Search results
Feb 26, 2016 · Poverty and Special Needs: A quarter of FSM pupils have SEND. At LKMco we are deeply concerned by the profound links between children having Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and growing up in poverty; as well as the additional barriers these children face in accessing the support they need. Urgent action is needed to remove those ...
- Executive summary
- Methodology
- SEND: the recent past
- SEND at the start of 2020
- Families’ experiences during the pandemic
- Local areas’ experiences and responses during the pandemic
- Old issues and new issues
- Annex: data tables for figures
Children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), their families and those who work with them have faced significant challenges during the pandemic. The extent to which education, health and care providers in different local areas rose to these challenges to meet children and young people’s needs led to hugely varied experiences. Yet, few of the negative experiences that many children and young people with SEND and their families had during this time are new. There are long-standing issues in the SEND system. The pandemic has highlighted and intensified these issues. It has also deepened the effects that they have on children and young people with SEND.
In 2009, in the final report of his inquiry, Brian Lamb called for a ‘radical overhaul’ of the SEND system.[footnote 1] The report called for greater ambition for children and young people with SEND. It cited a culture of low expectations and a system that too often failed to deliver what children and their families really needed.
The Children and Families Act 2014[footnote 2] and the subsequent ‘SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years’,[footnote 3] also published in 2014, set out some key principles. A very important one was that children, young people and their families should play a much more central part in making decisions about the way in which needs could best be met. This is known as ‘co-production’. Alongside this, there was a strong emphasis on education, health and social care services working closely together to meet children and young people’s needs, rather than as separate entities. It was intended that children’s needs would be identified earlier and that support would continue until the age of 25 where necessary.
Ofsted’s area SEND inspection evidence suggests that many local areas have struggled to implement these reforms successfully. From their introduction in 2016 through to March 2020, we routinely found local areas that were not properly implementing the requirements laid out in the code of practice and related legislation. Common weaknesses included:
•a lack of joint commissioning
•no co-production or co-production that was not working properly
In the autumn term 2020, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) carried out 6 ‘interim visits’ to local areas. We carried out 4 more during the spring term 2021. In the 10 areas we visited, there are over 84,000 children and young people with special educational needs (SEN) support,[footnote 4] and almost 30,000 with an EHC plan.[footnote 5] We used a case-study approach that focused on a sample of children and young people with SEND to examine their experiences of support during the pandemic.
During these visits, inspectors spoke to the parents and carers of 44 children and young people, along with the education, health and social care practitioners who worked with them. We also invited children and young people to take part in interviews, but very few did. Inspectors also held discussions with education, health, social care and children’s services leaders from the 10 areas we visited. This included senior officers from the local authority, clinical commissioning groups and NHS services such as therapy providers, and child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). We asked the local areas to distribute surveys to parents, carers and young people to gather their views and experiences of the support they received during the pandemic. Inspectors shared key findings in meetings with local area leaders during the visit.
Introduction
To evaluate and explain the impact of the pandemic on children and young people and their families, it is important to understand the context of the SEND system that was in place when the pandemic began. This section of the report briefly explains this context. There have been many landmark reforms to SEND legislation and guidance in the past. The context for the most recent reforms to legislation and guidance goes back to 2 Select Committee inquiries, in 2006 and 2007.[footnote 7] From these, in 2008, Brian Lamb was commissioned by the then Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to lead an inquiry into how parental confidence in the SEND system could be improved. In his report to the Secretary of State in 2009, he asserted that:[footnote 8] As the system stands it often creates “warrior parents” at odds with the school and feeling they have to fight for what should be their children’s by right; conflict in place of trust. Following the final Lamb Inquiry report, also in 2009,[footnote 9] Ofsted was commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE) to carry out an extensive piece of work. This was to evaluate how well the legislative framework and arrangements served children and young people with SEND, from the early years through to 19. It focused on education and on the contribution of social care and health services. We published our findings in 2010 in the ‘Special educational needs and disability review’.[footnote 10]
2010: Ofsted’s SEN and disability review
Our 2010 review found widespread weaknesses in the quality of what was provided for children with SEND. It stated that the way the system was designed contributed to these problems. In some local areas, inspectors found that the identification of needs was well managed and appropriate. However, this was not common. Inspectors spoke to children and young people during the review. They were clear about what they wanted for the future. They wanted: successful relationships and friendships independence, including choice about who they lived with choice about what to do with their spare time the opportunity to work Parents were equally clear that the system was not helping their children well enough to achieve these goals. They were particularly concerned about what they saw as inconsistencies in the identification of their children’s needs, and getting ‘fair access to high-quality services to meet those needs’. Parents felt that, under the current system, they had to ‘fight for the rights’ of their children. The review concluded that there was ‘poor evaluation by a wide range of public agencies of the quality of the additional support provided for children and young people’. It also noted that, too often, agencies ‘focused simply on whether a service was or was not being provided rather than whether it was effective’. In particular, the report stated that it was not enough for pupils to have a statement of special educational needs. Having one did not mean that pupils’ current needs were being met, but just that they were likely to receive the services that had originally been ‘prescribed’ in their first statement.
