Building a more equitable SEND system

Key recommendations

• Start with vision, not funding. Define what inclusion actually means – without a shared national definition, reform will keep stalling at implementation.
• Align expectations with resources. Mainstream schools need clarity on what they're expected to provide, backed by investment in workforce capacity and integrated support services.
• Think in three tiers. A proactive funding model – universal offer, devolved cluster funding, and individualised support for severe needs – could cut bureaucracy and bring greater budget stability.
• Build the new bridge before you close the old one. A period of double funding is necessary – protecting current entitlements while creating the conditions for a better system to take their place.

Benedicte Yue is Chief Financial Officer at River Learning Trust. Awarded CFO of the Year at the inaugural MAT Excellence Awards, she is a sector leader and champion for change. This is an extract from our longer conversation, How do we create a sustainable SEND system?

Clarify the vision

What might a more effective and more equitable, high needs funding system look like? 

That’s a big question. I think you can't really look at funding in isolation; the reform needs to look at the whole ecosystem.

So the starting point is to have a clear vision of what inclusion means and clarified expectations. 

What do you want to achieve? Then you need to build a funding model that supports that vision. There is no agreed, shared definition of inclusion in England. There is one internationally that we have ratified, but I think this probably would come out of the white paper.

So it doesn't necessarily mean changing the statutory framework in my view. It perhaps needs clarifying. The problems have occurred more around the implementation and the lack of clarity of roles and responsibility. This has led to a huge variability in identification and thresholds.

So, therefore, after clarifying the vision, I think we need to be clear on the definition and the expectation of what the mainstream school should provide. This would really help ensure a more equitable triage upstream, and enable a strategic use of specialist places for complex needs, based on consistent criteria.

Aligning expectations and resources

Then we need to align expectations with resources. You need to build expertise, confidence and capacity in the school workforce. You need to really enable the schools to access better support services in a more integrated way.

You also need to design the curriculum, assessment and pedagogy with all the learners in mind. And we shouldn't forget to involve parents and families in co-production. But, we also need to use data more proactively, for place planning and to better forecast demand, so we can plan the number of specialist places – and also to track the impact.

Even though some people get an EHCP, we are not holding them accountable for the outcomes, which is very surprising. We need to perhaps rethink the role of the specialist sector so that we can make better use of their expertise and support mainstream schools via outreach services.

This is what happened in Portugal, for example, where they closed special schools and used the expertise from the specialist sector to support mainstream, and to adapt the physical and digital infrastructure with accessibility tools.

There's a lot of work to manage transitions between phases as well. So you lose a lot of children between primary and secondary, moving to adulthood as well, because otherwise they stay in the block up to 25. But if you support young people to find a job, it’s not only good for them, it’s also financially more sustainable.

To do all this, you need a sufficiency of funding. But it's not just about how much money, it's about how you design a funding model that supports inclusion. So, it's not about funding a problem. It's funding a fully resourced education system that meets all learners' needs.

Six design principles 

So in the work I did last year with Dr Peter Gray and the high needs funding groups, we designed some funding principles. We came up with six design principles for an efficient high needs funding model. 

So the first one is about improving outcomes. The second is to provide a relatively stable budget to schools and settings so that they can plan for the longer terms, which means moving away from a reactive system when the pupil fails, to a proactive system supporting early intervention. 

The third principle is to ensure equity and transparency. Equity when you allocate funds to local authorities, but also to schools and pupils. And the fourth one is about avoiding perverse incentives, the fifth one about unnecessary bureaucracy. And, the last one is being financially sustainable. 

A three tier funding model

So this could mean a three tier funding model. At tier one you would have an increase in the school funding that directly supports the delivery of the universal offer, without the need for an EHCP for the vast majority of the most moderate needs.

The second tier would be devolving additional funding to schools, or to clusters of schools, with decisions made collectively that are not dependent on the EHCP. 

The third tier would be retaining individualised funding for children with severe needs who may require specialist places. 

I’m talking about mainstream here; for specialist settings and post 16, they have very important funding considerations, but it's a separate issue that may require more time. 

But this proactive approach would really allow greater budget stability, for long term investment in the workforce, rather than relying on unpredictable top-ups. It doesn't mean cutting the support at all. 

You can plan, you don’t need a label to intervene, and local collaboration is really encouraged. The resources are located a lot more dynamically and proactively, cutting back on the paperwork, on the cost of the courts, on transport as well, because needs are met closer to home, which is releasing significant resources to the frontline.

The pace of change

How change is delivered is really important. We want maximum impact and minimal disruption. The previous reform failed on implementation. So there needs to be a careful, long term strategic framework, and the sequencing in particular is very critical.

So reform is not a linear process, but a very complex, interconnected system, where you need to prioritise the foundational work before altering the statutory entitlement. 

So I think, as I mentioned before, the immediate priority is to define a clear national vision and values, alongside clear and consistent expectations. And then you need to invest in the workforce, in the infrastructure and in the specialist support, to build capacity within the system, before any changes are made to accountability frameworks or to education, health and care plans.

So strengthening the universal offer, which is essential to really restore parental confidence. A reduction in EHCPs will be a natural outcome of an improved system where parents feel that needs are met without necessarily needing a label, rather than having a forced reduction, which is causing a lot of fear at the moment.

Build the new bridge alongside the old one

So I think a period of double funding is really necessary and inevitable to build the capacity of the new core offer. While at the same time, funding the existing system to protect current entitlements.

Finally, maximum impact cannot be achieved through a top down national policy. Central government often lacks the longevity and local understanding for such a complex transformation. So I think the reform should really embrace decentralised models that will nurture local initiatives and adaptability. The local initiative should be properly evaluated, sponsored and supported through, for example, communities of practice.

You could view this as building a new bridge alongside an old one; you can't demolish the old bridge until you have built the new one. And once the new bridge is capable of carrying the load, then you can start to divert the traffic to the new bridge.

What next?

Listen to the full podcast (37 minutes)

• Read about Ways forward for SEND reform 
• Find out what’s in the government’s plans: Schools white paper: The key SEND reform policies
• Read more from Benedicte Yue: Anchored in the community on Creating Value In Schools