This position paper sets out a number of proposals to help build a a strengthened system of SEND that is built on a social and affirmative model of disability for children with SEND and builds parental confidence.
A single national model: At the moment, there are 152 different SEND systems. For school trusts this is particularly challenging as it means that the trust can be dealing with different systems, processes, and funding regimes across different local authorities. We need one national system which would also have in scope the early years and the quality of provision for 16- to 25-year-olds. With the principle of one system in mind, we propose a move to a single, unified assessment system underpinned by the same processes and paperwork.
Code of Practice: The Code of Practice should be rewritten. This rewrite should move the ‘mental model’ of SEND from ‘additional and different’ (a medical model of disability) to the creation of inclusive environments (a social and affirmative model). This would help to bring about the cultural change we want to see.
Parental engagement, co-production and parent forums: HMCI’s annual report stays that the role of the parent–carer forum featured prominently in the most successful areas, and leaders had understood that co-production meant working with families as equal partners. We recommend that the best features of parental involvement, co-production and the use of parent forums form the basis of guidance. It is important that we recognise that co-production needs to be balanced with parity of resource and align with best practice.
Sufficiency and place planning: a lack of sufficiency and specialist places is driving up costs as local authorities are forced (or through the Tribunal system, thereby contributing to parental lack of confidence) to place children in expensive (often residential) independent, out-borough provision. If local authorities were under a sufficiency duty to determine the number of places for children with different levels of need requiring specialist provision, then the regulator (RSCs – but in a new configuration as a single, statutory regulator) could commission provision at sub-regional/ regional level. This would bring down costs enabling more funding to be spent at lower levels of need.
Governance and intervention: We recommend that local authority financial governance and accountability are codified in a funding agreement. In the case of statutory intervention or termination of the funding agreement, a SEND Commissioner could be appointed by the regulator – this could be a person from a high-performing local authority.
Separation of duties: At the moment, there is a fundamental conflict with local authorities being assessors, funders and commissioners. We would propose a ‘separation of duties’ be considered.
