SEN0176

Written evidence submitted by Dr Peter Gray

Summary:

This submission draws on a number of sources of evidence, including papers from the national SEN Policy Research Forum and other relevant reports and the author’s own experience through over 25 years of consultancy to local and national government. It argues that solutions need to be based on an informed policy analysis and be structured in a coherent way, setting out key priorities at different levels of governance and the way that changes can be sequenced and organised.

It emphasises the need for a clearer national statement of values, particularly with regard to inclusion and the importance of relative pupil progress, with these underpinning the design of curriculum, teaching and assessment and the Government’s approach to school and local area accountability.

It highlights national and international research indicating that pupil-led SEND funding systems (such as ours) may be a key factor contributing to current issues and suggests specific approaches that have been developed in some Authorities which may offer a positive way forward. These involve re-balancing school and local authority budgets to reflect an increased emphasis on inclusive practice, in conjunction with more collective processes for decision-making.

It proposes a hybrid model of change, with a combination of national policy development and structured local opportunities to extend and evaluate positive practice. This could be achieved through a redesign of the Government’s Change Programme so that this matches more closely with local priorities and has a more significant effect on current issues.

Finally, it draws the Committee’s attention to two reports (Gray, Richardson & Tanton 2022; Bryant and Gray 2021) which may help organise and structure the range of suggested solutions that it receives.

Introduction:

I have worked for over 25 years as a consultant to local and national government with regard to SEND policy and provision, having previously led on strategy for SEND and inclusion for Nottinghamshire County Council. I have also been co-coordinator of the national SEN Policy Research Forum, which aims to undertake constructive evidence-based analysis of SEND policy issues and offer a positive approach to how these can be resolved. Further details of our activities can be found below:

www.sscyp.org.uk

www.senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk

I am making this submission to you in my own right, based on my own knowledge and experience. The Forum Lead Group is making a collective response to you separately, which is based on an accessible summary of key areas for development which is available online:

https://senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/SENPRF-Framework-June-2024.pdf

Scope of the inquiry:

I note that the inquiry focuses on solutions to the current crisis, both short and longer-term. The problems are well-documented in a number of recent reports (eg Green Paper/national SEND review, LGA, Isos, NAO, Public Accounts Committee). However, the analysis of reasons for these problems is a more limited, with reference made to perceived growth in pupil needs, the high costs of some specialist provision, as well as broader features of the education landscape (curriculum, expectations and accountability) that may be acting as disincentives to include.

Without dwelling on the current problems, it is important to understand why things have deteriorated so badly over the last 10-15 years, with schools struggling to meet pupil needs along with other demands, increased levels of parental dissatisfaction and the prospect of bankruptcy for a growing number of local authorities: all of this set against the aspirations of the national SEND reforms that were introduced by the Coalition Government in 2014.

The first part of this submission seeks to provide a more detailed analysis. Understanding the reasons for current issues is needed to guide ways forward and help determine future priorities (and the way that developments can best be sequenced and organised). Just focusing on practical solutions runs the risk of providing a patchwork of recommended activity that lacks strategic coherence. As the philosopher, Kurt Lewin, has argued, ‘there is nothing as practical as a good theory’.

Policy analysis:

What is our national policy in England for children and young people with special educational needs? Although this should be a relatively straightforward question to answer, our policy is actually quite difficult to describe and is beset by a number of conflicts and contradictions. On the one hand, the national SEND reforms proposed that services and provision should be much more person/family-centred, with a more integrated approach and a stronger emphasis on choice and empowerment. On the other, the broader educational context has become narrower and more prescriptive, with a more limited view about what matters in education and an increasing need to recognise funding constraints.

More fundamentally, the key policies that can be seen to have had an effect on SEND over the more recent period are as follows:

1)     David Cameron’s determination to ‘remove the bias towards inclusion’ that he ascribed to the previous Labour Government (with a view that provision should ultimately be seen as a matter of parental choice)

2)     Michael Gove’s emphasis on traditional teaching and learning as the key purpose of schooling (and his view that poor behaviour was simply a product of inadequate discipline rather than a sign of disaffection with the school offer or unmet special educational need)

3)     The diminution of Local Authority influence (presented as the removal of LA ‘control’ and the opportunity for greater school autonomy through academisation and the further development of multi-academy trusts)

4)     The Coalition’s presentation of previous policy and practice as fundamentally flawed, with a need for ‘radical change’ to improve children and families’ experience and outcomes

These policies have been effective in their own terms but have had significant negative effects on the SEND system:

1)     The percentage of pupils placed in special schools has increased significantly (although it had actually also risen slightly during the latter period of the Labour Government). The financial costs of this trend have been significant, accounting for the majority of the rise in High Needs expenditure over the last 6 years. There are no signs that increased demand has abated.

