SEN0754
Written evidence submitted by National Society for Eductation (Church of England and Church in Wales)
Founded in 1811, the National Society for Education is the national voice for Church of England schools and provides advice and guidance for Diocesan Boards of Education (DBEs). DBEs are the religious authority for Church of England schools, responsible for taking forward policy at a local level.
The Church of England originally set up schools to provide education to children from poor and working-class families. These schools aimed to offer basic literacy, numeracy, and religious instruction. Over time, these schools have evolved to offer a broader curriculum in service of the whole community, while still maintaining their Christian ethos.
Church of England schools are committed to serving the whole community, welcoming people of all faiths and none. There are approximately 4,600 Church of England schools serving just over one million children. Whilst the majority of our pupils are in larger urban schools, the majority of our schools are small and rural primary schools. Church of England schools provide a mix of voluntary and foundation-maintained schools and the Church of England is the largest provider of academies. Our Flourishing Trusts Network is a mixture of Church and non-Church academy trusts working together to support the Flourishing of the school system. It consists of 83 academy trusts, 147 secondary schools and 961 primary schools. Church of England school sites are mostly held on historic trusts which means that the Church of England provides sites for around 25% of all state funded primary schools and 228 secondary schools.
1. SEN support in mainstream schools and early years settings including:
1.1 Assessing the current quality of SEN support in mainstream schools and early years settings
Church of England schools are committed to serving all children, including those with special educational needs (SEN). We aim to provide inclusive education by offering tailored support and interventions that cater to the unique needs of all children, allowing them to flourish. This includes specialised teaching methods, additional resources, and support staff to ensure that children with SEN can thrive academically and socially within the school environment.
Under the previous administration, we welcomed government consultations on opening special faith-based academies specifically designed for children with special educational needs and/or disabilities. We are keen to further explore opportunities for Church of England schools to support their local educational ecology through the offer of specialist provision, and look forward to working with the DfE on how to integrate this approach with the policy of the new government.
At the same time, we believe that mainstream schools need to adopt proven strategies to ensure that they are fully inclusive, with all students feeling valued and supported.
In our ‘Flourishing Together’ document, we state that accountability (and the assessment methodologies utilised therein) must be in the service of the children and families served by a school or EY setting.
Ben Newmark states, that ‘in most contexts children benefit from a school paying close attention to their academic performance and schools that do not do this let children down’. We acknowledge the fundamental truth of this statement, and the crucial role that a high quality inclusive education plays in the success, aspiration and social mobility of young people. However, it is also important to be clear that a reductive assessment of academic outcomes alone, is not an appropriate or wise assessment of the quality of SEN support in schools and EY settings. It is in the service of a holistic approach where no learner should be reduced solely to their SATs or GCSE results. This applies especially to learners with SEND.
Our ‘Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools’ (SIAMS) framework speaks of the need for accountability structures to be collaborative, contextual, and rigorous, and to be operationalised with humility, empathy, respect, wisdom and integrity to ensure that all schools are providing a supportive and inclusive environment for all.
We believe that ‘flourishing can only happen when each and every child is treated with dignity’- which raises the important question of how one assesses the extent to which a setting affords dignity to every child.
Assessment of the quality of SEN support carried out in this manner would of course consider academic outcomes for learners with SEN, but this would be one thread amongst equal consideration of the sense of belonging of learners in a setting, the quality of their relationships with their peers, teachers and support staff, their feelings about school, the support provided to them at key transition points and into adulthood, and their experience of the curriculum/learning experiences provided to them. Similarly, a broad and in-depth assessment of the experience of the parents/caregivers, their relationship with and trust in the school and local authority would form a key element of any assessment of quality of SEN support. Finally, the quality of support and training available to school leaders, SENCos, teachers and support staff would be a fundamental aspect of any assessment.
