May 2022 Issue 62 SEND Review Supplement
A VOICE FOR THE INCLUSION MOVEMENT IN THE UK
Call to action:
Have your say in ALLFIE's SEND Review consultation campaign, p3 The SEND Review
A System in Crisis
'Wrong Support, Wrong
Senior lecturers from the University of East London
p6
p8
Place, Wrong Time' by Richard Rieser
Opinion Piece
SEC Response
Dame Christine Lenehan from the Council for Disabled Children
Special Educational Consortium lays out 20 asks, plus headlines
p 12
p 14
Editorial Welcome to the Inclusion Now SEND review supplement. This is an extra edition of the magazine, bringing you news about Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) government reforms. Background
In September 2019, the Government announced a review of the effectiveness of the current system of SEND support. As a result of the review a Green Paper, 'SEND review: right support, right place, right time', consulting on reforms, was published in March 2022. This includes the Government’s plans to create new national SEND standards, to create consistency in provision across England. The paper stated the Government plans to bring forward legislation to place the standards on a statutory footing for the early years and education sectors, covering ages 0-25. The consultation on the Green Paper is open until 22 July 2022, with a national SEND delivery plan expected later in the year. Inclusion Now is also available online. Search past issues
Contents 1 2 3 4 5
3-5
Government’s SEND Review Green Paper consultation: ALLFIE’s perspective Simone Aspis, Alliance for Inclusive Education
6-7
The SEND Review: Wrong Support, Wrong Place, Wrong Time Richard Rieser, World of Inclusion
8-11
The SEND Review Green Paper: “Never giving up and never letting go, despite a system in crisis Louise Arnold and Debbie Kilbride, University of East London
12-13
The Green Paper and Inclusion: A view from Dame Christine Lenehan Dame Christine Lenehan, Council for Disabled Children
14-15
Green Paper: Outline of possible headline response Special Educational Consortium (SEC)
SEND Review supplement
Government’s SEND Review Green Paper consultation: ALLFIE's Perspective
By Simone Aspis, Campaigns and Policy Coordinator Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE)
What is the consultation ‘right support, right place, right time’ about? The Government consultation covers the following areas: ⊲ A single national SEND and Alternative Provision system ⊲ Streamlining the education, health and care assessments and plans arrangements ⊲ Excellent Provision from early years to adulthood ⊲ Reformed and Integrated role for Alternative Provision ⊲ System roles, accountability and funding reforms ⊲ Delivering changes for children and families
Please complete and share ALLFIE's SEND Review survey
3
SEND Review supplement
What’s included in the Government proposals? At the heart of government proposals, the creation of national SEND standards covers all aspects of the SEND framework from early years to further education, including for alternative provision settings. This sits alongside strengthening the accountability and monitoring role of local authorities and multi-academy trusts. The national SEND and alternative provision standards will broadly cover: 1. SEND provision and placement decision making processes, with the aim of ensuring that Disabled children with the same needs will be catered for within the same type of education setting regardless of residence. Whilst the Government has not indicated which needs can and should be catered for within mainstream education settings, special schools have nevertheless been suggested for children with complex needs. Local authorities will be required to publish a local inclusion plan, including a list of the available schools and post-16 education providers that can meet the specific needs of Disabled children and Young people. 2. Statutory education, health and care needs assessments, and planning processes, including dispute resolution and redress, will be streamlined. Statutory multi- agency panels will recommend EHC needs assessments, plans, and appropriate placements in line with the SEND national standards; the local authority must take the latter into account before making a final decision. Whilst parents will still be allowed to state a preference for another school, both local authorities and tribunals will still be required to consider placement decisions in line with SEND standards. 3. A SEND funding banding and tariff system will be introduced and used to allocate funding for the level and type of SEND provision being offered by individual schools. Clusters of specified types of schools catering for specific needs will fall into different funding bands. The tariff will be the capped price that an education provider can charge for service delivery paid for by the local authority. A special school with a high pupil to staff ratio and that provides a broad range of therapy services onsite is more likely to be in a higher funding band category than a mainstream school providing SEND support. The Green Paper proposals need to be considered within the context of the Government’s existing education policy and spending commitments. Over the past decade, the Government’s relentless focus on educational standards, pupils’ academic attainment, and school discipline alongside mainstream school and SEND budget cuts has forced many Disabled children into segregated education provision against their wishes. The only specified spending proposals have been committed to the expansion of segregated education including alternative provision.