The SEND code of practice and area SEND inspections
Under the Children and Families Act 2014, the government placed new duties on local health, care and education services for children and young people with SEND. This led to the SEND code of practice being published. At the same time, the then Minister of State for Children and Families commissioned Ofsted and the CQC to work together to develop and deliver a programme of 152 local area inspections over approximately a 5-year period. Together, the 2 inspectorates designed a new framework focusing on how effectively local areas were fulfilling their duties set out in the code of practice. We began inspecting under this in 2016. A year later, we produced a report analysing the findings of these first 30 inspections.[footnote 11] The report concluded that ‘children and young people identified as needing SEND support had not benefited from the implementation of the code of practice well enough’.[footnote 12] The perception that so many parents had expressed to us in 2010 – that they needed to fight for the rights of their children – remained. Other weaknesses also persisted, such as: children with SEND being excluded, absent or missing from school much more frequently than other pupils nationally, and unofficial exclusions being used issues with access to therapy services, including long waiting times parental frustrations about the timely and accurate identification of SEND, and the lack of co-production By the end of August 2019, a total of 100 inspections had been completed. Of these, half required the local area to produce a written statement of action (WSoA) – something that happens when concerns about an area’s work are significant. Some strengths were noted, particularly around: the better identification of need leaders’ understanding of the effectiveness of SEND arrangements better co-production collaborative working between education, health and care professionals However, there remained weaknesses in joint commissioning, and parents were continuing to experience a fractured approach to education, health and care assessment and planning. In November 2018, the DfE commissioned Ofsted and the CQC to revisit local areas that had been required to produce a WSoA, as well as to complete the remaining area SEND inspections. Of the 21 areas revisited up to March 2020, we deemed 12 to have made insufficient progress in addressing all the significant weaknesses set out in the WSoA. Not enough clarity about who is held accountable for services and provision in the local area and an uncoordinated response between education, health and social care were at the core of most problems that appeared to exist.
The context of SEND in 2020
Data about SEND in schools just before the pandemic showed a system that is changing. There is an increase in the number of children and young people identified as having SEND, including more with an EHC plan.[footnote 13] This is shown in the charts below. Figure 1: Pupils with an EHC plan ‘Primary’ and ‘secondary’ are state-funded mainstream schools. View Figure 1 data in table form. Figure 2: Pupils receiving SEN support without an EHC plan ‘Primary’ and ‘secondary’ are state-funded mainstream schools. View Figure 2 data in table form. Most (84%) pupils with SEND in 2019/20 were being educated in state-funded primary and secondary schools. The vast majority (91%) of pupils with SEN support attended state-funded mainstream schools. In contrast, just under half (49%) of pupils with an EHC plan attended state-funded mainstream schools, and 44% attended special schools. The number of pupils in state-funded special schools increased by 6,400 in 2020 to 128,100, continuing a trend seen since 2006. There has been an increase in the number of pupils in pupil referral units with an EHC plan, up from 13.4% in 2019 to 16.4% in 2020. Far more boys than girls are identified as having SEND. Boys make up 73.1% of all pupils with an EHC plan and 64.6% of pupils with SEN support. In 2020, the most common type of primary (or main) need for pupils with an EHC plan was autistic spectrum disorder. For pupils receiving SEN support, it was speech, language and communication needs. In 2010, we reported that pupils identified as having SEND were disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds. This remains the case. Indeed, the discrepancies increased between 2015/16 and 2019/20, as illustrated below. Figure 3: Pupils with SEND who are eligible for free school meals (FSM) Source: ‘Special educational needs in England, academic Year 2019/20’, Department for Education, 2 July 2020. View Figure 3 data in table form. The identification of pupils with SEND has long been a complex issue. A study by the Education Policy Institute suggests that it has not gone away.[footnote 14] This research found that there was a ‘postcode lottery’ in terms of the identification of SEND, but that this was mostly at school level rather than local area: The most important finding from this report is that which primary school a child attends makes more difference to their chances of being identified with SEND than anything about them as an individual, their experiences or what local authority they live in. The lottery is mostly at school level, with more than half of the differences in identification explained by the school attended… which school a child goes to matters an awful lot to whether they receive SEND support at both the higher or lower levels. The system of assessment is not consistent and not adapted well to children’s individual needs. The sufficiency of funding for SEND has been an increasingly contentious issue. In 2019, the National Audit Office reported that, over time, the DfE had increased school funding, particularly for high needs, but that ‘funding has not kept pace with the rise in the number of publicly funded pupils and with high needs specifically’.[footnote 15] The report went on to explain that, over time, local authorities were increasingly overspending their SEND budgets. This was mainly because more pupils were attending special schools and alternative provision, including independent special schools.[footnote 16]
