SEN0475
Written evidence submitted by Mrs. Claire chapman
Summary
The current education system often fails to provide true inclusion for children with SEND, leading to a reliance on specialist settings and alternative provision rather than adapting mainstream schools to meet diverse needs. As a SEND professional, parent, and individual with lived experience, I understand the complexities of balancing legal requirements, funding pressures, and the rights of children to an appropriate education.
I understand the pressures on local authorities, schools, and funding, but I also deeply empathise with parents and children fighting for their right to an education. No one asks for SEND. Parents simply want their children to communicate, understand, and actively participate in the world—not just observe it. Every child has unique qualities and value, and our job is to nurture that.
This piece explores the limitations of the EHCP system, the overuse of specialist placements, and the lack of accountability in delivering provision. It challenges the effectiveness of alternative provision and argues for systemic change, including smaller class sizes, universal design in education, and a shift away from outdated literacy and assessment methods. True inclusion requires a fundamental restructuring of mainstream education, ensuring that all children, regardless of their needs, have the opportunity to thrive.
Inclusion and the Term "Special Educational Needs"
The term "special educational needs" is problematic because it implies there's a "correct" way of learning, marginalising those who learn differently. It fosters a division between those who “can” and those who “can’t,” perpetuating an environment of exclusion rather than inclusion. This binary mindset doesn’t align with the understanding that everyone has unique learning needs that should be supported accordingly. Education systems should focus on universal design and adaptability, accommodating diverse learning styles and abilities, instead of labeling certain individuals as "special." Education should be about equity, not categorisation.
The Challenges of the Education System
The education system is often resistant to change, focusing on easy-to-measure skills like spelling rather than more practical, inclusive approaches that could better support all learners. This resistance creates barriers to true inclusion and misses opportunities to adapt to how people actually learn and function in the real world. The traditional focus on reading and spelling as the core of literacy is limiting and outdated. This approach disregards the broader skills required for effective communication and problem-solving. Spelling and reading aren’t what determine success in real life—being able to communicate ideas, solve problems, and adapt to various environments is far more important. Yet, the system continues to emphasise these mechanical skills at the expense of other forms of literacy, such as functional literacy or verbal communication, which may better serve many learners, including those with SEND.
EHC plans
While there is talk of a national framework for EHCPs, the reality is that how these plans are written varies widely between local authorities. In my experience across three different LAs, the disparity in quality and approach is shocking. Some plans are detailed, clear, and specific, but others are so poorly written that they fail to support children in any meaningful way. At their worst, these plans can be shaming to the individual, dehumanising, and full of irrelevant details that fail to capture the child’s actual needs or strengths. These plans not only fall short of legal requirements but, in some cases, they actively harm the child by misrepresenting their needs or failing to provide clear and actionable provisions.
EHCPs and Accountability
The EHCP system has significant issues. Legal Test 1 and 2 for an EHC needs assessment are intentionally set low to ensure inclusivity, but this floods the system with cases. Schools don’t have the time to gather strong evidence, and SENCos often lack adequate training, which is a result of insufficient teacher training and the lack of time to effectively do their job. This perpetuates a cycle where the system struggles to meet the needs of children. Even when EHCPs are issued, there’s often no accountability to ensure schools deliver the provision. Schools frequently divert funding meant for SEND children to other areas, and while I understand the pressure they face to keep the school running, it leaves the young person without the required support. It’s an impossible situation, and I’m not blaming the schools, but rather highlighting the systemic challenges that need to be addressed to ensure children actually get the provision they’re entitled to.
The Shift to Specialist Settings
Too many parents have lost faith in mainstream schools—and it’s hard to blame them. Schools are underfunded, and teachers can’t deliver the provision outlined in Section F of EHCPs. This leads to behavior changes in children as they communicate their distress, pushing schools to claim they can’t meet needs and refer children to specialist settings. While these settings may provide short-term relief, they often fail to deliver meaningful education. I’ve seen children spend years in specialist schools without making measurable progress, sometimes for over five years. Once placed in specialist settings, they rarely leave, creating a cycle of dependency rather than fostering independence.
