# data[].attributes.body
Bell Foundation has built an award winning EAL assessment framework with assessment tracker - free to schools and highly recommended.
For both primary and secondary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About the Programme - The Bell Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We believe that all children should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential

# data[].attributes.body
Transformational initiative in schools to develop parent and community relationships - engagement, collaboration, relationships!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Cafés for All' is a simple idea, flexible and adaptable, easy to use and, it works!

Cafés for All are designed to bring people together in an informal, sociable setting in which all can develop and share knowledge, information and skills , learn alongside others and network.

The Cafés for All - Sharing Learning training programme has, at its core, a commitment to assist parents, schools and the wider community to come together to support and enhance learning by engaging the strengths and assets of all.

For us, the word Café represents ' community assets for e ducation'. In this we subscribe to the vision and work of the Café Institute, Calgary and wish to acknowledge their support in our work.

The Cafes for All training programme has followed on from the Reading Café initiative (developed in Norfolk by Julie Westrop) which operates very successfully in numerous early years settings, schools and community settings.

"
Research demonstrates that when early years settings, schools, families and community groups work together to support learning, children do better in school
"

National Centre for Family and Community Connections with Schools

There are no current or upcoming events!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cafés for All are designed to bring people together in an informal, sociable setting in which all can develop and share knowledge, information and skills , learn alongside others and network.

# data[].attributes.body
Wordless downloadable storybooks on matters such as having Covid, keeping yourself/people safe and coping strategies for SEND children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beating the Virus
illustrated by Lucy Bergonzi
A short wordless story, that will help people to understand what to do if you have Coronavirus and how to keep yourself and those who you care about safe. The story also shows how to safely help others who may be self-isolating.

Supplementary text at the end of the story gives information on where people can seek help if they are unwell and signposts to other useful resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
illustrated by Lucy Bergonzi A short wordless story, that will help people to understand what to do if you have Coronavirus and how to keep yourself and those who you care about safe. The story also shows how to safely help others who may be self-isolating.

# data[].attributes.body
A very small cohort of participants, but some considerations for support for SEND learners and their families.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Around 1.4 million pupils in English schools have an identified special educational need (SEN).[footnote 1] These range from the most severe to comparatively minor. Identified numbers have increased for the fourth consecutive year, from 14.4% of all pupils in 2016 to 15.5% in 2020.[footnote 2] Many of these pupils are in mainstream primary and secondary schools.[footnote 3] Research suggests that there are varying interpretations and practices across professionals, schools and local authorities in both SEN identification and provision.[footnote 4]

# data[].attributes.headline
WSS: Empowering Staff to Provide SEND Support

# data[].attributes.subject
WSS: Empowering Staff to Provide SEND Support

# data[].attributes.body
A particularly useful webinar for SENCOs who are relatively new in post at a time when funding is not increasing but complexity of need is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Webinar: Empowering Staff To Provide SEN Support - The Role Of Leaders

# data[].attributes.body
Our Recovery Plan is going to be dependent on every member of our school community playing their part in Inclusion.

This guide can be used by Senior Leadership Teams to consider inclusion within their setting, and explores how inclusion is communicated through policies, enacted in practice and experienced by stakeholders. Each section can be taken alone, or all five combined together. This guide has been designed with self-reflection in mind, but can also be used as part of a professional dialogue across settings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This guide can be used by Senior Leadership Teams to consider inclusion within their setting, and explores how inclusion is communicated through policies, enacted in practice and experienced by stakeholders. Each section can be taken alone, or all five combined together. This guide has been designed with self-reflection in mind, but can also be used as part of a professional dialogue across settings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide can be used by Senior Leadership Teams to consider inclusion within their setting, and explores how inclusion is communicated through policies, enacted in practice and experienced by stakeholders. Each section can be taken alone, or all five combined together.

# data[].attributes.headline
SEND Gateway: TA Deployment Review Guide

# data[].attributes.subject
SEND Gateway: TA Deployment Review Guide

# data[].attributes.body
Create a free account to access a copy of this useful review guide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Assistant Deployment Review Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A school-led approach to improving provision for all

# data[].attributes.body
Useful to look at trends and compare your setting against local and national statistics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is a new service - your Beta feedback will help us to improve it.

Last updated

See all updates (3)

1. A correction was made to the Personal budgets sections - previously this stated 81% of budgets were in place for education, but this should be social care. Description of mediation cases clarified in Mediations and tribunals section

2. A correction was made to the headline statistic for initial requests. This read that there had been a 10% drop, however this should read 8%. No other figures affected.

3. 13 May 2021 - A correction was made to underlying data where local authority names were not consistent across years. For example, Durham/County Durham and Bedford/Bedford Borough. Figures are not affected.

This publication provides data on children and young people with an education, health and care (EHC) plan in England and, historically, for those with a statement of special educational needs (SEN).

Data is presented for both the caseload as at January 2021, for example the number of EHC plans, and for activity during the 2020 calendar year, for example the number of new EHC plans in the calendar year.

As such, this is the first publication in the series that covers the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Data covering SEN in schools, including EHC plans and SEN support, is available in the 'Special Educational Needs in England' publication, available in the 'Related pages' sidebar.

Useful information

Methodologies

Related pages

Headline facts and figures - 2021

The total number of EHC plans has continued to increase

There were 430,700 children and young people with Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans as at January 2021. This has increased each year since 2010.

The number of new EHC plans made in the calendar year has also continued to increase

There were 60,100 new EHC plans made during 2020. The number of new EHC plans has increased each year since their introduction in 2014.

However, the number of initial requests for an EHC plan has decreased for the first time

There were 76,000 initial requests for an EHC plan during 2020, down from 82,300 in 2019 and the first decrease since EHC plans were introduced.

The proportion of new plans issued within 20 weeks has decreased

In 2020, 58.0% of new EHC plans were issued within 20 weeks, down from 60.4% in 2019.

All data used to create this release is published as open data and is available for download.

You can create your own tables from this data using our table tool, or view featured tables that we have built for you.

Download all data and files for this release (zip, 2 Mb)

01 - EHC plans - by age - January 2010 to 2021 (csv, 1 Mb)

02 - EHC plans - by establishment type - January 2010 to 2021 (csv, 9 Mb)

03 - New EHC plans - by age - 2009 to 2020 (csv, 1 Mb)

04 - New EHC plans - by establishment type - 2009 to 2020 (csv, 9 Mb)

05 - Requests, assessments, discontinued plans, 20 week timeliness, mainstream to special transfers, mediation and tribunals (csv, 257 Kb)

06 - Work based placements, residential settings, designated medical and clinical officers - 2017 to 2021 (csv, 127 Kb)

07 - Personal budgets and direct payments - 2015 to 2021 (csv, 126 Kb)

Create your own tables

Explore our range of data and build your own tables from it.

Open data

The open data files contain all data used in this release in a machine readable format.

Learn more about the data files used in this release using our data files guide.

The number of Education, Health and Care plans has continued to increase

There were 430,700 children and young people with Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans as at January 2021. This is an increase of 10% from 390,100 as at January 2020. This follows similar increases in recent years.

The combined total of children and young people with statements and EHC plans has increased each year since 2010. EHC plans were introduced from September 2014. The period for local authorities to transfer children and young people with statements of SEN to EHC plans started in September 2014 and ended on 31 March 2018, as such we no longer see statements of SEN in the total.

Children of compulsory school ages continue to account for over two thirds of EHC plans

This is virtually unchanged from last year and percentages remained stable from 2020 across all age bands.

From September 2014, EHC plans replaced Learning Difficulty Assessments (LDAs) for children in further education. The percentage of children and young people with an EHC plan who are aged 16 years old and over has subsequently increased since January 2014 but is now stabilising.

The proportion of children and young people with an EHC plan in mainstream education has increased

This has increased from 39% in 2020 to 40% in 2021. Whilst numbers continue to increase in special schools, the proportion of overall EHC plans in these settings has been falling in recent years. This is driven by larger increases in mainstream education. As such, the proportion within mainstream education has increased for the first time in recent years.

Data is also collected for children and young people where they are not currently receiving provision in an education setting or are awaiting provision in a different education setting. 14,500 children and young people were recorded under one of these categories in January 2021 (shown as 'educated elsewhere' in the table above and broken down in further detail below).

10,800 young people were recorded as not in education, employment or training (NEET) and a further 2,200 children and young people have been recorded as 'Other', which includes those who have been issued with a notice to cease the EHC plan (for example, after taking up employment).

Awaiting Provision

Awaiting provision includes children and young people who are awaiting the provision specified on their EHC plan. This includes some children and young people who are in an education setting but are awaiting provision in another setting, for example those currently attending a mainstream school and awaiting provision in a special school. This also includes some children and young people who are not currently in an education setting but are awaiting placement, for example where they have moved in to the area and a placement has not yet started.

Due to changes in the data collection, comparisons to previous years are not advised. This includes changes to the categories recorded. Figures for awaiting provision up to and including 2017 are known to also include those not in employment, education or training (NEET), which is now a separate category.

Of those awaiting provision, 1,460 are children of compulsory school age who are not currently in some form of education. This represents 0.3% of all EHC plans. A further 248 children are under compulsory school age and 2,438 are young people above compulsory school age.

Elective home educated

Data was collected on elective home education specifically for the first time in 2020. The data for 2021 shows an increase of 23% from 2,983 to 3,660. In each year this represents 0.8% of all EHC plans.

The number of new EHC plans has continued to increase

There were 60,100 new EHC plans made during 2020, an increase of 6,200 (11%) when compared against 2019. The number of new EHC plans has increased each year since their introduction in 2014.

Almost half of new plans continue to be for ages 5 to 10

This was similar to previous years. Age 11 to 15 was the next highest group at a quarter of new plans. This has been the second highest group since 2017, when it overtook the under 5 age group.

New plans for those aged 20 to 25 made up just 0.4% of all new plans, down from 0.8% in 2019 and continuing a decline from a high of 2.2% in 2017.

Provision in mainstream schools continues to increase

Provision in mainstream schools has increased to over 70% of new plans made during 2020. Special schools accounted for 15% of new plans, decreasing from 18% in 2019 and continuing a decline seen in recent years.

A parent or guardian can ask their local authority to carry out an assessment if they think their child needs an EHC plan. A young person can request an assessment themselves if they're aged 16 to 25. A request can also be made by anyone else who thinks an assessment may be necessary, including doctors, health visitors, teachers, parents and family friends.

The number of initial requests for assessment has decreased for the first time

There were 76,000 initial requests made for assessment for an EHC plan during 2020, down from 82,300 in 2019 and the first decline since data was first collected in 2016. Of those, 16,400 (22%) were refused, the lowest rate of refusals since data was first collected.

Once a request for assessment has been approved, an assessment is undertaken and a decision on whether to issue a plan or not is made.

The number of assessments during the calendar year increased

Assessments increased from 57,300 in 2019 to 63,200 in 2020, an increase of 10%. Of these, 60,100 (95%) resulted in a plan being issued, with 3,100 assessments (5%) where it was decided not to issue an EHC plan.

The map below shows the percentages for initial requests refused, assessments that resulted in a plan and assessments where a decision was made not to issue a plan, for each local authority for the 2019 and 2020 calendar years.

Percentage of EHC plans issued within 20 weeks decreased in 2020

The whole process of EHC needs assessment and EHC plan development, from the point when an assessment is requested (or a child or young person is brought to the local authority's attention) until any final EHC plan is issued, must take no more than 20 weeks. The relevant legislation provides for exceptions to the time limits in certain situations. The law on the timings for EHC needs assessments and plans changed for the period 1 May to 25 September 2020. Where during that period it was not reasonably practicable or impractical to meet a statutory time limit for a reason relating to the incidence or transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19), that time limit did not apply. Instead, the local authority (or other body to whom such a time limit applied) would have to complete the process as soon as reasonably practicable. One of the time limits in question was the requirement for local authorities to issue an EHC plan to someone eligible for one within 20 weeks of an initial request.

Of the new EHC plans made during the 2020 calendar year (excluding cases where exceptions apply), 58.0% were issued within the 20 week time limit. These figures include the whole of 2020 and therefore include new plans made during the coronavirus pandemic unless exceptions apply. This is a reduction from 2019 when 60.4% of new plans were issued within the time limit.

Mediations remained steady compared to 2019

Following the assessment of needs of a child or young person, if the local authority decides not to issue an EHC plan, or if parents/carers disagree with the educational provision set out in the EHC plan, they would be able to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. They then decide whether they want to go to mediation or proceed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), part of the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber within the First-tier Tribunal.

Mediation cases are defined as the number of mediation meetings that have occurred, regardless of whether the case then went to Tribunal. A mediation meeting is one in which the mediator, parents/carers or young person and the Local Authority met to discuss the case.

More information about the Tribunal can be found at: www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-specialeducational-needs-and-disability.

Statistics covering the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics

There were 4,100 mediation cases held during 2020, similar to 2019. Of these, 1,100 (27%) were followed by appeals to the tribunal. This is a small increase from 2019 and the highest percentage since EHC plans were introduced.