4
SEND Review supplement
What is ALLFIE’s stance on the SEND Green Paper? ALLFIE Believes: 1. The SEND Green Paper proposals constitute a clear and continued violation of Disabled people’s human rights to mainstream education, as set out in UNCRPD Article 24 (on inclusive education). The intention behind the proposals is to reduce the spending on SEND provision for Disabled children and Young people in education settings. 2. National SEND standards, in which Government/local authorities decide which need types can be afforded and catered for within mainstream education settings, go against any sense of social justice.
WHAT’S NEXT? How to respond to the SEND Green Paper review ALLFIE is researching evidence to submit a considered response to the Government consultation, on behalf of Disabled people and their allies. We need your help to gather evidence on what does and doesn't work within the current SEND framework in upholding rights to inclusive education: ⊲ Complete ALLFIE’s SEND Review survey ⊲ Submit your experiences and case studies
3. The suggestion that Disabled children with complex needs should be placed in a special school is outright disability discrimination, prohibited under the Equality Act in the UK, and incompatible with United Nations Convention (UNCRPD), Article 24 (on inclusive education).
Case studies: What to include
4. High numbers of Disabled children and Young people from Black and marginalised communities, as well as those living in under-resourced areas, will experience further intersectional discrimination as a result of expanding segregated education. Mass segregation on disability grounds will increase trauma, harm and create further discrimination.
⊲ Local Authorities’ local funding and tariffs (official
We want to hear how your experiences of the following impact on inclusive education: ⊲ Local Authority’s SEND policy setting out which needs should be accommodated within mainstream and special schools. or unofficial), that influence SEND provision and placement for children with different needs. ⊲ Education, health and care assessment and planning arrangements, and their impact upon type of placement. ⊲ What is and is not working for Disabled children
Further reading: We have published a number of briefings providing more detail on ALLFIE’s campaign and how to get involved in our work:
and Young people in mainstream education settings.
• SEND Review Consultation | May 2022 • SEND Review homepage
⊲ How can the quality of inclusive education
⊲ What needs to be in place to avoid initial placements in segregated education provision (including alternative provision) practice be measured and monitored best?
5
SEND Review supplement
The SEND Review: Wrong Support, Wrong Place, Wrong Time By Richard Rieser, World of Inclusion Published almost 3 years since its first announcement, this distinctly underwhelming report, which is linked to the Schools White Paper, is highly ideological. In fact, a better title for it might be ‘Wrong Support, Wrong Place and Wrong Time’ The Government is wedded to ‘Good Multi Academy Trusts’ and ‘Excellent Teachers’ in a bid to level up GCSEs (4 to 5) and aim for KS2s achievement targets of 65% to 90% by 2030. This is the wrong solution and the wrong target! The Tory think tank brought in to advise them, The Education Endowment Foundation, which produces nonpeer reviewed, suspect research, will further displace University Education Departments. Certainly, there are some small improvements including possible national standards of provision and Early Years improvements. Yet there is no coherent Professional Development for all Staff. The Green Paper acknowledges that mainstream schools are more inclusive environments but does not mention what this requires, as defined by the UN CRPD Committee Gen. Comment No4 Para. 11 (on inclusive education).
6
“Inclusion involves a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures, and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences. Placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes without accompanying structural changes to, for example, organisation, curriculum and teaching and learning strategies, does not constitute inclusion. Furthermore, integration does not automatically guarantee the transition from segregation to inclusion”. The right to inclusive education starts with identifying and resolving barriers to Disabled students. The Green Paper shows no understanding of this basic principle despite exhorting schools and teachers to be more inclusive.
