1         Support for children and young people with SEND

1.1         A national campaign is needed to raise awareness of SEND, mainstream and special educations and address the narrative that parents must ‘fight’ to get a EHCP for their child/ young person (CYP).

Awareness must be raised around what mainstream and special schools are, including the curriculum in place.  The campaign should focus on the positives of universal provision, support available and positive outcomes for CYP, of which there are many. There is a significant amount of misinformation and negative ‘press’ regarding the SEND system which influences parents/carers approach to the process and can direct families down a path which is not required in order to achieve the best outcomes for their CYP. An EHCP should not be considered a ‘ticket’ to other avenues of support.

1.2         Process changes to modernise, streamline and improve the process of accessing support for children and young people who may have SEND.

• Remove the right of appeal at the stage of agree/refuse to assess. This is a professional assessment against set criteria and shouldn’t carry the right of appeal. Replace with a ‘way forward offer’, a facilitated discussion supported by the LA between family and education provider to agree most appropriate support and next steps without an EHCP.

• Separate assessment and planning processes for Education, Health and Social Care, with their own thresholds and interventions based on the relevant needs of the CYP. Enable proper joint information sharing to avoid duplication and families telling their stories multiple times.

• Encourage better management of assessment requests/ back-logs. Legislation/ guidance needs to make it clear that ways of working should be implemented to enable the most effective processing of requests, as opposed to first come/ first served. For example: schools with multiple assessment requests on the list could have an Educational Psychologist (EP) spend two days in school observing each CYP for the purposes of the EHC Needs assessment (EHCNA), rather than multiple separate visits as the child comes to the top of the list.

1.3         Workforce changes are needed to ensure the system has sufficient capacity in the right roles to be sustainable.

• Dedicated SEND/ Education Family Liaison role. Either within each school or multiples within the LA. SENCOs in schools do not have the time/capacity to fulfil this role.  A dedicated person is needed, to liaise with the family, signpost to the right pathway/ level of support, give positive messages about possible outcomes/pathways for the CYP, and liaise with the SENCO to protect relationships between home and school.

• Review the role and contribution of Educational Psychologists to the planning process. Currently, Local Authorities (LAs) must obtain psychological advice and information for an EHCNA but this does not need to be a lengthy, time-consuming EP report. EP involvement consist of reviewing the file (with all of the information submitted from those who know the CYP), an observation in school and a call to the parent/carer.  The EP could then complete a short form, summarising the needs and recommended strategies. That would be effective and considerably quicker than the current arrangements. 

• In Essex we are employing Assistant Educational Psychologist to contribute to delivering early intervention work in schools and other settings . They will also gather assessment information through direct work with children and young people and school staff to feed into EP psychological advice as part of EHC needs assessment processes. The role will importantly enable the development of a range of purposeful experiences and skills, in preparation for progressing to a doctoral training programme for training as an Educational Psychologist. 

• Move EP involvement to early intervention and utilise ‘appropriate educational professional’ (e.g. specialist teacher, SENCO, inclusion specialist) for the required advice in EHCNA. The dependency on EPs for the statutory process must be removed. EP input would be much more beneficial to be focused on early intervention.

• Create a national workforce strategy for EPs to increase the number of them available across the country. There are lots of people willing to train as EPs but they cannot get places on the courses.

• Logistics co-ordinator role in the LA to manage incoming requests and sort by priority and complexity as opposed to first come/ first served.

• Increase the number of staff in LA SEND teams to process requests for assessment and produce/amend plans.

• Review the role of GPs. They are the most accessible health professionals for parents and they have little time or awareness of the SEND system in detail, to give appropriate advice. This often results in suggesting a CYP needs a certain type of provision prior to a EHCNA and sets parents up to ‘fight’ or be disappointed.

1.4         Funding at SEN Support and EHCP level needs to be reviewed and amended

• De-couple EHCP and funding. Provide funding for school’s totality of SEND pupils based on a range of indicators about their actual demographic and the local area they serve, rather than individual EHCPs. This would remove the ‘incentive’ for schools to request EHCNAs as they would not receive any additional funding for EHCPs issued. They can be creative/ strategic about the provision they fund and can reach more pupils. It should be possible for LAs to provide time-limited, top-up funding without the need for an EHCP, if necessary.

1.5         Approaches to multi-agency working need to be improved.

• Provide an effective single joint case management system. This would enable agencies and local areas to share information between them when needed in a format that is consistent.

• Align the borders across Health, Care and Education. Arrangements where ICBs cross multiple LAs and LAs have multiple ICBs to work with need to be addressed. They result in logistical issues for operational staff (for example meeting clashes across the different areas), competing priorities at a strategic level, duplication and time wasted.

• The EHCP must not be a requirement for entry into specialist services (in NHS).    

• All agencies should be equally responsible for their own elements of the EHCP, or their own planning/ provision.

2         Current and future model of SEND provision

2.1         Establish specialist provision centres in all parts of the UK.

A range of high/complex needs provisions in a number of areas, managed by the Local Authority in that area.

Work across LAs to commission placements on behalf of several authorities.

