Independent analysis of the consultation responses to the SEND review: right support, right place, right time

Analysis of the consultation responses to the SEND review: right support, right place, right time

March 2023

Authors: Fiona Sinclair, Ali Zaidi, Icf Consulting Services Limited

Executive summary 6

Key findings 6

1 Introduction 12

1.1 Background and context 12

1.2 Overview of consultation responses 16

1.3 Approach 18

2 Responses from children and young people 21

2.2 Question 1: Support for preparing for adulthood 21

2.3 Question 2: Decision makers 22

2.4 Question 3: EHCPs 23

2.5 Question 4: Preparing lists 24

2.6 Question 5: Access to apprenticeships 25

2.7 Question 6: Support for staying in mainstream education 25

3 Responses to questions 1-7: A single national SEND and alternative provision system 26

3.1 Question 1: National standards 26

3.2 Question 2: Local SEND partnerships 31

3.3 Question 3: Commissioning across local boundaries 34

3.4 Question 4: EHCPs 35

3.5 Question 5: Tailored list of placements 38

3.6 Question 6: Approach to strengthen redress 40

3.7 Question 7: Disability discrimination 42

4 Responses to questions 8-12: Excellent provision from early years to adulthood 44

4.2 Question 8: Two-year-old progress check 44

4.3 Question 9: Mandatory SENCo Npq 45

4.4 Question 10: SENCo training requirement 47

4.5 Question 11: Role of specialist and mixed MATs 49

4.6 Question 12: Access to apprenticeships 51

5 Responses to questions 13-16: A reformed and integrated role for alternative provision 53

5.2 Question 13: New vision for alternative provision 53

5.3 Question 14: Distributing existing funding effectively 54

5.4 Question 15: Alternative provision performance framework 56

5.5 Question 16: Statutory framework for pupil movements 57

6 Responses to questions 17-18: System roles, accountabilities, and funding reform 59

6.2 Question 17: National performance metrics 59

6.3 Question 18: Funding bands and tariffs 61

7 Responses to questions 19-22: Delivering change for children and families 62

7.2 Question 19: National SEND Delivery Board 62

7.3 Question 20: Barriers and enablers of success 63

7.4 Question 21: Support for local systems 64

7.5 Question 22: Further reflections 65

List of figures

Figure 1: Overview of age ranges: children and young people 18

Figure 2: Groups who respondents feel should be involved in making decisions about help for children and young people with additional needs 22

Figure 3: Respondent views on the most important parts of the EHCP 23

Figure 4: Respondent views on the points of consideration when creating a list of appropriate schools for children with EHCPs 24

Figure 5: Respondent views of the components of the EHCP that most need reviewing or amending 36

Figure 6: Respondent views on the approach to strengthen redress 40

Figure 7: Respondent views on the approach to strengthening redress by respondent group 41

Figure 8: Agreement with introduction of mandatory SENCo Npq 46

Figure 9: Agreement with introduction of mandatory SENCo Npq by respondent type 46

Figure 10: Need for strengthening the mandatory SENCo training requirement 48

Figure 11: Need for strengthening the mandatory SENCo training requirement by respondent type 48

Figure 12: Respondent views on the roles of specialist and mixed MATs 49

Figure 13: Respondent views on the roles of specialist and mixed MATs by respondent type 50

Figure 14: Agreement with vision of alternative provision 53

Figure 15: Agreement with vision of alternative provision by respondent type 54

Figure 16: Agreement with alternative provision performance framework 56

Figure 17: Agreement with alternative provision framework by respondent type 57

Figure 18: Agreement on statutory framework for pupil movement 57

Figure 19: Agreement on statutory framework for pupil movement by respondent type 58

Figure 20: Overview of sentiment: parents/carers 66

Figure 21: Overview of sentiment respondents from education settings 67

Figure 22: Overview of sentiment: local authorities 68

Figure 23: Overview of sentiment: other individuals 69

List of tables

Table 1: Overview of responses by respondent type 16

Table 2: Number of responses per question 21

Table 3: Number of responses per question by respondent group (Q1 to Q7) 26

Table 4: Number of responses per question by respondent group (Q8 and Q12) 44

Table 5: Number of responses per question by respondent group (Q13 and Q16) 53

Table 6: Number of responses per question by respondent group (Q17 and Q18) 59

Table 7: Number of responses per question by respondent group (Q19 – Q22) 62

Executive summary

This report presents analysis of the Department for Education’s consultation on the SEND Review: Right Support, Right Place, Right Time. The consultation ran from 29 March 2022 to 22 July 2022 and received just under 6,000 formal responses. The majority of responses were received by parents/carers (53.4% of all respondents) followed by headteachers/teachers/other teaching staff (18.4%). Children and young people who responded to the consultation (162 responses) answered a separate set of consultation questions1.

Key findings A single national SEND and alternative provision system There was general support among consultation respondents for the need for a national SEND and alternative provision system. This was mostly because it was felt it would help to address variation in provision by local area and avoid a ‘postcode lottery’.

However, respondents most commonly reported that this needs to be underpinned by:

• SEND training for teaching staff, social workers and healthcare professionals in order to ensure consistency in the support provided by practitioners ‘on the ground’.

• Availability and accessibility of funding to ensure that local actors are able to implement the reforms in a consistent manner.

Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) There was generally strong support for digitalisation of EHCPs. However, some respondents stressed that consideration should be given to those in digital poverty in order to be inclusive and that there should be enough flexibility to capture the needs of the individual.

Most consultation respondents also identified areas of potential improvements in EHCPs. The most commonly reported areas for review were Section F (special educational provision) and Section B (special educational need). Some respondents also felt that it was important to ensure that EHCPs are updated regularly and that a child or young person’s view is incorporated.

When children and young people were asked about the most important part of EHCPs, respondents most commonly selected Section A (the views, interests and aspirations of the child or young person) followed by Section B (special educational needs).

Developing local SEND partnerships To develop effective local SEND partnerships, respondents commonly stated that partnerships should contain a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives from every education sector (specialist and mainstream provision and both schools and

1 See Annex 1 for the questions children and young people were asked.

colleges) as well as parents/carers and children and young people. A few respondents also felt they should include professionals who work directly with children and families, rather than just higher-level decision makers.

Some respondents suggested that when establishing SEND partnerships, local areas should conduct area audits of SEND provision. This would help identify good practice and areas of improvement that should inform the priorities of the SEND partnerships.

Developing a tailored list of placements There were mixed views on the benefits of a tailored list of placements in enabling parent and carers to make more informed choices. Parents/carers were mostly concerned that the requirement to provide a list could limit choice as they would have fewer options to choose from. Some respondents from local authorities were also concerned that allowing parents/carers to select from tailored lists could exacerbate the issue of popular settings being over-subscribed and may result in more difficult conversations with parents/carers when there are insufficient places to provide them with their first-choice option.

To improve the process for developing a tailored list of placements, respondents most commonly reported a need for co-production so that parents/carers can voice their opinions. Some respondents also felt that a centralised, freely available and regularly updated list of settings and available provision within each local authority area could improve transparency, alongside building capacity to ensure there is sufficient provision to meet demand.

Some respondents felt the list should be “a conversation starter” rather than a fixed set of choices, in order to make the subsequent discussions less adversarial. Children and young people most commonly reported that the list should consider the needs of the child or young person, followed by distance and ease of reaching the school.

Providing redress Some respondents did not believe the current remedies available from SEND tribunals were effective in putting children and young people’s education back on track. The main issues that respondents reported were the high cost of tribunals, the resultant length of time a child or young person is out of school, and the negative impact disputes have on the relationship between the family and setting. Some respondents also noted that as tribunal directions are not enforceable there is a lack of accountability to ensure there is rectification.

However, only 29% (1,283) of consultation respondents felt the proposals set out in the green paper, such as national standards and mandatory mediation, would strengthen redress. Over half (59%, 2,534) disagreed or strongly disagreed. There was however variation by respondent groups. The majority of respondents from healthcare, local authorities and education settings agreed with the overall approach to strengthen redress, but a majority of parents or carers disagreed.

The most common reasons why respondents disagreed with the overall approach to redress was the proposal for mandatory mediation. Some respondents felt this would

lead to delays in providing a child with SEND support; would still create an adversarial system; could make the whole process unnecessarily longer; and would be a further burden on local authorities in organising mediations.

Two-year-old progress checks Most respondents felt there was a need to strengthen early years practice with regard to conducting the two-year-old progress check and integration with the Healthy Child Programme review. They felt that currently the two-year-old progress checks are not always being done consistently or on time.

To strengthen the two-year-old progress checks, respondents most commonly suggested providing training for practitioners on the early identification of SEND needs. Some respondents also suggested a need for health visitors and organisations providing early years education to work more closely together.

SENCo training and standards There was general support for a new mandatory SENCo Npq to replace the NASENCo, with 48% (1,278) of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with this change and only 20% (529) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. Parents and carers who disagreed with the need for a new mandatory SENCo Npq felt that instead there should be more SEND training for teachers and that introducing a qualification which they perceived to be at a lower level could be detrimental to standards. Respondents from education settings who disagreed (around a quarter) did so because they felt the current qualification was fit for purpose and there would be high costs for rolling out the new qualification.

Apprenticeships To improve access to apprenticeships among young people with SEND, respondents most commonly suggested raising awareness among employers of the benefits of employing young people with SEND. Some also suggested the government should provide incentives (financial or otherwise) for employers and set quotas of young people with SEND for employers to interview, while some wanted employers to provide transition measures to help young people with SEND adjust to employment. A few respondents also reported a need for a more flexible school and college curriculum that better prepares young people with SEND for work and adulthood.

To help them take part in an apprenticeship, children and young people most commonly stated they wanted an upfront understanding about what apprenticeships entail. This included wanting information related to the working environment such as whether the environment is inclusive, whether there is access to assistive technology and suitable building access and if adjustments can be provided. A few also reported wanting clarity on expectations, an outline of the skills that will have been developed by completion of an apprenticeship and a trial prior to committing to an apprenticeship.

Alternative provision There were mixed views on whether the new vision for alternative provision set out in the green paper would result in improved outcomes for children and young people. Overall,

37% (927) of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that it would result in improved outcomes, while 32% (824) either disagreed or strongly disagreed. However, this varied significantly by respondent group. Over half of respondents from local authorities, education settings and healthcare provisions agreed with the statement while less than a quarter of parents/carers and academic researchers did. Parents’ main reported reasons for this scepticism was around the intention and implementation of the vision, particularly on the accountability of local authorities and schools to ensure compliance.

However, there was overall support for the introduction of a bespoke alternative provision performance framework, based on the five outcomes set out in the green paper. A total of 44% (1,028) of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that this would improve the quality of alternative provision, while only 23% (526) either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Those that disagreed mainly did so because they did not feel the five outcomes were appropriate as they felt they provided insufficient emphasis on life skills and mental wellbeing and overemphasised English and maths.

There was also general support for the statutory framework for pupil movement. Over half (58%, 1335) of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that it would improve oversight and transparency of placements into and out of alternative provision. Only 15% (343) either disagreed or strongly disagreed. There was however some variation by type of respondent. Nearly all respondents from local authorities and alternative providers (91%, 92) agreed with this statement while less than a third of parents/carers (24%, 227) agreed. All respondents that either disagreed or strongly disagreed did so because they felt there would be challenges in implementing a statutory framework.

In terms of funding for alternative providers, most respondents from alternative provision felt there needed to be a shift away from funding individuals to direct national core annual funding for alternative providers based on a minimum number of places, which is regularly reviewed. They felt that funding individuals impeded longer-term planning and recruitment of suitable staff. In contrast, having a guaranteed income that is dedicated to alternative provision schools would “enable good practice to be built on year on year.” Some also suggested there needs to be equality in funding of alternative provision across the country, which should include local authorities following a “uniform funding structure.”

Metrics for measuring performance The most commonly suggested quantitative key metrics to measure local and national performance were:

• The rate of attendance and exclusions/suspensions

• Progress rates of children and young people from their individual baselines

• Waiting times for assessments/diagnosis and securing provision

• Mediation, tribunal, and tribunal appeal rates

• Academic progress and learner outcomes, such as qualification attainment, entry to employment and entry to further learning such as apprenticeships

The most commonly reported qualitative key metrics were mental health and wellbeing; parents/carers and children/young people satisfaction; and confidence in the system.

Funding Most respondents supported the introduction of funding bands and tariffs, as it was felt to help ensure a standardised approach for SEND funding across local authority areas. However, a few respondents had concerns that having bands would limit local authorities’ ability to develop individualised programmes. A few respondents were also concerned that standard bands and tariffs would not take into account regional differences. A few parents/carers also expressed concern that there would be manipulation of the bandings if the framework is not transparent and if there are not suitable accountability measures.

National SEND delivery board To enable the National SEND Delivery Board to work effectively with local partnerships to implement the green paper proposals, respondents most commonly reported the need for clear communication and collaboration with all partners. This included “open dialogue” and for all actors to “listen and engage” with each other. Parents/carers generally advocated for working with and listening to parents and teaching staff. Some parents/carers and respondents from local authorities also felt there was a need for robust monitoring of accountability processes.

Enablers and challenges for implementing the reforms Funding, accountability and training were the most commonly reported factors that would make the biggest difference to the successful implementation of the green paper proposals. Accountability was felt to be important to ensure that all partners are aware of their role and responsibilities and that any under-performance is identified early and addressed. Training and funding were felt to be key to ensure that all partners can do the roles expected of them.

The most commonly reported barriers to success were:

• The reforms limiting the ability to provide individualised support for individuals and instead encouraging a ‘one-size-fits all’ approach

• Unnecessary bureaucracy slowing implementation

• A lack of qualified and experienced staff to apply the green paper proposals

• Local services not buying into the changes

• A slow pace of change which loses partner buy-in

• A lack of responsibility and ownership among partners

• A focus on schools that results in little consideration of other sectors

Final reflections When reporting their final reflections about the proposals in the green paper, local authorities and health workers/professionals and social workers were more likely to express a positive sentiment towards the proposals than a negative sentiment. However, parent/carers and other interested individuals were slightly more likely to express negative sentiment. Negative sentiment was mostly due to concerns about the implementation of the green paper proposals rather than the proposals themselves.

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and context

In March 2022, the government published the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Alternative Provision (AP) Green Paper (SEND Review: Right Support, Right Place, Right Time). The green paper set out proposals to deliver improved outcomes for children and young people with SEND, restore parents’ and carers’ confidence in the system and secure financial sustainability. It identified that while there are examples of good practice in the current landscape, this is not the norm and too often the experiences and outcomes of children and young people are poor. The green paper set out three key challenges facing the SEND and alternative provision system:

1. Outcomes for children and young people with SEND or in alternative provision are consistently worse than their peers across every measure.

2. Navigating the SEND system and alternative provision is not a positive experience for too many children, young people and their families.

3. Despite the continuing and unprecedented investment, the system is not financially sustainable2.

The review identified significant inconsistency in how needs are met across different local authority areas with a lack of clarity around what services can be expected and who provides them. Inconsistent practice across the system exacerbates challenges caused by late or misidentification. Parents, carers and providers do not know what is reasonable to expect from their local settings and so lose confidence that they can meet their child’s needs effectively. As a result, parents, carers and providers feel they have no choice but to seek EHCPs and, in some cases, specialist provision, as a means of legally guaranteeing the right and appropriate support for their children. Increased numbers of requests for EHCPs and specialist provision means that children and young people often face significant delays in accessing support, as they need to go through a long and bureaucratic process to access provision. As more children and young people receive EHCPs and attend specialist settings, more financial resource and workforce capacity is pulled to the specialist end of the system, meaning that there is less available to deliver early intervention and effective, timely support in mainstream settings.

To address these issues, the green paper proposes a series of reforms:

2 SEND Review – right support, right place, right time. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/send-review-right-support-right-place-right-time

SEND Review proposals

A single national SEND and alternative provision system

• Establish a new national SEND and alternative provision system setting nationally consistent standards for how needs are identified and met at every stage of a child’s journey across education, health and care. Parents and carers will be confident that their child’s needs will be met effectively in the most appropriate local setting, they will be clear about what support their child is receiving and will be engaged in decision-making at every stage.

• Create new local SEND partnerships bringing together education, health and care partners with local government to produce a local inclusion plan setting out how each area will meet the national standards. When specialist support is needed, the local inclusion plan will set out the provision that is available within the local area, including units within mainstream, alternative and specialist provision.