2)     The narrowing of the mainstream offer has led to increasing levels of displacement of pupils who are not seen/do not see themselves as fitting into this agenda. Not only has this contributed to increasing numbers in specialist and alternative provision but also to those who have disengaged from mainstream in other ways (eg through non-attendance and home education).

3)     Greater school autonomy and the fragmentation of the local education system has reduced the ability of Local Authorities to exercise their strategic responsibilities, in relation to support and challenge and securing pupil admissions

4)     The reforms over-emphasised the benefits of EHCPs, with the implication that these were the vehicle through which services and provision could best be delivered. Insufficient profile was given to the value of SEND support and the provision that mainstream schools can (and should be expected to) provide, with or without the involvement of external agencies. The previous Labour Government’s SEND strategy, which emphasised the latter, led to a reduction in the percentage of pupils with statements, while numbers with EHCPs since the reforms have rocketed.

Most people would now agree that, despite good intentions, the SEND reforms have overpromised and underdelivered. From children’s and families’ perspectives, choice is limited and dependent on parental capacity to push for the provision that they think is right for their child’s needs. Choice for mainstream placements is significantly affected by school attitudes and the quality of the offer available. The situation has been exacerbated by the growing divide between SEND policies that emphasise a high degree of personalisation and the Government’s expectations of mainstream schools, which have become increasingly narrow and convergent. Some would argue that one of the key factors behind pressure for diagnosis (particularly with regard to autism and ADHD) and EHCPs is the belief that this is the only way in which individual needs can now be taken into account.

Funding model

Another key policy feature contributing to the current SEND crisis has been the emphasis on ‘pupil-led’ funding, which was originally intended to support a greater level of parental choice and empowerment. Conservative think-tanks in the early 2000s were interested in the power of vouchers (with assessments carried out independently of local authorities). The Liberal Democrats (and Labour) wanted to extend the use of personal budgets, which offered people with disabilities a greater degree of choice and control. The ‘top-up’ system involved a hybrid model, with ‘place funding’ ensuring that providers had a degree of predictability and stability, and top-ups allowing parents the capacity to pursue their own particular preference.

Although this kind of approach has some attractions, national and international research has identified a significant number of issues. For example, a study by the European Agency of Special Needs Education of the relationship between funding models and inclusion across 17 European countries (Meijer 1999) found that

“In countries where the finance system is characterised by a direct input model (pupil-led), the most negative voices are heard. These countries point at the different forms of strategic behaviour within the educational field (by parents, teachers and other actors). These forms of strategic behaviour may result in less integration (mainstream inclusion), more labelling and a raising of costs. Much money is spent on such non-educational matters as litigation, diagnostic procedures and so on”.

These are recognisable features of our current SEND landscape.

Essentially, the model requires schools and parents to emphasise children’s deficits to achieve higher levels of funding. It also involves a number of other perverse incentives, with money following failure rather than rewarding effective/inclusive practice. Moreover, this kind of system places a high level of administrative demand on schools, parents and local authorities and is not very responsive to changes in need.

The alternative is to fund SEND more substantially at the level of the school/institution, with pupil-led funding being restricted to a much smaller number of pupils/students with very significant needs. The national SEND strategy during the latter years of the last Labour government tended to advocate this approach, with increased delegation of funding to mainstream schools to provide for pupils with ‘high incidence needs’. In the best examples, schools worked together with their local authority to manage funding that was centrally retained to ensure that this was targeted on the greatest need.

