A multi-agency approach during an early review process to ensure the best outcomes were achieved for a child during COVID.

Names have been changed to protect the identity of child and parent

Sam is a young child with an EHC plan, who attends a mainstream primary. He was a Looked After Child (LAC) since birth and adopted into his current family aged one year old. He does not have significant learning difficulties. His special education needs are SEMH, difficulties with processing and managing emotions, concentration and focus, interaction with others and anxiety, which escalates quickly into behaviours which can be challenging such as lashing out. He has been identified as having an attachment disorder – he has had early experiences of neglectful care as a LAC in foster care, where he was left unattended for long periods.

Sam received his EHC plan in XXX. Before this, the school had already been putting one to one support in place for Sam. However, this support had been inconsistent and there had been significant amount of staff changes. Sam received two fixed term exclusions in previous years and in XXX Sam was issued with another fixed term exclusion following an incident, where he lashed out, which included his head hitting a teaching assistant’s arm, which was considered head butting.



Sam’s parents do not agree with the use of exclusions for a child with SEN and attachment disorder, stating that, consequently, this did not work for Sam and exacerbated his behaviours. As Sam felt more excluded and ‘bad,’ his behaviour and his self-esteem deteriorated and created a negative domino effect resulting in more incidents at school. Sam’s parents challenged the head teacher following the exclusion in XXX and the interaction became heated. The result was a breakdown in communication between parents and the head (and senior management team) with the head refusing to any further communication between them. It was agreed an early review meeting should take place as this would be the most appropriate forum to discuss the concerns and to identify what was and was not working and ways forward. The early review was arranged for XXX.

Sam’s parent, Chris, contacted the IASM helpline for support and advice in XXX. Sam had returned to school following his exclusion, without a re-integration meeting taking place (due to the breakdown of the relationship with the school) and things were not going well. Sam was upset and there was a lot of concern over what would happen next.



Chris required IASM support to prepare for the early review meeting and look over Sam’s plan. He needed advice on how to move forward with school and was unclear on how this could occur following the breakdown of the relationship with the head. Chris was concerned they would try to ‘get rid of Sam.’ Chris was also very angry at the reaction by the head and felt aggrieved and misunderstood. He had little confidence in the school’s understanding of Sam and his needs and felt that without communication, Sam would not get the right support as they as parents were not being heard. IASM supported Chris via numerous phone calls before the review and during the early review meeting (virtual). The first point was to differentiate and separate the complaint against the head’s reaction and the need to ensure the right support was in place for Sam and not to use the review process as a forum to air complaints against staff. IASM advised parents that they should be communicating with the SENCO and class teacher and to put the issues with the head teacher on the back burner for now (as this was consuming most of their conversations). IASM supported parents by discussing the issues/concerns they had in detail and at length over numerous calls. This helped the parents to get a clear idea of what their concerns and needs were and to allow these to be grouped into a few main points.

Through discussions, IASM helped parents to develop a solution-based approach. IASM helped to identify what the parents wanted to happen, not just what is going wrong. Solution focussed thinking reduces blame and encourages a collaborative approach between school and parents. Breaking down what should be happening and why, IASM helped Chris to identify certain concepts crucial to the underpinning of Sam’s support – e.g. That he must feel safe and cared for – and that this helped to shape the priorities for Sam’s support in school.

With IASM support, Chris identified the main things that Sam requires as a starting point – to feel safe, to feel that he is liked and valued by school – and this helped to determine the small steps on how support can be tweaked to ensure this is delivered. The parents were then able to make notes on the planning on how they wished Sam’s support to look like. IASM also encouraged the parents to share with school what works at home and to focus on a few minor changes (done well) rather than have a huge plan which is difficult to deliver, monitor and review.

The previous discussions led to a good preparation for the review – IASM advised parents to write up notes in advance, which IASM looked over, so that parents felt fully prepared. IASM also advised on the review process and how it is structured, e.g., what is working well, what is not working/what needs to change. This allowed parents to structure their notes for the review accordingly. IASM went through the EHC plan, using points to support the parent’s arguments and to identify areas, which might need to be changed /amended at the review.



IASM was able to alleviate concerns that school wanted to get rid of Sam, through explanation of the process and that schools cannot just make this decision on their own. Parents then felt happy that they were not going to get ambushed at the meeting.

One area that Sam’s parents felt very strongly about was that they disagreed with the use of exclusions as a consequence of poor behaviour, because it had such a negative impact on Sam. They were nervous about bringing up the topic at the review, following the extreme negative result of their discussions with the head teacher.

