5th Report - Solving the SEND Crisis

We welcome the Department’s focus on inclusive education; however, we are concerned about the absence of a Departmental definition of this and the subsequent lack of clarity about what ‘inclusive mainstream’ education looks like and means in practice for educators, education settings, pupils and families. We are also concerned that the Department does not appear to have a clear understanding of the timescale and level of investment that is needed to achieve a truly inclusive mainstream education system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 34)

It is unacceptable that a clear definition of inclusive education is still lacking. The Department must publish a definition of inclusive education and rationale for this vision alongside examples of good practice across different phases of education and settings within the next 3 months. Continued ambiguity undermines progress and accountability. (Recommendation, Paragraph 35)

An inclusive mainstream education system must be underpinned by several key elements, all of which we would expect to be included in the Department’s definition at a level of detail sufficient to enable professionals and families to have a clear understanding of the Government’s approach: • education settings and environments must be accessible, safe, and designed to meet a wide range of sensory and physical needs; • teachers and teaching assistants and other support staff should have the expertise, training, and confidence to support diverse learners, underpinned by regular access to embedded specialist professionals; • the curriculum must be flexible, relevant, and reflect the representation of young people with SEND; and the Government must ensure the curriculum itself and the assessment of it reflect and accommodate their needs; 154 • accountability systems must examine and prioritise the progress and outcomes of all pupils, on a rounded set of indicators which include but are not limited to academic attainment, so that inclusion is embedded as an essential component of quality for all settings. The proportion of pupils with SEND should be published and compared with other local schools and multi-academy trusts, to act as a disincentive to exclusionary practices; and • critically, good inclusive practice must always ensure rigorous, systemic approaches to understanding the individual needs of every child and delivering personalised support. (Recommendation, Paragraph 36)

The UK is a signatory member of the UNCRPD (UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) since 2008. It would be helpful in developing any definition of inclusive education for the Department for Education to draw on the principles and substantive materials in relevant articles of this Convention. This should include Article 24 on education, Article 25 on health and others, for example, Article 30 on participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport. It may also be helpful for the Government to consider the UN general comment number 4 on Article 24 - the right to inclusive education, as well as the UNICEF report (2017) expanding on these issues in practice. (Recommendation, Paragraph 37)

The Department must urgently assess the funding required to implement meaningful reforms to SEND provision. There must be a clear plan for how the Department will work towards this level of investment in the short and medium term, which aligns with the timeline for SEND reforms. (Recommendation, Paragraph 38)

As part of delivering a fully inclusive mainstream, the Government must set out how it will deliver, over time, a system in which highly skilled professionals, including educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, are less tied up in undertaking assessments and writing reports and more effectively deployed in delivering the support children need. It should be clear what professional skills and expertise an inclusive mainstream school should be able to draw on, and how this expertise will be made available. (Recommendation, Paragraph 39)

The SEND system is not delivering for children and young people or their families, with poor experiences and outcomes becoming the norm in many places across England. Rising need coupled with limited school resourcing, stretched local authority budgets and a mismatch between local authority responsibilities and their powers has resulted in a costly and adversarial system. Over a decade on from the 2014 reforms, the key challenges are evident: preparedness of the education workforce, lack of parental trust and confidence in the system, limited accountability across schools, 155 multi-academy trusts, NHS services and local authorities, disjointed working across the various agencies and families, limited capacity and the inadequacy and unsustainability of funding. (Conclusion, Paragraph 48)

It is essential that the Department addresses these challenges if it is going to succeed in making mainstream education inclusive and fixing the broken SEND system. The Department must involve stakeholders in reforms and begin to consult with parent-led organisations now. It should set out a clear timeline for SEND reforms and report on progress at least on an annual basis. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49) Securing inclusive education

The current inconsistency in SEN support and ordinarily available provision across England is unacceptable and results in deeply inequitable experiences for children and young people with SEND. The lack of consistent good practice in SEN support, driven by insufficiently clear and specific guidance and inconsistent interpretations of ‘best endeavours’ are causing delays in identifying needs, inadequate support, and an overreliance on EHC plans. This not only undermines trust in the system but also places unnecessary strain on families. National standards must be introduced without delay to establish clear, enforceable expectations while allowing for local flexibility where appropriate. (Conclusion, Paragraph 72)

Insufficient funding and resources and a mismatch between local authority responsibilities and powers negatively impacts the adequacy of ordinarily available provision and SEN support. We have heard from school leaders and SENCOs that without sufficient resources, settings are struggling to provide the high quality, consistent support necessary to achieve inclusive mainstream education. (Conclusion, Paragraph 73)

The Department for Education should publish a unified national framework for ordinarily available provision and SEN support. This should offer clear, evidence-led guidance and include practical, real-world examples tailored to educators and educational settings, ensuring that all practitioners have access to quality-assured strategies and interventions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 74)

The Department should publish statutory requirements mandating the minimum resources, specialist expertise, and equipment that every educational setting must have access to as a part of their offer of SEN support and in order to deliver an inclusive education. This will establish a clear, enforceable baseline covering staffing, training, physical materials, and assistive technologies. This will also ensure that all schools and multi- 156 academy trusts are adequately equipped to support children and young people with SEND through ordinarily available provision and SEN support, reducing the need for EHC plans. (Recommendation, Paragraph 75)

