Written evidence from Dr Neil Alexander-Passe (SEN 69)

Education Committee

Solving the SEND Crisis

Support for children and young people with SEND

SEN support in mainstream schools and early years settings including:

Assessing the current quality of SEN support in mainstream schools and early years settings

Unfortunately, due to the level of funding available for SEND (SEND notional budgets not being spent on SEND, and the first 6k of funding being used for EHCP students) the quality of SEND provision in mainstream schools has been weak, inconsistent, and provided by poorly trained adults e.g. availability for students with ADHD/autism to have standing desks, or supervised rest/movement breaks, laptops for students with dyslexia/SpLD.

Defining what inclusivity in mainstream schools and early years settings should mean and look like in practice.

How can inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools and early years settings be improved to achieve consistent, high-quality SEN support? What is the DfE's role in this?

Whether SEN support should be put on a statutory footing and what this would look like in practice

Students with SEND should be treated in a similar way to students who are pupil premium, with dedicated and ring-fenced funding. A return to ‘recording students who have SEND but not provision would also be useful on the SEND census to show the frequency of actual need in a school. (SEND support, SEND support plus?)

Outcomes for children and young people with SEND and how these can be improved

Outcomes are related to provision funding. Many students slip through the net when their needs are not being supported. As a researcher/author on the ‘school to prison pipeline’ and a former SENDCO I know that students with ADHD and autism struggle in school due to their barriers, and when they get dysregulated due to poor provision/awareness, they are blamed for their SEND needs, leading to detentions and at times suspension/perm exclusions.

Workforce issues for teachers, SENCOs, specialists, early years practitioners and all those who work with children with SEND

Learning support assistants/teaching assistants tend to be the least qualified staff working with the highest-need students. This is a low-paid role, made worse by EHCP funding not rising with inflation. Many LSAs/TAs are paid at the 18-20k and whilst teacher’s salaries have risen, support staff salaries have not, which is reflected in the quality of staff that can be recruited.

What substantive training is needed for teachers, teaching assistants and all those who work with children with SEND to improve knowledge of SEND and pedagogical approaches to teaching SEND Children to increase their inclusion in schools?

SEND training should be made mandatory each academic year, ideally each term. Teachers tend to lack the ability ‘and confidence’ to screen for ADHD, autism, SplD/dyslexia. This needs to be improved so that teachers can identify why students may display behavioural manifestations in class, as it may be unmet/undiagnosed/unsupported SEND needs. ADHD and perceived misbehaviour are commonly found in schools, and are misunderstood, leading to disaffection and detentions/suspensions etc. Their needs are not being met, they have barriers to learning and in schools its easier to remove from the class than understand their barriers to learning and support e.g. movement breaks, marking first, standing desks, fidget toys etc.

The role of and capacity of specialist schools, independent schools and Alternative Provision

Working with alternative provision sendcos, many of the students they have been sent by mainstream schools have undiagnosed SEND needs, this reduces their capacity to support such students. They also face 3-5 years waiting times for CAMHS, as faced by schools. Mainstream schools need to be held accountable for not screening and referring students to CAMHS when teachers screen them, they just leave it until it's too late to support early needs. Early intervention = better supported students.

The role of specialist schools are to support severe SEND needs which can’t be supported in mainstream, however the demand is very high as there are many students who mainstream are unsuitable for.

As a secondary sendco of many years, I know that many of the year 7 ehcp consultation students will struggle in mainstream, and we tell local authorities this and in many cases parents agree that mainstream are unsuitable, however the local authority still send such students to mainstream schools. We know they will not get the supported needed, the ehcp funding is unsuitable and even with increased funding we would still be unable to meet their needs. The local authority tell us that we can review it at the end of year 7, but when we still request a special school place for them we are told none are available. This leads to situations where the student begins to manifest behavioural difficulties (sometimes dangerous to themselves and others), leading to suspensions and perm exclusions. This is why there are so many EHCP students in alternative education (PRUs), its has now become a holding place for students requiring special school provision.

Education, Health and Care Plans:

How can waiting times for EHC Plans be improved?

What can be done to support parents, carers and children or young people before, during and after the EHC Plan process?

How can the EHC Plan process be made non-adversarial?

