Experience
122.The number of pupils with identified special educational needs has been increasing over the past three years. 1,318,300 pupils were reported to have special educational needs in January 2019, which is 14.9% of all pupils.221 This can be attributed to increased accuracy of diagnosis and earlier recognition of SEND,222 as well as medical advances that means that some children with complex conditions live longer and have better quality lives.223
123.This means that there have been at least 1,318,300 pupils and their families whose lives were touched by the 2014 reforms, and we are sure countless more children and young people, including, but not exclusively, those in specialist colleges, youth custody, educated at home or in secure care, and those who are now too old to be part of the system. There were also 152 local authorities and their staff, thousands of nurseries, schools and colleges and their staff, and other professionals who worked with them. The health service and the judiciary were all affected. There were doubtless many others, including every member of our Committee who have all witnessed the impact of these reforms on the lives of our constituents. We have heard from hundreds of people, all involved to greater or lesser extents, all playing their part in this complex system, as part of this inquiry, and in this chapter, we set out what we have heard.
The wider experience
124.Local authority representatives told us that the SEND reforms sit “uncomfortably with the wider school arrangements”,224 and we heard examples such as a fragmented accountability system, with academy trusts not admitting children with SEND,225 and inclusive schools disadvantaged by a school system driven by attainment, performance and behaviour.226 In our report Forgotten children: alternative provision and the scandal of ever increasing exclusions, we referred to the move away from inclusive schools,227 and in this inquiry we heard that supporting pupils with special educational needs created problems for schools that are inclusive.228 Inclusive schools became magnet schools,229 which, we were told, put pressure on their administrative and funding systems.230 Due to funding, accountability, a focus on attainment and behaviour, or indeed just a lack of necessity, we have heard that some schools were less inclusive.231 This non-inclusive practice had resulted in children with SEND becoming victims of illegal exclusions, being told not to come on a school trip, to not apply to the school, off-rolled or encouraged to move schools.232 In England there are more than 1,500 children with SEND who do not have a school place, and some children are waiting up to two years for a place.233
125.We saw this lack of inclusivity in our inquiry into alternative provision and the disproportionate numbers of children with SEND who were excluded or in alternative provision.234 As part of this inquiry, we heard that children were being home educated,235 awaiting a school place,236 or unable to attend school because their needs not being met.237 Ben, a young researcher from the RIP:Stars,238 summed this up when he told us:
Education and all types of support should meet the needs of the disabled child, not make us conform to the needs of the education system. It should be a balance. A disabled young person or child should not have to fit into all the norms, roles and rules of education. It might have to change a little bit, because it is not going to work otherwise. If it doesn’t work, they should not get shipped off, excluded, offloaded or hidden in other places where they are just forgotten about: “Okay, he is causing trouble—he is gone.” That was another big thing that we saw.239
126.Francesca, a severely deaf young person, told us that she had applied to go to a specialist all-deaf school for the only reason that at her school she had not been included by her school or peers.240 Rules from the Department for Education mean than local authorities were unable easily to expand their specialist provision, as rules required them to apply to the DfE to open free schools if they wanted to increase the number of schools, which means that local authorities have found it a challenge to expand their local special school provision to meet the increase in requests.241 However, where there is a need for additional places in maintained schools, the local authority can support proposals to enlarge the capacity of the premises.242
127.Parents were facing significant pressures. They were giving up jobs and businesses,243 facing financial pressures of loss of income, debt, or extending their mortgages,244 experiencing relationship breakdowns245 and social isolation246 and their mental health was suffering.247 Penny Hoffmann-Becking, a parent and then trustee and steering group member of SEND Family Voices, told us:
I feel that many parents that I speak to are living in a constant state of anxiety because even if you have managed to secure something good now, there is always the worry that it could be cut next month or next year. Our children are uniquely vulnerable. My son I can put in any number of different schools. My daughter is in a very good school, she is very well looked after, but there is always the worry that the teaching assistant who supports her will be cut or that something else will happen.248
SEN Support
128.11.9% of all pupils on the school roll have special educational needs without Statements or Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs).249 The proportion of pupils with SEN but no plan or statement had been decreasing since 2011, when 17.8% of pupils on the school roll had some form of SEN but no statement or EHCP, compared to 18.3% in 2010, but began to rise again in 2017.250 Pupils on SEN Support are meant to have their needs met by the school, which may include help from outside specialists. The Code of Practice sets out a graduated approach to supporting pupils, with a cycle of ‘assess, plan, do, review’.251
129.Charlotte Ramsden, the then President of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, explained that the sector was working to put early help systems around schools and build partnerships, which she described as critical at SEN Support level. She described SEN Support as looking early at what need a child has and making sure they have access to support, without needing an EHCP. She told us that where there are strong partnerships between schools, the health sector and the local authority, SEN Support is effective.252
130.We heard concerns that there has been a lack of focus on the graduated approach and what good practice looks like for pupils on SEN Support.253 Schools, local authorities and their staff have been focused on the needs of pupils receiving support through Education Health and Care Plans, resulting in a lack of focus on supporting pupils at this level.254 We were told that children are unable to access external support, with therapists being told that they cannot work with pupils without an EHCP.255 Special Educational Needs Co-Ordinators (SENCOs) who are on the National Award for Special Educational Needs Coordination (NASENCO) course at Manchester Metropolitan University told us that the definition of support is too fluid, and many schools are tempted to keep the level of support low due to the lack of funding.256
131.Ultimately, we heard concerns that children are not being appropriately identified and supported at this level.257 This poor-quality support is impacting on parents’ confidence with the system. We were told that parents are applying for Education Health and Care Plans in order to get support that their child should be receiving through SEN Support,258 while Chris Harrison, the Director of SEND4Change, told us that SEN Support often does not include input from health and social care, making EHCPs more “magnetic” to parents.259 He suggested that there is a lack of consistency around what is provided for pupils at SEN Support, and that if parents saw a plan with consistent features and some rigour, they would be less inclined to request an EHCP.260 Local authority representatives agreed that parents seeing EHCPs as the only way to meet their child’s needs was concerning.261
132.Many evidence submissions referred to ‘quality first teaching’.262 No one defined what this looks like, but the Code of Practice states that “[h]igh quality teaching, differentiated for individual pupils, is the first step in responding to pupils who have or may have SEN.”263 We received conflicting evidence on this point. Information about ‘quality first teaching’ included that schools are struggling to deliver it, schools are delivering it well and that it was listed in an EHCP as an educational intervention. It appeared that there may be challenges around schools being able to provide quality teaching to all its pupils, or that pupils with SEND are left to the postcode lottery of the quality of teaching in their schools. We were told by the National Development Team for Inclusion (NDTI) that there was a “lack of confidence in schools to include children and young people with more complex SEND which has led to a deskilling of competencies regarding a graduated response.”264 At our roundtable session with schools and education professionals, we heard that they wanted the flexibility to be creative, but that legislation prevented that freedom and flexibility, with the more legislation that there was, the harder it was to be flexible.265 Budgets also constrained that flexibility, with some local authorities finding it hard to pay more now to save money in the future,266 and schools being encouraged to use money meant for special educational needs on other things.267
133.Parents also told us that they wanted teachers to be creative and curious. Kathleen Redcliffe, a parent of a child with dyslexia, told us that teachers do not have time to be curious,268 particularly where SENCOs are also headteachers.269 However, SENCOs told us that they did not have the time to spend in classrooms supporting teachers or advising on support strategies as they are caught up by paperwork and administration created by the Education Health and Care Plan process.270 This was an experience echoed by local authorities. Dr Lown from East Riding of Yorkshire Council told us that the increase in identification of children with SEND had put pressure on the ability of schools to meet the needs of pupils at SEN Support level,271 but that the pressure to move to an EHCP took resources out of the system at SEN Support level and therefore children were not getting the support they needed, which then in turn created a higher level of need for this group of children and young people.272
134.There appears to be unanimity that SEN Support is vital for a huge number of pupils within the system, but that there are a wide variety of challenges in them receiving the high-quality support that they need.
Education health and care plans
135.In January 2019, 271,200 children and young people had an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP).273 The number of pupils with Statements or EHCPs has been increasing since 2010, with the number of pupils with an EHCP increasing by 11% since 2018.274 IPSEA (Independent Provider of Special Education Advice) describes an Education Health and Care Plan as “a legal document which describes a child or young person’s special educational needs, the support they need, and the outcomes they would like to achieve.”275
136.We have been consistently told that the quality of Education Health and Care Plans following transition from statements was poor.276 Among other issues, we have been told that new advice was disregarded,277 and that the contents of existing documents (such as statements or reports) were copied and pasted into a new document.278 We heard that there was no quality assurance,279 and that there was a lack of specificity in reports, outcomes and provision.280 We heard that local authorities used out of date assessments and information and named provision that bore no relation to need.281 We were told that some young people lost provision or support that had been detailed in their Statements, or that local authorities attempted to remove it during the transfer process.282
137.We did hear some positive experiences, with Castle Wood Special School telling us that final plans are issued by deadlines,283 while other schools were positive about the conversion process,284 with a headteacher of a special school saying that it had been done with rigour.285 We also heard that some parents have had a positive experience,286 and that parents who have a correct EHCP have seen benefits, and that when done well, the process is “robust and fit for purpose.”287
Schools and colleges
138.The majority of children and young people with SEND are educated in mainstream schools and colleges. Many of the evidence submissions from these institutions and the professionals that work in them and representing them focused a significant part of their evidence on pupils with EHCPs. We heard that schools were required to draft EHCPs, both during the transition process and even now post-transition.288 Schools were critical of the local authority’s ability to write suitable plans or outcomes, resulting in some schools and professionals playing a heavy role in amending or rewriting plans.289 We heard that schools had pupils with EHCPs that need a rewrite, but no-one in the local authority had the skills to do so.290 Schools and other education professionals have criticised the lack of clarity around the evidence needed to trigger EHC needs assessments and processes that should be used,291 and have told us that different LAs have different thresholds, paperwork and expectations.292 We were told that these thresholds were high or had been raised,293 and could be higher than the legal threshold.294 We also heard that the threshold for assessment was too low, which was overwhelming LAs and unnecessary applications for assessment were being made.295
139.The pressure on Special Educational Needs Co-Ordinators (SENCOs) seemed to be immense, while the level of experience and the status they were afforded in schools varies. All SENCOs appointed since 2009 must achieve the National Award for Special Educational Needs Coordination (NASENCO) within three years of appointment.296 However, the National Education Union told us that the qualification did not adequately support SENCOs.297
140.There appears to be a substantial amount of paperwork that takes up SENCOs’ time.298 Schools and other professionals told us that SENCOs were being taken away from providing support to their teachers in the school because they were caught up with this paperwork or not given sufficient time to do this aspect of their role.299
141.As well as having to manage the increase in workload and navigating the reforms, we also heard that SENCOs and those who manage provision for children with SEND faced budgetary challenges. We were told that headteachers were putting pressure on SENCOs to make decisions about who to apply for a plan for, because funding for EHCPs is not sufficient.300 Tania Beard, Headteacher at St Martin’s CofE Primary and Nursery School, told us:
I think the other reason that more parents are taking things into their own hands is that schools have to make really difficult decisions about where to prioritise. They have a SENCO, a certain amount of SENCO time and a lot of children with a lot of need, and you have to think, “Which child am I most likely to get an EHCP for? On which child can I spend the hours and invest the money it is going to take to get educational psychologists’ reports and speech and language reports to support my application for an EHCP?”301
142.We also heard that some SENCOs did not know how much was in their SEND budget, or that they did not always have control over whether it was spent on pupils with special educational needs. Penny Earl, Resource Provision Manager at Stoke Park Infant School, told us that advisers have advised her headteacher to use her SEND funding to offset the school’s deficit budget.302 Nicola Jones-Ford, SENCO at Fulham College Boys’ School, told us:
Trying to have the conversation with the school business manager and say, “I need this resource because I have this many hours or this child needs this way of working,” is very difficult. I am then held accountable for a pot of money when I have no idea how much money there is in it, because it is not clear at all. It is all in together and muddled together within the school funding formula.303
143.Colleges have also found the EHCP transition process challenging.304 Colleges and specialist residential schools and colleges appear to be facing similar challenges regarding the level of administration required. Because they often work with many different local authorities, they have found the different processes, systems and paperwork requirements challenging, which further adds to their workload.305 We heard that colleges found EHCPs time consuming, and that they did not have the staffing capacity to attend annual reviews when lots of students have EHCPs.306 Derby College was critical of the transition deadline as this now means that all annual reviews will happen around the same time every year.307 Unlike mainstream schools, colleges are not required to have a SENCO, which suggests that in some cases, they have faced these additional challenges without the additional support and benefits of a SENCO.
