Jennifer Chalkley
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2024-0542
All 2 responses received
· Deadline: 9 Dec 2024
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
A widespread misconception among schools that £6,000 must be spent on a child's SEN before an EHCP assessment application is delaying critical early support, increasing the risk of mental health issues and suicidality.
View full coroner's concerns
The evidence received at the prevention of future deaths hearing showed that a number of the issues and concerns raised at and following the inquest hearing have been addressed.
However, in my opinion the following concerns remain and give rise to a continuing risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. Concern 1
The “Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years”, which was issued by the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, provides statutory guidance for organisations which work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or disabilities. The Code indicates that Local Authorities must carry out their functions with a view to identifying all the children and young people in their area who have or may have SEN or who have or may have a disability (Section 22 of the Children and Families Act 2014). At the inquest hearing, I heard that such children and young people must be identified as soon as possible so that their needs can be assessed and met as soon as possible. This is because the early provision of support increases its effectiveness and the meeting of need at the earliest stage may prevent, and is likely to reduce the risk of, mental health difficulties and suicidality developing.
The evidence at the inquest revealed that there was some delay in an application being made for Jennifer to be assessed for an Education, Health and Care Plan because the mainstream school she attended believed that, before making such application, it must first have spent an additional £6,000 per annum in meeting her needs. The evidence suggested that this belief was wide-spread amongst schools, colleges and others, both in and beyond Surrey.
At the prevention of future deaths hearing, it was confirmed that there is no statutory or other requirement for a school to have to spend an additional £6,000 per annum in meeting a child’s SEN needs before applying for a statutory assessment. I am concerned that the misunderstanding by schools and colleges is delaying or preventing applications for statutory assessments being made in some cases and thereby acting as a barrier to ensuring all children and young people with additional needs are receiving effective support as soon as possible. I am concerned that this creates or increases the risk of avoidable suicidality developing.
I heard that, in response to this misconception, Surrey County Council has, since Jennifer’s death, updated its guidance on the criteria that will be considered to determine when a statutory assessment will be conducted and that the new guidance seeks to make it clear that there is no requirement for £6,000 to be spent before an application for assessment can be made. However, the evidence I received from a local college showed that the misunderstanding persists, despite the updated guidance. It seems therefore that further action is needed to ensure that all Surrey schools and colleges understand, clearly, that spending an additional £6,000 on a child is not a pre-requisite to applying for a statutory assessment.
I heard too that this misunderstanding probably originates from the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2023 (and their previous iterations), which set the high needs costs threshold at £6,000; it seems that the confusion may also stem from information issued by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.
I am concerned that the misconception persists nationally and that, for the reasons set out above, action is needed to ensure that all schools and colleges understand, clearly, that spending an additional £6,000 on a child is not a pre-requisite to applying for a statutory assessment.
Concern 2
At the inquest hearing the evidence showed that in September 2021, shortly before her death, Jennifer commenced a course at a new college. I heard that the new college did not receive her safeguarding file from her previous educational establishment prior to her death on the 12th October 2021; as a result the new college’s ability to recognise and manage Jennifer’s needs and risks, including her risk of suicide, was undermined.
I heard that the Keeping Children Safe in Education 2024 statutory guidance for schools and colleges, and its previous iterations, state that where children leave a school or college, the designated safeguarding lead should ensure that their child protection file is transferred to the new school or college as soon as possible, and within 5 days for an in-year transfer, or otherwise within the first 5 days of the start of a new term, to allow the new school or college to have support in place for when the child arrives.
I am concerned that the requirement to transfer safeguarding information “within the first 5 days of the start of a new term” means that a child who is at risk of self-harm or suicide may start at a new school or college without that establishment having all or any of the information in the safeguarding file. As that information is likely to be relevant to their management of the risk, I am concerned that permitting transfer up to five days after the start of term undermines the stated intention that the new school or college should “have support in place for when the child arrives”.
I also heard that there is no centralised system that stores and transfers learning support and safeguarding information between schools and colleges, or other agencies who are supporting young people. Rather, the transfer of documents is undertaken by the individual schools and colleges concerned, with, I heard, variable levels of efficiency and reliability. In the circumstances, I am concerned that there is not a national system in place to require and facilitate the guaranteed transfer of safeguarding information in advance of a child or young person starting a new school or college at the start of a new term or academic year, and that this exposes a suicidal child or young person to additional and avoidable risk.
