What if the SEND system isn’t broken?

In this blog series, AoC and Natspec are exploring alternative approaches to SEND provision in FE colleges. The ideas discussed do not represent formal policies by either organisation.

It is frequently said that the SEND system is broken. It is true that many parts of the system don’t work well. But is there a danger that overstating its brokenness will lead to such wide-scale reforms that they sweep away much of the brilliant practice that exists in the system now?

Different people mean different things when they say the word ‘broken’. A school pupil’s family might feel the system is broken if they have to fight for an education, health and care plan (EHCP), then fight again to receive the support specified in the plan. On the other hand, a recent report commissioned by the Local Government Association (LGA) and County Councils Network (CNN), describes the system as broken because “it is becoming increasingly clear that SEND represents an existential threat to the financial sustainability of local government”. Too little support and too much spending are not the same complaint, even if both are true.

To say the system is broken certainly expresses everyone’s heartfelt exasperation, but it conflates two different types of brokenness: is the SEND system broken like a washing machine that needs some new parts, or broken like a window that needs to be completely replaced?

An absolute rethink

Many have argued for what one minister recently called ‘an absolute rethink’. The LGA-CCN report suggests phasing out EHCPs and creating a new system overseen by a new national body. In October the National Audit Office (NAO) recommended that the government should ‘explicitly consider whole-system reform’. The new report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says that ‘something has to change’ and lists a range of options. Many analyses centre on the claim that there is a need to improve the inclusivity of mainstream schools to accommodate a broader range of needs, but the situation in colleges is different.

Speaking at the Public Accounts Committee in November 2024, Susan Acland-Hood, Permanent Secretary at the Department for Education, said: “Children and young people are less likely to be in specialised provision from 16 to 18 than they are before 16 and they are more likely to be in a mainstream FE college. That is often in provision that is quite carefully tailored and targeted to them but which is part of the overall college provision. There is some variation in that. Some colleges do it much better than others. We speak to the Association of Colleges and they regularly remind us that they have some incredibly good practice in supporting children and young people with SEND at 16 to 18, which we could learn from earlier in the system.”

There is indeed lots of superb and inclusive practice in colleges. For example, many colleges now have one-year bridging courses which allow students with social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs to progress from being too anxious to attend to being ready to enrol on full-time academic and vocational courses. Colleges are skilled at matching courses to different students’ aptitudes and aspirations, while providing learning support so that students with autism spectrum conditions, for example, can succeed at Level 3. Some general further education colleges are developing provision for students with profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD), while partnerships with specialist colleges provide continuing professional development for staff and progression routes for students.

How to make matters worse

Sadly, not everybody is as clear as the Permanent Secretary on the differences between schools and colleges. This is partly a question of language. Both the government and commentators too often use school-centric language that blurs the difference, either saying ‘schools’ when meaning ‘schools and colleges’, or making the reverse mistake of talking of a need for ‘more inclusive mainstream settings’ when the need is specific to schools. Similarly, the word ‘teachers’ is sometimes used to describe all teachers and sometimes school teachers in particular.

The danger of blurry language is that it could lead to blurry policy. The nightmare scenario for college students is of root and branch reforms, aimed at schools but including colleges, that end up undermining colleges’ existing inclusiveness. This scenario could come about in a lot of ways.

One example is SEND-specific capital funding. Last week £740 million was announced, and while colleges are to be in scope, the language used suggested the investment was just for schools, which is likely to result in it being spent that way. But colleges do need investment to maintain their facilities, just like schools do.

A second example is curriculum reform. It is right that the new government is reviewing school and college curricula in their entirety. But one reason colleges can be so inclusive is because they can offer a flexible curriculum which supports personalised learning. This flexibility was threatened by a draft curriculum framework for personal, social and employability qualifications published under the last government. There is a danger that a school-centred review would treat these subjects as peripheral, not give them the attention they deserve and accidentally undermine highly inclusive provision.

Thirdly there is the vexed question of how to fund support for students who have SEND but don’t receive high needs funding. Schools have a specific budget, which colleges do not. Ignoring this crucial difference risks growing a disincentive for colleges to run the type of Level 1 vocational courses that serve these students so well.

And lastly there are admissions. The briefing notes on the Kings Speech in July talked of “giving local authorities greater powers to help them deliver their functions on school admissions”. If such powers were applied to colleges too, they would exacerbate one of the biggest problems in college SEND provision: transition. Late or inappropriate local authority decisions on placements for students with EHCPs mean that pupils often spend their final year of school without any certainty about where they are going next. This is hard for any young person and especially punishing for some with autism or SEMH. Giving local authorities greater leverage might ease one problem in schools but would weaken the ability of colleges to support their new arrivals.

To replace or to repair?

Despite these problems, many students do have well-organised and supportive transitions. When this happens, it is because schools, local authorities and colleges have all followed the processes and timelines set out in the SEND Code of Practice. Students identify transition options in Year 9, they visit potential providers, they agree destinations in a later review, and then the local authority consults with the college in good time.

For these students, the system isn’t broken. There is a good process but a lack of consistency in following it. The Education Select Committee concluded in 2019 that the 2014 SEND reforms, which created EHCPs, were the right reforms but badly implemented. So perhaps we don’t need a new system, we need to repair the system we have, using some of the approaches set out by AoC in our SEND policy paper earlier this year.

It may well be true that schools should be more accountable to local authorities, but local authorities themselves should be more accountable for their decisions, for instance through an appeals process for providers. And accountabilities alone cannot fix the system without the resources to fulfil them. The previous government’s SEND and Alternative Provision improvement plan had a lot to say about the school workforce, but the local authority workforce needs investment to equip it to make informed decisions. Costs could be recouped almost immediately as students with better transitions will need less support once they arrive at college.

So, is the SEND system broken or not? What makes the word so unhelpful is that the answer is both yes and no.

On the one hand its components don’t function well together, and the NAO report is right to say that the system is hampered by “misaligned accountabilities, incentives and priorities”.

On the other hand every year thousands of students leave college more independent, more skilled, more ready for employment, and more ready to participate in their communities than they were when they first enrolled. Their progress is a testament to the dedication, skill, empathy and effectiveness of college staff.

This means that, for the college sector at least, any reform process must start by asking not only what needs to change, but also how to support and extend the wonderful work that colleges already do.

David Holloway is the Senior Policy Manager – SEND at Association of Colleges.

You can simply fill out this form to share your views with us. We will be collating responses to each article and sharing a summary with readers. And if there is appetite for it, we plan to hold an online symposium to talk through any differences of opinion. If you would like to be alerted as articles in this series are published, please send your email address to Will.Marshall@natspec.org.uk.