Forward in partnership for children and young people with
additional needs: Proposals for reform of the legislative
framework for special educational needs
Consultation
Response Form
Your name: Dr Alison Stroud
Organisation (if applicable): Royal College of Speech
and Language Therapists (RCSLT)
e-mail/telephone number: [email protected]
Your address: Wales Policy Office, Transport House,
1 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9SB
Responses should be returned by 19 October 2012 to:
Additional Needs Branch
Support for Learners Division
Department for Education and Skills
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ
Tel: 029 2082 6044
Fax: 029 2080 1044
or completed electronically and sent to:
e-mail: [email protected]
Question 1
Do you agree with the proposals in section 2, and that special educational needs (SEN)
should be replaced by additional needs (AN)?
Agree
X
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
The RCSLT welcomes the proposed change as it recognises a wider spectrum of
additional needs. We are pleased that communications needs are included under the
new definitions. However, we are also concerned that a broader definition of needs is
introduced at a time when services are being asked to make efficiency savings, local
council budgets have been reduced and the NHS is undergoing further major reform.
Our concern is that this may be to the detriment of those with greatest need if
resources are spread too thinly. Furthermore, those with less severe impairments but
in whom the greatest cost effective and efficient outcomes can be made, risk losing
out if resources are not allocated according to evidence base. Definitions must be
made clearer.
Question 2
In section 3 we state that statements of SEN should be replaced with an integrated
assessment and planning process and that an integrated web-based Individual
Development Plan will be developed to replace or integrate not just statements, but the
range of individual plans to which children and young people might be subject. Do you:
a) agree with the proposal in section 3?
Agree
x
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
We welcome the principle of a collaborative multi-agency plan to replace statements –
particularly the introduction of a simple, more person-centred system. We would
wish to have clarity around accountability in terms of which organisation will be
ultimately responsible for co-ordinating and overseeing IDPs. The RCSLT has not
seen the results of the IDP pilots and believes that health professionals have not been
as engaged in the pilots as we would have hoped.
b) agree with the extended age range outlined in section 5?
Agree
X
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
We believe this proposal requires further clarification in terms of a lead agency for 16
to 25s. The plethora of agencies engaging with people in this age-group for a wide
range of services could lead to confusion, duplication and breakdown of partnership
working in relation to this age-group. This may have significant resource implications.
Question 3
Do you agree that the planning tool should be a common web-based one across Wales
– as described in section 3?
Agree
X
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
RCSLT warmly welcomes the person-centred approach.
We would wish to be reassured about IT compatibility between agencies and
individuals accessing the system and the security of an IT system holding records of
vulnerable children and young people.
RCSLT believe the hardware resources in LHBs inadequate. Similarly, we are
concerned that parent’s in lower income groups may not have adequate access to IT.
Question 4
Do you agree that multi-agency working – see section 4 – should be a requirement in
the delivery of this reform proposal, i.e. that the statutory partners of education, health,
and social services should be under a legal obligation to play an active part in devising
and delivering services for learners with significant and severe and/or complex needs?
Agree
X
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
We welcome proposals to strengthen multi-agency working if it leads to a seamless
care pathway supporting children with complex additional needs through to
adulthood. However, it is important to stress that a significant number of children
with Speech Language and Communication Needs (SLCN) do not have complex
needs requiring a multi-agency approach (about 93% of current caseloads in Wales).
We are concerned that those children may slip through the gaps in service delivery.
We would also seek clarification on what is meant by flexible funding responses.
We also have reservations concerning the practicality of budget holders from each
agency sitting on Support Panels given the demands on individuals of this seniority.
RCSLT understands that complaints about SLT services in Wales have reduced
following ‘Working Together’ joint pilot projects in Wales (2005-2008) and NHS
Therapy Waiting time targets improving access times. Health Service and LA partners
have improved cooperation without legislation. It would be important that provision
mapping clearly informs a true, current reflection of gaps and/or duplication.
Question 5
We describe in section 6 the proposal to deal with concerns and disagreements in a
much more proactive way. Do you agree with what is set out in that section?
Agree
X
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
The proposal to provide for early resolution of concerns and disagreements and the
intention to include parents/carers throughout the process is a welcome and positive
step. We would wish to see Health Care Professions Council registered professionals
sitting on Tribunals as a significant number of disputes concerns therapies –
particularly Speech and Language Therapy.
