In 2008, the headteachers of every primary school in my then local authority received a request from the SEND manager, asking us to consider hosting a five-place ‘specialist provision’ for children with autism.
By the time our resource opened its doors to its first pupils it offered 10 places and, showing how great the need was, a short time later it expanded again, to 21 places.
The Ark, as we later named it, was warmly welcomed by parents, staff and the local community. It enabled some children to thrive in school who might otherwise have had no educational provision at all; it kept others in their own community, avoiding long daily commutes.
Nor was it just the children based in The Ark who benefitted: every member of our school community, child and adult, gained immensely, while (a consideration entirely irrelevant to me, but key for the LA) it saved the SEND budget hundreds of thousands of pounds every year. In a 40-year career, that provision was, and remains, the achievement of which I am most proud.
A “lose, lose, lose” situation
It is no secret that today Special Education in England is in crisis. It is damaging children and families. The Local Government Association (LGA) stated recently: “We cannot emphasise enough the toll that the current system takes on many young people, their families, and practitioners.”
It is also unaffordable: earlier this year, the County Council Network (CCN) announced that 26 of the country’s largest Local Authorities faced bankruptcy and put the blame squarely on the cost of teaching pupils with SEND.
In the words of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), which has set up a task force led by Geoff Barton, former General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) to make proposals for reform, the current system is “a ‘lose, lose, lose’ situation for children, their families, and dedicated education professionals.”
The problem with setting up more specialist resources in future is that, as far as I am aware, no Government Minister has ever shown any recognition that there are different types, or that these have different purposes and effects
The problem is impossible to ignore. The Government has promised a White Paper in the autumn, and there is already a lot of very scary speculation about what might be in this. But one thing seems certain: more resource provisions in mainstream schools will be part of the plan which, despite my positive, personal experience, has made me very uneasy.
The legacy of Warnock
Specialist resource provisions (also sometimes called Units or Bases) have a long history. The Warnock Committee, whose 1978 report transformed SEND, went into detail about how they should work, and pointed out that there are at least three different basic models.
Members of the committee visited Sweden, at the time held up as an example of a country with very inclusive practice, but they found that “some of the special classes are effectively separated from the rest of the school in all respects.” The ideal, Warnock declared, was not this but would be “achieved where… children with special needs join, part-time or full-time, the regular classes of the school, and make a full contribution to the activity of the school”.
The problem with setting up more specialist resources in future is that, as far as I am aware, no Government Minister has ever shown any recognition that there are different types, or that these have different purposes and effects.
It hardly inspires confidence in the clarity of the Government’s vision when, in December, Bridget Phillipson announced £740 million “to create more specialist SEND places in mainstream schools,” and the Department for Education (DfE) later clarified that some of this funding could go to “creating additional places in special schools.”
Special schools, we would expect the DfE to know, are not mainstream schools.
Muddled thinking
In another worrying sign of muddled thinking, I have yet to see any senior politician acknowledge that pupils with SEND are being pushed out of many schools because their presence may prejudice academic results, league table standings, newspaper headlines (“The best schools in Swineshire”), and Ofsted ratings.
We have also yet to see the long promised new Ofsted framework but all indications are that it may differ in form from what has gone before but the spirit will remain unchanged. Remember, a year ago one word Ofsted grades were abolished, yet never a week passes without press stories of schools celebrating “outstanding” or “good” Ofsted ratings. More specialist provision for SEND in mainstream schools cannot work effectively unless this changes.
Half a century ago, the Warnock Report explained how specialist provisions could be key components in a more inclusive education system and improve outcomes for children. It is true that we will not solve our SEND crisis without a big role for specialist resources but, if they are to work, the Government must spell out in detail what they should look like and what they are for.
