Lancashire SEND Partnership – Response to the government green paper SEND Review: Right support, right place, right time

On 29 March the Government published the SEND Review: Right support, right place, right time, a consultation on the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and alternative provision system in England. The consultation sets out proposed reforms to the SEND and alternative provision (AP) system that seek to address three key challenges:

  • poor outcomes for children and young people with SEN or in alternative provision
  • navigating the SEND system and alternative provision is not a positive experience for children, young people, and their families and;
  • despite unprecedented investment, the system is not delivering value for money for children, young people and families.

The Lancashire SEND Partnership held two events in May 2022 to discuss the proposals and respond to the consultation questions. The events were attended by professionals from education, health and care and by parents and carers. This paper provides a summary of these discussions.

Members of the Lancashire SEND Partnership Board have also contributed to the following Lancashire SEND Partnership response.

We are encouraging all our partners to submit individual responses to the consultation. We hope you find the information included here helpful in forming your own thoughts around the proposals.

The consultation closes on 22 July 11.45pm. You can read the SEND review: right support, right place, right time on GOV.UK.

Chapter 1: the case for change (page 18)

The Green Paper sets out the findings of the SEND review, which are summarised as:

  • Children and young people with SEND and those in alternative provision have consistently poorer outcomes than their peers.
  • Experiences of the SEND and alternative provision system are negative.
  • The SEND and alternative provision system is financially unsustainable.
  • There is too much inconsistency across the SEND system in how and where needs are assessed and met.

Chapter 2: a single national SEND and alternative provision system (page 26)

The Green Paper proposes:

  • establishing a new national SEND and alternative provision system setting nationally consistent standards for how needs are identified and met at every stage of a child’s journey across education, health, and care.
  • reviewing and updating the SEND Code of Practice to ensure it reflects the new national standards to promote nationally consistent systems, processes, and provision.
  • establishing new local SEND partnerships, bringing together education (including alternative provision), health and care partners with local government and other partners to produce a local inclusion plan setting out how each local area will meet the national standards.
  • introducing a standardised and digitised EHCP process and template to minimise bureaucracy and deliver consistency.
  • supporting parents and carers to express an informed preference for a suitable placement by providing a tailored list of settings, drawn from the local inclusion plan, including mainstream, specialist and independent, that are appropriate to meet the child or young person’s needs.
  • streamlining the redress process, making it easier to resolve disputes earlier, including through mandatory mediation, whilst retaining the tribunal for the most challenging cases

Q1: What key factors should be considered when developing national standards to ensure they deliver improved outcomes and experiences for children and young people with SEND and their families? This includes how the standards apply across education, health and care in a 0-25 system.

Agreed that nationally consistent standards with clear responsibility and accountability should be in place across education, health and care. This should provide guidance related to reasonable adjustments and how greater consistency across authorities can be achieved.

Standards should focus on preparing for adulthood outcomes rather than attainment measures.

Need standards that incorporate health – the SEND Review heavily focuses on education.

Minimum standards for training and development and assessment should be in place across all agencies.

The Local Offer should outline standards and appropriate support, this should include available resources for settings and schools.

We noted that some flexibility will be needed in the system to reflect available provision and differing levels of need.

A mechanism needs to be in place for the learning gained over time so that standards can be developed and updated to avoid ambiguity.

Potential through standardising to create greater inequity for those with the most complex needs as they are unlikely to fit within standards, therefore need mechanisms to support when we can outside of standards.

Standards need to be meaningful and achievable with accountability – and recognition that these are minimum standards, not the gold standard.

Need a lead in time from publication of the standards to being inspected on implementation of the standards.

Q2: How should we develop the proposal for new local SEND partnerships to oversee the effective development of local inclusion plans whilst avoiding placing unnecessary burdens or duplicating current partnerships?

Lancashire has a strong SEND Partnership – however there is no clarity about what the SEND Review expectation of ‘partnership’ is. We are in danger of assuming we have it right without a definition of what is required of a partnership.

Standardise SEND Partnership membership, responsibility and accountability at a national level. Partnerships should include SENDCOs and CYP with direct experience of the SEND system. It is also important to ensure the full geography of local areas is represented.

To be effective SEND partnerships must have the ability to hold partners to account to deliver on shared areas of work to support the needs of children and young people.

The Lancashire SEND Partnership Board is already well established and will continue to develop.

