FINAL REPORT
July 2009 – December 2011
“Statements or Something Better” - Alternative to Statements
Severe and Complex
Carmarthenshire Pilot B
Pilot Lead Officer:
Gareth Morgans
Project Manager:
Jan Jones
“A Pilot Scheme to develop and trial an interdisciplinary model for the quality
assurance of provision made for children and young people with severe and
complex needs.”
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
1
1. Background
2. Carmarthenshire: Complex Needs
2.1 Project definition / objectives
2.2 Scope
2.3 Assumptions / Dependencies
2.4 Link to corporate themes
2.5 Strategic vision in Carmarthenshire
3. Key Actions / Outputs set out by the Welsh Government
4. Definition of ‘Complex Needs’?
5. Information sharing and Project launch
6. Cohort of children / young people
7. The Project Team
7.1 Project Manager
7.2 Project worker
7.3 Project learning support assistant
7.4 Educational Psychologist
8. The Planning Process
9. Person Centred Planning (PCP)
9.1 What is Person Centred Planning?
9.2 PCP – Concerns
9.3 PCP training
10. Creating Plans
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
2
11. The Individual Development Plan (IDP)
11.1
What’s in an IDP?
11.2
Who will have an IDP?
11.3
How will an IDP be developed?
11.4
The web based online IDP
11.5
Who will have access to an IDP?
11.6
What happens to existing rights and plans?
11.7
Assessments
11.8
How will success be judged?
11.9
How will we know that IDPs are successful?
11.10 How will disagreements about the IDP be resolved?
12. Working with children, young people and their families
12.1
The principle of using a web based IDP - feedback
12.2
Multiagency engagement
12.2.1 Health
12.2.2 Social Care
- Assessment Framework Triangle
- Role of the Key Worker
12.2.3 Education
12.3
Children and families
12.3.1 Case study 1 - Megan
12.3.2 Case study 2 - Josh
12.3.3 Case study 3 - Sam
13. Sustainability and way forward for Carmarthenshire
13.1
Present Statutory system / Future system
14. Carmarthenshire’s Proposed Early Support Pathway
14.1
Current system
14.2
Next steps
15. Implementation of the IDP
16. What happens next?
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
3
17. The robust trialling of the IDP
17.1
Cohort of children
17.2
Schools within the Glanymor family who have received
2 day PCP training
18. Initiating an IDP elsewhere
18.1
Pre-school
18.2
In schools
19. Reducing statements
20. Targets for PCP training
Appendices – as attachments to e-document
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
4
1. Background
Following considerable consultation with parents, carers, voluntary
organisations and professionals, the Welsh Government acknowledged that
improvements needed to be made to the statutory framework relating to
children and young people with Additional Learning Needs (ALN) and Special
Educational Needs (SEN)
Current systems are heavily bureaucratic, costly and in some cases very
complex as well as being insufficiently child centred. The intention therefore
was to create a new system that would address these issues, be more user
friendly and secure the following long term outcomes for those with Additional
Learning Needs:









“A more inclusive education system.
Improved learner outcomes and well-being.
Improved participation of learners in individual assessment and
planning processes.
Increased trust and confidence of parents and carers in the system
Greater consistency of outcomes and quality between schools and
between local authorities.
Improved leadership and management in schools and local authorities.
More effective and efficient partnership arrangements between
agencies and ‘third sector’ organisations.
More effective and efficient partnership working with parents and
carers.
Greater efficiency in the use of resources”
(‘Direction of Change’, Cliff Warwick. Appendix 1)
Eight authorities across Wales have participated in the Pilot working on the
different strands that make up the proposed reforms:
Flintshire & Caerphilly
Quality Assurance
Carmarthenshire & Torfaen
Complex Needs
Pembrokeshire, Bridgend & Torfaen
Non or Less Complex
Cardiff & Newport
Role of the ALNCo
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
5
In order to efficiently and consistently meet the needs of children and young
people with ALN, complex or non complex, in any provision, all of these
considerations needed to be addressed and integrated to produce a future
system that is fit for purpose.
Planning for and supporting children/young people with ALN to be effective
across settings; building the capacity of all schools to meet the needs of all
children. To monitor and evaluate the quality of the provision Caerphilly and
Flintshire have been developing a system to do this, whilst colleagues in
Cardiff and Newport have been looking at how the role of the SENCo or the
ALNCo would need to change to reflect future reform.
For details of how the different ‘strands’ of the pilot integrate and inform each
other see Appendix 1, “Direction of Change”
2. Carmarthenshire: Complex Needs
The most vulnerable, probably between 0.5% and 1% of learners, have such
severe and complex needs that they require the support of a wide range of
services from several agencies on an on-going basis. For children and
young people with the most severe and complex needs, it is intended to
create:




A holistic system for the identification, assessment, planning, and review,
which provides appropriately for the educational, medical, personal and
social needs of the child or young person and their family.
A genuinely inter-agency approach to service delivery that combines the
provision of specialist approaches with collaborative service delivery,
including the provision of key working within the ‘team around the child’.
A person centred individual planning system.
A system that can be applied, as appropriate, from birth to age 25.
(‘Direction of Change’. Cliff Warwick)
2.1 Project Definition / Objectives
To develop and trial an alternative to the current statutory assessment system
for children and young people with severe and complex needs.

Carmarthenshire intends to reshape the current approach to
identification, assessment and service delivery for a sample of
children with Complex Needs as based in Option 2 of ‘Statements
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
6
or Something Better.’ (Appendix 2) The focus will be on holistic
assessment and delivering multi-agency wrap around services
To develop a genuinely inter-agency model for identification, assessment,
planning and review, based upon the document ‘Statements or Something
Better.’

Carmarthenshire intends to pilot a more holistic team approach
building upon current developments within multi-agency good
practice – Complex Needs protocol, Multi-agency Resource Panel,
MDT (Multi Disciplinary Team), CDT (Children’s Disability Team),
Entry to Education
To develop low-stress mechanisms for parents / carers to express their
concerns and complaints.

Carmarthenshire intends to further develop the Key Worker model,
Team Around the Child (TAC) approach and directly consult with
children and families.
2.2 Scope
It is intended that the project includes children and young people from 0 – 25
years of age across a range of complex needs including mobility/motor skills,
cognition, developmental delay, sensory impairment, physical health/care
needs, communication, behaviour, social interaction including ASCs (Autustic
Spectrum Conditions). The scope of the project includes children in specialist
provision, mainstream school and those who may be too ill to attend school.
2.3 Assumptions/Dependencies
Continued commitment from Health, Education and Social Care services to
facilitate interagency care solutions for children with complex needs.
2.4 Link to Corporate Themes
The Project will link with the other pilots undertaken in Pembrokeshire,
Bridgend, Torfaen, Cardiff, Newport, Caerphilly and Flintshire. All four
‘strands’ of the ‘Alternatives to Statements’ Project are very much interlinked,
and inform each other.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
7
Links with Early Support Wales.

Early Support (For families of children aged 0 – 5 years) will fit within
the development of an effective IDP for children with complex needs

The intention is that the project will develop a format to ‘follow on’ from
Early Support and take it through to transition
Links with TAC.

The multi-agency approach has the same key principles as those for
TAC. The project fits well within the TAC remit, and will help to
develop and formalise this approach within Carmarthenshire
Links with current work around the Transition Key Worker currently being
undertaken within the authority and fits well with the development of the new
Transition Team in Carmarthenshire.
Links with the development of the Personal Education Plan (PEP) for Looked
After Children in Wales.
Links with the Unlocking the Potential Project Phase 2 – working with families
who are difficult to reach and engage.
2.5 Strategic vision in Carmarthenshire
In line with the Carmarthenshire Children and Young People’s Plan (20082011) the following agencies committed to developing flexible and responsive
services to meet the needs of all children in Carmarthenshire:
Carmarthenshire County Council, Children’s Services;
Carmarthenshire Education Authority; Inclusion and Disability Services;
Carmarthenshire County Council, Adult Social Services;
Carmarthen Local Health Board
Hwyel Dda Trust including Children and Adolescent Mental Health
Service (CAMHS).
As a result, an ‘Interagency Protocol’ was developed with the vision that
Partners in the Protocol would work together at all levels of service
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
8
management planning and delivery to meet the needs of all children in
Carmarthenshire.
This commitment from Education, Health and Social Care created a unique
opportunity for these agencies to work together to deliver individual care and
education packages to some or our most vulnerable children and young
people.
Should a child’s assessed needs not be able to be fully met by statutory
services the agencies would then work together to jointly commission an
appropriate service as and when appropriate.
When a child’s needs cannot be met in their own area due to a lack of service
provision then partner agencies will consider the need to plan strategically to
develop that service in county, where feasible.
(Carmarthenshire Interagency Protocol. Appendix 3)
Through the work of the Complex Needs panel / inter-agency approach,
Carmarthenshire has been able to demonstrate both improved outcomes for
children and families as well as reduce the number of children being placed in
out of county placements, saving valuable resources that can be better used
within our own services.
This meant Carmarthenshire was well placed to undertake the ‘Alternative to
Statements’ Pilot Project as the strategic vision and commitment were already
in place ensuring the ‘joined up’ approach necessary to achieve the desired
outcomes for the project.
3. Key Actions / Outputs set out by the Welsh Government:
1. A partnership agreement between Education, Social Services and Local
Health Services for the management of the scheme
2. The development of common working definitions & terms for the pilot
scheme
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
9
3. The development of a risk assessment for the pilot scheme
4. The development of joint identification, assessment and referral
processes for use in the pilot scheme
5. The development of an inter-agency complex needs panel
6. The development of the role of a lead professional for all pupils
approved by the Complex Needs Panel
7. The development of a single individual planning and review process
covering all aspects of the child’s life as defined in the pilot specification
document
8. The development of a framework for planning and review for students
aged 14 – 25, incorporating person centred approaches
9. The development of a system of key workers for pupils approved by the
Complex Needs Panel
10. The completion of audits of needs and appropriately experienced and
qualified staff available for commissioning by the Complex Needs Panel
and the identification of external sources to provide for any shortfall
11. The incorporation of the WAG Early Support system
12. Operational links established with the WAG Transitional Key Worker
Pilot scheme
13. The development of effective information and communication services
for parents and carers
14. The development of clear, accessible low stress mechanisms for
expressing concerns and complaints by parents about provision and
practice
15. The development of systems for providing effective advocacy services
for young people and their parents
16. The development of mechanisms for the involvement of young people in
their identification, assessment, planning and review processes
17. The development of proposals for joint commissioning of services
18. The development of a framework of reasonable limits covering all stages
of the assessment, planning and review process
19. The development of proposals for performance and strategic targets
relating to the severe and complex needs model
20. A management board that meets at least bi-monthly, to have oversight
of the pilot scheme (see criteria objective 12)
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
10
21. The operation of the pilot model from September 2009 – July 2011
22. Project progress reports to WAG pilot scheme co-ordinator on a
quarterly basis from July 2009
23. Project managers and lead LEA officer(s) to participate in WAG
meetings as appropriate
24. The development and piloting of ICT software to support the multidisciplinary framework
25. The translation and trial of the agreed frameworks (see objective
1,2,3,6,8,9) in the medium of the Welsh language in Welsh medium
schools
26. A summary of outcomes and draft conclusions of the pilot scheme
27. An exit / sustainability strategy from the pilot scheme
4. Definition of ‘Complex Needs’?
It became evident very early on in the Project that there are many definitions
of ‘Complex Needs’ and that much time could be spent establishing a
common agreement around this. Carmarthenshire’s Interagency Protocol
used the following: “A child is considered to have Complex Needs if they are
under the age of 18 years of age and have complex health needs or
disabilities that require intensive and/or highly specialist intervention or
treatments.” However we felt that there were vulnerable groups of children
and young people who would possibly fall outside this definition. In some
cases the circumstances the child or young person finds themselves in could
cause the case to become ‘complex’ although the child’s individual difficulties
were less complex.
Following much discussion between the 8 pilot authorities it was agreed that
rather than focusing on establishing specific ‘criteria’ around whether a case is
‘complex’ or not ,it was more worthwhile to look at a ‘spectrum of need’ and
that the line between complex and non complex should be less rather than
more defined. Ultimately it is the complexity of the ‘Plan’ rather than the
complexity of a child we need to consider.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
11
In order to meet the requirements of the Project however, we had to identify a
cohort of children and young people who’s cases would fit the ‘severe and
complex’ category. We needed to ensure a range of need, age and provision
across the cohort as well as the co-operation of the children/young people
themselves, their parents/carers and the partner agencies involved with them.
5. Information sharing and Project launch
During the first few months of the Project (July 2009 – October 2009) it was
important to make links with colleagues across the services as well as
voluntary sector in order to get information out to all stakeholders,
parents/carers and children/young people.
In October 2009 a ‘Project Launch’ was held for both parents/carers and
professionals. This saw an excellent response with over 70 professionals and
30 parents attending. The feedback from the events was overwhelmingly
positive resulting in the establishment of a working party and stakeholders’
group to drive the project forward.
All children and young people in Carmarthenshire considered to have
complex needs were contacted with information about the pilot, and an
invitation to participate. This included children and young people both in main
stream and specialist provision, preschool and post 16 yrs. It was made very
clear that they could ‘opt in’ to the project and that their statutory rights would
not be affected should they already be subject to a Statement of Educational
Need. Terms and Conditions were developed and approved by the
authority’s legal department, and given to children/young people and
parents/carers to sign.
6. Cohort of children / young people
Following consideration by the Project Team and Education Psychologist, a
list of possible children and young people was drawn up to include as wide a
range of need, age and provision as possible. These families were contacted
and terms and conditions approved and signed.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
12
The cohort included 20 children and young people:
Age range
2 x preschool – due to enter an educational setting during the course of the
project
8 x primary – 4 – 11 yrs
6 x Secondary – 11 – 18 yrs
4 x post 16 / Transition
Need
Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (PMLD)
Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD)
Challenging Behaviour
Visual Impairment (VI)
Mental Health difficulties
Looked After (LAC)
Provision
Special School
Specialist Unit
Mainstream School – primary & secondary
Not in education – individual package of support
Too ill to attend school / specialist support
Specialist provision post 16
Adult Services
7. The Project Team
The project team consisted of:

7.1 Project Manager – responsible for
o Running and managing the project at all levels.
o Liaising with children, young people, parents, carers,
professionals from all services including the voluntary
sector around all aspects of the project both strategic and
at individual case level
o Liaising with and reporting to Welsh Government project
leads
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
13
o Liaising with and reporting to the Project Lead Officer for
Carmarthenshire
o Reporting to the Project Board (Carmarthenshire’s
Strategic Complex Needs Panel), the Complex Needs
Panel, The Project Working Party.
o Writing reports, sharing information and promoting the
project
o Researching and developing the strategies for the project
o Arranging, developing and running relevant training
o Attending relevant meetings and reviews regarding the
children/young people on the project
o
Managing the project team, providing supervision and
support
o Attending relevant courses and conferences to ensure up
to date information and research is included in the work
of the project team
o Presenting to interested parties and groups within
Carmarthenshire

Education - Local Authority level, school and
establishment level, specialist teams – Educational
Psychology team, Sensory Impairment team,
Behaviour team

Health – various professionals, teams, therapists,
paediatricians etc

Social Care – care teams, Children’s Disability
Team,

Stakeholder groups – ASD, Speech and
Language,

Voluntary sector – MENCAP, SNAP
o Presenting to interested parties and groups across Wales
Jan Jones

Other authorities in Wales

Education groups, SENCo groups

Stakeholder conferences

University of Cardiff – psychology department

Autism Cymru conferences
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
14


Early Support
7.2 Project Worker – responsible for
o Liaising with children and young people and their families
o Working directly with children and young people
o Working with parents as appropriate
o Working with children and young people across settings –
at home, in school, short breaks / respite, youth club,
other activities
o Helping to train and support other partners and
professionals
o Developing plans and profiles with children/young people.
Sharing them with partners across settings
o Researching and developing innovative ways of sharing
information with children/young people, engaging them in
their own plans
o Researching and developing the role of the key worker.
Liaising with Key Workers in Carmarthenshire to inform
this.
o Providing a Key Working role to parents/carers involved
in the project in conjunction with the Children’s Disability
Team
o
Planning and running information sharing sessions with
parents/carers; Planning and running a Family Day;
arranging and running Parents meetings and discussions

7.3 Project Learning Support Assistant
o Supporting children and young people in their educational
setting
o Working with individual children/young people on their
individual plans
o Ensuring the voice of the child/young person is central to
the planning process

7.4 Educational Psychologist (one day a week)
o Working with and advising the project team
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
15
o Working with the children and young people on the
project
o Working with parents and carers
o Liaising with other professionals
o Giving presentations across the authority and in other
Welsh authorities
o Developing and delivering training
o Regularly reporting back to psychology team
8. The Planning Process
Following the setting up of the Project Team and the identification of the
cohort of children, it was important to establish how we would work with the
children and their families and how we would engage the agencies involved.
Much of the research on the engagement of children and families in the
planning, support and review process and in the current Statementing
process, suggested that the ‘voice of the child and family’ was lost or not even
listened to. Children and parents/carers felt ‘done to’ rather than involved in
decision making and planning. The bureaucracy around current systems was
getting in the way of practical support, and families were unable to participate
in a meaningful way with the service providers and agencies supposedly
supporting them.
(“Parental Confidence in the SEN Assessment, Statementing and Tribunal
System”. Clarissa Penfold, Nicky Cleghorn, Rosalind Tennant,
Ian Palmer and Janet Read. National Centre for Social Research.
“Every Disabled Child Matters – If I could change one thing”
“Models of Good Practise in Joined-up Assesments” Thomas Coram
Research Unit
“Children and Young People: Rights to Action” Welsh Assembly Govt)
The Welsh Government‘s commitment to ensuring the involvement of children
and young people in the identification, assessment, planning and review
process was clear. Using a ‘Person Centred’ approach which would focus on
the needs of the individual at the centre of any plan and involve them in their
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
16
own plan as well as the process was therefore essential and to be central to
the project.
9. Person Centred Planning (PCP)
Person Centred Planning is not a new concept and has been around since the
1980’s originating in the USA. In the UK it has been widely used in adult
learning disability services for a number of years and more recently it has
been used with children and younger people. The principles are that of
‘Valuing people’; i.e. giving them rights, independence, choice and inclusion
and by improving the amount of control people with learning disabilities have
over their lives and involving them in planning for the future.
In 2001 the UK Government Department of Health White Paper “Valuing
People”, made clear recommendations that a Person Centred approach
should be used within the learning disability service for adults in England. In
Wales no similar commitment was made at the time although reference was
made to using Person Centred principles in Learning Disability Wales
Advisory Groups report, “Fulfilling the Promises”. It stated that by 2010
services for people with learning disabilities will be:
“person centred (ie. respond to individual needs, including language,
race, gender and religious requirements and circumstances)” (National
Assembly for Wales 2001. P 8)
The report went on to say:
“Person Centred Planning should be confirmed as the key mechanism
to plan people’s care and support for their whole life time…” and
recommended that, “by 2003/2004, all people with a learning disability
will have an individual person centred plan, normally reviewed
annually.” (National Assembly for Wales 2001. P 10 -11)
9.1 What is Person Centred Planning - PCP?
There are several definitions of Person Centred planning but the most
generally accepted seem to be:
“A process of continual listening and learning, focusing on what is
important to someone now and in the future, and acting upon this in
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
17
conjunction with family and friends. This listening is used to
understand a person’s capacity and choices. Person Centred Planning
is the basis for problem solving and negotiation to mobilize the
necessary resources to pursue a person’s aspirations” (Routledge, et
al., 2002. P 9)
Alternatively a shorter version:
“a method for focussing effort and attention around one person’s
situation so that positive changes can be made”. (Ritchie, et al., 2003
P 28)
PCP is a collection of tools and approaches, based upon a set of shared
values, which can be employed to effectively plan with a child/young person,
rather than for them. PCP tools assist the child/young person, to consider
what is important to them at the present time, encourage them to think about
what would constitute a successful future, and to actively identify the support
they require to achieve this future. A person centred approach helps to
develop the child/young person’s circle of support by involving all the people
who are important in that child/young person's life, including parents/carers,
and professionals working with them.
The principles of PCP were first established in the 1980's as a method of
enabling both children and adults, to move out of specialist schools and
hospital provisions, into mainstream life. Inclusive values are the foundation
of PCP, with an emphasis on what support a child/young person needs to be
included, and involved in their local and school communities.
There is no single method of working; it is more a family of approaches and
styles, making it more difficult to define. However the key features to the
approach are:
1. The person is at the centre.
2. Family members and friends are full partners.
3. Planning reflects the person’s capacities, what is important to the person
now and for the future and specifies the support they require to make a
valued contribution to their community.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
18
4. Planning builds a shared commitment to action that will uphold the
person’s rights.
5. Planning leads to continual listening, learning and action and helps the
person to get what they want out of life.
Adopting a person centred approach is a way of giving the child or young
person at the centre of a plan a voice and a say in what actually happens to
them. Individual professionals have expertise and knowledge and know what
is ‘important for’ a child but a successful plan needs to be balanced to reflect
what is ‘important to’ the child also.
PCP was therefore identified as the inclusive, child-centred approach to
underpin the Welsh Government’s proposed system for statutory reform and
used to generate an Individual Development Plan (IDP) for the child/young
person
9.2 PCP – Concerns
Although the approach is proving positive and working well in many cases, it
is important that this is balanced by the concerns that are undoubtedly held by
many colleagues, including parents and professionals alike.
In its report on Person Centred Planning, the University of Glamorgan quite
rightly raises concerns. (“The experience of person centred planning: A
qualitative study of the experiences of people with learning disabilities and
their carers” . Glamorgan University. Final Report 2009) (Appendix 4)
The report itself looks at the experiences of adults with learning disabilities
and their carers but many of the concerns would be / are relevant to the work
of the project.
A primary concern which needs to be considered in this context is the use of a
Person Centred approach in large organisations where not all staff
understand the concept and principles. They may “use the language of PCP
but not the practise”. Or that the process is seen as an end in itself and the
resulting plan does not lead to real change in the person’s life. It is possible
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
19
that a ‘watering down’ of the approach over time, if regular training and usage
is not updated could lead to inferior quality plans. Added to this, the
possibility of misunderstanding the process or approach and possible
implementation errors, the whole concept of a person centred plan could be
lost.
In the Glamorgan report they point out some of the possible errors that could
undermine the process:

