Written evidence submitted by Association of Colleges

form, tertiary and specialist colleges in England. We are a not-for-profit

membership organisation established in 1996 by colleges, for colleges. Our

members make up more than 90% of the sector - educating and training

1.6 million people each year.

 

 

AoC Response

 

Summary

Colleges are a distinct part of the 0-25 SEND system, where conditions and practices are different from those in schools. In the college sector around 90% of students with EHCPs are in mainstream colleges, in contrast to the lower proportions in mainstream provision in the schools sector. It is important to note that many thousands of young people progress each year from special schools to mainstream colleges.

Colleges are able be inclusive because of their expertise, their inclusive cultures, and the fact that curricula allow colleges to match courses to the aptitudes and aspirations of each student.

This means that the biggest challenge the college SEND system faces is not lack of inclusion. Instead, policy reform must address other issues including students’ transitions from school, and the lack of an adequate funding mechanism for students with SEND but without high needs.

 

 

Education, Health and Care Plans

Question: What can be done to support parents, carers and children or young people before, during and after the EHC Plan process?

Local authorities are measured on their adherence to timelines around creating EHCPs but not on whether they maintain accurate plans. Colleges often find that places are commissioned for students on the basis of plans that are out of date, vague, or focused on activities in a setting, not on preparation to adulthood. Research by the Children’s Commissioner’s Office has shown the variation in plan quality between local areas.

Accountabilities are needed around the accurate maintenance of plans. This could be achieved through existing proposals for the digitisation of EHCPs. Digitisation would bring many benefits to students like capturing student voice more authentically and would also allow the aggregation of data in each local area about the maintenance of accurate, comprehensive, up to date and destination-focussed plans.
 

Current and future SEND need

Question: 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?

Colleges educate more than half of all 16 and 17 year olds in publicly funded education. There are more than 600,000 college students funded through 16 -18 funding, of whom more than 29% have an identified SEND, while 8.1% have EHCPs. Around one in seven of all holders of EHCPs are now in Further Education (FE).

Colleges are also major players in alternative provision. Recent AoC-Nuffield research shows that most colleges have 14-16 provision, catering for 10,000 students, of whom around 34% have SEND.

In 2024 the Institute for Fiscal Studies identified ongoing growth in numbers of students with EHCPs in FE. Growth is likely to continue as a demographic bulge moves through the age bands. This means that colleges will need the workforce, curriculum and capital to meet the needs of future students.

Current and future model of SEND provision

Question: 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?

Place planning applies to colleges just as to schools. The issue is becoming a more acute problem because the numbers and proportions of young people with SEND post-16 are increasing.

The planning of college places by local authorities (LAs) is not always strategic. There is often last-minute place planning for individuals, rather than longer term numbers planning for cohorts. This undermines colleges’ ability to plan staffing and courses, results in stressful transitions for students and their families, and contributes to difficulties around local authority transport.

Accountabilities are needed for strategic planning. LAs should be required to publish their plans for places and corresponding capital investment. For individual place planning there is already a well-designed process in the SEND Code of Practice. The digitisation of EHCPs would allow adherence to processes and timelines to be measured, encouraging timely decisions.

Question: 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?

There are difficulties for local authorities (LAs) in commissioning provision for low-incidence high-cost needs such as Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities (PMLD) and lower cost needs such as some sensory impairments. If LAs were required to publish their strategic numbers planning for SEND, they could also be required to coordinate with neighbouring authorities. Alternatively, provision for low incidence need could be commissioned on a larger geographical footprint.

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

It is widely regarded as desirable for almost all young people with SEND to be educated in mainstream, with specialist providers reserved for those with the most complex needs. This is already the position in the college sector. College provision is highly inclusive and operates at a vast scale – colleges educate more than half of all 16-17 year olds in publicly funded education, and more than 29% of younger students have SEND.

Colleges’ inclusiveness is threatened by inequities between schools and colleges. The pay gap between school teachers and college teachers is now around £10,000 a year. Pressures on local authority High Needs budgets impact directly on the pay of learning support assistants. Colleges face extraordinary difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled staff.

Sustaining the inclusiveness and scale of SEND provision requires that any future SEND reforms recognise the importance and distinctness of the college sector – the issues are different from those in schools. Sustaining the work of colleges also requires rapid action to tackle the teacher pay gap between colleges and schools.


Question: 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?

The SEND system is a 0-25 system and college students with SEND also have health needs. We have discussed college students’ medical needs in our answer to the question about the post-16 landscape.

Question: What steps should be taken to improve the post-16 landscape for students with SEND?

Context

Colleges educate more than half of state educated 16 and 17-year-olds. There are more 600,000 college students funded through 16 -18 funding, of whom more than 29% have an identified SEND. Educating students with SEND is a central part of the mission of colleges.

