Yes, definitely.
There should be ‘bottom up’ consultation. Too often parents are left out of this process and services are asked to rate themselves. Parents know the effect of any changes and how effective services actually are at the sharp end.
Yes because nothing is ever perfect. [Suggestions ranged from 3-5 years.]
It is better since the ISCAN system came into place. However, too many GPs still don’t know how to refer and there is often a delay while we wait for information and supporting evidence from school.
The need for information from schools holds things up.
Parents’ evidence is not given enough weight – we are the ones who know our children best, not schools where they are on their best behaviour/masking/keeping it together.
There should be training for parents immediately after their child has been diagnosed. Some wait months for an Early Bird or Early Bird Plus course. And there’s nothing if your child is over 8. Parents should be automatically enrolled on a training course to learn about autism as soon as their child gets a diagnosis, no matter what age the child is. We’re left in the lurch, knowing nothing.
Yes, definitely. There is a need for a lot more transparency. Why is all this information not on the internet for all to see?
Patchy. Mostly lacking. Mostly not worth trying to get a referral as, even if you are seen, most professionals don’t know about autism and how it will affect your child. This is especially true of mental health services where we are told ‘it’s because he’s autistic’. That’s not true – you don’t have to have depression or anxiety or social phobia if you’re on the spectrum – it’s just because their needs haven’t been recognised and prioritised early enough.
This is particularly important. At the moment nobody wants to know 16 and 17 year olds and, when your child gets to 18 all support drops off a cliff. Why don’t statements of special educational needs carry on into FE college or university? Why do we have to apply and be assessed and fight all over again? We’re told that there will be ‘transition packages’ but these never seem to come to anything.
Yes, how can you plan effectively if you don’t know how many and who you’re planning for? But ‘data’ must not include names and addresses. It must be anonymised so it’s just numbers, not identifiable people.
We were surprised to learn that this data isn’t collected by the NHS when children are diagnosed and when they access services. These seem the obvious points where information could be gathered. Also schools who collect data on SEN so this wouldn’t be another job for them.
We are always told that schools find it difficult to find the time and/or money to train all staff. Training tends to be the SENCO or a TA who’s dealing with a particular child. We think everybody who works in a school from the secretary to the dinner ladies should be trained. And SMTs must be trained too because they form policies.
We think that staff knowledge of ASD and their ability to apply this to correct handling of children in school, as well as physical provision (eg quiet room, sensory area, alternative eating area) should be a specific part of the ESTYN inspection. Schools can then be compared against each other and schools which are good or very good on this can mentor other schools to make them better.
Not ‘key staff’ - all staff. If a head teacher decides that only class teachers or TAs should be trained, how is she supposed to properly decide on budgets to support ASD children in her school, or adopt an appropriate whole school support strategy?
Positive discrimination / quotas. All firms of a certain size (eg 100 or more) should be obliged to employ autistic people are a rate of at least 1% (one of the lower estimates of the prevalence of ASD in the population.)
If this bill introduces proper support for autistic people, it will definitely give rise to costs but we believe that these should be borne in the short term for long term gains. If politicians looked over a 15-20 year time span instead of a 3-5 year one, they would see that ‘front loading’ the system and investing heavily in services for children (both health and education) will mean that there is less of a burden on the state when those children grow up in terms of unemployment benefit, impact on criminal justice system, need for supported living/housing, social services involvement etc. Also, many more autistic people would be employed and paying taxes. So costs shouldn’t be ‘mitigated’ in the short term – you should take a longer-term view.
Not all parents are articulate and educated. We cannot all fight for our children or navigate the confusing systems that exist. We would like to see a kind of one-stop shop where you could go with your concerns and be told how to access all necessary services and be given support to do so if necessary. At the moment some parents have to rely on charities to help them access things which they should be able to get without help. Even a website with all this information – including who to contact and what forms are needed – would help. As it is, the system is hopelessly difficult to get to grips with and you have to have advice just to know what’s out there, never mind how to get it.
Once your child has been diagnosed with ASD you should be able to self-refer to all other relevant services – eg OT, physio, Speech and Language, Mental health, dietician – without having to go back again and again to your GP or school for a referral. There is virtually nobody on the spectrum who does not have other needs [by the new diagnostic criteria all people on the autism spectrum, by definition, have sensory needs] so this should be recognised in ease of access to assessment and support. The system of ‘gatekeepers’ is expensive, time consuming and puts up barriers which should not be there. Parents aren’t going to ask for things they don’t need – we don’t enjoy taking our children to appointments for the sake of it!