“A general lack of mindful planning and reflection

Mandated meeting attendance

Planning by team members who have little experience with or knowledge
about the person

Omitting crucial participants such as immediate family members

Proceeding with the process at an unnatural tempo

An absence of real problem solving

Planning in agencies that are not committed to significant change; and

Focussing on system oriented objectives instead of essential principals to
guide the process
The final point here is a crucial one and is key to the change in mindset of
professionals in particular. In the past, professionals have been seen as the
‘experts’ who know what is best for their ‘client’ and what their service can
provide. Taking a Person Centred approach empowers and encourages the
person to make decisions and become part of the planning process,
something many professionals are uncomfortable with. “Professionals will,
therefore, be required to meet the needs identified by individuals with a
learning disability rather than simply fitting the individual into services that are
already in existence.” (Glamorgan report P. 105)
The knock on effect of planning for and meeting individual needs through
consultation with the person them self and their family, is the availability of
resources. Some would argue that requests for additional support, or support
over and above what would have been given under the existing system, would
be unrealistic, causing more strain on already stretched budgets. Under the
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
20
current statutory system, there often seems to be a temptation when requests
for resources are made, to ‘over state’ a case asking for more and hoping for
less. In the short time we have been adopting the approach with the small
number of children on the project however, requests have been very realistic,
often needing no extra resourcing at all. Where there have been larger, or
more difficult resource requests, they were similar to those mad under the
current statutory system. (e.g. communication aid, extra support in the
classroom) As part of the extended trial of the new system it will be
interesting to see what effect it will have on resourcing.
9.3 PCP training
One of the leading advocates of Person Centred Planning is Helen
Sanderson. Much of the research around PCP has been done by Sanderson
herself in conjunction with others such as Black, O’Brien, Osgood and many
more. (For more information see University of Glamorgan’s Report on Person
Centred Planning 2009. [Appendix 4])
For this reason and following much research into providers, Helen Sanderson
Associates was chosen by the project team in Carmarthenshire to deliver
training around PCP. In Torfaen, our colleagues on the project reported that
Crown Bridge Special School had already been using the approach following
the same training and had found it useful. As well as this, colleagues in
Ceredigion had also used the HSA training and given us positive feedback.
A comprehensive programme of training took place starting in 2010 including
training trainers to continue to roll out training across the authority throughout
the duration of the project. To date we have trained over 200 individuals from
all services and agencies across education, health and social care. This
includes all Educational Psychologists, Physiotherapists and Occupational
Therapists, the Transition Team, Children’s Disability Team and Sensory
Impairment Team. Some social workers, school based youth workers,
education welfare officers, parents, school staff and local authority staff have
also received training. We have conducted whole school training in two
primary schools and in our specialist school for children with severe and
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
21
profound learning difficulties. Several schools have trained their support staff
as well as key individuals and SENCOs.
Over time, the training has evolved to embrace the principles not only of PCP
but also of the project itself, including in the two day sessions, the context of
Statutory Reform and the work we are doing around Individual Planning.
The approach is simple and based on common sense, meaning that the tools
and ideas can be taken away and used straight away in any context whether it
is in education, health or social care. It is important to stress however that
Person Centred Planning/PCP is an ‘approach’ and a ‘way of thinking’, not
something that is an ‘add on’ to everyday working practises. It is often
referred to as Person Centred ‘Thinking’ which is in fact more appropriate.
Evaluation from all training sessions has been overwhelmingly positive but
with obvious concerns around the process of change that future reforms will
bring.
Some of the comments following training:
o Have learnt such a lot, positive that the pupil profile will help me gain a better
insight into what’s important for the child and how I can help.
o Feel positive about everything – looking forward to trying it.
o Have a better understanding of PCP and how to use it in the classroom with all
the children.
o I now have a much greater understanding of PCP and I look forward to trialling
the approach in the school. This will help me to learn more and progress along
the page….
o Enjoyed learning about myself and how I can use this knowledge with the
children.
o Can’t wait to try it!
o I really enjoyed the 2 day training. I think replacing IEPs with this approach is a
great idea.
o I can’t wait to get rid of current systems.
o I am sure this will be a good tool for all.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
22
o Person Centred One Page Profiles here we come!!
o Bring it on!!
o Toolkit will be very useful in my job – I can apply these to my role now.
o Now feel able to use PCP and aspects of toolkit in good planning with young
people.
o Far clearer understanding of PCP process and implementation. Keen to use in
daily work.
o Not sure how it will all come together to replace a Statement.
o How time consuming will it be?
o Still need to work within the COP regulations and set paperwork!
10. Creating Plans
Having established an approach that would ensure quality relevant
information about children is collected by all partners supporting that child or
young person, it was important to identify a way of capturing this in a format
that would be accessible to all. i.e something that could be used in all
contexts – educational provision, at home and out and about in the
community. This individual plan needed to be flexible, holistic, reflect change
in real time and be accessible and responsive. Showing the progress and
development of the child and also celebrating the achievements of the child
along the way. A plan to be used, not to sit in a drawer or filing cabinet
gathering dust!
Although the emphasis for Carmarthenshire was on severe and complex
needs, it became evident fairly early on in the project that it was not possible
to create two different systems for complex and less complex needs. It made
sense to join this into one system that reflected the complexity of the needs of
the child in the complexity of the plan. For a child or young person with
complex needs and a large number of professionals involved in planning for
and supporting those needs, a more complex plan was needed. For those
with non or less complex needs, requiring support from a small number of
partners eg. the school and parents/carers, a simple plan would suffice. The
plan itself however could have the same format, with information being
collected and collated in the same way.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
23
Thus the Individual Development Plan or IDP became the core feature of the
proposed reform of statutory assessment.
11. The Individual Development Plan (IDP)
In line with the objectives of the Project, it is intended that the IDP would
replace the current planning and statutory processes for children and young
people with Additional Needs (AN), including the ‘Statement of SEN’, and will
result in a more fluid and flexible person-centred approach.
The IDP will benefit children and young people with Additional Needs (AN)
aged 0-25 years, by:

creating an inclusive, holistic system, enhancing the child/young
person’s participation in individual assessment and planning processes,
and consequently improving learning outcomes and well-being for
children/young people with AN in Wales.

improving
partnership
working
with
parents
and
carers
of
children/young people with AN, increasing trust and confidence in the
process, and promoting greater consistency of outcomes and quality
between schools, Local Authorities (LAs) and Health Boards

enhancing partnership arrangements between agencies and ‘third
sector’ organisations, and by creating greater efficiency in the use of
resources.
11.1 What’s in an IDP?
An IDP will include:
 basic information, such as biographical information about the child or
young person, contact details and information about those working
with them.
 contributions from children and young people, parents and carers and
professionals around four main aspects i.e.:
o ‘what’s important to’ the child/young person
o ‘what’s important for’/ ‘how best to support the child/young
person now and in the future
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
24
o ‘what’s working’
o ‘what’s not working’.
 an action plan, outlining how the child/young person’s needs will be
met, by whom, and how this plan will be reviewed in the future.
11.2 Who will have an IDP?
It is proposed that every child and young person (aged 0-25) who needs
support that is additional to, or different from that provided as part of universal
service provision or usual differentiated curriculum in a school, will have an
IDP (this equates to provision that is currently made under Statements of
SEN, ’School Action’ and ‘Early Years’ Action’ and ‘School Action and Early
Years’ Action Plus’).
11.3 How will an IDP be developed?
Once a child/young person’s need for an IDP has been identified, the process
will be initiated by the support coordinator.
1. For a child /young person identified as having complex needs, the
support co-ordinator is likely to be:

the Health Visitor or key-worker for pre-school children, using
the Early Support principles

the Additional Learning Needs Co-ordinator (ALENCo) if the
child is attending school or other lead professional as
appropriate
2. For a child or young person with less complex needs, the support coordinator is likely to be:

the lead professional in pre-school e.g. Early Years’ SENCO,
Health Visitor, Speech and Language Therapist, Occupational or
Physiotherapist

the class teacher or Additional Learning Needs Co-ordinator
(ALENCo) if the child is attending school
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
25
The support co-ordinator will amalgamate the relevant material, and arrange
an initial meeting involving the child or young person, their parents and/or
carers and the professionals working with them. A review meeting will be
agreed as part of the action plan, and will be held within a maximum of 6
months, but can be more frequent if the need arises. Support coordinators
will be expected to liaise closely with Parent Partnership Services (PPS) who
will provide information and support to parents at all stages of the IDP
process. For children and young people with severe and complex needs, the
key worker will also provide this information and support.
The IDP is envisaged as a ‘living’ document, with agreed changes being
implemented when appropriate. It is intended to be a flexible, responsive plan
and its complexity will vary according to the child/young person’s needs. For
some, an IDP may be very simple, and only include for example, the child,
their parents/carers, the ALENCo and the class teacher. For others with more
severe and/or complex needs, it will be much more in depth, with a large
number of professionals from health, education and social care involved.
11.4 The web-based, online IDP
The IDP process will be facilitated through a user-friendly web-based IDP tool
that can be accessed by the young person, parents, carers and ‘key
professionals’ at any time, subject to strict confidentiality procedures. This
will facilitate a simple, open and genuinely person-centred process and
provide immediate access to all those involved, thereby promoting better
communication between all concerned. Amendments and comments can be
made simply and quickly to ensure the IDP remains relevant and up-to-date.
The IDP will primarily be an online document, because piloting of the IDP has
demonstrated that it is more efficient and effective than paper based IDPs.
For example it enables:
 the IDP to be linked to existing databases, so that information can be
directly uploaded, reducing duplication.
 information to be disseminated easily and rapidly.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
26
 plans to be created, discussed and agreed in ‘real time’ during the
planning meetings.
However, where required, the IDP can still be printed, developed, discussed
and agreed as a paper based document or saved as a separate document
and appended to a child’s records elsewhere (e.g. within a health service’s
database).
11.5 Who will have access to an IDP?
IDPs will contain sensitive personal information about the child/ young
person, and consequently access will need to be carefully controlled and
agreed as part of the ‘promise’. Although the child/young person and their
parents/carers will be able to access all parts of the IDP, those working with
the child and young person will only be able to access the IDP on a ‘need to
know’ basis. Strict protocols will be developed to ensure all personnel who
are linked to an IDP have been verified, and that they are allowed to access
the information held within the Plan.
11.6 What happens to existing rights and plans?
The IDP will protect and strengthen the child/young person and their
parents/carers’ entitlements (and legal rights). It is proposed that the IDP will
be the single 24-hour plan which will replace, rather than add to, existing
plans such as Individual Education Plans (IEPs), the Statement Of Special
Educational Needs, Personal Education Plans (PEPs) for Looked After
Children, care and health plans. It is proposed that legislation will be
established by the Welsh Government in order to protect the support
identified for the child/young person in the plan.
11.7 Assessments
Currently children and young people often have a raft of assessments that
are carried out by various professionals as appropriate to the individual
situation. Some will be school / education based or, in more complex cases
health or social care professionals will need to carry out more specialised
assessments. It is important that this quality information is included into the
IDP but the resulting reports by professionals are sometimes difficult to
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
27
understand and often contain jargon that has little meaning to children,
parents/carers and even other professionals. The proposed IDP would have
the facility to include these detailed reports (as an attachment to the online
system) but the partners or ‘team’ involved in the plan would be required to
put the key information into the IDP under the headings ‘Important to / for’ ‘
What’s working / not working’ using language that is readily understood by all.
11.8 How will success be judged?
An effective IDP will place the child at the centre and will:
 be responsive and flexible.
 promote changes in professional practice and approach.
 facilitate professionals to work together, communicate more effectively,
and encourage them to contribute to the assessment and planning
processes.
 increase ‘ownership’ of an IDP by the child/young person, their parents/
carers and professionals.
 increase engagement of the child/young person, their parents/carers
and professionals in the process. Everyone involved will have a clear
voice and will be equally valued.
It will also contribute (as part of a wider set of ALN reforms in Wales) to
improvements in the consistency and quality of provision (across Wales),
including:

improved outcomes for children and young people.

