Leadership

Budget 2016: Osborne’s proposals and the sector’s response

Schools are going to be forced to become academies under the new Budget, announced this month by chancellor George Osborne. We provide a glance-and-go overview, plus a round-up of responses from teachers, unions and more.

Create an account to read this article

£7.00+ VAT

One-off purchase

Purchase and Download today

Register for free

No Credit Card required

Register for free
Access to 3 free articles
Free TeachingTimes Report every month

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#43003"
  ["title"]=>
  string(52) "Budget 2016: Simply a new set of winners and losers?"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(57) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/budget-2016-winners-losers/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1459254335)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-43003-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(338) "The long-awaited step towards a fair national funding formula and, of course, the shock announcement to force all schools to become academies were the stories dominating last week’s Budget headlines. Peter Downes, a long-term campaigner for fairer funding and very vocal critic of academies, explores the proposals ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(406) "... toprepare a response – the first of two proposedconsultations closes on 17 April.This is perhaps unsurprising, however,considering the short timescale overall. In lastweek’s Budget, chancellor George Osbourneannounced an extra £500million to ‘speedup’ the introduction of a ‘fair’ national schoolfunding formula, with the date set for AprilBudget 2016:Simply ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(70) "Budget 2016: Simply a new set of winners and losers?"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(6) "budget"
        [1]=>
        string(4) "2016"
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(343) "The long-awaited step towards a fair national funding formula and, of course, the shock announcement to force all schools to become academies were the stories dominating last week’s Budget headlines. Peter Downes, a long-term campaigner for fairer funding and very vocal critic of academies, explores the proposals so far. "
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(6) "budget"
        [1]=>
        string(9) "proposals"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5651) "24Vol 7.2School Leadership Todaywww.teachingtimes.comDebateFundingThe long-awaited step towards a fairnational funding formula and, of course,the shock announcement to force allschools to become academies were thestories dominating last week’s Budgetheadlines. Peter Downes, a long-termcampaigner for fairer funding and veryvocal critic of academies, explores theproposals so far.Since last year’s Spending Review, we’vebeen waiting for the governmentto make good on its promise for anational funding formula from 2017.The long-awaited consultation has finally beenpublished, although time is unusually short toprepare a response – the first of two proposedconsultations closes on 17 April.This is perhaps unsurprising, however,considering the short timescale overall. In lastweek’s Budget, chancellor George Osbourneannounced an extra £500million to ‘speedup’ the introduction of a ‘fair’ national schoolfunding formula, with the date set for AprilBudget 2016:Simply a new set ofwinners and losers?https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/schools-national-funding-formulahttps://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/schools-national-funding-formula25Vol 7.2School Leadership Todaywww.teachingtimes.comDebateFunding2017. Mr Osbourne said the government’s aim is for 90 per cent of the schools that willbenefit from the new formula to receive it in its entirety by 2020 – a shrewd politicalmove, considering the date of the next General Election.Given that campaigners for a fair funding formula have been waiting for this forover 20 years, however, it would be churlish to do anything other than welcome theseproposals which seek to address one of the longest-running sources