The ISOS report, Towards an Effective and Financially Sustainable Approach to SEND in England, published today, gives us an insight into local authorities’ perspective on a SEND system that we all know to be broken. While we agree with many of the points covered in the analysis of the problem, there are some important elements missing and some unsubstantiated claims included. Equally there are some interesting suggestions amongst the recommendations, but others which we find quite alarming.
Looking at SEND in context
It’s certainly helpful to look at the issues affecting SEND provision in the context of the education system more broadly (think curriculum reform; behaviour policies; inspection incentives) and in relation to austerity (resulting in diminished access to pastoral, mental health and therapeutic services). We won’t achieve long-lasting improvements to the SEND system without addressing a wider set of contingent factors.
A more inclusive mainstream but a place for specialist settings too
We also welcome the recognition that achieving a more inclusive mainstream sector will take time and require considerable investment, particularly in workforce development, and not just a set of national standards. While supporting the proposals for an increased amount of funding going into mainstream settings, we do have some concerns that unless there is increased investment overall this may come at the expense of adequately resourcing specialist settings. We would need to be sure that the proposed Local Inclusion Fund is sufficient to commission specialist provision to meet children and young people’s needs and that there is no ideological position being exercised which discriminates against the use of specialist settings. We are not reassured by the unevidenced assumption in the report that specialist settings reduce the chances of young people ‘being able to make the transition successfully to independent life and the use of “mainstream” community facilities after the end of their time in education’.
Real root causes and genuine solutions?
We are particularly surprised to see that amongst the key facts cited as the main indicators of the broken system, there is no recognition that too few children and young people are currently getting the support they need – and to which they are legally entitled – in a timely fashion, or sometimes at all. And we are not convinced by the claim that there are children and young people getting a higher level of support than they need – certainly not on scale that would have any major financial impact.
We find it disappointing that the researchers haven’t set out to explore more thoroughly why local authorities are failing to meet their statutory duties, and what could be done to enable them to be compliant. We recognise that local authorities don’t deliberately set out to make the lives of children, young people and families more difficult or to cause problems for schools and colleges – but this is what’s happening right now, as evidenced by Tribunal outcomes. Instead, they’ve attacked the Tribunal as an inappropriate route for redress and called for a reform of the legislation on which it adjudicates. That may enable local authorities to be more compliant, but will it lead to more children and young people having their needs met? Almost certainly not.
It also appears that local authorities would like to see definitions of SEND tightened so that fewer children and young people would fall within the remit of the SEND system. Redefining eligibility for support would be one way of reducing demand in pure numerical terms, but it wouldn’t take away the need for it.
Responsibilities and powers
Local authorities are understandably frustrated at being in a position where they hold most of the responsibility for running the SEND system without having all the necessary control or means to do so. Although the report describes the goals for reform in this area as ‘relatively simple’, the proposals for a souped-up version of the Local Inclusion Partnerships already being tested out as part of the last government’s SEND and AP Improvement Plan are anything but. We’ll need more time and detail to consider the pros and cons of partnerships sharing statutory responsibilities as described in the report.
Post-16 analysis and solutions
It’s a shame that more careful analysis of the post-16 context has not been carried out. While there clearly has been increased use of special school sixth forms, the proportion of post-16 EHCP holders in specialist provision in the college sector has remained fairly fixed, at around 10% over the last 10 years and more. It’s therefore frustrating to see the rather throw-away comment that follows the proposed remodelling of the SEND funding system for schools:
Although we do not have the data available to produce a similar model for post-16, we believe that the same principles would apply by reducing take-up in post-16 specialist institutions and recycling that funding into general FE and sixth form colleges.
While there may be some scope for further increasing these high levels of inclusion in general FE colleges, including through more collaboration between specialist and mainstream colleges, the situation is vastly different from in schools. Setting arbitrary targets for reduction of specialist placements is almost certainly going to lead to some young people not having their needs met.
The report does rightly identify some of the key issues facing post-16 learners: poor place-planning; insufficient funding for learners deemed not to require high needs funding; and poor planning for transition out of college. But, despite the first and last of these being core local authority responsibilities, there isn’t much consideration of why these aspects are being so badly managed at the moment. On the other hand, the recommendation for a fairer funding system to meet the needs of FE learners with SEND but without EHCPs is definitely welcome.
We would agree that the costs of extending the system up to 25 were never properly factored into the implementation of the 2014 reforms, and to some extent that this has resulted in a delaying of the post-education ‘cliff-edge’ rather than its removal. And yes, a lack of clarity about when an EHCP should be ceased has led to confusion and conflict. But asserting that postponing the age of transition is actually making it harder for young people to make the transition to adulthood is highly disputable. And restricting access to provision to anyone over the age of 20 in all but exceptional circumstances is definitely not the solution.
The report is also right in recommending that transition out of education and from children’s to adult services needs much greater attention. A properly resourced transition service that allows continuing access to after-care support as needed for a period of years after leaving education would help address the ‘cliff-edge’ issue and perhaps reduce parental fears about the consequences of ceasing an EHC Plan and the desire to hold onto an education placement for as long as possible. But this will only work if there is suitable provision on offer for these young adults in the form of employment support, high quality day care, adult learning opportunities, and suitable living options. This will require not just local coordination and the proposed Preparation for Adulthood Framework, but a cross-departmental government investment strategy.
What next?
We will be reflecting further on this report and discussing it with members. It’s a complicated mix of realistic assessment, unfounded assumptions, interesting suggestions and reductive conclusions. It will certainly give the new government something to think about, coming hot on the heels of yesterday’s Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s annual report which had a very different take on the failing SEND system.
