SEN0283

Written evidence submitted by pdnet

pdnet is a long-established, national organisation that provides professionals working in education settings with support in promoting positive outcomes for children and young people with physical disability.  We have a strong commitment to developing and sharing effective educational practice and pedagogy for learners with physical disability.

We have over 9,000 members, working in Early Years, Schools and Post-16 settings. The last SEN2 data indicates there are 36,440 learners with a physical disability in an educational setting; this is as many deaf and visually impaired learners added together. This has increased from 28,212 in 2016.

I am a mainstream secondary teacher by profession. For the last 30 years, I have worked in SEND, initially managing the statementing service, as it was then. I have been the Head Teacher of a Specialist SEND Teaching Service and of an LA’s community based hospital service, working with learners too ill to attend school.  Over lockdown, I supported Special School Heads in my area to maximise learner attendance. I currently work for ADCS in the West Midlands as SEND Coordinator. My role as national chair of pdnet is voluntary.

I have lived experience of physical disability from birth.

Introduction

The constant “drip drip” of comments that the system is broken is not helpful for those working in it.  There are thousands of schools, EY settings, colleges and SEND professionals, who achieve wonderful things on a daily basis in challenging circumstances.  We need a national platform recognising and celebrating the achievement of CYP with SEND.

The growing number of CYP with an EHCP over the past 10 years, has increased the bureaucratic burden for LAs, Schools and Settings, in particular hard pushed SENCos in Early Years’ Settings, Schools and Colleges. SEND Professionals across the piece – SENCos, Specialist Teachers, EPs, SaLT, OTs, Physios etc – spend hours focused on EHCP processes, rather than having the time, energy and resources to invest in working with children and young people in a timely preventative way. Unfortunately, to date the SEND Change and Improvement Programme has also focused too much on processes such as the EHCP template, Panels, Bands and Tariffs, dashboards and LAIPs, things which are not going to bring about the much-needed system wide change.

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?

As funding pressures have hit local authorities, more and more have stripped back to their statutory functions, particularly where section 114 notices have been issued. Too many LAs have lost essential Specialist Teaching teams that enable children and young people with Physical Disabilities to be successful in mainstream. There is an historical anomaly whereby children who are deaf or have a visual impairment have a mandatory entitlement to a qualified teacher of the deaf or VI, but a child with a Physical Disability (or Autism, ADHD, PMLD etc) has no such entitlement, yet their needs are equally complex.  Learners with a PD may require access to alternative means of communication and recording e.g. eye gaze, use of switches, highly complex technology requiring skillful teaching and support.  Yet where LAs have retained specialist PD teams, children are more likely to be supported at SEN Support, without the need for an EHCP, and achieve better outcomes.

pdnet members continue to raise concerns with us about the impact of financial pressures on learners with a physical disability, in particular, decreasing budgets for building adaptations and specialist equipment.  This is not helped as responsibility for disability building adaptations is unclear. Every Spring and Summer we regularly field emails and forum posts from frustrated SENCos who want to make provision for prospective learners but either Academy Leaders or LAs are refusing to fund the necessary building adaptations. 

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?

Greater school autonomy and the fragmentation of the education system has reduced the ability of Local Authorities to exercise their strategic responsibilities to support, challenge and secure admissions.  Unfortunately, in addition, Ofsted has not held Schools to account in respect of their statutory duties around Accessibility Planning and Disability Equality.  The legislation exists, but there is no longer the resource in LAs to advise, support and challenge schools and settings as needed; the gradual reduction of specialist teaching and school improvement teams has eroded this capacity.

LAs need a continuum of specialist provision, with access to sub-regional provision for low-incidence complex needs e.g. girls with significant mental health needs; community based multi-agency support (CAMHS, Social Care and Education) to prevent Tier 4 admissions.

Resourced Provisions in Mainstream are seen by LAs and government as a “quick fix” to the sufficiency issue, yet we do not have an evidence base to suggest what makes a successful, effective RP.

Based on 30 years’ experience, working alongside RPs in mainstream, critical success factors include:

• Specialist Staffing: Staffing needs to include Specialist Teachers and TAs with appropriate experience, training and qualifications.  Too often schools are setting up units and provisions, deploying their existing staff and giving inappropriate levels of accountability to unqualified staff.
• Committed Leadership: Heads and Governors need to be committed long-term to the vision of the RP. Too often, we have seen RPs destabilised due to a change of Head who has not valued the provision.
• Well-planned and resourced accommodation: Squeezing provision into vacant classrooms or a couple of mobiles does not work. The accommodation needs to be well-designed with thought given to access, acoustics, sufficient space for the additional equipment children with complex needs require and crucially proximity to the rest of the school. Pupils need a sense of belonging; just because a learner attends a mainstream school does not mean they are “included” or the school is inclusive. In the best schools, leaders work hard to ensure learners belong regardless of how much curriculum time they access with their peers.
• Ongoing CPD with timely access to support from Specialists e.g. Specialist Teachers (PD, C&I, LD) QTVI, Teachers of the Deaf, EPs, SaLT, OT, Physios, CAMHS, Social Care.
• Continuity and progression: in too many LAs there is good resourced provision in primary, but then nothing for learners to move onto at secondary or post 16.

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?

A number of regions have commissioning hubs e.g. West Midlands Commissioning Hub or the Regional Innovation and Improvement Alliances (RIIAs), could be utilised to scope sufficiency and commission provision from the NMISS sector.

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

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools’ Bill currently going through parliament includes provisions for tackling excessive profit making in the children’s home and fostering agency market; could this not be extended to include independent special schools? We need legislation that embodies the principle that any SEND provision, which is state funded must be non-profit making.  The government could also help by supporting a national contract. The current NASS contract favours the provider, holding LAs over a barrel if they don’t agree to annual uplifts. Again, the government could work with regional commissioning hubs or RIIAs.