Outcomes for children and young people with SEND
By 2020, many of our inspections of local areas had identified different services working more effectively in partnership with each other to help children to be ready for school. When they take up places in early years settings, children with SEND are more likely now than in the past to have their needs identified and well met. This is not universally the case, however. Our ‘Supporting SEND’ report noted that some of the pupils included in the case studies had not had their needs accurately identified until later in their primary education or even until they reached secondary school.[footnote 17] This was in spite of there being concerns about their development at a young age. Moreover, despite the apparent improvement in the early years, this success does not appear to continue into key stage 1 and beyond. Successive area SEND inspections have commented on low aspirations, for example: Aspirations are not high enough. Effective strategies to improve attainment and challenge for the most able pupils with SEND to achieve well have not been in place. Schools do not routinely benchmark the achievement of pupils with SEND against all pupils nationally. The report also found that in some cases aspirations in schools were high – but even then, they were not realised. National data indicates that too many pupils with SEND do not make nationally expected rates of progress at key stage 2. While for some pupils this may be related to their particular needs, for others it is likely to be an indication of a poorly designed or taught curriculum. Furthermore, too many young people with SEND do not achieve well in level 2 or level 3 qualifications. Consequently, this has an impact on their next steps in education, employment or training. These national measures themselves do not, of course, provide a full picture of the outcomes for children and young people with SEND. There is much more that is important but difficult to measure meaningfully. Similarly, the ‘Supporting SEND’ report commented on some of the children and young people: Due to missed prior learning or unmet needs, they did not have some of the required foundational knowledge and skills. In addition, they were not always given the chance to master basics before moving forwards. When this occurs, it is likely that pupils will continue to experience difficulties, gaps in understanding will widen and they will then not have the best chance to succeed in the future. As we reported in our 2010 review of SEND, pupils with SEND continue to be excluded at a much higher rate than their peers. Figures for permanent exclusion of pupils with SEND showed a slight reduction in 2018/19, but the incidence of fixed-term exclusion increased.[footnote 18] Pupils with social, emotional and mental health needs make up the largest proportion of those excluded. The tables below show the latest available statistics at the time of writing. Figure 4: Rates of permanent exclusion in England, by SEND provision, from 2015/16 to 2018/19 View Figure 4 data in table form. Figure 5: Rates of fixed-period exclusions in England, by SEN provision, from 2015/16 to 2018/19 Source: ‘Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England, academic year 2018/19’, Department for Education, February 2021. View Figure 5 data in table form. Even before the pandemic began, pupils with SEND were still absent from school more than their peers, just as we reported they were in 2010. This is illustrated below.[footnote 19] Figure 6: Overall absence rate in state-funded primary, secondary and special schools in England, from 2015/16 to 2018/19 View Figure 6 data in table form. Our 2010 review identified limited options in further and higher education for young people with SEND. Our evidence since indicates that there has been some progress in this area. This changes young people’s options at that critical stage in their lives – the transition to adult life and the world of work and independence. One inspection report, for example, identified how joint commissioning had played a significant role in this area. Arrangements for joint commissioning are responsive to children and young people’s needs. Strategic decisions have improved the local offer, expanded opportunities for short breaks and increased access to support in local communities. Collaboration with schools, colleges, and employers has strengthened curriculum provision, increased access to training opportunities that are tailored to young people’s needs and interests and provided young people with greater access to work. While it seems that access to further and higher education, supported employment and training has increased, the same cannot be said for systems to promote independence in adult life. Some areas promoted strategies such as independent travel training, but this was only ‘scratching the surface’ for those who should be able to live independently and secure employment. Supported internships for young people with SEND were only available in a third of the areas inspected. Despite increases in some areas, the percentage of young people with SEND in sustained paid employment remains low.