of dissatisfactionin education circles.The proposals for funding are, in the main, self-evidently sensible, yet problemsdo lie ahead – not least in regards to the government’s damaging obsession withacademies.What has been promised?The purpose of the reforms is to reduce the huge disparity of funding per pupil indifferent parts of the country. Dramatic figures are bandied around, and these can bemisleading because it is and always has been reasonable to expect that areas of thecountry with greater deprivation will receive more money for their pupils. Similarly, asit costs more to employ teachers where salaries are enhanced to meet cost-of-livingdifferentials (mainly London and its fringe area), it is not surprising to find Londonboroughs at the top of the ‘league table’. Ignoring the City of London, the gap betweenthe highest funded LA and the lowest is currently £2,856 per pupil, but in ‘real terms’ –that is, what you can buy with the money – the gap is closer to £1,500 per pupil. Evenso, for a two-form entry primary school of 420 pupils, that would provide over £600kextra, which gives considerable flexibility for smaller classes, better facilities, morebooks and computers, and more teaching assistants.The proposals are that funding will be distributed to Local Authorities (LAs) to passon to schools, and allocated according to a national formula based on the number ofpupils, deprivation (at pupil and area level), low prior attainment and English as an26Vol 7.2School Leadership Todaywww.teachingtimes.comDebateFunding Additional Language (EAL). School cost factors thatcannot be easily allocated on a formulaic basis will alsobe allowed, with a proposed lump sum for all schools,retention of the ‘sparsity’ factor, and allowances forgrowth in pupil numbers and geographic differences incosts. So far, so good.So what are the problems?First of all, there are no firm figures attached to theseprinciples at this stage, and until we see how thegovernment proposes to allocate funds to the factors,we will not be able to work out whether the relativitybetween the factors is fair.Furthermore, there has been a long history of LAsmaking decisions about the finer details of allocationto schools and, although this flexibility has beencurtailed over recent years, the LA officers consult withrepresentatives of local schools through the SchoolsForum and eventually emerge with a package that isseen to be appropriate in the local circumstances. Thiswill be continued for the next two years but then, from2019 to 2020, the government intends to allocate fundsdirectly to every one of the country’s 23,000 schools viaMany of those who currentlydo well out of the system willbecome the ‘losers’; they willbe laying off staff, reducingteaching assistants andpruning administrative staff.“”27Vol 7.2School Leadership Todaywww.teachingtimes.comDebateFundingWhat will the budgetmean for schools?■ The current system for funding schools will bereplaced by a fairer national funding formulafrom April 2017. The government aims for 90 percent of schools who benefit from the new formulato receive their extra funding by 2020. An extra£500million will be made available to ensure thedeadline is met.■ All schools will become academies. Every schoolin England will either have to be an academy by2020 or in the process of becoming one for 2022.Any school failing to make the transition will beforced to so under ‘radical’ new powers to beadopted by the government.■ Provision will be made to encourage academychains to take over so-called ‘Cinderellaschools’ which are unattractive to potentialsponsors because of their small size, tightbudgets, expensive buildings or remote locations.■ There will be £20million a year in additionalmoney for schools in the north of England.■ There will be a review to consider making"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(5) {
        [0]=>
        string(6) "budget"
        [1]=>
        string(4) "2016"
        [2]=>
        string(7) "osborne"
        [3]=>
        string(9) "proposals"
        [4]=>
        string(8) "response"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Budget 2016: Simply a new set of winners and losers?

