The government has finally commissioned research into how its SEND cost-cutting programme impacts children and their families – three years after the controversial scheme was launched.
In exchange, they must meet strict cost-cutting measures, which many say force councils to break the law. Three councils are facing judicial reviews over the cuts.
In a stinging report last month, the National Audit Office warned that the government “does not yet know” how the scheme impacts outcomes for pupils.
There was a “risk” it would “impact quality, given the focus on financial management”, the NAO was told by stakeholders.
Now the government has asked researchers to investigate the “impact of safety valve agreements on children, young people and their families”.
But Ed Duff, director at HCB solicitors, said: “Implementing the scheme without any kind of risk assessment or impact assessment is baffling.
“Lots of [safety valve] councils are actively required to refuse new education, health and care plans (EHCPs), and reduce them. All of which is unlawful. The fact there hasn’t been a review is remarkable.”
£53k research contract
He said he had overseen several appeals on behalf of families denied access to support by councils in safety valve areas, who did so “without any real reason given whatsoever”.
Isos Partnership has been awarded a £53,000 contract to conduct the research. The contract started this month and is due to run until June next year.
Isos is a research and advisory organisation which says that it “helps the public sector solve problems and deliver effectively”.
It will gather views in 10 local authority case study areas. But neither the researchers nor the government would say which councils would form part of the review.
In July Isos published a report with policy recommendations to deliver an “effective and financially sustainable approach to SEND” in England.
Recommendations included a “national institute for inclusive education”, a “national ambition” for inclusion, banning profits from state SEND placements and a new role for special schools.
Speaking this week, Department for Education permanent secretary Susan Acland-Hood said the government was looking “very carefully” at the policies.
The report was funded by councils and the research group has previously advised safety valve councils. For instance, Haringey council commissioned the firm to independently review how its SEND top-up funding works.
Schools Week has asked the DfE how conflicts of interests have been managed.
‘Whole thing needs scrapping’
Tony McArdle, the DfE’s chief safety valve negotiator, said: “Any work which helps facilitate the scheme and looks at the programme and identifies how it’s going, and how it could be done better, is welcome.”
But Duff said: “The whole thing needs scrapping. If councils need more money, then fine. But this is not the way to do it – by cutting services that are a matter of statute.”
Isos’ July report found councils said the scheme had helped in two key ways – providing funding to reduce deficits and advice and “challenge on strategic plans” to “achieve a more balance, effective local SEND system”.
But councils said the scheme “simply provided temporary respite at local level, [it] did not alter the fundamental challenges in the national funding and SEND arrangements”.
Caroline Barrett, partner at Rook Irwin Sweeney, one of the firms taking legal action against the government over the scheme, said the research was “positive”.
But she added: “Ultimately, local authorities need the right level of funding to ensure they can meet their legal obligations…
“Safety valve agreements, which commit local authorities to deliver widespread cuts to high needs provision, are not going to resolve issues with SEND provision for either local authorities or families with disabled children.”
Your thoughts