“You don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone” is an old cliché, but I can’t help wondering if, when it comes to local authorities, there is some truth in it.

I recently overheard a group of school leaders discussing a local authority meeting they had just attended. There was a clear sense of concern at the degree to which the services previously provided had been completely decimated.

I hear this same story time and time again. Where a local authority once had a team of five or six special needs advisers, there is now just one or two. Local educational welfare officers who once played a supportive role when it came to attendance and inclusion are, for many, now a thing of the past. The few specialist teachers who are left have unmanageable caseloads. Who ultimately suffers in this scenario?

I should be clear - this is not an unquestioning defence of local authorities. I have spoken to many school leaders who felt they had little choice but to step away from the local authority they operated in as they had lost confidence in its ability to provide the support, challenge and services their school desperately needed. Frankly, there were some LAs that were the authors of their own demise.

Many leaders also became frustrated at how some local authorities saw their role as being “Ofsted-light”. The annual (or more regular) visit became yet another accountability hoop to jump through and many seemed unnecessarily obsessed with Ofsted preparation.

Many schools relied on local authorities

However, the demise of local authority education services is revealing the important and good work that many did. Through the unwritten contract that existed between schools and LAs, there was an understanding that the LA would be there to step in when it was needed, regardless of the school’s context or situation.

Whether providing advice for schools working with children with very specific needs or those who had just arrived in the country and spoke little English, or stepping in to support schools dealing with a sudden bereavement in their community, it was a service that many relied on.

This is not to say that most of the above cannot apply to academy chains. There are some first-class chains out there doing some excellent work in these various areas, but with 73 per cent of primary schools still in the maintained sector and 65 per cent of schools overall, the reduction in services has to be a concern. The government’s abandonment of forced universal academisation makes this even more pressing. It would seem that for the foreseeable future we will have a mixed economy when it comes to schools and that a large proportion will still be reliant on the services offered by LAs. Equally, with the majority of academies still operating on a standalone basis and without the economies of scale a large trust can bring, many will continue to access at least some local authority services.

The bottom line is that no child or, indeed, school should suffer or miss out on vital support as the system evolves. It seems clear that in the case of many, if not most, schools, the local authority will continue to play an important role for the foreseeable future. If we are not careful, their depletion will create a significant void in services for those who need it the most.

James Bowen is director of middle leaders’ union NAHT Edge. He tweets @JamesJkbowen

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and Instagram, and like Tes on Facebook