2.2         Use a meaningfully adapted curriculum and timetables to enable pupils to experience success

• Develop flexible learning pathways that accommodate different learning styles and needs, including vocational training, apprenticeships, and work experience opportunities. Essex has examples of this at several secondary schools, supported by LA funding.

• Ability to move away from the curriculum to offer a bespoke package of support where it is in the best interests of the child. For example: work experience, vocational options, 14-16 college placement, life/ social/ communication skills programmes. Flexibility to offer adjustments to the length of the school day to meet need.

• Support schools to be creative and flexible in the support for their neurodiverse pupils and those with attendance issues / overwhelm in mainstream school. Address any performance metrics that make this difficult for schools. One of the most significant “growth areas” is neurodiverse pupils unable to manage school, who are eventually supported through the medical referral route. Currently, approximately 66% of all medical referrals fall into this category and the numbers are growing year on year. Greater support and training for schools on how to support pupils who often feel overwhelmed in mainstream settings should be a priority. Enable schools to implement small group settings or 1:1 tuition with reintegration plan.

• Uniform adjustments- less rigidity around uniform policy.

2.3         Increased investment and reduce bureaucracy to create more specialist LA placements.  

Work with the market to ensure the right provision is available locally.  Ease planning regulations to reduce the timescales involved in setting up new children’s homes, ensure careers in related services /professionals (residential child care, providing personal care to children) is valued and better rewarded.

2.4         Exclusion process needs to be fair and impartial and provide appropriate considerations for SEND.

• Legislate independently chaired hearings for all permanent exclusions, with an independent panel. The school’s governing board is insufficiently trained and not sufficiently independent. Urgent review of the Independent Review process to enable an IRP to reinstate a child.
• Introduce legislation that specifically states what a PEX for a pupil with an EHCP can be for, rather than a subjective school decision.

• In statutory guidance recognise that behaviour is a form of communication indicating that something is going wrong for a child (persistent disruption).

• Improved access to alternative education as part of a flexible approach to provision for children struggling. This should be a supportive intervention rather than a consequence of poor behaviour, currently exclusion is used as a mechanism for expediting access to specialist support/ provision.

• Greater accountability on both registered and unregistered alternative education in returning children to mainstream education.

2.5         Increase scrutiny for schools that are excluding pupils.

• Significant fine for any school that excludes a child with SEND, unless they can provide definite evidence that the ‘incident’ was not related to their SEND.

• Greater scrutiny and implications for schools with disproportionally high exclusion rates compared to that of other schools in the same community.

2.6         Schools to have access to onsite enhanced provision.

• Investment in onsite enhanced provisions overseen by specialist staff. Ensures pupil remains connected to their school community.

• Alternative education is often only accessed following punitive sanction i.e. permanent exclusion, offsite direction. Impacts on how alternative education is viewed by schools and families. 

• Alternative education should form part of a wider continuum of support, currently it is seen as a specialist intervention, which can only be accessed via a statutory service.

2.7         Review and Update Qualifications and assessment methods

• Conduct a thorough review of post-16 qualifications to ensure they are accessible and relevant to students with SEND. Noting not all young people will progress to Level 3 (T-levels) and therefore alternative qualifications need to be available to all.

• Introduce flexible assessment methods that accommodate different learning needs, such as project-based assessments, oral presentations, and practical demonstrations. Noting some young people will require a longer completion time to that of their peers, which may need to be considered.

2.8         Understanding, strong relationships and flexible provision would support CYP at risk of leaving, to stay in school and transition to post 16

          Provision to be based on the foundation of relationships. Multidisciplinary team of support staff (pastoral teams, HSLW, welfare officers, social workers, counsellors etc) to build relationships with children, families and the wider community.

          Focus on successful transition. Targeted transition planning for pupils moving between different phases of education.

          Consider entry into alternative programmes to bridge the gap for young people do not fit in a traditional post 16 provision and need to develop the skills for adult life through practical/ vocational engagement with a roll on / off timetable to support transitions to other options as their skills develop and progress. This could include training provisions specific to young people with SEND, including Supported Internships / accessible apprenticeships being delivered via a local  partnership  hub within each quadrant to support developing specific skill sectors to aid industry demand.

          Develop the relationship between education and businesses  to support the requirements for experiences of the world of work (work experience) into post 16 curriculum from the  earliest stage

2.9         Clear Guidance and Standards for Post 16

• Establish clear guidance and standards for post-16 institutions to ensure they meet the needs of students with SEND that are supportive to preparing for adulthood outcomes

• Implement robust monitoring and accountability measures to ensure that post-16 institutions are providing adequate support and resources for students with SEND.

• Encourage greater parental and young person’s involvement in the decision-making process regarding their post-16 education and support.

3         Finance, funding and capacity of SEND provision

3.1         Capital Investment in SEND is significantly lower than what is needed.

• Provide LAs with funding for their own capital programmes as previous experience shows this to be quicker than centralised DFE processes. Local areas with the most oversubscribed special schools are still being rejected.

• Capital programme to also include funding for LAs to support existing mainstream schools improve their buildings/ environments, making them more accessible and inclusive. 