29 Mar 2016

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#34423"
  ["title"]=>
  string(16) "Through The Roof"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(47) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/through-the-roof/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1162339200)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-34423-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(141) "Hard–pressed heads say they've no chance of implementing the PPA deal if their LEAs are left free to impose hefty service charge increases."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(378) "... pressed headssay they’ve nochance ofimplementing thePPA deal if their LEAsare left free toimpose hefty servicecharge increases Through the roof>TRENDS8 July/August 2005in his response to the Government’sthree-year budget proposals, called for acap to be imposed on service charge rises.The measure Mr Hart suggested wouldlimit increases ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(16) "Through The Roof"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(141) "Hard–pressed heads say they've no chance of implementing the PPA deal if their LEAs are left free to impose hefty service charge increases."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5643) "TRENDS 7July/August 2005TRENDSHeadteachers say they are facing‘exorbitant’ r ises in the chargeslevied by some local educationauthorities for their services – in effecttaking advantage of a situation that is avirtual monopoly.Many schools enter into service levelagreements with their LEAs covering awhole range of services, such as insurance,IT, personnel advice, groundsmaintenance, personnel and payrolladministration, and cleaning and catering.Although heads can and do obtainservices from the private sector, the realityis that for many schools this is not arealistic proposition. The size of individualcontracts is not attractive to the privatesector. LEA packages, covering a wholerange of services, are more convenientand less time-consuming for schools.Because of this, LEAs find themselveseffectively in a monopoly position, and insome cases, says the National Associationof Head Teachers (NAHT), they areabusing that position by imposingexorbitant increases in their servicecharges to schools.Examples of increases given by theNAHT include an increase of 50 per centfor legal services, 51 per cent for buildingmaintenance and 146 per cent forproperty services. Some other increasesare shown in the table opposite.One headteacher of a primary schoolin a midlands authority told the NAHTthat his 2005–06 LEA services costs hadgone up from £49,700 to £60,400: a r iseof over 21 per cent. This includes 34 percent on insurance, 23 per cent onpersonnel, 37 per cent on staff absenceinsurance and 15 per cent on IT support.NAHT general secretary David Hart,Hard-pressed headssay they’ve nochance ofimplementing thePPA deal if their LEAsare left free toimpose hefty servicecharge increases Through the roof>TRENDS8 July/August 2005in his response to the Government’sthree-year budget proposals, called for acap to be imposed on service charge rises.The measure Mr Hart suggested wouldlimit increases to the equivalentguaranteed minimum increase in fundinggiven to schools in that year. In this way,hikes in service charges could not exceedthe minimum guaranteed per-pupilbudget increase.The guaranteed minimum increase thisyear was 4 per cent for secondary andspecial schools and 5 per cent for primaryschools. Although many schools hadreceived more than this, most still fell farshort of most of the price rises, accordingto Mr Hart.He said: “The exorbitant increases inservice charges levied by some localauthorities are a scandal. These LEAs areabusing their monopoly position. Theyare making a mockery of attempts to putreal increases into school budgets to payfor workload reform and other vitalinitiatives designed to raise standards. It istime that action was taken to curb theselocal authority excesses.”SurplusMeanwhile, timely figures released by theDepartment for Education and Skills haverevealed that primary schools in Englandhad nearly £750m in their bank accountsin 2003–04, working out at an averagesurplus of about £50,000. One school,say the figures, had £697,362 of itsbudget remaining.However, the NAHT has attacked theimplication of the DfES figures, sayingthat the official guidance for primaryschools was to carry over no more than 8per cent of their budget – which averagesto about £50,000.In addition, there may be many reasonsfor stockpiling funds, said the NAHT,typically associated with accumulatingfunds to carry out a particular project.One pressing reason given for keepingfunds in reserve is the implementation ofthe national agreement for England andWales on reducing teachers’ workloads.The agreement requires that, fromSeptember 2005, teachers get 10 per centof their time out of the classroom forplanning and assessment work.The NAHT has already voted towithdraw from the agreement, claimingmany of its members cannot afford this. Andwith heads already hard pressed to producethe magic funding rabbit in time to take onthe extra staff required to free PPA time, anyservice charge rises by LEAs could be seenby irritable heads as an attempt to disrupt analready difficult situation and to derail anyattempt by them to meet the fundingshortfall to implement workload reform.However, local government leadersremain dubious about Mr Hart’s claims.The chairman of the Local GovernmentAssociation, Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart,said: “Schools can purchase services fromwhomever they like but local authoritiesdo provide excellent value for money andthis is why they are popular with schools asservice providers.“There is no monopoly for servicesand contracts can always be renegotiated.Heads can always challenge any chargesthrough schools forums.“One-off examples do not provideevidence for a national trend. Theexamples NAHT cites may reflectparticular local circumstances or suppliercost increases which means these serviceswould cost more whoever provided them.”Selected increases in LEA service charges to schoolsBath and North East Somerset Personnel advice 31%Lancashire Supply cover insurance 30%Personnel services 11%Legal services 50%Blackpool Property services 25%Routine maintenance 16%Haringey Governor support 73%Personnel 55%Payroll 30%Swimming tuition 19%Property services 146%Luton Insurance 31%Norfolk Building maintenance 51%Lincolnshire Premises services 30%Payroll 18%A group work manual for practitionersby Berni Stringer & Madan MallBased on solution focused brief therapy, this manual presents arange of exercises, which can be photocopied for use with groupsor individuals. The exercises help children to explore their ownknowledge and perception of their difficulties and emphasise theirability to"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(4) {
        [0]=>
        string(6) "budget"
        [1]=>
        string(9) "proposals"
        [2]=>
        string(6) "sector"
        [3]=>
        string(8) "response"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Through The Roof