Around one in seven holders of EHCPs are in FE and many current school pupils with EHCPs will also progress to college.

In addition to younger students, colleges educate and train nearly one million adults.

College students with SEND have a wide range of needs. Most learn in classes alongside peers who do not have SEND; they have needs such as dyslexia, ADHD, autism spectrum conditions, or social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs. Other students with SEND have learning disabilities which mean that they benefit from studying an adapted curriculum alongside peers with similar needs. This cohort of students have often progressed from special schools to general further education colleges (GFEs).

The aim to have almost all young people with SEND educated in mainstream providers, with specialist providers reserved for those with the most complex needs, is already the case in FE, with around 90% of holders of EHCPs educated in mainstream colleges, whilst fewer than 9000 students are enrolled in specialist FE colleges.

Challenges

An important challenge is the lack of a dedicated funding mechanism for support for students with SEND but without high needs. These students represent around 20% of all college students funded through 16-18 funding and their needs are often considerable. Support must be drawn from colleges’ programme funding and disadvantage funding, sources that do not match the location of students, as AoC has explained here.

Another set of challenges are those around transition, especially place planning for students with EHCPs. Individual placement decisions can be inappropriate or not timely, creating needlessly stressful experiences for students and families. There is also sometimes a lack of local strategic planning of place numbers, undermining colleges’ ability to prepare to meet need. We would refer the committee to the evidence from South Thames College for a detailed case study of these issues.

Students require a variety of input from health professionals including speech and language therapists, educational psychologists, occupational therapists, and others. Both local authorities and Integrated Care Boards, often see these services as paediatric, meaning that college students do not have access, or only have access if the college pays for services. The age limit of 18 (in most areas) for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) creates especial difficulties for students.

A focus on students’ aspirations to work should be central to discussions about the SEND system. Students want to and can work, other than a small minority for whom transition to adult social care is more realistic. There is an all-UK disability employment gap of 28.6% between employment rates for disabled and non-disabled adults. The Get Britain Working white paper sets out to support back to work those who have been far from the labour market for many years, but better transitions from college would do much to prevent young people falling into that position in the first place. Colleges are skilled at destination-based planning. Many colleges have strong partnerships with employers who recognise the skills possessed by young people with SEND. Tackling the disability employment gap requires this recognition to be more widespread.

Recommendations

  1. A funding mechanism is needed for the support for college students who have SEND but not high needs. There should be an equivalent to schools’ ‘notional SEN budget’, as AoC has explored here.
  2. For timely planning of school-to-college transitions for students with EHCPs, a suitable transition mechanism already exists in the SEN Code of Practice, but this is not always followed so greater accountabilities are needed for schools, colleges and local authorities. Accountabililies should cover timelines as well as the accuracy of EHCPs.
  3. Accountabilities are also needed for local authorities’ sufficiency planning of cohort numbers, to enable colleges to plan staffing and accommodation and meet students’ needs.
  4. For students without EHCPs a mechanism is needed for timely transfer of information about students’ support needs, with information owned by students themselves.
  5. For transition out to adult social care, timely engagement by social care departments is needed.
  6. Mechanisms are needed, described below and in AoC’s SEND policy paper, so that High Needs Provision Capital Allocations are not made solely to schools. Specialist colleges need to be in scope for FE capital. Capital investment in the SEND system must match the locations of learners.
  7. Although student numbers in specialist FE colleges for SEND are small, less than 9000 nationally, these colleges have a vital role in the sector which should be more formally recognised through support and funding.
  8. College students require the same access to support from external specialists enjoyed by other children and young people in the system. This applies to health inputs as well as specialist services for those with sensory impairments, such as Qualified Teachers of the Visually Impaired (QTVIs).
  9. Age thresholds for health should match the 0-25 SEND system. The 2014 guidance on supporting pupils with medical conditions at school should be revised to include college students’ medical needs.
  10. SEND reforms for colleges need to be aligned with skills reforms and with labour market reforms such as those set out in the Get Britain Working white paper.


Question: What reforms are needed to ensure that all post-16 qualifications meet the needs of students with SEND?

Context

Colleges offer a range of courses and qualifications to both young people and adults, including A Levels and Vocational Technical Qualifications (VTQs) such at BTECs, Cambridge and City and Guilds Technicals. VTQs are offered across a broad range of sectors such as construction, health and social care, engineering, digital and creative industries. While A Levels are Level 3 qualifications, VTQs are offered at many levels from entry to Level 4 and 5. 

 

The post-16 vocational and technical landscape has already seen major reform over the past 8 years which is still working its way through, including the introduction of T Levels and qualification reform at Levels 3 and below. The recent outcome of the July 2024 rapid review of Level 3 qualifications that were set to be defunded has helped colleges plan their offers. The current Curriculum and Assessment Review led by Professor Becky Francis has a much wider scope in reviewing the curriculum and statutory assessment system in England for children and young people from Key Stage 1 to the 16 to 19 phase.

