Written evidence from Susan Liverman (SEN 91)

Education Committee

Solving the SEND Crisis

How to achieve both short term stability and long-term sustainability for the SEND system to improve experiences and outcomes for children and young people?

Introduction

I am Susan Liverman, I am a parent, and I volunteer with the organisation Not Fine in School (NFIS), providing support to parents and caregivers, although this submission represents my individual views.

I also co-organise a Change.org petition about not fining or prosecuting parents where young people can’t attend school. The objective of the petition is to prevent unfair fines and prosecution for absence (not related to holiday absence) and draw attention to the need for clearer definition of ‘support’ in the “Working together to improve school attendance” guidance.

I am submitting my views in a personal capacity, based on my experiences and observations, because I care about outcomes for young people and think these can be improved. I feel that sometimes opportunities for staying in a mainstream school may be missed, until problems escalate to a level that requires specialist support. This document is intended to be practical and implementable.

I submit my evidence in the category of Support for children and young people with SEND

Support for children and young people with SEND

Targeting Attendance Issues

Most of my experience relates to chronic attendance issues, and how these relate to special educational needs, as follows:

• Ongoing attendance issues can have underlying causes, such as special educational needs or disabilities (and other reasons too)
• There isn’t a consistent, evidence-based support framework, available to schools to offer when children and young people (CYP) begin to have regular attendance issues.
• There isn’t external oversight for the chain of: absence >unauthorised absence>fines, and so unauthorised absences are directly causing rises in the cause of some home education decisions by necessity.
• Attendance Officers employed by schools may not be trained in SEND
• Parents of CYP with attendance issues may need to apply for an EHCP to seek support for their child, as they may find that there is no/little support available without one
• The EHCP process, contains an assessment stage which provides external evaluation by professionals such as educational psychologist and possibly occupational therapy. It is sometimes the only way for children to receive additional support, but not always, and I have experience of both.

Current EHCP Data

Source: Explore Education Statistics/Data Catalogue here , Health and care plans - Reporting year 2024, Childcare and Early Years Provider survey 2024

• In my local authority North Northants, most EHCP’s issued over the last three years are for school age children, reflecting nationwide trends.
• Many children may have attended a nursery or pre-school without an EHCP, although for some, difficulties will have started here too, and the number of EHCP’s for under-five’s showed a slight increase in 2023.
• In North Northants, for the last three years, most new EHCPs are issued for the 5-10age year range, which was my own experience too.
• The latest Childcare survey shows that most schools have a SENCO (special educational needs coordinator).

Meeting Special Educational Needs

By far the biggest growth area of EHCP’s for SEND has been in the autistic spectrum, speech and language/SLT, and social, emotional and mental health/SEMH areas (Guardian article, data sourced via Office National Statistics here). Moderate and severe learning difficulties have not seen the same increases.

In relation to autistic traits which the National Autistic Society lists, there are differences that some children and young people may have which make the classroom and/or school difficult, such as sensory processing difficulties which include sensitivity to input, for example, levels of light, noise, or fabrics. Delayed motor skills/muscle development may also co-occur.

A typical EHCP will provide support for these differences by specifying needs and associated provision e.g “access to a smaller group setting, or 121” – and these differences can change over time (or day to day for some) but not for all.

Many special educational needs of this type do not require equipment or physical care. They do require applicable teaching knowledge or environment adaptations, to varying degrees, for example:

• Knowledge of connection-based teaching approaches/trauma informed (such as the PACE model developed by Dan Hughes, more commonly found in specialist settings)
• Speech and language or occupational therapist input (for sensory processing and motor development skills)
• Environmental adaptations – access to a low sensory space, specific sensory diets.

Discussion

A growing number of CYP are having difficulties in a mainstream school environment, as evidenced by rise in EHCP’s, despite the data showing most schools having a SENCO.

For some young people, attendance difficulties will be a manifestation of struggling to cope, although for some, issues may show up earlier in the classroom. Many children will try to cope in the classroom for some time, and “mask” their differences. In my experience CYP will seek to find ways to meet their needs, if they can. Trying to do this can then also lead to other issues, such as a poor self-view due to finding lots of things hard, when others might not, and not having the chance to do things that you are good at. These are accepted as being human needs.

Tools and recommendations for meeting some differences in school might be low cost but require high behavioural change or learning new approaches - for example the PACE model works through relationship and connection, or learning about how different sensory needs can be met may not be common information.

There may be varying understanding of different needs too, many difficulties such as anxiety, or sensory processing difficulties are internal and may be invisible to a CYP’s teachers and caregivers (including parents). But undetected/unsupported differences may then escalate to a crisis point. Prevention is a better option than cure.

Attendance issues, where the root cause is related to mental health can be long term. For many families, there is no support framework that reflects this, and schools sometimes decline solutions such as the AV1 “no isolation” robot due to lack of implementation knowledge. But staying in touch with schoolteachers and friends can be very much wanted and needed by many young people.

The current systems can be combative and filled with blame due to conflicts over perspectives and constrained resources, which is ineffective for problem solving. There are existing delivery models that draw on collaborative solution methods, bringing everyone knowledgeable about a problem together to solve it. This is echoed in participatory research methods too. A specific parliamentary delivery team set up around these approaches might be very effective.

Solution Recommendations

1. A parliamentary SEND delivery unit, including people such as, teachers, SENCOs, health professionals, parents, young people, research experts and parliamentarians working together on defined, prioritised issues. Testing and learning from small-scale pilots.
2. Create a pilot support framework for young people with ongoing attendance issues. Including triage and long-term framework. Include flexibility of watch and wait and keeping in touch for example.
1. Authorised absence should not be included in Ofsted attendance reviews.
2. Attendance officers should receive comprehensive SEND training
3. Trying sensory based, or low-barrier accommodations should not require an EHCP and should be done sooner.
3. Utilise professional occupational therapist, speech and language and educational psychologist insights into universal recommendations on low level /common advice for the classroom (ideas: PACE trained teachers, low-sensory environment breaks/movement breaks/sensory diet on offer) – build these principles into classrooms so that children with suitable needs might be more easily accommodated outside of an EHCP. Expertise from Alternative provision has much to offer here too.
4. Increase fundamental training for schools on common differences/difficulties – “early signs” how “invisible” differences may manifest. Focus on meeting needs and accommodating differences rather than a need for a diagnosis
5. Consider successful approaches for supporting young people from other settings, e.g. the Attune project for mental health https://www.attuneproject.com/ and TOPIC https://www.psy.ox.ac.uk/research/topic-research-group as well as leading researchers in young people’s strengths: https://www.psych.ox.ac.uk/team/jiedi-lei

Conclusion

This concludes my evidence in how to work towards stability and long-term sustainability for the SEND system. This represents my views based on current knowledge and is offered for discussion and development of ideas.

My intention has been to focus on providing a clear view of some issues and focus on practical solutions; although I appreciate the complexity of the wider systems surrounding SEND too, and the pressures on those within it. I hope this evidence is helpful and look forward to the findings of the committee.

January 2025