However, in my opinion the following concerns remain and give rise to a continuing risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. Concern 1
The “Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years”, which was issued by the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, provides statutory guidance for organisations which work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or disabilities. The Code indicates that Local Authorities must carry out their functions with a view to identifying all the children and young people in their area who have or may have SEN or who have or may have a disability (Section 22 of the Children and Families Act 2014). At the inquest hearing, I heard that such children and young people must be identified as soon as possible so that their needs can be assessed and met as soon as possible. This is because the early provision of support increases its effectiveness and the meeting of need at the earliest stage may prevent, and is likely to reduce the risk of, mental health difficulties and suicidality developing.
The evidence at the inquest revealed that there was some delay in an application being made for Jennifer to be assessed for an Education, Health and Care Plan because the mainstream school she attended believed that, before making such application, it must first have spent an additional £6,000 per annum in meeting her needs. The evidence suggested that this belief was wide-spread amongst schools, colleges and others, both in and beyond Surrey.
At the prevention of future deaths hearing, it was confirmed that there is no statutory or other requirement for a school to have to spend an additional £6,000 per annum in meeting a child’s SEN needs before applying for a statutory assessment. I am concerned that the misunderstanding by schools and colleges is delaying or preventing applications for statutory assessments being made in some cases and thereby acting as a barrier to ensuring all children and young people with additional needs are receiving effective support as soon as possible. I am concerned that this creates or increases the risk of avoidable suicidality developing.
I heard that, in response to this misconception, Surrey County Council has, since Jennifer’s death, updated its guidance on the criteria that will be considered to determine when a statutory assessment will be conducted and that the new guidance seeks to make it clear that there is no requirement for £6,000 to be spent before an application for assessment can be made. However, the evidence I received from a local college showed that the misunderstanding persists, despite the updated guidance. It seems therefore that further action is needed to ensure that all Surrey schools and colleges understand, clearly, that spending an additional £6,000 on a child is not a pre-requisite to applying for a statutory assessment.
I heard too that this misunderstanding probably originates from the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2023 (and their previous iterations), which set the high needs costs threshold at £6,000; it seems that the confusion may also stem from information issued by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.
I am concerned that the misconception persists nationally and that, for the reasons set out above, action is needed to ensure that all schools and colleges understand, clearly, that spending an additional £6,000 on a child is not a pre-requisite to applying for a statutory assessment.
Concern 2
At the inquest hearing the evidence showed that in September 2021, shortly before her death, Jennifer commenced a course at a new college. I heard that the new college did not receive her safeguarding file from her previous educational establishment prior to her death on the 12th October 2021; as a result the new college’s ability to recognise and manage Jennifer’s needs and risks, including her risk of suicide, was undermined.
I heard that the Keeping Children Safe in Education 2024 statutory guidance for schools and colleges, and its previous iterations, state that where children leave a school or college, the designated safeguarding lead should ensure that their child protection file is transferred to the new school or college as soon as possible, and within 5 days for an in-year transfer, or otherwise within the first 5 days of the start of a new term, to allow the new school or college to have support in place for when the child arrives.
I am concerned that the requirement to transfer safeguarding information “within the first 5 days of the start of a new term” means that a child who is at risk of self-harm or suicide may start at a new school or college without that establishment having all or any of the information in the safeguarding file. As that information is likely to be relevant to their management of the risk, I am concerned that permitting transfer up to five days after the start of term undermines the stated intention that the new school or college should “have support in place for when the child arrives”.
I also heard that there is no centralised system that stores and transfers learning support and safeguarding information between schools and colleges, or other agencies who are supporting young people. Rather, the transfer of documents is undertaken by the individual schools and colleges concerned, with, I heard, variable levels of efficiency and reliability. In the circumstances, I am concerned that there is not a national system in place to require and facilitate the guaranteed transfer of safeguarding information in advance of a child or young person starting a new school or college at the start of a new term or academic year, and that this exposes a suicidal child or young person to additional and avoidable risk.
Responses
Action Planned
Surrey County Council is preparing a communication to all Surrey education providers to clarify that there is no financial threshold for requesting an EHCNA, reinforcing the statutory position under the Children and Families Act 2014. (AI summary)
Surrey County Council is preparing a communication to all Surrey education providers to clarify that there is no financial threshold for requesting an EHCNA, reinforcing the statutory position under the Children and Families Act 2014. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Senior Coroner Richard Travers,
Re: Response to Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) Report Concern
I am writing on behalf of Surrey County Council in response to the concern raised in your recent Prevention of Future Deaths report, published on 14th October 2024.
