Crucial council plans detailing SEND services reform could be submitted to government without public scrutiny, with school leaders warning of a \u201clack of meaningful engagement\u201d.<\/p>\n
Town halls have been given just over three months to submit a \u201clocal SEND reform plan\u201d, which ministers will approve to unlock money to write off 90 per cent of high needs deficits.<\/p>\n
The documents are also a vehicle for the government\u2019s SEND reforms and will include key details such as how areas will deliver the \u00a31.8 billion experts at hand programme.<\/p>\n
But the Department for Education doesn\u2019t require councils to consult publicly on these key documents ahead of the 19 June deadline. The only stipulation is that must be signed off by a SEND board and senior local officials.<\/p>\n
Schools Week<\/em> analysis of a sample of council meetings found inconsistent approaches to sharing plans with elected officials and the public.<\/p>\n Sector leaders have also warned\u00a0that when there has been engagement with schools, it hasn\u2019t been \u201cmeaningful\u201d because of the tight timescales.<\/p>\n The DfE asked “local area SEND partnerships” – which include education, health and care services as well as parent representatives – to formulate the plans.<\/p>\n But government expected councils to be the “system” convener, “taking the lead” to bring together all partners to work together and develop the plan.<\/p>\n They could submit a draft earlier this month ahead of the final deadline in June.<\/p>\n Schools Week<\/em> analysed meeting agendas from January to June of the 38 councils signed up to controversial “safety valve” programme, the previous DfE deficit bailout scheme.<\/p>\n This scheme was prematurely cancelled by ministers this year and replaced by the high needs stability grant to wipe out 90 per cent of historic dedicated schools grant deficits accrued up to April.<\/p>\n To understand the transparency around the plans, we searched schools forum, relevant scrutiny and cabinet meetings ahead of the deadline.<\/p>\n Analysis found an unclear picture across sampled councils. While some said they would seek cabinet approval of the plans, others did not have any relevant public meetings scheduled before the deadline.<\/p>\n Some councils had scheduled meetings, but agendas were not yet available. These meetings were also just days away from the deadline, suggesting little time for adequate scrutiny.<\/p>\n Meanwhile councils including Dorset, Darlington, Haringey and Hammersmith and Fulham had scarce mention of the plans in meetings where agendas have been published.<\/p>\n One council official, who wished to stay anonymous, told Schools Week<\/em> that it may be that many councils had not finished writing their plans within the tight timescales, so can\u2019t even share a draft version.<\/p>\n They pointed to the fact that key guidance on the new experts at hand service and inclusion bases still hasn’t been published, despite being expected in spring.<\/span><\/p>\n In North Tyneside, the council said it was not possible to get cabinet approval with the timescales imposed by government, and that there were no plans to publish the draft.<\/p>\n But cabinet members were being engaged in the making of the plan, a council spokesperson said.<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Kent said they will only publish the plan once DfE had considered it, likely in September.<\/p>\n “Our priority has been to get the plan right, working with partners and testing it with the DfE as we go. <\/span><\/p>\n “By the nature of the DfE prescribed process, no plan will be finalised before 19 June, so it would create unnecessary ambiguity if multiple draft versions of the plan were made public.”<\/span><\/p>\n But Slough will make the report available to the public one its been signed off by cabinet.<\/p>\n The ASCL school leaders’ union said members had reported a lack of engagement from councils when drafting their plans.<\/p>\n Margaret Mulholland, the union’s SEND and inclusion specialist, said while they “welcome the intention to strengthen collaboration”, it is “disappointing that the tight timeframe for production of these local plans has diminished the capacity for meaningful engagement”.<\/p>\nUnclear picture<\/h2>\n
\u2018Not possible to get cabinet approval in time’<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\u2018Lack of transparency\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n