Local SEND Reform Plans · 56 documents asked · 56 answered · 0 not stated · run 24 October 2026
Does this plan say how the council will see and reduce variation in inclusive practice between schools and settings, and does it name a measure, dashboard, quality assurance process or shared framework for that?
Want a question surveyed?
Tell us the question and the set. A new survey takes a morning.
Ask for a surveyNearly every council says yes. The near-universal pattern is a named shared framework, usually Ordinarily Available Provision (or Inclusive Practice) guidance, paired with some kind of SEND or inclusion dashboard and a quality assurance or audit cycle. Councils like Bath and North East Somerset, Bury, East Sussex, Hounslow, Medway, North Northamptonshire and Wigan all follow this template closely, naming an OAP/OAIP framework plus a dashboard and audits or peer review.
A few stand out for going further. Essex and Shropshire tie quality assurance directly to measurable targets, like narrowing the range of inclusion review scores or testing equity by locality and phase. Oxfordshire names a full KPI suite (IM1 to IM5) mapped to its plan. Hertfordshire and Harrow name both a maturity matrix and a dedicated Inclusion Alliance or partnership dashboard. Norfolk and Bromley describe layered tools, IPSEF/INDES/GPM in Norfolk, and Individual Support Plans aligned to national standards in Bromley.
Several councils give concrete numbers as targets. Essex aims for 80% of schools meeting its inclusion baseline by 2028/29. Barnsley and Hillingdon set 2029 goals of "significantly reduced variation." Cornwall commits to piloting its QA framework with 10% of settings by Q4 2026-27. Bristol aims for all schools to reach "strong or exceptional" Ofsted inclusion grades. Wolverhampton commits to a full outcomes framework by Q2 2026/27.
A handful give thinner or partial answers. Portsmouth names a sub-group and quality assurance for alternative provision but no dashboard or school-comparison tool. Solihull and Surrey name dashboards or guidance but not a specific QA process. Wirral and York acknowledge inconsistency and name a shared baseline offer, but don't specify a dashboard or formal QA tool for comparing schools directly. These are weaker than most, though not silent.
No council left the question entirely unaddressed, so none fall into "Not stated."
Not stated: None.
About this survey
The question was put to each document on its own, using up to six of its most relevant pages. Page numbers in the table link to the document itself.
Model claude-sonnet-5. How a survey is made.
Every document's answer
Barnsley
Yes. The plan commits to "consistent use of ISPs" (Individual Support/Provision Plans) as a shared framework, with milestones targeting a "demonstrable reduction in variation between settings and localities" and later "variation across settings and localities significantly reduced," with ISPs "fully embedded and quality-assured" p32. It also proposes a "centralised SEND data and performance system" giving a shared view of demand, delivery and outcomes, with real-time tracking p16. Leading indicators include "% of schools consistently using agreed inclusion framework and ISPs" and "evidence of improved quality and consistency in SEN Support practice" p39.
Bath and North East Somerset
Yes. The plan acknowledges inconsistency in inclusive practice across settings, linked to a lack of clear impact measures and quality assurance p6. It names the shared Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP) framework as the common standard p5, backed by an OAP Audit tool piloted and embedded across settings with annual audits and action plans p18. It also commits to a single integrated multi-agency Inclusion and SEND dashboard, plus a health dashboard and Sufficiency dashboard, to monitor demand, placement patterns and cohort data p21.
Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole
Yes. The plan proposes using RAG-rating of schools and data intelligence to identify variation and prioritise need, guiding deployment of Inclusion Leads and secondees p22. It also commits to QA processes, peer review and proportionate challenge to strengthen whole-setting inclusive practice p21, plus clear digital system monitoring with metrics like reduced EHCP requests, mainstream retention and exclusion data p21, with monthly reporting to the Inclusion Steering Group p22.
Bracknell Forest
Yes. The plan will deploy a universal audit tool across all settings to create the borough's first comprehensive Inclusive Practice Baseline, backed by a QA mechanism (audit tool) to monitor universal provision and equity across the local area p76. It also launches a borough-wide 'Inclusion Readiness Audit' tool for all schools, later re-audited to measure growth p66, alongside co-produced inclusion standards and self-assessment frameworks p37, plus a live digital dashboard tracking inclusion metrics p48.
