What is the Change Programme?

The Change Programme is testing proposed changes to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and alternative provision (AP) system in England that were set out in the Government’s SEND and AP improvement plan.

Local areas participating in the programme are working with the Department for Education (DfE) and its delivery partner, the REACh Consortium [1], to test and refine the proposed plans.

What is the Change Programme trying to achieve?

The Government’s Green Paper consultation SEND Review: right support, right place, right time set out three broad aims:

  1. establish an inclusive system ‘starting with improved mainstream provision…accurate identification of needs, high-quality teaching of a knowledge-rich curriculum and prompt access to targeted support where it is needed’;

  2. provide greater consistency in the support available, how it is accessed and how it is funded; and

  3. achieve strong co-production and accountability and improved data collection.

The SEND and AP improvement plan sets out how the Government plans to achieve these aims. The Change Programme has been established to test the proposals in the improvement plan and, ultimately, move to a system that achieves these broad aims.

However, concerns have been raised that the SEND Review was actually initiated by the Treasury and that the primary driver of the reforms is to reduce the amount of money that is spent on high needs.

Who is involved in the Change Programme?

There are nine Change Programme partnerships, one for each of the nine Government regions for England. The 32 local authorities participating in the programme by region are:

  • East Midlands: Leicester, Leicestershire, Rutland (joint leads)

  • East of England: Bedford (lead authority), Central Bedfordshire, Luton

  • London: Barnet (lead authority), Camden, Enfield, Islington

  • North East: Hartlepool (lead authority), Durham, Gateshead, Stockton-on-Tees

  • North West: Manchester (lead authority), Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford

  • South East: Portsmouth (lead authority), Brighton, East Sussex, West Sussex

  • South West: Gloucestershire, Swindon (joint leads)

  • West Midlands: Telford & Wrekin (lead authority), Herefordshire, Shropshire, Worcestershire

  • Yorkshire & Humber: Wakefield (lead authority), Bradford, Calderdale, Leeds

The intention is that the SEND and AP system should be integrated across health, education and that care and health services should be actively involved in each of the partnerships.

What is being tested?

Change Programme partnerships are undertaking whole system testing of key reforms from the SEND and AP improvement plan [2]. The intention is that this will enable learning about how the reforms work together. They are also testing SEND and AP systems locally. The approach is intended to enable refinements to be made when issues are identified.

Each Change Programme partnership produces a Local Area Inclusion Plan (LAIP). Local partners, including those from health and social care, should be working together to produce and then implement this plan.

Change Programme partnerships are testing things set out in the SEND and AP improvement plan. These include:

  • SEND and AP partnership arrangements and an SEND and AP Inclusion Data Dashboard

  • Reform of the EHCP planning process, including developing a national, digital EHCP template; multi-agency panels; SEND mediation; and testing advisory Tailored Lists

  • a focus on Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP), including clarifying what should be provided in all mainstream settings; the development of a three-tier model of AP support; and early language support for every child.

The SEND and AP improvement plan also sets out the intention to establish national standards for SEND and AP and a system of banding and tariffs.

How long does the programme last?

The intention was that the programme would last two years with the first six months being used to set things up and the remaining 18 months being used to test the proposals. However, the programme is behind schedule. An article in Schools Week in May 2024 suggests that the programme was 9 months behind schedule. It isn’t clear what this means for the programme timeline. Further, the General Election may well have implications for the Change Programme timeline.

How will what is being tested be evaluated?

The REACh Consortium is gathering evidence from Change Programme partnerships as they establish and implement the proposed reforms. This includes getting feedback about barriers and enablers.

The evidence is being shared with the DfE and other Change Programme partners. The approach is intended to allow for ‘in-time’ changes to the proposed reforms.

In addition, the DfE has appointed an independent evaluation of the whole programme.

Evaluation of evidence from the initial stages of the Change Programme which focuses on the barriers and enablers relating to implementing SEND and AP inclusion partnerships and LAIPs finds that:

  • there has been a lack of health service input in the development of the LAIP in some areas and this input needs to be strengthened;

  • in some areas a great deal of work needs to be done to pull together the range of plans so that there is a consistent and coherent approach across activities;

  • there are implications for resourcing, including leadership across an area and there is a need to recognise capacity constraints;

  • strengthening ordinarily available provision (OAP) is key to mitigating pressures on the SEND and AP system; and

  • successful reform is likely to be dependent on complementary action to address wider conditions and factors at system level.

