Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie for this important debate. The current SEND system does not work. This is the third debate on SEND that I have been involved in in my short time in this House, and there seems to be a remarkable level of agreement on the issues and the solutions. There have been a number of task forces and consultations on this, also with a good degree of consensus on the issues and the solutions. The recent October NAO report made plain the issues we see in SEND: increasing expenditure and higher numbers but no consistent improvement in outcomes, and frustration for families, children and those working in the system.
The DfE spends more than £10.7 billion on SEND and a significant sum is spent by councils. We have 1.9 million pupils with SEND. EHCP numbers are up 140% since 2015, and 31% of SEND inspections in the past year or so noted widespread or systematic failings. The number of tribunals has gone up by 50% since 2018. Families lack confidence in the system. There is a shortage of specialist state school places, requiring councils to commission high-cost private placements. There is significant variation in access across the country and by the season of birth. On top of that, there is a major issue with school transport. The system is simply not financially viable, and councils risk going bust over this.
We need to change the system. There are multiple reports to this effect. We need to move from an adversarial to an inclusive system, with support available when it is needed and early assessment and diagnosis. We need to align incentives so that all parts of the system work together, with clear guidance on what level of support is available for a given need and moving away from the adversarial tribunals system. Ofsted needs to hold schools to account for their inclusivity and the support they give those with SEND. Those not with SEND also need the right level of support, but schools also need funding for these. We need more staff—various Members have mentioned educational psychologists, SENCOs and mental health and speech and language therapists.
Finally, as has been pointed out by several noble Lords, ambition is important for our children. We need a system that is focused on improving outcomes for children, not one that focuses on what children cannot do, and the right levels of provision; we need a focus on what could be done. The system is simply not sustainable; we need to use the resources to deliver an excellent system, not prop up a failing one. Government and other stakeholders need to have the willingness to act. While that will be difficult because of a lack of trust in the current system, particularly from parents, to not act would condemn more children to a failing system that is financially unstainable. I say to the Minister: be bold and ambitious for our children.
Special Needs Schools
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register, including as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank my noble friend Lady Monckton for this debate on the important contribution that specialist schools and colleges make to SEND education.
I want to focus a bit more on the broader landscape and the valued role that they play as part of the SEND system. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the SEND system is failing. It is failing children, parents, schools and local government. We have a system that is hugely expensive, is complex, is adversarial and delivers poor outcomes.
I say “system”, but I am not sure that it is a system. That is the problem. Although there are many good parts—noble Lords have mentioned some great special schools, individuals who work hard to deliver great outcomes and parents who do their best to support their children—it does not operate as a system. It is not coherent. Not all parts are working together co-operatively and coherently to achieve the best outcomes for children.
The facts speak for themselves. Since 2014, we have seen the number of children with EHCPs more than double. The national high needs block funding for SEND has increased from around £5 billion to nearly £10 billion. Councils are spending an additional amount of nearly £1 billion on top of that. School transport costs have ballooned. The cumulative high needs deficit has risen from £300 million five years ago to more than £3 billion now.
Despite investment in special schools, it has not kept pace with demand. One noble Lord said that there had been an increase in demand of 140%. We have seen a 51% increase in placements in state-funded special schools and a 164% increase in non-maintained special schools over the last 10 years. This leaves those special schools under huge pressure.
Despite the increasing numbers and a significant increase in investment, there have not been improved outcomes. If anything, it has got worse. Young people with SEN with achievement at level 2 at 19 are declining faster than the mainstream average. Other indicators such as employment have not improved, despite some great examples in certain places, as my noble friend Lady Monckton mentioned.
In a survey by Isos of people working in the system, 97% said that the system is not working well in supporting children and young people with SEN to achieve good outcomes. The system is broken. We have moved to an exclusive rather than an inclusive system, with more pupils attending specialist schools, which is appropriate for some but not necessarily for everyone, often some distance from where they live, increasing numbers of specialist payments and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, pointed out, an alarming increase in the number having home education with specialist, bespoke packages.
It is a system based on legal frameworks that has driven a complete lack of trust. Schools find themselves lacking resources and specialist support for SEN pupils, and hence are incentivised to get an EHCP to get more resources or to offload a high-resource pupil. Parents seeking support for their child find that it is not available and can be achieved only through an EHCP. The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, mentioned the difficulties of navigating this complex process. Local authorities have responsibility but neither the resources nor the levers to support SEN pupils, leading to rationing. There is a lack of capacity in mental health support, educational psychiatrists, speech and language therapists, specialist SENCOs and so on to deliver what is needed. The legal framework is vague and open to interpretation. It encourages an adversarial and legal-based approach, with prescriptive plans delivered through legal argument rather than being focused on children.
The system is opaque and hard to navigate for parents. The pushing of pupils to special schools means that there is a shortage of capacity for those who most need it, and the financial costs are simply unsustainable. In short, it is a system with perverse incentives that has led to a vicious circle, encouraging a legal-based, specialist approach. It sucks resources away from much-needed mainstream support and support to enable those needing more specialist support to receive it, as my noble friend Lady Monckton pointed out.
