SEN0446

Written evidence submitted by The Aurora Group

My name is Katrina Carter and I have worked in the independent special school sector for 24 years. I currently work for The Aurora Group, the only B Corp rated provider of independent special schools, educating children and young people with complex learning and support needs.

I would reiterate my plea that we be involved in the debate, rather than being seen as the problem, which is inaccurate and damaging to the many thousands of children and young people whose lives have been transformed by the independent sector.

The role of and capacity of specialist schools, independent schools and Alternative Provision

• The role of independent special schools (ISS) is to educate students for whom mainstream schooling is not an option, in the short, medium or long-term.
• At present this equates to only 5% of students with an Education, Health, Care Plan (EHCP).
• The vast majority of students with EHCPs are and should be educated in mainstream.
• The NASS policy paper, Working Stronger Together, evidences how utilising non-LA maintained schools as a distinct resource, complements, rather than replicates, the wider SEND system.
• Students supported at ISS have specialist and complex needs requiring intensive support and bespoke therapeutic programmes.
• The Government should recognise that inclusion in mainstream will not suit all children and is not right for a very small proportion.
• Students with more complex needs are more cost-effectively supported in ISS.
• A recent 2024 report by Sonnet evidenced the cost savings made to Government when students with complex needs have access to the right support at the right time in ISS. The saving was on average £300k over an individual’s lifetime.
• It is widely acknowledged by local authorities and MPs and this has been noted in House of Commons, that there will always be a small subset of SEND children who will never thrive in a mainstream large-scale state setting, whether it’s a comprehensive or special school.
• This subset of children is all too often out of mainstream schooling, because of their unmet needs, well before a local authority approaches an ISS to arrange a funded place at one of its schools.
• There is lots of knowledge and experience in special schools with no way for this to be shared with mainstream colleagues. This needs to happen to ensure all children have access to the right support at the right time.
• We would like to see a Govt backed SEND Innovation programme to make better use of expertise being developed in all provision.
• Independent special schools could provide knowledge for future SEND intervention, which can then be utilised across the whole education system.
• The ethics, approach and practice at ISS are very different to the state education model. It is not only about small class sizes, but significantly there’s a focus on understanding and removing barriers to learning through therapeutic programmes.
• The outcomes achieved by students at ISS are above national averages, given that ISS support students with more complex needs and barriers to learning. At The Aurora Group in 2024, 97% of leavers achieved their preferred destination, be it further education, training and employment. Only 3% were NEET.
• An estimated 12.2% of all people, including neurotypical students, aged 16 to 24 years in the UK were not in education, employment or training (NEET) in April to June 2024.

Current and future model of SEND provision

How can specialist provision, especially support for conditions which occur infrequently but give rise to the need to a high level of support and which may be beyond the capacity of individual local authorities, best be provided and commissioned?

• Why is the education select committee citing models that are actively failing children and young people with SEND?

• Ontario and Irish models are not improving inclusivity- for example 45% of children with support needs are being failed in Ireland according to Inclusion Ireland (Feb 2024).

• These models strip away the parental rights put in place by the SEND reforms of 2014.

• The Government should switch it’s focus from places for children to the needs of children.

• Focus should be on early intervention, flexible provision and planning and funding- let mainstream schools partner with independent special schools.

• At present only 5% of students with an EHCP are placed in Independent Special Schools (ISS).

• Very specialist provision is and will continue to be, most effectively opened and run by the ISS sector.

• ISS should be treated as private hospitals are to the NHS, as supporting the maintained education sector.

• ISS often work in partnership with local authorities to ensure placements are commissioned with best value for money as a key focus.

• Transparent, honest and open working relationships between local authorities and ISS are key to ensuring that ISS best support local authorities with their SEND sufficiency.

• Children in ISS can and do achieve better outcomes because it is a different model.

• A student at Aurora Hanley, who was out of education before being offered a place at Aurora Hanley, is a case in point. She was introduced to the school very slowly and in a supported way to the point that she is now a happy and confident pupil receiving therapeutic support and has good attendance.

• There are other examples from The Aurora Group’s schools of young people benefitting from the specialist approach and progressing to secure paid work as young adults.

• The Aurora Group does not advocate highly specialist SEND education for every child with an EHCP, far from it. ISS are a force for good with an important role to play in educating a small subset of children with an EHCP.  Its schools are for the minority that won’t thrive in a state school setting.

• ISS often work with children too late, they have had too many failed placements and as a result ISS support greater challenges, if the government thought about flipping this on its head a little and placing children earlier into specialist provision, reintegration from ISS to mainstream could prove more effective and efficient.

How can excess profit-making in the independent sector be tackled without endangering current provision?

• What do the Government class as excessive profit-making?

• This headline grabbing topic distracts from the real factors at play.

• ISS are not responsible for LAs SEND deficits.

• Only 5% of students with an EHCP are placed at ISS and have often failed at local authority provision.

