‘Parents Are Not to Blame for the Cost Demands on a SEND System Under Increasing Pressure’

Last week – as reported in Byline Times – research and advisory company ISOS Partnerships launched a report which purported to take “a holistic overview of the systemic challenges within the SEND (special educational needs and disability) system” in order to “begin a national conversation on the future our SEND system”.

The report drew on research with a range of stakeholders and provided eight recommendations offering a blueprint for reform. These included providing more multi-disciplinary support to mainstream schools; greater joint working between education, health and social care; better support for preparation for adulthood; and controversially the removal of parents and young people’s right to appeal to the SENDIST tribunal.

Many commentators have reproduced its findings without giving the issue much further thought – reinforcing the messages presented within the report as an undeniable truth.

Leading government-funded charities – Council for Disabled Children and nasen – have publicly supported the launch of the report, and have stated their desire to be involved in the conversation about what should happen next.

Other organisations – such as parent volunteer-led Special Needs Jungle, the Down’s Syndrome Association, Natspec, the National Network of Parent Carer Forums, and Contact – have been more critical and considered in their responses.

The initial responses to the report are in the public domain and are all worth reading for those with any interest in the education of disabled children and those labelled as having special educational needs.

ISOS described the report as containing ‘independent’ research and has said that it sought views from all stakeholders, rather than being confined to just the viewpoint and position of local government.

Such claims would suggest that the research and its recommendations can therefore be relied on as being unbiased and representing a wide perspective of actors within the SEND system.

And yet, the report was commissioned by the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network, overseen from start to finish by representatives from both organisations.

ISOS Partnerships is not new to producing research for the public sector relating to education and local authority provision. As its latest publications page demonstrates, the bulk of its work is commissioned by the Local Government Association, local councils, or the Department for Education. This suggests that it is not purely ‘independent’ research.

It is also worth noting that one of the individuals who co-led this project for ISOS is part of the RISE (Research and Improvement for SEND Excellence) Consortium, led by the Council for Disabled Children. This partnership provides £4.8 million Department for Education funding to the organisations involved.

ISOS has suggested that the starting point in the research is that “there is broad agreement on the need for fundamental reform of the SEND system in England”. This cannot be denied. During the past five years, there have been various inquiries into the state of SEND provision by the House of Commons Education Committee, the National Audit Office, and of course the previous Government’s SEND review, all of which state similar concerns.

The causes and symptoms of the current crisis for disabled pupils and those labelled as having special educational needs are well-documented. However, a persistent narrative that appears to be coming from both the Local Government Association and the last Government has been that parents are to blame and are unreasonable in the cost demands that they are making on a financial system that is under increasing pressure. 

On the face of it, this latest report from ISOS does not present that narrative. Indeed, it suggests that all actors have behaved rationally, and no one group in particular is to blame for the crisis or the lack of confidence in the system.

But it continues to use language and descriptions that seem to place the problem at the feet of ‘demanding parents’ who then contribute to local authority financial problems. Anyone reading the report closely could reasonably conclude that it has been commissioned by, and primarily reflects the views of, local authority leaders who may wish to absolve themselves of past and future responsibility for SEND.

The research project was split into three phases. The initial analysis stage included ISOS analysing data and drawing together “insights from previous research”. But it failed to reference or cite any of this research within the 166-page report. Phase two was primarily interviews and surveys with local government figures with tokenistic engagement with young people (mainly through FLARE, a group coordinated by the Council for Disabled Children) and with parents (via Department for Education funded Parent Carer Forums). 

Although ISOS suggested that a broad consensus was the starting point for the research, it stated that it “put forward five prerequisites of an effective and sustainable SEND system – financial sustainability, adequate levels of funding, resources allocated fairly, equity, and impact in achieving outcomes”. The starting point of the research and recommendations therefore appear to be aligned with the financial concerns of local government, rather than those of children and young people being let down by the current education system.

As a parent of a disabled young lady, I have found some of the responses and reporting of this report to be incredibly frustrating and disheartening. Our children and young people deserve better than organisations failing to challenge this because of existing allegiances, funding, or a desire to be sat around the decision-making table.