We have noted the issue regarding the perceived requirement for schools and further education providers to allocate £6,000 of support to a pupil or learner with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) before they are eligible to apply for an Education, Health, and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA).
In response, we have prepared a communication to be sent to all Surrey education providers, including schools, non-maintained independent sector providers, and further education institutions, to address and clarify this misunderstanding.
This communication reinforces the statutory position as set forth under the Children and Families Act 2014, which does not stipulate a financial threshold as a prerequisite for requesting an EHCNA. Our aim is to provide clear guidance to prevent any further confusion on this matter.
The full wording of this communication is attached for your information, and we will be disseminating it via our established channels to ensure that it reaches all relevant Surrey education providers.
Please feel free to contact my office if you require any further clarification or additional information regarding our response.
Re: Response to Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) Report Concern
I am writing on behalf of Surrey County Council in response to the concern raised in your recent Prevention of Future Deaths report, published on 14th October 2024.
We have noted the issue regarding the perceived requirement for schools and further education providers to allocate £6,000 of support to a pupil or learner with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) before they are eligible to apply for an Education, Health, and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA).
In response, we have prepared a communication to be sent to all Surrey education providers, including schools, non-maintained independent sector providers, and further education institutions, to address and clarify this misunderstanding.
This communication reinforces the statutory position as set forth under the Children and Families Act 2014, which does not stipulate a financial threshold as a prerequisite for requesting an EHCNA. Our aim is to provide clear guidance to prevent any further confusion on this matter.
The full wording of this communication is attached for your information, and we will be disseminating it via our established channels to ensure that it reaches all relevant Surrey education providers.
Please feel free to contact my office if you require any further clarification or additional information regarding our response.
Noted
The Department for Education acknowledges the concerns, highlights existing guidance on safeguarding and EHCPs, and notes ongoing monitoring of Surrey County Council's SEND arrangements, keeping the safeguarding guidance under review. (AI summary)
The Department for Education acknowledges the concerns, highlights existing guidance on safeguarding and EHCPs, and notes ongoing monitoring of Surrey County Council's SEND arrangements, keeping the safeguarding guidance under review. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Mr Travers,
I am writing on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education in response to the Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths issued on 14 October 2024 concerning the tragic death of Jennifer Chalkley on 12 October 2021. I am responsible for the government’s policy on special educational needs and safeguarding.
I was deeply saddened to learn of Jennifer’s death. I would like to offer my heartfelt sympathy to her family.
Your report identified two key areas where action might prevent future deaths: potential delays in seeking and securing Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans because of misunderstandings of the law by schools and colleges, and issues with the timely transfer of safeguarding information between schools and colleges.
Schools and colleges have a fundamental responsibility to keep children and young people safe. Under section 3 of the Children Act 1989, any person with the care of a child who does not have parental responsibility for them is subject to a duty to do all that is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purposes of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child. Supporting children and young people with mental health needs is of the first importance. This government works closely with the further education sector to promote and support providers to embed a whole college approach to mental health and wellbeing. This includes supporting sign-up to the Association of Colleges mental health charter. Mental Health Support Teams (MHSTs), delivering evidence-based early support for mental health issues and supporting senior mental health leads, are being rolled out to
2
all schools and colleges.
Concern 1 – the test for an Education, Health and Care needs assessment You are concerned that “misunderstanding by schools and colleges is delaying or preventing applications for statutory assessments being made in some cases and thereby acting as a barrier to ensuring all children and young people with additional needs are receiving effective support as soon as possible. I am concerned that this creates or increases the risk of avoidable suicidality developing.”
An EHC plan is intended to meet a child or young person’s special educational needs, together with any relevant health and care needs. In cases such as Jennifer’s, an EHC plan provides an opportunity to bring together the support provided by a child or young person’s school or college with that of other agencies such as health providers. The core purpose of an EHC plan is to meet special educational needs: children and young people frequently receive support for health or social care needs without an EHC plan. Indeed, a child or young person who has health and/or social care needs but no special educational needs, would not meet the criteria in the Children and Families Act 2014 to be issued with an EHC plan.