Is the expectation for partnerships that they will be retained on a local area footprint based on the local authority boundaries, and not on an integrated care system footprint?

Q 3: What factors would enable local authorities to successfully commission provision for low-incidence high cost need, and further education, across local authority boundaries?

  • Agree minimum standards of provision across local authorities.
  • Implement nationally consistent, transparent assessments across services.
  • Ensure comprehensive information of available services is on Local Offer websites.
  • Understand and address the barriers for young people and providers related to further education.
  • Share responsibility and accountability for young people across local authorities.
  • Facilitate regional commissioning groups to ensure a one commissioning approach with aligned planning cycles.
  • Acknowledge the independence of elected members when considering regional commissioning and note there may be unintended consequences at regional boundaries

Q 4: What components of the EHCP should we consider reviewing or amending as we move to a standardised and digitised version?

  • Consideration should be given to raising EHCP thresholds to ensure plans are better focused and co-produced, this may include decisions to offer a support plan short of EHCP.
  • Guidance - clarity required on expected content, length and coproduction expectations
  • Stronger requirements under Preparing for Adulthood
  • Distinct areas to detail the child or young person's strengths and difficulties
  • Ability for information to link across systems so families only need to share their journey once
  • Need a definition of ‘assessment’ as parents expect to be expedited on a waiting list in order to have a full health assessment, which means they then get put ahead of others who might have a greater clinical need for their appointment/assessment. It’s difficult (impossible?) for clinicians to meet the timescales if full assessments are required, and therefore a form of triage would help health
  • Parent carers question the sharing of information, so going forward there needs to be consent to share relevant information across education, health and care, particularly in relation to assessments for EHCPs
  • Greater emphasis on practitioners remaining within professional boundaries – which means that it has to be ok for a plan not to include a clinician’s comment that a child needs to be in a special school, as often this is the clinician writing down what the parent tells them
  • Need clarity of what ‘digitised’ means
  • One page profile should be mandatory
  • Progress needs to be emphasised in the plan
  • Private assessments as part of an EHCP can be problematic, as these are not independent, and often provide outdated advice for service provision, sometimes based on what the private assessor can provide at a cost

Q5: How can parents and local authorities most effectively work together to produce a tailored list of placements that is appropriate for their child, and gives parents’ confidence in the EHCP process?

Parents and local authorities should both have opportunity to propose placements linked to the child or young person's needs as outlined in their EHCP. Parents need to be confident that the right professionals are involved, know their child and are advocating for their needs.

To support this it is important to ensure a full list of available placements is maintained, up to date and easily accessible for all to review. Full placement lists should provide key placement information and be presented consistently across authorities.

Reasonable communication parameters should be agreed so parents understand what to expect by when.

Q6: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our overall approach to strengthen redress, including through national standards and mandatory mediation?

Agree with notion of resolving issues prior to tribunal. Ensuring decision makers attend mediation will be essential to resolving disputes.

Noted that changes to the appeal process may result in EHCP timescales not being met and staffing levels not at capacity to support process.

Clinical capacity to be involved in mediations will be an issue as clinicians are already stretched.

Needs to be jointly owned, as often health is brought in as an afterthought.

Need scrutiny of private providers / assessors as they are in direct competition with the NHS.

Private advocates can be misinformed and are not independent.

Q7: Do you consider the current remedies available to the SEND Tribunal for disabled children who have been discriminated against by schools effective in putting children and young people’s education back on track?

The tribunal process is effective; however families report that it is time consuming and stressful and often impacts upon children and young people's transition. Change to the process is welcomed.

Chapter 3: excellent provision from early years to adulthood (page 37)

The Green paper proposes:

  • Increase our total investment in schools’ budgets by £7 billion by 2024-25, compared to 2021-22, including an additional £1 billion in 2022-23 alone for children and young people with complex needs.
  • Consulting on the introduction of a new SENCo National Professional Qualification (NPQ) for school SENCos and increase the number of staff with an accredited Level 3 SENCo qualification in early years settings to improve SEND expertise.
  • Commissioning analysis to better understand the support that children and young people with SEND need from the health workforce so that there is a clear focus on SEND in health workforce planning.
  • Improving mainstream provision, building on the ambitious Schools White Paper, through excellent teacher training and development and a ‘what works’ evidence programme to identify and share best practice, including in early intervention.
  • Funding more than 10,000 additional respite placements through an investment of £30 million, alongside £82 million to create a network of family hubs, so more children, young people and their families can access wraparound support.
  • Investing £2.6 billion, over the next three years, to deliver new places and improve existing provision for children and young people with SEND or who require alternative provision. We will deliver more new special and alternative provision free schools in addition to more than 60 already in the pipeline
  • Setting out a clear timeline that, by 2030, all children will benefit from being taught in a family of schools, with their school, including special and alternative provision, in a strong multi-academy trust (MAT), or with plans to join or form one, sharing expertise and resources to improve outcomes.
  • Investing £18 million over the next three years to build capacity in the Supported Internships Programme, and improve transitions at further education by introducing Common Transfer Files alongside piloting the roll out of adjustment passports to ensure young people with SEND are prepared for higher education and employment

Q8: What steps should be taken to strengthen early years practice with regard to conducting the two-year-old progress check and integration with the Healthy Child Programme review?

A review of the current process to understand what is working and what the barriers are.

Early identification and early intervention through the two year old check and the use of one standard document available as a virtual form should be available in advance of the two year check.

Improvements should ensure processes are joined up so children do not fall between gaps and that there is a joint understanding of a child's needs across education and health services. Further engagement between HV and nurseries to support this process would be welcomed. Provision of face to face support for families and clear guidance on how to approach families who don't engage.

Need joint electronic documentation, with a mandated mechanism to share what comes out of the checks

Q9: To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should introduce a new mandatory SENCo NPQ to replace the NASENCo?

We agree that quality training is important for all SENCOs. It is important that the emphasis on SEND being Everyone’s Business is maintained and all teachers understand their responsibility, not just the school SENCO. The SENCO is a critical role and requires additional support and protected time.

Any training for SENCOs should include how to identify need, what SEN support looks like and provide strategies to meet need. SEN sessions should be included on teacher training courses with input from Specialist Teachers, Educational Psychologists and Designated Clinical Officers.

Training should also be provided to LA officers who coordinate EHCPs and carry out highly responsible liaison work with several specialist professionals.

Q10: To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should strengthen the mandatory SENCo training requirement by requiring that headteachers must be satisfied that the SENCo is in the process of obtaining the relevant qualification when taking on the role?

There is a set time frame for doing the qualification. We see the training as necessary within the time frame however suggest gaining some experience before undertaking the training is beneficial.

Q11: To what extent do you agree or disagree that both specialist and mixed MATs should coexist in the fully trust-led future? This would allow current local authority maintained special schools and alternative provision settings to join either type of MAT.

Lots of mainstream provision already has specialist provision due to rising numbers and a model linking levels of support/provision within trusts for children to move through would be welcomed.

It will be important for all settings to be aware of what is available. Having expertise on hand for support may result in children staying in school with support available through mixed MATs.

Consideration would be required concerning governance and overview of the MATs.

Lessons should be learned from instances when mainstream MATS have taken on children and young people from special schools which have been unsuccessful and subsequently re brokered.

Q12: What more can be done by employers, providers and government to ensure that those young people with SEND can access, participate in and be supported to achieve an apprenticeship, including through access routes like Traineeships?

  • Extend internship programmes to support more young people, and provide a greater variety of activity that can be accessed by a greater variety of young people
  • Engage employers, providers and government with the 'SEND is Everyone’s Business' way of thinking to increase awareness of SEND conditions and increase understanding of simple reasonable adjustments that can be put in place.
  • Establish/extend quotas for large companies to employ young people with SEND, including local authorities who should lead by example by employing more young people with SEND.
  • Provide young people with guidance through the transition process with wraparound support about what to expect from employment and how to get into employment, including life skills and informal education.
  • Support employers to look beyond qualifications to what other skills someone with SEND can offer a workplace.
  • Support colleges to deliver flexible provision to meet individual needs particularly those achieving at entry level and to link this in with employers' needs.
  • Ensure a culturally sensitive and ambitious KS4 offer is in place.
  • Develop more case studies on successful transition to employment, best practice – what works.

