After 1,274 frustrating days, the perennially delayed plan to fix a SEND system on the brink of collapse was published in March 2023.
The fact a plan was needed at all was a sign of remarkable failure. The SEND review was launched by the Conservatives just five years after their 鈥渓andmark鈥 2014 reforms.
Ministers at the time said the 鈥渂iggest education reforms in a generation鈥 for children with special needs would 鈥減ut children and parents at the heart of the system鈥.
Instead, they have left pupils waiting years for help, financially ruined parents fighting in court for support they are legally entitled to, and effectively bankrupted councils.
What went wrong, and can it be fixed? Schools Week looks at the SEND reforms鈥
How did it go so wrong?
The key change in the 2014 Children and Families Act was replacing statements of SEND with education, health and care plans. But this also included expanding the age range to 25 for youngsters who could now get support.
However, councils didn鈥檛 get enough extra cash to pay for it. So youngsters and their families 鈥 who now had a bigger say in choosing support 鈥 were promised more than local authorities could provide.
Councils have racked up deficits of 拢1.6 billion on their budgets for pupils with high needs. So now many just simply refuse to provide support 鈥 forcing those few parents who can afford it to spend cash fighting them in court.
The number of SEND tribunals has quadrupled to 13,600 since the reforms. In 2022-23, parents won 98 per cent of the time.
Stephen Kingdom
Georgina Downard, senior solicitor at legal charity IPSEA, says because tribunal hearing dates can be nearly a year away 鈥渃ouncils can put off complying with the law until they鈥檙e forced to鈥.
A former government adviser says the 2014 act was 鈥渙ne of the worst bits of reform of the last 15 years鈥.
鈥淭hey鈥檙e a disaster because they create crap incentives in the system whereby you as a parent have to fight really, really hard for your kids 鈥 but effectively there’s no ceiling on what you can achieve.鈥
The comment hints at a heavily-disputed claim about the reforms: that EHCPs have now become a 鈥済olden ticket鈥 for parents. The number of EHCPs issued has soared 139 per cent since 2015.
But Stephen Kingdom, deputy director of SEND at the Department for Education in 2014, says: 鈥淭he core rights of the 2014 [act] are the core rights of what was there before.
鈥淚f parents are willing to fight that hard for something it鈥檚 because their children鈥檚 needs aren鈥檛 being met, not because they could just get that little bit more if they keep fighting.鈥
Wider support 鈥榙isappearing鈥
Under the reforms, health and social care services were supposed to be 鈥渆qual partners鈥 in the EHCP process. But a damning 2019 education select committee report found that wasn鈥檛 the case.
MPs were told cuts to health and social care were 鈥渙ften unnoticed and unmentioned, and they were undermining the reforms鈥.
Margaret Mulholland, SEND specialist at the ASCL school leaders鈥 union, says the support is 鈥渄isappearing by stealth. No one鈥檚 fought hard enough to say 鈥榟ang on 鈥 we cannot lose these elements that enable the system to function properly鈥.鈥
She wants NHS and social care embedded in the standard provision in schools for children with SEND, rather than just when more specialist and targeted support is needed.
Wider cuts have also had an impact. The gap between council spending on early and late-intervention services in England topped 拢7.7 billion last year. This is up from 拢3.9 billion in 2015-16.
Kingdom adds: 鈥淲e鈥檝e taken away Sure Start. Social care is purely at the hard intervention end, rather than early support. We鈥檝e cut back health services so community services have dropped off. We鈥檝e cut schools鈥 funding to the bone so there鈥檚 not that wider support in schools.
鈥淎nd then we find we have greater needs which in the SEN world is coming through with more children not having their needs met, issues escalating and the need for more expensive provision.鈥
The risk that high-needs pressures 鈥渃ontinue to outstrip available funding significantly, making the SEND and AP system financially unsustainable鈥, is now viewed by the government as 鈥渧ery likely鈥.
