Natspec has now submitted its response to the government’s SEND reform proposals. The consultation questions focus mainly on how to ensure the effective implementation of a more inclusive mainstream sector via individual support plans, inclusion bases, Experts at Hand etc. While we have given feedback on these proposals, we have also done our best to offer constructive advice on how to ensure high quality specialist provision, including in specialist settings, remains available to those young people who need it. Plans for specialist provision in the consultation document are currently not well worked through. We have therefore started by calling for a government strategy for specialist settings across all phases of education to include the same level of detailed planning as has gone into supporting mainstream settings to become more inclusive.
A lack of detail on specialist provision in the SEND reform proposals has made it challenging to respond to some questions, nowhere more so than in relation to Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs). Their introduction represents a radical change for specialist settings but we have little more than a series of package titles to go on. At this point we are not convinced that SPPs are the most effective means of securing the right support and the right placements for those whose needs go beyond the new Targeted Plus layer – especially for further education (FE) students. We have suggested that more fit-for-purpose approaches to cohort funding and determining eligibility for a specialist placement should be explored which avoid parcelling up young people with their wide range of individual needs into a set of fixed packages. We have also noted that having an SPP, education, health and care plan (EHCP) and an individual support plan (ISP) doesn’t sound like a recipe for creating a simpler, more navigable system for young people and their families.
We have underpinned this position with feedback from students currently in Natspec colleges. They are concerned that personalisation is being sacrificed in a drive for national consistency and that young people’s views, particularly where they express a preference for a specialist rather than mainstream placement, will not be given enough sway.
We have confirmed that there is willingness in principle amongst specialist colleges to play the role that government has proposed for them in supporting a more inclusive mainstream sector. Some specialist colleges are already doing this, but on an ad-hoc basis and without the security of funding to ensure its sustainability. Support and investment in specialist colleges from government will be essential to facilitate their contribution.
While we share the well-rehearsed concerns of others about a lack of accountability in the new system, in our response we have focused on an area of specific concern for young people in specialist settings: the planned transfer of detailed information about provision from the EHCP to the ISP. Without the statutory protections currently in place, reliance on a school or college complaints system is likely to make it more difficult for young people and families to get redress if needs are not being met as originally agreed. We have therefore recommended that the detail remains in the EHCP and questioned whether a national ISP – as opposed to a college-based plan – is needed at all.
Throughout our response, we have sought to offer constructive suggestions and to signal Natspec’s willingness to work with the DfE to ensure a reformed SEND system serves all children and young people well. That will mean giving equal weight to those who will benefit from a more inclusive mainstream sector and those who need a specialist setting – and valuing and supporting both mainstream and specialist providers.