Prior’s Court Foundation response to the Government’s SEND consultation

Prior’s Court Foundation has submitted its response to the Government’s consultation on proposed reforms to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system. 

As a specialist, not-for-profit organisation supporting autistic young people with what are generally seen as the most complex support needs, our response is grounded in our direct experience of this cohort of young people. 

A distinct system for those with 'low-incidence, highly complex' needs 

We strongly support the introduction of a distinct approach towards the provision of education and care for young people in this group 

The highly-specialised, multiple services required to meet the daily needs of this cohort, and their relatively small numbers, require an approach built around the individual. 

The current model, in which commissioning sits largely with individual local authorities, is not working effectively for children, families, education providers or local authorities themselves.

A more strategic approach is needed, examining nationally what placements are needed, where, when, and who for. 

Funding for this group should be held separately from wider SEND budgets. Without this distinction, there is a continued risk that all provision is constrained by competing pressures, rather than guided by need. 

This could involve regional or national models that plan provision based on assessed population need across a wider area, ensuring the right number and type of specialist placements are available, reaching into early years provision 

We would welcome the opportunity to be a part of this conversation. Our experience supporting autistic young people with the highest levels of multiple need can help inform how a more responsive and sustainable system is designed. 

But this is where one of the concerns we have with the proposals comes to the fore: bespoke placements which reflect the full range of needs should be in place for all young people, because people do not fit into predefined categories.  Standardised service specifications, based on arbitrary decisions about levels of need or complexity, create a risk of holding down levels of support, and of people being given the wrong support because it is all that is available, which is both ineffective and inefficient. If the effect of reform is to ration support for disabled young people, we would regard that as both unjust and counterproductive. Decisions should be led by genuine, objective assessment and review, not by arbitrary categories. 

Concerns about wider proposals 

The reform proposals can be viewed through the lens of either improving the SEND system or reducing costs. But we have concerns the proposals would do neither and some may not even be implementable. 

The proposals appear to assume that making mainstream schools more inclusive will significantly reduce the number of specialist placements required. We are doubtful of such a direct link between these two things, particularly in anything less than a generational timescale. Inclusion within mainstream schools is important as it will support better outcomes for all children. But there will always be groups of young people with a range of SEND needs who will be best served by a specialist package of support at special schools which are designed to meet those needs. And that is before delving into the specific approach to making mainstream schools more inclusive – staffing, funding, methodology etc. 

The proposed use of price bands also raises concern. Rather than controlling costs, we feel this approach risks driving them up.  By linking assessment to money rather than services, the system will have an in-built incentive for schools and individuals to reach the highest band possible, and to seek out the full resource available in each band.  

We are also concerned about the changes proposed to the role of tribunals. Currently, the tribunal system is effectively a body that allocates specialist placements. As unsatisfactory as that is, if this mechanism is reduced or removed without a better alternative, it is unclear how decisions about higher-level provision will be made consistently and fairly from one local authority (or commissioning group) to the next. 

Listening to families 

It is clear many young people and their families do not support significant elements of the government’s proposals. 

Education works best when it is shaped through partnership between families, education providers and government. The proposals appear to give significant weight to the needs of national government, and some weight to the needs of local authorities, but insufficient weight to the experience-led voice of families 

Conclusion 

It should be recognised that the government has grasped the need for reform of the SEND provision in the UK. That creates an opportunity to build a SEND system that is more consistent, and better aligned with need. 

But there are real concerns that despite some positive proposals, the overall framework will not achieve this, and that it may become beset with additional complexity and unanticipated consequences that actually make the problems worse, including overall spend. 

We want to contribute our expertise to this conversation and to supporting the development of a system that works in practice.

See more Prior's Court blogs