Current levels of EHC plans are unsustainable; however, the solution to this cannot be to remove the statutory entitlements from a system which lacks accountability in many other areas and in which parents already have so little trust and confidence. We have heard throughout our inquiry from parents, schools, and the Department for Education that the increased need for EHC plans is due to support not being provided through ordinarily available provision and SEN support, leading to a lack of trust from parents. We have also seen that for many children and young people with less complex needs, high quality support can be provided without a plan. While some pupils will always need an EHC plan, evidence indicates that mainstream schools and multi-academy trusts practising real inclusivity generate fewer EHC plans, as they meet more students’ needs effectively without them. (Conclusion, Paragraph 92)

Support should be provided as soon as a need is identified, rather than only once an EHC plan is in place. This would bring England in line with good practice found internationally, for example in in Ontario, Canada, where entitlement is based on need rather than lengthy assessment processes. Such a change would prevent the current situation in which many children receive little or no effective support while waiting for an EHC plan and would ensure timely intervention that can improve outcomes and reduce escalation of need. The Department’s SEND reforms must not be based on any withdrawal of statutory entitlements for children and young people with SEND. The Department must instead set out plans for reform which increase accountability across the whole of the SEND system, so that many more parents and carers can be confident that their children’s needs will be met regardless of whether they have a diagnosis or EHC plan. (Recommendation, Paragraph 93)

Where EHC plans are issued, they carry a statutory duty which must be delivered in full. To make this a reality, the Department for Education should strengthen the ability of local authorities to meet these obligations by ensuring that the necessary levers are in place to compel other services, for example, NHS services, and commissioners such as local Integrated Healthcare Boards (ICBs). This must include coordinated action with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address wider pressures on local authority budgets and capacity, so that councils are properly equipped to deliver the provision set out in every EHC plan. (Recommendation, Paragraph 94) 157 Restoring parent trust and confidence

Parents and carers of children and young people with SEND often feel excluded from the processes that affect their children’s education and support. However, meaningful and collaborative parental involvement is essential to the success of the SEND system. When parents and carers are actively engaged in the planning, decision-making, and delivery of support, both satisfaction and outcomes improve significantly. Engagement fosters greater trust, transparency, and confidence in the system, and helps build constructive, collaborative relationships between families, professionals, support and advice services including SENDIASS. Ensuring parents and carers are treated as equal partners in any process must be a fundamental feature of any reformed SEND system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 101)

Parents and carers must be actively and meaningfully involved in all processes that affect their child’s education, support, and overall wellbeing. This includes being fully informed and invited to participate in all relevant meetings where decisions about their child’s needs or provision are being discussed at the school and local authority level. Families should have access to independent advocacy to enable and strengthen their engagement in the process. Parental insights and lived experience are invaluable in shaping effective and appropriate support. Embedding parental involvement as a standard part of decision-making not only enhances transparency and trust but also leads to better-informed, more tailored outcomes for children and young people with SEND. Local authorities must actively engage and be properly equipped to support and respond to parental engagement in a positive way. This requires dedicated resourcing and ongoing training to ensure staff have the skills, capacity and confidence to work effectively with families, build trust, and act on their concerns in a timely and constructive way. These changes would need to be subject to a New Burdens Assessment to ensure that local authorities had the resources to support better parent and carer engagement. (Recommendation, Paragraph 102)

Children and young people with SEND, and their families, have little trust and confidence in the SEND system, often shaped by adverse experiences. Inadequate communication and engagement from the Department with parents and carers and their organisations about future reforms, as well as media speculation, has further undermined parental trust in the Department for Education and in the future SEND system. It is wholly unacceptable that families already under considerable pressure should face additional anxiety and disruption. While there is widespread recognition among parents and carers that reform is necessary, there remains deep concern about the form these changes will take and whether they will lead to meaningful and lasting improvements. (Conclusion, Paragraph 107) 158

To avoid causing undue alarm and to help rebuild confidence and trust in the system, parents and carers must be fully engaged and any reforms must be implemented gradually and in a carefully phased manner. New approaches should first be piloted through a pathfinder model, allowing for thorough testing in real-world settings before national rollout. This will provide an opportunity to identify potential challenges, address inefficiencies, consult with parents’ and carers’ groups and make necessary adjustments to ensure reforms are effective, practical, and responsive to the needs of children, young people, and their families. At all times, the Department for Education must have an effective communication strategy, regularly setting out the clear vision for change, and providing reassurance to all affected agencies and individuals that planned reforms are fully planned, coordinated, and funded. (Recommendation, Paragraph 108)

We have heard that accountability pressures relating to narrower measures of attainment and behaviour may incentivise schools and multi-academy trusts to adopt non-inclusive practices in order to meet narrow performance metrics. The introduction of the new Ofsted inspection framework presents a valuable opportunity to shift this dynamic. By placing greater emphasis on inclusion and the experiences and progression of all learners, the framework has the potential to ensure that schools and multi-academy trusts are more meaningfully held to account for the inclusivity and accessibility of the education they deliver, thereby promoting a more equitable and supportive environment for every student. (Conclusion, Paragraph 118)

The Department must urgently engage with Ofsted to ensure that the inclusion criterion within the new inspection framework is robust, measurable, and reflective of the experiences of all pupils, particularly, those with SEND. This should include incorporating metrics such as the proportion of pupils with SEND on roll, their attendance rates, exclusion figures, school swaps, progression and attainment and other indicators of engagement and outcomes, to provide a clearer picture of how effectively schools and multi-academy trusts are supporting these learners. It is important that the new framework does not disadvantage schools with high levels of SEND pupils, particularly in disadvantaged areas, by contextualising quantitative indicators with qualitative evidence, recognising systemic barriers, and balancing accountability with constructive support to avoid disproportionate pressure on teachers’ workloads. (Recommendation, Paragraph 119)