SEND Review supplement The knowledge based, proscriptive and narrowed curriculum provides no assessment system with added value. It also marketizes standard testing and increases widening gaps in achievement, exclusion and mental health issues for staff and pupils.
The union commits to building a broadbased campaign on these issues and to achieving a system which promotes inclusion with adequate funding and careerlong staff training. This would produce a person-centred approach, allowing every Young person’s achievements to count.
There is evidence that Academies fail Based on various amendments, the students labelled with SEND by excluding conference instructs the Executive to: more, identifying less and reducing the proportion of their students with SEND 1. Circulate the NEU analysis of both the compared to community schools. Local Authorities who have statutory responsibility for all Disabled pupils/ students and students with SEN must be held accountable. This is the only fair way to get the right support to every Disabled student.
White Paper and Green Paper to MPs, councillors, headteachers, governors and others to build a campaign. 2. Work with parents, unions and others to demand democratic involvement in schools. 3. Work with SEND members to share existing good practice and information to create an exemplar EHCP template. 4. Work with sister unions, parents/carers and other stakeholders to campaign for needs-led funding in all settings and to campaign against the introduction of banding. 5. Work with Initial Teacher Training providers to ensure that trainees are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to support students with SEND.
The amendment below, written by the author, was carried as part of an urgency motion on the White Paper at the National Education Unions 2022 Easter Conference. It forms a good basis to organise. “The conference further notes that the SEND Green Paper does not relate to Right support or Right place. It has little relation to supporting schools or meeting 6. Campaign to: the needs of Young people with SEND.” The Union feels that an inclusive education system must make changes to the wider framework that schools operate in. This includes; the rigid and narrow mainstream curriculum, behaviour policies and ignoring diversity and difference. School accountability measures, particularly Progress 8, are not set up to recognise the progress of children with SEND and they end up penalising inclusive schools.
a. b. c. d. e.
Reject Standard Funding Bands. Make mandatory Local Authority specialist teacher teams Anticipate reasonable adjustments for Disabled students Ring fence funding for those on SEN school support Co-operate locally with parents/carers and schools to determine funding
7
SEND Review supplement
The SEND Review Green Paper: “Never giving up and never letting go, despite a system in crisis” Louise Arnold and Debbie Kilbride, Senior Lecturers at the University of East London, explain the impact of government SEND reforms on children and Young people. This article responds to the SEND and alternative provision Green Paper 2022 and seeks explore how replacing the National Award for SEN Co-ordination (NASENCo) with the National Professional Qualification (NPQ) would impact Disabled children and Young people and their place within mainstream school. Expanding this notion further, the subsequent Green Paper 'SEND Review: Right Support, Right Place, Right Time' (Department for Education, 2022), specifically Chapter 3, outlines the critical nature of the role of the SENCo, and proposes the introduction of a new Leadership SENCo NPQ, replacing the current NASENCo (Department for Education, 2022 p.44).
our collaborative group of partners ensuring continuity of training and quality. If the current Level 7 mandate for SENCO training is removed, there is a risk of losing the unique capacity of the Provider Partnership, including insight into research and collaborative sharing of NASENCO student practice.
