Written Evidence by Natspec (FES0047)

Education Committee

Further Education and Skills

About Natspec

Natspec represents 135 specialist further education (FE) colleges whose students, aged 16 to 25, all have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), and education, health and care plans (EHCPs). They are state-funded through the high needs funding system. Natspec also provides SEND-related CPD for professionals in mainstream settings across the FE and skills sector and is a DfE-funded Centre for Excellence in SEND, tasked with sharing specialist knowledge, skills, and experience with mainstream FE settings.

Overview

The critical role played by FE in preparing young people with SEND for a fulfilling adulthood is not currently reflected in FE and skills policy. The central purpose of FE provision for all young people is to equip them with the knowledge, skills and behaviours that will allow them to succeed in adult life. For most students, the main focus is on future employment, but for some, especially those with SEND, maximising independence, leading healthy lives and building and maintaining social and community connections also need to be explicitly taught. The importance of SEND provision in FE must be recognised, with SEND made a core strand of the DfE’s FE and skills policy work and responsibility for it located in the FE and skills division under the leadership of the minister for FE and skills.

SEND in FE: a policy gap

Issues

There are large numbers of students with SEND in the FE and skills sector but a lack of coherent policies in this area. 27% of 16 to 18 year olds and 18% of adults in general FE colleges self-declare a learning difficulty or disability, 26.3% of EHCP holders are aged 16-25, and in 2024/25 DfE funded 8,640 students in 128 specialist FE colleges.

National policy making suggests a lack of understanding of the breadth of SEND provision in FE and its purpose and value for students with SEND. While many young people with SEND will be on apprenticeships or qualification-based study programmes alongside their peers without SEND, over 30,000, across mainstream and specialist settings, are on preparing for adulthood (PfA) programmes targeted specifically at those with SEND.

Consideration of the full range of students with SEND in broader FE and skills policy is lacking. The needs of large numbers of students with learning disabilities have been overlooked and their potential to contribute to meeting the government’s missions unconsidered. DfE’s focus has been on making the universal offer (e.g. qualifications and apprenticeships) accessible. This is important for students with SEND with the cognitive ability to achieve at these levels, but it should be one part of a set of policies inclusive of all young people with SEND. Treating post-school SEND as an extension of SEND for school-aged children in policy terms, risks missing opportunities to ensure integration into wider FE and skills policy.

DfE has focused its SEND-specific FE policy and funding initiatives almost exclusively on supported internships (SIs). Students on SIs represent a tiny proportion of post-16 SEND provision with just 1% of 16 to 25 year olds with an EHCP on an internship. Internships are just one route into employment, and employment is just one of four preparing for adulthood goals on which SEND-specific FE provision is based.

Current outcome measures for FE and Skills provision are not sufficient to assess the full impact or effectiveness of different types of programmes for learners with SEND. Policy is therefore not informed by a secure understanding of ‘what works’ for learners with SEND in FE.

Solutions

• DfE should treat SEND as a core strand of FE and skills policy, bringing responsibility for young people with SEND within its FE and skills division under the leadership of the minister for FE and skills. In doing so, DfE should consider how to better integrate SEND into existing policies and funding streams, and what new policies are needed to be fully inclusive of the diverse range of SEND provision currently offered in FE settings.
• DfE should build on the findings of its report into Young Adult Outcomes for Pupils with SEND to develop a more comprehensive set of outcome measures which it can use to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of FE and skills provision for learners with SEND, and inform future investment and policy direction.

Skills and apprenticeships 

Issues

In addressing the skills gap, government has not fully considered the shortage of low-skilled workers affecting some key industries, such as hospitality and tourism, where upskilling young people with SEND could provide part of the solution. 

Government is not currently making links between its two ambitions to reduce the disability employment gap and to address skills shortages. The disability employment gap of 27.9% is at is widest for people with a learning disability where just 4.8% are in employment. A recent NDTi report for Mencap found that 86% of people with a learning disability want to work. There is a potential supply of people wanting jobs but not being considered for them, while employers in some sectors are struggling to recruit to entry level job roles or retain staff in these positions.

Skills policy is focused almost exclusively on skills for employment, despite the role of FE in developing the citizens of the future and in increasing independence for young people with SEND.

Solutions

• Government must consider how young people with SEND can contribute to meeting skills gaps and how FE and skills policy can contribute to reducing the disability employment gap. Skills England should be given a specific responsibility for ensuring this join-up.
• Government should explore how more employers and FE providers can be supported to collaborate in addressing the shortage of low-skilled workers in target industries, learning from successful partnerships between colleges and companies such as Whitbread, Greene King, and Iron Mountain.
• Local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) should include plans for how colleges can prepare learners with SEND to meet local skills gaps, particularly (but not exclusively) relating to low-skilled job roles, and how employers can work with local supported employment agencies and disability organisations to tap into a supply of potential recruits. DfE should extending and strengthening existing guidance to Employer Representative Bodies (ERBs) and actively monitor LSIPs to ensure related actions are included.
• The government should explore flexible funding arrangements to enable FE and skills providers to offer specialist employment services, or partner with others, to deliver support such as that provided by Doncaster Deaf Trust through its Aspire to Be programme. Operating across South Yorkshire in partnership with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, it has supported 60% of its deaf and/or neurodivergent clients into employment. 
• A reformed 16 to 19/25 FE curriculum should include a broad range of skills, reflecting the role of FE in developing not just employees but the citizens of the future and, for students with SEND in particular, in supporting progression to adulthood across the four PfA areas.

