Despite a 92% increase in funding since 2014, a recent independent report has found that SEND has not only failed to increase educational results, but has overseen a slight decline.
“The SEND system is broken” an independent report commissioned by ISOS found yesterday.
The report, carried out by the County Council Network and the Local Government Association, looked at local government’s policy on Special Education since 2014. The 2014 system was designed to combat the ‘bias towards inclusion’ for children by allowing parents far greater control over what educational facilities their child received.
Yesterday’s report was a harsh critique of the current 2014 regime and called for a dramatic overhaul.
What Is SEND?
The SEND system (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) is a system that provides educational support to a child with a physical or learning impairment.
The current SEND system was created in 2014 as a way of improving the flaws in the previous system. Whilst praised at the time, the 2014 SEND system has been increasingly criticised over time.
In 2019, the Educational Select Committee found that funding gaps had resulted in poor mental health among students had significantly damaged attainment. A 2021, an internal report by Ofsted found “significant weaknesses” in the SEND system, with the last SEND review in 2022 finding that the system was “failing to deliver for children, young people and their families”. Despite identifying limited areas for reforms, reports have claimed to be “confident that the 2014 reforms were the right ones”.
Yesterday’s report was less confident. It states that “the SEND system in England is not working”. Whilst it acknowledges that some children get the attention that they need under the current system, that this is “in spite of the system, not because of it”.
What’s Wrong With the SEND System?
Since the late 2010s, the problem identified by successive reports is a simple lack of funding.
Whilst hard to believe given the almost doubling of the system’s funding in the last ten years, educational attainment has fallen.
The results of qualitative surveys were even more dire, with 97% of leaders in the SEND system disagreeing with the statement that the system was “working well and supporting children and young people with SEND to achieve good outcomes”.
On virtually all metrics, the services provided by the current system are being stretched thinner and thinner. Therapy, particularly SALT (language therapy) was something that was identified as the worst hit by funding shortfalls, with the programme requiring smaller pupil size by definition.
The compounding problem identified was what the report called “the volume challenge”, the fact that the number of people referred to SEND has dramatically increased over the last decade.
Although funding has increased significantly, the number of students referred to the SEND system has increased faster since the system’s creation. Whilst funding to the system has increased 92% since its creation a decade ago, the number of people referred to SEND has increased 140%.
The effects of ‘the volume challenge’ have been present for years. In 2018, the Local Government Association found a £530 million shortfall between funding and pupil numbers.
This funding gap has only widened according to yesterday’s report. This gap has had two devastating effects. Firstly, the stretching of an inadequate government has caused the quality of service for special needs students has fallen. Secondly, the increased cost of the system is becoming utterly unsustainable.
The second point is particularly significant given the wave of bankruptcies that have hit local authorities, with the report stating that SEND represents “SEND represents an existential threat to the financial sustainability of local government”.
Why Has The Number of Students In The System Increased?
The report identified a difference between the increased “demand” for SEND services and the increased “need” for SEND.
The ‘need’ for SEND has increased over years, but the ‘demand’ increase has involved a large number people referred to the system not necessarily suited for it.
The 2014 reforms improved the ability of parents to dictate the education of their children. In 2011, the government pledged to “end the bias towards inclusion” in Special Education. Since then, a number of SEND leaders have argued that parents have been pushed against integrated education by government rhetoric.
Simultaneously “vague” statutory definitions result in more students being eligible for SEND than really need it.
The result of the government’s push against educational inclusion has been a far greater number of students under the system than necessary.
How Can The Government Reform The System?
The report called reform “essential and unavoidable”. With the cost of the system ballooning and students with special needs facing increasingly stagnating care, the report argues that the question of reform is “when, not if”.
Whilst acknowledging that its proposed reforms “require further detailed implementation planning”, the report sets out a system that would reduce the long-term shortfall in funding.
The report called for a three year period of investment in long term infrastructure for the system. Once this is in place, a new statutory structure will be in place to better identify those who need support. According to the report, this will result in higher educational standards and lower long-term costs.
Final Thought
With the financial crisis facing local governments across the country is likely to increase over following years, government action on the policy will become an increasingly pressing issue in maintaining fiscally sustainable local government.
With the government describing national finances as a ‘mess’, it is unlikely that the government will be able to meet the growing funcing gap. The result will be the compounding of poor investment in special eeducation.
Whilst the specific reforms proposed by yesterday’s report may not be the solution the government chooses, it is undeniable that a solution is needed soon.
For more of Chamber UK’s Educational analysis please click here.
This article was written by Chamber UK’s features writer – Alex Connor.