• Support parents and carers to express an informed preference for a suitable placement by providing a tailored list of settings, including mainstream, specialist and independent. They will continue to have the right to request a mainstream setting for their child.

• Introduce a standardised and digitised EHCP process and template to minimise bureaucracy and deliver consistency.

• Streamline the redress process to make it easier to resolve disputes earlier, including through mandatory mediation, whilst retaining the tribunal for the most challenging cases.

Excellent provision from early years to adulthood

• Increase the total investment in the schools’ budget, with an additional £1 billion in 2022 to 2023 to support children and young people with the most complex needs.

• Improve mainstream provision, building on the ambitious schools white paper reforms, through excellent teacher training and development and a ‘what works’ evidence programme to identify and share best practice including in early intervention.

• Build expertise and leadership, by consulting on a new SENCo national professional qualification (Npq) for school SENCos, alongside increasing the number of staff with an accredited SENCo qualification in early years settings.

• Invest £2.6 billion, over the next 3 years, to deliver new places and improve existing provision for children and young people with SEND or who require alternative provision.

• Deliver more new special and alternative provision free schools in addition to 60 already in the pipeline.

• Set out a clear timeline that, by 2030, all children and young people will benefit from being taught in a family of schools, with their school, including special and alternative provision in a strong trust or with plans to join or form one, sharing expertise and resource to improve outcomes.

• Commission analysis to better understand the support that children and young people with SEND need from the health workforce so that there is a clear focus on SEND in health workforce planning.

• Fund more than 10,000 additional respite placements and invest £82 million in a network of family hubs so more children, young people and their families can access wraparound support.

• Invest £18 million, over the next 3 years, to build capacity in the supported internships programme.

• Improve transition to further education by introducing common transfer files alongside piloting the roll out of adjustment passports to ensure young people with SEND are prepared for employment and higher education.

A reformed and integrated role for alternative provision

• Make alternative provision an integral part of local SEND systems by requiring the new SEND partnerships to plan and deliver an alternative provision service focused on early intervention.

• Give alternative provision schools the funding stability to deliver a service focused on early intervention by requiring local authorities to create and distribute an alternative provision specific budget.

• Develop a bespoke performance framework for alternative provision which sets robust standards focused on progress, re-integration into mainstream education or sustainable post-16 destinations.

• Deliver greater oversight and transparency on children and young people’s movements into and out of alternative provision.

• Launch a call for evidence on the use of unregistered provision to investigate existing practice.

• Develop a bespoke performance framework for alternative provision which sets robust standards focused on progress, re-integration into mainstream education or sustainable post-16 destinations.

• Deliver greater oversight and transparency on children and young people’s movements into and out of alternative provision.

Source: SEND Review – right support, right place right time

The publication of the SEND and Alternative Provision Green Paper marked the start of a 16-week consultation on the proposals. This was an accessible consultation with accessible versions of the green paper available (including an easy read and full British Sign Language version).

The consultation invited responses to 21 specific questions with a final question that allowed respondents to share general views. This comprised 15 open-ended questions and seven closed-ended questions (Q6, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q13, Q15, Q16). The closed- ended questions included a supplementary free text box that respondents could complete if they either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal. There were also seven separate questions aimed at children and young people.

This paper presents the findings from this consultation.

• Launch a call for evidence on the use of unregistered provision to investigate existing practice.

System roles, accountabilities and funding reform

• Deliver clarity on roles and responsibilities for all partners, across education, health, care and local government through the new national standards - with aligned accountabilities, so everyone has the right incentives and levers to do their role and be held to account.

• Equip the Department for Education’s new regions group to take responsibility for holding local authorities and trusts to account for delivering for children and young people with SEND locally through new funding agreements between local government and the Department for Education.

• Introduce a new inclusion dashboard for 0 to 25 provision giving a timely, transparent picture of how the system is performing at a local and national level across education, health and care.

• Work with Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission to deliver an updated local area SEND inspection framework with a focus on arrangements and experiences of children and young people with SEND and in alternative provision.

• Deliver funding reform through the introduction of a new national framework of banding and price tariffs for funding, matched to levels of need and types of education provision set out in the new national standards. Providers will have clarity on how much funding they should expect to receive for delivering support or a service, whilst ensuring the right pricing structures are in place, helping to control high costs attributed to expensive provision.

1.2 Overview of consultation responses

1.2.1 Sources of responses

As shown in Table 1, there were 5,863 responses to the consultation. The two largest respondent groups were parent/carers and headteachers/teachers/other teaching staff, which accounted for 72% (4,226) of all responses3.

In this report, we have presented the overall findings for each consultation question and have grouped some respondents together:

• Staff within education institutions (including schools, early years providers, further education (Fe) colleges and multi and single academy trusts)

• Health and social care workers

A full list of the groupings is presented in Annex 2.

Table 1: Overview of responses by respondent type Respondent Count Percentage A parent/carer 3,129 53.4% A headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff 1,097 18.7% Other 312 5.3% Interested individual 164 2.8% A child/young person (up to age 25) 162 2.8% Other education professionals 153 2.6% Other organisations 148 2.5% On behalf of a charity/ voluntary or community organisation 146 2.5% On behalf of a local authority 120 2.0% On behalf of a multi or single academy trust 69 1.2% Educational support staff 57 1.0% A health care professional 52 0.9% On behalf of a representative SEND sector body 48 0.8% On behalf of a special education setting 33 0.6% Academic/ researcher/ research body 31 0.5% On behalf of a further education/post 16 setting 29 0.5% On behalf of a health service 29 0.5% On behalf of an early years setting 27 0.5% On behalf of an alternative provision provider 15 0.3% On behalf of an independent education provider 13 0.2% Prefer not to say 13 0.2% Other social care professional 9 0.2% A social worker 7 0.1% 5,863

3 Responses from Special Needs Jungle, the Nnpcf and the Dcp have been classified as parents/carers. Organisational responses which were received by email have been classified as ‘Other organisations’ and email responses from individuals where the respondent type was not known have been classified as ‘Interested individual’.

Respondents were invited to respond to the consultation through the online Citizen Space portal or by email. Responses received through the online portal represented 53% of all responses. Email responses represented 15% of responses and either contained responses to at least one of the consultation questions, or generic feedback. A further 31% of responses were from members of the Disabled Children’s Partnership (Dcp) who answered a separate set of questions related to the green paper.

During the consultation, the Disabled Children’s Partnership (Dcp) set up their own online form. They edited and simplified the original wording of the consultation questions, which may have had an impact on responses. The questions used by the Dcp and how they were mapped to the consultation questions for analysis are included in Annex 2.

There were 38 organisations who submitted position papers4 instead of responses to the questions posed in the consultation. Their responses have been mapped to the consultation questions and analysed alongside the consultation responses.

The National Network of Parent Carer Forums (Nnpcf) submitted a single organisational response to the consultation. This was a summary of a consultation they conducted with their members. The number of respondents represented by the summary was just over 1,200 parents/carers.

Special Needs Jungle (Snj) provided a link to the consultation questions on their website. Alongside the questions, Snj provided their own guidance and how to respond. There were 39 individual responses received by Snj which were submitted to the Department for Education alongside the Snj’s organisational response. In most cases, the responses submitted by parents/carers through the Snj website echoed the views expressed in the Snj organisational response.

Organisational responses have been analysed alongside the most appropriate respondent group. Responses from the Nnpcf are examined alongside the consultation responses from parent/carers and the National Education Union response has been analysed with education staff respondents. Responses from Snj have been classified as parents/carers as most respondents who stated the capacity in which they were responding stated that they were parents or carers.

A list of organisations that responded to the consultation are included in Annex 3.

1.2.2 Campaigns

An email campaign, consisting of 609 identical or very similar responses, was received from the National Deaf Children’s Society (Ndcs).

Within responses to the consultation, there were 59 duplicated responses from parents/carers, which could be broken down into two different sets of responses. The source of these collective responses is unknown.

4 A written report from an organisation that discusses a particular issue, provides the organisation’s opinion on the issue, and often includes recommendations

1.2.3 Children and young people

The consultation included seven specific questions for children and young people which are included in Annex 1. There were 162 children and young people that responded to these questions. Around 40% of respondents were aged between 19-25 years. The 16- 18, 11-15 and 4-10 age ranges each represented approximately a fifth of all children and young people that responded to the consultation.

Figure 1: Overview of age ranges: children and young people

1.3 Approach

1.3.1 Methodology

The methodology for analysing the open-ended consultation responses included a mix of Natural Language Processing (Nlp) and manual analysis. Nlp was used when there was a large volume of qualitative material to draw on. It was primarily used to analyse the 15 open-ended questions and the supplementary free text in the closed-ended questions.

The Nlp analysis comprised of:

• Data cleaning. To remove responses such as ‘No comment’ or ‘N/A’. Identical (collective) responses were removed and analysed separately.

• Topic modelling. Topic modelling is an unsupervised machine learning technique that employs computer algorithms to identify latent topics in the text. Because the human eye often cannot discern topical patterns in vast amounts of textual data, the aim of topic modelling is to identify a combination of words that form a topic, which is an abstract concept that requires interpretation.

40%

20%

19%

18%

2% 1%

19 – 25 years

16 – 18 years

11 – 15 years

4 – 10 years

I don't want to say

Not Answered

• Sentiment analysis. To gauge the perception towards the green paper in the final question of the consultation, sentiment analysis was employed5. This is a supervised machine learning technique that gauges the mood and emotion of textual data by comparing pre-generated corpuses of emotion to responses and subsequently assigning words and sentences polarity scores.

Manual analysis was required to analyse consultation responses that were not mapped to the 22 questions in the consultation, including the submitted position papers, and for groups of respondents where the number of responses was too small to use automated techniques. Where the position papers directly addressed the proposals in the green paper, analysis of these was included under the relevant questions and coded as ‘other organisations’.

A selection of 100 responses that were processed using Nlp were also analysed manually to quality assure the results. This did not find any discrepancy between the themes emerging from human reviewers and those identified by the Nlp algorithm.

For the closed-ended questions, descriptive analysis of responses was undertaken using Python. For each question, distributions of responses were calculated as percentages for all respondent groups.

1.3.2 Qualitative interpretation

Themes that were derived from automated text and manual analysis were used to produce a summary of responses, disaggregated by key respondent groups, to each consultation question. Where respondents addressed questions that differed from those in the official consultation (for example responses from the Dcp) analysis of these responses has been included alongside the consultation questions to which they map most closely (see Annex 2).

All responses have been treated equally, however, some have been submitted on behalf of organisations and therefore represent the views of a wider group of people. It is not possible to quantify the number of people represented in each of these organisational responses and therefore these responses have been reported separately when they differ from the majority view on a question.

For some questions, respondents included more general feedback which went beyond the specific consultation question. Where this occurred, the general feedback was incorporated in analysis of the final consultation question which was on final reflections.

This report uses direct responses to the consultation which contain the viewpoint of respondents. These have not been adjusted or corrected to reflect existing processes.

Quotes have been used throughout this report to help demonstrate themes that came through responses. As respondents stated whether they consented to their responses

5 The final question asked respondents “Is there anything else you would like to say about the proposals in green paper?”

being published, the quotes were manually selected from those which consented to publication (either fully or anonymously).

1.3.3 Structure of the report

The report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 presents the findings from the responses submitted by children and young people.

• Chapter 3 sets out the findings from consultation questions 1-7: A single national SEND and alternative provision system.

• Chapter 4 presents the findings from consultation questions 8-12: Excellent provision from early years to adulthood.

• Chapter 5 shows the findings from consultation questions 13-16: A reformed and integrated role for alternative provision.

• Chapter 6 presents the findings from consultation questions 17-18: System roles, accountabilities, and funding reform.

• Chapter 7 sets out the findings from consultation questions 19-22: Delivering change for children and families.

2 Responses from children and young people

This section discusses the responses to the questions specifically asked of children and young people. Each of these questions received between 47 and 161 responses. The number of responses to each consultation question is presented in the table below.

Table 2: Number of responses per question

Consultation question Total

Question 1: Support for preparing for adulthood 155

Question 2: Decision makers 154

Question 3: EHCPs 161

Question 4: Preparing lists 161

Question 5: Access to apprenticeships 124

Question 6: Support for staying in mainstream education 47

2.2 Question 1: Support for preparing for adulthood

To prepare for adulthood, children and young people most frequently reported the importance of life and social skills support. These were mostly life skills for living more independently. They included:

• Everyday budgeting and money management

• Administrative tasks such as booking appointments or form filling

• Everyday tasks such as using public transport, cooking and cleaning

• Navigating social norms in work and social environments

Some respondents also highlighted the importance of educational support. This included academic accommodations for exams, access to supportive technology and access to 1- 2-1 support or tailored educational support to meet their specific needs.

A few respondents wanted support focused on transitions, particularly for moving into further education or employment. This included opportunities to do work experience, interview preparation, access to careers advisors, the ability to network with peers with similar needs, understanding further education entry requirements and understanding further education and workplace SEND accommodations.

A few respondents also stated the need for specialist support such as speech and language therapy or support centred on mental health. The latter included emotional and well-being support, as well as anxiety management.

What kinds of support are most important to help you prepare for adulthood?

2.3 Question 2: Decision makers

Children and young people most commonly reported that parents/carers (or trusted adults) should be involved in making decisions about help for children and young people with additional needs. This was consistent across all age groups.

The second most commonly reported person that should be involved in decision making was the child or young person themselves. However, this varied by age group. It was most commonly reported by older respondents (those over age 10) and less commonly reported among the younger respondents.

Some respondents also suggested decision making should include representatives from the school, but most stressed that this involvement should come from individuals who have a personal relationship with the child or young person. A few respondents stated the SEND community should be involved in decision-making. This group was mostly reported by respondents in the 19-25 age range.

Figure 2: Groups who respondents feel should be involved in making decisions

about help for children and young people with additional needs

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=154)

Who should be involved in making decisions about help for children and young people with additional needs?

37%

50%

62%

82%

Local authority

SEND community

Social worker

Health professional

School

The young person

Parents/carers

2.4 Question 3: EHCPs

Figure 3: Respondent views on the most important parts of the EHCP

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=161)

An EHCP is made up of these parts: A) The views, interests and aspirations of the child or young person B) Special educational needs C) Health needs D) Social care needs E) Outcomes for children and young people F) The special educational provision required G) Health provision required H1 and H2) Social care provision required I) Placement J) Personal budget K) Advice and information

Which are the most important parts of the plan to you? Please choose up to three parts.

12%

16%

18%

21%

25%

33%

45%

48%

66%

76%

I don't know

H1 and H2) Social care provision required

G) Health provision required

J) Personal budget

K) Advice and information

D) Social care needs

I) Placement

C) Health needs

E) Outcomes for children and young people

F) The special educational provision required

B) Special educational needs

A) The views, interests and aspirations of the child or…

2.5 Question 4: Preparing lists

In response to this question, the majority of respondents (82%, 132) reported that those preparing the list should consider the needs of the child or young person. This was followed by distance from home (60%, 97) and ease of reaching the school (60%, 97).

Around a third (34%, 55) respondents selected ‘Other’. This included:

• Staff training

• Parent and child or young person input

• The interests of the child or young person

• The number of children currently at the school with similar needs

• The available specialist provision

• Building and classroom access

• Reviews from previous students

• Teacher/student ratio

Figure 4: Respondent views on the points of consideration when creating a list of

appropriate schools for children with EHCPs

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=161)

34%

40%

52%

60%

82%

I don't know

I don't want to say

Other

If my friends/siblings go there

My age

How far it is from my house

How easy it is to get there

My needs

In the green paper we propose to create a list of appropriate schools for children with EHCPs to attend. Parents will be asked to say which of the schools on the list they would prefer their child to go to.

What do you think those preparing the list should think about when putting it together? A) My age, B) My needs such as whether I need additional help in lessons or find it hard to communicate sometimes, C) How far away it is from my house, D) How easy it is to get there, E) How much it costs, F) If my friends/siblings go there, G) Other: tell us in your own words what you think adults should think about, H) I don’t know, I) I don’t want to say

2.6 Question 5: Access to apprenticeships

To help them take part in an apprenticeship, children and young people most commonly stated they wanted an upfront understanding about what an apprenticeship entails. This included information related to the working environment such as whether the environment is inclusive, whether there is access to assistive technology, suitable building access and if adjustments can be provided. A few respondents also reported wanting clarity on expectations, an outline of skills that will have been developed by completion of an apprenticeship and a trial prior to committing to an apprenticeship.