Families’ experiences of the SEND system at the start of 2020
More than 5 years after the code of practice was published, Ofsted’s Annual Report 2019/20 concluded that ‘in many cases, the goal of creating a child-centred system is not being fully met’.[footnote 20] Frustration and misunderstanding were commonplace in many parents’ experiences. Many felt that the system was simply not helping their children well enough to achieve their goals. The last 10 years had done very little to ease the need for ‘warrior parents’.[footnote 21] Parents were still feeling that they have to ‘fight for the rights’ of their children. Indeed, in many cases parents felt that they were rarely taken seriously. They said that when opportunities were provided for them to contribute, they were often ignored. The comment below, made by a parent in one of our area SEND inspections, is similar to the views of many: Even if you are “lucky” enough to get an EHCP, it is usually not worth the paper it is written on! They are written with such poor quality and the support is never specified and quantified, despite if the professionals recommended services and/or therapies. The parent’s voice is usually not heard. Many parents who expressed their views in successive area SEND inspections felt that once they had secured an EHC plan for their child, the struggle was far from over. Many felt that they were the only ones bringing the plan together. They reported having to regularly update other services on what professionals from other agencies were doing: They do not work together at all, it’s a constant fight to get them to talk to each other or to work together on a plan that might help our son. The charts below represent the views of parents surveyed in the last 10 local areas we inspected in the spring term 2020, just before the first national lockdown. Their views on the extent to which education, health and social care were working together were particularly negative. Figure 7: Participant responses to the question ‘Since September 2014, do you believe that your child’s outcomes have improved?’ View Figure 7 data in table form. Figure 8: Participant responses to the question ‘Since 2014 have educational settings provided the support and services your child needs to improve their outcomes?’ View Figure 8 data in table form. Figure 9: Participant responses to the question ‘Since 2014, have education, health and social care worked together to make sure that your children get the services they need?’ View Figure 9 data in table form. There were some more positive findings in some of the areas we revisited, where parents and carers had been given meaningful involvement in planning and decision-making. The role of the parent–carer forum featured prominently in the most successful areas. In these, leaders had understood that co-production meant working with families as equal partners. When the pandemic began to have an impact in 2020, it was apparent that, despite the government’s concerted attempts to address concerns raised by the Lamb report and Ofsted’s 2010 report, implementation of the 2014 reforms had not made the significant differences hoped for by the 2011 Green Paper.[footnote 22] When implemented well, the reforms had led to better systems to support children and young people with SEND and their families, and better outcomes as a result. But this was far from the case across the country.
Extracts from responses from parents and carers to surveys carried out when we visited local areas:
It was a very dark place for a very long time.
These last few months have undone years of work with my child and we have had to start at the beginning again.
Confidence has rapidly reduced. Anxiety is high. Access to wellbeing activities non-existent. Depression. Loss of hair. Sleep disorder. No motivation. Poor personal hygiene.
He has stagnated.
I’m absolutely shattered. No respite. Increased stress.
Multi-agency working
In October 2020, we reported on our findings from our visits to 6 local areas, based on the experiences of 28 children and young people with SEND and their families.[footnote 34] In these visits, we found that the working relationships that families, services and practitioners had before March 2020 had affected the support that families received during restrictions. Weaker relationships between families and practitioners did not stand up well to the strain that the pandemic placed on them. Conversely, if these relationships were already good and functioning well, support was more likely to continue and be adapted well to families’ needs. Our October report also noted: Some families described support from individual practitioners in glowing terms, often naming particular people who had gone ‘above and beyond’ and speaking warmly about how this had benefited them. In all 6 local areas, some families reported receiving little or even no contact from practitioners. In our visits to 4 more local areas in 2021, we looked at the experiences of 16 more young people and their families. The importance of established relationships and ways of working between different agencies and with families were clear in these areas too. By this point, it seemed that the challenges of the pandemic had starkly highlighted issues in weaker existing professional relationships. In some cases, for example, practitioners worked well together to meet the needs of the child or young person, but this was sometimes reliant on a parent taking on a ‘coordinating role’. This is a fragile way of working because if the parent does not (quite understandably) have the capacity to keep up the momentum, it can quickly fall apart. It was clear that the pandemic had highlighted rather than caused this issue. We also found examples of where the good work of individual practitioners was undermined by problems with multi-agency working. Sometimes, for example, a lack of urgency from one partner undermined the effective work of another. There was evidence that some local areas had refined the way professionals worked with families, based on their experiences in the first national lockdown. In one area, for example, families were getting multiple calls from different professionals each week. Leaders recognised that this burden on families could have been reduced if communication between different services was better. The second and third national lockdowns were managed differently as a result. Professionals had reflected, felt better prepared and refined their practices to work more efficiently together. In our visits in 2021, we also found examples of where some excellent communication and collaboration between professionals had led to families’ needs being met during the pandemic from the outset. In each case, it was clear that the child or young person was placed at the centre of the decision-making. There were instances, too, where local areas had built on already strong co-production processes to improve even further the way in which they worked with families.