Brighton and Hove
Yes. The plan names "inconsistent inclusion practice across settings" as a risk and will address it by defining and quality-assuring high-quality SEN Support, embedding Ordinarily Available Inclusive Practice (OAIP) expectations, and using benchmarking and targeted support to drive consistency p29. Variation will be identified through a centralised, system-wide inclusion dashboard combining demand, delivery, quality and outcome data, plus locality-level performance conversations using disaggregated data to compare schools and communities (page 32; page 10).
Bristol
Yes. Bristol is developing a Power BI "Inclusion dashboard," co-produced with trusts, schools and settings, monitoring metrics like attendance, suspensions, use of AP, fair access and inclusion plans across all schools and settings (page 17, page 42). It uses a shared Graduated Response framework to standardize inclusive practice p6, and targets all schools reaching Ofsted Inclusion grades of "strong or exceptional" via shared best practice p20. The dashboard is still at an early development stage p17.
Bromley
Yes. In Year 1, Bromley will "map variation and establish consistent expectations across settings" p24, using a co-produced Universal Offer Agreement and Bromley Inclusion and Belonging Commitment aligned to emerging National Inclusion Standards p24. Progress and variation will be tracked through the SEND Dashboard and linked success measures, including annual mapping of need and an integrated SEND dashboard informing commissioning and workforce planning (page 91, page 5). Individual Support Plans aligned to National Inclusion Standards are also named as a consistency tool p27.
Bury
Yes. Bury will use the established "Schools Oversight Tracker," which brings together inspection outcomes, SEND and EHCP data, attendance and exclusions, to "identify variation" and "target support and scale effective inclusive practice, to reduce inconsistencies" p17. It also plans to embed Ordinarily Available Inclusive Provision (OAIP) as a shared framework to reduce variation between schools p14, and to integrate inclusive practice into school improvement and quality frameworks, backed by rigorous quality assurance mechanisms (page 13, page 19).
Cambridgeshire
Yes. The plan will audit each school's "local offer" to determine ability to step-back/step-down from specialist provision, and redefine Ordinarily Available Provision to address anomalies where providers receive different funding for similar needs p43. Each Education Cluster Locality Partnership will have a "locality data profile" and a shared data-dashboard to determine relative need within and across localities (page 43, page 44). Success will also be measured through a shared outcomes framework, including a gap analysis, sponsored via Inclusion for All governance and supported by local dashboards p44.
Cheshire West and Chester
Yes. The plan is rolling out an Inclusion Dashboard across all school settings to track and drive inclusion (page 35, page 36), and plans to develop a local Inclusion Standard, implement National Standards for Inclusion as part of a cycle of health checks, and introduce an Inclusion Standard Award, with an identified School Improvement Adviser for Inclusion p50. It also references embedding Ordinarily Available Inclusive Provision and quality assurance processes within the AP strategy p36, alongside a partnership-wide SEND data dashboard p42.
Cornwall
Yes. The plan uses the Compass SW inclusion audit tool to benchmark and peer-review settings, an Inclusion Audit Tool developed with Whole Education and the Southwest Regional Improvement and Innovation Alliance, and a QA framework piloted with 10% of settings by Q4 2026-27 (page 33, page 47). It also commits to "reduced variation in inclusive practice across localities" as a named success measure p33, supported by shared data dashboards and a partnership maturity assessment to review governance and consistency p47.
Coventry
Yes. Coventry will track variation by narrowing the spread of suspensions/exclusions for SEND pupils across schools and by reducing variation shown in Ofsted inspection findings (page 14, page 6). It maintains a SEND performance dashboard and is building a shared local area dashboard combining education and health data, aligned to leading and outcome indicators p26. A cross-agency Quality Assurance group operates a shared QA framework, and a "single shared SEND performance framework" with headline metrics is planned (page 26, page 7).