Section 36(1) of the Children and Families Act 2014 sets out that “A request for a local authority in England to secure an EHC needs assessment for a child or young person may be made to the authority by the child’s parent, the young person or a person acting on behalf of a school or post-16 institution”. The associated statutory guidance (the SEND code of practice) is clear that:
9.9 “In addition, anyone else can bring a child or young person who has (or may have) SEN to the attention of the local authority, particularly where they think an EHC needs assessment may be necessary. This could include, for example, foster carers, health and social care professionals, early years practitioners, youth offending teams or probation services, those responsible for education in custody, school or college staff or a family friend. Bringing a child or young person to the attention of the local authority will be undertaken on an individual basis where there are specific concerns. This should be done with the knowledge and, where possible, agreement of the child’s parent or the young person.”
Section 37(1) provides that the local authority must issue an EHC plan “Where, in the light of an EHC needs assessment, it is necessary for special educational provision to be made for a child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan”.
3
The SEND Code of Practice notes (at para 9.14) that, in deciding whether an EHC needs assessment is necessary, the local authority should consider a range of evidence, including “evidence of the action already being taken by the early years provider, school or post-16 institution to meet the child or young person’s SEN”. At para 9.55 the Code notes that a relevant factor in deciding whether to issue an EHC plan might be: “whether the special educational provision required to meet the child or young person’s needs can reasonably be provided from within the resources normally available to mainstream early years providers, schools and post-16 institutions, or whether it may be necessary for the local authority to make special educational provision in accordance with an EHC plan”.
However, the Code states clearly at para 9.16 that: “Local authorities may develop criteria as guidelines to help them decide when it is necessary to carry out an EHC needs assessment (and following assessment, to decide whether it is necessary to issue an EHC plan). However, local authorities must be prepared to depart from those criteria where there is a compelling reason to do so in any particular case and demonstrate their willingness to do so where individual circumstances warrant such a departure. Local authorities must not apply a ‘blanket’ policy to particular groups of children or certain types of need, as this would prevent the consideration of a child’s or young person’s needs individually and on their merits.”
The Children and Families Act 2014 and its statutory guidance are therefore clear that a request for an EHC needs assessment may be made at any time by a school or college, or by the child’s parents or the young person themselves. There is a further safeguard that, in the event a request for assessment is refused, the child’s parents (or, from age 16, the young person) have the right to appeal the decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).
The arrangements relating to funding are distinct from the statutory tests for an EHC needs assessment set out above. Regulation 11(3) of the School and Early Years Finance and Childcare (Provision of Information About Young Children) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024 (and the predecessor regulations relating to previous years) require local authorities to identify for each mainstream school an amount within its overall budget, calculated by reference to relevant factors in the local schools funding formula, and using a threshold sum of £6,000 per pupil below which the school will be expected to meet the
4
additional costs of pupils with special educational needs (SEN). This amount is often referred to as the notional SEN budget. Guidance for local authorities on the purpose and calculation of this notional SEN budget is published here: Pre-16 schools funding: local authority guidance for 2024 to 2025 - GOV.UK. This notional SEN budget amount is intended to assist mainstream schools in fulfilling their duty under section 66(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 to “use [their] best endeavours to secure that the special educational provision called for by the pupil’s or student’s special educational needs is made”. This duty applies to all pupils with SEN in mainstream schools and all students in institutions within the further education (FE) sector – not just those with EHC plans. Although there is no notional SEN budget identified for FE institutions, the funding arrangements are similar to those for schools in that, for additional SEN support costs in excess of the £6,000 per student threshold, colleges can request access to high needs funding from the relevant local authority’s high needs budget.
Additional guidance concerns the way funding is allocated to support schools and colleges meet special educational needs, for example High needs funding: 2025 to 2026 operational guide and on the notional SEN budget for mainstream schools: operational guidance 2025 to 2026. These documents are careful not to assume that children and young people who require top-up funding from a local authority’s high needs budget will automatically have an EHC plan. We will keep this point under review as the guidance documents are updated.
In the light of your concerns, we have reviewed the relevant guidance from the DfE and the Education, Skills and Funding Agency (ESF). We have not identified any ambiguity in that guidance, but in view of the concerns raised we have written to local authorities to remind them that the threshold to be considered for an EHC plan is as set out in the Children and Families Act 2014. The expectation on mainstream schools and colleges of meeting the costs of additional SEN support up to £6,000 does not prevent a child or young person being brought to the local authority’s attention as potentially having special educational needs which require provision according to an EHC plan, thereby requiring the local authority to decide whether to conduct an EHC needs assessment.