144.The role of independent provision appears to be contested by schools. We heard both that independent special schools are seen as a placement of last resort, but that increasing unmet need means that children are having to access them faster,308 and that they take pupils whose needs cannot be met locally.309 However, we were also told that independent special schools take pupils whose needs can be met locally.310 Sabrina Hobbs, Principal at Severndale Specialist Academy, expressed concern that local authorities were running into deficit models and spending a high proportion of their high needs budget on private school provision.311
145.Despite it being a requirement that children are assessed by an educational psychologist for their needs assessment, we heard that children are not receiving assessment by educational psychologists.312 We were told that Educational Psychologists—like SENCOs—have limited capacity as they are caught up in paperwork and EHCPs,313 and they were often unable to provide lower level support and this stopped schools accessing specialist advice.314 We also heard that many services, particularly educational psychologists, but also speech and language therapists, are accessible as traded services. We were told that this has meant that only schools with the financial resources can access this support leading to a service provision that is biased towards schools that have surplus funds as opposed to the needs of the pupils within the school.315 We were told that educational psychologists’ traded work was preventative and working well, but there was not equality of access.316
146.We were also told that educational psychologists are facing challenges in relation to the extension of support to 25. The British Psychological Society told us that educational psychologists are concerned about the policy change’s impact on their workload, but also that it creates what has been described as “the biggest change in their professional role in the last 30 years, all at a time of decreasing local authority budgets.”317
147.Funding provision was also challenging for schools. We heard that EHCP funding only applies for schools once a plan was agreed, so schools could be funding provision with no additional financial support until a plan was agreed.318 We were also told that EHCPs were being issued that detailed provision but did not have the funding to match, or that did not come with funding attached, or which were funded according to bands.319 Matt Keer, a parent of two deaf young people and blogger for Special Needs Jungle, explained the problems of banding. He told us that local authorities were not increasing their banding levels in line with the real costs of providing provision, keeping them stagnant or reducing them:
The number of local authorities that had allowed the band values to creep up in line with costs—for example, I am guessing superannuation of staff—was four. Four out of those 130 local authorities had increased their banding levels in line with the real costs of providing provision. The rest of them had mostly kept levels static and increasingly are now looking to reduce those.320
This meant that for pupils, and their schools, who had provision linked to banding in their EHCPs, they were at risk of the amount of support that they received being reduced if costs increased but the funding for the band did not increase in line with these costs. He outlined the impact on schools when he told us:
As a parent, if you have an EHCP that does not have specified provision and you are just relying on a banding, it is a mug’s game. Your school will be starved of funding.321
Local authorities
148.Local authorities are responsible for carrying out needs assessments for Education Health and Care Plans, and are responsible for maintaining the Plan. They therefore were responsible for ensuring Statements and Learning Difficulty Assessments were transferred to EHCPs. We have already set out the financial support that was provided to local authorities in order to deliver the reforms, including the transition process and the introduction of Education Health and Care Plans.
149.Moving from Statements and Learning Difficulty Assessments (LDAs) to EHCPs impacted on local authorities’ ability and capacity to provide their statutory functions. Many local authorities told us that they successfully transitioned all Statements and LDAs to EHCPs by the deadline,322 but some explained that it had created pressures on time and resources and impacted on capacity elsewhere, for example that the annual review process had fallen behind,323 and that there had been a lack of preventative work324 and a shift in focus away from SEN Support.325 Local authorities told us that the transition timescales were very tight and “did not enable a process that was fully productive in order to meet the deadline.”326 Other authorities acknowledged that it became an issue of quantity or quality,327 which was exacerbated by the Department for Education making the number of conversions the main measurable target.328 Other criticisms of the Department’s approach can be summarised as a lack of structure and guidance. Local authorities said that the later publication of guidance gave a limited lead-in time,329 and the provision of a template for the EHCP would have saved time.330 Local authorities also felt that the scale of transition was underestimated, meaning that the focus had been on the process of the transfer rather than the spirit of the reforms.331
150.Another impact was on local authority staff. According to local authorities, the reforms destabilised the workforce and increased the workload.332 Plymouth City Council told us that statements took an average of 10–15 hours to do, while an EHCP now takes 30–40 hours.333 We were told that a direct result has been high staff turnover and loss of experienced staff,334 and unmanageable caseloads.335 Local authorities also said that the increase in assessments had put pressure on their staff and other partners and also acknowledged the shortage of educational psychologists.336
151.Schools were concerned about the quality of training and expertise of the local authority staff who write plans, and local authorities felt that outside bodies had an impact on the quality of plans, citing a lack of professionals and timeliness of advice.337 One local authority that used an external company to write plans stated that the quality of the work was too variable and compromised the quality of plans.338 We did hear that local authorities were moving to addressing quality issues, although one local authority told us that it cannot check all plans for quality.339 We were also told that in one local authority all plans are read by the assessment team, the lead for health, and checked by an educational psychologist,340 while in another we heard that all Education Health and Care Plans were quality assured by the service manager or equivalent.341
152.Local authorities outlined other challenges that they face, including the timescales of the process, telling us that timescales have an impact on quality, and do not allow for co-production, proper consideration of the needs of the child and getting good advice.342 Many local authorities identified the practices of schools and colleges as having an impact on the quality of the provision that they as local authorities provide, but also the quality of support that children and young people with SEND within the education system. Local authorities also felt that mainstream schools are not meeting needs early or effectively enough,343 with insufficient emphasis on the graduated approach,344 or that the approaches of schools to the graduated approach were inconsistent.345 Local authorities also pointed to funding issues within schools and felt that schools were seeking extra funding through EHCPs.346 Some local authorities were frustrated by the fragmentation of the school system, including that they could not intervene in academies.347 Steve Rumbelow, chief executive of Rochdale Borough Council, told us:
Fundamentally, there needs to be a duty on the schools to work with the local authority that has the statutory responsibility. Even in a setting like Rochdale, where we are integrating health and social care, we still have some difficulties getting health to play into the plan process in the way they should. There are lots of things that need to be done in that respect but fundamentally there needs to be a duty to provide education in a normal setting—a secondary or primary school setting—and the local authority needs powers to make sure that happens. We do not have those powers.348
153.Local authorities told us that they had seen an increase in young people with SEND, requests for needs assessments and children and young people with EHCPs.349 West Sussex County Council told us that it had received a small increase in agreed requests for needs assessments, but an increase in requests overall, linked to school’s lack of confidence in meeting needs in school and a lack of funding.350 We also heard conflicting information about the threshold for an EHC needs assessment.351 Some told us that the threshold is appropriate,352 while others told us that the threshold was lower than before the reforms and some felt that it was too low.353 Herefordshire Council felt that the reforms did maintain thresholds but raised parental expectations without the means to deliver.354
Children, young people and their parents and carers
154.At the heart of Education Health and Care Plans are the children and young people who rely on them to access education. These plans were the result of reforms framed as ambitious and with a focus on children with SEND having parity of esteem with their peers. The reforms were more person-centred, offering a focus on the individual, as well as greater involvement for parents and carers.
155.Brian Lamb told us that consultation with parents at every stage was a “genuine innovation”,355 and that parents were positive about EHCPs but acknowledged that there were major inconsistencies of quality and practice.356 However, we were told that consultation with parents was either not happening or was often fraught and confrontational. Linda Jordan, Senior Development Adviser (Children and Young People’s programme), National Development Team for Inclusion, told us that the planning process had become fragmented, so that instead of people sitting together to develop the plan, people were sending in advice and views, and then a case officer wrote the plan.357 We also heard that co-production was patchy, that EHCPs had been finalised by the local authority with the parents’ knowledge or without opportunity to comment,358 that draft EHCPs did not include parents’ feedback or what had been agreed in meetings,359 and the child’s views were not taken into account.360
156.Misleading or unlawful advice existed in the system, passed from local authorities to schools and then to parents,361 which impacted on the quality of support that pupils received and that parents and carers could access for their children. Many parents told us that they had been refused an Education Health and Care Plan,362 advised not to apply for an Education Health and Care Plan,363 been refused a needs assessment by the local authority364 or told that their child would not meet the threshold.365 Many of these stories resulted in the decision being overturned at Tribunal or upon appeal.
157.We heard that the EHCP process was highly complex and that many parents were unable to engage with the process and with the complexity of the documentation.366 Some parents were commissioning high cost private assessments,367 only for some of them not to be able to be used because the local authority would not accept them.368 Some parents were writing plans themselves,369 while in other cases the school had written the plan.370 Many parents were holding local authorities and schools to account for timescales, with timescales not being met.371 Of course timescales work both ways and parents were also under pressure to meet their deadlines. However, we were told that it “does appear that deadlines for the authority are optional, whilst those for parents are mandatory.”372
158.Children, young people and their parents and carers were missing out on vital parts of the process. We were told that assessments did not happen,373 including assessments by educational psychologists, in some cases because there are no therapists to do so.374 We heard that some Statements were transferred to EHCPs without transfer reviews, assessments and meetings.375 Parents also reported a lack of specificity in reports, as well as the provision and outcomes detailed in the EHCP.376
159.We did hear from parents who had positive experiences.377 We heard about great staff who provided excellent support or had written excellent reports.378 There were positive stories about families who were pleased with the assessment process,379 and the transfer process380 and the EHCP process and outcome in general.381 We were told that there were good quality plans being produced, although we note that in some cases this was after legal input,382 and some parents report a better experience for those who got new EHCPs as opposed to those who transitioned from the old system.383 However, in the main, these stories were the minority, and we read many more stories of poor, and in some cases appalling, experiences from parents.
160.Children and young people are waiting too long to get their plans, and this problem is compounded if the quality of the plan is then as poor as we have been told that they often are. We heard from seven young people who gave evidence about their experience of having special educational needs and disabilities. Jordan, one of the young researchers from the RIP:Stars, told us that plans were being delayed, mistaken or done badly. He said that the errors meant that children had to wait longer for their plans. He also said that it wasted time for everyone involved—the professional who had to make the plan, the parent, and then the child who had a plan that was pretty much useless.384
161.The RIP:Stars’ research looked at young people’s involvement in their plans. They found that professionals felt that this was the ‘ideal’ but that there was still much more to do to be able to get person-centred planning.385 Jordan told us:
One of the things we found out in the research was that children were not actually being involved in the process of their education, health and care plans, which was a stunning find. The plans being made about the child were not being made with the child’s information being given, or their verbal opinions, or their views being shared within it. That finding was quite atrocious.386
However, some young people did feel involved. Francesca, a severely deaf young person, told us that she found that talking about her support in the EHCP annual review meetings was really empowering, but she did not feel that that was necessarily enough. She told us that she knew that meetings happened without the child or young person present and she felt “that when we are older it is really frustrating, because you feel that you can make your own decisions, because it is your own support.”387
162.Ben from the RIP:Stars told us that children were receiving plans that were not life-focused. He said that they were too focused on education and so children were not getting the support they needed to develop key skills necessary for adulthood, such as making decisions and friendships.388 His fellow researcher Eva told us:
I think people should try to consider what the child wants to get out of their life—their dreams and ambitions and their life goals—instead of just viewing it as a medical condition and something that needs to be solved quickly.389
Eva’s emphasis on dreams and ambition is not unreasonable. These reforms, including the greater involvement of health and social care, were meant to facilitate this. However, as we explore throughout this report, there has been a lack of joint working and pulling in the same direction to enable this aim to be met.