1 Nov 2006

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#35600"
  ["title"]=>
  string(13) "Wise council?"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(43) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/wise-council/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1171568905)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-35600-1"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(193) "Beset by criticism and viewed with scepticism by the unions, can Britain’s teaching councils ever win the same respect as their counterparts in law and medicine? Richard Willis investigates.
"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(333) "GTCE was indeed set upunder poor legislation, with little enthusiasm from civilservants, and a prospective budget, which Lord Puttnamreferred to as a “ joke”. He also agrees that he would ratherhave spent his term of office by avoiding the inadequacyof the “cack-handed” legislation or to what he refers to asthe ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(13) "Wise council?"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(193) "Beset by criticism and viewed with scepticism by the unions, can Britain’s teaching councils ever win the same respect as their counterparts in law and medicine? Richard Willis investigates.
"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5630) "GTCE was indeed set upunder poor legislation, with little enthusiasm from civilservants, and a prospective budget, which Lord Puttnamreferred to as a “ joke”. He also agrees that he would ratherhave spent his term of office by avoiding the inadequacyof the “cack-handed” legislation or to what he refers to asthe “plumbing”; instead he would have preferred topromote the long-term culture on which the GTCE shouldhave operated.Judy M oorhouse, chair until August 2007, and the 64-strong council should now look towards improved paysettlements, the employment of more non-teaching staffin schools to relieve them of administrative chores, morefunding for schools and better training. The council’sfounding chief executive, the late Carol Adams, faced atask made no easier by the continued resistance of theGovernment. Lord Puttnam himself set about trying toraise the profile of the GTCE and to further its cause bothto teachers and parents. I t is only the test of time that willshow whether these aims can be achieved.Realistically, such goals are likely to prove very elusivewithout the general suppor t of teachers, despite evidenceof some progress (many teachers have signed up to theGTCE’s Teacher Learning Academy, for instance). The yearlyANALYSISANALYSISANALYSISANALYSISANALYSIS Teaching councils17January/February 2007     Managing Schools Todaybalance sheets so far cannot by any means claim that lifein the classroom has already drastically changed for thebetter but to expect the council to remove the problemsat large in one fell swoop is a serious error of judgment.The frustration endured by new recruits became clearafter the GTCE received 13,000 telephone calls over aperiod of five weeks from disgruntled teachers who wereeither confused about the arrangements for payments orunhappy about the financial charge. Ms Adams said shewas “disappointed and sur prised” that the NUTrecommended its members not to pay, even though theunion has since moved on fr om this confrontationalapproach to a more conciliatory understanding.ResentmentThe GTCE faced a barrage of cr iticism on all fronts.Teachers’ resentment was voiced by pleas to put pressureon the Government to pay higher wages rather than investmoney into professional development, or into creatingtiers of unnecessary bureaucracy. The GTCE’s response tosuch pleas was negative, promising only a raf t ofinadequate measures to deal with what was becoming ahopeless situation. One futile suggestion was to write toteachers convincing them of the merits coming from thepayment of fees. Ms Adams defiantly acted to withstandthe flood of complaints by emphasising the impor tanceof professional independence and unity.Many attempts have therefore been made for the GTCEto serve the public and community. The mantle has nowbeen taken up by Stephen Dorrell MP and BaronessPauline Perr y. Collectively they are actively discussingplans, to put forward to the Conservative party, to reformthe GTCE by introducing a new professional body forteachers. The public sector apologists among the Toriesare thinking about tackling the flaws within the GTCE. Thenew formula for reform is by no means complete and isvery much in its infancy, but as the Blairite vision becomesmore and more blurred, the Tories hope to tackle thefrequent divisions and conflicts.The proposals deal with the council’s failures of the past.The preliminary recommendations aim to combat fallingstandards and form part of a package in which theConservative party intends to address literacy in primaryschools, standards, discipline in secondary schools andproper voc ational education from 14. No-one of authorityin education and in a position to make improvementsshould resist the powerful forc e that change can helpbring advances to the welfare of teachers, parents andtheir children.Some education commentators now consider thatmoney raised from teachers to fund the council could bemore wisely spent elsewhere. This is a stance that used tobe shared by most of the teaching unions and, with theexception of the NASUWT, the future is likely to see lessconflict between the GTCE and the unions. There is astrong case for the council to raise wider educationalissues such as demoralisation in the teaching profession;by this route the GTCE could campaign to enhance thepublic status of and respect for teachers.Other stakeholders call for funding to be met whollyby the Government and not by subscriptions, but thiswould strike at the very heart of the GTCE and would beanathema both to its independence and freedom torepresent teachers. As it stands, the GTCE has had its fairshare of problems but an expansionist approach in thefuture might include an obligation for both private andstate teachers to join, a smaller and more manageablecouncil, and support to act as a more effective w atchdogof the profession.Richard Willis is a senior research fellow at the Centrefor Research in Education Policy and Professionalism atRoehampton University. He is also the author of TheStruggle for the General Teaching Council(RoutledgeFalmer).The origins of the GTCEThe campaign for the self-regulation of teachersstarted over 150 years ago. The central institution thatdominated this issue was the London-based Collegeof Teachers , f ormerly k nown as the C ollege ofPreceptors, and now located in the London UniversityInstitute of Education. Founded in B loomsbury inJune 1846, the college promoted the ideal of a self-regulatory profession and a council for teachersworking in England. The college directed its attentionmainly to the private"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(4) {
        [0]=>
        string(6) "budget"
        [1]=>
        string(9) "proposals"
        [2]=>
        string(6) "sector"
        [3]=>
        string(8) "response"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Wise council?