Even for those who remain in mainstream settings, the system can still fail. I’ve seen cases where children made significant progress—one even had their ASD diagnosis rescinded—yet retained their EHCP. Parents understandably wanted to keep the plan for reassurance, while the school needed the funding to support other children. However, this decision created challenges in securing a secondary school placement, as the presence of an EHCP suggested a higher level of need than was actually accurate.
The Importance of Understanding and Meeting Need
The current consultation process assumes that a simple "yes" response from schools indicates readiness to meet a young person’s needs, without genuinely exploring how those needs will be met. The crucial question—"How will you meet the child’s needs?"—is often overlooked, which results in a lack of understanding about the specific supports required. This approach fails to recognise the complexities and nuances of each child’s unique needs, creating significant challenges when a school is unable to address the underlying issues.
No one is effectively tracking whether the provision is actually being delivered. When a school states they can’t meet a child’s needs, the Local Authority often assumes the provision is being delivered as stated—taking the school’s word for it without any checks. If we had the time and resources to properly verify, we might be surprised to find that the provision isn’t being delivered as promised. In such cases, we could potentially deny the request for a specialist placement, as the provision might be falling short in the current setting but could still be addressed with additional support.
Meanwhile, schools, fully aware of their limitations due to lack of resources, are caught in a difficult position. They know they’re not meeting the child’s full needs, leaving them feeling as though they’re failing the child. Concerned for the child’s well-being and progress, they may request a change to a specialist setting, believing it’s the only way to provide the support needed.
The result is a trap where, in many cases, the child suffers—either because the provision isn’t being delivered, or because the wrong placement is chosen based on the assumption that the current setting can’t meet the need, even when there are gaps that could be addressed without shifting placements.
True Inclusion and its Barriers
True inclusion won’t be achieved as long as we continue to use terms like SEND, which perpetuate division and stigmatisation. What we have now is a tokenistic, tick-box approach. Sending children to specialist settings or self-contained units is not inclusion; it’s segregation. This deprives society of seeing the value SEND individuals bring and limits the opportunities for children with SEND to learn from diverse peers. Evidence shows that many children with SEND thrive in environments with a mixture of people, rather than being placed exclusively with peers who share similar challenges.
That said, I’m not dismissing specialist settings entirely. For children with complex medical needs, they may be essential. However, should we automatically exclude them from the opportunity to be included in a mainstream setting? Every child deserves the chance to be part of their community, and inclusion should not be seen as a privilege but as a right.
The Shift from Specialist Settings to Mainstream
The reality is that mainstream schools are currently over-stimulating, under-resourced, and outdated. Classrooms are overcrowded, loud, and heavily focused on preparing children for a society that no longer exists. We place an unhealthy emphasis on memory and standardised testing, which isn’t a true measure of intelligence, creativity, or value. What we need is smaller class sizes (maximum of 15 students), calmer environments, and a curriculum that fosters critical thinking, creativity, and a love of learning. If we transformed mainstream schools into more inclusive, nurturing spaces, it wouldn’t just benefit SEND children—it would improve education for every student and create better working conditions for teachers.
Alternative Provision (AP) and Its Failings
AP has become a go-to solution for schools when they can’t meet a child’s needs due to lack of resources, but it has consistently shown poor outcomes. Too often, children in AP environments leave without the qualifications, skills, or confidence needed to transition back into school or to further education and employment. Additionally, these children are often isolated, with little to no interaction with peers, further hindering their social development and well-being. AP environments can feel like a temporary escape, but they don’t address the underlying reasons for disengagement or help young people build the skills they need to succeed in mainstream education or adulthood.
Moreover, AP placements are expensive, often costing tens of thousands of pounds per child per year. Long-term reliance on AP increases the likelihood of NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) status, costing the public sector even more in the long term while failing to meet the child’s evolving needs.
Tribunal, Local Authorities, and the Wider System
Tribunal, Local Authorities, and the Wider System Local authorities make decisions based on the evidence available to them at the time. This evidence is gathered from schools, parents, and multidisciplinary professionals, not just the LA. However, delays in professional reports due to waiting lists mean that LAs cannot base decisions on what might become available later. If a case is refused due to insufficient evidence, parents are encouraged to reapply once new information is available. The Tribunal process does not take wider systemic issues into account. It focuses solely on whether an individual child’s needs can be met in a particular setting, without considering the overall capacity of the system. If a specialist school is already oversubscribed, adding another child could compromise the quality of provision for all students.
