SEN0384

Written evidence submitted by Anonymous

Section 1: Support for children and young people with SEND:

SEN Support in mainstream schools and early years settings
Key area of enquiry	Response
Assessing the current quality of SEN support in mainstream schools and early years setting	This requires a joined up, multi-agency, and fully evidence-based approach to changing the system. There needs to be equally applicable assessment of the quality of SEND settings, and links to Ofsted. Currently we do not see SEND directly reported on in Ofsted reports in Early Years or for Post-16 provision. There needs to be equally applicable assessment of quality for Independent and non-maintained settings (a school is a school regardless of its governance) We need a comprehensive nationally agreed format for assessing and reporting the learning progress that pupils with SEN are making. National standards need to be implemented for assessing and reporting the learning progress that pupils with SEN are making The role of the Local Authority should be reviewed, and supported by DfE policy, with regards to the Quality assurance of SEN support within mainstream settings (and arguably specialist settings). The model of having the LA responsible for SEND provision, without an effective formal process in assessing SEN support, is ineffective. The current arrangements create a disjoint between school and ASEND inspections where responsibility for SEND does fall on LAs.
Defining what inclusivity in mainstream schools and early years setting should mean and look like in practice	Working closely with all partners, including health and social care whilst tailoring child centred multiagency support. A clear, universally agreed-upon definition of inclusion is needed across all educational settings and Ofsted. This definition must explicitly focus on the inclusion of all pupils within mainstream schools, avoiding the current confusion caused by government documents that conflate inclusion with placements in special schools. The definition of inclusion needs to be separate from segregation and set clear aspirations for mainstream provision wherever this is possible. The terminology of SEMH needs to be refined to establish clearer responsibilities across Education and Health.
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?	 SEND support theory, strategies, and pedagogy should be embedded into EY training courses at all levels. It should be a formal part of qualifications from level two upwards. This should also extend to Post 16 settings and consideration needs to be given to workforce development in SEND that is differentiated to best support staff who are SEND specialists as well as those who originate from a vocational background.  Ofsted needs to prioritise and incentivise inclusion and progress for students with SEND. The emphasis on academic performance can discourage inclusive practices. Inclusivity should become a measurable and equally weighted target within school accountability, including measures like exclusion rates and part-time timetables.  SEN training is essential for all teachers, particularly for high-incidence needs like autism. Schools and families need accessible, multi-agency "Teams Around the School" for preventative support. A shift from the "medical model" of SEN to a "social model" is crucial to promote an inclusive culture that celebrates diversity and leverages strengths.  Schools should be supported financially to be able to set up small group interventions spaces to meet a greater complexity of need and be able to include more children with SEND and embed inclusive mainstream practice.
Whether SEN support should be put on a statutory footing and what this would look like in practice	There needs to be a statutory staged approach to SEN Support to make clear what schools should be doing for SEND learners. This needs to be a statutory and national approach for consistency. Parents and carers need to know expectations wherever they live in the country. Criteria for EHCNA must be robust and clear. The word ‘may have special educational needs’ has to be removed and replaced with a clear evidence-based set of criteria. Without change to the existing EHCNA threshold it feels as though additional statute at SEN Support level would be required to manage the increasing flows into statutory assessment process. However, if instead there was change to the existing threshold for EHC assessment and clearer guidance which reflects the graduated response more effectively, the need to add a statutory framework around SEN Support could, perhaps, be avoided. A statutory framework around SEN Support would be difficult to administer and could result in an even greater administrative/mediation/appeal burden. Cost implications and additional burden to interdependence such as health services must be considered within planning Parent/carers need to feel confident that schools will be held accountable for identifying and meeting SEND, that there will not be a need for the legal protection of an EHC plan. That accountability needs to be in place in some form. A national Matrix could be devised, much like the East Sussex one, to help ensure a consistency in expectations and delivery of where need falls at different levels, e.g. SEN Support, but should also focus on the appropriate level of provision that should be in place to address a need. Combining this with sections on Universally Available Provision, QFT, etc. to demonstrate the nationally agreed graduated approach to meeting needs.