In addition, the White and Green Papers have identified failures within First and foremost, the NASENCo has the current education system and the been successfully running with the way it supports Disabled children and current outcomes since 2014, with Young people, and it is necessary for
8
SEND Review supplement
this to present the fact that evaluations from current SENCo providers identify success/ strength in current NASENCo training. The implication is that SENCo training is not working. However, SENCos are trained to be strategic leaders of SEND. In most cases it is the school and the way the education system is structured and funded that is stopping them from effectively supporting children, Young people and their families. Over the seven years that I’ve been the Course Leader for the NASENCo at UEL, time and again, and more noticeably in recent years, is the ongoing issue that we discuss in every session: SENCos do not have protected time to carry out their SENCo role as effectively as they would like. They can be juggling a variety of roles including the demands of being not only a class teacher but also assistant or deputy head, designated safeguarding lead, subject lead, as well as SENCo; sometimes more! Building on this, Curran et al’s (2018) key findings outlined very clearly the ways in which the SENCo role should be developed with a recommendation to prioritise statutory, protected time for the SENCo to effectively carry out their duties. In addition, it was recommended that the role of the SENCo should be regarded as strategic and senior with specific guidance as to how the role is executed.
Their findings and recommendations are echoed across the research field in this area and yet we still find ourselves with an education system that is not functioning adequately; with variation in outcomes for Disabled children and Young people across the UK and increasing numbers of Education, Health and Care Plans being granted (OFSTED, 2021). The increase in EHCPs points to an increase in schools not able to meet the needs of the children who attend them, but instead of questioning the right of children to attend mainstream schools, focus should be shifted to how all children and Young people can be supported to realise their right to inclusive education. When professionals do not have protected time to carry out their role despite increasing demand for their input, it is the children and Young people who experience the effects; OFSTED found between 2016 and 2020 a lack of co-production and joint commissioning, and poor quality EHCPs, in addition to issues with identifying and assessing need (OFSTED, 2021). Therefore, the Green Paper’s recommendation, that SENCos are given protected time as well as dedicated support in order to reduce administrative burdens, is welcomed and yet it is difficult to see how this would come into being.
9
SEND Review supplement
“
I want to celebrate the
SENCos that I’ve taught and that I’m yet to teach, as they are on the frontline of navigating these broken systems and time and again, they champion the pupils in their settings, never giving up and never letting go, despite a system in crisis. Further to this discussion, Middleton and Kay (2021) identified recently that SENCos who are indeed members of the senior leadership team were more successful in enacting their roles. However, this is not currently mandated in legislation and remains inconsistent with the reasoning behind the new Leadership SENCo NPQ which states that ‘the NPQ would help improve SENCos’ leadership expertise, making them well-placed to sit on a senior leadership team and inform the strategic direction of a setting.’ (Department for Education, 2022b, p.44). Perhaps as a result of the current consultation period we will finally move closer to this realisation and SENCos will find themselves on the leadership pay scale, as a member of the senior leadership team, with the ability to influence decisions and direction in the setting.
10
Relating this to the NASENCo, where the Green Paper (Department for Education, 2022a, p.44) identifies that the new NPQ qualification will strengthen leadership training of SENCos, it’s essential to understand that leadership is already a crucial part of current training. The revised Learning Outcomes, commissioned by the DfE and received in 2020 have placed a strong emphasis on leadership and offer a clear route for improving the nature of the NASENCO. However, where it is stated that ‘there is variability in terms of SENCo’s experience of the NASENCo and whether it provides the knowledge and skills needed for the role’ (Department for Education, 2022b, p.44) is the point at which there is contention. But where is this evidence? Being the course leader for the NASENCo at UEL, an increasing number of NASENCO students are aspirant SENCOs and other teaching staff, thus transferring SEND knowledge and skills throughout school. The current providers work together as a collective basing all courses on the National Learning Outcomes. The Quality Standard for NASENCO providers ensures the quality of each individual training and the collaborative way of working ensures national consistency in the award.