These initial findings are very important because they highlight that significant changes are needed if the reforms are to be successful. In particular, the evidence highlights continued concerns about the lack of health service engagement in SEND processes. It also stresses the importance of building capacity in mainstream schools and settings to deliver ordinarily available provision and indicates that pressures on the SEND system are likely to remain until this happens. Further, it points to the need for broader action beyond the SEND system if change to be successful.

What are the main issues and concerns?

Cutting costs

There are concerns that the reforms are actually being driven by the Treasury requirement to reduce the high needs budget. This is likely to mean that insufficient attention is paid to the investment and changes needed to build capacity for ordinarily available provision (OAP) in mainstream schools and settings.

Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value programmes

The Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value programmes are focused on participating authorities clearing their deficits and establishing budgets that are sustainable.

While the DfE says that this is not about cutting provision, there is little evidence that the programmes are seeking to improve the quality of provision and build capacity for earlier intervention. There is a particular concern about the lack of transparency surrounding the Safety Valve programme for authorities with the highest deficits.

Capacity

The Change Programme appears to be focusing on processes rather than on building capacity in mainstream schools and settings. This raises significant concerns about the expectations of and pressures on mainstream schools and settings.

Whole-system reform

Linked to the previous point, there are concerns that the reforms cannot be achieved without wider education reforms, including reforms to address the recruitment and retention crisis and reforms that ensure that teachers and leaders have an entitlement to high-quality continuing professional development and learning (CPDL) and time to undertake that CPDL within the working day.

Health service involvement

Our longstanding concerns about the lack of involvement of health services in supporting and funding provision for SEND remain. There appears to be a lack of commitment at departmental level and at area and local levels.

Context

Initial findings from the Change Programme highlight the importance of context and of providing time for areas to build. However, it isn’t clear whether and how the contexts of areas outside the programme will be recognised.

Transparency

Limited information is being shared about the reforms and some authorities participating in the reforms have indicated that they have been told to not share what is happening with their stakeholders.

Limited evaluation

There are concerns that the evaluation is focusing on the Change Programme itself rather than the wider education system and what is actually needed to implement reforms to SEND and AP systems and practices.

What can I do?

Contact us about your experiences and concerns. We will use your feedback to build a picture of what is happening and use the evidence to challenge the Government and seek improvements to the SEND system and education reforms more generally. We are happy for you to contact us about any SEND or AP-related to concern that you have. The sorts of things that are likely to be of concern include:

  • workload pressures on SENCOs, teachers, leaders and other staff in schools; and the causes of those pressures;

  • local authority approaches to banding for SEND provision;

  • SEND-related budgetary pressures that schools settings and services are facing, including issues related to schools’ notional budgets for SEN;

  • SEND-related training and professional development, including the quality of the training/CPD and barriers to accessing training/CPD;

  • the consequences of funding pressures on schools and services in relation to meeting the needs of learners who have SEND;

  • the impacts on learners who have SEND and learners more generally.

If you are in an authority that is participating in the Safety Valve or Delivering Better Value programmes, we would welcome feedback on what is happening and the impact of the programme. You might find the following questions useful:

  • Has participation resulted in cuts to services and deterioration in the quality of support?

  • Has the authority sought to reduce costs by setting quotas for assessments, or access to services; or by reducing the number of places in specialist provision that they will fund; or by reducing the amount of funding that will be attached to a band or level of support?

  • Has participation resulted in greater investment in early intervention including support for mainstream schools and settings?

  • Has participation in the programme placed greater pressure on schools, settings and/or services?

We would welcome feedback about experiences of the SEND system, including the Change Programme. Please email feedback and evidence to the NASUWT Education Team.

Footnote
[1] REACh stands for Reaching Excellence and Ambition for All Children. The consortium is led by PA Consulting. The other consortium partners are the Council for Disabled Children, IMPOWER and Olive Academies.

[2] REACh Consortium newsletter, January 2024. Available at https://mailchi.mp/ncb.org.uk/your-january-newsletter-is-here (accessed 8 May 2024)