              Challenges

  1. Around two thirds of 16-year-olds achieve English and maths GCSE at grade 4 or above at the end of Year 11, but a much smaller proportion of pupils with identified SEND achieve these grades, as AoC described in our English and maths paper in July. Students without these grades often then progress from school to college, where they continue to study these subjects under the English and maths Condition of Funding. English and maths are vital subjects for students to prosper at work and be active citizens in adult life. To the great credit of colleges and students, many achieve their desired grades by re-sitting within months. But many students, including many with SEND, do not achieve and instead experience a de-motivating treadmill of exams, discouraging their learning in these essential subjects.
  2. Exam Access Arrangements are needed for GCSE students to succeed but information is not always obtained from schools and the logistical difficulties of accommodating hundreds of EAAs on a single exam day now place exams at the very edge of deliverability, with many colleges having to close to other students on exam days
  3. There is a wide range of Personal, Social and Employability Qualifications (PSEQs) at Level 1 and below. A new framework was consulted upon in 2024. If implemented this framework would reduce the flexibility that allows current qualifications to support the personalised learning needed by students with SEND, as AoC explained in our May 2024 consultation response on the National Standards for Personal, Social and Employability Qualifications.
  4. T Levels are recently introduced vocational qualifications at Level 3 which have many strengths, but issues remain with the accessibility of both content and assessment, creating potential barriers to progression from Level 2 vocational courses.

Recommendations

  1. The Curriculum and Assessment Review should consider qualifications in English and maths both pre- and post- 16, so that more students succeed at school while those that do not can experience a more inspiring curriculum at college.
  2. Better approaches are needed to Exam Access Arrangements, so that student information is available and so that colleges are able to deliver EAAs effectively
  3. The proposed PSEQ framework should be withdrawn; entry level qualifications should be reconsidered in a way that supports personalised learning, citizenship and employment.
  4. The content and assessment approaches on T Levels should be reviewed on a sector-by-basis to support progression from lower levels and align with the skills required for jobs in each sector.

 

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

There are around 38,000 High Needs students in colleges that are not specialist SEND colleges. Around half of these students are enrolled on courses specifically designed for students with SEND, with curricula that teach skills for independence. Very many have progressed to colleges from special schools. Many of these students need transport to get to college.

It is sometimes the case that LA decisions about transport do not match decisions about placements, putting students in the contradictory situation of having a commissioned place on a course but no transport to get there.

Delayed decision-making is not the only cause of the mismatch between course decisions and transport decisions but if placement decisions were made in line with the SEND Code of Practice, this would avoid last minute decisions that cause needless distress for students and families. LAs should be required to agree transport arrangements in parallel with place commissioning. The statutory duty to provide ‘home to school’ transport should be extended to match the 0-25 age range of the SEND system.

Finance, funding and capacity of SEND provision

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

Schools, colleges and early years providers were in scope of previous rounds of SEND-specific capital investment, and we believe this will be true of the latest round also.

SEND-specific capital investment is not well-targeted. Previous rounds have been overwhelmingly spent on schools by LAs, even though LAs commission a growing number of student places on college courses.

A second difficulty is that specialist colleges are not in scope for capital funds that are FE-specific.

Specialist FE colleges are a type of FE college and should be in scope for FE-specific funds. There should be greater accountabilities over the spending by LAs of SEND-specific funds including: a requirement for LAs to consult with schools, colleges and early years providers; bringing capital within the scope of Ofsted-CQC Area SEND Inspections and a requirement for LAs to produce strategic plans for place commissioning, that are accompanied by capital plans for how those places will be accommodated.

 

Accountability and inspection of SEND provision

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

Our understanding is that any new ‘inclusion’ criterion will apply to both schools and colleges. We welcome the idea that lies behind an ‘inclusion’ criterion, but a definition of ‘inclusion’ framed with only schools in mind risks failing to distinguish between different practice in colleges. The definition should be framed to work across sectors to recognise the highly inclusive practice that exists in further education.

Question: Whether local education authorities need further powers to ensure that all schools in their area contribute to effective local SEND provision?

Local authorities have existing powers over admissions that apply to both schools and colleges.

The existing ‘Duty to Admit’ allows local authorities to ‘name’ a college in a young person’s EHCP even when the college has responded to a formal consultation letter saying they cannot meet needs of that student. This may apply, for example, to some medical or behavioural needs. Unsuitable placement decisions can be made when EHCPs are out of date, or when the ability of a particular college to meet need is not well understood.

 

To prevent this, we recommend:

 

 

 

 

January 2025

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10