LGA response to the Department for Education’s SEND reform: putting children and young people first consultation

The Local Government Association (LGA) is the national voice of local government. We work with councils to support, promote and improve local government.

We are a politically led, cross party organisation which works on behalf of councils to ensure local government has a strong, credible voice with national government. We aim to influence and set the political agenda on the issues that matter to councils, so they can deliver local solutions to national problems. The LGA covers every part of England and Wales, supporting local government as the most efficient and accountable part of the public sector.

• Councils have long been calling for reform of the education system to ensure the needs of more children and young people with SEND can be met within mainstream settings where appropriate and without the need for a statutory plan. We are pleased that the Government has acted on those calls, with an ambitious set of reforms with children and young people with SEND at their centre. 
• This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get this right for our children. For these reforms to be successful and ensure the needs of all children and young people with SEND can be met quickly and effectively, the government must work closely with councils as key partners to deliver reforms and ensure they are empowered to drive changes that improve the lives and outcomes of children and young people with SEND.
• We welcome the principles of the proposed reforms and want to work with government, and all SEND partners to ensure they are implemented successfully and that the practical implementation challenges can be resolved. Within that spirit, our response to the consultation therefore focusses on practical delivery issues which will need resolving in order for these reforms to work as intended to drive the best outcomes for children. These issues fall primarily in three broad categories:

1. Working in partnership with clear accountability

• Councils continue to work incredibly hard to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND in spite of the fundamental failings of the current system and want to work positively and constructively with the Government to ensure reforms are successful. We want to work with the government to support councils to continue to make a positive difference for children and young people with SEND and their families and keeping morale in the workforce high can only contribute positively. It is critical that all partners continue to work together positively to make these reforms a success.
• Tackling the SEND crisis requires a cross-government response. We look forward to working with the government, including the Departments for Education, Health and Social Care and Housing, Communities and Local Government, as well as partners in health, education, early years and post-16 settings, parent-carers and, most importantly, children and young people themselves, to co-produce these reforms with a clear focus on improving outcomes.
• Reform of the SEND and education systems cannot be delivered in isolation and will be taking place at the same time as closely linked reforms to children’s social care, early years, Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and local government reorganisation. We want to work with the government to ensure that councils are sufficiently resourced and supported to deliver across all of these reform agendas. It is equally important that reforms take into account the recommendations made in the Curriculum and Assessment review, and that Ofsted’s school inspection activity has a strengthened focus on encouraging inclusive practices in mainstream settings.
• For reforms to the SEND system to succeed, the Government must ensure that meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND is a core function and priority for ICBs, that they have capacity to deliver this function and that there are robust accountability measures in place if they do not. We acknowledge the challenges that ICBs are currently facing as they go through their own reforms, which have reduced capacity to work strategically on SEND and heightened anxiety of their role in reform, but the role of health partners is critical in effective joint working in local SEND systems.
• We will continue to work with the Department for Education, as well as the Departments for Health and Social Care and Housing, Community and Local Government to support councils, and partners to drive improvement in the existing system whilst reforms are tested and implemented.

2. Maintaining suitable and deliverable timescales 

• The White Paper rightly acknowledges that reforms to the SEND system will be far-reaching and will need to be phased in over time, whilst ensuring that need continues to be met within the existing statutory framework. Timescales need to be kept under review to ensure they are realistic and there will need to be sufficient funding to both build capacity now and ensure that the transition to the new system is effective.
• The Department for Education’s timescales for responding to this consultation and for submitting Local SEND Reform Plans are ambitious, particularly in the absence of critical supporting documents such as the Experts at Hand guidance. These documents must be issued as a matter of urgency in order to support the development of effective plans.

