SCN0139

Written evidence from NASUWT

1. The NASUWT’s submission sets out the Union’s views on the key issues identified by the Education Committee in the terms of reference for the Inquiry. The NASUWT’s evidence is informed directly by serving teacher and headteacher members and also by the work of its representative committees and consultative structures, made up of practising teachers and school leaders working in the education system.

Executive Summary

2. The NASUWT’s evidence to the Inquiry draws on the findings of a survey of teachers and school leaders published in April 2018.

3. Teachers and school leaders report that there has been a decrease in the support provided to pupils with special educational needs (SEN) in the last five years.

4. Two thirds of teachers report that they never, rarely or only sometimes receive the support that they need to teach pupils with SEN effectively.

5. Schools are experiencing difficulties in getting assessments for pupils with SEN. Some services are employing strategies to control or limit the number of referrals for assessments and support. There is evidence that thresholds for accessing support are being raised.

6. Teachers in inclusive schools report that some local schools discourage the parents of ‘expensive’ or ‘challenging’ children from applying for admission to the school. Practices are often covert.

7. The Education Health and Care (EHC) assessment process is often unwieldy and bureaucratic. EHC paperwork and assessment requirements vary between areas, creating difficulties for schools and colleges that take learners from different areas.
8. Many EHC plans are poor quality and some do not comply with the law.

9. Some local authorities are delegating their responsibility for writing EHC plans to schools.

10. Schools are experiencing difficulties working with and obtaining support from health and social services.

11. Schools are often expected to take on the administrative aspects of inter-agency working and this has a considerable and adverse impact on the workloads of school staff.

12. Teachers are left to pick up the pieces if other services fail to provide support. This has implications for teachers’ workload and their wellbeing. It also has implications for teacher recruitment and retention.

13. Local authorities should have greater scope to allocate resources between the schools and high needs blocks where a need is demonstrated.

Background and context

1. The NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the House of Commons Education Committee Inquiry into Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND).

2. The NASUWT has substantial interest in SEND and has undertaken a wide range of work in this area. This includes commissioning independent research that looked at the interpretations of special educational needs (SEN) and inclusion[1] and examined teachers’ experiences of SEN in practice.[2] It also includes organising seminars, briefings, conferences and other events for special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCOs), SEN teachers and teachers, and school leaders interested in SEN issues.

3. In April 2018, the NASUWT published a report of a survey of teachers’ and school leaders’ experiences of SEND practice, including the SEND reforms in England.[3] The NASUWT’s evidence to the Inquiry draws heavily on the findings from this survey. It also draws on evidence provided at Union events and from its direct support to members on local issues.

Assessment of and support for children and young people with SEND

4. Evidence from the NASUWT’s survey of teacher and school leader members indicates that support for pupils with SEN has decreased in the last five years. Almost two thirds of respondents (62%) said that support for pupils with SEN had decreased in the last five years, with 22% reporting that support had remained the same and just 16% saying that it had increased.[4] Around half of respondents reported a decrease in SEN-related staffing levels over the period – 49% reported a decrease in specialist support staff; 45% reported a decrease in specialist teacher posts; and 52% reported a decrease in other support staff posts.[5]

5. Respondents also provided examples of how specialist support had been cut. This included cutting posts, e.g. ‘we have gone from an SEN team made up of 14 TAs to [one with] 3.5 TAs,’[6] and cutting working hours, e.g. ‘Support staff have had [their] hours cut so less support is available’ and ‘When I started as a full-time teacher and SENCO, 2/5 days were allocated [to SENCO duties]. Now I work two days a week and only 2 mornings are allocated to SEN’.[7] The evidence suggests that there are significant issues regarding the amount of funding available to schools to support all pupils, including those with SEN, but that there are also issues about the choices that a school makes about how resources are allocated to SEN, including whether a school identifies SEN to be a strategic priority.

