Council SEND reform plans could dodge public scrutiny

Crucial council plans detailing SEND services reform could be submitted to government without public scrutiny, with school leaders warning of a “lack of meaningful engagement”.

Town halls have been given just over three months to submit a “local SEND reform plan”, which ministers will approve to unlock money to write off 90 per cent of high needs deficits.

The documents are also a vehicle for the government’s SEND reforms and will include key details such as how areas will deliver the £1.8 billion experts at hand programme.

But the Department for Education doesn’t require councils to consult publicly on these key documents ahead of the 19 June deadline. The only stipulation is that must be signed off by a SEND board and senior local officials.

Schools Week analysis of a sample of council meetings found inconsistent approaches to sharing plans with elected officials and the public.

Sector leaders have also warned that when there has been engagement with schools, it hasn’t been “meaningful” because of the tight timescales.

Unclear picture

The DfE asked “local area SEND partnerships” – which include education, health and care services as well as parent representatives – to formulate the plans.

But government expected councils to be the “system” convener, “taking the lead” to bring together all partners to work together and develop the plan.

They could submit a draft earlier this month ahead of the final deadline in June.

Schools Week analysed meeting agendas from January to June of the 38 councils signed up to controversial “safety valve” programme, the previous DfE deficit bailout scheme.

This scheme was prematurely cancelled by ministers this year and replaced by the high needs stability grant to wipe out 90 per cent of historic dedicated schools grant deficits accrued up to April.

To understand the transparency around the plans, we searched schools forum, relevant scrutiny and cabinet meetings ahead of the deadline.

Analysis found an unclear picture across sampled councils. While some said they would seek cabinet approval of the plans, others did not have any relevant public meetings scheduled before the deadline.

Some councils had scheduled meetings, but agendas were not yet available. These meetings were also just days away from the deadline, suggesting little time for adequate scrutiny.

Meanwhile councils including Dorset, Darlington, Haringey and Hammersmith and Fulham had scarce mention of the plans in meetings where agendas have been published.

One council official, who wished to stay anonymous, told Schools Week that it may be that many councils had not finished writing their plans within the tight timescales, so can’t even share a draft version.

They pointed to the fact that key guidance on the new experts at hand service and inclusion bases still hasn’t been published, despite being expected in spring.

‘Not possible to get cabinet approval in time’

In North Tyneside, the council said it was not possible to get cabinet approval with the timescales imposed by government, and that there were no plans to publish the draft.

But cabinet members were being engaged in the making of the plan, a council spokesperson said.

A spokesperson for Kent said they will only publish the plan once DfE had considered it, likely in September.

“Our priority has been to get the plan right, working with partners and testing it with the DfE as we go.

“By the nature of the DfE prescribed process, no plan will be finalised before 19 June, so it would create unnecessary ambiguity if multiple draft versions of the plan were made public.”

But Slough will make the report available to the public one its been signed off by cabinet.

‘Lack of transparency’

The ASCL school leaders’ union said members had reported a lack of engagement from councils when drafting their plans.

Margaret Mulholland, the union’s SEND and inclusion specialist, said while they “welcome the intention to strengthen collaboration”, it is “disappointing that the tight timeframe for production of these local plans has diminished the capacity for meaningful engagement”.

The National Network of Special Schools (NNoSS) warned in its SEND consultation response of a “lack of meaningful consultation” by councils in drafting their reform plan.

“Where engagement happened, it was often through schools’ forum updates or peripheral notification, rather than substantive design partnership.”

Pauline Aitchison, NNoSS network leader told Schools Week: “It’s obviously beneficial to be able to work in partnership where possible to get that information in, even if some of it’s been minimal. But then a lot has been done without consulting the sector.

“It would have been good if there had been a better approach to this.”

Chair of North Tyneside’s schools forum David Watson said he “understands the pressure to get something coherent done” in a “pretty short” timeframe.

But Rachel Filmer, founder of campaign group SEND Rights Alliance, said parents were “deeply concerned about the lack of transparency” surrounding the plans “particularly as councils were progressing them behind closed doors before the consultation had closed” in May.

She warned of “clear parallels with the safety valve scheme, where critical decisions affecting SEND provision were driven by financial conditions and agreed with little or no public transparency in many cases”.

Safety valve negotiations were seen as secretive, with little known about the process until the agreement was signed and published.

Filmer added: “It is vital that we see proper scrutiny and the opportunity for those with lived experience to raise concerns.”

Opportunities for schools

The government told areas it was “critical” all partners, including health, education and childcare settings, work together to design and deliver the plan.

There is evidence that councils have been holding these meetings with schools.

Kent spoke to headteachers in a meeting that has since been posted online, offering opportunities to give feedback via online forms, stakeholder meetings and to add “comments and reviews” on drafts.

In South Gloucestershire, the schools forum were told that plans were being co-produced across schools, early years, colleges, social care and health, with “multiple working groups and clusters” being used to assess progress.

Bury and North Somerset Council said they were also consulting with these partners, as well as parent carer forums.

Kirklees said it was holding “a series of events” which have “enabled all partners to share their views and shape future provision”.

Some have published plans

However, York has published its draft plan for cabinet scrutiny in early June.

It sets out a three-year proposal to deliver key parts of the schools white paper, including the experts at hand offer, inclusion bases and the new individual support plans (ISPs).

For its experts at hands service, it will recruit two occupational therapists, two speech and language therapists, four educational psychologists, four assistant educational psychologists and four specialist teaching staff.

Each secondary school will have a “mini” offer of support in 2026-27.

It will also do an audit of all existing inclusion bases in schools. In 2027-28, York expects 30 per cent of secondary schools to have an inclusion base, reaching 50 per cent in 2028-29.

But there will be a “system shift” for settings in the city, they warned. They will use four “targeted clusters” where professionals will “wrap around schools and identify emerging needs” and “greater shared accountability”.

By 2028-29, the plan says the council should have reduced pressure on home to school transport, dependence on individualised provision, improved attainment and achievement and reduced suspensions.

If councils plans are rejected by ministers in this round, there’s a second chance later in the year.