The government’s SEND reform proposals Putting Children and Young People First, sets out a significant restructuring of the SEND system. The ambition behind the reforms – to build a more inclusive system, strengthen early identification and invest in workforce development – is welcome. The consultation also demonstrates a good understanding of many of the long-standing systemic problems: delayed support, adversarial processes, rising high needs deficits, workforce shortages and inconsistency between local areas. Importantly, further education (FE) features more prominently than in previous reform plans, and specialist FE colleges, which in the past have been completely overlooked by government are mentioned as having ‘a vital role’.
However, as always, the devil is in the detail, not all of which is there at the moment. For specialist further education colleges, and for the young people who rely on them, the way in which the meat is put on the bones of these proposals, and how they are implemented will determine whether young people with more complex needs are well-served by these reforms or whether access to appropriate provision is quietly narrowed.
The Department for Education has already signalled that it is keen to take feedback from Natspec and to involve us and our members as they take the work forward. It is going to be critical that they listen carefully to the voices of those working in specialist FE. The consultation document tells us that they want specialist settings to support children and young people with the most complex needs and be ‘a vital collaborative force at the heart of an inclusive education system.’ Specialist colleges would love to embrace that role, but government will need to ensure that in implementing some of the key aspects of the new system that they don’t put unnecessary obstacles in their way.
Specialist Provision Packages: who will qualify and on what terms?
Under the proposed system, EHCPs will be reserved for children and young people with “the most complex needs” and be aligned to new Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs). Seven packages are currently identified and are intended to cover the full range of “complex needs”. On paper, this creates clarity and national consistency. In practice, it could deny access to appropriate provision for some young people. Complexity – and indeed individual young people – do not always fit neatly into nationally defined categories.
The thresholds for eligibility may be set so high, or described so narrowly, that some learner groups currently benefitting from specialist college placements are excluded. It’s quite possible that some forms of need might not be fully recognised by the proposed packages. Government will also need to be careful to ensure that the content of SPPs is not shaped solely by interventions and adaptations needed to support access to the school curriculum, making them incompatible with employability and independence pathways concerned with preparation for adult life. Designated of some packages for use only in mainstream settings could meant that a specialist college may cease to be an option, even where it would be the most appropriate and preferred option for an individual.
If the proposed nationally set costing frameworks for these packages fail to reflect the true cost of delivering high-quality specialist FE programmes – including therapies, specialist staff, equipment and tailored learning environments – colleges may find themselves unable to deliver within imposed price limits. Getting the funding levels right will be critical to ensuring access to appropriate provision for learners in need of specialist support.
Transition reviews: critical gateways at 16 and 19
The reforms introduce formal transition point reviews at key stages, which we presume to include the move from school to college. At these points, a young person’s eligibility for an EHCP and Specialist Provision Package will be reassessed. If they do not meet the new threshold, they will lose their EHCP. Post-19 learners may be particularly vulnerable. If funding pressures intensify and local authorities are expected to manage reduced high needs pots, there will be strong incentives to restrict access to higher-cost placements. The consequence may be fewer specialist FE placements, not because need has reduced, but because the eligibility criteria have tightened. A more inclusive mainstream system should not come at the cost of closing off appropriate specialist placements for those who need them.
Rebalancing funding: fewer resources for specialist placements?
A substantial proportion of high needs funding will be devolved directly into mainstream schools and colleges, with local authorities administering a reduced high needs budget for the highest tier of support. While earlier access to funding in mainstream settings through less bureaucratic processes is welcome, it mustn’t come at a cost of shrinking the budget available to support specialist placements for those who need them.
Where financial sustainability is a central policy driver, cost considerations inevitably weigh heavily in decision-making. With less funding available centrally, local authorities may seek to minimise spend on specialist college placements, particularly for post-19 learners. If funding bands for specialist support packages are set too low, or if high needs allocations are significantly constrained, specialist colleges – and the learners they serve – may be caught between rising demand and diminishing resource.
New placement rules: value for money versus individual need
Under the proposed changes, LAs will give families a list of settings offering the relevant Specialist Provision Package from which to choose. In naming placements, LAs will be required to consider effectiveness, fairness and value for money across the local area, rather than focusing solely on the needs of the individual. While families can request an alternative and appeal to the Tribunal if they want to contest an LA decision, the Tribunal will no longer have the power to name an alternative placement. Clearly, we need a financially sustainable system, but young people also need a placement that can fully meet their needs. There is a real risk that individual need may come second to financial considerations meaning some young people may not get the specialist placement from which they would benefit.
Regulation and price controls
Independent special schools are to be subject to new duties, regulatory alignment with other special schools, price controls and restrictions on expansion. The government is considering treating special post-16 institutions, (SPIs) as they call specialist FE colleges, “in a similar way”.
As the only state-funded alternative to mainstream further education, specialist colleges have a very different role and status from independent special schools. They are directly contracted and funded by the Department for Education and are inspected under the same framework as all other FE and skills providers. In other words, they are already highly regulated. Adding additional regulatory burdens or price caps could limit colleges’ ability to innovate, expand or respond flexibly to local need.
Support to fulfil an enhanced role
There are certainly opportunities in here for specialist FE colleges both to cement their standing as the experts in specialist provision for young people, and to work more collaboratively with mainstream FE providers, developing outreach and time-limited programmes and sharing their expertise more systematically. However, they will need support and investment from government to ensure that they can continue to deliver high quality programmes for learners with more complex needs. It is through developing provision for the learners on roll in their own settings that they build up the expertise, develop the practice, and undertake the research that can then be shared across the sector.