The education committee received an “unprecedented” number of responses to its SEND inquiry, it said this week.
Calling on the Department for Education to provide more information about a potential SEND white paper and timescale for anticipated reforms, chair Helen Hayes called it the “most significant challenge” facing schools.
Schools Week has been through the published evidence submissions to pick out some of the sector’s solutions…
1. Incentivise ‘blended’ MATs
Having special schools in trusts was “seen as fostering a more inclusive environment in mainstream schools”, the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) said.
This allowed for more tailored timetables for pupils and knowledge-sharing and training sessions for staff.
The NFER said the government should “consider ways to promote and support this ‘blended’ MAT approach, including by emphasising such arrangements in future funding designed to encourage the creation of new MATs and the expansion of existing ones”.
Schools Week analysis last year found that 212 trusts – nearly one in 10 – have at least one special school.
2. Appoint a minister for inclusion
SEND policy “considerations” should be “built into every policy area rather than being treated as a separate issue”, the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) said.
To support “sustained integration”, the government should appoint a “minister for inclusion”. This would “elevate the importance of SEND, disadvantage and other barriers to education and wellbeing within the government structure”.
If not a minister, then “long-term advisory roles are required with status and longevity supporting systemic improvement”.
3. SEND NPQs for all heads
The ASCL also believes all heads should be “required” to complete a SEND national professional qualification (NPQ). This “recognises that a significant proportion of students will have SEND at some point in their educational journey”.
This could become a “prerequisite” to the NPQ for headship and become an “expectation for effective leadership”.
The NAHT leaders’ union added that the SEND coordinator role has become “huge, varied and significant” and needs a “unified definition” that “encapsulates core expectations”.
Meanwhile, mental health charity Anna Freud said “established” SENDCos should have “guaranteed access to ongoing CPD”, which is “substantial” and ring-fenced. This will ensure they “understand the implications of new and emerging evidence about inclusion”.
4. Ban profit-making SEND schools
A SEND state school capacity crisis has led to cash-strapped councils spending more on costly private provision.
The Local Government Association said profit-making from state-funded education, health and care plan (EHCPs) placements should be “prohibited”, with “standardised regulations and funding”.
Private schools should only be used “strategically for specialist services, rather than as a default solution”, they added.
Surrey council said “consideration should be given” to converting profit-making special schools into maintained settings. “There is no justification for profit-making involvement in settings that are solely funded by the state,” the council added.
However, the Independent Schools Association (ISA) said private schools were a “vital partner in alleviating strain on the state SEND system”. They currently teach 132,000 children with SEND.
They want the government to let councils place children in such schools based on “professional assessments, rather than requiring an EHCP”.
But Norfolk council said a “value for money” equation could be introduced for placements, focusing on Ofsted ratings and the cost of schools.
5. Review progress 8 for contextualised model
The ASCL wants “review and reform” of accountability measures, including “reassessing progress 8” to ensure it does not “penalise schools for being inclusive”.
They highlighted FFT’s contextualised progress 8 measure, calling for a “wider set of indicators for school performance that include both hard and soft data”.
6. Give SEND schools bigger system role
Special schools should be “redefined” to “provide outreach and expertise sharing with mainstream schools”, the LGA said.
This could involve better “local partnerships” between mainstream and high-quality specialist settings, the ASCL added.
“This is not just about ‘transplanting’ what is in the specialist setting to mainstream but building infrastructure to support really effective collaboration to contextualise curriculum and pedagogy to the settings appropriately and our learners.”
A new “middle tier” could “facilitate school-to-school collaboration”, such as “regional hubs or networks”.
7. SEND evidence institute
The LGA, along with others, has called for a national framework for SEND standards, and a National Institute of Inclusive Education to oversee best practice. They could also “act as an independent authority on inclusive education”.
ASCL wants a “rigorous SEND review process”. This would involve schools being encouraged to review their inclusion provision using frameworks such as the SEND review process currently being evaluated by the Education Endowment Foundation.
