SEN0246
Written evidence submitted by Tameside Local Authority
SEN support in mainstream schools and early years settings including:
Assessing the current quality of SEN support in mainstream schools and early years settings
The current quality of SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) support in mainstream schools and early years settings has faced significant challenges, particularly since the introduction and subsequent increase in Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs). The rise in the number of pupils with EHCPs has inadvertently reduced the role of SEND support in schools. Pupils who would previously have been supported through this tier are now often expected to cope without additional provision unless they qualify for an EHCP. This shift, coupled with the low legal threshold for securing an EHCP, has resulted in a situation where many pupils with additional needs now possess one, placing increased pressure on the system.
Compounding these issues is the restrictive, knowledge-rich curriculum adopted by many schools, which—along with a decline in staffing levels—is creating classrooms with increasingly wide-ranging needs and insufficient support. Many teachers in mainstream primary and secondary settings require additional training to adapt knowledge-based outcomes into flexible classroom practices that accommodate children and young people (CYP) working at varied levels, sometimes spanning multiple key stages. In early years and Key Stage 1—and indeed across all educational stages—the impact of the pandemic has exacerbated this complexity, leading to a broader range of developmental differences that schools seem ill-equipped to address at the SEND support level.
Schools are increasingly reliant on the funding and static plans associated with EHCPs to support learners. However, this has led to a decline in adaptive teaching practices and solution-focused approaches, which are vital for addressing the diverse needs of pupils. Rather than fostering inclusivity, some schools use the phrase “cannot meet the need or provision in the EHCP” as a barrier, creating an adversarial environment for children, young people (CYP), and their families. This discourages local inclusion and forces families to seek placements in specialist settings or schools outside their communities.
This shift has had the unintended consequence of diminishing holistic inclusion. While the original intention of the reforms was to integrate CYP with SEND into mainstream schools within their local areas, the current system often isolates these pupils both socially and geographically. This exclusion not only impacts their sense of belonging but can also limit their educational aspirations and outcomes. To achieve genuine inclusion, there must be a renewed emphasis on adaptive teaching, collaborative problem-solving, and creating welcoming environments that prioritise the needs of all learners.
Defining what inclusivity in mainstream schools and early years settings should mean and look like in practice
SEND support should serve as an extension of the basic interventions in place for any child or young person (CYP) who finds aspects of work, the curriculum, or school life challenging. These interventions should be part of what is ordinarily available to all learners. As outlined in the SEND Code of Practice, intervention does not automatically mean a child has SEND; it is a fundamental provision that should support all pupils to engage with their education. For some children, however, the needs go beyond this universal support, requiring SEND support that is more tailored or significantly different.
Despite this, schools appear to have become increasingly inflexible in their approach to teaching and learning. Many adopt rigid structures and practices that leave little room for adaptation, making it difficult for children who struggle to meet the educational and social demands of the school environment to thrive. This rigidity often results in these children being excluded—either formally or informally—from the learning opportunities within the main body of the school.
This challenge has been exacerbated by several factors. Class sizes have grown, stretching resources and reducing opportunities for individualised attention. At the same time, the expectations placed on schools and learners have risen, while funding for education has declined. These combined pressures make it increasingly difficult for schools to provide the ordinarily available interventions or the flexible and inclusive teaching practices necessary to ensure all learners, including those with SEND, are supported effectively.
Addressing these challenges requires a renewed commitment to adaptive teaching, proactive interventions, and creating environments where all children feel included and capable of achieving their potential. SEND support should build upon a solid foundation of universal provision, ensuring no child is left behind due to a lack of resources or rigid practices.
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?
Improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools and early years settings is essential to ensure consistent, high-quality SEND support for all children and young people. This requires a commitment to systemic change, investment in staff development, and a renewed culture of inclusivity led by school leadership and supported by the Department for Education (DfE) and OFSTED.
The DfE must take a significant role in driving this transformation. By adopting a joined-up approach to legislation and guidance, the DfE can ensure that SEND provision is seamlessly integrated across all areas of education policy. Fragmentation often leaves gaps in provision, particularly for vulnerable learners, which schools and families are left to navigate. Policies must align to support inclusivity and prevent learners from being excluded from the mainstream education system. The DfE should also prioritise investment in high-quality CPD, ensuring all staff—from their initial teacher training through to their Early Career Teacher (ECT) year and beyond—are equipped to meet the needs of children with SEND. Furthermore, funding and leadership support must be restored to Local Authorities (LAs) to enable them to rebuild critical services that schools and families rely upon.
OFSTED also has a vital role to play in ensuring inclusivity becomes embedded across all levels of the education system. Inspections should reflect an expectation of inclusivity, with inspectors taking a professionally curious approach to why some schools may lack a broad cohort of learners of varying abilities and SEND needs. OFSTED should challenge schools that fail to provide evidence of inclusive practices, ensuring accountability for fostering an environment where all learners are supported and included.
Leadership within schools and Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) must also align with this vision. MATs now bear significant responsibility for SEND provision, often replacing services historically provided by LAs. MATs must take ownership of these responsibilities, building robust systems of support and sharing best practices across their schools. Leadership training must emphasise inclusivity, equipping school leaders to create adaptive learning environments and cultivate a culture of belonging. Leaders must be accountable for ensuring inclusivity is not only a policy but an active practice that permeates every aspect of school life.
At the classroom level, a commitment to high-quality CPD for all staff is essential. Teachers must be equipped with the skills to adapt their teaching, foster inclusive classrooms, and address the needs of children working at varying levels. Adaptive teaching strategies and an understanding of diverse needs should be foundational to teacher training and professional development. Professionalism in teaching SEND pupils should not be optional; it must become a core competency for all educators.
The increasing rigidity in school practices, combined with rising class sizes, higher expectations, and reduced funding, has created barriers to inclusivity. Many schools are struggling to meet the needs of learners who require additional support, and some pupils are being excluded—formally or informally—from accessing the full breadth of the curriculum and school life. Addressing these challenges requires not just funding and accountability but a cultural shift in how inclusivity is perceived and prioritised.
By fostering collaboration between the DfE, OFSTED, MATs, and LAs, as well as investing in staff training and leadership development, the education system can build a framework that truly supports inclusivity. Through this shared commitment, schools and early years settings can ensure that all children, regardless of their needs, have access to a high-quality education in their local communities. Inclusivity must be at the heart of the education system, driven by leadership, funding, and a collective determination to meet the needs of every child.
Whether SEN support should be put on a statutory footing and what this would look like in practice
The question of whether SEN support should be put on a statutory footing is complex. While the idea may seem attractive as a way to guarantee consistent and equitable provision, there is a real risk that such a move could lead to another bureaucratic process that fails to achieve its intended purpose. Instead, the focus should be on embedding SEND support as a fundamental expectation within all schools and ensuring robust accountability for its implementation.
SEND support should not be viewed as an optional extra or a precursor to securing an EHCP, but rather as an integral part of the educational framework available to all children who need it. There should be a clear expectation that SEND support must be in place, tailored to meet the needs of individual learners. Furthermore, the provision of this support should be a prerequisite before an EHCP application is made, ensuring that all avenues of ordinarily available provision have been fully explored and utilised.
However, tightening the EHCP process alone is not enough. The law should also require schools to demonstrate, with evidence, what they have done to meet a child’s needs prior to applying for an EHCP. This would include:
Currently, the law prevents Local Authorities (LAs) from challenging the perception that adequate SEND support has been provided. This creates a loophole where schools can claim they have done all they can, even when this is not the case. Strengthening the legal framework could ensure greater accountability, requiring schools to meet a clear standard of evidence before progressing to the EHCP stage. This would not only protect the integrity of the EHCP process but also ensure that children receive the support they need as early as possible, without waiting for a formal plan to be in place.
In practice, this approach would require several changes:
Placing SEND support on a statutory footing should not mean adding another layer of red tape. Instead, it should aim to create a system where SEND support is both an expectation and a legal responsibility, ensuring that every child has access to the help they need in a timely and effective manner. By tightening the EHCP process and holding schools accountable for their provision, we can build a system that better serves children and young people with SEND while avoiding the pitfalls of unnecessary bureaucracy.
Outcomes for children and young people with SEND and how these can be improved
Improving outcomes for learners with SEND begins with recognising that success is unique to each individual. For one child, success might mean mastering a specific skill; for another, it could be building social confidence or developing independence. Success is not achieved in the same way for every child, nor should it be viewed through the same lens. However, the current outcome-driven agenda in education often fails to acknowledge this diversity, leaving many children with SEND feeling unsuccessful. This approach can diminish their self-esteem and create a damaging belief that they are defined by failure, often from an alarmingly early age.
