About the What Works in SEND Effective Practice Evidence Framework
Overview
On Thursday 28 March 2024, the Council for Disabled Children and Isos Partnership published the first set of case studies based on the What Works in SEND Effective Practice Evidence (EPE) Framework. The EPE Framework was developed during 2023 through co-production with local and national SEND system leaders and parent carers with experience of the SEND system, as part of the What Works in SEND programme.
The Framework provides a robust methodology for capturing, validating, and sharing examples of effective practice in establishing and sustaining effective local SEND systems in England. The case studies take a holistic view of local SEND systems, capturing the partnerships and inter-connected ways of working that lie behind the delivery of services and support within local authority areas in England. Each case study has been independently reviewed by our pool of reviewers, including parent carers, with experience of leadership and strategic co-production within the SEND system.
For ease of reading, we use the term ‘SEND’ to refer to disabled children, young people and children and young people with special educational needs.
Evidence Standards
We recognise that some evidence stores and repositories of effective practice in other fields of work require case studies to have evidence from randomised controlled trials and to have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Within the What Works in SEND programme, there is a separate strand of work to gather evidence of what works from published research. We recognise, however, that there will be gaps about what works in SEND within evidence drawn solely from research. The aim of the EPE Framework is to capture emerging evidence of what works that is drawn from practice within local SEND systems. We have designed the evidence standards of the EPE Framework to reflect the fact that we are seeking to capture evidence drawn from local practice.
The EPE Framework sets out three evidence standards that case studies must meet:
We are looking for projects that have a clear aim(s) of improving a specific aspect(s) of experience and support for disabled children and young people with SEND and their families within the local SEND system. Case studies should have a quantifiable pre-project baseline or benchmark and post-project goals through which success in achieving the aims of the project can be measured.
We are looking for projects with quantitative and qualitative evidence of positive impact in achieving project goals compared to pre-project benchmarks. Projects should have a clear plan for evaluating and sharing evidence of impact.
We are looking for projects that have been sustained and continued in the area they were developed, or where there is a clear plan in place to do so, and where the learning is potentially relevant to other local areas that may be looking to develop similar work.
Our signal strength ratings explained
Each case study comes with two signal strength indicators, relating to:
- The strength of the evidence of good practice – this is based on the methodology for evaluating the project, how long the project has been running, the timing of any evaluation work, and whether the project has been sustained over time.
- The breadth of impact – this is based on the number of different areas in which the project has shown evidence of impact. The more areas in which a project has achieved impact, the stronger the rating we award the case study.
Both the strength of evidence and the breadth of impact are rated using a four-point scale, from “emerging”, to “promising”, “good” and “robust”, with each level presented visually as an indicator of signal strength.
Strength of evidence
The signal strength indicator awarded for the strength of evidence is based on two factors. First, we look at whether the project was evaluated internally, through an evaluation commissioned from an independent organisation, or as part of an independent study, such as a national research project or policy evaluation.
Given the aim of the Framework is to capture emerging evidence from local practice that may not yet be at the stage where it could be evaluated externally or independently, we think it is important to include self-evaluated projects – where evaluation is conducted by partners within the local SEND system – as an “emerging” stage.
Second, we look at the period of time the project has been sustained for. At the “emerging” and “promising” stages, we look at projects where there is a plan to sustain them (an indication that partners think there is sufficient evidence to justify the continuation of the project) or where the project has been sustained after operating for at least 12 months.
A summary of the criteria we use to award the “signal strength” of the strength of evidence is set out below.
Emerging
Promising
Good
Robust
This is based on the methodology for evaluating the project, how long the project has been running and the timing of the evaluation, whether the project has been sustained over a period of time and replicability (which would give us confidence in the strength of evidence).
Breadth of impact
The strength indicator awarded for the breadth of impact is based on whether a project has achieved impact in one or more areas:
- Positive feedback about the impact on lived experiences of children / young people with SEND and their families;
- Quantifiable impact on education, health and/or wellbeing outcomes for children / young people with SEND;
- Positive feedback about impact from practitioners working in the local SEND system; and
- Evidence of impact on long-term outcomes for children / young people with SEND.
There is no hierarchy, order of importance, or additional weighting given to each of these areas. The signal strength indicator is based on whether, cumulatively, a case study can show impact in one, two, three or all four of these areas. For example:
- A case study with evidence of positive feedback from practitioners would be rated as “emerging” for the breadth of impact.
- A case study with evidence of positive feedback from practitioners and positive feedback on lived experiences of young people would be rated as “promising”.
- A case study with evidence of positive feedback from young people, positive feedback from practitioners, and quantifiable improvement in outcomes for young people would be rated as “good”.
- To achieve the “robust” rating, a case study would need to show evidence of positive feedback from practitioners, positive feedback on lived experiences of young people, quantifiable impact on outcomes for children/young people with SEND directly related to the project goals, as well as impact on long-term outcomes for children/young people with SEND.