Concern 2 – transferring safeguarding information I also note your concern that “there is not a national system in place to require and facilitate the guaranteed transfer of safeguarding information in advance of a child or young person starting a new school or college… and that this exposes a suicidal child or young person to additional and avoidable risk”.
5
As you are aware, the Department publishes statutory safeguarding guidance, Keeping children safe in education (KCSIE), which all schools and colleges must have regard to when safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
We take the view that KCSIE is very clear that where children leave the school or college, the designated safeguarding lead should ensure their child protection file is transferred to the new school or college as soon as possible, and within 5 days for an in-year transfer or within the first 5 days of the start of a new term to allow the new school or college to have support in place for when the child arrives. The guidance also makes clear that receiving schools and colleges should ensure key staff such as designated safeguarding leads and special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCOs) or the named persons with oversight for special educational needs and disabilities in a college, are aware as required.
Paragraph 122 makes it clear that in addition to the child protection file, the designated safeguarding lead should also consider if it would be appropriate to share any information with the new school or college in advance of a child leaving.
There is therefore a national process for sharing information between schools and colleges, and the guidance on the timing of the sharing of relevant information is clear. We are very saddened to hear that, in Jennifer's case, her new college had not received the information within the specified time to ensure continuity of support for Jennifer. This was not in line with the duties and responsibilities placed on schools and colleges. We do regularly review the statutory safeguarding guidance to see where it could be strengthened or further clarification is needed, which is subject to public consultation. In view of this very tragic case, we will keep this section under review.
SEND provision arranged by Surrey County Council You may be aware that, in September 2023, Ofsted and CQC undertook a Local Area SEND inspection in Surrey under the new SEND inspection framework. The report, published on 24 November, found “inconsistent experiences and outcomes for children and young people with SEND” and identified four areas for improvement.
Following the inspection, in line with our SEND intervention approach for LAs with an inconsistent outcome, the Department began formal monitoring of the local area’s SEND arrangements. The Department has also commissioned an independent SEND Advisor to provide expertise and challenge. We are monitoring Surrey CC’s progress in improving its
6
SEND services, including through 6-month review meetings.
Thank you for bringing this important matter to my attention and giving me the opportunity to respond.
I am copying this letter to , Executive Director of Children, Families and Lifelong Learning at Surrey County Council.
Sincerely,
Minister for School Standards
I am writing on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education in response to the Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths issued on 14 October 2024 concerning the tragic death of Jennifer Chalkley on 12 October 2021. I am responsible for the government’s policy on special educational needs and safeguarding.
I was deeply saddened to learn of Jennifer’s death. I would like to offer my heartfelt sympathy to her family.
Your report identified two key areas where action might prevent future deaths: potential delays in seeking and securing Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans because of misunderstandings of the law by schools and colleges, and issues with the timely transfer of safeguarding information between schools and colleges.
Schools and colleges have a fundamental responsibility to keep children and young people safe. Under section 3 of the Children Act 1989, any person with the care of a child who does not have parental responsibility for them is subject to a duty to do all that is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purposes of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child. Supporting children and young people with mental health needs is of the first importance. This government works closely with the further education sector to promote and support providers to embed a whole college approach to mental health and wellbeing. This includes supporting sign-up to the Association of Colleges mental health charter. Mental Health Support Teams (MHSTs), delivering evidence-based early support for mental health issues and supporting senior mental health leads, are being rolled out to
2
all schools and colleges.
Concern 1 – the test for an Education, Health and Care needs assessment You are concerned that “misunderstanding by schools and colleges is delaying or preventing applications for statutory assessments being made in some cases and thereby acting as a barrier to ensuring all children and young people with additional needs are receiving effective support as soon as possible. I am concerned that this creates or increases the risk of avoidable suicidality developing.”
An EHC plan is intended to meet a child or young person’s special educational needs, together with any relevant health and care needs. In cases such as Jennifer’s, an EHC plan provides an opportunity to bring together the support provided by a child or young person’s school or college with that of other agencies such as health providers. The core purpose of an EHC plan is to meet special educational needs: children and young people frequently receive support for health or social care needs without an EHC plan. Indeed, a child or young person who has health and/or social care needs but no special educational needs, would not meet the criteria in the Children and Families Act 2014 to be issued with an EHC plan.
