New SEN Pathfinder funding

[Sally44]

Has anyone on this forum been approached by their Local Authority to volunteer on the Pathfinder trial for SEN funding?

 

For anyone who does not know what this is about, it is the Governments new 'idea' to trial individual budgets for children with SEN [rather than a legally binding Statement]. Where the child is allocated a 'pot of money' and the parents decide how they would prefer it to be spent meeting the child's special educational needs.

 

Some LA have been asking parents to take part in the trial. And apparently a decision about whether to 'roll this out' as a national strategy is going to take place BEFORE the findings of these Pathfinder trials.

 

I would be very interested to hear from any parents that have been approached, or been approached and accepted the individual funding.

[chris54]

Iv heard about it but that about all.

[Sally44]

It is being trialed in a couple of LAs. And apparently the government plans to roll it out before they get any kind of feedback on these trials. So putting the horse infront of the carriage.

 

But I just wondered if anyone on the forum has been approached, or has agreed to try it.

 

I know that IPSEA are very interested to hear from participating parents.

 

And I have no idea HOW they will decide on a budget.

 

Do you get so many £'s for an ASD diagnosis, and less £'s for a diagnosis of Aspergers?

 

What about those children with co-morbid diagnosies or difficulties.

 

It is hard enough to get an ASD diagnosis. And even harder to get a second or third diagnosis. And I bet you don't get funding for difficulties that are undiagnosed. So that could mean two children; one has an ASD, another has ASD/dyslexia/dyspraxia/sensory processing disorder - and both may only get funding for the ASD. We have no idea WHAT diagnoses or difficulties will even receive funding.

 

Will SALT AND OT be funded?

 

And what about those children already in special schools or independent placements. What if their child's level of funding does not cover the cost of their current provision?

 

And what if your child is one of 4 children that receive a one hour 1:1 SALT session. If one child's parents decide to opt out and buy in their own SALT, they take their child's funding out of that pot for the 4 children. So, as an example, if the cost for the one hour SALT session is £100, each child's proportion is £25. So the parents that agree to individual funding receive £25 and do what with it? they cannot buy any SALT input with that amount of money. And just as important, it leaves the other 3children also with not enough money to pay for the 1 hour SALT session.

 

It could mean that LA and NHS multi disciplinary teams collapse as they receive no funding becuase parents are going to independent professionals. It could mean that schools also loose their expertise and trained staff as parents opt to buy in input. So lots of different professionals could be popping into school to see different kids.

 

So many questions, and no answers.

 

But more importantly, why aren't local authorities up in arms about this. Why aren't they complaining? Especially since this new proposal says that the LA will be responsible for children up to age 25, and that other departments [such as social services] will also be involved.

 

The ONLY REASON I can think of as to why no local authority is complaining - is that behind closed doors they are being told that this new initiative will save them money.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Sally44

[bed32]

Before anyone gets too worried about it - I should point out that I believe the Funding to be purely optional. It will remain an option for any parents to require the LA to continue to provide the necessary services exactly as they do now.

 

Some form of pilot has been running for about 3 years now and there is a long evaluation of it published.

 

I am not sure that the proposals will make that much difference to children whose primary SEN is ASD - it seems more focussed on joining up the educational and social needs of those children with greater direct social/health issues than most ASD children.

[Sally44]

I think it will affect alot of ASD children because they do need that combination of services, but are often denied them.

 

So getting those services/therapies into the Statement is currently the only legally binding option out there.

 

Many children/adults with an ASD have co-morbid diagnosis, or difficulties lumped together under "the umbrella of an ASD", such as sensory issues, emotional and behavioural issues, mental health issues including Anxiety, Eating Disorder and OCD type behaviours.

 

They children grow into adults that are often not independent, or partially independent, and need support as teenagers and adults via SS. Even those that gain qualifications [to degree level] are often unemployed, sometimes for years or permanently, due to their social communication and other difficulties - which again impacts on how they are vulnerable and often do not/cannot access health services via GP etc and remain "invisible" to all the support agencies and NHS/SS services.

 

So our children do need to have the 'whole package'. The problem is that this is being rolled out faster than the results of any trials can be gathered and analysed. And that is deliberate.

 

I'm following John Harris [freelance journalist at the Guardian], who is covering this alot at the moment.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jun/04/mother-sen-son-fears-reforms?INTCMP=SRCH

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jun/04/special-educational-needs-changes-time-campaigners?INTCMP=SRCH

Edited June 5, 2012 by Sally44

[Sally44]

At this stage the funding is "optional". But it will be rolled out by 2014 - which is just two years away.

 

This maybe another reason why parents should get a Statement now. Because it maybe that those children 'currently' with a Statement automatically receive certain things - or maybe what they receive cannot be reduced. But any child without a Statement would find it so much harder to get the new "equivalent".

