A
summary of the key points made by the public participants at the
meeting were as follows:
Debra Lamont
- Ms Lamont advised
that she had a 14-year-old child with additional needs and outlined
the long struggle to get an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP)
in place, including the lack of support and guidance received
during the process. There was frustration that emails were not
responded to and that her child did not have a named caseworker, a
situation which was suggested to be common amongst other families.
- There was poor staff
retention in the Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities
(SEND) Team, which had such an adverse impact on parents and
carers. Ms Lamont questioned what action was being taken to ensure
that staff retention was substantially increased, indicating that
she had thought this was an integral part of the Action Plan in
place.
Dr Karen Nokes
·
Dr Nokes asked whether in light of the
findings by Ofsted in their recent inspection report, an
independent body would be appointed to assist Worcestershire County
Council (the Council) and Worcestershire Children First (WCF) to
ensure that they acted lawfully as public bodies and
workedconstructively with parents in so doing.
·
She outlined her experiences over the last 4 years in which she had
been forced to go to mediation twice to secure an EHCP for her son.
When the named school couldn’t meet her son’s needs
(which the school had advised) further legal action had been
instigated. Dr Nokes believed that WCF
had misled her family, their lawyer and the tribunal over a period
of many weeks. Ultimately WCF had conceded that the allocated
school could not meet their son’s needs. This long process
had resulted in their son missing out on 6 months of schooling,
which she felt was shameful.
Asher
MacKenzie-Wilson
- Asher (aged 13) told
the Panel about the trauma she had experienced at primary school
because of the lack of teachers’ understanding of autism
andsuggested that some teachers hadn’t been kind to her or
sensible.
- Asher highlighted
that she hadn’t been in school since last July because of
anxietyand questioned how long was it acceptable for children to
wait?
Rowan
Winchester
- Rowan (aged 10)
informed the Panel that his difficulties had started at nursery
school and continued in the first few years of mainstream school.
In Year 1, after a short while, he found that he couldn’t
cope and as a result ended up spending 19 months out of school. He
then attended a new school but had found it difficult to trust and
learn again. During his first term, there were a lot of changes
within the school, and he ended up leaving and being out of school
for a further year. He was then placed in Sunfield School, where he currently attends and
which he likes. He was currently also getting help from the NHS
Trauma Team.
- Rowan said that he
had been through so much and what had happened to him was still
happening to many other children. He asked how WCF would prevent
more children from going through what he had been
through?
Tracy
Winchester
- Ms Winchester advised
that she was part of SEND National Crisis Worcestershire who had
sent a letter to the Chief Executive, WCF that morning (also been
circulated to the Panel). The letter
set out why the Accelerated Progress Plan was not fit for purpose.
If EHCP’s were to be improved, meaningful assessment needed
to become the norm.
- Ms Winchester set out
specific questions concerning the lack of specificity in an EHCP
which compromises the legal enforceability of the provision, and
questioned whether this was a strategy deliberately employed by the
Council or WCF? She asked whether
professionally registered education, health and social care
professionals commissioned by WCF were restricted in what they
could recommend in terms of SEND provision, even if it meant that
the child’s needs would not be met? She suggested in doing
so, they would be in breach of their professional code of ethics
and were putting their registration at risk. Finally, Ms Winchester
asked whether WCF thought it was morally acceptable for
parents/carers to be forced to pay thousands of pounds to obtain
needs-led, specific, and quantified professional reports because
the WCF commissioned reports were unlawful, unreliable, and
inadequate?
Hazel Shaw
- Ms Shaw referred to
Councillors and Council employees being required to comply with the
10 principles of public life (the Nolan principles) which were
included in the Council’s ‘Members Code of
Conduct’. She highlighted in particular the guidance relating
to two of the principles whereby Councillors were required to use
personal judgement in reaching conclusions about issues and show
leadership which secures or preserves public
confidence.
- Ms Shaw asked whether
Councillors believed that they were reaching their own conclusions
on the SEND issues that were repeatedly being brought before them
by parents of disabled children living in Worcestershire and then
acting in accordance with those conclusions? She also questioned
whether Councillors believed that the leaders of WCF were acting in
a way that preserved public confidence?
Robert
Barrowman
- Mr Barrowman spoke
about his son’s spinal condition, and how he wasn’t
eligible for an EHCP or for support from the NHS. He was also
unable to get any support from his son’s school as his son
was deemed to be ‘functioning’. Due to the lack of
support and access to treatment, Mr Barrowman had built a hydro
pool in his garden to help his son. This treatment was supported by
Great Ormond Street Hospital and Birmingham Children’s
Hospital. He asked what happened when a child’s health needs
couldn’t be met by not receiving an EHCP or NHS support
because of a lack of funding?
Russell
Winchester
- Mr Winchester
indicated that he was a parent to Rowan and another child, both of
whom had complex needs. It was unacceptable that together they had
lost 43 months of education in recent years. The Council had been
disinterested in finding suitable education for his children and
therefore he had fought and secured specialist placements for them.
This had included taking complaints to the Local Government
Ombudsman (LGO) and in both cases, the actions of WCF were found to
be unlawful and financial compensation was awarded. A further
complaint had also been referred to the LGO regarding social
care.
- Based on experience,
Mr Winchester asked why the Council’s complaints procedure
did not work and why there was no learning demonstrated to prevent
reoccurrence of the same issues? The service was doing the same
thing and expecting a different outcome. He wanted WCF to
demonstrate that they were learning from their mistakes and not
have to have an external body point this out to them.
