Appendix 7: Summary of the Barnet SEND visit
Summary
On Monday 16 May we conducted a visit to Barnet to investigate the implementation of Part 3 of the Act, which focusses on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). The Chair, Baroness Bertin, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, and Baroness Wyld attended, along with the Clerk and the Policy Analyst.
Jewish Community Secondary School
The visit began at the Jewish Community Secondary School (JCoSS). We first met 10 students—ranging from Year 7 to Year 13. Some were being taught in the mainstream school while others were in the school’s specialist provision (the PSRP—Pears Special Resource Provision). Admissions to the PSRP are determined by the local authority. All students in the PSRP have an education, health and care plan (EHCP). Of the mainstream students we met, some had one and others did not.
The students were unanimously positive about the support they receive from the school and were evidently proud of JCoSS. One told us that it was “top notch”. However, their experiences of other parts of the SEND system were mixed.
Students told us of long delays—of up to two years—waiting for an EHCP. In particular, several students had experienced long waits, of two to three years, for mental health support from Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)–suffering from anxiety, depression and panic attacks while waiting to receive a diagnosis and treatment. Some students had received private care but acknowledged that they were fortunate that their parents could afford this. Students explained that long waits for diagnoses could limit the support they could receive in school, including whether they were eligible for a learning support assistant.
More generally, students had observed that their parents had had to navigate considerable bureaucracy to obtain support for them. Some lamented that although the school supported them well, other support which was necessary to be in school—such as transport—was difficult to obtain. One student expressed frustration that so few tube stations are wheelchair-accessible.
We then met staff both from the mainstream school and the PSRP, as well as the Headteacher and the Governor responsible for inclusion. The problem of long waiting times—including of six months in a case of suicidal ideation—was again raised. Although the school has two part-time counsellors, the support they can offer is limited and demand for their time is growing. Staff explained that students often deteriorate without a diagnosis and early intervention. Among the nine local authorities from which the school takes students, there is a ‘postcode lottery’ to get an EHCP—with local authorities adopting different standards. Staff felt that a more standardised process would be beneficial and that more thought must be given to the complex conjunction of SEND and mental health problems.
The school had faced challenges relating to admissions. Parents’ preference to send their child to JCoSS could override the school’s judgement that the child would be better supported at a more specialist institution. Staff reflected that although this prevents schools from turning away SEND students unreasonably, it also prevents schools acting in good faith from declining to admit a student whom it was clear would not be able to remain long. They added that bureaucracy prevents children from being moved elsewhere when their placement at the school has become untenable.
We heard that the funding model for SEND presents further challenges. Funding for SEND is linked to deprivation rather than the number of students with SEND. This means that a school with low deprivation but high numbers of students with SEND such as JCoSS loses out relative to a school with high deprivation but low numbers of students with SEND. This can be exacerbated by schools with a good reputation for SEND provision becoming increasingly popular with parents and thus taking growing numbers of SEND students without any increase in funding. JCoSS now has four to five times more students with EHCPs than the national average.
We heard that having a more even spread of SEND students between mainstream schools is not just about sharing the burden of supporting those students; it is also about sharing the benefits. Staff felt that being educated alongside students with special needs made other students more tolerant and appreciative of diversity.
Sense Touchbase Centre
We then visited the Sense Touchbase Centre in Barnet. Run by a charity, it supports deafblind children, young people and their families. We met a couple whose children had been helped by Sense while growing up, as well as a mother with a young child.
We heard frustration that the Children and Families Act 2014 and other legislation, codes of practice and court judgements were not understood by local authority staff—and that the local authority was unwilling to take responsibility, including by trying to ‘run the clock down’ until a young person was 25 and would no longer be eligible for support. EHCPs had become more about what was available than what was needed and updates to them were seldom written up.
Parents observed a lack of co-ordination between education, health and social care services. We heard of one child being supported by 36 staff and the child’s mother having to co-ordinate this. Parents suggested that a requirement on health and social care staff to attend annual EHCP review meetings would be helpful, as attendance was currently sporadic at best.
Parents saw a need for independent advocates with strong powers. This would particularly help parents who lack the time or education to become experts on their rights, navigating “a spider’s web of information” and trying to break through “a wall of bureaucracy”. They had also encountered an expectation that at least one parent ought to give up work to become a full-time carer.