Reforms coming in for September represent a shift in political thinking about special educational needs (SEN), and while many of the changes are welcome, there could be unforeseen, negative consequences for young people, schools and colleges. Anna Cole sets out what leaders need to know.

Changing Outlook

The Children and Families Act 2014 and its accompanying guidance, the SEN Code of Practice, come into force from this month (September 2014). Leaders are advised to start applying the changes this autumn, although the deadlines for implementation are not immediate. Schools and colleges have until September 2015 to make the changes relating to students currently covered by School Action (SA) and School Action Plus (SA+) and until April 2018 to implement the new education, health and care plans (EHCPs) in full. These transition arrangements are the result of intense lobbying by ASCL and others and essential in light of the vast amount of other reforms happening this autumn.

At 281 pages the code is neither pithy nor easy to navigate, mixing statutory ‘musts’ with good practice ‘shoulds’ and interweaving guidance for post-16 providers throughout.

Even the Department for Education (DfE) admits that more concise information is needed from government for school and college leaders and that the extent of other reforms means that many heads and principals may have given a lower priority to the SEN reforms and passed responsibility for preparations to their special educational needs coordinators (SENCos).

So what is actually different? For many, the answer is possibly not very much. The definition of SEN remains the same and the guidance follows what is already good practice in inclusive schools and colleges across the country. However, there are some important shifts in emphasis and approach that leaders need to take on board.

Additional SEN

School Action and School Action Plus are going and in their place is a single category simply called ‘additional SEN’. SEN statements will be replaced by EHC plans, and the emphasis in the reforms is skewed to the 2 per cent who will qualify for these plans.

The question is what happens to those children who are not eligible for the EHCP, but were on School Action or School Action Plus. The code says, ‘[N]o one should lose their statement . . . simply because the system is changing.’ However, we understand from DfE officials that the reforms are designed so that mainstream teaching meets the needs of more children and young people with the likely consequence that, in future, fewer are identified as having SEN.

This political decision reflects a view that ‘too many’ children and young people are currently identified with SEN. While there may be merit in this view, the members of the ASCL Inclusion Committee worry that an unintended consequence may be that some of our most vulnerable children and young people end up with fewer resources and less support.

For those who don’t qualify for an EHCP, the code says the first response must be high-quality, differentiated teaching and there is a strong emphasis away from securing additional support hours. The code outlines a graduated approach with four actions: ‘assess, plan, do, review’, to ensure that decisions are constantly revisited and refined.

Focus on progress

There is a strong focus on progress. Teachers are accountable for outcomes of pupils with SEN, and they must have a clear set of expected outcomes, which include academic and developmental targets, for learners with SEN. The code advises schools and colleges to make the quality of teaching and progress for students with SEN core to their performance management and professional development of all staff and to build SEN identification and review into the overall approach to monitoring progress. It advocates schools and colleges using SENCos strategically in ways that support the quality of teaching and whole-school improvement.

Teachers are used to being held accountable for progress but this does raise specific concerns when applied to all pupils with SEN. How will targets be set? What is expected progress for these learners? How will Ofsted judge it? How does this sit with the reforms to GCSE and accountability measures such as the new Progress 8 measure and the English Baccalaureate (EBacc)?

There is a danger that this could work against greater inclusivity by deterring schools from taking greater numbers of students with SEN.

Mental health, not behaviour

While the definition of SEN is unaltered, ‘behavioural, emotional and social difficulties’ (BESD) is replaced by ‘social, emotional and mental health difficulties’, and the code advises schools and colleges to look for the underlying cause of behaviour. This could have serious unintended consequences, the risks being either teachers feeling forced to seek more medical diagnoses for children and young people displaying difficult behaviour or more of these children being excluded because schools cannot access the appropriate support. Either consequence could have potentially huge long-term costs to our future education system, as well as the benefits, and to the criminal justice systems and society as a whole.

Other main changes:

• SEN is extended to age 25 and further education (FE) colleges are required to follow the code for the f rst time. 0-25 education, health and care plans (EHCPs) replace statements and learning difficulty assessments.
• There is a greater planning and decision-making role for parents and young people with regular meetings with teachers (three times a year is recommended) to set goals, identify responsibilities, review progress and outcomes.
• Personal budgets will enable parents to buy in support specifi ed in an EHCP but little is known about how this will work in practice, and there is potential for a host of unintended consequences.
• There is a new duty on local authorities (LAs) to coordinate a ‘local offer’ of SEN services.
• There are new duties on health and social care to work alongside schools and colleges to plan and commission support.
• Special a academies will be able to select pupils without EHCPs, a new measure introduced in the Act. While the code provides some safeguards, there is a risk that this could create a two-tier system in some areas.

Money and the broader context

The new code represents an opportunity to create a cultural change that builds on and develops much of the excellent SEN practice taking place in schools and colleges across the country. However, schools and colleges will need to ensure that they have the capacity, in terms of training, resources and time, for a cultural shift of this kind to happen and then become embedded.

Despite ASCL’s best efforts, we are still a long way from a national funding formula that ensures equality of opportunity for students in all types of institution everywhere in the country. Many leaders I have spoken to remain concerned that some of the children and young people currently covered by School Action and School Action Plus may fall through the net if schools and colleges are expected to meet their needs without dedicated funding.

It is shocking that extending SEN provision to 25, while undoubtedly right, attracts no extra money, despite grave funding reductions post-16. The new duties on health and social care, meanwhile, are welcome but they are likely to be both expensive and time-consuming and no extra money is available to cover them. Taken together the worry is of a serious overall reduction in net SEN funding in mainstream schools and colleges. It seems we are, once again, being asked to do more with less.

Everyone I have spoken to has applauded the aspiration to bring about a cultural shift to improve the education and life chances of children and young people with SEN, and there is indeed much excellent practice already that the reforms seek to build on. Yet there are still many unanswered questions about the realities of SEN provision in future.

Sadly, this fantastic opportunity to develop and share the very best practice in SEN is in danger of being thwarted due to a lack of training and dedicated funding in a climate of already diminishing resources and so much other reform.

We are still a long way from a national funding formula that ensures equality of opportunity for students in all types of institution everywhere in the country.

---

Anna Cole is ASCL’s Parliamentary Specialist.

---

ASCL has produced a summary of the new SEN changes. See the document online at: www.ascl.org.uk/SEN

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us