Section 36(1) of the Children and Families Act 2014 sets out that “A request for a local authority in England to secure an EHC needs assessment for a child or young person may be made to the authority by the child’s parent, the young person or a person acting on behalf of a school or post-16 institution”. The associated statutory guidance (the SEND code of practice) is clear that:
9.9 “In addition, anyone else can bring a child or young person who has (or may have) SEN to the attention of the local authority, particularly where they think an EHC needs assessment may be necessary. This could include, for example, foster carers, health and social care professionals, early years practitioners, youth offending teams or probation services, those responsible for education in custody, school or college staff or a family friend. Bringing a child or young person to the attention of the local authority will be undertaken on an individual basis where there are specific concerns. This should be done with the knowledge and, where possible, agreement of the child’s parent or the young person.”
Section 37(1) provides that the local authority must issue an EHC plan “Where, in the light of an EHC needs assessment, it is necessary for special educational provision to be made for a child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan”.
3
The SEND Code of Practice notes (at para 9.14) that, in deciding whether an EHC needs assessment is necessary, the local authority should consider a range of evidence, including “evidence of the action already being taken by the early years provider, school or post-16 institution to meet the child or young person’s SEN”. At para 9.55 the Code notes that a relevant factor in deciding whether to issue an EHC plan might be: “whether the special educational provision required to meet the child or young person’s needs can reasonably be provided from within the resources normally available to mainstream early years providers, schools and post-16 institutions, or whether it may be necessary for the local authority to make special educational provision in accordance with an EHC plan”.
However, the Code states clearly at para 9.16 that: “Local authorities may develop criteria as guidelines to help them decide when it is necessary to carry out an EHC needs assessment (and following assessment, to decide whether it is necessary to issue an EHC plan). However, local authorities must be prepared to depart from those criteria where there is a compelling reason to do so in any particular case and demonstrate their willingness to do so where individual circumstances warrant such a departure. Local authorities must not apply a ‘blanket’ policy to particular groups of children or certain types of need, as this would prevent the consideration of a child’s or young person’s needs individually and on their merits.”
The Children and Families Act 2014 and its statutory guidance are therefore clear that a request for an EHC needs assessment may be made at any time by a school or college, or by the child’s parents or the young person themselves. There is a further safeguard that, in the event a request for assessment is refused, the child’s parents (or, from age 16, the young person) have the right to appeal the decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).
The arrangements relating to funding are distinct from the statutory tests for an EHC needs assessment set out above. Regulation 11(3) of the School and Early Years Finance and Childcare (Provision of Information About Young Children) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024 (and the predecessor regulations relating to previous years) require local authorities to identify for each mainstream school an amount within its overall budget, calculated by reference to relevant factors in the local schools funding formula, and using a threshold sum of £6,000 per pupil below which the school will be expected to meet the
4
additional costs of pupils with special educational needs (SEN). This amount is often referred to as the notional SEN budget. Guidance for local authorities on the purpose and calculation of this notional SEN budget is published here: Pre-16 schools funding: local authority guidance for 2024 to 2025 - GOV.UK. This notional SEN budget amount is intended to assist mainstream schools in fulfilling their duty under section 66(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 to “use [their] best endeavours to secure that the special educational provision called for by the pupil’s or student’s special educational needs is made”. This duty applies to all pupils with SEN in mainstream schools and all students in institutions within the further education (FE) sector – not just those with EHC plans. Although there is no notional SEN budget identified for FE institutions, the funding arrangements are similar to those for schools in that, for additional SEN support costs in excess of the £6,000 per student threshold, colleges can request access to high needs funding from the relevant local authority’s high needs budget.
Additional guidance concerns the way funding is allocated to support schools and colleges meet special educational needs, for example High needs funding: 2025 to 2026 operational guide and on the notional SEN budget for mainstream schools: operational guidance 2025 to 2026. These documents are careful not to assume that children and young people who require top-up funding from a local authority’s high needs budget will automatically have an EHC plan. We will keep this point under review as the guidance documents are updated.
In the light of your concerns, we have reviewed the relevant guidance from the DfE and the Education, Skills and Funding Agency (ESF). We have not identified any ambiguity in that guidance, but in view of the concerns raised we have written to local authorities to remind them that the threshold to be considered for an EHC plan is as set out in the Children and Families Act 2014. The expectation on mainstream schools and colleges of meeting the costs of additional SEN support up to £6,000 does not prevent a child or young person being brought to the local authority’s attention as potentially having special educational needs which require provision according to an EHC plan, thereby requiring the local authority to decide whether to conduct an EHC needs assessment.