• This inaccurate view of profit detracts from the real factors at play, namely the increase in demand for EHCPs, the costs of the tribunal process and inefficiencies of the maintained sector.

• Unlike maintained schools, ISS are not supported by the state and must make a profit to keep operating.

• ISS have to evidence that they are financially viable or cannot be considered for the Sec of State S41 status.

• To not make a profit risks investment in school facilities, much needed student and family support services, much needed new schools and staff.

• Placing children in the right place at the right time saves the Govt on average over £300k in their lifetime (Sonnet Report 2024).

• Children who cannot attend school also necessarily affect the economic opportunities of their family. A parent in this situation will be unable to work and there is a strong likelihood they will in turn require state support to make ends meet and at greater risk of becoming trapped in poverty.

• It is important to take into account the impact that a child with SEND, who is not in education or training due to unmet needs, has on that child’s ability to be an economically independent adult.

• The figure being stated by the DfE of c.24k for maintained school placement is not inclusive of all costs, is not comparing like for like services and should not be used.

• If maintained special schools provided the same staffing ratios and specialist support as ISS, the cost would not be what the DfE is using as comparison. The Aurora Group have completed a comparison with a LA maintained special school and making the above changes brought the cost per place in line with ISS.

• Complaints about whether it was right for public funds to go to profit-seeking companies needed to be weighed against the need to meet demand.

• People raise questions about public money being spent in the private sector. But then they don’t get beyond saying, ‘This leaves a bad taste’, to then asking, ‘Is this actually an effective use of public funds and what would the alternative cost?

• And so it’s important that the scope of the DfE’s policy review is not siloed and artificially restricted to the unit cost of one child’s education compared to another only during their schooling years.

• The economic case must cross-cut governmental departments.

Finance, funding and capacity of SEND provision

What actions or reforms are needed to achieve financial stability and sustainability, both in the short and longer term, across the SEND system?

• SEND education policy is a complex issue with significant individual and societal ramifications, and the most effective policy position will be similarly nuanced.

• Independent special schools (ISS) should be part of that policy dialogue in a constructive way as they are part of the solution.

• ISS should be treated as a support and knowledge system for the maintained sector.

• Govt must address the staffing, capacity and resource limitations of the maintained sector.

• The crisis of staffing in local send teams is not helpful, turnover and high caseloads leading to delayed decisions, challenges with communication, poor decision making and frustration with families who, because of the system, are continually in fight mode.

• Technology has a role to play and we should look at our whole school system, not just send provision.  We don’t think “school” has been reviewed since it was introduced in Victorian times – we still educate the same way.

• Future provision needs to be well resourced and not about token inclusivity, which ultimately costs local authorities more.

• Sufficient funding at each and every level of the SEN offer is needed- from mainstream to maintained special schools to independent special schools.

• Government needs to acknowledge the 'invest to save' nature of SEND support- see Sonnet report. 

• Special schools need to be part of an inclusion discussion rather than seen as a barrier to it.

What is the effectiveness of Government's interventions such as the ‘safety valve’ and Delivering better value in SEND programmes, including- How have these programmes impacted local authority finances as well as SEND provision and outcomes?

• These programmes have not worked.  They attempt to tackle the symptom and not the cause.

• They have often worsened LA finances by forcing LAs to place students in inappropriate placements, leading to costly placement breakdowns, more costly onward placements, financial wastage and most importantly further traumatising and alienating children and families from education.

• Many parents feel let down and have no choice but to take the local authority to tribunal. The local authority often concedes and the cost to local councils of this process per case is in the tens of thousands.

• Local authorities have been put under huge pressure to reduce spend on SEND and this has resulted in an emphasis, in practice, on control, not collaboration.

• PAC report concluded that the DfE’s current financial support programmes will have 'no discernible impact on these longer-term challenges nor support local authorities in managing their financial position .

Is planned capital investment in SEND capacity sufficient and is it best targeted to address need across the country?

• Fairway school in Cambridgeshire as an example of how the independent sector could move rapidly to meet public need.

• The Aurora Group worked with Cambridgeshire Council and renovated an old golf course clubhouse, hired staff and obtained regulatory clearances in just 18 months.

• Cambridgeshire Council identified a relatively urgent need so The Aurora Group worked to meet their requirements.
• The Aurora Group works with 97 local authorities, so one question is whether it would be more efficient for a company like ours to do this, or for each local authority to set up its own team?

• The current planned capital investment in SEND capacity is an example of a policy that focuses on a very specific element of the system, in this case just providing more places.

• Focus should be on needs and change in schools, not just more places in the wrong types of schools.

What has been the impact on SEND provision for local education authorities who have issued Section 114 notices?

• The impact has been children who desperately need placements being kept out of education because local authorities are scared to spend money.
• There is an increase in tribunals as a result of local authorities not placing children in a timely manner.  This comes at the cost of the child remaining out of school until tribunal has concluded, financial cost to the local authority and on many occasions the authority will concede having exposed child and family to a challenging and upsetting process.

January 2025