SEN0289

Written evidence submitted by NASUWT - The Teachers' Union

NASUWT’s submission sets out the Union’s views on issues identified by the House of Commons Education Select Committee in its call for evidence for the inquiry into Solving the SEND Crisis.

NASUWT’s evidence is informed directly by its serving teacher and headteacher members and also by the work of its representative committees and consultative structures, made up of practising teachers and school leaders.

Support for children and young people with SEND

1. Teachers and leaders in mainstream schools are under extreme pressure to meet the needs of children and young people who have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). The pressures have grown over the past decade. They are compounded by the pressure on schools to support the growing number of pupils who are experiencing mental health difficulties. These pressures arise because of the increasing number of pupils who have SEND and mental health needs, as well as difficulties in accessing specialist support and services.
2. Teachers and leaders report that specialist support is often not available because services have been cut and expertise has been lost. Where support is to be provided, there are long delays in accessing it – often two years or longer – by which time needs have escalated. Seventy-two per cent of teachers responding to NASUWT’s 2023 Special Educational Needs (SEN) survey reported long waiting lists as a reason why pupils do not always receive the support to which they are entitled;[1] 62% cited budgetary pressures; and 56% identified cuts to external services as reasons why their pupils were not receiving the support that they needed.[2] More than two-thirds of teachers (68%) said that a formal assessment of need was necessary in order for their pupils to be able to access external specialist support, and almost three-quarters of respondents (74%) said that pupils struggled to get a formal assessment of need.
3. Our 2023 survey asked teachers about the sources of SEN-related workplace stress. The main generators of workload stress were:
• increased complexity of needs of pupils they teach (82%);
• managing the behaviour of pupils with SEN (79%);
• teaching increased numbers of pupils with SEN (69%);
• cuts to SEN staffing in the school (66%);
• meeting responsibilities for all pupils while also meeting the needs of pupils with SEN (64%);
• lack of access to specialist teaching resources to help meet the needs of pupils who have SEN (48%); and
• the impact of cuts to external specialist provision (47%).[3]
4. More generally, teachers and leaders identify issues relating to the curriculum, qualifications and assessment which make it more difficult to include some pupils who have SEND. These include concerns about the heavy focus on academic subjects, the amount of content in some subject specifications, and national assessments that do not recognise the achievements and progress of pupils working below national expectations. These issues, combined with a high-stakes and punitive accountability system which fails to pay sufficient attention to the work of teachers and schools to support the diverse needs of pupils with SEND, alienate pupils and discourage inclusive practice.
5. Against this backdrop, it is clear that there is no ‘quick fix’ and that solving the SEND crisis requires whole-system changes. This includes embedding consideration of SEND in mainstream policy planning and decision-making.
6. NASUWT has commissioned independent research on SEN and inclusion.[4] The research identified that inclusion may be defined in relation to a human right or ideology, a place, a policy, professional practice and a personal experience. The research finds that a coherent relationship between these perspectives and definitions is not inevitable.[5] This highlights the importance of looking beyond a policy commitment for more inclusion in mainstream schools, ensuring coherence across policies and strategies that seek to solve the SEN crisis.
7. NASUWT’s interpretation of inclusion as ‘a place’ is to recognise the need for a range of education provision, which includes mainstream schools, specialist schools and specialist units. We believe that the focus should be on ensuring that pupils are able to achieve and thrive in a setting that can meet their needs.
8. NASUWT also believes that the broader goals and purposes of education, which should include preparing pupils for life beyond school as individuals and as citizens, should inform what pupils learn. In this respect, we believe that the current review of the national curriculum should lead to a revised curriculum which sets explicit expectations around the aims, purposes and values for pupils. We also believe that the intention should be that these aims, purposes and values should apply to all pupils, including those for whom subject content elements of the national curriculum may not be appropriate.
9. While more pupils having their needs met in mainstream schools will have a significant impact on all teachers and leaders in mainstream schools, the impact on the work of the special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO) will be particularly profound. This will impact on their work in many ways. It is likely to increase the number and complexity of the needs of the pupils for whom they are responsible. It will increase SEND administration, co-ordination and communications requirements, including communications with staff in the school and specialists outside of the school. An increase in the number of pupils who have higher levels of need will also mean that classroom teachers are likely to require more support from the SENCO; for instance, to discuss strategies to support the inclusion of particular children. They will also need to identify, co-ordinate and deliver more training and continuing professional development (CPD).
10. Our 2018 SEN survey looked at experiences of SENCOs.[6] The findings highlight the extreme challenges that need to be overcome if SENCOs are to be able to fulfil the role effectively and sustainably in a more inclusive mainstream education system:
• only 30% of SENCOs working in secondary schools were members of the Senior Leadership Team;
• 70% of SENCOs in primary schools were members of the Senior Leadership Team. However, this was often combined with other roles such as headteacher or deputy headteacher and designated safeguarding lead (DSL);
• 83% of SENCOs had a timetabled teaching commitment, with more than a third (34%) reporting that their teaching commitment was between 21 and 30 hours per week. In the case of primary SENCOs, the figure was 43%;
• 35% of primary SENCOs reported that less than 20% of their timetabled time was allocated SEN-specific duties, and a further 18% reported that between 20% and 39% of their timetabled time was allocated to SEN-specific duties;
• there was variation in the proportion of time allocated for SEN-specific duties among secondary SENCOs – ranging from 17% reporting that between 80-100% of their timetabled time was for SENCO-specific duties, to 35% reporting less than 40% of timetabled time for SENCO-specific duties;[7] and
• 81% of SENCOs said that they did not have sufficient time to fulfil the role.
11. Feedback from members indicates that the pressure on SENCOs has increased since 2018. For instance, SENCOs report that specialist support staff posts have been lost as a result of school budget pressures, but also because of difficulties recruiting and retaining those staff. Cuts to specialist services compound the problems in securing assessments and accessing specialist support. Further, the number of pupils experiencing anxiety and mental health difficulties has increased, particularly following the Covid-19 pandemic, and is placing even greater pressures on schools and services. If mainstream schools are to meet the needs of more pupils who have SEN, action must be taken to ensure that schools have the resources and support to meet those needs.
12. Various surveys identify teachers’ lack of confidence in supporting pupils who have SEN. For instance, the National Audit Office (NAO) report finds that only 56% of teachers felt equipped to support pupils with SEN effectively.[8] The Working lives of teachers and leaders: wave 2 summary report finds that only 42% of early career teachers believe that their initial teacher training (ITT) prepared them well for teaching pupils who have SEN.[9] This indicates the need for training and CPD.
13. It will be particularly important to ensure that supporting pupils who have SEN through inclusive teaching is addressed through ITT. Meeting the needs of pupils who have SEN as part of inclusive teaching must be embedded through the training. There should be opportunities for all trainees to gain experience in specialist settings and to draw on the support of specialists.
14. There is also a need to ensure that teachers can access high-quality SEN-related CPD once they have qualified. However, the vast majority of teachers (88%) encounter barriers to undertaking CPD, with more than two-thirds (68%) reporting lack of time due to high workloads or competing demands.[10] Further, there is a need to recognise that SEN is just one of a number of areas where teachers might benefit from CPD. We believe that there is an urgent need for action to ensure that teacher workloads are manageable and teachers have time to undertake CPD.

