SCN0598

Written evidence from Ofsted

1. In December 2014 the then Minister of State for Children and Families commissioned Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to work together to develop and deliver a programme of 152 local area[1] inspections over approximately a five-year period. The first local area inspections took place in May 2016. To May 2018, we have inspected 61 local areas.

2. The inspection framework, designed by Ofsted and the CQC[2], sets out how the local area’s effectiveness is inspected through three main aspects:

a)    identifying children and young people’s SEND

b)    meeting the needs of children and young people who have SEND

c)     improving outcomes for children and young people who have SEND

3. Inspectors assess how well local areas are preparing these children and young people (CYP) to, wherever possible, live independently and secure meaningful employment as they move into their adult lives.

4. Ofsted publishes an outcomes letter summarising the main findings from the inspection.

Executive Summary

5. During our local area SEND inspections, Ofsted and the CQC have identified six main concerns when assessing how effectively local areas are supporting CYP with SEND.

5.1               Poor quality Education Health and Care (EHC) plans. Inspectors frequently found that while EHC plans were in place, they were often of poor quality, lacked specificity about provision and had weaknesses in planned outcomes for CYP. 

5.2            Weak outcomes for CYP who have ‘SEND Support’. CYP who do not qualify for an EHC plan but who have specific needs did not benefit from a coordinated approach between education, health and care. As such, local area leaders did not have a consistent understanding of CYP’s outcomes or how to improve them.

5.3            Weak diagnosis pathways for Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). In many local areas, CYP with autism have waited up to two years between assessment being agreed and diagnosed. During this period some CYP were not being provided with education.

5.4            Variable success of joint strategic working. Where leaders conducted thorough evaluations of the effectiveness of education, health and care outcomes, the impact of joint working was visible. However, weaker local authorities did not focus on joint working and tended to focus solely on educational outcomes.

5.5            Exclusion of SEND pupils. The proportion of pupils with SEND being excluded in secondary school has increased after some years of decline.

5.6            Provision for 19-25 year olds. There is a lack of effective routes into employment. There is still little evidence that employers, local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and local areas are working together closely enough to develop a strategic approach to this.

Findings from LASEND inspections

Poor quality Education Health and Care plans

6        Many local areas invested heavily to ensure that they transferred statements to EHC plans before the 31 March 2018 deadline, which was set out in the Government reforms. However, inspectors have consistently found issues with the quality of these plans, in particular poor quality of contributions from health and care, lack of specificity about provision and weaknesses in planned outcomes for CYP.

7        This means that, although the vast majority of CYP now have the required EHC plans, many have poor plans that do not provide access to their entitlements. Local areas are taking insufficient action to address this.

8        The national trial of the ‘single route of redress’, where the SEND tribunal can make non-binding recommendations to local areas should give families some protection moving forward. However, those whose current plans are weak will not be able to receive this help.

Weak outcomes for CYP who have SEND support

9        While we have concerns about the quality of EHC plans, inspectors found improved outcomes for CYP with an EHC plan compared to those needing ‘SEND support’ who did not have a plan. Most local area leaders were able to demonstrate the curriculum pathways and related health and care provision for those with EHC plans.

10    However, CYP needing SEND support but without an EHC plan did not consistently receive a coordinated approach between education, health and care. More coordinated support should be available for those who do not qualify for an EHC plan but who nonetheless have specific needs.

11    Local area leaders were not consistently gathering or evaluating meaningful information from schools and providers for those CYP needing SEND support. Consequently, they were often unaware of weaknesses in the outcomes for these CYP and had not done enough to improve them. For example, they were not always aware of the extent to which supported CYP were:

a)    securing future education, employment and training

b)    stepping into independent living

c)     progressing and attaining educationally

d)    attending school rather than being absent or excluded

e)    developing socially and emotionally, being healthy physically and mentally, or being involved in the community.