1.2 Defining what inclusivity in mainstream schools and early years settings should mean and look like in practice
Inclusivity in mainstream schools and EY settings must:
1.2.1 Go much further than simple compliance with legal duties and responsibilities for learners with SEND (although meeting the expectations within the SEND code of practice would be a non-negotiable aspect of this good practice). Inclusive practice acknowledges the broad, intersecting life experience each learner brings to the classroom, including (but not limited to) how their racialised identities have been used to marginalise them, their experience (if any) of the care or justice systems, their gender, and their experience (if any) of disability, neurodiversity, or other special educational needs. A SEND approach which overlooks other characteristics of learners, is inherently limited and risks undermining its own success.
1.2.2 Converge within the understanding that inclusion is premised upon relationships between learners, with staff, families, agencies working in partnership and the local community. Staff must be trained and resourced to prioritise crucial relationship building work throughout their school activities, planning, teaching and assessment.
1.2.3. Consider equity as well as inclusion. It is insufficient for learners with SEND to physically be attending a mainstream setting but to have an inequitable experience of education once there. The flourishing of these learners is grounded in equity of learning experience, social experiences, access to extra curricular activities and every other aspect of school life. Schools must be appropriately resourced to support this broad equitable flourishing and not be forced to reduce their remit solely to academic outcomes due to league tables and budget pressures. The current EBACC focus in secondary is highly inequitable for some pupils who would experience more success in a less exclusively academic curriculum. It narrows the curriculum, emphasising a specific set of academic subject. This can marginalise students with SEND who may excel in more practical creative or vocational subjects.
1.2.4. Be premised upon well planned and resourced wider services around schools to support children and families. For too long schools have been left to fill the gap left by cuts to other services such as SureStart and youth services, to the detriment of children, families, and staff. Children with SEND deserve timely diagnosis, expert support for their teachers, and access to specialist services (such as occupational therapy, speech and language therapy or specialist sensory teachers) in order to facilitate a cohered and congruent education experience for all. The decrease in trained staff in these areas is having a detrimental impact on access to these services. More must be done to increase staffing and training in these areas.
1.2.5. Understand its’ boundaries. Whilst we support and advocate for an inclusive mainstream as a universal offer, we also acknowledge that this has necessary boundaries for the achievement and wellbeing of both pupils and staff. There will always be a need for specialist provision, for example for learners with profound and multiple learning difficulties, or for learners with SEMH who are a risk to themselves/others. We believe that well-resourced specialist provision drives up standards of the inclusive mainstream settings within the same ecology of schools they serve, by sharing best practice, utilising specialist staff’s expert knowledge across mainstream schools within the local area, and providing specialist and targeted provision to children whose presence in an inclusive mainstream setting would be inappropriate or ill-advised, for the achievement and attainment of both themselves and their peers.
1.3. How can inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools and early years settings be improved to achieve consistent, high quality SEN support?
1.3.1 Appropriate funding and resourcing of services around schools (as Q2.4)
1.3.2 An improvement to the basic entitlement of trainee, early career and established mainstream teachers to ongoing professional development about SEND and inclusion. Our ‘flourishing teachers programme’ contains SEND development for teachers at all levels, through a transformational lens of teacher development.
1.3.3 Ongoing support and professional development for SENCos once qualified and in role, supporting career progression (with progression options within a SEND pathway), and opportunities for networking, communities of practice and expertise sharing.
1.3.4 Keeping expertise in schools and classrooms. Building inclusive classrooms is a skill that takes time and expertise to develop. The loss of experienced teachers from the profession due to workload and wellbeing concerns is a loss that disproportionately affects the resilience and ability of the profession at large to adapt and respond to SEND needs as they arise and change.
1.3.5 Enhanced collaboration between specialist settings and mainstream schools to share expertise and guidance. In many cases, this approach may often prevent children and young people from needing to go into specialist settings.
1.3.2. What is the DfE's role in this?
1) Funding and resourcing services around schools
2) Funding and resourcing ongoing professional development for all teachers, and for SENCos in particular
3) To continue to work to mitigate the wellbeing and workload crisis
4) To avoid accidentally creating perverse incentives through poorly enacted policy.
5) To review profit margins that independent specialist settings are allowed to set to prevent excessive fees being charged to local authorities. This would ensure fair and transparent pricing and that all children have access to the support they need without placing undue financial strain on public resources
6) To provide clear advice and guidance on roles and responsibilities including expectations regarding school arrangements for SEND provision.