Some respondents also stated that improvements to the setup of apprenticeships would help them take part in apprenticeships. This included having flexible working hours and entry requirements not contingent only on exam results but also teacher assessment.

2.7 Question 6: Support for staying in mainstream education

In response to this question, children and young people most commonly reported that teacher training in SEND would have helped them to stay in their main school. This was followed by access to a wider range of support including in-classroom support, exam support, access to specialist support and SEND provisions such as assistive technology. Other factors mentioned were earlier intervention and smaller class sizes.

An apprenticeship is a type of training where you learn skills while doing a job. We would like to know what you think would help you take part in an apprenticeship, if you wanted to. For example, advice on what kinds of apprenticeships are available from your teachers, or information about events where you can ask questions about different apprenticeships.

Please say what you think would help you take part in an apprenticeship.

Some young people spend time in alternative provision, to help them with behaviour or other needs, or because they have been excluded from their main school. Alternative provision can include small, specialist schools (sometimes called Pupil Referral Units), work-based or placements (for example, at a farm or mechanics), or one-to-one tuition. We would like children and young people to get this support for behaviour or other needs in their main school wherever possible. If you have ever attended alternative provision, please tell us what support you think would have helped you stay at your main school instead.

3 Responses to questions 1-7: A single national SEND and alternative provision system

This section presents responses to the first seven of the main consultation questions. These questions were on the green paper proposals for creating a single national SEND and alternative provision system, which includes developing standards on what support should be universal within mainstream settings, as well as guidance on when an EHCP is required, and when specialist provision, including alternative provision, is most appropriate for meeting a child or young person’s needs.

Each of the questions received between 1,780 and 4,613 responses. The table below shows the number of responses to each consultation question overall and by type of respondent. The totals given are based on cleaned data. The data cleaning included removing responses which did not include any content (such as ‘.’) and those where respondents have answered that they do not have sufficient knowledge to comment.

Table 3: Number of responses per question by respondent group

(Q1 to Q7)

Consultation question

Parents/ carer

School staff

LA staff

Health service workers

Social workers

Fe staff

Early years staff

Other Total

Question 1 1,250 717 120 75 15 28 27 844 3,076

Question 2 1,001 614 110 67 13 24 27 777 2,633

Question 3 881 541 105 53 9 27 23 560 2,199

Question 4 1,071 667 113 71 14 27 23 813 2,799

Question 5 2,933 647 112 58 11 25 24 803 4,613

Question 6 2,737 709 106 74 14 27 27 637 4,331

Question 7 778 372 94 44 10 14 14 454 1,780

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation

The responses to each question are presented below.

3.1 Question 1: National standards

There was general support among consultation respondents for the need for a national SEND and alternative provision system. This was mostly because it was felt it would help to address variation in provision by local area and avoid a ‘postcode lottery’. As one

What key factors should be considered, when developing national standards to ensure they deliver improved outcomes and experiences for children and young people with SEND and their families? This includes how this applies across education, health and care in a 0-25 system

respondent stated, “funding and a uniform, national system will be key to success, and are where we feel the failures in the current system stems from.”

The most common factors reported by respondents to develop the national standards were:

• The need for SEND training for teaching staff, social workers, and healthcare professionals in order to facilitate early identification of needs and consistency in support. Some respondents felt that there should be a minimum standard across all agencies in the SEND system and that SEND teacher training should form a greater part of initial and in-work training.

• The effectiveness of the EHCP process. All respondent groups reported that the process would benefit from being standardised, simple, accessible and available digitally. It was also reported that EHCPs should be regularly updated and maintained and that there needs to be clear guidance on the thresholds that are considered when applying for an EHCP, including what needs can be supported without an EHCP.

• The availability and accessibility of funding so that national standards can be implemented in practice. This included funding for provision, training and implementing change.

• Having clear lines of accountability and improved collaboration between the wide range of agencies involved in supporting children and young people with SEND. It was felt to be particularly important to clarify responsibilities in relation to the support and funding.

• Co-production with children and young people with SEND and parents/carers so that they are involved in the design of the framework.

These factors were consistent across all respondent groups, but some have reported particular priorities which are described below.

3.1.1 Parents/carers

Most parents/carers supported the introduction of national standards, particularly for the EHCP process. They felt the national standards should make clear where funding from EHCPs is used. Some respondents also reported the importance of the national

“I feel the schools need more training in SEN often they have SEN departments however for example the teaching assistants that help in class to support the teachers are under trained in certain aspects.” (Parent/carer)

“The development of national standards is great, however the existing system would work far better if there were sanctions and consequences. We have old legislation that has been around for years, and many people choose or sometimes refuse to comply with the guidance and legislation.” (Parent/carer)

standards reinforcing the need for the prompt development of EHCPs, as they felt that the statutory wait times for EHCPs are exceeded in some areas. In addition, representatives from Armed Forces families raised the importance of quick turnarounds for EHCP applications as children of service people often move local authority – or move to oversees British territories – before the process is complete. A few respondents also stated that the national standards should not focus too heavily on children and young people with EHCPs. They felt the needs of children that are not eligible for EHCPs but who have additional needs should also be acknowledged.

Other factors that parents raised were important for national standards were:

• Quicker access to diagnosis

• Access to emotional and mental health support

• That standards should include a list of reasonable adjustments

• That there should be maximum waiting times on assessments and delivery of services/support and between appointments

• Support should be person centred, have standards for educational settings on required support, clarity on provision requirements of mainstream schools, early identification and intervention, SEN support plans to set out needs, provision and outcomes

• That there should be a structured approach to planning and skills development across the SEND workforce

• Specific health care standards including for how health services are delivered and therapies

• Clarity on the social care role and for children and young people to have access to a proportional social care assessment

A few parents/carers did however disagree with the proposed new standards because they felt that support would be standardised as a result. They felt children and young people with SEND should be given individualised support that takes into account all of their needs. As one respondent from Snj stated: “standards in educational settings should be personalised and relate directly to the developmental needs”. Similar views were reported by some parent representative organisations, who supported the principle of national standards but believed they should have significant flexibility to meet the specialised needs of young people with SEND.

In addition, a few parent/carer representative organisations felt there was no need for a new national framework as the existing legal framework is enough. They felt the focus should instead be on ensuring compliance with current laws. As one stated:

3.1.2 Respondents from education settings

Individuals from education settings most commonly reported funding as an important factor to be considered when developing national standards. Some suggested:

• Enhanced funding for mainstream schools, as there is “insufficient funding to support the increasingly complex cases”

• Ring-fenced funding for training staff in schools to improve expertise

• Effective processes for administering funding. For example, some respondents stated there should be a clear statement on how SEND funding can be spent, that funding should be ring-fenced, and that there should be reduced bureaucracy in accessing funding.

Most respondents also felt that the national standards needed to ensure consistency of the EHCP process and how needs were accessed. They felt this would allow for uniformity across local authorities and improve “EHCP transitions from one county [local authority area] to another”. A few also reported the need for consistency in the paperwork, application processes and “interface with a common language” so that everybody knows what is expected and from whom.

The National Education Union (Neu) did however raise concerns that new pieces of legislation could dilute local authorities’ legal obligation. They felt that national standards should incorporate responsibilities set out in the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014. This currently specifies what children and young people with SEND are legally entitled to and what schools/colleges/local authorities should be providing.

Some respondents from Fe providers and early years settings also reported the importance of a framework mandating cooperation across agencies to ensure this is done consistently across the country. A few also felt there was a need for better equality across agencies, noting that provision “should not always be education led” and that it was important that colleges and schools are required to meet the same standards as other providers.

“We don’t need further legislative reforms but instead require local authorities to comply with the current law. The 96% of appeals to the SEND Tribunal finding against local authorities shows the extent of unlawful decision-making. This could be due to several reasons; lack of adequate staff training (e.g., training on Cafa 2014, disability awareness), insufficient funds to provide the necessary support or just exceptionally poor management all the way through.” (Other organisation)

“This [the development of national standards] requires high-quality ‘joined up’ universal provision and must have a strong emphasis on inclusion by design to achieve person- centred support with co-production at its core.” (Other education professionals)

A few respondents from Fe providers reported that national standards should recognise the importance of early intervention for learners with SEND and the need to recognise that provision for a child or young person changes at different ages and stages. A few also stated that the national framework should consider that some young people develop SEND needs later and therefore there should be an “equal focus on early years, school and post-16 provision”.

3.1.3 Respondents from local authorities

Respondents from local authorities commonly raised the need for strong cooperation across agencies. To do this they felt that national standards needed to provide clarity on stakeholder roles and responsibilities in the national system and an equal balance of requirements between education, health and care services.

A few respondents also raised the following factors for consideration in developing national standards:

• Incorporating effective measurements of success, including identifying for each child or young person what defines progress

• Ensuring information is accessible and streamlining procedures so they are more easily understood

• Ensuring a greater focus on preparation for adulthood

“A person’s outcomes should be the responsibility of everyone, but with named agencies legally accountable for specific aspects of provision and outcomes identified in the EHCP.” (On behalf of a further education/ post 16 setting)

“The need for flexible funding streams and support: to guard against this one-size-fits- all approach, it is vital that the proposed framework for national standards does not lead to rigid, and narrow funding streams.” (On behalf of a further education/ post 16 setting)

“The standards should consider all areas of transition through key stages and preparation for adulthood should be a key theme with specific standards set- including ensuring that there are better pathways to employment”. (On behalf of a local authority)

“The powers of LAs to hold schools to account should be increased. Currently LAs have responsibility but no power, especially with academies”. (On behalf of a local authority)

“National standards should be defined for co-production particularly between settings and families to ensure that schools design inclusion systems to be child and family friendly and to reduce disputes and conflict”. (On behalf of a local authority)

3.1.4 Health professional/health service workers and social workers

Respondents from health services and health professionals commonly reported the importance of training for education staff. As one stated: “All teachers and support staff should be trained to recognise … SEND including autism, Adhd and learning disabilities”. They also stated that any child who has been identified as potentially requiring support “should have access to timely interagency assessment to correctly identify their learning, educational, health and wider social needs, so that appropriate reasonable adjustments can be made, and appropriate outcomes and actions co- produced with families.”

A few respondents stated that, to ensure consistency of provision, it was critical to have clear national standards for health and social care provision for students with SEND to underpin the effectiveness of a national framework. A few also felt the approach used for measuring progress was an important factor to consider when developing the national standards. They felt this measurement should not be restricted only to formal assessments scores. Indeed, some felt there should be “less focus on quantitative performance metrics and more focus on qualitative outcomes for children” including outcomes on preparation for adulthood and wellbeing.

3.2 Question 2: Local SEND partnerships

The most common responses to this question were that:

• Partnerships should be wide-ranging and include representatives from every education sector (specialist and mainstream provision and both schools and colleges) as well as parents/carers and children and young people. A few respondents also felt they should include professionals who work directly with children and families, rather than just higher-level decision makers

• Accountability measures should be in place for all partners, alongside a clear set of criteria and clarity on the roles and responsibilities of different partners

• Local inclusion plans should follow from an audit of local provision to identify examples of existing good practice. This would reduce unnecessary duplication of work

• Partnerships should build on the collaboration already developed through the Local Offer for joint planning and commissioning

Specific points raised by different respondent groups are presented below.

How should we develop the proposal for new local SEND partnerships to oversee the effective development of local inclusion plans whilst avoiding placing unnecessary burdens or duplicating current partnerships?

3.2.1 Parents/carers

Parents and carers most commonly stressed the need to include the views of parents/carers and children and young people in the development of local inclusion plans. This was felt to be important for ensuring local services reflected user needs. Most also reported the need for accountability measures to ensure all partners have a clear understanding of what is expected from them.

A parent/carer representative organisation felt that the panel members should be well versed with the law and should be impartial and neutral. They also believed that recruitment should be done equitably with good representation otherwise it would not work, and that the panels should make good use of parents’ time and allow their voices to be heard.

The Nnpcf also believed that national standards “should form the template for what local SEND partnerships should provide through the development and implementation of local inclusion plans”. They also felt that these plans should reflect the national standards which should also set out the responsibilities of the local SEND partnerships. A few respondents felt the process needed to be clear and transparent and minimise bureaucracy.

3.2.2 Respondents from education settings

To support the partnerships, respondents from schools commonly reported the need for information sharing, a streamlined system, common frameworks and clear criteria with clear roles and responsibilities. Some also stated that:

• the partnership development should involve all agencies but there should be stronger links between health, social care and education and that parental views should be incorporated

• the development of SEND partnerships would require additional funding and resources and should be underpinned by an initial auditing of current provision in the local area

Some respondents from schools felt that within the green paper there was a lack of clarity on how local SEND partnerships would differ from the current strategic joint commissioning arrangements. This makes it difficult to see how this will be a positive change without the funding and resources to ensure the support offered is sustainable in the long term.

Respondents from alternative provision (AP) stressed that “the purpose, model and reach of the local SEND partnerships would need to be clearly laid out and agreed” to avoid unnecessary workload and duplication. Some also felt it was important that there were national guidelines to ensure “the localised feel of a SEND partnership” is “maintained to ensure that parents within a local area know that the partnership is appropriate to the local cohort”.

A few respondents also stated that local authorities should be the gatekeepers of the development of local plans, and for simplification there should be a single department within local authorities dedicated to alternative provision. However, others felt that local authorities should be “a supporter/partner in this process and not a leader”. These individuals felt the partnerships “should be schools led in co-production with children and young people’s lived experiences influencing mainstream practice as much as special provision.”

3.2.3 Respondents from local authorities

Some respondents from local authorities expressed a desire for flexibility so that “existing structures, boards and workstreams” could be adapted to align with the national model, rather than “reinventing the wheel”. This was because a few respondents stated their area had well-established and effective partnerships which, in some cases, were acknowledged by Ofsted and Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Other key elements of effective joint working reported by local authority staff included:

• Supporting better data sharing arrangements across health and education for development check outcomes

• Introducing a named health visitor attached to each school/Ofsted registered early years setting

• Making clear whether the statutory local agency panels are intended to replace existing panels and decision-making groups or are intended to oversee and monitor them

• Implementing a joint training and moderation process across early years practitioners and staff delivering Health Child Programme development checks

A few respondents noted that there is not currently enough detail on how the partnerships should be formed and operate. One wrote, ‘A genuine partnership incorporating all stakeholders is desperately needed. However, it has never proved possible to gather colleagues from, e.g., education, health and care together in one room. Why will it be different this time?’. Some specifically stated there was a need for further details on what constitutes a local inclusion plan, for a clear definition of “inclusion” and a joint vision that is co-produced.

“Establishing a SEND partnership on a statutory footing may help to influence the local system and ensure all partners are playing their part in delivering better outcomes for children, however the inter-relationship with the schools forum remains unclear.” (A SEND representative organisation)

3.2.4 Health professionals/health service workers and social workers

Most respondents in this group reported the need for the local SEND partnerships to be collaborative, effective and have joined up working between education, health and social care (and potentially representation from other stakeholders such as youth justice and housing). To facilitate this collaboration, some felt that more time should be dedicated to understanding the priorities and challenges of each service.

One respondent cautioned that as health services cater to many different local authorities, if partnerships are led by local authorities, it may lead to inconsistency in ways of working unless local authority strategic priorities are shared.

3.3 Question 3: Commissioning across local boundaries

To support commissioning across local authority boundaries, respondents most commonly reported a need for joint or regional commissioning with other local authorities for specialist provision. They felt that “this would take a lot of the conflict away between parents and local authorities, as local authorities then do not see the money needed coming from their own pocket. It is, in effect, ring-fenced money that will only be spent in this way, but that they cannot access until needed”. In addition, a few suggested that having national or regional funding would mitigate the inequity in need across local authorities.

Some respondents also suggested a need for improved access to specialist professionals (such as speech and language therapists) and resources. A few felt that this required additional funding. However, others believed that existing capacity could be better used by “improved communication and joined up thinking” between local authorities.

There were also some additional points raised by certain respondent groups. Some parents and carers reported that it was important to have consistent EHCPs, as thresholds and processes vary across local authorities. Nnpcf also advocated for collaboration across partners and local area boundaries, being underpinned by “a clear framework and alignment of powers, responsibilities, funding and accountability”.

“Use existing networks of parents’ support groups, but also look at ways to hear the hidden voices - families who don't attend such groups, where English is not the first language, consultations available in different languages, offer focus groups. Get local schools to consult with their families where there may be good relationships that will help engage people in their own community.” (A health care professional)

What factors would enable local authorities to successfully commission provision for low-incidence high-cost need, and further education, across local authority boundaries?