Outcomes for children and young people with SEND and how these can be improved	Consistent understanding of what an outcome is/means - so often there is a varied understanding and the team around a child/YP with SEND are working towards different goals. Schools' need to be judged on their inclusive practice for pupils with SEND, in the same way that they are judged on academic attainment Schools need National clear and concise guidance on monitoring progress and implementing the assess-plan-do-review cycle. Data-driven outcomes for SEND pupils need to be realistic and need to reflect their actual inclusive experience. Progress should be measured with National standards in ways meaningful to each child, like the previous P Levels and National Curriculum Levels system. The removal of levels has created difficulties in tracking SEND pupil progression. Appropriate investment in early intervention in all areas, but especially in transition areas like the Early Years is vital to ensure that children are ready for school, e.g.: access to specialist training and support, higher incentivised funding rates for vulnerable groups. The system needs to change to become a needs led approach, not diagnostically driven
Workforce issues for teachers, SENCOs, specialists, early years practitioners and all those who work with children with SEND	National workforce shortages should be addressed. Those most at risk of retention and recruitment challenge are paediatricians, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists as well as specialist children’s nurses. New roles that support SLT’s, OT and nurses should be introduced to reduce the burden and have a career pathway into professions. TAs are sometimes fulfilling Health roles e.g. tracheostomy, gastrostomy and other complex conditions, with minimal support from NHS Health services. Responsibility is pushed on schools and LAs. This needs to change and new ‘health care assistant’ roles in schools funded through the NHS should be introduced. The EP role and other specialist roles should be redefined to work mainly at the SEN support and whole school level rather than for statutory assessments. The current SEN/EHCP system has led to some EPs leaving LAs to work as locums, leading LAs to hire locums to manage backlogs, which in turn incentivises more EPs to leave LA employment, creating a self-perpetuating, expensive cycle. A rebalance of ensuring EPs are used for prevention and SEN Support work would be beneficial alongside the criteria for agreeing a EHCNA being more robust.
What substantive training is needed for teachers, teaching assistants and all those who work with children with SEN to improve knowledge of SEND and pedagogical approaches to teaching SEND children to increase their inclusion in schools?	Inclusive practice should not be a separate ‘thing’ but something which is entirely embedded in everyday practice. If not managing CYP with SEND will always be someone else’s job. The principle "every teacher is a teacher of SEND" should be foundational. Teachers need comprehensive training, starting in initial teacher training at university and continuing through ECT and headteacher standards, to develop the knowledge, understanding, empathy, and practical skills necessary to adapt their teaching to meet the diverse and fluctuating needs of all learners in their classrooms. All Headteachers should be required to complete a NPQH within 3 years of Headship, with training on SEND a required element of the training.
The role of and capacity of specialist schools, independent schools and alternative provision	The role and capacity of independent schools needs to be reduced and refined. Practice is highly inconsistent. There needs to be more robust monitoring of the quality of their provision Nationally as well as national limits on fees that they charge. There should not be profit made through supporting vulnerable children. NHS need to commission pathways that include supporting INMS and AP. Currently NHS do not commission professionals to assess or work in these settings so private nurses, Speech therapists, Occupational therapists, Physiotherapists, Psychologists and Psychiatrists charges are added to school fees paid for by the Local Authority when the provision often provided is Health provision and doesn't educate or train. There is a need to reduce the use of independent schools for placements to be able to put that money back into mainstream schools and shift the balance around inclusion in mainstream schools The independent sector should not be able to insist on the inclusion of health-related provision (e.g. psychotherapeutic interventions) unless these are specifically commissioned by Health. It should not be possible to profit from children with SEND; there should be full transparency around fee structures for INMS and AP and costs should be proportionate and reasonable. This should align with the costs associated with providing similar provision within the state-run sector. Recommendations on universal practice and training also apply to special independent schools, who should be making reasonable adjustments to delivery, curriculum and policy. Recommendations on the role/capacity of special schools needs to understand why they are full (often tribunal-directed placements due to a lack of parental confidence in mainstream inclusion). Recommendations for schools need to align with recommendations for SENDIST in how they apply the law and make placement decisions (or the law needs to change). Government Policy on SEND needs to be applicable to all specialist settings, with accountability to Ofsted and/or the Local Authority. Specialist placements, particularly in the Early years, should be limited to only providing care for those with the most significant and complex level of need. National Standards and the role of the tribunal system need to be updated in policy to stop SEND children who can flourish in a mainstream, going into specialist and independent schools, creating unnecessary demand for places that are not needed. Some of this saved investment would be needed to improve SEND provision in mainstream settings.
