# data[].attributes.headline
L/J - Skills and post-16 education bill - impact review

# data[].attributes.subject
L/J - Skills and post-16 education bill - impact review

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skills-and-post-16-education-bill-impact-assessment-and-jchr-memorandum

# 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
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill: impact assessment and JCHR memorandum

# 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
Supporting SEND
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-send/supporting-send

# 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.body
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-old-issues-new-issues-next-steps/send-old-issues-new-issues-next-steps

# 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.body
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-needs-funding-arrangements-2022-to-2023/high-needs-funding-2022-to-2023-operational-guidance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

1: This guide describes how the 2022 to 2023 financial and academic year high needs funding system will work for all types of provision. Unless the context relates specifically to the national funding formula (NFF) allocations and operational processes relating to 2022 to 2023, most of this guidance applies to the current financial year and should therefore be taken into account with immediate effect. It is primarily for local authorities, schools and colleges but will also be useful to anyone with an interest in high needs funding.

2: The definitions of terms used throughout this guide are as follows:

provider local authority: this is usually the local authority where a school or college is located. The provider local authority funds the high needs places at a school or college from its dedicated schools grant (DSG). For centrally funded schools and colleges (non-maintained special schools (NMSS), special post-16 providers (SPIs), and a small number of other further education (FE)), Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) is considered the provider local authority

resident local authority: this is the local authority where a child or young person lives (wholly or their main residence), as identified in the school census or individualised learner record (ILR) using their postcode. This may differ to the responsible local authority, for example in relation to looked after children

responsible local authority: this is the local authority responsible for commissioning and funding provision for a child or young person with an education, health and care (EHC) plan under the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Code of Practice

commissioning local authority or school: this is the local authority or school placing a child or young person at a school or college. It is the same as the responsible local authority for those with EHC plans, although schools may also be commissioners for children placed in alternative provision (AP) settings

schools and colleges: when the term 'schools and colleges' is used this refers to all education provider types, including: all mainstream schools (pre and post-16, maintained and academies, but excluding independent schools), maintained and non-maintained special schools, special academies, pupil referral units and AP academies, hospital schools, general FE colleges, sixth form colleges, independent learning providers (ILPs), and special post-16 institutions (SPIs) - unless specific references are made to particular types of school or college

the term 'academy' or 'academies' should normally be taken to include free schools unless these are referred to separately

3: This guidance will be reviewed in early 2022.

Who is this publication for?

4: This guidance is for:

local authorities

all distinct types of schools and colleges, including:

early years providers, including maintained nursery schools

mainstream schools

special schools

NMSS

independent special schools

pupil referral units (PRU)

other AP

16 to 19 maintained schools and academies

FE colleges

SPIs

ILPs

those with an interest in how high needs funding operates across England

Main points

5: This guide explains how the high needs funding system operates for local authorities and different school and college types across England. It can be used to inform local budget planning and consultations over the autumn term and beyond, particularly in agreeing how high needs provision should be supported, commissioned and funded.

6: High needs funding supports provision for pupils and students with SEND, from their early years to age 25, and alternative provision for pre-16 pupils who, because of exclusion, illness, or other reasons, cannot receive their education in mainstream schools.

7: High needs funding is provided to local authorities through the high needs block of the DSG, enabling them to meet their statutory duties under the Children and Families Act 2014.

9: High needs funding is also provided directly to some schools and colleges by ESFA, and the respective conditions of grant and funding agreements apply. It is important to note that financial accountability will vary according to school or college type; for example, the governing body for a maintained school and the trust for an academy. Each of these operates with different levels of delegation according to their governance arrangements. In some cases, the relevant legislation. The Children and Families Act 2014, for example, refers to the proprietor (trust in the case of an academy) as the person responsible, and also specifies the headteacher or principal, as the person performing a particular role. In other cases, there are references only to the governing body/proprietor. Consequently, references to schools and colleges should be interpreted as applying to the headteacher, principal, governing body, trust or other proprietor according to the context.

10: Local authorities must ensure that children and young people and their parents/carers are involved in discussions and decisions about their individual support and local provision, in line with the SEND Code of Practice.

11: Funding arrangements for students with SEND who are aged 19 to 25, without an EHC plan, and students who are over the age of 25 are not included in this guide. Links to the funding arrangements for these students are in Annex 4.

Changes to the high needs funding operational guide for 2022 to 2023

12: This section sets out the main changes to the operational guidance on the high needs funding system. The national funding formula (NFF) and underpinning operational processes and principles remain unchanged largely from 2021 to 2022. Nevertheless, we have clarified certain aspects of this guidance, particularly relating to the sections below:

National funding formula allocations for 2022 to 2023

13: The national increase in high needs funding in 2022 to 2023 will be £780 million, or 9.6% compared to the amounts allocated in 2021 to 2022. This will enable all local authorities to see a substantial increase in high needs funding in 2022 to 2023, when using the funding allocated in 2021 to 2022 as a baseline.

14: The funding floor factor in the high needs NFF for 2022 to 2023 will continue at 8% per head of 2 to 18 population. This is based on what local authorities received in high needs funding in 2021 to 2022.

15: The hospital education factor amount will also be uplifted in line with the 8% funding floor factor. These increases are not calculated on elements of the formula that are subject to later updates and are in proportion to estimated population changes (so a projected decrease in population will result in a lower overall cash percentage increase). The hospital education funding amounts for 2021 to 2022 inform the basis of the amounts in the 2022 to 2023 provisional allocations. In a small number of cases some further adjustments are made to reflect changes notified by local authorities, including the full year increase for local authorities that were given a part year increase in 2021 to 2022 to reflect a change in hospital education provision. Further information can be found in Hospital education.

the historic spend factor has been updated for 2022 to 2023, to use 50% of local authorities' actual spend in 2017 to 2018 rather than planned spend as previously used. The proportion of total funding going through the historic spend factor will reduce from 34% of the 2021 to 2022 formula allocations to 32% in 2022 to 2023

due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic there is no appropriate 2020 attainment data to use for the 2 low attainment factors; therefore, 2019 data has been used in place of 2020 data for the 2022 to 2023 high needs allocations. This aligns with the approach taken in the schools NFF

17: For further information about support during COVID-19 and education recovery, please refer to separate COVID-19 guidance on education, early years and children's social care.

Important dates

18: The timeline below shows the implementation of the 2022 to 2023 high needs funding arrangements, including actions for local authorities and schools and colleges.

October 2021

Department for Education:

Local authorities:

continue discussions with all types of schools and colleges, and other local authorities, to ensure positive strategic supply and demand planning and agreement reached on 2022 to 2023 high needs place numbers, in preparation for completing the return to ESFA

Schools and colleges:

continue discussions with local authorities and reach agreement on 2022 to 2023 high needs place numbers, in preparation for the local authority return to ESFA

all maintained schools, academies, non-maintained special schools (NMSSs) and pupil referral units (PRUs), to complete the autumn school census

further education (FE) colleges, sixth form colleges, independent learning providers (ILPs), 16 to 19 academies and special post-16 institutions (SPIs) are to submit 2021 to 2022 ILR R14

November 2021

Department for Education:

the alternative provision (AP) free schools 2022 to 2023 place process is launched

Local authorities:

deadline for local authority submission of 2022 to 2023 high needs place number changes and requests for local authority hospital education funding changes to ESFA

deadline for requests to disapply conditions of grant relating to movement of funding from the schools block of the dedicated schools grant (DSG)

Schools and colleges:

complete discussions with local authorities and reach agreement on 2022 to 2023 high needs place numbers, in preparation for the local authority return to ESFA

AP free schools: discuss commissioning arrangements with local authorities and schools for the 2022 to 2023 academic year

December 2021

Department for Education

2022 to 2023 DSG schools, central school services and high needs block allocations published

initial 2022 to 2023 DSG early years block allocations to be published

FE providers

FE colleges, sixth form colleges, ILPs, 16 to 19 maintained schools and academies, and SPIs to submit 2021 to 2022 ILR R04

January 2022

Department for Education:

Local authorities:

Schools and colleges:

February 2022

Local authorities

Schools and colleges

2-week enquiry window closes for raising queries with ESFA regarding 2022 to 2023 funded place numbers

FE colleges, sixth form colleges, ILPs, 16 to 19 maintained schools and academies and SPIs to submit 2021 to 2022 ILR R06

March 2022

Department for Education:

Local authorities:

review of, and amendments to EHC plans, including specifying the post-16 provision and naming the school or college, must be completed by 31 March for students moving from a secondary or special school to a college or apprenticeship in that calendar year

complete EHC plan review process by 31 March for students moving between post-16 institutions, where a young person is expected to transfer to a new post-16 institution in the new academic year

Schools and colleges:

check high needs allocation is received and correct

June 2022

Department for Education:

issue to local authorities the NFF import/export adjustments data at school and college level and the special free school adjustments

Local authorities:

review NFF import/export adjustment data

FE providers:

FE colleges, sixth form colleges, ILPs, 16 to 19 academies and SPIs to submit 2021 to 2022 ILR R10

July 2022

Department for Education:

publish 2022 to 2023 high needs place numbers updated (as of 1 July 2022)

2022 to 2023 DSG update to reflect final school and college level allocation decisions, NFF import/export adjustments and special free school adjustments

High needs funding and the dedicated schools grant (DSG)

21: The DSG is divided into four notional blocks - the schools block (for mainstream schools and academies), the high needs block, the central school services block and the early years block. Each of the four blocks of the DSG is determined by a separate national funding formula (NFF).

22: Transfers between blocks can be made from the high needs and the central schools services blocks. Movement from the early years block can be made in compliance with the early years pass through rate conditions, details of which can be found in the early years funding operational guide (current published guidance is for 2021 to 2022). The schools forum must be consulted on all transfers between blocks. The schools block is ringfenced which means at least 99.5% of funding allocated through this block must be spent for the purposes specified in the conditions of grant. Local authorities retain the ability to transfer up to 0.5% of funding out of the schools block, with the agreement of the schools forum.

24: Most proposals by local authorities to move funding from their schools block arise as a result of pressures on their high needs budgets. In view of the £780 million increase in high needs funding in 2022 to 2023, which comes on top of the increases of more than £1.5 billion over the previous two years, we are expecting local authorities to consider carefully the impact of these increases when making decisions on block movements.