If the data is correct that 95%+ of tribunals are lost by local authorities, then to improve the process local authorities should accept that students need ehcps, rather than string parents along for 2 years. This causes conflict with parents and schools, where we should be putting the young person’s needs first.

All local authorities I have personally dealt with in west, north, and east London do not abide by the legal requirement of ehc assessment criteria, and additionally require 2 cycles of APDR (access plan do reviews) and a costed plan of how they have received 6k of funding before they will consider an EHC assessment. This delay tactic causes conflict with parents and schools.

What alternatives are there to the EHC Plan process?

If the SEND notional was given to schools, and ring-fenced for those with SEND and not for those with EHCPs (so not taking out 6k per EHCP student), then the school would have more funds for students without EHCPs, therefore less would need to apply for an EHCP. Importantly the school should publish yearly how it spends its SEND notional budget (which varies from £50k to £1.5 million a year), so treat it in a similar way to Pupil Premium funding. This money is vital to reduce the need for parents to push for EHC assessments.

Current and future SEND need

The 2014 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) reforms, introduced by the Children and Families Act envisaged 20 years of change.

How has SEND need changed over the ten years since 2014 and how will it continue to change over the next ten years? What are specific projections for future SEND need?

What does the DfE need to do to improve their current and future assessment of SEND need?

Move funding from notional to ring-fenced, like Pupil Premium. This way SEND can be supported before it needs an EHCP.

All SENDCO should have the level 7 qualification to assess students for SEND needs and for exam access considerations.

All SENDCO training (NPQ) should include training on autism, ADHD, dyslexia and other SEND needs, so they have the skills and confidence to screen and signpost to support services.

ADHD needs its own category on the SEND census in the same way autism has. This way the frequency can be tracked. At present some schools record it as SEMH, and others SpLD, medical, or MLD.

Current and future model of SEND provision

How does SEND provision vary between local areas and what can be done to promote consistency of approach?

What changes are needed so that local education authorities can effectively plan for SEND school places and to deliver new SEND schools and new SEND school places?

What can be done to improve the effectiveness of multi-agency and joined up working cross education, health and social care?

How can specialist provision, especially support for conditions which occur infrequently but give rise to the need to a high level of support and which may be beyond the capacity of individual local authorities, best be provided and commissioned?

Each local authority needs specialist staff in the following areas: autism, ADHD, and dyslexia, along with sight/hearing impairment. Complex needs is also a forgotten area and most local authorities have no specialist to support schools.

ADHD is a growing issue, and I do not know of any local authority that has specialist staff for ADHD, and most local authorities say see the educational psychologist, but they lack the specialist skills and experience needed.

Due to high levels of negative behaviours reported by staff, and lack of local authority support, I set up an innovative ADHD mentoring program at a large secondary school with a national ADHD charity, to provide ADHD-trained mentors (may with ADHD or parents of those with ADHD), training to staff, training to parents, and a free helpline for parents (e.g. for medication options). I also provided a school standard fidget toy and introduced standing desks. Results were very positive and negative behaviours reduced in the school, students felt listened to/understood, and parent could support from home.

How can excess profit-making in the independent sector be tackled without endangering current provision?

If the state sector built more special schools, then the need for the independent sector would lessen. The demand is there, but unless the state sets up special schools then local authorities will need to pay 50k per year for each independent place along with transport costs

What is working effectively within the current SEND system and how can best practice be sustained or scaled up?

How can innovation be encouraged across the system to address the current pressures and challenges?

Changes needed to the curriculum in mainstream schools to enable SEND children to fulfil their potential? If so, what changes are these?

Mainstream secondary teachers are not primary school trained, and can easily support, plan, and teach to a max of 2 years above and below the chronological age of the class. Severe SEND student with EHCPs tend to work 3 years plus below that of their peers. This is a challenge for mainstream secondary school teachers, and the curriculum is not designed for such students to all be taught together. This causes a range of behavioural needs and disaffection that leads to suspensions and perm exclusions.

What has the impact of the 2023 SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan been to date? What needs to be done to ensure further, longer-term benefits are achieved?

Pushing more severe EHCP students into the mainstream, and delaying new EHC assessments.