12    However, in some of the more successful local areas, effective strategies had led to improved outcomes for those needing SEND support. This was particularly the case when leaders in education, health and care settings worked together under a shared vision to improve joint working.

Weak diagnosis pathways for Autistic Spectrum Disorder

13    The diagnosis pathway of autism spectrum conditions is weak in many local areas. As a result, there are CYP with autism waiting up to two years between an assessment being agreed and diagnosis.

14    During this time, some of these CYP are not receiving any formal education. Some may have been excluded from schools and for others their mental health was negatively affected to the point where parents chose to educate them at home.

Variable success of joint strategic working

15    In the most effective local areas, strong strategic leadership had led to joint working between education, health and care services. This underpinned their success when implementing the Government’s reforms.

16    Leaders’ strategies were based on thorough evaluations of the effectiveness of services in improving outcomes and the impact of joint working.

17    Typically, where co-production[3] (involving parents, carers and CYP in developing plans, making decisions and agreeing outcomes) had been most successful, the local area’s parent and carer forums have sought and used the views of parents to inform their strategic discussions with leaders.

18    In the weaker local areas inspected, leaders focused almost solely on educational outcomes. Consequently, their strategic planning and actions were weak. They were not focused sharply enough on the range of outcomes that are pertinent for CYP who have SEND, such as those associated with health and care.

19    Education and health leaders expressed their concerns about the involvement and contribution of social care to the EHC process, plans and reviews.

20    There has not been enough progress across a number of local areas in implementing a coordinated 0–25 service. In particular, the commissioning of health services up to age 25 was inconsistent. In some local areas, therapy and school nursing services had only been commissioned up to age 19. In other local areas, there was a lack of coordinated planning as young people moved into adult services. Consequently, some young people did not get the support and resources they were entitled to once they reached the age of 19.

21    The effective use of personal budgets is also a concern. Practice varied widely across the local areas inspected. In weaker examples, there was a zero uptake of personal budgets. In these cases, local area leaders had not done enough to support families to make the most of personal budgets. Services reported concern that a high uptake of personal budgets would put too much budgetary pressure on other services.

Exclusion of SEND pupils 

22    CYP with SEND are almost seven times more likely to be excluded than other children[4]. School leaders frequently correlate this with challenging behaviour[5].

23    The proportion of CYP who have SEND being excluded is increasing in the secondary school sector after some years of decline. In the primary sector, the proportion has remained broadly constant for the last 10 years. Exclusions in specialist provision are declining overall.

24    The transition from primary to secondary education causes challenges for many of these CYP. This can be seen in the increased numbers of referrals for assessment in Year 7.

25    Parents and secondary school leaders say that the delay in diagnosis means they arrive at secondary school without appropriate support and ill-prepared to succeed. 

Provision for 19-25 year olds

26    Improving provision for young people with SEND remains a priority in most local areas. Local authorities are now required to maintain planned SEND provision up to the age of 25. This is the result of feedback from parents who described the transition into adult services as being ‘like a cliff edge’.

27    However, some families describe the cliff edge as having simply been moved, because effective transitions into adult services are not being made in the extra six years.

28    A minority of local areas have a good strategic approach to improving the routes in to employment for these young people. Success is usually because local area leaders are passionate about overcoming barriers to employment and they develop good partnerships with key employers, the local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and other relevant agencies.

29    Provision for young people over 19 in the further education and skills sector is generally a strength. The main issue is the lack of effective routes into appropriate employment. There is still little evidence that employers, LEPs and local areas are working together more closely to develop a strategic approach to getting more young people who have SEND into work.

30    Supported internships are too few in number, although there is evidence that the number of young people starting supported internships is increasing. However, currently, there are no dedicated programmes that bridge the gap between supported internships and traineeships or apprenticeships.

31    Ring-fenced apprenticeship funding for 16-to-18-year-olds was removed with the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. In some cases, this has led to a shift towards adult and higher-level apprenticeships, away from the training and development needs of young people who have SEND.

June 2018