Over the last year, I have been working with representatives from professional associations and other stakeholder groups to explore options for ‘school-led’ funding across the different provision sectors (mainstream, special, alternative provision (AP) and post 16. We have identified a number of positive examples and would be willing to share these with you. Mainstream models are increasingly based around local cross-phase clusters of schools (typically 8-10), with a proportion of high needs money being devolved at that level and decisions being made collectively. Funding allocated in this way does not require completion of EHCPs. There is evidence of a number of benefits:

1)     A greater opportunity for peer support and challenge, and for schools to learn from each other, leading to school SEND improvement and more consistent thresholds for accessing additional support

2)     More equitable targeting of resources, based on need rather than demand/pressure

3)     The ability to use funding more dynamically, for different periods of time and for groups rather than just individuals

4)     Improved phase transitions, resulting from cross-phase knowledge of pupils and better opportunities for advance planning

5)     Closer links with external agencies through alignment of staff to clusters and reduced administrative requirements on services

6)     A more collective problem-solving culture, with greater awareness of the SEND system and less of a tendency for adversarial relationships

Although parents are not usually present when cluster decisions are being made, they are fully involved in the process, in providing agreement for their child to be discussed, and in considering how needs can best be met (with or without an agreed funding allocation).

We have also explored approaches for funding special schools that provide greater stability of staffing and support a clearer commissioning model. For example, one Authority is working with its special school heads to fund pathways linked to levels of need, with greater clarity about expected outcomes for each of these (including transition to adulthood). Others have developed school needs profiles based on moderated audits of current (and expected future) need. Funding for new admissions is set at an average top-up level linked to this profile which is reviewed on a 3-to-5-year basis to identify any significant profile changes.

The pupil/student-led model places a significant administrative burden on mainstream FE colleges, where funding decisions are made individually for each student, usually fairly late on in the transition process. We found that some colleges/authorities had moved towards a ‘block funding’ model, with money being allocated for colleges to meet need in a more flexible (and predictable) way. We felt that this approach had potential but might need to be more differentiated to ensure clearer expectations and better monitoring/evaluation.

We will be presenting to an invited seminar on 29th January (at the Royal Society of Arts). Your research officer, Andy Simmons, is expected to attend and should be able to report back to you on this in more detail.

Ways forward:

The areas of interest that you have listed in your request for submissions are wide-ranging. There is currently a tendency to believe that all of these issues can be resolved through changes in national policy and/or the existing statutory framework. There are real risks of stagnation while the Government decides what to do, with the risk of further deterioration and increasing financial difficulties (Lord Adebowale has recently written of a similar phenomenon in the NHS[1]).

In thinking about ‘solutions’, consideration needs to be given to:

1)     What changes are likely to have the most impact (across the range of issues that you have identified)?

2)     What needs to be determined at national level? What developments would work better if they were introduced more locally/with a lower level of prescription?

3)     In what order do changes need to be introduced (given the limited space and energy in the current system and ongoing pressures to be reactive to immediate issues)?

Recommendation 1:              National policy:

The new Government should set out its vision/policy for SEND. This should be based around a clear set of values (as outlined in the SENPRF policy framework referred to above), in particular, the importance of inclusion and the need to identify (and celebrate) relative progress and personal/social achievement. This would be a significant change from the previous Government’s narrative which has tended to focus on narrower and standardised attainment and the need to expand local specialist provision to meet increasing levels of pupil need. It is not just an extension of the existing SEND improvement programme and system review.

Inclusion is partly about placement in mainstream schools and settings. Our recent review of the latest research on the impact of mainstream schooling (Gray, Norwich & Webster 2020[2]) demonstrates positive to neutral effects of mainstream education on most pupils with SEND, both in terms of academic progress and personal-social outcomes, and on their mainstream peers (through more individualised teaching and experience of diversity). However, more fundamentally, it is about removing barriers to learning and a greater sense of belonging for all.

A national commitment to this direction needs to be more than just expanding the number of special units/resource bases in mainstream schools[3], with no changes to the curriculum and teaching, approach to assessment and expected outcomes, or accountability/inspection arrangements. The review of mainstreaming research clearly indicates that the level of impact (positive and negative) is mediated by staff attitudes, skills and confidence and this also needs to be reflected in the Government’s workforce strategy and the nature of support that is available.

Inclusion should not just be a standalone aspect of school quality (as proposed within the new Ofsted report cards) but be embedded in all other aspects (leadership and management; quality of teaching and learning etc). It therefore needs to be a key element of the current curriculum review and a stronger feature in accountability systems for both schools and local areas. Local area SEND inspection is still too focused on compliance with the statutory aspects of the SEND reforms and interagency activity, with limited coverage of other aspects of the SEND system and the important contribution of schools and settings.

