“ What You Need To Know” (Current/Future SEN/Disability Law)”

“What You Need To Know”(Current/Future SEN/Disability Law)”

Presentation byDouglas Silas

East Sussex Parent & Carers’ Council (ESPaCC)13th February 2014

www.SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk

@douglassilas douglassilas Douglas Silas +DouglasSilas

• Solicitor who runs small/niche/nationally acclaimed firm specialising exclusively in SEN cases

• Advise/represent parents throughout ‘statementing’ process/appeals to & against SEND Tribunal

• Popular website at www.SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk

• Lawyer who tries to avoid litigation/disputes• Always remember child/young person:

• Seems obvious but easy to forget • Too much focus on policies/rights/funding/the law• SEN provision should be based on practicalities not ideology

2

WHO I AM


• 3 sessions (2 pre-lunch/1 post-lunch)• Focused on Education/Health/Care • Will look at system through SEN prism• 3 aims overall:

1. Look at current framework (history/criticism etc.)2. Look at proposed framework (from Sept. 2014?)3. Answer questions as best I can

• 4th session for Q & A (write questions over lunch)• Only overview/Lots to get through (further reading)• May already know things (apologies in advance )

PURPOSE OF DAY

3 www.SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk

OVERVIEW

10:15: “Education, Health & Care – Part 1: The Past”11:15: Break11:30: “Education, Health & Care – Part 2: The Present”12:30: Lunch (write questions for later)13:15: “Education, Health & Care – Part 3: The Future”14:00: Short Breaks etc. /Questions/Comments 15:00: Close

www.SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk4

EDUCATION, HEALTH & CARE

PART 1: THE PAST


“When one teaches, two learn”(Robert Half)


• Warnock Report 1978

• Education Act 1983/1996 (consolidation)

• SENDA 2001

• Other amending legislation/caselaw over years

• Statutory duties on:• Parents

• Local Authorities (‘LEAs/LAs’)

• Schools

• Other education providers

HISTORY

7www.SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk

• Office of National Statistics: • 20% of pupils have SEN/only 2-3% have statements

• 85-90% of pupils with SEN in m/s schools without statements

• 1993 – present: SEND Tribunal appeals for disputes• 2001: right to ‘inclusion’/Revised SEN Code of Practice

• Most education litigation about SEN

• Most SEN litigation about assessments/statements

STATISTICS

8 www.SpecialEucationalNeeds.co.uk

• Debate on statements always overshadowed SEN• Emotions run high/mistrust:

• Between parents/LAs & schools• Between schools/LAs• Between LAs/parent orgs

• Why?:• Parents say they have to fight LAs/schools for statement • Schools say LAs are not supporting them (financially etc) • LAs/schools say parents have unreasonable expectations • Parent orgs. say LAs too bureaucratic/resource-led• LAs say others don’t appreciate dilemma of limited

resources/extensive statutory duties

DEBATE


OVERVIEW

• Not all difficulties caused by potential SEN• SEN law is complex/different to parents/schools/LAs but

essentially goal is same :• To sort out problems quickly/efficiently/painlessly/amicably• To get child with SEN appropriate provision/placement ASAP

• Audit Commission (2002):• 69% SEN resources focused on 2-3% of pupils with statements • Postcode lottery?• Schools/LA policies are key factors but so are parental means• Parents often feel that SEP/preferred school only achieved

through threat of/actual Tribunal appeal• Statement/Appeal process – drives parties apart not together?


• Parents can appeal to SEND Tribunal if LA:1. Refuses to carry out re/assessment2. Refuses to issue a statement after

assessment3. Makes/amends statement but dispute Parts

2/3/4 (school/type of school/other placement)4. Refuses to change name of school (if M/T)5. Refuses to change statement after AR6. Decides to cease to maintain statement

11

WHAT IS A TRIBUNAL APPEAL?


• Last SEND Tribunal report (2009/10):• Registers around 3,500 SEN appeals/year• <2,000 appeals needed resolution• <1,000 appeals needed decision (after full hearing)• Rest conceded/about 50 – 60 struck out

• Types of case:• 40% against refusals to assess/2% to re-assess• 25 – 30% against part 2, 3 & 4 • 12%:parts 2 and 3 only/10 – 11%: part 4 only• 2 - 3% against decisions to cease to maintain statement• <1% against refusals to change named school

12

WHAT IS A TRIBUNAL APPEAL?