The Department for Education should introduce mandatory, comprehensive SEND training for all Ofsted inspectors. The success of the new framework depends on inspectors having a deep understanding of SEND, including how to identify, assess, and evaluate inclusive practice. Without this 159 expertise, there is a significant risk that inspections will be inconsistent, fail to identify gaps in provision, and ultimately undermine the objectives of the framework. (Recommendation, Paragraph 120)

Area SEND inspections should engage with parents across the locality to gather the perspective of parents of children with SEND on the admissions policies and inclusive practices of local authorities, schools and multi- academy trusts in the area. (Recommendation, Paragraph 122)

We have heard about significant variability in the provision of SEN support and inconsistencies in the implementation of EHC plans across education settings. The limitations of the Local Government Ombudsman’s powers mean there is insufficient accountability for the delivery of SEND support, as well as other aspects of school-based provision. This has led to repeated failures to meet children’s needs. This is a serious and unacceptable accountability gap that must be closed if inclusive mainstream education is to be a reality. (Conclusion, Paragraph 127)

The Government must extend the powers of the Local Government Ombudsman to cover complaints about the delivery of EHC plans, SEN support and other appropriate inclusive education for children with SEND in schools, multi-academy trusts and other education settings. This would strengthen accountability, provide families with a clearer route to redress, and help ensure that statutory responsibilities are met consistently across the system. Without this change, serious shortcomings in support will continue to go unaddressed. (Recommendation, Paragraph 128)

To ensure accountability for inclusive practice, SEND expertise should be embedded within schools and multi-academy trust (MAT) governance structures, for example, by making it mandatory to appoint governors or trustees with specific responsibility for and relevant expertise (including lived experience) of SEND as we saw in Ontario. Without this, inclusive education risks being sidelined at the strategic level, and outcomes for pupils with SEND will continue to be deprioritised. (Recommendation, Paragraph 129)

Tribunals are an important feature of the accountability system, allowing families to challenge local authorities’ decisions regarding their children’s support; however, they should only need to be used as a last resort. We are deeply concerned by the number of local authorities found to have failed to meet their statutory obligations at the SEND Tribunal. A 97 per cent loss rate for Tribunal cases suggests a pattern of non-compliance which is unacceptable, particularly given that the entitlements of children and young people with SEND are clearly set out in the existing legislative framework. Greater efforts are needed to prevent cases from escalating to SEND 160 Tribunals by prioritising good partnership working with parents and carers, effective mediation and ensuring local authorities have the resources and the powers to fulfil their statutory obligations. (Conclusion, Paragraph 144)

The SEND Tribunal must remain as a backstop of the accountability process. The Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care must systematically monitor SEND Tribunal outcomes and identify local authorities that repeatedly fail to comply with their statutory duties. The Government should mandate the framework for reporting SEND Tribunal data and undertake focused work with poor performing local authorities to understand why they are so often failing to uphold their statutory duties and support them through resourcing and targeted intervention, including specialised training, to address underlying issues and ensure that the rights of children and young people with SEND are upheld. The SEND White Paper should explicitly identify and set out plans to address any structural or resource-related barriers to effective support. (Recommendation, Paragraph 145)

The outcomes of SEND Tribunal cases must be factored into area SEND inspections, with clear scrutiny of how repeated non-compliance reflects the quality and effectiveness of local provision. Where local authorities fail to uphold their statutory duties, this should directly lower their inspection rating. Ongoing failure must have clear consequences if accountability is to mean anything. (Recommendation, Paragraph 150)

The limited engagement of health services in the SEND system stems from a lack of robust and enforceable accountability mechanisms. Despite being a critical enabler of positive educational outcomes for children with SEND, health services are not held to the same standards of responsibility as education providers. To deliver on the promise of inclusive education, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care must strengthen accountability frameworks to ensure health partners are fully integrated and responsive within the SEND system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 157)

There must be mandatory training for health commissioners on good practice in meeting the needs of children with SEND. (Recommendation, Paragraph 158)

The powers of the SEND Tribunal should be extended to allow it to issue binding recommendations to health services, not just education providers. This would ensure that when a failure to deliver a health provision specified in an EHC plan occurs, health bodies are legally obligated to take corrective action. This should include the introduction of a statutory duty on health services to respond to Tribunal decisions within a defined timeframe, with clear consequences for non-compliance. (Recommendation, Paragraph 159) 161

The Department for Education must significantly improve cross- departmental coordination with the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to establish clear, consistent accountability for SEND at the ICB level. Current arrangements are fragmented and lack clarity. Strengthening the role, authority, and visibility of the Senior Responsible Officer for SEND within ICBs is essential to ensure health services are fully held to account for their responsibilities. Without stronger oversight, health bodies will continue to operate without sufficient scrutiny or consequence. (Recommendation, Paragraph 160) Improving early years for lasting impact

ELSEC and NELI are positive initiatives, but far more must be done to sustain and build on the progress they are achieving. Without ongoing commitment and resources, any gains risk being temporary and insufficient to address long-term needs. (Conclusion, Paragraph 164)

A national rollout of ELSEC and NELI is essential and should be accompanied by comprehensive, long-term funding and resources to meet the scale of children’s speech and language needs. In addition, the Government should undertake further work to understand where the balance of resource should sit between early years and reception in order to ensure it is able to achieve its goal of 75 per cent of 5-year-olds in England to have a good level of development by 2028. (Recommendation, Paragraph 165)