How can waiting time for EHC Plans be improved?	Eligibility for an EHCNA needs to be more robust ‘may’ have special educational needs is nebulous. This should never have been set in law. With clear eligibility criteria the numbers of requests will reduce and therefore impact of timeliness. LAs are overwhelmed with EHCNA requests. The EHCNA process needs to be reviewed and overhauled. There is duplication between stage 1 (request) evidence gathering and stage 2 (assessment) evidence gathering. Pre-2015 many local authorities met their 26-week target 100% (as it was then) but the system still underwent significant reform because the 'problems' were not associated with how long the process took. If growth remains at the same level the only way to manage timeframes is to significantly enhance the relevant workforces - this is not, however, a sustainable system. In future EHCPs must only be issued for the children and YP with the highest levels of need and confidence within other measures of support without an EHCP must be increased. SEN learners must be recognised, valued and celebrated and inclusive settings recognised through the Ofsted framework. Only then will the 'push' for a legally enforceable plan begin to decline. Consideration of accountability and costs required for health partners to deliver on demands. Educational Psychology assessments are important to understand a child’s needs but where there is robust prior involvement this should be accepted to contribute to the EHCNA. A move toward greater collaboration in submitting written evidence across all professionals, parent/carers and move back to co-produce outcomes would be helpful. If there was less EHCNA, i.e. they are for the exceptional need where a specialist placement is required this would be manageable.
What can be done to support parents, carers and children or young people before, during and after the EHC Plan process? How can the EHC Plan process be made non-adversarial?	Improved National SEN Support processes, with suitable statutory expectations and effective routes of redress during dissatisfaction would reduce the pressures and adversarial approach to the EHC assessment process. The processes are also held entirely by the LA, so any disagreement process you enter as a family is not with the professionals working directly with your child. There is an argument that there is already a route of legal recourse where a child may be being disadvantaged by SEN support approaches via the DDA and associated appeal, however very few families use this route. The adversarial nature of the current system has also created a perfect opportunity for parent advocates - a largely unregistered profession with no required qualifications charging families large amounts to 'navigate' the system and 'fight' for what they want. The low legal thresholds and overly complex system of assessment and review has provided the perfect backdrop for such roles who very often succeed due to the lack of statutory 'back up' for any area of the requirements of SEN Support. LAs are in an impossible situation of needing to hold their schools to account regarding quality SEN Support practice whilst having no control over delivery and for delivering the statutory systems in line with the low legal framework. LAs are also solely responsible for the quality of assessments with no 'control' over partner agencies i.e. health - there is a duty to comply of course, but where this does not happen it is the LA who must plug the gap, not the NHS. Introduce accountabilities for all aspects of the EHCP. The health and care elements of EHCPs are not legally enforceable - leading families to seek this provision via the education elements of the EHCP. As a result, EHCPs primarily remain education documents which LAs are fully funding. Legal responsibility/statute must sit across all key agencies and somewhere within the SEN Support system. Make person centred practice a mandatory part of the system. A more child centred approach is essential so that families feel supported, and children are matched to the right provision Parents often seek EHCPs believing they guarantee 1:1 support which is often poor practice, so schools need to better communicate existing support provisions and their intended outcomes. It's also crucial to dispel the myth that EHCPs are a "silver bullet" solution. An over hall of the tribunal process is urgently needed. Too many decisions are being made that are incorrect. 98.5% of LA decisions cannot be wrong – the tribunal system is not currently fit for purpose, and as a result, is active in draining money and resources from maintained schools to specialist private schools. SENDIST frequently order provision that is not education or training.
What alternatives are there to the EHC Plan process?	Inclusive mainstream practice and support with early intervention and support available to schools so that they do not have to push for an EHCP. Resourcing i.e. additional funds from the Government. Resources delegated to each school and/or schools can request additional funding to strategically support its SEND population. Early intervention through multi-agency "Teams Around the School" should be freely available to all schools, without requiring EHCPs. Reinstating previous systems like "School Action" and "School Action Plus" which provided funding and resources for pupils and made parents feel heard, would be more effective for supporting lower level SEND needs and reduce the current overload on the EHCP system. Establish a national system for Inclusion funding for children with SEND (linked to clear criteria) that does not require an EHCP.