A BIT ABOUT POST-16 • Learning & Skills Council replaced by Skills Funding

Agency (from April 2010)• Unless YP still in school Learning Disability Assessments

(LDA) used instead of statements• Dept. of Ed. delegates oversight of Post-16 to:

1.Young People’s Learning Agency (agency of DoE)2.Skills Funding Agency (agency of D for Bus/Innov/Skills) 3.LAs (have general duty to secure suitable ed./training):

•Must fund statements in schools up to 19 •Must arrange LDA if Post-16 student intends to leave

school but continue education elsewhere• (Since 2010) also responsible for commissioning

high-value placements • Complex arrangements/different statutory frameworks

www.SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk13

• Year 9 AR reviews young person’s statement AND:• Drafts/reviews Transition Plan (with Careers Service)• Considers cont. ed./vocational training (inc. work exp.)

• Year 10/11 AR reviews update ‘Transition Plan’ • See how different agencies will work together to meet

agreed aims (e.g. Ed./Health/Social Services/Careers) • Difficulties:

• LAs suggest unsuitable college placements• LAs issue decisions to cease to maintain statements• LAs do not agree to fund ind. school/college• LAs do not agree to pay for 3rd year of courses• No provision Post-16/19? (if no stat./not in school)• LDAs not as specific/enforceable as statements

14

A BIT ABOUT POST-16


• 2006 Ed/Skills Committee: SEN system ‘not fit for purpose’

• 2007-2010: 4 Inquiries conducted on SEN/Disability • (Dec) 2009: Lamb Inquiry – improv.par. confidence• (May) 2010 – Coalition Government elected• (Sept.) 2010 – SEN Green Paper – ‘Call for Views’ • (Sept.) 2010 - Ofsted report:

‘A Statement is Not Enough’• (Oct) 2010 ‘Comprehensive Spending Review’:

•Cut of around 35% for Govt. departments •7.1% cut in LA revenue which will have ‘knock

on’ effect on services to schools

NEED FOR CHANGE


CRITICISMS• (Dec.) 2010: Govt. publishes results of ‘Call for Views’• (March) 2011: Govt. publishes SEN Green Paper • Promises ‘Biggest reforms to SEN in 30 years’ to avoid:

•Parents having to ‘battle’ to get support for child•Statements not joining up Education/Health/Care•Children having multiple assessments•Too much paperwork/bureaucracy/delay•Confusing/adversarial process•Perceived conflict of interest of LA (assess/provision)•Over-identification of SEN/low expectations


• Govt. proposes to:• Include parents in assessment process• Introduce right to give control of funding for support • Replace statements with single EHC assessment/plan• Make assessment/plans run from birth to 25 years old• Replace existing SA/SA+ system with one simpler

school-based category (help teachers raise attainment)• Greater independence from LAs through voluntary orgs.• Give parents greater choice of school• Give parents/others power to set up special ‘Free’

schools

INITIAL PROPOSALS


INITIAL PROPOSALS• 15 May 2012 - Govt. issues response to SEN Green Paper• 3 Sept. 2012 – Govt. issues ‘draft provisions’ of C&F Bill:

• Will replace Part 4 of EA1996 (and s.139A of LDA 2000)• Definition of SEN/SEP will remain same• Statements to be replaced by EHC assessments/plans• EHC plans to extend rights into FE (not apprenticeships)• LAs/CCGs must ‘jointly commission’ services for SEN • LAs must have info. on services available (‘Local Offer’)• No duties on Health/Care to deliver contents of EHC plan• EHC plan ceases if not in education/training• All provisions will apply to Academies• Parents must attend compulsory mediation before Appeal


WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

• (Sept. 2012) Ed/Select Committee announces scrutiny• (Dec. 2012) Ed/Select Committee report (on time) says:

• Welcomes proposals/advises no delay in implementing• Lack of detail means proper evaluation impossible • Current protection for statements must be maintained• Health law needs change for successful joined up services• Should engage with Post-16 providers immediately• New CoP must be laid before Parliament (not planned)• Only ‘consideration’ of mediation should be compulsory • Must include disabled children without SEN/apprentices• Must include Independent special schools/colleges


POTENTIAL PROBLEMS?

