There is a crackle of ‘expectation’ or ‘frustration’ around where this government will take SEND provision in England, following increasing media reports of children who are unable to find placements in schools they want to go to, funding for the level of support they require, or schools who ‘do not meet the needs’ of specific children. In a world where it seems as if little is changing, there are moves afoot to significantly overhaul SEND provision in this country.
Where is this evidence coming from?
The previous government established a pilot scheme called the Change Partners Programme (CPP) in the Autumn of 2023, where nine local authorities work with their neighbouring authorities to pilot key SEND reforms. The intention was to,
‘Create a more inclusive society through a new national SEND and AP (Alternative Provision) system that is built around the right support at the right time and high aspirations for all children and young people.’ CPP newsletter Issue 1
Positives
This new system intended to fulfil children’s potential, build parents’ trust and provide financial sustainability, through giving around £6 million to each CPP in several instalments over the life of the programme. The lead local authorities act as ‘banker’ and agree with neighbouring identified local authorities, the content of their Local Area Inclusion Plan (LAIP) about how the money will be shared and used to test a pre required list. This list is,
- An Inclusion Data Dashboard
- A digital EHCP template with multi agency panels and SEND mediation
- A focus on Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP) to clarify what should be available in all mainstream settings
- A three-tier model of alternative provision support
- Early language support for all children.
The DfE with the consortium are providing direct support and challenge to each CPP in return for regular reports on progress.
The main issue as far as I can see is that these are processes rather than strategy, and if the system is really broken, it needs a total overhaul, new vision and deep strategic thinking. There have however been some success stories of the additional funding. In May 2024 I interviewed some of the leaders of the 21 Alternative Provisions involved in part of this programme, under the Alternative Provision Specialist Taskforce. Additional money has been used in these provisions to pay for the integrated services of social workers, speech and language therapists, youth justice workers, child psychologists, and other practitioners traditionally linked to social services not education. Leaders were overwhelmingly positive about these developments with tangible evidence that this was making a significant and speedy difference in the lives of these young people. Read the whole report here.
Concerns
The problem with pilots is that unless they are properly evaluated with some forward planning put in place, they come to an end. As soon as countries gear up for general elections, funding for pilot projects such as these hang in an unpredictable balancing act, with no-one really knowing whether it will be cut, or if it will morph into something else entirely. It is also divisive for those schools who didn’t receive the additional funding in the first place, as it can feel as if pilots and selection for financial advantage can go on for a long time. The present Change Partners Programme is due to end in 2025, by which time this present government should have made decisions about where it wants to prioritise funding.
What is happening?
Mission 5 in Labour’s manifesto is to ‘break down barriers to opportunity.’ In practice this means that Labour want ‘500,000 more children to achieve their early learning goals by 2030.’ Translated, this means additional spaces in nursery education and free breakfasts in primary schools, to try to level the playing field between disadvantaged children and all children. This will lead to ‘a sustained rise in school outcomes for all children over the next decade.’ The government also want a focus on ‘high quality education employment and training routes so that more people can access these by 2035.’
The King’s speech (July 17th 2024) also proposed the ‘Children’s Wellbeing Bill.’ This will require, ‘A national list of children not attending school. The requirement for all primary schools to provide breakfast club and the requirement to reduce the number of branded school uniform items.’ None of these could be argued against, but they seem like very small quick fixes in a whole structure that needs its foundations underpinning.
What could happen?
This government has launched several major consultations: into curriculum, DfE consultation on curriculum disabled children’s social care, consultation law commission disabled children’s social care and I would urge everyone to find time to complete one or all of these consultations, so that your voice can form part of the decision-making process. But from these consultations, and feedback, we can attempt to predict a direction of travel.
The immediate decision to move SEND and Alternative Provision back under the school’s division and within the DfE, was a crucial line in the sand to demonstrate commitment from this government, to parity between the SEND schools sector and mainstream. It facilitates the whole iand so we know that inclusive practice in all schools will be, and should be, high on the agenda. This will mean that every future policy will need to include SEND and place SEND at the centre of policies on inclusion.
On 24th September, I attended a briefing with Jane Friswell (former CEO of NASEN) so the following bullet points are a combination of her thoughts and my own.
- Strategically, the changes that need to be made for the long-term reform of SEND from 2025+ must be articulated and we need to be confident in our ability to do this.
- The early identification of emerging needs and early intervention must be a priority., We should not fear this because of the possible cost implications. Similarly, OAP must be clarified so that schools can prepare for the changing landscape, to know how this will affect staffing, capacity and space in their schools, and for parents to know what they can expect.
- SEND must be a priority and not a bolt on. ‘All children,’ must mean all.
- Training opportunities for professionals and families of SEND children should be extended. Empowerment through training should be widely available.
- High needs’ budgets of Local Authority councils that are currently kept off the balance sheet (until 2026) but take increasing amounts of money from the school’s budget, should be addressed. There must be systemic change and financial stability.
- High needs funding should focus on emerging needs to give support quickly and early in a child’s educational journey.
- The notional funding formula and allocation for SEND pupils that currently stands at £10,000 per pupil should be reviewed.
- Accountability for SEND pupils on many levels must be prioritised and made more transparent.
- Community oversight can work, if it is led by schools.
- Having trained speech and language therapists, mental health workers, youth justice workers in schools brings the support they provide straight to the child without a lengthy referral process. This makes so much sense and can look different in different schools dependent upon contextual need.
This list is pretty extensive and, will take determination and long-term strategic change to put right. But don’t we have to do this if we are to live in a truly equal society?
