Dr Nicola Crossley, Send Representative, Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) – Supplementary written evidence (YDP0071)

Public Services Committee Inquiry into the Transition from Education to Employment

for Young Disabled People: Wednesday 10 January 3pm – 4pm

The inquiry is examining the provision of careers advice and guidance and access to work experience in schools and colleges for young disabled people.

General Point to be made:

Data from the National Autistic Society and the ONS reports that only around 25% of autistic people are in paid work – this is why the topic is of such importance for my schools as I do not want our students to be in the 75% that are not gainfully employed, but the odds are stacked against them.

Points from Briefing:

Accessing EHCPs:

• Safety Valve LAs are reporting an expectation to reduce EHCPs and minutes of meetings have been shared on social media confirming this expectation

SEND and AP Plan:

• The evidence required in accessing DSA delays the processing of applications.  There is also mixed guidance, as the application states you can apply without a formal diagnosis but then on completion you are required to supply documentary evidence from a GP.

Barriers YP Face:

• Transition to HE is poor – there are example from members where information passed on by schools has been missed, lack of SEND knowledge in Admissions departments, and lacking support for those students who are cognitively able but suffer significant anxiety, through autism or SEMH
• I disagree that Access to Work is extremely bureaucratic; however, it does require engagement by the employer and so if the employer refuses, then the applicant cannot proceed and therefore loses out

Challenges Linked to Education:

• SEND students also have higher drop-out rates from HE than their non-SEND peers, as below. 
• Only 25% of autistic individuals are in employment.
• Place funding for special schools has remained at £10k per place for the last ten years therefore equating to real terms cuts, which means more pro-active / personalised approaches to CIAG are unaffordable and results in SEND provision as an add-on.
• I disagree that rights of disabled people are not generally covered in school curricula as this would form part of PSHE, Citizenship, and SMSC elements.  However, the available time to devote to this area in the curriculum is certainly reduced due to high-stakes accountability and focus on English and Maths.
• CIAG roles are often an additional responsibility rather than a specialist individual and this therefore contributes to teacher workload – and reduces the specialist support to students.

Special Schools or Mainstream Education: A Debate:

• I completely disagree with Debra Baxter’s point that special schools focus more on play than education.  Ofsted inspections and reports would also refute this – there is a greater focus on curriculum in special schools now than there ever has before.  There are multiple examples of Ofsted inspections where special schools have been downgraded to RI due to issues with the curriculum.

Qualifications and Curriculum:

• Tailoring the curriculum to an individual’s needs or interests is obviously desirable – but is not always possible – particularly in mainstream and/or where there are insufficient resources for CIAG.  Therefore, schools need to ensure that their offer / their pathways are appropriate for progression and access to next stages – rather than creating multiple options that are unsustainable (and difficult to staff / justify financially).

T-Levels:

• Not appropriate for some SEND who are unable to take a course that is equivalent to three A-Levels – this is why the retention of BTECs is so important.

Low-Quality Qualifications:

• Any provider creating low-quality qualifications will be penalised through performance tables and Ofsted, so I don’t think this practice is particularly widespread.  However, we need to ask the question why do these providers feel the need to create something additional?  This further supports the view that the offer is not right for all SEND.

Unhelpful Work Experience:

• Disappointing example provided of low-quality work experience; however, I would argue that the school / college are responsible for QA in advance and should ensure fit-for-purpose.

How Effectively are schools and colleges held to account:

• Baker Clause covered in inspections and can limit judgements so would argue held to account quite well.

Challenges YP Face:

Low Aspirations:

• There are some positive examples, and Project Search should be the Gold Standard we are aspiring towards for all programmes. https://www.dfnprojectsearch.org/

Limited Scope:

• My experience is more varied than the example cited of just HE being invited to Career’s Fairs – actually in my schools it is more difficult to get the right input from HE who understand SEND and the opportunities.

Careers Advice in Special Schools:

• More staff in special schools take on multiple roles as they are generally smaller, so I am not convinced it is done better here.

Barriers for Delivery:

Data:

• I don’t believe it is difficult to use destinations data, but it can be challenging to track – particularly if there are multiple changes, as a result of the students changing courses, moving to employment mid-year etc.

Accountability and Ofsted:

• Given recent events, introducing yet another grade would be counter-productive; however, there are examples of special schools being downgraded as RI as a result of careers education, so I do not think the example cited is widespread.

How Linked Up are Schools and Other Services?

Definitions:

• Think the distinction made that schools use ‘SEND’ and HE uses ‘disability’ is unhelpful and merely calls for a change of terminology (perhaps to additional need).  Also, using the term ‘disability’ as a catch-all is potentially damaging to some young adults who are finding their identity.  I know of multiple students who are cognitively able but who have poor mental health which is impacting on their studies – they, however, do not see themselves as disabled.

Disability Confident:

• Don’t think it is always the case that employers see this as a tick-box exercise, but the large amount of work required when applying for Level 2 and Level 3 provides little incentive in the long run.

Access to Work Experience:

• Variable across the country and dependent on proactive approach of individual schools to ensure a consistent link / partnership with business
• Expectations for staff support can be quite heavy and can often prevent wider opportunities for some
• Supported Internships accessed to varying degrees across the country, but more needs to be done as per the SEND and AP Improvement Plan, to raise awareness and access

Careers Advice and Guidance:

• Variable across the country – still not enough use of the Gatsby SEND Framework
• Quality and access to guidance dependent on individual schools and local offers and this therefore exacerbates the postcode lottery of support for SEND

Transition from School to Higher Education:

• Transition is reportedly poor with Universities lacking knowledge of SEND, from admissions onwards
• Information from schools and colleges to HE are not always implemented leading to unnecessary stress and anxiety – and dropout rates continue to rise (28% rise over 5 years from SLC) 
• Office for Students reports that only 85% of SEND students complete their undergraduate studies; however, completion rates have fallen for all students since COVID and now stand at around 89-90% (https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/data-and-analysis/student-characteristics-data/outcomes-data-dashboard/ )
• The lack of support for Mental Health in HE is shocking – a policy recommendation would be to increase the visibility and availability of mental health support in universities ensuring a proactive rather than reactive approach.

Policy Recommendations

1)   Link UPNs to national destination data up to age 21 or 25 for EHCPs, so that national data is gathered and accessible at local level to support evidence of impact.

2)   Develop an NPQ in CIAG and Mentoring – funded as per the new NPQs to encourage greater take-up – and ensure there is a module on SEND.  Allow access to this for non-teachers so that wider professionals are promoted across the sector and there is not an expectation of teachers taking on as an additional responsibility.

3)   Revisit the decision to reduce available BTECs and pause reduction pending full findings of this inquiry.

4)   Provide a standardised guide to expected reasonable adjustments in the workplace so that there is no ambiguity – or variability.

5)   Raise profile further of supported internships and offer a 1% corporation tax discount to employers who take on SEND YP and who complete the programme – could be similar approach to VAT reclaims (if interns are successful the discount will be paid back to the Treasury through tax and national insurance contributions in the long term anyway).

6)   Mandate that all schools and colleges use both the Gatsby Benchmarks and the SEND Gatsby Benchmarks, so that there is assurance of the right approach at the right time. https://resources.careersandenterprise.co.uk/resources/gatsby-benchmark-toolkit-send

7)   Re-market the Access to Work scheme so that benefits are clear for both employers and employees.

8)   Simplify the DSA process so that Universities can confirm the need – rather than relying on GP evidence – as the Universities are better placed to evaluate the impact on learning, progression and completion.

9)   Mandate SEND training for all HE Admissions departments, so that prospective SEND students are supported from application.