Some mediation cases in 2020 calendar year could have been followed by appeal to the tribunal in 2021, which would not have been recorded in this collection.

Proportion of personal budgets in place for EHC plans unchanged

An optional personal budget is an amount of money identified by the local authority to deliver provision set out in an EHC plan where the parent or young person is involved in securing that provision. See the SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 for further information on personal budgets.

There were 22,200 personal budgets in place for EHC plans issued or reviewed during 2020, an increase from 20,300 in 2019. This represents 5.2% of all EHC plans, unchanged from 2019.

Personal budgets in place that have direct payments for social care make up 81% of personal budgets.

Help and support

The United Kingdom Statistics Authority designated these statistics as National Statistics in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.

Designation signifying their compliance with the authority's Code of Practice for Statistics which broadly means these statistics are:

managed impartially and objectively in the public interest

meet identified user needs

produced according to sound methods

well explained and readily accessible

Once designated as National Statistics it's a statutory requirement for statistics to follow and comply with the Code of Practice for Statistics to be observed.

Find out more about the standards we follow to produce these statistics through our Standards for official statistics published by DfE guidance.

Create your own tables

Explore our range of data and build your own tables from it.
Create tables

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education, health and care plans, Reporting Year 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This publication provides data on children and young people with an education, health and care (EHC) plan in England and, historically, for those with a statement of special educational needs (SEN). Data is presented for both the caseload as at January 2021, for example the number of EHC plans, and for activity during the 2020 calendar year, for example the number of new EHC plans in the calendar year.

# data[].attributes.headline
DfE: National Statistics on SEND - updated annually in January

# data[].attributes.subject
DfE: National Statistics on SEND - updated annually in January

# data[].attributes.body
Statistics on pupils with SEN, including information on educational attainment, destinations, absence, exclusions, and characteristics.  It's presented as an Excel Spreadsheet so you can save it to work with as you choose to identify trends or compare your setting with local and national data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

Statistics on pupils with SEN, including information on educational attainment, destinations, absence, exclusions, and characteristics.

Statistics from May 2010 onwards are available on GOV.UK. You can find our archived statistics on the UK Government Web Archive website. Note: the search function is not available on archived content so please use the filters on the left of each page.

National statistics on special educational needs in England

Statements of special educational needs (SEN) and education, health and care (EHC) plans

From 7 May 2020, the Department for Education is publishing 'Statements of SEN and EHC Plans: England' on a new statistics dissemination platform, Explore Education Statistics (EES).

We published this information as a separate statistical first release (SFR) for the first time in 2015.

Analysis of children with special educational needs

SEN statements issued within 26 weeks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Statistics: special educational needs (SEN)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Statistics on pupils with SEN, including information on educational attainment, destinations, absence, exclusions, and characteristics.

# data[].attributes.headline
National Funding Formula for Schools and High Needs - 2022-23

# data[].attributes.subject
National Funding Formula for Schools and High Needs - 2022-23

# data[].attributes.body
It's worth knowing...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National funding formula tables for schools and high needs: 2022 to 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use some essential cookies to make this website work. We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.body
Published in August 2021 and to be reviewed in August 2022, the DfE has published these case studies into remote education.  SENCOs might want to look at the case study from  Highfurlong Special School to consider how they might prepare to support SEND learners who may need to access remote education this year.

# data[].attributes.headline
EEF Podcast: Exploring the complexities of reading comprehension 

# data[].attributes.subject
EEF Podcast: Exploring the complexities of reading comprehension 

# data[].attributes.body
OK - it's 52 minutes long but can be accessed from Apple or Google Podcasts or on Spotify to listen on the go. And reading comprehension is recognised as being an area for development, not just in B&D but nationally.

Practising experts provide us with an insight into pedagogy and practice to support the development of reading comprehension in our children and young people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ep 4: Exploring the complexities of reading comprehension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this episode, regular host Alex Quigley is joined by Caroline Bilton, assistant headteacher at Cragside primary school and the EEF's literacy specialist, to discuss teaching reading comprehension with our expert panel: Professor Kate Nation, experimental psychologist and expert on language and literacy development in school children, explains the process

# data[].attributes.body
While we hope it won't happen again, here is a useful 5 minute video outlining effective pedagogy for remote learning.  It draws on the Memory Model, Cognitive Load Theory and Rosenshine's Principles of Learning.  The approach helped teachers to sequence the learning effectively and ensure there was clarity in delivery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Applying Rosenshine's principles to remote learning

# data[].attributes.headline
DoE - Updated Keeping Children Safe in Education (from effect Sept 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
DoE - Updated Keeping Children Safe in Education (from effect Sept 2021)

# data[].attributes.headline
Ofsted - SEND: Old issues, new issues, next steps (June 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
Ofsted - SEND: Old issues, new issues, next steps (June 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Executive summary

Children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities ( SEND), their families and those who work with them have faced significant challenges during the pandemic. The extent to which education, health and care providers in different local areas rose to these challenges to meet children and young people's needs led to hugely varied experiences. Yet, few of the negative experiences that many children and young people with SEND and their families had during this time are new. There are long-standing issues in the SEND system. The pandemic has highlighted and intensified these issues. It has also deepened the effects that they have on children and young people with SEND.

In 2009, in the final report of his inquiry, Brian Lamb called for a 'radical overhaul' of the SEND system. The report called for greater ambition for children and young people with SEND. It cited a culture of low expectations and a system that too often failed to deliver what children and their families really needed.

The Children and Families Act 2014 and the subsequent ' SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years', also published in 2014, set out some key principles. A very important one was that children, young people and their families should play a much more central part in making decisions about the way in which needs could best be met. This is known as 'co-production'. Alongside this, there was a strong emphasis on education, health and social care services working closely together to meet children and young people's needs, rather than as separate entities. It was intended that children's needs would be identified earlier and that support would continue until the age of 25 where necessary.

Ofsted's area SEND inspection evidence suggests that many local areas have struggled to implement these reforms successfully. From their introduction in 2016 through to March 2020, we routinely found local areas that were not properly implementing the requirements laid out in the code of practice and related legislation. Common weaknesses included:

a lack of joint commissioning

no co-production or co-production that was not working properly

poor-quality education, health and care plans (EHC plans)

Many local areas were not clear about who is - or should be - held accountable for services and provision. Problems with the identification and assessment of children and young people's needs also continued to be prevalent.

Over time, the number of children and young people identified as having SEND has grown, in all types of settings. Most are educated in mainstream settings, although numbers in state-funded special schools are increasing each year. How well children's needs are identified varies from one local area to the next, and one setting to another. Sometimes, needs are missed or are not identified accurately. For example, speech, language and communication needs may be identified as moderate learning difficulties. Underachievement, sometimes due to a poorly designed or taught curriculum, is sometimes wrongly labelled as ' SEND'. Pupils who are not taught to read well in the early stages of their primary education are particularly susceptible to being wrongly identified as having SEND because they cannot access the curriculum. As numbers of pupils with SEND have increased, various stakeholders have questioned the sustainability and sufficiency of funding.

Given this context, we know that many children and young people with SEND and their families were already experiencing flaws in the services that they were receiving before the first national lockdown began in March 2020. There were also many existing concerns about their outcomes. The effects of the pandemic and the related lockdowns served to exacerbate these issues enormously.

Through our research visits to local areas, schools, early years settings, children's services providers and further education and skills providers in the autumn term 2020, we found that children and young people with SEND were often not receiving education. Some important healthcare, such as physiotherapy, had also ceased. This left children and young people immobile and sometimes in pain. A lack of speech and language therapy, or communication devices not being available, left them unable to communicate properly. Social care and health-funded respite provision for families had also not been available. Parents and carers told us of their frustration and exhaustion, and sometimes of their despair. A few had found that the relative calm of being at home through the first lockdown had been beneficial for their children. However, this was more unusual.

Many children and young people, including those with complex needs, did not attend school or college during the first national lockdown. Some did not have a place in school because they did not have an EHC plan. Some did have a place, but did not attend because their parents were too anxious to send them in. Others could not attend because schools said that their health or personal care needs could not be met. Some received remote education and coped well with this; others did not. When schools and colleges opened fully to all pupils in September 2020, not all those with SEND returned. Those who did return were sometimes given a narrower curriculum than usual.

By the time of the third national lockdown in spring 2021, we heard even greater concerns from parents and carers in the 4 local areas we visited than we had in 2020. For many, life had become more difficult over time. Children and young people, particularly those who had moved to a new school or college in September 2020, were feeling isolated and lonely. The issues that were raised in the autumn term visits to local areas - a lack of health and care provision, inconsistent provision from schools, long waiting times for assessments - continued. Many parents expressed concerns about the now-evident impact of these issues on their children and on their own physical and mental health.

Throughout the pandemic, local areas have had to adapt their ways of working frequently and significantly to continue to provide services for children and young people with SEND. The success with which they adapted appeared to be closely related to the quality of their work with families before the pandemic. It also depended on the extent to which they had implemented the 2014 reforms in a way that created the right relationships, systems and structures. Some areas quickly managed to adapt; others struggled. Nevertheless, families clearly appreciated the support and care given to them by individual professionals. Even where systems seemed to be overwhelmed by the challenges of the pandemic, families praised some individuals from education, health, social care or wider children's services for the great efforts they had put into supporting them.

However, although there were areas where professionals managed to adapt well and where different parts of the system worked together effectively, it is evident that children and young people with SEND are now even more vulnerable than they were before. Missing out on education - in some cases, missing vast amounts - means that these children and young people will be further behind their peers. Missed support for physical health, communication needs and mental health has had a seriously detrimental, and in some cases potentially permanent, impact. Some children and young people with SEND have been out of sight of safeguarding professionals. Preparation for adulthood, including for education, employment and training, has been adversely affected. Delays in identifying needs have meant that some children and young people's needs may not have been properly assessed or even noticed.

Methodology

In the autumn term 2020, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission ( CQC) carried out 6 'interim visits' to local areas. We carried out 4 more during the spring term 2021. In the 10 areas we visited, there are over 84,000 children and young people with special educational needs ( SEN) support, and almost 30,000 with an EHC plan. We used a case-study approach that focused on a sample of children and young people with SEND to examine their experiences of support during the pandemic.

During these visits, inspectors spoke to the parents and carers of 44 children and young people, along with the education, health and social care practitioners who worked with them. We also invited children and young people to take part in interviews, but very few did. Inspectors also held discussions with education, health, social care and children's services leaders from the 10 areas we visited. This included senior officers from the local authority, clinical commissioning groups and NHS services such as therapy providers, and child and adolescent mental health services ( CAMHS). We asked the local areas to distribute surveys to parents, carers and young people to gather their views and experiences of the support they received during the pandemic. Inspectors shared key findings in meetings with local area leaders during the visit.

This report also draws on Ofsted's findings from our visits to schools, early years providers, further education and skills providers and children's social care providers and the subsequent reports we published in autumn 2020, as well as a range of other reports that have been published during 2020/21.

SEND: the recent past

Introduction

To evaluate and explain the impact of the pandemic on children and young people and their families, it is important to understand the context of the SEND system that was in place when the pandemic began. This section of the report briefly explains this context.

There have been many landmark reforms to SEND legislation and guidance in the past. The context for the most recent reforms to legislation and guidance goes back to 2 Select Committee inquiries, in 2006 and 2007. From these, in 2008, Brian Lamb was commissioned by the then Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to lead an inquiry into how parental confidence in the SEND system could be improved. In his report to the Secretary of State in 2009, he asserted that:

As the system stands it often creates "warrior parents" at odds with the school and feeling they have to fight for what should be their children's by right; conflict in place of trust.

Following the final Lamb Inquiry report, also in 2009, Ofsted was commissioned by the Department for Education ( DfE) to carry out an extensive piece of work. This was to evaluate how well the legislative framework and arrangements served children and young people with SEND, from the early years through to 19. It focused on education and on the contribution of social care and health services. We published our findings in 2010 in the 'Special educational needs and disability review'.[footnote 10]

2010: Ofsted's SEN and disability review

Our 2010 review found widespread weaknesses in the quality of what was provided for children with SEND. It stated that the way the system was designed contributed to these problems. In some local areas, inspectors found that the identification of needs was well managed and appropriate. However, this was not common.

Inspectors spoke to children and young people during the review. They were clear about what they wanted for the future. They wanted:

successful relationships and friendships

independence, including choice about who they lived with

choice about what to do with their spare time

the opportunity to work

Parents were equally clear that the system was not helping their children well enough to achieve these goals. They were particularly concerned about what they saw as inconsistencies in the identification of their children's needs, and getting 'fair access to high-quality services to meet those needs'. Parents felt that, under the current system, they had to 'fight for the rights' of their children.

The review concluded that there was 'poor evaluation by a wide range of public agencies of the quality of the additional support provided for children and young people'. It also noted that, too often, agencies 'focused simply on whether a service was or was not being provided rather than whether it was effective'.

In particular, the report stated that it was not enough for pupils to have a statement of special educational needs. Having one did not mean that pupils' current needs were being met, but just that they were likely to receive the services that had originally been 'prescribed' in their first statement.