To truly improve outcomes, we must rethink how success is defined and measured for learners with SEND. It is essential to celebrate individual achievements, no matter how small, and understand that progress is deeply personal. Schools need to adopt a holistic view of success, recognising that it encompasses not only academic milestones but also personal growth, social development, and emotional well-being.
Too often, the rigid structure of standardised outcomes leaves learners with SEND feeling excluded. When children are judged against benchmarks designed for neurotypical peers, they are set up to feel inadequate, even when they are making remarkable progress in their own way. By focusing instead on personal growth—measuring progress against a child’s own starting point—we can foster a sense of achievement and help learners develop confidence in their abilities.
Flexible and adaptive targets are key to this approach. These targets must reflect the individual needs and aspirations of each child and be regularly reviewed to ensure they remain meaningful and achievable. Success should not be a fixed destination but a journey that evolves as the child grows and learns.
Central to improving outcomes is the need to build self-esteem and resilience in learners with SEND. A child who believes in themselves is more likely to take on challenges, persevere through difficulties, and thrive in their education and beyond. Schools play a vital role in nurturing this sense of self-worth by creating environments where all learners feel valued, capable, and successful on their own terms.
The current focus on a narrow outcome agenda—often centred on standardised assessments and national benchmarks—can be harmful to learners with SEND. This approach risks overlooking the progress and achievements that matter most to these children, reinforcing a narrative of failure rather than celebrating their unique successes. To address this, we need to embrace a broader definition of outcomes that values personal achievements, social progress, and emotional well-being alongside traditional academic measures.
Importantly, this shift must not be limited to a small number of specialist provisions. Improving outcomes for learners with SEND should be possible across the whole of our school system. The opportunity to succeed and thrive should not depend on access to specialist settings or provisions but must instead be embedded as a core expectation of all schools. Mainstream schools must have the training, resources, and accountability to deliver this inclusive approach, ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has the chance to achieve their potential.
By shifting our perspective, we can create an education system that genuinely improves outcomes for learners with SEND. Success should no longer be about meeting a universal standard but about recognising and supporting the individual journey of each child. This change will not only enable learners with SEND to achieve their potential but will also empower them to see themselves as capable, confident, and valued members of their communities.
Workforce issues for teachers, SENCOs, specialists, early years practitioners and all those who work with children with SEND
Supporting children with SEND requires a dedicated, skilled, and adaptable workforce, yet the challenges faced by teachers, SENCOs, specialists, early years practitioners, and teaching assistants threaten the sustainability of the system. These roles are some of the most demanding in education, but the professionals working within them often feel overburdened, undervalued, and unsupported.
For SENCOs, the job can be an isolating and overwhelming experience. Tasked with coordinating support for children with SEND across the school, SENCOs need a deep understanding of individual needs, statutory processes, and teaching strategies. However, many schools lack sufficient SENCO capacity to manage the increasing complexity and volume of demands. Often stretched across multiple responsibilities with limited resources, SENCOs find it difficult to meet the needs of their pupils effectively. Without the proper time, support, and recognition, the vital role of the SENCO is left at risk of becoming unsustainable.
Teaching assistants (TAs), particularly those working in specialist SEND roles, are another critical part of the workforce facing immense challenges. Despite being central to the success of many SEND learners, TAs are often poorly paid and face elevated levels of stress. Their work can involve supporting some of the most vulnerable and complex children in the school, yet their efforts are frequently undervalued. Many TAs leave the profession due to low wages, limited progression opportunities, and the intense pressure of their roles. This growing recruitment and retention crisis leaves schools struggling to find the skilled staff they need to provide consistent support for learners with SEND.
Teachers and early years practitioners are also under strain. Staffing levels in many schools are "cut to the bone," making it increasingly difficult to adapt to the diverse and complex needs of learners. With the added complexity of needs in today’s classrooms, many staff are finding themselves in situations they are not qualified or trained to manage. The rising expectations placed on educators, combined with the lasting effects of the pandemic, have left many feeling ill-equipped and unsupported. This lack of capacity not only affects the quality of SEND provision but also contributes to burnout and attrition across the workforce.
Specialists, such as educational psychologists and therapists, are critically short in supply. Long waiting lists for assessments and interventions leave schools and families frustrated, while educators are forced to fill gaps they are not trained or resourced to address. The absence of timely specialist support exacerbates delays in identifying and meeting the needs of children, placing additional strain on an already stretched system.
The cumulative effect of these workforce issues is a SEND system that is unable to adapt to the everyday challenges presented by its learners. To tackle this, there must be a concerted effort to rebuild the workforce:
The professionals supporting children with SEND are deeply committed to their work, but they cannot do it alone. With increasing complexity of need and limited resources, staff are being placed in untenable situations.
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?
To create an inclusive education system that meets the diverse needs of all learners, teachers, teaching assistants, and other professionals must be equipped with high-quality, substantive training. This training should focus on deepening their understanding of SEND and providing them with the pedagogical tools to adapt their teaching and support practices effectively. Central to this is the implementation of adaptive teaching and dynamic assessment, alongside relational inclusion and evidence-based programmes, to foster environments where every child can thrive.
Adaptive teaching lies at the heart of inclusion. It requires educators to tailor their teaching strategies, resources, and approaches to meet the varied needs of their pupils, ensuring that all children can access the curriculum. This involves differentiating tasks to align with individual abilities, using scaffolding techniques to provide temporary support, and adapting the classroom environment to accommodate sensory or processing difficulties. Adaptive teaching also includes flexible grouping strategies and the integration of assistive technologies, enabling staff to respond dynamically to the challenges presented in diverse classrooms. This approach ensures that inclusion is embedded across the entire school system, rather than being confined to specialist settings.
Equally important is dynamic assessment, a formative approach that shifts the focus from measuring static outcomes to evaluating a learner’s potential and responsiveness to support. Dynamic assessment provides insights into how children learn, uncovering their strengths and identifying effective strategies to foster progress. Through interactive methods, such as using prompts, scaffolding, and feedback during assessment, educators can plan targeted interventions that respond to individual needs. This approach allows schools to move beyond traditional labels and create opportunities for growth, tailoring support to help each child achieve their potential.
Training must also emphasise relational inclusion and attachment-based practices, which focus on building strong, positive relationships with children. These approaches are vital for fostering a sense of safety and belonging, particularly for learners who have experienced trauma or struggle with emotional regulation. By creating nurturing environments, staff can better support social and emotional development, which is foundational to successful inclusion.
In addition to these core principles, educators need practical training in evidence-based programmes and strategies, such as:
Curriculum developers also play a pivotal role in fostering inclusion. Staff who develop curriculums need training to ensure they can write knowledge-rich curriculums that are designed to support and incorporate these inclusive approaches. A knowledge-rich curriculum should not only deliver core subject content but also be adaptable and flexible, allowing for differentiation and the inclusion of strategies such as scaffolding, multi-sensory teaching methods, and opportunities for repetition and overlearning. This ensures that all learners, including those with SEND, can engage with and benefit from a challenging curriculum tailored to their needs.
For this vision to succeed, training must not be a one-off event but an ongoing commitment embedded into the culture of schools. Educators need continuous professional development that keeps them informed of the latest research and approaches to SEND support. Leadership training is equally critical, ensuring school leaders prioritise inclusion, allocate resources effectively, and support staff in implementing these strategies.
Investing in adaptive teaching and dynamic assessment, alongside relational and evidence-based practices, can transform classrooms into flexible, responsive environments where every child feels valued and capable. Importantly, this must be possible across the entire school system—not limited to a small number of specialist provisions.
The role of and capacity of specialist schools, independent schools and Alternative Provision
The role and capacity of specialist schools, independent schools, and Alternative Provision (AP) must be reassessed to create a more inclusive and sustainable education system. While these institutions play a vital role in supporting some of the most vulnerable learners, their function should be refocused to ensure resources are used effectively and that the majority of learners can thrive within mainstream settings.
Independent schools have increasingly become a drain on the system, drawing critical resources away from maintained providers. Many operate outside a standardised funding framework, charging fees that are often disproportionate to the services they provide. This has created inconsistencies and inefficiencies that burden Local Authorities (LAs) and families alike. Moving forward, the majority of independent schools catering to SEND learners must be brought into a unified funding structure to ensure transparency, accountability, and value for money. Only a small number of independent schools should remain outside this framework, specifically those offering highly specialised care for an extremely limited cohort of children with the most complex needs. These institutions should complement, rather than compete with, publicly funded provisions, addressing needs that cannot be met elsewhere.
Specialist schools, similarly, should focus on supporting a small number of learners with significant and complex needs who require dedicated, onsite education. However, their role must go beyond serving just their enrolled students. Specialist schools need to act as centres of expertise, providing outreach services to mainstream schools. This could involve offering training for staff, assisting with targeted interventions, and helping to develop inclusive practices that allow more children with SEND to succeed in their local schools. By sharing their expertise, specialist schools can have a far-reaching impact, reducing the number of unnecessary placements while strengthening the ability of mainstream settings to support diverse learners.