A dominant part of the current narrative is whether the SEND system is delivering value for money, given the increasing level of spend and relatively poor outcomes. Part of the issue here is the narrow definition of pupil progress, with a limited emphasis on attainment and transition to further education, employment and training. Outcomes for pupils with SEND need to be seen in relative terms, based on their starting points rather than absolute yardsticks. For many, progress in personal-social areas is key. Acknowledging this is not a symptom of failure or a sign of low expectations but a clearer recognition of diversity and individual difference.

Coping with the modern world requires a high level of resilience (Stavrou 2024[4]). While there is a place for specialist provision, we need to do more than just provide a protective environment with greater levels of tolerance, that supports pupils through to transition to adulthood. We need to prepare children and families for the adult world, with stronger expectations around the development of personal and social independence and access to employment[5].

A clearer national agenda that incorporates these values and which is properly embedded in broader education policy would provide a significant part of the ‘solution’. However, there are other things that Government can/should do to make the SEND system more coherent at local level. Good quality strategic leadership is vital. This has proved increasingly difficult to deliver, due to:

1)     Continuing ambiguities about local authority involvement in education and school improvement, and a tendency for existing leadership to prioritise social care

2)     High levels of officer turnover/use of interim appointments, affecting schools’ and parents’ beliefs that strategic developments will be seen through

3)     Fragmentation of governance leading to greater difficulty in achieving local system ownership and responsibility

If local authorities are going to retain this role, then the Government needs to address current barriers, in particular by ensuring that CEOs of multi-academy trusts have proper regard to/involvement in local strategic developments and by reviewing the relative roles of local authorities and the ESFA (Education & Skills Funding Agency) in the commissioning and funding of specialist provision.

Recommendation 2:              Supporting developments at local area level:

The DFE has clearly been under pressure from the Treasury to manage increases in expenditure on SEND and no doubt this continues to be the case. In this context, there is a tendency for ‘command and control’, to demonstrate that the necessary steps are being taken and a greater level of regulation is in place. However, despite the investment in management consultancy and expansion in civil service activity, there is limited evidence so far that Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value programmes are having a significant impact on financial sustainability. Spend is continuing to rise, with more LAs experiencing High Needs Budget deficits since annual growth in income was reduced to 4.3% (having risen by an additional 10% each year over the last 6-year period). Existing deficits have also increased in many areas.

There appears to be limited confidence at local authority level that the Government’s existing SEND improvement programme will have the necessary effects. In particular, the agenda set by the Change Programme has been relatively constrained, with ongoing questions as to whether the programme’s priorities match what needs to be done. Within this approach, there is a level of Government distrust that positive change can/will happen locally, without significant intervention and monitoring at central level.

Given that outcomes have not been as expected, it is time to reflect whether this model of change is likely to be the most effective and whether there is really capacity to micromanage all the ‘solutions’ that might be proposed and suggested.

There are strong arguments for a hybrid approach, with the Change Programme (or a modified version of this) being extended to include a broader canvas of initiatives put forward by local areas themselves. The Government could still play a role in identifying ‘best bets’ that would be likely to have the biggest impact on current system issues (based on the best available evidence) and ensuring more systematic evaluation of the innovations involved. The balance of spend should move away from central capacity (to direct and monitor change) towards more modest amounts of funding that would help pump prime new initiatives and create space for local strategic activity.

One key area for consideration would be the further development of the cluster model for mainstream SEND funding described earlier in this submission. It is unlikely that this could be nationally prescribed, given the strong narratives among parents and some schools around safeguarding pupil entitlement. However, it could be further developed and tested through regional ‘communities of practice’, with a small number of LAs working together to implement this kind of approach, providing opportunities for supported problem-solving and sharing of resources and experience. It would benefit from informed group coaching from those that already familiar with the practical implementation of this model. As already indicated, this development could have considerable ‘reach’ in addressing a number of the issues that are identified in your inquiry.