3. Ensuring sufficient powers, resourcing, and capacity

• We welcome the inclusion of the early years and the recognition that getting it right early for children can have long-lasting impacts. We were particularly pleased to see national roll out of Best Start Family Hubs with a specific role for supporting families with SEND. This needs to be backed up by sufficient funding into the early years workforce, and continued recognition of and investment into councils’ key role in supporting inclusive early years systems. It is vital however that the risks of early labelling of children are acknowledged; children develop at different rates, and we should not label developmental delay as SEND needs.
• The investment of £1.8 billion over three years to fund the ‘Experts at Hand’ programme of specialist support is welcome. Our recommendation is for this funding to sit with councils, who can then use it to commission Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to provide specialist support. Councils, as leaders of place and with a strong understanding of local need, are ideally placed to hold this funding for local areas whilst the number of ICBs is shrinking, resulting in them working across many council areas.
• Councils are already reporting shortages of specialists, as evidenced by research undertaken by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and the Education Policy Institute. We want to work with the government to develop cohorts of specialists and build on work already being undertaken by councils working with local universities and other education providers. Local innovation must be supported by a clear national ambition that emphasises the importance of this work and without which risks undermining the ‘Experts at Hand’ programme.
• We welcome the proposal to change the law on independent special schools to ensure that children get suitable high-quality placements and that councils pay a reasonable price for them. These plans will only work if accompanied by sufficient powers and resources for councils to create additional specialist provision to meet need. At a national level the role of SEND tribunals in directing the use of Independent and Non-Maintained Special Schools (ISS) should also be reviewed.
• SEND reforms must be financially sustainable to ensure they stand the test of time and can deliver the right outcomes for children both now and in the future. The recent announcement that 90 per cent of councils’ historic Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) deficits will be written off is welcome and provides councils with some breathing space whilst reforms set out in the White Paper are implemented and capacity in the existing system is increased. But the 90 per cent write-off implies that councils will have to manage a residual debt of around £500 million while the OBR has forecast that new deficits of £8.7 billion will then accrue over 2026-27 and 2027-28. To ensure that discussions on reform focus solely on meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND quickly and effectively, government must commit to ensuring that all DSG deficits are written off, ahead of the statutory override ending in March 2028.
• Councils will also need additional funding to meet the growing need for home-to-school transport for children and young people with SEND in the short to medium-term, before we start seeing more children with special needs being educated in their local mainstream school as reforms are implemented. We are also calling for the government to commit to reviewing home-to-school transport legislation to make it fit for the 21st century and reflective of our education system, for example that education and training is now compulsory to the age of 18.

1. We want children, young people and their families to be involved in making better, evidence‑based decisions about SEND, both in their local area and across the country. How can we make sure children, young people and their families have a genuine say in these decisions? 

We support the Government’s focus on ensuring that children and young people with SEND, as well as their families, are at the centre of developing a reformed SEND system. At a national level we encourage the Department for Education (DfE) to continue to speak with children and young people via the Department’s FLARE (Friendship, Learning, Achieve, Reach and Empower) group. The LGA, working with our member councils, would be happy to help facilitate further, local conversations with groups of children and young people, as well as their families, locally as reforms are developed further.

It is essential to also hear the voice and experience of very young children, in a system that is not often designed to hear their voices. Locally, Family Hubs could be explored as used as participation hubs, they could be supported to host SEND drop-ins, parent networks, co-production workshops and joint health-education sessions. 

There is a role for government in considering how they could facilitate positive conversations between different stakeholders, and families, to ensure that councils are able to effectively involve children, young people and families.

2. How can we make sure that high-quality evidence and best practice inform decisions about SEND? Please share examples.

The DfE should work closely with councils, as well as their partners in education and health locally, to identify the interventions that best support children and young people with SEND. At a national level the What works in SEND Programme has a vital role to play in identifying high-quality evidence and best practice, as do programmes including PINS (Partnership for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools), ELSEC (Early language support for every child) and the Change programme partnerships. The Department should also work closely with children and young people with SEND, as well as the many third sector and charity groups who advocate on their behalf and continue to publish research on what works.

There is strong consensus from council early years teams regarding the strong existing practice and how much can be learnt from the practice that currently exists with well embedded programmes that support children and families. The delivery of programmes that are evidence based and will have the best outcomes for children, families and practitioners is crucial, however, often the success of these programmes depend on the local context and practitioner capability as seen in the Best Start in Life programme. In addition, there is more that can be done to build the evidence base for programmes in the English context and ensure that the programmes can be applied with high fidelity to the evidence in a way that works for families and practitioners. Councils have told us that often the programmes with the strongest evidence base expect a high number of sessions committed to by parents which can be impractical, so therefore developing programmes that are reflective of the reality of parents’ lives is crucial. 

The universal offer

3. How can we ensure that children are best supported by the Universal offer?

The Government must ensure that inclusion is at the heart of the Universal offer and that there is a shared understanding of what inclusion means in this context, with a clear focus on improving outcomes across early years, schools and post-16 settings. For this to happen, mainstream education settings must be adequately resourced and have the capacity to deliver the Universal offer to all children and young people, as well as taking an inclusive approach to admissions. This should include sufficient numbers of early years practitioners, teachers and school staff in mainstream settings, with access to appropriate training and other resources to meet need, whilst teaching a curriculum that meets the needs of all learners.

It is vital that partners in health are empowered and resourced to play a central role in delivering the Universal offer. Ensuring there are sufficient Speech and Language Therapists, Occupational Therapists and Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services to provide support to children and young people as part of this offer will reduce the need for more intensive support if needs remain unmet.