Section 2: Current and future SEND need

Key area of enquiry

Response

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?

Nationally consistently capture SEND and Health data at early stages birth, early years, SEN support in schools.
Review the national categories of need.
At a local level forecasting and need-trend analysis demonstrates a consistent increase in pupils with social communication (ASC) and social emotional and behavioural needs. A reduction in children categorised as having MLD and more consistent/stable populations of children with PMLD/PD/Sensory needs. More subjective information shows significant increases in the complexity of pupils with ASC/social communication needs and those with emotional needs. Mental health challenges are significant with school avoidance difficulties increasing rapidly. Complex autism, particularly within the special school settings, is also increasing.
For many of these growing need areas the type of provision required is 'new' - pupils do not fit the traditional learning difficulty or behaviour focused settings, meaning mainstream schools and APs are seeking to provide suitable environments. We do not consider the 'answer' to this is necessarily creating more, separate settings, but it is a significantly different approach to 'mainstream' which requires investment. Mainstream enhanced provision offers now are ad-hoc and inconsistent and not adequately supported by specialist services.
SEND need has changed within schools in that schools are increasingly left to fill in the gaps that other services used to pick up. A decline in funding for external services - community CAMHS for example, means that schools are having to direct resources they don’t have, to supporting CYP with mental health conditions.
Real time funding to schools for SEND has not increased in line with costs to schools for supporting CYP with SEND. The past decade has seen a significant rise in autism diagnoses, with DfE data from 2019 showing a 30%+ increase in children identified with autism as having SEND over five years. This growth reflects greater awareness and improved diagnostic practices, driving increased demand for tailored educational support and services. However, it is also creating an unsustainable level of provision that is required under current legislation as a result.
Emotionally Based School Avoidance (EBSA) has become a growing concern linked to SEND, particularly mental health and neurodevelopmental disorders. Provisions under the Children and Families Act 2014 have led to more recognition of EBSA, resulting in over 40,000 children in England being educated outside school under Section 19 (EOTAS). Rising mental health challenges and limited resources suggest these numbers will likely grow. The numbers are already unsustainable, and further growth puts even more pressure on an already challenging system. This is a new national issue that needs to be addressed through legal change and financial measures put in place.
Lower thresholds for special school placements, combined with extended eligibility for EHCPs, have driven a very large increase in special school enrolments since 2014. This trend is expected to continue, with demand projected to rise by potentially even higher rates over the next decade. This trajectory poses financial and logistical challenges that are unsustainable.

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

Work with LAs around forecasting methodology - LAs have so far submitted two SEN SCAP returns with little to no feedback. Are these returns telling the DfE/LAs what they need to know? What are the challenges? What methodologies are LAs using? Are they consistent?
Work with NHSE to improve data requirement alignment

So far, the non-statutory guidance for assessment of SEND in the Early Years is not helping to create consistency of approach. It is also proving difficult to align differing assessment tools to making robust decisions as part of the EHCNA process.

