Summary: This blog argues that things can’t go back to how they were before the pandemic for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (CYP with SEND). We genuinely need to create a ‘new normal’. But where to start? Prompted by the 2019 NAO report on SEND, I argue that central government should assume an ambitious and decisive leadership role. I list three key areas as examples of where ample scope exists for targeted action: exclusion rates, workforce knowledge and skills, and funding. Government shouldn’t shy away from setting clear targets to improve SEND outcomes, but it would only meet these by making expectations clear, monitoring progress, and ensuring the right resources are available to secure genuine improvement.
Even before the pandemic the educational outlook for CYP with SEND was a cause for concern on numerous levels. This finding from the 2019 National Audit Office report into SEND identifies a general sense of drift within the system:
The Department of Education (DfE) does not know the impact of the support provided for pupils with SEND. The government’s vision for children with SEND is that they achieve well at school and live happy and fulfilled lives. The Department collects and publishes data on pupils’ academic attainment and progress at school, which show that pupils with SEND have consistently made less progress than other pupils with the same starting points. The data also cover what young people with SEND go on to do after school. However, the Department has not specified, in measurable terms, the outcomes it wants to achieve from its support for pupils with SEND (see Note 1 below).
Prompted by this assessment, I suggest three areas where government could show leadership in working towards improved outcomes:
- Exclusion.
The DfE’s own figures provide a stark measure of inequality of outcome. The most recent published exclusion data (covering 2018-19) identifies higher exclusion rates among CYP with SEND pupils than those without:
- Across all schools and age groups the permanent exclusion rate for SEND pupils with an education, health and care plan (EHCP) is 0.15. For pupils with SEND but without an EHCP (i.e. with SEN support) the rate is 0.32. The rate for all pupils without SEN is 0.06 (Note 2).
- The fixed period exclusion rate is also higher for students with SEND, at 16.11 for pupils with an EHCP and 15.59 for SEN support pupils, compared to 3.57 for the non-SEND cohort.
In plain terms, a child with SEND and an EHCP was just over twice as likely to be expelled from school than a non-SEND pupil in 2018-19. A SEND pupil without an EHCP support package was just over five times more likely to be expelled.
Pupils with SEND (with or without an EHCP) are around 4.5 times more likely to be suspended from school or the classroom than their non-SEND counterparts. The data shows the vast majority of suspensions were for “persistent disruptive behaviour”.
At this point it’s worth recalling the adage often used by SEND specialists, that what one perceives as ‘bad behaviours’ are often symptoms of unmet needs. On current trends- and with HM Government planning a major behaviour drive from September 2021- many CYP with SEND are at risk of spending even more time away from the classroom, especially in schools that operate a zero tolerance attitude to even minor infringements (Note 3).
The lesson from this in the light of the NAO’s observation is obvious: Government needs to set targets to reduce exclusion rates (Note 4).
This is perhaps easier said than done. Many CYP with SEND can present with a variety of behaviours. Dealing with many of these is not easy in a workplace where demands are many and various, and pressures are routinely- and relentlessly- high. This leads to point 2.
- Continuing Professional Development (CPD).
Mainstream schools that best handle SEND display a ‘can-do’ attitude, underpinned by genuine human understanding. The foundations of such effective practice are the right knowledge, skills, and professional support.
There is a clear moral imperative to ensure that individual pockets of excellence become a consistent national standard. For CYP and families this is an issue of equality of access and of opportunity.
Government should focus on training to provide consistently excellent SEND teaching. To this end, a national goal would be for every school to be rated ‘outstanding’ for its SEND provision by its next inspection.
This is over-ambitious perhaps, but tackling a big problem requires a sense of ambition. It is also a specific aim for SEND, the general absence of which has been noted by the NAO.
- Budgets and resources.
Big ambitions also need big budgets, and so the third target should be to fund SEND adequately so the needs of CYP are met.
Groups like the Council for Disabled Children are currently calling for dedicated SEND funding as part of a Covid recovery package. Government should also increase the SEND budget generally, to ensure supply (finances made available to local authorities) is equal to demand (levels of actual need for SEND services and support).
In cash terms, closing the funding gap will require massive investment, but public attitudes have shifted in this regard.
Concluding remarks:
The Johnson government’s own rhetoric has created a link in the public mind, so that once again increased public spending is widely seen as a means of tackling inequality. This has created a general sense of expectation, which will make it increasingly difficult for government to sits back and ‘drift’ any longer.
It is highly likely that the DfE will publish a long-awaited review into SEND in the coming months. In my view, all opposition politicians should now unite and bring sustained and increased pressure to bear on education ministers so that the review sets ambitious and relevant targets.
If ever there was an area where ‘levelling up’ is truly needed it’s SEND.
Mark Williams is Secretary of the Fabian Education Policy Group.
Notes.
- https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Support-for-pupils-with-special-education-needs.pdf
- Exclusion rates are given per 10,000 pupils, so an example rate of 0.10 means that 10 pupils per 10,000 are permanently excluded. Government data can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-exclusions.
- Gavin Williamson announced a focus on behaviour during his speech to the Confederation of Schools Trusts in April 2021.
- The Timpson review into school exclusions (2019) offers some specific ideas to reduce exclusions generally, and mentions SEND in some detail. I can be viewed here: http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0527/Timpson_Review_of_School_Exclusion_May_2019.pdf