Current and future model of SEND provision

15. We have highlighted above the need for SEN and inclusion to be embedded in mainstream policy planning and decision-making at all levels. This has implications for policy planning and decision-making at government/national levels, local area and trust levels, and individual school and setting levels. It highlights the need for leadership of SEN and inclusion, based on embedding inclusion in mainstream policy making.
16. We have also suggested that establishing aims, principles and values for the national curriculum that are inclusive and apply to all pupils would provide a means for making the curriculum more inclusive. We recognise that the current review of the national curriculum is likely to be one of evolution rather than revolution, and changes are likely to be introduced over time. We support this approach. However, we believe that there is a need for the curriculum to be reformed substantially over time. Respondents to our 2024 survey on persistent absence identified the curriculum as a reason why some pupils were absent. This is summed up in a quote from one respondent: ‘The curriculum is old-fashioned and redundant. It is geared heavily towards academia and the focus needs to shift towards subjects more relevant in today’s job markets.’[11]
17. We believe that particular attention must be paid to strengthening multi-agency working and, in particular, the involvement of the health service in funding and providing support to pupils who have SEN. While steps have been taken to establish better links between education, health and social care, including through requirements for joint commissioning, teachers and leaders continue to report significant difficulties in securing support from health services. This includes some area health authorities setting arbitrary criteria to determine eligibility for accessing specialist support; for instance, eligibility for speech and language support being based on age rather than need – meaning that older children are not eligible for support, irrespective of need. Local authorities are often left to cover costs that should be provided by health services or, as is increasingly the case, no support is provided and schools are left to address a child’s needs as best they can. 
18. We are concerned that the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) is not engaging fully with the SEND system reform process. The NAO points to misaligned incentives, accountabilities and priorities across the system and highlights the fact that while SEND is a strategic priority for the Department for Education (DfE), it comprises just two of 32 competing priorities for the NHS.[12] The NAO stresses that local authorities have weak leverage over health commissioners.[13] We believe that particular attention must be paid to tackling the barriers to health service involvement in provision for SEND, to ensure that health services contribute, including through funding and supporting provision for early intervention. We also believe that the DHSC must be proactively engaged in this process.

