Measure What Matters. has taken the significant and unusual step of responding directly to the public response letter which was issued by Cllr. Tim Oliver, Chair of Surrey County Council, addressed to 2 newly appointed MPs and subsequently released to the public on the 3rd September ‘24.
Whilst this is a step away from our normal approach, we feel compelled to intervene for two key reasons:
- During our continued investigations, we have observed many elected county councillors repeating details from this statement as fact. However, as we will demonstrate, this is far from the case.
- Despite significant feedback and new information emerging questioning the council’s approach and factual accuracy since this communication was first issued nearly 4 weeks ago, it remains the only official public statement from the Leader of Surrey County Council on the serious concerns being highlighted by these MPs, Families and Councillors.
With our focus firmly on accountability, transparency and effective governance, in local government, we simply can’t ignore what appears to be a blatant misrepresentation of facts left in the public domain by Surrey County Council. Given what now appear to be pervasive issues with misinformation, we believe the most effective, transparent, and objective way to address these concerns is to break down Cllr. Tim Oliver’s communication, point by point, to highlight specific areas where we believe facts have been misrepresented.
In doing so, we hope to provide some small, continued reassurance to families, children, teachers, other education professionals and indeed councillors and MPs now trying to engage in these issues that their experiences are, indeed, valid and their concerns should not continue to be dismissed.
Cllr. Tim Oliver’s Statement:
“I acknowledge the challenges arising from an unprecedented number of learners in the key stage transfer process for September 2024, an increase of more than 20% on the previous year.”
Our Response:
We disagree. As far as we can gather, until your letter, Surrey County Council has never publicly apologised for the significant breakdown that seemingly occurred in the Key Stage Transfer process last year, nor the subsequent difficulties that have been experienced by children and families, many of which are ongoing. Instead, on 15th February 2023, Director of Education and Lifelong Learning, Julia Katherine, issued a statement confirming that 100% of EHCPs had been processed on time. This original statement was retracted soon after, following strong, condemning responses from parents who were either still waiting for updated EHCPs, received plans with no school named, or were given an unsuitable school.
The revised statement can be found here:
To provide transparency about the scale of the impact caused to children and families, we urge Surrey County Council to consider disclosing the following:
- What percentage of families received an updated EHCP on or by 15th February only listing a ‘type’ of school, rather than a named placement?
- How many children in the 2023-24 Key Stage Transfer (starting September 2024) were placed in schools where:
- No school consultation had taken place, or
- The placement contradicted professional advice received during Annual Reviews, or
- The schools themselves had confirmed the placement was unsuitable during consultation?
- How many tribunals were subsequently registered relating to last year’s key stage transfer process?
- How many children were still without a suitable school place following Key Stage Transfer as of 2nd September 2024?
Cllr. Tim Oliver’s Statement:
“The timescales relating to the Key Stage Transfer process are publicly available on our website.”
Our Response:
We disagree. The information still available on your website states that in September 2024, the “Key Stage Transfer Process for September 2025 commences,” while any consultations for new placements will not begin until November 2024.
Information can be found here; School admissions guidance for children with an Education, Health and Care Plan – Surrey County Council (surreycc.gov.uk)
This directly contradicts, at a minimum:
a) Information about timelines previously provided directly to parents during annual reviews and transition meetings, which your letter suggests was erroneous.
b) The email issued to parents on 12th August 2024, which specifically states: “The SEND team has been informed of a change in Surrey County Council’s schedule regarding parental preferences and upcoming consultations… We realise that the dates outlined in the attached letter may not be what was communicated to you by myself or another member of the SEND team, as these dates have now been brought forward.” Parents were instructed to submit their preferences “no later than 12th September 2024.” Your letter suggests that this information, too, may have been erroneous.
c) The statement issued by Surrey Education Services on 19th September 2024, which now appears to rewrite history by stating: “This letter included a request to seek parental preference, if possible, by the 12th of September.” By any standard, “by no later than” is quite different from “if possible.”
d) Established historical practice, where we understand from feedback we have gathered, that parental preferences were typically collected in October, giving families time to visit schools, meet professionals, and make informed decisions during September and early October. Moreover, we understand that many parents are actually prohibited from visiting schools except during official open days, most of which are scheduled for late September and early October.
