The SEND crisis can’t be solved overnight or even in one parliament, but the education secretary’s ideas map the first steps to recovery, says Dan Morrow
Every leader knows the kind of problem the SEND system represents for Bridget Phillipson.
It’s the kind of problem that hits you like an anvil dropped from the sky the minute you walk into the job.
The kind everyone knows will take years to unpick, but everyone wants to see fixed yesterday.
So it’s to Phillipson’s credit that she hasn’t set out to deliver everything everywhere all at once with this white paper.
The announcement of a £4 billion cash injection over three years to deliver the more inclusive system Labour’s promised since its days in opposition is welcome.
But we all know that the realignment of the entire system to deliver this vision – its workforce training and development, its infrastructure and its capacity, its incentives and (dare I say, in places?) its culture – will take longer than this parliament.
Indeed, Phillipson told Laura Kuenssberg that this was a plan for “a decade-long, very careful transition”.
That’s a realistic timeline for change, and I’m looking forward to making the most of that time for every learner across CELT’s 16 schools and beyond. Mission Coastal? Bring it on!
Opposition ideas
The problem is: right now, it doesn’t look like a realistic timeline for this government to see it through. So my eyes are on the opposition too.
On one hand, Laura Trott “wants to be constructive” on reforms. On the other, she is already playing to parents’ fears, trying to position the Conservatives as the champions of those who “had to fight for support”. (And whose fault was that?)
Then there’s Reform’s new education spokesperson, erstwhile Conservative frontbencher and Michaela School founder, Suella Braverman.
Her focus on “discipline”, a “patriotic” curriculum and an “absolute ban” on social transitioning doesn’t exactly scream inclusion, just more fear.
As leaders, we all recognise this part of the process too.
You’ve got your head out from under the anvil. You’ve got a plan. You’re owning the problem.
But other leaders have different ideas. As do local councillors, and commentators on social media.
The people who really matter – the children and families in your care – are scared and primed to resist change.
What can you do? You tell your story, and keep telling it. You find your allies, and set out to make new ones. You deliver where you can and show proof of concept. You stick to your vision, but remain flexible enough to listen and learn.
Don’t ask who
The key thing is to keep pointing at that anvil. Who dropped it is irrelevant. You simply can’t leave it there for some wily coyote to drop it from above again. It’s a safeguarding issue.
For Phillipson, the anvil is our broken EHCP system. It is not meeting the needs of children and families, it is bankrupting councils and it is over-burdening schools.
If evidence-based “specialist provision packages” can help more of us to support children with complex needs, then I hope everyone with the skills to develop them rallies to do so.
And if money is no longer a barrier to making our settings more inclusive, then I hope to hear far fewer excuses about being “unable to meet need”.
If there aren’t enough specialist places in your region, I hope my fellow trust leaders will join us in leaping to the challenge of creating them.
Backed by new funding and growing capacity, our individual support plans can and should deliver faster and better than current EHCPs, even if a child does have to move across from one to the other upon re-assessment.
Having said all that, there is valid anxiety among school leaders, and one important question for Phillipson’s DfE to answer: What is the limit of “inclusive mainstream”?
Sooner rather than later, we will need a clear image of what we are aiming for 10 years from now.
Without that, the anvil will no doubt find its way into the hands of those waiting to capitalise on a broken mainstream system.
Your thoughts