Expected reforms to the SEND system have fuelled concerns that many of the proposals will be driven by the need for short-term savings.
In addition to questions about the availability of funding to make mainstream schools more inclusive, there is growing recognition that solutions will not come from examining SEND in isolation from other ongoing reforms such as curriculum and assessment and school accountability.
The statutory SEN route has been justified in terms of the protection of provision it gives parents, even if it is often a stressful, time-consuming and bureaucratic process. Families value holding local authorities to account and want this retained. There will be an outcry were there any reduction in parental rights.
However, the basis of the current two-tier system of identifying SEN (at school level for school support and at the local authority level for statutory EHCP) is over 40 years old.
It was designed for when local authorities had more powers, and government may be considering a variety of ways to contain the EHCP system.
One way would be to nationally standardise procedures, formats and thresholds for undertaking statutory assessments.
Another would be to limit their issue to pupils in designated specialised settings or those with significant additional needs who receive support beyond education, say from social work or the NHS.
This latter model would mirror Scotland’s statutory system of coordinated service plans (CSPs), which has led to a reduced number of CSPs over the years.
But perhaps there’s a way for more basic reform to maintain individual statutory protections for children with SEND when needed, while dealing with the problems of the current EHCP system and addressing the challenges of making mainstream schools more inclusive.
Such reform would enable schoos to make quicker, more dynamic decisions
Government could introduce more protections for children that focus on adapted general provision for SEND, with less of these protections triggered by individual EHCPs.
Decisions about school resources for additional needs could be made at the school level and based on professional expertise, led by specialist teachers and outside professional advisors.
High-needs funding could be allocated directly to mainstream schools or groups of schools, whether trusts, federations or community-based clusters, and funding levels could be set nationally, taking account of various local and school-level factors.
These schools and families of schools could then commission the support they need directly from social care and health professionals.
Such reform would enable school leaders and teachers to make quicker, more dynamic decisions. Ofsted would hold them accountable for it, and an external, local school improvement partner could review SEND aspects of their provision.
Given this default protection model and individual protections retained in certain conditions, this might be an acceptable way forward. Parents would retain the right to initiate a needs assessment for an EHCP (or version thereof) in instances of disagreement between parents and professionals about individual needs and provision.
In principle, this mixed approach could lead to more flexible and quicker decisions about provision and a more localised approach to meeting individual needs. It also holds out the prospect of a reduction in tensions and costs related to the EHCP procedures.
Of course, for this system to be successful would depend on well-considered statutory protections.
In addition, support for children with SEND would need to be integral to culture and management in every school. Indeed, it would arguably drive-up standards in this area.
Ofsted would also need to extend their inspection focus beyond inclusion to examine how SEND specialisation was integrated into mainstream school matters like teaching, curriculum, admissions/exclusions, grouping and teacher development matters.
And there would be school-wide implications too. Individual educational planning for pupils with SEND would require school- and class-level provision mapping and enhanced SEND coordination involving teacher and allied staff teams.
To support this, a reformed code of practice would need to be much more focused on additional provision and the conditions that support it than the EHCP system.
The system is in crisis, and ministers are working to a short time frame to make an impact, but short-term cost savings are never a great context for sustainable reform.
This kind of reform would take time to design, trial and adapt, but it would lay the foundations for more nuanced and flexible plans.
And importantly, it would ensure those involved in the system (and most likely to push back against cost savings) are given an active voice, not only in its creation but in its ongoing implementation.
And that’s a recipe for policy success.
Your thoughts