2. Outcomes for children and young people with SEND and how these can be improved.
It is our belief that an equitable and inclusive mainstream education for most pupils, as outlined in the answers above, premised upon strong relationships and within well-led schools supported by well-planned and well-resourced services, pursuing a holistic curriculum blending academic, technical and vocational skills, will lead to improved outcomes for all children and young people, but particularly those with SEND.
2.1 Workforce issues for teachers, SENCOs, specialists, early years practitioners and all those who work with children with SEND.
We are proud of the thousands of teachers, SENCOs, EY practitioners, and leaders, working with learners with SEND across church schools. Key aspects of workforce issues we would wish to draw attention to in this context include:
1) The education workforce is currently facing a slew of intersecting challenges. SEND overlaps with many of them and must be considered as such, rather than as an isolated challenge.
2) The days of TLRs to renumerate ‘teachers of SEND’ and SENCOs no longer reflect the working reality of schools where every teacher is a teacher of SEND, but few mainstream teachers receive additional renumeration for this work.
3) The increase of flexible and home-based working options, well suited to those with caring responsibilities has had a huge impact on the ‘pool’ to recruit teachers, support staff and EY practitioners. Those who may previously have been willing to engage with lower rates of pay or perceived stressful employment now have a wider range of opportunities to work alongside caring responsibilities. Schools and EY settings must be resourced to remain competitive in this space in order to provide the support required for all learners, and those with SEND in particular. There is an incentive to reduce support staff turnover by training them to become specialists within SEN. This is particularly evident when examining the impact within local authorities that have participated in projects such as SWANS and PINS. These initiatives help upskill staff, thereby providing better support to children. We must also consider models in other countries, such as Ireland, where specialist ADHD coaches working in schools, and other nations such as Finland and Australia, where specialist therapeutic services and counsellors are assigned to each school as part of their core team.
4) There is little recognition of or formal support for the deep emotional work of supporting learners and families facing barriers. Compassion fatigue, burn out and feelings of being ‘always on’ are common and frequently-cited reasons for leaving the profession. We call upon DfE to consider the implementation of funded supervision sessions for teachers, within directed time, to support teachers to carry this emotional burden in a healthy and well-boundaried manner.
5) The collapse of services surrounding schools has left many staff feeling that they are solely responsible for the outcomes for learners they support. Reestablishing early intervention services, funding social care and health services appropriately and embedding well-planned and well-resourced services supporting every school will support teachers to focus on ‘their part of the puzzle’- namely, teaching.
2.2 What substantive training is 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?
Every teacher is a teacher of SEND. This is explicitly emphasised throughout the SEND code of Practice . The principles of inclusive education and the responsibility of all educators to support student with Special Needs are fundamental to creating an equitable learning environment.
Substantive training for educators should focus on improving knowledge of SEND and effective pedagogical approaches. Currently, there is no universal mandate requiring all school staff to receive regular training around SEND or to share good practice with others. Mandatory ongoing training for all education staff ( leaders, teachers, teaching assistants and all those who work with children with SEND) should be a requirement for every school. Sharing go practice through collaboration and sharing of effective strategies between schools ensures greater equity between schools.
Church of England schools emphasise a holistic approach to SEND, integrating Christian Values with inclusive education practices to support all learners. Establishing communities of practice will play a crucial role in ensuring collaboration and sharing effective approaches among educators. Local authorities are already responsible for coordinating SEND services and ensuring schools have the necessary support. There needs to be a stronger guarantee that this includes effective high quality training programmes and resources to improve SEND knowledge and practices through collaborative networks.
Through our leadership and teacher development programmes, we are committed to continually developing colleagues’ capacity to lead and teach learners with SEND. As well as our NPQ review demonstrating how fully embedded SEND practice was across the suite, our flourishing teacher and flourishing leader programmes support practitioners from ECTs to system leaders to consider their SEND practice across 5 domains of flourishing: Purpose, relationships, learning (both staff and pupil), resources, and wellbeing. We believe it is fundamental to our vision for education that this strong thread of exemplary SEND practice is woven throughout all professional development opportunities that we offer to our schools, academy trusts and dioceses.