DSG management plans

26: An increasing number of local authorities have been incurring a deficit on their overall DSG account, largely because of overspends within their high needs block. The DSG: conditions of grant set out that any local authority with an overall deficit on its DSG account at the end of the financial year, or whose DSG surplus has substantially reduced during the year, must be able to present a plan to the department and cooperate in handling that situation by:

providing information, as and when requested by the department about its plans for managing its DSG account in the 2021 to 2022 financial year and subsequently

providing information, as and when requested by the department about pressures and potential savings on its high needs budget

meeting with department officials, as and when they request to discuss the local authority's plans and financial situation

keeping the schools forum updated regularly about the local authority's DSG account and plans for handling it, including high needs pressures and potential savings

27: We have developed a DSG deficit management plan template and accompanying guidance for local authorities to use to develop evidence-based and strategic plans covering the provision available for children and young people with SEND. In all cases, we expect local authorities' management plans to focus on how they will bring in-year spending in line with in-year resources.

28: The high needs benchmarking tool helps to facilitate a better understanding of how a local authority's high needs expenditure and use of provision compares with that of other authorities; and to prompt local discussion of how current spending patterns might need to change.

29: Further details on this process can be found within the DSG management plans section of the schools revenue funding operational guide 2022 to 2023.

How local authority high needs allocations are calculated

30: ESFA makes an allocation to local authorities for high needs as part of the dedicated schools grant (DSG). High needs block allocations are calculated through the high needs national funding formula (NFF).

31: Local authorities decide how much to set aside in their high needs budget for place and top-up funding given to schools and colleges, and for central high needs services (which may be devolved to schools or colleges and funded through a service level agreement). This should take account of the overall amount required to meet the continuing needs of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), and those who need alternative provision (AP). Local authorities should account for aspects of provision related to SEND and AP, as permitted by the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2021. Schedule 2 to the regulations sets out the categories of central expenditure that local authorities are permitted to incur.

High needs national funding formula factors explained

32: There are 12 elements to the high needs NFF. These form the basis for local authority high needs block allocations. The following diagram shows the funding factors in the high needs NFF. See the high needs national funding formula: technical note for more information.

Image 1: Structure of the high needs national funding formula

Figure 1: the structure of the high needs national funding formula

33: The limit on gains under the formula is 11%, which means that local authorities will receive increases in funding up to 11% before their gains are capped, calculated on a per head of 2 to 18 population basis.

34: Further adjustments outside the normal formula distribution and allocation arrangements may be necessary to reflect other changes, in particular for those local authorities with a special free school in their area or pupils resident in their area attending a special free school in another local authority. Information on how adjustments for special free schools have been calculated will be available in the 2022 to 2023 local authority funding: special free schools adjustments guide, which will be published in autumn 2021. There will be exceptions to the existing 2021 to 2022 arrangements in those situations where pre-existing provision is being transferred into a new free school.

35: Adjustments may also be made as a result of local changes, for example, if a non-maintained special school (NMSS) becomes a special academy, or a further education (FE) college merges with another college in a different local authority area, depending on the timing of the changes.

Basic entitlement factor

36: The basic entitlement factor allocates funding using data on the pupil and student numbers in specialist provision and performs the same role as its counterpart within the mainstream schools NFF and 16 to 19 NFF. The basic entitlement funding rate is £4,660 per pupil or student for 2022 to 2023 and is subject to an area cost adjustment.

37: As the formula also allocates high needs funding to ESFA for certain schools and colleges that it funds directly, ESFA is treated like a local authority, and it attracts £4,660 for each pupil in NMSS and each student in special post-16 institutions (SPIs).

Historic spend factor

38: The historic spend factor has been updated for 2022 to 2023, to provide every local authority with a set percentage (50%) of their 2017 to 2018 spending on high needs, and is now based on the local authority's actual spend from 2017 to 2018 outturn data rather than planned spend as previously used.

Proxy factors

39: The remaining high needs funding, after deductions for the basic entitlement, hospital education and historic spend factors, is then available for the proxy factors listed below:

population factor

free school meals (FSM) factor

income deprivation affecting children index (IDACI) factor (using the latest IDACI 2019 data)

bad health factor

disability factor

key stage 2 low attainment factor

key stage 4 low attainment factor

40: Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there is no appropriate 2020 attainment data to use for the 2 low attainment factors. Following consultation, 2019 data has been used as a proxy for 2020 for the 2022 to 2023 high needs allocations.

41: Weightings are assigned to determine the amount allocated through each of the proxy factors. The weightings are applied separately for SEND (90% of funding) and AP (10% of funding), before being combined. The weightings remain the same in the 2022 to 2023 formula, as in previous years.

Funding floor factor

42: This ensures local authorities do not fall below a minimum level of funding. The factor is applied to the funding calculated through historic spend factor and proxy factors. The per head floor ensures relevant elements of the funding increase on a per head basis from the 2021 to 2022 funding baseline by at least 8% in 2022 to 2023, based on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimated population of 2 to 18-year-olds.

Hospital education, AP, teachers' pay/pension and supplementary funding factor

43: Local authorities pay for places in their maintained hospital schools and the equivalent academies, and for other hospital education placements and services.

44: The local authority hospital education allocations for 2022 to 2023 are calculated as the 2021 to 2022 hospital education funding, plus the full year equivalent of adjustments made during 2021 to 2022, plus an 8% uplift.

45: This factor also includes funding for AP and other historic pay and pensions costs that prior to April 2021 were paid as separate grants. The AP (including hospital education) teachers' pay and pension funding, together with the pensions supplementary grant funding, is the same as for the final 2021 to 2022 allocations. These amounts are for historic costs and, therefore, have been held at the same level as in the 2021 to 2022 formula. The basic entitlement factor includes an uplift to reflect the remaining funding for historic teachers' pay and pensions costs incorporated into the NFF from April 2021.

46: The factor funding is calculated as a sum of the hospital education funding, AP pay and pensions and pensions supplementary grant funding.

Import/export adjustment

47: This is a net adjustment to local authorities' DSG, implemented through the July DSG update, reflecting the difference between high needs pupils and students living in one local authority and attending a school or college in another. The timelines for making these adjustments are included in Important dates.

How the import/export adjustment works

48: The majority of the high needs NFF is designed to allocate funding to local authorities for the needs of the children and young people who live in the local authority's area, regardless of where they are educated. Local authorities face higher costs if they attract more pupils and students with high needs who live outside the local authority area into their schools and colleges because they are expected to pay for the costs of high needs places in schools and colleges in their area. Conversely, local authorities that place fewer pupils and students with high needs in other local authority schools and colleges face lower costs. We have, therefore, included an adjustment in the funding formula to reflect where pupils or students live in one local authority and attend a school or college in another.

49: The calculation uses school census and ILR data and compares the number of high needs pupils and students. It is calculated as a net figure based on:

50: If the net import/export adjustment is positive, the local authority is considered a net importer. This is because the local authority provides education to more pupils or students than live in their area and so faces higher costs (for example, because they pay for more high needs places at a school or college in their area).

51: If the net import/export adjustment is negative, the local authority is considered a net exporter. This is because the local authority has more pupils or students living in their area attending schools or colleges in other areas and so faces lower costs (for example, because they do not pay for their high needs places at schools or colleges outside their area).

52: Where the number is nil, and imports and exports balance, the cost to the local authority is neutral and no adjustment is made.

Import/export data

53: The 2022 to 2023 import/export data will be made available to local authorities at school and college level in June 2022 and the total net adjustment reflected in the July DSG update. In the meantime, the 2021 to 2022 import/export data is used provisionally in the NFF and DSG allocations.

54: The pupils and students counted in the calculation of the adjustment are shown below. From the January school census (aged 4 to 18) for pupils and students:

From ILR R06 for students aged 14 to 18 and those aged 19 to 24 with education, health and care (EHC) plans who receive top-up funding in:

55: For all special schools and colleges, the data used for the import/export adjustments should be broadly consistent with the numbers of places funded in that academic year. It should be noted that places for post-16 students with high needs may be funded through a local arrangement with the provider local authority, not necessarily as places in the school's or college's allocation.

57: The import/export adjustment does not use any data relating to pupils in AP. This is because the school census data we would use for such an adjustment is not accurate enough. The pattern of admissions and placements in AP can vary significantly at different times and a school census snapshot does not necessarily capture pupil movement in the same way as for special schools.

58: The import/export data is based on where the child or young person lives and receives their education. Further information about the responsibility for pupils and students who move between local authorities is detailed in Annex 2.

High needs place deductions

59: For the following schools and colleges, place funding is included in local authorities' initial DSG allocations and then deducted from the provider local authority's DSG by ESFA to pay the funding direct:

60: The number of high needs places deducted is based on the annual place change notification process. ESFA do not deduct for places at centrally funded NMSS, SPIs, and some FE colleges; these deductions are effectively made through the NFF import/export adjustment.

61: Deductions are made for some places at AP free schools based on census data. For the 2022 to 2023 academic year, deductions will be made for places at AP free schools that opened during or before the 2020 to 2021 academic year. The deduction is from the local authority where a pupil lives, based on the number of pupils aged 5 to 15 years, main or sole registered at that AP free school at the time of the October 2021 census.

62: The academic year place funding rates are shown in the school funding table, with further information in the section on type of school. The 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 academic year place amounts are prorated as follows, to calculate DSG deductions for the 2022 to 2023 financial year, by place and type of school or college.

Type of school

AP: 2021 to 2022 A/Y (*5/12)

AP: 2022 to 2023 A/Y (*7/12)

SEN unit/resourced provision: 2021 to 2022 A/Y (*5/12)

SEN unit/resourced provision: 2022 to 2023 A/Y (*7/12)

Special schools: 2021 to 2022 A/Y (*5/12)

Special schools: 2022 to 2023 A/Y (*7/12)

Table 1: pre-16 DSG deductions by type of school

Type of school

Schools: 2021 to 2022 A/Y (*4/12)

Schools: 2022 to 2023 A/Y (*8/12)

Post-16 schools (16 to 18): 2021 to 2022 A/Y (*4/12)

Post-16 schools (16 to 18): 2022 to 2023 A/Y (*8/12)

Post-16 schools (19 to 24 with EHC plans): 2021 to 2022 A/Y (*4/12)

Post-16 schools (19 to 24 with EHC plans): 2022 to 2023 A/Y (*8/12)

Table 2: post-16 (SEN places) DSG deductions by school or college type

63: The above rates are multiplied by the number of places to calculate the total deduction amount.