6. The NASUWT’s SEN survey sought feedback about the support provided to teachers to enable them to teach pupils with SEN effectively. While over half of respondents (59%) said that they were made aware of the special needs of all pupils with SEN, almost one third (31%) reported that they were only made aware of the specific needs of some pupils and 10% reported they were not made aware of pupils’ specific needs.[8] Only 4% of teachers said that they always received the support they needed to teach pupils with SEN effectively; almost one third (30%) reported that they never or rarely received the support they needed, and 38% reported that they only sometimes received the support that they needed to teach pupils with SEN effectively.[9]

7. Schools are experiencing huge difficulties in getting assessments for pupils with SEN. Many respondents to the NASUWT’s SEN survey referred to the tactics that local authorities and services are employing to deter schools from seeking assessments:

a)    ‘Our LA [local authority] will only support an EHC [Education, Health and Care] plan application where an LA Ed Psych has signed it off, and we are only allowed enough EP [Educational Psychology] hours per term to work with two children. We currently have at least nine children awaiting an EHC plan’;

b)    ‘EHC plans [initial assessments] are turned down as a matter of course by the LA. The second or third time they are submitted, they contain a ridiculous amount of evidence’;

c)     ‘Only one child each year can receive support from [an] educational psychologist’;

d)    ‘We have a 68-page document to wade through before anyone will even consider coming out to begin the identification process’.[10]

8. Independent research commissioned by the NASUWT shows that ‘SEN’ is open to interpretation and the points at which additional and external support might be needed depend on a range of factors, including the school’s context, its values (including its commitment to inclusion), the resources available within the school (including the knowledge, skills and expertise of teachers and other staff) and its approach to teaching, learning and inclusion. It is also dependent on historical factors such as a local authority’s approach to managing support for SEN and inclusion.[11] The NASUWT is concerned that this lack of clarity is being used so that ‘SEN’ is determined by the resources that are available rather than the needs of the individual child.

9. Several respondents to the NASUWT’s SEN survey raised specific concerns about thresholds and said that: ‘the threshold [for accessing support] is being raised’.[12] In other words, the lack of clarity around thresholds is being used to tailor decisions about who does and does not access support. The evidence indicates that decisions are being made according to the resources that are available rather than a child’s needs. Therefore, further cuts to services are likely to result in further rises in the thresholds for accessing support.

10.    One respondent to the NASUWT’s SEN survey reported that: ‘the new SEND requirements mean that a large number of pupils who would previously [have] received statements are now supported at SEN support and there is a vast difference in the amount of specialist teacher time they receive [compared] to those who have a statement or EHC plan’.[13] Children who have an EHC plan have a legal right to receive the support that is set out in the plan and can take action to secure it if it is not provided. In contrast, children who are classed as SEN support can only make a general challenge that the school and/or local authority is/are not using their best endeavours to meet the child’s SEN. Therefore, for many parents, the stakes for securing an EHC plan are very high.

11.    Teachers and school leaders recognise the importance that parents attach to getting an EHC plan and some respondents to the SEN survey suggested that there is a link between a parent’s ability to navigate the system and fight for their child and the support that the child received. For instance: ‘pupils with very similar profiles have very different allocations’; and ‘children with educated proactive parents who know how to fight for their children can get what they need’; and ‘in my setting, pupils are given more support if their parents make enough fuss.’[14]

12.    While EHC plans are seen by many parents as key to securing the support that their child needs, teachers and school leaders report that some children do not get the support that is set out in their EHC plan. This includes failure to provide the type or amount of support that has been specified in the EHC plan. It also includes parents being told that a school cannot meet their child’s needs and that they should keep their child at home (i.e. illegal exclusion).

13.    Parents can challenge the school or local authority if their child does not receive the support specified in an EHC plan or if they believe that the school or local authority is failing in its duty to meet their child’s educational needs. However, the NASUWT is concerned that many parents do not have the knowledge, confidence or time to navigate what is a complex and adversarial system. School complaints procedures often fail to explain that parents can complain to the local authority and then take their complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.  Organisations such as the Independent Parent Special Educational Advice (IPSEA) will be able to provide evidence based on cases that they have handled. However, the NASUWT believes that most parents of children with SEN do not report or challenge institutional and system failings or illegal practices.