Some respondents from education settings suggested improved access to specialists could include building up “local specialist provision that can be dipped into by schools on a need-by-need basis”, a few also suggested subsidising travel costs in order to secure out-of-area placements, and more alternative provision which can share expertise through partnership working. There were also calls to expand special and AP places and provide a mix of experience and expertise across education.

A few respondents from both Fe providers and education settings reported that there should be a “robust transition plan” in place when a young person moves to another local authority. A few also reported the need for effective communication (particularly between bordering local authorities to facilitate access to resources) and the sharing of information on all settings through a national database.

Healthcare workers reported that partnerships should be built through “reciprocal agreements across boundaries” or having regional SEND networks with standardised data collection on spend and outcomes. Some also reported the need for pooled budgets so provision can be jointly commissioned and that agreements span education and health.

3.4 Question 4: EHCPs

As shown in Figure 5, the most commonly reported components of EHCPs that respondents felt needed reviewing or amending were Section F (special educational provision) and Section B (special educational need).

“One funding mechanism would be the solution that is nationally recognised. The EHCP therefore if it was a singular national plan, singular national funding framework, would entitle the child to the same provision and funding in another LA upon transfer or cross boundaries.” (On behalf of a local authority)

What components of the EHCP should we consider reviewing or amending as we move to a standardised and digitised version?

Figure 5: Respondent views of the components of the EHCP that most need

reviewing or amending

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=940)

There was generally strong support for the digitalisation of EHCPs. However, some stressed that consideration should be given to those in digital poverty in order to be inclusive. Some also felt there needed to be enough flexibility to capture the needs of the individual and for the child or young person’s view to be reflected in EHCPs whilst ensuring “a clear distinction between the child/young person’s own voice and the voices of those around them”.

A few respondents felt that EHCPs do not always support transition across education pathways, including between mainstream schools and colleges. They also felt that EHCPs were not always regularly updated, particularly for young people aged 19-25. For example, one respondent stated that “too often Section F remains unchanged from primary [school] and is meaningless when transitioning to Fe”.

3.4.2 Parents/carers

Parents/carers generally advocated for EHCPs to include greater simplification, user- friendliness, and quantifiable provision. Respondents specifically discussed how Sections B and F could be improved, including:

• Section B (special educational need): Details in this section should be in bullet point form to facilitate clarity and ease of reading. The points should include Smart targets so that the needs of the child are clearly defined. It was also suggested that this section should include the opportunity for parents to include their views.

• Section F (special educational provision): This section should relate to Section B and similarly employ Smart targets so that it is clear “what will be done, exactly for how long, who, by when and where”. In addition, they felt the implementation of provision should be specific and avoid vague/ambiguous language.

50 49 65 65

16 17 28

Section

Section I Section

Section

In addition to the feedback on specific EHCP sections, parents/carers also highlighted the need for shortened timeframes for completion and between assessment and issuance.

A few respondents stated that for families who move frequently, such as military families, having a standardised and digitised process might make things easier. However, as one stakeholder made clear, “just standardising the process and making it digital wouldn’t solve the core issue of the EHCP process. The content of the EHCP is what is vitally important.”

A few respondents also suggested that the EHCP alphabetical sequencing of sections should be updated to B, F, E to facilitate readability, that there should be the ability to attach supporting documentation, that it should include provision costs, and there should be a permanent record of parental comments. A few respondents also reported that there should be standards regarding communication of key decisions and the inclusion of a template for annual reviews.

3.4.3 Respondents from education settings

Respondents from education settings believed that the EHCPs should include:

• Input from health and care services: Respondents highlighted that schools often write, draft and review EHCPs but that this process should be a tripartite undertaking with health and care services. Without this, opportunities for early intervention may be missed.

• Annual reviews: In order to be reflective of a child’s changing needs, respondents within teaching advocated for more frequent reviews of EHCPs (annual rather than at the end of a key stage), including updating documentation.

“Make it easy to do. Make it quick to do. Make the process of gathering the child's ability easy. Make it easy to do in collaboration with the school. Make it clear whether the EHCP comes with funding or not…Get through to someone for queries. Free course on how to do the EHCP.” (Parent/carer)

“Clear timelines of the process, available online. A tracking process for parents, as you get with a passport application. Parental comments to be uploaded online. Clear review window which opens/closes at the right time. Banding - make it clear to parents.” (Parent/carer)

“When H1 and S1 forms are sent to health and social care as part of the EHCP assessment process, often they are not returned - most likely due to inexperience, overworked, staff turnover and not knowing cases well enough.” (Headteacher/teacher/ other teaching staff)

3.4.4 Respondents from local authorities

Among local authority respondents, the recommendations for improvements to the EHCP were:

• Section B and F should be simplified and Section F should include timings and duration of provision so that the actions specified are quantifiable

• There should be a clear template

• Use of a tabular format (with B and E) may improve user-friendliness

• It should include more details on the breadth of provision but “should only include what is additional to and different from the standard SEN support offer”

When developing EHCPs, respondents from local authorities suggested that annual reviews should be embedded and standardised and that there should be guidance on the length and number of outcomes. Some respondents also felt that EHCPs should have outcomes related to preparation for adulthood and greater use of Smart targets. Additionally, most respondents believed that the views of the child or young person should be more effectively captured and there should be an emphasis on co-production.

Local authorities felt that they have much valuable learning from the previous ‘transfer’ process of Statement of Special Educational Needs (SSENs) to EHCPS. They would welcome involvement in any process of transferring.

3.4.5 Health professionals/Health service workers and social workers

Most respondents from this group stated that effective collaboration in the development of EHCPs requires a clear definition of what provision should be in the health and education parts. There also needed to be appropriate software so that there is “a digital version with open access to health and social care professionals”.

Among both healthcare workers and charities, there was general concern that the role and responsibilities of health services were being diluted and this seemed to be driven by the expectations of the new Ofsted/CQC inspection framework. As a result, some parent/ carer representative organisations feared that EHCPs will still be seen as a route to try to access scarce health resources.

3.5 Question 5: Tailored list of placements

Overall, some respondents expressed support for the proposal as, if appropriately resourced and correctly applied, it could improve the current process. They felt the main

How can parents and local authorities most effectively work together to produce a tailored list of placements that is appropriate for their child, and gives parents confidence in the EHCP process?

benefits would be in reducing bureaucracy, harnessing local authority expertise and supporting parents/carers. However, some were concerned that the changes would be used to reduce the funding spent on supporting children and young people with special needs. In order for the lists to work effectively, respondents most commonly reported a need for:

• Co-production of the lists so that parents/carers can voice their opinions. This was felt to require effective communication and collaboration between parents and local authorities.

• A development process which was “interoperable, collaborative, and user-friendly to increase usability, consistency and accountability”.

• A centralised, freely available and regularly updated list of settings and available provision within each local authority area. This would help to identify gaps in services and allow parents/carers to have greater clarity on which setting would be most appropriate for their child. There was also need for transparency around who determines which schools are on the list.

• Capacity building to create more places in specialist provision. Most respondents reported a lack of supply with some specialist schools oversubscribed. This could potentially limit choice and prevent the list from meeting the needs of parents.

Some parents and carers also stressed the need for parental involvement in decision- making. A few felt that “local authorities should accept parental views in assigning placements and not allow rejection based on inability to meet need if needs match the published database”. One also stated that parents should be allowed to visit placements and ask questions during operating hours.

Some parents and carers acknowledged that the aim of providing a bespoke list is to help families make a more informed choice but felt that it could limit choice. Therefore, they stated that the list should be “a conversation starter” rather than a fixed set of choices. Some were also concerned that a “potentially narrow list of settings could force children into unsuitable provision”. There were also some parents/carers who believed that they “should be able to pick any setting that they think is right for them” rather than being restricted to a tailored list.

A few respondents from local authorities had concerns about how tailored lists would work in practice. These respondents sought clarity on how a tailored list of placements would be put together. Respondents explained that this is a complex area. There needs to be transparency on the criteria used and available capacity as “providing a menu could exacerbate current difficulties” when schools are oversubscribed. Respondents also suggested that guidance is needed on the efficient use of resources.

A few respondents from local authorities reported concerns about how providing a list of options would impact planning at the local level and how accountability and transparency would be ensured so parents understand how decisions are made. A few were also

unclear about who will quality assure and ‘sign off’ the local inclusion plan. Some also noted that local authorities will require support to implement these changes.

Local SEND services (SENDIASSs) felt that it was crucial for parents/carers to have the option to discuss placements with an experienced caseworker. One wrote: “Face to face, honest dialogue is always going to be more productive than a printed list”. They also raised the concern that lists would need regular updates and this process could lag behind the capacity of providers. One also suggested a “national catalogue” of providers.

3.6 Question 6: Approach to strengthen redress

There were 4,331 responses to this question, of which 30% (rounded, 1,283) either strongly agreed or agreed whilst 59% (2,534) either disagreed or strongly disagreed. A total of 12% (514) neither agreed nor disagreed (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Respondent views on the approach to strengthen redress

DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=4,331)

The majority of respondents from healthcare, local authorities and education settings (including schools, colleges, early years, alternative and specialist providers) agreed with the overall approach to strengthen redress, including through national standards and mandatory mediation. However, the majority of parents or carers disagreed with the proposal.

Respondents that disagreed with the overall approach were also asked to provide an additional qualitative response. Of the respondents who disagreed, the most common reason for this was due to the proposal for mandatory mediation. Respondents commonly felt this would:

• Lead to delays in providing support for children and young people with SEND

8% 21% 12% 43% 16%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

“Incredibly often, when parents express a school preference for specialist placements, there is often no capacity at that time, as we are often having consideration meetings for placements starting the next academic year, which then causes frustration as the parents do not want their child to wait for appropriate provision and we are unable to direct over capacity numbers.” (On behalf of a local authority)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with our overall approach to strengthen redress, including through national standards and mandatory mediation?

• Still create an adversarial system

• Make the whole process unnecessarily longer

• Be a further burden on local authorities in organising mediations

Others questioned the effectiveness of the system, citing the non-binding nature of mediation and the potential to further delay tribunal hearings to achieve positive outcomes for children and young people with SEND.

Figure 7: Respondent views on the approach to strengthening redress by

respondent group

DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=4,331)

29%

21%

13%

26%

15%

20%

18%

15%

12%

20%

18%

36%

43%

13%

44%

33%

27%

46%

45%

20%

23%

41%

15%

13%

27%

21%

29%

17%

19%

26%

17%

15%

23%

20%

15%

18%

35%

11%

13%

27%

17%

23%

26%

14%

20%

87%

36%

22%

11%

17%

23%

35%

21%

39%

On behalf of an independent education provider (n=11)

On behalf of an alternative provision provider (n=14)

Social worker/other social care professional (n=14)

Academic/ researcher/ research body (n=23)

On behalf of an early years setting (n=27)

On behalf of a further education/ post 16 setting (n=27)

On behalf of a special education setting (n=30)

Other organisations (n=52)

Health care professional/health service (n=74)

On behalf of a local authority (n=106)

On behalf of a charity/SEND sector body (n=165)

Other/interested individual (n=341)

Headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff (n=709)

Parents/carers (n=1,202)

Dcp (n=1,535)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

“We agree with simplifying the process, but mandatory mediation may add to complications and extend the length of time children are out of school.” (Academic/ researcher/ research body)

“Mediation is frequently unsuccessful, with local authorities refusing to budge and families having to pursue further action. In the meantime, children do not have access to appropriate provision and their needs are unmet.” (Parent/carer)

“Strengthening early redress approaches to ensure disputes can be resolved as soon as possible will help the shift to a less adversarial system. The concept of mandatory mediation will need careful consideration to avoid it being seen as an additional hurdle for families.” The Association of Directors of Children’s Services Ltd. (Adcs).

The SEND Mediation Panel of the Civil Mediation Council and the College of Mediators similarly felt that the mandatory mediation process was not appropriate. They wrote:

3.7 Question 7: Disability discrimination

Some respondents did not believe the current remedies available to the SEND tribunal for disabled children who have been discriminated against by schools were effective in putting children and young people’s education back on track. When elaborating on their view, some respondents grouped the roles of schools and local authorities in this process together. The main issues that respondents reported about current remedies were:

• The high costs incurred by families for going to tribunals

• That it results in the child or young person having a length of time out of school

• The resource, knowledge and support required to go to tribunal making it a system which “exists for those that are well resourced to challenge the system”

• The negative impact of going to tribunal on the relationship between the family and school. A few respondents felt that “If a placement is enforced often the parent/carers are still felt to be unwelcome in the setting”

Some respondents also stated that an issue with the current system is that tribunal directions are not enforceable so there is a lack of accountability to ensure there is rectification6. This means there is an insufficient deterrent to operate in a manner that is not discriminatory. Some respondents also pointed out that local authorities do not have the influence to address issues with academies and MATs.

6 This report uses direct responses to the consultation which contain the viewpoint of respondents. These have not been adjusted or corrected to reflect existing processes.

“The panel is unanimously agreed that the concept of mandatory mediation for parents in the SEND mediation context is a step too far. It is generally a fundamental principle of the mediation process that a participant’s engagement is on a voluntary basis. Whilst the current legislation makes the attendance of a representative from the local authority mandatory in certain circumstances, this is based on the fact that, as a statutory body, there is a presumption of willingness to achieve resolution of disputes at the earliest opportunity. That parents/carers/young people have a choice as to engagement and that in some ways addresses the balance of power within the mediation. The fact that parents have chosen the voluntary mediation route is often welcomed by LA representatives, setting a tone of collaborative working from the start.”

Do you consider the current remedies available to the SEND tribunal for disabled children who have been discriminated against by schools effective in putting children and young people’s education back on track? Please give a reason for your answer with examples, if possible.

A few respondents reported that the current system places a high burden on schools. It was mentioned that “if children are failing in the system, it is not necessarily just down to schools, without statutory involvement for authorities, support services, health and care children will not be supported effectively”. Some also felt that remedies through tribunals were reactive instead of being proactive and to address this, they felt there should be a focus on early remedy rather than going to a tribunal. Additionally, respondents felt that if discrimination was found to have occurred, monitored actions for improvement need to be put in place. They also felt there should be national guidance to increase awareness and actions to reduce discrimination.

Some parents and carers also felt there was a need for financial compensation. They felt that the SEND tribunal should have the power to award costs for the court fees families pay. They felt this would help alleviate financial barriers for parents and also incentivise schools and local authorities to better comply with the law.

“The current system incentivises schools and LAs to break the law as there are no meaningful penalties for failure”. (Parent/carer)

“Those dealing with the current system tell us that many of the problems with the SEND system are not to do with the law or the code of practice, but rather to do with the implementation of current legal duties – the battle to secure children’s rights and to get their needs met and the lack or recourse or sanctions when this does not happen”. (The Fostering Network).

4 Responses to questions 8-12: Excellent provision from early years to adulthood

This chapter presents findings from the consultation questions related to excellent provision from early years to adulthood (questions 8-12). These relate to the green paper proposals for improving mainstream provision through a highly skilled and confident workforce, supporting children and young people during transitions and investing in new specialist places.

Each of the questions received between 2,351 and 3,801 responses. The table below presents the number of responses to each consultation question overall and by type of respondents.

Table 4: Number of responses per question by respondent group

(Q8 and Q12)

Consultation question

Parents/ carer

School staff

LA staff

Health service workers

Social workers

Fe staff

Early years staff

Other Total

Question 8 2,587 483 101 65 8 8 27 522 3,801

Question 9 1,095 718 107 66 12 24 27 625 2,674

Question 10 1,177 717 114 68 13 24 26 597 2,736

Question 11 1,003 683 107 58 13 23 21 565 2,473

Question 12 910 506 110 61 13 28 18 705 2,351

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation

The responses to each question are presented below.

4.2 Question 8: Two-year-old progress check

The most common responses to this question were:

• Training for practitioners, particularly for early identification of SEND needs. Parents and carers most commonly reported that this should be provided to early years professionals, health visitors and professionals administering the progress check. Some respondents reported a need for “improved training of the early years workforce in identifying additional needs and understanding of how health services can support”. Some also mentioned that all SENCos should be trained to a statutory level and a few stated there should be training for parents and early years staff on identifying special educational needs, as well as autism awareness training for all health staff.