increased satisfaction amongst children and young people and
parents and carers.

increased value for money by reducing bureaucracy and increasing
efficiency.

implementation of agreed actions in the IDP’s action plan.
11.9 How will we know that IDPs are successful?
As noted, each IDP will include an action plan, which will be regularly
reviewed by all those contributing to it. This will be complemented by a robust
quality assurance system which will include monitoring and evaluation:
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
28

of provision for AN and outcomes for children and young people with
AN;

of the experiences of children and young people with AN, their
parents and carers and those working with them (stakeholder
satisfaction); and

self-evaluation against quality standards.
11.10 How will disagreements about the IDP be resolved?
The development of the IDP will involve the child/young person, their
parents/carers and all concerned professionals in a collaborative process. In
the vast majority of cases the outcome should be a consensus on how to
meet the AN of the child/young person in question.
However, if the child/young person or their parents/carers disagree with the
outcomes of the IDP process, they will be able to formally register their
disagreement with the local authority / health authority. Where this occurs, all
responsible agencies and organisations (including schools) will share the
responsibility for resolving the disagreement(s) within 3 months of the
disagreement being registered, which will include, where necessary, a
required formal mediation process.
If the child/young person or their parents/carers continues to be in
disagreement at the end of the 3 months, (or sooner by agreement of all
parties) they can then apply to the legislative tribunal for judgement. The
PPS will play a key role in supporting parents and /or the child/young person
through all stages to help resolve disagreements.
12. Working with children, young people and their families
Although 20 initially signed up to join the project, not all saw it through to the
end. Two moved away to different authorities, one child very sadly passed
away and some unfortunately lost interest and did not engage with us.
Ultimately we had a core group of around 10 parents who attended our parent
group sessions and 7 of those participated in developing IDPs for their
children.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
29
Out of those parents/carers, some had very strong views on the current
statutory process and were dissatisfied with Statements and Statementing.
Others had found the process had worked for them and were happy with the
outcome and provision their children were receiving.
As the project progressed the planning process developed. Person Centred
Thinking and Planning was established as the mechanism to feed information
into a plan and the idea of IDPs started to come to fruition. Fundamental to
the IDP is the fact that it is an ‘online’ tool helping to facilitate communication
and reflect changes quickly and in real time. One of the major findings of the
whole project was the importance of communication. Communication
between professionals and parents; communication between professionals
and crucially communication with the child or young person.
Having developed the concept of the online IDP, links were established with
colleagues in Torfaen who would develop the IT system. Both teams worked
together to produce a format that would incorporate the person centred
approach and provide an effective planning mechanism for all concerned.
After considerable consultation between the authorities involved in the wider
project and with the various stakeholder groups, Torfaen provided us with
‘Planning Together’, a web based planning system that could be accessed by
all parties via the internet. It was important to establish a system that would
‘sit outside’ existing IT systems in health, education and social care, as well
as being accessible to children, young people and parents/carers.
Adopting ‘Planning Together’ in Carmarthenshire posed considerable
problems for the project team as the security of the system needed to be
robust and meet the high standards of the authority. Some professional
colleagues also found the concept of sharing information between services a
difficult one, and were keen to ensure that the security of the system would
meet these exacting standards. Unfortunately, the IT issues meant that we
were unable to use an online system to support the plans we were developing
for the children and young people on the project. It became evident as time
went on that the IDP format was not appropriate as a paper exercise. It was
difficult to share information and maintain effective communication between
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
30
parties. Considerable time was lost or wasted trying to maintain contact with
all the partners in a plan and at times some people were not kept informed of
changes – e.g. not having all the names and email addresses. Developing a
paper IDP also meant that one person became responsible for writing the
Plan which defeated the object of shared responsibility and input. Potentially
it just became another piece of paper to file away and forget!
Throughout the project however and despite the many setbacks with the IT
issues, parents and many professionals remained positive about the concept
of the online plan. The test site for ‘Planning Together’ enabled us to show
how the system would work and the potential for the future. Colleagues in
health (Physio, Occupational and Speech Therapists) were particularly
interested and excited by the system and could see the potential to reduce
workload. Parents were very encouraged by the transparency of the system
and the fact that they could see exactly what is going on with their child. They
also liked the fact that they could comment and get feedback relatively
quickly. Another plus for parents was that as long as they had internet access
at home they could ‘log on’ whenever they liked. They also liked the fact that
they didn’t have to keep repeating the same information over and over again
to the various professionals they met at clinics and meetings. All this
information would be stored and accessible within the system for people
linked to the plan to see.
The concerns have been:

Security

Information sharing protocols

Access to a computer; Limited internet access or availability

Limited IT skills / Amount of support needed to understand and
input the system

Time needed to input the system / added work load

Will people use it?

Accessibility – language, visually impaired, learning disability
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
31
Feedback from Voluntary Sector Conference (November 2010)
Using a web-based format for the IDP
Positives
Pitfalls




















Respectful
Collaborative
Avoids communication problems
Child centred
Transparent
Sharing of information is critical for all
involved
Gives all parties involved a clear picture
of progress or lack of it
Will help with communication
Parents will feel more involved
Ideal for professionals can access history
of child
Consistent approach across Wales.
All information together in the same place
– accessible and able to arrange
meetings easily.
Could children discuss with child carer
after school and access website and
enter information away from home in a
more neutral environment?
Like the thought of it aiding transition
between settings/schools/Flying Start
and education.
Simpler, less bureaucratic more face-toface & child centred.
Can we start working towards this now?
A lifetime’s worth of info at one click.
A reduced limit on lost info.
A great way to work together.









For families who are literate / computer
literate / English or Welsh speaking.
Training needs to be available
for parents in order to access the IDP &
feel confident
Parents may worry about confidentiality
System failure (crashing)
Parents internet skills
If using a public computer what are the
confidentiality issues?
Security? Who can access? data
protection issues and dormant accounts
etc.
Need to ensure it is ‘owned’ by the child.
Accessibility to parents bearing in mind
literacy issues/IT access/nonengagement.
Issues around access by practitioners in
funded education, non-maintained
settings and training for use? Who would
fund this?
12.1 Multiagency engagement
12.1.1 Health:
From the outset the interest and engagement of health colleagues, especially
physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists was very
positive. All were represented on our Working Party and played active roles
throughout the project. The whole of the physio and OT teams attended
training and took on the person centred principals very quickly and could see
how working in this way would suit their service and approach to delivery.
Throughout the project, they have been keen to maintain links with the project
team and work with us to develop plans for the children/young people.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
32
Currently in Carmarthenshire, monthly Child Development Team meetings are
held in Llanelli and Carmarthen, alternate months. These meetings are led by
the consultant paediatricians and attended by the child and family as well as
the professionals supporting them. There are also monthly Complex Needs
Clinics led by the Physiotherapy team where all partner agencies are
encouraged to attend if possible. The proposed multiagency, IDP approach
would be an opportunity to streamline these meetings /clinics to fit into the
IDP reviews. The consultant paediatrician in Carmarthen has also been very
supportive if this, and has been positive about the proposed changes to the
statutory system. Ultimately the aim would be to integrate both health and
education led meetings into a single IDP meeting, including Entry to
Education in the early years as well as Annual Review meetings. Improved
communication facilitated by the IDP could potentially cut down on the
number of meetings that are needed as all parties can monitor progress and
input information regularly to reflect change. A multiagency meeting would
then only be needed to review a current plan and agree a new Action Plan.
As a result of the work of the project, one of the outcomes has been that our
health colleagues value working as a multiagency team with the individual
children and families. In several cases we have done joint assessments or
visits – Speech and Language Therapist, Occupational Therapist,
Physiotherapist and Educational Psychologist. These visits have in the main
taken place in schools with the added advantage of giving joint feedback to
school staff. For one of the project children in mainstream, the outcome of
his IDP was to develop a totally integrated programme that would fit into the
school timetable whist also addressing his considerable needs around
mobility and speech and language. School staff have been very supportive,
giving regular feedback and maintaining detailed assessments of his
progress. (See case study 2)
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
33
12.1.2 Social Care
Carmarthenshire has a Children’s Disability Team (CDT) that provides a Key
Worker service to those children and families with a disability. This is a
multiagency team including social care, health and education professionals.
Because the emphasis for Carmarthenshire was to be severe and complex
needs, the Project Worker, employed as part of the project team, came from
the CDT in order to help develop the role of the Key Worker as part of the
process. It was envisaged that for those children and young people with
complex needs, the key worker would in most cases, lead the IDP process
and be the support co-ordinator.
It was essential that the IDP as an ‘assessment’ process/tool was flexible
enough to reflect and incorporate the information needed by the CDT in order
to assess and work with children and families. The Assessment Framework
Triangle (Fig. 1.) provides the ideal ‘aide memoire’ when a key worker is
working with families to input information into an IDP. This is also the basis of
an Initial / Core Assessment and the team envisaged that a good quality IDP
would give the same if not better information about a child/young person in
the context of the family.
Despite best efforts, it was difficult to engage with the Children’s Disability
Team and only limited progress was made with the team to establish the IDP
as a possible way of working with children and families. This was mainly due
to workload and the pressure of Child Protection issues the team deals with.
However, having an experienced key worker as part of the Project Team
proved invaluable and sometimes provided the families with a much needed
link to services and information. A small number of the families involved in
the Project did not have a designated key worker so in these cases it was
particularly useful to have somebody able to step into this role.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
34
Adapted by Sharon Evans, Project Worker
Fig. 1
The Project team also worked closely with colleagues from CCNUK (Care
Co-ordination Network UK) to look at the role of the key worker in the context
of the IDP. This also incorporated the work of Early Support for children aged
0 – 5 years as well as the work around Transition at the older end of the age
range.
In the context of the Project, IDPs and using a Person Centred approach, see
below the Role of the Key Worker.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
35
The Role of the Key Worker
‘Good communication is central to working with children, young people and their families.’
The Key Worker…

Is the named key person for the child and is the main point of contact for the family.

Has a duty to safeguard children & young people, if the child/ young person is Looked After or
on the Child Protection register, the Key Worker/Social Worker has to ensure that all statutory
obligations are met.

Provides continuity and takes a lead to coordinate the assessment process.

Uses the assessment framework as the basis of their assessment and observes the child in a
variety of settings.

Promotes good communication between partner agencies by arranging and facilitating MDT
meetings and in collaboration will identify shortfalls and how best to meet those needs.

Offers support to the family during different stages of their child’s development.

Demonstrates empathy and respects the child & family’s culture, background & language.

Sign posts the child and their family to groups/resources in their area and helps the family to
build a network of support.

Monitors, reviews and updates Assessments and Care Plans

Has a good knowledge of available services in county and will forge links with service
providers.

Submits assessments of need & resource requests to SAM or Complex Needs Panel.