The SEND code of practice and area SEND inspections

A year later, we produced a report analysing the findings of these first 30 inspections.[footnote 11] The report concluded that 'children and young people identified as needing SEND support had not benefited from the implementation of the code of practice well enough'.[footnote 12] The perception that so many parents had expressed to us in 2010 - that they needed to fight for the rights of their children - remained. Other weaknesses also persisted, such as:

children with SEND being excluded, absent or missing from school much more frequently than other pupils nationally, and unofficial exclusions being used

issues with access to therapy services, including long waiting times

parental frustrations about the timely and accurate identification of SEND, and the lack of co-production

By the end of August 2019, a total of 100 inspections had been completed. Of these, half required the local area to produce a written statement of action ( WSoA) - something that happens when concerns about an area's work are significant. Some strengths were noted, particularly around:

the better identification of need

leaders' understanding of the effectiveness of SEND arrangements

better co-production

collaborative working between education, health and care professionals

However, there remained weaknesses in joint commissioning, and parents were continuing to experience a fractured approach to education, health and care assessment and planning.

In November 2018, the DfE commissioned Ofsted and the CQC to revisit local areas that had been required to produce a WSoA, as well as to complete the remaining area SEND inspections. Of the 21 areas revisited up to March 2020, we deemed 12 to have made insufficient progress in addressing all the significant weaknesses set out in the WSoA. Not enough clarity about who is held accountable for services and provision in the local area and an uncoordinated response between education, health and social care were at the core of most problems that appeared to exist.

SEND at the start of 2020

The context of SEND in 2020

Data about SEND in schools just before the pandemic showed a system that is changing. There is an increase in the number of children and young people identified as having SEND, including more with an EHC plan.[footnote 13] This is shown in the charts below.
Figure 1: Pupils with an EHC plan

'Primary' and 'secondary' are state-funded mainstream schools.
View Figure 1 data in table form. Figure 2: Pupils receiving SEN support without an EHC plan

'Primary' and 'secondary' are state-funded mainstream schools.
View Figure 2 data in table form.
The number of pupils in state-funded special schools increased by 6,400 in 2020 to 128,100, continuing a trend seen since 2006. There has been an increase in the number of pupils in pupil referral units with an EHC plan, up from 13.4% in 2019 to 16.4% in 2020.

Far more boys than girls are identified as having SEND. Boys make up 73.1% of all pupils with an EHC plan and 64.6% of pupils with SEN support. In 2020, the most common type of primary (or main) need for pupils with an EHC plan was autistic spectrum disorder. For pupils receiving SEN support, it was speech, language and communication needs.

In 2010, we reported that pupils identified as having SEND were disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds. This remains the case. Indeed, the discrepancies increased between 2015/16 and 2019/20, as illustrated below.
Figure 3: Pupils with SEND who are eligible for free school meals (FSM)

Source: 'Special educational needs in England, academic Year 2019/20', Department for Education, 2 July 2020.
View Figure 3 data in table form.
The identification of pupils with SEND has long been a complex issue. A study by the Education Policy Institute suggests that it has not gone away.[footnote 14] This research found that there was a 'postcode lottery' in terms of the identification of SEND, but that this was mostly at school level rather than local area:

The most important finding from this report is that which primary school a child attends makes more difference to their chances of being identified with SEND than anything about them as an individual, their experiences or what local authority they live in. The lottery is mostly at school level, with more than half of the differences in identification explained by the school attended... which school a child goes to matters an awful lot to whether they receive SEND support at both the higher or lower levels. The system of assessment is not consistent and not adapted well to children's individual needs.

The sufficiency of funding for SEND has been an increasingly contentious issue. In 2019, the National Audit Office reported that, over time, the DfE had increased school funding, particularly for high needs, but that 'funding has not kept pace with the rise in the number of publicly funded pupils and with high needs specifically'.[footnote 15] The report went on to explain that, over time, local authorities were increasingly overspending their SEND budgets. This was mainly because more pupils were attending special schools and alternative provision, including independent special schools.[footnote 16]

Outcomes for children and young people with SEND

By 2020, many of our inspections of local areas had identified different services working more effectively in partnership with each other to help children to be ready for school. When they take up places in early years settings, children with SEND are more likely now than in the past to have their needs identified and well met.

Moreover, despite the apparent improvement in the early years, this success does not appear to continue into key stage 1 and beyond. Successive area SEND inspections have commented on low aspirations, for example:

Aspirations are not high enough. Effective strategies to improve attainment and challenge for the most able pupils with SEND to achieve well have not been in place. Schools do not routinely benchmark the achievement of pupils with SEND against all pupils nationally.

The report also found that in some cases aspirations in schools were high - but even then, they were not realised.

National data indicates that too many pupils with SEND do not make nationally expected rates of progress at key stage 2. While for some pupils this may be related to their particular needs, for others it is likely to be an indication of a poorly designed or taught curriculum. Furthermore, too many young people with SEND do not achieve well in level 2 or level 3 qualifications. Consequently, this has an impact on their next steps in education, employment or training. These national measures themselves do not, of course, provide a full picture of the outcomes for children and young people with SEND. There is much more that is important but difficult to measure meaningfully. Similarly, the 'Supporting SEND ' report commented on some of the children and young people:

Due to missed prior learning or unmet needs, they did not have some of the required foundational knowledge and skills. In addition, they were not always given the chance to master basics before moving forwards. When this occurs, it is likely that pupils will continue to experience difficulties, gaps in understanding will widen and they will then not have the best chance to succeed in the future.

As we reported in our 2010 review of SEND, pupils with SEND continue to be excluded at a much higher rate than their peers. Figures for permanent exclusion of pupils with SEND showed a slight reduction in 2018/19, but the incidence of fixed-term exclusion increased.[footnote 18] Pupils with social, emotional and mental health needs make up the largest proportion of those excluded. The tables below show the latest available statistics at the time of writing.
Figure 4: Rates of permanent exclusion in England, by SEND provision, from 2015/16 to 2018/19

View Figure 4 data in table form. Figure 5: Rates of fixed-period exclusions in England, by SEN provision, from 2015/16 to 2018/19

Source: 'Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England, academic year 2018/19', Department for Education, February 2021.
View Figure 5 data in table form. Figure 6: Overall absence rate in state-funded primary, secondary and special schools in England, from 2015/16 to 2018/19

View Figure 6 data in table form.
Our 2010 review identified limited options in further and higher education for young people with SEND. Our evidence since indicates that there has been some progress in this area. This changes young people's options at that critical stage in their lives - the transition to adult life and the world of work and independence. One inspection report, for example, identified how joint commissioning had played a significant role in this area.

Arrangements for joint commissioning are responsive to children and young people's needs. Strategic decisions have improved the local offer, expanded opportunities for short breaks and increased access to support in local communities. Collaboration with schools, colleges, and employers has strengthened curriculum provision, increased access to training opportunities that are tailored to young people's needs and interests and provided young people with greater access to work.

While it seems that access to further and higher education, supported employment and training has increased, the same cannot be said for systems to promote independence in adult life. Some areas promoted strategies such as independent travel training, but this was only 'scratching the surface' for those who should be able to live independently and secure employment. Supported internships for young people with SEND were only available in a third of the areas inspected. Despite increases in some areas, the percentage of young people with SEND in sustained paid employment remains low.

Families' experiences of the SEND system at the start of 2020

More than 5 years after the code of practice was published, Ofsted's Annual Report 2019/20 concluded that 'in many cases, the goal of creating a child-centred system is not being fully met'.[footnote 20] Frustration and misunderstanding were commonplace in many parents' experiences. Many felt that the system was simply not helping their children well enough to achieve their goals. The last 10 years had done very little to ease the need for 'warrior parents'.[footnote 21] Parents were still feeling that they have to 'fight for the rights' of their children. Indeed, in many cases parents felt that they were rarely taken seriously. They said that when opportunities were provided for them to contribute, they were often ignored. The comment below, made by a parent in one of our area SEND inspections, is similar to the views of many:

Even if you are "lucky" enough to get an EHCP, it is usually not worth the paper it is written on! They are written with such poor quality and the support is never specified and quantified, despite if the professionals recommended services and/or therapies. The parent's voice is usually not heard.

Many parents who expressed their views in successive area SEND inspections felt that once they had secured an EHC plan for their child, the struggle was far from over. Many felt that they were the only ones bringing the plan together. They reported having to regularly update other services on what professionals from other agencies were doing:

They do not work together at all, it's a constant fight to get them to talk to each other or to work together on a plan that might help our son.

The charts below represent the views of parents surveyed in the last 10 local areas we inspected in the spring term 2020, just before the first national lockdown. Their views on the extent to which education, health and social care were working together were particularly negative.
Figure 7: Participant responses to the question 'Since September 2014, do you believe that your child's outcomes have improved?'

View Figure 7 data in table form. Figure 8: Participant responses to the question 'Since 2014 have educational settings provided the support and services your child needs to improve their outcomes?'

View Figure 8 data in table form. Figure 9: Participant responses to the question 'Since 2014, have education, health and social care worked together to make sure that your children get the services they need?'

View Figure 9 data in table form.
There were some more positive findings in some of the areas we revisited, where parents and carers had been given meaningful involvement in planning and decision-making. The role of the parent-carer forum featured prominently in the most successful areas. In these, leaders had understood that co-production meant working with families as equal partners.

When the pandemic began to have an impact in 2020, it was apparent that, despite the government's concerted attempts to address concerns raised by the Lamb report and Ofsted's 2010 report, implementation of the 2014 reforms had not made the significant differences hoped for by the 2011 Green Paper.[footnote 22] When implemented well, the reforms had led to better systems to support children and young people with SEND and their families, and better outcomes as a result. But this was far from the case across the country.

Families' experiences during the pandemic

Extracts from responses from parents and carers to surveys carried out when we visited local areas:

It was a very dark place for a very long time.

These last few months have undone years of work with my child and we have had to start at the beginning again.

Confidence has rapidly reduced. Anxiety is high. Access to wellbeing activities non-existent. Depression. Loss of hair. Sleep disorder. No motivation. Poor personal hygiene.

I'm absolutely shattered. No respite. Increased stress.

Managing his home learning had a negative impact on my mental health leading me to doubt my ability to support him and losing the will to even try on some days. I worry constantly about what the future holds for him.

I have felt very lonely and many days I had to force myself out of bed because I felt so downtrodden and alone.

I had to leave my job.

Education in the first national lockdown

On 23 March 2020, schools closed indefinitely to reduce transmission of COVID-19 (coronavirus). Most children and young people had to stay at home, except for:

children of key workers

vulnerable children, including those who were supported by social care, those with safeguarding and welfare needs (including those with child in need plans and child protection plans), children who were looked after by the local authority, disabled children and those with EHC plans

There were also complexities relating to the attendance of the 295,000 pupils who did have an EHC plan during this period. In our autumn term visits to early years settings, schools, further education providers and local areas, some parents and carers said their child had not been offered a place at their education setting despite qualifying under government guidance. More on this is included later in this report. The chart below illustrates the small numbers of children and young people with EHC plans who were attending state-funded education settings from 23 March to 17 July 2020. Some parents, both of children with an EHC plan and those with SEND but no EHC plan, told us that their children had not been given any education at all.
Figure 10: Children and young people with EHC plans attending state-funded education settings from 23 March to 17 July 2020, from a total of 295,000

View Figure 10 data in table form.
Children and young people's physical and mental health

Although government guidance stated that 'vulnerable learners' should attend school throughout the pandemic, many went through long periods of time without access to education provision. Reasons for this related to parental choice, schools' risk assessments or staffing issues. For many young people with complex health needs, this also meant not having access to essential health services such as physiotherapy and/or speech and language therapy.

When support from health services ceased, this often had a serious impact. Many families told us that their children had received no health support or therapies during the first national lockdown. Where support had been provided, it was often in the form of advice to the family rather than direct work with the child or young person. Families told us that this caused problems. For example, some children and young people were left in pain, some lost the ability to walk or to communicate and others experienced severe dietary difficulties.

Many families who responded to our surveys as part of the visits to local areas told us that they thought that their children's mental health had been affected adversely during the first national lockdown.[footnote 23] They said that they could see the signs of stress. Parents and carers mentioned their children's anxiety, distress and depression. Some noted a deterioration in behaviour, even to the point of children and young people becoming aggressive towards their parents.

Some young people who responded to our surveys had found the long lockdown particularly difficult. Many talked about missing their friends. Some had found the lack of contact with their school or college especially difficult. Over the past year, some missed out on academic or vocational training, had examinations disrupted and had work experience cancelled.

In children's homes, some children and young people kept in touch with relatives through video calls. However, some found these calls upsetting and frustrating, because they did not understand why they could see relatives but not touch them. These children and young people also often missed out on the specialist services that they needed.

It is important to note that not all children and young people with SEND had wholly negative experiences during the first national lockdown. Our own evidence suggested that some of those who remained in education throughout had benefited from the experience. They flourished with smaller class sizes and more support. Others found learning at home rather than in a large class more enjoyable and made progress through the remote learning provided by the school.