• Govt. says will draw lessons from ‘Pathfinders’ pilot projects (20 Pathfinders over 31 LAs/Health Authorities)

• Committee notes Pathfinders still at early stage so need to be extended (some only set up in Sept. 2012)

• Legal process for change already started• Still waiting for Pathfinders results (will report Sept. 2014)• Bill due Royal Assent in early 2014/implemented Sept. 2014• Pathfinders reporting back only after new law implemented?• Potential problem?


• February 2013:• Govt. issues C&F Bill (England):

• Duty still on LA but now must also keep health/care under review

• Must issue CoP as statutory guidance (& consult on) • Health/Care is SEP if now mainly for education/training• If Health feels child has SEN must inform parents/LA asap• Joint commissioning must secure proper provision• LA must ensure SEP integrated with Health/Care provision

(if it promotes well-being/improves quality of SEP)• LA duty to cooperate with local partners in area• LA must make ‘Local Offer’ (i.e. appropriate provision

available in area)

NEW PROPOSALS


• Child without EHC plan must still be educated in m/t school (if there is no cost to LA)

• LA must name preferred m/t school in EHC plan unless:• Incompatible with wishes of parent/young person and • Incompatible with provision of efficient education

• LA must name preferred school in EHC plan unless:•School unsuitable for age/ability/aptitude/SEN of child or• Incompatible with efficient education of others/resources

• LA must use ‘best endeavours’ to make SEP• EHC plan maintained until end of academic year when 25• LA must prepare ‘personal budget’ if parental re quest • Parents can still appeal but only if mediation adviser issues

certificate (whether they have participated or not)

WHAT ABOUT SCHOOLS?


• Good: 1. Parents/schools (now also YP) can request assessment2. LAs retain duty to ‘specify’ (not ‘set out’ as suggested)3. EHC plan remain until appeal of decision to cease4. CoP now scrutinised by Parliament before becoming law 5. No need for compulsory mediation before appeal

• But 6 criticisms: 1. Special Academies can admit without assessment/plan 2. Loss of time limits & form/content of EHC plan3. No minimum level of evidence during assessment4. Personal budgets (PBs)/direct payments – not yet clear

when duty fulfilled/no right of appeal5. No single EHC assessment/plan covering needs/prov.

(still only LA education duty)6. ‘Local Offer’ still not legally enforceable (no details yet)

IPSEA’S RESPONSE



BREAK








PART 2: THE PRESENT


“Common sense is instinct and enough of it is genius”

(Josh Billings)


• Indicative CoP issued March 2013• Draft CoP consulted on Oct-Dec 2013 (9 not 12 weeks)• Draft CoP runs to 174 pages (much > than current CoP)• Meant to be more accessible to YP/families (as now more

involved in decision-making)• Initially pleased as:

• Protections for children with SEN without EHC Plan• Time limits for LA decisions • Still ARs of EHC Plans (and consultation with parents) • Now more of a standard format for all EHC Plans • Provision more legally enforceable

WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD


• Lots of omissions from current CoP/confusing wording• Will replace other statutory guidance for LAs (i.e. Inclusive

Schooling Guidance/LDA Guidance)• Will do away with SA/SA+ (most SEN children now

unregulated)• Will do away with IEPs (i.e. a standard way to outline

provision/progress/outcomes)• ‘Local Offer’ will still be legally unenforceable• Will do away with standardisation of EHC Plans (i.e. each LA

can design its own)• Will still allow children to be placed in Special schools

indefinitely without assessment/EHC plan (as long as LA reviews placement termly)

BUT LOOK CLOSER…


• IPSEA did excellent analysis comparing Draft CoP with current CoP (available on their website)

• I also summarised 10 things in Draft CoP (see my ‘SEN Update’ in Jan. 2014 on:

www.SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk • Strongly advise you to sign up to future updates/read last

update in full• However, going to attempt to outline what I said here…

ANALYSIS


1) “TO WHO WILL THE DRAFT SEN CODE OF PRACTICE APPLY?”

• Local Authorities;• Early Year Providers, Schools, Academies, Free Schools;• Sixth Form Colleges, Further Education Colleges;• Pupil Referral Units (‘PRUs’);• Independent Special Schools/Specialist Providers;• Clinical Commissioning Groups/NHS Trusts;• Local Health Boards, NHS England• Other Education/Health Service providers • Emphasis on holistic approach (duty to ensure co-ordinated)

SUMMARY OF COP


2) “WHAT ARE THE KEY CHANGES MADE BY THE DRAFT CODE?”

