SEN0666

Written evidence submitted by Family Action

Summary

Family Action is a national charity supporting people through change, challenge, and crisis, in local communities and through its UK-wide helpline, FamilyLine. We provide direct, practical help to families and communities through a wide variety of programmes, including help for new families, parenting advice, family and post-adoption support, counselling, youth mentoring, FOOD clubs and the National School Breakfast Programme.

We are submitting evidence to this inquiry as one of the largest UK providers of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Information, Advice and Support Services (SENDIASS). As well as SENDIASS, we provide flexible and bespoke support for schools through our Behaviour Outreach Support Service (BOSS) and early help in the community for families with concerns about neurodevelopmental needs. These services help schools and families support their children and young people through training courses, peer support, information & signposting.

Support for children and young people with SEND

Whilst all teachers need more training in SEND to be able to meet needs appropriately in mainstream settings, working with children with SEND on a more in-depth level also needs to be recognised as a special skillset in the workforce. All universal settings need to have access to a learning pathway for development of staff in this area, with a staged approach to learning for professionals.

What inclusivity in mainstream schools and early years settings should mean and look like in practice?

A truly inclusive education system, in which all young people thrive, needs to provide a sense of belonging so that everyone is valued and supported. It should not just focus on how to include children and young people (CYP) with SEND.

CYP should be able to learn from and explore other life experiences, empathise, mix, and integrate within diverse communities. The curriculum should enable diverse identities and perspectives to be represented and discussed, such as education around different family models.

Young people should be supported to develop healthy relationships with their peers, not just focus on the academic outcomes of their education.

Staff should also consider how to make all communication’s accessible and inclusive, for example, using colours that can be read easily by all, and imagery that does not portray only one type of person or family.

Teachers should consider the resources they are using to ensure there is no bias in what is shown, such as families always having a mum and a dad, or girls never playing sport.

Parents/carers should be seen as active members of the school community, with efforts to engage and communicate with them.

Improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools and early years settings  to achieve consistent, high quality SEN support

A comprehensive professional pathway for SEND that is tailored to inclusion being individual and allowing professionals to flex support in a person centred way is an absolute requirement.

Schools need to be able to work with families in a relational and holistic way to have long term impact. The whole family must be part of the planning process for additional support.

It is important schools have the time to build trusting relationships with young people and their families, as they may have had poor experiences in the past that affect their attitudes to education.

At Family Action, we understand the benefits of using ‘connection before correction,’ a child-centred approach and suggest an open recognition on the benefits of this from the Department of Education in its guidance to schools.

Workforce issues for teachers, SENCOs, specialists, early years practitioners and all those who work with children with SEND

We are aware of instances in some LAs where staff within the LASEN team have limited knowledge of SEND. The same is sometimes true for teachers, social workers, early help, health professionals. There is a consistent lack of knowledge and training on how to effectively support children with SEND which, if addressed effectively, would help remove common inconsistencies and barriers to support.

We need to empower parents to be experts in their lives with access to the support they need. Expectations put on parents to be able to manage their CYP’s behaviour without support, are too high. Support for parents is frequently limited if their CYP does not have a diagnosis, and where there is support available, it is not always accessible for all families. For example, it is not always considered how a family can be supported if their child or young person is not in childcare or education.

What substantive training needed for teachers, teaching assistants and all those who work with children with SEND to improve knowledge of SEND and pedagogical approaches to teaching SEND Children to increase their inclusion in schools?

It is essential to have a clear and effective professional development pathway for SEND across the whole education system.

All education staff need to be appropriately trained to understand that behaviour is a form of communication, however, there is limited training on neuroscience and SEND in basic teacher training currently.

All educators, school leaders, social care professionals and health professionals should receive mandatory, robust SEND training. For those coming into these professions, it should form part of their required qualifications and form part of their ongoing professional development.

Training needs to include understanding of a wide range of needs, inclusive practices, and de-escalation strategies to improve the quality of support. Topics such as how to use Perry’s ‘regulate, relate and reason’ approach should be included. SEND needs to be recognised through a formal learning pathway, not just a one day session on Autism.

Broader training should be offered to all staff connected with CYP, not just for understanding of what additional needs are, but how to support those individual needs across the entire school and throughout the child’s development.

The role of and capacity of specialist schools, independent schools, and Alternative Provision

Expecting mainstream schools to be inclusive means that access to quality education is seen as a responsibility for all, and not something that can be ignored by sending groups of young people elsewhere. That is not to say there is not a role for Alternative Provision (AP) where needs cannot be met in mainstream schools but considering adaptations that can enable a young person to attend mainstream school, forces schools to be creative and have a better understanding of a broad range of needs. This can have positive benefits for other pupils, such as quiet spaces being used by those who are just naturally more introverted. It also means that if there is a delay to receiving an AP placement, young people are still receiving the best level of education possible.