Recommendation 3:              Building on existing good practice:

There are already a number of sources of information on positive practice. In particular, I would draw your attention to the research I carried out with SSCYP colleagues for the DFE in 2022[6], looking at the characteristics of 10 case study LAs whose High Needs budgets were in surplus (and who had been judges as relatively positive in their local area SEND inspections). We found a range of features, ranging from history and culture (which can be less easy to generalise) to more specific practice elements. These were summarised under the following headings, which linked to some of the key areas of pressure and demand that the SEND system is currently experiencing:

1)     How to strengthen ordinarily available provision/the quality and consistency of the mainstream SEND offer

2)     How to establish effective partnerships with schools, parents and other stakeholders

3)     How to meet the needs of children and young people with autism

4)     How to improve planning and pupil/parent experience at school phase transitions

5)     How to improve pathways to adulthood in order to achieve more positive outcomes

6)     Effective approaches to commissioning and monitoring of services and provision

These headings may provide you with a useful way of categorising/grouping the solutions that are suggested to you.

I would also draw your attention to the work that I undertook with Ben Bryant from ISOS in 2021 looking at effective local systems for managing alternative provision[7]. We found that these worked best when there were strong collective ownership of pupils excluded/at risk of exclusion, with schools working closely together with their local authority and providers to meet needs within the available resources.

Final comments:

The recent LGA/ISOS report ‘Towards and effective and financially sustainable approach to SEND in England’ (2024) is reported to be having a significant influence on current Government thinking[8]. The report has a number of strengths, in particular the clarity of its analysis of the extent of the financial risks. However, some of its recommendations require greater scrutiny (see recent commentary by the Lead Group of the SEN Policy Research Forum[9]), in particular the proposal for national ‘levels of need’ (which is reminiscent of the previous Government’s call for ‘national bands and tariffs’). While this appears to offer greater equity and clarity of responsibility (and an end to the ‘postcode lottery’ which has been a constant source of parental complaint), this would further institutionalise the issues we are already experiencing with a pupil-led funding system, which are referred to above).

The main conclusion of the LGA/ISOS report is that the SEND system is broken and that this is a result of national issues rather than local area factors. It is pessimistic about the possibility of significant improvement unless these national issues are addressed. While I agree that national developments are needed (as identified in Recommendations 1 and 2 of this submission), we should also continue to look at the reasons for local variation and build on existing good practice. The size of financial deficits varies hugely and these do not clearly map on to the amounts of High Needs funding that different local authorities receive (which also vary significantly – see Marsh, Gray and Norwich 2021[10] and separate evidence provided to your Committee by Alan Marsh directly.

There is significant pressure on Government to invest more heavily in SEND to resolve current issues and to enable local authorities to manage financially. While further investment may be needed, it must be recognised that significant additional funding for High Needs has been provided over the last 6 years with limited visible effects on pupil outcomes or the experience of parents, schools and authorities. Increased funding has tended to be spent reactively, mainly serving in most cases to reduce the size of deficits that many local authorities are having to address. If new investment is going to be made, it is essential that this is used proactively and targeted in the right areas.

If the Government intends to place greater priority on mainstream inclusion, then there is a need to review the balance of investment in schools and high needs budgets. In its annual report on education spending (January 2025[11]), the Institute of Fiscal Studies has reported that overall funding increases over the last 10 years have not matched growth in pupil numbers and increases in living costs. More fundamentally, over half of the increase has been associated with the substantial growth in spend on high needs, which means that mainstream funding has decreased significantly in real terms. With a finite overall education budget, increasing spending on additional and specialist provision is bound to constrain what schools are able to do ‘ordinarily’. Budgets need to be re-balanced but in a way that ensures appropriate transfer of responsibilities.

Finally, I am conscious that many of those submitting evidence to you will be emphasising the need for changes in the statutory process, either loosening this to provide greater flexibility to meet needs at local level (and to better address ‘unreasonable demands’), or tightening it further to ensure that schools and local authorities comply properly with current statutory expectations. I have not covered this area in my submission. A lot of time and effort could go into trying to resolve process and procedural issues (which are, in my view, largely symptomatic of other broader problems in the education system) – and such changes are likely to be hugely contentious. The main challenge we are facing is how to rebuild confidence and trust, to support and further develop strong partnerships between schools, parents, local authorities and other agencies so that all our efforts are pointing in the same direction of improving outcomes for children and young people who need our support to progress and achieve. The recommendations and suggestions provided in this submission are designed to be supportive of this ambition.

January 2025

11