Support for families

During and after the first national lockdown, there was evidence from different sources that children and young people with SEND and their families had struggled in many ways. Our October briefing on SEND provision in 6 local areas noted that some families had shielded throughout the first national lockdown because of their concerns about their children's health.[footnote 24] This led to them losing their support networks of family and friends, and becoming isolated.

The Disabled Children's Partnership's report, which was based on the views of over 4,000 families, found:[footnote 25]

Parents reporting an increased caring load, both for themselves and for their disabled children's siblings. Parents feel exhausted, stressed, anxious and abandoned by society. In many cases, the support families previously received has now stopped. Many families are seeing declines in both mental and physical health.

Families who have a child with SEND often need a range of care and health support at home, including specialist equipment, carers, physiotherapy and other therapy. The Disabled Children's Partnership report also commented that 'the little support that had previously been provided for families has often stopped altogether'.

Similarly, families told us that, while financial help such as direct payments and disability allowances had continued as normal, much of the practical support, such as short breaks, had stopped. Sometimes the support went from being extensive to ceasing altogether. One family, for example, usually had a carer to help with their child's daily needs for 20 hours a week. During the first national lockdown, this support stopped completely. At times, the effects of support being withdrawn were devastating. On more than one occasion, parents talked about reaching 'crisis point', where they felt totally unable to cope, even to the point of attempting suicide. In particular, some parents reported being unable to get help when their children were depressed, self-harming or becoming frequently distressed and aggressive.

An uneven return to on-site education

At the start of the autumn term 2020, schools were meant to open fully to all pupils. However, not all did - and when they did, not all pupils returned. Some returned but their attendance was poor. The chart below shows the attendance of pupils with EHC plans, from the proportion of pupils in attendance in state-funded education settings.
Figure 11: Proportion of pupils in attendance in state-funded education settings from 11 September (2020) to 23 March (2021)

Primary schools fully re-opened on 8 March 2021. Secondary schools phased the return of pupils to school following the rollout of the mass-testing programme. School holidays are marked by a dashed line and have been condensed in the graph to improve readability.
View Figure 11 data in table form.
The chart below is based on parents' responses to our surveys from our visits to 4 local areas in January, February and March 2021. It gives a snapshot that indicates that not all children and young people with SEND have returned to their education setting at all. And when they have, they have not attended consistently.
Figure 12: Participant responses to the question 'Has your child attended their education setting since September 2020?' (in percentages)

Levels of attendance have been consistently lower for pupils with more significant health and medical needs. This was particularly the case for those with respiratory conditions or profound multiple learning difficulties or in places where COVID-19 infection rates were higher. Some schools reported that health practitioners were not coming into school to set up specialist medical equipment or to train staff to do so. This was preventing some pupils from being able to attend. In some instances, this was because of local directives related to the tier systems in place at the time, or because staff had been redeployed to other parts of the health service. In others, the reasons were unclear. This issue began in the first national lockdown but in some places continued well into the autumn term. It caused great frustration for some children and young people and their families. In our October schools COVID-19 briefing, we reported that:[footnote 27]

...leaders said that conflicting or changing advice about how to cater for pupils who needed certain types of care were causing delays to some pupils being able to return. Some leaders spoke of their distress in having to tell some families that their children could not return because they did not have the medical support to cater for them in school.

Some older students returned briefly to college in the autumn term but then stopped again when the government's guidance on shielding was updated. The chart below is based on the responses we had from parents and carers to our survey when we visited 4 local areas at the start of 2021. It reinforces this point about the reasons why some children and young people continue to miss out on some of their education. Seventy-three respondents said the education setting could not meet their child's needs.
Figure 13: Participant responses to the question 'You mentioned that your child has been absent from their school, college or university for some or all days since September 2020. What were the reasons for the absence or absences? Please select all that apply.' (in percentages)

In December, the Disabled Children's Partnership published a report based on the experiences of 3,400 families and their children's return to school in the autumn term.[footnote 28] It stated:

We found that back to school has gone well for many disabled children. Their families are grateful for the efforts schools, teachers and staff have gone to, and are glad to be back. But there are groups of children who have been let down. Many children with tracheostomies/those who need aerosol generating procedures ( AGPs) had been unable to return to school. The promised guidance on AGPs was severely delayed - it was finally published on 13 November - which left many children in limbo.

Our visits to schools and local areas showed that even when children and young people with SEND were back at school in the autumn term, not all were being taught a full curriculum.[footnote 29] Some were on part-time timetables. In some cases, this was because schools were trying to ease anxious pupils back gently, or allay parental fears, but not always. This was also a finding of the Disabled Children's Partnership's survey. Some parents who responded to this survey said that their children were on part-time timetables to assist their smooth transition back into school. But others suggested that this was because they had been told by the school that their children could only attend part time. This is not, of course, a new issue. Children and young people with SEND are too often placed on part-time timetables, as we have said in our reports on individual schools and in our area SEND inspections, or given a curriculum that is not ambitious enough.

Our autumn term visits to schools found that, in some:

there was a focus on the core subjects

some aspects of the curriculum were missing because of concerns about contact and hygiene requirements (hydrotherapy, for example)

out-of-school and enrichment activities had stopped

These changes meant that that some children and young people with SEND were missing out on learning that would help them prepare for adult life. Some were missing out on activities that were important for their physical health. A report from Special Needs Jungle found that nearly two thirds of parents and carers of children and young people with EHC plans said that the provision outlined in their child's plan had not been fully restored.[footnote 30] Many parents and carers also said that NHS-delivered therapies such as speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and hydrotherapy were not taking place.

The continued challenges for children, young people and families

Some spoke about their child's regression, their own emerging mental health difficulties, the challenges of explaining restrictions to their children, or real concerns about the risks the virus posed to their child's health.

In the autumn term 2020, during our visits to schools and to local areas, we found that not all of the multi-agency support that had stopped during the first national lockdown had restarted. Many occupational, speech and language therapists or physiotherapists were not back in schools. School leaders said that this was very concerning because of the impact it was having on pupils. One leader explained the critical importance of physiotherapy:

For a lot of our young people, there is nothing more important than therapy; fundamentally, it's about being comfortable and then being able to access learning.

In the special schools that we visited in the autumn term 2020, leaders commented that some pupils' communication skills and physical skills had regressed. For some, this was because they were not able to use the equipment or devices at home that they usually used at school. For younger pupils, leaders were worried about the impact on phonics knowledge, verbal skills, reading and mathematical skills.

In our further education and skills briefing, we noted that many learners with high needs had not found it easy to adjust to remote learning and not being able to attend their education setting in person.[footnote 33] In our visits to local areas, we heard how young people who normally attended college found it difficult to access and learn from remote teaching without their normal level of support. Older young people had also missed out on work experience and life-skills courses that would usually be important parts of their curriculum.

Some leaders of special schools and alternative provision settings were very concerned about some pupils having become more involved in criminal exploitation, including gang violence, and child sexual exploitation. Knife crime, drug use and becoming prey to grooming through social media were also mentioned.

Our evidence also indicated that some children and young people with SEND who experienced prolonged absence from education were exposed to increased levels of abuse and neglect while at home or in care, while they were 'out of sight'. Some of these children had been living with domestic abuse, neglect and emotional abuse without practitioners being able to detect it.

From our visits to local areas at the start of 2021, we saw an emerging theme of loneliness. Some children and young people had moved to a different provision in September 2020 but had still not returned in person because of health concerns or their parents' concerns. This meant that they had not met new people and they talked of feeling isolated. Some of those who were back had not made new friends, having missed out on some of the usual transition activities. Some had just settled when the November national lockdown began.

For older young people, their social lives had been decimated. For some, this was not just because they were not attending college but also because they were shielding. This meant that they were not seeing any friends or attending any clubs, even when these briefly reopened. We heard from some young people that they had only left the house on a few occasions since the start of the first national lockdown, and then only for medical appointments. Some were able to spend time chatting with friends online. However, this was not possible for others, who are unable to communicate in this way.

Throughout, families reflected on the isolation that they felt. Many commented on seeing their children become more introverted and lonely as time went on.

Local areas' experiences and responses during the pandemic

Multi-agency working

Some families described support from individual practitioners in glowing terms, often naming particular people who had gone 'above and beyond' and speaking warmly about how this had benefited them.

In all 6 local areas, some families reported receiving little or even no contact from practitioners.

In our visits to 4 more local areas in 2021, we looked at the experiences of 16 more young people and their families. The importance of established relationships and ways of working between different agencies and with families were clear in these areas too.

By this point, it seemed that the challenges of the pandemic had starkly highlighted issues in weaker existing professional relationships. In some cases, for example, practitioners worked well together to meet the needs of the child or young person, but this was sometimes reliant on a parent taking on a 'coordinating role'. This is a fragile way of working because if the parent does not (quite understandably) have the capacity to keep up the momentum, it can quickly fall apart. It was clear that the pandemic had highlighted rather than caused this issue.

We also found examples of where the good work of individual practitioners was undermined by problems with multi-agency working. Sometimes, for example, a lack of urgency from one partner undermined the effective work of another.

There was evidence that some local areas had refined the way professionals worked with families, based on their experiences in the first national lockdown. In one area, for example, families were getting multiple calls from different professionals each week. Leaders recognised that this burden on families could have been reduced if communication between different services was better. The second and third national lockdowns were managed differently as a result. Professionals had reflected, felt better prepared and refined their practices to work more efficiently together.

In our visits in 2021, we also found examples of where some excellent communication and collaboration between professionals had led to families' needs being met during the pandemic from the outset. In each case, it was clear that the child or young person was placed at the centre of the decision-making. There were instances, too, where local areas had built on already strong co-production processes to improve even further the way in which they worked with families.

Providing services

Throughout our visits to local areas, both in the autumn term 2020 and the spring term 2021, we heard from many families for whom at least some of the services that they usually received had stopped. For many, the services ceased at the start of the first national lockdown in March 2020, and had still not resumed. We also heard about significant variability in schools' support for children and young people and their families.

Health and therapy services

The interruption to health services, including therapies such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy, was an issue that inspectors heard about time and time again, both in 2020 and in 2021. In their responses to our surveys in each area, many parents and carers commented on this aspect. One parent felt the absence of these services at this critical time could result in grave consequences:

It's sad that we still wait until someone is threatening to take their own life before we offer support, it's all the wrong way around!! Paediatrician seems to have forgotten us this year!

In one local area, there had not been enough urgency in putting arrangements in place for the first national lockdown to ensure continuity of education and care. At this point, professionals thought that this was going to be a short-term situation, so plans were more 'sticking plasters' than strategic responses. This was probably not unusual in local areas in the first few weeks. Yet the chart below, taken from surveys of parents and carers from visits to local areas in January, February and March 2021, illustrates that the lack of therapies and health services for some families has still not been resolved.

By the time of these visits, it was many months since the start of the pandemic. But families were telling us that their children were still not receiving the therapies or health services that they usually did. There was also evidence in some areas that healthcare professionals had been redeployed to work related to COVID-19, leaving gaps in the services that should be provided to children and young people with SEND. Again, this issue did not seem to have been fully resolved at the start of 2021, as indicated by the chart below.
Figure 14: Participant responses to the question 'Is your child currently receiving any therapies or other health services? This could include taking medication, or receiving speech and language therapy (SALT), CAMHS, or physiotherapy, for example.' (in percentages)

The impact of the lack of, or severe interruption to, health and therapy services was evident in many of the discussions that inspectors held with children and young people, families, practitioners and leaders. As already reported, this disruption to services left some children and young people in pain or unable to communicate, without support for serious mental health difficulties, or with difficulties with physical health and mobility.

The role of schools, particularly special schools, in the coordination and provision of health services was something that was highlighted in a number of examples. When many children and young people stopped going to school in the first national lockdown, schools' roles became more evident. Some health and therapy services normally delivered at school, not in the local area - as frequently happens - became unavailable or not readily available. Occasionally, this prompted leaders to question their current practice. In one local area, for example, this situation had raised questions about why they were sending children and young people across their local area to schools far away from where they live. They now plan to review this issue.

A lack of specialist equipment at home, such as standing frames and communication aids, has also been an issue for many local areas during the pandemic. Some homes did not have space for some of the equipment that children and young people needed and usually used at school, such as large standing frames. Again, this had a serious negative impact on children and young people.

Even when health services were delivered in the home, leaders and families thought that this could not replicate the services that pupils with the most complex needs would receive at school. One family, for example, was contacted by phone for the first 6 weeks, until it was concluded that they did need the face-to-face support. This was then provided once or twice a week - better than by phone, but nothing like the frequency that was provided when the child was at school. In a few cases, families themselves refused the support that was offered because of their concerns about the risk to their child of COVID-19 infections from someone coming into their home from outside.

Health practitioners and leaders themselves were sometimes very frustrated by the decisions that were made about the redirection of services. In one local area, for example, leaders reported that health services for children and young people with SEND were quickly stopped during the first national lockdown. They 'lobbied hard' to have these reinstated.