SEND Review supplement
CONCLUSION So where are we now? Even with the inclusive SENCo, with the inclusive attitude they alone cannot lead on inclusive practice if the system within which they work hinders their progress every step of the way. Make them a senior leader, give them strategic influence, and watch them soar! They cannot exist in isolation, it is not a role that can be enacted in this way. They need to be part of a fully functioning leadership team which holds inclusive practice as a core principle and distributes accountability for inclusion across all members of the school community. I want to celebrate the SENCos that I’ve taught and that I’m yet to teach, as they are on the frontline of navigating these broken systems and time and again, they champion the pupils in their settings, never giving up and never letting go, despite a system in crisis. A change in course title will not necessarily amount to a change in practice; the issue is broader in nature and needs to encompass and embrace the idea that was so central to the current SEND Code of Practice 2015; that all teachers are teachers of SEND. Until we truly take this on board and embed inclusive knowledge and skills in our teacher training and lifelong Continuing Professional Development (CPD), which SENCos can enact if they are given the time and space to do so, we will make little progress in an area so ready for change. Conclusively, it is central to the discussion to recognise that this reform is not presenting a comprehensive definition of inclusive education, nor does it recognise the centrality of Disabled people’s experiences. Furthermore, there is no mention of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) which in turn directly ignores Disabled children and Young people’s education as a human right. The proposals continue to focus on supporting segregated education and this will impact the ways in which practitioners work together. In order to reduce silo practices, inclusive education must be promoted so that barriers of collaboration can be diminished.
11
SEND Review supplement
The Green Paper and Inclusion A view from Dame Christine Lenehan Director of the Council for Disabled Children The SEND and Alternative Provision Green Paper is very clear about the poor outcomes and experiences of Disabled children and those with special educational needs: Inconsistent levels of support; Delay; Unmet need. It also lays out the problems with the current system that is caught in vicious of cycle of late intervention and increasing demand: • Slow and adversarial process for accessing support. • Huge increases in the number of statutory Education Health and Care plans issued each year The vicious cycle is well known to children and families as over stretched, as under resourced, and with unresponsive services which sees families moved up through levels of crisis - often into a ‘solution’ for their child that they would not have sought themselves. Most families want all of their children, regardless of SEND labels, to go to the local school, build local friendships and be part of the local community. The system’s approach, which escalates to crisis management, often undermines that early on. Once this is broken it is very hard to restore.
12
SEND Review supplement On first reading, the Green Paper rightly identifies that the solution to these challenges lies in a more inclusive mainstream education system. The Green Paper’s proposal to develop standards on what support should be made available universally in mainstream settings is bold and could drive a far more consistent approach across the country. However, to truly deliver an inclusive system we must make changes to the wider framework that schools operate in. This includes the rigid and narrow mainstream curriculum, behavioural policies that take little account of difference, and accountability measures that penalise inclusive schools. Neither the SEND Green Paper or Schools White Paper appear to have actively sought to address these mainstream policies. The Green Paper has bold ambitions, but we need to understand how it will be delivered: • What will mainstream schools need to change in cultural mindsets, which currently lead to the over exclusion of Disabled children and those with SEND? • How can we make sure that all teachers, indeed all staff, are trained and supported to work with children with SEND and see them as a valuable part of the school community? The Green Paper is surprisingly light on the ‘hows’: 1. How will we make SEN Support a process that is embedded and ensures children get their needs identified and met at the earliest opportunity? 2. How will we incentivise schools to engage? 3. How will we ensure MATs focus on supporting children in the mainstream rather than moving children to special and AP? The Alternative Provision measures in the Green Paper are welcome. The Government should make sure that children in AP get a consistent, quality education, and are regarded as children who are expected to succeed and thrive rather than fail. But we also need to make sure that improving AP does not provide the basis for moving more children with SEND labels into this provision and away from mainstream. There is much to think about in reforming SEND policy and legislation, and we need to ensure that the Green Paper consultation process is fully utilised. There are glimmers of hope for inclusion. We need to make sure they are magnified.
13
SEND Review supplement
Special Educational Consortium Green Paper: Outline of possible headline response The Special Educational Consortium have laid out 20 asks for the Send Review and Department for Education (DfE) The Special Educational Consortium (SEC) welcomes the overall ambition of the Green Paper to identify needs early, provide consistent support and improve outcomes for all children and Young people with SEN and Disabilities. Although the ambition is welcome, SEC is not persuaded that the proposals will deliver the intended improvement or, for some of the proposals, that there is sufficient detail to know whether they could. In the context of successive rounds of legislation since 1981 (or arguably 1970), which have failed to deliver the intended outcomes, nothing could be more important than getting these proposals right. SEC is committed to working with the DfE to contribute to the development of the proposals throughout the consultation process.