Chapter 4: a reformed and integrated role for alternative provision (page 56)

The Green Paper proposes:

  • making alternative provision an integral part of local SEND systems by requiring the new local SEND partnerships to plan and deliver an alternative provision service focused on early intervention.
  • giving alternative provision schools the funding stability to deliver a service focused on early intervention by requiring local authorities to create and distribute an alternative provision-specific budget.
  • building system capacity to deliver the vision through plans for all alternative provision schools to be in a strong multi-academy trust, or have plans to join or form one, to deliver evidence-led services based on best practice, and open new alternative provision free schools where they are most needed.
  • developing a bespoke performance framework for alternative provision which sets robust standards focused on progress, re-integration into mainstream education or sustainable post-16 destinations.
  • delivering greater oversight and transparency of pupil movements including placements into and out of alternative provision.
  • launching a call for evidence, before the summer, on the use of unregistered provision to investigate existing practice

Q13: To what extent do you agree or disagree that this new vision for alternative provision will result in improved outcomes for children and young people? Agree that the vision is very positive and we support the intention to ensure as many children as possible stay in or return to mainstream education as soon as possible.

Support for schools to adapt their own settings to support children and reduce exclusions by having facilitates in place ie provision of intensive support / development of sensory rooms is welcomed.

More alternative provision settings are required as current capacity is not sufficient. Lengthy lead times to access support can result in negative perceptions.

To support this vision better quality support is needed in mainstream schools, more early interventions, guidelines around expected levels of targeted support and time limits on provision.

A more flexible, child-centred model is needed with options including a longer term personalised curriculum, e.g. some days on vocational learning, and some days on maths and English.

Concerns that the vision does not support children with complex SEMH needs. Based on evidence bases, we support primarily the concept of enhanced support for mainstream schools to support children with complex SEMH needs

Agree that sustainable funding is required to support planning and delivery.

The wraparound service through hubs needs to be appropriately funded – there will be lead-in times to recruit and train staff to support the alternative provision

Q14: What needs to be in place in order to distribute existing funding more effectively to alternative provision schools to ensure they have the financial stability required to deliver our vision for more early intervention and reintegration?

Funding could be linked to the outcomes-e.g., how many children have been reintegrated? How many children are NEET? An evidence-based framework around 'what works' with clear accountability for re-integration.

Delegated responsibility to schools for maintaining placements/reducing permanent exclusions with devolved funding to schools linked to this agreement.

Consideration on how potential deficits in health funding around CAMHS, Positive Behaviour Support, ASD specialist roles, training for children with complex health needs will be addressed.

Developing more localised provision is a priority and will require increased funding to develop alternative provision within mainstream settings.

Flexible funding is needed to enable different types of alternative provision to be supported.

Ability to pool resources across schools, in terms of expertise and funding.

Improve the management of exclusions by removing perverse incentives that enable exclusions to be used as a tool to secure support.

Development of further SEND units, providing shared facilities for local children within a mainstream setting.

Q15: To what extent do you agree or disagree that introducing a bespoke alternative provision performance framework, based on these five outcomes, will improve the quality of alternative provision?

Agreed with the outcomes, unclear how these can be practically delivered. Academic attainment may be challenging at mainstream school and meeting needs is more important. Suggested exclusions be added to the five outcomes and performance measures related to pupil movements should be tracked.

How will the framework link with the education inspection framework for schools? Suggest the performance of a group/community of schools should be considered in relation to PRU data; individual data for individual schools should be linked to the family of schools.

Q16: To what extent do you agree or disagree that a statutory framework for pupil movements will improve oversight and transparency of placements into and out of alternative provision?

A clear framework for all is needed to support consistency and equal opportunities/access. This should include thresholds across schools, expected levels of communication and managed moves guidance.

Chapter 5: system roles, accountabilities, and funding reform (page 65)

The Green Paper proposes:

  • delivering clarity in roles and responsibilities with every partner across education, health, care, and local government having a clear role to play, and being equipped with the levers to fulfil their responsibilities
  • equipping the Department for Education’s (DfE) new Regions Group to take responsibility for holding local authorities and MATs to account for delivery for children and young people with SEND locally through new funding agreements between local government and DfE
  • providing statutory guidance to Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to set out clearly how statutory responsibilities for SEND should be discharged
  • introducing new inclusion dashboards for 0-25 provision, offering a timely, transparent picture of how the system is performing at a local and national level across education, health, and care
  • introducing a new national framework of banding and price tariffs for funding, matched to levels of need and types of education provision set out in the national standards
  • working with Ofsted/Care Quality Commission (CQC) on their plan to deliver an updated Local Area SEND Inspection Framework with a focus on arrangements and experience for children and young people with SEND and in alternative provision

Q17: What are the key metrics we should capture and use to measure local and national performance? Please explain why you have selected these

A greater emphasis should be given to child focused, outcome based measurements linked to preparing for adulthood, with less emphasis on academic measures.