Concern 2 – transferring safeguarding information I also note your concern that “there is not a national system in place to require and facilitate the guaranteed transfer of safeguarding information in advance of a child or young person starting a new school or college… and that this exposes a suicidal child or young person to additional and avoidable risk”.
5
As you are aware, the Department publishes statutory safeguarding guidance, Keeping children safe in education (KCSIE), which all schools and colleges must have regard to when safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
We take the view that KCSIE is very clear that where children leave the school or college, the designated safeguarding lead should ensure their child protection file is transferred to the new school or college as soon as possible, and within 5 days for an in-year transfer or within the first 5 days of the start of a new term to allow the new school or college to have support in place for when the child arrives. The guidance also makes clear that receiving schools and colleges should ensure key staff such as designated safeguarding leads and special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCOs) or the named persons with oversight for special educational needs and disabilities in a college, are aware as required.
Paragraph 122 makes it clear that in addition to the child protection file, the designated safeguarding lead should also consider if it would be appropriate to share any information with the new school or college in advance of a child leaving.
There is therefore a national process for sharing information between schools and colleges, and the guidance on the timing of the sharing of relevant information is clear. We are very saddened to hear that, in Jennifer's case, her new college had not received the information within the specified time to ensure continuity of support for Jennifer. This was not in line with the duties and responsibilities placed on schools and colleges. We do regularly review the statutory safeguarding guidance to see where it could be strengthened or further clarification is needed, which is subject to public consultation. In view of this very tragic case, we will keep this section under review.
SEND provision arranged by Surrey County Council You may be aware that, in September 2023, Ofsted and CQC undertook a Local Area SEND inspection in Surrey under the new SEND inspection framework. The report, published on 24 November, found “inconsistent experiences and outcomes for children and young people with SEND” and identified four areas for improvement.
Following the inspection, in line with our SEND intervention approach for LAs with an inconsistent outcome, the Department began formal monitoring of the local area’s SEND arrangements. The Department has also commissioned an independent SEND Advisor to provide expertise and challenge. We are monitoring Surrey CC’s progress in improving its
6
SEND services, including through 6-month review meetings.
Thank you for bringing this important matter to my attention and giving me the opportunity to respond.
I am copying this letter to , Executive Director of Children, Families and Lifelong Learning at Surrey County Council.
Sincerely,
Minister for School Standards
Sent To
- Department for Education
- Surrey County Council
Response Status
Linked responses
2 of 2
56-Day Deadline
9 Dec 2024
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
I commenced an investigation into the death of Jennifer Sharren Chalkley. The inquest concluded on the 1st May 2024 when I found that the medical cause of death was:
Ia Suspension and my conclusion as to the death was that:
Jennifer Chalkley died as a result of Suicide.
Her death was more than minimally contributed to by :
(i) A failure by Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service properly to assess, diagnose and treat Jennifer following referrals made in May 2018 and January 2021 in order to manage her conditions and minimise her risk of suicide,
(ii) A failure by Surrey County Council’s Special Educational Needs Department to ensure that Jennifer’s Education, Health and Care Plan contained sufficient and updated information about her mental and emotional health needs and her risk of suicide, such as to enable the college she attended from September 2021 to understand and meet her consequential needs and manage the consequential risk, and
(iii) A multi-agency failure to share information and work together to ensure that Jennifer was supported effectively to manage her neurodevelopmental and mental and emotional health needs, and her risk of suicide, especially from June 2021 onwards.
I subsequently held a hearing to receive evidence relating to the prevention of future deaths and this was concluded on the 26th July 2024. I then allowed time for submissions by Interested Persons.
Ia Suspension and my conclusion as to the death was that:
Jennifer Chalkley died as a result of Suicide.
Her death was more than minimally contributed to by :
(i) A failure by Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service properly to assess, diagnose and treat Jennifer following referrals made in May 2018 and January 2021 in order to manage her conditions and minimise her risk of suicide,
(ii) A failure by Surrey County Council’s Special Educational Needs Department to ensure that Jennifer’s Education, Health and Care Plan contained sufficient and updated information about her mental and emotional health needs and her risk of suicide, such as to enable the college she attended from September 2021 to understand and meet her consequential needs and manage the consequential risk, and
(iii) A multi-agency failure to share information and work together to ensure that Jennifer was supported effectively to manage her neurodevelopmental and mental and emotional health needs, and her risk of suicide, especially from June 2021 onwards.