There should be a more away from ‘statutory assessment’ towards high quality of SEND assessment in mainstream schools and settings. By raising the threshold for an EHCP, this would create space for a more helpful dialogue around high quality universal SEND provision and the removal of barriers for children who have SEND.

Section 3: Current and future model of SEND provision

Key area of enquiry

Response

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

Commissioning arrangements and approaches are all very different and managed by different teams/frameworks. The ordinarily available offer needs to have a national element included as it differs across LAs, some offers are not consistent even within the same LA due to their geographical size/challenges. There will always need to be room for local variance but some core principles to guide LAs in establishing their core offer would be beneficial i.e. what is the minimum expectation associated with specialist outreach or what is the minimum expectation associated with therapy services etc. It should also offer guidance as to what should be 'free' to schools and what it would be appropriate to trade. 'Free' services will require appropriate resourcing to the LA/ICB to deliver the minimum expectations effectively. Only with minimum standards would consistency be achieved.
Expectations for all levels need establishing; from job descriptions for school staff through governance arrangements and partnerships for LA’s and integrated commissioning, especially for 18-25.

Statutory roles within local area partnership and particular within the health side e.g. ensuring DCO/DHO roles are statutory requirements funded by NHS and also ensuring designated SEND support for ICBs and NHS providers internally.

Give greater powers to LAs for MATs. The varying number of MATS in different areas can impact significantly on consistency and on the LA’s ability to influence practice and priorities within the area. MATs and all schools need to have some sort of accountability measure to the LA.

A national core offer of Universally/Ordinarily Available Provision and additional support to be provided by LAs. This should have a Quality Assurance element that is an accountability measure for schools.

Consistency of funding arrangements for specialist provision at a national level, including INMS.

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?

There needs to be better joint scoping, monitoring and planning with ICBs and wider services, understanding of forecast need/demand and improved SEN Support practice/consistency.

The 'push' for specialist or alternative placements comes, in part, from a failure at SEN support and from the changing presentation of need - improved SEN support practices will enable more young people to remain within mainstream education, but it requires significant investment alongside specialist support.

Processes associated with establishing new provision - inclusion centres or new schools need streamlining.

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

It would be helpful to establish DfE/CQC led principles associated with joint funding/commissioning arrangements with NHSE, which are supported by statutory requirements. These could then be used by LAs/health teams to inform their local arrangements. This would establish a minimum expectation associated with joint funding arrangements which would lead to increased consistency across all areas.

On a practical level frontline staff work well together, keeping the child at the centre of their work and seeking increasingly creative approaches to improve outcomes - the challenge occurs when resources (money or manpower) are needed, and services have conflicting priorities. Unless all have the same statutory requirements, other priorities will impact on the ability to work together effectively.
For LAs to develop a cohesive and impactful Outreach Service which is what is needed in terms of multi-agency working (e.g. we are agreed on the principles of an APST as being an effective model) - it requires funding to maintain the continuity of these roles. A multiagency outreach team model which works well, would go part way to filling the gaps in support which schools are currently trying to manage.
A system which actively supports co-production by removing the expectation that each area will produce a separate report for a child. A set of guidelines that allows for co-produced assessment and advice, with effective communication across all agencies (education, health, social care).

Resource delegation is the issue, there is no clear guidance on how this (funding) joins together under an EHCP.

Clearly specified legal responsibilities across Health, Education and Social Care for children with SEND. At present, the requirements on Health are too vague or not enforceable.

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?

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

Bring back fairness to the system. Introduce national funding expectations for settings regardless of their type and give LAs more powers to open up special provision without long legal processes. Independent schools can open in 8-10 weeks yet LAs have many months of processes/years before they can open a school.
There is potentially a role for large, independent, specialist providers but that sits alongside a need to establish suitable frameworks around the commissioning of such providers - particularly around the most efficient use of resources.

