Briefing on the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value Programmes for National Executive Members and Local and Negotiating Secretaries

The Safety Valve Programme

The Safety Valve programme targets local authorities with the highest Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) deficits. These deficits arise because of the overspend on their high needs budgets.

The DfE agrees to clear the deficit subject to the authority meeting the conditions and targets set out in its Safety Valve plan.

Thirty-eight authorities are participating in the Safety Valve programme. A further five or six authorities may join the Safety Valve programme in 2025. It is likely that these authorities will come from the Delivering Better Value programme.

The Delivering Better Value programme

The Delivering Better Value programme is targeted at local authorities with slightly lower DSG deficits than those participating in the Safety Valve programme.

However, authorities with very high deficits that do not reach agreement with the DfE regarding their Safety Valve plan may participate in the Delivering Better Value programme.

Fifty-five authorities were invited to participate in the Delivering Better Value programme, although four of these authorities have now moved to the Safety Valve programme.

NASUWT concerns

NASUWT has significant concerns about both programmes, but particularly the Safety Valve programme.

The format of the Delivering Better Value programme means that an authority should consult stakeholders before it develops its plan. This means that they should consult the Schools Forum and other groups such as the headteacher and SENCO networks.

In the case of the Safety Valve programme, the authority holds direct discussions with the DfE and it is unclear whether or how consultation takes place before the plan is agreed.

The DfE claims that both programmes should support authorities to move to arrangements that identify and meet learners’ needs earlier so that support needs don’t escalate and ultimately cost more.

However, authorities appear to be prioritising reducing their budgets over changes that will result in provision that is effective and efficient.

NASUWT is concerned that local areas are cutting services and support, reducing the quality of services and support and putting more pressure on staff in mainstream and special schools and settings and specialist support services.

If local authorities adopt policies and practices which prevent or limit access to assessments and services to meet a child or young person’s needs, they are likely to be breaking the law. This also places unreasonable and unsustainable demands on teachers, leaders, schools and settings and should be challenged.

Taking action

We want to collect evidence about what is happening in Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value authority areas so that NASUWT can challenge poor practice locally and raise our concerns with the new government.

We encourage NASUWT Representatives to identify and challenge inappropriate plans, policies and practices locally and to provide us with evidence about issues arising from the Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value programmes.

We recommend that you read our advice and guidance about the Safety Valve And Delivering Better Value Programmes.

In addition, you may find the IPSEA Report on the Safety Valve Programme useful as it draws on evidence from freedom of information (FOI) requests of the 34 local authorities that were participating in the programme in 2023.

Providing NASUWT with evidence about issues in Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value authorities

We have highlighted some things that you might consider. However, this is not an exhaustive list of issues, so please let us know about other things that you or NASUWT members consider important.

1. Problems arising from the Safety Valve or Delivering Better Value Programme plan, related targets and the monitoring of progress towards targets

   • Does the plan take account of the pressures on schools, settings and services in relation to support for SEND?

   • Have the views and needs of staff working in schools and settings been sought?

   • Does the plan include targets to cut or ration access to assessments and/or specialist services and support?

   • Does the plan include realistic steps to build capacity in and support to enable mainstream schools and settings so that they can meet the needs of more learners with SEND? 

   • Does the plan set realistic budgets for providing particular types of provision and levels of support? Or are budgets designed to limit the amount of money that is spent?

   • If the budget is unrealistic, how is this impacting on class teachers, SENCOs, leaders, schools, settings and services?

   • Is external, e.g. DfE, monitoring of progress towards implementing the plan impacting on decisions about provision and support?

     • Has the DfE extended the timescale for achieving the plan?

     • Is the authority being forced to set stricter targets which rationalise or cut provision and support?

2. Evidence about difficulties securing provision and support for learners with SEND and the consequences of this for those learners

   • Does the authority use particular strategies to try to limit or control access to assessments, provision and support? There are many ways in which they might seek to do this. Examples include:

     • systematically refusing initial applications for assessment of need;

     • requiring schools to provide additional evidence or jump bureaucratic and burdensome hurdles in order to access assessments or support;

     • imposing a cap on the number of hours of specialist support that a school can access, irrespective of the number of children who need support and the level of support needed;

     • substantial delays in accessing support and provision even when it has been agreed;

     • reducing or limiting the number of places the authority funds in a resource centre or specialist provision even when demand has been identified.

   • What happens to learners who do not get the support that they need?

3. Evidence about the pressures faced by staff in schools and settings when provision and support is not available or there are delays in accessing support and provision

   • How do schools and settings manage situations where a learner does not get the support that they need?

   • How does this impact on teaching and learning, including on the child and other learners?

   • How does this impact on teachers’ and leaders’ workload and wellbeing?

   • What are the long-term consequences of these pressures on teachers, SENCOs and school leaders?

4. Evidence about the wider pressures on schools and settings and the impact on their ability to meet the needs of learners who have SEND

   • Have schools and/or settings made staffing cuts, including cuts to posts that provide specialist support?

   • Have staff left because they can earn more elsewhere?

5. Evidence that health and care services are not contributing to support for children and young people who have SEND and who require support from health and social care services

   • Does the health service work cooperatively with the local authority to commission, and critically fund, specialist health-related provision?

6. Intelligence that an authority is in negotiations with the DfE about participating in the Safety Valve Programme. The DfE will not provide this information so local intelligence is vital. It would be helpful to know:

   • Is the authority consulting about proposals to include in its Safety Valve plan?

   • Who is being consulted?

   • Is the authority under pressure to make budget cuts even when it is apparent that the plans will mean that needs cannot be met?

   • Is the authority under pressure to set targets to reduce support and provision even when greater levels of need and support have been identified?