At the points on the education pathway that SEND children are at greater risk of leaving school for long-term absences, homeschooling or exclusion, what reasonable adjustments and EHCP support would enable them to continue education in mainstream schooling?

Each local authority needs specialist ADHD teams, as these are the groups most unsupported in schools, and leading to the behaviour manifestations (the school to prison pipeline) through a lack of assessment and treatment from CAMHS. CAMHS only offers medication routes for secondary aged students, and if you don’t take medication they will discharge you. There is a lack of training for parents and teachers, and support for mental health of young people.

What can be done to reduce the disproportionately high exclusion rates for students with SEND?

ADHD and autism (undiagnosed) makes up the largest groups being excluded. Teachers do not have enough awareness and confidence to refer, SENDCOs see behaviour as not their problem, and CAMHS is very slow to assess. The majority of young people being referred to alternative education/PRUs lack diagnosis, and if diagnosed are not taking medication. Some parents rightly so do not agree with medicating their children but with no other treatment option open to them, what choice do they have.

Looking at the DFE suspension and exclusion data you will see traits of ADHD and autism but no diagnosis shown, a other SEND category is seen as the default option. No school should not be excluding a young person until they have been screened and supported for their SEND need, early screening in the primary school (years 3-5) is critically needed.

I am a specialist in the ‘school to prison pipeline’, writing books on ‘Dyslexia, Neurodiversity, and crime’, ADHD and Crime’, and soon to be published ‘autism and crime’. There is a real need to understand the causes of this in primary and secondary school teachers and leaders.

How should the health needs of children with SEND best be met while they are at school or in early years settings and who should fund this?

What steps should be taken to improve the post-16 landscape for students with SEND? What reforms are needed to ensure that all post-16 qualifications meet the needs of students with SEND?

What steps can local authorities take to ensure funding is in place to meet the transport needs of post-16 students with SEND?

Finance, funding and capacity of SEND provision

What funding is currently provided and what is needed for early identification of SEND, including in Early Years settings?

There is no dedicated funding for this. Schools need to ring-fence SEND notional budgets for SEND, and not pay for the first 6k of EHCPs. All SENDCOs need an assessment qualification.

What actions or reforms are needed to achieve financial stability and sustainability, both in the short and longer term, across the SEND system?

Schools need to ring-fence SEND notional budgets for SEND, and not pay for the first 6k of EHCPs. All schools need to publish how the send notional is spent, so treated like pupil premium.

What is the effectiveness of Government's interventions such as the ‘safety valve’ and Delivering better value in SEND programmes, including

How have these programmes impacted local authority finances as well as SEND provision and outcomes?

Pushing more severe EHCP students into the mainstream, and delaying new EHC assessments.

The statutory override is currently due to end in March 2026. What interventions do local authorities need leading up to March 2026 and what would local authorities like to see beyond March 2026 to ensure long term financial sustainability?

Is planned capital investment in SEND capacity sufficient and is it best targeted to address need across the country?

Is reform needed for funding of SEN support provision in schools, where currently the school is responsible for funding the first £6,000 of provision?

If SEND was treated like Pupil Premium with funding reflective of need then this would be a huge improvement for the sector, and that the first £6000 of an ehcp is NOT taken out of the SEND notional budget (which should be ring-fenced and schools made to publish annually how it is spent for SEND), then the SEND notional can be spent on non-EHCP students, reducing so many EHC assessment requests. If we have this, then the school can support with the first £6000 for non-ehco provision.

What has been the impact on SEND provision for local education authorities who have issued Section 114 notices?

Accountability and inspection of SEND provision

What should Ofsted's new 'inclusion' criterion for the inspection of mainstream schools look like?

Are all students supported in mainstream classrooms with adapted work, which is pitched at their ability?
Has the curriculum been adapted to various abilities e.g. EAL, SEND, high-ability, Pupil premium

How can Area SEND inspections of local authorities be made more effective?

Whether local education authorities need further powers to ensure that all schools in their area contribute to effective local SEND provision?

How best to hold all schools, irrespective of how they are constituted or their governance arrangements, to account for their SEND provision?

Ring-fence the SEN notional budget, treat like ‘Pupil Premium’ making schools publish annually how it is spent.

The role of other organisations such as the DfE, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Care Quality Commission in the accountability system.

January 2025