It鈥檚 a timebomb that could go off soon. The last government allowed councils鈥 high-needs deficits to sit off their balance sheets while they tried to get the mess under control. That is due to end in 2026.
The main government intervention to solve the council spending crisis is the 鈥榮afety valve鈥 scheme.
Councils with the biggest deficits have received bailouts of 拢1 billion, but in return they must overhaul their own provision 鈥 essentially cutting services further.
One council refused a deal because it said expected cuts would break the law.
And Mulholland adds 鈥渢oo often鈥 the money 鈥渄esigned for high-needs provision is being used for deficit recovery and not making it to the frontline鈥.
鈥淲e鈥檝e got more money than ever coming into the SEND system, but the amount getting into schools is just not keeping up with the costs of delivery. What is the end game on that?鈥
More capacity building
At the time of the 2014 reforms, the then education secretary Michael Gove鈥檚 wider education reforms were bedding in.
Kingdom says the department had not 鈥減roperly understood the implications鈥 of putting councils 鈥渧ery much at the centre of responsibilities鈥 on SEND 鈥 while their powers elsewhere were taken away.
鈥淭he biggest lesson is if you try and reform the SEND system on its own 鈥 as in you deliver for disabled children just by creating a system for them 鈥 you set it up to fail.
“Because what happens is the wider school system actually has more bearing than what the SEN systems are doing.鈥
Edward Timpson, the children鈥檚 minister who led the overhaul, says he 鈥渨ished we had done more capacity building in the system before legislation鈥 but I strongly believe the overall legal framework the act created is the right one鈥.
A 2019 report by the education select committee was damning: 鈥淟et down by failures of implementation, the 2014 reforms resulted in confusion and at times unlawful practice, bureaucratic nightmares, buck-passing and a lack of accountability, strained resources and adversarial experiences and ultimately dashed the hopes of many.鈥
So the SEND review was launched. But two years later, all that existed was a 鈥渢errible鈥 draft paper with 鈥渓ittle substance鈥 and 鈥渨ithout very much direction coming from anywhere鈥, a source close to the process said.
鈥淨uite a few people who got shown drafts said this is a disaster, you can鈥檛 put this out.鈥
Despite mounting pressure, it was clear the government had learnt its lesson. They wouldn鈥檛 rush this again.
The plan was rewritten and the green paper landed in 2022 before a finalised SEND and AP improvement plan was published in March last year.
Ministers believed new national standards 鈥 published by 2026 鈥 would solve the so-called 鈥減ostcode lottery鈥 in SEND services. These would include setting out how needs are identified, where pupils should be educated and which budgets should pay for the support.
It would be underpinned by a new system of funding bands, again for more national consistency, and price tariffs to set limits on what councils pay providers.
One controversial element is providing a 鈥渢ailored list鈥 of suitable schools for parents to choose from 鈥 seen by some as restricting choice. Essentially, ministers are adding an affordability element into the support being offered.
Leora Cruddas, Confederation of School Trusts chief executive, says while the green paper 鈥渄id a decent job of analysis of the problems鈥 there was 鈥渘ever an attempt to describe an 鈥榚nd state鈥欌.
She adds: 鈥淲hat would the system look like if it was working well? Without doing this work, we cannot describe the policies and legislation we need to reach the end state.鈥
Inclusive schools, but how?
At the heart of the DfE鈥檚 plan is an ambition for mainstream schools to become more inclusive.
Its own research found a 鈥渕inority of schools and trusts using inappropriate and unlawful practices to avoid admitting pupils with EHCPs鈥. This happened 鈥渟ubtly鈥 and 鈥渙vertly鈥, it added.
In a bid for greater accountability, the green paper pledged to publish contextual information alongside performance data to 鈥渕ake it easier to recognise鈥 schools that were 鈥渄oing well for children with SEND鈥.
But officials later decided doing so 鈥渞isked generating perverse incentives鈥, so they dropped it.