Curriculum and qualifications in further education 

Issues

Qualification reform at level 3 and below risks narrowing options and reducing progression routes for some learners with SEND. The reversal of plans to withdraw funding from some applied general qualifications is welcome but the overall direction of travel towards T levels as the primary level 3 offer is likely to result in some young people with SEND being left without a suitable qualification or progression route to higher education. The withdrawal of funding from large numbers of level 1 and 2 qualifications will limit choice, making it harder to recognise the achievements of some learners with SEND.

Qualification reform to date has been done on a level-by-level basis with little regard for the need for a coherent framework to support student progression.

The DfE’s current approach to developing qualifications is to design them and then seek to flex them to make them more accessible. This is not conducive to creating accessible qualifications and is likely to result in an increased need for special arrangements, with high levels of associated bureaucracy.

Proposals by the previous government for reform of Entry and level 1 personal, social and employability skills qualifications suggest a lack of understanding of the primary purpose of lower-level qualifications which play a significant role in motivating students and recognising achievement and/or progress of personal significance rather than as proof of competence for employers.

Policies which reference level 2 as a baseline for entering employment undermine the efforts of FE providers to support into employment young people with SEND who are not able to achieve at level 2. They risk reducing providers’, parents’ and the young people’s own aspirations for employment and employers’ confidence in their capabilities. They are also at odds with the DfE’s commitment to supported internships, where many interns working at Entry level are focused on achieving paid employment.

Solutions

• DfE should ensure that qualification reforms result in a sufficient range of qualifications that provide alternative routes to employment and higher education, rather than pursuing a narrow approach which will inevitably exclude some learners with SEND. Learner needs and preferences must be balanced with employer needs. Providers must be given the flexibility to develop learners’ skills and knowledge from their starting points, over time, to match employers’ needs.
• DfE should consider qualification reform holistically to ensure a coherent multi-level qualification framework which supports progression both within and through levels.
• DfE should take an ‘accessible-by-design’ approach from the outset. This is likely to require different thinking about what constitutes ‘rigour’ in assessment and a greater willingness to allow for use of technology if unnecessary barriers to access/achievement are to be avoided.
• The design principles underpinning lower-level qualifications should reflect their primary purpose; sufficient flexibility must be built in so providers can use the qualifications within personalised programmes where meeting students’ individual needs, addressing barriers to learning and celebrating achievement are key.
• Curriculum reform should acknowledge the value of non-accredited learning for many young people with SEND, including those with employment as their primary goal.

Supporting young people, widening access, and narrowing the attainment gap  

Making SEND a core strand of FE and skills policy will help ensure that unnecessary barriers to access, engagement and achievement are not built into the system, and that provision is in place to meet the needs of the full range of young people who can benefit from FE. However, in the shorter term, a number of access issues need urgently addressing.

Issues

The current system of commissioning of post-school high needs places by local authorities (LAs) is chaotic. Colleges are being asked about their ability to meet needs through mass consultations which must be completed within 15 days; LA decisions about placements are being made way beyond the statutory deadline; the ‘duty to admit’ is being used to enforce placements in mainstream provision when a specialist setting is more appropriate; extensive delays in agreeing fees and late payments by LAs are causing destabilising cashflow issues for colleges.

Some young people with more complex needs are not given the opportunity to participate in education beyond school, because of misguided decision-making about who can benefit from FE or a lack of strategic planning to ensure sufficient specialist places. Others face the uncertainty of funding only being confirmed annually or even termly, leaving them unable to plot a steady progression route towards their post-college goals. Some LAs are effectively rationing FE places by funding only programmes where employment is the planned outcome, rather than increased independence.

Young people with SEND and their families are struggling to access high quality, timely information advice and guidance about their post-16 options making it difficult to make well-informed decisions about their next steps.

The lack of a statutory duty on LAs to provide home to school/college transport for 16 to 18 year olds with SEND is resulting in LAs reducing their transport support for this age group.

Solutions

• DfE should review and reform the approach to commissioning and funding high needs places in FE, exploring the potential of moving away from the localised funding system. High needs funding could be aligned with existing FE funding at national and combined authority level, rather than separating it off as the only area of FE funding delegated to LAs.
• DfE should ensure young people and their families have access to impartial IAG on post-16 options from Year 9 onwards from a professional who understands the full range of options and the needs and capabilities of the young person with SEND.
• Government should extend the existing statutory duty on LAs to provide home-to-school transport so that it covers 4 to 25-year-olds with an EHCP travelling to school or college and require LAs to agree transport arrangements in parallel with naming a provider in an EHCP.

Delivering further education  

Issues

Staffing

There is a pay gap of £10,000 between school and general FE college teachers and of £15,000 between school and specialist college teachers.