3 The role of and capacity of specialist schools, independent schools, and Alternative Provision
Education, Health and Care Plans:
3.1 How can waiting times for EHC Plans be improved?
Whilst we acknowledge many colleagues in the sector will have detailed recommendations for this improvement, we would like to contribute three:
1) Reinstating and resourcing early intervention services. High quality early diagnosis and intervention would reduce the number of EHC plans needed urgently upon a child starting school. It could contribute toward the creation of a more sustainably paced pipeline/journey toward SEND support (potentially including EHC plans as needed). It would also support children and families toward the best possible start and success in schooling, and potentially reduce the number of children coming forward for a plan.
2) Ensuring a well resourced and well cohered partnership model between health, social care and education. Delays can be found even at the pre-diagnosis stage for children who are waiting for SEND support (including but not exclusively EHC plans).
3) Reducing the legal/tribunal workload and cost to parents and local authorities. Many families now see a tribunal as just a final stage of the EHC plan process. The number of EHC plans not awarded after tribunal is so small as to almost make the process appear performative and not fit for purpose. What is, however, clear, is that the tribunal process is causing huge additional cost and delay to families, schools and local authorities in getting learners the support they need.
3.2 What can be done to support parents, carers and children or young people before, during and after the EHC Plan process?
1) Children shouldn’t have to wait until the end of the EHC plan process before they get the support they need to flourish. Delays in support have a huge impact on mental health and development.
2) Communication, and a clear and ongoing commitment to the flourishing of learners is crucial in supporting parents, carers and learners.
3) Clear expectations about what is expected and when, what families can expect from the LA/school and vice versa (and these expectations to then be met) support a transparent working relationship and to start to build trust.
4) An increase in school capacity/resource to support learners whilst they are waiting for an EHC plan would be welcome, not just due to the impact on that learner’s relationship with school and their own self-efficacy, but also to undermine a belief that the EHC plan is somehow a magic ticket to a fully personalised and individual curriculum/school experience for every child (which is not the case nor should it be, but the myth endures).
5) Current experiences of parents may support a belief that the system can be circumnavigated or expedited through financial means (private diagnoses, engaging legal counsel early). This is both inequitable, and infuriating for parents and carers who are passionate about their children’s education but who are not in a position for such (often extreme) financial outlay. It also exacerbates the intersection of poverty and SEND as demonstrated by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
3.3 How can the EHC Plan process be made non-adversarial?
3.3.1 It is essential that the EHC plan process is seen as fair, equitable and navigable without considerable personal financial outlay from families- ending what can be seen as a ‘two tier’ system.
3.3.2 The current broken system with so many cases ending in tribunal before the award of EHC plan has further added to perceptions of the process being a ‘fight’ or a ‘battle’.
3.3.3 The process as it stands is necessarily couched in deficit ideology, pathological language and repeated discussion of what children are incapable of doing. Of course it is necessary to establish the need a plan will meet, but the tone of meetings would shift if more opportunity could be found to celebrate the strengths and assets of learners with SEND in line with the social model of disability.
3.3.4 A role tasked with supporting carers/families/learners through the process as an advocate and guide such as the ‘send community navigator’ role, could further support trust building and improved relationships between those involved in the EHC plan process.
4 Current and future SEND need
4.1 How has SEND need changed over the ten years since 2014 and how will it continue to change over the next ten years?
The ‘towards an effective and financially sustainable approach to SEND in England’ report summarises the changes as follows:
4.1.1 Half a million more children and young people are now identified as having special educational needs. Since the 2014 reforms of the SEND system, the number of children and young people with EHCPs – which set out the level of statutory support individuals are eligible to receive – has risen from 240,183 in 2015 to 575,973 in 2023/24, an increase of 140 per cent over 10 years. A further 1.2 million children in schools are identified as requiring SEN support below the level of a statutory EHCP, up from 990,000 in 2015.