For instance, low EHCP rates could be explained by a school being in an area where the council was woeful at approving plans.
Instead, the national standards will act as a first step towards more inclusivity.
鈥淥nce schools are told what they should be doing, it鈥檚 easier to line up other services to encourage that to happen,鈥 says one ex-adviser. 鈥淚t鈥檚 more about nudging from every angle rather than creating some new programme called the 鈥榥ational mainstream inclusivity programme鈥.鈥
But Tom Rees, chief executive at Ormiston Academies Trust, says an 鈥渋nherent flaw鈥 is that the 鈥渟chool system is not set up in a way that can deliver against the volume of EHCPs which are, in effect, individualised, personalised contracts鈥 and vary in scope and quality.
鈥淢ainstream schools are designed to deliver to children with a broad range of needs, but if you鈥檝e got over 70 EHCPs and each of those is very individual and personalised, it鈥檚 unrealistic for a school to deliver these effectively.
鈥淪END reforms have focused on the process of assessment and diagnosis, at the expense of focusing on how schools can provide support. And that鈥檚 at the heart of so much of the tension.鈥
And Tim Coulson, chief executive of Unity Schools, says the system is struggling because 鈥渨e鈥檙e putting our resources and energy into trying to create more specialist provision鈥 instead.
Two-thirds of special schools are now over capacity, meaning councils are forced to place more youngsters in private special schools which typically cost twice as much.
Councils鈥 spend on independent provision soared by 125 per cent to 拢1.3 billion in 2021-22.
Coulson adds: 鈥淲e鈥檝e got to put our energy into equipping school staff with the skills to deal with more children than they previously thought was in their capability.鈥
And special schools鈥 expertise should be utilised more, says Simon Knight, joint headteacher at Frank Wise special school in Oxfordshire. 鈥淔rom a policy point of view, special schools are too often an afterthought. We have to lobby hard to be included rather than being there by default.鈥
Other experts point to a lack of focus on enhancing the 鈥渙rdinarily available provision鈥 in schools for children with SEND, and say inclusivity has been made harder as support for those without an EHCP is not defined in law.
Part of the problem is that 鈥渢he country relies on governments spending time on difficult things that have no political merit,鈥 warns Laura McInerney, co-founder of Teacher Tapp and former editor of Schools Week.
鈥淎nd when governments choose to focus their efforts on policies that are making headlines, the most vulnerable people suffer.鈥
Comparing SEND to the water company sewage scandal, she adds: 鈥淣o one on the doorstep 10 or 12 years ago really cared deeply about sewage, but if you don鈥檛 fix the sewage pipes for 20 years and now sewage is all over the streets, they will.鈥
SEND crisis goes mainstream
The rising pressure in SEND 鈥 and the knock-on effects 鈥 has catapulted the complex issue into mainstream debate.
It鈥檚 often the most frequently raised issue at education debates by MPs of all parties and was a key concern raised on doorsteps during this year鈥檚 general election campaign.
Yet politicians have 鈥渇ailed to grasp and understand the core issues at the heart of it,鈥 says Andrew O鈥橬eill, headteacher at All Saints College in London.
鈥淚t is a mark of absolute shame that we know the base root of the problem and yet nothing has been done about it.鈥
And Alistair Crawford, co-chair of the National Network of Specialist Provision, believes a 鈥渄eficit narrative鈥 across the system on SEND can make things worse.
鈥淲e鈥檒l hear professionals and politicians talking about 鈥榝unding black holes鈥 and 鈥榟igh-needs block overspends鈥.
This creates almost a subconscious deficit narrative that moves us away from a focus of providing high quality provision and aspirational opportunities for the most vulnerable learners.鈥
But leaders are concerned that without extra funding and resources in mainstream schools the government鈥檚 plan may not be realised.
Lucy Heller, chief executive of Ark Schools academy trust, told the Festival of Education that making schools more inclusive could be done with better 鈥渢raining for teachers [and] decent funding for schools鈥.