Cumberland
Yes. The plan will develop a shared inclusion framework linked to ordinarily available provision, attendance, behaviour and SEN Support quality, embedded through QA and peer review, with assurance evidence used to show reduced variation between settings p24. This is supported by a shared multi-agency performance dashboard tracking demand, timeliness, quality, outcomes and spend p8, and an implementation of a "multi-agency performance dashboard" to address fragmented governance and inconsistent practice p33.
Dorset
Yes. The plan acknowledges that self-evaluation frameworks need developing to "identify and address variation in inclusive practice consistently across settings" p12, and that goals include "reduced variation in inclusive practice" as evidence of strengthened provision p6. It names a new "Inclusion Charter and Quality Inclusion Framework" for collaboration and shared expectations p15, and references an "integrated dashboard" used routinely for performance monitoring and tracking inclusion metrics p28, alongside the Valuing SEND tool informing targeting p12.
Durham
Yes. The plan acknowledges "variability in inclusive practice" p2 and aims to reduce it through a consistent, quality-assured Ordinarily Available Provision offer embedded across all phases p2. For inclusion bases specifically, it commits to "shared quality standards" and "a joint approach to quality assurance of inclusion bases, involving school leadership advisers and SEND and inclusion teams" p14. A "maturity matrix" is also referenced as a tool for assessing school/trust inclusion development p14.
East Sussex
Yes. The plan recognises inconsistent inclusive practice across settings (page 4/2) and addresses it through a shared Universally Available Provision (UAP) framework, with schools auditing implementation of UAP in 2027/28 and full embedding by 2028/29 p11. It also names a central SEND dashboard tracking KPIs and demand metrics, supplemented by ICB data and a planned regional dashboard, plus an adapted quality assurance framework and monthly review by the SEND Strategy and Reforms Implementation Group p30.
Essex
Yes. Essex uses Inclusion Reviews as a quality assurance process, aiming to increase schools meeting the agreed inclusion baseline to 80% by 2028/29 and to "reduce variation between localities in inclusion review outcomes (measured by narrowing range of scores year-on-year)" p38. A multi-agency SEND performance dashboard will track need, delivery, quality and outcomes data, reviewed bi-monthly by the SEND Accountability Board, with "Quality assurance activity (inclusion reviews, thematic audits) identifies variation and drives improvement actions, which are tracked through the dashboard" p78. A refreshed Inclusion Strategy and Ordinarily Available framework also provide shared expectations p53.
Hackney
Yes. The plan acknowledges that inclusive provision currently "remains variable for some children" with no unified standard for Universal/Targeted support p10, and sets out tools to address this: a "common language toolkit" codifying Ordinarily Available Provision against National Inclusion Standards p10, a Single Inclusion Data Source dashboard used to spot locality needs and allocate resources p31, and Strategic Multi-Agency Planning (SMAP) meetings using aggregated dashboard data and School Improvement Partner visits to monitor and standardise practice, aiming for "Universal" provision consistent across all localities p24.
Harrow
Yes. The plan acknowledges variation in inclusive practice, confidence and thresholds across settings (page 9, page 23) and commits to reducing it via a consistent OAIP framework and shared data/performance monitoring across settings p9. It names specific mechanisms: a shared "Inclusion Framework" and a "partnership dashboard" to be developed and made "fully operational," plus agreed measures on attendance, suspensions, exclusions, SEN Support and provision, and routine partnership performance reviews (page 41, page 59).
Hertfordshire
Yes. The plan uses a maturity matrix to identify variation in inclusive practice across settings p7, and relies on the SEND Partnership Data Dashboard for strategic and operational insight, including identifying "geographic variation" p10. It also names the Inclusion Alliance, with agreed metrics to measure consistency of practice and influence on inclusive practice p23, and a Universal Offer Agreement benchmarked against National Inclusion Standards p23 as the shared framework for reducing variation.
Hillingdon
Yes. The plan will use SEND Reviews, Quality Assurance processes, Vulnerable Learners Clinics and the Inclusion Network, plus data, to identify variation in inclusive practice across schools, particularly secondary and post-16 (page 32, page 33). It names an "Inclusion Consistency Framework" to be embedded across all schools and a shared "Inclusion Framework" aligned to National Inclusion Standards (page 32, page 12). Success is measured by 2029 through significantly reduced variation in inclusive practice between schools p13.
