Select committee: Education Committee
Conclusion 42
Second Report - Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it
Published 8 Jul 2022
Paragraph 106
Addressed to Department for Education
Education Committee Children's Homes All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
Over 90% of SEND tribunal decisions are made in favour of the parent and child. But where a child with SEND lives in residential care, and does not have a school place or Education, Health and Care plan that meets their needs, they may effectively have no right of appeal to a tribunal if they have no parental figure willing to pursue an appeal on their behalf. We are concerned by the potential conflict of interest inherent in a local authority’s simultaneous roles as a looked-after child’s corporate parent, and decision-maker for a SEND appeal on the child’s behalf. A local authority is clearly unlikely to appeal against itself at a SEND tribunal. Although the child’s Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) has a vital role to play here, we have heard that IROs do not consistently ensure that the child’s special educational needs are effectively identified, assessed and met.
From: Education Committee, Second Report - Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it (HC 57), paragraph 106, 8 July 2022
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 10 November 2022 (deadline 8 September 2022).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government says it "fully agrees with the core message" that looked-after children are educationally disadvantaged and accepts the wide majority of recommendations fully or in part, with other recommendations handled through existing or planned reforms.
- On data, it says it "will publish the recommended breakdowns in the 2023 releases", in conjunction with its confidentiality policy, which "may result in us needing to suppress low numbers".
- On putting the extended Virtual School Head role on a statutory footing, it says longer-term plans, including whether to do so, "are under active consideration", informed by an independent evaluation.
- On a maximum 20-day timeframe for Schools Adjudicator decisions, it says this "would be unlikely to improve the speed of decisions", and it has "no plans" to extend Ofsted's remit to assess admissions.
- It is committed to a new school-movement framework and local authority backstop power, with a formal public consultation "in due course" and primary legislation "when an appropriate legislative opportunity arises".