Today has seen the publication of two rabid pieces from the Department for Education and Bridget Phillipson, singling out Independent Special Schools for a political kicking. In 25 years in the SEND world, I have met Ministers with passion, who knew their brief well, Ministers who were amiable but fairly clueless and Ministers with a personal axe to grind. I am not sure that, until now, I have ever worked under a Minister who shows such contempt. Contempt not just for special schools but for the children they support and the families who have found them a lifeline.
I often say, I hold no objection to anyone who dislikes the concept of profit in public services. However, I do object to this being used as a battering ram for political messages - in the absence of evidence and with a bending of facts that Donald Trump would look at in admiration.
If Ministers believe that Independent Special Schools (ISS) are being used too frequently, then surely you ask the question 'why' before you decide on an action? Is it that ISS are luring children from maintained schools, driving them out of business and forcing local authorities to place with them? Emphatically no!
The growth in the number of ISS placements has entirely coincided with escalating demand for EHCPs and the failure of Governments past and present to invest in special school provision beyond the highly inefficient Free Schools Programme. ISS placements grew to meet demand and because schools invested millions in ensuring that children finally had a school where they could belong. Consequently, to promote a policy designed to restrict the operation of ISS and, one would assume, diminish their numbers over time, is a perfect example of putting the cart before the horse. In the absence of any published policy setting out investment in special schools, rather than mainstream ‘Inclusion Bases’, there is a very real risk of children being left without the specialist placements they need.
Are there children placed in ISS who don't need to be there? Again, I would say no. At the point of placement, the majority have been through multiple school placement failures, intensifying and entrenching needs. It is likely that some children didn't need to go through this process, had their needs been met more effectively earlier, but this is not the same as saying those placements are not needed now. Yes, the sector is picking up pieces of the wider system but, sadly, generally at the point where children have already been damaged by system failures.
All the announcements this week have been woefully lacking in evidence. The much-repeated price comparison between maintained and ISS compares the teaching and learning element of maintained schools with the entire cost of an ISS placement and the health and social care support that generally comes with it. And remember, ISS receive almost nothing in the way of grants, unlike maintained provision.
If 30% of the sector is private equity backed, then 70%, the majority, is not. If this is a policy aimed at profit-making then why is it equally applied to charitable and family-owned ISS? It isn't plausible as a policy argument. There has been a huge underplaying this week that this policy of banded funding is to be aimed at all special schools and colleges – possibly Government are hoping no one will notice that they have not limited this action to ISS in any of their communications. It feels like a Trojan Horse policy and one which threatens to catch many specialist providers unawares.
There’s been much talk this week about ISS who put profit ahead of giving children the education they need. Where is the evidence linking poor quality to high profit? I'm not aware of this as a trend, despite one or two widely circulated examples from a single provider. Overall, ISS are as likely to be rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted (in old money!) as other types of special school.
To be on the receiving end of contempt is bruising. It drives people into defensive positions at the time you need them to be willing allies in change. It is hard to think about engaging constructively with people who you fear are out to get you and who aren’t willing to be swayed by any counter arguments you present. Of course it won’t make us give up – it just increases the amount of energy we have to find to fight. I’m looking forward to be part of a tribe that metaphorically storms DfE with torches and pitchforks and I am sure I will be in very good company!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASS is the membership association for special schools in England and Wales. We provide support, advice, information, events, training and a strong national voice. We have more than 475 special schools and organisations within our community and our membership is open to every type of special school – Independent Special School, Non-Maintained Special Schools, Special Academies and Maintained Special Schools.
We work in close partnership with our members, other SEND organisations, and with central and local government, providing insight, information and influence to help shape the future of special education. NASS champions high-quality, specialist provision within a modern, inclusive education system that respects the choices of children, young people and their families.
https://www.nasschools.org.uk/
Useful resources
‘Reaching my potential’ – a study of the value of SEND provision
In 2023, NASS commissioned Sonnet Advisory & Impact C.I.C. to research the value of special educational provision. It explored the difference made to society if learners with SEND receive special educational provision that meets their needs. The report makes a persuasive case for investing in specialist support for learners who need it most, demonstrating an average net impact of £380k across an individual's lifetime.
National Audit Office report - Support for children and young people with special educational needs, October 2024
Published in October 2024, the National Audit Office noted that the increased spend on independent special schools is largely due to increased placements, not increased fees per student. This suggests a sector responding to demand, not exploiting local authorities.