Social care services

There was a mixed picture across local areas in the provision of social care services. In some cases, frontline practitioners developed thoughtful approaches to ensure that assessments and support continued. Practitioners reflected together on what worked well, and kept some of the best adaptations. Yet, this was not consistent across local areas. Some family support services had been withdrawn. Some had become virtual. Although this appeared to work for some families, others were unable to access services that were provided in this way, for example because of lack of access to technology. Some parents were feeling the effects of this lack of support keenly. One parent wrote:

My child has fallen out of the social care system all because of the pandemic and both my child and I feel abandoned when services should have been retained to support us.

Leaders in one local area reflected on the importance of restarting face-to-face support as quickly as they could for families who needed it, which they had done in May 2020. They noted that families often do not ask for support and 'will say they're ok, however, it's not always clear that this is the case'.

The quality and frequency of social care support appeared, in some cases, to depend on individual professionals. One young person, for example, talked about the support they had received from the social worker they had at the start of the first national lockdown: 'She was amazing - rang every week, always checked if I was okay and if I needed help.' This person had since left and the young person was receiving little support.

Short breaks or holiday schemes for children and young people are part of the support provided for some families. The table below is based on survey responses from the visits in 2021. It shows that this support is still not being provided for some families who usually receive it.
Figure 15: Participant responses to the question 'Can you currently access short breaks or holiday schemes?' (in percentages)

Education

During our visits to local areas, inspectors heard accounts of children and young people with SEND experiencing very different levels of support and engagement from their schools and colleges since the start of the first national lockdown.

These factors aside, within each local area, schools differed considerably in the extent to which they invited and, critically, encouraged pupils to attend school. This was the case both during and outside the national lockdowns. The education that children and young people received when they were at home also varied greatly. We heard about schools and colleges that had gone out of their way to provide what pupils needed in terms of a place in a school or good-quality, accessible remote education. However, others appeared not to have provided well at all for their pupils' needs. At their most negative, parents' evaluations of the educational provision for their children was that it was 'patchy', 'spasmodic' or 'very poor', and that children had been 'forgotten about'. Children and young people's lack of attendance at school or college was also sometimes due to parents' anxieties about their children's health.

The chart below gives an overview of whether children and young people in the 4 areas visited in 2021 had received remote education when they were at home in the autumn term 2020. The second chart illustrates what parents thought about the remote education provided.
Figure 16: Participant responses to the question 'Since September 2020, has your child received remote learning while they have been at home?' (in percentages)

Figure 17: Participant responses to the question 'To what extent do you agree with this statement. 'My child was able to engage with the remote learning they received while at home.' (in percentages)

Some parents said that they made allowances for the challenges that schools had faced getting provision up and running in the first national lockdown, but became less forgiving later on. For example, one said:

I feel by this autumn/winter term adaptations should have been made and the school should have been ready to fundamentally educate my child.

The impact on the oldest young people with SEND was a common feature across our visits. Some had missed out on independent travel training, had examinations disrupted and had work experience cancelled. Some told us how hard it was to access remote learning. They found the technology difficult, and although support workers sometimes offered remote help, they found that this did not meet their needs well. Some young people found the pace of remote 'live lessons' overwhelming. Many were anxious about the impact of the pandemic on their future lives, particularly their employment prospects:

I feel what I've learned has gone to waste and that I may not get a chance to prove what I can do as I may never be properly examined. I'm also not able to get any practical experience as work placement is cancelled. I can never demonstrate I have learned anything as no exams and no work placement. I feel if I do get a qualification, it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

Identification, assessment and meeting need

The Disabled Children's Partnership noted that some of the parents who had responded to its 'back to school' survey had reported delays in assessments for EHC plans.[footnote 35] This may have been a result of the relaxation of the statutory requirements over the spring and summer. This issue also arose in our first 6 area SEND interim visits. Some parents told us that they were waiting for assessments of their children's needs, and said that these had been delayed since the start of the pandemic. Several parents mentioned assessments related to autism spectrum disorder. Local areas themselves also noted that assessments that needed to be carried out face to face were delayed, which sometimes then delayed statutory assessment processes.

In our visits in January to March 2021, we continued to find issues around identification and assessment, and more problems. Leaders of local areas were aware that some children and young people were likely to have difficulties that would not have been noticed during the pandemic. They were also aware that the needs of some children and young people that had already been identified and assessed were likely to have changed, both because of time passing and because of the impact of them missing out on education and services during the pandemic.

For some families, the backlog created by assessment processes being put on hold was becoming very clear. One parent, for example, commented that 'everything takes far too long to get in place'. Last July, the parent had agreed with their son's paediatrician to proceed with him having medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but they were: 'still waiting for the appointment and I have chased to be told that this could be several months away'. Another parent spoke about the reality of parenting a child with complex medical needs during the pandemic, being unable to access the assessment and support they needed:

CAMHS support has been sporadic for the 2 younger ones and I have no support so am exhausted and burnt out, while statutory agencies have avoided offering options and the local authority caseworker refuses to attend the review planned for my middle child. Absolutely frustrating and very limiting for my children.

Delays to assessment processes in order for young people to be transferred from children's to adult's services also worried families. One parent, for example, spoke of their concern that their 18-year-old had not had an assessment of need until 4 months after turning 18. He did not receive the support he needed until a month after that. This had placed the family under great strain.

In contrast, we saw some examples of professionals honing their practices during the pandemic to make assessment processes more efficient. One clinical commissioning group, for example, had a dedicated SEND nurse resource team. This team had changed its ways of working during the pandemic, resulting in more contact between professionals and families and more efficient identification and assessment of needs.

Communication

One major impact on the SEND system was the immediate need to rethink provision that had traditionally been delivered face to face. Leaders and practitioners in all areas described maintaining and even increasing communications between agencies and practitioners and with families, using video-conferencing software and messaging platforms. Families and practitioners generally described the move online as a positive change. They said they had been able to stay in contact more effectively. Practitioners commented on the greater efficiencies they had been able to achieve when meeting each other remotely by cutting out travel time.

There were families, though, for whom these potentially positive interactions were limited by a lack of access to technology. In our briefings about schools, we have commented that many used digital methods extensively for remote education.[footnote 36] Issues arose when:

families had no internet access at home

pupils did not have digital devices

there were problems with internet speed

pupils had accessibility issues

there were not enough devices to go around a family

Inequalities were magnified enormously when children and young people with SEND were not able to access the same education as their peers while working at home because of a lack of access to technology. Furthermore, their families were also unable to access the support being offered online.

Some children, young people and their families are likely to have missed out on what they need multiple times over the last year, even where the education and support was theoretically available to them.

The impact on professionals

Many leaders in all the local areas visited said that rapid changes to working practice, having to learn to use new technologies and having to work at a faster pace and for longer hours had caused their teams stress. The pace and scale of change since the start of the pandemic were also factors.

In the earlier visits, leaders said that they had found government guidance frustrating at times. There were frequent changes and they said that this caused confusion for them, practitioners and families. Leaders in health, care and education settings talked about the impact of the pandemic on their staff's mental health, as well as their own. One leader commented: 'It has been challenging and frontline practitioners are exhausted.' Another reflected that working online had helped practitioners work together, but noted the considerable emotional and mental cost of all that had been demanded of them.

Old issues and new issues

Common threads

At the start of this report, we outlined some of the issues we saw in the SEND system just over 10 years ago, as reflected in the views of parents and young people, inspectors and government. Parents were frustrated with feeling that they had to 'fight for the rights' of their children. They were having to become the 'warrior parents' referred to by Brian Lamb in 2009.[footnote 37] Parents' views were not considered fully enough when decisions were being made about children and young people with SEND. There were also issues such as:

inconsistencies in the identification of children and young people's needs

poor evaluation by a range of public agencies of the quality of any additional support provided

a lack of coordinated support from education, health and social care services

Common weaknesses included a lack of joint commissioning, co-production that was absent or not working properly, poor-quality EHC plans and a lack of clarity in terms of who was being held accountable for services and provision in the local area. Frequently, over the years, we heard comments from parents during our area SEND visits such as this one:

They do not work together at all, it's a constant fight to get them to talk to each other or to work together on a plan that might help our son.

Many of these long-standing problems have been highlighted or exacerbated by the pandemic. In 2010, parents told inspectors that they felt the need to argue constantly to have their child's needs recognised. In the area SEND inspections, we have heard similar comments on numerous occasions:

We have not been asked our opinion. We get the "this is how it is" attitude.

I'm never listened to by professionals. I'm fobbed off by them left, right and centre.

Every September I meet with my son's new teacher to discuss his SEND. Every year they describe the approach they will take... They understand his needs and what needs doing to address them. But they never fully implement strategies discussed for any sustained period, and every September describe them as if they are newly discovered.

As we have reported here, during the pandemic the quality of the existing relationships between professionals and families had an impact on how well support was adapted. Where relationships were positive, support was more likely to continue and be adapted well to families' needs. However, weaker relationships deteriorated even further when placed under strain. This suggests that we cannot underestimate the importance of these relationships in enabling children and young people's needs to be met in all circumstances. Yet in many places, neither the relationships nor the systems that underpin them are strong enough.

The respective responsibilities of different professionals in providing for children with SEND are not understood well. If professionals do not understand them, then families have little chance of making sense of them or having a positive, joined-up experience. Worryingly, parents themselves often take the lead in joining the different parts of their child's provision together. One parent described this:

Whilst my child's needs are met on the whole, there is little or no joined-up work between education, health and social care, all the linking that takes place feels as if it is undertaken by parents themselves.

Where parents themselves had been taking the lead in coordinating provision, this fragile model was frequently quick to collapse during the pandemic.

What needs to happen next?

Overall, it is clear that the challenges of the pandemic for local areas and for individuals have undoubtedly been great. Yet the negative experiences that many children and young people with SEND and their families have had during this time are not new - rather, they have been highlighted and intensified. Government policy over the last 10 years has started to address weaknesses that have developed over many decades, but there is a long way to go. Inequalities remain deep seated. Inconsistencies in the local implementation of government policy and some poor education provision for pupils who are not achieving well in the curriculum have slowed progress.

What, then, needs to happen for this situation to improve? Clarity about who should provide what at a local level, greater coordination of services and clearer accountability for all partners, all leading to more effective multi-agency working, are key. As part of this, the questions of what services are deemed essential, to whom and by whom - questions that are not new but were brought into stark focus by the pandemic - are ones that should be re-examined. Stronger cross-departmental working between relevant government departments is likely to be an important factor in making effective multi-agency working happen, particularly for children and young people with the most complex needs. It is not acceptable for parents to be the driving force in ensuring that agencies work together.

The ambitions that education settings have for children and young people with SEND, and the effectiveness with which these ambitions are realised, vary widely. This is illustrated by years of inspection evidence and the experiences of education that children and young people had during the pandemic. These inconsistencies need to be ironed out. SEND provision in mainstream settings must be part of a continuum of provision, not a 'school within a school'. Moreover, it is crucial to recognise that for many children and young people, their needs change over time. Provision must adapt accordingly.

The importance of the availability of good universal services to all children and young people with SEND across education, health and social care cannot be underestimated. The access to and effectiveness of these services can prevent a child or young person from needing something additional or different. As part of this, we must strengthen the quality of the curriculum and teaching in all education settings as the first step in meeting children and young people's needs. This is particularly important in relation to the teaching of language and early reading. No child should be labelled as having SEND because of weak education provision.

The education inspection framework and area SEND inspections are an important force for improvement in the education and care that children and young people with SEND receive. The criteria in the handbooks for schools, early years and further education and skills[footnote 38] are very clear about the expectation that all children and young people receive a high-quality education. Ofsted's own work - all inspections, all revisions to frameworks of any kind - must continue to focus on the extent to which providers are ambitious for children and young people with SEND, and effective in the provision that they make for them.

The need for a tightly coordinated, well-led set of changes across education, health and social care, with the aim of securing the very best provision and outcomes for children and young people with SEND, could not be clearer.