It can be done differently. It happens in some parts of the country and there are many good examples in Europe, so it is not impossible. We know how to fix this system. We need a system where inclusion is the norm, where parents and schools do not need an EHCP to get the support they need, where local authorities have not just the responsibility but the resources and levers to deliver, and where there is clear understanding for all parties of what support to expect and the confidence that it will be delivered. We need a system that does not require resorting to legal process and with a clear focus on delivering improved outcomes.
This will not be easy, not because it is technically or financially difficult—as I said earlier, successful models exist—but because there has been a complete breakdown of trust in the current system from all parties, which understandably are very protective of what they have. This mould needs to be broken, and it needs to be done on a cross-party basis.
Fortunately, there are good proposals on the table as to what can be done, as outlined in some of the proposals from the previous Government’s SEND review and the recently published Isos report commissioned by the LGA and CCN. What do we need? The Government should set out a new national ambition based on two core principles—promoting inclusion in education and preparing young people for adult life. We need a clear framework that describes levels and types of needs, including reform of the statutory framework so that it is clear what support should be available for each level of need, whether that is mainstream or in special schools. We need a clear framework for how partners will work together, aligning responsibilities with delivery and aligning transition points, and including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln pointed out, linking specialist schools to mainstream so that there is mutual support.
We should be ambitious for our children. All plans should seek to improve outcomes and support the transition to adulthood. As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, early identification is important and we need to get it right. We need to move away from a legalistic, tribunal-based system, which does not help anyone.
While it requires upfront investment to build capacity in mainstream schools and additional specialist support—such as for speech and language, with educational psychologists and in specialist schools and colleges—the savings from reducing higher-cost placements and transport, legal and other costs would more than compensate, while delivering better outcomes and sustainability. This will enable special needs schools and colleges to fulfil their important role as part of a positively functioning system. The Government’s proposals to require all schools to co-operate with local authorities on SEND admission, SEND inclusion and mental health support are a positive first step, but we need to go much further.
King’s Speech
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, on her new role as a Minister and her excellent maiden speech. I also come from a family of teachers, although I managed to escape and become an engineer. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest for her excellent maiden speech. I need to declare that I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire.
Yesterday, we debated planning and place, which is a key role for local government. This Government have said that their priority is growth. However, the pressures of children and adult social care are overwhelming local government and removing the bandwidth and resources for it to develop great places to live and work. This will also be one of the key long-term contributors to addressing social care, with short-term pressures overriding what is best in the long term.
I welcome the earlier comments from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which pre-empted some of my comments on SEND—the major topic of my speech. The current SEND system is not fit for purpose: it is hugely expensive yet delivers poor outcomes. While the 2014 educational reforms were largely positive for mainstream education, they appear to have had unintended negative consequences for SEND.
Since 2014, we have seen a more than doubling of children with EHC plans to over half a million. Costs have increased at an even faster rate, yet there has been no discernible improvement in outcomes. If anything, they have got worse, with the achievement of level 2 of pupils with SEND declining faster than the average and with no improvement in employment outcomes.
We have moved to an exclusive rather than inclusive system, with more pupils attending specialist schools—often some distance from where they live—increasing numbers of specialist placements and more home education with bespoke packages. Schools find themselves lacking resources and specialist support for SEND pupils, hence are incentivised to seek an EHC plan to get more resources or offload high-resource pupils. Parents seeking support for their child find that this is not available and can be achieved only through an EHC plan. Local authorities have the responsibility but neither the resources nor the levers to support SEND pupils, leading to rationing. There is a lack of capacity in mental health support. We lack educational psychiatrists, speech and language therapists to deliver what is needed. We have a legal framework that encourages an adversarial and legally based approach, rather than one focused on children and collaboration. In short, we have a system with perverse incentives that is leading to a vicious circle.
Things can be done differently, as happens in a few parts of the country where the current system has not yet broken down. There are many examples in Europe. We need a system where inclusion is the norm for the majority of parents; where schools do not need an EHC plan to get the support that they need; where local authorities have not just the responsibility but the resources and the levers to deliver; and where there is a clear understanding from all parties on what support to expect and what will be delivered. We need a system that does not require resorting to a legal process and has a clear focus on delivering outcomes. This will not be easy, not because it is technically and financially difficult but because there has been a complete breakdown in trust in the system. Everyone is seeking to protect what they have because they do not trust the system. This mould needs to be broken, on a cross-party basis.
I welcome the proposals in the gracious Speech to require all schools to co-operate with local authorities on school admissions, SEND inclusion and pupil planning. I welcome that there will be specialist mental health support in all schools. However, this is not enough. I urge the new Government to move forward with the proposals in the previous Government’s SEND review. I also urge the new Government to engage seriously with local government. The Local Government Association and the County Councils Network are shortly to publish a report on SEND and have written to the Secretary of State for Education with a number of very sensible recommendations. Those should be taken up because, without change, we will fail children and bankrupt councils.