Health and social care
163.The reforms were meant to co-ordinate the support from health and social care and help to ensure that parents did not have to repeatedly tell their story to professionals. We did hear of some successes, for example the introduction of the Designated Medical Officer.390 However, we were repeatedly told that there had been little evidence of co-operation and communication from the health and social care sector.391 Alison Fiddy from IPSEA told us:
People do not talk about education, health and care plans; they talk about educational healthcare plans. That is a very different thing. These are not educational healthcare plans. They are three separate things. At the moment, the E is uppercase and the H and the C are lowercase. That is not how it should be.392
Schools and colleges
164.Schools and colleges told us that there had been no increase, or even a decrease, in health and social care support.393 We heard that there was little co-operation or collaboration,394 or the onus was on the school to bring services together.395 Some felt that health and social care bodies were playing ‘catch up’ with the reforms, meaning all that was currently happening was the maintenance of the status quo.396
165.Schools told us that there was a lack of attendance and engagement, with health and social care staff often not in attendance at meetings and reviews.397 Schools were very aware that health bodies have their own waiting list time frames to meet but pointed out that this slowed down assessments and support,398 which left schools to provide support without specialist support. Spring Common Academy told us that this then undermined parental confidence.399 Many schools told us that they were unable to hold health and social care to account,400 and told us that health and social care staff did not complete paperwork or minutes,401 or when they did, they were thin on detail.402 Schools reported that health and social care input was reliant on personalities rather than clear and fair systems.403 Transition2 was critical of some EHCPs being vehicles to show need and secure services rather than encourage partnership working.404
166.Schools described a lack of understanding, clarity and agreement about who was responsible for paying for different interventions,405 with schools providing a range of interventions and therapies including speech and language therapy and high-end medical support and school nursing.406 Sabrina Hobbs, Principal at Severndale Specialist Academy, told us:
That is what the Act was trying to achieve. That hasn’t happened. We can bat around stuff like funding and resource and all the rest of it, but education is currently paying for health needs within schools. That could be speech and language therapy, it could be mental health, it could be nursing and all sorts. As a special school, we are currently paying in excess of £90,000 a year just for nursing care, for our students who have been assessed by health to need wraparound care provision for their health needs. That is not to do with education or access to education; it is just to be secure in their health while they are at school—or anywhere—but when they come to school that stops and it becomes the responsibility of education, which means that we are using educational budgets to pay for that. That is happening in our school as a specialist school, but it is happening across all schools, in mainstream schools, in primary and secondary, and it will have an impact on how school leaders can use the money they have for SEN support.407
167.Where schools and local authorities were providing speech and language provision, some schools reported that the NHS was not providing the same level of provision.408 We were told that therapists had no time to work alongside teachers in classroom or to discuss issues with parents.409 We also heard that some health professionals were refusing to work with low-level cases and only working with pupils who have an Education Health and Care Plan.410
168.Some schools were especially concerned about the access to mental health support. We heard that access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) was really difficult and young people were being left without support,411 while Wellspring Academy Trust told us that staff from CAMHS were unable to attend meetings, unlike other areas of health.412 Dr Cath Lowther, an educational psychologist, called mental health needs a “lesser sibling” and told us that it is much harder for pupils with mental health needs to get support:
From speaking with colleagues and from my own experience, it feels much harder for them, and their needs have to be much higher. This decision got overturned—it did not go to tribunal, although a tribunal was requested—but an assessment was turned down for a significantly unwell young man. He had a range of complex needs and was on suicide watch; CAMHS had given parents the “lock away your knives” leaflet, and he was turned down for an assessment. That was overruled and he has now got one, but at the same time there was a young lady who had a dyslexia diagnosis, and was almost at age-related expectations, who had a straight go-ahead.413
Wellspring Academy Trust told us that children with Social Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) needs lacked care and health support, with no link between CAMHS and SEMH schools, and explained that therapeutic support was affected by a child’s capacity to access the service, meaning that a child might not be in receipt of appropriate support and care because of their disability.414
Local authorities
169.Local authorities also told us about challenges working with social care and health.415 They described challenges around information sharing because agencies have different systems,416 and challenges around meeting timescales because it was not clear what took precedence and each agency was working to their own timescale,417 with health and social care seeing requests for assessment advice as lower priority than their own direct work.418 Local authorities felt that there was no lack of willingness to deliver interventions, but funding and resources were limited and therapies were under pressure.419 One local authority felt that health and social care struggled to attend annual reviews because they were under increasing pressure to focus their resources on the increasing number of needs assessments.420 Local authorities told us that the result of a lack of provision and inconsistent delivery of provision in social care and the health system was that parents then seek Education Health and Care Plans in order to access therapy, or in order to continue to access health therapies when a young person was old enough to leave education.421 The lack of health input in the graduated approach was identified as a problem, and another reason why parents were seeking support through Education Health and Care Plans.422
170.Local authorities highlighted challenges that they faced regarding accountability. We heard that local authorities felt that they were being held to account for the quality and provision of services over which they have no control.423 “Disjointed” delivery of provision, Essex County Council told us, impacted on parental confidence, which resulted in requests for independent provision and the use of tribunal cases to secure the place.424 Local authorities pointed to a lack of clarity or strength of the role and responsibilities of health and social care,425 in particular pointing to where duties for local authorities are ‘must’ but for health provision was only ‘should’.426 As a consequence, local authorities said that the other sectors had been permitted to reduce the support that they provided, leaving the education budget to pick up the costs.427 Hampshire County Council said that where the threshold for adult social care was not met, it was down to education to foot the costs.428 We heard that the system was reliant on relationships, but local authorities felt that they do not have the power to ensure partners act as they should. Steve Rumbelow told us:
It is too reliant on relationships. We are not heavily academised in Rochdale, which creates a different dialogue. If we were heavily academised—I am not naïve; I know the conversation would be much more difficult. That is why it should not rely on me having a good relationship with the school system and with health colleagues; there has to be something that gives me an opportunity to demand that they step up and do what they should do.429
171.Local authorities told us that the roles of the Designated Medical Officer (DMO) and Designated Clinical Officer (DCO) had improved joint working,430 and pointed to successful working, such as the DMO working closely with local authority staff.431 Cheshire West and Chester Council told us that it had partly funded the DMO and DCO posts,432 and the DCO or DMO signed off all Education Health and Care Plans.433 However, other local authorities have said that there was a lack of clarity in the guidance about the role of the DMO,434 and having an optional DMO created variability across different areas, which could resolved by making the role statutory.435
172.Many local authorities told us that the complexity of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) made it hard to work together.436 Kent County Council told us that not all Clinical Commissioning Groups commission the same services, which meant that in some cases only some of the local authority’s population could access specific types of support.437 The local authority told us that it was illogical that therapists were employed by the NHS, that budgets were held by the Clinical Commissioning Group, but that responsibility for ensuring provision is in place sits with the LA.438 We did hear that joint commissioning could be successful as Coventry City Council told us that joint commissioning between the Clinical Commissioning Group and the local authority had funded speech and language therapy included in part F of Education Health and Care Plans.439
173.Local authorities appeared to struggle with defining outcomes and ensuring that outcomes are met.440 Charlotte Ramsden, the then president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, said that health teams needed to start measuring success by educational successes, not just health successes, in order to establish a “genuine partnership system”.441 John Henderson, chief executive of Staffordshire County Council, made a wider point about outcomes, telling us that he felt that there was a lack of agreed outcomes for children and young people with SEND, and a lack of understanding about their needs more broadly, unlike looked-after children and the elderly where he felt there was a broad consensus of the outcomes that everyone wanted for these two groups.442
Health and social care
174.We did not receive very much written evidence from health and social care practitioners or organisations, which may itself highlight some of the challenges that have been laid out already about the role and contribution of these two sectors in the reforms. However, we did hear from NHS England that good progress had been made on the SEND reforms,443 while the Department for Health and Social Care told us that while there was patchy performance across the country, the fact that some local areas were getting it right shows that the legislation was right, and the focus should be on getting local areas to the level that they should be.444 During our oral evidence session Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent OBE, Head of Maternity Children and Young People–Nursing Directorate at NHS England, outlined some of the practical things that it has been doing to help local areas:
If I can start with the levers, we have introduced into the NHS standard contract some narrative around education and healthcare plans and the timeliness of their completion and delivery. That is in the NHS standard contract. The Clinical Commissioning Groups will be able to use that in their quality surveillance and governance frameworks to ensure that there is accountability for meeting that contract objective.
We have also talked about guidance and publications, but other things we have done from that board, driven by the senior children’s nurse for SEND at NHS England, are to work with providers on SEND leadership and knowing the role and responsibility. We have not just published quick guides but have used them in education environments to help our colleagues in the sector in the CCG and other parts such as the local authority, to be able to provide holistic care for the child with those needs.
Those are some practical examples. We have commissioned the Council for Disabled Children to develop a CCG assessment so that the CCG can use that assessment toolkit to assess whether they are complying with the SEND reforms and how successful or not they are. Those are some of the practical things we are doing, not just about guidance but working with people to ensure that children have that holistic care.445
175.We were told that pupils with SEND who did not have an EHCP were not benefiting from the reforms. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists said that before the reforms were implemented, it had predicted that the weaknesses in the joint commissioning duty would impact on services for those without EHCPs.446 This appears to have been borne out, as we heard that there were children known to occupational therapists who did not have an EHCP and did not benefit from co-ordinated support,447 while there were therapists who did not have the time to work with pupils who did not have an EHCP.448
176.Therapists reported being overstretched and having long waiting lists, either because there were not sufficient therapists, or because there was not adequate provision in an area due to reduced budgets and growing caseloads.449 Although we heard that every plan in Greater Manchester that required it had health input, it was acknowledged more broadly that a shortage of therapists would impact on the quality of plans that were being written.450 We were also told that it could be difficult for health professionals to write advice about the support a child needs without thinking about the local provision. Dr Crockford, a community paediatrician in Chester and previously Designated Medical Officer for West Cheshire Clinical Commissioning Group, told us:
It is often quite difficult for the professionals writing the plans to write totally honestly from the point of the child’s needs and completely forget what provision is in the local area. That is what we should be doing—we should be writing the plan based on the need, and if the provision is not there, we should be writing for that provision. That is part of our role as DMO or DCO.451
177.In our oral evidence session with health and social care professionals, we discussed whether they were able to attend meetings about pupils with EHCPs, and whether it was necessary. We heard the view that where there was a “heavy health element” to the plan, health professionals needed to be involved in writing the plan.452 We were told that doctors needed to be informed of reviews in plenty of time, so they could make the decision about whether they needed to attend and then put into place any arrangements for rearranging surgeries.453 We had been told in written evidence that there was a lack of clear communication pathways between health and education, which led to multiple requests for information or requests going to the wrong person.454 We explored this in our oral evidence session, and Dr Payne, Professional Adviser—Children, Young People and Families at the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, told us that while she felt that this had been a problem at the beginning of the reforms, this was less of a problem now.455
178.The Department for Health and Social Care told us that it did not tell Clinical Commissioning Groups how they should spend their budgets. It did however, set clear messages about what its priority is, through its long term plan and the four clinical priorities, of which learning disability and autism is one.456 The Department said that the expectation in the legislation was for partnership working and where there were arguments about who pays, this indicated a failure of partnership working.457 The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists told us that there was a lack of joint commissioning in many areas, and a lack of a common definition of what joint commissioning was.458
179.We wanted to know whose responsibility it was to ensure that joint commissioning was happening as required by section 26 of the Children and Families Act 2014. We were told that it was a shared responsibility, but the Minister told us that “fundamental governmental responsibility” sat with the Department for Education.459 We felt that there was a lack of clarity in the answers being given:
Chair: But would you not say that the fact that it is difficult to answer that question shows that there is a flaw in the—
Caroline Dinenage: It shows the challenges, doesn’t it? Would you say a flaw? The fact that a Bill has to come out of a Government Department gives responsibility to that Government Department. It shows the silo working we have within Government in producing legislation, but it doesn’t have to be a flaw. A huge frustration of mine as a Government Minister has been trying to break down those barriers and work collaboratively across Government Departments so that we are not jealously possessive of our pots of cash, but are thinking about the best investment for an individual, rather than a Department, a CCG, a local authority or whatever.460
180.This lack of clarity about who was responsible for implementing and monitoring the legislation appeared to have travelled down to the front line, with health professionals thinking that there was a lack of clarity about who commissioned what, with Dr Payne drawing particular attention to powered wheelchairs and other specialist equipment.461 Dr Crockford told us that there was often difficulty distinguishing between an intervention for a health need that could be carried out by a health professional and one that could be undertaken by other professionals.462
181.We heard about the benefits and importance of multidisciplinary working, and how that helped to break down barriers. Unfortunately, we were told it required strong leadership, time and effort, and ultimately was only happening in some areas of the country.463
Children, young people and their parents and carers
182.Many submissions from parents told us of experiences which showed that the reforms were not working as they were expected to. We were told by parents that they had been acting as the intermediary and co-ordinator between services,464 and in some cases the school took on this role.465 As well as playing a co-ordinator role, we were told that provision was not funded or provided and parents were fighting to get it paid for.466 Speech and language therapy (SALT) in particular seemed to be a particular challenge. We heard that health services did not specify and quantify SALT provision,467 while on the other hand the local authority detailed SALT and occupational therapy in the health section of the EHCP, even though it should have been detailed in section F as an educational need.468 Parents told us that the three different sectors passed the buck, each one saying that it was the other’s responsibility.469 Ultimately we heard that many therapies, including speech and language therapy, were not being provided470 or difficult to access, even for schools.471
183.We were told that when children and young people were issued with EHCPs that have health provision in the incorrect place, or without agreement to fund, it could make parents think that the provision listed would definitely be provided.472 As one parent told us:
writing that a child needs speech therapy weekly for 1 hour at a time doesn’t magically fund the NHS to be able to deliver the therapy. It just leads to frustration for families who feel like their child is being failed.473
184.Many parents told us that there was no input from social care to needs assessments, EHCPs or reviews and children were being listed as “not known to social care”.474 Where social care was involved, it was often only from a child protection angle.475 We also heard that health professionals do not, or are not able to, attend meetings.476 Alison Fiddy from IPSEA explained the impact that poor quality advice and involvement from these team had on children and young people:
If the quality of the advice and information coming from educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, health and social care is not good, that will translate into a poorly drafted plan that lacks the necessary level of specificity, which is absolutely crucial in ensuring that children and young people’s needs are met.477
185.However, we also heard positive stories. We heard from parents that said that they had experienced good involvement from health professionals and excellent reports had been written.478 We were told that SALT provision is the ‘backbone’ of reports in one local area,479 and examples of joint working between occupational therapists, physios, SALT and clinical psychologists.480 Other parents told us that the health provision was good, but was underfunded and rationed.481
Post-16 and Post-19 education
186.In 2018, the average Attainment 8 score for pupils at state-funded schools was 46.5.482 For pupils with special educational needs, it was 27.2.483 13.5% of young people with special educational needs achieved English and maths at grades 9–5 compared to 48.3% of their peers with no identified special educational need.484 The Department for Education’s own data release states “pupils with SEN perform significantly worse than pupils with no identified SEN across all headline measures of attainment”.485 Supported internships have existed since September 2013 and over 1,200 people undertook an internship in 2018.486 In 2017/18, 11.2% of all apprenticeship starts were undertaken people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. The Government has a target of 11.9% by 2020.487 The Government introduced incentives for employers to hire apprentices with an EHCP. Employers receive an additional £1,000 if they hire an apprentice, who at the time of starting is “19–24 years old and who has previously been in care or who has an Education, Health and Care plan provided by their local authority.”488 We know that for some young people, getting a job will never be possible, but the 2014 reforms introduced a greater focus on person-centred planning to help all young people thrive in adulthood and to fulfil their potential in whatever ways possible.