How funding is allocated to schools and colleges

64: Schools and colleges receive high needs funding in different ways:

65: Funding by type of education provider provides further information on how high needs provision is funded in different types of school or college for both pre and post-16 pupils and students.

High needs place funding

66: Place funding is allocated to all types of special schools, apart from independent special schools; to all types of mainstream school with a special educational needs (SEN) unit or resourced provision, and/or a sixth form that has pupils with high needs; and to all types of college that are eligible for funding from ESFA. The place funding is allocated as an annual amount of core high needs funding. Once place funding is allocated, it is not associated with or reserved for a specific local authority or individual pupil or student. It is for the school or college to decide how best to apportion their total allocated place funding across the actual number of places commissioned by local authorities, taking into account the provision and support that may be specified in the individual pupils' or students' education, health and care (EHC) plans.

67: Place funding is not withdrawn if an individual does not occupy a funded place. It provides all eligible schools and colleges with a guaranteed budget for the year and gives them a degree of financial stability. A local authority may not seek to recover funding for places which it perceives as being unused from the previous or current academic year. Similarly, local authorities should not automatically be charged an extra £6,000 or £10,000 per head top-up funding for a pupil or student with high needs if a school or college has filled all funded places (irrespective of which local authority has filled them). Further guidance, including an example, can be found in Where pupil or student numbers exceed allocated places in a school or college.

68: Local authorities may, with the agreement of the relevant members of the schools forum, retain part of the place funding of maintained special schools and pupil referral units (PRUs), to fund specified central services relating to maintained schools only. Further information about place funding for alternative provision (AP), PRUs, AP academies and AP free schools can be found in Alternative provision (AP), including information on the different funding arrangements for pre and post-16 pupils.

How to determine funded place numbers

69: Place funding should broadly reflect both local authorities' recent commissioning activity and strategic planning, to secure suitable special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision and AP, in line with their statutory responsibilities. In determining the number of funded places for individual schools and colleges, local authorities should consider all high needs provision available in their area and take into account not only their own commissioning decisions, but also the commissioning decisions of other local authorities. In the case of AP, local schools' commissioning activity and plans should also be considered.

70: Dialogue between local authorities and all schools and colleges that offer high needs provision is important when preparing for the allocations of high needs place funding for the following academic year. Local authorities should consult with schools and colleges in their area and discuss both current numbers of places being taken up, which will be included on the school census and individualised learner record (ILR) returns, and the number of places required in future. Where a school or college believes it is not being funded for the correct number of places, it should raise this with the provider local authority. These discussions must take into account the total number of places required to meet the needs of all local authorities, not just those of the local authority in which the school or college is located. This is particularly important for colleges and special schools, as the import/export adjustment should ensure that funding in the local authority's dedicated schools grant (DSG) reflects those pupils and students with high needs resident in one local authority area who attend a school or college in other areas.

71: Where a school or college is admitting pupils or students with high needs from multiple different local authorities, the provider local authority should first seek information from the school or college on the number of places currently being commissioned from each local authority and how those numbers are expected to change in the following academic year. Significant changes may be confirmed with the commissioning local authorities concerned, and they should also proactively contact the relevant provider local authority in such circumstances. When doing so, commissioning local authorities should provide clear and accurate information to the provider local authority in good time, to enable collation of this information in advance of the place change notification process deadline. We are aware of particular issues that may arise when further education (FE) colleges in different areas merge into a single college and we expect that the approach described is adopted in these circumstances.

Changes to place numbers

72: Guidance on the place change notification process will be published in October 2021. It will explain the process for notifying ESFA of changes to 2022 to 2023 high needs place numbers at:

73: The outcomes from the high needs place change process, for academic year 2022 to 2023 is published in January 2022. A two-week enquiry window follows, allowing local authorities and schools and colleges to raise significant issues.

74: AP free schools will receive guidance on notifying ESFA of their proposed high needs place numbers for 2022 to 2023 in November 2021.

75: 2022 to 2023 place funding allocations for NMSS are based on the October school census and existing SPIs allocations are based on ILR R06 data.

76: Local authorities have local flexibility to change funded place numbers at maintained schools and PRUs, and these numbers should be included on each local authority's section 251 (s251) budget return for 2022 to 2023.

77: If a local authority maintained school or PRU converts to an academy, place numbers must be agreed between the local authority and school. To ensure that the school is funded on the correct basis, the local authority should notify the department's project lead of the agreed place number. This is recognised by completion of the department's 'notification of changes to funded high needs places' form. This is supplied by the department's project lead and must be returned before the school converts. If no notification is received, place numbers recorded in the 2021 to 2022 s251 (September to March) will be rolled forward.

78: A 'notification of changes to funded high needs places' form must be completed for all schools where post-16 places are required. This is because post-16 place data is not set out within the s251 and may even be included within the recorded pre-16 place numbers. In these cases, completion of the form will ensure clarity of the split between pre- and post-16 requirements.

Where pupil and student numbers differ from allocated places

79: ESFA is unlikely to revise annual allocations to schools and colleges where the number of commissioned places changes after the annual processes. We recognise that, often, there will be a difference between the number of funded high needs places and the actual number of pupils or students in attendance. However, as explained in High needs place funding, place funding is not reserved for individuals; it is for schools and colleges to apportion the total allocated place funding across the actual number of pupils and students with high needs. In most cases, the variance between place numbers and pupils or students is small with no, or marginal, impact on cost.

80: Place funding should not be withdrawn if an individual does not occupy a funded place and a local authority may not seek to recover funding for places it considers unused in the previous or current academic year.

81: A school or college should approach the provider local authority if the number of pupils or students agreed as having high needs by the relevant local authority exceeds the number of funded places. In practice, that could result in the school or college incurring additional costs in making special provision not met through the top-up funding amount normally paid. We expect the provider local authority to engage with the school or college to agree how the costs of the additional special provision required are to be met, and these conversations should take place as early as possible. Centrally funded non-maintained special schools (NMSSs), special post-16 institutions (SPIs) and a small number of ILPs and FE colleges should approach ESFA.

82: The provider local authority should not automatically be charged an additional £6,000 or £10,000 per pupil or student. The amount should reflect the actual costs of making additional special provision available, which may only be marginal. Importantly, the provider local authority and the school or college should seek to agree how those costs are to be met. Local authorities need to be mindful that the import/export adjustment should compensate the provider local authority for actual pupils or students living in other local authority areas who attend the school or college, albeit in the subsequent financial year. This will avoid the position where the commissioning local authority effectively funds twice - both through increased top-up funding direct to the school or college and through the £6,000 import/export adjustment in the national funding formula (NFF). In particular, these arrangements apply to colleges and special schools that are experiencing year-on-year growth in the number of pupils and students with high needs that they admit.

Example: where pupil or student numbers exceed allocated places in a school or college

83: The following is an example of how the high needs funding arrangements should operate when a school or college has more pupils or students with high needs than the number of places for which it has been funded. Although it is illustrated using a college located in a local authority area (the provider local authority) with several other local authorities also commissioning places, similar arrangements may also apply to other schools and colleges, including special academies.

84: The example demonstrates how the place funding for schools and colleges, and consequent deductions from local authorities' high needs allocations work together with the import/export adjustment. This shows the flow of high needs funding between local authorities and schools and colleges when a school or college has to make additional special provision for a number of pupils or students that exceeds the funded place number, including where inter-authority collaboration is required.

Example:

85: The commissioning local authority (the local authority in which the student is ordinarily resident) needs to have notified the college directly that the student has high needs and have agreed top-up funding. The provider local authority (if not commissioning the place) and ESFA do not need to be involved in these conversations. However, we would encourage neighbouring local authorities to collaborate on the special provision required for their students. This includes cooperation on associated commissioning arrangements and top-up funding levels.

86: Extending this example further:

87: It is important to note that this example is provided for a college and some details may vary depending on the school or college or place type.

88: Where ESFA acts as the provider local authority for NMSS, SPIs and a small number of centrally funded colleges, funding is also provided on a lagged basis. This means that the number of pupils or students who attend one of these schools or colleges in any given year is used to calculate their respective place funding allocation for the following year. The funding allocation will subsequently be deducted from the relevant commissioning local authorities through the NFF import/export adjustment. Given these arrangements in place, centrally funded schools and colleges should not seek to secure any additional place funding from any local authority to avoid a situation where a local authority effectively funds a place twice. If an NMSS, SPI or centrally funded college has significant numbers of pupils or students over and above their allocated place numbers, which raises funding concerns as a result of the lagged approach, they should contact ESFA.

Teachers' pay and pensions funding

89: From the 2021 to 2022 financial year the majority of the historic teachers' pay grant (TPG), teachers' pensions employer contribution grant (TPECG) and pensions supplementary fund money has been incorporated into the high needs national funding formula (NFF) allocations to local authorities. The following provides further detail on:

Established special, AP and hospital maintained schools and academies

90: Local authorities must allocate this historic teachers' pay and pensions employer contribution grant funding to maintained special schools, pupil referral units, special and alternative provision (AP) academies and maintained and academy hospital schools, on a per place basis according to the agreed number of funded places in the financial year 2022 to 2023. This is as a separate high needs funding stream (that is, neither place funding nor top-up funding), as follows:

91: As for 2021 to 2022, the amounts of funding per place should be equivalent to the amounts of TPG, TPECG and pensions supplementary fund paid in the 2020 to 2021 academic year, prorated for the full year. Local authorities should, therefore, use the same per place annual amount used in 2021 to 2022 and apply that to any changes in place numbers after April 2022. High needs funding to replace the pensions supplementary fund should be paid as a full year equivalent of the same amount the school received before.

92: Local authorities will be expected to pay the equivalent of the TPG and TPECG per place, on the basis of the agreed number of funded places in the next academic year, even if there are reductions or increases in the number of places. No adjustments in funding should be made for actual over or under occupancy.