Hounslow
Yes. The plan acknowledges current variation in how the universal offer and workforce capability are implemented across settings p13 and in access to specialist advice and therapies p11. To address this, it names a structured programme of Inclusion Audits evaluating Ordinarily Available Provision quality and consistency p10, a co-produced OAP guidance framework p13, and a central SEND and Inclusion Dashboard integrating data across education, health and care to monitor quality, inclusion and consistency p39.
Isle of Wight
Yes. The plan identifies "variable relational and inclusive behaviour practice between schools" as a current problem p20 and names tools to address it: an island-wide Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP) framework setting consistent expectations, monitored through "annual inclusion quality assurance and implementation reviews" p9. It also commits to "a fully integrated multi-agency SEND dashboard" tracking attendance, EBSA, exclusions and belonging, with CYP belonging "measured and embedded in QA processes" p35.
Kensington and Chelsea
Yes. The plan identifies "variability in how inclusive practice is applied across settings" as a current weakness p7 and names Measure 1—reduced variation in requests for statutory assessment, suspensions and placement patterns—as its consistency indicator p9. It will use data on variation (requests for assessment, attendance, suspensions, confidence) to target settings where practice is less embedded, via the SEND dashboard and SEF, with Year 3 quality assurance processes testing whether improvement is sustained across settings (page 4; page 13; page 12).
Kingston upon Thames
Yes. The plan acknowledges variation across the borough in parental confidence and inclusive practice p18, and proposes several named tools: refreshed Ordinarily Available Provision guidance, an Inclusion Charter and Toolkit, and Inclusion Reviews and Audit Frameworks aligned with Ofsted's inclusion "golden thread" to support school self-evaluation p33. It also plans dynamic "Inclusion Story" multi-agency dashboards, School SEND Data Dashboards, and a SEND cluster model with bi-monthly multi-agency audits and a PCF deep-dive quality assurance model (pages 18, 58).
Lancashire
Yes. The plan proposes "high-quality and robust monitoring and quality assurance" for schools/settings with Specialist Bases, SEND units, or resourced provision (page 35, page 51). It also plans to use "attendance, SEND and vulnerability data from all schools in the area to build intelligence" and identify cohorts/schools/neighbourhoods needing focus, plus a performance analysis group and a published longitudinal data outlook p51. An outcomes framework with agreed, consistent measures across education, health and social care, reported to the SEND Improvement Board, is also planned p69.
Leeds
Yes. The plan commits to "develop and agree a dashboard of local priority measure of outcome and performance" in 2026/27 to build shared understanding of SEND system effectiveness and consistency of inclusive practice across settings p45. It also plans monitoring and review of strengthened inclusive practice at setting level through QA, inspection outcomes and SEND monitoring data p45. Additionally, Experts at Hand oversight will use developed performance metrics per cluster covering activity, outcomes/impact and confidence measures p34.
Medway
Yes. The plan will publish a coproduced Ordinarily Available Offer (OAO) framework by Q4 2026/27 setting consistent expectations for inclusive practice across settings, supported by a system-wide quality assurance cycle including inclusion audits and peer review p11. Schools will be held accountable via inclusion audits, peer challenge and shared outcome metrics p12. An existing schools system leadership "inclusion dashboard" will be developed further to include locality-level data p34.
Norfolk
Yes. The plan acknowledges mainstream schools "vary in their provision, confidence and capacity" p17 and notes "disparities in 'ordinarily available' provision across schools" p103. To see and address this, it uses the Inclusion and Provision Self-Evaluation Framework (IPSEF), which lets Norfolk "understand schools performance in inclusion," alongside the Identification of Needs Descriptors (INDES) and Graduated Provision Mapping (GPM), which give school-level data and are moderated across all mainstream schools p101.