Support provided via the Universal offer must be accessible quickly when needed to ensure that needs are met effectively and to minimise the risk of becoming more complex, threatening that child or young person’s ability to remain in a mainstream setting. School attendance and behaviour policies should also reflect that ‘good’ attendance and behaviour for a child or young person with SEND may differ from a classmate without additional needs. The physical environment in any mainstream setting should also be made accessible to children and young people wherever possible, ensuring a ‘whole school’ approach to inclusion.

Although the Universal offer will be delivered within mainstream settings, it is vital that education leaders are engaged in strong partnerships involving those settings, families and services provided by councils and partners in health, are in place to ensure that children and young people can quickly access more targeted support should that become necessary. We have previously called for national expectations to be set regarding ordinarily available provision and inclusive practice so all partners and families are aware of the local expectations. 

The early years workforce is under immense strain. With the expansion of 30 hours of funded childcare, an addition 40,000 new staff were required, 78 per cent of early years settings report recruitment difficulties. Therefore, to ensure that young children are fully supported by a universal offer, the workforce needs to be fully funded and a focus on continuous professional development must be core. In the early years, there are some positive existing models of inclusive training for the workforce. There is an opportunity to embed this across different areas and ensure that practitioners feel they have sufficient time and capacity to embed inclusive practice in their work and make it a core expectation as part of funded provision.

To support children with the universal offer, early years childcare practitioners will need easy access to universal SEND advice and specialist support, giving them confidence to support them in settings. 

Targeted and targeted plus support

4. How can we ensure that children in the Targeted layer are best supported?

5. How can we ensure that children in the Targeted Plus layer are best supported?

The proposed introduction of two layers of additional support within mainstream, targeted (included targeted plus) and specialist, if backed by sufficient investment for settings, should help to ensure that many more children and young people with SEND can have their needs met quickly and effectively in future, without the need for a statutory plan.

Targeted and targeted plus support should both focus on ensuring that children and young people can continue to access the curriculum within mainstream and do not fall behind in their learning.

In the early years, ensuring effective links with the local system, such as working with family hubs and ensuring that services are co located, can support children to be effectively supported in the targeted layer. Working alongside Area SENCOs can provide early intervention and support setting practitioners, as well as building on outreach support through the Experts-at-Hand. Support around settings needs to be fairly allocated and children in the early years must get as much access to this professional support as school-aged children. 

We have long highlighted the issues with funding for inclusive practice in the early years with SENIF and DAF causing lengthy delays and stopping the ability of councils and early years settings to respond flexibly to the needs of young children and their families. Whilst the step towards the new Inclusive Early Years Fund is welcome, we would urge the government to go further and build on existing good practice where councils are provided funding to support early years settings on a system level, rather than providing funding directly to settings. The positive impact of this sort of approach can be seen in our report on “rising needs in the early years”.

Specialist support

6. How can we ensure that children in the Specialist layer are best supported?

Support packages for children and young people accessing them via the specialist layer must be evidence-based, must include clarity on the additional support that is required, and set out clearly who is responsible for delivering it. Where specialist support is being provided in mainstream settings, early years practitioners, teachers and school staff must have the capacity and knowledge to provide that support, with timely support from clinical and educational specialists. Any packages of support that are developed must be based on existing work in this space, for example some councils are already working to delivery specialist and targeted training for school staff in mainstream settings so that they are better equipped to meet the needs of children with SEND.

Packages supporting children in the early years need to be flexible and suitable for their age and stage, recognising the unique development of children in the early years. This is alongside the points noted above regarding support for the workforce and access to specialist support. 

Whilst we recognise that specialist provision will not be expected in this layer, we need to ensure that early years specialist provision is not forgotten. This includes considering the role that specialist provision in the early years should play in the context of an inclusive education system.

Whilst we support the aim of ensuring that the needs of more children and young people with SEND can be met in mainstream, there will continue to be a need for special schools. To ensure these schools can be opened quickly where needed, councils should have the option and capital funding to build their own settings and not rely on the free school presumption.

Updating the SEND Code of Practice

7. How do you think early years settings, schools and colleges can best support the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people?

Mental Health Support Teams (MHSTs) in schools have reduced pressures on school staff and provided specialist support and direct interventions. The programme evaluations indicate improved understanding of processes and earlier interventions. However, there is inconsistency in how the programme is rolled out and how it is integrated into different school environments, as well as ongoing staff shortages. Furthermore, children with needs too acute for the MHSTs, also do not get support from CAMHs, an estimated 730,000 annually. How MHST workers are recruited, retained and kept in post is challenging with a high turnover. It is not just about these teams, but how they fit into the whole system of support.