Andrew Round
- Mr Round explained
that he and his family had moved from Staffordshire to
Worcestershire, and his son had an EHCP in place at the time of the
move. When WCF failed to follow the EHCP and then took away some of
his son’s therapies and support, this had a major negative
impact on his son who was frightened and refused to go to school.
It also had a severe impact on Mr Round personally and following a
breakdown he had resigned from his job.
- The failings of the
Council and WCF Officers to improve the SEND service after the
Ofsted inspections in 2018 and 2021 were highlighted and the lack
of effective elected member oversight and scrutiny which allowed
this to happen. It was queried what measures Members were going to
put in place to address this situation and hold Officers to
account, or otherwise it was questioned whether it would be better
for an independent inquiry be set up to take action, which would
have the confidence of service users. Finally, Mr Round asked when
WCFwould stop saying sorry and do something to protect vulnerable
lives.
Elena Round
- Mrs Round highlighted
that after the 2018 Ofsted inspection report, an urgent action plan
had been drawn up and was approved by this Panel (on the advice of
Officers). Amongst the promises given when WCF came into being, was
that WCF would not fail another Ofsted inspection and would be
‘not for profit’. Nothing had changed and WCF was
continuing to fail. Mrs Round
questioned who gave approval for WCF to be allowed to make a profit
and pay corporation tax with taxpayers’ money?
- Having arrived in
Worcestershire with an EHCP in place for her son (previously gained
after a tribunal in 2015), Mrs Round explained that her son was
then failed in many ways, including the unlawful failure to follow
the EHCP and the failure of the Council’s statutory duty in
respect of the choice of school allocated. Her family had been
forced to enlist Solicitors to fight their case. She suggested that
the Cabinet Member should resign if he felt that WCF was a
success.
Jo Rae
- Ms Rae’s question read
out by Cllr Onslow (Vice-Chairman of the Panel)questioned why
Councillors had rejected a plea to invest in SEND children and yet
put £500k into building roads instead. She had felt that they
were playing politics with children’s needs and queried how
many Councillors had read the SEND Ofsted report prior to making
the above decision?
Katrina
Kear-Wood
- Ms Kear-Wood raised
issues concerning the Ofsted inspection and the inclusivity issues
in some mainstream schools. She felt that many children with SEND
were missing out on education and being traumatised by their
experiences. She questioned what WCF were doing to mitigate these
risks? She highlighted that there were currently very few special
schools, and that unlawful practices were being carried out and a
lack of support was available to challenge the system.
- Ms Kear-Wood
commented that not all schools understood how to differentiate
effectively and thereby they weren’t providing an accessible
curriculum for children with SEND. She questioned how WCF monitored
schools’ provision of SEND and how frequently this took
place, and whether they held schools to account when they failed to
deliver an accessible curriculum and safe environment to learn?
- The Panel was
reminded that 13 years ago Worcestershire was a flagship for SEND
and yet the current situation had been allowed to unfold. Ms
Kear-Wood set out further questions including why support had been
removed and not replaced, why poor practices had been allowed to
continue, what additional SEND provision was planned, and what was
planned to bridge the gap between applying for an EHCP and
receiving support?
Tim Joesbury-Clarke
- Mr Clarke provided a
brief overview of his family situation, in that his daughter was
left without education or support for over 2 years, until a 60-hour
package of education, therapy and respite was finally secured as a
result of a EHCP tribunal hearing. He highlighted that although
this package was awarded in September 2021, much was still to be
implemented by the local authority. The Tribunal Panel had been
very critical of the many failures in his daughter’s case,
including the protracted absence of provision, unevidenced
statements and poor co-ordination with social care.
- Given his
family’s experience and the serious failures identified, as
well as the fact that 9 out of 10 families had had their appeal
cases upheld, he wanted the local authority to explain and evidence
how the outcomes of tribunal hearings had been used to learn
lessons and improve practices, where failures had been
identified?
Amanda Coppin
- Ms Coppin’s submission was read out by Cllr
Onslow (Vice-Chairman of the Panel). Ms Coppin was a parent of two SEND boys, and she
had a BA (Hons) Special
Educational Needs, Disability and Inclusion and a MA in Education
(Special and Inclusive). She had written two dissertations seeking
parents’ perspectives, one focusing on home education for
SEND learners, and the second focusing on SEND provision within
Worcestershire. Data from the MA dissertation which
sought parents’ perspectives of SEND provision within
Worcestershire (written in November 2021) mirrored findings in the
recent Ofsted report. Ms Coppin
raised questions on two main areas.
- Firstly, with the
limited SEND settings and spaces, and acknowledging plans to
provide specialist units in Kidderminster and Worcester, what plans
there were for specialist primary SEND provision in the south of
the County to meet the clear demand for
autism/language/communication need. She
also queried whether there were plans to expand the numbers able to
be accommodated within the current planned provision, as numbers of
spaces were relatively low.
- Secondly, in relation
to co-creation and joint commissioning, Ms Coppin asked how WCF planned to increase and
implement these as outlined in the SEND Code of Practice and in
particular by working more efficiently with SEND parents and carers
and those with SEND?
The Chairman thanked all of the speakers and
advised them that they would receive a written response to the
points they had raised.