Schools, colleges and work providers
187.Schools and colleges were sceptical about the support that had been provided for young people, describing a landscape of unclear pathways and patchy opportunities,489 where nothing or very little has changed,490 and a system that had had no funding allocated to it to make the changes that the system and legislation required.491 We were told that there were limited options for young people, including limiting low expectations,492 that other services were not engaged,493 and that pupils with SEND were faced with a lack of choice and inclusivity at college, creating a lack of equality of opportunity.494 We heard that some colleges were reluctant to put on courses for students with SEND.495 We also heard that supported internships opportunities were patchy across the country,496 and independent living placements could be variable in quality.497 This was summed up by Sue Gerrard, a former primary teacher and carer of two young adults with disabilities, as post-16 options being “determined by what the market is prepared to offer, rather than by the needs of young people.”498
188.Professionals from schools and colleges felt that it was unclear who was entitled to what, with the National Association of Head Teachers putting the blame for much of the rise in tribunal cases at the lack of clarity around post-19 provision,499 but ultimately at the door of the Department for Education:
This area must be much more clearly defined in terms of who is eligible on what basis. The analysis of the DfE guidance on this matter, widely seen as unhelpful, by firm of solicitors HCB sets out the issues very clearly, and also makes it clear why the DfE is part of the problem in driving up legal challenges to local authorities turning down EHCPs.500
This confusion was echoed by reports by schools and colleges that it was impossible to get EHCPs for pupils post-19 as local authorities were ceasing or refusing to issue EHCPs.501
189.We heard that colleges did not have enough high needs funded places to match the number of young people with EHCPs.502 Pat Brennan-Barratt, Principal of Northampton College, told us that the move to try to only give plans to 19 years of age, and not give them to 25, meant that colleges were using their adult funding to support students. She told us it was costing her college over £300,000 a year, and the numbers of students without EHCPs was increasing, but the funding available was decreasing.503 In addition to funding challenges, colleges told us that they faced a lack of certainty in their funding. We were told that colleges needed certainty of funding as providing support for students with SEND requires them to plan ahead and invest in staff and facilities.504 Bernie White, Chair of Natspec, told us that specialist colleges could find themselves with pupils who do not receive confirmation that they could progress from year one to year two of a two-year course until very late.505 This put uncertainty on their funding, but doubtless also created uncertainty for the students and their families. We also heard that FE colleges were under pressure from pupils who came to them from home education, where colleges would then have to assess pupils who had special educational needs as they would not have had an EHCP, or from alternative provision, where the levels of funding would drop.506
190.At our oral evidence session with post-16 providers, witnesses representing specialist provision expressed concerns about a report commissioned by the Local Government Association from Isos Partnership.507 David Ellis from National Star, an independent specialist FE college, felt that the suggestion that the increase to 25 was putting pressure on the high needs block was misleading, suggesting that rather than increased costs having been put into the system, the costs had instead been moved from adult services to education.508 Bernie White felt that there was anxiety from local authorities about “the idea that students can participate in learning until they are 25, particularly when it focuses on them having the right to go to a specialist provider and that is seen as taking away from others.”509 However, she said that in actuality there are very few 25-year-old learners in specialist provision. She felt that this anxiety was overriding sensible decision-making and pointed to the successful outcomes of specialist provision, which included sustained employment outcomes.510 We also heard the view that there was a perverse incentive on local authorities not sharing information about post-19 options, as this enabled local authorities to avoid spending money.511 We were told that there was no funding for maintained special schools to offer post-19 education,512 although we did hear that some were setting up units for this cohort of students.513
191.The reforms extended the availability of EHCPs to young people up to the age of 25.514 The duty to maintain an EHCP continues until it is no longer needed;515 when deciding whether to continue an EHCP for a young person between 18 and 25, the reforms required the authority to take into account achievement of educational goals in the EHCP.516 The reforms also required preparing for adulthood information to be published as part of the local offer, but also focused on in the Education Health and Care Plan. We heard conflicting information about the level to which this was done, with some submissions telling us that ‘preparing for adulthood’ decisions were made too late, there was not enough focus on it, or that it does not exist in Education Health and Care Plans.517 However, we did hear that ‘preparing for adulthood’ was done too soon or that there was too much focus on it in EHCPs,518 which was described as a “relentless focus” on it as part of the process.519 However, despite the requirement to start making decisions about post-16 options from Year 9 onwards, we heard that transition processes, or transition decisions, were started or made too late520 and that local authorities were not engaged in transition planning.521
192.We also heard that there was a “predominant focus” on education and employment, as opposed to wider life outcomes, as part of post-16 and 19 provision and in EHCPs. Concerns were shared with us that Education Health and Care Plans were being ceased because it was assumed that a young person’s future was in an adult social care setting or because certain academic qualifications had not been achieved.522 The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 require that an EHCP for a young person in or beyond Year 9 must include provision to assist the young person in preparation for adulthood and independent living, which includes “finding employment; obtaining accommodation; [and] participation in society.”523 However, we heard that some EHCPs did not reflect the ethos of preparing for adulthood,524 and only focused on education or training for employment.525 Linda Jordan, Senior Development Adviser (Children and Young People’s programme) at the National Development Team for Inclusion, explained:
The Code talks about the preparing for adulthood outcomes throughout, I think they are mentioned in every chapter, but it also talks about education, health and care outcomes. Most education, health and care plans are constructed with the outcomes under areas of need. There is an element of confusion and that is mostly what we do, helping people to work through those contradictions and to think about that the most important outcomes are life outcomes, as Janine mentioned earlier, life outcomes for young people. It is perhaps moving away from some of our traditional ways of constructing outcomes in quite short-term, narrow education objectives more into how we are going to support this young person to be as independent as possible, to have relationships, friends and so on.526
Transition2’s written evidence explained that transition beyond education was not a focus within the local authority in which they worked.527 This was also reported in further evidence from Treloar’s, a specialist school and college for disabled young people, who explained that funding decisions were not consistent as some local authorities wanted qualification outcomes but others recognised non-academic achievements.528 Education professionals told us that they relied on the local authority to act as a co-ordinator of services for students post-16, but the local authority did not have the capacity to do this.529 We were told that there was a lack of information for schools about the services that were available, which impacted on their ability and confidence to support pupils when they left their school.530
193.While outcomes beyond education or employment seem to be barriers, we heard that employment outcomes themselves could be hard to achieve. Janine Cherrington from Transition2 outlined three barriers to employment and independence outcomes: work experience not happening early enough, the wrong partners being involved in Education Health and Care Plans for employment outcomes, and the financial impact on the family if a young person gets a job.531 We also heard from Caroline Archer, Employment Service Manager at Action on Disability, who explained that providers of employment opportunities for young people faced challenges around the lack of funding for supported internships for students with SEND but no Education Health and Care Plan.532 She also told us that organisations that provide support for young people with SEND and employers were becoming stretched because they had young people and employers coming back asking for help, beyond the six months or year that they are funded to provide help. While she acknowledged the support provided by Access to Work, she told us that it had limitations.533 We previously found problems with Access to Work in our report The apprenticeships ladder of opportunity: quality not quantity, when we were told that it “remained slow and poorly publicised despite the Maynard Taskforce’s calls for improvement.”534 It is disappointing that this important scheme still appears to be facing problems.
Local authorities
194.We heard from the post-16 sector that local authorities resisted giving EHCPs to young people between the ages of 18 and 25 because it cost more money, although some providers reported that they had successfully referred pupils post-19 for EHCPs and they have received them.535 In contrast, local authorities told us that they were seeing young people request an EHCP in order to ‘return’ to education.536 Parents described local authorities having blanket policies and ceasing EHCPs or Statements based on the students’ age.537
195.Local authorities described a conflict between children’s social care and adult services, with some suggesting that parents were choosing for their children to stay in education for longer because it provided better support than was available through adult services.538 Local authorities told us that this aspect of the reforms had put pressure on their high needs budget.539 Local authorities reported that there was a lack of vocational and employment opportunities, supported living opportunities and link up with adult social care for young people with SEND,540 but acknowledged that better employment and apprenticeship destinations were key to releasing pressure on the system.541 Some local authorities described positive changes such as an increase in local provision and increased supported internship opportunities, including Project Search.542 Calderdale MBC told us that it “is developing structures through a Five Day Offer which allows a focus on independent living and better connects education and social care responses for young people with an EHC Plan.”543 However, we also heard that these opportunities were limited by the level of resources.544
196.This was an area about which local authorities were seemingly very unclear. Local authorities said that there was a lack of clarity about what education post-16 and post-19 was,545 with some local authorities suggesting that parts of the SEND Code of Practice were at odds with each other or that the regulations were ‘a grey area’.546 Local authorities also said that there were no legal definitions or parameters around what progress is,547 or that some young people did not make sufficient progress on their courses, which meant that they repeated courses, which in turn did not show progress or support progression to adulthood.548 Local authorities also told us that they were not clear about when an EHCP could be ceased.549 The intention of the legislation appeared not to be happening in practice. Hampshire County Council Children’s Services told us:
The SEND reforms have unintentionally created unrealistic expectations in raising the entitlement threshold to 25 years old. The DfE intended this extension of education entitlement to 25 year olds to be for a comparatively small percentage of young people however, families are now routinely testing the regulations in Tribunal and succeeding.550
This lack of clarity behind the intention of the legislation and the reality was also given as a reason why options beyond education, such as employment, were not being taken up. Northamptonshire County Council said that employment options were being hindered by an expectation of education to 25 and Tribunal decisions.551
Health services
197.We heard from therapists that many young people struggled to access therapies, particularly occupational therapy and speech and language therapy, because they were not commissioned post-18.552 When we asked the Minister of State for Care about this, she told us:
This is something that I do have concerns about. I am really aware that for some people, once they hit the age of 18, that can really be a cliff edge. That is why the Children and Families Act extended that to 25. There is a big disparity between services with a cliff edge at 18 and those that finish at 25. That is something that we do need to get 100% right. That transitional support in SEND particularly can make an unbelievable difference in the way that someone moves forward with their lives and whether their crisis points are tackled professionally.553
The Royal College of Occupational Therapists stated that a lack of access to therapies between 19 and 25 for students with SEND whose needs were diagnosed at a later age could be particularly problematic.554 It appears that even for those with an EHCP, 18 continues to be a cliff-edge for many young people and their access to healthcare.
Children, young people, parents and carers
198.The focus of the evidence that we took from parents was around the availability of options for young people, including insufficient local post-16 specialist provision.555 While we heard that there was a lack of knowledge about the options that were being presented to young people by schools,556 we also heard that more generally there was a lack of options for young people at this age. We were told that colleges only offered three-day a week courses, resulting in parents giving up work.557 We heard that support and information just was not available, whether that was access to independent living training,558 schools and colleges offered limited or poor careers advice and work experience options,559 and no or limited access to education, apprenticeships or work.560 We heard particular concerns that pupils who did not have EHCPs could struggle, as colleges got no funded support other than the from disadvantaged funding, and while they often needed longer than three years at college, without an EHCP, additional years were not funded.561
199.Parents told us that their child did not receive a meaningful transition and that the onus was on the parent to help their child find provision.562 Parents were critical of FE provision, stating that there was not sufficient provision, resulting in young people being shoe-horned into courses,563 and in young people’s views and interests not being followed.564 We also heard that there was very little work experience or career planning evident in FE colleges.565
200.Kashifa, a young person with SEND studying at FE college, described her experience of being put onto a college course specially for young people with learning disabilities, but not feeling that it led her anywhere.566 She told us that she made had decisions based on limited exposure to options:
I think it would be useful if we had more information about our futures, like different work experiences and a chance to try out different jobs, to know what is out there. When I was at college, we only spoke about going to college. I left school not really knowing what I wanted to do. My work experience had been at my school, reading to children a few years younger than me, and I thought that this was what I wanted to do.
Thinking about it now, I think it would have been a lot more helpful to have a wide range of options, maybe to have several work experiences or work tasters with different businesses, to decide. Having real experiences makes it easier for me to decide about what I like and what I am good at.567
201.Parents expressed concerns about the limited employment options available for their children, but particularly with the routes that were meant to be supported. Parents felt that there was a lack of apprenticeship opportunities, particularly as children with SEND had to compete for places with non-disabled children, and they ultimately missed out.568 Supported internships were met with the same criticism—there was limited availability and often young people did not get a job at the end of it.569 We also heard that apprenticeships often only worked for some young people with Education Health and Care Plans.570 We were told that young people without EHCPs were disadvantaged as they did not qualify for supported internships, which limited their employability options.571
202.We also heard about a lack of ambition for young people with SEND. Simran, a third-year accounting and management student at Queen Mary University of London, told us:
No, I feel that a lot of the time they see the disability more than the person. They judge us based on what they think we can do rather than qualifications and what we have achieved.
As I was saying earlier, I have to work harder than everyone else to achieve anything. I have a twin sister and we do the same kind of thing. We have the same kind of grades and she is currently in a job and I am not, so I think that proves there are limited career aspirations for disabled people like myself.572
This was echoed by Pinpoint Cambridge who told us that colleges in their area were trying to make links with employers, but the employers were scared of taking on young people with additional needs.573
Information and advice
203.The 2014 reforms were intended to make the system simpler and easier to navigate for those within it and many of our witnesses referred to the increase of information and advice that is available. There is also a significant amount of information and advice that is necessary, whether that advice given by professionals as part of the needs assessment process, or information about who can apply for one. Even with a plethora of information, many people will then need help to interpret the quality of the information available.
