediation services. The inspections highlighted the following points: • • •

The extent to which parents/carers are involved How parents/carers feel, i.e. do they feel listened to? How well parents/carers understand the situation?

This has been a fairly common area for both praise and criticism in the inspection letters. In Nottingham, parents told inspectors they feel fully involved in discussions, but it was identified that the online local offer was not widely known about. In Waltham Forest, despite there being many weaknesses, there is an effective parent forum.

Comment It should be clear that these inspections cover a complex area, encompassing a wide range of services and much variety in approach. There are lots of things local areas need to get right so, however strong a local area may be, there will always be multiple things they should do better. A good example of this is that having a strong set up for EHC plans is clearly important, but despite its prominence in the reforms, it is just one (large) piece of the jigsaw and local areas need to have the apparatus in place to ensure plans are properly implemented. What the inspections © Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate. You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

make clear is that the effectiveness of any local area flows from its leadership. Areas that have weaker leadership may have some areas of good practice, but overall will struggle. There will be more to be said in the follow-up briefing where LA written statements are required in response to the inspection reports. For now, there are two points to bear in mind. First, the inspections provide a snapshot of the performance of local areas at a particular moment in time and while this is always the case with inspections, it is important to remember that the areas inspected in 2017 have had considerably more time to implement the reforms than those inspected this time last year. Second, it is also worth remembering that different local areas face different sets of challenges, depending on geography, demography and the history of service provision. For example, larger geographical areas are not able to consolidate their services in specific areas as easily as metropolitan areas can.

External Links The Children and Families Act 2014 Support and Aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability (Green Paper) Progress and Next Steps (Green Paper follow up) Government press release on the legislation coming into effect Ofsted: The framework for the inspection of local areas’ effectiveness in identifying and meeting the needs of children and young people who have special educational needs and/or disabilities (April 2016) First twenty inspection outcome letters published on the gov.uk website Subsequent inspection outcome letters published on the Ofsted website

Related Briefings DfE consultation - High needs funding formula and other reforms (March 2016) Joining the Dots: Have recent reforms worked for those with SEND? – policy research (Nov 2015) Ofsted and CQC consultation: inspection of local area SEND arrangements (October 2015) Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Pathfinder Programme: Final Report (August 2015) Special educational needs and disability – implementation reports (January 2015) SEN and Disability transitional arrangements – draft DfE guidance: (June 2014) SEN and Disability Reform: readiness – DfE research: (May 2014) Children and Families Act 2014 (No.2): (April 2014) For further information, please visit www.lgiu.org.uk or email [email protected]

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate. You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU