By Professor Brahm Norwich
News of expected reforms to the SEND system by the Government has fuelled concerns that many of the proposals will be driven by the need for short term savings.
In addition to questions about the availability of funding to make mainstream schools more inclusive, there is growing recognition that solutions will not come from examining SEND in isolation from other ongoing reforms such as curriculum and assessment and school accountability.
The statutory SEN route has been justified in terms of the protection of provision it gives parents, even if it is often a stressful, time-consuming and bureaucratic process. Families value holding local authorities to account and want this retained. There will be an outcry were there any reduction in parental rights.
The basis of the current two-tier system of identifying SEN – i. at school level (School support) and ii. determined through statutory EHCPs through local authorities – is over 40 years old and designed for when local authorities had more powers.
Some ways to contain the EHCP system have been considered: to standardise nationally the procedures, formats and thresholds for undertaking statutory assessments. Another way is to confine EHCPs to fewer pupils, either to pupils in designated specialised settings only or to pupils with significant additional needs who receive support not just from education but also from another agency, e.g. social work, NHS. The latter is the Scottish statutory system of coordinated service plans (CSPs), which has led to a reduced number of CSPs over the years.
What has yet to be considered is more basic reform to maintain individual statutory protections for children with SEND when needed, while dealing with the problems of the current EHCP system and addressing the challenges of making mainstream schools more inclusive.
The Government could introduce more protections for children focussed on adapted general provision for SEND with less protection focussed on individual EHCPs. Decisions about school resources for additional needs could be based at a school level on professional expertise, led by specialist teachers and outside professional advisors. High needs funding would be allocated directly to mainstream schools, with funding levels set nationally taking account of various local and school level factors. This might be to schools as part of a group of schools, such as a MATs, federations or to be formed community-based clusters. Schools would be supported directly by social care and health professionals. A reform like this may enable school leaders and teachers to make quicker more dynamic decisions. Ofsted would hold schools accountable, with provision protections in each MAT/cluster having an external local school improvement partner reviewing SEND aspects.
The default protection system would be the provision offered in schools, while individual protections can be retained under certain conditions. Parents will retain a right to initiate a version of the statutory local authority EHCP individual needs model, only when there is basic disagreement between parents and professionals about individual needs and provision.
In principle this mixed approach could lead to more flexible and quicker decisions about provision and a more localised approach to meeting individual needs, with the prospect of a reduction in tensions and costs related to the EHCP procedures.
Of course, for this system to be successful it would depend on well considered statutory protections and support for children with SEND being integral to school culture and management.
Ofsted would need to extend their focus during inspections beyond inclusion to examine how SEND specialisation was integrated into mainstream school matters like teaching, curriculum, admissions/exclusions, grouping and teacher development matters. Individual educational planning for pupils with SEND, would be in the context of school and class level provision mapping, with enhanced SEND coordination involving teacher and allied staff teams. A reformed Code of Practice would then become much more focussed on additional provision and the conditions that support it than the EHCP system.
This kind of reform would take time to design, trial and adapt, well beyond the short time frame this Government is working to. Let us hope that the proposed reforms to be announced go beyond the short-term cost savings to lay the foundations for more nuanced and flexible plans, ensuring that those involved in the system – parents, children, students, teachers – are given an active voice.
About the author:
Brahm Norwich is Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology and Special Educational Needs at the School of Education, University of Exeter . He was previously Professor of Special Needs Education, Institute of Education, London University. He has worked as a school teacher, professional educational psychologist and university teacher and researcher.
