Listening? After two and a half years, the DfE has finally published its SEND Green Paper
Here are some of its Big Ideas:
- establish a new national SEND and alternative provision system setting nationally consistent standards for how needs are identified and met at every stage of a child’s journey across education, health and care
- review and update the SEND Code of Practice to ensure it reflects the new national standards
- establish new local SEND partnerships, bringing together education (including alternative provision), health and care partners with local government and other partners to produce a local inclusion plan setting out how each local area will meet the national standards
and so on for several pages (the whole document has 104 pages but it does have some nice pictures of people smiling on the front). Anyway, looks like someone has thought up “national standards” (my italics above) as a fix. Personally? A checklist won’t sort it, not for the infinite variety of SEND. But please read on…
In October 2019 (which seems a very long time ago now), the Education Select Committee published its 100% evidence-based (no, really) review of SEND provision in England. It was a truthful and accurate indictment of the shortfall in provision which had been increasing since the publication of the SEND Code of Practice in 2014 (itself a good piece of legislation, codifying statutory joined-up multi-agency support mechanisms designed to fully support the child or young person). However, starved of funds and staff, frustrated practitioners simply could not deliver necessary support and interventions. The review made many recommendations and presented these to the DfE, which responded, not by enacting the recommendations, but by instigating yet another review, the results of which have only recently been published as the SEND Green Paper.
Why didn’t the DfE simply implement the recommendations of the Select Committee back in October 19? The committee is made up of MPs from across the House, i.e., it is not partisan, and the review was evidence-based, not ideologically driven in any way, so what was the problem?
Well, perhaps the problem was that to do so would have been to admit that the DfE, and indeed the whole government, through the needless and cruel policy of austerity, had simply thrown the Code of Practice into the arena and then walked away, without supplying the resources to actually make it work on the ground. Which meant that, once again, the most vulnerable pupils had been denied the support they need (in some cases, to literally even get into a school building). When many of these pupils reach adulthood, they will be plunged into the gatekeeping nightmare that is “Universal Credit”, which means that a vital part of their pre-adult education needs to be developing independence and resilience, as they will need these in shedloads in order to access the support needed for simply living. Being physically disabled, for example, is expensive.
There is an open “consultation” on the SEND Green Paper until 22nd July. But, given their record, will the DfE/government even listen to what people who respond (who will be self-selecting, and probably have relevant lived experience as either service users, practitioners, or parents) will tell them?
This isn’t to advocate not responding (do!), but simply to consider this: the idea of a “consultation”, actually, is to ask an expert (a “consultant”), then act on their advice. In this case the experts are the above-mentioned service users, practitioners, and parents. They are our consultants, and, unlike, say, KPMG, or Price Waterhouse Coopers, their advice is free! Plus they actually know what they’re talking about. So, Nadhim, please listen. Even better, hear. Thanks!