4.1.2 In seven of the last 10 years, more children with ECHPs have been placed in special schools compared to mainstream settings. Since 2014/15, there has been an increase of 60 per cent in the numbers of children and young people in state-funded special schools and a rise of 132 per cent in the number placed in independent and non-maintained special schools. In total 185,000 pupils with an ECHP were in special schools in 2024, up from 109,000 in 2015.
4.1.3 The shift in the profile of need (increased diagnoses of ASD, SEMH and SLCN account for 88% of this increase) speaks to the need for a shift in training and resourcing schools to best create an inclusive and equitable mainstream to support learners with these profiles.
4.1.4 As lifesaving equipment and technology has advanced, so have the number of children who survive and thrive with serious medical conditions. We (the National Society for Education) would also note that the number of children with profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) has increased by approx. 1.8% in this time. This is crucial to remain cognisant of as it speaks to the need for ongoing specialist provision alongside a re-imagining of what ‘inclusive mainstream’ may look like, in order to ensure the needs of all learners can be fully and equitably accommodated within our education system.
4.2 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?
The ‘towards an effective and financially sustainable approach to SEND in England’ report shows that the cost to the high needs block of a maintained specialist school placement are £25,000 a year, with an independent placement costing £58,500.
In light of this, it seems incomprehensible that Church schools are not yet able to open faith-designated special schools (of either a maintained, academy or free school status). Church schools are popular and often over-subscribed within local communities for their strong pastoral care, warm ethos and reputation for providing an education characterised by a sense of belonging, where staff and learners can flourish together within a creative and innovative pedagogical vision. Church of England schools are proud to educate children of all faiths and none, and would be overjoyed to serve their local community of schools and academy trusts by increasing SEND provision through opening further state specialist provision. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss our 200+ year track record of providing free education and supporting SEND learners within mainstream and non-designated specialist provision with you, to demonstrate our capability and desire to support the sector quickly and effectively in this way.
4. 3 What can be done to improve the effectiveness of multi-agency and joined up working cross education, health and social care?
Please see 1.2.4.
Additionally, as per 3.3.4, we believe the creation of a role such as ‘send community navigator’ could prove impactful in cohering this work.
4.4. How can excess profit-making in the independent sector be tackled without endangering current provision?
Enabling the opening of faith designated special schools (as per 4.2) would increase supply of state-funded specialist places without over-reliance on profit making independent settings.
4.5 How can innovation be encouraged across the system to address the current pressures and challenges?
Enabling the opening of faith designated special schools (as per 4.2 and 4.4) would increase supply of state-funded specialist places without over-reliance on profit making independent settings. The hemorrhaging of public funds into private equity companies is an issue that urgently needs to be addressed.
4.6 Are changes needed to the curriculum in mainstream schools to enable SEND children to fulfil their potential? If so, what changes are these?
It is essential in considering the intersection of SEND and curriculum that we remember that SEND pupils are not a monolith. Whilst there are many pupils with SEND facing challenges in the area of cognition and learning, there are also many pupils with SEND who are high prior attainers, whose profile of need is no less pressing or urgent just because their primary needs may be physical, sensory, or social/communicative in nature.
It therefore becomes important in answering this question to ask ourselves some challenging questions:
4.6.1 What is the purpose of the curriculum for learners (including those with SEND?) Is it ‘just’ to prepare them for the workforce? Where do we situate the joy of learning for learnings sake? Of belonging to and being part of a learning community?
4.6.2 Our ‘Hope for a Flourishing Schools System’ sets out a vision for school communities where all learners (including those with SEND) flourish:
4.6.3 We call for compassionate rigour in supporting all learners, and especially those with SEND; where high expectations are matched with high multi-disciplinary support, ensuring every child is given the right support to ensure that they meet their potential.
4.6.4 Inclusive practice operationalises the concept of ‘low threshold, high ceiling’, supporting children with SEND to learn with and alongside their peers as much as possible and guarding against what Webster (2022) described as ‘the Inclusion Illusion’ where pupils with SEND in mainstream are isolated from peers through repeated interventions, over-differentiation and inappropriate use of teaching assistants.