IASM was able to manage expectations – explaining the legal right of head teachers to resort to exclusions and advising that it was very unlikely that the school would agree to the parent’s wish to stop the use of exclusions altogether for Sam. IASM refocussed instead on what the school is doing to provide the right support at the right time for Sam, which in turn should reduce the number and gravity of incidents, hence not necessitating the use of exclusions. IASM brought the focus back onto the core points, which is ensuring that the right type of support is in place for Sam.

Sam’s parents still felt very strongly they wanted to make known their views on exclusions at the review, and IASM worked with them on preparing their notes on this. The views were more focussed on informing the school on how exclusions affect Sam, rather than anger at the school for using them. Crucially, they were now aware that exclusions would not be taken off the table and hence, an argument on exclusions would not threaten to derail the review.

School used an external mediator to collect information from parents and school so that both sides could state their concerns/issues to a neutral person in order to promote the return to positive communication and mutual understanding.

The mediator fed back to the IASM caseworker on what had been discussed and agreed. All agreed points were recorded in a letter from the school to the parent, for accountability. Some points were:

• The head teacher will not attend the review meeting.

• Communication with school will be looked at and improved.

• Feedback on staff training to be given, especially attachment and adoption training.

• Creation of a “One Page Profile”



• Changes to strategies which are not working – working with parents to identify which strategies are successful.
  

School accessed outreach support from specialist provision in Manchester. This resulted in two separate observations of Sam in the classroom environment – observations were written up and recommendations made to the school. These reports were used to inform the school’s strategies and the information was shared before the review and the specialist teacher was invited to the review to contribute.

The early EHC review attendees:

• Parents, School staff (SENCO, Class Teacher, Deputy head), EHCP team caseworker, SEN Specialist outreach worker from XXX, an adoption support worker and the IASM case worker

The review was successful and covered a lot of ground despite the large number of people present. The parents were asked to speak first, and their knowledge and understanding of the review process and the preparation, helped them to state their points across in a constructive way and helped the review process stay on track.

The outcome of the review was very positive, and all the issues were addressed, and actions agreed. The input from a variety of agencies was helpful, particularly the SEN specialist outreach advisor, who provided knowledgeable advice and resources for the school on how to support a child with attachment difficulties.

IASM discussed the review with parents afterwards and they were very satisfied and felt that there had been a lot of progress both in their general relationship with the school and the support being put in place for Sam.

This case highlighted the following:

The benefits of a multiagency approach – different agencies have different specialist knowledge, areas of expertise, resources and ideas, and best outcomes are achieved when accessing a wider range of agencies (relevant to the case/situation). Pivotal to the success of this case was the multiagency approach by the school.

• Use of an independent mediator prior to the review began to repair the relationship between school and parents, setting the scene for a much more positive review meeting.

• Use of specialist outreach service and including them in the review meeting was the most helpful, as it provided an independent and specialised voice who was able to make recommendations and provide information and resources from a neutral but knowledgeable base.

• Inclusion of the adoption support worker allowed for exploration of other resources (funding was available for play therapy through adoption funding and it was being arranged to provide that in school time) to compliment what the school were offering providing a more comprehensive therapeutic support for Sam.

• The local authority representative’s presence was also useful i.e., when IASM made recommendations regarding updating the plan, she was able to give an instant response to queries about the plan.

Thorough planning and preparation for review meetings leads to a more positive experience for parents – in this case, IASM completed in depth planning for the review meeting. This was a possibility because of the timescale before the review (a month to prepare) and that the parents were unable to discuss points with the school, so they needed IASM input to go through everything. Thorough discussion meant that what they did present at the review meeting was said in a coherent organised way. This resulted in positive interactions with others at the meeting and a positive outcome overall. IASM also advised parents of their right to request all documents be made available in advance of the meeting, which really helped with preparation.

Thinking creatively can make all the difference – using an independent mediation service was a very unusual step by the school. In this case, it was the right thing to do and was a vital first step towards repairing what was a very antagonistic relationship between school and parents. Without this step, the review meeting would have had a different flavour, focussed more on fixing grievances instead of concentrating on Sam’s support.

Manchester has a huge range of services which could be brought in to support families and IASM will take on board the benefits of multiagency working and take this forward to other cases.

Parents thanked SENDIASS for their support, particularly, for the help in planning for the review meeting. At the review meeting, Sam’s parents were asked to speak first, and without the prior understanding and preparation, they said they would have found this off putting and difficult (as it was their first EHCP review meeting). As it was, they were prepared and were able to share their views in full and in a calm, organised manner, which they said was especially important to them.

Listen to our SENDIASS Podcasts: Season 1 - Episode 1 and 2

You may wish to read the following:

Fact sheet 3 - Preparing for School Meetings

Complete our website contact form: