SEN0042

Written evidence submitted by Kirkleatham Hall School

As a Headteacher of an all age (2-19 years) specialist provision for children with severe and profound learning difficulties, I feel I am well placed to comment and suggest improvements that are required to be made within the SEND system.

Our school is adept at meeting the needs of a very diverse range of learners. In order to do this we individualise curriculum, assessment, planning, classroom environments and our delivery methods. We are only able to do this through the development of our expertise and through constant reflection of our practice. To be the ‘experts’ we work collaboratively with other specialist settings to share best practice and ensure we are at the cutting edge of SEN education.

The paragraph above leads me on to discussing a number of points that are pertinent to this statement.

In order to successfully educate children with SEN there must be ‘experts’ within every educational setting and there must be a motivation from all stakeholders to meet individual needs.

Within all mainstream settings the SENCO must be part of the senior leadership team. They must have their own action plan, which should include an audit of current practice and also an awareness of learners who are due to come to their setting in the near future and how they will meet their needs. Transition for those students with SEN should be enhanced. Prior to students joining, schools should be considering section F of the students EHCP’s and the reasonable adjustments they can make in order to facilitate need. Schools should adopt a welcoming approach to all families, including those students with SEN, and start from the basis of we can meet need rather than we can not. This is essential as without this specialist settings become inundated with students who could cope in an adapted mainstream provision and those students who really do need a specialist placement may struggle to get one.

How do we get there?

Specialist schools develop their expertise through networking, but also through the sharing of best practice internally. Skilled and experienced practitioners supporting and developing those who need support and guidance, without judgement, but with a shared vested interest in doing the best for each and every student. These skills need to be disseminated into mainstream settings. Consideration needs to be given as to how this is facilitated.

There needs to be closer working relationships between mainstream and specialist settings. Successful modelling of appropriate planning, curriculum and environments needs to be shared with mainstream settings. We need to consider the financial implications of this, do we pay to release experts from specialised settings? What model best suits the transference of skills and with the least cost implication?

Mainstream schools need to be free to move away from the national curriculum for learners with SEN provided that they are still delivering a high quality curriculum that is right for the individuals receiving it. Consideration needs to be given to what skills we are wanting students to develop and we need to move away from the sole acquisition of knowledge towards the acquisition of knowledge that allows the students to develop key skills. There is a subtle but noticeable difference between these two things.

Children or young people with SEN, for those with moderate or severe learning difficulties should not be included within school achievement data. In doing so we limit school’s ability to think outside the box and deliver a curriculum that is appropriate for the needs of the individuals receiving it?

In terms of the scrutiny of a school’s SEN provision we need to consider what Ofsted’s role is in this? Inspections should have a specific SEN focus with a school’s ability to meet SEN needs being an overriding judgement.

After all it is how we treat the most vulnerable in society that reflects on how developed and how compassionate a society we truly are.

SENCO’s should have control of a substantial budget, this should effectively be a ring fenced amount of money that represents the high needs funding given to the school. I accept that this could be a percentage of the total monies received through HNF as schools have to have some autonomy over budgets, but the caveat being that this ring-fenced amount must be reported against and outcomes for students with SEN considered.

Teacher training must incorporate a longer specialist placement and must include a larger amount of specialised teaching. This should be true for both primary and secondary trainees.

Why do we need to get there?

Places at specialist provision should be at a premium. Spaces should not be filled up for students with Moderate learning difficulties who could have their needs met within an adapted mainstream specialised provision.

The current tribunal system is fundamentally flawed, it exacerbates problems rather than solving them. I agree that parental choice over which school their child attends should be an important factor, but specialist schools are adversely affected by the decisions of tribunals, with over 90% of parents winning appeals. I have observed first hand mainstream schools deliberately abdicating any responsibility for meeting a child’s needs and then go one step further to undermine the parents confidence in their ability to meet their child’s needs. These are parents who are often anxious and understandably concerned about their child’s ability to transition into secondary education. You then have specialist settings, and I again go back to my first paragraph, who are inclusive and make meeting individual needs our primary driver. All tribunals would decide in the parents favour and send their children to specialist settings. We have lost tribunals even though we are oversubscribed by over 20 children as the argument of the admission of one extra child being detrimental to the effective education of others pales into insignificance compared to the argument of meeting the needs of an individual. I am reaching the point where I feel my only argument that could possibly win is on the grounds of a child’s admission being unsafe. This situation is unsustainable.

Furthermore, you become a victim of your own success. If you are a school with a strong reputation locally then more and more parents will fight for their child to come to your school.

Both Secondary and primary mainstream schools have a massive role to play in improving parental confidence in secondary provisions. They need to work together to ensure that a child’s needs will be met and that this is echoed in section F of the child’s EHCP. Also, they need to ensure that what is written in section F is not unachievable within a specific setting; for example specified ratios of staff:students, which should rarely be set in stone, as this is often dictated by the environment and the appropriateness of what is being delivered.

Tribunals need to provide further challenge to mainstream provision, to really unpick why when students have coped well within adapted mainstream primary provisions, why this can not be continued at secondary schools. Where schools are unwilling to ‘change’ and ‘adapt’ in order to meet need there should be repercussions to this with external scrutiny of their intake or, more to the point, their inability to take.

Children who are too challenging for specialist provision must have bespoke places available to them. These places should always be regulated, however there needs to be an understanding of the complexity of needs that the staff are supporting and the flexibility of education that is required to go alongside this.

We have had two children within school over the last year who due to the level of challenging behaviours were unable to have their needs met safely within school. They were both of compulsory school age. Despite national searches neither child was able to find a bespoke specialist placement that was able to meet their needs. Both children now reside in the local community with a care team around them. Although there is multi-agency involvement with both children, I think everyone would be in agreement that what is currently offered is making the best of a bad situation. These children are our most challenging and difficult children to meet the needs of. There needs to be specialist provision available for these children, an environment where their world can be expanded but in a safe and purposeful environment. My impression has been that these places simply do not exist anymore, or certainly there are not enough specialist placements in order to meet the needs of these young people nationally.

How do we get there?

A review of how many children of compulsory school age with complex learning difficulties accompanied with challenging behaviours are currently not attending specialist placements should be reviewed. We need to consider how many placements are available nationally for these types of learners and does the number of placements meet the demand for places. Further consideration needs to be given to the geographical location of these placements to ensure that where possible parental access can be supported. Transition to new establishments should be thorough and include all stakeholders. 

Why do we need to get there?

Presently, due to the lack of placements LA’s are unable to identify appropriate provisions. This means that students often stay on the school roll of specialist settings far longer than they should even if the environment is not correct.

Students who need the most bespoke education are given an emergency ‘best fit’ option. This does not support their long term needs.

Lack of forward planning from LA’s means that students who could be identified very early on as potentially needing a more specialised provision in the future are only considered for this once things have gone very wrong in their current setting. More provisions, more choice, more understanding of what provisions are out there would really help support planned transitions and better student outcomes.

A person’s feeling of self-worth is developed by a sense of belonging and feeling part of a community. It is reaching your full potential and knowing that you are making a meaningful contribution to society.

How do we get there?

If people have the ability to work then we should be supporting them in being able to achieve their potential. We need to ensure that for all our learners, where possible, that there should be opportunities to work and gain paid employment. As a society we need to support the employment of those with SEN, again going back to my mantra that as a society we should be judged by how we support the most vulnerable. Rather than barriers to work, we should be looking at accessibility to work. What are the routes a young adult needs to follow in order to achieve meaningful employment?

We need to increase the number of internships.

The number of work experience opportunities open to people with SEN needs to be increased

We need to increase the range of college courses on offer so that students have the opportunity to link their learning to the ‘real world’ and can see how they can contribute to society. Colleges may need subsidies in order to offer bespoke college courses to facilitate them offering courses to smaller groups of students with SEN.

To work with large and smaller employers across Britain to support their understanding of SEN and to identify roles within their organisations that could be filled by workers with SEN.

Why do we need to get there?

The statistics for children with learning difficulties achieving meaningful employment makes for fairly depressing reading. This needs to change.

Rather than promoting receiving benefits as a means to an end, we would empower people to work, to contribute taxes to make them feel like ‘I can’ rather than ‘I can’t’.

January 2025