What steps should be taken to strengthen early years practice with regard to conducting the two-year-old progress check and, integration with the Healthy Child Programme review?

• Health visitors and organisations providing early years education working more closely together. A system allowing for joined-up access and transparency would facilitate this as currently “there is no consistent way to share progress checks”. Also, communication is hindered as families no longer have a named health visitor. Additionally, a standardised reporting format for both early years and health visitors to follow would facilitate consistency and collaboration.

Overall, some respondents felt:

• There was a need to address delays in engaging other agencies that provide support after the progress checks have been completed, for example speech and language therapists.

• The reporting of parent and carer concerns should be compulsory in the two-year progress checks.

To strengthen early years practice in conducting the two-year progress checks, most parents/carers felt the level 3 SENCo qualification for early years settings should be nationwide. While this is being rolled out, they felt nurseries and pre-schools should be given further training. A few respondents also suggested there should be greater information on disability rights for children under 5 for parents/carers. Respondents also reported that health visits should be from birth and there should be more regular checks. One reported that “Family Hubs are a good idea but there are too few of them.”

Some local authorities recognised a need for supporting early years practitioners to conduct two-year-old progress checks, noting that at present they are not always done consistently or on time. A few respondents suggested that it should be compulsory.

4.3 Question 9: Mandatory SENCo Npq

“All preschool and early years settings should have mandatory training as to what constitutes an issue that should be flagged, and this training should be revisited annually.” (Parent/carer)

To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should introduce a new mandatory SENCo Npq to replace the NASENCo?

“The integrated check has a long way to go. Early years settings are not receiving appropriate feedback from health visitors about the needs of children they are seeing. Many children are not seen by their health visitor, the check is carried out over the phone, this is clearly unsatisfactory and can mean that early identification is missed, particularly where children are not attending an Ey setting”. (On behalf of an early years setting)

There were 2,674 responses to this question, of which just under half of respondents (48%, 1,278) either agreed or strongly agreed that a new mandatory SENCo Npq should be introduced to replace the NASENCo (see Figure 8). A further 20% (529) either disagreed or strongly disagreed and 32% (868) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Figure 8: Agreement with introduction of mandatory SENCo Npq

DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,674)

As shown in Figure 9, for nearly all respondent groups over half of respondents agreed or strongly agreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. The only exception was among academics/researchers (n=27), where a higher proportion (63%, 17) disagreed or strongly disagreed compared to agreed (19% rounded, 5). This however should be viewed with caution as it is based on a small sample size.

Figure 9: Agreement with introduction of mandatory SENCo Npq by respondent

type

DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,674)

Respondents that disagreed with the question were asked to provide an additional qualitative response. Among the parents and carers who disagreed, some respondents stated that there should be more SEND training for teachers and that introducing a qualification which they perceived to be at a lower level could be detrimental and result in “a reduction in quality of training and expertise.”

22% 26% 32% 11% 9%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

42%

14%

10%

11%

36%

25%

19%

18%

27%

22%

17%

50%

38%

26%

11%

45%

26%

37%

34%

28%

26%

21%

56%

33%

36%

46%

56%

19%

32%

29%

32%

24%

25%

33%

29%

36%

22%

10%

11%

13%

16%

41%

11%

On behalf of an independent education provider (n=9)

Social worker/other social care professional (n=12)

On behalf of an alternative provision provider (n=14)

On behalf of a further education/ post 16 setting (n=24)

On behalf of an early years setting (n=27)

Academic/ researcher/ research body (n=27)

On behalf of a special education setting (n=31)

Other organisations (n=55)

Health care professional/health service (n=66)

On behalf of a local authority (n=107)

On behalf of a charity/SEND sector body (n=155)

Other/interested individual (n=334)

Headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff (n=718)

Parents/carers (n=1,095)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

For respondents from education settings, the most commonly reported reason for disagreeing with the introduction of a new mandatory SENCo Npq was:

• That the NASENCo is already fit for purpose

• That the Npq will be of poorer quality

• That those who have the NASENCo would have to do a new qualification

• Uncertainty around the purpose of the new qualification

• The financial and administrative costs for rolling out the new qualifications

Some academic/researcher/research body respondents believed that the Npq would reduce standards as it would not cover as much content and “would not give a SENCo the wide variety of tools to support those who need it most”. Some also felt a change was unnecessary as the current NASENCo has national coverage with a high uptake. A few therefore suggested that “rather than replacing the entire qualification, it might prove to be more sensible, time sensitive and financially prudent to make alterations to the NASENCo.’

4.4 Question 10: SENCo training requirement

There were 2,736 responses to this question, of which 69% of respondents (1,895) either strongly agreed or agreed that the mandatory SENCo training requirement should be strengthened while only 19% (rounded, 511) either disagreed or strongly disagreed (see Figure 10). A further 12% (330) neither agreed nor disagreed.

“The NASENCo provides a well-rounded understanding of the strategic aspects of managing SEND in addition to understanding how neurodiversity present themselves in the classroom… An Npq would not cover as much content, in addition to not accessing up to date research and high-level knowledge. An Npq would not give a SENCo the wide variety of tools to support those who need it most”. (Academic/ researcher/ research body)

“Reducing the level and time taken to complete SENCo training will negatively impact on SENCos' ability to positively impact on school strategic leadership. The current NASENCo has excellent national coverage, which is not reflected in Npq availability”. (Academic/ researcher/ research body)

To what extent do you agree that we should strengthen the mandatory SENCo training requirement by requiring that headteachers must be satisfied that the SENCo is in the process of obtaining the relevant qualification when taking on the role?

Figure 10: Need for strengthening the mandatory SENCo training requirement

DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,736)

As shown in Figure 11, for all groups, at least 55% either strongly agreed or agreed that the mandatory SENCo training requirement should be strengthened7. Among social workers and social care professionals, none disagreed.

Respondents that disagreed with the question were asked to provide an additional qualitative response. Across all respondent groups, the most common reason for disagreeing was that SENCos should be fully qualified before taking up a role. Among academics/researchers who disagreed, a few felt that headteachers already have the responsibility for ensuring that all new to role SENCos have the relevant qualification when taking on the role.

Figure 11: Need for strengthening the mandatory SENCo training requirement by

respondent type

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,736)

7 Parents/carers is inclusive of the response from Nnpc (‘agree’)

43% 26% 12% 12% 6%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

11%

69%

31%

33%

35%

23%

40%

23%

53%

43%

44%

41%

33%

51%

44%

23%

31%

38%

35%

38%

33%

50%

34%

29%

24%

22%

34%

20%

33%

23%

15%

13%

16%

14%

15%

14%

11%

15%

19%

10%

13%

11%

13%

17%

14%

11%

13%

On behalf of an independent education provider (n=9)

Social worker/other social care professional (n=13)

On behalf of an alternative provision provider (n=13)

On behalf of a further education/ post 16 setting (n=24)

On behalf of an early years setting (n=26)

Academic/ researcher/ research body (n=26)

On behalf of a special education setting (n=30)

Other organisations (n=40)

Health care professional/health service (n=68)

On behalf of a local authority (n=114)

On behalf of a charity/SEND sector body (n=151)

Other/interested individual (n=328)

Headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff (n=717)

Parents/carers (n=1,177)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

4.5 Question 11: Role of specialist and mixed MATs

A total of 41% of respondents (1,013) either strongly agreed or agreed that both specialist and mixed MATs should be allowed to coexist in the fully trust-led future (see Figure 12). Only 24% (601) either disagreed or strongly disagreed and 35% (859) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Figure 12: Respondent views on the roles of specialist and mixed MATs

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,473)

For nearly all respondent groups a higher proportion of respondents agreed than disagreed with the statement. The only exceptions were respondents from specialist settings.

Respondents that disagreed with the question were also asked to provide an additional qualitative response. The most common reason respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement was because of the “lack of regulation and accountability of MATs on inclusion of children and young people with SEND”. Some respondents also believed that because specialist and mixed MATs are run as businesses, they “do not recognise the needs of the individual, but rather cater to the majority”.

15% 26% 35% 11% 13%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

To what extent do you agree or disagree that both specialist and mixed MATs should be allowed to coexist in the fully trust-led future? This would allow current local authority maintained special schools and alternative provision settings to join either type of Mat.

Figure 13: Respondent views on the roles of specialist and mixed MATs by

respondent type

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,473)

20%

23%

11%

14%

21%

14%

45%

15%

12%

21%

13%

20%

15%

43%

21%

29%

30%

21%

42%

26%

41%

23%

29%

34%

19%

30%

62%

36%

32%

43%

48%

10%

31%

52%

25%

45%

31%

29%

40%

30%

16%

13%

17%

25%

10%

17%

13%

10%

14%

21%

10%

31%

15%

11%

17%

On behalf of an independent education provider (n=10)

Social worker/other social care professional (n=13)

On behalf of an alternative provision provider (n=14)

Academic/ researcher/ research body (n=19)

On behalf of an early years setting (n=21)

On behalf of a further education/ post 16 setting (n=23)

On behalf of a special education setting (n=29)

Other organisations (n=36)

Health care professional/health service (n=58)

On behalf of a multi or single academy trust (n=66)

On behalf of a local authority (n=107)

On behalf of a charity/SEND sector body (n=137)

Other/interested individual (n=320)

Headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff (n=617)

Parents/carers (n=1003)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

“MATs are businesses first and foremost and not services. SEND support requires service principles above business ones.” (Other education professional)

“I worry that the Mat system is not robustly held to account for SEN provision and is not inclusive of SEND children / young people and I worry about the implications for my children in a fully Mat lead system.” (Parent/carer)

“We do not believe that there is any evidence that a fully trust-led future will raise standards of provision for students with SEND.” (On behalf of a special education setting)

“Whilst we can see theoretical benefits to special schools being part of either mixed or special school groupings, we have not seen clear evidence of how either model works in practice and delivers advantages to children and young people beyond what is delivered by standalone special schools. Where an academy plays a key role within a locality in delivering both SEND placements and expertise to other schools, we can see the opportunities for mixed, locality- based MATs. However, care must be taken to ensure that special academies within mixed MATs maintain opportunities to keep practice and knowledge up to date and can benefit from access to peer networks of other special academies.” (Nass)

4.6 Question 12: Access to apprenticeships

To improve access to apprenticeships, respondents most commonly reported:

• Raising awareness among employers (and also in communities more widely) of the benefits of employing young people with SEND. Some respondents felt that this should be through training which would allow employers to “get a real understanding of what it’s like to have SEN” and the support that is required. Others suggested this should be through a government campaign.

• Providing incentives to employers to offer apprenticeships for young people with SEND. Some stated that this could include financial incentives or government sponsored apprenticeship places.

• The Government to set quotas for employers to provide either apprenticeship jobs or interviews for young people with SEND.

• Employers providing transition measures to help young people with SEND adjust to employment (such as coaching and mentoring), developing links between education and businesses, and ensuring that there is consistency in approaches across the country.

• Preventing current SEN laws from being diluted, and for the government to apply greater accountability to local authorities to ensure existing laws are followed.

Parents and carers also commonly reported that employers should use inclusive work and recruitment practices. A few stated that employers could make more work experience opportunities available to young people with SEND and that these should be in a variety of roles.

A few parents/carers also stated that each local authority should have an employment pathway as part of their preparation for adulthood strategy. They specifically want a

What more can be done by employers, providers and government to ensure that those young people with SEND can access, participate in and be supported to achieve an apprenticeship, including through access routes like Traineeships?

“More collaborative working, incentives and awareness with employers in relation to disabled employees. National awareness within the public realm of inclusive employment and how different disabilities need support and access arrangements, and the positives this cohort of employees can have on the world of work.” (Parent/carer)

“Job coaching is a great way of getting young adults with SEN into work. These coaches go into workplaces with students to provide supported internships. However, the government need to support businesses and incentivise them use and expand these programmes. There needs to be incentives for workplaces who employ these workers.” (Headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff)

“clearer understanding of how local authorities and providers within the post-16 high needs system can work together to manage an increased demand for support for High Needs students to prepare them for employment” and a holistic approach to employment which takes into consideration the barriers that disabled people face.

Respondents from education settings and some parents/carers reported that providers needed to provide a flexible curriculum with alternative pathways which enables the development of skills aimed at preparing children and young people with SEND for a working environment. This included qualification options beyond GCSEs which enable young people with SEND to gain “qualifications linked to skills for work and not just academic”. Additionally, a few respondents stated that providers should have “strategies in place to explore the academic futures” of young people with SEND who are academically able.

There was also positive feedback on supported internships, particularly among Fe providers. However, some felt that a greater breadth of options were needed and that there “needs to be more high-quality apprenticeships suitable for young people with SEND, not just supported internships which require an EHCP”. It was discussed that young people with SEND who do not have an EHCP need to be accounted for, that young people with SEND may not meet the apprenticeship completion requirement for Level 2 maths and English and there should be more flexibility around this requirement.

A few respondents from Fe providers suggested that careers advice and guidance should be delivered by staff who have knowledge of available SEND support. In addition, one respondent suggested a national system of SEND advisors to help support young people through adulthood. It was also suggested that providers should work with employers on making work placements accessible and that providers should receive training on how best to support and guide employers.

A few respondents also suggested actions such as a central register of opportunities to match appropriate roles to prospective apprentices, work experience places to prepare individuals for apprenticeships and mentoring support. Some respondents also reported that providers should work more closely with employers, and that “taster sessions” at local post-16 provisions would give young people insight into training and employment opportunities.

“Well planned transition following on from clearly planned programmes that allow pupils with SEND access to a full range of apprenticeships. Ensuring ongoing support once the apprenticeship is in place.” (Headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff)

“A wider range of options is needed. Young, talented people are often given options below their full potential. For example, an autistic young person who excels at maths can often be signposted to retail employment when their analytical skills could be used in more appropriate employment.” (On behalf of a further education setting)

5 Responses to questions 13-16: A reformed and integrated role for alternative provision

This section presents the findings from the consultation questions on the proposals for a reformed and integrated role for alternative provision. Each of these questions received between 1,913 and 2,559 responses. The number of responses to each consultation question overall and by type of respondents is presented in the table below.

Table 5: Number of responses per question by respondent group

(Q13 and Q16)

Consultation question

Parents/ carer

School staff

LA staff

Health service workers

Social workers

Fe staff

Early years staff

Other Total

Question 13 1,065 682 106 67 14 25 25 575 2,559

Question 14 749 466 106 39 11 12 19 511 1,913

Question 15 957 634 104 54 14 24 23 509 2,319

Question 16 944 626 101 55 14 25 24 514 2,303

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation

The responses to each question are presented below.

5.2 Question 13: New vision for alternative provision

A total of 36% (rounded) of respondents (927) either strongly agreed or agreed that the new vision for alternative provision set out in the green paper would result in improved outcomes for children and young people (see Figure 14). A further 32% (824) either disagreed or strongly disagreed and 32% (808) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Figure 14: Agreement with vision of alternative provision

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,559)

There was substantial variation by type of respondent. As shown in Figure 15, over half of respondents from local authorities, education settings and healthcare providers agreed with the statement while less than a quarter of parents/carers and academic researchers did.

10% 27% 32% 17% 15%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

To what extent do you agree or disagree that this new vision for alternative provision will result in improved outcomes for children and young people?

Respondents that disagreed with the question were asked to provide an additional qualitative response. Respondents who disagreed commonly expressed scepticism towards the new vision for alternative provision, with some expecting a gap between the intention and the implementation of the vision. Specific areas of concern included accountability of local authorities and schools to ensure compliance, addressing and meeting the specific needs of each child with SEND, and the need for funding to underpin reforms.

Figure 15: Agreement with vision of alternative provision by respondent type

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,559)

5.3 Question 14: Distributing existing funding effectively

Respondents commonly reported that equality in funding of alternative provision needs to be in place across the country. This should include local authorities following a “uniform funding structure” as a clear, nationally agreed funding formula which would create more consistent funding. Some also stated that this would “prevent cost inflation by private providers” and allow for “delegation to alternative provision from commissioners for their budgets”.