There is a clear need to improve the consistency and effectiveness of the SENIF across early years provision. At present, practice varies significantly between local authorities, with differences in how funding is managed and allocated. This means there is inconsistency in access to early years SEND support. Such variation undermines the principle of equitable access to early education and can place additional pressure on providers in areas with less generous or less flexible SENIF arrangements. In addition, the eligibility criteria for the Disability Access Fund limits its effectiveness. Tying this funding to Disability Living Allowance, creates an unnecessary barrier to eligibility that risks excluding the very children the funding was created to help and shifts the burden of unmet need onto providers and families. (Conclusion, Paragraph 168)

To address inconsistency in the delivery of early years provision and the Special Educational Needs Inclusion Fund (SENIF), the Department for Education must establish a set of national inclusivity requirements for early years settings. These requirements should be backed by increased, funding to ensure providers are able to deliver inclusive practice in a sustainable way. At the same time, the Disability Access Fund should be reformed by removing its dependency on Disability Living Allowance. The 162 current eligibility criteria act as a barrier for many families, restricting uptake and undermining the fund’s effectiveness. Without these reforms, there is a risk that the system continues to perpetuate inequity and discourage inclusive practice at the earliest stage of education. (Recommendation, Paragraph 169)

Best Start Family Hubs and the expansion of childcare provision present a valuable opportunity to engage with families earlier and identify SEND needs at the earliest possible stage. We welcome the announcement that every Best Start Family Hub will have a SENCO. However, SEND awareness is not currently sufficiently embedded amongst all early years staff, nor are there currently sufficient opportunities for early screenings that could facilitate timely support and referrals. We note the current inquiry at the time of publication of the Health Social Care Committee on ‘The First 1000 Days: a renewed focus’ and the further work we have agreed to undertake on early years, all of which should be taken full account of by the Government. (Conclusion, Paragraph 174)

The Department for Education must ensure that Best Start Family Hubs incorporate routine SEND screening and awareness as a core part of their early years services, supported by targeted training for staff and childcare providers to enhance early identification and referral. Additionally, dedicated funding must be allocated within childcare expansion and Family Hub budgets specifically to support SEND-related training for early years staff and families of children with SEND, resources, and integrated multi- agency working, ensuring sustainable and effective early intervention. (Recommendation, Paragraph 175)

The commitment for every Best Start Family Hub to have a dedicated SENCO should be embedded within the SEND workforce strategy and extend to educational psychologists and speech and language therapists. (Recommendation, Paragraph 176)

There is a need to increase access to CPD and ensure that staff from all agencies in every early years setting has the expertise to undertake the effective early identification of SEND needs. Through the Best Start in Life strategy the Government should also ensure that there is a strong and consistent framework for building SEND capacity and good practice in early years settings through the deployment of educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and other specialists in training the workforce. From September 2025, 80 per cent of the funding for early years providers will come from the Government, and the Department should introduce a new set of inclusivity requirements for all early years settings, provide the foundation for greater inclusivity across all early years settings. (Recommendation, Paragraph 177) 163 Post-16

The post-16 condition of funding, whereby students who have not achieved a grade 4 or above in GCSE English and maths are effectively repeatedly required to take GCSE resits in those subjects as part of their programme of study, must be reformed. Despite a modest rise in overall attainment over the past ten years, the progression rate from age 16 to 19 remains low, with 72 per cent of those who did not achieve grade 4 at 16 still not achieving that grade by 19. This policy can be demoralising for students and a huge strain on colleges and their staff. Whilst ensuring that students continue to make progress in literacy and numeracy, an alternative approach is necessary. (Conclusion, Paragraph 186)

The Government must introduce a three-route model for those who have not attained grade 4 GCSE in maths and/or English based on their level of attainment at age 16 and their chosen post-16 qualification/employment pathway: • Students who, based on their GCSE results at age 16 and prior attainment, have a realistic prospect of achieving grade 4 in maths and/or English should be supported to work towards those qualifications. • Vocational courses of study, for which the English and maths content required can be easily identified, should have that content built into the curriculum. Students taking courses with embedded English and maths content which have been rigorously quality assured could then, in consultation with employers, be considered for exemption from the requirement to re-sit English and maths GCSE. • Students who, based on past performance, are very unlikely to attain grade 4 in maths and/or English despite multiple resits and who would benefit from pursuing a functional skills qualification in maths and/or English—for example, focused on financial literacy, debt and interest and household budgeting—should be supported to achieve a pass in that form of qualification. (Recommendation, Paragraph 187)

Greater policy focus is required on further education provision for young people with SEND. At present, both FE and SEND policy frameworks give limited consideration to the specific needs of learners post-16, and funding arrangements often fail to provide adequate resources to meet those needs. This lack of targeted attention and investment contributes to significant gaps in provision and support, leaving many of these young people effectively overlooked within the education system. Without dedicated and sufficient funding for SEN support beyond the age of 16, mainstream further 164 education settings will struggle to provide the adjustments, specialist staff, and tailored resources necessary to meet learners’ needs and achieve good outcomes. This is incompatible with the Government’s vision for inclusive mainstream education. Without targeted reform and investment, the FE sector risks falling behind other parts of the education system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 189)

The Department for Education should introduce a dedicated and ring- fenced funding stream for SEN support beyond the age of 16. This would enable further education providers to recruit and retain specialist staff, provide tailored learning resources, and make the reasonable adjustments necessary to meet the diverse needs of learners with SEND. Such investment is essential to ensuring that mainstream FE provision is genuinely inclusive and that young people with SEND have equitable opportunities to succeed. (Recommendation, Paragraph 190)

