红桃影视

Crucial council plans detailing SEND services reform could be submitted to government without public scrutiny, with school leaders warning of a 鈥渓ack of meaningful engagement鈥�.

Town halls have been given just over three months to submit a 鈥渓ocal SEND reform plan鈥�, which ministers will approve to unlock money to write off 90 per cent of high needs deficits.

The documents are also a vehicle for the government鈥檚 SEND reforms and will include key details such as how areas will deliver the 拢1.8 billion experts at hand programme.

But the Department for Education doesn鈥檛 require councils to consult publicly on these key documents ahead of the 19 June deadline. The only stipulation is that must be signed off by a SEND board and senior local officials.

Schools Week analysis of a sample of council meetings found inconsistent approaches to sharing plans with elected officials and the public.

Sector leaders have also warned聽that when there has been engagement with schools, it hasn鈥檛 been 鈥渕eaningful鈥� because of the tight timescales.

Unclear picture

The DfE asked “local area SEND partnerships” – which include education, health and care services as well as parent representatives – to formulate the plans.

But government expected councils to be the “system” convener, “taking the lead” to bring together all partners to work together and develop the plan.

They could submit a draft earlier this month ahead of the final deadline in June.

Schools Week analysed meeting agendas from January to June of the 38 councils signed up to controversial “safety valve” programme, the previous DfE deficit bailout scheme.

This scheme was prematurely cancelled by ministers this year and replaced by the high needs stability grant to wipe out 90 per cent of historic dedicated schools grant deficits accrued up to April.

To understand the transparency around the plans, we searched schools forum, relevant scrutiny and cabinet meetings ahead of the deadline.

Analysis found an unclear picture across sampled councils. While some said they would seek cabinet approval of the plans, others did not have any relevant public meetings scheduled before the deadline.

Some councils had scheduled meetings, but agendas were not yet available. These meetings were also just days away from the deadline, suggesting little time for adequate scrutiny.

Meanwhile councils including Dorset, Darlington, Haringey and Hammersmith and Fulham had scarce mention of the plans in meetings where agendas have been published.

One council official, who wished to stay anonymous, told Schools Week that it may be that many councils had not finished writing their plans within the tight timescales, so can鈥檛 even share a draft version.

They pointed to the fact that key guidance on the new experts at hand service and inclusion bases still hasn’t been published, despite being expected in spring.

鈥楴ot possible to get cabinet approval in time’

In North Tyneside, the council said it was not possible to get cabinet approval with the timescales imposed by government, and that there were no plans to publish the draft.

But cabinet members were being engaged in the making of the plan, a council spokesperson said.

A spokesperson for Kent said they will only publish the plan once DfE had considered it, likely in September.

“Our priority has been to get the plan right, working with partners and testing it with the DfE as we go.

“By the nature of the DfE prescribed process, no plan will be finalised before 19 June, so it would create unnecessary ambiguity if multiple draft versions of the plan were made public.”

But Slough will make the report available to the public one its been signed off by cabinet.

鈥楲ack of transparency鈥�

The ASCL school leaders’ union said members had reported a lack of engagement from councils when drafting their plans.

Margaret Mulholland, the union’s SEND and inclusion specialist, said while they “welcome the intention to strengthen collaboration”, it is “disappointing that the tight timeframe for production of these local plans has diminished the capacity for meaningful engagement”.

The National Network of Special Schools (NNoSS) warned in its of a 鈥渓ack of meaningful consultation鈥� by councils in drafting their reform plan.

鈥淲here engagement happened, it was often through schools鈥� forum updates or peripheral notification, rather than substantive design partnership.”

Pauline Aitchison, NNoSS network leader told Schools Week: 鈥淚t鈥檚 obviously beneficial to be able to work in partnership where possible to get that information in, even if some of it’s been minimal. But then a lot has been done without consulting the sector.

鈥淚t would have been good if there had been a better approach to this.鈥�

Chair of North Tyneside鈥檚 schools forum David Watson said he 鈥渦nderstands the pressure to get something coherent done鈥� in a 鈥減retty short鈥� timeframe.

But Rachel Filmer, founder of campaign group SEND Rights Alliance, said parents were 鈥渄eeply concerned about the lack of transparency鈥� surrounding the plans “particularly as councils were progressing them behind closed doors before the consultation had closed鈥� in May.

She warned of 鈥渃lear parallels with the safety valve scheme, where critical decisions affecting SEND provision were driven by financial conditions and agreed with little or no public transparency in many cases”.

Safety valve negotiations were seen as secretive, with little known about the process until the agreement was signed and published.

Filmer added:聽鈥淚t is vital that we see proper scrutiny and the opportunity for those with lived experience to raise concerns.”

Opportunities for schools

The government told areas it was “critical” all partners, including health, education and childcare settings, work together to design and deliver the plan.

There is evidence that councils have been holding these meetings with schools.

Kent spoke to headteachers in a meeting that has since been posted online, offering opportunities to give feedback via online forms, stakeholder meetings and to add 鈥渃omments and reviews鈥� on drafts.

In South Gloucestershire, the schools forum were told that plans were being co-produced across schools, early years, colleges, social care and health, with 鈥渕ultiple working groups and clusters鈥� being used to assess progress.

Bury and North Somerset Council said they were also consulting with these partners, as well as parent carer forums.

Kirklees said it was holding 鈥渁 series of events鈥� which have 鈥渆nabled all partners to share their views and shape future provision鈥�.

Some have published plans

However, York for cabinet scrutiny in early June.

It sets out a three-year proposal to deliver key parts of the schools white paper, including the experts at hand offer, inclusion bases and the new individual support plans (ISPs).

For its experts at hands service, it will recruit two occupational therapists, two speech and language therapists, four educational psychologists, four assistant educational psychologists and four specialist teaching staff.

Each secondary school will have a 鈥渕ini鈥� offer of support in 2026-27.

It will also do an audit of all existing inclusion bases in schools.聽In 2027-28, York expects 30 per cent of secondary schools to have an inclusion base, reaching 50 per cent in 2028-29.

But there will be a 鈥渟ystem shift鈥� for settings in the city, they warned. They will use four 鈥渢argeted clusters鈥� where professionals will 鈥渨rap around schools and identify emerging needs鈥� and 鈥済reater shared accountability鈥�.

By 2028-29, the plan says the council should have reduced pressure on home to school transport, dependence on individualised provision, improved attainment and achievement and reduced suspensions.

If councils plans are rejected by ministers in this round, there鈥檚 a second chance later in the year.