8. Specialist units in falling roll classrooms
Many submissions mentioned issues caused by a lack of capacity. The New Bridge Group, a SEND trust, recommended “utilising capacity in mainstream schools with falling rolls”.
Empty classrooms could be used as “satellites bases for specialist school or resource-based units, both improving inclusion”.
9. £13k top-up funding and metro mayors
Lots of submissions, unsurprisingly, called for more funding. But ASCL’s set out a plan for a new funding system, including increasing top-up funding from £10,000 to £13,000 to recognise the “rising costs of providing specialist support”.
A new high needs distribution formula would also “address historic inequality” across different councils. They and others also called for the government to consider wiping high needs budget deficits to open up “reinvestment in frontline services”.
But the County Councils Network said some councils have already spent “significant amounts of their reserves” reducing deficits, so there would be “significant inequity in this solution”.
Meanwhile, Nexus trust CEO Warren Carratt said the government “should consider regionalising SEND support services, possibly with the metro mayors taking on responsibility, with funding diverted from DSGs to cover costs along with revenue funds”.
10. How can we get health buy-in?
Health and social care are supposed to be partners in the EHCP process, but that is not happening.
The ISA said a “national SEND partnership framework requiring LAs, NHS services and independent/state schools to collaborate” could help. They also said all school SEND coordinators should have “direct NHS liaisons to facilitate timely assessments and interventions”.
The NAHT said schools were filling health and social care funding and provision gaps, calling for “strong levers” to ensure other services can be “held to account if they do not fulfil their respective duties”.
Carratt added that a “cross-departmental approach” – including the departments for local government and health – was “essential”.
11. Get support into schools BEFORE EHCP needed …
The LGA said inclusive practice in mainstream schools could be strengthened with a “core offer” of multidisciplinary support, such as therapists and educational psychologists (EP), accessible without an EHCP.
Norfolk council said that most EP time was spent “servicing EHCP assessment reporting”. A national solution would be to “maximise EP time” with SEND pupils to “meet needs earlier and prevent escalation of need/unnecessary referrals for EHCP”.
“We believe a model based on EP supervision of specialist teachers and other SEND professionals can achieve this,” they added.
12. …and use ‘reasonable adjustment’ more
There were lots of comments related to EHCPs, which have soared in recent years, with widespread concerns over their quality.
The LGA said a “learner record” for “regular, personalised assessment and planning” could stop “over-reliance on EHCPs”. This would be backed by a “legal framework for inclusive education”.
The NAHT said “national consistency” was key, welcoming plans for a digital EHCP template.
Surrey council said removing EHCP needs assessments for children under five would “avoid early and potentially incorrect labelling of children”.
They also called for clearer guidance on reasonable adjustments – including minimum expectations. The Equality Act requires schools to make such adjustments to ensure that disabled pupils are not discriminated against.
Carratt, at Nexus, said having a pre-EHCP reasonable adjustment system would be better, and a “viable alternative” for children with lower-level needs.
The threshold for an EHCP would be if “a child’s SEND complexities are such that their needs cannot be met by a reasonable adjustment”.
This would be “less bureaucratic”, reduce the need for “multiple professionals’ involvement” and could move a “huge number” of children off EHCPs, he added.
The plan would require amending the Children and Families Act so there is no longer a legal entitlement for all children to be assessed for an EHCP.
Councils could act as adjudicator for any disputes. And all suspensions could lead to a plan being put in place.
13. SEND support complaints enforcer
Many councils bemoaned the SEND tribunal. Surrey said strengthening mediation services over EHCP issues between councils and parents, and making them mandatory, would “reduce adversarial relationships”.
The LGA wants tribunals replaced with a “new, independent non-judicial resolution” – such as a SEND ombudsman.
Nexus said a “more accessible adjudication process” would reduce legal costs for all involved, but an adjudicator “must have the power to direct placements”.
However, the Independent Provider of Special Education Advice service wants the current local government ombudsman’s power extended to investigate complaints from parents over SEND support in schools.
Parents “often seek” EHCP assessments “because their child’s needs are not being met by their school”, they added.
Your thoughts