Could a new government mark the end a decade of disruption and dysfunction in SEND?
Rob Webster
In England, SEND policy has tended to be written in the idiom of what the sociologist, Sally Tomlinson, calls ‘benevolent humanitarianism’. The words may be warm and well-meaning, but they mask, often unsuccessfully, understrength and incomplete strategies, which lack coherence with and/or are deprioritised in relation to other school-related matters.
What’s more, the prospect of success is routinely undermined by poor implementation. The kind of stability and long-term commitment to delivery that underpins the success of policies in frequently lauded systems such as Finland and Estonia, is absent from national and local planning.
That Estonia’s education system isn’t run by central government may be relevant to its success. In England, this is less of an issue than the fact that the only thing long-term about education policy is its short-termism. As such, the recent history of SEND policy is one of achieving marginal gains, while leaving structural problems intact. Lately, however, progress has gone from stuttering to stagnant.
Explaining why requires going beyond the policies themselves and considering the roles of politics and policymakers. For example: imagine for a moment that the current SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan is a piece of software. It’s not just badly coded; it’s running on a faulty operating system.
The latest set of reforms are positioned as a way of catalysing wider changes to ‘cultures, attitudes and environments’ in order to ‘create a more inclusive society’. This vision, the Plan claims, ‘aligns with other key reforms underway across government’. Another objective is to restore trust and confidence in the SEND system.
However, it’s neither frivolous nor malign to enquire whether the current administration fully believes in or is up to the task of delivering on these pledges, given that: a) the erosion of trust was largely a result of its previous attempt to overhaul the SEND system; and b) its deportment on other matters seems inconsistent with wider inclusion and social cohesion. Immigration springs to mind.
When Rishi Sunak announced a general election he looks odds-on to lose, this question was replaced with another: what might an alternative government mean for SEND policy?
In the short-term any new government might conclude it can’t afford to undermine the trust it’s asking for from families, educators and others by attempting yet another SEND system reset.
Yes, the current SEND crisis is real and urgent, but sustainable, long-term solutions — the kind that can lead to irreversible and authentic inclusion — requires our best deliberative thinking. For example, having shown an interest in widening participation in the policy process, Labour’s ‘decade of renewal’ could involve commissioning a citizens’ assembly on school inclusion – or education more broadly, as the Government of Ireland has committed to doing – to work through ideas, tensions and trade-offs.
The main parties have yet to unveil their election manifestos. When they do, one thing to watch will be the extent to which SEND policy — if it’s mentioned at all — is positioned as part of a wider and coherent social policy slate that oozes inclusive values.
A change of government, if that’s what the forthcoming election brings, must at minimum end the disruption and dysfunction that has characterised the experiences of so many children and young people with SEND and their families over the last decade. Hopefully, it can also mark the start of drive to align school inclusion and social inclusion.
Rob Webster is a researcher specialising in SEND and inclusion. He is a member of the SEN Policy Research Forum Lead Group. His book, The Inclusion Illusion, is free to download via UCL Press