How MHST workers are recruited, retained and kept in post is challenging with a high turnover. Again, what is critical is how these teams fit into the whole system of support. Further work is therefore needed to ensure the roll-out of MHSTs is completed and that there is sufficient capacity in MHSTs to meet need in settings, complemented by community provision for those children and young people that are reluctant to access support in those settings.

Supporting children in the early years with their mental health includes supporting parents and carers to be able to construct positive, healthy environments. This includes access to perinatal mental health support. This is why we are particularly concerned that Healthy Babies Services are only being funded in half of local authorities, leaving a postcode lottery of essential health support.

8. Do you agree that the refreshed ‘areas of development’ will support educators to understand and address barriers to learning and participation? Please explain your answer.

We welcome the proposal to update the SEND code of practice to reflect reform to the SEND system and in response to independent scrutiny of the system. Updating the code of practice must ensure that the accountabilities for partners in local SEND systems, councils, health and education, are equitable. Maintaining the current imbalance, where councils ‘must’ provide support to children and young people with SEND, where health and education only ‘should’, will undermine the reforms set out in the White Paper and consultation document. The Government must ensure that meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND is a core function and priority of ICBs, that they have the necessary instructions and capacity to deliver this function and that there are robust accountability measures in place if they do not. We acknowledge the challenges that ICBs are currently facing as they go through their own reform process, but the role of health partners is critical in effective joint working in local SEND systems.

We support the proposed replacement of the areas of need set out in the existing SEND code of practice with ‘areas of development’. The focus on child development and supporting a child or young person to progress in their education is welcome, as is the focus on meeting underlying need quickly and effectively. However, there remains a concern that the proposed areas of development may cause confusion for those in the earliest years and applying a blanket model across all age ranges, particularly when children under 5 will be fast tracked for EHCPs if they have complex needs. 

Support for children and families in the earliest years of life

9. What arrangements would best support effective joint working between early years providers, Best Start Family Hubs, health and local authorities and parents for children with SEND in the early years?

It is essential to build on local good practice. We have welcomed the additional investment into best start family hub support for children with SEND but need to ensue that the specification of a named worker across hubs, does not add a layer of complexity where effective local practice already exists. Furthermore, there is a lot of expectation on this one role to make significant changes across the system. One worker won’t be able to compensate for broader system challenges and needs to be embedded into broader change. 

Providing support to parents and carers is crucial, as is ensuring they have access to stigma-free information, advice and guidance at the earliest opportunity.

There is more that can be done to ensure that there is effective working across the system, one element of this is ensuring that healthy babies funding is consistent across the country, ensuring that babies, children and young people are embedded into the work around neighbour health. 

10. How can the early years foundation stage (EYFS) two-year old progress check and the Healthy Child Programme development review be improved so that children’s needs are identified and supported more quickly? Please share examples.

Investing and rebuilding the Health Visiting workforce is integral.  We have long called for urgent action to address shortages in the health visiting workforce and welcome the renewed focus on this critical area in the Government’s strategy. However, the strategy does not yet set out how it will tackle the significant workforce challenges, including high vacancy rates, limited training places, and retention issues. 

In addition to increasing the number of health visitors, we believe there is value in exploring a more flexible skills mix within health visiting teams. This might include making greater use of nursery nurses, early years practitioners, and other allied professionals to help enhance capacity and ensure families receive timely, high-quality support. 

Local areas have explored and enforced flexible ways of working to implement two-year checks like an online portal that enables the health visitor and the setting to liaise with regards to any children that there may be additional concerns about. 

National Inclusion Standards

11. What should the top three priority areas be for building and sharing evidence within the National Inclusion Standards?

• We support the development of National Inclusion Standards evidence base to help support mainstream settings meet the needs of more children and young people with SEND. It is important to also note that one size does not fit all in a diverse and all-age education system and that evidence needs to be applicable to the diverse range of early years and post-16 settings as well as schools. The National Inclusion Standards should prioritise the following:
• Evidence of effective inclusive practice and workforce capability. The National Inclusion standards should include case studies, continuous performance development evaluations and pilot evaluations (e.g. the learning from the Change Programme Partnerships). This evidence must be held centrally, but also be linked to existing regional working, for example the DfE’s RISE (Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence) teams, to ensure mainstream settings adopt proven approaches to increasing inclusion.
• Consistent, high‑quality inclusion data. The National Inclusion Standards must be data as well as evidence led. This should include data on attendance, exclusions, participation, relative progress and adjustments made to support children and young people with SEND in mainstream settings. This data should be made available via national dashboards and also be available at local area level. Inclusion data should also align metrics with Ofsted’s inclusion focus to ensure that evidence feeds both inspection and improvement cycles.
• The National Inclusion Standards should support delivery of existing Equality Act duties and be informed by available evidence on outcomes and experiences for children and young people with different needs and backgrounds. This should include appropriate quantitative and qualitative evidence, including feedback from children, young people and families, while avoiding disproportionate reporting burdens on schools, settings or local areas. The standards should also recognise that local circumstances vary and that areas will be starting from different demographic, geographic and service positions.