13%

14%

43%

12%

20%

13%

20%

12%

25%

21%

29%

14%

48%

28%

37%

63%

46%

47%

26%

38%

15%

25%

36%

21%

48%

40%

36%

33%

24%

28%

20%

39%

30%

28%

34%

38%

21%

19%

12%

11%

21%

22%

16%

18%

14%

11%

10%

15%

25%

On behalf of an independent education provider (n=8)

Social worker/other social care professional (n=14)

On behalf of an alternative provision provider (n=14)

Academic/ researcher/ research body (n=21)

On behalf of a further education/ post 16 setting (n=25)

On behalf of an early years setting (n=25)

On behalf of a special education setting (n=27)

Other organisations (n=38)

Health care professional/health service (n=67)

On behalf of a local authority (n=106)

On behalf of a charity/SEND sector body (n=145)

Other/interested individual (n=322)

Headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff (n=682)

Parents/carers (n=1,065)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

What needs to be in place in order to distribute existing funding more effectively to alternative provision schools, to ensure they have the financial stability required to deliver our vision for more early intervention and re-integration?

To facilitate consistency, some respondents felt there should be rigorous criteria for funding needs. Additionally, some suggested there should be transparency in costs and monitoring of expenditure, including who it has been used for and the outcomes of the intervention, to show value for money.

Most respondents from education settings, and particularly alternative provision providers, felt there needed to be a shift away from funding individuals to direct national funding with a regularly reviewed annual budget for alternative providers based on a minimum number of places. They felt that funding individuals impeded longer term planning and recruitment of suitable staff. In contrast, having a guaranteed income that is dedicated to alternative provision schools would “enable good practice to be built on year on year.”

In regards to funding duration, some respondents suggested that minimum funding guarantees should be considered. Due to annual commissioning, respondents explained that schools are unable to plan for the longer term which impacts on recruitment. Therefore, minimum funding guarantees and “being in a position to provide some certainty for additional years would be welcomed.”

Some organisational respondents expressed support for the “desire to put alternative provision schools on a more stable financial footing”, however, they felt that careful oversight is required to ensure that alternative provision is used appropriately. There was also concern that a national budget would lead to real-term reductions in funding for some areas. Some respondents, and particularly parents and carers also mentioned the need for more funding and for local authorities to have ringfenced alternative provision budgets. One organisation also stated the role of independent schools should be considered as “a significant proportion of AP placements are in independent schools…with this being the fastest-growing type of AP placement over the past five years”.

“The three-year consistent funding model is a sensible suggestion. It still needs refining. For example, what would happen if there is a surge in demand? Although better planning could make a difference, it is not always possible to predict needs. Some forms of SEND or other additional needs do not become apparent until later in life, e.g., KS4.” (On behalf of a multi or single academy trust)

“Mainstream schools need to have access to outreach from alternative provision settings. This could support children in remaining in mainstream education. For this to be achieved, alternative provision settings would require a consistent level of funding throughout the year that is not pupil linked/based on pupil movement.” (Other education professionals)

5.4 Question 15: Alternative provision performance framework

A total of 44% of respondents (1,028) either strongly agreed or agreed that introducing a bespoke alternative provision performance framework, based on the five outcomes8 set out in the consultation document, will improve the quality of alternative provision (see Figure 16). Just under a quarter (23%, 526) either disagreed or strongly disagreed and 33% (765) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Figure 16: Agreement with alternative provision performance framework

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,319)

There was some variation by respondent type. As shown in Figure 17, the majority of respondents from local authorities and alternative provision agreed or strongly agreed. In contrast, over a quarter of parents/carers, independent education providers and SEND sector bodies/charities disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement.

8 The five outcomes are effective outreach support, improved attendance, reintegration, academic attainment, with a focus on English and maths, and successful post-16 transitions.

12% 32% 33% 13% 10%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

To what extent do you agree or disagree that introducing a bespoke alternative provision performance framework, based on these five outcomes, will improve the quality of alternative provision?

Figure 17: Agreement with alternative provision framework by respondent type

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,319)

Respondents that disagreed with the question were also asked to provide an additional qualitative response. The main reasons respondents disagreed was because they did not feel the five outcomes were appropriate. They felt that there was a lack of emphasis on life skills and mental wellbeing and over emphasis on English and maths. As one respondent stated: “English and maths are fundamental, but a proper education involves far more than this”.

5.5 Question 16: Statutory framework for pupil movements

In total, 58% of respondents (1,335) either strongly agreed or agreed that a statutory framework for pupil movements will improve oversight and transparency of placements into and out of alternative provision (see Figure 18). A further 15% (343) either disagreed or strongly disagreed and 27% (625) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Figure 18: Agreement on statutory framework for pupil movement

43%

13%

17%

26%

14%

10%

33%

21%

36%

27%

39%

50%

33%

62%

44%

50%

24%

36%

45%

19%

33%

14%

43%

47%

30%

29%

42%

12%

28%

14%

40%

32%

25%

40%

17%

21%

13%

18%

23%

13%

11%

14%

17%

14%

10%

16%

On behalf of an independent education provider (n=6)

On behalf of an alternative provision provider (n=14)

Social worker/other social care professional (n=14)

Academic/ researcher/ research body (n=15)

On behalf of an early years setting (n=23)

On behalf of a further education/ post 16 setting (n=24)

On behalf of a special education setting (n=24)

Other organisations (n=34)

Health care professional/health service (n=54)

On behalf of a local authority (n=104)

On behalf of a charity/SEND sector body (n=119)

Other/interested individual (n=297)

Headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff (n=634)

Parents/carers (n=957)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

18% 40% 27% 8% 7%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

To what extent do you agree or disagree that a statutory framework for pupil movements will improve oversight and transparency of placements into and out of alternative provision?

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,303)

There was however some variation by respondent group. Nearly all (over 90%) of respondents from local authorities and alternative provision agreed with this statement. In contrast, two-fifths of parents/carers (40%) and respondents from independent education providers (43%) agreed with the statement. Respondents that disagreed with the question were asked to provide an additional qualitative response. All the groups of respondents which either disagreed or strongly disagreed stated that they did so because of expected challenges in implementing a statutory framework.

Figure 19: Agreement on statutory framework for pupil movement by

respondent type

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation (n=2,303)

14%

21%

33%

18%

14%

24%

21%

20%

39%

22%

23%

11%

29%

43%

60%

41%

52%

54%

44%

71%

45%

52%

35%

44%

49%

29%

35%

29%

38%

28%

27%

32%

23%

19%

36%

14%

10%

14%

On behalf of an independent education provider (n=7)

Social worker/other social care professional (n=14)

On behalf of an alternative provision provider (n=15)

Academic/ researcher/ research body (n=17)

On behalf of a special education setting (n=21)

On behalf of an early years setting (n=24)

On behalf of a further education/ post 16 setting (n=25)

Other organisations (n=34)

Health care professional/health service (n=55)

On behalf of a local authority (n=101)

On behalf of a charity/SEND sector body (n=120)

Other/interested individual (n=300)

Headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff (n=626)

Parents/carers (n=944)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

“I don’t believe, in my experience, that LA’s have the resources or internal communication between departments, in order to implement this.” (Parent/carer)

6 Responses to questions 17-18: System roles, accountabilities, and funding reform

This section sets out the findings from the consultation questions related to system roles, accountabilities and funding reform. The two questions (17 and 18) received 2,178 and 3,537 responses respectively. The number of responses to each consultation question overall and by type of respondents is presented in the table below.

Table 6: Number of responses per question by respondent group

(Q17 and Q18)

Consultation question

Parents /carer

School staff

LA staff

Health service workers

Social workers

Fe staff

Early years staff

Other Total

Question 17 901 513 105 57 11 27 15 549 2,178

Question 18 2,345 489 104 40 11 26 16 506 3,537

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation

6.2 Question 17: National performance metrics

The most commonly reported key metrics to measure local and national performance were:

Quantitative:

• Rate of attendance and exclusions/suspensions

• Progress rates of children and young people from their individual baselines

• Waiting times for assessments/diagnosis and securing provision

• Mediation, tribunal and tribunal appeal rates

• Academic progress

• Learner outcomes (qualification attainment, entry to employment, entry to further learning such as apprenticeships)

Qualitative:

• Mental health and wellbeing

• Parents/carers and children/young people satisfaction

• Confidence in the system

What are the key metrics we should capture and use to measure local and national performance?

There was some variation by groups. Among parents/carers, the most common measures reported were child and parent/carer satisfaction, which they felt should include quantitative and qualitative data collection. A few respondents also suggested capturing teacher and SENCo views.

Teaching staff at mainstream schools most commonly reported the need for performance metrics on student attainment and outcomes, as well as on their confidence and self- esteem. In addition, some also reported that it would be useful to have metrics on the percentage of children and young people in a local area who are educated in mainstream settings, both with and without an EHCP, as well as the percentage of children and young people not educated in a mainstream school setting but who are educated in a: special school setting, alternative provision setting, or by an independent specialist provider.

Most respondents from alternative provision providers, Fe colleges and specialist education settings also suggested metrics related to learner achievement or outcomes, with one suggesting this should be at key transition points (e.g. 16, 19, 21, 25). Some respondents from alternative provision suggested this should include the number of children and young people receiving home education. A respondent from a special education setting suggested measuring performance against EHCP targets/outcomes and also measuring the number of children referred to child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) and crisis support services.

Respondents from local authorities generally expressed support for the proposals to measure local and national performance, but cautioned that quantitative measures need to be framed around the local context (e.g. the type and prevalence of need, number of children and young people with EHCPs). Respondents from this group suggested additional metrics to those stated by other groups, including:

• Number of referrals, for example “identification and intervention for Social, Emotional and Mental Health needs (Semh) referrals”

• Proportion of young people reintegrated into mainstream education

• Qualifications offered to SEN students

• Outcome measures on preparation for adulthood outcomes and independence

• Complaints (and qualitative supporting information)

• Health and social care input

• Value for money

Responses from Snj expressed concern that the proposed metrics and inclusion dashboard would lack context and therefore not be truly representative and could be open to misinterpretation. This group suggested that when monitoring school absence rates, qualitative supporting information should be used to help understand the reasons for absenteeism.

The Nnpcf also suggested learner outcomes were a key metric. However, they also believed that there should be a focus on early intervention and inclusivity and “would like to see a national SEND Outcomes Accountability Framework which is linked to the National standards.”

6.3 Question 18: Funding bands and tariffs

In response to this question, some respondents felt that the use of bands would not be suitable for providing individualised programmes. As one stated: “banding implies categorisation...This would not allow for flexibility in tailoring provision to specific needs”. A few suggested that this would lead to more tribunals or judicial reviews. As one respondent explained “funding bands are inappropriate to EHCPs. Where used by local authorities they entail resource-led provision which is against the law”.

Some parents and carers also expressed concern that there could be manipulation of the bandings if the framework is not transparent with suitable accountability measures. In addition, the parents/carers who responded through Snj were concerned that if the framework was not sufficiently flexible it would result in needs not being adequately met and may not take into account regional differences.

Some respondents from alternative provision reported that in the development of a national framework for funding bands and tariffs, each local authority would need to have similar services and criteria would need to be developed to determine the level of need and corresponding funding band. They also suggested that funding should be portable and move with the young person through key stages.

Respondents from early years settings similarly reported that a clear identification of need and which bands cover which areas would be required. Whilst some respondents supported a uniform system and a “standardised profile of need scoring that works in line with funding bands”, others highlighted that national banding may not be suitable as each local authority has different factors to consider and that wage costs differ across the country.

One respondent from an early years setting stated that “national frameworks for funding can be successful however there needs to be an understanding that funding bands can be changed if they are not a reflection of learner needs”.

How can we best develop a national framework for funding bands and tariffs to achieve our objectives and mitigate unintended consequences and risks?

7 Responses to questions 19-22: Delivering change for children and families

Questions 19-22 of the consultation received between 1,808 and 3,603 responses. The number of responses to each consultation question overall and by type of respondents is presented in the table below.

Table 7: Number of responses per question by respondent group

(Q19 – Q22)

Consultation question

Parents/ carer

School staff

LA staff

Health service workers

Social workers

Fe staff

Early years staff

Other Total

Question 19 2,233 461 101 50 11 21 20 503 3,400

Question 20 898 551 107 61 12 24 23 587 2,263

Question 21 670 447 99 51 11 21 17 492 1,808

Question 22 2,328 456 97 52 9 22 15 624 3,603

Source: DfE SEND Green Paper Consultation

In analysis of Question 22, sentiment analysis has been conducted on the five groups where over 90 respondents gave their overall opinion on the green paper9 (parents/carers, respondents from education settings, local authority staff, charities and SEND sector bodies, and other individuals) in order to gauge overall perception towards the proposals.

7.2 Question 19: National SEND Delivery Board

Respondents most commonly reported the need for clear communication and collaboration with all partners. This included “open dialogue” and for all actors to “listen and engage” with each other.

Parents/carers generally advocated for working with and listening to parents but also teaching staff to “ensure all stakeholders are involved regionally/locally”. Other recommendations from this group included ensuring transparency of the delivery board’s working and regular published reviews on progress which capture feedback from parents/carers and education professionals/settings. As one stated: “the board needs to have an open and honest approach so successes and challenges can be shared, and learning can happen”.

9 Running sentiment analysis on a small number of responses could lead to inaccurate generalisations – it is only appropriate when there are a large number of responses (around 100). A separate analysis has been carried out of the smaller groups.

How can the National SEND Delivery Board work most effectively with local partnerships to ensure the proposals are implemented successfully?

Some parents and carers and respondents from local authorities also felt there was a need for robust monitoring of accountability processes for delivery board members, as well as clearly defined roles and responsibilities. They also felt that the delivery board would be most effective with representation from each area, including children and young people with SEND, parents/carers and health and social care representatives.

A few respondents from local authorities also reported that an audit of current delivery practices should be conducted to see strengths and needs and highlight best practice. One respondent mentioned “test quantifying in units first and refine it in different demographics before rolling it out. It’s a long process, although if done properly, will save a lot of time and money going forward”.

Respondents from alternative provision similarly reported the importance of clear guidance for the delivery board to work effectively with local partnerships to successfully implement the reforms. One respondent stated “we are keen to ensure that the skills and knowledge of the local needs are not lost. This is where insightful training and support will need to come from a national level to ensure that local partnerships are well informed of the purpose and desired outcomes and can then translate the implementations to be successful at a local level”. Another respondent also mentioned that “all APs big or small should have an equal voice.”

Respondents from education settings commonly reported that there should be wide representation among the organisations that comprise the delivery board. Respondents from Fe explained that post-16 providers should be included and respondents from specialist providers reported that all types of provision should be represented. It was also mentioned that the board should include “people on the ground” who can provide first- hand experiences of delivery.

7.3 Question 20: Barriers and enablers of success

Across all respondent groups the factors that were most commonly reported as making the biggest difference to the successful implementation of the green paper proposals were funding, accountability and training. Accountability was felt to be important to ensure that all partners are aware of their role and responsibilities and that any under- performance is identified early and addressed. Training and funding was perceived to help ensure that all partners can do the roles expected of them.

What will make the biggest difference to successful implementation of these proposals? What do you see as the barriers to and enablers of success?

Most respondents also reported a need for effective consultation and collaboration with key partners in order to elicit buy-in, particularly among parents. This included a multi- agency approach and cooperation between local authorities to ensure a consistency of approach.

Some respondents also stressed the importance of early intervention of health and education, complemented by effective co-production which has “the voice of children and young people at the heart.”

A few respondents also felt that the support provided to partner organisations needed to be coordinated and tailored, delivered evenly across different local authority areas, and recognise the “system as still being in recovery from the pandemic” and therefore incorporate “realistic timescales to transition to a new system”.

The most commonly reported barriers to success were:

• Limiting the ability to provide individualised support for individuals instead encouraging a ‘one-size-fits all approach

• Unnecessary bureaucracy slowing implementation

• A lack or qualified and experienced staff to deliver or implement the proposals in the green paper

• Local services not buying into the changes

• A slow pace of change which loses partner buy-in

• A lack of responsibility and ownership among partners

• A focus on schools that results in little consideration of other sectors

7.4 Question 21: Support for local systems

Across all respondents, there was consensus that to successfully transition and deliver the new national system, local systems and delivery partners would need:

• Clear guidance and expectations

“Parents feel professionals lack the skills and understanding to work cooperatively with them…Parents feel professionals take more note of externally assigned SEN diagnostic categories than parents’ views, when planning services for their child…Agencies must engage meaningfully with parents in collaborative decision- making. Changes within the SEND system are needed, including skills development for professionals in collaborative working with parents and a culture change whereby parents’ views are central to decision-making.” (Academic/ researcher/ research body)

What support do local systems and delivery partners need to successfully transition and deliver the new national system?