SEC’s initial response to the Green Paper is to welcome: ⊲ ⊲ ⊲ ⊲
Proposals for a national template for EHC plans The focus on co-production The broad intention that schools and settings will become more inclusive Proposals that each area will have a local inclusion plan
However: ⊲ We do not see any analysis that informs the DfE about what is needed to enable schools and settings to become more inclusive. We are therefore unable to see how this will be achieved ⊲ We can see nothing about the importance of specialist local support services that supplement and complement what schools can do on their own, nor can we see how services will be funded, though we hope this will be part of local inclusion plans ⊲ Little detail is provided in many of the proposals and so it is difficult to form an opinion about their possible contribution to improving the progress and outcomes for children and Young people with SEN and Disabilities
14
SEND Review supplement
There is significant concern in SEC about: ⊲ The significant inequalities in the education system, particularly with regard to the over-representation of children and Young people with SEN and Disabilities in exclusions and absence figures, and their increasing placement in special schools, AP and home education. There is no reference to the duties in the Equality Act relating to this and no objectives to address these inequalities ⊲ We do not see how a matrix of tariffs will make schools and settings more inclusive; a focus on needs and costings distracts from the discussion about provision which is where solutions lie ⊲ SEC does not believe the proposed restriction of parental choice of placement has any role in making sure children’s needs are met at an earlier stage, nor that restricting access to the Tribunal helps when things have gone wrong ⊲ There are welcome proposals on training and qualifications but none of the proposals go far enough ‘upstream’. This is because proposals on training are about SENCOs, not about subject teachers. More Level 3 qualifications in the early years are about SEN and not about child development for all practitioners. There needs to be a greater focus on meeting a wider range of needs within the mainstream of mainstream provision ⊲ There is widespread concern about accountability in the system, yet the ‘top down’ approach proposed is unlikely to make an impact on individual and local decision making ⊲ Social care support through Early Help, Family Support and short breaks is vital to keeping children in their local school, with their family and in their local community. There is concern that there are no proposals on social care in the Green Paper. These cannot wait for the Care Review and need to develop alongside the other proposals in the Green Paper
15
This magazine is published by: The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) A national campaigning organisation led by disabled people. ALLFIE works to change laws, practices and procedures which discriminate against Disabled Young people and prevent inclusion. ALLFIE works together with allies to build a social climate in which everyone has a valued place.
336 Brixton Road, London SW9 7AA Tel: 020 7737 6030 Email: info@allfie.org.uk Website: www.allfie.org.uk
In collaboration with: Inclusive Solutions
A team of psychologists and associates who specialise in cutting edge practical strategies and ideas for developing effective inclusion in local mainstream schools and communities. We work with anyone who wants to bring about the real systems changes that are necessary to move towards a truly inclusive society.
Tel: 0115 9556045 or 01473 437590 Email: inclusive.solutions@me.com Website: inclusive-solutions.com
World of Inclusion A consultancy that provides advice, resources and training in the UK and around the world to develop equality for disabled people especially in education. Richard Rieser is an expert disabled international equality trainer, consultant, film maker and writer and teacher.
Basement, 78 Mildmay Grove South, London N1 4PJ Tel: 020 7359 2855 or 07715 420727 Email: rlrieser@gmail.com Website: worldofinclusion.com
DISABLED PEOPLE, PARENTS AND ALLIES, WORKING TOGETHER to educate, facilitate and empower everyone who wants to be part of the growing inclusion movement. Together we want to bring down the barriers so all young people can learn, make friends and have a voice in ordinary school and throughout life. For each and every young person, this is an essential human right.
ALL MEANS ALL