The Lamb Inquiry into parental confidence in the SEN framework submitted its final report to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families on 16 December. The Inquiry has spilled over into a review of the SEN system in general. The final report calls for a major reform of the current system and contains no less than 51 recommendations, which broadly ask for a clearer focus on outcomes; a stronger voice for parents; a more strategic local approach; and a greater degree of accountability. The Secretary of State has responded announcing a number of actions to be taken in the New Year, in response to this report.

Many of the Lamb recommendations are highly pertinent and to be welcomed. Can we expect, however, that they will be meaningfully implemented? It is remarkable how many of them are for things that are already broadly stipulated by legislation or implicit in policy but not actually happening. The question therefore has to be asked: if so many sticking-plasters are required for a system already supposed to be in place, is it capable of being mended?

According to the report, the SEN system needs to “ruthlessly refocus its efforts on securing better outcomes.” However, the report does not make absolutely clear what type of outcomes it is referring to. It does hint that on the basis of the evidence collected by the Inquiry “social” outcomes are more important to parents than other kinds. But it makes no mention of how such outcomes might be achieved or monitored. In particular, it ignores the growing use of person-centred planning in assessments and reviews, with targets related to what is important to the child and his/her family and their aspirations for the future, rather than to standard testing and narrowly conceived “attainment”.

The issue of inclusive schooling is not mentioned in the report. Does it matter where children are taught? (Put another way, does it matter if they spend most of their day separated from their brothers, sisters and friends or potential friends from the local community?) The Report makes no comment, other than the briefest passing reference, where it suggests that the answer is “No”. It is hard to understand how separating people in childhood can lead to the life outcomes aimed at in government policies for adults who are disabled, have mental health problems or are otherwise isolated – that is, of leading ordinary lives in the community.

So is the SEN framework worth saving? The Report has doubts about whether a universal “personalisation” agenda would be sufficient substitute for the legal protections hypothetically provided by the current SEN framework. Such doubts appear reasonable in the present climate. However, they also presuppose that no leadership will be forthcoming from national and local government, in respect of fulfilling the rights of disabled children and those identified as having special educational needs. And without such leadership, a patch-up of the existing SEN framework will not work either.

This is not the first time that the SEN framework has been examined and found wanting. In 2002 the Audit Commission undertook extensive research into provision for children said to have special educational needs and raised concerns that statutory assessment and statementing is a costly, bureaucratic and unresponsive process which many parents find stressful and alienating. In its final report, the Audit Commission had then concluded that “key parts of the statutory framework no longer reflect the reality of today’s system of education”.

CSIE calls for the abolition of a system that focuses on perceived differences in children and the introduction of a new framework, which focuses on the way schools are organised and supports the development of inclusive provision for all learners in their local neighbourhood schools.