Providing services
Throughout our visits to local areas, both in the autumn term 2020 and the spring term 2021, we heard from many families for whom at least some of the services that they usually received had stopped. For many, the services ceased at the start of the first national lockdown in March 2020, and had still not resumed. We also heard about significant variability in schools’ support for children and young people and their families. Health and therapy services The interruption to health services, including therapies such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy, was an issue that inspectors heard about time and time again, both in 2020 and in 2021. In their responses to our surveys in each area, many parents and carers commented on this aspect. One parent felt the absence of these services at this critical time could result in grave consequences: It’s sad that we still wait until someone is threatening to take their own life before we offer support, it’s all the wrong way around!! Paediatrician seems to have forgotten us this year! In one local area, there had not been enough urgency in putting arrangements in place for the first national lockdown to ensure continuity of education and care. At this point, professionals thought that this was going to be a short-term situation, so plans were more ‘sticking plasters’ than strategic responses. This was probably not unusual in local areas in the first few weeks. Yet the chart below, taken from surveys of parents and carers from visits to local areas in January, February and March 2021, illustrates that the lack of therapies and health services for some families has still not been resolved. By the time of these visits, it was many months since the start of the pandemic. But families were telling us that their children were still not receiving the therapies or health services that they usually did. There was also evidence in some areas that healthcare professionals had been redeployed to work related to COVID-19, leaving gaps in the services that should be provided to children and young people with SEND. Again, this issue did not seem to have been fully resolved at the start of 2021, as indicated by the chart below. Figure 14: Participant responses to the question ‘Is your child currently receiving any therapies or other health services? This could include taking medication, or receiving speech and language therapy (SALT), CAMHS, or physiotherapy, for example.’ (in percentages) Based on 1,473 responses. Figures are rounded and may not add to 100. View Figure 14 data in table form. The impact of the lack of, or severe interruption to, health and therapy services was evident in many of the discussions that inspectors held with children and young people, families, practitioners and leaders. As already reported, this disruption to services left some children and young people in pain or unable to communicate, without support for serious mental health difficulties, or with difficulties with physical health and mobility. The role of schools, particularly special schools, in the coordination and provision of health services was something that was highlighted in a number of examples. When many children and young people stopped going to school in the first national lockdown, schools’ roles became more evident. Some health and therapy services normally delivered at school, not in the local area – as frequently happens – became unavailable or not readily available. Occasionally, this prompted leaders to question their current practice. In one local area, for example, this situation had raised questions about why they were sending children and young people across their local area to schools far away from where they live. They now plan to review this issue. A lack of specialist equipment at home, such as standing frames and communication aids, has also been an issue for many local areas during the pandemic. Some homes did not have space for some of the equipment that children and young people needed and usually used at school, such as large standing frames. Again, this had a serious negative impact on children and young people. Even when health services were delivered in the home, leaders and families thought that this could not replicate the services that pupils with the most complex needs would receive at school. One family, for example, was contacted by phone for the first 6 weeks, until it was concluded that they did need the face-to-face support. This was then provided once or twice a week – better than by phone, but nothing like the frequency that was provided when the child was at school. In a few cases, families themselves refused the support that was offered because of their concerns about the risk to their child of COVID-19 infections from someone coming into their home from outside. Health practitioners and leaders themselves were sometimes very frustrated by the decisions that were made about the redirection of services. In one local area, for example, leaders reported that health services for children and young people with SEND were quickly stopped during the first national lockdown. They ‘lobbied hard’ to have these reinstated. Social care services There was a mixed picture across local areas in the provision of social care services. In some cases, frontline practitioners developed thoughtful approaches to ensure that assessments and support continued. Practitioners reflected together on what worked well, and kept some of the best adaptations. Yet, this was not consistent across local areas. Some family support services had been withdrawn. Some had become virtual. Although this appeared to work for some families, others were unable to access services that were provided in this way, for example because of lack of access to technology. Some