Keeps the child & family informed by sharing outcomes following a referral being discussed at
SAM or Complex Needs Panel.

Ensures that the child/young person’s voice is heard through undertaking direct work sessions
as and when needed.

With support from other agencies helps the child and their family to be creative in exploring
and identifying a suitable support package that best meets their child’s needs.

Will have a good understanding of family dynamics and where the child fits into the family.
Sharon Evans,
Complex Needs Pilot Project,
‘Alternative to Statements’
February 2011
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
36
12.2.3 Education
During the initial phase of the Project, the involvement of education
colleagues was limited to those linked to the children on the project. The
Educational Psychology team participated in our training and have been key
links to schools and parents as well as providing support for individual case
throughout.
As the Project has progressed however and the impact of the proposed
reforms has become clearer, we have had more engagement from schools
and other educational services, especially advisory teachers and the Sensory
Impairment Team. The flexibility of the IDP and in particular using One Page
Profiles for children with both complex and non complex needs has been
extremely well received. The One Page Profile is a key part of the IDP and is
a powerful way of providing a ‘snap shot’ of a child/young person – what
people like and admire about them, what is important to them and how best to
support them. Several Carmarthenshire schools are now using these
successfully, especially during transition phases e.g. children moving from
Year 6 into Year 7, secondary placement. One of our feeder primary schools
in the Llanelli area provided One Page Profiles on their year 6 ALN children to
the secondary school; the head of the secondary school reported that they
had provided the best information he’d had for that cohort of children.
The schools that have been involved with individual children have been very
supportive; attending training and helping to develop One Page Profiles and
IDPs for the children as well as running Person Centred reviews. The main
difficulty for some school staff is that they are fearful of change and see this
as something over and above what they are doing now rather than something
that will replace current systems and practises. In the small number of case
where they have embraced a person centred approach and started using One
Page Profiles incorporating personal targets instead of Individual Education
Plans (IEPs) the feedback again has been positive.
More recently, following a drive from the Project Lead and Team, the Inclusion
department have now set up a task and finish group to look at the way forward
in Carmarthenshire. i.e. to look at how we will move the statutory reform
agenda forward as part of the ongoing work of the authority. The Director of
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
37
Education has helped to move the issues around IT forward and we are
hopeful that ‘Planning Together’ will soon become a reality.
12.3 Children and families
Working with children, young people and families with such diverse needs
proved interesting, challenging, sometimes frustrating but also fulfilling.
Getting to know and understand the children/young people was certainly
facilitated using and adopting some of the person centred tools and ideas.
The concept of creating individual packages of support for some children
pushed us as a team to think outside the box, and to be creative in the way
we worked with youngsters. We needed to know and understand them
outside the school environment or away from home, for example in respite
care / short breaks, and by creating opportunities for them that maybe they
would not have otherwise had.
12.3.1 Case study 1.
Megan
Megan’s parents were keen to participate in the project and liked the idea
of a more flexible system that would take into account Megan’s wishes
whilst giving them more of a voice in the decision making process.
Megan is 9 years old, an only child, living with mum and dad in a small
seaside town just outside Carmarthen. She has complex special needs and
attends her local primary school. Megan has a Statement of SE N and the
support of 2 carers in school. Parents report that the Statementing
process had been straight forward and they were happy with the
Statement and ultimate provision Megan received.
Although it was a challenge for a small rural primary school, Megan was
very much included in the community and life of the school. After getting
to know Megan and her family both in school and at home, her parents
agreed to let the Project Team run her annual review using a person
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
38
centred approach which proved to be a very positive experience for all who
attended. The only negative feedback was from Megan’s key worker who
felt it had been a little too radical for her liking!
Mum and Dad discussed the fact that life at home was getting more and
more difficult and that Megan needed less and less sleep each night. Toilet
training was also a struggle for them and both were exhausted.
A Key Worker’s assessment was undertaken and a referral was submitted
for additional respite. This was approved and a Crossroads Support
Worker was allocated to support Megan and her family for 6 hours a week
in the home setting, this made a big difference to the family.
Joint visits were undertaken by the Educational Psychologist,
Physiotherapist, Occupational Therapist, Speech & language Therapist &
Advisory Teacher for Autism in school. This was to ensure that relevant
programmes were implemented and close liaison between therapists.
Regular reviews were arranged in the hope that things would improve and
that Megan would respond to new strategies. Likewise, home visits were
undertaken by the Key Worker to monitor parents’ well being and to
ensure that they had enough support to sustain caring for Megan.
Prior to Megan’s last review there were a number of issues that had been
worrying mum and dad. Her needs over time were changing and it was
becoming more difficult to sustain her placement in a mainstream setting.
Following in depth discussions with various professionals inside and
outside school it was decided that maybe a change to a more specialised
environment was more appropriate. This was extremely difficult for
Megan’s parents as they felt very strongly that their daughter should be
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
39
part of the community and their local primary school had supported them
throughout the early years. The review meeting to discuss this was again
conducted using a person centred approach and although there were some
difficult conversations, the outcome of the meeting was positive and
productive. Megan has since made a gradual transition to a special school
in Llanelli where she is doing well.
Megan’s parents took an active role in being part of the IDP process and
took onboard the principals of Person Centred Thinking and Planning.
Mum attended PCP training and was regular attendee at our parent group
meetings and as part of the Project working party. Throughout the
process, she gave valuable feedback to the team and was open and honest
with her opinions.
The Person Centred review:
Unfortunately Megan herself did not attend any of the review meetings
but mum and dad were happy to participate and give their feedback. They
like the relaxed atmosphere at the meetings and felt that the approach
really got to the heart of any problems. They felt listened to and felt their
contribution was valued and acted upon. They were pleased that
professionals were ‘volunteering’ to do things as part of the action plan.
The IDP:
As part of the process, an IDP was developed for Megan alongside her
Statement. This was a paper based IDP that proved difficult to manage
due to the fact that it was not easy to share information quickly. All the
partners in the IDP were willing to participate and provided good quality
information for the plan but this had to be typed in by a member of the
project team which was very time consuming and not realistic. Megan’s
parents however could see the benefits of the IDP being online and would,
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
40
I am sure, consider participating in any future trial of the web based
version.
12.3.2 Case study 2.
Joshua
Joshua is 19 years old and lives with his mum, dad and sister on a small
holding in Carmarthenshire, about 6 miles out of Carmarthen town.
Joshua’s parents are home full time and Gran lives in a converted
outbuilding on the smallholding; Gran is not in the best of health so is
unable to help around the house, Josh and his Grandmother have a close
relationship and he likes to take himself in his electric wheelchair to see her
daily. His sister is 16 and attends the local high school; Josh and her have
a great brother / sister relationship.
Several years ago Joshua’s older brother died from a degenerative, life
limiting illness which Joshua also suffers from. The family moved to
Carmarthenshire from the south of England in order to spend more quality
time together as a family and to give Joshua a better quality of life and the
best opportunities they could.
Joshua attended secondary school on a flexible basis and was supported
by staff in the resource unit to participate in some mainstream classes as
well as some more specialist sessions in the base. He enjoyed spending
time with peers in the sixth form common room and at lunch time in the
canteen. His electric wheelchair meant that he could get around the
school site and be as independent as possible – something that was very
important to him.
As a sixth former, Joshua knew he would have to make important
decisions about his future. He’s been unable to take formal examinations
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
41
and has limited literacy and numeracy skills, but would like to develop in
these areas.
Following a Person Centred meeting in school, Joshua decided he would
like to go to college but would need transport to get there and support
whilst he was there. He is very reluctant to allow anyone other than his
mum and dad to see to his personal care so parents agreed to take Joshua
to college and to remain close by whilst he was there so that they could be
called upon quickly should Joshua need to use the bathroom etc.
Joshua’s key worker (Project Worker) made the necessary arrangements
with the college although this was no easy task as risk assessments and
accessibility issues had to be addressed. All this took time and at one point
the family started to wonder if it was all worth it.
However, after a shaky start, a nervous Joshua spent his first few sessions
at college. The IT course he attended was not quite what Joshua had in
mind, even though he loves computers.
His Tutor attempted to find a different course for Josh but things were
proving difficult for everyone. Parents were finding transporting Josh
costly and emotionally draining. Another Person Centred meeting was
arranged by Josh’s Key Worker with Josh very much a partner in the
meeting, and an action plan was drawn up. A referral for 19 hours direct
payments was submitted and a referral was also completed for Josh to
access COASTAL support.
Josh is passionate about disability issues, raising awareness of the
difficulties wheelchair users have accessing local amenities. He would love
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
42
to attend the local night club with his friends but because his electric
wheelchair is bulky this makes things difficult for Josh. As a nineteen year
old Josh is frustrated by his dependency on others to see to his needs. He
would love to go to youth club or go and have a drink in the pub like other
youngsters.
Josh loves his music and also enjoys singing to an audience, and has sung
in charity events and raised money for local disability groups. He wants to
make a difference and because of his passion, he has been chosen to be the
disability representative for the college.
Things are not easy for Josh’s mum and dad but they really strive to give
Josh what they can. They depend on DLA payments and benefits as they
are unable to work due to the amount of care they need to provide for
Josh.
Their van has been adapted to take a wheelchair but is liable to break
down at any time.
They have input from the therapy teams around Josh’s mobility needs and
from medical professionals for his considerable health needs. Through the
Project, Josh has had a support worker who has helped him to spend some
time away from his parents. Going to a local disco, attending a youth club
and going shopping for the first time where he was able to buy presents for
his family. He thought it was great to have his own money and to decide
how he wanted to spend it.
Feedback from Josh:
Because Josh was able to tell us about his experiences and directly input
his plan, his feedback on the Project has been particularly useful. It
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
43
highlighted the frustration around current systems, lack of co-ordination
between services and the amount of time taken to achieve results and
effect change. Being able to participate in his meetings was a positive
experience for him and creating a One Page Profile proved a useful
exercise. He particularly benefitted from working with the Project support
worker who gave him the opportunity to get out into the community
without his parents.
Josh is now part of the Transition Team and has a transition worker
allocated to him.
12.3.3 Case study 3.
Sam
Sam is 14 years old, lives with his mum, dad and sister and has a passion
for Dr Who, history, palaeontology, and film making! Sam does not
attend school as he has had considerable difficulties in the past with
relating to peers and being part of a school system. He has an individual
package of support including a home tutor for part of the day and another
support worker who supports Sam to develop his key skills and life skills.
This individual support package has been developed in conjunction with
the Project Team and as a direct result of is person centred plan / IDP. The
complexity of Sam’s case meant that his educational placement had
broken down and at one time, it looked as though an out of county
placement was going to be the only option. An individual support package
had enabled Sam to remain with his family and although challenging to
maintain, is considerably cheaper and more cost effective for the Local
Authority.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
44
Although Sam was not willing to directly participate in any person centred
IDP meetings, his wishes and feelings were expertly incorporated into his
IDP via his family and tutor. Although Sam is not in school he still has a
‘link school’ who help to support the plan and give advice and support to
the tutor re examinations, course work etc. The school also helped to
facilitate his Person Centred review. As a result of this a specialist teacher
from the school has embraced the approach and is using it with a number
of other youngsters in her care.
See Appendix 5 - Sam’s IDP:
Sam has an IDP as well as a Statement of SEN. To meet current statutory
requirements, Sam’s Statement had to be reviewed and updated following his
review. It proved difficult to do this and successfully reflect what was in Sam’s
IDP. Sam’s parents felt that the information contained within the IDP was far
more useful and gave a better ‘picture’ of Sam’s needs. Should they be given
the choice between the two systems they had no hesitation in choosing the
IDP.
***************
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
45
13. Sustainability and way forward for Carmarthenshire
The current statutory system as it looks at present in Carmarthenshire
compared with the proposed changes / implications of the Statutory Reform
Pilots
Present statutory system
Future statutory system
Entry to Education
Early Support
Child Development Team meeting
Multiagency working – modified Child
Carms referral scheme
Development Team meeting
Entry to Education (School action
plus pupils / less complex)
SEN code of practise
Delegation of funding to schools (Tier
School Action (Tier 1)
1/2 lower end 3)
School Action plus (IEP/Tier 2)
Spectrum of need should be reflected
Statement (currently 4%)(Tier
by a spectrum of provision
3/4)
Person Centred Planning / One Page
Annual Reviews
Profiles
Person Centred Reviews
Individual Development Plans
Specialist prov
Multiagency assessment and
O&A units x 3
monitoring
Infant lang units x3 (2 English 1
Welsh)
Audit of training / identification of
Junior lang units x2 (Welsh / Eng)
training needs
Hearing impairment Units –
Raise capacity in mainstream schools
Parcyrhun, Canolfan Elfed
to deal with ASD, ADHD, Dyslexia,
ASD units (Garreglwyd, Canolfan
Dyspraxia, Speech and language,
Elfed, 3 primary units)
Behaviour – mainstream classes to
SLD/PMLD provision x 5 (Canolfan
be ‘everything friendly’ (Tier 1/2)
Elfed SLD/PMLD, Ammanford
SLD/PMLD, Y Felin, Myrddin,
Training of the ALNCo
Heol Goffa SLD/PLMD)
PCP training to all schools
EBD – PRU; Rhydygors day centre;
Rhydygors residential; Canolfan y
Continuum of provision for ASD
Gors
(mainstream, social communication
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
46
classes, ASD specialist provision,
ASD residential provision)
Entry criteria for specialist provision
Consideration for provision




