Inclusive Education in English County Councils and Local Government Association

What can we agree with in the Report are the key facts of the crisis in SEND?

1. ‘The number of children with Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs, formerly statements) is higher than at any time and has risen from 240,183 in 2014/15 (1.4% of school population) to 575,973 in 2023/2024 (3.3% of school population)’. Not strictly true.
2. ‘There are more children and Young people than ever before whose needs are not being met in mainstream education, and thus require specialist provision’. It does not follow that they require specialist provision. In 2024 the number is 197,098, the highest ever figure. This does not account for an unknown number of children with SEND not in school at all, either off rolled, excluded or absenting themselves. Estimated at 20% of the secondary cohort in Year 10 last
3. ‘More money than ever before is being invested in SEND, but it is significantly less than what is actually being spent on SEND by Local Authorities (LAs), health services and education settings. Despite increased national funding to reflect the growth in EHCPs and specialist provision, this has not kept pace with the growth in expenditure. Government funding, in the form of high needs block allocations to LAs, has risen from £4.8 billion in 2014-15 to £9.2 billion in 2024-25.’ The school-based funding which is not ring fenced and has not kept up with funding to schools in England, was only at a level of budgets in real terms as of 2010, according to the National Education Union (NEU). Austerity has led to myriads of cuts in teaching assistants, small group teaching and good inclusive practice in mainstream schools.
4. The outcome for Disabled Young people and their families, and their day-to-day experience, has not improved.

We can say that Local Authorities in the main have not been listening to Disabled children and their parents. According to a representative sample of 3,593, Disabled children (aged 8-17) are clear about what they want for a better world, as they told the Children’s Commissioner in England in March:

• To be understood, seen and heard;
• To benefit from a fantastic, ambitious education in mainstream school (where possible) and support at school when they need it;
• For all activities and services to be accessible;
• To receive high-quality care locally and quickly;
• To be free from harassment and discrimination;
• For transitions to be smooth and prepare them for adulthood;
• For services to see them as part of a family, and to take a whole family approach.

None of which is happening and so Local Authorities are in breach of the Duty as outlined in Paragraph 19 Part 3 Children and Families Act.

The ISOS Report crisis the SEND system solutions are problematic. The fundamental issue is what type of reform?

ISOS say 2014 Act has not been a success. They say, “what is needed is national reform” and those of us committed to developing an inclusive education system would agree, setting the national ambition – vision and principles. We think this should be more deeply values based on human rights and inclusive values and practices as outlined in Article 24 of the UNCRPD as clarified in General Comment No 4. ISOS argue “to create a National Framework that describes types and levels of needs, and that provides clarity about the levels of need to be met in mainstream education and expectations of ordinarily available provision”. This takes us back to a medical model approach where Disabled Young people are seen and classified by their level of need. But their needs are largely created by a school system full of restrictions and barriers to Young people with a range of impairments.

As Micheline Mason, (who we are mourning and celebrating currently) and I argued in our 1994 ‘Altogether Better’ publication, we need to move from a continuum of provision based on a deficit model of need (‘What you can’t do?’), to an inclusion model of pedagogy and provision where a constellation of services supports the Disabled Young person and their teacher. This requires a wholesale restructuring of our school system.

ISOS propose “a series of measures to enable inclusive practice in mainstream education settings. We propose the development of a new “core offer” of targeted, multi-disciplinary support – from therapists, EPs and other services – that all education settings can access without children and Young people requiring a statutory plan.”

The Inclusion Movement has long argued to fund schools rather than children to get rid of barriers and develop inclusive practice. Also, that is those with the most significant impairment who most need to be included socially and in terms of learning as they are the one who have historically been most isolated and abused.

ISOS also recommend “to reform elements of the SEND statutory framework so that the state can set out a clear, consistent, equitable and sustainable offer of support for children and Young people with additional needs. This should enshrine the practice behind the original idea of EHCPs, in the form of regular, personalised assessments, planning and reviews of what we are calling a new Learner Record”. So, we are back here to a hierarchy of impairments which denies the fundamental purpose of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which the UK has ratified.The ISOS solve a funding problem for Local Authorities. It will not safeguard the Human Rights of Disabled Young people.

ISOS recommend creating a new Destinations and Progression Service in each local area. “This service would have oversight of all children and Young people with additional needs as they approached the transition from children’s to adult services and in the years after that age of transition”. On the face of it a good idea, but would they have the power to challenge disability discrimination and the means to come up with workable solutions? Of support and specialist provision) and decision making regarding future statutory plans”.

So that the structure to design and build more segregated provision would be in place and the right of parents to want mainstream provision and their recourse to the SENDIST Tribunal to force the decision would disappear.

There are some improvements in funding for mainstream SEN, but it will be cash limited, ruling out more expensive reasonable adjustments.

ISOS propose to further incorporate the private provision. This will be part of Local Inclusion Partnerships. It appears ISOS is suggesting the reinstatement of compulsory segregation which was got rid of in the 2001 Education Amendment Act. So, for profit organisations and segregated provision with all the safeguarding issues that they present will effectively become part of state provision, though ISOS do recommend a limit of profit making. It is hard to see how the fee structure that lead to profits could be adapted.

They are also suggesting that the newly created National Institute would create the Framework which as we have seen will be based on medical model and exclusionary principles.

No organisations that support inclusive education fully were consulted by ISOS.

ISOS is not identifying the wider key issues in Educational Policy that need to change which are organisational but not just in the SEND system. As a recent letter from the Association of Educational Psychologists counter signed by 16 other SEND organisations to Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson makes clear:

“Our children and young people need a coordinated and united approach to improving the education system, and an end to the current culture of blame.”

It is in your power to be part of the solution. We ask you to please raise awareness of the broken, ‘bolt-on’ approach to SEND with your colleagues in the Department of Education and the Treasury. Please could we ask you to request that any response is not limited to reference to the SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan, which does little to address these issues, or any funding initiatives for local authorities already mentioned. Please press your colleagues to engage with a full review of the whole education system and curriculum to address the inconsistencies outlined here, and to place the needs of those with additional needs at the forefront so that all children and Young people can access a meaningful and relevant educational experience within which they can thrive and have a sense of belonging within their own communities”.

We know Inclusion Works our job now is to intervene at every level in the debate this Report will create to convince those in power.

Richard Rieser, World of Inclusion