3.2         Reforms are needed to achieve financial stability and sustainability across the SEND system.

• De-couple the EHCP and funding. Provide schools with a set SEND budget which can be spent more strategically, impacting more children. This would also allow SENCOs more time to focus on provision and less on EHC request paperwork.

• Schools need a ringfenced SEND budget, sufficient for the needs of their local area, which can be spent more strategically, impacting more children. Remove the notion of £6k per pupil. Clear guidance on how the funding can be spent will be needed, with accounting to include assurance that funding is spent on meeting CYP’s needs.

• Statutory override to be extended until SEND legislation changes are implemented by central Government.

4         Accountability and inspection of SEND provision

4.1         Foundations of inclusion for the basis of Ofsted Inclusion Criterion

• Research and evidence gathered from trauma informed provision and the voice of children/young people and families, finds that inclusive education must be built on the foundations of:
• Positive, mutually respectful relationships
• A focus on wellbeing
• Attendance and participation in education opportunities
• Achievement and successful transition to next steps

In Essex, we have found that any provision without the foundations of positive relationships as the first step, has limited success for pupils experiencing barriers to education.  With those positive relationships in place, wellbeing can be improved and attendance and participation can follow, leading to achievement and ultimately successful transition onwards. Ofsted Inclusion Criterion must be built on these factors.

4.2         Inclusion Reviews

School ‘Inclusion Reviews’, developed and implemented by Essex County Council evaluate a school’s practice in the above areas, along with celebrating strengths and identifying areas for development: https://essexcc.pagetiger.com/cpiulug/1. Feedback from schools has been very positive regarding the impact of the reviews on culture, changes to policy and practice, strategic planning and staff morale.

4.3         Trauma Informed provision

• Require all schools to implement trauma informed practices. Essex have implemented a Trauma Perceptive Practice programme and recently a Ready to Regulate programme, which empowers adults in schools with the knowledge and practical skills to respond to children’s dysregulation and support regulation.

4.4         Increase the LA’s role in scrutiny of school provision

• Increased LA scrutiny would be meaningful as the LA have intelligence from families and CYP about the provision in place (complaints, EHE, EHCNA requests etc) as well as ongoing relationships with the school. It would automatically give more weight to LA challenge in other processes such as PEX/ SEND/ Inclusion.

• Provide LAs with authority to act when schools in their area are not sufficiently contributing to local SEND provision. This could be intervention in the form of strategic planning, coaching or insisting on certain training.

• Single point of access for schools with support around Inclusion. Not accessing multiple routes for funding/ and advice through the DFE, LA and Health. Remove schools’ ability to scatter gun requests for support/ advice/ action. There should be an expectation that schools implement the advice from the LA around Ordinarily Available provision.

4.5         Local Area SEND Inspections must be reviewed and improved.

• Inspections must take into account the size and complexity of the Local Area. Judgements cannot be drawn from the same sample size for all local areas.

• Provide a consistent format for Self-Evaluation

• More focused inspection/ review sessions rather than attempt to evaluate the entirety of the SEND system in one inspection

• Inspections must include schools / providers more fully. There is currently no correlation between local area inspection and school inspections.

4.6         DFE/ CQC and Ombudsmen to have a closer relationship with the LA.

• Act as point of escalation and provide national intelligence, strategic support and development.

• DFE to bring local areas with similar challenges together. Also bring together areas which can support different areas of development e.g. match those with excellent EHCNA timeliness with those struggling in this area. Facilitate workshops and conferences, create networks at Director, Head of Service and Manager levels.

4.7         There should be a social value model to profit within the independent sector.

• Set an expectation on profit being reinvested into the purpose/social value whilst supporting organisations to take enough reserve funding in order for core services to remain strong. This has been tried in Somerset with the residential programme for children’s homes with the Shaw Trust – they have an expected 8% fee on placements and they then reinvest 2%. They built up around £1million which was reinvested into supporting care leavers.

• Profit making needs an incremental approach with phased price capping so as not to destabilise the market.

4.8         Working well in Essex currently

• Joint decision-making forums and shared responsibility with partner agencies.
• Regular training and development opportunities and drop-ins
• Being part of SEND improvement work
• Involving parents and young people in planning, decision making,  and continuous improvement.
• Where we have been able to join up CIN planning and EHCPs
• Early intervention and services are provided at the One Planning stage as opposed to statutory intervention; this requires a whole system approach.
• Including those with lived experience in decision making. There are areas of work within Short Breaks which could be scaled up if we had the funding; to provide breaks for families who are awaiting ND assessments for example.
• Implementation of Trauma Perceptive Practice across the school network, adding Ready to Regulate to compliment culture and policy with practical interventions.

4.9         How can innovation be encouraged

• Bringing networks together to share best practice and ideas, continued involvement of parents and young people to ensure that their experience is included when looking at new ways of working.
• Encouraging pilots and ensuring robust evaluation of their effectiveness.
• Exploring digital solutions
• Working relationally with providers to find solutions more flexibly. Stepping away from procurement processes that can be clunky and biased towards the authorities demands to enable collaborative thinking and response to pressures and challenges.