Independent schools have a lot of selling power and aggressive marketing and can make their offer sound very appealing. However, the provision is not necessarily any better and often worse than maintained provision.

Creating a national funding framework for all SEND provision will ensure that those who make excessive profits are unable to operate within the system. The issue is not insufficiency of special school placements, but the threshold for special school provision has been lowered. A strong focus on improving the mainstream offer and raising the threshold for an EHCP would ensure that the right children are offered provision in the sector and avoid issues of capacity.
In lieu of the above, making LAs the commissioners of provision and able to set prices within their local context, as well as capping any fee increases.

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

Co-production with families on the local services and provision.
Multi-agency working
Schools working together clusters to develop support pathways and provision. Sharing skills, knowledge and practice.
In-house AP (including in-house SEMH hub that can be shared with other schools in a locality)
Co-produced assessments where professionals, staff and parents, and children come together to produce a report that describes strengths and needs, agree outcomes and provision to meet these outcomes.
Specialist provisions in mainstream schools can support children with a greater breadth of needs within mainstream schools.

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

We can incentivise providers to try new approaches and share good practice with ‘project funding’ that settings bid for.

Addressing the punitive Judicial Review system; creativity and innovation is blocked by this.

Provide time and funding for research, developing evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence, and innovative practice. This should include rethinking the structure of schools to work towards an increased number of small, more nurturing community schools – particularly at secondary age where schools are getting ever-bigger.

The SEND system should embrace technology like AI to streamline processes and improve efficiency.

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

Wholesale curriculum change that is more SEND friendly, with variation to outcomes that mean schools are not simply led by data and attainment, but by a whole pupil led approach. The culture alongside the curriculum needs changing.

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?

Limited change in some areas as they were very process/template driven. New EHCP template well-received but not ground-breaking. Focus on mediation/disagreement resolution/decision-making helpful to re-set thinking but again not significant changes/improvements on the ground for families.
LAIP - a helpful needs analysis but crosses over into existing strategic planning in LAs.
ELSEC - a truly multi-professional approach to early intervention focused on a growing area of need, we consider this will be very effective in identifying and meeting needs earlier. It needs further investment to widen the reach and build on success. It has not, however, reduced early years requests for EHC assessment in our area.
APSTs - mixed success, the principle is highly regarded and considered to be effective in achieving change. Challenges associated with recruiting the right team and supporting the right children (goes back to the responsibilities across partners - health and care services have been unable/unwilling to contribute staff meaning LAs have to use private providers to deliver the taskforce). Relationships with existing AP providers/services also difficult to navigate. Developments have seen a re-working to focus more on Tier 1/2 to avoid escalation to Tier 3. Further investment and commitment across services needed to roll this out further.
Much more is needed to be done in terms of the digitisation of EHCPs, accountability and quality assurance of school SEND provision for Local Authorities, and how Early Intervention can be better funded. Also, work on national standards to ensure that there is a clearer understanding of SEND needs, so children are not identified as special school ready when they can stay in mainstream, and mainstream schools not identifying themselves as not being able to meet need, when they should be able to. LA’s also need direction here to say schools can meet need.

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 in mainstream schooling?

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

Consistent and recognised specialist support offer - mental health, emotional support, specialist communication support.

Physical adaptations and flexibility in terms of 'policy' (uniform etc.)

Family support alongside school support - practical approaches to help families support their children in getting to school (can be simple but very effective).
Improved collaborative/coproduced approaches/practice - this is embedded through the Code of Practice/C&F Act however it has not been successfully embedded within day-to-day mainstream practice - further support is needed to change practice (for families as well as schools).

A national agreement/directive on what good inclusive practice looks like and the expectation on schools to deliver this. This will result in schools not using exclusion as a means for getting ‘rid of’ CYP who are challenging.
Increased funding to enable schools to provide bespoke affordable packages of intervention to prevent exclusions or to put in place as alternatives to exclusion.
Funding to support APST/TAS Outreach teams who can support the CYP and their family as a child who is at high risk of exclusion often has needs beyond school/the classroom.