parents were feeling the effects of this lack of support keenly. One parent wrote: My child has fallen out of the social care system all because of the pandemic and both my child and I feel abandoned when services should have been retained to support us. Leaders in one local area reflected on the importance of restarting face-to-face support as quickly as they could for families who needed it, which they had done in May 2020. They noted that families often do not ask for support and ‘will say they’re ok, however, it’s not always clear that this is the case’. The quality and frequency of social care support appeared, in some cases, to depend on individual professionals. One young person, for example, talked about the support they had received from the social worker they had at the start of the first national lockdown: ‘She was amazing – rang every week, always checked if I was okay and if I needed help.’ This person had since left and the young person was receiving little support. Short breaks or holiday schemes for children and young people are part of the support provided for some families. The table below is based on survey responses from the visits in 2021. It shows that this support is still not being provided for some families who usually receive it. Figure 15: Participant responses to the question ‘Can you currently access short breaks or holiday schemes?’ (in percentages) Based on 1,473 responses. Figures are rounded and may not add to 100. View Figure 15 data in table form. Education During our visits to local areas, inspectors heard accounts of children and young people with SEND experiencing very different levels of support and engagement from their schools and colleges since the start of the first national lockdown. One factor was the way the local area organised home-to-school transport for pupils. In one local area, for example, pupils were having shorter days in school because of the way social distancing was being implemented on the transport. We also heard in our visits to schools last term of local areas not providing the staff who usually travel on buses and taxis with children and young people with SEND. This led to parents not wanting to send their children to school on the transport provided. The second main factor was the guidance and support given by the government to schools on working with children who need AGPs and the implementation of this guidance in local areas. One parent explained that their child had to shield from March 2020 for many months as they ‘fell under the AGP criteria’. This had caused the family considerable difficulties. During our visits to local areas, we heard similar accounts from parents and carers time after time. These factors aside, within each local area, schools differed considerably in the extent to which they invited and, critically, encouraged pupils to attend school. This was the case both during and outside the national lockdowns. The education that children and young people received when they were at home also varied greatly. We heard about schools and colleges that had gone out of their way to provide what pupils needed in terms of a place in a school or good-quality, accessible remote education. However, others appeared not to have provided well at all for their pupils’ needs. At their most negative, parents’ evaluations of the educational provision for their children was that it was ‘patchy’, ‘spasmodic’ or ‘very poor’, and that children had been ‘forgotten about’. Children and young people’s lack of attendance at school or college was also sometimes due to parents’ anxieties about their children’s health. The chart below gives an overview of whether children and young people in the 4 areas visited in 2021 had received remote education when they were at home in the autumn term 2020. The second chart illustrates what parents thought about the remote education provided. Figure 16: Participant responses to the question ‘Since September 2020, has your child received remote learning while they have been at home?’ (in percentages) Based on 881 responses. Figures are rounded and may not add to 100. View Figure 16 data in table form. Figure 17: Participant responses to the question ‘To what extent do you agree with this statement. ‘My child was able to engage with the remote learning they received while at home.’ (in percentages) Based on 755 responses. Figures are rounded and may not add to 100. View Figure 17 data in table form. Some parents said that they made allowances for the challenges that schools had faced getting provision up and running in the first national lockdown, but became less forgiving later on. For example, one said: I feel by this autumn/winter term adaptations should have been made and the school should have been ready to fundamentally educate my child. The impact on the oldest young people with SEND was a common feature across our visits. Some had missed out on independent travel training, had examinations disrupted and had work experience cancelled. Some told us how hard it was to access remote learning. They found the technology difficult, and although support workers sometimes offered remote help, they found that this did not meet their needs well. Some young people found the pace of remote ‘live lessons’ overwhelming. Many were anxious about the impact of the pandemic on their future lives, particularly their employment prospects: I feel what I’ve learned has gone to waste and that I may not get a chance to prove what I can do as I may never be properly examined. I’m also not able to get any practical experience as work placement is cancelled. I can never demonstrate I have learned anything as no exams and no work placement. I feel if I do get a qualification, it won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.