Education, Health, and Care Plans:

              How can waiting times for EHC Plans be improved?

Findings from our services in both SENDIASS and behavioural management highlight how families are still facing significant delays in obtaining EHCPs, with statutory deadlines regularly being missed by Local Authorities (LAs). There is a need for additional funding for LAs and health services to be able to meet demand, with accountability built into this.

LAs must be held accountable for meeting the statutory deadlines for EHCPs, with greater transparency around decision making processes, which are equitable across the LA area.

A centralised approach to the structure and use of EHCPs across all LA’s could reduce inconsistencies and delays. In our experience, it is often more difficult to achieve appropriate and timely contributions to planning and resulting action from local health representatives, than it is from schools

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

Whilst parents and carers are waiting for EHC, it is essential to provide them with support to understand additional needs to manage their child’s behaviours. This can be one of the most prominent areas that causes distress for families. It is also beneficial for the CYP to have direct support to understand their own behaviour and triggers. We deliver a range of workshops, drop ins and specific programmes, such as ‘This is Me’  to meet this need. This works best when referrals are part of the SEND pathway for the LA. We are hopeful that the continuation of Family Hubs will also make support easier to access. After EHC it is also essential that the high quality support is put in place quickly and efficiently whilst recognising the individual family needs.

              How can the EHC Plan process be made non-adversarial?

Professionals need to be able to work in partnership with families, understanding that parents may have a vastly different experience of their child’s behaviours in the home, rather than at school or in assessments. This is especially true for girls, where masking is more common.

The limited budgets available for schools, health care and LAs to meet the existing needs and lengthy waiting times can potentially re-traumatise parents and all play a part in making this a difficult process for all involved. If the process were smoother, there would be less pressure on the relationships involved.

It is also not helpful that there are multiple formats of EHCPs used across LAs. Where families or professionals move into different LAs or need to work across them if children attend school in a different county or borough, they are faced with completely different structures of the form, and variability in how easy this is for families to amend as needed.

What alternatives are there to the EHC Plan process?

The EHCP process could be made better as outlined above. However, it should also be less relied upon by schools to decide whether support is provided. Supporting behaviour using a relational and trauma informed approach, regardless of diagnosed need, will be beneficial for all pupils.

Current and future SEND need

How has SEND need changed over the ten years since 2014 and how will it continue to change over the next ten years?

SEND identification has increased exponentially over the past 10 years, as has the overall awareness. This helps to remove stigma, but there is a long way to go.

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

We are delighted to see provisions for recognising the importance of ‘whole family support’ in the Children’s Wellbeing & Schools Bill. In Part One on social care, the new legal duty to offer “family group decision-making” (FGDM) meetings about a child's safety and wellbeing and a stronger role for education settings in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements are welcomed.

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

In our experience, current commissioning of SEND services by LAs lacks professionalism as those who are required to commission these services, do not necessarily have the background or training to know what this support should look like, therefore how to balance value for money with high quality effective support. This means that SEN Support is inconsistent across LA’s and results in a ‘postcode lottery’ for CYP and their families. Consistency can be promoted by clear and binding requirements of all professionals involved.

What has the impact of the 2023 SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan been to date?

There has been limited impact of the 2023 SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan to date, owing to a lack of changes in funding or processes. Findings from the SEND review need a continued plan to address them, that focuses beyond education to support the whole family, and maintains momentum of change in the face of other large scale reforms on the Government’s agenda

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

Our experience in behavioural management (BOSS) highlights how we are very quickly able to develop trust with families that have a poor relationship with their child’s school or the state. This enables us to implement solutions quickly to directly support the school and families and enables students to return to school well supported. Not all schools are willing or able within budgets, to  bring in the type of support we can provide.

Schools need to identify SEND concerns early, screen for unmet learning needs and communicate with families so they understand what is happening for that child/family. Ensuring early identification of additional needs and implementing the support that is required, whether this is SEND or trauma/attachment/ other environmental factors is essential.

Supporting schools to embed relationship based restorative principles have developed as a key element of the success in our model.

Team Around the Child approach: Government should implement a ‘Team Around the Child’ approach led by independent family advocates rather than the school or Local Authority. This would enable a separation of focus on the young person’s needs, in a way families could trust, which is important where schools continue to take punitive rather than relational approaches to behaviour, or where parents and young people have had negative experiences with education in the past.

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?

Partnership working between AP and mainstream schools to enable children to attend mainstream provision that is appropriate could be explored more.

We have also seen through delivering the National School Breakfast Programme that it is important for schools to be able to learn from others, with a framework of dedicated support they can access, as well as practice sharing events.

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 Transition planning is often delayed or lacks sufficient detail leaving young people and their families without clear guidance. Whilst legally, college and training providers are required to make reasonable adjustments for SEND, often the quality and consistency of the support available varies significantly between settings, with many YP feeling unsupported or unable to access courses.