Colleges are struggling to recruit and retain staff because of low pay. Specialist FE colleges are not eligible for DfE targeted FE retention incentive payments; there is no government-funded recruitment drive equivalent to ‘Share Your Skills’ to help attract teachers with a SEND specialism into FE.

Specialist SEND provision has been disproportionately impacted by recent national insurance contribution changes because of the high number of staff in support roles on lower incomes. It is unclear whether specialist colleges will receive any compensation to mitigate these changes. Some colleges are reporting experienced support staff reluctantly leaving for higher paid roles in retail or hospitality.

There are national shortages in specialist roles, e.g. speech and language therapists and occupational therapists, undermining colleges’ ability to meet the needs of their students with SEND, including providing support specified in EHCPs. Eligibility for LA-organised therapy provision is often not extended to college students.

Solutions

• DfE should create a funded plan to close the pay gap between schools and colleges. The mechanism for funding increases in FE teacher pay must result in specialist colleges being able to raise teacher pay without LAs correspondingly decreasing top-up funding.
• DfE should ensure SEND roles are included in FE recruitment and retention campaigns and funds, with specialist colleges eligible for the latter. It should support specialist colleges with increased staffing costs caused by NICs changes, to match the public sector compensation available to general FE colleges.
• DfE and DHSC should collaboratively produce a workforce development plan that ensures the ongoing supply of sufficient specialists to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND across the 0-25 age range.

Funding

FE is chronically under-funded. A recent IFS report found that between 2010 and 2020 funding per college student dropped by 14% and is currently 11% per cent lower than in 2010. It calculated that, given rising student numbers and inflation, the £300m recently committed to FE would only maintain funding per 16 to 19/25 student at current levels in real terms.

Funding for students with SEND in FE is disproportionately low compared to pupils with SEND in schools. While 26.3% of EHCP holders are aged 16-25, the percentage of the high needs budget allocated to this age group is less than 10%, according to a 2024 National Audit Office report. There is no equivalent of the notional SEND budget, available to mainstream schools, for FE providers to fund SEND support for learners without EHCPs.

The localised high needs funding system is inefficient for FE. Colleges have wider catchment areas than schools, and all other FE funding is distributed nationally or by mayoral/combined authorities. Separating high needs funding from main FE budgets results in additional administrative costs, duplication and waste. Colleges face multiple monitoring visits and increased debt management costs resulting from late LA payments. This significantly affects cashflow and is a risk to the quality of education if staff cannot be recruited because of unfunded provision.

DfE has never assessed the suitability of the high needs funding system for FE since it was introduced in 2013. A consultation was promised in 2017 but did not take place, and a review is now urgent.

Solutions

• The DfE should create a funded plan to increase per capita funding for college students, closing the gap with that for pupils in schools and bringing the UK in line with the average spend on FE and training of other OECD countries.
• DfE should explore with the sector a more fit-for-purpose approach to funding SEND in FE resulting in a set of funding reforms with a clear timescale for implementation by 2027/28. Proposals for consultation should include:
• The introduction of a notional budget for SEN support for FE students without EHCPs, comparable to that available to schools
• A national system of high needs place planning, consistent with that already in place for centrally funded GFE colleges and all specialist FE colleges, to increase certainty and financial stability for colleges.
• Funding high needs in FE via FE budgets rather than via the dedicated schools grant, to better reflect FE catchment areas, reduce waste and bureaucracy, and support better partnership-working between FE settings and LAs. This would require a detailed costing exercise and a proportionate amount of the high needs budget to be allocated to FE. 
• Increasing programme funding for courses targeted at students with SEND through adjusting programme cost weighting to better reflect actual delivery costs created by higher teaching and support staff ratios and reduce demand on the high needs budget.

The committee invited answers to the specific question ‘How should specialist colleges be funded?’

Specialist FE colleges, despite being entirely state-funded, are not given equal access to government support. They are denied the support given to GFE colleges from LAs, DfE, the FE commissioner and others. They will not be allocated any of the £50 million being released in spring 2025 as a ‘one-off grant’ to help colleges fund teacher pay rises.

Government has invested capital funding to increase capacity in special schools but not specialist colleges, and they are also ineligible for the FE Capital Transformation Fund. This has led to a decline in the fabric of existing facilities, reduced capacity for growth to meet demand, and inability to adapt buildings to meet increasing complexity of need.

Increases in the 16-19 funding formula do not always benefit specialist colleges as many LAs correspondingly reduce the amount of high needs top-up.

Solutions

• The DfE should work with Natspec to identify a designation for specialist colleges that recognises their statutory role and gives specialist and mainstream FE colleges parity of access to government support and funding. A robust system of accountability, audit and compliance would ensure effective use of public funds.
• Funding for specialist colleges should be addressed within the reform of the whole high needs funding system for FE recommended above. Frustrations with the current system are not limited to any one FE and skills provider type. Consistent funding and reporting processes should apply across all specialist provision, whether located in specialist or mainstream FE settings.
• There should be a one-off capital grant for specialist colleges to address serious concerns regarding buildings, and they should be included within future FE capital grant programmes.

March 2025