Annex: data tables for figures

This section contains the underlying data in an accessible table format for all figures.
Data for Figure 1: Pupils with an EHC plan
See Figure 1.
Data for Figure 2: Pupils receiving SEN support without an EHC plan
See Figure 2.
Data for Figure 3: Pupils with SEND who are eligible for free school meals (FSM)
See Figure 3.
Data for Figure 4: Rates of permanent exclusion in England, by SEND provision, from 2015/16 to 2018/19
See Figure 4.
Data for Figure 5: Rates of fixed-period exclusions in England, by SEN provision, from 2015/16 to 2018/19
See Figure 5.
Data for Figure 6: Overall absence rate in state-funded primary, secondary and special schools in England, from 2015/16 to 2018/19
See Figure 6.
Data for Figure 7: Participant responses to the question 'Since September 2014, do you believe that your child's outcomes have improved?'
See Figure 7.
Data for Figure 8: Participant responses to the question 'Since 2014 have educational settings provided the support and services your child needs to improve their outcomes?'
See Figure 8.
Data for Figure 9: Participant responses to the question 'Since 2014, have education, health and social care worked together to make sure that your children get the services they need?'
See Figure 9.
Data for Figure 10: Children and young people with EHC plans attending state-funded education settings from 23 March to 17 July 2020, from a total of 295,000
See Figure 10.
Data for Figure 11: Proportion of pupils in attendance in state-funded education settings from 11 September (2020) to 23 March (2021)

Date

Proportion of pupils with an EHC plan attending state-funded schools

Proportion of all pupils attending state-funded schools

See Figure 11.
Data for Figure 12: Participant responses to the question 'Has your child attended their education setting since September 2020?' (in percentages)
See Figure 12.
Data for Figure 13: Participant responses to the question 'You mentioned that your child has been absent from their school, college or university for some or all days since September 2020. What were the reasons for the absence or absences? Please select all that apply.' (in percentages)
See Figure 13.
Data for Figure 14: Participant responses to the question 'Is your child currently receiving any therapies or other health services? This could include taking medication, or receiving speech and language therapy (SALT), CAMHS, or physiotherapy, for example.'
See Figure 14.
Data for Figure 15: Participant responses to the question 'Can you currently access short breaks or holiday schemes?'
See Figure 15.
Data for Figure 16: Participant responses to the question 'Since September 2020, has your child received remote learning while they have been at home?'
See Figure 16.
Data for Figure 17: Participant responses to the question 'To what extent do you agree with this statement. 'My child was able to engage with the remote learning they received while at home.'
See Figure 17.

Print or save to PDF

To print this content you can:

use the 'Print this page' button under the Contents menu

right-click or secondary click on the page and choose 'Print' in the menu

press Ctrl + P on a Windows keyboard or Command + P on a Mac

You can also use these options and change the printer destination to save the content as a PDF.

Instructions may vary depending on which internet browser you use, such as Internet Explorer or Google Chrome, and the type of device you use, such as a phone or laptop. You can find your print and save options in your browser's menu.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SEND: old issues, new issues, next steps

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities ( SEND), their families and those who work with them have faced significant challenges during the pandemic. The extent to which education, health and care providers in different local areas rose to these challenges to meet children and young people's needs led to hugely varied experiences.

# data[].attributes.headline
IPSEA update on Covid-19 and SEN Provision (July 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
IPSEA update on Covid-19 and SEN Provision (July 2021)

# data[].attributes.body
IPSEA = Independent Provider of Special Educational Needs Advice.
Level 1+ courses about legal frameworks and SEND are available.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
(IPSEA) Independent Provider of Special Education Advice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've updated our list of FAQs on how the COVID-19 measures will affect children and young people with special educational needs (" SEN ").

What are children and young people with SEN's entitlements when schools are closed?

All schools have been ordered to effectively close, retaining a skeleton staff to provide education for the children of key workers, and 'vulnerable children'.

There is further guidance now available about who is a vulnerable child which can be found here.

Vulnerable children include those who have a social worker and those with an education, health and care ("EHC") plan. The majority of children with SEN, who receive SEN Support at school but do not have an EHC plan, would be expected to stay home unless they have a social worker or a parent or carer who is a key worker but see below.

The Government has now released further guidance for schools, colleges and local authorities setting out their approach to maintaining educational provision. This includes a full list of key workers.

However, the key message remains: If it is at all possible for children to be at home, then they should be.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Children, Vicky Ford, issued an open letter to children and young people with SEN), their parents/carers and families, and all others who support them. The full text of the letter can be found here.

In this letter, the Minister makes clear that:

"[...] nurseries, schools, special schools, colleges and other training providers should undertake a risk assessment to establish the individual needs of each child or young person with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This assessment should incorporate the views of the child or young person and their parents. This will inform the decision about whether they should continue in school or college, or whether their needs can be met at home safely.

If needs are best met at schools or colleges, we will support their school or college to meet their needs, wherever possible. For those on SEN support, schools, colleges and local authorities have discretion to use the same risk judgement to decide whether home or school is the safest setting for these children. It is, however, important that as many children as possible remain at home during this time in order to help reduce transmission rates."

The government's advice is to speak to the local authority if your child's school is closed and that it will be the local authority's job to redirect you to a local school in your area that your child can attend. The Government had indicated in earlier announcements that schools in local areas may need to pool resources.

Therefore, our current advice is that a local solution is likely to be best. Talk to your school, or your local authority if the school has closed, to find something that could be put in place.

If you feel strongly that your child needs to continue receiving (at least some) educational input, the key thing to flag is if there could be a risk to their health, wellbeing or safety if they do not receive a particular provision or intervention.

The Secretary of State may make orders pursuant to the draft Coronavirus Bill (explained in more detail here) which will make the Governments' proposals more clear.

What if I don't want to send my child to school, for example because they have a weakened immune system?

If you feel it would be too high risk to send your child to school because they, or someone else in your family, is at particularly high risk, there is of course no requirement to send your child in. The guidance today is quite clear - if a vulnerable child can be at home, they should be.

Under the draft Coronavirus Bill, the criminal penalty for parents failing to send their children is likely to be temporarily disapplied, so far as it relates to the direction for schools to close.

If my child has an EHC plan, doesn't the LA have a legal duty to deliver that provision?

From a legal perspective this remains the case, and this is presumably why the Government has chosen to allow children with EHC plans to continue attending school. However, given the likely significant disruption to staffing, it may be very difficult for schools or LAs to deliver precisely the provision in the EHC plan, particularly over the next few weeks.

The draft Coronavirus Bill proposes two key amendments to the law:

The absolute duty to make the provision in an EHC plan (section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014) may be temporarily amended to a 'reasonable endeavours' duty. This could be implemented via an order of the Secretary of State, which would have effect for one month (although further orders could be made if necessary). The order would need to set out why the Secretary of State considered this to be "appropriate and proportionate action in all the circumstances relating to the incidence or transmission of coronavirus". This means that during the specified period the LA needs to do whatever it reasonably can to put provision in place, but if they cannot do so they would not necessarily be breaching the law.

The duty on schools to admit a child where the EHC plan names that school (section 43 of the Children and Families Act 2014) may be temporarily disapplied.

Again, if there could be a risk to the child or young person's health, wellbeing or safety if they do not receive a particular provision or intervention, raise this with your school and LA without delay.

The education secretary, Gavin Williamson, stated that, " We recognise that many special schools and residential settings will need to continue to look after their pupil s." He said special schools with residential placements would hopefully remain open and the government would be looking at them individually to see how they can stay open and have the right type of staffing.

Additionally, he indicated that the Government expects them to rely on supply teachers and for schools to stay open to support the children of key workers over the Easter holidays. He pledged to pay support staff who are only paid in term-time, if they show up during the Easter break.

We are aware that parents of children or young people in residential settings are likely to face unique challenges if their child needs to return home. Raise your concerns with the school and your LA (and local NHS body, if relevant), as soon as possible to try to work out the best solution.

The government has issued further guidance on isolation within residential settings which can be accessed here.

If my child was out of school before the school closures were ordered, do I still have an entitlement to alternative education?

If your child attends a Pupil Referral Unit or Alternative Provision, this setting may remain open to provide support for children in the 'vulnerable' category and/or children of key workers.

If your child was not receiving any education, it is likely to be very difficult to enforce the LA's duty to provide education while schools in general remain closed, simply because almost all children are now in the same situation.

How long are schools likely be closed?

At this stage no-one is able to say exactly how long schools will stay closed, though it seems clear it's more likely to be a matter of months rather than weeks, depending on how the pandemic progresses. Mr Williamson told MPs he would be " guided by scientific and medical advice " on reopening. In practice they could remain closed until the start of the next school year in September.

What about home to school transport?

Mr Williamson indicated that school transport will hopefully continue, although there were " other strains within the transport network ".

If your child remains entitled to go to school but school transport has been stopped due to staff absences, speak to your school and LA about what temporary solutions may be able to be put in place.

Do the LA still need to carry out EHC needs assessments?

The Minister's open letter suggests that the government will be seeking to amend regulations on the timescales for EHC plan processes where this is appropriate because of COVID-19. As yet, IPSEA have not seen any proposed drafting and we will keep this under review.

On a practical basis even if there is no change in the legislation, LA's ability to comply with deadlines may be hampered by staff absence.

Will SEND Tribunal appeals continue?

Yes - please see our update of, 24 March 2020 A barrister from Landmark Chambers has written a blog about his experiences of a video hearing this week.

The SEND Tribunal has confirmed that hearings will be on paper or by telephone (and, where the technology permits, by video) starting on Monday 23 March 2020.

The Tribunal have asked parties not to call the Tribunal until 2 days before hearings if they haven't heard anything as, like every public service, they are affected by staff shortages as a result of COVID-19.

With these measures, it is expected that there should be no need to adjourn hearings if the parties are ready to go ahead, even though they may not be able to take place in person.

You can find further guidance on how telephone and video hearings will be used during the COVID-19 outbreak via the link to our website above and here.

Under the draft Coronavirus Bill, the requirement to carry out annual reviews may also be temporarily disapplied where this is considered to be " appropriate and proportionate ".

Note also the minister's comments about regulations dealing with EHC plan processes during the COVID -19 outbreak.

If you feel there is an urgent need to amend the provision or placement in the child or young person's EHC plan, speak to the school and the LA about this to see what review mechanisms could be put in place.

Latest

Related

Most read

Have you found the information on our website helpful today? If so, please consider donating! At IPSEA, we rely on your donations and fundraising efforts to help keep our vital services running. Read more
Donate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IPSEA update on COVID-19, school closures and SEN provision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've updated our list of FAQs on how the COVID-19 measures will affect children and young people with special educational needs (" SEN "). What are children and young people with SEN's entitlements when schools are closed? All schools have been ordered to effectively close, retaining a skeleton staff to provide education for the children of key workers, and 'vulnerable children'.

# data[].attributes.headline
GOV.UK Support SEND in mainstream schools (May 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
GOV.UK Support SEND in mainstream schools (May 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use some essential cookies to make this website work. We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.headline
HMCI commentary: putting children and young people with SEND at the heart of our recovery plans (June 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
HMCI commentary: putting children and young people with SEND at the heart of our recovery plans (June 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A challenging time for children and young people with SEND

Today, we are publishing research that shows that children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. We knew this was likely at the start of the first lockdown, but I'm sure that you, like me, will be moved by the stories that children, parents and carers have told us about the impact of the pandemic on them.

Our visits to 10 local areas, carried out with the Care Quality Commission ( CQC), have shown the cumulative effects of the disruption caused by the pandemic on the health, learning and development of children with SEND. Children and families told us about missed and narrowed education, the absence of essential services (such as physiotherapy or speech and language support) and long waiting times for assessment and treatment. They told us about the problems this caused and the challenges they have faced. By our final visits in the spring, many families were exhausted, even despairing, particularly when they were still unable to access essential services for their children.

As restrictions ease and children and young people transition back into routine education, I hope the pressure on families will also begin to lift. However, I recognise that many more children and young people with SEND are now even further behind their peers because of the pandemic. Others are at risk of being wrongly labelled as having SEND simply because they are struggling following extended periods away from their education setting. There is also a greater risk that some children and young people, especially those in the early years, may have new or different needs that have not been identified because they have not been 'in sight' of education, health and care professionals.

This will undoubtedly put further strain on a system that is already under pressure.

A fragile SEND system before the pandemic

Local area leaders and practitioners working with children and young people with SEND have also had a tough year. Many have gone above and beyond to support children and their families. They have worked under extreme pressures and changing guidance. However, our report shows that local area SEND systems faced challenges before the pandemic, and the disruption in the last year has exacerbated these challenges further.

Our inspection reports, and a range of other sources, showed weaknesses in the SEND system across the country before March 2020. These weaknesses included:

not enough focus on providing a high-quality education for all children and young people, which creates a problem of children mistakenly being identified as having SEND. This is because they have not been taught or had enough time to learn the essential knowledge and skills they need

significant inconsistencies in how SEND is identified, meaning that the needs of vulnerable children and young people are less likely to be identified in a timely or accurate way

weaknesses in joint commissioning and services working together across education, health and care

a lack of clarity between organisations about who is responsible and accountable within local area SEND systems

These weaknesses can leave some children reliant on teaching assistants, and the most vulnerable children at risk at risk of 'falling through the cracks' and not receiving the services they need. Those who have multiple vulnerabilities, such as children with SEND who are also in care, are particularly likely to be affected by a lack of effective joint working between education, health and social care providers.

Putting children and young people with SEND at the heart of the government's recovery agenda

Given this context, I was pleased to see the government recognise the need to improve the way the SEND system works when it launched its SEND review in 2019. The review has been unavoidably delayed by the pandemic, but it will be no less important when it is published.

I hope the review will recognise that real change for children and young people with SEND will come from high aspirations, strong universal services, effective identification of needs, and high-quality support delivered by a well-trained workforce.

To make changes at a local level, local area leaders will need to support practitioners by understanding the needs of children in their area, defining local roles and responsibilities clearly, commissioning the right services, and managing waiting lists and backlogs effectively. Maintaining strong lines of communication with families and between services will be even more important.