National training

12. What are the most important issues for national training to cover, to help support children and young people with SEND?

We believe that national training should prioritise universal inclusive classroom practice and adaptive teaching and identification, assessment and a graduated response. This training should be made available to all classroom teachers, teaching assistants, leaders, early years staff, and post‑16 staff and should be delivered on a flexible basis to fit around school timetables. Training content should be evidence-based, co-produced with specialists and with input from children and young people with SEND, and their families, and linked to measurable classroom outcomes.

13. What practical actions can help teachers, educators and leaders manage workload whilst implementing these changes? 

It is vital that teachers and other school staff are supported to implement national training, with a focus on ensuring they remain focussed on their core role. To that end, the focus should initially be on prioritising core training and development and moving other tasks to other school staff where possible, for example Teaching Assistants or SEND Co-ordinators (SENCOs). Training should be delivered via models including short sessions of CPD and in-class coaching and development, keeping teachers and school staff in classrooms, as opposed to one-off courses that mean school staff are out of the classroom for a day/days at a time.

As noted earlier, the early years workforce is under immense pressure and there needs to be a flexible approach to training to ensure that they can take advantage of opportunities. This includes flexible training timings, opportunities for backfill and developing local networks which early years leads report has a significant impact on local practice.

14. How should the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) role evolve to better meet the needs of children and young people with SEND?

SENCOs are the strategic lead in supporting children and young people with SEND in settings and this should be reflected in their status, which we believe should be part of a setting’s Senior Leadership Team, whilst ensuring that SEND outcomes are included in school improvement plans, aligning policy, staffing and budget decisions with SEND priorities.

Individual Support Plans (ISPs)

15. What would provide assurance for families that an Individual Support Plan will be high-quality and contain the essential information?

For families, as well as children and young people with SEND themselves, the Department for Education must ensure that there is clarity on accountability if there are issues with Individual Support Plans (ISPs); where will parents go for support if an ISP is not working? We want to work with the Government, parent-carers and partners in education to develop accountability arrangements that result in quick and effective resolution where disputes do arise. 

16. How can we ensure Individual Support Plans are clear, concise and practical for professionals to use?

For Individual Support Plans to be a success, they must be outcomes focussed, include parental engagement in their development and clear links to the National Inclusion Standards, as well as standardisation and portability to allow for smooth transition between settings. Further clarification is however needed on how teachers and school staff will be expected to develop, maintain and update ISPs, ensuring they meet the inclusion standards, as well as involving parents and families from an early stage, as a new role when the demands on their time and capacity are already well known.

Transitions into adulthood

17. How can we best support transition for young people with SEND, so that they are well supported into post-16 provision, including further education, higher education, training or employment?

All partners in local SEND systems must have a shared understanding of transition points for children and young people with SEND, and of their importance in ensuring needs continue to be met quickly and effectively. Councils already play a key role in transitions in some instances, for example in the move from early years to primary settings, and this work should continue to ensure settings are considering transitions at an early stage and taking account of a child’s needs as set out in an ISP. The government should also consider innovative approaches to transitions that have been developed by some councils and whether they could be adopted more widely; for example commencing transition to adulthood planning from the age of 14.

The aspirations of children and young people should be at the centre of transitions arrangements, with a particular focus on post-16 aspirations in terms of education, training and employment and take account of opportunities available via supported internships and work, as well as remaining in education. 

There should be a greater focus on transition to adulthood with regards to adult social care where necessary, including the role of health, the NHS and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to ensure support continues for children and young people with SEND in adulthood.

Targeted Plus Support

18. How can we make sure that every area can meet the full range of the needs of children and young people through Inclusion Bases?

There is a key role for councils and health partners to work with schools to develop Inclusion Bases that meet all need in a local area and remove the risk of different bases looking to support the same cohort of children with a specific need, meaning other cohorts cannot have their needs met locally. This can be achieved through effective use of data and by ensuring that councils have a central role in admissions, whilst overseeing the work of inclusion bases to provide assurance that they are delivering the right support quickly and effectively to those children that need them. Resource bases in their totality must meet the needs of their area. 

19. How can we make sure that Inclusion Bases help children and young people succeed in mainstream settings?

All inclusion bases must focus on ensuring that the children and young people that they support can continue to access the curriculum and do not fall behind in their learning when compared to their peers.