• 7 key issues:1. Definition of Types of SEN;2. A Single School Based Category of Support;3. A Co-ordinated Statutory Assessment Process;4. Education Health and Social Care (‘EHC’) Plans;5. Maintaining EHC Plans;6. Personal Budgets;7. Dispute Resolution.

SUMMARY OF COP


• Main changes:• EHC plans will (i.e. can) cover children from birth-25 (but

no presumption it will continue until 25 as only maintained until outcomes achieved)

• EHC plans will replace Statements from Sept 2014 (i.e. no further Statements issued - within 3 years all existing Statements will change to EHC Plans);

• Clear focus on including children/YP’s views in assessing/provision (only positive);

• Joint commissioning of services across Education/Health/Social Care providers (i.e. co-ordinated assessment/plans;

• SA/SA+ substituted by ‘Additional SEN Support’

SUMMARY OF COP


3) “HOW WILL SEN NOW BE CLASSIFIED?”• SEN now classified into 4 categories (Chapter 6.3):

a. Communication and Interaction difficultiesb. Cognition and Learningc. Social, Mental and Emotional Healthd. Sensory and/or Physical

• MLD/behavioural difficulties now removed (states explicitly that behavioural difficulties do not necessarily mean SEN)

• Shift of focus - should not be automatically registered if behavioural (so <children will be registered as having SEN)

• Now clear distinction between medical needs/disability and SEN (again so <children will be registered as having SEN)

SUMMARY OF COP


4) “HOW WILL CHILDREN WITH SEN NOW BE SUPPORTED?”

• Currently two school-based levels of support – (SA/SA+) but now replaced by single category of school support

• Presumption of ‘inclusion’ – Draft CoP explicitly states that vast majority of children with SEN will have needs met in m/s without additional support/intervention

• Lot of detail about how should go about providing support for children without a plan (whole chapter on how m/s providers/specialists can improve attainment/secure good outcomes

• Still only ‘best endeavours’ duty on schools to secure SEP (but now more detail as to what ‘best endeavours’ are)

SUMMARY OF COP


5) “WHAT WILL THIS MEAN IN PRACTICE?”• ‘Early identification of SEN’ built into overall approach to (i.e.

monitor progress/development of all pupils); • SEN not sufficient explanation for low achievement/teaching?• ‘Evidence-based interventions’/‘Graduated approach’ then:• ‘Assess’: teacher/SENCO/others? have regular reviews;• ‘Plan’: agreement in consultation with parent as to support

provided (guided by clear set of expected outcomes);• ‘Do’: teacher retains responsibility (incl. for those with

1:1/small group teaching);• ‘Review’: everyone regularly reviews effectiveness of

support/impact on progress towards outcomes (incl. termly meetings)

SUMMARY OF COP


6)“WILL THIS AFFECT TEACHING?”• Clear responsibility now of every teacher for every student

(teacher of every pupil - whether or not they have SEN) • Also responsibility for identifying/supporting pupils with SEN• Different approach to current CoP (sees SEN as specialism)• Says most SEN pupils can progress if high quality teaching• Schools should ‘regularly/carefully’ review quality of teaching

(incl. teachers’ knowledge of SEN frequently encountered) • SEN/progress now core part of school’s performance• Wide implications – need high quality CPD to ensure all staff

have knowledge/skills/expertise needed

SUMMARY OF COP


• Only best practice recommendation • But will have to be taken seriously• Recognises there will be situations where children with SEN

make inadequate progress despite higher quality teaching • Says schools should always consider involving

specialists/outside agencies – EPs/CAMHS/therapists/ behaviour support services/ specialist teachers/others

• ‘Joint commissioning arrangements’ focus• But how available is external support in reality? (ever tried

getting an appointment with CAMHS?)

SUMMARY OF COP


• 7) “HAS THE STATUTORY ASSESSMENT PROCESS CHANGED?”

• Theoretically yes – as now greater emphasis on coordination of assessment process across Education/Health/Care;

• But LA still must seek advice from/consult some of same people:• Parents and Young Person;• School/Education provider (if child is not in school);• Medical Professionals;• Educational Psychologist;• Social Care;• VI or HI teacher (if applicable)/other relevant people/orgs.