When Ofsted considers the accountability of post-16 education settings, it should ensure a stronger focus on inclusivity and outcomes for young people with SEND. (Recommendation, Paragraph 191)

We know that some young people in some areas will have a long-term need for home to school transport due to extremely limited public transport options in their local area or their individual needs. We are concerned about the impact that lack of statutory home to school transport for 16–19-year- olds with SEND has on the ability of these young people to access education. No young person should be locked out of education because of a transport need. Evidence also indicates a lack of adequate travel training for this age group in some areas, which increases reliance on home to school transport, creating significant barriers to attendance and participation in learning. (Conclusion, Paragraph 194)

The Department should review home to school transport and identify costs across regions. Additionally, the Department must mandate that all local authorities provide travel training programmes for young people with SEND in this age group to promote independence and safe travel where this is appropriate. Statutory transport provision should be guaranteed based on clear criteria such as distance from education settings, level of need, and other relevant factors to ensure no young person is unfairly disadvantaged. We welcome the acknowledgement in the Government’s fair funding review of the need for comprehensive costings for current and future home to school transport need. The Department for Education must work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport as they prepare to introduce a bespoke formula to recognise Home to School transport costs. As part of this collaboration, the Department should ensure that there is transparency around how 165 outcomes are measured and reported. We support the recommendation of the Transport Select Committee with regard to the provision of bus passes for under 22-year-olds. (Recommendation, Paragraph 195) Equipping the workforce

While the Department’s update to the Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework is a positive move, it needs to go further to adequately prepare teachers to support pupils with SEND. SEND is still not fully integrated across all training modules, and there is a clear lack of focus on how to apply this knowledge practically in the classroom. This shortfall risks leaving teachers unprepared to meet the needs of pupils with SEND effectively. (Conclusion, Paragraph 202)

The Department for Education must implement a continuous review and update cycle for the ITT and ECF to keep training relevant and effective. It must urgently increase the number of ITT placements and explore the viability of mandating every teacher to complete a placement in a specialist setting during ITT or ECF. Without practical, hands-on experience supporting children and young people with SEND, teachers will remain ill- equipped to meet their needs. (Recommendation, Paragraph 203)

The Department should provide comprehensive training within ITT and clear guidance for schools, multi-academy trusts and education staff on delivering inclusive education practice. This will ensure that all settings understand their legal obligations and are equipped to make the necessary accommodations to support pupils with SEND effectively. Embedding this knowledge is crucial for promoting inclusive practices, preventing discrimination, and fostering environments where every child can thrive. (Recommendation, Paragraph 204)

It is deeply concerning that SEND-specific continuing professional development (CPD) is not mandatory. The education workforce must be consistently equipped with up-to-date, evidence-based knowledge through ongoing CPD to ensure an inclusive mainstream with high-quality support for children and young people with SEND. (Conclusion, Paragraph 209)

Continuous professional development in SEND should not be viewed solely as a support mechanism for specialist SEND educators. When all teachers are trained to understand and respond to the needs of pupils with SEND, the entire workforce becomes more inclusive, adaptive, and confident in managing diverse classrooms. An essential skill set in the modern classroom, this not only improves outcomes for pupils with SEND but also supports teacher resilience and wellbeing, enhancing the learning 166 experience for all students by fostering a more empathetic, dynamic and flexible teaching environment. We have seen evidence that deploying this approach reduces the need for EHC plans. (Conclusion, Paragraph 210)

SEND CPD should be made mandatory to ensure that all educators are equipped to meet the diverse needs of children and young people with SEND. This could be achieved through a nationally recognised supplementary qualification in SEND that all existing teachers must complete within a defined timeframe (e.g. three years), similar to the Early Career Framework but focused on inclusion and SEND best practice; or through the incorporation of mandatory SEND modules into existing CPD requirements; or through performance management frameworks, ensuring ongoing engagement and application in classroom settings. (Recommendation, Paragraph 211)

We welcome the introduction of the new National Professional Qualification (NPQ) for SENCOs as a positive step towards enhancing the leadership and expertise of SEND provision in schools and multi-academy trusts. However, further action is urgently needed. The scale of the challenges facing SENCOs including excessive workloads, insufficient time to carry out their statutory duties, and a lack of support requires immediate attention. (Conclusion, Paragraph 216)

Strong leadership on SEND is essential to delivering effective and inclusive education. Often the bulk of responsibility for SEND inclusion falls to a single SENCO and this should not be the case. Evidence shows that when senior leadership prioritises inclusion, this commitment permeates throughout the school, positively influencing staff attitudes and pupil experiences. Embedding SEND awareness and inclusion as a strategic focus at the highest-level drives culture change and ensures that inclusive practices are consistently implemented. (Conclusion, Paragraph 217)

To strengthen leadership on SEND, the Department should, in the short term, mandate that at least one member of the Senior Leadership Team in every school and every multi-academy trust holds SENCO qualifications. (Recommendation, Paragraph 218)

The Department should also publish guidance on appropriate SENCO- to-pupil ratios and develop a national strategy to ensure these ratios are achieved consistently across schools and multi-academy trusts. (Recommendation, Paragraph 219)

Within four years, the Department should introduce a requirement for all new headteachers to hold a SEND-specific qualification. Ensuring that SEND expertise is embedded at the highest levels of school or multi- 167 academy trust leadership will promote strategic oversight, improve the quality of inclusive practice, and better meet the needs of pupils with SEND. (Recommendation, Paragraph 220)