For this to happen, Inclusion Bases must be focussed on ensuring that children and young people can learn in their mainstream classroom as much as possible and should not be seen as alternative option to a mainstream education. Bases should help identify need and build capacity to meet that need in mainstream classrooms and where children and young people do need more support within a base, this should be accompanied by clear plans for reintegration pathways into mainstream classrooms. Good practice guides and opportunities to visit other bases within local areas, as well as further afield, would also help share learning and strengthen the knowledge of staff working within those bases.

Experts at Hand

20. Through the Experts at Hand offer, we want to ensure that mainstream settings can get quick specialist support for children and young people. What arrangements are needed between local area partners (education, health, social care) to deliver this Experts at Hand offer effectively?

Whilst we strongly support the aims of the Experts at Hand offer, councils are feeding back that there are already insufficient specialists within local SEND and health systems. This is borne out by research undertaken by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists which found 

an average vacancy rate of 25 per cent in children’s speech and language therapy services in England, while 96 per cent of children’s speech and language therapy services said recruitment was more or much more challenging than at any time in the last three years. Meanwhile the Education Policy Institute estimates that 1,400 full-time equivalent Educational Psychologists, representing a 40 per cent increase in the current workforce, are needed. A clear national ambition and programme to grow the number of specialists is needed that compliments local initiatives and highlights the importance of the ‘Experts at Hand’ programme succeeding.

The Experts at Hand offer must be based on need for support in any local area and that the needs of pupils in different schools will vary. It is vital therefore that the Department clarifies that the expectation is not that all schools will receive the same numbers of hours of support from experts, but instead that there will be more support available where need is greatest.

The investment of £1.8 billion over three years to fund the ‘Experts at Hand’ programme of specialist support is welcome. This funding must be sit with councils, who can then use it to commission Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to provide specialist support. Councils, as leaders of place and with a strong understanding of local need are ideally placed to hold this funding for local areas whilst the number of ICBs is shrinking, resulting in them working across many council areas.

To ensure that Experts at Hand arrangements are not undermined within local areas the DfE must ensure that schools, whether working in local clusters, and or in Multi-Academy Trusts only access specialist support via the Expert at Hand offer and do not seek similar support from other sources, which will risk destabilising local systems to the detriment of the children and young people that need support. Certainty on the size of the cohort of children and young people that need support is central to ensuring the offer will be a success.

Specialist Provision Packages

21. What needs to be in place so that children and young people with low incidence, highly complex needs can always access the right specialist placement? 

While we welcome the proposed reforms to provide specialist support for children and young people with complex needs, further clarity is needed on how they will work in practice. Continued concerned growth in the number of children and young people with complex needs is likely to result in the need for more specialist settings across localities and regions, meaning significant journeys for some children and young people.

To ensure needs can access the right specialist placement, partners in local SEND systems (and across regions) will need access to accurate data on the numbers of children with the most complex needs, details of their needs and how they can be met. Local areas will need flexibility in how they meet need to ensure a balance between regional arrangements and a granular approach that reflect the needs of local communities.

22. How can Specialist Provision Packages be designed to effectively support the main types of need we currently recognise?

Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs) should provide clarity on areas including: eligibility, expected outcomes, necessary curriculum adaptations, support needed from health, staffing requirements within settings and associated training. We welcome the proposal that SPPs will be linked to a nationally set costing framework based on the provision outlined in the Package, to ensure consistency of provision across the country. 

Education, Health and Care Plans

23. We propose that EHCPs will guarantee educational provision set out in a Specialist Provision Package, with day-to-day provision captured in Individual Support Plans. What is needed to make these proposals work effectively?

Firstly, the Department should consider how Education. Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) are developed and used in the existing system to ensure that lessons can be learned for their future use. This should include ensuring that partners in health and education are compelled to make timely contributions to their development, whilst also being clear on what will, and what will not, be included within Plans to ensure that they are not seen as being of greater value than Individual Support Plans.

A successful shift to EHCPs guaranteeing Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs) with Individual Support Plans (ISPs) for day‑to‑day delivery requires aligned national standards, clear accountability and funding levers, workforce capacity, robust operational practice (specific, enforceable plans), joined‑up health and social care input, and transparent monitoring and redress.

The DfE must clarify what is meant by educational provision in this context. EHCPs cannot set out how teachers teach, but they can set out the support put in place in settings to support that teaching.

24. We propose creating a more direct route to Specialist Provision Packages and EHCP assessments for children under 5 with complex needs. How can we make sure this works in practice?

The Department must work with councils and settings to embed this direct route into the early years system, building on and complimenting the Best Start in Life and Family Hub programmes. The Department should consider the use of child‑centred, strengths‑based assessment tools aligned to EYFS and early years SEND guidance; fast‑track eligibility criteria and the use of multi-agency panels to ensure sign-off of those EHCPs within statutory timescales.