Growing schools (special, AP and hospital maintained schools and academies)

93: Funding through the NFF is on the basis of lagged data, so no additions to the 2022 to 2023 high needs NFF will be made in respect of growing schools beyond those made in December 2021 (that is, the adjustment using the latest special school census data, plus any adjustment for new AP free schools not previously included in the relevant factor amounts). Local authorities will be required to use their high needs funding allocations to pay growing schools, the equivalent of the TPG and TPECG per place on the basis of the number of funded places in the next academic year. This is irrespective of any increases or reductions in the number of places. No adjustments in funding should be made for actual over or under occupancy.

New special and AP free schools

94: For new special and AP free schools, open after September 2021, whose place numbers and pupil numbers were not available in time for the DSG high needs block update in December 2021, local authorities will receive separate funding outside their high needs NFF allocation. The basis of these payments to local authorities will be the previous rates of TPG and TPECG, and allocations will be notified to authorities in April 2022 on the basis of place numbers known as of 1 March 2022.

95: Authorities will continue to have the flexibility to disburse these payments in recognition of the specific costs of the free schools' teaching workforce, following consultation. It should be understood that these grants continue to recognise legacy costs and are not being increased to reflect later pay or pensions increases. The minimum 40 place funding per school will apply to new schools. No adjustments in funding provided to the local authority or to schools should be made for actual over or under occupancy.

Non-maintained special schools (NMSS)

96: NMSSs will continue to receive funding directly from ESFA at a level equivalent to their previous TPG, TPECG and pensions supplementary fund payments, without any recoupment or deductions from local authorities' high needs NFF allocations. These payments will be distinct from any payments of place funding, which will remain at £10,000 per place.

Independent special schools

97: The high needs NFF also includes additional TPG and TPECG funding, on the basis of data returned in the AP census on the number of children placed in independent special schools. There is no requirement on local authorities to pass this funding on to the schools, but the additional NFF funding enables local authorities to take account of any school's legacy pension cost increase that may be included in the school's request for funding for a pupil placement.

FE colleges and SPIs

98: FE colleges and some SPIs that contribute to the pension scheme receive the teachers' pension scheme employer contribution grant, which is based on their audited contributions into the pension scheme.

99: These arrangements have been confirmed until the end of the 2021 to 2022 academic year. Any funding after this point will be subject to the spending review.

Top-up funding

100: Top-up funding (sometimes referred to as element 3) is the funding required over and above the core funding (sometimes referred to as elements 1 and 2) a school or college receives to enable a pupil or student with high needs to participate in education and learning. This is paid by the commissioning local authority (or sometimes school in the case of alternative provision) and should reflect the costs of additional support to meet the individual pupil or student's needs. Top-up funding can also reflect costs that relate to the facilities required to support a pupil or student's education and training needs (either for individuals or on offer to all) and can take into account expected place occupancy levels and other factors.

101: Most of this section covers how top-up funding works for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Further information about how top-up funding works for pupil referral units (PRUs), alternative provision (AP) academies and AP free schools is set out in Alternative provision (AP).

102: Although many of the pupils and students receiving high needs funding will have associated education, health and care (EHC) plans, local authorities have the flexibility to provide high needs funding outside the statutory assessment process for all children and young people with high needs up to the age of 19.

Organising top-up funding at local authority level

103: Local authorities play an essential statutory and strategic role in planning education services and places, and in supporting local schools and colleges, within a robust financial framework. They should work closely with institutions that have pupils or students with high needs. In doing so, they should ensure there are clear processes for identifying, determining, and allocating appropriate levels of top-up funding.

104: One of a local authority's statutory responsibilities is to keep the special educational provision in their area under review, working with parents, young people, schools and colleges, as set out in chapter 4 of the SEND Code of Practice.

105: A wide range of educational providers are required to co-operate with local authorities in such reviews, including maintained schools; academies; further education (FE) and sixth form colleges; independent and non-maintained special schools (NMSS); special post-16 institutions (SPIs); and other providers of special educational provision, including relevant early education providers. The local offer must include information about the arrangements the local authority has for funding children and young people with SEND, including any agreements about how providers will use any funding that has been allocated to them.

106: We expect commissioning local authorities to work constructively with schools and colleges, with the aim of reaching agreement on the overall levels of top-up funding required. This should include agreeing what additional needs mainstream schools and colleges should meet from other elements of their funding (taking account of any additional support or funding provided centrally) and where top-up funding will be provided. This information should be published as part of the local offer of SEND services and provision.

107: Children and young people with high needs often access provision outside the local authority area in which they are resident. An authority's local offer should reflect all the SEND provision which is available to support children and young people resident in its area. Therefore, we encourage neighbouring local authorities to collaborate when reviewing their local offer of provision and considering arrangements for top-up funding.

108: Many local authorities have systems which indicate the range of top-up funding that might be provided for children and young people with a particular complexity of need (sometimes referred to as 'banded' funding systems). These can be helpful in providing clear and transparent funding arrangements for many types of need, that may be met in a range of different schools and colleges. Where a local authority makes a large number of placements at a school or college or at a range of schools and colleges locally, a system of this kind (where the local authority, schools and colleges agree levels of top-up funding in advance) can be a very efficient way of allocating this funding. However, the local authority must be satisfied that the final allocation of funding (both the top-up funding and other elements of funding) is sufficient overall to secure the agreed provision (for example, that specified in an EHC plan), and should keep top-up funding levels under review at regular intervals.

109: A local authority's banded top-up funding system generally helps to deliver fair and transparent funding in relation to placements in schools and colleges within that local authority. There can be issues, however, when a child or young person is placed in a school or college located in another local authority area since the latter's top-up funding arrangements are likely to be based on different levels of normally available provision and costs. We therefore encourage neighbouring local authorities to collaborate when reviewing and developing their top-up funding systems, and in making individual top-up funding decisions for children and young people placed in schools and colleges in other authority areas. In all cases, where a local authority makes a placement in a school or college which would not be covered by an existing agreed framework (for example, where a different provider local authority has agreed a separate cost or banded funding framework), the commissioning local authority should consider which funding arrangements are appropriate for the provision being commissioned.

Conditions of dedicated schools grant (DSG) relevant to top-up funding

110: When developing area-wide approaches to using high needs funding, it is important to remember that local authorities' expenditure from the dedicated schools grant (DSG) is subject to conditions of grant set by the department, which govern the way high needs funding is used, including the way top-up funding is organised. In particular:

local authorities must treat those placed in maintained provision, academies and free schools, the FE sector, and non-maintained and independent provision on a fair and equivalent basis when making arrangements for funding young people with high needs

local authorities must make payments of top-up funding to institutions in a timely fashion and on a basis agreed with the institution; and payments must be monthly unless otherwise agreed (such as termly in advance)

111: ESFA will examine cases and consider remedial action where there is clear evidence from a school or college that a local authority is not meeting the required conditions of grant.

Determining top-up funding for individuals

112: As described above, we expect commissioning local authorities and all types of schools and colleges to work constructively together so that agreement can be reached on the level of top-up funding required to enable suitable provision to be made for individual pupils and students. It is always better if principles are agreed in advance. This provides greater clarity about the different types of provision which are to be delivered, the needs of the children and young people who are likely to require them and the associated level of funding (for example, if funding bands are used). As noted above, these arrangements should be developed collaboratively, and clearly communicated so that parents, as well as staff in schools, colleges and the local authority, have a shared understanding.

114: Many local authorities use panels to provide advice on decisions relating to EHC plans, placements, and high needs funding (for example, when deciding whether to assess, to make a EHC plan, as well as advice in relation to placements, provision and resources). This can be an important way to ensure area-wide approaches (such as funding bands) are applied consistently and fairly in individual cases. Such bodies can only be advisory and decisions on these matters must remain with an officer of the local authority.

115: Disagreements about funding levels and commissioning arrangements for individual children and young people can arise and schools, colleges and local authorities need to work together to resolve these. In the case of children and young people with EHC plans, the EHC plan annual review process can be a particularly useful point for reviewing funding arrangements in the light of evidence about an individual's needs, their progress, and any changes to the provision they require.

116: The local schools forum can be helpful in setting the wider context. As noted above, local dispute resolution processes might need to be developed and agreed to help those involved work through the issues, and to avoid recourse to legal action. Ultimately local authorities bear the responsibility for decisions on top-up funding, as they are accountable for spending from the high needs block allocation they receive from the department. That responsibility should, however, be discharged fairly, reasonably and after proper consultation, recognising that at every level, different types of school and college are also accountable for their spending.

Confirming top-up funding

117: All high needs placements for children and young people with an EHC plan must be formally commissioned by a local authority. The local authority should, therefore, confirm in writing the amount of top-up funding to be paid as soon as the placement is agreed. Where a local authority makes a number of placements, a single schedule of placements and payments may be sufficient. The details of payment arrangements should be agreed as soon as possible, bearing in mind the condition of the DSG that local authorities must make payments of top-up funding in a timely fashion and on a basis agreed with the institution, and that payments must be monthly unless otherwise agreed.

118: It is important that the local authority makes an assessment at the earliest opportunity, ideally before the pupil or student has been admitted to the school or college, so that a pupil or student's placement is not disrupted. Where a pupil or student with an EHC plan is due to move between educational phases, the local authority must review, amend, and issue a revised EHC plan in the spring of the preceding academic year and by 31 March, as set out in Important dates. In no circumstances should an admission to, or the continuation of, a placement at a school or college be conditional on, and/or delayed by, receipt or agreement of top-up funding for the pupil or student.

120: If a pupil or student's placement is interrupted temporarily for public health reasons, for example, because an institution has had to partially close, the school or college should make contact with the commissioning local authority to discuss alternative arrangements for their continuing access to education and support, and for the continuation of top-up funding for the provision being made. If an absence is expected to be long-term, because a public or personal health issue affects the young person's attendance and ability to engage in their education, the local authority should review the EHC plan and amend it if necessary, commissioning different provision as required, for example, an alternative suitable placement.