As part of all of this, the review will need to ask what services are deemed essential, to whom and by whom. This is not a new question, but it is one that has been brought into stark focus by the pandemic.

Long-term sustainable change is also likely to need stronger cross-government working between relevant departments. Parents cannot be the driving force in ensuring that agencies work together. The new 'integrated care systems' are being launched, to improve the integration of health and care in local areas. This creates an opportunity to design better systems in local areas to ensure that children and young people with SEND receive the right health and care services at the right time.

Ofsted's role in driving improvement for children and young people with SEND

Ofsted has an important role to play in driving improvement for children and young people with SEND and their families. The education inspection framework ( EIF) puts a renewed focus on the substance of education. In our education inspections, we look at the quality of the curriculum and how the provider makes sure that all children make meaningful progress across it. We have also added questions about SEND to our parent questionnaire on school inspections. This means we can build a stronger picture of the experiences of families of children and young people with SEND during our inspections.

We also carry out inspections of local areas in partnership with CQC. In these, we evaluate how well local areas are fulfilling their responsibilities to children and young people with SEND. Following a pause due to the pandemic, we are restarting these inspections under our current framework from this summer term. We are starting with revisits to local areas with written statements of action, followed by standard inspections to those areas that have not yet been inspected under the current framework. As announced earlier this year, we are adapting our approach to take account of the impact of COVID-19 on local areas. We will operate in line with the latest COVID-19 guidance.

A new area SEND framework for a new era, in partnership with CQC

During the pandemic, we have also been designing a new framework in partnership with CQC. We hope that this will further drive improvement at this critical moment.

We will set out our proposals in depth as part of a formal consultation, ahead of launching the new framework. All of our plans are subject to the outcome of the spending review. But I want to share now some of the most significant changes we intend to make. These are to:

focus more sharply on the impact of local area SEND arrangements on children and young people

drive improvement across England through a new system of inspections

broaden the scope of our inspection to include all children in alternative provision (AP), not just those with SEND

Below, I have set out a bit more about how we intend to do this.

Focusing more sharply on the impact of area SEND arrangements

Our first framework was designed to support the introduction of the 2014 SEND reforms. Now these reforms have been implemented, we want our inspections to help local areas make the greatest possible difference for children and their families.

During the last year, we have reflected on what we have learned from our inspections and interim visits and reviewed published research. We have also held conversations with stakeholders about what it takes for area SEND arrangements to result in significant and sustained improvement for children and young people with SEND in the area.

This has helped us identify 3 critical features of an effective SEND system that I want to share with you now. These will form the focus of our new area SEND framework.

Strategic leadership

The first feature is strategic leadership.

SEND arrangements need a strong partnership approach. This is led by the local authority, which works jointly with clinical commissioning groups to commission services, and in partnership with and education, health and care providers.

The basis for an effective local system and partnership is a shared and ambitious vision for children and young people with SEND.

The best arrangements will be underpinned by high aspirations for children and driven by a person-centred way of working. Local authorities and all the main partners must sign up to a shared vision and to taking responsibility for children and young people with SEND. Doing so will require them to embed this vision in their own organisations and to work in partnership with others to achieve the best possible outcomes. Leaders of health and care providers, colleges, academies, maintained and independent schools, and early years settings all have a critical role to play. They cannot work alone.

A shared vision and strong partnership lay the foundations for robust and strategic commissioning plans for those children and young people who need additional support. These will be based on a strong understanding of local needs and informed by engagement and co-production with children, young people and families. Local arrangements will be at their best when leaders in local authorities and across education, health and care services listen to children, young people and their families. Leaders then use what they learn to adapt their strategies and provision to meet local need.

Local partners must also set the conditions for effective practice to flourish, by maintaining effective systems for multi-agency working and having clear expectations for different services and a relentless focus on the quality, impact of services. They will also develop the skills and experience of their workforce to respond to local need. The best arrangements will have a strong line of sight to practitioners and the impact of their practice on children and young people.

Practice

The second feature is practice.

Our inspections, interim visits and conversations with children and families have shown us that the quality of practice is vital. This includes the quality of relationships between children and families and education, health and care services. It also includes a high-quality curriculum in schools that ensures that children learn the essential knowledge and skills they need. High-quality practice across all universal and specialist services is what really distinguishes the most successful area SEND arrangements from those that are not working well enough.

The best local area arrangements enable and encourage practitioners to build strong relationships with, and act as advocates for, children and young people. To do this, they need high-quality and inclusive universal services where practitioners understand the needs of children, and how to meet them. Adaptations and interventions are evidence-based. Practice is effective and purposeful, with ambitious goals for children and young people. Multi-agency arrangements for children and young people with SEND and their families are effective.

A clear graduated response must be in place across a local area. This should result in children's needs being identified the right time and assessed in a timely and effective way. Decisions about support should be based on an effective assess-plan-do-review cycle. In health, decisions to move between universal, targeted and specialist services should be needs-based. There should be effective systems for information-sharing. Transitions between services should be well planned and coordinated.

Improvements in the experiences, progress and outcomes for children and young people with SEND

The third feature is significant and sustained improvement in the experiences, progress, and outcomes for children and young people with SEND in that area. If an area has effective strategic leadership, and high-quality practice, it will lead to this.

In the best area SEND arrangements, children and families will tell us they are influential in decision-making. They can give honest and open feedback that leaders then act on. They will tell us how the support they have received has enabled them to progress, and make effective transitions from one stage of their lives to the next. It will have helped them to prepare for their next steps in education, employment and training, as well as their adult lives. Children and young people will be as healthy as they can be. They will be valued, visible and included in the communities where they live and work.

Driving improvement in local areas through a system of inspections

Another priority for us is to design a system of inspections and judgements that drives improvement in local areas.

We plan to establish a continuous cycle of inspections. These will learn from and complement our inspections of local authority children's services ( ILACS).

We hope these plans will allow us to take a proportionate approach to inspection. We will design the new system carefully to ensure that we manage how often we inspect organisations that are inspected under multiple frameworks.

Designing judgements to drive improvement

Our next step is to design and test how we will gather evidence about the impact of leadership and practice on children and young people and their families. We want to determine how we will judge the impact of local area arrangements.

Our main aim will be to evaluate and judge local areas based on whether they make sustained and significant improvement for children, young people and their families. We recognise that this will need to be done thoughtfully, given the complex and changing nature of local area SEND arrangements. We intend to develop and test our approach to ensure that it encourages the right behaviours and leads to improvement for children and young people.

Broadening the scope of our inspections to include local area arrangements for children and young people in alternative provision

Another change we are considering making in our new area SEND framework is to include area arrangements for all children and young people in AP, rather than just those with SEND.

AP is education for pupils who, because of illness or other reasons, would not receive a suitable education in their mainstream primary or secondary schools. Local authorities and schools commission AP. It is provided by a range of settings, including AP academies, free schools, pupil referral units, independent schools, colleges and unregistered settings.

We know that a high proportion of children in AP have SEND. Local areas' graduated response and commissioning strategies for AP and SEND are also likely to be intertwined. We believe our inspections can support local areas to think strategically about how these 2 important parts of the education system can work together effectively.

An invitation to develop our proposals further

We will be looking for stakeholders to shape our framework further, through a public consultation and a programme of pilots in local areas. Please watch out for further information.

A big thank you to those who have already been involved. Thank you to all the leaders, practitioners, and children and families in the 10 local areas that volunteered for our interim area SEND visits during the pandemic. And thank you to all those who have met with us to develop our initial thinking further. We will only be able to make the change we want to with your support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HMCI commentary: putting children and young people with SEND at the heart of our recovery plans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, we are publishing research that shows that children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. We knew this was likely at the start of the first lockdown, but I'm sure that you, like me, will be moved by the stories that children, parents and carers have told us about the impact of the pandemic on them.

# data[].attributes.headline
GOV.UK National Special Educational Needs data for academic year 2020/21

# data[].attributes.subject
GOV.UK National Special Educational Needs data for academic year 2020/21

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is a new service - your Beta feedback will help us to improve it.

Last updated

Release type

National statistics ?

This publication combines information from the school census (state-funded schools), school level annual school census (independent schools) and general hospital school census on pupils with special educational needs (SEN).

The publication includes breakdowns by type of SEN provision, type of need, age, national curriculum year group, gender, ethnicity, English as a first language and free school meal eligibility.

Local authority data on EHC plans is published in the Education, health and care plans publication. That data covers all children and young people up to age 25 with EHC plans, and includes those not captured in this publication in non-maintained early years provision, further education, home education or not in education, employment or training.

Related information

Releases in this series

View releases (13)

Methodologies

Headline facts and figures - 2022/23

Explore data and files used in this release

View tables that we have built for you, or create your own tables from open data using our table tool

Browse and download open data files from this release in our data catalogue

Learn more about the data files used in this release using our online guidance

Download all data available in this release as a compressed ZIP file

All supporting files from this release are listed for individual download below:

Pupils with special educational needs (SEN) are currently classified as follows:

SEN support

SEN support means support that is additional to, or different from, the support generally made for other children of the same age in a school. It is provided for pupils who are identified as having a learning difficulty or a disability that requires extra or different help to that normally provided as part of the school's usual curriculum offer. A pupil on SEN support will not have an education, health and care plan.

Education, health and care (EHC) plans

A local authority may issue an Education, health and care plan for a pupil who needs more support than is available through SEN support. This will follow a statutory assessment process whereby the local authority considers the pupil's special educational needs and any relevant health and social care needs; sets out long term outcomes; and specifies provision which will deliver additional support to meet those needs.

Independent schools
Guidance on how independent schools are advised to record pupils with special educational needs is available in section 2.5 of the School level annual school census.

The number and percentage of pupils with SEN has continued to rise

The percentage of pupils with an EHC plan has increased to 4.3% in 2023, continuing a trend of increases since 2016. Prior to this, the rate had remained steady at 2.8%. This is in line with local authority data on the number of EHC plans.

The percentage of pupils with SEN support has increased, from 12.6% to 13.0%, continuing an increasing trend from 2016.

Number of pupils with an EHC plan has increased by almost two-thirds since 2016

The number of pupils with an EHC plan has increased by 9% between 2022 and 2023 to almost 390,000, and by a total of 64% since 2016. The number of pupils with SEN support has increased by 5% from 2022 to 2023, to 1,183,000 and by a total of 19% since 2016. Over the same period, the total pupil population increased by 6%.

Pupils with an EHC plan made up one quarter (25%) of all pupils with SEN in January 2022.

Local authority data on EHC plans is published in the Education, health and care plans publication. The data covers all children and young persons up to age 25 with EHC plans, and includes those not captured in this publication in non-maintained early years provision, further education, home education or not in education, employment or training.

The number of pupils with an EHC plan has increased across all school types

In primary, 2.5% of pupils have an EHC plan and 13.5% have SEN support

In secondary, 2.4% of pupils have an EHC plan and 12.4% have SEN support

In state-funded AP schools, 25.5% have an EHC plan and 57.0% have SEN support

In independent schools, including independent special schools, 4.9% of pupils have an EHC plan and 15.2% have SEN support

The largest increase in EHC plans was in primary, with an additional 12,000 pupils with plans since 2022.

The number of pupils with an EHC plan in state-funded AP schools has increased, however the percentage of pupils with an EHC plan has decreased from 28.2% to 25.5%. This is driven by larger increases in the number of pupils in state-funded AP schools with SEN support or no SEN.

The percentage of all pupils with an EHC plan who are in mainstream schools (state-funded primary and secondary) has increased from 51.4% to 52.7% in 2023. The number of pupils in special schools continues to rise, the percentage of all school pupils with an EHC plan who attend state-funded special schools has dropped from 39.4% to 37.9%. These trends continue patterns seen since 2018.

Primary and secondary type of need are recorded in the school census and are available for state-funded nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, non-maintained special schools and state-funded AP schools. Data on type of need is not available for independent schools or general hospital schools and these are not included in totals in this section.

The most common type of need among pupils with an EHC plan is autistic spectrum disorder (ASD)

Almost one in three pupils with an EHC plan are identified with a primary need of ASD (116,000 pupils).

The most common type of need among pupils with SEN support are speech, language and communication needs

The primary need identified for 278,600 pupils was speech, language and communication needs. This is followed by social, emotional and mental health needs (229,700 pupils) and moderate learning difficulty (189,400 pupils)

These trends are similar to previous years.

Information on the characteristics of pupils with SEN are recorded in the school census and are available for state-funded nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, non-maintained special schools and state-funded AP schools. Data is not available for independent schools or general hospital schools and these are not included in totals in this section.

SEN is most prevalent at age 10
The percentage of pupils who have SEN support increases with age, reaching a peak of 15.7% of pupils at ages 9 and 10. This then steadily declines through secondary ages, to 12.4% at age 15.

The percentage of pupils with an EHC plan also increases with age, from 3.3% at age 5, up to a later peak of 5.3% at age 11 before slowly declining to 4.7% at age 15.