Many councils already ensure a rapid identification of children’s needs and ensure EHCPs are in place quickly for children in the early years that need them. We would like to work with DfE to build on local good practice to ensure what is proposed builds on good practice. We do however need to ensure that EHCPs are only in place at an early stage when it is key for that child, as it can be challenging for support to change as the child goes through the education system. 

25. What would you expect to be considered as part of the needs assessment, for example evidence and expert or professional input?

Close working with all parts of the early years system is crucial to fully understanding the needs of children, including the early years setting and the health visiting team and the support of the broader early help team in councils that can support with the process, as well as the best start family hubs.

Parental Preference

26. What factors should LAs take into account in proposing to parents and young people a list of potential settings to name on a plan?

We support the proposed amendments that mean councils will not have to name a school or setting in an EHCP where it is already full or where this would have a seriously detrimental effect on children or young people already in the setting and; to make it clear that weight must be put on the evidence of the effectiveness of the provision, value for money, and fairness in future decisions about placements. It is essential that this proposal is not watered down. Doing so will have a major negative impact on council budgets and the ability to meet the needs of all children within a local area.

When developing lists of potential settings to name on a plan, councils should only include those settings that are appropriate, available, and likely to deliver the special educational provision in the EHCP, as well as delivering good outcomes. 

27. What information and support do parents need in making a decision about which setting will be best for the child?

We would expect that parents will want clear, comparable information about how each setting will deliver the support set out in individual EHCPs (including therapies, medical/nursing, curriculum adaptations, frequency), staffing and capacity, funding, evidence of suitability and quality (for example Ofsted inspection reports and examples of outcomes for similar pupils) and feedback from other families on how settings have met the needs of other children. 

Alternative Provision (AP)

28. What do you think is the right maximum length of time for a temporary placement in Alternative Provision (AP) schools? Please explain your rationale.

The length of time for a temporary placement will be dependent on the development of a clear plan on the purpose of that placement and expected outcomes. The focus must be on ensuring Alternative Provision placements are not open-ended.

Beyond that, we would expect to see placements in AP being formally reviewed to monitor progress and develop plans for reintegration into mainstream education.

Independent special schools (ISS)

29. We have set out our plans to regulate Independent Special Schools (ISS) sector. Do you agree that these proposed changes will lead to suitable placements being available at a fair cost? Please explain why.

We welcome the proposal to change the law on independent special schools to ensure that children get suitable high-quality placements and that councils pay a reasonable price for them. These plans will only work if accompanied by sufficient powers and resources for councils to create additional specialist provision to meet need. At a national level the role of SEND tribunals in directing the use of Independent and Non-Maintained Special Schools (ISS) should also be reviewed. 

The changes proposed in the consultation will result in placements being available at a fair cost, by setting far clearer expectations on Independent Special Schools with regards to the support they must provide pupils and within a transparent funding framework that ensures the same provision will be available at the same price across settings, allowing councils to stop using placing in children in settings that are seeking to charge excessive fees.

Inclusive Mainstream Fund

30. How should settings be held accountable for how they spend their Inclusive Mainstream funding? 

Settings should be held to account for how they spend their Inclusive Mainstream funding via published inclusion strategies that set out how that funding is spent to support children and young people with SEND. This could be supplemented by monitoring data dashboards that allow for comparison of schools in a local area, which could in turn be used by councils to convene improvement support between schools as required. A single, light-touch template could be developed that would allow for spend to be monitored by councils, Multi-Academy Trusts and the Department for Education, whilst Ofsted inspections could also consider how Inclusive Mainstream funding is spent as part of their wider focus on inclusion.

31. Do you agree that more SEND funding should sit directly within mainstream budgets? Please explain why.

We agree that in a reformed SEND system where the needs of more children with SEND are met in mainstream settings without the need for a statutory plan, more SEND (high needs) funding will need to sit with those settings to meet those needs. This will help ensure that mainstream settings can deliver early and effective support, reducing the need to access support via Specialist Provision Packages and Education, Health and Care Plans. Any significant block transfer must be accompanied by reformed accountability mechanisms to ensure that schools are held to account for how this funding is spent.

Pooled funding in schools for SEND

32. In relation to pooled funding, we propose that every school becomes part of a local SEND group. Do you agree that this proposal aligns with our aim for all schools to be part of high quality, community-based trusts? 

We welcome the proposal to compel all schools to join local groups of school to pool funding to better meet the needs of cohorts of children and young people with SEND. We further welcome the proposals that councils have a central role in shaping these groups within individual council boundaries and that they will not be determined by a school’s structural status.