Identification, assessment and meeting need
The Disabled Children’s Partnership noted that some of the parents who had responded to its ‘back to school’ survey had reported delays in assessments for EHC plans.[footnote 35] This may have been a result of the relaxation of the statutory requirements over the spring and summer. This issue also arose in our first 6 area SEND interim visits. Some parents told us that they were waiting for assessments of their children’s needs, and said that these had been delayed since the start of the pandemic. Several parents mentioned assessments related to autism spectrum disorder. Local areas themselves also noted that assessments that needed to be carried out face to face were delayed, which sometimes then delayed statutory assessment processes. In our visits in January to March 2021, we continued to find issues around identification and assessment, and more problems. Leaders of local areas were aware that some children and young people were likely to have difficulties that would not have been noticed during the pandemic. They were also aware that the needs of some children and young people that had already been identified and assessed were likely to have changed, both because of time passing and because of the impact of them missing out on education and services during the pandemic. For some families, the backlog created by assessment processes being put on hold was becoming very clear. One parent, for example, commented that ‘everything takes far too long to get in place’. Last July, the parent had agreed with their son’s paediatrician to proceed with him having medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but they were: ‘still waiting for the appointment and I have chased to be told that this could be several months away’. Another parent spoke about the reality of parenting a child with complex medical needs during the pandemic, being unable to access the assessment and support they needed: CAMHS support has been sporadic for the 2 younger ones and I have no support so am exhausted and burnt out, while statutory agencies have avoided offering options and the local authority caseworker refuses to attend the review planned for my middle child. Absolutely frustrating and very limiting for my children. Delays to assessment processes in order for young people to be transferred from children’s to adult’s services also worried families. One parent, for example, spoke of their concern that their 18-year-old had not had an assessment of need until 4 months after turning 18. He did not receive the support he needed until a month after that. This had placed the family under great strain. In contrast, we saw some examples of professionals honing their practices during the pandemic to make assessment processes more efficient. One clinical commissioning group, for example, had a dedicated SEND nurse resource team. This team had changed its ways of working during the pandemic, resulting in more contact between professionals and families and more efficient identification and assessment of needs.
Common threads
At the start of this report, we outlined some of the issues we saw in the SEND system just over 10 years ago, as reflected in the views of parents and young people, inspectors and government. Parents were frustrated with feeling that they had to ‘fight for the rights’ of their children. They were having to become the ‘warrior parents’ referred to by Brian Lamb in 2009.[footnote 37] Parents’ views were not considered fully enough when decisions were being made about children and young people with SEND. There were also issues such as: inconsistencies in the identification of children and young people’s needs poor evaluation by a range of public agencies of the quality of any additional support provided a lack of coordinated support from education, health and social care services The SEND reforms were designed to improve these aspects of services. Over time, we saw evidence through our area SEND inspections that, while some aspects were improving in some areas, in others the reforms were slow to be implemented. They were even slower to have an impact on children and young people with SEND and their families. Common weaknesses included a lack of joint commissioning, co-production that was absent or not working properly, poor-quality EHC plans and a lack of clarity in terms of who was being held accountable for services and provision in the local area. Frequently, over the years, we heard comments from parents during our area SEND visits such as this one: They do not work together at all, it’s a constant fight to get them to talk to each other or to work together on a plan that might help our son. Many of these long-standing problems have been highlighted or exacerbated by the pandemic. In 2010, parents told inspectors that they felt the need to argue constantly to have their child’s needs recognised. In the area SEND inspections, we have heard similar comments on numerous occasions: We have not been asked our opinion. We get the “this is how it is” attitude. I’m never listened to by professionals. I’m fobbed off by them left, right and centre. Every September I meet with my son’s new teacher to discuss his SEND. Every year they describe the approach they will take… They understand his needs and what needs doing to address them. But they never fully implement strategies discussed for any sustained period, and every September describe them as if they are newly discovered. As we have reported here, during the pandemic the quality of the existing relationships between professionals and families had an impact on how well support was adapted. Where relationships were positive, support was more likely to continue and be adapted well to families’ needs. However, weaker relationships deteriorated even further when placed under strain. This suggests that we cannot underestimate the importance of these relationships in enabling children and young people’s needs to be met in all circumstances. Yet in many places, neither the relationships nor the systems that underpin them are strong enough. The respective responsibilities of different professionals in providing for children with SEND are not understood well. If professionals do not understand them, then families have little chance of making sense of them or having a positive, joined-up experience. Worryingly, parents themselves often take the lead in joining the different parts of their child’s provision together. One parent described this: Whilst my child’s needs are met on the whole, there is little or no joined-up work between education, health and social care, all the linking that takes place feels as if it is undertaken by parents themselves. Where parents themselves had been taking the lead in coordinating provision, this fragile model was frequently quick to collapse during the pandemic. In our 2010 review, children and young people with SEND told us that they wanted successful relationships and friendships, and independence. They wanted a choice about who they lived with, choice about what to do with their spare time, and the opportunity to work. During the pandemic, they talked about their loneliness, isolation and a feeling that the next steps for them were limited. Older young people had missed out on preparation for college, training or work. For some, the crucial communication skills that might facilitate friendships had been lost. For others, their mobility had deteriorated. Academic outcomes for children and young people with SEND have always been a concern. The interrupted education – and sometimes complete lack of education – that many experienced during the pandemic amplifies this concern. The need for a tightly coordinated, well-led set of changes across education, health and social care, with the aim of securing the very best provision and outcomes for children and young people with SEND, could not be clearer.
What needs to happen next?