How top-up funding should be calculated

121: Top-up funding rates for individual placements should take into account both the costs to the school or college of offering overall provision for the pupils and students with high needs and the contribution made from other elements of funding. These include mainstream schools' notional SEN budget (for the costs of additional support up to £6,000 per annum) and the overall high needs place funding of £6,000 or £10,000 per place in special schools and FE. This is particularly important for specialist providers (such as special schools, SPIs and AP), whose primary purpose is to offer high needs provision. We would encourage approaches to the calculation of top-up funding that both:

create certainty for schools and colleges on the level of funding they can expect to receive for the provision

are sufficiently responsive to changes in the number and needs of the pupils and students being placed in the provision, and the unavoidable costs of making that provision

122: When agreeing rates of top-up funding, a local authority and a school or college may wish to reflect economies and diseconomies of scale based on occupancy of places.

123: For example, a special school may have 100 high needs places for which it receives a total budget of £1,000,000 (100 x £10,000). In the event that the school fills 95 places, it may agree with the provider local authority to charge a lower rate of top-up funding. This would reflect the 'surplus' funding arising from its five unfilled places already funded by the provider local authority. The nature of pre-16 AP and SEND provision in some schools and colleges results in empty places arising at some points in the year, such as where diagnosis after the beginning of the academic year leads to later identification and placement.

124: Place funding should not be withdrawn for a place perceived as unused and/or adjusted by the local authority in determining the level of top-up funding. Similarly, an additional £6,000, or £10,000 per head should not automatically be charged if a school or college has filled all funded places.

125: Other factors that could impact on the way local authorities calculate the top-up funding for individual pupils and students include:

126: We do not expect top-up funding to contribute to or subsidise:

127: Schools and colleges should be transparent with commissioning local authorities about their cost and willing to explain how the overall school or college finances are working to ensure their continuing financial viability and their ability to sustain appropriate levels of support for children and young people with SEND. Schools and colleges may need to adapt their approach to making special provision, focusing on the needs of the child or young person. For example, a school or college should not assume that an EHC needs assessment and plan will result in the provision of a full-time teaching assistant - this level of help is often not needed by the child or young person and can, at times, be counterproductive to their development. Colleges may need to reorganise their study programmes for young people with SEND and find different ways of supporting them over the week.

Impact of the Public Contracts Regulations

128: The department's position is that the commissioning by local authorities of SEN and AP placements, funded from the high needs block of the DSG, is not regarded as a public service contract for the purposes of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

129: The Public Contracts Regulations (and related Concession Contracts Regulations 2016) are not intended to cover all expenditure of public funding, as made clear by EU law on which they were once based, and which our courts must still take into account. The Public Contracts Regulations apply only to contracts for the acquisition, or acquisition of the benefit, of public works, services or goods made for 'consideration' between an 'economic operator' and a contracting authority (whether at departmental, arm's length body (ALB) or local level, such as a local authority, school or college), where such services are deemed to constitute an 'economic' activity or purpose. Other forms of public funding, such as funding for services provided through grants or other public subsidies or preferences, to specific enterprises engaged in economic activities, usually fall out of scope of procurement law, but are potentially in scope of subsidy. EU law has established a general principle (which will likely still be recognised by our courts) that publicly funded and supervised education organised within a national education system does not constitute economic activity, even in cases where tuition fees may be required to support placements, so long as the majority of funding is public. Anyone relying on this guidance should, however, seek their own legal advice in each individual case.

130: When a local authority fulfils its statutory duties to make provision specified in an EHC plan or to put in place alternative provision for children of compulsory school age, funded from their high needs budget, it is likely to be delivering public education organised within a national education system. Any disbursement of high needs funding between the local authority and a school or college in fulfilment of such duties will, therefore, not constitute 'economic activity', and any agreement between local authority and a school or college will not be regarded as a public service contract for the purposes of the Public Contracts Regulations.

131: We recognise that the wide range of different placement processes and documentation employed by local authorities, some intended to comply with the Public Contracts Regulations, is not always helpful to schools and colleges that attract placements from a number of local authorities. We will consider how best to engage with local authorities, schools and colleges, and their representative organisations to encourage shared arrangements for commissioning and quality management of their local schools and colleges which operate on a regional or national basis and to share existing good practice.

Local authority high needs services and support

132: While the majority of a local authority's high needs budget is spent on place and top-up funding for schools and colleges, local authorities can also use high needs funding to provide additional or targeted support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), as permitted under schedule 2 to the Schools and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2021. This can take the form of additional funding to schools and colleges, which may be paid on the basis of a service level agreement, or access to specialist services or expertise commissioned by the local authority.

133: Such support can play an important role in enabling mainstream schools and colleges to meet a wider range of special educational needs and supports the presumption in law that children and young people should be educated in mainstream provision, unless their special education needs (SEN) requires more specialist provision.

134: As in previous years, the amount that the local authority plans to spend on such services should be included on the local authority's s251 budget statement. The actual expenditure should be reported on the same basis in the authority's s251 outturn statement. The schools forum is expected to discuss the details, including funding and effectiveness of these services.

Additional funding for mainstream schools

135: One of the categories of high needs spending referred to above is targeted funding to mainstream schools. Local authorities can provide additional funding outside the main funding formula for mainstream schools and academies on a consistent and fair basis, especially where the number of their pupils with SEND and/or high needs cannot be reflected adequately in the funding they receive through the local funding formula. They should define the circumstances in which additional funding will be provided from their high needs budget. The criteria and budget should also be included in the authority proforma tool (APT) with the additional factors/commentary section, as well as line 1.2.4 'Additional high needs targeted funding for mainstream schools and academies' in the section 251 returns.

136: Additional funding may be provided where there is a disproportionate number of pupils with a particular type of SEND. For example, a primary school may have developed a reputation for meeting the needs of high achieving pupils with autistic spectrum disorder, or pupils with physical disabilities, and it is not possible to target additional funding to the school through factors in the school funding formula.

137: Local authorities should have a formula or other method, based on their experience of distributing additional funding to their schools and academies. This should be agreed with schools and described on the APT. In all cases, the distribution methodology should be simple and transparent, and devised so that additional funds are targeted only to a minority of schools which have particular challenges because of their disproportionate number of pupils with SEND or high needs, or their characteristics. Budget and expenditure should be included within the relevant section 251 statements.

138: Local authorities can also provide additional funding to mainstream colleges for supporting a disproportionate number of students with lower-level SEND, where their annual costs of additional support are less than £6,000 per student.

Specialist support services

139: If mainstream provision is to meet a wide range of additional needs, it is important that the provision enables access to high-quality specialist support, for example, to help children and young people with autism, speech and language needs, social, emotional and mental health needs, sensory impairment, or challenging behaviour. This typically involves specialist teachers with expertise in supporting pupils with complex needs who are available to advise, train and support other teachers and SEN co-ordinators in mainstream schools and colleges. For example, support could be provided through networking and targeted training or commissioned from a specialist provider.

140: It is important that such support is available to mainstream schools (maintained schools as well as academies and free schools), further education (FE) colleges, sixth form colleges and 16 to 19 academies. They are all statutorily required to identify the SEND of their children and young people and to use their best endeavours to make sure that a child or young person who has SEND gets the support they need.

141: Local authorities and mainstream schools and colleges should discuss how such specialist support should be delivered when considering how to spend the high needs funding available to them. Many local authorities employ specialist teachers, funded directly from their high needs budget. Others give special schools additional funding to provide specialist support to other schools and colleges. Such arrangements are frequently accompanied by a service level agreement confirming what will be delivered in return for the additional funding.

142: Specialist support for pupils at risk of suspension or permanent exclusion may be commissioned by the local authority or by schools (using funding devolved by the local authority). Further information on centrally commissioned alternative provision (AP) services can be found in Alternative provision (AP).

143: High needs funding cannot be used for local authorities' costs in relation to SEND administration, assessment, co-ordination and monitoring, as per schedule 1 of the Schools and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2021. These include the identification of children and young people with SEND; the assessment of education, health and care (EHC) needs; and the preparation and review of EHC plans. Annex 3 provides further guidance on the funding of health and social care costs.

Alternative provision (AP)

144: Alternative provision (AP) provides targeted and specialist intervention and support to children at challenging moments in their lives and each placement has the potential to transform a child's life chances.

145: When children of compulsory school age are not receiving suitable education, the local authority has a duty, under section 19 Education Act 1996, to arrange it.

146: When arranging AP, the commissioner should clearly define the nature of the intervention, its objectives, and the timeline to achieve these, accounting for any statutory special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) responsibilities, especially when an education, health and care (EHC) plan is in place.

147: Occasions where a child may be placed in an alternative setting for a period of time could be as a result of a suspension or permanent exclusion or where a child has health-related needs, that mean they are unable to attend a mainstream school full-time. Many schools make use of AP services, before the need for suspension or permanent exclusion arises. In the majority of cases the intention is for these children to return to their mainstream school and the length of the placement should be determined by the needs of the pupil.

148: When local authorities make arrangements for AP (including hospital education), this is normally funded from their high needs budget. There is flexibility for local authorities to devolve some decision-making and funding for AP to schools, and there is evidence to show that this can be effective in promoting inclusion and accountability. Where a pupil remains on the roll of a mainstream school, the school is effectively acting as a commissioner of AP and retains accountability for the child's education. For example, where a pupil is suspended from a mainstream school for longer than 5 school days, the school is responsible for commissioning and funding AP from the sixth school day of the suspension.

Organising and funding AP

149: We acknowledge there are different ways local authorities and schools/academies can discharge their responsibilities and expect them to explore the most effective arrangements for AP commissioning and funding in their area. Local authorities should always take account of the needs of local schools in determining the demand for AP and how it is delivered and encourage schools to think collectively about their use of AP, and how the full cost of provision is to be met. Many local areas have developed strong partnership arrangements, which seek to share responsibilities across schools for AP commissioning, funding, and accountability. Such arrangements can include the local authority devolving some decision-making and funding to groups of schools.

150: Funding devolved to schools or partnerships of schools remains as a central budget under the local authority's central control, and the terms of its use should be covered by a service level agreement or 'memorandum of understanding' with the schools and academies involved. As with other elements of high needs funding held centrally, under the conditions of grant associated with the dedicated schools grant (DSG), the local authority must treat maintained schools and academies on an equivalent basis and make sure that any distribution of such funds is fair and reasonable.