4.6.5 Schools face a vicious cycle, where, due to budget pressure, resources needed for SEND support often take resource away from technical and vocational subjects like design technology. These subjects could provide low-attaining SEND pupils opportunities to succeed and build self-efficacy.
4.6.6 In Primary schools, the narrow curriculum in KS2 building toward SATs can be further narrowed for pupils with SEND due to additional interventions, reducing access to a broad curriculum and the opportunities it provides for pupils to feel successful or spend time on a subject they enjoy.
4.6.7 Progress 8 pressures lead to less focus on creative practical subjects and the unethical practice of pupils being ‘off-rolled’ from subjects where they may struggle with summative assessments, raising questions about whether assessment is the sole purpose of studying a subject, particularly given recent Ofsted reviews on subject knowledge.
4.6.8 If schools were encouraged create a system where the incentive of teaching a subject well and consistently is not tied to the statutory (or non-statutory) nature of its assessment, nor to the focus of the accountability framework of the day, but rather tied to a long term coherent vision of pupil progress and pathways, from cradle to career, and a clear understanding of the role of that subject within that pupil’s journey and the opportunities that studying it will afford them; be they academic, creative, pastoral or just for the sheer joy of learning, then there would in turn be greater scope for the inclusion of pupils with SEND.
4.6.9 Literacy and numeracy are critical for social justice. Budget constraints mean few schools can run small nurture-sized groups in these subjects for SEND learners, yet such groups promote belonging, relational teaching, and better outcomes.
4.6.10 Many pupils failing GCSE English and maths are stuck in FE resit cohorts, with 78% not achieving the qualifications. A contextually appropriate English and maths curriculum should allow pupils to study alongside Level 3 qualifications, including apprenticeships, reducing NEET numbers.
4.6.11 Brahm (2021) found curriculum and learning are key factors for parents choosing between special and mainstream schools. A meaningful mainstream curriculum is essential to achieving inclusion goals.
4.6.12 Funding and collaboration between schools and FE colleges are crucial for aspirational pathways for SEND pupils. FE excels in SEND inclusion, and its expertise should benefit schools and learners alike. However, too many pupils are made to repeat foundation courses due to the lack of aspiration of settings that focus on their SEND needs over their innate ability.
4.6.13 Every child, regardless of pathway, should access skills for life, including financial education, PSHE, RSE, citizenship, and politics. SEND pupils may require additional life skills, such as cooking and personal hygiene, tailored to their needs.
4.7 What can be done to reduce the disproportionately high exclusion rates for students with SEND?
4.7.1 Ensure pupils SEND needs are being fully met before excluding. Being curious enough to question whether there might be an underlying need, ideally earlier in the behaviour process than it getting to the exclusion stage (early intervention wherever possible).
4.7.2 Ensure this is the case for all pupils, especially those of ethnic groups over-represented in exclusion figures but under-represented in SEND diagnoses. (e.g. Black Caribbean Boys)
4.7.3 Look at their curriculum timetable and other adjustments to ensure that the behaviour is not a stress response to aspects of the school day.
4.7.4 Train staff in de-escalation techniques to try to minimise escalating behaviours. Ensure there are clear strategies in place to support pupils whose behaviour can escalate, which are known and understood by all staff. Consistency is critical.
4.7.5 Strong school- parent/ carer partnership. An understanding of any additional needs the parents may have themselves, which impact on their ability to support their child's behaviour at home and/or school. Early intervention with families requiring additional support. (Supported through early intervention e.g. Sure Start)
4.7.6 Strong partnerships with alternative provision and other service providers to try to work proactively prior to exclusion level.
4.8 At the points on the education pathway that SEND children are at greater risk of leaving school for long term absences, home schooling or exclusion, what reasonable adjustments and EHCP support would enable them to continue education in mainstream schooling?
We are struggling with significant numbers of children and young people feeling that they don’t belong to their school community due to frequent suspensions. This does not support inclusive practice and in contrast makes our children feel like they don’t belong due to frequent exclusions. The two concepts cannot be evident at the same time . Schools need to prove that they have made reasonable adjustments to the current learning environment before they are excluded. At the present time, a school has no responsibility for a students once they have been permanently excluded and taken off the schools roll. Schools must be accountable beyond this to ensure that they are truly inclusive.