Overall, it is clear that the challenges of the pandemic for local areas and for individuals have undoubtedly been great. Yet the negative experiences that many children and young people with SEND and their families have had during this time are not new – rather, they have been highlighted and intensified. Government policy over the last 10 years has started to address weaknesses that have developed over many decades, but there is a long way to go. Inequalities remain deep seated. Inconsistencies in the local implementation of government policy and some poor education provision for pupils who are not achieving well in the curriculum have slowed progress. What, then, needs to happen for this situation to improve? Clarity about who should provide what at a local level, greater coordination of services and clearer accountability for all partners, all leading to more effective multi-agency working, are key. As part of this, the questions of what services are deemed essential, to whom and by whom – questions that are not new but were brought into stark focus by the pandemic – are ones that should be re-examined. Stronger cross-departmental working between relevant government departments is likely to be an important factor in making effective multi-agency working happen, particularly for children and young people with the most complex needs. It is not acceptable for parents to be the driving force in ensuring that agencies work together. The ambitions that education settings have for children and young people with SEND, and the effectiveness with which these ambitions are realised, vary widely. This is illustrated by years of inspection evidence and the experiences of education that children and young people had during the pandemic. These inconsistencies need to be ironed out. SEND provision in mainstream settings must be part of a continuum of provision, not a ‘school within a school’. Moreover, it is crucial to recognise that for many children and young people, their needs change over time. Provision must adapt accordingly. The importance of the availability of good universal services to all children and young people with SEND across education, health and social care cannot be underestimated. The access to and effectiveness of these services can prevent a child or young person from needing something additional or different. As part of this, we must strengthen the quality of the curriculum and teaching in all education settings as the first step in meeting children and young people’s needs. This is particularly important in relation to the teaching of language and early reading. No child should be labelled as having SEND because of weak education provision. The education inspection framework and area SEND inspections are an important force for improvement in the education and care that children and young people with SEND receive. The criteria in the handbooks for schools, early years and further education and skills[footnote 38] are very clear about the expectation that all children and young people receive a high-quality education. Ofsted’s own work – all inspections, all revisions to frameworks of any kind – must continue to focus on the extent to which providers are ambitious for children and young people with SEND, and effective in the provision that they make for them. The need for a tightly coordinated, well-led set of changes across education, health and social care, with the aim of securing the very best provision and outcomes for children and young people with SEND, could not be clearer.
This section contains the underlying data in an accessible table format for all figures.
Data for Figure 1: Pupils with an EHC plan
See Figure 1.
Data for Figure 2: Pupils receiving SEN support without an EHC plan
See Figure 2.
Data for Figure 3: Pupils with SEND who are eligible for free school meals (FSM)
Overview. Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) can affect a child or young person’s ability to learn. They can affect their: behaviour or ability to socialise, for example they ...
- Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) can affect a child or young person’s ability to learn. They can affect their: behaviour or abilit...
- Your child will get SEN support at their school or college. Your child may need an education, health and care (EHC) plan if they need more support...
- An education, health and care (EHC) plan is for children and young people aged up to 25 who need more support than is available through special edu...
- Your child will move to an education, health and care (EHC) plan. This will normally happen at a planned review, or when your child moves school. Y...
Introduction. This report presents key findings from a nationally representative survey of 3,019 children in England aged 8-17 commissioned by the Children’s Commissioner for England. Data was collected in March 2021 and is weighted to be nationally representative by age, gender, SEND status, primary parent employment status and region.
Children on SEN Support with additional vulnerabilities struggle even more.6 This standard is achieved by just: 17% of children receiving SEN Support and are eligible for FSM. 13% of children receiving SEN Support and who have a social worker. 1 in 10 children receiving SEN Support who are both eligible for FSM and have a social worker.
Jan 25, 2022 · We use FSM eligibility in the academic year an individual started at age 15 years. Gender "Male" or "Female" as reported in the learner's Key Stage 4 (KS4) record. Key Stage 4. KS4 is the period of education where qualifications such as GCSEs and equivalents are typically taken, usually covering ages 14 to 16 years in school years 10 and 11 ...
People also ask
How does send affect children in mainstream education?
How do I know if my child is FSM eligible?
Are KS4 students eligible for FSM?
Are FSM-eligible pupils less likely to be in sustained employment?
Do children with send need formal support?
Are children with send more worried about going to school?
Labour market outcomes. 60% of individuals who were eligible for free school meals in year 11 were in sustained employment at age 27, compared to 77% of their peers who were not eligible for FSM. Therefore, FSM-eligible pupils were 23% less likely to be in sustained employment aged 27 when compared to their peers who were not eligible for FSM.