• Training

• Consistency across sectors and regions

• Ringfenced time and funding

• Support for cultural and systemic change

• Examples of evidence-based approaches which show what works well

The Nnpcf stated that in addition to training for the whole workforce, support training for parents/carers would be required. They also mentioned consistency of expectations across services, as well as the willingness and commitment of all key agencies.

In contrast, the view from Snj was that a new national system should not be implemented because wholesale change was not required. This view was also echoed by a few parents/carers who explained that an “excellent national law already exists”, but accountability was needed.

7.5 Question 22: Further reflections

In analysis of this question, sentiment analysis has been conducted on the five groups where over 90 respondents gave their overall opinion on the green paper10 (parents/carers, respondents from education settings, local authority staff, charities and SEND sector bodies, and other individuals) in order to gauge overall perception towards the proposals.

7.5.1 Parents/carers

Just over 20% of parent/carer responses to this question directly addressed the proposals in the green paper and gave their overall opinion. The sentiment of these opinions contained positivity, negativity, and scepticism, and in some cases opinions expressed more than one type of sentiment.

Of the respondents to this question that gave their overall opinion on the green paper, 19% of the opinions contained positive sentiment towards the green paper proposals, while 75% contained negative sentiment, and 6% contained scepticism. As shown in Figure 20, there was significant sentiment overlap between positivity/negativity and positivity/scepticism.

10 Running sentiment analysis on a small number of responses could lead to inaccurate generalisations – it is only appropriate when there are a large number of responses (around 100). A separate analysis has been carried out of the smaller groups.

Is there anything else you would like to say about the proposals in green paper?

Figure 20: Overview of sentiment: parents/carers

The responses which contained negative sentiments were principally driven by concern that the green paper proposals were focused on reducing funding, that the existing laws need better enforcement and do not need to be changed, and that specific details were not provided, such as how accountability would be imposed.

A few parents/carers expressed that “funding and a uniform, national system will be key to success, and are where we feel the failures in the current system stems from.” These respondents also echoed the need for greater accountability of existing laws and concerns around funding. Additionally, some responses stated that the green paper proposals did not address the important role played by the independent sector for children and young people with SEND given the shortage of schools, particularly in secondary years.

Additionally, some parents/carers felt that the green paper focused on schools and local authorities and not sufficiently on health and social care: “If we are to create a joined-up

Examples responses by sentiment category

Positive: “I believe the proposals in the green paper could be a very effective turning point for our children with SEN and they can finally access a better quality of education”. (Parent/carer)

Negative: “These proposals are far too focused on saving money. The proposals should focus on meeting the specific needs of individual children, and recognising that more funding is needed, not less”. (Parent/carer)

Positive/sceptical: “I would really like to be optimistic for the future however whilst these proposals look really good on paper, I worry greatly that it’s just another paper exercise”. (Parent/carer)

Positive/negative: “Ultimately the SEND green paper contains many positive ideas and accurately reflects the current situation. However, it doesn't recognise or address how unfairly weighted the system is against parents, in particular those who are disadvantaged”. (Parent/carer)

system, we must have clarity on what is expected from other key sectors.” Some also felt that it focused “very heavily on educational and employment outcomes” and was “silent on those young people not destined for further education, training or work.”

Some respondents reported concerns around funding as detailed costings of the proposals were not included. A few also felt that young people’s rights may be reduced in regards to accessing provision that meets individual needs and that procedures for accountability have not been specified in the green paper. Additionally, a few respondents reported that they would like the following areas to be considered:

• The experiences of marginalised communities

• Extensions of EHCPs to young people in higher education

• A greater response to speech, language and communication needs

• Increased funding so multidisciplinary teams can work together

7.5.2 Respondents from education settings

In total, 20% of respondents to this question from education settings directly addressed the green paper proposals and gave their overall opinion. Of these, 50% contained positive sentiment towards the green paper proposals, 40% contained negative sentiment, and 10% contained scepticism. Compared with parents/carers, this group showed substantially higher levels of positivity towards the green paper proposals. As shown in Figure 21, there was less sentiment overlap than in other groups.

Figure 21: Overview of sentiment respondents from education settings

Some of the responses which expressed both positive and negative sentiment contained appreciation for the green paper proposals but had concerns about whether funding levels would be appropriate to deliver them.

Respondents from early years’ settings generally expressed support for the green paper proposals but a few mentioned that early years settings were not considered fully. Respondents from Fe settings similarly expressed support for the green paper proposals but also concern as “there is very little included in the green paper on post-16 provision.”

There was an email campaign to elicit responses from Ndcs which stated that any changes to the SEND system should keep deaf children in mind and that there needs to be an emphasis on teachers of the deaf and funding for specialist services. The campaign also stated they are “disappointed to see that the proposals in the SEND review don’t mention teachers of the deaf. Especially as there’s been a 17% fall in their numbers since 2011.”

7.5.3 Respondents from local authorities

Over 40% of respondents to this question from local authorities directly addressed the green paper proposals and gave their overall opinion. In total, 53% of these contained positive sentiment towards the proposals, 31% contained negative sentiment, and 16% contained scepticism. As shown in Figure 22, just under half of the responses showed an overlap between positivity/negativity and positivity/scepticism.

Figure 22: Overview of sentiment: local authorities

The scepticism expressed in the responses was mostly due to the perceived lack of detail on implementation and how the green paper proposals would work in practice. The negative sentiment was primarily driven by what respondents viewed was missing in the green paper, such as detail on early years and funding.

“I think this will have a vast difference to children lives and I welcome such bold transformation!” (Other education professionals)

“New proposals aren’t needed - what is needed is proper funding to enable the system to work and to support Yp with SEND properly.” (Headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff)

7.5.4 Health and social care

Respondents from this group generally expressed support for the green paper proposals but felt that there was “limited reference to health” and … “the relationship between education, health and care needs to be further expanded upon”. Some also reported that more was needed to encourage the sharing of responsibility across agencies and that no funding commitments had been made to health services to discharge their legal duties.

7.5.5 Other interested individuals

Nearly 30% of other individuals directly addressed the green paper proposals and gave their overall opinion. Of these, 40% contained positive sentiment towards the green paper proposals, 59% contained negative sentiment and 2% contained scepticism. As shown in Figure 23, 22% of respondents showed either overlapping positivity/negativity or overlapping positivity/scepticism.

Figure 23: Overview of sentiment: other individuals

The drivers of the negative sentiment were in line with those in other respondent groups. Some felt that specific areas were not described in detail such as:

• The role of further education and specialist provision

• The support available to children and young people with physical or neurological disabilities

• The level of investment in early years

As a result, they felt there was not sufficient detail “to allow fair comment on whether these will improve the lives and outcomes for Cyp with SEND” and the issues facing the SEND workforce. There was also concern among this group that funding and young people’s rights may be reduced and that the existing laws need better enforcement and do not need to be changed.

7.5.6 Organisations

Respondents from organisations frequently expressed support for the green paper proposals, and particularly the national template for EHCPs and preservation of extended powers for the SEND Tribunal. However, some identified areas that would have benefited from greater consideration in the green paper, such as greater detail on funding. One organisation stated that a full financial impact assessment of the green paper proposals would help instil confidence. Some also requested more detail around transitions and preparation for adulthood, early years, post-16 provision, the role of the voluntary and community sector and expectations regarding multi-agency working.

Some respondents also did not believe that legislative change is required. They felt that the key problems with current SEND provision are related to implementation and addressing structural challenges and that the problems of the 2014 reforms stemmed from a lack of funding, accountability, guidance and training. They therefore believe that consistent and effective implementation is what is required. A few respondents cautioned that legislative change and the creation of new systems may result in disruption and greater bureaucracy rather than improving provision and outcomes.

The need for alignment with other policy developments were reported by some respondents. This included achieving “balance between the White Paper's drive for higher standards and the green paper's emphasis on greater inclusion”. Some also felt that there is an opportunity to incorporate the Timpson Review to facilitate additional progress in the area of inclusion and alignment with the recommendations from the Care Review.

“There is much in the green paper that is good. However, we also detect big gaps…A focus on addressing mental health needs and emotional well-being in the 0-25 population as a whole is largely absent”. (On behalf of a charity/voluntary or community organisation)

“The green paper includes a statement that the short term aim is to stabilize and, in the long term, a cultural change to building an inclusive system. This is an important statement which we welcome. However, there is little in the review that recognizes that a culture change is needed”. (Academic/ researcher/ research body)

“The review does not recognise the impact of the pandemic on education, health and social care services. This continues to have a dramatic impact on well-being and outcomes for disabled children. The green paper has a lack of detail on how it will ensure better support for children and families from health and social care services”. (On behalf of a charity/voluntary or community organisation)

Annex 1 : Children and young people’s questions

• What age range do you fit into?

• What kinds of support are most important to help you prepare for adulthood?

• Who should be involved in making decisions about help for children and young people with additional needs?

• An EHCP is made up of these parts:

• (A) The views, interests and aspirations of the child or young person

• (B) Special educational needs

• (C) Health needs

• (D) Social care needs

• (E) Outcomes for children and young people

• (F) The special educational provision required

• (G) Health provision required

• (H1 and H2) Social care provision required

• (I) Placement

• (J) Personal budget

• (K) Advice and information

• Which are the most important parts of the plan to you? Please choose up to three parts.

• In the green paper we propose to create a list of appropriate schools for children with EHCPs to attend. Parents will be asked to say which of the schools on the list they would prefer their child to go to.

• What do you think those preparing the list should think about when putting it together?

a) My age b) My needs such as whether I need additional help in lessons or find it hard

to communicate sometimes c) How far away it is from my house d) How easy it is to get there e) How much it costs f) If my friends/siblings go there g) Other: tell us in your own words what you think adults should think about h) I don’t know i) I don’t want to say

• An apprenticeship is a type of training where you learn skills while doing a job. We would like to know what you think would help you take part in an apprenticeship, if you wanted to. For example, advice on what kinds of apprenticeships are available from your teachers, or information about events where you can ask questions about different apprenticeships. Please say what you think would help you take part in an apprenticeship.

• Some young people spend time in alternative provision, to help them with behaviour or other needs, or because they have been excluded from their main school. Alternative provision can include small, specialist schools (sometimes called Pupil Referral Units), work-based or placements (for example, at a farm or mechanics), or one-to-one tuition. We would like children and young people to get this support for behaviour or other needs in their main school wherever possible. If you have ever attended alternative provision, please tell us what support you think would have helped you stay at your main school instead.

Annex 2 : Questions asked by the Dcp

Questions asked by the Dcp Mapping to the consultation questions Would you be confident in being able to get the right school or college placement for your child under this arrangement?

Q5. How can parents and local authorities most effectively work together to produce a tailored list of placements that is appropriate for their child, and gives parents confidence in the EHCP process?

How do you think accountability in the SEND system can be improved?

Q19. How can the National SEND Delivery Board work most effectively with local partnerships to ensure the proposals are implemented successfully?

Do you agree with the government's plans to require parents and local authorities to go through mediation before a parent can appeal to the SEND Tribunal?

Q6. To what extent do you agree or disagree with our overall approach to strengthen redress, including through national standards and mandatory mediation?

What do you think needs to be done to make mainstream nurseries, schools, and colleges better able to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND?

Q8. What steps should be taken to strengthen early years practice with regard to conducting the two-year-old progress check and, integration with the Healthy Child Programme review?

Do you think it possible for a national sys- tem of tariffs to meet the specific circum- stances of different children and young people?

Q18. How can we best develop a national framework for funding bands and tariffs to achieve our objectives and mitigate unintended consequences and risks?

Do you have any other comments on the proposals in the SEND Green Paper? What are the key things you think need to change to improve support for disabled children and their families?

Q22. Is there anything else you would like to say about the proposals in green paper?

Annex 3 : Respondent groupings

Respondent Grouping for report A parent/carer Parents/carer A headteacher/teacher/other teaching staff Respondents from an education setting Other Overall Interested individual Parents/carer A child/young person (up to age 25) Child or young person Other education professionals Respondents from an education setting Other organisations Overall On behalf of a charity/ voluntary or community organisation Overall On behalf of a local authority Respondents from local authorities On behalf of a multi or single academy trust Respondents from an education setting Educational support staff Respondents from an education setting A health care professional Healthcare professionals and workers On behalf of a representative SEND sector body Parents/carer On behalf of a special education setting Respondents from an education setting Academic/ researcher/ research body Overall On behalf of a further education/ post 16 setting Respondents from an education setting On behalf of a health service Healthcare professionals and workers On behalf of an early years setting Respondents from an education setting On behalf of an alternative provision provider Respondents from an education setting On behalf of an independent education provider Respondents from an education setting Prefer not to say Overall Other social care professional Healthcare professionals and workers A social worker Healthcare professionals and workers

Annex 4 : Organisational respondents

Organisation Name11

A local authority A2ndvoice Cic Abbey Hulton Primary School Academies Enterprise Trust Academy21 Accompli: Professional Development Ace Centre Ace Music Therapy Cic Achieving for Children on behalf of Kingston and Richmond Councils Acorns Primary School Preston Action Cerebral Palsy Action-attainment Cic Addington Special School Adhd UK Adoption UK Afasic All Party Parliamentary Group on Adoption and Permanence Amaze Ambitious about Autism Anglesey playgroup Appg on SEND Appleford School Army Families Federation (Aff) Ashley High School Askham Bryan College Asset Association of Colleges Astral Tuition Services Auditory Verbal UK Auditory Verbal UK AuKids magazine Autism plus Aviva Avonwood Primary School Balgowan Primary/Bromley Trust Academy Barking & Dagenham College Barking & Dagenham Council Barnet Education and Learning Service Barnsley Mbc Barnsley Sendiass Barrow Urc Primary School

11 This list only includes organisations from the e-consultation that agreed to have their response published.

Bath and North East Somerset Council Baytree Special School Beach Babies Ltd Beacon Hill School Belmont Junior School BePART educational Trust Bevois Town Pre-School BeyondAutism Birmingham City University Birmingham Metropolitan College Birtley East Primary school Bishop Barrington Academy Bishop Justus C of E School Bishop Ridley Primary School Bishop Ullathorne Catholic School Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Blatchington Court Trust Bmat Education Bmcc Bme Volunteers Cic Bolton Parent Carers Boothroyd primary academy Boston Endeavour Academy Bowers Bracknell parent carer forum Bradford Sendiass Brentwood School Bridge the Gap Education Bright Horizons Family Solutions UK Brighton & Hove City Council Brighton & Hove City Council Brimble Hill Special School Bristol City Council Bristol City Council Bristol hospital Education Service British Academy of Childhood Disability British Association for Community Child Health British Association of Teachers of the Deaf (Batod) British Psychological Society British Psychological Society Division of Neuropsychology Brookfield Primary School Brunel Academies Trust Buckinghamshire County Council Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Ics Burchetts Green Infant School Burton and South Derbyshire College Busy Bees day nurseries

University of Derby Busy Lizzie's Nursery Buxton Primary School Calderdale Council Calderdale Council Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Cam Academy Trust Cambridge Regional College Camden Learning CAMEL100 Limited Cann Bridge School Capital City College Group Care Quality Commission Career Connect Caroline Hardaker Kids Physio Castle Vale Nursery School Castleford College Catch22 Central Cheshire Integrated Care Partnership Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust Central Region Schools Trust Chailey Heritage Foundation Chance UK Chartered College of Teaching Cherry Lane Primary School Srp Cherry Tree Learning Centre Cheshire East Parent Carer Forum Cheshire West and Chester Local Area Children's Quarter Children's Services Development Group (Csdg) Chinuch UK - Representing 80 Orthodox Jewish schools across the UK Cirrus Primary Academy Trust City College Norwich City College Norwich City of Stoke-on-Trent city council Cledford Primary School College Park School Colnbrook School Community First Academy Trust Confederation of School Trusts Contact, the charity for disabled children CoomberSewell Enterprises Llp County Upper School Coventry City Council Creative Interaction/Please Miss Creature Comforts. Cumbria County Council