I subsequently held a hearing to receive evidence relating to the prevention of future deaths and this was concluded on the 26th July 2024. I then allowed time for submissions by Interested Persons.
Circumstances of the Death
When she died, aged 17 years, Jennifer Chalkley was a girl with complex special needs. She had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder when she was 10 years of age and Autistic Spectrum Disorder when she was aged 11 years.
These two neurodevelopmental conditions, together with associated excessive anxiety, low mood, and emotional dysregulation from which she suffered periodically, resulted in a persisting but fluctuating risk of suicide.
Jennifer was known to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service and to Children’s Services, having been the subject of a number of referrals arising from her suicidal ideation and behaviour and her other vulnerabilities. She was also monitored under the Paediatric Team at a local hospital. An Education, Health and Care Plan was issued to Jennifer by the Special Educational Needs Department of her local authority when she was 15 years old, but she struggled to cope in mainstream school and experienced the breakdown of school and college placements. Jennifer also struggled to cope with personal relationships.
In September 2021, Jennifer enrolled in a course at a new college. Within weeks she experienced low mood and was expressing suicidal ideation. Late on the evening of the 11th October 2021, Jennifer returned to her mother’s home, having separated from the boyfriend with whom she had been living.
On the 12th October 2021, Jennifer’s mother feared that she was suffering a mental health crisis and arranged an emergency telephone consultation with the General Practitioner for later that day. However, at 16.20 hours, Jennifer was found hanging in her bedroom. Despite resuscitation efforts from attending paramedics, she could not be revived and her death was pronounced at 16.40 hours on the 12th October 2021.
Full details of the events and failings which lead to Jennifer Chalkley’s death are set out in my “Findings and Conclusions” document, a copy of which is sent with this report.
These two neurodevelopmental conditions, together with associated excessive anxiety, low mood, and emotional dysregulation from which she suffered periodically, resulted in a persisting but fluctuating risk of suicide.
Jennifer was known to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service and to Children’s Services, having been the subject of a number of referrals arising from her suicidal ideation and behaviour and her other vulnerabilities. She was also monitored under the Paediatric Team at a local hospital. An Education, Health and Care Plan was issued to Jennifer by the Special Educational Needs Department of her local authority when she was 15 years old, but she struggled to cope in mainstream school and experienced the breakdown of school and college placements. Jennifer also struggled to cope with personal relationships.
In September 2021, Jennifer enrolled in a course at a new college. Within weeks she experienced low mood and was expressing suicidal ideation. Late on the evening of the 11th October 2021, Jennifer returned to her mother’s home, having separated from the boyfriend with whom she had been living.
On the 12th October 2021, Jennifer’s mother feared that she was suffering a mental health crisis and arranged an emergency telephone consultation with the General Practitioner for later that day. However, at 16.20 hours, Jennifer was found hanging in her bedroom. Despite resuscitation efforts from attending paramedics, she could not be revived and her death was pronounced at 16.40 hours on the 12th October 2021.
Full details of the events and failings which lead to Jennifer Chalkley’s death are set out in my “Findings and Conclusions” document, a copy of which is sent with this report.
Action Should Be Taken
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths by addressing the concerns set out above and I believe your organisation has the power to take such action.
Copies Sent To
(ii)
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Audit of LCC Child and Youth Justice Service
Southport Inquiry
Underinvestment in Children's Social Care
Audit of Young Adults Team transition assessments
Southport Inquiry
Underinvestment in Children's Social Care
LCC education provision and attendance audit
Southport Inquiry
Underinvestment in Children's Social Care
Remedial steps for failing education authorities
Southport Inquiry
Underinvestment in Children's Social Care
Deputy CMO for Children's Healthcare
Hyponatraemia Inquiry
Underinvestment in Children's Social Care
Establish a ministerial Children and Families Board within government
Laming Inquiry
Underinvestment in Children's Social Care
Government inspectorates to assess quality and inter-agency effectiveness for child services
Laming Inquiry
Underinvestment in Children's Social Care
Train child protection officers to confidently challenge other professionals' views
Laming Inquiry
Underinvestment in Children's Social Care
Home Office to actively maintain child protection investigation standards through inspections
Laming Inquiry
Underinvestment in Children's Social Care
Home Office to implement national child protection officer training curriculum
Laming Inquiry
Underinvestment in Children's Social Care
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.