SPECIAL educational needs and disabilities (Send) funding should be a number one priority for any future government.

After 14 years of devastating cuts, 70 per cent of schools in England have less funding in real terms than in 2010. With an election coming up, we have a crucial chance to win back the funding that schools — and our students — desperately need.

Here in Oxfordshire 76 per cent of maintained schools have faced cuts since 2010, resulting in 35.3 million of cuts, which works out to be £400 less per pupil. 

However, if you look at special schools these cuts worsen, with it being on average £3,000 less per pupil.

Our schools are chronically underfunded. Primary class sizes are the highest in Europe, and secondary class sizes are the highest since records began more than 40 years ago.

Educators are underpaid and overworked, resulting in the worst recruitment and retention crisis in a generation. That will not be reversed unless there is significant change to pay and terms and conditions of the education workforce.

Send provision and mental health support for our young people is practically non-existent. We have a curriculum and assessment system that does not engage many pupils or give each of them the chance to thrive. Many of our school buildings are in a chronic state of disrepair, literally crumbling away with the ongoing effects of Raac and asbestos.

This is a grim picture for one of the richest countries in the world. It’s far from the “world-class” education system so regularly promised by our government. It cannot go on.

I currently work in Send and run a moderate learning difficulties unit. I see on a daily basis the impacts of cuts on our provision. Prior to running the unit I worked at a pupil referral unit for students who have been permanently excluded from school.

Alternative provision is also at crisis point thanks to the government’s publication of the Send and alternative provision green paper.

The Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value schemes

Over the last few years, most local authorities have spent more money on education than they’ve been given by central government. High-needs Send has been the area where local authorities have usually spent more than they’ve received.

It’s estimated that the combined deficit across all local authorities is at around £1.6 billion and the government wants this money back.

Safety Valve agreements are written by individual local authorities with the Department for Education, which will then “bail out” local authorities that have overspent their high-needs budgets.

But the “Safety Valve” deal comes with strings attached.

Each local authority has to agree to stay within budget over the medium-term, reduce or eliminate their deficit within four to five years, and manage their high-needs funding in specific ways that the DfE pre-approves.

Each authority also has to meet with the DfE four times a year, and the DfE has the right to “change” or “alter” the deal as it chooses at any given time.

Each authority is also monitored closely by financial advisers to ensure that they don’t overspend again.

However, there is no evidence of monitoring by the DfE within this programme to show whether any of these authorities are actually meeting their statutory duties for Send students.

This monitoring doesn’t appear to be a priority for this government. Its focus is on cuts rather than adhering to its statutory duty of care.

If a local authority hasn’t signed up for the Safety Valve, then the likelihood is that they are in the Delivering Better Value (DBV) scheme.

The DBV programme is supposed to be a lighter-touch and is overseen by the DfE — but is largely run through a two-year, £19.5m contract with a consultancy firm, Newton Europe, which is working in conjunction with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (Cipfa).

Unlike the Safety Valve programme, the authorities in the DBV scheme don’t get any extra cash to help pay down their deficits. What they do get is the chance to apply for a grant from the DfE to implement solutions identified by the DBV programme, over a three-year period.

Basically, the scheme seeks to reduce Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) — which are legal documents setting out a child’s special educational needs and the support they need — by at least 20 per cent, put Send students into mainstream schools and to reduce the number of post-16 students having an EHCPs and put them straight into work.

So, mainstream schools in DBV areas are going to be hacked off.
They are going to be asked to do a lot more, in the worst possible conditions with no extra money.

Students and parents are also going to be hacked off as they will find that students with complex needs will no longer get the help and support they need and will be expected to attend mainstream settings. Oh, and once they hit 16, there will be nothing, just get a job and get on with it.

Let’s be clear, if a student needs an EHCP they should have one and they should be entitled to it for as long as necessary. Not only should they have a plan but the support it sets out must be provided.

Setting targets for reducing EHCPs without investing in support won’t improve outcomes for students with Send. We also need to consider as to whether any of these programmes are in fact lawful — as surely the drive to control and reduce costs will result in students being at risk of being denied the provision and support to which the law entitles them to.

While early intervention, effective multiagency working and inclusive practices are all vitally important, there will always be students who need additional statutory support.

With the steady rise in appeals to the Send tribunal, and the high volume of unlawful decision-making evidenced by the overwhelming number of appeals upheld by the tribunal, it indicates that local authorities do not always prioritise compliance with Send law, so it is likely to continue and worsen with both of these schemes.

Both of these schemes are not fit for purpose. What the DfE urgently needs to do is not spend money on consultancy firms, but to focus on making sure the right support can be found in the first place and understand that cutting Send budgets now will only put more strain on a struggling system, leading to further issues down the road, which means that our students will continue to bear the brunt.

So, as we move towards a general election, what do we all need to be doing to ensure that our Send students get the help and education they all deserve?

I will be fighting for and demanding that any future government suspends the Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value schemes with immediate effect. I believe that it incentivises cutting support for vulnerable children and that we should be demanding funding to cover local authority deficits without condition.

It is clear that all of these plans are driven by the desire to reduce the number of EHCPs and keep all students within mainstream education.

Any reduction in EHCPs should be a positive by-product of a well-functioning system, not the goal. The goal should be to ensure children with Send get the support they need in a setting that is suitable for them.

But let’s be clear: all of these systems are run by people. These plans propose numerous new boards, partnerships and systemic overhaul. But to make a success of anything in these plans, you need the right people with the right mindset, basically the polar opposite to that which we have seen lately from this government.

If you value education, we need to ensure that we vote for education and insist that any new government invests in education and invests in our young people before it is too late.

Leigh Seedhouse is a Send educator.