14.    Evidence from the NASUWT’s SEN survey indicates that ‘schools are much less willing to accept children who will affect their results/league table position.’[15] Several respondents raised concerns about practices adopted by schools, particularly academies, to avoid admitting or keeping pupils with SEND. For example, one teacher commented that, ‘some academies have funding excuses for not providing appropriate equipment as a reasonable adjustment’, and another teacher reported that they ‘have seen a trend of schools permanently exclusion the week before an EHC plan is agreed so that they cannot be named in the EHC plan.’[16] Teachers also report that some schools are using the ‘managed move’ process to ‘shift’ pupils out of school. For example, a school may have ‘managed move’ arrangements with another school. The managed move will usually include a trial period. Children may be ‘lost’ from the system if the receiving school chooses not to keep the child after the trial period.

15.    The NASUWT has received reports from staff working in inclusive schools that parents sometimes tell them that when they attended an event for prospective parents at another local school, they were informed that the school would be unable to meet their child’s needs and that the inclusive school would be more suitable. It is difficult to establish the extent of such practice as it is usually covert and part of conversations with individual parents. However, the practice must not be ignored as it has serious implications for children with SEN, for inclusive schools and for community cohesion.

The transition from statements of special educational needs to Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans

16.    The NASUWT notes that 98.4% of statement transfers had been completed by 31 March 2018 and that 3,873 statements were yet to be completed. While the DfE has focused on completion of the transfer process, the NASUWT believes that the Select Committee needs to pay particular attention to the processes involved in transitioning statements to EHC plans, the quality of EHC plans, including their legal status, and who writes EHC plans.

17.    Evidence from teachers and school leaders indicates that there are significant issues with the assessment process, including the transition of statements to EHC plans. For example, teachers report that the assessment processes are often unwieldy and extremely bureaucratic. As indicated above, in some instances schools are required to complete and submit a vast amount of paperwork. In other instances, paperwork is being used as a delaying tactic or to discourage applications for EHC assessments. For example: ‘SEN paperwork takes forever to come back; it took three years to get an EHC plan conversion from an annual statement.’[17]

18.    There is no national model for the EHC assessment process. As a result, areas have developed their own systems and paperwork for the assessment process. Teachers and school leaders in schools where pupils come from more than one SEND area report that there are considerable difficulties dealing with very different systems. This also adds to workload burdens.

19.    The NASUWT is extremely concerned that local authorities are requiring school staff to write EHC plans. Feedback from the NASUWT’s SEN survey suggests that the practice is widespread and that there are significant issues in some areas, including Kent, Birmingham and Devon. The NASUWT has undertaken specific work to support members in Kent and this confirms that the authority has adopted a policy of requiring schools to write the plans. The NASUWT wishes to stress that responsibility for preparing and maintaining EHC plans rests with the local authority. It is not appropriate for school staff to undertake the work and doing so has a considerable and adverse impact on the workloads of already stretched SENCOs and other staff in schools.

20.    Many plans are poorly written and some plans are unlawful. For example, teachers report that many plans do not set out clear outcomes and that some plans appear to be simply a rewrite of an SEN statement. They also report that some plans do not specify the SEN provision required by the child, making them unlawful. The NASUWT believes that DfE pressure on local authorities to complete the transition from statements to plans has resulted in the process being rushed and the quality of plans being compromised. It is vital therefore that attention is paid to improving the quality of existing EHC plans and to ensuring that they comply with the law. The NASUWT recommends that Ofsted and Care Quality Commission (CQC) SEND area inspections examine the quality of EHC plans, including how the quality of plans is addressed through the assessment and review processes, and ensure that plans comply with the law. Steps must be taken to ensure that local authorities do not ask school staff to write EHC plans.