This confusion could be dismissed as a moot point, but in our opinion it represents a broader pattern of persistent misinformation—or attempts at “re-writing” the facts—that appear to be prevalent within Council communications.
Cllr. Tim Oliver’s Statement:
“The majority of families in the Key Stage Transfer process will have had Annual Reviews in the summer term at which school preferences were discussed and considered.”
Our Response:
We disagree. According to the most recent set of data published by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning (CFLL) Directorate; as of July 2024, only 55% of Annual Reviews that were due had been completed. While technically you could choose to call this a “majority,” this leaves up to 45% of families without the opportunity to discuss and consider school preferences ahead of Key Stage Transfer. Based on your reported data, 1,837 children underwent Key Stage Transfer in September 2024. If this figure of 55% is applied, up to 827 children and families may actually not have been given this opportunity during an Annual Review.
This performance information about Annual Reviews can be found here; (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee, 12/09/2024 10:00 (surreycc.gov.uk)
In our opinion, this figure is deeply concerning in its own right, and indicates significant systemic issues with the management of the Key Stage Transfer process in Surrey. Moreover, most relevant in this context, in our opinion it continues to demonstrate a persistent lack of transparency in how you are responding to valid concerns.
Cllr. Tim Oliver’s Statement:
“I want to clarify that the 12th September is not a statutory deadline; preferences submitted after this date will still be considered.”
Our Response:
Again. We must disagree. During the CFLL Culture Committee meeting on 12th September 2024, your CFLL Directorate Leader gave a further confused and conflicting statement, which started with, “we don’t have a deadline for parents expressing a preference in relation to Key Stage Transfer.” However, issuing a letter with the wording “no later than 12th September” as we have repeatedly made clear, will inevitably be interpreted by families as a firm deadline, causing undue pressure and confusion.
Given the inconsistent messaging, this issue has remained unclear and appears to be utterly unapologetically so. However it seems pretty evident to us that this Directorate made a decision, seemingly without consultation or notice, to significantly curtail families’ window to express their preference for their child’s next school. And in our opinion, instead of acknowledging a potential error of judgment, you and the CFLL Directorate appear to have cast blame elsewhere, created further confusion, and attempted to re-write history. Clear enough?
Cllr. Tim Oliver’s Statement:
“In your letter, you make use of a highly selective set of measures to challenge this Council’s record on SEND provision.”
Our Response:
We find this statement particularly fascinating. One of our primary concerns is that Surrey County Council seems to now be relentlessly and unashamedly focused on reporting the speed at which EHCPs are being issued, as if that alone is an indicator of success. Ironically, this statement by Cllr. Oliver therefore appears to represents a near-reversal of reality. Instead, the data being cited by these MPs reflects a carefully selected set of outcome focused measures, chosen deliberately to provide a critical indication of quality, and not just process.
We would also suggest that these concerns have now been thoroughly validated in the detailed analysis completed by the Select Committee’s Additional Needs and Disabilities – Parents and Carers Experience Task Group. Their extensive report on these issues, and indeed testimonial evidence of how, where, why and when fundamental operational processes are failing can be found here; (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee, 12/09/2024 10:00 (surreycc.gov.uk)
However we have also noted that this critical report and its recommendations were recently bumped from Surrey County Council’s Cabinet agenda, reportedly because the CFLL Directorate had not yet formed their response.
Arguably, had the Council considered this “highly selective set of measures” earlier, it might not have come as such a surprise. However, the more pressing issue is that the lack of consistent visibility on these deteriorating trends has, in our opinion, allowed significant red flags to go ignored for many months, representing a serious breach in oversight. The critical question for us is whether this continued refusal to acknowledge these issues now signals a fundamental breakdown in public accountability.
We believe that all public officers have a duty to act swiftly and decisively when issues are raised that indicate potential harm or unlawful practices. So, this is us—calling it out.