By “long-term outcomes”, we mean impact on young people’s preparation for adulthood. For example, a project aiming to improve inclusion of neurodiverse young people may be able to show impact on outcomes such as school and college attendance, but not longer-term impact on young people’s progression to further and higher education, independent living and engagement in the labour market.
Emerging
Evidence of impact in 1 of the following areas
Promising
Evidence of impact in 2 of the following areas
Good
Evidence of impact in 3 of the following areas
Robust
Evidence of impact in 4 of the following areas
Areas of impact
Positive feedback about impact on lived experiences of children/young people with SEND and their families.
Quantifiable education, health and/or welling outcomes for children/young people with SEND.
Positive feedback about impact from practitioners working in the SEND system
Evidence of impact on long-term outcomes for children/young people with SEND.
This is based on four areas. The signal strength indicator increases cumulatively if the project has shown evidence of impact in multiple areas.
How judgements about signal strength indicators are reached
We recognise that any attempt to rate a case study of effective practice will involve a degree of interpretation and personal judgement. We seek to ensure that the process by which decisions about the “signal strength” indicators awarded to each case study are made is open and transparent.
We do this by:
- Publishing the Framework’s evidence standards and criteria for the signal strength judgements;
- Ensuring that each case study is reviewed internally (in relation to the evidence standards and signal strength indicators) and externally (in relation to the signal strength indicators). Internal review is conducted by someone involved in the What Works in SEND programme who has not been directly involved in developing the case study. External review is conducted by a member of our pool of independent reviewers (see below for details);
- Compiling written feedback on each case study, including the rationale behind evidence standard and signal strength judgements, and any gaps or weaknesses in the evidence base that we can follow up on with those involved in delivering projects.
About the EPE Framework Independent Reviewers
Each case study is independently reviewed by members of our pool of reviewers with experience of leadership and strategic co-production within the SEND system. Our pool of independent reviewers includes colleagues with the following roles:
- Leadership responsibility for LA SEND services – for example, an Assistant Director responsible for Inclusion, a Head of Service responsible for SEND;
- Leadership responsibility for SEND within local health services – for example, a Designated Medical or Clinical Officer;
- Leadership responsibility for SEND within local social care services – for example, a Designated Social Care Officer; and
- Colleagues with direct personal experience of the SEND system and of strategic co-productive working within a local SEND system – for example, a parent carer involved in the local Parent Carer Forum or a similar national body.
The seven dimensions of the EPE Framework
The case studies are arranged around seven themes, which relate to particular aspects of the work of local SEND systems. Themes 1 – 4 are strategic dimensions, relating to cross-cutting aspects of local SEND systems. Themes 5 – 7 describe the continuum of support for children and young people with SEN, spanning universal, targeted and specialist levels of support.
Strategic partnership working, leadership and governance
Co-productive working with young people and parents/carers
Achieving long-term outcomes and making a difference to lived experiences
Information & communications
Universal support
Targeted support services
Specialist provision
Each EPE Framework case study will be tagged as being relevant to one or more of the seven themes. The table below summarises what is captured by each theme.
| Time/dimension | What this theme/dimension includes |
|---|---|
| Strategic partnership working, leadership and governance |
|
| Co-productive working with young people and parents/carers |
|
| Achieving long-term outcomes and making a difference to lived experiences |
|
| Information & communcations |
|
| Universal support |
|
| Targeted support services |
|
| Specialist provision |
|
- Leadership and management.
- Strategic partnership and governance.
- Arrangements for joint planning and joint commissioning across education, health and care partners (operational detail about the delivery of support is captured by themes 5-7).
- Strategic co-production arrangements to foster voice, agency and focus on lived experiences.
- Involvement of young people and parents / carers in strategic decision-making.
- Arrangements for capturing and reflecting on systematic feedback from young people and parents / carers.
- Arrangements for co-producing a shared vision and aspirational long-term ambitions for young people with SEND.
- Routines for capturing impact on lived experiences and long-term outcomes.
- Arrangements for gathering feedback systematically, dealing with and learning from complaints and disputes pro-actively.
- Arrangements for providing information to young people, families and practitioners about the SEND system and what is available.
- Routines for communicating information about the SEND system.
- Support in mainstream education (early years settings, schools and colleges) around “ordinarily-available provision”, what good inclusive practice and SEN support look like.
- Universal support from health services.
- Universal support for parents / carers and families.
- Planning, commissioning and delivery of targeted SEN, care and health support services that work with young people, families, and settings to build capacity, identify needs, and support inclusion.
- Forward-looking, evidence-based, collaborative planning of specialist provision (e.g., specifically commissioned places in education settings, such as places in special schools or SEN units in mainstream schools; specialist health or care interventions).
- Collaborative planning of bespoke placements for the most complex needs (e.g., multi-agency placements).