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

The model around ELSEC is showing promise, but needs to be available to all schools, given the importance of early language intervention and support for all learners.  For years, SEN 2 data has shown the high incidence of SLCN in primary, which then appears to diminish once learners move into secondary. In reality, those needs go on to become “categorised” as a learning difficulty or SEMH as the learner struggles to manage the language demands of the secondary curriculum and their needs are unmet.

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

Some LAs have invested heavily in technology such as AV1s, which are then deployed for use with pupils with PD, long-term health conditions or EBSA. For many the AV1 is a long-term reasonable adjustment, which enables them to access school due to a chronic heart condition, cancer, cystic fibrosis etc. The DfE Attendance Team, however, issued guidance last year, which meant that learners who are not physically present in their school must be marked absent; this is a good example of innovative practice and technology being stifled.

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

At secondary for too long the curriculum has been too narrowly focused on GCSE and A’level.  Despite the poor evidence base, too many schools start GCSEs in Y9, which results in too many learners becoming disengaged and is particularly difficult for learners with a long-term health condition / PD requiring frequent hospitalization or time off for appointments.  In addition, culturally learners forgo the Arts, practical subjects and PE, as the curriculum becomes squeezed.  Learners do not need to do 10+ subjects at GCSE – the result is stressed learners who have no time for enrichment.

Secondary schools need to be resourced and incentivised to offer a broad range of vocational options, a curriculum which meets its “comprehensive” intake. We have lost sight of the meaning of “comprehensive” and our responsibilities to the range within that. Again, the inspection framework needs to hold schools to account who are not offering a sufficiently broad range of accreditation.

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?

To date too much focus has been on learners already with EHCPs and on SEND processes, and not anything which is going to bring about system wide change, for example, curriculum reform and workforce development.

We are seeing some promising development in relation to ELSEC and the three tier model of AP. With the latter, however, in too many LAs, AP places are taken up by CYP with EHCPs awaiting special school places and so there is insufficient capacity for part-time places and outreach work.

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?

See above comments referencing the curriculum change needed.

We need greater investment in CEIAG. For our most vulnerable learners (EHE, long term absent, excluded, CME, EOTAS), we need investment in specialist CEIAG workers, similar to those previously sited in Connexions 10-15 years ago. A one size fits all CEIAG offer is not sufficient.

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

See above comments referencing the curriculum change needed.

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?

Too much time is wasted in settings, schools and LAs debating who should pay for what. We need clear national guidance from government as to what health needs and equipment the NHS should fund. Expecting the EHCP process to manage this is flawed. A significant proportion of CYP have long-term health needs but do not require an EHCP.

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?

As the SEND governor in a general FE College, I have been shocked by the pay differentials between the school and FE sectors.  The college has struggled to recruit a SENCo, going out to recruit four times. We need much greater investment in the FE sector to enable colleges to offer competitive pay and conditions.

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

In the best schools and LAs preparation for adulthood includes thinking about transport and independent travel well in advance of post-16 e.g. will the student be able to drive themselves with the right adaptations, is the family aware that some disabled students can learn to drive from 16, has the student accessed wheelchair skills training or independent travel training to support travelling on public transport? It is not all necessarily about funding.

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?

The current model of funding SEND in Early Years is not fit for purpose. The rate of SEN Inclusion Fund (SENIF) in LAs can be as little as £1 an hour.  EY settings do not have SEN notional to draw on and even if they have SENIF or EHCP funding to use for additional staffing, settings struggle to recruit to part-time, short-term contracts. EY Settings need substantive SEND funding to recruit at least a SENCo, who is available to provide advice and support and is not part of the setting’s ratio staffing.

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

The rapid increase in the number of EHCPs has led to a model driven by individual funding. We are assessing (and labelling) children younger and younger, before we fully understand their emerging needs. We need to get back to a funding system, which does not incentivise this escalation.  Our current model requires settings, schools and parents to accentuate children’s deficits to chase higher levels of funding, with money rewarding failure rather than inclusive practice.

We need to fund schools to deliver evidence based whole school approaches to high incidence needs such as reading and maths difficulties, neurodiversity and  etc.

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

Capital investment is not just about sufficiency, there needs to be investment to ensure all school buildings are future proofed and meets the needs of today’s learners.  Too often “changing places” style hygiene rooms are value engineered out of new builds or not prioritised. There is an excellent evidence base about the benefit of good acoustics for not just deaf learners but also those who are neurodivergent, those with SLCN, LD, EAL etc, however, even new builds can have poor acoustic conditions.

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?

We need to move away from the medical / deficit model of SEN and Disability to a strengths-based model.  One way of doing this would be to fund settings and schools, based on nationally agreed “Ordinarily Available” standards and whole school approaches, rather than the perverse incentives of the current system, which rewards escalating individual needs. 

Accountability and inspection of SEND provision

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

It is vital that Ofsted looks at

• How many parents withdrew their child to electively home educate or, for those with EHCPs, to request EOTAS since the last inspection.
• What are the reasons for those who are persistently absent?
• The number of learners at SEN Support and with EHCPs: is the number what would be expected for the area and type of school, or are neighbouring schools more inclusive and admitting more?
• Does the curriculum and accreditation offer meet the needs of all learners?
• How are staff supported via CPD and appraisal to meet the needs of all learners?
• Do pupils with SEND have equal access to qualified teacher input?
• Is the school accurately identifying needs?

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

The clue to the problem is in the wording of this question! The SEND Inspection is not an LA inspection; it is a local area inspection. Too often, however, the burden of accountability rests on the LA and not equally shared with health and partners.  The Regional Director also needs to be part of the discussion where the accountability of Academies needs to be strengthened.

January 2025

7