Parents of children with more complex needs have long claimed that the support offered by local authorities is insufficient and differs markedly from place to place.
Now, for the first time, data analysis from Education Policy Institute (EPI), funded by the Nuffield Foundation, provides evidence at a national level to support claims of disjointed and unequal support for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
The research found that there are ‘deeply concerning’ inconsistencies in how in children with SEND in England are identified and supported.
It shows that access to support is decided by a postcode lottery, with the chances of receiving SEND support from the school or from the local authority largely dictated by the school that a child attends, rather than their individual circumstances.
Children living in the most disadvantaged areas of the country are less likely to be formally recognised as having SEND than similar pupils in more affluent areas, highlighting how there is a ‘rationing of support’ in many areas of high need.
The report also shows that many vulnerable pupils are more likely to be subject to SEND ‘under-identification’. Those moving schools and those frequently out of school, along with children who have suffered abuse or neglect, are all shown to have a reduced chance of being identified with SEND compared with otherwise similar children.
David Laws, executive chairman of the EPI said, ‘This report exposes the erratic and unequal way in which support for pupils with special educational needs is provided.
‘It is especially concerning that many of the most disadvantaged children with unstable home lives are less likely to access support for more complex learning needs. With the pandemic acting as a further barrier to assessing children’s needs, the Government must drastically improve its efforts to ensure that it is reaching the most vulnerable children in society.’
Inconsistencies
The longitudinal research, which tracks hundreds of thousands of pupils from a single year group through primary school, reveals that the huge variation in SEND support for children can be explained by inconsistent approaches to identifying children.
The findings show that pupils attending academy schools are far less likely to be identified with SEND compared to other similar pupils, indicating that pupils’ needs may have been overlooked in these settings.
The study also highlights the fundamental ‘mismatch’ between how schools and local authorities identify pupils with SEND.
Local authorities largely identify SEND consistent with children’s personal, social and emotional development – qualities that are particularly important for later life, such as education and employment outcomes. However, schools appear to focus mostly on communication, language and literacy skills when assessing a child for SEND.
Jo Hutchinson, director of social mobility and vulnerable learners at the EPI, said, ‘While access to SEND support was already very unequal, the pandemic is very likely to have resulted in more children falling through the cracks or facing long waits for support. We need to significantly improve how we identify pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, so that we can deliver consistently for families and ensure that no child is denied the support that they need.’
Professor Adam Boddison, CEO of nasen, a charity that supports those working with children with SEND, said, 'One of the most significant factors contributing to the variation in identification of SEND is the lack of any national articulation of what ordinarily-available provision should consist of. This means that the inclusive schools that are proactive with identification become SEND magnets, whilst it is difficult to hold the non-inclusive schools to account.
'The global pandemic has heightened pre-existing problems as highlighted in EPI's survey and this echoes the findings of our recent National SENCO Workload study, developed with Bath Spa University. This study, published in January, also found that areas of strength in the sector were amplified. As a charitable membership organisation, nasen is committed to ensuring that our expertise in SEND is available to every school and setting in the UK so that we can support all children, particularly those with SEND and learning differences.'
Ian Noon, head of policy at the National Deaf Children’s Society, described the report as ‘extremely concerning’ and said that it sadly confirms what parents of deaf children have been saying for years.
He added, ‘There were already wild fluctuations in the support given to children with SEND, and now Covid-19 has made things even worse.
‘All of these children are entitled to effective, tailored support at school and their teachers should get the specialist advice they need. This simply isn’t being delivered consistently and it’s the children who are left to struggle on alone.
‘The evidence is as clear as it is damning. It now falls to the Government to take stock of these findings, address a system in crisis and make real, lasting change through the upcoming SEND Review.’
Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, said, ‘It is an impact of the systemic cuts to SEND funding that local authorities in the most disadvantaged areas are found in the report to have been forced to ration support for the children with greatest need. This report reminds us we need a properly funded SEND system if we are serious about making education flexible enough to work for students with additional needs. There is a clear urgent need for extra staffing and high-quality staff training.’