21.    Respondents to the NASUWT’s SEN survey referred to the problems that they had encountered as a result of cuts to other services. For instance, ‘The LA professionals we work with are great, but cuts have meant that there are fewer of them covering large areas’.[18] There is a need to acknowledge that the delays in completing the transition process are likely to be due, at least in part, to cuts to local authority services, including the loss of specialist knowledge and expertise.

The level and distribution of funding for SEND provision

22.    The NASUWT’s evidence to the Education Select Committee Inquiry into schools and college funding addresses the issue of funding of provision for pupils with SEND, including high needs funding. The response expresses concern that recent education reforms have undermined the attempts of schools, local authorities and other services to allocate resources efficiently and effectively. It highlights a particular concern that the needs of individual providers and services are prioritised over those of all children across the area and that this has an adverse impact on children with SEND. The NASUWT argues that local authorities need greater scope to allocate resources between the schools and high needs blocks where a need is demonstrated. It also argues for multi-agency arrangements for identifying and meeting needs. Further, the response stresses the need to move away from notional SEND funding in schools’ Dedicated Schools Grant allocations to establish a more hypothecated funding system for all SEND funding. This would provide greater clarity about the amount of funding that schools receive for SEND and how the money should be spent.

The roles of and co-operation between education, health and social care sectors

23.    There is overwhelming evidence from teachers and school leaders that schools are experiencing huge problems with inter-agency working. They report that many services have been cut and some have closed. As a result, there are significant delays in accessing specialist support and the support is often rationed. Teachers and school leaders report particular difficulties in accessing services and support that are focused on prevention.

24.    Respondents to the NASUWT’s SEN survey provided evidence that illustrates some of the difficulties that schools are experiencing in working with and seeking support from health and social care services. These include examples of difficulties obtaining support for mental health: for example: ‘[There is] extremely limited external support from all external agencies. Mental health support services and longer term specialist support for individual pupils are extremely difficult to access, even when pupils [are] in total crisis’.[19] It also includes difficulties obtaining high-quality, appropriate support from health and social care services. For example: ‘There are not enough external professionals to provide reports, wait times for services such as OT [Occupational Therapy] and CAMHS are shocking and the reports provided are often generic,’[20] and ‘[The] process is extremely slow even when pupils are referred. [We are] regularly waiting 12-18 months for pupils to access CAMHS after referral.’[21]

25.    Schools are often expected to take on the administrative aspects of inter-agency working, including arranging and hosting meetings. This has a considerable and adverse impact on teacher and support staff workloads. For instance: ‘External agencies expect more and more evidence before referrals are made. This increases both teacher and SENCO workload as there is a considerable amount of time in between.’[22] Teachers and school leaders report that it can be particularly difficult to identify the relevant person in health and social care services and secure their attendance at a meeting. For example, ‘Social workers are always cover and different [workers attend] each meeting.’[23]

26.    Teachers are also left to pick up the pieces if other services fail to provide appropriate support. For example, ‘lack of engagement by other services – through no fault of the individuals working in them, but due to lack of staff and resources – means we have to pick up the pieces more and more’.[24] The demands on SENCOs, in particular, are immense. For example, one SENCO explained that, ‘Parents hold the school responsible and school places the burden of dealing with unhappy parents on me, the SENCO. A huge amount of my time is spent apologising and mollifying.’[25] This raises issues for teacher wellbeing, recruitment and retention.

27.    The NASUWT has received reports that some health services are asking schools to pay for staff such as an educational psychologist to attend meetings, including initial assessments. Evidence from the NASUWT’s SEN survey suggests that, currently, the practice is not widespread (6% of respondents reported that the health service requires the school to pay for staff to attend meetings).[26] However, the practice is both alarming and wholly inappropriate. It also serves as a barrier to pupils accessing the support that they need, for example: ‘one consultation with an ed psych represents 150% of my total yearly budget.’[27] The NASUWT is extremely concerned that more services will seek to charge schools as they shift to a traded services model or are subject to further budget cuts.

June 2018