 

Like most of the benefit system, the criteria and goals are changing to such an extent that many people [who are genuinely ill and/or unable to work] are finding that suddenly they are supposedly capable of work. And even if they do receive ESA, that is just for a year and then there is nothing apart from JSA.

 

So all these systems are being looked at, not with a view to improving the system. It is all about saving money, because the whole point of it is to get people off benefits. And the same will apply to SEN. That is why the government has already said that thousands of children, currently labelled as SEN via School Action/School Action Plus, would no longer be considered to be SEN under their new proposals. How will they manage that then? Are we talking about miracles happening? No we are talking about the same children, remaining the same, with the same difficulties as previously, suddenly finding they don't meet the new criteria.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Sally44

[bed32]

There is a lot of uncertainty around the fine details of the eventual legislation - and that of course causes anxieties for all of us. However as far as I can ascertain there is no concrete proposal that anyone thinks will adversely impact our children, what concerns there are are around the details of the legislation and whether any existing legal safeguards will be lost.

 

The specific issue of direct funding seems to have no disadvantages. It is not compulsory, so anyone who not happy can just say "No Thanks" and as it appears to being introduced under the existing SEN laws there is no possibility of it removing any existing rights. What is laughable is articles like the first of those Sally quotes that clearly indicates how "ridiculous" the current system is but is suspicious of proposals designed to improve many of the clear problems with status quo.

 

There can't be many people on this forum who think that the current system is perfect - and I imagine very few who disagree with the objectives of the reforms. Surely we should be broadly welcoming that fact that something is being done, while scrutinising the details to ensure that nothing essential gets lost on the way - rather than standing back and sniping a proposals just because we don't trust the motives of the (Labour) government that introduced them?

[Sally44]

Direct funding is not compulsory now. But that is the way the government want to go. With individual budgets.

 

AND if that replaces a legally binding Statement where will all our children be?

 

How can all the child's needs be identified, when most parents find they get ONE diagnosis - ASD - and then find it almost impossible to get anything else on paper. And how will each need be given a £'s cost?

 

Of course it is going to affect all the SEN children. Those who are on SA or SA+ may find they no longer fit the criteria and no longer receive any additional support whatsoever.

 

Those without a Statement may receive a budget. But the fact that this is being proposed - and NO LA is objecting! - demonstrates that behind closed doors the LA's must be being told that this is going to save them money.

 

I don't understand how you are saying it will not adversely affect our children with everyone involved [iPSEA, teachers union] is saying it will.

 

In my circumstances, what happens IF my son's allocated "SEN budget" [if they do find a way to scrap Statements, even for those that currently have one] does not meet the costs of his independent school placement?

[bed32]

What evidence is there for the assertion that the Government wants to make individual budgets compulsory? I have not seen any basis for that.

 

The details are not yet available - but we have to work on the assumption that whatever replaces statements retains the same legal force as the statement - and in fact that in itself is a good thing as raises the non-educational requirements to the same legal status as the educational requirements, so the current rather spurious distinction between Parts 2 & 5 (and 3 & 6) vanishes - and that must be good.

 

I also strongly approve of the changes at SA, SAP - they are crazy/useless in their current form. In our area there is essentially NO delegated funding for SA/SAP (in fact about £500 a year per pupil) so they are both over-used and under-funded. I would hope that for children with a diagnosis then the removal of that distinction should be an improvement as there should be a more graduated response rather than the present All (statement) or Nothing (SAP)

 

The responses I have read on this from NAS and solicitors specialising in SEN are all broadly supportive While there are clearly some issues where the details have not been finalised. I share concerns that there must be no dilution of the current legal rights of SEN children but I can see no evidence that that is the intention of the reforms - In fact I am more concerned that this will happen by accident rather than by design so I think we need to support IPSEA/NAS and so on as they analyse the proposals in detail.

 

Also the proposals seek to remove the crazy distinction where Academies/Free Schools are not bound by SEN - which again I regard as entirely positive. There have been a number of shocking cases recently of Academies trying to wriggle through holes in the current legislation and closing those holes can only be a good thing.

[Sally44]

This is the advice on IPSEA'S website at the moment. http://www.ipsea.org.uk/AssetLibrary/News/IPSEA%20Pathfinders.pdf

 

There are going to be changes. There is no guarantee that Statemetns will continue, or that there will remain the same legal requirements to provide the provison or that parents will have the same information, powers, or access to somewhere like SEND.

 

I agree that there does need to be some changes. But the fact that so many areas are being challenged by IPSEA and asking for written confirmation that those same safeguards will remain, means that currently there is no evidence that they will. Which has to be very worrying. The whole point of a Statement is that it is legally binding. That, IMO, is the most important part of the SEN process and if that is removed??