151: The local authority should make sure that there is consultation with the schools forum on the way AP funding is used and distributed. The schools forum regulations are intended to ensure that the arrangements for AP funding are properly discussed at local level - with engagement not only from the local authority, but also from the mainstream schools and academies, PRUs and AP academies and free schools. This is explained in the schools forums operational and good practice guide.

152: The regulations and scheme for financing schools do not permit local authorities to make a differential charge on schools' and academies' budget shares according to their use or intended use of AP. It is possible, however, to use funds relating to pupils leaving the school roll, which have been deducted from schools' budget shares under regulation 27 of the Schools and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2021, or under the similar arrangements with academies to offset some of the cost of places. This is explained further in Permanent exclusions: funding adjustments.

How high needs funding is allocated to AP

153: AP can receive high needs funding in different ways through:

core funding: the annual allocation of funding on the basis of an amount per place (place funding), which a school receives either directly from the provider local authority (for PRUs, based on the financial year), or from ESFA (for AP academies and AP free schools, based on the academic year)

top-up funding: the funding required, over and above the core or place funding, to enable a pupil to participate in education is paid by the local authority or school that commissions each place

locally negotiated funding for AP services, such as outreach, which are outside the place funding and top-up funding model

funding for independent AP is also locally negotiated between commissioner and provider as it is outside the place funding and top-up funding system

154: It should be noted that post-16 students in pupil referral units (PRUs), AP academies and AP free schools are not funded in the same way as pre-16 students. A school will not receive AP place funding for post-16 students because this type of provision is, by definition, a school set up to educate children of compulsory school age. In the event that an AP school does have post-16 high needs students with SEND, usually with an EHC plan, these places can be funded on the same basis as post-16 students in mainstream schools.

155: Where the local authority commissions a place at a PRU, AP academy or AP free school, the top-up funding is allocated from the local authority's high needs budget. Where a school commissions a place at a PRU, AP academy or AP free school, the top-up funding may come from centrally held high needs funding that has been devolved to that school or a local partnership of schools (for example, via a service level agreement), or from the school's delegated budget share or (if an academy) general annual grant.

156: It is in the interests of the local authority and its schools offering AP to agree the referral process and process for resolving concerns about admissions. If the local authority is unable to place a particular pupil because they are not suited to the type of provision offered by a PRU, AP academy or AP free school, they would need to make other arrangements.

How to determine place numbers at AP

157: Each PRU, AP academy or AP free school usually has a number of places to offer pupils excluded by schools or who cannot get a school place for other reasons. In this case the commissioner would normally be the local authority. Many AP schools will also have places for pupils who are on part-time or shorter-term placements. In many cases local schools would be the commissioner for these places.

158: We have not defined a 'place' in the regulations, but we expect that a place will generally be available for occupation by a full-time equivalent (FTE) pupil. We accept that in AP, places may not be filled by the same individual throughout the year. Identification of places is not determined by pupils' registration status. Where pupils are dual registered with a mainstream school, the time they spend attending a PRU, AP academy or AP free school should be accounted for in the number of places identified.

159: It is important that AP schools are not overfunded where places are not required, but there will be occasions when places remain unoccupied, for example, to accommodate unpredictable fluctuations in demand. There will also be places that are occupied by more than one individual attending on a part-time basis (for example, a place may be filled by a child who attends for 2 days a week from one school, and another child who attend for 2 days from another school, with no child present for one day a week).

160: It may not be appropriate to provide place funding for some AP services where children are receiving their education offsite, such as a home tuition service or an outreach service provided by teachers whose base is the PRU or AP academy/free school. These services should be funded through a service level agreement with the commissioning local authority or school.

161: As in previous years, pre-16 AP places will be funded at £10,000 per place in 2022 to 2023, regardless of whether the place will be commissioned directly by a school or by a local authority.

162: The local authority and the schools should agree the number of AP places to be funded in PRUs and AP academies, in consultation with those schools in the area which may need to commission places. This may require consultation with other local authorities and their schools if they are likely to commission places in the PRU or AP academy. As explained previously, post-16 students in AP settings are not funded in the same way as pre-16 students, but on the same basis as post-16 students in mainstream schools.

163: Local authorities have flexibility to change the number of places they fund in 2022 to 2023 at PRUs and should only notify ESFA of changes to the place numbers in AP academies, using the 2022 to 2023 place change notification process. ESFA will contact AP free schools directly in November 2021 detailing how their 2022 to 2023 high needs place numbers will be determined. Evidence to support changes in place numbers may be required, and we recommend that PRUs, AP academies and AP free schools engage early with local authorities and schools commissioning places.

164: As with special academies, 2022 to 2023 places funded at AP academies are deducted from the DSG of the local authority in whose area the academy is located.

165: For AP free schools, deductions for the 2022 to 2023 academic year are made from the DSG of the local authority where the pupil lives, based on October 2021 school census data. These deductions will be notified to local authorities in April 2022. No deduction is made for places in AP free schools opening during the 2021 to 2022 or 2022 to 2023 academic years. However, a deduction is made from the DSG for places in AP free schools open before or during the 2020 to 2021 academic year.

166: AP academies and AP free schools should receive notification of their 2022 to 2023 allocations of place funding from ESFA by the end of March 2022; and PRUs from their local authority by end of February 2022.

167: Place funding provides some certainty for schools, but a stable income and financial viability will continue to depend on:

developing strong relationships with local authorities and schools that commission places

working out with commissioners, top-up funding rates that reflect the costs, including (for example) the costs of under-occupancy when places are not filled. See Agreeing top-up funding for alternative provision

where appropriate, developing commissioned services that can provide an income from local authorities and schools on a longer-term basis (for example, through a two or three-year contract)

Agreeing top-up funding for alternative provision

168: Top-up funding for AP is not usually related to an assessment of special educational needs (SEN). A standard top-up funding rate is often set for each PRU, AP academy or AP free school, which reflects the overall budget needed to deliver the provision for pupils and students attending. The principles of local authorities working constructively with schools and AP providers to co-produce transparent local arrangements for the provision offered and the expected cost rates (as set out in Organising top-up funding at local authority level) are as important for AP as for any other form of high needs provision. Cost transparency is an important feature of the high needs funding arrangements. Local authorities and schools should be aware of the full cost of AP in different schools and placement decisions made on the basis of the cost and quality of what is on offer. It is, therefore, important that the schools forum discussions about how AP is funded should include information about top-up funding rates for schools; and the organisation where the top-up funding and place funding for AP is sourced.

169: is often a very fluid movement of pupils and students in and out of AP during the course of a year. The extent of this movement can create uncertainty and volatility in an AP school's budget planning. Local authorities should recognise such fluctuations and trends to inform a more transparent and simplistic mechanism for administering the distribution of top-up funding.

170: One such example is where the AP school agrees an estimate of the uptake of places at the beginning of the year with its main commissioning local authorities and schools. Top-up funding could then be paid on account every month throughout the year; and a termly or year-end reconciliation could take place to reflect an actual uptake of places by individual pupils during the period (the difference between estimated and actual uptake). This would give the AP school more certainty over its in-year cash flow, enabling it to employ the staff needed (recognising that an increase or decrease in pupils may not necessarily directly equate to shifting staff to pupil ratios) to provide a high quality service throughout the year, and to adjust the quality and nature of provision over time to meet local authorities' and schools' demand.

171: It is important that top-up funding relates to pupils actually occupying places. The aim of the system of place funding and top-up funding is to give a proper balance between sustainable income for the AP school, and flexibility to commission AP that meets the needs of individual pupils. Funding based solely on places, which may or may not be occupied, risks spending scarce resources on places that are needed neither by local authorities nor by schools and academies. It also ties up funding that would otherwise allow decisions to be taken about the most appropriate AP for an individual pupil.

172: We are not prescriptive about how the calculation of top-up funding reflects the period that a child or young person occupies a place. Some AP schools operate on the basis of a daily rate but, in many cases, it would be more beneficial to calculate the top-up funding using longer periods, for example weekly, monthly, or even termly rates.

173: Commissioning local authorities and schools will want to carefully consider the top-up funding arrangements to make sure that there are no perverse incentives; and that the funding achieves the intended outcomes.

174: It would also be possible to develop a top-up funding system that more closely reflects the achievement of desired outcomes, as a way of encouraging high quality AP.

175: The AP school could receive an enhanced rate of top-up funding after the end of the placement if the intended outcome for the pupil or student had been achieved.

176: For example, a mainstream school could be seeking a particular intervention for a year 11 student, which would enable him or her to successfully complete their GCSE exams; it could agree a short-term placement for the student at a local PRU and an additional amount of top-up funding that would be paid after the student's exam results are known, and if the expected grades had been achieved. Similarly, a local authority may wish to agree that an additional amount of top-up funding is payable if a year 11 pupil is in education, training, or employment in the year after leaving AP.

177: Such arrangements are not mandatory, but could be used to secure better outcomes and improve the quality of AP.

Commissioned AP services

178: In many cases the services offered by a PRU, or AP academy or free school will not be appropriately funded through the combination of place and top-up funding. Teachers at the AP setting may be involved in outreach work with local schools and academies or may be employed by them on a consultancy basis, to advise on behaviour management. The local authority may use a PRU's staff to provide home tuition to children with medical needs or to provide a service to pregnant teenagers or young mothers who cannot easily attend school. These are examples of services that would normally be funded by the commissioning local authority or school, or group of schools, under a service level agreement that specifies what is required and the funding to be paid.

179: Where the local authority commissions the service, the funding would come from its high needs budget.

180: Where a school or group of schools commissions the service, the funding would come either from those schools' delegated budget share, or from centrally held high needs funding that has been devolved to schools. Any distribution of devolved AP funding should be fair and treat maintained schools and academies in the same way.

181: As with other centrally held AP budgets, the local authority should make sure that there is consultation with the schools forum on the amount retained and how it is used and distributed. For certain centrally held budgets, including for services relating to the education of children with behavioural difficulties; and other activities for the purpose of avoiding the permanent exclusion of pupils from schools, the regulations require schools forum agreement to the amount retained.

