Gareth Copeland, education consultant, OLM Systems, looks at the SEN2 survey and argues there is a disconnect with what really counts.
The annual Special Educational Needs statistics were recently published, and it was no surprise to see the numbers continue the trajectory of recent years. The number of requests are up, the number of plans are up, and the number of local authorities issuing plans within timescales are down.
I’ve been working to support teams responsible for assessments and reviews for many, many years and it’s a very familiar story. Demand goes up, service level goes down.
The Special Educational Needs survey, often referred to as the ‘SEN2 survey’, is a statutory data collection which takes place every January. Local authorities complete the return with data from the previous calendar year and submit the data back to the Department for Education (DfE) annually.
A flawed data collection?
The survey collects information on those children with education, health and care (EHC) plans, and previously Statements, across England. The return is extremely important as it is the only complete source of data on EHC plans maintained by local authorities across England. In my view, however, the collection is seriously flawed, and potentially even harmful for all involved.
As always, these statistics are quickly analysed in the industry, and in the media who are quick to compile lists of ‘bad’ local authorities who haven’t met targets or have done slightly worse than in previous years. But, as many colleagues up and down the country are keen to point out, the data collected by SEN2 counts processes, it doesn’t count outcomes, it doesn’t count experiences, it doesn’t count the progress, it doesn’t count quality.
In short, it doesn’t really count what counts.
Further than that though, does the pressure local authorities feel not to be thrown into the ‘bad’ category in their local newspaper or Facebook group actually push them to make decisions which are more about the numbers than children and families? Is SEN2 creating much more of a problem than it actually solves?
For years, meeting the 20-week deadline for issuing of a plan has been the holy grail of local authority SEND teams in large part because this is the key figure that was reported for SEN2. All too often, however, this is to the detriment of annual reviews which become significantly overdue for thousands of children and young people.
Often teams don’t have the resources required to do all of the things, all of the time so they naturally gravitate to the things which are counted and reported. But is that to the detriment of children and young people? Are we encouraging local authorities to do what is counted, not what counts?
In recent years the SEN2 survey has been updated to collect a much more holistic picture of what is happening with regards to assessments, reviews, provision and even includes demographic information such as sex and ethnicity. However, the data that is released following that collection is still highly aggregated and has drawn the same narrow conclusions from many in the sector which may be a missed opportunity.
With regards to inspections on the other hand, in particular under the new inspection framework, they are hyper focussed on the outcomes of children and young people. There are three possible outcomes following a local authority inspection:
• The local area partnership’s arrangements typically lead to positive experiences and outcomes for children and young people with SEND.
• The local area partnership’s arrangements lead to inconsistent experiences and outcomes for children and young people with SEND.
• There are widespread and/or systemic failings leading to significant concerns about the experiences and outcomes of children and young people with SEND.
In addition to this, as part of the run up to an inspection, parents’ views are gathered to help inform the inspection team’s work. The inspection teams also meet with the local parent carer forum in order to explore further the issues and barriers they face.
A disconnect with what really counts
Despite the recent changes to the collection there still seems to be a significant disconnect between the SEN2 data collection, which largely counts processes, and what we know to be truly important: the experiences and outcomes of young people themselves.
Until the data collection can accurately reflect what is truly important we may forever be in a cycle of driving the wrong behaviours in those who oversee the SEND system at a local level.