Cllr. Tim Oliver’s Statement:
“For most of the period between 2017 and the present, the timeliness figure has been at or above the national average, except for a sharp dip between 2021 and 2023 due to a shortage of educational psychologists and other professionals essential to the assessment process.”
Our Response:
This statement is inaccurate. Firstly, describing a prolonged collapse in performance spanning nearly two years as a “sharp dip” is disingenuous. Attributing the entire issue to a shortage of educational psychologists significantly underplays the other local operational and management issues which were already evident. Our previous analysis of complaints during this period shows that timeliness issues were apparently caused by a far more complex and wide reaching set of issues than just a lack of “professionals”. More effective implementation of root-cause analysis, or ‘lessons learnt’ methodologies should have provided you and scrutiny committees with this information. However this statement also still fails to explain why the impact on Surrey was more severe than in other regions, nor why the recovery effort has been so slow.
Cllr. Tim Oliver’s Statement:
“In-month timeliness is now above 70% and has been since May of this year.”
Our Response:
This statement is plainly false. Internal data presented to the Scrutiny Committee shows that month-on-month performance does not align with this figure. Actual data for month on month timeliness is reported in this report pack; (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee, 12/09/2024 10:00 (surreycc.gov.uk)
The EHCP timeliness figures for this period are confirmed to be; April 29%; May 52%; June 63%; July 72%.
The CFLL Directorate statement supporting this data is as follows; “We reached 72% timeliness overall in July 2024, and we aim to continue to build on this in the Autumn term. Data will vary month by month as
demand and capacity fluctuate. We strive towards a position where every child receives their EHCP on time where it is within our control to
achieve this”.
We note that August figures have not yet been made publicly available.
Cllr. Tim Oliver’s Statement:
“Local Authorities everywhere are experiencing similar outcomes at tribunal.”
Our Response:
We disagree. In Surrey, Statutory Decisions are appealed at nearly double the national average, indicating serious issues with the quality of decision-making. In the latest national data, Surrey reports the second-highest number of tribunal appeals nationally, behind only Kent, which made 5,000 more decisions relating to SEND provision but had just 30 additional appeals. Furthermore, the most recent data shared by this Directorate suggest that their position is actually rapidly worsening.
As we’ve already described, while the data confirms that local authorities across the board may be losing over 98% of Tribunals, it also reveals that Surrey is facing Tribunal cases twice as often—and still losing 98% of the time. From our perspective, this disparity raises critical red flags, indicating significant risk of systemic misapplication of the law in SEND decision-making in Surrey, on a much larger scale compared to other areas. This cannot be dismissed.
Final Thoughts:
We remain deeply concerned by Surrey County Council’s official response to this crisis, and by the growing list of potential breaches in governance, information accuracy, and accountability. Rather than acknowledging the shortcomings revealed through data reporting and scrutiny—failures that appear to have potentially allowed severe systemic and operational issues to go unchallenged—this letter, in our opinion, perpetuates a continued campaign of misinformation aimed at dismissing and patronising the valid concerns of residents you were elected to serve.
We understand that your first meeting with Surrey’s new MPs was due to take place today (27th September), where you have indicated they would be given opportunity to discuss this further. In our view, until credibility in the information provided relating to SEND provision is restored, we would recommend that all data and statements for discussion on performance be based only on open-source data, subject to independent scrutiny and published for transparency.
In conclusion, it is our opinion that it is critical for Surrey County Council to take responsibility for the systemic issues within the local delivery of SEND provision being highlighted by a broad range of stakeholders; Parents, Professionals, Schools, Councillors and MPs. But also, specifically, to cease this persistent dissemination of misinformation.
Once again, we call on Surrey County Council to adopt a more transparent, data-driven approach, with information that can be independently verified. It remains our opinion that only through open dialogue, accountability, and a commitment to the truth will real and lasting improvements be made. The families and children affected by these failures deserve no less.
Finally – we can only hope that any discussion that has taken place today between Surrey County Council Leadership and the newly elected group of MPs about these issues, has included, at a minimum, an acknowledgement of Surrey County Council’s failings and an absolute commitment to transparency, honesty and accountability moving forward.
Measure What Matters
Measure what matters. 
Leave a comment