Alternative Provision (AP) should also be reframed as a resource that serves a specific purpose for a small number of children. AP should provide intensive, time-limited support for learners facing challenges such as behavioural or mental health issues, with the primary goal of reintegrating them into mainstream education wherever possible. Like specialist schools, AP must also extend its role to include outreach and preventative services. By working with mainstream schools, AP can help staff develop the skills and strategies needed to manage complex behaviours, prevent exclusions, and support the inclusion of at-risk pupils.
To achieve a balanced education system, the majority of children with SEND must be supported within their local mainstream schools. Specialist schools and AP should focus on those learners with the most complex needs while acting as resources to enhance the capacity of mainstream schools. Independent schools must no longer act as a financial drain but instead operate within a clear funding framework, ensuring accountability and fairness.
Education, Health and Care Plans:
How can waiting times for EHC Plans be improved?
The current system for producing Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plans is overwhelmed. With an ever-increasing number of applications, the process struggles to manage the volume while maintaining the quality and timeliness of the plans and the provision within them. This bottleneck leads to frustration for families, delays in support for children, and a system that cannot sustain itself under current pressures.
To address these challenges, the system needs significant reform. One critical step is to rethink how social care and health contributions are integrated into the process. Currently, much of the responsibility for ensuring these elements are high-quality and delivered on time falls to Local Authorities (LAs). However, social care and health professionals must have a statutory duty to provide timely and robust input into EHC Plans, rather than leaving LAs to chase these contributions. This would create a more balanced system where all parties are equally accountable and reduce delays caused by incomplete or late advice from external services.
Fundamental to decreasing the number of EHC Plans is creating a stronger foundation of SEND support within mainstream settings. As highlighted earlier, mainstream schools need a culture shift where inclusivity is a core expectation. SEND support must be viewed as an integral part of everyday teaching, with well-trained staff equipped to provide high-quality, adaptive teaching and targeted interventions. By embedding robust SEND support into the fabric of mainstream schools, more children can have their needs met without the need for an EHC Plan, leaving the process reserved for those with the most complex and enduring needs.
Additionally, there needs to be a fundamental reconsideration of how EHC Plans are used. The current model risks overstretching resources by trying to accommodate too many children within a framework originally designed for a smaller, more targeted group of learners. By refocusing EHC Plans on a smaller number of children with the most significant needs, the system can ensure that plans are more holistic, impactful, and aligned with the intent of providing integrated support across education, health, and care.
For children whose needs do not require the comprehensive scope of an EHC Plan, better systems must be in place to provide support through high-quality SEND provision at the school level. Strengthening universal and targeted support within schools can reduce the reliance on EHC Plans, ensuring that only those who truly need this level of formal intervention enter the process.
Finally, streamlining and improving the overall quality assurance (QA) process for EHC Plans is essential. This involves clearer national guidelines, more consistent training for those involved in drafting and implementing plans, and enhanced monitoring to ensure that the provision outlined in plans is both realistic and actionable. A focus on quality over quantity will result in more meaningful and effective support for children and young people.
What can be done to support parents, carers and children or young people before, during and after the EHC Plan process?
Navigating the Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan process is a challenging journey for parents, carers, and children or young people. To ensure meaningful support, schools, wider services, and families must work together, sharing responsibility and focusing on the well-being of the child at the centre of the process.
Support begins long before the formal application for an EHC Plan. Schools must take ownership of the children and young people (CYP) in their care, addressing their needs proactively and building trust with families. This means demonstrating a genuine commitment to inclusion, providing high-quality SEND support, and fostering strong relationships with parents and carers. By doing so, schools can alleviate the pressure to apply for an EHC Plan prematurely, ensuring it is reserved for those with the most complex and enduring needs.
Wider services such as health and social care also play a critical role in the initial stages. Timely advice, assessments, and interventions can often prevent the escalation of needs and provide families with reassurance and clarity. Early, proactive engagement ensures that families feel supported and reduces the likelihood of a crisis-driven approach. Families themselves, along with their wider support networks, must also be part of this collaborative effort, ensuring open communication and a shared focus on the child’s development.
When the EHC Plan process begins, it can be overwhelming for families, involving lengthy waits, complex paperwork, and multiple meetings. During this time, schools must remain a constant source of guidance and support. They should help parents navigate the process by providing clear explanations, assisting with forms, and advocating for the child’s needs. Schools must show empathy and understanding, ensuring that families feel heard and valued throughout the journey.
Wider services must also step up during this phase. Health and social care professionals must provide timely, high-quality contributions to the process, ensuring that families are not burdened with chasing missing input. Local Authorities (LAs) should improve communication and provide dedicated caseworkers to guide families through the steps, keeping them informed about progress and decisions. A collaborative and empathetic approach across all parties can significantly reduce the adversarial nature that sometimes surrounds the process.
After the EHC Plan is finalised, support must continue. Schools have a responsibility to implement the plan effectively, delivering the provision outlined and monitoring the child’s progress. Regular reviews must involve families, creating an ongoing dialogue to ensure that the support remains relevant and effective. Schools should also provide continued emotional and practical support to families, recognising that an EHC Plan is not the end of the journey but a tool to enable the child’s growth and success. As we have stated above, the service our most complex learners need from an EHCP can only be provided in this way if the numbers decrease and we are able to intensify this holistic support for the most complex learners.
How can the EHC Plan process be made non-adversarial?
The Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan process is often characterised by tension and conflict. Families, schools, Local Authorities (LAs), and other services frequently operate within a fragmented system, creating frustration and mistrust. To transform this into a non-adversarial process, strong relationships, transparency, accountability, and a commitment to co-producing quality services are essential.
At the core of a collaborative process are strong, trusting relationships between all stakeholders. Families must feel valued and heard, while professionals need to feel respected and supported in their roles. Building this trust requires open communication and mutual respect. Professionals must prioritise listening to families, recognising the importance of their insights and lived experiences. Families, in turn, need confidence that services are genuinely acting in the child’s best interests. These relationships are only effective when reinforced by consistent actions that demonstrate a commitment to working together.
Co-production is a cornerstone of a non-adversarial system. This means families are not passive recipients of decisions but active partners in creating support plans. Instead of being presented with fixed solutions, families should participate in meaningful discussions about what works best for their child. This collaborative approach builds trust and results in tailored, effective plans that reflect the unique needs of the child.
Accountability across services is also critical. No service—whether education, health, or social care—should be able to deny its responsibility to support a child. Families are often left chasing missing input or incomplete contributions, which adds unnecessary stress and erodes trust in the system. Statutory obligations must ensure that all services provide timely, high-quality advice and support. This shared responsibility removes undue pressure on LAs and families while ensuring a holistic approach to meeting a child’s needs.
Transparency about baseline expectations is equally important. Misaligned expectations often fuel conflict. Families may feel that services are withholding support, while professionals may view demands as unrealistic. Clear communication about what can reasonably be achieved with available resources is essential. This does not mean lowering aspirations but rather fostering a shared understanding of how to maximise support for the child within the system’s constraints. At the moment there does not seem to be a cap on what can be expected.
An additional area that requires oversight is the role of non-registered individuals advising parents around SEND issues. In many local areas, these individuals provide guidance to families without being subject to formal accountability or professional standards. While many have the best intentions, unregulated advice can sometimes create confusion, escalate conflict, or result in unrealistic expectations. To address this, there should be an increase in the provision of registered, high-quality support for families through services such as SENDIASS (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Information, Advice, and Support Services). These registered services provide impartial, accurate, and constructive guidance that helps families navigate the system and fosters collaboration with schools and services. Introducing oversight and expanding such regulated support would significantly reduce adversarial dynamics and promote a more unified approach to meeting children’s needs.
The system itself needs structural improvements. Local Authorities must improve communication and provide clear timelines, updates, and access to knowledgeable support officers.
What alternatives are there to the EHC Plan process?
The EHC Plan process, in its current form, has become the default mechanism for securing support for children with SEND. However, this reliance on a bureaucratic and often adversarial system is unsustainable, diverting resources away from inclusive practices that could benefit the majority of learners. An alternative approach could involve shifting funding directly to schools, empowering them to create inclusive environments that meet the needs of most children, while reserving formal EHC Plans for a small number of learners with the most complex challenges.
This concept is not without precedent, and it is important to recognise that similar systems have struggled to succeed elsewhere, including in Wales. However, with the right levels of coproduction, collaboration, and funding directed into schools, this model could be viable. Key to its success would be a genuine partnership between schools, Local Authorities (LAs), and families, where all stakeholders take shared responsibility for supporting children with SEND.