Permanent exclusions: funding adjustments

182: The previous AP sections highlight the importance of ensuring schools and local authorities explore the most effective arrangements for AP commissioning and funding in their area, including for children who have been permanently excluded.

183: Where pupils are excluded, under the Schools and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2021, funding should flow in-year from the school that has permanently excluded the pupil to the provision that takes responsibility for the pupil.

184: If a school subsequently admits a pupil who has been permanently excluded during that financial year, it should then receive additional funding.

185: The provisions also apply to pupils who leave a mainstream school for reasons other than permanent exclusions and are receiving education funded by the local authority, other than at a school.

186: The provisions also act independently of whether a particular pupil has been on the school census in the first place, and whether the school has, therefore, received funding for them.

187: Local authorities are responsible for adjusting the budget shares of mainstream maintained schools if a pupil is permanently excluded, so that funding follows the pupil. Further information on this, including calculating the amount to be deducted from the excluding school's budget and admitting school's budget (if appropriate), is available in the 'Redetermination of budgets where pupils have been excluded' section of the schools revenue funding operational guide 2022 to 2023.

188: Different funding arrangements apply in relation to pupils permanently excluded from PRUs, AP academies, maintained special schools, special academies and children in designated special units or resourced places at mainstream schools. These schools receive base funding for each place, which is not linked to individual pupils and so is not withdrawn following a permanent exclusion. Similarly, the calculation for an admitting school would not be used for a PRU, AP academy or AP free school. They also receive top-up funding that is linked to individual pupils. When commissioning places at one of these types of school, local authorities and schools should formally agree with the providing school what proportion of this top-up funding will be returned if a pupil leaves the school (for any reason). See paragraphs above for further information on how top-up funding works for PRUs, AP academies and AP free schools.

189: The only exception to this is where pupil premium is payable in respect of a pupil attending a PRU or special school maintained by the local authority. In this situation, local authorities must adjust the school's budget in accordance with the same formula that applies to mainstream schools. In the case of AP and special academies, local authorities should claim from the academy an amount equivalent to the pupil premium (as calculated according to the formula in the regulations) or pay the academy the relevant amount when a previously permanently excluded pupil joins the academy.

190: Information about regulations covering the movement of funds in relation to permanently excluded pupils who are placed in provision in other local authorities can be found under the section 'Inter-authority funding transfers' in the schools revenue funding operational guide 2022 to 2023. The regulations relate to situations where a pupil is permanently excluded from a maintained school in one local authority, and is either:

subsequently provided with education in the same financial year at a maintained school, or otherwise than at school in a second local authority

subsequently provided with education in the same financial year at a PRU, or otherwise than at school in a second local authority, and then at a maintained school or otherwise than at school in a third local authority

Funding by type of education provider

Early years providers

191: Children aged 0 to 5 with more complex needs and those in receipt of an education, health and care (EHC) plan are eligible to receive funding via the high needs block of the dedicated schools grant (DSG).

192: Local authorities can meet the costs of under 5s with high needs in different ways from their high needs budget. These may include special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) support provided directly as a central service for young children with high needs and early years providers. Place funding may also be used for early years provision, for example, at special schools, supplemented by top-up funding for individual children.

193: Additionally, local authorities are required to pass funding on to all early years providers delivering the free entitlements for eligible children aged between 2 and 4 through the early years block of the DSG. The early years funding operational guide includes more information on how early years block funding is allocated and should be passed on to providers.

194: As set out in the early years operational guidance, there are additional early years funding streams to support children aged 3 and 4 with SEND to access their free entitlements.

195: The settings of 3 and 4-year-olds eligible for the disability access fund (DAF) (those in receipt of child disability living allowance and receiving free early education)will be entitled to receive a one-off payment of £615 per year.

196: All local authorities are required to establish an inclusion fund in their local funding systems for 3 and 4-year-olds with special educational needs (SEN) taking up the free entitlement, regardless of the number of hours taken. This fund supports local authorities to work with providers to address the needs of individual children with low level or emerging SEND. The structure also supports local authorities to undertake their responsibilities to strategically commission SEN services as required under the Children and Families Act 2014. Local authorities can establish their SEN inclusion funds using funding from either one or both of their early years block and high needs block of the DSG.

Mainstream schools, academies and free schools

197: Mainstream schools without SEN units or resourced provision are funded for pre-16 pupils with SEND as follows:

core funding: included within the funding through the local schools funding formula

top-up funding: agreed per pupil top-up paid by commissioning local authority

198: Maintained mainstream schools will receive notification of their core funding allocations of pre-16 funding for the financial year beginning in April, by the end of the prior February; and mainstream academies and free schools, by the end of March before the subsequent funding (academic) year starting in September. The core funding for mainstream schools includes funding for pupils with SEND, whose additional support costs are lower than £6,000. Schools and academies should have sufficient funding in their delegated budget to enable them to support pupils' SEND where required up to the mandatory cost threshold of £6,000 per pupil per annum.

199: For pupils aged 5 to 15 years in mainstream schools, a notional SEN amount will be shown in the school's budget; this is an indicative amount that schools may set aside for pupils with SEND. Where there is a disproportionate number of pupils with SEND, additional funding may be provided outside the main funding formula, as explained in Additional funding for mainstream schools.

200: High needs place funding is only available to those schools with SEN units or resource provision.

201: Where individual pupils require additional support that costs more than £6,000, the excess should be met by top-up funding associated with the individual pupil. Top-up funding rates are for local authorities to determine, in consultation with schools. Further information is provided in Top-up funding.

Sixth forms

202: Mainstream sixth forms are funded for their core funding on the basis of an amount per student based on the post-16 national funding formula (sometimes referred to as element 1), and £6,000 per high needs place (element 2). Funding for pupils whose additional support costs are lower than £6,000 is provided within the disadvantage funding element of the post-16 national funding formula. Local authorities should currently assume a national average amount of £5,200 for element one, comprising the £4,188 base rate and additional funding allocated through the post-16 funding formula (such as for disadvantage). Any change to this assumption for 2022 to 2023 will be included in a later amendment to this operational guide.

203: High needs place funding (element 2) is available to schools for students with SEND requiring additional costs exceeding £6,000. Schools should have engaged with their local authority to agree place numbers. Local authorities have flexibility to agree alternative ways of calculating this element of high needs funding with schools, academies and free schools. Further information can be found in High needs place funding: local flexibility to allocate differently.

204: ESFA does not require information on changes to places funded in maintained schools as local authorities fund these institutions directly and have local flexibility to change the number of places as well as the method of calculating the allocation. Local authorities should, however, notify ESFA of changes to place numbers for academies and free schools, to ensure that they are funded on the correct basis.

205: As explained for pre-16 pupils, where individual pupils require additional support that costs more than £6,000, the excess should be met by top-up funding associated with the individual pupil.

Special units and resourced provision

206: Special, or SEN, units are special provision within a mainstream school where the children are taught mainly within separate classes. Resourced provision is where places are reserved at a mainstream school for pupils with a specific type of SEN, taught mainly within mainstream classes, but requiring a base and some specialist facilities around the school.

207: Mainstream schools are funded for SEN units and resourced provision through:

pre-16 core funding: a combination of per-pupil funding through the local schools funding formula, plus £6,000 per place for those occupied by pupils on roll; and £10,000 per place for the remainder of places to be funded

pre-16 top-up funding: agreed per pupil top-up paid by commissioning local authority

post-16 core funding: element 1 (based on the 16 to 19 national funding formula (NFF)) plus element 2 (£6,000 per place) based on the number of places to be funded

post-16 top-up funding for students with high needs: element 3 agreed per pupil top-up paid by the commissioning local authority

208: Mainstream schools may be funded for pre-16 high needs places if they have special units and/or resourced provision. Depending on the range and type of services on offer, it is also possible for such provision to be a centrally funded service commissioned by the local authority, normally under a service level agreement with the school or academy. Where there are changes to specialist provision, such as new special unit or resourced provision, at academies and free schools, this must first be approved through the significant change process. A signed deed of variation must be received from the trust so place funding can be reflected in the 2022 to 2023 academic year allocation from ESFA. There are some circumstances where local authorities have made different arrangements for funding high needs places at special units or resourced provision. This would be a local arrangement agreed with the school and funded direct by the local authority rather than via ESFA. More information will be included in the 2022 to 2023 place change technical note.

209: Pre-16 places at a special unit and resourced provision that are occupied by pupils recorded on the school census, as sole or dual (main) at a special unit or resourced provision are funded at £6,000 per place. Pupils in these places will also attract funding through the mainstream school formula.

210: Other places are funded at £10,000. This may apply where:

211: ESFA confirms the number of funded high needs places in mainstream academies and free schools following the annual place change notification process.

212: In the case of maintained schools, the provider local authority that maintains the school determines the total number of places to be funded, taking full account of places that may be commissioned by other local authorities.

213: For SEN special units and resourced provision, information collected via the authority proforma tool (APT) is used to determine the place funding rate.

214: For mainstream academies and free schools, ESFA determines the rate of place funding amount based on occupancy data provided in the APT, with the number of places confirmed as part of the place change notification process. The total number of places funded is based on the outcomes from the place change notification process, of these:

the number of places funded at £6,000 per place is calculated based on the number of places occupied by pupils on the roll of the school or academy, as recorded in the APT, but would not exceed the total number of places to be funded. For example, if funding for 10 places was agreed through the place change process, and 12 places recorded as occupied in the APT, a total of 10 places would be funded at £6,000 per place. This is because we use the place change process to determine the place numbers, not the APT

the number of unoccupied places, (funded at £10,000 per place), is calculated as the total number of places to be funded (via the place change), minus the number of occupied places recorded in the APT, this funding will not be below zero. So, in the example above, there are no unoccupied places as the total occupied places is the same as the number notified as part of the place change process

Maintained special schools, special academies and special free schools

215: Pre-16 and post-16 high needs places at maintained special schools, special academies and special free schools are funded at £10,000 per place. In addition, they receive per pupil top-up funding paid by the commissioning local authority.

216: Following publication of the place change notification outcomes there is a 2-week enquiry window for local authorities and schools to raise significant issues regarding the number of places to be funded. Schools receive allocations of place funding from ESFA by the end of March, in advance of the academic year; maintained special schools are notified of their place funding allocations (that is, their budget shares) by their local authority, by the end of February.