Finance, funding and capacity of SEND provision

19. In our response to the SEND Green Paper, SEND Review: Right Support, Right Place, Right Time, we stated that the Government needed to challenge independent providers who charge huge fees. We said that while a system of tariffs might help to address the issue, we were concerned that for-profit organisations might use their dominance in the market to hold funders ‘over a barrel’. We said that the Government should be prepared to step in and take over running of provision along the lines adopted for failing rail companies.
20. Alongside this, we believe that the focus should be on supporting local authorities to work together to plan for and commission high-need low-incidence provision and for funding arrangements to support them to do this. The system will need to encourage co-operation and collaboration across areas. It may be necessary to review how accountability measures can support this. It will also be important to address historical relationships between authorities that may have undermined collaborative working.
21. There is a huge issue regarding the funding of provision for SEND, so clearly something has to change.[14] The calculation that almost half of authorities could have deficits exceeding or close to their reserves when the statutory override arrangement ends in March 2026 highlights the scale of the problem.[15] The issue means that many authorities are cutting services and just focusing on meeting statutory responsibilities. Evidence indicates that many are not even meeting their statutory responsibilities.[16]
22. NASUWT has significant concerns about the Delivering Better Value (DBV) and, in particular, Safety Valve (SV) programmes, which are intended to help authorities to manage their high needs deficits and introduce sustainable practices. We have concerns that these programmes are resulting in cuts to specialist provision, reducing the quality of provision and placing greater pressures on staff working in schools and specialist services.
23. We have concerns about the lack of transparency in decision-making relating to the DBV and SV programmes. In particular, there has been a lack of stakeholder engagement. There is an expectation that more pupils should have their needs met in mainstream schools. However, it is unclear what resources are being allocated to enable this to happen. The lack of engagement with schools is particularly significant in respect of early intervention, where identifying support needs and resourcing is crucial.
24. There is a need to establish funding arrangements that encourage and support a focus on prevention and early intervention both at the level of the individual school and local authority. This might involve some form of ring-fencing to resource early intervention. It points to the need to develop funding models that support schools and authorities to focus attention on anticipating and planning to meet needs.
25. We believe that there is a need to review the notional budget element of school funding allocations. The current notional figure of £6,000 is arbitrary and does not reflect the real costs of meeting additional needs. Further, wider pressures on school budgets mean that the notional budget for SEN is nothing more than notional. Budget pressures also drive practices in some schools, such as discouraging the parents of potentially expensive children from seeking admission to a school.

Accountability and inspection of SEND provision

26. The current inspection and accountability system fails to support inclusive practice in mainstream schools. NASUWT believes that whole-scale reform of inspection and accountability is needed if schools are to be supported to be inclusive. Simply including a criterion that focuses on inclusion will not secure inclusive practice.
27. NASUWT has established a position statement on inspection and accountability.[17] This identifies that an efficient accountability system should:
• be fit for purpose and secure trust and public confidence in education;
• secure greater parental and public engagement in, and support for, public education;
• enable teachers to teach more and test less;
• be driven by educational rather than political concerns; and
• evaluate the quality of public education rather than measure the performance of individual schools or colleges.
28. This last feature highlights the importance of collective responsibility and the need to take account of context. In relation to SEND and inclusion, this means that inspectors must understand and take account of a school’s context, including the relationships between the school and other services that provide specialist support to pupils. It also highlights the need to recognise the relationship between national education policies and the role of the Government in supporting schools to be inclusive and meet pupils’ needs.
29. There is a need for greater join-up across inspections of individual institutions and settings, inspections of local authorities and multi-academy trusts (MATs), and SEND area inspections. We also believe that inspections should evaluate the impact and contribution of the Government to meeting the needs of pupils who have SEND and in supporting inclusive practice in mainstream schools.
30. NASUWT believes there are significant challenges in holding all schools to account for inclusion. This includes ensuring there is a clear, consistent and coherent understanding of inclusion in relation to policy, rights, provision, practice and experience. There are widely divergent approaches, practices and understandings of what inclusion means and involves. As a result, there is a need to examine the rationale behind approaches and practices. We are concerned that without significant rigour, it will be difficult to distinguish between those that are genuinely inclusive and those that are driven by accountability and funding.
31. We have received feedback from members that some schools seek to influence the nature of their pupil intake by discouraging parents of children with particular needs from applying for admission. Typically, this might involve the school saying that they are not equipped to meet particular needs and pointing to an inclusive school ‘down the road that is better placed’ to do this. Such practices are often covert and difficult to challenge. Also, a parent is unlikely to want their child to attend a school where they will not feel welcome. While examining the profile of the pupil population might provide some pointers to what is happening, we think there is a need for a much greater focus on how schools co-operate and collaborate with each other and the nature of that collaboration and co-operation.

January 2025

11