However, the Tribunal does not factor this into its decision-making, leaving the LA responsible for finding a way to implement a ruling that may not be feasible. This also damages the relationship between schools and the LA, as schools may feel pressured to take on pupils beyond their capacity, leading to tensions and a breakdown in trust. Schools may become more resistant to engagement with the LA, making future placements and collaborative working even more challenging. The reality is, some LAs are genuinely overstretched, and poor decision-making can come from a place of limited resources rather than deliberate wrongdoing. However, there are also cases where LAs fail in their legal duty—whether through outdated policies, inflexible decision-making, or an over-reliance on rejecting plans due to budget pressures rather than need. These issues can lead to a lack of accountability, further complicating the process for parents and undermining the effectiveness of the system as a whole. A significant issue arises when private reports contradict local authority assessments. While private assessments have their place, there are instances where they present a completely different picture from the LA’s evidence, often recommending intensive one-to-one support that no other professionals have identified as necessary. In many cases, the Tribunal gives greater weight to these reports, despite the fact that they may not align with the broader professional consensus.
There is also a growing trend of private professionals and self-proclaimed SEND experts encouraging parents to take cases to Tribunal, often promoting the idea that they are entitled to more than what the LA is offering. This does not always mean the child is receiving inadequate support. It creates a perception that any case reaching Tribunal is a failure on the part of the LA, when in reality, many cases involve legally sound decisions that do not align with parental preference. Another challenge arises when Tribunal orders provisions that are not deliverable within local systems. Private reports sometimes recommend support or placements that do not exist locally, yet the Tribunal directs the LA to include these in the EHCP. This leads to a cycle where parents later return to Tribunal to argue that the provision is not being delivered, despite the fact that it was never realistically available in the first place. The LA is then unfairly blamed for failing to implement something that was never feasible. Ultimately, the system is flawed because it operates on the assumption that winning a Tribunal means the LA was wrong. However, the high success rate for parents does not necessarily indicate systemic failure. Instead, it reflects a process that does not consider the reality of finite resources or the broader impact on other children. While every child deserves high-quality support, pushing for gold-standard provision in every case risks diverting resources away from others who also need them. The focus should be on ensuring that all children receive the support they need to succeed, rather than creating an adversarial system where the loudest voices secure the most funding.
The Role of Funding and Systemic Change
The solution lies in proper funding for schools from the outset. If schools had the resources to implement robust support as standard practice, they could meet children’s needs without relying on an EHCP just to secure funding. This approach would ensure that EHCP applications reflect genuine need rather than financial necessity. Over time, this would naturally reduce the number of requests for EHC assessments, as schools would be better equipped to meet the needs of children early on, without families feeling forced to navigate the EHCP process for basic support. We must stop relying on EHCP funding to patch up systemic issues.
Schools should be empowered to support SEND students from the beginning, with a focus on early intervention and effective provision. Many schools genuinely want to support SEND students but feel their hands are tied by insufficient funding, inadequate resources, and systemic barriers. The pressure to deliver quality education within a rigid system leaves many teachers feeling overwhelmed. This, coupled with the lack of time and training for SENCos, has contributed to high levels of burnout, with many educators leaving the profession entirely. This is a significant loss, as it removes passionate, dedicated professionals from the very children who need them the most.
The Future of SEND Education
If we truly want to create an inclusive educational environment that supports all children, we need to stop focusing on fixing deficits and start emphasising how to best adapt the system to meet the diverse needs of all learners. The world of work doesn’t demand conformity to a single model of success; it values individual strengths and accommodates different ways of contributing. If we shift our mindset to view SEND as an opportunity for diversity rather than a problem to be fixed, we can begin to dismantle the barriers that limit both learners with SEND and the educational system itself.
Imagine a world where every child, regardless of their challenges, is given the tools to flourish—not as a token, but as a valued member of a community that celebrates their unique contributions and abilities.
Short-Term Solutions:
Long-Term Solutions:
January 2025