A vulnerable looked after child with special educational needs missed out on five and a half terms of education and didn’t receive the therapy they needed for more than two years because staff at a council-owned company, Worcestershire Children First, had such a poor grasp of the SEND system.

The child, who lived with a relative as part of a kinship care arrangement, was no longer able to attend mainstream schooling because of their unsupported education and behavioural needs.

Despite numerous professionals fighting to help the child, including an educational advocate and social care officers from the council whose roles were specifically to support looked after children’s education, the council failed to find a suitable school placement for them.

The process of finding a new school for the child was beset by delays and a lack of understanding of the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan process. The SEN team admitted it was unaware of its powers to name certain types of schools in a child’s EHC Plan. This led to them naming the child’s mainstream school in the plan, as they had not sourced a special school, when every party agreed mainstream schooling was not suitable for the child.

The council took more than a year longer than the law allows to update the child’s EHC Plan. During this period, it approached special schools with an out-of-date record of the child’s needs when it enquired about spaces. This meant that the schools were making a decision on whether they could admit the child based on inaccurate information.

It failed to keep the child’s carer informed throughout the lengthy process, and failed to ask for her views on the EHC Plans, despite the law defining her as a parent for these purposes.

Because the child’s needs remained unsupported for so long, their emotional wellbeing worsened at home to the extent they struggled to leave the house. The child became distressed and isolated from their peers and this had a great impact on their relationship with their carer and the carer’s own mental health, who admitted the placement was at risk of breaking down.

Ms Amerdeep Somal, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“This child had a difficult start in life and, as corporate parents, the council had an even greater duty to ensure their welfare and educational needs were met.

“This is a classic case of a child falling through the cracks, despite being on the council’s radar for years, and despite the best intentions of the professionals they came into contact with.

“It is incomprehensible that staff dealing with the child’s education provision, working in an education department, could have such a poor understanding of the law around special educational needs and disabilities and their duties towards children in their care. They also failed to act on the concerns raised by its specialists for looked after children. Not knowing they could specify the type of school is basic knowledge and it is bewildering staff didn’t know their remit.

“I hope the work the council has been doing with the Department for Education and the NHS to improve its SEND services, plus the additional recommendations I have made, will ensure it has better oversight of all children with Special Educational Needs in the future.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman remedies injustice and shares learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to apologise to the relative and pay a combined remedy of £11,060 for the child’s missed education and support and for the injustice caused.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council has agreed to review the training provided to staff to ensure it covers aspects of concern raised in the Ombudsman’s report.

 

 

 

Article date: 19 November 2024