North Northamptonshire
Yes. The plan names a shared SEND performance dashboard combining education, health and care data, reviewed weekly, monthly and quarterly, to monitor progress including service quality and inclusion-related measures p52. It also introduces an Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP) framework to standardise expectations across settings p36. By 2027/28 it targets a "measurable reduction in variation in inclusive practice between schools," using Experts at Hand and OAP as the mechanisms p36.
Nottingham
The plan acknowledges "inconsistent inclusive practice across settings" as a key gap p44. It proposes an Inclusion Charter to create "a shared understanding of inclusive practice in Nottingham City" with regular events to discuss impact p41. Proposed inclusion bases will be "quality assured through PAIG/SELG" and assessed against demographic need p34. The EP traded offer usage (83% of schools) is also tracked p41.
Oxfordshire
Yes. The plan uses "Ordinarily Available Provision" guidance and national Practice Standards to set consistent expectations across settings, with Individual Support Plans "consistently used across all education settings" (page 5, page 14). It references "multi-agency quality assurance mechanisms" and increasing audit/review activity, plus shared KPIs, governance and collective review to monitor impact (page 14, page 13). Five inclusion measures (IM1–IM5) and a detailed KPI suite, mapped to each building block, track variation and progress p21.
Portsmouth
The plan references clarifying Ordinarily Available Provision expectations aligned with "Inclusion Standards" to ensure clarity, consistency and confidence across mainstream settings p15, and names a "Removing Barriers to Inclusion Group," a SENDAP sub-group focused specifically on improving inclusive practice and ordinarily available provision across mainstream settings p29. It also cites "Strong quality assurance and commissioning frameworks for Alternative Provision and specialist placements" p9. However, no specific measure, dashboard, or data-driven comparison tool for variation between individual schools is named.
Reading
Yes. The plan acknowledges "variability in inclusive practice remains across schools and phases" p10 and names several mechanisms to monitor and reduce it: whole-school SEND audits with "aggregated audit outcomes systematically reported as a core performance metric" p28, data dashboards for inclusion indicators including exclusions p28, a shared performance dashboard developed in 2026/27 p24, and plans to "scale peer review and inclusion quality assurance frameworks" and "embed inclusion accountability through partnership KPIs" by 2027/28, aiming for "reduced variation between settings" by 2028/29 p22.
Richmond upon Thames
Yes. The plan will implement Inclusion Reviews and Audit Frameworks for school self-evaluation and accountability, designed as a reflective "mirror" tool rather than compliance exercise p16. It will also develop School SEND Data Dashboards into dynamic, multi-agency "Inclusion Story" dashboards p16, move all schools into a SEND cluster model to share funding and specialist resources p16, and conduct bi-monthly multi-agency audits mirroring the Local Area SEND inspection framework alongside audits of provision and practice in mainstream schools p51.
Rochdale
Yes. The plan acknowledges "variability in inclusion practice influenced by school culture, leadership and available resources" p63 and plans to "identify inconsistent practice through audits and reviews" p70. It commits to "mapping of inclusion practice and workforce capability to identify gaps" p27, a Designated Education Officer for quality assurance of provision p63, live dashboards and shared reporting for transparency p27, and joint data dashboards aligning inclusion, SEND and vulnerability indicators p41.
Shropshire
Yes. The plan uses a partnership dashboard combining lagging and leading indicators, reviewed monthly operationally and quarterly through governance, with analysis "by locality, phase and cohort to test equity across Shropshire's rural geography" p34. Quality assurance is delivered through a co-produced QA cycle overseen by the EQA Team and reported through QAG, including multi-agency audit, thematic reviews of inclusion practice, and peer review across settings p34. Further dashboard/dataset infrastructure development is also sought from government p41.
Slough
Yes. The plan uses a SEND dashboard with inclusion indicators to track attendance, exclusions, EHCNA requests and annual review quality, helping identify priority cohorts and settings p40. It establishes a routine QA cycle for graduated response practice, reported through ODG and SIAB p40, with audit, SENDCo and school leadership feedback used to spot inconsistent practice p40. By year three it aims to "identify remaining variation across phases, providers and localities" and refresh the universal offer accordingly p41.
