Let me start with a proviso: what follows are my personal reflections.  I have discussed the White Paper with my Prior’s Court colleagues of course, but this isn’t an organisational position.  That’s partly because my view may well change as this progresses, but also because what I’m about to say almost feels controversial:

I don’t oppose the principles of the Schools White Paper and SEND proposals set out by Bridget Phillipson and the DfE.

There is A LOT I am EXTREMELY concerned about, but that relates to as-yet unknown detail.  I think we all have a right to be sceptical after the ‘SEND is unaffordable/scheming families’ insults in the long lead-up to this point, but that’s not a reason to be against the principles themselves.

What there is here is a vision, over a time period of years.  Families and carers still have the right to access the Tribunal to challenge decisions made by a Local Authority, although to what precise extent is unclear, and there is undoubtedly a potential erosion of rights.  Congratulations to family campaigners for winning the point that legal rights are non-negotiable if this new system is to have any chance, but I fear that fight is not yet over.

There is a cliché that people are using about this policy, that ‘the devil is in the detail’.  I think I’ve learned that this is a good sign: in bad policy the devil is sitting on the front page laughing and setting fire to things.  But these documents aren’t supposed to have the detail anyway.

So I’m going to say that the devil is in the feasibility: are these proposals, and what they state they will do, feasible?  I’m really not sure that they are, they are certainly complicated and sound bureaucratic, but I can’t answer that question now.  People will be poring over the numbers and projections, and in the next weeks this will better come to light.  For now, I can share my reflections on what rings true, and what might not.

Another important point before this begins: I am not commenting in this blog on the proposals to restrict EHCPs only to those with ‘the most complex needs’, which is where much attention, and anxiety, will rightly be focused.  I am confining myself here to those elements which are likely to impact the young people and families at Prior’s Court, who are at the ‘low incidence’ end of specialist provision, and whose voices are often not heard in wider debates. 

Specialist provision packages

As I read it, these are a framework within which EHCPs will be drawn up for those with ‘the most complex needs’.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with defining how needs should be met, and there is a current inconsistency in how EHCPs are written, which this might help with.

However, the packages must include all the support a young person needs, and they must be adaptable to all individual needs, which tend to become more individual the higher those levels of need are.  Given that Individual Support Plans and EHCPs are more tailored documents underneath these packages, I am assuming the packages will be quite broad. If they have all the right elements to choose from and blend, then fine.  If they don’t, or are driven by cost, this will be horrific.

There is a feasibility question about the ‘independent experts’ who will decide all of this and how they are appointed.  If they know what they are talking about, then surely they are involved in the system and not independent?  There is a risk of these experts being political appointments – I think we can all recall controversial education figures who have been lauded by governments as having all the answers.

Low incidence needs

There is an intriguing statement about exploring moving to regional commissioning for “low-incidence, high-complexity” needs.  In principle, I wholly agree. 

These are precious, underprovided placements with significant calls on social care and health budgets, as well as SEND budget.  They place disproportionate demands on Local Authorities which have limited scope to take a strategic view of provision. 

I like the rationale of ‘low-incidence’ rather than complex needs.  The young people I work with aren’t more complicated than anyone else - it’s rather that society, including schools, aren’t set up to meet their needs, so we find providing that support to be complex.

How services are to be provided

There are some ambitious proposals in the Paper – including more teachers, speech and language therapists, and educational psychologists.  Whether the measures are enough to provide that I will withhold judgement on for now, but I agree we need it.  I also agree that pooling resources, including expertise, across schools and the wider system sounds great. 

Those of us working in that system know just how not-straightforward that is, but we are absolutely up for it.  We will also provide training, short-term placements and other outreach across the wider system through strengthened SEND partnerships, if we have the capacity to do so and wherever we can add value.

For me there is a still a lack of a really strong outcomes framework for young people aspiring to non-typical academic milestones.  The case for change in the White Paper is built on GSCE results for children, and numbers in NEET for post-16, which don’t always apply in the same way to everyone.  I am hoping that the ‘Five areas for development’, the SEND Code of Practice and the Inclusion Standards, take a firmer, evidence-based approach to filling this gap.

Independent special schools

I am fully supportive of Local Authorities (taxpayers) only paying “reasonable fees” to independent schools.  Prior’s Court is an independent school and I believe our fees are reasonable and justifiable, and as a registered charity we do not make profit. 

I note that schools registered as Non-Maintained Special Schools will not be in scope of any legislative cost control measures, because, rightly, their cost is justified by the high-level of service provided, and as charities they cannot make profit.  This is also, exactly, the case for Prior’s Court: our form of registration as a charitable independent special school rather than NMSS is simply an historical circumstance.

We cannot reduce our fees in isolation, we can only reduce our provision or our quality, so I therefore assume that schools like ours which meet the same criteria as non-maintained special schools will not find themselves on the wrong end of whatever is being proposed.  If they are, this could be a threat to the effectiveness and capacity of already over-subscribed ‘low incidence/high complexity’ provision.

Wider cost considerations

If I am outraged about anything it is this statement, relating to a proposed legislative change on how cost decisions should be made:

"This might include requiring the LA to consider overall value for money and the impact of making a single higher cost placement, for example in an Independent Special School (ISS), on the ability to meet the needs of all children and young people in the area."

Read in isolation, this sounds like disadvantaging a young person with special needs in favour of those without special needs, on the basis of cost to the state.  This would be likely to be open to challenge against the Disability Discrimination Act and Equality Act.  The needs of young people cannot be weighed against each other in this way and I am hoping this is just clumsy wording.

In conclusion

This is something we can get on with, and the vision is something we could believe in.

There are some significant dangers lurking in here about the devaluing of support for special needs, increased powers to make cost-based decisions at the expense of disabled people and those with special needs, and a risk of destroying perfectly cost-effective, non-profit-making schools through a heavy-handed wish to legislate against independent schools.

There is however, some hope in here, of a better world where children get the support they need when they need it from early years onwards, and where they and their families aren’t accused of leeching the system.

Taking a billion provisos along with me, I can go with that, for now.

Ryan Campbell CBE