Clear accountability is required to ensure post 16 providers are fulfilling their legal obligations. A greater emphasis should be put on involving the YP in discussions around their aspirations and preparation for adulthood and what support they require to achieve this.

There are significant barriers to employment and access to things like supported internships and apprenticeships are limited. Targeted funding for SEND specific support, including dedicated staff, training, assistive technology, is required.

Recognising the deep rooted challenges with inclusion and applying a person centred approach to needs is required. Settings need access to training and tools  to support early identification of needs and to offer support right away. A key worker approach has proven to work for children with SEND; centred around the needs of the child and preventing the responsibility to another agency.

Finance, funding and capacity of SEND provision

              What funding is currently provided and what is needed for early identification of SEND, including in Early Years settings?

Funding for SEND is still too piecemeal and patchy in its allocation and approach across  the system, hence  significant variations in quality and capacity across the country.

Supporting the charitable sector  through commitment to funding for longer than 1 year programmes is vital so the evidence base and value can be tracked and support can be embedded.

What is the effectiveness of Government's interventions such as the ‘safety valve’ and delivering better value in SEND programmes?

This has been a poor sticking plaster for high needs, without investment in early support and system change. It has been a support for LAs to plug gaps, but we cannot see how it has encouraged new ideas or innovative ways of working. Parents do not trust that the system will support their child without the need to fight, or without the documentation to back them up. This creates a surge of need that should not be necessary, hence the reason for Government intervention being required.

What has been the impact on SEND provision for local education authorities who have issued Section 114 notices?

In any LA where there are S114, we are seeing a further disinvestment in Early Help and prevention services. This will hit SEND and our most vulnerable disproportionately. Resources then focus on highest need and the inevitable inflated cost of emergency funding is required to solve the problems.

The SEND and Alternative Provision Green Paper identified “that there is a vicious cycle of late intervention, low confidence and inefficient resource allocation that drives these challenges across the system. This cycle starts in early years and mainstream settings, where early identification of needs and provision of support does not happen consistently, despite the best efforts of the workforce.

CYP needs are commonly identified late or incorrectly, with needs escalating and becoming more entrenched. The inconsistency across the system means that parents, carers, and providers do not know what to expect from their local settings, resulting in low confidence in the ability of mainstream settings to effectively meet the needs of children and young people with SEND. This has not changed.

Under-resourced Local Authorities delay putting in support to save money, which has many knock-on effects for children as they grow up and cost more in the long term as is commonly shown.

What actions or reforms are needed to achieve financial stability and sustainability, both in the short and longer term, across the SEND system?

If funds were allocated per child in relation to need around attainment, then each school would be able to target provision more accurately/appropriately.

Early intervention measures could mean some children may not require ongoing SEN provision but could be given the right support to help them to reach the required attainment levels. It would also be effective in identifying those children who will require ongoing or escalated SEN support in mainstream school and plan for it.

Short term solutions involve giving more practical support for parents to manage with everyday life. As experts of their children, we do not equip them to do this. In the longer term, a seismic shift is needed, to move from funding emergency high end needs, to supporting needs early on. Many of the high need costs are due to neglected needs not being met at the right time, and therefore leading to escalation.

Currently there are differing levels of support available, depending on the schools’ and the local areas’ resources. The ‘notional’ budget is often not used as intended and even when it is, it is not enough to ensure that children and YP receive the right support at the right time.

Increase and ringfence funding for SEN support in schools, ensuring this is used for early intervention, specialist staff (occupational therapy, speech, and language etc) and high quality provision.

Funding formulas should reflect the true cost of SEN support, especially for those areas of high need.

Prioritising funding for services like mental health services – including those that will support children with additional needs is especially required. Currently these children and YP are not supported appropriately, and those with a diagnosis of autism are often turned away from CAMHS, with no alternative support.

Ensuring SENDIASS are adequately funded and resourced to meet growing demand is essential. Families currently rely on impartial information, advice, and support to navigate the complexities of the SEND system. Strengthening these services will allow for more CYP and families to be supported and empowered, leading to improved outcomes in the short and long term.

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

Ofsted inspections should be updated to promote school focus on student wellbeing and inclusive practices. Schools could be monitored against criteria that acts as a proxy for inclusion e.g. the number of behavioural incidents, exclusions and pupils being taught in isolation and whether this reduces over time. A consistently high number suggests the school is not addressing needs and has taken a punitive, rather than relational approach.

DfE's role:

Sourcing and selecting the appropriate training for staff.

Ensure its legislation protects and supports the vulnerable, its guidance spells out exactly how to do that, and that its policies and accountability measures do not make inclusion, fairness, and wellbeing less likely to happen.

Refocus the culture within Education to create supportive and safe spaces for families to feel confident to come into schools and speak openly about their SEND needs and to gain support.

January 2025