Learning support assistants and teaching assistants are integral to the effective delivery of SEND support and resourcing their deployment properly can help reduce the need for expensive specialist placements. To sustain and strengthen their contribution, improvements are urgently needed in the recruitment, training, CPD and retention of this workforce. We are particularly concerned by evidence that many LSAs and TAs lack adequate SEND-specific training to perform their roles safely and effectively. (Conclusion, Paragraph 223)

SEND content should be an integral part of teaching assistant training, and they should be provided with regular opportunities for CPD and peer support. This could be through incentivised or ring-fenced funding for schools and multi-academy trusts to release teaching assistants and learning support assistants for SEND CPD, removing practical barriers to participation and ensuring consistent take-up across the sector. (Recommendation, Paragraph 224)

The Department should issue guidance on teaching assistant-to-pupil ratios and urgently address the worsening crisis in recruiting and retaining TAs and learning support assistants to ensure these ratios can be met. These professionals are vital to the delivery of inclusive education, yet their contribution continues to be undervalued and under-supported. A robust and comprehensive strategy is urgently required. This must include: • A clear career progression framework with opportunities to develop specialist expertise and the opportunity for some TAs to progress to qualified teacher status. • Competitive pay increases that reflect the skill, responsibility, and complexity of their roles. • Expanded and better-promoted apprenticeship pathways to attract new entrants and diversify the workforce. • Clearer communication to schools, multi-academy trusts and stakeholders about the distinct functions, expectations, and career progression routes within TA and LSA roles. (Recommendation, Paragraph 225)

These measures are essential. Without decisive action, the system will continue to lose experienced staff, leaving vulnerable pupils without the support they need and deserve. (Recommendation, Paragraph 226) 168

Many children with SEND and their families continue to have unsatisfactory experiences when navigating the SEND system, particularly in their interactions with local authority staff. These challenges are often rooted in a failure to work empathetically in partnership with parents and carers and demonstrate a limited understanding of the assessment process and its significance. In some cases, local authority staff make poor or inadequate contributions to EHC plans, undermining their quality and failing to reflect the needs of the child. These issues not only erode trust in the system but also contribute to delays, disputes, and ultimately poorer outcomes for children and young people with SEND. (Conclusion, Paragraph 229)

Local authority staff require improved training on child development, SEND law, parent engagement and mediation, alongside changes in practice that strengthen accountability and foster more constructive relationships with parents and carers. This should include meaningful parental involvement at every stage of the decision-making process regarding a child’s needs and support. Embedding a more collaborative and transparent approach would not only enhance trust and outcomes for families but also help alleviate the pressures contributing to staff burnout within local authorities. (Recommendation, Paragraph 230)

Shortages of educational psychologists and allied health professionals, including speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists are significantly undermining the availability and quality of SEND support. These workforce gaps delay assessments, restrict access to essential interventions, and place additional pressure on schools and multi- academy trusts to fill specialist roles they are not equipped to provide. In addition, the shortages have resulted in far too many highly skilled professionals being deployed predominantly in undertaking assessments and writing reports rather than working directly and therapeutically with children and young people. This has to change, for the benefit of professionals who are becoming harder to retain, and in order to deliver a genuinely inclusive system in which access to support is available for every child who needs it. (Conclusion, Paragraph 239)

The DfE and DHSC should urgently develop a joint SEND workforce plan to address shortages and build capacity across education, health, and care services. This should include explicit measures to deliver a shift in the deployment of educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and other allied health professionals away from undertaking assessments and writing reports and towards greater deployment in education settings, delivering therapeutic support for children and upskilling early years practitioners, teachers and support staff. This will enable professionals to concentrate on delivering frontline support. Such an approach would help 169 retain skilled practitioners within the system and encourage those who have left the profession, often due to excessive paperwork and limited direct engagement to return. (Recommendation, Paragraph 240) Getting to a sustainable model of funding

It is clear that the current levels of funding provided to schools and multi- academy trusts are inadequate to support the effective inclusion of pupils with SEND. The notional £6,000 threshold is insufficient to deliver good SEN support, placing unsustainable pressure on school budgets. The Department cannot reasonably expect inclusive education to be realised without a significant increase in investment. Adequate and sustained resourcing is essential to ensure that mainstream schools, multi-academy trusts and teaching staff are properly equipped to be inclusive. However, the Government does not appear to have a realistic understanding of the scale of investment required to deliver a genuinely inclusive education system. Without acknowledging and addressing the true level of resource needed, efforts to improve outcomes for pupils with SEND risk falling short. (Conclusion, Paragraph 249)

The current £6,000 notional threshold is outdated and inadequate. It must be automatically uprated each year in line with inflation to prevent further erosion of support for pupils with SEND. This is a necessary correction to address years of chronic underfunding. This funding should also be ringfenced to ensure it is used exclusively for supporting pupils with SEND and to improve the transparency and accountability of the resources schools and multi-academy trusts are committing to deliver inclusivity. However, these measures alone will not be enough to create the change desperately needed in this failing system. The Department must set a clear trajectory towards a more sustainable and equitable funding model that is informed by, and able to deliver, the Department’s definition of inclusive mainstream education. (Recommendation, Paragraph 250)

We have seen and heard evidence that delivering inclusive practice in education improves long term outcomes for children and young people with SEND which has wider benefits to the economy as well as costing less to deliver than expensive specialist placements. (Conclusion, Paragraph 253)