O&A - recommendation by EP
O&A - recommendation by EP
(plus info from other
(plus info from other
professionals)
professionals)
Sp & Lang units Key stage 1 – EP

Sp & Lang units Key stage 1 – EP
& SALT; Key stage 2 – Statement
& SALT; Key stage 2 – identified
(language disorder)
language disorder only
ASD provision – diagnosis plus

statement
Social communication classes in
mainstream schools (Aspergers,
high functioning ASD, semantic
pragmatic, speech and language
difficulties) – no diagnosis (or
‘statement’) ASD provision – high
end autism, diagnosis or
agreement between 2 or more
professionals of likely ASD (but no
statement)

SLD – SLD as primary need,

statement

EBD – PRU do not need
statement BSCT involvement /
SLD – multiagency agreement,
person centred plan / IDP

EBD – multiagency agreement,
person centred plan / IDP
EP. Rhydygors day centre –
BSCT / EP. Rhydygors residential Each secondary school should have
– statement. Canolfan y Gors –
social communication / nurture /
EP & other professionals
behaviour class attached. This would
reduce the influx of children into
Canolfan Elfed from other parts of the
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
47
county. Children would automatically
go from feeder primary school to local
secondary school. Transport issues
would be resolved if CYP kept in
catchment area.

LAC – multiagency agreement,
person centred plan / IDP
Current ‘Panel’ system
Future monitoring


Assessment Panel
Delegated funding to schools –
quality assurance and provision

Directors Panel / Resource Panel

Placement Panel
mapping

Individual service panel (one
panel to replace current 4 in

Behaviour Support Panel
education) – Education and social
(allocation of BSCT)
care (separate panels?) to fund
tier 3 support if necessary?

Complex Needs Panel

Complex Needs Panel - funding
the requirements of high end
IDPs. (Tier 4) Tripartite funded
packages. (Support Co-ordinator
of IDP to present cases at panel
or cases brought by Support Coordinator’s manager or complex
needs co-ordinator?)
14. Carmarthenshire’s Proposed Early Support Pathway
14.1 Current System

Carmarthenshire Local Authority currently has a number of early years’
pathways which have been established in order to meet the needs of
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
48
young children with possible additional learning needs. These currently
include:
1. Entry to Education (E to E) – this is a multi-agency meeting, chaired by
education for children with less complex needs. Two E to E meetings
are held monthly, one for the Llanelli and one for the Carmarthen area.
Actions for professionals e.g. a pre-school assessment by the
Educational Psychologist (EP) are fed back through meeting minutes,
with agreed time scales.
2. Child Development Team Meeting (CDT) – this is a multi-agency
meeting, chaired by health, for children with more complex needs. Two
CDT meetings are held once a month, one for the Llanelli and one for
the Carmarthen area. Actions for professionals e.g. initiation of a
statutory assessment, are fed back through meeting minutes, with
agreed time scales.
3. The Carmarthenshire Referral System – usually for children with less
complex needs who are identified in a pre-school setting, but could
include complex as well.
There are currently two Early Years'
SENCos, who alert Education to children with possible additional
learning needs. The EYSENCos meet regularly with the EPS.

In addition, the Consultant Community Paediatrician may undertake a Ruth
Griffiths (RG) developmental assessment on children who have been
identified by health as having possible developmental difficulties, before
the age of 5 years. The information from this assessment is used to inform
professionals,
including
those
in
education
e.g.
the
Educational
Psychologist, about child’s development and possible additional learning
needs.

Carmarthenshire has a multi-disciplinary Children’s Disability Team which
includes
professionals
from
educational,
health
and
social
care
backgrounds, working in partnership with children, parents and other
agencies. The team operates a key worker system of service delivery,
with children being allocated a key-worker whose role is to co-ordinate
services required to meet the child and family’s needs, and to liaise with
other professionals. The team can be involved from birth, and have
occasionally been involved pre-birth. The Children’s Disability Team also
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
49
provides a home-visiting educational service for pre-school children with a
disability and their families, following a referral from the key worker (Preschool Intervention Service – PINS).

However, there is now a need to amalgamate pre-school systems for
children with possible additional learning needs into one system, in order
to embed the principles of Early Support (see below), and in preparation
for the new statutory system which will see the development and
implementation of holistic Individual Development Plans (IDPs), which it is
proposed will commence in 2013.

The CDT system appears to be a good point to commence the process of
change to Carmarthenshire’s current pre-school systems, as it is
envisaged that it would be the simplest system to change. There would
need to be an agreement upfront between all professionals, and parents,
not to proceed to statutory assessment, but to commence IDPs for the
children instead.
(See Appendix 6. Early Years Pathway)
14.2 Next Steps

Roles and responsibilities of professionals identified in the new pathway
need to be clarified.

There is an expectation that key worker for children with complex needs,
would fully understand all systems around the child/family, including
education.

There needs to be an agreement between all services involved, that
children coming through the new proposed pathway for CDT, will not
require a statement. The IDP will be generated instead.

Consultation with parents together with documentation explaining the new
system should be considered e.g. information leaflet.

As Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC) has been a particular area of
concern over the last few years, it would appear to be prudent to start to
look at ASC with regards to provision. We need to provide a spectrum of
provision to meet the spectrum of need including:
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
50
 The development of an Outreach team for ASD, to develop capacity
within mainstream school settings.
 Look at the possibility of establishing social communication classes in
mainstream schools.
 Further enhancing existing ASC provision, possibly to include the
development of a Welsh as a first language specialist setting.
Social
Communication
Classes in Mainstream
Mainstream
with
additional
support
Specialist Provision
with Mainstream
integration
Specialist ASC
Provision
Mainstream
Classroom

E to E will be absorbed into the planning process.

Observation and Assessment (O and A) Provisions – currently 3 in
Carmarthenshire in Llanelli, Carmarthen and Ammanford. Over the next
year it is conceivable that we will need to:
 Develop professional action plans for each O and A
 Provide training to all settings with regards to Person Centred
Planning/IDPs
 Identify further training needs in specific areas (linked possibly to
Outreach services from specialist provisions)
 Start to developing IDPs for children currently within the O and As
 Consider establishing regular multi-disciplinary team meetings to
discuss children’s progress/IDPs. These could be run as PCP
reviews
Helen Etherington,
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
51
Senior Educational Psychologist (Disability)
Early Support principles
1. Wherever possible, families are able to live ‘ordinary lives’.
2. The uniqueness of children and families is valued and provided for.
3. The care that disabled children receive is based on joint assessment,
planning and review processes that keep parents and carers at the heart
of discussion and decision-making about their child.
4. Children and families experience service delivery as holistic, co-ordinated
and seamless, facilitated by a key worker where appropriate.
5. Families experience continuity of care through different phases of their
engagement with services.
6. Children’s learning and development is monitored and promoted.
7. Families are able to make informed decisions.
8. Families and children are involved in shaping and developing services.
9. Working practices and systems are integrated.
10. Families can be confident that the people working with them have the
training, skills and experience required to meet their child’s needs
15. Implementation of the IDP
Replacing the Statement of SEN and other individual plans relating to AN
with the IDP will need to be phased in over a few years. Currently, the Welsh
Government is indicating that there will be no new statements from 2013, and
the new IDP based system will take approximately 4 years to phase in
completely.
16. What happens next?
A ‘one day’ PCP/IDP training course for professionals and parents, and a
related ‘training the trainers’ course is being developed by Jan Jones,
Complex Needs’ Project Manager, and Helen Etherington, Senior
Educational and Child Psychologist
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
52
A half day Awareness Training on PCP, the IDP, Role of the Additional
Learning Needs Co-ordinator (ALENCo) and Quality Assurance(QA) tool will
be delivered to key stakeholders in each county.
Between January and August, 2012 the IDP will be trialled across the 8
authorities who participated in the original ‘Statements or Something Better’
project. This will involve Carmarthenshire providing PCP training to key
stakeholders’ in 6 of the 7 participating authorities in January/February 2012
(Torfaen have received PCP training from Helen Sanderson, and will send
their trainers to attend the training).
17. The Robust trialling of the IDP in Carmarthenshire
In Carmarthenshire, Glan-y-mor Family of Schools will be piloted to use the
IDP with a cohort of 40 children. A letter has been sent out from Gareth
Morgans, Head of Governance and Inclusion, informing the schools of the
pilot, and inviting them to participate. Responses to this invitation have been
requested for the 13th January, 2011.
17.1 The cohort of children will include:

10 children who are on the Autism Spectrum

10 Looked After Children (LAC)

10 children who have a hearing or visual impairment

10 children who have emotional and behavioural difficulties
The individual children will be identified through discussion with the
child/young person when possible, their parents and with the participating
schools in January, 2012. In order for schools to participate fully in the pilot,
they will all need to have received training in:

PCP for professionals and parents (through the one day training
course) to include facilitation of a PCP review.
It is proposed that it may be more time and cost effective to deliver
the one-day training to key staff within the family of schools (i.e.
Head Teachers, ALENCos, Teaching Assistants supporting the
individual children) on a shared training day early next term.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
53
However, this will be dependent on the inset days available from
schools and may be difficult to co-ordinate.

The IDP online tool (provided by Torfaen).
Delivery of training will need to be discussed with schools, but may
be through a joint twilight session for key staff and parents.