Poor, misleading and unlawful advice
204.We were told of examples of poor, misleading and unlawful advice being given to schools and parents. We heard that in some cases staff in schools and local authorities do not know the law, give misleading or unlawful advice, and in some cases, publish erroneous information on their website.574 Matt Keer described a “transmission belt of misinformation” starting with the local authority and going down to leadership level at the school.575 He described some of the information as “blatantly misleading”576 while some evidence we have taken goes so far as to say “unlawful”.577 The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman told us that some local authorities were gatekeeping and able to do this because of a lack of specific guidance in the Code of Practice, particularly around the local authority duty to carry out a needs assessment. He said that local authorities were putting hurdles and systems in place that were not based on the legislation.578
205.Ofsted told us that it reported non-compliance, but it was not their job to make judgements about legal accuracy; rather, the inspectorate’s job was to report instances for example where there was non-compliance with the Code of Practice.579 Professor Gallagher from CQC told us:
In my understanding, we do not find complete illegality very often, but we call it out. We do find issues about interpretation and confusion around interpretation at the heart of some of the tensions in relationships both between bodies and, most importantly, between bodies, parents, children and young people. Those would be part of what we would feed back and look to organisations to address through their written statements of action.580
Schools and colleges
Advice to meet needs
206.Many of the challenges that have been described earlier in this report have an impact on the quality of advice that schools get in order to meet the needs of the pupils. We heard about schools struggling to access external advice,581 that SENCOs were spending time on paperwork, not advising classroom teachers.582 We were told that expert advice had become expensive, often only accessible through traded services and therefore reliant on schools with the funds to access the support.583 We also heard that poorly written advice could affect the quality of an Education Health and Care Plan, resulting in schools struggling to provide the right support, and the child’s needs not being met.584 We were told that local authority caseworkers, on which schools, and young people and their parents, relied, were often not experts in special educational needs and disabilities and had variable levels of training and responsiveness.585 This could impact on schools in other ways, for example we heard about children arriving in school having received the wrong diagnosis and therefore the wrong support.586
Information and advice
207.We have already described the impact that poor information from local authorities can have on schools. It will impact on the actions that they take and the information that they themselves can pass on to parents. There appeared to be a gap in the accountability of information that schools provided about its SEN provision. Schools must provide annual information about their SEN provision as part of the Schools Information Report. However, only 61% of parent carer forums said that local authorities monitor these reports from maintained schools, while only 50% said the same about academies.587
Local offer
208.Specialist colleges, independent special schools and out of area provision struggled to feature in local authorities’ local offers. There was a lack of information about the provision that was available, and some were told by local authorities that they could not be featured in their local offer.588 Schools reported that parents did not find the local offer useful, either because they did not know about it, or that the local offer was difficult to navigate and parents preferred to use generic search engines instead.589
Local authorities
Advice to meet needs
209.We heard from local authorities that they struggled to ask for and receive appropriate external advice as part of the needs assessment process, with health and social care seeing requests for assessment as lower priority than their own work,590 and problems with timeframes, including meeting them.591 Local authorities told us that their staff needed significant training, and training new staff was a challenge, and the lack of lead-in time of the reforms meant that there was little time for training staff.592 The importance of training was acknowledged by local authorities during oral evidence sessions.593 Terry Reynolds, Director for Education and Skills at the London Borough of Newham, told us:
I would agree with you that experience and knowledge among staff was variable. For example, Newham had been relying on a lot of agency staff who were frequently refreshed as they got permanent jobs elsewhere and so on, so that there was not the consistency. We were concerned about that and concerned about some of the decision-making and some of the quality of the work that was being put into the development of EHCPs.
[ … ]
As well as leading the teams, they have been responsible for a CPD programme with what the requirements are, what the legislation says, how you work on these and the sharing of effective practice of what people have done within the teams. What we are seeing is an improvement in the quality of what is offered. We have recruited additional permanent staff and we need to build on that.594
Information and advice
210.Local authorities told us that the 2014 reforms had raised parental awareness, knowledge and expectations.595 John Henderson, chief executive of Staffordshire County Council, told us that parents were able to access so much information that they had formed opinions before they had met with the local authority. He saw the local authority’s role as an “honest arbiter” to find the right provision to meet a child’s needs.596 He also told us that some provision used “aggressive marketing”, which included legal advice about how to get provision funded by the local authority.597 Perhaps understandably, this was not a perspective shared by many parents who submitted evidence to our inquiry.
Local offer
211.We did not receive substantial evidence from local authorities about their local offers. Where local authorities did mention the local offer, it was usually in passing, either outlining where the local offer is co-produced598 or in relation to information about services or information being available on the local offer,599 with a particular focus on the need to improve the local offer for post-19 provision.600 However, written evidence from East Sussex County Council and the London Borough of Newham suggested that the local offer could be difficult for local authorities to provide. East Sussex County Council’s written evidence explained that its understanding of how parents and carers used the internet conflicted with Ofsted’s focus on promoting the local offer as a “one size fits all solution for families”.601 The London Borough of Newham told us that the information that was provided on its local offer website was not as comprehensive as it should be, but told us that it was launching a new site in April 2019.602
Children, young people, and their parents and carers
Advice to meet needs
212.Parents told us that they were not getting the advice needed to meet their children’s needs as part of the needs assessment process. Parents commissioned independent reports,603 health and social care were not completing assessments or reports,604 and needs assessments were being completed without educational psychologist reports, and other professional reports, in many cases when these are relevant and important in order to assess needs.605 We also heard that increased requests for advice and assessments could be a delaying tactic, meaning that local authorities did not have to make decisions and put support in place.606
213.We were given a lot of information about the quality of advice and support in the context of support for children with EHCPs, but we also heard that advice and information could be difficult to come by if a child did not have one. Kathleen Redcliffe, a parent of a child with dyslexia, told us that she did not know what support was available to meet her son’s needs:
I think I communicate quite well to the school, and regularly, and have done from early on. I think it is a case, again, of time and resources. What do they have to offer me or my son? What is available? It is a case of me needing to research and work out what is available to him. That is what I struggle with. How does he reach his full potential if I do not know what is available? It is trying to resource stuff externally all the time to then go back to school to say, “Is this available? Is this happening?”607
Information and advice
214.Regardless as to whether there is more advice and information available, social capital plays a huge role in access to information and advice. We were told that some parents cannot access the system at all,608 and that it could be difficult to know what the next steps were,609 or what help is available.610 We heard that paperwork was too complicated and long for some parents and could be difficult to understand.611 Access to information and legal advice was shaped by the availability of legal aid, the ability to access charities and organisations that offer free support and advice, and knowledge that such organisations exist. John Harris, a journalist and parent of an autistic child, told us that the problem with having such a diverse and localised system for EHCPs was that it was “impossible to give people advice”612 which makes the system very difficult to traverse, making advice hard to come by and therefore at a premium.613
215.One local authority told us that parents and teachers believe that the “EHCP system” favours parents who are wealthy and well-educated,614 and that other parents can be hard to reach, do not know their rights, and are scared of the system.615 Some parents reported excellent support from local authority information and advice services,616 while other parents reported that the service was limited or almost non-existent,617 and there were doubts about its independence or suggested a conflict of interest.618 Family Fund told us that 46% of families that did not use an Independent Supporter to help them through the EHCP process did not know what it was,619 which raises doubts about the efficacy of support services if parents do not know they exist.
Local offer
216.Parents and carers reported that the local offer was not useful, not parent-friendly, not co-produced, not legally compliant or difficult to navigate, and that many parents did not know that it existed.620 Parents described local offers as basic, only a directory or consisting solely of links to the Government’s website,621 and one parent told us:
Local offer: This just feels like a joke. As we understand it the local offer must only list what could be available, not what is available. It is hard to navigate, and we have found it of no benefit.622
We were told that while at the beginning local offers were well produced, they had changed, becoming unfit for purpose.623 One representative from a parent carer forum told us that the local authority was operating a supply based planning process, instead of the demand based planning process that had been promised as part of the reforms.624 We also heard that many parents of children and young people with SEND did not necessarily want advice provided via a website.625
Adversarial experiences
217.At our first oral evidence session Baroness Warnock told us that in the 1970s local education authorities were seen as ‘benign institutions’, trusted allies in supporting children and families. She identified 1981 as the year where schools and universities first came under significant financial pressure. She told us “the local education authorities gradually became not allies but opponents because they were forever trying to save money.”626 While the reforms were meant to eliminate this, we were disappointed that this narrative perpetuates today.
218.The number of cases before the First-tier Tribunal Tribunals has increased substantially. 6,374 appeals were lodged with the Tribunal in 2018/19. This was nearly double the 3,236 appeals that were lodged in 2015/16.627 77% of listed hearings were postponed in 2018/19.628 The next highest percentage of postponed hearings was 19% of hearings before mental health tribunals.629 The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) had seen an increase of 150% since 2015–2016 in the volume of complaints about EHCPs.630 The LGSCO upheld 87% of the investigations that it carried out, compared to an average of 58%.631
The Tribunal Service and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
219.We sought direct evidence from the Judiciary, and we were grateful to receive written evidence submissions from Judge Meleri Tudur, Deputy Chamber President of the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber; First-tier Tribunal and Tribunal Judge Chris Ward, the Lead Judge in the Upper Tribunal for SEND cases. Tribunal cases are heard at the First-tier Tribunal, but appeals are heard in the Upper Tribunal.
220.The First-tier Tribunal covered a far greater number of hearings than in previous years as the number of appeals which had been resolved without a hearing decreased from about 80% in 2013–14 to 65% in 2017–18.632 The Tribunal did not have capacity to cover all of the appeals, and while Judge Meleri Tudur acknowledged that this had happened in the past, this was very rarely and at peak times.633 Judge Tudur told us that judges made daily decisions about which hearings to postpone and prioritise.634 The Tribunal held an induction course for 21 new judges in March 2019, and had requested 30 new fee paid judges from the next generic Judicial Appointments Commission competition. However, we were warned that even if there were no increase in appeals, the situation would take at least a year before the situation would be resolved.635 In contrast, the increase in cases at the First-tier Tribunal had not increased the workload of the Upper Tribunal.636 We were told that the number of judges available for the Upper Tribunal was sufficient, providing parties had the same access to representation as they did at present, and that there was no substantial increase in requests for expedition.637
221.We were told that there had been an increase in the proportion of cases before the Upper Tribunal that have had some involvement of legal professionals on behalf of parents. Judge Ward’s told us that his records indicated an increase from just over 40% in 2014 and 2015 to between 50% and 55% in the following years.638 While information about local authorities’ representation at Upper Tribunal was not fully recorded, Judge Ward explained that some local authorities use the SEN team, the in-house legal team or external legal advisers at “paper stage”, but are usually represented by external solicitors or barristers in court.639
222.Michael King, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, told us that he did not have the power to investigate complaints regarding the workings of a school, for example exclusions and SEND provision, and that it was a source of frustration for both him and parents that he was unable to investigate.640 Alison Fiddy from IPSEA told us that this enhancement of his powers might reduce the number of appeals going to Tribunal because currently no one had the power to look at the provision of SEN Support in schools, which might be driving more parents to apply for, and be refused, Education Health and Care Needs Assessments.641 The Ombudsman was also concerned about the diversity of the complaints procedures and the separate systems that could make it hard for families to make sense of and find a way of having their issue resolved.642
223.The Ombudsman told us that he saw local authorities failing to get the basics right:
We have issued good practice back to local authorities a number of times, which basically says: do the boring stuff right. Get those basic administrative processes right, embed them, train people in them, make sure you are following the law and just get the processes right. Then a lot of the other stuff will follow, and you will save an awful lot of money, because complaints will not be coming to us and they will not be going to the tribunal.643
This view was echoed by Alison Fiddy who told us that parents succeeded at Tribunal not because their legal team was expensive and made good arguments, but because local authorities did not have good evidence to back up their decision-making and were making decisions that were unlawful.644
Schools and colleges
224.We heard that in some cases the reforms had improved their relationships with parents.645 We also heard from some schools and colleges that the tribunal or complaints system was being predominantly used, and even ‘exploited’, by capable or affluent parents, leading to vulnerable children and their parents missing out.646
Local authorities
225.Local authorities win about 10% of Tribunal cases and it was estimated that local authorities had spent over ten million pounds at Tribunal since 2014.647 Local authorities told us that they tried to avoid Tribunals.648 Dr Lown, Head of Children and Young People, Specialist Services at East Riding of Yorkshire Council, told us that local authorities took cases to Tribunal when parental preference was for expensive provision which could be provided within the local authority, or where the local authority did not think the choice of the parents was in the child’s best interests.649
226.Local authorities had concerns about the way that the Tribunal system operated. Some local authorities told us that Tribunal ignored the duties of schools, directing local authorities to carry out an EHC Needs Assessment as opposed to directing the graduated approach.650 The Association for Directors of Children’s Services told us that there was a perception that Tribunals prioritise the preference of the parents over the preference of local authorities.651 North Yorkshire County Council felt that Tribunal decisions did not take the public purse into account,652 although Judge Ward and Judge Tudur both told us that the law required both the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal to take the efficient use of resources into account.653 When Andrew Reece from the British Association of Social Workers gave us his view on the tension between the local authority as assessor and budget holder, he explained how Tribunal decisions did not have to take the same things into account as local authorities do:
I think the tension is played out much more explicitly in tribunals, where the tribunal is looking at one single decision and does not have to think about what impact that decision is going to have for the rest of the system. When someone goes to a tribunal and gets a place at an out-of-area placement that costs three times what it would cost to provide locally, somebody locally is going to miss out, and tribunals do not have to take that into account. Those are the really difficult decisions that local authorities on the whole are very good at making.654
227.The London Borough of Hackney told us that the decision-making of the tribunal was not consistent, which meant that it could be difficult to analyse trends to improve delivery.655 This was echoed by Dame Christine Lenehan, Director of the Council for Disabled Children, who told us that:
[what] we are not getting out of the tribunals at the moment is any feedback at all. What the tribunals used to do was they produced a yearly digest that, in effect, said, “Not going into the individual detail, these are where the trends are with cases this year. These are where some of the issues are.” For example, what percentage of tribunal cases rest on school transport? Quite a lot of tribunal decisions at the moment are resting on access to social care. There is a whole range of things. I think that if you are going to spend that much money on tribunals, you have to have it as a service improvement tool. I want to go back into local authorities and work with them and their families and say, “These look to be the trends. Where is your policy taking you? What does a reasonable baseline look like?” We will never have a world where a gold standard for everyone exists, but we need to be clear on what the baseline is.656
Children, young people and their parents and carers
228.Some parents were unable to appeal, even if they had wanted to. Matt Keer wrote that while the appeal rate was a “spectacularly reasonable” 1.6%, this did not take into account all the appeals that were prevented because the things that in law were required for a family to lodge an appeal (for example an Education Health and Care Plan) were not actually provided.657 The same goes for all of the other areas where the process was not working, but families were not able to appeal because the issue that they had was not covered by the Tribunal process. We heard that there were six rights of appeal to the Tribunal resulting from the Children and Families Act 2014.658 Access to legal aid for Tribunal appeals was cut in 2013, and is now means tested.659 We were told that support funded by legal aid was provided over the phone and did not include representation at the hearing.660 We will never know how many families were unable to secure an appropriate level of support for their child due to a lack of financial, social, or emotional resources.
