El COSMOS/DesignSTAR 4.0 y sus características

We interviewed nine parents who had experience of the recommendations pilot from three different LAs. Their views about the conceptof the Recommendations pilot were all positive. One parent lost the appeal but was pleased that health issues had been included, viewing this as having been “helpful” because, in her view, health issues were causing the SEN issues so it was “definitely better” to have health included in the

190

appeal: “Every aspect of the child’s life should be taken into consideration. It all ties together, all are intertwined with the others.” (Parent P2). Another parent did not have to attend a pilot appeal hearing because the LA conceded the appeal beforehand. This parent was very strongly in favour of the Tribunal being able to look at all sections of the EHC plan. He argued that it made no sense to have these together in the plan and then separate them out again if there were disagreements. When thinking of progression to adulthood, this parent argued that health and social care needs contributed as much, or more than, education needs and so it made good sense to take an holistic view of the young person’s situation.

Among the group of nine parents that we spoke to, several had appealed against their respective LA refusing to name a residential placement. The Tribunal has always been able to name such a placement on education-only grounds. Tribunal panel

representatives interviewed spoke of how difficult it was when cases came before them where it was clear that, viewed holistically, the child or young person required a

residential placement but viewed purely on educational grounds, such a decision could not be justified. The Recommendations pilot provided an opportunity to remedy this. However, perhaps because the pilot had encouraged much closer working with social care colleagues than had previously been the norm in some of the pilot areas, it was Tribunal decisions to order residential placements on education-only grounds that led to discussions back at LA level about the role of social care assessments in such cases. The parents in our small sample were simply pleased to know the residential placement had been agreed, not minding whether it was funded jointly by education and social care or not.

Among our small sample of parents with experience of pilot appeals, the issues brought to appeal regarding health provision related to therapies – occupational therapy and speech and language therapy. In one of these cases, the Tribunal ruled that the provision was education provision and in another recommendations were made to health about provision of direct one-to-one speech and language therapy and

occupational therapy for a time-limited period. In the latter case, the parent would have preferred a binding decision on health rather than recommendations.

The logic of the EHC plan and of the recommendations pilot prompted one pilot parent (and several non-pilot appeal parents) to make the point that it would be even better if the EHC plan was viewed and ‘owned’ as a document by all three public services – education, social care and health. For example, one said:

"[The Recommendations pilot] is a good idea in principle but [the EHC plan] is an education document and therefore the buck stops with education. It's not co- written. It's written by education. [To make the pilot work], you'd need health, social care and education working as a team.” (Parent P8)

In terms of the experience of a pilot appeal, the parents we interviewed had no other experience of appealing to compare it to so, for them, it was just their appeal. One said

191

she could not imagine how such an appeal could be heard purely on education-only grounds. To her, it seemed self-evident that the education, health and social care aspects would all be considered in turn. However, there was a real issue about how well, or not, the opportunity of the Recommendations pilot was communicated to parentsin the relevant areas. A small group among the nine parents we spoke to had not been aware that their appeal was part of the Recommendations pilot (although at least one acknowledged that they may have been told but had not taken in the fact, amongst all the other paperwork and information associated with their appeal). Several of the pilot LAs did not appear to have adapted their decision letters to parents to make them aware of the pilot. Among our sample of non-pilot parents interviewed, there were several from pilot LA areas who said that, had they known about it, they would have lodged their appeal under the pilot. Interview evidence indicated that there was also a lack of awareness about the Recommendations pilot among some of those who supported parents to make their appeal.

All but one78 _{of the pilot parents interviewed about the Recommendations pilot thought} the recommendations should be made binding. For example, one said: "If it is the Judge's [considered opinion], then it should be an order." Another made the point that, during negotiations with the LA, therapy provision had been moved from the health provision section of the plan to the special educational provision section in order to make it legally binding. This person argued that this proved how important it was that provision in the health and social care sections of the plan should also be legally binding. A third said, "I was slightly disappointed about a recommendation rather than an order. […] It would be much more preferable to be legally binding."