SEND REFORM - A SYSTEMIC THINKING RESPONSE TO THE SEND CRISIS

INTRODUCTION

•‘HOMELESS SHELTERS PERPETUATE HOMELESSNESS’

•‘DRUG BUSTS INCREASE DRUG-RELATED CRIME’

•‘FOOD AID INCREASES STARVATION’

•‘GET-TOUGH" PRISON SENTENCES FAIL TO REDUCE THE FEAR OF VIOLENT CRIME’

•‘JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS INCREASE UNEMPLOYMENT’

•‘REFORMS INSTITUTED A DECADE AGO IN THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 HAS LED TO A PERVISE INCENTIVE SYSTEM’

All 6 headlines are based on factual stories – all 6 are well intended policies which produce the opposite of what they are attempting to accomplish. The same is true for SEND policies and current frameworks, they are failed social policies.

But why? – very often when we examine the failures in SEND and its crisis, we address the symptom rather than the underlying problem. We create policies and frameworks which;

a.seem obvious and often succeed only in the short run;

b.achieve short term gains that are undermined by longer-term impacts;

c.produce negative consequences that are unintentional; AND

d.leads us to assume that we are not responsible for the problem’s recurrence.

For example, In spite of a rational approach in line with the current system (by parents, schools, health and local authorities) whereby families of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) attempt to work more closely in partnership with public services in schools and local authorities – children’s needs continue to go unmet.

The current system weakens the infrastructure of the SEND community because:

From a family’s perspective needs are unmet, and families are being directly impacted as a consequence – thereby creating more instability and increasing the need for more support through social care inputs;

From a Local Government perspective, the current proposals, such as the green paper, whilst helpful do not address the fundamental need and funding issues that councils are struggling with. Councils also have the responsibility to spend public money wisely, whilst managing a host of competing priorities and duties across communities;

From a school’s perspective – although willing to work with SEND children, they are unable to access the additional resources they require to meet their needs appropriately, though, less ethically, others sadly recognise the benefits that may accrue to their budgets by encouraging some more behavioural challenging children towards the ‘SEND route.

From a Health and Social Care – their engagement is not triggered early enough to provide a holistic care around the family. Social care for instance is simply viewed as a tool to enforce upon parents and raise issues of safeguarding or educational neglect.

A way to address some of these issues is by applying a systemic approach on micro level. The idea of system changing is usually met with dissatisfaction as a result of a common misconception that the system change is a big task or tasking transformational change. Most key stakeholders and contributors to SEND share the sentiment that their contributions cannot achieve such large transformational efforts. Which simply is not true, system change can be systemic without being grand. SEND systems can be changed on a micro level, each unique to the communities it serves.

Systems thinking provides a framework for breaking down complex problems into smaller, interconnected components to better understand their relationships and improve the likelihood of achieving positive, planned outcomes. By adopting a systems thinking approach, it becomes easier to identify root causes and assess the broader impact of potential solutions.

Reforming this area will require legislative and policy changes, but it also involves redesigning services. In government, designers are deeply committed to user-centred design, ensuring that the needs and voices of people are central to decision-making. This approach can drive meaningful transformation in public policies and services. However, for senior public leaders and finance ministries, this perspective alone is not sufficient. They must navigate trade-offs between:

•Intent – the changes a government aims to achieve

• Systems – the environment in which a policy or service must operate and succeed

• People – the individuals who use the policy or service, their needs, and how they will respond

The SEND system has become a complex social system, which has left many dissatisfied and anxious to fix. However, we cannot just keep stepping in and set about fixing it, as put by Lewis Thomas, ‘this is one of the sore discouragements of our time… as if we want to fix something, we are obliged to understand… the whole system’.