Dear Chair,
Support for children and young people with special educational needs
The Local Government Association (LGA), as the national voice of local government, welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee on support for children and young people with special educational needs.
Despite record investment, the SEND system continues to fail too many children and families, and rising costs are becoming an existential threat to the financial sustainability of councils. On behalf of the LGA and County Councils Network (CCN) the Isos partnership recently produced a report, that analyses the drivers of the current SEND crisis and sets out comprehensive proposals to improve support for children and families quickly and sustainably. The research and recommendations were developed with broad input from young people, parents and carers, headteachers, SEN co-ordinators, local authority officers, Directors of Children’s Services and key national organisations.
The report concluded that the SEND system is systemically broken, and nothing less than fundamental reform is urgently needed. Crucially the problems in the existing system are not anyone’s ‘fault’. The root causes of the crisis in SEND are systemic, and any attempts to improve outcomes without altering the national rhetoric and policy framework, are destined to fail. All stakeholders – including parents, schools and councils – are behaving in a rational manner according to their respective responsibilities, but the system creates perverse incentives that are leaving everyone engaged with it frustrated and disappointed.
The scale of challenges within the SEND system
Since 2014, the number of children and young people with education, health and care plans (EHCPs) has risen by 140%, from 240,183 in 2014/15 (which includes EHCPs and statements) to 575,973 in 2023/24.
The year-on-year increases in EHCPs have not been below 9 per cent since 2016. This increase has outstripped the rise in the overall population. In 2014/15, 1.4% of the population aged 0-25 had a statement of SEN or an EHCP, but by 2023/24 that figure had risen to 3.3 per cent. There was a sharp rise after the introduction of the 2014 reforms – 3.9 per cent in the five years before 2015, 47 per cent in the five years after. The increase in the identification of SEND appears to have been greater in England than in other similar European nations.
During the same period, national high needs block for SEND rose from £5.3 billion in 2014-15, to £9.4 billion in 2024-25. On top of national funding, councils have spent an additional £950 million on SEND support in 2023/24 alone. We estimate that nationally local government’s cumulative high needs deficit now stands at £3.15 billion, which is now threatening the financial viability of some councils.
Without additional investment through, for example, the Safety Valve programme, the cumulative national deficit would be closer to £4 billion. The scale of the debt is so great that half of LAs responding to Isos’ survey said that, if the statutory override was removed, they would be insolvent within a year (25 per cent) or within three years (25 per cent).
We welcome the Government’s provision of an additional £1 billion in funding for SEND at the recent Budget. However, given that the SEND deficit is estimated to rise to £5 billion in 2026, this money is likely to be consumed by partially plugging existing deficits.
Moreover, while additional funding is welcome and needed, in the long-term more funding alone will not lead to improved outcomes or address the structural issues within the system.
Stagnant and declining outcomes for children and young people with SEND
Despite rapidly rising expenditure, outcomes of children and young people with SEND and families’ day-to-day experiences of the system have not improved. There is little evidence to suggest that increased identification of SEND, increased placements in specialist provision, and increased expenditure have delivered better outcomes for children and young people, and better experiences for families. For example:
Drivers of increasing need for statutory support
More children than ever before are not having their needs met in mainstream education, and are seeking support through the statutory SEND system. As a result, the statutory system is dealing with an unsustainable demand for which it was not designed when the 2014 reforms were introduced.
Rising demand for statutory support has been driven by developments over the last decade which have reduced the ability of the mainstream education system to support children with additional needs. Education reforms have disincentivised inclusion. While cuts to support within schools and wider services have reduced the targeted support that is available outside of the statutory system. In our research, school leaders highlighted the lack of focus on SEND and inclusion in teacher and staff training, the focus on academic qualifications and its impact in narrowing curriculum choices, the lack of recognition of inclusion in performance and accountability measures, and the squeeze on funding as key developments that have created challenges for inclusion.
As a result, fewer children are getting the support they need through a mainstream offer, and education, health and care plans are increasingly seen as the only way to access additional support, and secure accountability for the delivery of that support.
There has also been a change in the profile and complexity of children’s needs. Published data show a growth in ASD, social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) and Speech, language and communication (SLCN), while local SEND system leaders that took part in this research described increasing complexity and combinations of these and other needs.
While the drivers of these needs are complex and individual, there is a relationship between some needs – particularly SEMH and SLCN needs – with the impact of rising child poverty, material deprivation and adverse childhood experiences. Needs are not always identified early enough, and the right form of support (which may be for needs other than SEND) is not always available. As a result, some children’s needs are escalating to the point where they need more intensive support.
There is also evidence of children and young people’s needs being met at a level of support above what practitioners deemed was needed – for example, they had an EHCP but their needs could be met through SEN Support, or they were placed in specialist provision but had needs that could be met in mainstream education. This indicates that the changing profile of need and the increased volume in the system are being compounded by a failure of the system to identify and respond to children and young people’s needs at the right time and in the most appropriate way.
Fundamental challenges in the statutory framework
We have long highlighted that there is a fundamental misalignment of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities created by the 2014 SEND reforms. This means that local SEND system leaders do not have the powers or strategic oversight to respond to issues or improve support. LAs are, for example, held accountable for the effectiveness of local SEND arrangements, the outcomes of children and young people with SEND, and the delivery of provision specified in EHCPs, yet the majority of decisions relating to the identification of, and support for children and young people with SEND, takes place in education settings over which LAs have little oversight and no direct control.
There is limited accountability for inclusion in education settings (little join-up between local area SEND inspections and a focus on inclusion in inspections) of individual education settings, and no oversight and route of redress relating to support for children and young people with SEN Support in mainstream education. LAs are held to account for ensuring that there is sufficient provision for children and young people with SEND, yet do not have the power to open new or reshape existing provision.
Despite being a core aim of the 2014 SEND reforms, they did not foster a more joined-up approach across education, health and care. Councils have no powers to hold health partners to account for the support they provide for children with SEND. While health leaders note that a mismatch between the boundaries of LAs and local health services has not helped joined-up working, the reorganisation of integrated care systems (ICSs) has added complexity to the landscape.
The failure to create a single, joint, place-based budget for SEND partners had meant that debates and disagreements about who should pay for what have persisted. Fundamentally, in our research LA and health leaders argued that children and young people with SEND were often not prioritised in terms of service provision or resources relative to the other national policy priorities in local health, children’s social care and adult services.
The role of the tribunal
Many participants in our research, particularly education, health and LA leaders, drew attention to what they saw as the problematic effect of the SEND Tribunal on the operation of the SEND system. They recognised that it was important that there was a robust and independent route for dealing with disputes, and recognised the important role the Tribunal played in upholding disability discrimination legislation.
Education, health and LA leaders questioned whether it was appropriate for a judicial body to make active decisions about the educational provision and placements of children and young people. Furthermore, they questioned whether the Tribunal was an effective means of resolving disputes, since its judgements did not alter the facts on the ground. For example, the Tribunal might rule that an LA should name a specific setting on an EHCP or direct an EP assessment, but this would not alter the availability of places in that setting or EPs to carry out an assessment.
Recommendations for reform
Our report sets out a bold vision to address these challenges and create a sustainable and effective SEND system, which can transform outcomes for children and young people. Our proposals are built on the two core principles of putting inclusion at the heart of every aspect of our education system and preparing young people for adult life. Central to delivering this ambition is building capacity within the mainstream system so that more children can access the support they need, at the right time, without a statutory assessment or plan. This would not only ensure fair entitlement to a good education for more than 1.7 million children and young people in this country with additional needs, but it will make our education system stronger for all learners. We propose eight specific recommendations, detailed below:
1. Government should set out a new national ambition, that embeds inclusion across all aspects of education and children’s policy and practice. A prerequisite of a future approach to inclusive education is that there is clarity about what “additional needs” means, how different needs are to be met, and clear and consistent expectations of inclusive practice in mainstream education (as well as the role of specialist provision). There should be support and guidance to fulfil those expectations to build capacity across the education system.
2. As such, our second recommendation is to establish a new “National Framework” for additional needs, which describes types and levels of needs, how needs should be met within the mainstream system, and sets out best practice to improve inclusion and drive-up standards. The National Framework would be accompanied by evidence-based best practice guidance and would be overseen by a new National Institute of Inclusive Education, which would act as an independent custodian of national expectations and evidence-based practice.
3. Building capacity in mainstream education settings to embed inclusive practice and expand access to support without a statutory plan. Building capacity for inclusion in mainstream education is the necessary condition for reforming support for children and young people with additional needs. We therefore propose a series of measures to enable inclusive practice in mainstream education settings. We propose the development of a new “core offer” of targeted, multi-disciplinary support – from therapists, EPs and other services – that all education settings can access without children and young people requiring a statutory plan.
We also propose wide-reaching reforms of early years, school and post-16 education that aim to build educating institutions’ inclusive capacity, and enable and recognise inclusion. These would include reforms of key aspects of wider education policy relating to curriculum, qualifications, assessment, performance reporting, accountability, buildings, workforce development, funding, access, strategic planning and transitions. We also propose a new role for special schools. This would see special schools continue to provide placements for pupils with the most complex needs, but we also envisage the creation of a more porous boundary between special and mainstream schools, allowing for sharing of expertise and outreach, and staff and pupils moving between settings. The aim of our recommendations is to add to the support available to children and young people with additional needs, and make it easier to access without the need for an EHCP.
4. Our fourth recommendation is to reform elements of the SEND statutory framework so that the state can set out a clear, consistent, equitable and sustainable offer of support for children and young people with additional needs. This should enshrine the practice behind the original idea of EHCPs, in the form of regular, personalised assessments, planning and reviews of what we are calling a new Learner Record. It should provide clarity about what we mean by additional needs, and how those needs are to be met within the education system, including the role of mainstream and special education settings and of statutory plans.
A reformed SEND statutory framework should maintain a role for parental preference in admissions – and indeed that of the child or young person – so that parents and carers of children with additional needs can exercise equivalent choices to parents and carers of children without additional needs.
In order for the system to be equitable and sustainable, the state must be clear on where the limits of individual choice and entitlement lie. A reformed SEND statutory framework should include new, independent, non-judicial mechanisms for dealing with disagreements about decision-making (where we see a role for an ombudsman) and about access to specific provision (where we envisage a role for the National Institute, as opposed to the Tribunal).
5. Improving outcomes for young people beyond school, and better preparing young people for adulthood, will require greater joint working between education, children’s, adult and community services; more tailored support across the transition for young people; and better tracking of progression and long-term outcomes. As such, our fifth recommendation is to create a new Destinations and Progression Service in each local area.
This service would have oversight of all children and young people with additional needs as they approached the transition from children’s to adult services and in the years after that age of transition. To improve transition and align the responsibilities of key partners and services, we recommend that the age at which young people move from children’s to adult education, health and care services should be standardised across education, health and care. The Destinations and Progression Service would be responsible for providing additional support to young people who needed it for two years after the age of transition (which could be extended if the young person needed it), tracking long-term outcomes and destinations, and co-ordinating the work of partners to create a broad range of options to support young people to pursue their aspirations as they move into adulthood.
6. Our Sixth recommendation is to reconfigure the role of local partners, so that they are coherent and provide a robust foundation for joint working, with responsibilities aligned with powers and accountabilities. Furthermore, we propose strengthening local partnerships themselves by creating statutory Local Inclusion Partnerships. These would include named partners from the LA, health services, the education sector, the local PCF and local strategic groups representing young people with SEND. The Local Inclusion Partnerships would have statutory powers and joint funding, and would be responsible for strategic planning and commissioning of a continuum of support to meet local needs (including the targeted offer of support and specialist provision) and decision-making regarding future statutory plans. Pooled budgets and indisputably joint powers, responsibilities and accountability for improving outcomes for SEND, will help all services come coherently together to provide timely, and integrated support for children, young people and families. Crucially, these reforms would help to avoid disputes between local authorities and health partners about who pays for what.
7. Our seventh recommendation is that there should be a new, more strategic relationship between the state and the independent sector should be established. This would see the independent sector involved in strategic planning in local areas, and used strategically for highly specialist provision and expertise that complements, rather than replaces, local state-funded provision. There should also be equivalence of regulatory standards and funding (including a prohibition on making profits for shareholders from state-funded placements of children and young people with additional needs) between the state-funded and independent sectors.
8. A change of the scale we are envisaging must be underpinned by a system-wide workforce strategy. As such, our eighth recommendation is for the new National Institute to lead on developing a cross-government, multi-disciplinary workforce strategy for inclusive education, additional needs and preparation for adulthood, specifying the skills and practitioners needed to deliver, for example, the core wraparound targeted offer. The National Institute would also advise on the content of initial training and CPD across the workforce involved with inclusive education and supporting children and young people with additional needs.
We propose that the implementation of these reforms would be phased, building capacity in mainstream education before making changes to the statutory framework. Children and young people with existing EHCPs, and those in specialist provision, would not lose their plans and placements because of these reforms.
All partners are clear that the choice of reform is when, not if. Delaying fundamental reforms of the SEND system will increase the cost of reform in every sense – not only the financial cost, but the cost of missed opportunities and continued negative experiences for children, families and practitioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on behalf of councils on how we can reform the SEND system to transform outcomes and support for children and families. I hope the information we have outlined above is helpful for your upcoming evidence session. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
November 2024