SEN0300
Written evidence submitted by SEN Policy Research Forum
Who we are:
The national SEN Policy Research Forum was created over 30 years ago, with the aim of undertaking intelligent analysis of SEND policy and promoting positive developments that are based on research evidence (from England and abroad) and informed by practical experience. Its membership includes academics and researchers, local and national government, representatives from professional associations and from relevant parent and voluntary organisations.
Details of the Lead Group are provided below:
Co-coordinators:
Dr Peter Gray (Policy Consultant)
Dr Rob Webster (University of Greenwich/Southampton)
Dr Julie Wharton (University of Winchester)
Members:
Yolande Burgess (London Councils)
Dr Susana Castro-Kemp (Director: UCL Centre for Inclusive Education)
Dr Beate Hellawell (Essex County Council/UCL)
Annamarie Hassall (CEO: Nasen)
Professor Brian Lamb (Policy Consultant/University of Derby)
Professor Geoff Lindsay (University of Warwick)
Professor Brahm Norwich (University of Exeter)
Penny Richardson (Policy Consultant)
Professor Christopher Robertson (SENCo Forum/University of Derby)
Dr Sharon Smith (Parent/University of Birmingham)
Dr Daniel Stavrou (Council for Disabled Children/National Children’s Bureau)
Introduction:
The SEND system in England is currently experiencing significant issues, which are well-documented in a number of recent reports. We believe that solutions/ways forward need to be based on a sound analysis of factors leading to this situation and that any proposals should be evidence-based.
Our submission does not provide specific/detailed ways forward, but sets out the important policy directions that need to be addressed for substantial progress and improvement to be made.
We would like to share with you the attached framework[1] that has been developed to help evaluate current policy and the limitations of previous government proposals and to highlight what is needed to move forward. The framework is structured around the following areas:
The framework is intended to be succinct and accessible to those with less specialist knowledge. It does not attempt to be comprehensive and focuses particularly on the need to resolve the disconnections between SEND and broader government policy for education. Tensions between these aspects has grown over the last 10-15 years and need resolution at a more fundamental level.
In the next section, we list our main conclusions but would recommend that the Committee considers the framework in full as this provides the rationale for emphasising these particular developments.
Key recommendations for policy development:
Values:
1) The new Government needs to set out a clearer vision of what an inclusive system/school would look like. How would we know if it was in place?
2) There should be stronger reference to the Equality Act and to the importance of removing barriers to education and learning for pupils with disabilities
3) There needs to be greater value and recognition of achievement (including relative progress and personal/social development rather than just standardised attainment)
4) There is a need for clearer collective responsibility, between schools and the range of agencies/services working at local area level, and processes that support this (for example, greater use of peer moderation, support and challenge in funding decisions for pupils in mainstream and prioritising access to alternative provision; local involvement of schools and parents in commissioning services and provision)
Curriculum, assessment and teaching:
5) The curriculum review needs to address tensions between ‘mainstream’ and ‘SEND’ systems, and consider the need for related changes to assessment processes
6) A more ‘bottom-up’ approach is needed for curriculum development and inclusive teaching, with more opportunities for teachers/schools to collaborate in reviewing and developing their practice
7) Effective inclusion will require a greater level of personalisation. The Government needs to facilitate learning about how this can be delivered in practice, through research and exchange of experience
8) There should be a broader approach to assessment, with greater use of qualitative data and a range of personal-social outcomes (eg independence, resilience, social responsibility)
Funding:
9) The Government should recognise the inherent issues involved with pupil-led funding systems and review the current proposal for a national banding system
10) It should consider the benefits of more collective approaches to managing funding at local level (for both mainstream and specialist provision), identify promising models that have already been developed (e.g. cluster approaches), evaluate these more systematically (drawing on local authority, school and parent experience) with a view to broader extension
11) It should review the balance of school and high needs funding to ensure that this supports greater school ownership and inclusive practice (with associated changes to accountability systems)
12) It should move to greater equity in the national distribution of high needs funding to local areas
Support:
13) The Government should consider using local cross-phase school clusters as a focus/ mechanism for targeting support (and additional funding)
14) Greater opportunities should be given for mainstream SENDCos to be involved in support to schools/pupils, through secondment to external services or other means
15) There should be clearer/more robust commissioning of external services (including special school outreach) to maximise impact and help evaluate outcomes
Workforce development:
16) Meeting individual needs should be seen as core aspect of the quality of teaching and schools, with a greater emphasis on successful engagement of pupils in learning rather than content delivery
17) This emphasis should be reflected in initial teacher education, continuing professional development and staff appraisal
18) There should be a national strategy for workforce development and career progression which covers all phases of education and local authority/other agency services while recognising different workforce requirements
19) Professional development should be consistent with/responsive to local area needs as well as regional/national priorities, be inclusive of all aspects of the workforce, and support integrated service delivery
20) There should be a sharper focus on capacity building and sustainability
Accountability:
21) Accountability should match the Government’s vision of how the SEND system should be, with a greater emphasis on experience and outcomes as opposed to compliance with expected processes and procedures
22) Accountability mechanisms should help ensure that all schools are inclusive (not just some) and cover how far pupils with SEND are accessing mainstream education, not just the quality of provision, experience and outcomes for pupils already on roll. Better use should be made of pupil and parent experience.
23) Changes are needed to the current school inspection system: either increased weight given to SEND and inclusion within the current hierarchical approach or a shift to more professional/participative systems that promote collective and supportive self-review
24) There should be more regular and collaborative evaluation of national system effectiveness, with improved dialogue about/acknowledgement of factors contributing to national, local and school level issues.
25) The Government should identify systems already in place that support local collective responsibility and ensure greater accountability at that level.
Conclusions:
We recognise that the Committee will be interested in further details/examples of positive practice related to these policy areas/recommendations. We would be happy to provide further evidence as needed.
January 2025
4
[1] https://senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/SENPRF-Framework-June-2024.pdf
https://senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Framework-references-Feb-24-1-1.pdf