229.Parents and carers engaged with their local authorities through parent carer forums, and while we heard that 69% of parent carer forums felt their relationship with the local authority was positive,661 we did hear that their relationship with local authorities could be difficult. We were told of examples of the relationship reduced to co-production of cuts, being involved in consultations that go through regardless, or holding the local authority to account when they make unlawful decisions,662 and ultimately relationships with local authorities and parent carer forums breaking down.663
230.Parents told us about the stress of going to Tribunal664 and the financial cost if they did not qualify for legal aid.665 We asked Ben, a researcher for the RIP:Stars, if he had spoken to young people about their experience at Tribunal:
We didn’t speak to young people; we spoke more to parents about this. A lot of them had gone to tribunals, which had been very stressful and cost them a lot of money. We learned the fact that 89% of people who go to tribunals win their case. Why waste that time, causing stress for the young person, the parents or whoever is looking after that child? Why don’t they get the quality plan in place first, get it right and get it done, instead of having to waste time and cause stress that is not needed for a family who are already in trouble with some things because they do not have a plan to support them?666
221 Department for Education, Main text: Special educational needs in England - January 2019 (July 2019), p1
223 Association of Directors of Children’s Services (SCN0503) para 20; Lambeth SEND (SCN0077) para 4c
226 Scott Brooks (SCN0106) para 8; Calderdale MBC (SCN0491) para 3.7; Headteachers’ Roundtable (SCN0208) para 8; National Education Union (SCN0252) para 26
227 Education Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, Forgotten Children: alternative provision and the scandal of ever increasing exclusions, HC 342
229 Magnet schools are schools that are particularly good at one aspect of their provision, making them particularly attractive to certain cohorts, in this case pupils with SEND; National Network of Parent Carer Forums (SCN0199) para 4.15iii
230 Essex County Council (SCN0498) para 1.1; Thameside Primary School (SCN0079) para 7; Ms Gillian Doherty (SCN0257) para 3.5; Headteachers’ Roundtable (SCN0208) para 8
231 Lambeth SEND (SCN0077) para 6b; NASUWT (SCN0139) para VI; Christopher Robertson (SCN0176) para 10; Ms Nancy Gedge (SCN0179) para 1.7; North Yorkshire County Council (SCN0185) para 4f; Cheshire West & Chester Council (SCN0405) para 3.6; National Development Team for Inclusion (SCN0412) para 3; London Borough of Hackney (SCN0422) para 1.6; Federation of Leaders in Special Education (SCN0448) para 1.4; Education and Children’s Services Group, Prospect (SCN0315) para 8; Oxfordshire County Council (SCN0317) para 2; Ms Sally Lindsay-German (SCN0350) para 7; Parental Submission 19 (SCN0081) para 11
232 Christopher Robertson (SCN0176) para 8; Parental Submission 56 (SCN0020) para 3; NASUWT (SCN0139) para 12, Special Needs Jungle Ltd (SCN0419) para 24; Ambitious about Autism (SCN0311) para 37; Mrs Alison Prosser (SCN0359) para 4; Lambeth SEND (SCN0077) para 6b; NASUWT (SCN0139) para VI; GMB (SCN0444) para 12
233 “Hundreds of special needs pupils ‘squeezed’ out of school”, BBC, 20 June 2019
234 Education Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, Forgotten Children: alternative provision and the scandal of ever increasing exclusions, HC 342, paras 14 and 21
237 Parental Submission 44 (SCN0314) para 3.7; Parental Submission 101 (SCN0382) para 5; Parental Submission 110 (SCN0518) paras 2–4
238 The RIP:Stars is a group of disabled young researchers aged 17–25 from Coventry. They undertook research into quality and rights-based Education Health and Care Plans.
242 Department for Education, Making significant changes (‘prescribed alterations’) to maintained schools (October 2018), p7
243 Parental Submission 101 (SCN0382) para 20; Parental Submission 115 (SCN0565) para 26; Parental Submission 39 (SCN0188); Parental Submission 76 (SCN0215) para 2.9; Parental Submission 114 (SCN0575) para 5
244 Parental Submission 94 (SCN0336) para 15; Parental Submission 51 (SCN0478) para 3; Parental Submission 115 (SCN0565) para 26; Parental Submission 163 (SCN0078) para VIII
249 Department for Education, Special Educational Needs in England: January 2019 (July 2019), p1
250 Department for Education, Special Educational Needs in England - January 2019: national tables (July 2019), Table 1
251 Department for Education & Department for Health, Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 (January 2015), p86
254 The Special Educational Consortium (SCN0480) para 7; Warwickshire County Council (SCN0479) para 16; Calderdale MBC (SCN0491) para 4.1
257 Mrs Wendy Janes (SCN0058) para 1.3; National Network of Parent Carer Forums (SCN0199) para 4.14; New College Durham (SCN0516) para 7; Anonymous 4 (SCN0126) para 15; Ms Vanessa Grizzle (SCN0474) para 1.2; Wellspring Academy Trust (SCN0395) para 1.6; National Education Union (SCN0252) paras 7–8; Association of School and College Leaders (SCN0265) para 9; Staffordshire County Council (SCN0458) para 17
258 Wraparound Partnership (SCN0369) para 7; Contact (SCN0499) para 10.4; Telford and Wrekin Council (SCN0429) paras 2.2–3; Calderdale MBC (SCN0491) para 3.3
262 Mr Neil Alexander-Passe (SCN0143) paras 8 and 18b; SENCO Forum (SCN0178) paras 6–8 and 12; Infant School 1 (SCN0123) para 25; Anonymous 4 (SCN0126) para 7; Bren Prendergast (SCN0522) para 1.8; Parents of Children with Additional Needs (SCN0556) para 4; Dr Jill Harrington (SCN0477) para 19.3; Dr Helen Curran (SCN0486) para 13.9; Essex County Council (SCN0498) para 1.8; Love to Learn (SCN0275) para 5.1; Anonymous 3 (SCN0286) para 1.4
263 Department for Education and Department for Health, Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years (January 2015), para 6.37
273 This is based on school census data available from the Department for Education and may not include all children and young people who have an Education Health and Care Plan.
274 Department for Education, Statements of SEN and EHC plans: England 2019 (May 2019), p 1
275 IPSEA, ‘Education, Health and Care Plans’, accessed 4 September 2019
276 Fulham College Boys’ School (SCN0068) paras 7 - 8; Gloucester House—Tavistock children’s day unit (SCN0071) para 5; Temple Hill Primary School (SCN0076) para 2; Infant School 1 (SCN0123) para 4; Mrs Penny Earl (SCN0136) para 3.2; NASUWT (SCN0139) para 20; Gloucestershire Special School Headteachers (SCN0146) para 9; National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (SCN0183) para 29; The Milestone School, Gloucester (SCN0205) para 7; Association of School and College Leaders (SCN0265) para 23; New College Worcester (SCN0338) para 5; Wellspring Academy Trust (SCN0395) para 2.5; Surrey Special School Headteachers’ Association (SCN0417) para 2.4; Derwen College (SCN0443) para 3.1; GMB (SCN0444) para 13; Orchard Hill College (SCN0553) para 8; Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Information Advice and Support Service Board (SCN0242) paras 2.4 and 3.1; Our Barn Carers Project (SCN0067) para 20; Parental Submission 146 (SCN0437) para 3.3; Parental Submission 69 (SCN0253) para 7; Ms Gillian Doherty (SCN0257) para 2.1; SEND Family Voices (SCN0290) para 2; Gemma Birks (SCN0455) para 28; Parental Submission 94 (SCN0336) para 9
278 Peak School (SCN0014) para 4b; Infant School 1 (SCN0123) paras 6 and 18; St Martin’s Governing Body (SCN0128) para 1; Mr Dez Riddler (SCN0148) para 22; New College Worcester (SCN0338) para 5; Wellspring Academy Trust (SCN0395) para 2.5; Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Information Advice and Support Service Board (SCN0242) para 3.2; Warwickshire Parent Carer Forum (SCN0171) para 4; Parental Submission 36 (SCN0173) para 3.2; Parental Submission 93 (SCN0334) para 7; Mrs Alison Prosser (SCN0359) para 5; Parental Submission 137 (SCN0361) para 2; Parental Submission 142 (SCN0420) para 3; ASSET (SCN0488) para 6.4; Herts Parent Carer Involvement (SCN0552) para 2.2; Parents of Children with Additional Needs (SCN0556) para 5; Parental Submission 120 (SCN0564) para 2.14; Penny Hoffmann-Becking (SCN0652) para 2; Reachout ASC (SCN0457) para 4.1
279 Peak School (SCN0014) para 4b; Infant School 1 (SCN0123) para 11; National Star (SCN0310) para 4.2
280 Mrs Kristin Dockar (SCN0066) para 7; Infant School 1 (SCN0123) para 4; NASUWT (SCN0139) para 20; Mr Shaun Jukes (SCN0196) para 2.3; National Star (SCN0310) para 4.2; Royal National College for the Blind (SCN0502) para 8.6; Bren Prendergast (SCN0522) para 1.8; Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Information Advice and Support Service Board (SCN0242) para 2.3; Ms Gillian Doherty (SCN0257) para 2.1; Parental Submission 101 (SCN0382) para 4; Our Barn Carers Project (SCN0067) para 3; Parental Submission 81 (SCN0158) para 4.1; Parental Submission 34 (SCN0165) para 5; Warwickshire Parent Carer Forum (SCN0171) para 6; Parental Submission 39 (SCN0188) para 5 and 29; Ms Gillian Doherty (SCN0257) para 1.5; Parental Submission 55 (SCN0287) para 2.2; Parental Submission 94 (SCN0336) para 9; Parental Submission 138 (SCN0362) para 28; Parental Submission 103 (SCN0389) para 11; EHCP Experiences 18–25 (SCN0414) para 2.2; Hackney Independent Parent-Carer Forum (SCN0468) paras 14–5; Herts Parent Carer Involvement (SCN0552) para 2.4
281 Ashton Sixth Form College (SCN0086) para 4; Infant School 1 (SCN0123) para 4; Acorns School (SCN0137) para 1.3; Ms Nancy Gedge (SCN0179) para 1.4; Mr Shaun Jukes (SCN0196) para 2.3; Warwickshire Parent Carer Forum (SCN0171) para 4; National Network of Parent Carer Forums (SCN0199) para 4.3; Ms Gillian Doherty (SCN0257) para 2.1; SEND Family Voices (SCN0290) para 2; Parental Submission 93 (SCN0334) para 7; Special Needs Jungle Ltd (SCN0419) para 26
282 Barn Carers Project (SCN0067) para 17; Ms Gillian Doherty (SCN0257) para 2.2; Parental Submission 132 (SCN0266) para 12; Parental Submission 27 (SCN0135) para 1.5; Parental Submission 133 (SCN0175) para 5; Special Needs Jungle Ltd (SCN0419) para 27; Parental Submission 72 (SCN0620) para 2a
284 Carlisle Rural South SENCO Cluster (SCN0189) para 4; Walton On The Hill Primary School (SCN0548) para 4
288 Fulham College Boys’ School (SCN0068) para 6; The National Autistic Society (SCN0473) para 20; Afasic (SCN0292) para 12; Sense (SCN0453) para 9; Parental Submission 41 (SCN0245) para 3.2; Gemma Birks (SCN0455) para 31; Queen Alexandra College (SCN0572) para 6; NASUWT (SCN0139) para 18
289 Reachout ASC (SCN0457) para 4.1; Fulham College Boys’ School (SCN0068) para 7; Gloucester House—Tavistock children’s day unit (SCN0071) para 6
291 Fulham College Boys’ School (SCN0068) para 5; Infant School 1 (SCN0123) para 15; SENCO Bristol Cluster Group (SCN0532) para 6
292 Gloucester House—Tavistock children’s day unit (SCN0071) para 8; NASUWT (SCN0139) para 18; SENCO Forum (SCN0178) para 16; National Education Union (SCN0252) para 10; Catholic Education Service (SCN0258) para 8; Association of School and College Leaders (SCN0265) para 10; Trainee Educational Psychologists at Newcastle University (SCN0340) para 3; Sixth Form Colleges Association (SCN0402) para 5; Chadsgrove Teaching School Alliance (SCN0472) para 9; Northampton College (SCN0157) para 5
293 Fulham College Boys’ School (SCN0068) para 5; Association of School and College Leaders (SCN0265) para 33; NASUWT (SCN0139) para 9; Sixth Form Colleges Association (SCN0402) para 10
294 National Star (SCN0310) para 1.2; Brinsworth Academy (SCN0072) para 1; The legal test for an EHC needs assessment is set out in s 36(8) of the Children and Families Act. The local authority must secure an EHC needs assessment for the child or young person if, after having regard to any views expressed and evidence submitted under subsection (7), the authority is of the opinion that—(a) the child or young person has or may have special educational needs, and (b) it may be necessary for special educational provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan.