More flexibility across MATs when their schools are in different locations/have different cohorts

Different attitudes from schools (particularly secondaries) around behaviour policies, focusing much more on relationships and creating a sense of belonging, rather than on conformity and control

Addressing the perception of automatic ‘entitlement’ to alternative provision under s.19, responding to this is becoming unsustainable and does not support reintegration to an education setting.

Clarity for health providers who currently ‘sign off’ children as too unwell to attend school, with no health provision in place
Clear national guidance on behaviours that should not result in suspension

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?

This should be consistently joint and/or tripartite funded depending on needs. In the majority of examples there will be an impact that could be considered to be 'educational' in nature i.e. impacting on access to the curriculum, however where this is not the case (and the provision is purely treating a health condition) then it should be funded by health i.e. requiring support to be fed, requiring support to check blood sugar levels, requiring therapy provision during the day etc. There should be nationally recognised standards to guide LAs which can inform local commissioning arrangements. Schools should be adequately funded to provide for health adaptations without necessarily needing to apply for an EHCP (so support can be immediately implemented). Existing guidance is clear - the funding of the requirements set out is not (and this shortfall is too often being met through 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?

Post-16 SEND provision needs improvement through workforce development, including subject-specific SEND training for staff. "Teams Around the College Setting" (TACS) should provide support, intervention, and training to improve SEND practice and reduce student attrition.

Qualifications must be tailored to learners' starting points, with a range of options. Training should be delivered across diverse settings.

National standards are needed to clarify course offerings and expected SEND provision in colleges. Providers should receive support and incentives to offer internships and supported employment.

EHCPs should include robust Preparation for Adulthood (PfA) planning from at least Key Stage 3.

Schools require more training on supporting successful post-16 transitions, and post-16 providers need to enhance their SEN support. A "Learn Locally" approach should be adopted, ensuring access to local education from nursery through post-16, with clear pathways to local employment and community contribution.

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

Post-16 transport is currently discretionary, if this were to change there would need to be significant funding provided to LAs to meet this need

We need to review, reflect on and improve our approach to post 16 SEND transport and plan to train young people in years 10 and 11 at school, where possible, so that they become Independent Travel Trained before they progress into post 16 settings.

Section 4: Finance, funding and capacity of SEND provision

Key area of enquiry	Response
What funding is currently provided and what is needed for early identification of SEND, including Early Years settings?	Notional funding needs to be reviewed Need for greater access to (non-statutory) assessments and for schools to be resourced to provide this If every school/group of schools had a team around the school (TAS) designed with the specific needs of the cohort in mind this would also support delivery of interventions that would prevent escalation to EHCNA (TAS to be multi-professional). There are examples where High Needs Block funding has been used to support schools working together to develop projects that enhance inclusive practice. Capacity within LA funding to continue to do this will support a progressive model of mainstream provision that focuses on partnership and keeping children in their local communities
What actions or reforms are needed to achieve financial stability and sustainability, both in the short and longer term, across the SEND system?	A new strategy involving DfE and NHSE to forecast, streamline and direct priority funding and governance arrangements to protect the totality of population needs Increased funding is needed to support the growing number of pupils requiring SEND support. Funding should also support staff access to training during working hours. SEND training should also become a statutory supplement within the National Early Years Funding Formula.
What is the effectiveness of Government's interventions such as the 'safety valve' and DBV in SENF programmes, including: How have these programmes impacted local authority finance as well as SEND provision and outcomes?	SEN funding needs to be rebalanced. Currently, too much funding goes to expensive independent placements, while mainstream schools and local provisions are underfunded. This creates a cycle of under-resourced mainstream provision leading to more costly specialist placements. Redirecting funding to mainstream schools would strengthen their capacity for inclusive education, reducing reliance on independent placements and ensuring more equitable and sustainable resource allocation.
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?	The statutory override needs to be extended until reforms of the SEND system are implemented.
Is planned capital investment in SEND capacity sufficient and is it targeted to address need across the country?	Greater capital investment is needed in the early years sector. This would enable LAs to have opportunities for earlier intervention that may result in a better transition into mainstream provision.
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?	Yes, there is no clear/consistent guidance as to what provision costs/how to map these provisions/how costs are calculated and unreasonable expectations associated with each pupil's 'share' of notional funding. Funding is not ring-fenced. £6,000 'buys' significantly less now than it did in 2014.….all of which mean the 'threshold' for EHC needs assessment is not just legally low but also practically low as schools simply cannot put in place the support that was previously available from the same money.