The Government should undertake a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to understand the short- and long-term economic benefits of investing in a fully inclusive education system. (Recommendation, Paragraph 254)

Funding must be strategically deployed to deliver the best outcomes for children and young people with SEND. This should include prioritised investment in early intervention. Timely and targeted support is essential 170 and can prevent some needs such as speech and language and SEMH needs from escalating, reducing long-term costs to the system, and improving educational and life outcomes. Prioritising early support in such areas not only represents better value for money but also aligns with a preventative, rather than reactive, approach to SEND provision. Ensuring that schools, multi-academy trusts and services are resourced to identify and meet speech and language and SEMH needs at the earliest stage should be a central principle of any funding reform. However, the Department must recognise that while early intervention plays a crucial role in supporting children with disabilities, it is not a solution for all needs. Some children will require consistent, long-term support throughout their lives. Where this is the case, it is essential that adequate and sustained funding and resources are in place to ensure these children receive the ongoing support they need to thrive. (Conclusion, Paragraph 255)

The High Needs Block should be refocused to enable and incentivise earlier intervention. Currently, a significant proportion of this funding is directed towards supporting high-cost, specialist provision once needs have escalated. While such provision is vital for some, a more preventative approach is needed to reduce long-term need and improve outcomes. Redirecting a greater share of High Needs funding towards early identification and support within mainstream settings and through multi- agency services will help address emerging needs and ensure that good support is put in place at the outset. (Recommendation, Paragraph 256)

The National Funding Formula must ensure that funding for SEND is both fair and sufficient to meet the needs of children and young people across the country. While some geographical variation is to be expected, this should reflect the prevalence and relative level of need in each area. The formula must guarantee that all local areas are equipped with the necessary resources to deliver consistent, high-quality SEND provision and support equitable outcomes for all learners. (Conclusion, Paragraph 259)

A comprehensive review of the National Funding Formula is urgently needed to ensure funding is allocated fairly and reflects the real level of need across the country. The current formula fails to address historic underfunding, ignores rising inflation, does not account for regional differences in cost and need and ignores hidden pockets of deprivation. These gaps are driving deep and persistent inequalities in SEND provision. Any credible funding system must correct these failures and provide a stable, needs-based foundation for support. (Recommendation, Paragraph 260)

The extension of the statutory override until 2027/28 is a welcome step, but it remains a temporary measure in response to the ongoing financial instability facing local authorities across England. Reducing deficits is essential to achieving long-term financial sustainability however, this 171 cannot be done at the expense of local authorities fulfilling their legal obligations to children and young people with SEND. Any permanent solution must involve coordinated, cross-departmental action between the Department for Education, HM Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address the systemic funding challenges within local government. (Conclusion, Paragraph 267)

We believe that a reset of local authority finances through a partial write- off of SEND-related deficits could provide a necessary step towards long- term stability. However, this must be approached with care, recognising the progress made by some local authorities through the Delivering Better Value in SEND programme and Safety Valve agreements, and the contributions already made by some local authorities from their General Fund towards SEND over and above contributions from their High Needs education block. It is essential that the Department for Education engages meaningfully with local government representatives to develop a fair and transparent approach that supports improvement while ensuring accountability. The Department must provide further detail on this in the upcoming SEND white paper due in Autumn 2025. (Recommendation, Paragraph 268) Building stronger partnerships

The current failure to embed Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) as a shared priority across government departments is not just a policy oversight, it is a profound injustice to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. It is evident that SEND is not sufficiently seen as a priority by the health system. The education system is increasingly shouldering the weight of responsibilities for supporting children and young people with SEND that should, in part, be met by health services. This chronic imbalance places unsustainable pressure on schools, multi- academy trusts and local authorities and undermines the principle of joint responsibility set out in the SEND Code of Practice. The erosion of funding to Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), alongside ongoing structural upheaval within the health sector, risk further weakening the capacity of health services to meet their statutory duties. If we are serious about improving outcomes for children with SEND, then coordinated investment, shared accountability, and genuine cross-departmental collaboration must become non- negotiable. Without it, the burden will continue to fall disproportionately on schools and local authorities, compromising outcomes for children and placing additional strain on an already stretched education system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 275) 172

SEND should be identified as a priority across the health system and ongoing NHS restructuring must be used as an opportunity to strengthen the role and accountability of health services in supporting children and young people with SEND. This includes ensuring that ICBs are fully engaged in local SEND systems, with clearly defined responsibilities and mechanisms for joint planning and delivery. The seniority, authority and visibility of senior responsible officers for SEND within ICBs must be increased. (Recommendation, Paragraph 276)

Bringing education and health more closely together should be supported by an evidence led approach, drawing on the role of NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) to produce new SEND guidelines and intervention pathways. (Recommendation, Paragraph 277)

Crucially, this must be backed by appropriate financial investment from the health sector to meet statutory duties, provide timely access to therapies and assessments, and contribute equitably to joint commissioning arrangements. All areas should have a robust and fully operational partnership arrangement in place by autumn 2026. This should be underpinned by clear governance and shared accountability. (Recommendation, Paragraph 278)

Guidance on the delegation of healthcare responsibilities within schools and multi-academy trusts remains weak. There is insufficient clarity on how and when healthcare tasks can be appropriately and safely assigned to school or multi-academy trust staff, what training and safeguards should accompany such delegation, and ultimately where responsibility lies between education and health services. This lack of direction creates uncertainty for schools and multi-academy trusts, risking inconsistency and unsafe practices in the delivery of health interventions for pupils. (Conclusion, Paragraph 284)

The Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care should issue joint statutory guidance clarifying how and when healthcare responsibilities can safely be delegated in schools and multi- academy trusts. This should be produced in collaboration with school and multi-academy trust leaders and health and education unions and set out clear lines of accountability between education and health services, minimum training requirements for school staff, and safeguards to ensure consistent and safe delivery of health interventions for pupils. (Recommendation, Paragraph 285)

The Department of Health and Social Care must urgently appoint a dedicated national SEND lead to drive accountability and coordination across the health system. This role must be empowered and mandated to provide coherent strategic leadership on the delivery of health- related SEND duties, forge robust partnerships with education and 173 care sectors, and ensure that the needs of children and young people with SEND are embedded in the heart of health policy, planning, and workforce development from senior officials to frontline services. (Recommendation, Paragraph 289)

The Government should place a clear statutory duty on health services, including ICBs and NHS providers, to ensure their full and accountable participation in the planning, commissioning, and delivery of SEND provision. This duty must align with the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice, which emphasises joint commissioning and integrated working. Strengthening statutory responsibilities for health is key to ensuring timely access to assessments, therapies, and interventions, and uphold the principle of a coordinated, child-centred approach to SEND support. (Recommendation, Paragraph 290) Expanding capacity within the SEND system

If the Department for Education expands the use of resource bases to increase specialist provision within mainstream schools and multi- academy trusts, it must set out a detailed implementation plan. This plan should clearly specify how resource bases should be staffed, including required qualifications, expertise, and staff-to-pupil ratios to ensure all children with SEND receive appropriate support. The Department must also define mandatory standards of good practice for resource bases, covering, physical facilities and equipment and good practice approaches to integration with the wider school or multi-academy trust community. By establishing these standards and holding schools and multi-academy trusts accountable for meeting them, the Department can ensure that the expansion of resource bases delivers high-quality, consistent, and inclusive provision, meeting the needs of children with SEND while strengthening inclusion across mainstream education. (Recommendation, Paragraph 305)

The allocation of £740 million in high needs capital funding for 2025–26 is a welcome investment and reflects a growing recognition of the urgent need to expand and improve SEND provision. However, this funding should be seen as a starting point rather than a solution. One-off or short-term funding cycles make it difficult for local authorities and providers to plan, commission, and deliver the specialist and inclusive provision needed to meet rising need. We have heard consistent evidence highlighting the need for longer-term, multi-year funding settlements to support more strategic and sustainable planning at the local level. (Conclusion, Paragraph 310) 174

The Department for Education should develop and implement a comprehensive capital investment strategy for SEND. This strategy should provide clarity over future funding streams, enable better forecasting and planning, and support the development of high-quality, fit-for- purpose settings across both mainstream and specialist provision. (Recommendation, Paragraph 311)

We welcome the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, particularly the proposed reforms that give local authorities a greater role in key decision- making areas such as the establishment of new schools, oversight of admissions, and the placement of pupils. These changes represent a positive step toward restoring strategic oversight at the local level. Empowering local authorities in these areas is essential for improving coordination across the system, addressing local sufficiency gaps, and reducing reliance on costly out-of-area or independent placements. Currently, without this, local authorities have been unable to ensure that sufficient and suitable provision is available for children and young people with SEND in their area. (Conclusion, Paragraph 312)

The Department for Education should expand specialist SEND provision by investing in high-quality specialist state schools and mainstream resource bases and other mainstream provision. This should be achieved through shifting funding from some independent specialist school provision to better value for money state specialist school provision. This will help meet rising need, support inclusive mainstream education, and reduce reliance on costly or distant placements. This expansion must be aligned with robust local planning and forecasting, ensuring that new provision is responsive to patterns of demand and delivered in a way that reduces pressure on over- capacity special schools and minimises reliance on distant or expensive independent placements. (Conclusion, Paragraph 313)

As part of the expansion of specialist SEND, the highest-performing state specialist schools should be designated as Centres of Excellence. These schools would play a leading role in supporting the development of expertise across other schools, local authorities or multi-academy trusts by providing training, sharing best practice, and offering targeted support to meet complex and specialist needs across the system. (Recommendation, Paragraph 314)

The Government should continue to review whether local authorities have the necessary powers to fulfil their legal obligations to children and young people with SEND in order to address the mismatch between powers and responsibilities which has arisen as a consequence of previous reforms. (Recommendation, Paragraph 315) 175

As it seeks to expand the capacity of specialist state schools and deliver inclusive mainstream schools, the Government should monitor and report on an annual basis on the number of pupils with SEND in mainstream schools, in specialist independent schools and specialist state schools. (Recommendation, Paragraph 316)

The data currently collected and available to the DfE on both mainstream and specialist SEND need is limited and inconsistent. Comprehensive data at the local, regional and national level is essential to assessing the sufficiency of capacity and determining funding allocations for education settings. (Conclusion, Paragraph 321)

To plan effectively for future capacity and ensure the right support is in place, the Department must take a data driven approach, developing a more robust understanding of need by systematically gathering and analysing relevant, high-quality data. This should include a national SEND data strategy that requires local authorities and education settings to collect and report standardised, high-quality data on levels of need, current provision, capacity, and projected demand. This would require clear definitions and metrics for identifying and categorising SEND across mainstream and specialist settings and mandatory annual data submissions aligned with school and local authority planning cycles. (Recommendation, Paragraph 322) 176