After months of waiting - and endless briefings - we finally have the long-awaited schools White Paper.
You might have hoped that a government elected with such a large majority, and years in which to plan, would already have been clearer about what it wanted to do. But I will forgive ministers for taking their time; it was important to get this right.
The education secretary herself acknowledged that the previous special educational needs and disabilities system was well-intentioned, but it is clear for everyone to see that over the past decade demand has soared.
I only wish the government had taken the same care with the Schools Bill.
SEND reforms
As seems to be the form of this government, it prefers to drop a news bomb just as teachers, parents and Westminster are hoping for a moment of calm, and then make little effort to explain to the public why it is doing what it is doing or to provide reassurance in the face of the many questions that inevitably follow jargon-heavy documents.
We saw this with the Schools Bill, which had no manifesto mandate. Before Christmas the Department for Education quietly announced, via written statement, that it was axing a number of free school proposals from special schools - another huge error, especially if the mainstream sector is going to be taking on enormous additional pressures. These schools would have provided vital special state school places. And the long-awaited guidance for gender-questioning children was published just as everyone was packing up for recess.
Each time, parents and teachers were left to work out for themselves what it meant. Sadly, the same happened with these SEND reforms, with a series of briefings over half-term leaving parents anxious and teachers wondering what it will mean for them. This is not fair.
EHCP restrictions
Much of the commentary so far has rightly focused on the SEND changes. Parents have been left hugely anxious about what this means for their children, with very little clarity about whether hard-fought support will be removed or reduced.
I will not support any reform that removes a long-fought-for education, health and care plan (EHCP) from a child who has one - and whether such reform will be the case is still, sadly, not clear.
I will aim to be constructive where the government’s intentions are right.
Early intervention - tick. More speech and language therapists - tick, tick. More maternity pay - tick, tick, tick.
But we must ensure that we are not piling ever more pressure on to the state sector in Bridget Phillipson’s vision that everyone must be the same. Special schools matter, and the independent sector can be crucial in relieving pressure and supporting some children with the most complex needs. Where mainstream schools are taking on more responsibilities, the right funding must follow.
Funding problems
That is not what is happening. Schools are already being stretched hugely following the lack of full compensation for national insurance contributions and unfunded pay rises. The £1.6 billion pot for inclusive mainstream provision over three years equates to roughly £24,000 per school, per year if divided evenly across England.
That is nowhere near enough for the extra work that schools will have to do to write tailored individual support plans for every child with SEND. This is a mammoth burden to place on schools - one I don’t necessarily think is misplaced - but £24,000 a year is not enough to help them manage it. This is not a recipe for inclusion but for disaster.
And the wider funding picture is even more concerning. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has left the DfE with a £6 billion black hole - money that the Office for Budget Responsibility identified would have to come from SEN provision or schools. Against that backdrop, the department is set to receive an extra £3.5 billion in 2028-29, reopening its Spending Review settlement, but that uplift is more than swallowed by the pressures it has inherited.
The result is still roughly a £2.5 billion gap. It remains unclear where the money is supposed to come from and, even taking the department at its word, there is still a significant hole in the numbers: £2.5 billion is not money you can find down the back of the sofa.
White Paper proposals
The Schools White Paper did little to address some of the wider issues facing schools.
Issues around teacher retention and behaviour have had remarkably little sustained attention from the education secretary. So more incentives for heads to move to more deprived areas, set out this week, are welcome.
A long-awaited plan for 6,500 more teachers is also welcome.
But with reforms relying heavily on mainstream schools delivering significantly enhanced SEND provision, it beggars belief that the workforce plan contains no mention of specialist teachers.
There was also no serious suggestion of what can be done to support teachers grappling with the huge behaviour challenges in schools. Tougher guidance to ban smartphones is not enough. We tried this and it did not work. We need legislation to support teachers. That is what is right not just for behaviour but for attainment, too.
Exclusions guidance
Mention of permanent exclusions guidance that seeks to “emphasise inclusion” is, I believe, the wrong approach. Permanent exclusions and suspensions will always be the last resort, but teachers should feel supported to make that decision when they believe it is the right one. Not just for the other children in the class, but also for the child who is acting out.
The focus on halving the disadvantage gap is welcome - Tes readers will know my views on how that is done. Evidence-driven reforms over the past two decades have helped the most disadvantaged pupils. Is the job done? Absolutely not. But it is certainly not wise to tear up reforms with zero evidence that change will improve outcomes for a single child.
In fact, we have clear evidence that it will not - just look across the border to Wales. (Sorry, Wales, but it is true.)
New funding formulas based largely on income may be well-intentioned, but there are serious risks that some of the most disadvantaged children will fall through the cracks.
Admissions changes
Most intriguingly, the government signals its intention to consult later this year on changes to the Schools Admissions Code, suggesting that “access to high-performing local schools should not be dependent on factors such as families’ household income or local house prices”.
The education secretary should be focused on improving our state schools, not taking a wrecking ball to the cross-party consensus that has helped standards to rise. Instead of raising standards for every child, she appears more interested in class warfare on school admissions. Changes to the admissions code will restrict some families from sending their child to a good local school. That is unacceptable.
Parents work hard and often choose where to live based on school quality because they want the best for their child. The Schools Bill goes further, giving local authorities the power to block “good” and “outstanding” schools from growing or even maintaining their size. That takes away parental choice and protects weak schools from pressure to improve.
We have won a vote on reversing these changes in the Lords, and hopefully MPs will see sense when it returns to the Commons in the coming weeks.
There is a great deal to unpack from the White Paper, and many parents will be left confused about what it means for their child. Teachers and families can be assured of this: I will fight to protect what they have fought for, and I will fight to ensure that any changes are evidence-driven.
Laura Trott is the Conservatives’ shadow education secretary
You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android