To make this approach work, significant funding would need to flow directly into schools to build capacity and ensure they are equipped to meet a broad spectrum of needs. This funding would enable schools to invest in adaptive teaching, staff training, and specialist interventions. It would also allow them to access external expertise, such as educational psychologists (EPs) and specialist teachers, without relying on the EHC Plan process to unlock these resources.
Additionally, LA SEND teams must take on a proactive, school-facing role. These teams, including EPs and specialist teachers, could be allocated to schools to provide hands-on guidance, assessment, and practical support. Health and social care colleagues would also need to be integrated into this model to ensure a holistic approach to supporting learners. By embedding expertise within schools, the system would foster earlier intervention and reduce the need for formal plans.
However, funding and collaboration alone will not be enough to ensure success. There must also be a fundamental reset in the way schools are held accountable for outcomes. Current accountability systems often discourage schools from embracing inclusivity, as they prioritise narrow measures of success, such as exam results, over the broader progress and well-being of all learners. A reformed accountability framework would need to recognise and reward schools for their commitment to inclusion, the progress made by learners with SEND, and the quality of the support provided.
The success of this alternative system also hinges on strong coproduction and trust. Families must be fully engaged in the design and implementation of support, with their insights valued and integrated into decision-making processes. Transparent communication and a shared understanding of expectations would be essential to avoid the conflict and frustration that can arise in systems that lack clarity or equity.
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?
The landscape of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) has undergone significant changes over the past decade, driven by shifting societal frameworks, broader definitions of need, and evolving medical and social factors. These changes have resulted in a notable increase in the identification and labelling of SEND. As we look ahead, it is clear that the demand for SEND provision will continue to rise, raising critical questions about the rate of increase and whether it falls within the bounds of what could be considered a "normal" trajectory.
Since 2014, the definition and identification of SEND have expanded, partly due to changing social frameworks for labelling difficulties and challenges. Many needs that may not have previously been classified as SEND—such as emotional and behavioural difficulties or low-level social communication challenges—are now more readily labelled as such. While this reflects a positive shift towards recognising and addressing barriers to learning, it has also placed greater pressure on a system that was not designed to accommodate this volume of need.
The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the landscape of SEND. The disruption to early development during critical years of childhood has led to increased numbers of children presenting with developmental delays, speech and language difficulties, and social or emotional challenges. This "pandemic effect" will likely have a long-lasting impact, with children entering the education system requiring more targeted support than ever before.
Medical advancements have also played a role in shaping the profile of SEND need. The survival rates of very premature babies and children with complex medical conditions have significantly improved due to advancements in neonatal and paediatric care. While this is a remarkable achievement, it has led to an increase in the number of children requiring long-term educational and medical support, adding to the complexity of the SEND population.
Looking forward to the next ten years, it is almost certain that the level of SEND will continue to rise. The question is not whether it will increase, but at what rate, and whether the trajectory will remain within the bounds of a typical distribution or exceed what the system can reasonably manage. Factors such as ongoing societal and cultural changes, the impact of environmental stressors, and continued advancements in medical care will all influence this trajectory.
Projections suggest that the next decade will see:
What does the DfE need to do to improve their current and future assessment of SEND need?
The DfE must critically examine the boundaries of what is defined as SEND to ensure the system remains focused on those who genuinely require specialised support. Over the past decade, societal changes have contributed to an increase in labelling challenges as SEND that may not need the same level of intervention. Establishing a clearer framework to differentiate between SEND and other barriers to learning is essential. This approach would ensure resources are directed where they are most needed while empowering schools to manage lower-level needs through strong, inclusive practices.
To support this shift, the DfE must enhance data collection and analysis, developing a robust understanding of trends and emerging needs. Collaboration across education, health, and social care sectors is vital, with co-production involving families and schools to ensure a holistic understanding of SEND. Strategic forecasting should anticipate the long-term impact of factors such as the pandemic, medical advancements, and societal changes. Building capacity for early intervention is key, with increased access to educational psychologists, therapists, and other specialists to provide timely support.
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?
SEND provision varies widely, not only between local areas but even between schools within the same area. Schools with a strong, inclusive ethos often bear the burden of supporting a disproportionate number of children with SEND, compensating for those in their locality that lack a similar commitment to inclusion. This inconsistency leads to inequitable experiences for children and families, with the quality of provision often dependent on the ethos of individual schools or the resources of specific Local Authorities (LAs).
The absence of a clearly defined, universally applied expectation of SEND support exacerbates these disparities. Without a shared understanding of what SEND provision should look like and a standardised framework outlining the minimum requirements for support, schools and LAs are left to interpret their responsibilities independently. This results in a patchwork system where the level and quality of support depend largely on the priorities and ethos of individual institutions rather than the needs of the children.
To promote consistency, a nationally defined set of SEND descriptors must be developed, outlining what SEND support should look like across all schools. These descriptors should include clear expectations for universal and targeted support, as well as guidance on adaptive teaching, staff training, and the use of resources. A consistent framework would ensure that schools understand their responsibilities and that families have a clear idea of the support their children are entitled to receive, regardless of where they live or which school they attend.
Equally important is fostering a culture of accountability. Schools and LAs must be held to account for their SEND provision, with clear monitoring processes to ensure compliance with the defined descriptors. However, accountability should not just focus on punitive measures; it must also include capacity-building initiatives to support schools in developing inclusive practices. This could involve increased access to Local Authority SEND teams, specialist teachers, and educational psychologists, alongside training programmes that promote inclusive approaches.
Promoting collaboration between schools can also help drive consistency. Schools with strong SEND practices should be encouraged to share their expertise, supporting others in their area to develop inclusive approaches. Local Authority-led networks or multi-academy trust (MAT) initiatives could facilitate this exchange, creating a shared ethos of inclusion and improving standards across all schools.
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?
Local Education Authorities (LEAs) face significant challenges in planning and delivering the SEND school places required to meet the growing and evolving needs of children with SEND. To address these challenges, LEAs need a strategic, long-term approach, grounded in robust data, collaborative planning, and guaranteed capital investment funding over an extended period.
A comprehensive understanding of SEND sufficiency is the foundation for effective planning. LEAs must have accurate data on the prevalence and types of SEND in their area, mapped against existing provision. This requires ongoing analysis of current and future demand, accounting for trends such as demographic changes, medical advancements, and the long-term impact of the pandemic on developmental needs. With this information, LEAs can develop a clear and detailed roadmap for SEND provision across all phases of education—early years, primary, secondary, and post-16.
To plan effectively, LEAs also need known and sustained capital investment funding over the next 10 years. Short-term or sporadic funding allocations undermine the ability to plan strategically, leading to reactive rather than proactive expansions of provision. Guaranteed, multi-year funding would allow LEAs to forecast and deliver new SEND schools and places in line with anticipated demand, ensuring they can phase developments over time and avoid sudden shortfalls. This stability would also enable LEAs to address gaps in specific types of provision, such as specialist schools or resource bases within mainstream settings.
Streamlining funding and approval processes is another essential change. The current system for securing funding and establishing new SEND schools is often slow and overly complex, delaying the delivery of critical places. LEAs require more flexibility to allocate funds based on local needs, with simplified national frameworks that enable faster decision-making.
Collaboration between stakeholders is equally important. LEAs must work closely with schools, parents, health and social care providers, and other partners to co-produce plans that reflect the needs of their communities. Engaging stakeholders ensures that new schools and places are designed to meet specific local requirements and builds trust in the planning process.
Additionally, LEAs must retain the capacity to review and adapt provision over time. SEND needs are not static, and local authorities must be able to adjust plans as circumstances change. This requires a system of regular monitoring, flexible funding for expansions, and mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of new schools and places once established.
What can be done to improve the effectiveness of multi-agency and joined up working cross education, health and social care?
Improving the effectiveness of multi-agency working across education, health, and social care is critical to providing holistic and seamless support for learners with SEND. Despite the shared goal of supporting children and young people, the current system often suffers from siloed practices, miscommunication, and fragmented responsibilities. To address these issues, a shift toward joint strategic responsibility and accountability for the holistic support of learners with SEND is essential.
At the heart of effective multi-agency working is a shared vision and strategic alignment across sectors. Education, health, and social care must come together under a unified framework that clearly defines their roles and responsibilities in supporting children with SEND. This requires joint leadership at both local and national levels, with clear accountability structures to ensure that no service can deny ownership of its role in delivering the required support. Establishing shared goals and outcomes—focused on the child’s well-being, progress, and development—ensures that all agencies are working towards the same objectives.
Integrated planning and delivery are also crucial. Multi-agency teams should be embedded within local systems, with professionals from education, health, and social care working collaboratively to assess needs, develop plans, and deliver interventions. Co-location of teams or regular cross-agency meetings can help foster stronger relationships, reduce delays, and ensure that support is coordinated and comprehensive. A single point of contact for families can streamline communication and improve trust, making it easier for them to navigate the system.
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?