RCSLT believes a key solution to reduce the waste in the current system is to develop
prevention services and early resolution to build trust in parents and partners.
Question 6
Section 7 outlines the revised process of appeal to Tribunal. Do you agree with:
a) the expanded remit for the Tribunal?
Agree
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
X
Supporting comments
While we understand the proposal to broaden the remit of the SEN Tribunal to include
Health and Social Care, we do not believe that an individual patient’s health provision
can be subject to a Tribunal ruling. Health must always be a matter for clinical
judgement – not a legal right. RCSLT recommend Health Economic expert advice is
considered.
Tribunals could have to consider an outcome-based resource allocation, not just an
input-based allocation, which in health economics considers the evidence base.
HCPC legally protects the role of registrants to assess, diagnose and treat individuals
according to the evidence base of that profession.
b) the proposed requirement to go to dispute resolution before a case can be taken to
Tribunal?
Agree
x
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
Question 7
Section 8 outlines an aspiration for a much more robust Family Partnership Service to
support families and children/young people. We describe how the proposed reforms
should reinforce support and active dispute resolution to ensure the need to challenge
decisions is minimised. Do you agree with the general principles outlined?
Agree
X
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
We agree in principle and believe that the emphasis on prevention of disagreements
and better information is a positive approach. We would need more detail of the
proposal to respond fully. We would wish to contribute to information provided
through a Family Partnership Service to help parents and carers have a better
understanding of Speech and Language Therapy in relation to their child.
Question 8
Section 9 sets out how we propose to build in quality assurance to the proposed
system. Do you agree with these proposals?
Agree
x
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
The RCSLT supports the proposal for Welsh Ministers to have a duty to issue an
Additional Needs Code of Practice. We would like to assist in defining key indicators
so that the needs of children and young people with SLCN are properly addressed.
Question 9
Do you agree with the proposal to develop Provision Pathways as described in section
9 paragraphs 9.8 and 9.9?
Agree
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
RCSLT expert members have developed a draft SLCN pathway ( attached) and would
value working further with WG on developing detail and guidance documents.
Question 10
There is a specific reference to the changes proposed for post-16 specialist placements
as outlined in section 10 – the transfer of this responsibility to local authorities. Do you
agree in principle with this change?
Agree
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
RCSLT support in principle, assuming LA ring fenced budgets
Question 11
This area of policy is one of the most important for the most vulnerable children and
young people in our society and effective planning, provision of assessed needs support
and the monitoring of outcomes is one of the most important elements. The consultation
document covers the main principles of the SEN reform. Do you agree that the key
elements have been addressed in this document?
Agree
x
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Supporting comments
RCSLT welcomes elements of this proposal, particularly the shift from ‘diagnostic’
based support to a person-centred approach. RCSLT agrees the need to remove
waste from the current system. However, we have reservations as to whether a new
legislative framework will deliver the aspiration to remove waste. We believe there is
a risk of simply shifting some of the waste from education to other agencies. We also
have reservations about whether the proposals will be cost neutral. The new system
must be outcome not input focussed and must be evidenced-based.
Effective joint planning must be based on the needs of the population focussing on a
whole system pathway with an emphasis on early universal identification and
prevention.
Question 12
We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we
have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them:
a) RCSLT believes it is essential for a Speech and Language Therapist to be
seconded to support the development of the guidance. This was found to be
extremely beneficial to the development of new SEN legislation in Scotland.
b) RCSLT are concerned that the new legislation will set out the duties to be
imposed on relevant bodies that would relieve the HCPC practitioner of their
role at the individual patient level to exercise the clinical judgement of need.
Legislating health provision for individuals may set a new precedent and
Health Economist advice should clarify the risk to the balance of the current
system. We are not reassured current proposals would be cost neutral to the
whole system.
c) RCSLT are concerned that children with the greatest ability to benefit from SLT
are not always those with the multi agency definition of severe and complex
need. Clear glossary definitions of ‘additional need’, significant additional
need’ and ‘severe and complex needs’ is required. RCSLT would be pleased to
support this development.
Responses to consultations may be made public – on the internet or
in a report. If you would prefer your response to be kept confidential,
please tick here: