91����

The government’s “experts at hand” programme is at the heart of its plans to make mainstream schools more inclusive.

The £1.8 billion scheme, part of the government’s reforms to special educational needs and disabilities support, will involve councils recruiting external experts such as educational psychologists and speech and language therapists.

But there are serious concerns over funding levels, as well as fears that schools and trusts are being left out of the plans.

And experts question how schools will balance in-depth provision for the pupils most in need, while becoming more inclusive to all.

Experts at hand: Schools ‘need more involvement’

While some local authorities are already talking to academy trusts about their experts-at-hand plans, “the approach doesn’t yet seem to be consistent across the country”, according to Leora Cruddas, chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts.

This is despite “clear” that mainstream settings should be included in the development of plans, she says.

Trusts could either receive or deliver support from the programme, “so we would expect trusts to be involved in early discussion”, Cruddas adds, pointing to the need for conversations to be based on “the most robust evidence and professional expertise”.

One of the areas in which experts want schools and trusts to play an active role is in establishing how these experts at hand will be integrated into the school system.

Margaret Mulholland, SEND and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders, says the experts-at-hand offer “has the potential to play a major role in delivering the intent of the reforms”.

“It makes sense for local authorities to build this service so that there is a coordinated strategic overview of what this should look like across a geographical area. However, it is going to be important that schools and colleges are at the heart of how this is developed and help shape provision,” she says.

Amelie Thompson, head of SEND at Greenshaw Learning Trust, which runs 37 academies, says schools could help to ensure that support is targeted effectively.

“There needs to be recognition in the system that meaningful cross-service collaboration takes time, requires careful, deliberate planning and demands a shared, clear understanding of the roles, responsibilities and functions each service contributes,” she warns.

Who are the experts for?

The government has proposed that, under its reforms, pupils with SEND will receive one of three levels of support: targeted, targeted plus or specialist.

When its reforms were first announced, the DfE said that pupils on the targeted plus tier would receive input from other education and health professionals - suggesting that this would be the tier of support and the pupils for whom experts at hand would be most prevalent.

However, states that support will be focused on groups and whole-class approaches, meaning the experts at hand will be focused on work that could benefit all pupils.

Educational psychologists believe the programme might help the profession to return to a model of support that it used to be able to provide for schools.

Donna Wiggett, general secretary of the Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP), says whole-school support has been “whittled down” over the years because of budget cuts within local authorities.

“This expert-at-hand programme, while it’s been framed as something like the new Messiah coming, actually we’ve always wanted to work that way,” she says.

Wiggett tells 91���� that educational psychologists want to be able to take a holistic approach by working with the school Sendcos and leaders to assess provision, inclusion policies and training needs.

There have been concerns that rising numbers of education, health and care plans (EHCPs) have made the job of an educational psychologist less attractive. This is because so much of the work is tied up in administrative processes around the plans, rather than supporting children.

Do schools need to accept the advice?

However, Sean Octigan, professional officer for the AEP, highlights a risk that expert advice could be ignored under the new system.

“We’re moving away from a process - and it’s not a perfect process - where an EHCP legally enshrines what that child needs. It’s based around child need and it’s a legal document which should have legal powers,” he says.

In contrast, Octigan explains, the experts-at-hand programme would involve the system moving to a “best endeavours approach” in which educational psychologists’ reports “will not have the same legal power”.

“It’s those kinds of things that need ironing out. We are giving advice, but when the advice is not statutory, there’s nothing to say the school has to take that advice up.”

Octigan also points to challenges for educational psychologists working with big multi-academy trusts. “You cannot really meet with the people who make the decisions because they are not in that school - it’s not done at school level,” he says.

Training needs

Thompson agrees that work is needed to ensure that experts and schools work together effectively, given the “significant investment” in the scheme.

“If this investment is to have the intended impact on pupil outcomes and experiences, we need careful implementation planning and sequencing to ensure the right capacity exists and is being developed in the right places,” she says.

Thompson also stresses the importance of staff training to ensure that leaders can direct and implement the support from experts at hand appropriately.

Likewise, the experts at hand may need professional development to make sensible recommendations “rather than unintentionally creating ‘bolt-on’, overly individualised approaches that schools are not able to deliver”, she states.

How far will the funding stretch?

Another widely held concern is that the major funding announcement will not actually result in a major transformation.

The money “is just not going to be enough”, says one SEND leader in a trust, who asked not to be named.

“When you break it down per child, especially if considering identification and early intervention, it is not very much money at all,” they add.

What is needed instead is “proper investment in important supporting services”, including youth workers and mental health support.

A headteacher, who also asked to remain anonymous, raises concern about the longer-term impact that the experts at hand will have.

“Do I think this programme will make a difference in how inclusive our school can be? No, I don’t. We already have some access to these services in our local area, but the challenge is having access to these experts for long enough to make a difference.”

Schools are already good at making adjustments, they say, adding: “Where we need expert help is where we have tried everything with a child, it’s not working and we need in-depth expertise.

“But that requires an investment of time, and I am not sure this programme is going to give us that.”

The DfE has been contacted for comment.