SUMMARY OF COP


• Test for assessment still if LA considers SEP required ‘cannot reasonably be provided from within the resources normally available’ to m/s providers

• EHC assessment can still be requested by parents/schools…• But now assessment can also be requested by YP over

16/Post-16 institutions/guardians/health professionals/youth offending teams etc.

• Also now greater emphasis on incl. parents/YP & providing them with full information throughout process

• Very different approach to current assessment process • More streamlined process is admirable but work in practice?

SUMMARY OF COP


• Main change is whole assessment/planning process must now take <20 weeks (instead of 26 weeks):• 6 weeks for assessment/6 weeks for other info to be given• Parents/YP have 15 days to respond to draft EHC plan • LA now has total of 16 weeks to notify parent/YP of

decision not to issue EHC plan • Therefore LA seems to have only 4 weeks to finalise draft

EHC plan unless earlier stages completed more quickly• Incentive for LA to now speed up at assessment stage – but

is difficult if trying to bring together health/care information?• Logistical changes may also be needed to ensure shorter

timescales are met by LA

SUMMARY OF COP


8) “WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN AN EHC PLAN?”• Remember, that currently layout of EHC plan will differ locally

(no prescription of how they - look left to each LA) • They must be clear/understandable/accessible and…• …written so LA professionals can understand them • (but nothing specifically said about parents/YP)• Must now be evidence-based/focused on outcomes• SEND Tribunal have asked for a standard format as they do

not want 132 different formats to contend with!• Draft CoP specifies what will be covered in each EHC plan…

SUMMARY OF COP


1. Views/interests/aspirations of child/YP/parents;2. Description of SEN; 3. Outcomes sought (incl. for adult life if appropriate);4. SEP required (detailed/specific/normally quantified);5. Any health/social care provision reasonably required

(but has to be tied into education);6. Name/type of school/maintained nursery/Post-16

institution/other institution or type of school; 7. If Personal Budget – details/outcomes intended;8. Advice gathered during assessment (in appendices); 9. Other Health/Care provision unrelated to SEN (but not

directly enforceable);

SUMMARY OF COP


• Formal reviews of EHC Plan still take place annually • Broadly similar to current system but now ‘holistic’ approach • Greater emphasis on children/YP/parents involvement• Now strong presumption that majority of SEN children will not

need EHC plan • Emphasis on high expectations for all children/YP with SEN• Remember no presumption that EHC plan will continue until

25 - only if outcomes still to be achieved• Maybe reluctance by some LAs to put high achieving

outcomes in EHC plans (as will then have to fund support in it until 25)?

• But driving principle of high aspirations?

SUMMARY OF COP


• 9) “WHAT IS A ‘LOCAL OFFER’?”• LA has duty to publish information about provisions expected

to be available for children/YP with SEN in their area – incl. info on how to seek EHC assessment/plan & transport/training etc.

• Hoped to be way to improve quality of strategic SEN planning in LAs

• ‘Local Offer’ has two key purposes:1. To provide clear/comprehensive/accessible info about

support/opportunities available locally2. To make provision more responsive to local

needs/aspirations by directly involving children/YP with SEN & parents/carers/service providers in development/review

SUMMARY OF COP


• 10) “WHAT ARE PERSONAL BUDGETS?”• Monies identified by LA to deliver all/part of prov in EHC plan• YP/parents have right to request preparation of PB• LA has duty to prepare even before EHC plan issued (but

only where LA has agreed to prepare one)• Provision for formal review if disagreement• Doubtful that parents given lump sum of money to pay for

support (which originally many believed would happen)• Range of delivery (?) including: direct payments/joint

commissioning arrangements (i.e. for ‘economies of scale’)/3rd party arrangements/nominees (i.e. 3rd parties who manage funds)/or even a combination

SUMMARY OF COP


• Must include provisions LA expects to be used by children/YP they have responsibility for (even if operates outside of LA control - i.e. in neighbouring authority)

• Not meant to be just a directory of services – should be:• Collaborative – i.e. involve key participants meaningfully• Accessible – i.e. easy to understand/factual/clearly

structured/jargon-free• Comprehensive – i.e. set out entitlements about

provision/support/eligibility criteria/accountability• Transparent – i.e. clear about how decisions are made/

who is accountable & responsible for them

SUMMARY OF COP



BREAK



PART 3: THE FUTURE







“An expert is someone who knows more and

more about less and less until eventually he knows everything about nothing”

(Anonymous)


