SEN0635

Written evidence submitted by Mrs Kirsty Haddleton

I am submitting this evidence as I myself am Dyslexic and Dyspraxic, married to a fellow dyslexic and we have two Dyslexic and dyspraxic sons. On top of this I am also a SEND specialist teacher. So, as you can imagine SEND issues are close to my heart, in all its forms.

As you are aware solving the SEND crisis is multi-factorial and the issues I wish to address are: -

Budgets, Incentives and disincentives.

Mainstream inclusion and curriculum.

A therapeutic rather than behaviourist approach to behaviour.

Actively moving away from MATs.

Ofsted and ISI

Firstly Budgets, Incentives and disincentives: -

I am no expert in the mainstream funding department, as I work within the Independent sector at a specialist school. However, I have personally experienced the fact that mainstream schools don’t want to take on SEND children due to budgets. When my first son received his EHCP and we needed an alternative mainstream setting for him, each school explained to me they just didn’t have the resources or budget. As far as I am aware schools receive a base per pupil amount and then an extra amount for SEND pupils. The issue seems to be, that nobody truly holds schools to account for spending the SEND allocated money per child on the SEND child.

Then we have the “ring-fenced” EHCP funding that is not “ring-fenced”. I fought like many parents to gain my son’s EHCP. I submitted the request and paid for the Educational phycologist report. My son gained an EHCP with allocated 1:1 funding. He did receive this, until a MAT took over his school and then they developed a “team-based approach” to 1:1 support. This involved his 1:1 TA leaving and the class TA and Teacher being “available” to him and the rest of the class. This resulted in a rapid evidential widening of his educational gap.  The school had the same class teacher and the same TA as before and were still receiving my sons 1:1 funding, yet they had saved the wage of his 1:1.

To solve the SEND crisis, we must safeguard funding. So that pupils get the support they need. I wanted my son to stay in mainstream but because the LA refused to do their legal duty to secure section F, my son now needs an expensive special school placement.

So, accountability is key. Schools should be inspected in regards to SEND. Their SEND budgets should be accountable to the inspector and the inspector should ensure all EHCP funding is ring- fenced to avoid more expensive specialist placements.

Schools should be forced to give the per child SEND budget back when a SEND child leaves as a disincentive. As an incentive there should be SEND flagship schools that receive extra budget due to their true evidential SEND success. There could be a SEND success criteria and rewards like SEND therapy pods to go out to schools as rewards, for those that reach Gold standard for example.

Secondly mainstream inclusion and curriculum. Firstly, all teachers should be trained in SEND. It should be a key part of the teacher training process and assessed, just like fundamental English and Maths skills are. If you go to a hospital you expect them to be able to handle most issues in the first circumstance and be able to confidently refer on to a specialist when necessary. This should be the same with schools. Every teacher in every school should be able to support each child that comes through their door and refer on appropriately.

I was assessed and statemented back in 1986. I am shocked that the lack of knowledge in mainstream schools is as bad now as it was then. I had told my sons school each time that I knew they were probably dyslexic, due to family history and to keep an eye. Both times early warning signs were missed and I was told they had “no barriers to learning”. Each time I was only called in when their behaviour was affected. The reason I know there were early warning signs missed, is that I requested the school logs for evidence to use in my EHCP requests and as specialist teacher I picked up the early warning signs in black and white. The scribbling over their writing or ripping up their work as a sign of dyslexia and refusing to get dressed for PE as a sign of dyspraxia. These were left and not reported to me for quite some time before behaviour became an issue.  Teachers need to know and recognise early warning signs and put systems in place before behaviour escalates. This needs to happen so that pupils are not placed in expensive special school placements due to rapid deterioration and SEMH issues.

So firstly, we need to upskill current staff by ensuring a robust SEND training programme that is delivered to all teaching staff in all the current schools. Secondly, we need to ensure all teaching degrees and PGCE courses contain this training and the appropriate assessment.

The head of child services in my local area believed that local hubs going in to assess children was enough to educate staff, it isn’t. Staff need a holistic approach that addresses the Venn diagrams and overlaps between diagnosis. The problem is staff may come across and be involved with one SEND child or go on one SEND specialist training course for let’s say as ASC and then think all struggling children have the same diagnosis due to the overlaps. We need to teach the Venn diagrams and the overlaps and the diagnostic criteria for each, that dyspraxia for example presents similarly to ASC and that dyspraxia tends to arise from movement issues and then cause social issues, whereas ASC tends to arise from social issues primarily.

For true inclusion we need to ban SENCO’s working between multiple schools and ensure every school has a full time SENCO, who undergoes CPD each year to stay up to date. A SENCOs should be a highly paid specialist role. They should not have teaching responsibilities, as they need to be going in and out of lessons and monitory SEND environments, existing SEND children and spotting early warning signs of SEND issues in children. As well as running and monitoring interventions and assessments. Ideally SENCOs should not be employed by the school, to stop bias and budget saving tac tics. They should be independent and used as moderation of provision at all times.