Practical examples of these adjustments could include:
Soft starts, with pastoral care for beginnings/ ends of day/ transitions
Effective liaison with parents and carers, seeking to understand how the child presents at home and seeking continuity between settings.
Flexi-hours/ schooling to enable them to be able to access the curriculum without hitting trigger points in the day which might cause them additional stress (e.g. unstructured times in the day such as lunchtime, breaktime etc)
Allowing pupils to access learning in other year groups, so that their mental load is reduced (not constantly having to stretch to be able to try and understand the learning in class if too challenging); allowing access to play opportunities for pupils with lower developmental/ emotional ages than their chronological age
Strong join-up and communication between professionals - those accessed both in and out of school - to ensure their recommendations can be implemented in school (and the resourcing to be able to do so)
5 Accountability and inspection of SEND provision
5.1 What should Ofsted's new 'inclusion' criterion for the inspection of mainstream schools look like?
5.1.1 Each inspection should include reference to an inclusion framework. What do we expect to see as a non-negotiable in every school?
5.1.2 Inclusive leadership: evidence that school leaders prioritise inclusion and actively prompt a culture of inclusion where students with SEND do not feel like the ‘other’.
5.1.3 Evidence of strategic planning around SEND in the schools development plans and continuous CPD offer.
5.1.4 Systems in place for early identification couple with processes to ensure timely and accurate support not just in class but also for mental health and wellbeing.
5.1.5 Evidence of a budget commitment for support and pastoral staff with regular training and development around inclusion for all staff.
5.1.6 Effective use of resources, particularly whether TAs are used for classroom management or whether the evidence about effective TA support is being utilised.
5.1.7 A curriculum offer that is accessible and differentiated to meet the needs of all students coupled with inclusive teaching strategies that demonstrate a strengths-based approach.
5.1.8 The extent to which pupils with additional needs are enabled to achieve across the curriculum - particularly ensuring they don't miss out on curriculum subjects which they could enjoy/ achieve in so that interventions can take place.
5.1.9 Understand how far pupils with additional needs feel a sense of belonging and inclusion within their class group, year group and wider school community, particularly focusing on anti-SEND bullying (e.g. 'autistic' used as a slur).
5.1.10 Feedback from families and external partners demonstrating collaboration and co production in the support needs of children with SEND.
5.1.11 Regular evaluation of enclave practices and their impact to ensure provision remains high quality and inclusive.
5.2 Whether local education authorities need further powers to ensure that all schools in their area contribute to effective local SEND provision?
Local authorities are ultimately legally responsible for the education of children with an EHC plan. It therefore makes sense that local authorities should have increased powers to ensure that all children with SEND receive the right support to succeed and take a bigger role in holding schools accountable for this. This will ensure more consistency in provision, reducing disparities by offering specialist support and sharing good practice across the locality. At the same time we must ensure that individual schools are given some flexibility to implement what can work within their school context.
5.3 How best to hold all schools, irrespective of how they are constituted or their governance arrangements, to account for their SEND provision?
We welcome the government’s new guidance for governing bodies around the monitoring of SEND. This should ensure that all governors see that they are responsible for SEND and that they are regularly monitoring and challenging inclusion and outcomes for students with SEND within the school.
This strong monitoring and reporting practice will need to be built upon strong foundations; for example:
5.3.1 Articulating a clear governance responsibility for understanding data and trends to feedback into the system.
5.3.2 Mechanisms for understanding complaints / communicating lessons learnt for example from tribunals and learning from intervention.
5.3.3 Understanding roles and responsibilities - particularly where the LA is under resourced and may not have capacity;
5.3.4 Having a child centred approach to fulfilling the needs of the child;
5.3.5 Clear communication of the support offered;
5.3.6 Clear route for raising concerns; a way of working across the whole community - as a family of schools and educators;
5.3.7 Centralisation of resources and guidance that is easily understood and accessed by all stakeholders including parents and families.
January 2025