We are however concerned that the Department is looking to conflate two separate policies; groups of local schools must work together to meet the needs of cohorts or children with SEND and will need pooled funding to do so, but this is not dependent on them also needing to be part of high quality, community-based trusts. It is unclear why those schools in local SEND groups would need to also be part of a Multi-Academy Trust as well and instead these groups could be the first step in moving towards school groupings that are locality-based.

33. How should disagreements about membership, provision, or funding in groups of schools for SEND be resolved?

The consultation document rightly acknowledges that councils will have a key role in working with schools in their area to shape local SEND groups, convening discussions with local schools to ensure they join the most appropriate group and this should include a mediation role where disagreements arise. The proposal to bring forward legislation to require all schools to become part of local SEND groups and pool funding provides a clear direction of travel and the Department must continue to emphasise their commitment to this approach to ensure schools work positively to join groups and minimising the risk of disagreements. The Department should however ensure that there is a clear route for councils to escalate concerns regarding schools who do not agree to join local groups and a commitment to intervene as necessary.

The Schools White Paper also acknowledges that, excellent school improvement work is already being delivered in the council-maintained sector in many parts of the country, including through school companies and other forms of partnership. In a reformed SEND system, supporting mainstream schools to ensure they can meet the needs of more children with SEND will become a central plank of this improvement work and councils are therefore well-placed to quickly provide support and resolve issues around provision and funding in local SEND groups when schools are unable to resolve these issues themselves.

Accountability

34. How can we ensure the most effective use of these local partnership groups?

For SEND local partnership groups to be effective there must be a clear national expectation on the focus of their work (for example, effective joint working between councils, health and education to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND quickly and in an integrated way). A clear shared vision and clarity of purpose is central to ensure local SEND partnerships will work effectively.

35. Which stakeholders are important for the success of local partnership groups, and why? 

Local areas will need some flexibility on the exact membership of local partnership groups, but would expect partnership groups to bring together lead members with statutory responsibility for children’s services, senior council officers with responsibility for children’s and adult, senior representatives from ICB and health providers, as well as representatives from early years settings, schools and colleges, including governors and trustees. The local education system could be represented on the partnership through a specified number of members who are voted for by their peers, similar to the way in which Schools Forum membership is currently determined. A representative of the PCF should also be a member of the Local Inclusion Partnership, which should also be expected to consult with and seek advice from children and young people with SEND.

36. How can we build stronger collaboration and a culture of improvement through local SEND strategic plans?

A strong local SEND strategic plan should set out how partners will drive continuous improvement via set of clear shared outcomes, robust partnership governance, meaningful co‑production with families, and how data and feedback can be used to drive further improvement. Core principles to embed in local strategic plans could include: shared outcomes and measures —a small set of agreed outcome indicators that matter to children, young people and families and use them to align partner activity; joint accountability — make education, health and social care jointly responsible through a partnership board; co‑production — involve parent carers, young people and front‑line staff in design, delivery and review so the plan reflects lived experience and practical realities; transparent governance and reporting, including the use of data — publish progress, risks and next steps regularly so partners and families can see what’s changing and why and; continuous improvement being a central plank of those plans and not a static document. 

37. What information, advice and guidance can best support children, young people and families to ensure greater fairness across the system?

Families need timely, trustworthy and accessible information so they can navigate the SEND system, understand rights and options, and take part in decisions that affect their child. When information, advice and guidance is consistent across education, health and care it reduces postcode inequality and prevents families from being bounced between services. 

Core components of effective information, advice and guidance should include impartial, statutory information, setting out clear explanations of the SEND Code of Practice, EHCP process, mediation and appeal routes, and eligibility criteria; practical how‑to guidance, including step‑by‑step checklists for meetings, template letters, evidence checklists for assessments and examples of reasonable adjustments; local pathways and options, including up‑to‑date local offer content showing local services, waiting times, referral routes and named contacts so families can act quickly; early help and parenting support, including clear signposting to parenting interventions and early support that can prevent escalation to statutory assessment and; advocacy and appeals support — funded access to impartial Information Advice and Support Services (IASS) and advocacy so families can exercise rights fairly. 

Resolution and legal framework

38. Do you agree that a SEND specialist (e.g. a SENCO) should sit on the school complaint panel, when the complaint relates to SEND support and provision? Please explain why.

Yes, we agree that a SEND specialist should sit on the school complaints panel, when the complaint relates to SEND support and provision; a SEND specialist’s expertise is valuable for understanding complex provision, evidence and reasonable adjustments and this should help the panel interpret evidence and identify appropriate remedies, contributing to better outcomes. 

Safeguards must be put in place however to ensure that their presence on a complaints panel does not undermine impartiality or create perceived or actual conflicts of interest.