Specialist provision for conditions that occur infrequently but require a high level of support poses a significant challenge for local authorities. These needs, often medical or equipment-based, are complex and beyond the capacity of individual authorities to manage effectively. To address these challenges, a strategic and collaborative approach is essential, leveraging the expertise of specialist provision and medical colleagues to deliver high-quality, consistent support.
The first step is recognising that many of these conditions are primarily health-related, requiring the expertise of medical professionals or highly specialised equipment. Provision for these needs should not rest solely on local authorities but instead involve joint commissioning arrangements between education, health, and social care. By pooling resources and aligning strategies, these agencies can ensure that funding and expertise are directed to the right places, avoiding duplication and inefficiencies. This collaboration allows for more comprehensive planning and delivery of services that meet the unique requirements of these learners.
Regional or national centres of excellence can play a pivotal role in meeting the needs of children with rare conditions. These centres, staffed by specialist medical and educational professionals, can provide the high level of support required while ensuring consistency and equity across areas. By centralising expertise, regional hubs can reduce the burden on individual local authorities and offer families access to a standardised, high-quality service.
In addition to direct provision, these centres can serve as resources for local schools and authorities, offering guidance, training, and outreach support. Through collaboration, they can help local settings build capacity to manage less complex aspects of care, ensuring that children can remain closer to their communities whenever possible. This model ensures that the most complex needs are met in specialist settings while fostering inclusivity for those who can benefit from a mainstream environment with appropriate support.
Medical colleagues must be central to the planning and delivery of these services. Conditions requiring high levels of support often involve ongoing medical interventions, specialist equipment, or therapy. Collaborative frameworks should place medical professionals at the heart of decision-making, ensuring that health needs are addressed alongside educational goals. This integration avoids gaps in care and ensures that families do not have to navigate fragmented systems.
Efficient funding mechanisms are also critical. High-cost equipment and intensive medical care can strain local authority budgets, leading to inconsistencies in provision. National or regional funding pools, managed collaboratively by health and education sectors, can ensure that resources are distributed equitably and based on need. These mechanisms would provide a safety net for local authorities, allowing them to access funding for high-cost cases without diverting resources from broader SEND provision.
Finally, families must be active partners in designing and delivering support. Their lived experience provides invaluable insight into what works and ensures that services are tailored to meet individual needs. Co-production with families not only builds trust but also fosters a more responsive and effective system.
How can excess profit-making in the independent sector be tackled without endangering current provision?
The independent sector plays a crucial role in providing specialist education for children with complex SEND needs. However, the rising costs of placements and concerns about excess profit-making have underscored the need for reform. Addressing these issues requires strategies that balance fair pricing with the sustainability of existing provision. A critical part of this solution involves lowering demand for independent placements, which would naturally bring prices back in line.
Demand for independent provision is often driven by gaps in local authority or mainstream school capacity to meet SEND needs. When local provision is insufficient, families are forced to seek alternatives, increasing reliance on high-cost independent providers. To reduce this demand, investment in local SEND provision is essential. Expanding capacity in mainstream schools, creating resource bases, and increasing the availability of specialist schools within the public sector would allow more children to receive the support they need closer to home, reducing dependence on the independent sector.
In addition, fostering a culture of inclusion within mainstream schools can prevent the escalation of needs that often leads to independent placements. By equipping schools with the funding, training, and resources to support a wider range of needs, fewer children would require specialist provision, easing pressure on independent providers and bringing costs under control.
Alongside reducing demand, collective commissioning frameworks or regional price agreements can further stabilise pricing. Local Authorities (LAs) that frequently use the same independent providers can work together to negotiate fairer fees, ensuring consistency and transparency across areas. These agreements would cap excessive profit margins while allowing providers to sustain high-quality support.
Improving financial transparency and oversight is also key. Independent providers should be required to publish clear accounts showing how fees are allocated. This would ensure profits are reasonable and reinvested in maintaining or improving the quality of education and care, rather than contributing to inflated margins.
While these measures aim to address profit-making concerns, it is essential to avoid destabilising the current system. Many families rely on independent providers for specialist support that cannot always be replicated within the public sector. Lowering demand and regulating pricing must therefore be introduced gradually, alongside significant investment in local provision to ensure children and families are not left without essential services.
What is working effectively within the current SEND system and how can best practice be sustained or scaled up?
Amid the challenges faced by the SEND system, there are areas of excellence that highlight what is working well and provide a blueprint for broader improvement. From the structured approaches of inclusive Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) to the invaluable contributions of organisations like Whole School SEND and NASEN, and the positive impact of revamped CPD initiatives such as the NPQ suite, these successes offer models of effective practice that can and should be sustained and scaled up.
Some large, inclusive MATs have set themselves apart by developing comprehensive SEND systems within their trusts. These trusts demonstrate how a strategic, whole-system approach can create consistency, improve outcomes, and reduce disparities across multiple schools. By centralising expertise, investing in specialist staff, and embedding inclusion into their leadership ethos, these MATs ensure learners with SEND receive the support they need. They use shared resources, consistent CPD, and collaborative problem-solving to ensure every school within the trust adopts the same ambitious standards for SEND provision. Scaling up this approach requires promoting cross-MAT collaboration, sharing best practices, and incentivising other MATs to follow suit, fostering a culture of inclusivity across the education system.
Organisations like Whole School SEND, part of NASEN, play a vital role in supporting schools to enhance their SEND provision. Their resources, frameworks, and training, such as the widely used SEND Review Guide, empower schools to embed inclusive practices and evaluate their effectiveness. These tools help schools integrate SEND into their strategic planning and daily operations, ensuring that provision is not an afterthought but a fundamental part of the school’s ethos. Sustaining and scaling the impact of these organisations requires ongoing investment, national recognition of their value, and encouraging their use through policy alignment and accountability frameworks.
Professional development initiatives, such as the revamped National Professional Qualification (NPQ) suite, have also strengthened SEND leadership in schools. The inclusion of SEND-focused leadership pathways equips school leaders with the skills and knowledge to prioritise SEND at all levels. By integrating SEND into broader leadership training, these CPD initiatives help shift the perception of SEND from being a specialist responsibility to being a core element of school leadership. To expand their impact, these qualifications must be made accessible to a wide range of educators, including SENCOs and aspiring leaders, and incentivised as essential components of career progression.
To sustain and scale up these best practices, action is needed. National recognition and funding must be directed towards inclusive MATs, organisations like NASEN, and effective CPD programmes. Collaboration between schools, MATs, and local authorities should be fostered through networks, conferences, and online platforms to share expertise and innovation. Policy alignment is also critical, embedding tools like the SEND Review Guide into national guidance and accountability measures to ensure widespread adoption. Finally, providing funding and recognition for schools that engage with CPD initiatives, such as the NPQ suite, will encourage more educators to prioritise SEND leadership.
How can innovation be encouraged across the system to address the current pressures and challenges?
The SEND system is under significant pressure, with rising demand, constrained resources, and growing complexity in the needs of children and young people. To address these challenges, innovation must be fostered at every level, from curriculum design to cross-sector collaboration. Key to this is flexibility, cooperation, and a shift in accountability structures that enable schools and Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) to work creatively and collaboratively to support the system as a whole.
A flexible curriculum is central to driving innovation. Traditional, rigid curriculum models often fail to meet the diverse needs of learners with SEND, creating unnecessary barriers to success. Schools should be encouraged to adapt their curriculum to reflect the strengths, interests, and needs of all pupils, incorporating vocational pathways, life skills, and adaptive teaching strategies. Allowing schools greater autonomy to tailor their educational offer will create more inclusive environments and enable them to respond dynamically to the specific needs of their communities.
Innovation also requires a non-punitive accountability system that promotes creativity and inclusion rather than stifling it. The current system often prioritises narrow measures of success, such as exam results, over broader educational and social outcomes. This can discourage schools from taking risks or investing in inclusive practices. A reformed accountability framework should value progress, well-being, and the quality of SEND provision alongside traditional measures, providing schools with the freedom and incentive to innovate without fear of sanctions.
Increased co-working across sectors and different types of schools is another crucial area for fostering innovation. Collaboration between mainstream schools, special schools, and alternative provision (AP) can create shared solutions to common challenges. By pooling resources, expertise, and best practices, schools can develop more effective strategies for supporting children with SEND. Partnerships with health and social care sectors can further enhance this, ensuring that innovation is holistic and meets the full spectrum of children’s needs.
MATs also have a critical role to play in encouraging innovation, particularly in areas where local authority (LA) power has been diminished by large-scale academisation. MATs should not operate in isolation but must work collaboratively with other trusts and local stakeholders to strengthen the overall system. This could involve sharing specialist resources, coordinating training, and supporting schools within their region to address specific challenges. Policymakers should incentivise this type of cooperation, recognising MATs that demonstrate a commitment to regional improvement and collaboration.
