The Guardian view on special needs reform: children's needs must be the priority as the system is redesigned
There is no question that the rising number of children receiving extra help has placed pressure on schools and councils. There is wide agreement that the current trajectory is not sustainable. But if plans for reform are shaped around the aim of saving money by removing entitlements, rather than meeting the needs of children by improving schools, they should be expected to fail.
If ministers did not already know this, the Save Our Children's Rights campaign launched this week ought to help. As it stands, there is no policy of restricting access to the education, health and care plans (EHCPs) that impose a legal duty on councils to provide specified support. But ministers' criticisms of the adversarial aspects of the current system have led families to conclude that they should prepare for an attempt to remove their enforceable rights. Christine Lenehan, who advises the government, has indicated that the scope of EHCPs could be narrowed, while stressing a commitment to consultation. Tom Rees, who chairs the department for education's specialist group, bluntly terms it 'a bad system'.
Mr Rees's panel has had its term extended until April. The education select committee will present the conclusions of its inquiry into the Send crisis in the autumn. Both should be listened to carefully. But the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, and her team also need to show that they are capable of engaging beyond the circle of appointed experts and parliamentarians. Parents can make their views known through constituency MPs. Their voices and perspectives need to be heard in Whitehall too.
This is a hugely sensitive policy area. There is nothing parents care more about than the opportunities provided to their children, and this concern is intensified when those children have additional needs. Some positive steps have been taken during Labour's first year. Increased capital spending on school buildings should make a difference to in-house provision, which relies on the availability of suitable spaces. Ministers are right, too, to focus on teacher training, while inclusion has been given greater prominence in the inspection framework. As with the NHS, there is a welcome emphasis on spreading best practice.
But big questions remain. Families are fearful that accountability mechanisms are going to be removed, and want to know how the new 'inclusive mainstream' will be defined and judged. Councils are concerned about what happens to their £5bn in special needs budget deficits, when the so-called statutory override expires in 2028. The concerning role of private equity in special education – which mirrors changes in the children's social care market – also needs addressing.
Schools need to adapt so that a greater range of pupils can be accommodated. The issue is how the government manages that process. The hope must be that the lesson ministers take from their failure on welfare is that consultation on highly sensitive changes, affecting millions of lives, must be thorough. In order to make change, they must build consensus.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs urge ministers to introduce long-awaited rules on supply chain deforestation
MPs have called on ministers to introduce long-awaited rules aimed at removing products from UK shelves that have been farmed on land where trees were cut down. The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) wrote to Environment Secretary Steve Reed calling for urgent action to tackle the issue in supply chains. Under the previous Government's proposals, businesses will be prohibited from using or selling goods containing palm oil, cocoa, beef, leather and soy linked to deforestation. This due diligence system was part of the 2021 Environment Act but ministers are yet to bring forward the necessary secondary legislation or set a timetable for when they will do so. EAC chairman Toby Perkins asked Mr Reed to set out a specific date for introducing the legislation 'ideally before the New Year' so that the rules can be in place for the new financial year in April. The letter said: 'Delays in bringing forward this legislation makes the Cop15 agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and the UK's commitment to ending deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, harder to achieve. 'However, it also leaves businesses with uncertainty and will leave them with less time to prepare and comply with the regime. 'On 2 June, in your response to the Committee, you recognised the urgency of taking action to ensure forest risk commodities are not driving deforestation and stated you would set out the Government approach in due course.' Several British supermarkets recently warned that they are in 'limbo' waiting for the Government to introduce the new rules. In an open letter earlier this month, retailers such as Tesco, Sainsbury's and Lidl said deforestation presents an increasing risk to supply chain stability as well as food security. But they also said the UK could suffer millions in export losses to the European Union if Government inaction leaves businesses unprepared to comply with the bloc's own deforestation rules, which are due to come into force at the end of this year. Asked recently whether the Government has a timetable for introducing the legislation, the Environment Secretary told the PA news agency: 'Currently no, but we are working at pace so we can do this as quickly as possible.' On the supermarkets' letter and whether the Government is looking to speed up progress on introducing the rules, Mr Reed said: 'Absolutely.' 'I agree with the supermarkets,' he said. 'The previous Government was just dragging their heels without ever coming to a conclusion about what we do about protecting forests in other countries as well as in our own country. 'And of course forests, trees, woodlands were very important for capturing carbon and cleaning the atmosphere so we don't want to be importing food that has been grown where the forests have been destroyed. 'The Government is working with supermarkets, with food producers and internationally to make sure we get the outcome and we can do that as soon as possible to give everybody certainty about how we move forward on this.'
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
The Taliban are remaking Afghanistan in their image. It should have us all worried
Since returning to power, the Taliban has made spreading its ideology a key priority. From prisons and rehab facilities to military bases, 'religious education' is becoming a cornerstone of Afghanistan's institutions. By introducing courses in Quranic recitation and exegesis, as well as broader religious instruction, the group aims to bring more Afghans closer to its strict interpretation of Islam and convince them of the merits of its fundamentalist approach. Recently, images of the 'graduation ceremony' of 100 people undergoing treatment for drug addiction at a rehab centre in the western province of Herat were widely promoted in media outlets affiliated with the group. The 'graduands' had completed courses in the correct recitation and pronunciation of the Quran. The ceremony, which also marked the end of their time at the facility, featured white clothing, traditional caps and Taliban flags. Syed Asif, one of the participants in the course who was a patient at the centre, told Independent Persian: 'I'm currently undergoing treatment and have now been able to quit drugs. During this time, I started reading the Holy Quran and memorised many of its parts.' Hayatullah Rouhani, anti-narcotics chief in the city of Herat, said authorities aim to provide opportunities for religious learning in the rehabilitation process for those struggling with addiction. In addition to Quranic instruction, the Taliban also held singing sessions for some of the patients. They were instructed to sign anthems that glorified the group's 20-year war against the former Afghan government and Western forces, recounting bombings, suicide attacks and bloody battles. These songs serve to promote the Taliban's 'jihadist narrative' and legitimise violence. What's concerning is not the introduction of religious education in itself, but the content and nature of what is taught. It is a curriculum designed to push society toward extremism and create fertile ground for Taliban recruitment. During the group's insurgency against the previous government, religious schools were key recruiting hubs. These institutions distort Islamic teachings and glorify violence, preparing students for war and carrying out suicide missions. Their goal is to build a society not just politically dominated by the Taliban, but intellectually and ideologically shaped by its worldview. Now that the Taliban has full control of public schools, religious institutions, universities, prisons and rehab centres across Afghanistan, their primary focus has been imposing a rigid, hardline interpretation of Islam. Their goal is to build a society not just politically dominated by the Taliban, but intellectually and ideologically shaped by its worldview. The Taliban's expansion of religious education isn't confined to prisons and rehab centres. There has been a sharp increase in the number of mosques and religious schools across the country. The presence of senior Taliban officials at graduation ceremonies, both in religious schools and for religious courses in detention or rehab centres, makes it clear that spreading their version of Islam through 'religious education' is a top priority. These officials have repeatedly called on people to study religion, but with the proviso that this is done according to the Taliban's own interpretation of Islam, which diverges significantly from mainstream Islamic teachings in much of the Muslim world. The growing emphasis on this specific brand of religious education, centred on the Taliban's radical interpretation of Islam, raises serious concerns about the normalisation of religious extremism. By promoting slogans like 'implementing Sharia law' and 'establishing an Islamic system', the Taliban are trying to win over more Afghan citizens to its radical ideology and expand the social base it needs to sustain its political and military power.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
What does the overturning of a City trader's fraud conviction mean for deregulation?
Tom Hayes, the former City trader who was jailed in 2015 for his part in rigging inter-bank interest rates, the so-called Libor scandal – was a patsy. The former UBS and Citigroup trader was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison, later reduced to 11. This week, that conviction was quashed by the Supreme Court. I'm all for white collar criminals getting their just desserts, but Hayes' penalty always seemed more than a little excessive. It is more than twice what the rogue trader Nick Leeson got for bringing down Barings Bank. However, proportionality never came into this. Hayes' trial was designed to deliver a head on a plate to a public that was justifiably angry about what the City was getting up to after the bankers nearly crashed the economy. There was a widespread feeling that overpaid boys – and they were mostly boys – with massively inflated egos and little sense of morality were thumbing their noses at the rest of Britain, which was just starting to feel the impact of the then-government's austerity policies. But Hayes, who ended up serving five-and-a-half years, had nothing to do with that crisis, and contributed not a whit to austerity. Libor – the interest rate at which key banks were willing to lend unsecured loans to each other – was unregulated at the time, which also wasn't Hayes' fault, but rather an issue for the politicians and regulators who were asleep at the wheel. It did ultimately set the rate for a number of loans, including some mortgages, but the day-to-day activities of Hayes and his peers didn't have much effect on what ordinary borrowers paid. No one was able to convincingly show any, otherwise we would have seen a string of compensation claims. The chief losers were likely other trading desks, which were often playing the same game anyway. That's not to justify what went on. Cheating is still cheating, and the whole business knocked confidence in the City and its markets. But, then, the whole system was a joke. 'Tom Hayes' penalty always seemed more than a little excessive. It is more than twice what the rogue trader Nick Leeson got for bringing down Barings Bank' (PA Wire) Libor was set based on what some rube at Bank A estimated would be their cost of borrowing from other banks. These were put together, and a daily rate declared. If a hotshot trader got in touch, suggesting that the Libor guy tweak their Tuesday submission to help their trading position, they tended to comply. This is how the scandal got going. Needless to say, all this was unregulated. Yes, you read that right. Stupid is as stupid does, and this was really stupid. The Financial Services Authority, which was then the City's chief watchdog, ended up using failings in systems and controls and violations of its principles of business to justify the chunky fines it ultimately levied on the banks involved. Back to Hayes: the Supreme Court didn't completely exonerate him. It said there was 'ample evidence' during the trial that could have led to a conviction. But the judges raised issues with the trial judge's summing up, the directions given to the jury, and the impact it had on Hayes' defence. This was deemed to be unfair and the conviction unsafe as a result. It wouldn't be a surprise to see the other seven convicted traders up next. Similar cases have also been quashed in the US. The whole deck of cards is collapsing. The Serious Fraud Office said it would not seek to re-try Hayes or Carlo Palombo, another former trader, at Barclays, who received a four-year sentence for manipulating another benchmarked interest rate, Euribor, but has also won his appeal. They've done their time, and it's unlikely that the taxpayer will be coughing up any compo. Best sweep this one under the carpet because who wants all that stupid aired in public again, right? Here's the problem. The government had promised to deregulate financial services in the hope that reducing its oversight of the financial sector would light a fire under the City of London, boost the UK's stalling economy and bring in the tax revenues that the Treasury is in dire need of. This will likely involve loosening the rules governing the conduct of senior bankers that were ushered in following the 2008 credit crunch and the wave of scandals that followed in its wake, including interest-rate fixing. Can you see the problem with that? I think Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, can. Earlier this week, he advised the Treasury select committee that any big reforms to dramatically loosen City regulation – what the chancellor Rachel Reeves described in her Mansion House speech as a "boot on the neck" of business – and encourage more risk-taking might actually do more harm than good. He hinted that it might even trigger another financial meltdown. If traders can find an edge, an opening, they will jump on it. It was ever thus. They had good reason to think they had with Libor and that they were okay because there weren't any proper rules in place at the time. Their bosses will either turn a blind eye, just as they did then, or quietly encourage it, especially if the numbers come up good. And when this results in another scandal, there will be fines, which banks see as the cost of doing business, and an attempt to find another Tom Hayes to carry the can. The supervising bosses, who do the hiring and set the culture and who are supposed to be on top of what their banks are up to, will ride out the storm and pocket their bonuses as they always have. Justice, of a sort, has been served this time. But as for all that talk we heard about lessons being learned? They never are.