296 nasen, ‘Partnerships and NASENCo’ accessed 5 September 2019
298 SENCO Bristol Cluster Group (SCN0532) para 6; Nasenco course, MMU (SCN0110) para 2.3; NASUWT (SCN0139) para 17; Mrs Jan Stoney (SCN0328) paras 2a and 2c; Wellspring Academy Trust (SCN0395) para 1.9; The British Psychological Society (SCN0447) para 2.5
299 Fulham College Boys’ School (SCN0068) para 9; Mrs Kathleen Richardson (SCN0130) para 8; Northampton College (SCN0157) para 9; National Education Union (SCN0252) para 23; Anonymous 4 (SCN0126) para 8; SENCO Forum (SCN0178) paras 6–7 and 37
304 We explore the issues around the reforms on post-16 and post-19 education later in this report.
305 Sixth Form Colleges Association (SCN0402) para 11; Derwen College (SCN0443) para 1.1; Association of Colleges (SCN0492) para 8; Derby College (SCN0459) para 1.4
308 National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (SCN0183) paras 13–4
309 National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (SCN0183) para 12
313 Spring Common Academy (SCN0225) para 26; Federation of Leaders in Special Education (SCN0448) para 2.5
314 National Association of Principal Educational Psychologists (NAPEP) (SCN0441) para 2; Association of Educational Psychologists (SCN0495) paras 2.4 and 4.3; Infant School 1 (SCN0123) para 5
319 Brinsworth Academy (SCN0072) para 6; Dr Cath Lowther (SCN0099) para 14; Temple Hill Primary School (SCN0076) para 15; The Education Alliance (SCN0152) para 5; St Barnabas CE VC Primary School (SCN0400) para 4
322 North Yorkshire County Council (SCN0185) para 5a; Cornwall Council (SCN0226) para 2.1; Northumberland County Council (SCN0481) para 10; Calderdale MBC (SCN0491) para 4.1; North Lincolnshire Council (SCN0527) para 2a; Kent County Council (SCN0592) para 4.2
327 London Borough of Hackney (SCN0422) para 2.1; Devon SEND Improvement Board (SCN0428) para 2.1; Nottinghamshire County Council (SCN0484) para 15
331 Association of Directors of Children’s Services (SCN0503) para 11; Northamptonshire County Council (SCN0496) para 9
342 East Sussex County Council (SCN0685) paras 17–8; Halton Borough Council (SCN0684) paras v–vii; North Yorkshire County Council (SCN0185) para 3biii
346 London Borough of Hackney (SCN0422) para 1.8; Devon SEND Improvement Board (SCN0428) para 1.7; Hampshire County Council Children’s Services (SCN0452) para 1.2; Plymouth City Council (SCN0454) para 2.7.3; Calderdale MBC (SCN0491) para 5.3; Cambridgeshire County Council (SCN0537) para 1.20; City of York SEN Services (SCN0589) para 3.1; West Sussex County Council (SCN0594) para 4.1; Cambridgeshire County Council (SCN0537) para 1.11
349 Cambridgeshire County Council (SCN0537) para 1.11; Lambeth SEND (SCN0077) para 2; Isle of Wight CC SEN Service (SCN0194) para 10; Local Government Association (SCN0195) para 5.1; London Borough of Brent (SCN0209) para 2; Cornwall Council (SCN0373) para 4; Coventry City Council (SCN0394) para 4.2; Cheshire West & Chester Council (SCN0405) para 3.4; East Sussex County Council (SCN0416) para 1.4; Telford and Wrekin Council (SCN0429) para 2.2; Staffordshire County Council (SCN0458) para 7; West Sussex County Council (SCN0594) para 2.4; North Yorkshire County Council (SCN0185) para 3a; Calderdale MBC (SCN0491) para 3.3; Northamptonshire County Council (SCN0496) para 4; City of York SEN Services (SCN0589) para 1.1; Kent County Council (SCN0592) para 3.3
351 See footnote 296
353 Anonymous 3 (SCN0286) para 1.3; North Yorkshire County Council (SCN0185) para 3d; Devon SEND Improvement Board (SCN0428) para 1.3; East Sussex County Council (SCN0416) para 1.6; Halton Borough Council (SCN0684) para 2
358 Parental Submission 27 (SCN0135) para 2.3; South East Region of National Network of Parent Carer Forums (SCN0399) para 4
359 Parental Submission 29 (SCN0144) para 3.5; Parental Submission 39 (SCN0188) para 30; Our Barn Carers Project (SCN0067) para 3; Parental Submission 18 (SCN0075) para 17
361 Parental Submission 66 (SCN0127) para 1.3; Parental Submission 131 (SCN0239) para 1; see also paragraph 204
363 Parental Submission 74 (SCN0162) para 9; Mrs Roxanna Kishore-Bigord (SCN0462) para 3; Herts Parent Carer Involvement (SCN0552) para 2.7; Parental Submission 129 (SCN0220) paras 25–6
364 Parental Submission 61 (SCN0174) para 6; Parental Submission 39 (SCN0188) para 19; Parental Submission 131 (SCN0239) para 2; Parental Submission 155 (SCN0280) para 3; Parental Submission 94 (SCN0336) para 8; Parental Submission 99 (SCN0380) para 4; Parental Submission 115 (SCN0565) para 6; Parental Submission 157 (SCN0645) para 6; Parental Submission 3 (SCN0008) para 1
366 Parental Submission 13 (SCN0042) para 1.7; Parental Submission 121 (SCN0046) para 2; Our Barn Carers Project (SCN0067) para 36; Parental Submission 17 (SCN0069) para 4.2; Mrs Nicola Hanson (SCN0026) para 6
367 Parental Submission 8 (SCN0019) para 9.1; Claire Ryan (SCN0032) para 5; Parental Submission 81 (SCN0158) para 4; Parental Submission 36 (SCN0173) para 2.2; Parental Submission 133 (SCN0175) para 2; Parental Submission 101 (SCN0382) para 8; Parental Submission 105 (SCN0432) para 2; Parental Submission 120 (SCN0564) para 2.9; Parental Submission 157 (SCN0645) para 7
368 Our Barn Carers Project (SCN0067) para 6; Parental Submission 39 (SCN0188) para 25; Parental Submission 103 (SCN0389) para 10; Parental Submission 73 (SCN0082) para 3
369 Parental Submission 17 (SCN0069) para 4.6; Parental Submission 22 (SCN0102) para 7; Parental Submission 96 (SCN0346) para 22; Hampshire Parent Carer Network (SCN0471) para 37
371 Parental Submission 28 (SCN0142) para 3; ASSET (SCN0488) para 6.3; Parental Submission 17 (SCN0069) para 4.1; Parental Submission 29 (SCN0144) para 4.1; Parental Submission 74 (SCN0162) para 25; Special Needs Jungle Ltd (SCN0419) para 48; Parental Submission 120 (SCN0564) para 2.11
373 Parental Submission 99 (SCN0380) para 6; Claire Ryan (SCN0032) paras 11 and 14; Parental Submission 57 (SCN0034) para 3.4; Parental Submission 31 (SCN0153) para 3.3; Miss Helen Dobbs (SCN0172) para 2.4
375 Parental Submission 20 (SCN0090) para 3; Parental Submission 148 (SCN0568) para 8; Claire Ryan (SCN0032) para 13; Parental Submission 22 (SCN0102) para 7
376 Our Barn Carers Project (SCN0067) para 3; Parental Submission 80 (SCN0154) para 3.2; Parental Submission 81 (SCN0158) para 4.1; Parental Submission 34 (SCN0165) para 5; Warwickshire Parent Carer Forum (SCN0171) para 6; Parental Submission 36 (SCN0173) para 2.2; Parental Submission 39 (SCN0188) para 29; Ms Gillian Doherty (SCN0257) para 1.5; Parental Submission 55 (SCN0287) para 2.2; Parental Submission 94 (SCN0336) para 9; Parental Submission 138 (SCN0362) para 28; Parental Submission 103 (SCN0389) para 11; EHCP Experiences 18–25 (SCN0414) para 2.2; Hackney Independent Parent-Carer Forum (SCN0468) para 14; Herts Parent Carer Involvement (SCN0552) para 2.4; Parental Submission 124 (SCN0117) para 8
378 Parental Submission 161 (SCN0647) para 4; Parental Submission 21 (SCN0101) para 2.3; Parental Submission 52 (SCN0482) para 2; Parental Submission 147 (SCN0524) para 7
382 Parental Submission 75 (SCN0204) para 9; Parental Submission 54 (SCN0493) para 3; Parental Submission 161 (SCN0647) para 6
385 RIP:STARS: Franklin, A., Brady, G. and Durell, S. Defining quality and rights based Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) for disabled children and young people (2018) p13
390 See for example paragraph 171
391 Pre-school Learning Alliance (SCN0147) para 3.1; Beams (SCN0224) para 4.1; Sense (SCN0453) para 9; Reachout ASC (SCN0457) para 7.1; The Special Educational Consortium (SCN0480) para 20; We Love Carers (SCN0540) para 4.1; sendPACT (SCN0559) para 5.2; Lisa O’Leary (SCN0023) para 6; Mr Dez Riddler (SCN0148) para 26; Wellspring Academy Trust (SCN0395) para 1.12; Federation of Leaders in Special Education (SCN0448) para 4.1; Chadsgrove Teaching School Alliance (SCN0472) para 19; Brinsworth Academy (SCN0072) paras 8–9
393 Henry Tyndale School (SCN0041) paras 2.2–3 and 4.2; Mr Simeon Elliott (SCN0059) para 1.3; The Milestone School, Gloucester (SCN0205) para 7; Surrey Special School Headteachers’ Association (SCN0417) paras 4.1–3; Voice (SCN0434) para 13; Association of Educational Psychologists (SCN0495) para 5.2; Kingsbury Primary School (SCN0580) paras 15 and 17
394 Lisa O’Leary (SCN0023) para 6; Mr Dez Riddler (SCN0148) para 26; Wellspring Academy Trust (SCN0395) para 1.12; Federation of Leaders in Special Education (SCN0448) para 4.1; Chadsgrove Teaching School Alliance (SCN0472) para 19
395 Julie King (SCN0051) para 7; NASUWT (SCN0139) para 25; Ms Nancy Gedge (SCN0179) para 4.1; Mr Paul Silvester (SCN0198) para 2.3
397 Mrs Kristin Dockar (SCN0066) paras 21 and 24; Gloucester House—Tavistock children’s day unit (SCN0071) para 11; Nasenco course, MMU (SCN0110) para 4.4; More House Foundation (SCN0122) para 4; Infant School 1 (SCN0123) para 30; Acorns School (SCN0137) para 3.2; Northampton College (SCN0157) para 10; Headteachers’ Roundtable (SCN0208) para 11; British Association of Teachers of the Deaf (SCN0217) para 7; Independent Schools Council (SCN0299) para 13; New College Worcester (SCN0338) para 16; Sixth Form Colleges Association (SCN0402) para 19; Orchard Hill College (SCN0553) para 18
398 Fulham College Boys’ School (SCN0068) para 15; Infant School 1 (SCN0123) para 16; Mr Dez Riddler (SCN0148) para 16
400 Gloucester House—Tavistock children’s day unit (SCN0071) para 12; St Martin’s Governing Body (SCN0128) para 4; West Midlands SEND Forum (SCN0161) para 13
401 Nasenco course, MMU (SCN0110) para 4.5; British Association of Teachers of the Deaf (SCN0217) para 7; SENCO Bristol Cluster Group (SCN0532) para 28
403 West Midlands SEND Forum (SCN0161) para 15; Mr Shaun Jukes (SCN0196) para 4.1; Headteachers’ Roundtable (SCN0208) para 13; Voice (SCN0434) para 13; Federation of Leaders in Special Education (SCN0448) para 4.4
405 Surrey Special School Headteachers’ Association (SCN0417) para 4.3; Chadsgrove Teaching School Alliance (SCN0472) para 24; Treloar’s (SCN0605) para 14
406 SENCO Forum (SCN0178) para 27; National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (SCN0183) para 46; Carlisle Rural South SENCO Cluster (SCN0189) para 9; Spring Common Academy (SCN0225) para 19
408 Julie King (SCN0051) para 4; New College Worcester (SCN0338) para 16; Elaine Parkinson (SCN0582) para 1
411 Castle Wood Special School (SCN0391) para 5.1; Kisimul Group (SCN0409) para 26; Q281 [Jon Boyes]
415 Oxfordshire County Council (SCN0317) para 19; London Borough of Hackney (SCN0422) paras 4.1–7; Kent County Council (SCN0592) paras 7.4–6; Telford and Wrekin Council (SCN0429) para 5.2
419 Coventry City Council (SCN0394) para 6.1; Telford and Wrekin Council (SCN0429) para 5.1; Northamptonshire County Council (SCN0496) para 15; Calderdale MBC (SCN0491) para 6.2; Hampshire County Council Children’s Services (SCN0452) para 4.1; Q392 [Charlotte Ramsden]; Q645 [Stuart Gallimore]