Finally, creating an environment that actively encourages experimentation and risk-taking is essential for driving innovation. Schools and MATs need safe spaces to pilot new ideas, with funding streams and support networks that enable them to test, evaluate, and refine innovative approaches. National or regional innovation hubs could be established to facilitate this, providing schools with access to research, resources, and peer networks to support their efforts.
Changes needed to the curriculum in mainstream schools to enable SEND children to fulfil their potential? If so, what changes are these?
To enable children with SEND to fulfil their potential, mainstream schools need a curriculum that is both broad and balanced while also offering the flexibility to accommodate diverse needs, strengths, and aspirations. The current curriculum often emphasises academic achievement in narrow terms, which can overlook the unique talents and abilities of SEND learners. A more inclusive curriculum would prioritise a range of pathways, including vocational options, talent subjects, and work-based learning opportunities, to create a system where every child has the opportunity to thrive.
One critical change is the increase in vocational routes within the mainstream curriculum. Many SEND learners excel in practical, hands-on learning environments, where they can develop skills that are directly relevant to the workplace. Expanding vocational options and integrating them into the core curriculum would allow these learners to engage with education in a way that plays to their strengths, building confidence and competence in areas that align with real-world opportunities.
At the same time, there needs to be a reassertion of talent subjects in schools. Creative and technical disciplines, such as art, music, design, drama, and technology, often provide a platform for SEND learners to showcase their abilities and develop their self-esteem. These subjects should be prioritised alongside traditional academic ones, ensuring they are recognised as valuable pathways to success rather than secondary options. Schools must value and nurture these areas as legitimate routes for SEND learners to achieve their potential.
The curriculum should also place a greater emphasis on work-based learning, allowing SEND learners to explore careers and develop practical skills earlier in their educational journey. Partnerships between schools, local businesses, and training providers can create opportunities for young people to engage in internships, apprenticeships, and vocational training during their secondary education. This shift would prepare SEND learners for meaningful employment and independent living, providing a sense of purpose and direction.
In addition to these structural changes, the curriculum must remain flexible and adaptable to meet individual needs. Adaptive teaching strategies should be embedded across all subjects, allowing teachers to tailor content, delivery methods, and assessment approaches to support diverse learners. For example, incorporating more project-based or experiential learning opportunities could help SEND learners engage with the curriculum in ways that align with their strengths.
Accountability systems also need to evolve alongside these curriculum changes. Schools must be encouraged to prioritise inclusion and creativity without fear of penalisation for not adhering strictly to narrow academic measures. Progress should be assessed in broader terms, recognising achievements in vocational and creative pathways, as well as personal growth and well-being.
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?
The 2023 SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan aimed to address systemic challenges, but its impact has been limited. Overshadowed by a change in government and hindered by its narrow scope, the plan failed to prioritise inclusivity in mainstream schools. It did not establish clear expectations for SEND support at the school level, leaving many children without help unless they secured an EHCP, further burdening an overstretched system.
The shelving of key reforms from the 2022 schools white paper, such as changes to accountability frameworks and MAT collaboration, weakened the plan’s ability to drive systemic change. Additionally, its slow implementation timeline means many children currently in education will not benefit within their school lifetimes.
To achieve meaningful, long-term benefits, the plan must expand its focus on inclusivity, revisit abandoned reforms, and accelerate delivery. Schools need clear standards for SEND support, alongside resources and training, while a stable, long-term strategy is critical to ensure reforms are embedded. Without these actions, the system risks failing the children it is meant to serve.
At the points on the education pathway that SEND children are at greater risk of leaving school for long term absences, home schooling or exclusion, what reasonable adjustments and EHCP support would enable them to continue education in mainstream schooling?
At critical points on their educational journey, SEND children are at heightened risk of long-term absences, exclusion, or withdrawal into home schooling. These challenges often stem from a lack of accessible provision or inflexible systems that fail to adapt to their needs. To address this, a proactive and flexible approach is needed, with a focus not only on EHCP-driven support but also on enhanced, high-quality provision for those without an EHCP.
A key priority is the development of good-quality Alternative Provision (AP). For many SEND learners, AP offers a vital safety net, providing tailored support in a smaller, more structured environment. To be effective, AP must be more than a temporary placement; it should be integrated into a broader educational framework, with clear pathways for reintegration into mainstream schooling where possible. High-quality AP can help address the underlying issues that lead to disengagement, offering personalised learning and therapeutic interventions that meet the specific needs of each child.
Another essential strategy is the creation of smaller settings and resource bases within mainstream schools. These spaces can act as bridges for children struggling to cope in a traditional classroom environment, offering quieter, more supportive environments while maintaining links to mainstream education. Increased resource bases on the grounds of mainstream schools would provide SEND learners with access to the curriculum, specialist staff, and therapeutic resources, reducing the pressure on both the child and the wider school system.
Flexibility in support is also critical. Schools need the capacity to adapt to the individual needs of learners, whether by offering part-time timetables, remote learning options, or phased reintegration plans. This flexibility allows schools to retain children within the education system, even when they cannot access traditional settings full-time.
To ensure consistency, this must all be underpinned by shared expectations for the support provided to children who cannot fully access the school system. Clear, national guidelines would help establish a baseline for what good practice looks like, ensuring that all children, regardless of their location, receive the support they need. These expectations should cover universal and targeted support, ensuring that provision is not limited to those with EHCPs but is accessible to all SEND learners.
While not every child will require an EHCP, those at risk of exclusion or disengagement should benefit from a robust support network, backed by resources, training, and collaborative planning between schools and local authorities.
What can be done to reduce the disproportionately high exclusion rates for students with SEND?
The disproportionately high exclusion rates for students with SEND highlight deep-rooted systemic issues. Many of the solutions proposed to address this issue—such as better early intervention, increased inclusivity, and improved collaboration—are part of a core set of changes that would not only reduce exclusions but also improve the overall education system. These interconnected strategies address fundamental weaknesses, benefiting not just students with SEND but all learners.
A foundational change is ensuring schools retain ownership of all their learners, even when those learners face significant challenges in meeting the expectations of school life. Too often, exclusion is seen as a solution rather than a signal of unmet needs. Schools must be supported to adopt inclusive practices that prioritise prevention and intervention, ensuring that learners remain engaged. The recommendations of the Timpson Review, which offered comprehensive advice for minimising exclusions, provide an excellent roadmap. Timpson’s emphasis on accountability for excluded learners, better training for staff, and exclusion as a last resort remains vital and should be implemented as a national priority.
Central to reducing exclusions is the need for early identification and intervention. Many excluded students with SEND have underlying needs—such as SEMH difficulties—that have gone unrecognised or unsupported. Proactive support, including access to educational psychologists, mental health services, and behaviour specialists, is essential. Clear, consistent pathways for identifying and addressing needs early would prevent issues from escalating to the point of exclusion.
Another critical change is creating flexible pathways and alternative provision (AP) that allow students who struggle in traditional settings to continue their education in a way that works for them. High-quality AP, smaller settings, and resource bases within mainstream schools can provide tailored support while keeping students connected to the education system. AP must not be a dead-end but part of a joined-up framework with clear reintegration plans and a focus on progress.
Reforming the accountability system is also necessary to encourage schools to embrace inclusivity. Schools should be evaluated on their ability to meet the needs of all learners, with exclusion data forming a key part of their performance assessment. At the same time, the system must avoid punitive measures that disincentivise schools from admitting or retaining students with SEND. A balance must be struck that rewards inclusive practices while fostering a culture of collaboration across schools, local authorities, and multi-academy trusts (MATs).
Ultimately, many of these solutions align with broader systemic changes that would improve the education system as a whole. Better funding, shared expectations for inclusion, increased access to specialist support, and flexible, student-centred pathways are not just solutions for reducing exclusions but essential reforms for creating an equitable and effective education system.
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?
Meeting the health needs of children with SEND within schools and early years settings is increasingly challenging due to stretched resources and shifting responsibilities. With significant decreases in school nursing services—many of which now operate across a broad 0–25 age range—and a growing focus on safeguarding cases, many SEND learners are fundamentally not receiving the care they require. This systemic shortfall leaves schools and early years settings struggling to fill the gap, often without the expertise or support needed to address complex health needs effectively.
Health services must play a leading role in funding and providing the necessary care for SEND learners in educational settings. While schools can and should be part of a collaborative approach, the primary responsibility for managing health needs should rest with health services, not education. Current arrangements place too much of the burden on schools, where SENDCOs and staff are often left to write and implement Individual Healthcare Plans (IHCPs) with little or no support from health professionals. This lack of specialist input jeopardises the quality of care and places an unfair strain on educational staff, who are not trained to manage complex medical requirements.