Solihull
Yes, partially. The plan acknowledges inconsistent inclusion across settings and aims for all settings to work to the same expectations p7. It names "Ordinarily Available Inclusive Guidance (OAIG)" as a shared framework setting classroom practice expectations p2, and commits to "developing our use of data, including SEND dashboards, forecasting tools and outcome tracking" to move to data-led decision-making p5. No specific quality assurance process is named.
Somerset
Yes. The plan acknowledges "variability in mainstream setting inclusion" p21 and plans to standardize practice via a graduated response tool defining "ordinarily available inclusive practice" p12. It names specific tools: a SEND dashboard with regular reporting to the SEND Partnership Board and all schools/colleges/MAT CEOs, using systems like SIDER and Transform p19, plus benchmarking dashboards for schools and trusts, a maturity framework, and defined KPIs reviewed by the SEND Reform Partnership Programme Board p51.
South Gloucestershire
Yes. The plan identifies variation using cluster-level inclusion data and key metrics such as attendance, suspensions, exclusions and section 19 referrals (page 40, page 56). It names a South Gloucestershire Universal Inclusion Standard and Inclusion Framework, with inclusion quality indicators, self-evaluation tools, and an annual cycle of review and quality assurance, plus monitoring of consistency across clusters to target support where variation is identified (page 76, page 77).
South Tyneside
Yes. The plan uses the SEND in Mainstream Settings Framework as the agreed baseline for inclusive practice across settings p9, alongside a strengthened partnership-wide quality assurance framework, including routine use of Invision360 and multi-agency audit activity, to test practice and identify variation p8. Data on inclusion, attendance, behaviour and placement stability is used at cluster/setting level for peer moderation and to identify variation systematically p9, with progress tracked via a shared partnership dashboard p5.
Southampton
Yes. The plan acknowledges variation in inclusive practice across phases and localities, particularly at secondary level and in escalation thresholds p1. To address this, it names the Inclusive Education Audit, used by the SEND Mainstream Funding Cluster Model to evaluate practice at setting and cluster level, alongside the Global Equality Collective tool for insight into inclusion and lived experience, with findings triangulated to identify strengths and barriers p1. It also references a SEND partnership dashboard and an integrated statutory SEND quality dashboard for ongoing monitoring p1.
Staffordshire
Yes. The plan commits to developing an "inclusion dashboard across education, health and care to support the journey of inclusion for our education settings," linked to an Inclusion self-assessment quality control process p44. It also plans a Staffordshire Index for Inclusion as a shared framework defining inclusion, with an aspiration to host it digitally and import setting self-assessment gradings p47, alongside a published outcomes framework tracking inclusion-related success measures p10.
Stoke-on-Trent
Yes. The plan uses Whole Education self-evaluation cycles against co-produced Local Inclusion Standards, with SEND Communities and locality-based Communities of Practice providing peer challenge, to identify and reduce variation between localities and phases p13. Progress is tracked via locality and citywide inclusion dashboards, audit activity, and outcome measures like attendance, exclusions and EHCNA requests p13. A partnership-wide SEND data dashboard and outcomes framework will also guide prioritisation and investment decisions p18, alongside a Local Area Inclusion Data Dashboard p23.
Surrey
The plan names a dashboard the Surrey Local Area Partnership reviews half-termly, covering indicators like placement type/stability, attendance, exclusions and AP capacity, used "to provide joint oversight, challenge and prioritisation of improvement activity" p35. It also tracks system goals such as reduced reliance on specialist/independent placements and fewer statutory assessment requests p5. However, no specific school-by-school quality assurance process or shared inclusive-practice framework for comparing variation between individual schools/settings is described in these excerpts.
Torbay
Yes. The plan plans to develop and scale "shared data dashboards," aiming for "universal adoption of shared dashboards across all partners" with data routinely informing decisions, progressing from baseline in Year 1 to embedded, high-quality shared data by Year 3/2029 p27. It also uses a Data and Quality Assurance Sub-group to review performance data and identify variation, alongside JSNA intelligence and locality profiles to reduce variability in provision (page 40, page 6, page 13).