Cumbria SEND Partnership Cygnet Health Care Cygnet Health UK Darell Primary and Nursery School, Richmond, London Dearne Valley College Decipha Define Fine: Parent Peer Support for School Attendance Difficulties Department for Education Derbyshire County Council Derbyshire County Council. Behaviour Support Service (Children’s Services) Derbyshire Parent Carer Voice Derbyshire SEND Local Area Derwen College Devon Carers Devon County Council Devon Education Forum Devonshire Road Primary School Dimensions Dingley's Promise Disabled Children's Partnership Dndlt Dorset Council Dorset Council Down's Syndrome Association Down's Syndrome Support Group London Durham County Council Dyspraxia Foundation Early help Early Years Alliance East Coast College East Midlands Regional Innovation & Improvement Alliance East of England Local Government Association East Riding of Yorkshire Council East Riding Sendiass East Sussex Parent Carer Forum Eaton Bray Academy Educate Together Academy Trust Education Policy Institute Educational Equality Educational Psychology Service St Helens Borough Council Embsay Children's Centre Empowering Learning Endeavour Primary School Enfield County School for Girls Engineered Learning Ltd. England & Wales Cricket Board (Ecb) Enhance EHC Ltd

Esc Management Services Limited Esrc Excluded Lives: Political Economies of Exclusion Essex Family Forum Essex SEND Partnership Board Evolve Church of England Academy Trust Excalibur Academies Trust Expanse Learning Ey f40 Fairfax multi-academy trust Family Family Action Family Voice Norfolk Family voice Peterborough Family Voice Surrey Federation of Leaders in Special Education (Flse) Federation of Thomas Wall Nursery and Robin Hood Infant Schools First Class Tailored Solutions Ltd Fit 2 Learn Cic Fortuna Primary School Fountain Primary Frank Wise School Frank Wise School Fressingfield CofE school Frewen College Full of Life Gateshead Council Geldards Llp Gesher Special School Glf Schools Gloucestershire County Council Godalming Junior School Goodmayes primary school Gosden House School Governors of Willow Dene Special School Granville Academy Greenbank College Greenwich Mencap GriffinOT Grouty’s Guide Grow Guildford and Godalming SENCo Group Gwyn Jones Primary Haringey and North London Socialist Education Association Harland House (Bridlington School) Harrison College Harrow Council

HeadStart- Blackpool Headstart Day & Afterschool Care Headstart nursery Health Conditions in Schools Alliance Healthwatch Solihull Heathlands Hednesford Valley High School Hemingford Grey Primary School Herefordshire Council Hertford Junior School Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Board Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust Hertfordshire County Council Hertfordshire County Council Herts Parent Carer Involvement Hillcrest Early Years Academy Hillingdon Council Holbrook Community Preschool Holmwood Home Homefield College Hope Learning Community Horizons Education Trust https://edyourself.org/ Hugh Gaitskell Primary Hugh Gaitskell Primary School Hull City Council I Can Children's Communication Charity Icknield Primary School, Luton Ilfracombe Infant and Nursery School and Goodleigh CofE federation Inclusive Solutions Independent tuition Information, Advice and Support Network Information, Advice and Support Network- Part of the Council for Disabled Children and Ncb Institute of Education, Ucl's Faculty of Education and Society Institute of Health Visiting IPSEA (Independent Provider of Special Education Advice) Islington parent carer forum Jane C Oliver Educational Consultancy Ltd. Just for Kids Law Kensington and Chelsea Council Kent Autism Education Service Kent county council Kent County Council Kent SEND Support Key Unlocking Futures Ltd Kids academy nursery

Kids First, SEND Parent Forum, Merton Mencap Kingsdown school, Swindon Kingston upon Thames Schools Forum Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board Lancashire and south Cumbria trust Lancashire County Council - Inclusion Service - Eps Lancashire County Council Educational Psychology Service Lancashire Educational Psychology Service (Lancashire County Council) Lancashire Schools Forum Lancasterian School Lanchester Primary School Lane End Primary School Larkrise Community Farm Lbth Behaviour and Attendance service Lea Manor high school Lead Exposure and Poisoning Prevention Alliance Leading Learning for SEND Community Interest Company - LLSENDCiC Learning in Harmony Trust Learning Space Leeds City Council Leeds Health and Care Partnership Leicestershire County Council Leicestershire Educational Psychology Service Leicestershire Secondary Education and Inclusion Partnerships (Leics Seips) Leicestershire Senconet Lesley Cox Consultancy Let Us Learn Too Lexie Willoughby Lexie Willoughby Leyton Sixth Form College Lincolnshire Parent Carer Forum Lincolnshire Young Voices Linkage Community Trust Little Hearts Matter Little Sutton Primary School Liverpool City Council Liverpool Hope University Liverpool John Moores University Local Authority Local school with a provision on site London Borough of Barnet London Borough of Bromley SEND Partnership London Borough of Camden London Borough of Hounslow London Borough of Merton London Innovation and Improvement Alliance (Aldcs) Longdean School

Lostock Hall Loughborough University Luton Maintained Nursery School Alliance Lydgate Junior School Magic Breakfast Manchester Local Care Organisation Manor Hall Academy Trust Maple Hayes Hall Section 41 Approved Independent Special School Marjon Mary Hare School (for deaf children) Maytree nursery school Medicine in Specialist Schools Medway Council Medway Labour and Cooperative Group Melbourn Village College Member of Parliament Middleton Primary School Millfield prep Minsthorpe Community College Mo Mowlam Academy Monkton Nursery School Ltd. Montpelier High School More House School Morecambe Bay Ccg Mountjoy School Nacro Naht Nas Richmond Branch Nass Natalie Packer Educational Consultancy Ltd. National Association of Hospital Education National Association of Principal Educational Psychologists National Association of Virtual School Heads (Navsh) National Centre for Family Hubs (Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families) National Day Nurseries Association National Development Team for Inclusion National Down Syndrome Policy Group National Education Union National Governance Association (Nga) National Literacy Trust National Mental Capacity Forum National Network of Parent Carer Forums National SEND Forum - on behalf of the Regional Centres of Expertise Working Group National Sensory Impairment Partnership National Special Educational Needs & Disability Forum (Nsendf) National Star National Star

National Working Group Network National Working Group on Safeguarding Disabled Children And Ann Craft Trust Natspec Navigating Neurodiversity Ncfe Nettlesworth Primary School Neurodiversity Networks Cic Neuro-Informed Ltd New Bridge Multi Academy Trust New City College New College Worcester New College Worcester Newbury College and Woolhampton Primary Newham Music Newport C of E Primary Nexus Multi Academy Trust NHS - Aintree Hospital NHS Birmingham & Solihull NHS England NHS Kent and Medway Nhsei Nisai Education Trust Nisai Virtual Academy Norfolk SEN Network North Northamptonshire Council North Somerset Council North West Kent Alternative Provision Service North Yorkshire Police North Yorkshire Youth Justice Service Northumberland Parent Carer Forum Nottingham City Council Inclusive Education Service Nottingham university hospitals Nottinghamshire County Council Nurture Learning Nurtureuk Oakleigh School Oakridge School Oasis OneSchool Global UK Open Academy Norwich Open Box Education Centre Orchard Community Trust Orchard Hill College & Academy Trust (Ohc&At) Ormiston Academies Trust Oxfordshire Schools Forum Paediatric Continence Forum Pags/ Felser Ltd

Parent Carer Voice Herefordshire Parent Carer Voice, North Yorkshire Parentkind Parents and Carers Together Stockport (Pacts) Park Lane Primary Pathways Learning Centre Patoss, the Professional Association of Teachers of Students with Specific Learning Difficulties Pavilion Pirates Preschool Pcan pdnet PhD awarded by the Institute of Education, Ucl Phoenix Park Academy Pilton College Pinpoint Place2Be Portland College Portsmouth Down Syndrome Association and National Down Syndrome Policy Group Potential Plus UK Potter Street Academy (Harlow, England) Prader-Willi Syndrome Association UK Priestley Smith Specialist School Primary school, mainstream with specialist unit Progression Sessions Prospect - Education and Children's Services Group PRUsAP Purley Oaks Primary School Queens Park Community Nursery Queensbury School Rainbow Day Nursery Rainbow Trust Children's Charity Ravensfield Primary School Ravenswood School Reach School AP Reading Families Forum Real Group Ltd Red Balloon Ribbon Academy, Murton Richmond Upon Thames Schools Forum River Tees Multi-Academy Trust Rms for Girls Roman Way Academy Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Royal Berkshire Nhsft Royal Borough Kensington and Chelsea Council Royal Borough of Greenwich Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Royal College of Occupational Therapists

Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists Rye Park Nursery School Salford City Council - SEND Partnership Board Samuel Pepys School Sandgate School - Kendal, Cumbria Sandra Searcy Sasc SpLD Assessment Standards Committee Scanning Pens Schools Alliance for Excellence Schools Works Academy Trust - Rustington C P School Scope Sea Inclusion and Safeguarding Seashell SeeAbility Seetec SEN Legal sen.se SEN4You SEND and Inclusion SEND And You SEND and You (previously Supportive Parents for Special Children) Send Power in Haringey Send Power in Haringey SEND Voices Wokingham Sendiass SEN-Experts (North East) Ltd SENse Learning Serenity Welfare Share Multi-Academy Trust Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield Place - South Yorkshire Integrated Care Board Shenstone School Simpson Millar Llp Sir John Lawes / Scholars' Education Trust Sirona health and care Sixth Form Colleges Association Smart Multi-academy Trust Socialist Educational Association Society of County Treasurers Solace Solihull Parent Carer Voice C.I.C Solway Community School Sos SEN South East London Integrated Care System South Gloucestershire and Stroud College South Gloucestershire Council South Gloucestershire County council

South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust South Tyneside Council South West London Integrated Care System Southampton City Council Southampton Inclusion Partnership Southwark Yos Sparkle Lodge Early Years Special Educational Needs and Education Infrastructure Special Needs Community Cic Speech Link Multimedia Ltd (T/A Sl Multimedia) Springboard Opportunity Group Ssat St Bernadette's Primary School St Christopher’s Catholic Primary School St Edward’s Ce Primary School St James Centre St Joseph`s Catholic Primary School St Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Otley, Bishop Wheeler Academy Trust St Mary Magdalene’s RCPrimary, a voluntary academy St Mary’s Euxton St Mary's CofE Infant School, Witney, Oxfordshire St Pauls Rc St Peter’s Catholic school St. Nicholas School Staffordshire County Council Staffordshire SEND and Inclusion Partnership Group Staffordshire Virtual School Stanborogh School Star Academies Stepping Stones preschool Stockport Council Stockport Council Early Years Improvement Team Stockport Nasenco course 21/22 Stratton Primary School Student Community Action Sue Peacock SEND-Support SupaJam Education in Music & Media Surrey County Council Surrey Primary Headteachers' Phase Council Sutton Parent Carer Forum, Sutton EHCP Crisis Group, Mark Brown Coffee Morning Group, Get on Downs, Focus Surrey Swalcliffe Park School Cio (Charitable Incorporated Organisation) Swindon SEND Information advice and support service Syper Ltd Talentino Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Teach Us Too Team Education Trust

TeamADL Cic Telford & Wrekin - Local Area Tenterden Rural Alliance The British Association for Supported Employment The British Youth Council The Children's Society The Children's Trust The Complete Education Solution (Tces) The Cooke E-Learning Foundation The Co-op Academies Trust The Dales School The Difference The Ewing Foundation The flying high academy Ladybrook The Foundation for Education Development The Glapton Academy The Good Schools Guide The Green Room School, Kinglsey The Harington Scheme The Independent Schools Association The Local Offer (SEND) Ltd The Multi-Schools Council The National Organisation for Fasd The New School The Pace Centre The Royal National College for the Blind The Royal National Institute of Blind People (Rnib) The Royal School Wolverhampton The Rsa The SEND Consultancy The sensory smart child Ltd The Sheffield College The Skylark Partnership The Smith-Magenis Syndrome (Sms) Foundation UK Cio The Society of London Treasurers The Spire Church of England Learning Trust The Stroke Association The University of Cambridge The Vale Federation The Vale Special School The Valley School The Village School/ National Education Union The Vyne School The Wilnecote school Thomas Deacon Academy Thomas Keble School Thomas Knyvett College (part of The Howard Partnership Trust - Thpt)

Thomas pocklington trust Thrive Federation Together for Short Lives Torbay Local Authority Townley Primary School Townsend Primary School Trafalgar Infants School Treloar's (the Treloar Trust) Triple P UK Truro And Penwith Academy Trust Tute Education Uclan Uffculme Academy Trust Unison United Learning Trust United Response Unity Schools Partnership University of Birmingham University of Cambridge University of Cambridge Primary School University of Chichester University of East London University of Essex School of Law University Of Gloucestershire University of Huddersfield University of Manchester University of Northampton University of Southampton University of Sunderland University of Sussex Unlocking Language Uplands Lead Academy Varndean College Victoria Drive Primary PRU Volunteering Matters Waf Wakefield Council Wakefield Shout Out for Change Wargrave House School and College, Leap College Warwick Community Playschool, Wellingborough Warwickshire County Council Watergrove Trust Wcg West Berkshire SEND Strategic Partnership Board West London Zone West Midlands Adcs Network West Midlands Association of Sendiass services

West Midlands Regional Parent Carer Forum Network (Wmrpcfn) West Northamptonshire council West Sussex Alternative Provision College West Sussex Apc Westcroft School Westminster Autism Commission Westminster City Council Weston College Wigan Sendiass William Edwards School Williams Syndrome Foundation Wiltshire Council Windham Nursery school Wired Wisbech St Mary Church of England Academy Woodham Ley Primary School Woodlands Secondary School Worcestershire SENCO Network World of Inclusion Ltd Worthinghead Primary School Wyvern school Yeovil Opportunity Group Yerbury Primary School York St John University Yorkshire and Humber Principal Educational Psychologist Regional group Yorkshire police

Isbn: 978-1-83870-456-8

For any enquiries regarding this publication, contact us at www.education.gov.uk/contactus

This document is available for download at www.gov.uk/government/publications

Why this page, not just a PDF? The original is a PDF - fine to read, but a poor fit for assistive technology: heading structure is often inconsistent or absent, text doesn't reflow for zoom or a narrow screen, and screen readers can struggle with multi-column layouts and scanned pages. This page is the same content rebuilt as plain, semantic HTML - real headings, text that reflows, nothing a screen reader or zoom tool trips over.

Republished from Department for Education under the Open Government Licence v3.0. View the original PDF.

Independent analysis of the consultation responses to the SEND review: right support, right place, right time

Analysis of the consultation responses to the SEND review: right support, right place, right time

March 2023

Authors: Fiona Sinclair, Ali Zaidi, Icf Consulting Services Limited

Contents

List of figures

List of tables

Executive summary

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and context

SEND Review proposals

A single national SEND and alternative provision system

Excellent provision from early years to adulthood

A reformed and integrated role for alternative provision

System roles, accountabilities and funding reform

1.2 Overview of consultation responses

1.2.1 Sources of responses

1.2.2 Campaigns

1.2.3 Children and young people

1.3 Approach

1.3.1 Methodology

1.3.2 Qualitative interpretation

1.3.3 Structure of the report

2 Responses from children and young people

Table 2: Number of responses per question

Consultation question Total

2.2 Question 1: Support for preparing for adulthood

2.3 Question 2: Decision makers

2.4 Question 3: EHCPs

2.5 Question 4: Preparing lists

appropriate schools for children with EHCPs

2.6 Question 5: Access to apprenticeships

2.7 Question 6: Support for staying in mainstream education

3 Responses to questions 1-7: A single national SEND and alternative provision system

(Q1 to Q7)

Consultation question

Parents/ carer

School staff

LA staff

Health service workers

Social workers

Fe staff

Early years staff

Other Total

3.1 Question 1: National standards

3.1.1 Parents/carers

3.1.2 Respondents from education settings

3.1.3 Respondents from local authorities

3.1.4 Health professional/health service workers and social workers

3.2 Question 2: Local SEND partnerships

3.2.1 Parents/carers

3.2.2 Respondents from education settings

3.2.3 Respondents from local authorities

3.2.4 Health professionals/health service workers and social workers

3.3 Question 3: Commissioning across local boundaries

3.4 Question 4: EHCPs

reviewing or amending

3.4.2 Parents/carers

3.4.3 Respondents from education settings

3.4.4 Respondents from local authorities

3.4.5 Health professionals/Health service workers and social workers

3.5 Question 5: Tailored list of placements

3.6 Question 6: Approach to strengthen redress

respondent group

3.7 Question 7: Disability discrimination

4 Responses to questions 8-12: Excellent provision from early years to adulthood

(Q8 and Q12)

Consultation question

Parents/ carer

School staff

LA staff

Health service workers

Social workers

Fe staff

Early years staff

Other Total

4.2 Question 8: Two-year-old progress check

4.3 Question 9: Mandatory SENCo Npq

type

4.4 Question 10: SENCo training requirement