427 London Borough of Hackney (SCN0422) para 4.7; East Sussex County Council (SCN0416) para 4.6; Staffordshire County Council (SCN0458) para 29; Warwickshire County Council (SCN0479) para 32; Association of Directors of Children’s Services (SCN0503) para 20; East Sussex County Council (SCN0685) para 59
436 East Sussex County Council (SCN0416) para 4.6; Devon SEND Improvement Board (SCN0428) para 4.3; Hampshire County Council Children’s Services (SCN0452) para 4.1; Warwickshire County Council (SCN0479) para 31; Essex County Council (SCN0498) para 4.4; Association of Directors of Children’s Services (SCN0503) para 21
439 Part F of an EHCP sets out the special educational provision that a child needs to meet their special educational needs; Coventry City Council (SCN0394) para 4.4
449 Royal College of Occupational Therapists (SCN0439) para 10; Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (SCN0500) para 4.12
464 Parental Submission 11 (SCN0030) para 28; Parental Submission 37 (SCN0181) para 16; Parental Submission 137 (SCN0361) para 1; Parental Submission 47 (SCN0366) para 9; Parental Submission 103 (SCN0389) para 22iii; Parental Submission 111 (SCN0555) para 34; SEND Family Voices (SCN0290) para 5.2
466 Parental Submission 38 (SCN0182); Parental Submission 114 (SCN0575) paras 4–5; Parental Submission 54 (SCN0493) para 13
468 Parental Submission 103 (SCN0389) para 22vii; Hackney Independent Parent-Carer Forum (SCN0468) para 71; ASSET (SCN0488) para 8.1; Q82 [Matt Keer]
469 Parental Submission 18 (SCN0075) para 31; Warwickshire Parent Carer Forum (SCN0171) para 14; Parental Submission 29 (SCN0144) para 6.4; Down Syndrome Training & Support Service ltd (SCN0053) para 3; Afasic (SCN0292) para 17; Parental Submission 127 (SCN0169) para 21; Parental Submission 37 (SCN0181) para 14; Parental Submission 155 (SCN0280) para 17; Parental Submission 103 (SCN0389) para 22i; Parental Submission 104 (SCN0407) para 4o
470 Parental Submission 29 (SCN0144) para 6.3; Parental Submission 30 (SCN0149) para 6; Parental Submission 18 (SCN0075) para 31; Afasic (SCN0292) para 19; Parental Submission 99 (SCN0380) para 17
474 Parental Submission 31 (SCN0153) para 5.1; Parental Submission 127 (SCN0169) para 12; Miss Helen Dobbs (SCN0172) para 4.3; Parental Submission 37 (SCN0181) para 15; Parental Submission 39 (SCN0188) para 46; Ms Gillian Doherty (SCN0257) para 4.1; Parental Submission 155 (SCN0280) para 18; Parental Submission 5 (SCN0010) para 3; SEND Family Voices (SCN0290) para 5.1; Hackney Independent Parent-Carer Forum (SCN0468) para 69; Claire Ryan (SCN0032) para 22
476 Parental Submission 57 (SCN0034) para 5.2; Parental Submission 17 (SCN0069) para 6.1; Parental Submission 155 (SCN0280) para 19; Parental Submission 105 (SCN0432) para 8; Ms Gillian Doherty (SCN0257) para 4.3
481 Parental Submission 164 (SCN0332) para 5.2; Hackney Independent Parent-Carer Forum (SCN0468) para 21
482 Attainment 8 is a performance measure that measures a students’ average grade across eight subjects. These eight subjects are the same subjects that count towards Progress 8.
483 Department for Education, Key stage 4 including Multi-Academy Trust performance 2018 (revised), (January 2019), pp 1 and 28
484 Department for Education, Key stage 4 including Multi-Academy Trust performance 2018 (revised) (January 2019), p28
485 Department for Education, Key stage 4 including Multi-Academy Trust performance 2018 (revised) (January 2019), p27
486 People with disabilities in employment, Briefing Paper 7540, House of Commons Library, May 2019, p14
487 People with disabilities in employment, Briefing Paper 7540, House of Commons Library, May 2019, p14
488 HM Government, ‘How much is it going to cost?’, accessed 25 September 2019
489 Fulham College Boys’ School (SCN0068) para 21; Mr Dez Riddler (SCN0148) para 30; National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (SCN0183) para 49
490 Mrs Kristin Dockar (SCN0066) para 27; Fulham College Boys’ School (SCN0068) para 16; Mr Shaun Jukes (SCN0196) para 5.1; Herne Bay High School (SCN0427) para 11
492 National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (SCN0183) para 55
501 Northampton College (SCN0157) para 13; Schools Students And Teachers Network (SSAT) (SCN0505) para 8.3; New College Durham (SCN0516) para 9; Orchard Hill College (SCN0553) para 21
507 ISOS Partnership, Have we reached a ‘tipping point’? Trends in spending for children and young people with SEND in England (December 2018)
512 Surrey Special School Headteachers’ Association (SCN0417) para 5.2; Federation of Leaders in Special Education (SCN0448) para 5.6
514 Children and Families Act 2014, section 46
515 Or the authority ceases to be responsible for the person: see Children and Families Act 2014, section 45(1)(a)
516 Children and Families Act 2014, section 45(3)
517 National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (SCN0183) paras 50–51, National Association of Principal Educational Psychologists (NAPEP) (SCN0441) para 25; Association of Colleges (SCN0492) para 22.3; New College Durham (SCN0516) para 1; Mr Dez Riddler (SCN0148) para 29
521 National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (SCN0183) para 49
522 Ms Nancy Gedge (SCN0179) para 5.7; National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (SCN0183) para 55
523 Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1530), regs 12(3) and 2(2)
534 Education Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2017–19, The apprenticeships ladder of opportunity: quality not quantity, HC 344, para 84
537 Parental Submission 6 (SCN0011) para 4; National Network of Parent Carer Forums (SCN0199) para 4.11
539 East Sussex County Council (SCN0416) para 5.1; Hampshire County Council Children’s Services (SCN0452) para 5.5; Devon SEND Improvement Board (SCN0428) para 3.6; Warwickshire County Council (SCN0479) para 22; Telford and Wrekin Council (SCN0429) para 4.2a; Northumberland County Council (SCN0481) para 13
542 Coventry City Council (SCN0394) para 7.3; Devon SEND Improvement Board (SCN0428) para 5.1; Calderdale MBC (SCN0491) para 7.3; Essex County Council (SCN0498) paras 5.2–4
545 Staffordshire County Council (SCN0458) para 31; Northumberland County Council (SCN0481) para 17; Northamptonshire County Council (SCN0496) para 18; West Sussex County Council (SCN0594) para 6.1
547 Coventry City Council (SCN0394) para 7.1; East Sussex County Council (SCN0416) para 5.6; Telford and Wrekin Council (SCN0429) para 6.1
549 Telford and Wrekin Council (SCN0429) para 6.1; Hampshire County Council Children’s Services (SCN0452) para 5.3; Herefordshire Council (SCN0509) para 6.2; North Yorkshire County Council (SCN0185) para 8f
552 Royal College of Occupational Therapists (SCN0439) para 27; Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (SCN0500) para 7.1
555 Warwickshire Parent Carer Forum (SCN0171) para 22; Hackney Independent Parent-Carer Forum (SCN0468) paras 83–8
557 National Network of Parent Carer Forums (SCN0199) para 4.10; Pinpoint Cambridgeshire (SCN0264) para 21i; SEND Family Voices (SCN0290) para 6.4; Parental Submission 133 (SCN0175) para 8
559 Warwickshire Parent Carer Forum (SCN0171) para 25; Parental Submission 138 (SCN0362) para 62; Our Barn Carers Project (SCN0067) para 39
560 Parental Submission 71 (SCN0262) para 16; Herts Parent Carer Involvement (SCN0552) para 5.2; Pinpoint Cambridgeshire (SCN0264) para 21iv; South East Region of National Network of Parent Carer Forums (SCN0399) para 12; Parental Submission 31 (SCN0153) para 6.2; Warwickshire Parent Carer Forum (SCN0171) para 24; Parental Submission 56 (SCN0020) para 13
568 Parental Submission 31 (SCN0153) para 6.2; Pinpoint Cambridgeshire (SCN0264) para 21iii; Parental Submission 138 (SCN0362) para 60
569 Pinpoint Cambridgeshire (SCN0264) para 21iv; South East Region of National Network of Parent Carer Forums (SCN0399) para 12
574 Matt Keer (SCN0649) paras 2– 5c; Penny Hoffmann-Becking (SCN0652) paras 11–3; Anonymous 9 (SCN0659); SOS SEN (SCN0563) paras 8.4 and 10; Parental Submission 35 (SCN0168) para 2.4; Ms Gillian Doherty (SCN0257) paras 1.1–2; SEND Family Voices (SCN0290) para 2.2; Parental Submission 66 (SCN0127) para 1.3; Parental Submission 131 (SCN0239) para 1; Federation of Leaders in Special Education (SCN0448) para 1.5; Q609 [Alison Fiddy]; Q568 [Alison Fiddy]; Q613 [Alison Fiddy]; IPSEA, IPSEA’s response to the Education Committee’s Special Educational Needs and Disability Inquiry (June 2018) para 4.3
581 See paragraph 145
582 See paragraph 140
583 See for example paragraph 185
584 See paragraph 176
585 Sixth Form Colleges Association (SCN0402) para 6; National Deaf Children’s Society (SCN0446) para 6c; Mr Myles Pilling (SCN0088) para 3
589 Chadsgrove Teaching School Alliance (SCN0472) para 6; The Milestone School, Gloucester (SCN0205) para 11; Royal National College for the Blind (SCN0502) para 9.15
592 Calderdale MBC (SCN0491) para 3.2; West Sussex County Council (SCN0594) para 2.5; Coventry City Council (SCN0394) para 5.1
595 London Borough of Hackney (SCN0422) para 1.11; Lambeth SEND (SCN0077) para 4e; East Sussex County Council (SCN0416) para 1.4
599 West Sussex County Council (SCN0594) para 2.2; City of York SEN Services (SCN0589) para 5.1; Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (SCN0403) para 6.1bi
603 See paragraph 157
604 See paragraph 165
605 See paragraph 145
611 Parental Submission 13 (SCN0042) para 1.7; Parental Submission 121 (SCN0046) para 2; Our Barn Carers Project (SCN0067) para 36; Parental Submission 17 (SCN0069) para 4.2; IPSEA, IPSEA’s response to the Education Committee’s Special Educational Needs and Disability Inquiry (June 2018), para 4.5
617 Our Barn Carers Project (SCN0067) para 36; Parental Submission 27 (SCN0135) para 4.3; Parental Submission 62 (SCN0193) para 11; We Love Carers (SCN0540) para 2.2
620 Penny Hoffmann-Becking (SCN0652) para 5; Parental Submission 22 (SCN0102) para 18; ASSET (SCN0488) para 5.3; Parental Submission 130 (SCN0238) para 42; Mrunal Sisodia (SCN0657) para 26; Penny Hoffmann-Becking (SCN0652) para 5; Hampshire Parent Carer Network (SCN0471) para 49
627 Ministry of Justice, Tribunal Statistics Quarterly: January to March 2019 - main tables (January to March 2019) (June 2019), Table S2
628 Ministry of Justice, Tribunal Statistics Quarterly, January - March 2019 (June 2019), p10
629 Ministry of Justice, Tribunal Statistics Quarterly: January to March 2019 - main tables (January to March 2019) (June 2019), Table APJ 1
646 Henry Tyndale School (SCN0041) para 3.2; More House Foundation (SCN0122) para 1; Mr Shaun Jukes (SCN0196) para 1.1; Independent Schools Council (SCN0299) para 3; National Star (SCN0310) para 3.4
647 Special Needs Jungle, ‘What costs £103.7 million and makes disabled children miserable?’, accessed 17 September 2019
657 Special Needs Jungle, ‘The latest SEND Tribunal figures paint a troubling picture’, accessed 17 September 2019
665 See paragraph 127
Published: 23 October 2019