A measure on how well/easily families have navigated the SEND system, ie have practitioners been involved at the right time and are families receiving the information and guidance they need.

  • increased percentage of CYP in mainstream,
  • health and social care outcomes are met,
  • identify % of EHCP that have multi-agency involvement and been co-produced from identification of need,
  • measures of well-being for CYP – connectiveness and belonging because this links to achievement and staying in school,
  • national survey framework – national SEND satisfaction,
  • school offers a range of curriculum,
  • staff per population (metric for LA performing makes areas comparable)
  • Reduced parental requests

There needs to be a long-view to health data, as we end up collecting waiting times data – what do we need to collect in the longer-term so that we can work towards this

As health does not collect all SEND relevant data nationally, and SEND is not always an identifier on data that is collected (therefore showing all CYP using a service), we can only provide robust data once this has been rectified

Improvements to data sharing between different sectors is needed.

Information sharing agreements and DPIAs need to be delivered at a national level – they are time consuming and repetitive

Defining the key metrics on the basis of opinion is a dangerous approach, as many people responding to the review will not be taking the long view to data needs and how we best demonstrate improved outcomes for CYP with SEND

Recommend a well-represented partnership task and finish group at a national level (eg representing all aspects of health, and not only one or two perspectives) regarding what metrics will be key

Linking to the inspection framework consultation, it is apparent that health providers do not have document naming protocols in place, which makes it difficult to identify relevant documentation. Alongside metrics, we need to agree to common naming protocols

Q18: How can we best develop a national framework for funding bands and tariffs to achieve our objectives and mitigate unintended consequences and risks?

Basic level funding provided for SEN - Additional funding provided after the EHCP (E1, E2, E3, E4). Any changes in funding should reflect the complexities of the SEND and be allocated via evidence of identified need through the graduated response.

Improved communication and information across the banding systems so families can understand their position.

Funding support must address all the child or young person's needs across services and include co-commissioning.

National formula would need to account for the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index.

Chapter 6: delivering change for children and families (page 74)

The Green paper proposes:

  • taking immediate steps to stabilise local SEND systems by investing an additional £300 million through the Safety Valve Programme and £85 million in the Delivering Better Value programme, over the next three years, to support those local authorities with the biggest deficits.
  • tasking the SEND and Alternative Provision Directorate within DfE to work with system leaders from across education, health and care and the Department of Health and Social Care to develop the national SEND standards.
  • supporting delivery through a £70 million SEND and alternative provision change programme to both test and refine key proposals and support local SEND systems across the country to manage local improvement.
  • publishing a national SEND and alternative provision delivery plan setting out government’s response to this public consultation and how change will be implemented in detail and by whom to deliver better outcomes for children and young people.
  • establishing, for implementation of the national delivery plan, a new National SEND Delivery Board to bring together relevant government departments with national delivery partners including parents, carers and representatives of local government, education, health, and care to hold partners to account for the timely implementation of proposals.

Q19: How can the National SEND Delivery Board work most effectively with local partnerships to ensure the proposals are implemented successfully?

We share the view that co-production drives service improvement.

It is important to work together at a national level as well as locally ie National SEND Delivery Board should work in partnership with NHSE.

Clear accountability and governance in place to manage improvements and address risks. Provision of clear robust guidance and expectations of all partners through national standards.

Local engagement, a key representative from the NSD board to be involved in local partnership developments.

Health needs to feature more as a partner rather than an add on of what comes next after the SEND Review consultation

Health does not have ringfenced budgets for SEND related services, and it can be difficult to get funding allocated due to conflicting national priorities for health (eg cancer targets)

It is difficult to continue implementing change through constant service redesign, as at some point implementation of improvements requires investment

As local delivery is subject to Matrix the National panel should publish an annual report which includes some pre- arranged Matrix measures.

Q20: What will make the biggest difference to successful implementation of these proposals? What do you see as the barriers to and enablers of success?