The QA System (provided by Caerphilly).
Delivery of training will need to be discussed with schools, but may
be through a joint twilight session for key staff and parents.
17.2 Schools within the Glan-y-mor family who have received the 2 day
PCP training
School
Glan-y-mor
Training Received
ALNCo, All TAs
Date of training
2010
Additional Information
All statemented children now have
one-page profiles [1]
Burry Port Infants’
ALNCo, 1 TA
December, 2011
Had one child who was on the
original project, but has since left the
school
Burry Port Juniors’
Whole school training
September, 2010
All statemented children have onepage profiles. These have been
discussed regularly through
consultation with the ECP. At the
Head Teacher’s request, members of
staff have recently been involved in
discussions with the ECP to look at
how one-page profiles [1] can be
developed to replace IEPs, and have
also received awareness training on
the proposed IDP.
Pembrey
ALNCo and one other
Familiar with one-page profiles [1]
member of staff have
which have been developed with the
trained
ECP. ECP has invited the ALNCo to
participate in the next 2 day PCP
training (16/17 January, 2012)
Pwll
Head teacher, ALNCo,
2011
One child in mainstream, and one in
2 Teachers in charge
the ASC provision have IDPs in
of the Autism
progress.
Spectrum Provision, 1
TA
Trimsaran
Whole school training
September, 2011
Ysgol Y Castell
Head Teacher, ALNCo
November, 2011
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
54
It is envisaged that a number of children may be currently attending
Rhydygors Day Centre. Consequently, members of staff there would also
need to receive training on PCP, the IDP and the QA system, and should be
invited to attend any training arranged for Glan-y-mor family of schools.
18. Initiating an IDP elsewhere
18.1
Pre-school
If a child is referred for a statutory assessment by the consultant
paediatrician, an IDP could be co-ordinated instead by agreement with the
key-worker who would subsequently discuss with parents. Following parental
consent, a letter would be sent from the Additional Learning Needs
department to the parents, consultant paediatrician and any other
professionals involved, outlining the IDP process, and indicating that any
needs that are identified by the IDP would be met, and honoured by the LA
and that the IDP would afford the same protection as a statement.
The majority of occupational therapists, physiotherapists, key workers /
member of the Children’s Disability Team (CDT), and a number of speech
and language therapists have received the 2 day PCP training. However,
health visitors and consultant paediatricians are less familiar with PCP, and
may need to receive awareness training. All health and social care
colleagues involved with children at pre-school will also require awareness
training on IDPs.
The Early Support project, which involves specialist health visitors Bethan
Edwards and Nerys Wyn Morgan co-ordinating IDPs for 6 children using the
principles of Early Support, will help to raise awareness on the IDP in the
educational provisions the children are currently attending (Appendix 1).
18.2
In schools
In order to initiate an IDP successfully, members of staff in the educational
provision a child is currently attending, and in the identified receiving
provision, will need to have received training in PCP, and on the IDP process.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
55
This IDP process needs to be initiated by schools, and should not be a
decision made by an LA panel, otherwise we are in danger of replacing the
current bureaucratic system with a similar one.
If the LA receives a request for statutory assessment from a parent/school,
an IDP could be co-ordinated instead if the school has received PCP and IDP
training by agreement with the parents and school. Following parental
consent, a letter would be sent from the Additional Learning Needs
department to the parents, school and any other professionals involved,
outlining the IDP process, and indicating that any needs that are identified by
the IDP would be met, and honoured by the LA and that the IDP would afford
the same protection as a statement.
The IDP should not be co-ordinated by the ECP, Advisory Teacher or any
other educational professional as a matter of course, or ownership will be lost
from the schools.
19. Reducing Statements
Reducing statements should not depend on doing IDPs instead, as other LAs
have achieved low statementing levels without IDPs. In order to reduce
statementing levels it is suggested that the LA needs to remove the need for
a statement to access the following specialist provisions:
o Speech and Language
o ASC
Reducing statements is also dependent on the authority’s intention to
delegate funding to schools.
20. Targets for PCP Training
In order to support the agenda for change across county, the following
provisions should receive PCP/IDP training as a matter of priority:

Observation and Assessment Units

Speech and Language provisions

ASC provisions (Garreglwyd day and residential staff will have
received PCP training by the end of January, 2012. Teachers in
charge at Pwll/Myrddin have received PCP training)
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
56

Hearing Impairment provisions (Teacher in charge at Parcyrhun has
received PCP training)

Emotional and Behavioural provisions, including residential

Severe and Profound Learning Difficulties (Heol Goffa has received
whole school PCP training. Canolfan Elfed has received half day
PCP awareness training)
However, all schools in Carmarthenshire will need to receive the one day
PCP training before the implementation of the new system, and the robust
testing of the IDP pilot should help us to identify exactly what training and
support schools will require, and how we can roll this training out
effectively across county.
*************
Jan Jones
December 2011
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
57
Other reading / relevant information
Direction of Change (Appendix 1)
Statements or Something Better – next steps / Statements or Something
Better – professionals views (Appendix 2)
Interagency Protocol (Appendix 3)
SEN Code of Practise
Every Child Matters
Rights to Action
Review of SEN Statementing (ELLS Committee)
Parental Confidence in the SEN Statementing and Tribunal System
Lamb Inquiry
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
58
Evidence to Structure of Education Services Task and Finish Group
ADDITIONAL LEARNING NEEDS – DIRECTION OF CHANGE
1. Summary of Issues
1.1 This document responds to the request for written evidence to be
submitted to the Task and Finish Group by outlining the proposed direction of
reform of the statutory framework for additional learning needs (ALN).
2. Background
2.1 The planned reform follows the three-part review of special educational
needs (SEN) undertaken by the former Education, Lifelong Learning and
Skills (ELLS) Committee. This concluded that the current statutory framework
of ‘statementing’ was:


an inefficient process that was too complex, bureaucratic and costly; and,
insufficiently child-centred or user-friendly.
2.2 Following the review, a Legislative Competence Order in relation to
additional learning needs was secured in April 2008 to enable the Assembly
Government to make primary legislation. The term ALN refers to a ‘greater
difficulty in learning’ to encompass all learners in Wales whose learning
needs are greater than their peers of the same age. It is much wider in scope
than the term ‘special educational needs’ in order to recognise the diverse
and complex needs of learners and to reflect a more holistic approach to
meeting the needs of individual learners. The full definition of Additional
Learning Needs in the Legislative Competence Order is at Appendix A.
2.3 In the spring of 2010, a task and finish group was established to examine
funding of ALN post-16. The group’s report was published in the autumn, and
its findings are consistent with the proposed direction of travel for reform of
the statutory framework pre-16 and the over-arching approach being
developed across the Assembly and public services generally in relation to
collaboration, value for money and better commissioning.
2.4 The key pieces of legislation for the pre-19 age group are the Education
Act 1996 and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. The
statutory guidance in the SEN Code of Practice for Wales 2002 was issued
under the 1996 Act. Post-19, the key legislation is the Learning and Skills Act
2000. Implementation of the full range of reform currently envisaged will
require an Assembly Measure.
3. Financial Aspects
3.1 The main support for local authority expenditure on SEN pre-16 comes
from Revenue Support Grant. Local authority expenditure post-16 on special
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
59
schools and placements in schools other than those maintained by them is
currently reimbursed direct by the Assembly Government.
Specialist
placements in FE and supplementary funding to support mainstream colleges’
provision for additional needs are funded by the Assembly Government.
4. Work done to date
4.1 The proposed statutory reform of the ALN framework is set firmly within
the following contexts:

the School Effectiveness Framework (SEF), which aims to ensure
improved learning outcomes for all and will be the over-arching vehicle
for all initiatives aimed at improving the quality of education in Wales;

Children and Young People’s Partnerships and Plans, which aim to
provide a strategic vision and direction to the work of all local partner
agencies and to ensure better outcomes for children and young
people; and

the Front Line Resources Review, which aims to increase the
proportion of resources directly benefitting the learner.
4.2 The reforms are designed to secure the following long term outcomes for
those with ALN:









A more inclusive education system.
Improved learner outcomes and well-being.
Improved participation of learners in individual assessment and planning
processes.
Increased trust and confidence of parents and carers in the system
Greater consistency of outcomes and quality between schools and
between local authorities.
Improved leadership and management in schools and local authorities.
More effective and efficient partnership arrangements between agencies
and ‘third sector’ organisations.
More effective and efficient partnership working with parents and carers.
Greater efficiency in the use of resources
4.3 Work is under way through the current pilot schemes to develop the
following models to replace the existing framework.
Children and young people with severe and complex needs
4.4 The most vulnerable, probably between 0.5% and 1% of learners, have
such severe and complex needs that they require the support of a wide range
of services from several agencies on an on-going basis. For children and
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
60
young people with the most severe and complex needs, it is intended to
create:




A holistic system for the identification, assessment, planning, and review,
which provides appropriately for the educational, medical, personal and
social needs of the child or young person and their family.
A genuinely inter-agency approach to service delivery that combines the
provision of specialist approaches with collaborative service delivery,
including the provision of key working within the ‘team around the child’.
A person centred individual planning system.
A system that can be applied, as appropriate, from birth to age 25.
4.5 New systems and ways of working are currently being developed and
trialled in the pilot schemes.
Children and young people whose ALN are less complex or severe
4.6 There are concerns that the production and maintenance of a statement is
over-bureaucratic and costly, combined with a wide variation between
authorities in the proportion of pupils subject to a statement of SEN. There is
also a need for a system that is appropriate for the wider cohort of pupils that
have ALN and may not have SEN.
4.7 For those children and young people with less complex needs, including
those pupils who may currently be subject to a Statement of SEN or who may
be at School Action or School Action Plus a flexible, less bureaucratic schoolbased system is being developed. It is anticipated that partnership
agreements with other services, such as the NHS, will ensure the provision of
additional support where necessary. The replacement of the current system
of statements will require an Assembly Measure to amend the existing
legislation, which will require a cross portfolio approach. This, and the other
pilots described below, are due to end in the summer of 2011. Following
consideration of the evaluation, costed proposals will be consulted upon, with
a view to introducing a Measure in the course of 2012.
4.8 Affordability will, of course, be a key issue in deciding what proposals to
take forward. Initial reports from the pilot in Carmarthenshire are positive. It
is estimated that the provision of multi-agency care based in the child’s home
is saving approximately £130,000 a year for each child compared with the
cost of a specialist out of county placement.
Individual Development Plans (IDPs)
4.9 There are currently too many plans governing the individual needs of
children and young people. The remits of these plans frequently overlap and
none are, on their own, effective in securing an overview of the individual’s
needs. Joined-up assessment processes are required, together with short
and long term planning processes to address identified needs.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
61
4.10 Work is under way through the current pilot schemes to establish the
individual development plan (IDP) as a planning and review framework to
replace the current arrangements. It is anticipated that the IDP will be used
across the range of additional needs, clearly with variations in the format and
content. The IDP will have the following features:







The identification of long and short term aims and actions for all parties.
A flexible and learner-friendly format, with IT based options, involving the
minimum level of bureaucracy.
Person-centred processes ensuring the involvement of the child or young
person and their parents /carers at the centre of the development and
review processes.
A common format across Wales.
Contributions that the parents / carers might make to meet the individual’s
needs.
Key working where a child or young person has severe or complex needs.
Coverage to age 25 and a greater emphasis on employment outcomes,
where appropriate.
4.11 Replacement of the statement with an IDP will be part of, and follow the
same timetable as, the statutory reform outlined in 4.7 above.
Key working
4.12 Research indicates that key working is likely to be an important
determinant of effective service delivery where more than one agency is
involved. Work is in hand to develop and trial generic role descriptors and
training for key workers. ALN key workers will be assigned as part of the
planning process around a child and family and are likely to combine this role
with an existing one, not least because of the financial implications. The
choice of key worker will depend upon the age of the child or young person
and the nature of their needs. Services will need to adjust role descriptors for
staff and provide appropriate training and support accordingly.
4.13 Currently the Assembly Government is funding 5 key worker pilots.
Reports on these, including cost-benefit analyses, are anticipated in March
next year. In addition, key worker projects are currently being funded by the
EU in all 15 Convergence authorities until March 2013. Key working is an
issue of good practice rather than legislation and is likely to be introduced in
parallel with, but not dependent on, statutory reform.
Family support, advocacy and complaints
4.14 There is widespread concern and dissatisfaction amongst parents and
carers about the information and support available related to the statutory
assessment processes and the management of their concerns. Evidence
points to the need for early resolution of concerns whilst maintaining legal
recourse if all else fails.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
62
4.15 The development of systems relating to the wider cohort of children and
young people with ALN will require changes to the role and function of the
SEN Tribunal for Wales (SENTW). Formal processes to hear the voice of the
child or young person’s views or deal with their concerns will also need to be
incorporated into new legislation.
4.16 It is intended to place an increased emphasis on the provision of
improved information services and networks of support for parents and
carers. A range of models is being developed and trialled that will provide
sustainable information, advice, mediation and advocacy services to support
parents and carers with concerns about their children or young people with
ALN. On the basis of current good practice in Wales, it is anticipated that
these will serve to deal promptly with situations where parent or carers are
dissatisfied. Implementation of this work stream will be through a
combination of promulgation of good practice and the legislation to be taken
forward in 2012.
Early intervention and support
4.17 Ensuring early intervention with children who have ALN can be a key
determinant of both positive learning outcomes and meeting the needs of the
child and the family. The Early Support initiative has recently been launched
in Wales and its development is being facilitated by Children in Wales. It is
intended that Early Support will be integral to the new system for children with
severe and complex needs.
4.18 The Early Support approach ensures a family-based assessment and
planning process is established promptly following the identification of need
and a key worker is assigned. Agencies work together to ensure appropriate
support is in place for the child and the family until the child is 5 years old.
The development phase of Early Support will continue until the spring of
2012. Like key working, it is an aspect of good practice which can be rolled
out in parallel with statutory reform, subject to positive assessments of the
initiative.
Improvement and Accountability
4.19 There is a need to secure consistent high quality provision for learners
with ALN across Wales by systematically monitoring and evaluating outcomes
and the quality of educational provision and building the capacity of schools,
and especially mainstream schools. It is intended to do this in the following
ways:

a self-evaluation tool for schools to use as part of their development.
This is currently being taken forward in a pilot. Local authorities will be
expected to use this quality assurance framework to monitor their
schools and to agree with them action needed for improvement and
development. A system of reporting, both locally and nationally, will be
introduced. This pilot, in common with the others, will report in the
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
63
summer of 2011, but will not need legislation to implement, subject to
positive findings.

work is almost complete on the development of a national inclusion
profile and an inclusion tool-kit within the School Effectiveness
Framework. It will help schools and other learning settings to evaluate
their progress towards establishing inclusive cultures, policies and
practices.

improved professional development and guidance in ALN is being
pursued as part of the current review of professional development.
The newly-qualified teacher pack is almost complete and work is about
to start on the early professional development modules.

a review of the SEN Coordinator (SENCo) role. The SEF promotes the
development of ‘distributed leadership’ models in schools, within which
the role of the proposed ALN Coordinator (ALNCo) is an important
dimension. Work is under way through one of the pilots to construct
and trial a range of models for the role of the ALNCo to suit the wide
range of school settings within Wales. This will report at the same time
as the other pilots in the summer of 2011. Its findings will be
incorporated in the review of the SEN Code of Practice which will
proceed in parallel with legislation from 2011-12, to be in place when
the Measure is passed. An accredited training course for ALNCos is
also being designed and trialled. It is intended to make this mandatory
for all appointed ALNCos
Strategic preventative initiatives
4.20 There is evidence of very positive outcomes where local authorities in
Wales have adopted a strategic approach to improving the quality of
provision in specific areas (e.g. autism, dyslexia, speech and language
friendly school initiatives). However, it is clear that good practice is not
effectively disseminated and is too slow in influencing general practice across
Wales.
4.21 Models of good practice are being developed through the pilot schemes.
These will be made available on the Inclusion and Pupil Support web-site
being developed as part of the School Effectiveness Framework site,
following the conclusion of the pilots in the summer of 2011. Estyn (2009)
has already identified the valuable contribution that special schools can make
in supporting mainstream schools. However in most authorities such
schemes are still in their infancy and are dependent on short-term grant
funding.
4.22 The ‘Unlocking the Potential of Special Schools’ grant scheme has been
extended July 2011. Local authorities will be expected to ensure the longterm continuity of effective schemes and progressively build a framework that
ensures specialist expertise and resources are made available to all
mainstream schools.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
64
4.23 In some parts of Wales good progress has been made in developing a
range of specialist provision for pupils with ALN, but in other areas there is a
lack of appropriate provision. Each local authority regional consortium will be
expected to develop plans to ensure a comprehensive range of Welshmedium services and provision for children and young people with ALN. This
is the fulfilment of existing statutory duties rather than a new legislative
requirement.
Improved provision for the transition to adulthood
4.24 Substantial change is required in order to provide appropriately for
young people in their transition to adulthood. Robust inter-agency working,
involving services for both children and adults is needed to ensure effective
progression towards independence for the young person in their further
education, living, leisure, relationships and employment. In spite of
improvements in the outcomes and quality of special schools in Wales, there
is clear evidence of poor outcomes across Wales in securing employment
and independence within the community for adults with learning disabilities.
4.25 The post-16 Task and Finish Group reached a general consensus very
early on in discussions that the present system could not continue and that
the separation of the funding and management decisions was not
sustainable. Most importantly, the learners themselves do not always receive
a timely decision in relation to their future options due to the complexity of the
existing process. There was no criticism of any one organisation regarding
this but it was clear that the process was not smooth or sophisticated enough
to enable the learner to progress on the education journey with any certainty
or clarity.
4.26 Some of the key issues identified by the Group included the need for
consistency of approach across Wales; to be clear on the definitions of need;
to ensure that schools and FE settings worked together in a collaborative way
post-16; and to ensure there was a value for money approach taken in the
commissioning process. Ultimately it was a clear message from the Group
that the learner could achieve benefits if better planning of provision took
place, including an increase in options available at a local level.
4.27 The Group made the following recommendations:



Establishment of a joint protocol between all partners involved in transition
planning;
Take steps to ensure transition planning, together with assessments and
decisions relating to post-school placements at specialist colleges, take
place earlier;
Propose and consult on legislative changes involving:
- replacing the statement of SEN with an individual development plan for
all learners up to the age of 25;
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
65






- transferring responsibilities to local authorities for funding placements at
specialist colleges of further education and for exceptional funding in
local colleges;
- transferring responsibility to local authorities for arranging outcome
focused assessments under Section 140 of the Learning and Skills Act,
whilst retaining Careers Wales’ responsibility to use these assessments
to draw up coherent and realistic individual learning and skills plans;
- transferring responsibility to local authorities for post-16 SEN provision
in special schools and SEN out of county provision, and additional
support for post-16 SEN in mainstream schools.
Development by local authorities of a consortium approach to contracting
which takes an ‘invest to save’ approach
Closer working between local authorities to analyse increased incidence of
SEN, its distribution and management
Development and issue of guidance on consortium working and planning/
commissioning of ALN provision
Development by further education colleges, special schools and specialist
colleges of consortia on a ‘hub and spoke’ basis with a view to sharing
expertise
Establishment of alternative means of distributing supplementary funding
to further education colleges via mainstream funding allocations
Engagement by local authorities with existing Community Equipment
Scheme partnerships alongside schools, further education institutions and
specialist schools and colleges.
5. Next steps
5.1 Regional preliminary consultation events were organised in 2007, firstly
with parents /carers and then with other key stakeholders, to consult on
proposed reforms using a document and storyboards entitled Statements or
Something Better? Subsequently, a dialogue has been maintained with
stakeholder groups to provide updates and seek views on the direction of
change. Various stakeholder groups have been involved in small working
groups to help shape policy development and to inform the work of the local
authority-led pilot schemes. It is intended to maintain this stakeholder
engagement throughout the process of change.
Statutory Reform Pilot Schemes
5.2 Eight local authorities are engaged in pilot schemes to develop and trial
the following key aspects:




Quality Assurance Framework, (Caerphilly & Flintshire)
Model for children & young people with severe and complex ALN,
(Carmarthenshire & Torfaen)
Model for children with less complex ALN, (Pembrokeshire, Bridgend and
Torfaen)
Framework for ALNCos, (Cardiff & Newport)
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
66
5.3 An independent Action Research project has been initiated, which will
evaluate the pilot schemes and the wider reform agenda.
5.4 It is important that these reforms are developed within a cross-portfolio
context and under the twin umbrellas of the School Effectiveness Framework
and the Children and Young People’s Partnerships. It is also a key
requirement that the implementation is planned carefully over a few years by
the Assembly Government, local authorities and consortia so as to secure a
smooth transition with a cost effective and value added approach. Estyn will
be asked to periodically review progress in the implementation of the reforms
as they are implemented.
Jan Jones
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
67
APPENDIX A
Definition of Additional Learning Needs (ALN)
The Legislative Competence Order (2008) adopted the following definition:
A person has ALN for the purposes of the Order, if they receive education
and training and:
(a) have a greater difficulty in learning than the majority of persons of the
same age as those persons;
(b) have, or have had—
(i) a physical or mental impairment, or
(ii) a progressive health condition (such as cancer, multiple sclerosis or
HIV infection) where it is at a stage involving no physical or mental
impairment.
The Order covers persons of any age in receipt of education or training who
have for ‘whatever reason’, a greater difficulty in learning than the majority of
persons of the same age as those persons, or a disability.
The term ALN is much wider in scope than the term ‘special educational
needs’ in order to recognise the diverse and complex needs of learners and
to reflect a more holistic approach to meeting the needs of individual learners.
School pupils may therefore require additional learning support if they have
difficulty in learning because they have, for example:












Jan Jones
special educational needs;
a disability;
medical needs;
gaps in their knowledge or skills due to prolonged absences
from the education system e.g. school refusers, school phobics
or young offenders;
difficult family circumstances e.g. due to bereavement;
accessed education inconsistently e.g. gypsy and traveller
pupils or
their first language is not English or Welsh e.g. asylum seekers/
refugees/children of migrant workers;
they are looked after by the local authority e.g. a child whose
schooling was disrupted before being taken into care or has had
frequent changes of school since taken into care;
they are under-achieving due to care responsibilities e.g. young
carers;
they are pregnant or a young parent; ,
they are being bullied by their peers or other persons, due to
their sexual orientation e.g. lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender pupils,
they are pupils who perform or who have employment.
Alternative to Statements
Final Report
December 2011
68