But 鈥渋t鈥檚 really difficult to see how we get there and it鈥檚 going to be really hard 鈥 you鈥檙e retracting [support] and this will look like there鈥檚 potentially less choice for parents鈥.
Identification 鈥榩ostcode lottery鈥
Nearly 20 per cent of pupils now have a special educational need but the government鈥檚 green paper admitted early years and mainstream schools were 鈥渋ll-equipped鈥 to identify them and provide support.
Most identification of SEN falls at schools鈥 doors. Pupils can be added to the SEN register for the lower level 鈥淪EN support鈥 or they can apply for an EHCP assessment, although a diagnosis is not required for statutory support.
However, research by the Education Policy Institute in 2021 found the chances of receiving SEND support was largely dictated by the school a child attends, rather than their individual circumstances or where they lived.
Pupils in the most disadvantaged areas were less likely to be identified with SEND, suggesting an inequality problem.
Jo Hutchinson
Jo Hutchinson of the Education Policy Institute adds: 鈥淚f you can鈥檛 identify properly, you can鈥檛 do teaching properly鈥.
Meanwhile, the focus in teacher training has been on children鈥檚 cognition with 鈥渧ery little focus on social and emotional development鈥.
Downard adds: 鈥淎 lot of it does fall to the schools to pick up on things, and educational psychologists and LAs aren鈥檛 sitting in the classrooms with these children.鈥
But we don鈥檛 have 鈥渁 good evidence base鈥 on diagnosing SEND, a former government adviser said, unlike in the NHS where the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence sets this out for health needs.
鈥淭he code of practice is needs neutral, it doesn鈥檛 say 鈥榝or this child with these needs here are effective interventions you should consider鈥,鈥 the ex-adviser adds.
鈥淚t means it鈥檚 easy for things that are a waste of money to propagate through the system and makes it difficult for parents to know what their child should get.鈥
Ultimately, for Rees, the label of SEND itself is 鈥渦nhelpful鈥 and 鈥渇lawed鈥.
鈥淚 understand there needed to be some sort of general legislation under which these other categories exist, but fundamentally, my view is in 10 years鈥 time we shouldn鈥檛 require the categorisation of SEND as a generic label, because the system itself will be able to deal with different known conditions in a more expert way.鈥
What next for the broken system?
SEND has not been high on the political agenda in recent years. A turnover of seven children鈥檚 ministers overseeing the reforms under the previous government didn鈥檛 help.
Labour has tried to offer reassurance it will improve inclusivity, expertise and capacity within mainstream schools, while special schools cater to those with the most complex needs.
But they warn of no 鈥渕agic wand鈥 and have yet to reveal a practical plan as they 鈥渃arefully consider鈥 the 鈥渆ntire approach鈥.
One of the first changes was moving SEND from the families group into the schools group at the Department for Education, something welcomed by many leaders.
One of the big questions facing the department, as well as the Treasury, is whether they will write off councils鈥 deficits. If they do, what system change would be needed at the same time to stop the cycle happening again?
Kingdom warns Labour must 鈥渘ot weaken protections鈥 but 鈥渂e realistic with the Treasury about what the funding position is鈥.
The 鈥渃hange programme鈥, launched under the previous government to test their improvement plan reforms, continues. Labour鈥檚 direction on this is not clear.
A former civil servant says departmental advice to Labour will likely be to 鈥渟tick with the current plan that we are all invested in鈥.
鈥淚f you started from scratch again there鈥檚 another green paper, consultations and pilots 鈥 that鈥檚 three years gone and you can鈥檛 legislate on special needs at the end of parliament.鈥
But Matt Keer, SEND specialist at the Special Needs Jungle website, says it is 鈥済enuinely staggering鈥 SEND system leaders are 鈥渟till talking and not doing鈥.
鈥淢ost people on the front line would say we know what the problems are, but they have very different opinions on solutions. But standing still has made things markedly worse.鈥