SEN continues to be more prevalent in boys than girls

72.4% of pupils with an EHC plan are boys, and 62.8% of pupils with SEN support are boys. Both of these rates have been slowly decreasing in recent years

The percentage of all pupils eligible for free school meals has increased sharply since the introduction of transitional protections which will continue to be in place during the roll out of Universal Credit. This has meant that pupils eligible for free school meals on or after 1 April 2018 retain their free school meals eligibility even if their circumstances change. In January 2023, the percentage for all pupils was 23.8%, compared to 22.5% in 2022, 20.8% in 2021, 17.3% in 2020, 15.4% in 2019 and 13.6% in 2018.

Pupils with SEN are more likely to be eligible for free school meals

41.1% of pupils with an EHC plan and 37.5% of pupils with SEN support are eligible for free school meals in 2023. This compares to 23.8% of all pupils in schools.

Pupils with SEN have higher rates of first language being English than the general school population

84.3% of pupils who have SEN support and 84.3% of pupils with an EHC plan have a first language known to be or believed to be English. This is unchanged from the previous year, and compares to 79.3% of all pupils in schools.

SEN is most prevalent in the Traveller of Irish heritage ethnic group

25.5% of pupils recorded as Traveller of Irish heritage ethnic group (1,760 pupils) had SEN support in 2023, and a further 6.1% had an EHC plan (418 pupils). The lowest rate for SEN is in the Chinese ethnic group, 4.9% of pupils in this ethnic group had SEN support (2,891 pupils) and 2.1% had an EHC plan (1,223 pupils). These groups are largely unchanged from 2022.

SEN units

SEN units are special provisions within a mainstream school where the pupils with SEN are taught within separate classes for at least half of their time. Units:

are designated by the local authority specifically for making SEN provision, and sometimes accommodate pupils registered at other schools on a part-time basis

receive funding of £6,000 or £10,000 per place, and usually top-up funding for any additional costs of support required by individual pupils

cater for a specific type or types of SEN (for example autistic spectrum disorder)

are usually for pupils with an EHC plan (but may also provide support for pupils with SEN support).

Schools should only use this indicator where the SEN unit has been formally recognised as such by the local authority where the school is located.

Resourced provision

Resourced provisions are places that are reserved at a mainstream school for pupils with a specific type of SEN, taught for at least half of their time within mainstream classes, but requiring a base and some specialist facilities around the school.

Resourced provisions:

are designated by the local authority specifically for making this kind of SEN provision

receive funding of £6,000 or £10,000 per place, and usually top-up funding for any additional costs of support required by individual pupils

cater for a specific area or areas of SEN (for example specific learning difficulties)

are usually for pupils with an EHC plan, but could include pupils with SEN support.

Schools should only use this indicator where the resourced provision has been formally recognised as such by the local authority where the school is located.

Most pupils placed in units will have an EHC plan. It is unlikely that a child would be placed in a unit and also receive support from resourced provision, but a school could have resourced provision for one type of need and a unit for another.

Following an exercise to investigate and improve the quality of data on SEN units and resourced provisions, additional validation checks on the recording of these provisions were introduced into the data collection from 2020. This has resulted in significant changes to the data series and as a result comparisons to previous years are not recommended. Full information on SEN units and resourced provisions is available in the school level underlying data file that accompanies this release.

Number of SEN units and resourced provisions has remained stable

The school level data shows that in January 2023, there were 373 schools in England with SEN units, a slight decrease from 377 in 2022, and 1,125 schools with a resourced provision, the same number as in 2022.

We would like to know more about our users and would encourage and welcome any feedback on how the data is used. Comments on any issues relating to this publication are also welcomed and encouraged. If you would like to be involved in future user engagement consultations then please do get in touch.

Please email us at: sen.statistics@education.gov.uk

Help and support

Methodology

Find out how and why we collect, process and publish these statistics.

National statistics

These accredited official statistics have been independently reviewed by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR). They comply with the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics. Accredited official statistics are called National Statistics in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007.

Accreditation signifies their compliance with the authority's Code of Practice for Statistics which broadly means these statistics are:

managed impartially and objectively in the public interest

meet identified user needs

produced according to sound methods

well explained and readily accessible

Our statistical practice is regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR).

OSR sets the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics that all producers of official statistics should adhere to.

You are welcome to contact us directly with any comments about how we meet these standards. Alternatively, you can contact OSR by emailing regulation@statistics.gov.uk or via the OSR website.

If you have a specific enquiry about Special educational needs in England statistics and data:

Special educational needs statistics team

Email: sen.statistics@education.gov.uk
Contact name: Sean Gibson

Press office

If you have a media enquiry:

Telephone: 020 7783 8300

Public enquiries

If you have a general enquiry about the Department for Education (DfE) or education:

Telephone: 037 0000 2288

Opening times:
Monday to Friday from 9.30am to 5pm (excluding bank holidays)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Special educational needs in England, Academic year 2022/23

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This publication combines information from the school census (state-funded schools), school level annual school census (independent schools) and general hospital school census on pupils with special educational needs (SEN). The publication includes breakdowns by type of SEN provision, type of need, age, national curriculum year group, gender, ethnicity, English as a first language and free school meal eligibility.

# data[].attributes.headline
National Disability Strategy (July 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
National Disability Strategy (July 2021)

# data[].attributes.headline
GOV.UK Schools Covid-19 Operations guidance (August 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
GOV.UK Schools Covid-19 Operations guidance (August 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
[Withdrawn] Actions for schools during the coronavirus outbreak

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What all schools will need to do during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

# data[].attributes.headline
DoE Reading Framework: Teaching the foundations of literacy (July 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
DoE Reading Framework: Teaching the foundations of literacy (July 2021)

# data[].attributes.headline
Special Needs Jungle: What does the Government's new strategy actually mean for autistic children and young people? (August 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
Special Needs Jungle: What does the Government's new strategy actually mean for autistic children and young people? (August 2021)

# data[].attributes.body
Breaking down the strategy paper into a more manageable dialogue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you're seeking an NHS diagnosis for autism for your child or yourself, you are still almost certain to have to wait a significant period of time. It also still takes persistence, as it's quite possible that before you get an appointment, you'll be told by a non-specialist health or education practitioner that it can't be autism because they "do eye contact", or seem to be able to mix socially, or some other explanation that isn't supported by up-to-date evidence.

Once diagnosed, finding the right education, employment, or support for independence and living, is likely to be difficult. The 2009 Autism Act was meant to improve things, but it's taken until 2021 to include under-18s in this, the third Autism Strategy for England: The national strategy for autistic children, young people and adults: 2021 to 2026.

The Government thinks England has, "...made significant headway in tackling the inequalities people face over the last 10 years... Although we've come so far over the last decade, there must be no limit to the ambitions of autistic people; they should have the same opportunities as everyone else in society."

So now the strategy includes children and young people, what does it actually mean in practice? Tim Nicholls, Head of Policy at the National Autistic Society, has written for SNJ to explain more.

The new autism strategy is a huge moment - but it won't succeed by itself
by Tim Nicholls, Head of Policy at the National Autistic Society
The Government recently released its long-awaited autism strategy for England - and the first one to include autistic children and young people. It sets out how the Government plans to support autistic children and adults over the next five years, with £75 million of funding for the first year of the strategy. It includes important commitments to train education professionals in autism, tackle long diagnosis waiting times, and improve the public's understanding of autism.

The National Autistic Society and our supporters have been campaigning for an ambitious and fully funded strategy for a long time. So, this is a huge moment. But true change for autistic children and young people will depend on the Government's upcoming SEND review and the funding it dedicates to future years of the strategy.

What's in the strategy for children and young people?

The strategy promises to:

Improve understanding of autism by training education professionals, with £600K dedicated to training.

Invest £8.6 million to improve engagement of families and children in planning SEND services and policies at local level.

Cover autism in a new anti-bullying campaign beginning in September 2021.

Support more autistic people into employment, and ensure autistic young people can find supported internships and apprenticeships.

Invest £10.5 million into finding new ways to reduce diagnosis waiting times for children and young people. On top of £40 million through the NHS Long Term Plan to improve capacity in crisis services and support children with complex needs in inpatient care.

Improve understanding and acceptance of autism within society by providing a long term nationwide public understanding campaign.

We are expecting, and we will campaign, for further financial commitments for 2022 onwards after the Government sets out its long-term spending promises in the Spending Review.

Why the Autism Strategy is important

National Autistic Society campaigners have long demanded better support and services for autistic people, for instance through our  Not Enough and Left Stranded campaigns and by highlighting inequalities across society.

Before the pandemic, four in10 parents told us their child's school didn't meet their needs. Half said their child waited for more than a year for support to be provided at school. This was devastating for autistic children and for their families too. And, as we wrote in SNJ last year, the pandemic disproportionately impacted the mental health and education of autistic children and young people. The Government's strategy has committed to tackle many of these inequalities with some concrete proposals and funding in its first year.

Six in 10 young autistic people we spoke to said the main thing that would make school better for them was having a teacher who understood autism. A key part of the strategy for children and young people is the promise to deliver autism training to educational professionals, to help them understand autism in a meaningful way and better support autistic pupils.

There are also important commitments to deliver an anti-bullying campaign starting in September 2021 and, crucially, to reduce diagnosis waiting times and improve mental health support for young autistic people. It's unacceptable that some children have to wait many months and even years for a diagnosis and that around 70% of autistic people develop mental health problems.

Better engagement, better work

Across all Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, the Government will invest £8.6 million to improve the engagement of families and children in the planning of SEND services and policies at local level, too-- including supporting England's Parent Carer Forums. This is intended to provide opportunities for parents and carers to communicate their views and have significant input with the planning and delivery of SEND services.

Office of National Statistics (ONS) figures suggest that only 22% of autistic adults are in any kind of work, so it's crucial that young autistic people are given clear pathways to employment. To make this happen, the Government is proposing to make sure autistic young people can get supported internships and apprenticeships too. Help will be provided to local areas for Supported Employment Forums, bringing together employers, JobCentres, education providers, local authorities, and young autistic people and their families, to discuss employment opportunities in their local areas.

SEND Review

However, the true impact of the strategy on autistic children and young people will depend on:

1. Backing the aims of the strategy by providing full funding beyond 2022

2. The upcoming SEND review, which the Government has repeatedly delayed

The SEND review must ensure all teaching staff receive high-quality autism and neurodiversity training. We'd like to see a 'whole school approach' applied to education, helping to build the capacity of school leaders and staff to create autism-friendly cultures, implement evidence-based strategies, and improve outcomes for autistic students. This approach has been successfully adopted in specialist hubs, such as our Cullum Centres, which are specially designed for inclusive learning.

The review must make certain all autistic children receive the upfront educational support they need, when they need it - not after long waits and hard battles. It must also tackle unlawful exclusions and off-rolling, making it clear that exclusions without trying reasonable adjustments are illegal. SEND inspections should also become permanent and written statements of action must be followed by support across education, health and care.

Next steps and getting involved

The autism strategy is underpinned by legally binding guidance to councils. Each council and NHS body now needs to look at the strategy to see how it can improve its local services. Nearly every council has an 'Autism Lead' or an 'Autism Partnership Board' who oversee the carrying out of the strategy. You can make sure the strategy works for autistic people in your area by joining our campaigns or getting involved with your local Autism Partnership Board through your council (Searching "Autism Partnership Board" and your LA name should bring it up)

At the National Autistic Society, we will keep working with our campaigners and branches to keep pushing for ambitious investment in autistic people beyond the first year of this strategy and for the SEND review to lead to meaningful changes. If this happens, the strategy could truly be a significant step towards a society that works for autistic children and young people.

Find out more about autism, the strategy and how to get involved: autism.org.uk

Also read:

Join the SNJ "Patron" Squad & get exclusive content!

Become a Patron!

- Your Squad Patrons' EXCLUSIVE MAY SEND update Newsletter is OUT NOW! If you're a patron and you haven't received it check your spam. No joy? Get in touch.

Don't miss a thing!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What does the Government's new Autism Strategy actually mean for autistic children and young people? - Special Needs Jungle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you're seeking an NHS diagnosis for autism for your child or yourself, you are still almost certain to have to wait a significant period of time.

# data[].attributes.headline
National Strategy for Autistic children, young people and adults: 2021 to 2026 (Published July 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
National Strategy for Autistic children, young people and adults: 2021 to 2026 (Published July 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

The government's national strategy for improving the lives of autistic people and their families and carers in England, and implementation plan for 2021 to 2022.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National strategy for autistic children, young people and adults: 2021 to 2026

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The government's national strategy for improving the lives of autistic people and their families and carers in England, and implementation plan for 2021 to 2022.

# data[].attributes.headline
JCQ Special Access Arrangements 2021-2022

# data[].attributes.subject
JCQ Special Access Arrangements 2021-2022

# data[].attributes.body
Be aware that JCQ guidelines have changed, ensure you are keeping up to date with the documents for this year!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Regulations and Guidance - JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Exams Office " Access Arrangements, Reasonable Adjustments and Special Consideration " Regulations and Guidance