The shrinking capacity of school nursing services exacerbates this issue. Nurses are increasingly diverted to safeguarding cases and broader responsibilities across the 0–25 range, leaving less time to support schools with day-to-day health needs. To address this, health services must prioritise specialist support within schools, ensuring regular and accessible input from nurses, therapists, and other health professionals. This could involve embedding health practitioners within school clusters or creating dedicated school-based health teams to provide timely advice, training, and hands-on care.
In addition, multi-agency collaboration must be strengthened to create a joined-up approach to health and education. Schools need clear pathways to escalate health concerns and access specialist support quickly. Regular meetings between health and education professionals, alongside co-developed IHCPs, would ensure that learners’ medical needs are consistently met and that schools are not left to navigate complex cases alone.
Funding arrangements must reflect these responsibilities. Health services should bear the majority of the financial burden for providing medical care in schools, as these needs fall within their remit. At a minimum, co-funding arrangements should be established to ensure that schools have the resources they need without diverting funds from educational priorities. A clear national framework for funding and accountability would help standardise expectations, reducing regional disparities and ensuring equity for all learners with SEND.
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?
The post-16 landscape for students with SEND must be transformed to provide a more inclusive, flexible, and supportive pathway into adulthood. Current systems often fail to meet the diverse needs of these learners, limiting their progression into further education, employment, or independent living. To create a more equitable post-16 experience, reforms must focus on breaking down barriers, broadening opportunities, and ensuring that qualifications are accessible and meaningful for all students.
A critical area for reform is the compulsory nature of English and Maths requirements. While literacy and numeracy skills are vital, forcing all learners with SEND to repeatedly pursue these qualifications—especially when they pose significant barriers to progression—can undermine confidence and limit access to more suitable pathways. For students with SEND, greater flexibility is needed, such as alternative functional skills qualifications or practical applications of English and Maths embedded within vocational courses. This approach would allow learners to build essential skills in a way that aligns with their abilities and career aspirations.
The design and delivery of skill-based and vocational subjects also require significant improvement. Vocational courses are often a natural fit for many learners with SEND, yet the curriculum and assessment methods can unintentionally exclude them. Greater attention must be paid to ensuring that reasonable adjustments are embedded across all aspects of vocational education, from classroom teaching to practical assessments. This includes adaptive teaching methods, alternative formats for assessments, and access to assistive technology, ensuring that SEND learners can fully participate and succeed.
To support the transition from education to employment, there must be greater collaboration between education providers, work coaches, and internship providers. Programs such as supported internships, work-based learning, and apprenticeships should be expanded and better tailored to the needs of SEND learners. Work coaches and educators must work together to identify the strengths and interests of each learner, aligning them with opportunities in the workplace. Employers also need training and support to create inclusive environments, ensuring that SEND learners are not just included but valued within their roles.
Increased choice and accessibility in local areas is another vital consideration. Many post-16 learners with SEND face limited options, particularly in rural or underfunded regions. Local authorities and education providers must collaborate to expand the availability of courses, training programs, and supported internships. This could include establishing partnerships with businesses, colleges, and voluntary organisations to offer a wider range of pathways. Creating smaller, specialist hubs within mainstream colleges could also provide a more supportive environment for SEND learners while maintaining access to diverse opportunities.
Finally, a joined-up approach to funding and planning is essential to deliver these reforms. Post-16 SEND provision often suffers from fragmented responsibilities between education, health, and social care. Greater coordination is needed to ensure that funding follows the learner and that support is tailored to individual needs, particularly for those transitioning to adulthood.
What steps can local authorities take to ensure funding is in place to meet the transport needs of post-16 students with SEND?
Transport is essential for post-16 students with SEND to access education and develop independence. Local authorities can address funding challenges through a combination of strategies aimed at fostering independence and optimising resources.
Embedding travel training into every EHCP is a key step, equipping students with the skills to navigate public transport and reducing long-term reliance on funded services. Encouraging families to utilise Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for travel costs also promotes independent management of transport needs while alleviating pressure on public funding.
Collaborative planning during transitions can identify cost-effective solutions, including shared transport arrangements for students attending the same provider. Partnerships with local transport providers for subsidised travel and offering personal travel budgets to families can further enhance flexibility and efficiency.
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?
In Tameside, we are proud to offer a comprehensive four-tier SEND Inclusion Fund (SENDIF) to support early identification and intervention for children with SEND in early years settings. This funding programme is designed to provide the necessary resources for early years providers to meet the needs of children at the earliest stages, enabling targeted support and fostering inclusive environments.
The four-tier system allows for flexibility, ensuring funding is matched to the level of need:
This model allows early years settings to provide the intensive staff-to-child ratios required for children with SEND, enabling personalised care and tailored interventions. It also supports staff in recognising and addressing developmental concerns promptly, ensuring that children receive the right help at the right time.
While the SENDIF model is highly effective, we recognise that additional funding and resources at a national level are needed to strengthen early identification across the sector. These should include:
What actions or reforms are needed to achieve financial stability and sustainability, both in the short and longer term, across the SEND system?
A key reform involves placing less emphasis on parental preference when it relates to placements in non-maintained provisions far from the child’s local area. While parental choice is an important principle, prioritising geographically distant placements often leads to higher costs and logistical challenges. Instead, the focus should shift to developing robust, high-quality local provision that meets the diverse needs of children and young people, reducing reliance on costly out-of-area placements.
Shared cost responsibilities with health and social care are essential to ensuring that the financial burden of SEND support does not fall disproportionately on education budgets. Many children with SEND require integrated care that spans education, health, and social care. Establishing clearer funding frameworks and co-commissioning arrangements would ensure that all agencies contribute equitably to the provision of support, reflecting their respective responsibilities. This collaborative approach would also encourage more holistic planning and delivery of services, improving outcomes for children while streamlining costs.
Increasing core funding in schools is another critical step toward sustainability. A well-funded mainstream system with resources for early intervention, specialist staff, and adaptive teaching would reduce the escalation of needs and the reliance on EHCPs and specialist placements. Ensuring that schools are equipped to deliver high-quality SEND support as part of their universal offer would prevent small challenges from becoming significant barriers, reducing long-term costs across the system.
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?
The Government’s interventions, including the ‘safety valve’ and Delivering Better Value in SEND programmes, aim to address the financial challenges faced by local authorities while improving SEND provision. However, their impact has been limited. While these initiatives provide short-term financial relief and encourage better financial management, they do not address the underlying structural issues within the SEND system.
Without fundamental changes to the legal framework, these programmes are unlikely to deliver the financial sustainability required. Current legislation, particularly around parental preference and the threshold for securing an EHCP, drives increasing demand for specialist placements and outstrips available resources. As a result, local authority finances remain under significant pressure, and SEND outcomes have not improved at scale.
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?
To ensure stability leading up to March 2026, the continuation of the statutory override is critical. This extension would allow time for wide-ranging reforms—both those in progress and those still to be implemented—to take effect. The current trajectory of SEND demand, driven by the existing legal framework, makes it impossible for most local authorities to achieve financial sustainability without continued support. Removing the override prematurely would lead to financial crises for many authorities, undermining their ability to deliver critical SEND services.
Beyond March 2026, local authorities need a framework that enables long-term financial sustainability while maintaining high-quality SEND provision. This includes:
Extending the override for a longer period to provide stability as reforms are implemented and evaluated.
Legal and structural reforms to address cost drivers, such as the overreliance on EHCPs and out-of-area placements. A clearer framework for SEND support within mainstream settings, coupled with less emphasis on parental preference for distant or non-maintained placements, would help control costs.
Shared funding responsibilities across education, health, and social care, ensuring that the financial burden is distributed equitably and reflects the holistic nature of SEND needs.
Investment in local provision to reduce reliance on expensive specialist placements. This includes building more resource bases, enhancing alternative provision, and ensuring mainstream schools have the funding and expertise to support a wider range of needs.
Ultimately, the statutory override must be part of a broader strategy that addresses the root causes of financial instability within the SEND system.
Is planned capital investment in SEND capacity sufficient and is it best targeted to address need across the country?
One key issue is the short-term nature of capital funding agreements, which limits local authorities’ ability to plan and deliver larger-scale projects. Effective SEND provision requires significant investment in specialist schools, resource bases, and inclusive infrastructure within mainstream settings. These projects often take years to develop, yet the uncertainty around long-term funding prevents local areas from making the bold decisions needed to create sustainable and high-quality provision.
Additionally, capital investment is not always targeted effectively to address areas of greatest need. Funding allocations must be better aligned with local demand, taking into account regional disparities and demographic shifts. National oversight is necessary to ensure equity, but local flexibility is equally important to allow authorities to develop provision that reflects their specific challenges and priorities.
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?
While this approach aims to ensure schools take responsibility for supporting learners with SEND, it has several unintended consequences that undermine its fairness and effectiveness.