15 Feb 2007

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#86176"
  ["title"]=>
  string(71) "Can The 2014 Vision of the Children and Families Bill Ever Be Realised?"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(13) "Special Needs"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(101) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/can-the-2014-vision-of-the-children-and-families-bill-ever-be-realised/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1587571740)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-86176-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(148) "James Bowen analyses what went wrong with one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation for children with special needs in a quarter of a century."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(323) "... issue of funding. Achieving these ambitious aims was always going to be a difficult task but to do so during a period of sustained public sector spending cuts has made it almost impossible. The IFS have clearly shown that schools have experienced significant cuts since 2015. The High Needs budget ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(5) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(80) "Can The 2014 Vision of the Children and Families Bill Ever Be Realised?"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(1) {
        [0]=>
        string(4) "2016"
      }
    }
    ["author"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(11) "James Bowen"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(148) "James Bowen analyses what went wrong with one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation for children with special needs in a quarter of a century."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5669) "Almost six years on from the 2014 Children and Families Bill, there is a strong sense that the ambitious plans outlined in the legislation have yet to translate into the sort of transformational change that was envisaged for young people with SEND. In 2014 it was hard to find any education professionals who did not support the overarching aims and content of the legislation. Whilst there were some who felt the bill was not ambitious enough, rarely has a government policy been so widely welcomed across the education sector.At the heart of the policy was a renewed emphasis on partnership working across different sectors for the benefit of pupils and young people with SEND. A lack of connection and co-ordination between education, health and social care had long been a source of frustration for both parents and professionals alike, and so a genuine attempt to tackle this issue was widely seen as a positive step.Stronger VoiceSimilarly, few disagreed with proposals to give young people and their families a stronger voice. Families had become immensely frustrated at the bureaucracy surrounding SEND provision and the need to repeatedly tell their story over and over again to different agencies. The government rightly identified this as a significant problem within the system and pledged to address it through the reforms.The idea that every teacher should be responsible for the progress of pupils with SEND that they taught equally caused little controversy. Whilst not an entirely new concept, the important principle was reiterated that every teacher is a teacher of pupils with SEND. It was made clear that this responsibility and ultimate accountability could and should never be passed over to the Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCo) or outsourced to other professionals in the school. Plans to extend provision to the age of 25, a clearer focus on pupil outcomes, and shorter timescales for Education and Healthcare Plans (formerly Statements of Special Educational Needs) all seemed sensible developments too.Overall, there was genuine hope that these changes would make a significant and positive difference for young people with SEND.However, there is now a growing sense that these reforms have failed to have anything like the desired impact. Parents and families of pupils with SEND appear to remain as frustrated as ever. SEND tribunals have grown at an alarming and apparently inexorable rate, rising from just over 3,000 registered appeals in England in 2015 to just over 6,000 in 2018. At the same time we have seen an increase in pupils with SEND being permanently excluded and the average Progress 8 score for pupils with SEND has actually slightly declined since 2014/15.  Whilst metrics such as these can never tell you the full story, such a scenario cannot be what the then ministers had in mind as they took the legislation through parliament.FrustrationSENCos too have reported a growing sense of frustration with the system they operate in. Many have spent a disproportionate amount of their time in recent years dealing with bureaucracy. This was especially true during the transition period as Statements became EHCPs, but even now there is still a sense that the paperwork detracts from their ability to actually improve provision and outcomes for pupils. They are equally frustrated that they cannot get timely access to the external support their pupils desperately need. Speech and language therapists, educational psychologists and CAMHs appointments are all in high demand and short supply. Arguably, the scrapping of the School Action+ category also seems to have confused matters with some parents (and some professionals) now believing that the only way to access external support is by having an EHCP. It’s hardly surprising that, in this context, we have seen an explosion in the number of EHCPs since the reforms were introduced.In schools there is a strong sense that nothing is really that different to before and in many cases the challenge has actually grown.This is not to say that SEND provision is universally poor or that the reforms have failed entirely. Nor is this a criticism of the dedicated professionals working within the system. There are countless dedicated professionals going above and beyond every day to support young people with additional needs who are succeeding daily against the odds. However, these reforms were supposed to improve those odds. There are a multitude of reasons why the ambitions of 2014 have failed to have the impact so many hoped they would. However, three interesting factors stand out as being worthy of further exploration, particularly as they serve as salutary lessons for policy makers. Firstly, there is the inescapable issue of funding. Achieving these ambitious aims was always going to be a difficult task but to do so during a period of sustained public sector spending cuts has made it almost impossible. The IFS have clearly shown that schools have experienced significant cuts since 2015. The High Needs budget, designed to fund support for pupils with the most significant needs, has come under enormous pressure too. Cuts to Local Authority budgets and pressures on health funding have also had a significant impact, meaning that schools struggle to access the additional help their pupils need and thus preventing any real sense of genuine partnership between the different sectors. The first lesson is simple: ambitious policy change requires sufficient funding. A second lesson is that schools and other public services"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(4) {
        [0]=>
        string(6) "budget"
        [1]=>
        string(4) "2016"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "proposals"
        [3]=>
        string(6) "sector"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(13) "Special Needs"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Special Needs

Can The 2014 Vision of the Children and Families Bill Ever Be Realised?

22 Apr 2020