SEND Reform: Too often in Politics- The subtext *is* the text.

The Closed-Door Briefing on SEND Reform: What Ministers seem determined not to say out loud.

Imagined scene: Private Cabinet Briefing following publication of the long-awaited SEND Reforms.

DISCLAIMER: This is a work of political satire created for public interest commentary. All scenarios and dialogue are fictional and illustrative. It does not purport to represent actual statements made by any individual.

Strictly Not for Publication

Internal Minister Briefing — SEND Reform:
Putting children and young people first.

Note: This is a restricted Cabinet discussion
(not to be publicly minuted)

“Ok Team. We’re still working on the right ‘public’ words for this. Our PR team have suggested something like “…Today we call time on a system that has let down children and families for far too long…”

Work in progress, but directionally on message, we think?

But behind closed doors? Frankly — we actually think this is about us being about the only grown-ups left in the room.

So. Sub-text for the grown-ups? System rationalisation and rationing. We obviously won’t be saying that bit out loud, but as you all know, we need this sorted.

Local Authorities have been filling us in on the problems for years — and let’s face it, most of us cut our teeth in local government so we all know what’s really going on here. So at this point we just need to get this thing done.

As you know, our LA colleagues are telling us too many children are getting too much. Some possibly not enough. But sharp-elbowed parents are apparently running amok.

This level of entitlement must not be tolerated.

Answer? We deliver a shiny new system — but underneath the words is a tightly controlled, strictly cost-limited pool of standardised support to be divided among the children that we actually think need it.

As for legally enforceable? Pah. Let’s ensure everyone is legally entitled to the document — but not to the support itself. Clever play on words and we’ll save ourselves a fortune in legal costs.

We’re obviously going to have to manage all of the decision making around this ourselves — because Judges have sadly shown they cannot be relied upon to toe the line.

But thankfully, bureaucracy has long proven to be our friend here, and the LAs are well used to seizing all of that up for us. We’re thinking complaints… panels… and maybe some kind of advisory Ombudsman? Something suitably officious, but entirely toothless.

We’ll come back to Tribunals later.

That must be the way forward.

Just — for goodness sake — don’t say that out loud.

As you all know, we seem to be spending a war-chest on taxis — because local authorities made a dire mess of local place sufficiency planning, and successive governments chronically underinvested in education.

We did think for a moment that perhaps we just needed to tear up the education system and start again?

…But our helpful advisers at the DfE have advised caution. Why would we want to do anything quite as radical as that? “Evolution, not revolution” remember, and the golden rule: visible progress within the electoral cycle!

So, apparently what we really need is a quick and simple financial plug to this rather tricky ‘transport’ problem, dressed up as ‘inclusion’. Children are currently being ferried around (at enormous taxpayer cost, I must add), to attend schools that, quote, “meet their needs”.

Preposterous. That nonsense must stop.

All children should be firmly returned to their nearest local school. Tout de suite. For this part of the reform we will say:

“…when children attend their local school, and belong to their local community, our society is stronger.”

When we say this — we mean: shrink those transport costs.

If we need to build a few additional classrooms to accommodate those kids that are proving a tad too difficult for teachers to manage — so be it. Our Behaviour Tsars reliably inform us that these so-called ‘Inclusion Rooms’ are doing a great job of problem containment already.

Rest assured, the money we save on transport alone will quickly dwarf any early capital expenditure on some simple infrastructure tweaks. Whatever happened to porta-cabins anyway? Plus, what headteacher doesn’t love a bit of capital budget for a lick of ‘calming’ paint, sensory stones and some new highlighters. Win win.

Specialist Expertise, you say? Nothing a bit of CPD can’t fix. The DfE tell us half a day’s training should do it. We’ve already lined up some shiny new government contracts for that.

Plus once we’ve shaved 80% off the headcount from all those oversubscribed ‘specialist’ schools, they will find they have plenty of time to come and provide their ‘expert’ support, ad-hoc, in mainstream schools instead.

And where it seems that despite best efforts, something a bit more robust is really needed?

…Short-term placements.

12 weeks in a specialist setting or alternative provision, then back they go. That should sort it soon enough.

Sorry — Evidence, was that? Well. Yes. Unfortunately it seems that may be a little scarce on the ground.

I believe the DfE have managed to find a report from Norway, from… let me see… 2006. Yes. It’s the closest they could find. It’s in the appendices somewhere. Page 378, I think. Just don’t read it too carefully.

Honestly though? Evidence, schmevidence. We’re more about ‘ambition’ here.

It seems far too many SEND children are out of school entirely. 🫥

No-one seems to be entirely sure how many… and not actually sure we really want to know. Plus there is this funny little phenomenon called ‘EOTAS’ that everyone keeps talking about — Education Other Than At School.

Frankly, no one really seems to understand it, but it’s letting the side down. Let’s face it — it’s nothing but a glaring, undeniable, highly visible warning light that schools are failing children.

And we can’t be having that on show.

Smart, huh? If anyone asks, just wave vaguely at the ‘need for EOTAS’ while we quietly dismantle every legal mechanism that would actually deliver it in practice. Bingo. Problem solved.

But. Whatever you do — DO NOT mention the Children and Wellbeing Bill. 🤫

What to do about those pesky legal rights.

Apparently rapidly increasing numbers of these disruptive parents have somehow equipped themselves with enough legal knowledge to actually challenge the state. The audacity! Worse still — it seems they win 98.7% of the time. It’s all just got a little out of hand.

After a lot of thought, we have decided there really is only one answer: We will solve this problem by making it equitably impossible for ANYONE to access any support.

Ta Da. Equity restored. Think of it as levelling down.
We would, of course, prefer you call it

Of course, unfortunately none of this stacks up while the judiciary can still independently review an individual child’s needs, examine the evidence, overturn our decision making and make legally binding orders on placement. As we know — the evidence will nearly always show that what a child actually needs is more than we’re willing to fund… That’s precisely what got us into this predicament.

So, no doubt that Tribunal is now a serious barrier to our plans.

…as one of our DfE special advisers aptly described it in our media briefing — sorry, no, media leak — just “cut them off at the knees”.

Besides, since when did anyone decide that the Judiciary should be allowed to interfere with decisions made by the State?

Sorry… What was that? Pillar of good democracy, you say? Essential mechanism to hold public bodies to account? Independent check on state power?

Hm. Yes. All fair points I suppose.

But it’s all just so adversarial when they keep telling us we’ve got it wrong.

So. More to come, and obviously the messaging will need a lot of errrr…massaging. But, with our majority, a £90 million marketing campaign and a firm hand from the whips — I think we’ve got this.

Any questions?”

Too often in Politics — the subtext is the text.

Measure What Matters

Uncover · Inform · Empower