  • Further consultation events ahead of finalising White Paper to evidence commitment to co-production and partnership working
  • Shared accountability between professionals and families. Clear responsibilities outlined for all partners with families effectively engaged.
  • Clear guidance on staffing caseloads to enable professionals the time to provide the right support at right time
  • Regular clear communication regarding changes
  • Availability of provision/support
  • Increase staffing at SEND support to support inclusion and prevention.
  • Increase partners shared understanding of each other, their roles and limitations of the system.
  • Joint commissioning of services, with time to develop available services.


  • Finance – additional funding is required to address deficit whilst proposals are being implemented.
  • Staffing capacity across all partners – currently impacts timeliness of support and can result in poor relationships with families.
  • Transition process, large scale change to deliver across stretched services. Staffing resource and finance required for training and implementation of proposals.
  • Health is a key partner within SEND however it is not included within the review. What are the proposals for ensuring Health and associated processes are joined up as part these proposals?
  • Ensuring join up across services- many partners involved and different information held for each. Challenge will be ensuring cohesion and commitment across partners.
  • Conflicting policy strands relating to the ambitions for children and young people with SEND.
  • Points of law maintaining no actual necessity for Assess Plan Do Review, preventing the principles of inclusion.
  • SEND is a difficult arena to work in, spread across multiple agencies - families and staff both have difficulties navigating and relying on underfunded SEND services, and this can lead to recruitment and retention issues.
  • The SEND Review document reads as a DfE document, and it does not read as a partnership between DfE and DHSC. The final document needs to be fully integrated at government department level between departments to support the partnerships we have developed locally.
  • Sustainable change takes time – there needs to be recognition of progress with implementation, recognising the need to deliver over longer periods of time than inspections allow for.

Q21: What support do local systems and delivery partners need to successfully transition and deliver the new national system?

  • Additional funding to implement proposals whilst supporting ongoing demand which continues to rise within the sector.
  • Ringfenced budgets for SEND
  • Clear guidance regarding national standardisation, expectations, and time frames.
  • Further support needed with funding and long-term planning. No budget for SEND within Health.
  • Staff training required to support the withdrawal of SEND support at the right time.
  • SEND awareness training for all new recruits to services within the SEND partnership.
  • Allocated time for SENCOs to disseminate training and information.
  • Waiting lists to be given ratings of need through a triage mechanism that allows for an urgent need, lower level need or rejection without assessment approach..

Q22: Is there anything else you would like to say about the proposals in the green paper?

  • Further Education gets a mention but where is Higher Education?
  • Term ‘most appropriate local setting’ is used. Without criteria this might cause issues because it comes down to who decides and what we define as ‘appropriate’ (p38)
  • Investment is often not enough and is not matched in health which is problematic when health is required to deliver; ‘timely and effectively access and support’.
  • Feels like it’s going to get harder for children and young people who require specialist provision to access the provision that meets their needs.
  • Lack of a long view.
  • Severe lack of therapists that children and young people need regularly – can we not find easier ways in for mature apprenticeship course approach to attract wider groups of people who can support the CYP
  • The positioning of the review process, sometimes it needs to be reflective of the SEND needs rather than timetable, to strengthen the review process, stop it being a paperwork exercise.
  • Sensory difficulties which are hard to manage in schools, there needs to be a specialist facility which will help these children, really helps being in the right environment however there isn’t the choice
  • Education is priority in paper and health services are rarely discussed or invested in
  • We are concerned that a focus on outcomes in mainstream settings may be detrimental to children and young people with SEND.
  • Annual health care plans are reviewed annually, care can change in between those times and plans become outdated and not reflective of needs. The pace of change is not always reflected in the plans. A mechanism is required to reflect need rather than the timetable of reviews. Inspectors refer to ‘assessment of need’ which is not reflected in practice.
  • Training and education programmes from initial university training for teachers, social care and health (including medics) needs to include SEND in the curriculum to ensure that SEND is everyone’s business
  • IT and information sharing, including consent, are going to hold up implementation as systems do not work in tandem, and agreements and consent take time
  • There is nothing in the review document that gives families responsibility for their role in supporting their child or young person – there are times when advice and support is provided and not followed through by families, with blame being put back onto the system for not doing more.
  • There needs to be greater emphasis on the graduated approach and that receiving support at the universal or targeted support will be all that the majority of children require – currently we end up with families still wanting access to specialist support as if this will change things, and it is clogging up waiting lists. Specialist support is being interpreted as being a form of universal support available to all.