 

Also IPSEA seem to think that the new "one assessment" may mean that certain professionals are not consulted. That no reports are produced. That parents have no automatic access to any findings or reports that are produced ..... etc. That is making it harder, not easier.

 

Yes it is all "up in the air", and the fact is that it is highly unlikely that these changes are being made for the benefit of those children.

 

I know your opinion is that SA and SA+ is not useful. But by changing the criteria, that may simply mean more money in the pot for those children that need support, but not a Statement - but it effectively means that some children will be bumped off the SA and SA+ list because they no longer fit the criteria - not because they no longer have an SEN.

 

The same has happened with Incapacity Benefit. I received that since 2000, and after my last assessment was told that they would not need to see me again because it was "obvious" that I was not capable of work. Under the new ESA assessment I have been found capable of work! My conditions have not changed. I am not now miracuously able to work. My GP is writing a letter of support for me to send to them - but I suspect I will end up having to Appeal.

 

The same thing is happening with SEN. It is the government's way of trying to save money. But it is targetting those that are most vulnerable. How about them taking a pay cut instead???

[bed32]

The IPSEA report certainly points out specific issues with the Pathfinder that may not exist with the final version - particularly the ambiguity about the rules under which it will operate.

 

Other than that their concerns seem to be more about whether DfES actually does what it is saying it will do - and whether the LA Officers understand the changes being proposed (which they clearly don't). They already highlight the key DfES statement that we as parents will continue to have the same statutory protection that we do now - and assuming that is 100% accurate then I just don't see the downside. At present it seems that we have to use SENDDIST every time to get our rights so provided that same level of protection is in place then it simply can't really get any worse than it is now (at least not with my LA - others may have better experiences).

 

I do disagree about the motivation for the changes - these have been a long time coming dating from (IIRC) a report of about 2006 into SEN - the objectives seem to be well intentioned and appear to try to address many of the issues that we have all experienced with the current system.

 

As to costs - it ought to be cost-neutral. Our children don't get any additional rights (at least not the right to any additional provision) but it just tries to connect up how that is provided.

 

From my own perspective I think the changes may be useful - if there is a specific therapy that I would like for our son (e.g. Sensory Integration Therapy) then we can look to have that provided via a budget rather than LA having to buy it in themselves, and it raises the possibility of us integrating private and LA funded provision seemlessly that is just not possible now.

[Sally44]

That depends on:

 

1) whether the new one assessment even automatically includes an OT as part of the assessment team.

2) if any suitably trained OT even assesses for Sensory Processing Disorder

3) if they do assess, whether the new system allocates any £'s costs to a therapy that the NHS do not fund.

4) when they do assess, if they provide any report of findings at all [as currently there is no requirement for them to do so] and if you don't get the needs in writing, how can you specify the provision.

5) The amalgamation of 'education' and 'health' ie. parts 3 and 6. Will that mean Sensory Processing Disorder is recognised as an 'educational' or a 'health' need. And if not recognised as an educational need then it could be down to local NHS provision, which is currently NIL.

 

I like your optimism. But current changes to other systems have been done in a way that simply reduces costs.

 

So I think we all have to keep a very close eye on what is happening and get as proactive and involved as we can at lobbying about this at every stage of the process.

 

Surely the fact that the government is going to make a decision on the Pathfinder pilot projects, before the results even come in [and some LAs havent even set them up yet - so less than 2-3 months of information will be gathered, and the government will have made their decision before those results/information is in], makes you slightly suspicious?

 

I agree that those current problems may not exist in the final version. But are those making the changes really so unaware of how the current system operates and what the issues are? And if that is the case, why are they the people making the changes.

[bed32]

A significant difference between this an other changes the coalition government has made, is that these changes have been in the pipeline for a long time. The initial work on which the Green paper was based was done back in 2006(IIRC) and I think has broad cross-party support. If you read the work done at the time it seems that they had a pretty good grasp of the issues, and certainly the objectives set out in the Green Paper have been pretty much universally supported (although questions exist as to the implementation).

 

There has been a good consultation on the Green Paper (although we don't yet know what the white paper will look like) and as far as I can tell most of the people I would trust are broadly supportive of the objectives.

 

The nature of the passage of a Bill through parliament is that there is plenty of time for the results of any pathfinder projects to be incorporated into the final bill even though they are not yet off the ground.

 

The idea of the "Individual Budget" for disabled children was the subject of a two year pilot programme set up by the last Government. All this makes for a much more considered set of changes than, say, the NHS reforms.

[Sally44]

Well I would love to be surprised and proved wrong.

 

Only time will tell.