Section 5: Accountability and inspection of SEND provision

Key area of enquiry	Response
What should Ofsted's new 'inclusion' criterion for the inspection of mainstream schools look like?	Inclusion criteria must be high profile/of high value - in the same way safeguarding is currently reflected within inspection framework. Criteria must include consideration of stakeholder's experiences. It should be informed by clear and consistent data analysis. Does the school understand the need and map their other relevant data against this (attendance/exclusion/attainment etc.) to understand their challenges. How does their picture compare nationally and regionally? A clear minimum expectation with regard to inclusive practice, running throughout the framework (e.g. standards, quality of education, pastoral support etc.) A culture of inclusion, similar to the culture of safeguarding, should be inspected – i.e. not a tick box list, but a root and branch commitment to inclusion that can be inspected through a range of activities in addition to looking at data, websites and policies. We need to ensure that ‘inclusion is everyone’s responsibility’ and is the golden thread of every organisation. Ofsted should ask for the LA to have their own QA procedures and that this goes as a box on the Ofsted inspection. This gives the LA a voice. A national framework for this would support consistency of provision and help support rapid improvement.
How can Area SEND inspections of local authorities be made more effective?	Use of a local comparative Inclusion data dashboard which compares one school’s inclusivity to another. Area SEND Inspectors can interrogate this data at a local level prior to the onsite inspection. It would give a clearer picture of the effectiveness of SEND provision within that LA prior to arrival. More than one Education Inspector included in the Area Inspection Team so that more education settings can be visited to gather a clearer picture within the 5 day onsite window. Inspectors must have specialism in SEND and training that is relevant and up to date to ensure that maturing needs, such as neurodiversity, are understood and addressed. ASEND inspections should only make judgements upon areas which LAs and ICBs have direct control over.
Whether local education authorities need further powers to ensure that all schools in their area contribute to effective local SEND provision?	Clarity in statutory guidance to ensure early year’s settings deliver their legal duty. The differences between academies and maintained schools in terms of accountability would also need to be considered as part of this. Currently there is significant accountability for LAs but little authority when it comes to academy school approaches to inclusion and SEND provision. This is needed, as more inclusive schools are impacted by the non-inclusive practice in others. The LA needs powers to support consistency and equity
How best to hold all schools, irrespective of how they are constituted or their governance arrangements, to account of their SEND provisions?	As commented on repeatedly. A DfE/Ofsted produced document which sets out minimum expectations of a school’s inclusive practice (including free schools and academies). Greater powers for LAs to intervene if schools are falling short on inclusive practice for CYP with SEND, including for academy schools within their area. Clear guidance on expectations of basic SEND practice all families should be entitled to receive. As a first step, from both SEND and broader education perspective, there is the need for the DfE to clearly set out the roles, responsibilities of different types of schools, and MATs, so there is clarity across the board, including, e.g., expectations around SEND, how they should engage with different partners, e.g., local authorities.
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.	These organisations must be working better together when managing complaints and learning from these complaints. For example, the LGSCO is regularly considering complaints from families that demonstrate the challenges of achieving a multi-agency approach to EHC needs assessments in a timely manner - however all recommendations/remedies fall to the local authority and the LA has no power to pass those remedies (costs) to the local health teams or to use them to instigate change. They need to have the same understanding of the SEND Regulations, s.19 and all relevant legislation and the boundaries of their remits.

January 2025