• Parental organisations say Draft CoP etc needs overhaul• Govt. also consulted on Draft Regulations (e.g. transition)• IPSEA say 5 things: • 1. Draft CoP ‘not fit for purpose’:

• Does not even give basic practical guidance • Structure/language unclear/inadequate/caselaw omitted• Needs totally rewriting/re-consultation – so needs time

• 2. Majority of children with SEN without EHC plan will now be worse off:• Omits guidance to schools • Clear accountability will be removed

PRESENT POSITION


3. Will now lose protections against being placed inappropriately in special schools without EHC plan:• Now possible for child (without EHC plan) to be placed

permanently without having needs assessed first• Current guidance on right to inclusive schooling now not

there anymore• Maybe now in breach of international treaty obligations/

UK equalities legislation (i.e. inclusive schooling)4. Regulations do not provide clear/detailed/unambiguous

framework for EHC Plans:• LAs will be able to do their own thing/’postcode lottery’• Need clarity of nationally set standards

PRESENT POSITION


5. Serious omission that ‘mental capacity’ not clarified in Regulations as:

• Legal rights to engage/challenge LAs now automatically transfer from parents to YP at 16

• Now potential for parents to be barred from continuing to act as advocates for their child is real so needs addressing immediately

PRESENT POSITION


• 27 Dec 2013 - Govt. issued PR: “Families happy with SEN reforms and £70 million for councils”

• PR refers to interim report of Oct 2013 – : “Impact Evaluation of the SEND Pathfinder Programme” and says:• Findings of 2,000 families/31 LAs show:

•Parents feel more empowered/supported/happier with services they are receiving (88%)

• Professionals overwhelmingly supportive of new approaches/feel more family-centred way of working

• LAs gearing up for intro of reforms in Sept. 2014 with majority already laying groundwork for new system

PRESENT POSITION


• Twitter questions credibilitty of PR/ IPSEA’s response asks:• Why is PR talking about ‘feelings’; • What about real ‘outcomes’ ?• What about integration of Education/Health/Care?• What about quality of EHC Plans vs. statements?

• Argues:• DfE/LAs cherry picked parents to arrive at conclusion• Strong positive statements actually only 17%/40 families

(context - Jan 2013: 229k pupils with statements)• Researchers themselves say: “While positive, overall

level of change appears modest at relatively early stage”

PRESENT POSITION


• Special Educational Consortium (SEC) also issues briefing: • Says will be unable to support Draft CoP in current form• Overwhelming view of members is Draft CoP does not

fulfill its fundamental purpose as statutory guidance as:• Does not tell professionals what they must do;• Not written to help parents/YP understand entitlements;• Legal duties not clearly explained (also C & F Bill/draft

SEN regulations) • Accepts still draft but needs significant redrafting/

restructuring if to work - currently draft won’t achieve aims • Asks DfE to work with them during redrafting/in advance

of publication of final version

PRESENT POSITION


• Consideration of C & F Bill by Parliament almost complete (recent 3rd Reading)

• Many amendments made in HL:• Now inclusion of disabled children/YP within some of

strategic elements of Bill• Now duty on health to provide what is in EHC Plan• Now clarification of duty on LAs in relation to social care • Now announcement of review/set of pilots to explore idea

of single point of appeal in more detail• But further clarification still needed• And still concerns about Draft CoP

LATEST POSITION


MY OBSERVATIONS

• No-one has crystal ball:• Tension: Parents want ‘best’/LAs provide ‘adequate’• Parents: LA short-sighted/LAs: Parents focus on present• Less provision: maybe less cost now/more cost in future• More provision: maybe more cost now/less cost in future

• Agree with aspirations but still concerns:• Perceived delay/quickness of change (contradictory?) • Insufficient evidence for wholesale change • Where will funding come from?• Post-16/19 providers not ready/engaged• Will EHC plans just be Education Statements until 25?


AND FINALLY…• Cases getting more complicated over years:

• more case law to have regard to• more difficult issues to resolve• more potential consequences to consider

• I specialise in SEN but still struggle to keep up with what is going on!

(so how are parents/schools/LAs expected to manage/present cases?)

• Can’t always just leave to Tribunal to decide – (could argue that we have already failed if at hearing?)

• No-one has crystal ball to look into the future



BREAK







Open Discussion & Questions/Comments







Documents

“ What You Need To Know” (Current/Future SEN/Disability Law)”