Tower Hamlets
Yes. The plan acknowledges "variability in the quality of inclusive practice" across settings p5 and aims to embed the Inclusion Framework consistently, aligned with National Inclusion Standards, plus an Inclusion Charter for 0–25s signed by all schools and settings p8. Reduction is also driven through re-energised local area partnerships (LAPs) using "locality dashboards," with a central SEND Transformation Team monitoring data, supporting accountability and quality assurance, reporting to the SEND Improvement Board p13.
Warwickshire
Yes. The plan names the Warwickshire SEND & Inclusion Guidance and Inclusion Charter as a shared framework, to be revised in light of forthcoming National Inclusion Standards, which are described as "a key lever in addressing inconsistencies identified as part of our Maturity Assessment" p21. It also commits to implementing "shared dashboards" in 2026/27 p23 and a "Shared cross agency data dashboard for Education, Health and care" p17 to monitor variation.
West Sussex
The plan acknowledges inclusion is "improving but not yet felt consistently across the county" p6. To address variation, it relies on the shared Ordinarily Available Inclusive Practice (OAIP) guidance and Quality First Teaching as a common framework (page 6, page 10), reinforced by termly standards visits from Senior Education Advisors using a structured framework aligned with Ofsted expectations p6. It also names target metrics like EHCP growth and INMSSS placement growth stabilisation to track progress p36.
Wigan
Yes. Wigan plans to track variation via SEND scorecards, dashboards and Quality Assurance activity p25, and will introduce a shared Quality Inclusion Framework to define, benchmark and continuously improve inclusive practice, aligned with OAIP and national standards, embedded through peer-to-peer review p26. Implementation fidelity will be monitored through quality assurance activity, peer review and SEND data dashboards p26, with shared dashboards and joined-up digital systems supporting consistent thresholds and decision-making p27.
Wiltshire
Yes. The plan plans to develop a shared inclusion dashboard for benchmarking and evidence-based decision making p12, alongside embedding inclusive practice standards and an accreditation model p12. It also commits to a consistent quality assurance framework for Inclusion Bases/ELP with outcome tracking and experience measures p14, continued audits of Ordinarily Available Provision p12, and reducing variation through robust quality assurance and peer support/challenge p7.
Wirral
The plan acknowledges that practice across schools is currently inconsistent, with variable confidence among leaders and staff, especially for neurodevelopmental and SEMH needs p46. It plans to address this through "ordinarily-available provision" guidance as a shared baseline p46, accountability frameworks reinforcing expectations, and embedding inclusion within school improvement via School Improvement Partners (SIPs) linked to Ofsted p46. It also references "shared performance dashboards" for joint commissioning mitigation p19, but no single named quality assurance tool specifically for inter-school variation is detailed.
Wolverhampton
Yes. The plan uses shared performance dashboards, Quality Assurance (QA) processes, SEN Support audits and case sampling to identify and reduce variation in inclusive practice across settings (page 10, page 11). A structured partnership-led evaluation of SEN support will establish a baseline understanding of variation, feeding into a Universal Offer and graduated response framework applied consistently across early years, schools and FE p13. A full outcomes framework with baselines and measures is committed to be in place by Q2 2026/27 p6.
Worcestershire
Yes. The plan tracks "reduced variation in access to inclusion support across districts" with oversight through "reporting, review of variation, and escalation routes where inequity is identified" p7. It also commits to "variation analysis by locality, setting type and need profile" p14, and names a "shared dashboard for demand, spend, quality, outcomes and lived experience" plus a "shared standards and quality assurance framework" for specialist provision (page 9 and page 2).
York
The plan notes current inconsistency, stating "Settings are all signed up to the universal offer of inclusion. There are still some inconsistencies in approach" p17, and aims for settings to adopt a shared "universal offer" drawing on the National Inclusion Standards p17. It references "celebrating good practice more systematically" p11 and monitoring via governance boards tracking delivery trajectories p11, but does not name a specific dashboard or formal quality-assurance tool for comparing settings.
Want a question surveyed?
Tell us the question and the set. A new survey takes a morning.