The curriculum needs to be updated to be more multi-sensory and curiosity and inquiry based. There needs to be a push for visual prompts, choice in recording techniques and different forms of assessments. The current curriculum is discriminatory and inaccessible for most neurodivergent children. More practical based subjects should be reintroduced and valued. The problem has been for a long while, the academic bias and devaluing of practical skills and professions. With the ever-changing labour market and advances in AI we need to value neurodivergent thinking skills and harness them. We already know 40% of entrepreneurs are dyslexic. Neurodivergent teachers and SEND specialist teachers should be consulted and involved in updating the curriculum.

Actively teaching children about neurodivergence in schools and normalising use of SEND teaching strategies is key. Every school should be actively teaching the zones of regulation and providing students with the knowledge and tools to co-regulate and then self-regulate,

Daily PE core strength lessons, wake and shakes or the learn to move program in schools would be hugely beneficial for all children but particularly those with SEND. For inclusion to work schools should not be stating that modelling failure or teaching a growth mindset is specialist, it should be mainstream. Yes, I have been told this by mainstream settings.

Classrooms should also be striped back and sensory friendly. SEND children need minimal distraction, not displays and strings of work hanging from the ceiling. The correct environment is essential for focused SEND learning. Reduce the sensory stress wherever possible.

Next, I would like to talk about the therapeutic approach to behaviour. Many schools especially MAT schools’ behaviour managed SEND children out of school. I raised my concern this was happening to my youngest son when he received his first suspension with the head of child services and asked for support with no response and then 5 months later when he received his second suspension, I removed him from the school and he is still out of school while I fight to get him into the correct placement. My son is 6. He is diagnosed with dyspraxia and even though he has a truly comprehensive diagnosis and list of recommendations for support that were given to the school the teacher was still unaware of the recommendations.

The money and time need to be spent at base level not tribunals. Teachers need more support from the SENCO and ideally more PPA to prep appropriate lessons. There needs to me more TAs supporting in schools not less. The issue is there is not enough time and money in mainstream schools to even begin to tackle inclusion, so the best choice for them is to behaviour manage SEND children out of school.

SEND children we know for a fact tend to have a huge sense of shame and low self esteem from feeling different. We need to use behaviour as a signal for help and as a diagnostic tool. We are the adults, we need to start asking what can we do to reduce or remove stress? What function does the behaviour we see serve? What is the perceived physical, emotional or sensory danger the child is experiencing? All behaviour is a communication, SEND children cannot just conform to our expectations because we want them to, when we do not provide the safe haven they deserve. So, before children can successfully self-regulate, they need to co- regulate and all teachers need to know how to assist children in co-regulation. All teachers should be trained in The PACE and PANDA approach to behaviour management.

This brings me onto the removal of MATs. I would like the government to collect data on how many SEND children where in schools before they became part of a MAT and after. We focus on improved attendance, behaviour and academic achievement but at what cost? We have more children out of school that ever before. We know for example Katherine Birbalsingh’s school had 0.5% children with EHCPs rather than the 1.7% national average. MATs looking to turn around schools with strict behaviour policies like Birbalsigh did, will not serve the SEND community.

As soon as a MAT took over my Sons school my eldest no longer had his “ring fenced funding” that I fought for and his educational gap widened and my youngest received two suspensions and I removed him from the school. This is my personal example but I work in education and could quote 100s of examples. MATs are a huge problem due to their lack of accountability.

Next the EHCP system is elitist. It is such a hard process for parents to navigate. Bear in mind many SEND parents are SEND themselves. This is where full-time unbiased SENCOs need to come in. SENCOs should be the ones applying for EHCP’s not parents. We need a culture of true early graduated intervention not money saving denial of issues.  The huge amount of money spent on SEND tribunals and blocking SEND support is not only criminal it simply is not working. It also costs the UK more money in other areas later down the line, in crime and mental health for example.

Supporting SEND children at base level is not only morally correct and beneficial for society at large, it is also cost effective, Let’s save money on expensive special school placements by upskilling staff and actually having a true graduated response. Let’s spend money on mainstream school incentives, full time SENCOs and on training staff and save money on tribunals and processing unnecessary EHCP requests. Let’s save money by reducing therapy and inventions when appropriate by regularly updating EHCPs in annual reviews.  I have personally witnessed special school settings suggesting therapy be removed and it not being removed as the LA does not have the time to update EHCPs.

If SENCOs were not employed by schools then surely as an independent body they could write the EHCPs with the Educational psychologists’ recommendations. Saving money by negating many non- specialist LA jobs.

Surely SEND budgets would be better safeguarded by the NHS or a specialist SEND hub.

Lastly if we really want to address the SEND crisis we need to address Osted and ISI. Schools what and need good inspections. It is easier to pass inspections, if you don’t have many SEND pupils’ in the school, We need to revolutionise what a good school looks like and have a SEND specialist inspector on each inspection. Schools EHA and EHCP referrals should be assessed and inspectors should consider if the SENCO is doing this in a timely manner. Inspectors should assess weather children with SEND are treated fairly and weather the school can prove that they use behaviour as a diagnostic tool. Myconcern logs should be checked for judgments and discrimination to ensure fair treatment of SEND children. They should inspect suspensions and exclusions and rank the schools SEND suitability.

The SEND crisis will be solved by a major mental shift. Not special education, assessible education for all. Not special needs, human needs. Not equality but equity. And if you want to solve the SEND crisis listen to the SEND specialists, parents and children.

January 2025