The problem is that changing this has a risk of incentivising over-identification of SEND if funding were to be directly allocated for children identified at SEND support. While well-intentioned, this could lead to learners being unnecessarily labelled as having SEND to access additional resources, rather than addressing their needs through high-quality, inclusive teaching. Such a shift could inflate the number of children identified as requiring SEND support, stretching already limited resources and potentially stigmatizing learners who might not otherwise be classified as needing additional help.
Additionally, the current model places schools in a difficult position, as the £6,000 threshold is not ringfenced for SEND. This allows it to be absorbed into general budgets, leaving fewer resources specifically allocated to supporting children with additional needs. Ringfencing this funding and ensuring it is dedicated solely to SEND provision would help address this issue, but robust quality assurance (QA) mechanisms must also be introduced. Schools need to be held accountable for how they allocate and use these funds, ensuring the resources have a direct impact on the learners they are intended to support.
At the same time, the current system creates financial disincentives for schools to identify and support SEND learners at an early stage. Without sufficient resources to meet the £6,000 commitment for each learner, schools may delay intervention or avoid recognising needs altogether. Reforming the funding structure to alleviate this burden, perhaps through pooled resources or supplemental funding for higher-incidence needs, could help ensure that children receive timely and appropriate support.
What has been the impact on SEND provision for local education authorities who have issued Section 114 notices?
Not sure- although cannot imagine services have improved.
Accountability and inspection of SEND provision
What should Ofsted's new 'inclusion' criterion for the inspection of mainstream schools look like?
The introduction of an 'inclusion' criterion for Ofsted's inspection framework represents an opportunity to ensure that all schools deliver equitable and meaningful education for every child. However, for this criterion to have genuine impact, it must avoid the unintended consequences of previous frameworks and start by defining inclusion clearly and systemically.
The previous Ofsted framework, while embedding SEND as a "golden thread," did not necessarily lead to increased inclusivity in schools. Instead, it inadvertently created a culture of fear around offering alternative pathways, such as vocational options, which are often better suited to the strengths of some SEND learners. Additionally, an overemphasis on the broad and balanced curriculum discouraged intervention strategies that could have been transformative for certain students, leaving schools hesitant to deviate from traditional academic models.
To be effective, the new inclusion criterion must be built on a clear, shared definition of inclusion. Inclusion is not simply about integrating SEND learners into mainstream settings but ensuring all children, regardless of their needs or circumstances, are supported to thrive academically, socially, and emotionally. This requires a systemic understanding of inclusion as a framework for equity, access, and opportunity.
Once this foundation is established, the inclusion criterion should focus on several key elements:
Tailored Pathways: Schools should be recognised for offering a variety of pathways, including vocational and talent-based options, that align with the diverse strengths and aspirations of their learners. The framework must celebrate schools that adapt their curriculum to meet the needs of all students, rather than penalising them for departing from rigid academic norms.
Effective Interventions: Rather than discouraging targeted interventions, the criterion should assess how well schools identify and address individual barriers to learning. This includes evaluating the timeliness, effectiveness, and impact of interventions on student progress and well-being.
SEND Support and Outcomes: Ofsted should examine how schools provide support for learners with SEND, not just through EHCPs but also at the SEND support level. This includes evaluating whether schools follow a graduated response, allocate resources effectively, and ensure that SEND learners achieve meaningful outcomes.
Inclusive Culture: Schools should be assessed on the extent to which they foster a culture of belonging and respect, where diversity is valued, and all students feel seen and supported. This includes examining attitudes toward inclusion at all levels, from leadership to classroom practice.
Accountability for Progress and Destinations: The inclusion criterion should look beyond academic performance, valuing progress in personal development, well-being, and preparation for life beyond school. Schools should be accountable for ensuring all learners, including those with SEND, have positive post-16 and post-18 outcomes.
Collaboration with Families and Agencies: Inclusion requires partnership. Ofsted should evaluate how schools work with families, local authorities, and other agencies to provide holistic support for learners with complex needs.
How can Area SEND inspections of local authorities be made more effective?
Currently, inspections often provide a snapshot of performance, focusing on compliance rather than fostering sustained improvement. To truly drive change, inspections should shift toward a model that emphasises collaboration, continuous development, and tailored support.
A more long-term, supportive relationship between local authorities and inspectors would allow for deeper engagement and more meaningful impact. Rather than a one-off inspection, an ongoing partnership could provide local authorities with regular guidance and monitoring, similar to the approach used in the HMI model for schools requiring improvement. This would give local authorities the time and space to implement changes while receiving expert advice to address challenges and refine strategies.
Inspections should also place greater emphasis on measuring progress over time, acknowledging the complexity of systemic reform in SEND. By tracking improvements across multiple visits or milestones, inspectors could provide a more nuanced assessment of a local authority’s efforts to develop and sustain high-quality provision.
Additionally, inspections should focus on the impact of provision rather than solely on processes or compliance.
Whether local education authorities need further powers to ensure that all schools in their area contribute to effective local SEND provision?
Yes, local education authorities (LAs) undoubtedly need further powers to ensure all schools in their area contribute effectively to local SEND provision. At present, LAs are held accountable for the overall sufficiency and quality of SEND services, yet they lack the authority to enforce cooperation or hold schools, particularly large Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), accountable for their role within the local system. This imbalance undermines the effectiveness of SEND provision and leaves LAs powerless to ensure equitable and inclusive education for all learners.
MATs, which operate independently of local authority control, often focus on their internal priorities, leading to inconsistent engagement with local SEND strategies. While some MATs adopt inclusive practices, others may fail to sufficiently support SEND learners, placing additional strain on local resources. LAs need the power to require all schools—maintained, academies, and MATs alike—to align with local SEND plans, ensuring a coordinated and consistent approach.
Key areas where LAs need enhanced powers include:
Accountability for Inclusion: LAs should have the authority to hold all schools accountable for their SEND provision, including compliance with local SEND strategies, fair admissions practices, and effective use of funding to support SEND learners.
Access to Specialist Support: LAs should be empowered to direct schools, including those within MATs, to engage with shared specialist resources such as educational psychologists, therapy services, or alternative provision. This ensures that all learners can access the support they need, regardless of their school’s affiliation.
Contribution to Local SEND Capacity: Schools should be required to collaborate in expanding local SEND capacity, whether through the establishment of resource bases, the development of inclusive pathways, or participation in shared training and development initiatives.
Transparent Data Sharing: LAs need access to consistent and transparent data from all schools to monitor SEND provision, identify gaps, and allocate resources effectively.
Without these powers, LAs remain responsible for addressing systemic challenges in SEND provision without the tools to enforce necessary changes. Granting LAs the authority to ensure all schools contribute to a cohesive and inclusive SEND system would lead to more equitable support for learners and reduce the reliance on costly, reactive measures such as out-of-area placements or legal interventions.
How best to hold all schools, irrespective of how they are constituted or their governance arrangements, to account for their SEND provision?
Accountability mechanisms must focus on maintaining responsibility for every learner who begins their education within a school’s roll. This approach would ensure that schools remain committed to the progress and well-being of all students, particularly those with SEND, and that they cannot abdicate responsibility except through a nationally agreed removal process that is transparent and fair.
A critical step is to require schools to retain accountability for outcomes of students who start on their roll, even if those students leave the school for reasons such as managed moves, exclusions, or transitions to alternative provision (AP). By maintaining a connection to the students’ progress, schools would be incentivised to invest in early intervention, high-quality SEND support, and inclusive practices that prevent disengagement or unnecessary movement to other settings.
Such an accountability framework must include:
Nationally Consistent Removal Processes: Establish clear, standardised criteria and procedures for managed moves, exclusions, and transitions to AP, ensuring decisions are made in the best interests of the student and not as a means to offload responsibility.
Shared Responsibility for Students in Alternative Provision: Schools should remain partially accountable for the outcomes of students they transfer to AP, fostering a stronger commitment to ensuring those learners receive appropriate and effective support.
Transparent Monitoring of SEND Outcomes: All schools should report on the progress, attainment, and destinations of students with SEND, with this data forming a key component of their accountability measures. This should include tracking the outcomes of students after they leave the school, ensuring a holistic view of their educational journey.
Incentives for Inclusion: Schools should be rewarded for adopting inclusive practices that meet the needs of all learners, rather than being penalised solely for the challenges they face. Accountability measures must consider the complexity of supporting SEND learners and recognise schools that demonstrate a strong commitment to inclusion.
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.
Their oversight and enforcement help maintain accountability, ensuring that all stakeholders meet their duties to children and young people with SEND.The DfE sets national policy and expectations, providing guidance and funding to support effective provision. The LGSCO addresses complaints about local authority SEND services, ensuring fairness and resolving systemic issues. The CQC focuses on the quality of health services for SEND, holding providers accountable for delivering joined-up care.
January 2025