217: A special schools protection, otherwise known as minimum funding guarantee (MFG), will continue to apply to maintained special schools and special academies (including special free schools) in 2022 to 2023. The MFG for mainstream schools (at least +0.5% per pupil) covers their core budget but does not cover the high needs top-up funding they receive. That element is not protected, because it can change significantly when a single pupil with high needs leaves the school. However, for special schools the top-up funding they receive is a much higher proportion of their overall funding, and so it is covered by the equivalent of the MFG for special schools. Because it protects more of their total budget, we are continuing to set the level of that broader protection slightly lower - at 0% per pupil in 2022 to 2023.

218: This means that no special school will receive from their local authority less per pupil next year on a like-for-like comparison with their pupil cohort this year. The calculation is based on the assumption that the number and type of places remains the same between 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023. It also assumes that all pupils in the school are placed by the provider local authority (usually, where the school is located) and that all top-up funding rates received by the school are those set by that local authority.

219: See Annex 1 for further information on the MFG protection, including a worked example.

Non-maintained special schools (NMSS)

220: All places in NMSS (pre and post-16) are funded at £10,000 per year. In addition, they receive per pupil top-up funding paid by the commissioning local authority.

221: ESFA bases NMSS place funding allocations on the pupil number data from the latest October school census, uplifted by the difference between the previous year's October and January census pupil number data. If there is a reduction in the number of pupils between the October and January census, ESFA will not reduce funding, to ensure that no school is funded on numbers less than those recorded in their latest October census. If a school has a significant number of pupils, above their allocated place numbers, and they have concerns about how that will be funded through the lagged funding approach, they should contact ESFA.

Independent schools

222: Independent schools, including independent special schools and independent AP, sit outside the high needs place funding system. Where a local authority has commissioned a place in an independent school, the local authority is responsible for all the funding for that child or young person with SEND (that is, the local authority must provide the equivalent of both place and top-up funding from their high needs budget). The total expenditure on these placements should be included in the relevant high needs top-up funding line of each local authority's section 251 returns.

223: More information about how local authorities should discharge their responsibilities for children and young people with SEND in independent schools is set out in the SEND Code of Practice, in particular paragraphs 9.131 to 9.136.

224: Where a local authority is considering placing a child or young person with an EHC plan on a full-time basis in provision they should ensure the setting is properly registered with the Department for Education before any placement is made. Further information on the process can be found at independent school registration.

225: It is an offence to conduct an unregistered independent school, and anyone who does so is liable on summary conviction to a fine and/or imprisonment. Local authorities making use of unregistered provision for the purpose of providing full-time education to children may prejudice future prosecutions of unlawfully operating settings.

Pupil referral units (PRUs), AP academies and AP free schools

226: Pupil referral units (PRUs), alternative provision (AP) academies and AP free schools are funded as follows:

pre-16 core funding: £10,000 per place based on the number of places to be funded

pre-16 top-up funding: agreed per pupil top-up paid by the commissioning school or local authority

post-16 core funding: element 1 (based on 16 to 19 NFF) plus element 2 (£6,000 per SEND place)

post-16 top-up funding: agreed per student top-up paid by the commissioning local authority

227: We encourage schools and local authorities to explore the most effective arrangements for AP commissioning and funding in their area. For instance, there is flexibility for local authorities to devolve some decision-making and funding for AP to schools: there is evidence to show that this can be effective in supporting mainstream schools' work with their most challenging pupils. Local authorities should provide information locally and consult with the schools forum about such arrangements.

228: PRUs, AP academies and AP free schools will not receive AP place funding for post-16 students because these institutions are, by definition, schools set up to educate children of compulsory school age. In the event that an AP institution does have post-16 high needs students with SEND, usually with an EHC plan, these places are funded on the same basis as post-16 students in mainstream schools.

229: Further information is available in Alternative provision (AP).

General further education (FE) colleges, sixth form colleges, independent learner providers (ILPs) and 16 to 19 academies

230: General further education (FE) colleges, sixth form colleges, independent learning providers (ILPs) and 16 to 19 maintained schools and academies receive core funding on the basis of an amount per student calculated using the post-16 NFF (element 1) and, for their students with high needs, £6,000 per high needs place (element 2). Top-up funding for students with high needs (element 3) is paid directly by the local authority commissioning the place.

231: Element 1 funding, based on student numbers, is allocated directly by ESFA to colleges (or via the provider local authority for 16 to 19 maintained schools) for students aged 16 to 19 and those aged 19 to 25 with EHC plans. The number of students and amount of funding paid has no impact on local authorities' high needs budgets. Funding is provided through the disadvantage factors of the mainstream 16 to 19 funding allocation for students with SEND, but whose additional support costs are lower than £6,000 and who therefore do not count as students with high needs.

232: For 2022 to 2023, local authorities should currently assume a national average amount of £5,200 for element 1, comprising the £4,188 base rate and additional funding allocated through the post-16 funding formula (such as for disadvantage), in respect of all post-16 high needs students. Any change to this assumption for 2022 to 2023 will be included in a later amendment to this operational guide.

233: The number of high needs places (element 2) that determines the high needs funding of £6,000 per place is based on the number of places funded for the 2021 to 2022 academic year, subject to any changes to those numbers as a result of the place change notification process. As indicated above, it is essential that FE colleges discuss with their provider local authority (that is, the one in which the main college or provider headquarters is located) how many places should be funded, as set out in High needs place funding. Further information about how place funding works, including where students exceed place numbers, can be found in high needs place funding. Further information on high needs top-up funding (element 3) is set out in Top-up funding.

234: It is also open to FE colleges to agree with their provider local authority an alternative method of calculating this element of funding (that is, a calculation that is not necessarily a number of high needs places times £6,000), subject to the requirements outlined in high needs place funding: local flexibility to allocate differently.

235: There are a number of situations where a 14 to 16-year-old may be studying in a college:

students who achieved a level 2 qualification early and are choosing to enrol on a full level 3 course, and home-educated students are counted as 16 to 19-year-olds; such students are funded alongside 16 to 19-year-olds via the 16 to 19 funding formula for element 1 and £6,000 per place for element 2

students enrolled in a school or academy but studying part-time in college are not funded as 16 to 19-year-olds, as the school or academy will receive funding in respect of these students via the pre-16 process applicable to that school

some colleges are eligible to be directly funded by ESFA for 14 to 16-year-olds:

these students should be recorded in the individualised learner record (ILR) accordingly and will be funded for element 1 via the 16 to 19 formula using a separate process

for element 2 these students are counted as 16 to 19-year-olds and funded at £6,000 per place using the same process as for 16 to 19-year-olds

further details for FE colleges on funding for directly recruited 14 to 16-year-olds in colleges can be found in the enrolment of 14 to 16-year-olds in FE guidance

Special post-16 institutions (SPIs)

237: To be eligible to receive high needs place funding from ESFA for the first time, SPIs must successfully complete the high needs funding: due diligence process for special post-16 providers. Such SPIs must have been proposed to ESFA through the annual place change notification process. Their allocations are determined by the numbers returned by the local authority in which they are located, through the place change notification process.

Hospital education

238: Hospital education is defined as education provided at a community special school or foundation special school established in a hospital, or under any arrangements made by the local authority, under section 19 Education Act 1996 (exceptional provision of education), where the child is being provided with such education, by reason of a decision made by a medical practitioner.

239: Although we allocate funding to local authorities for hospital education without reference to the age of the young people receiving the education, local authorities' duties differ for young people aged 16 and over. This may affect their decisions on funding education for young people in this age group, such as those in independent hospital schools.

240: Our long-term intention is to introduce a formulaic hospital education factor in the high needs national funding formula that takes into account both local authorities' spending data and NHS data, thereby better responding to the number of patients needing education. Our work to progress this has been delayed because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the NHS, hospitals and hospital schools.

241: In the meantime, as in previous years, hospital education should continue to be funded by local authorities based on either an amount per place, or as a centrally funded local authority service. An example of the latter is where the local authority employs teachers directly to work in a hospital or offer home tuition to pupils who are confined to their home, because a medical practitioner has decided that is where they should be, to receive their education. Some local authorities commission such services through hospital schools or PRUs. In all cases, local authorities should ensure that there is clarity on how hospital education is provided and funded locally. Local authorities should report their planned and actual expenditure on such provision in maintained schools, or provision funded as a central service, in the relevant tables of the s251 budget and outturn statements.

242: Funded hospital education places can be found in maintained special schools (usually a particular type of special school known as a hospital school), maintained PRUs (sometimes known as medical PRUs), special and AP academies and free schools. Often these schools will have a combination of hospital education places and other high needs (AP and SEND) places.

244: Local authorities are reminded that the high needs NFF provides them with an 8% increase in hospital education funding, compared with the 2021 to 2022 allocations of hospital education funding. Local authorities should consider carefully, following consultation with their maintained hospital schools, academies and other providers of hospital education, how much of this increase is passed on to them, taking into account any increase in their costs. If a local authority intends to pass on an increase to an academy funded for hospital education places, this must be notified to ESFA via the 2022 to 2023 place change notification process.

245: The hospital education funding guidance explains the process for those local authorities wishing to apply for additional funding due to new hospital education provision. We are aware that many hospital schools will have had to change their delivery of educational provision during 2020 and 2021, as a result of COVID-19, and that some of these changes may ultimately be more permanent. Local authorities should engage with their maintained hospital schools and academies, other hospital education providers, and the relevant NHS hospital trusts, to plan ahead for 2022 to 2023, including discussion of the funding implications of temporary or permanent changes in provision.

246: Medium secure adolescent psychiatric forensic units, which cater mainly for young people aged 16 and over, are funded in 2022 to 2023 using the same hospital education funding methodology of an amount per place no less than their funding per place in 2021 to 2022. Such education provision exists in a very small number of units, most of which are in maintained schools and academies where the funding is allocated, either from the local authority or ESFA respectively.

247: Local authorities' duties may require them to commission hospital education from other independent providers, usually registered as independent schools and not in receipt of funding directly from ESFA.

248: In these circumstances, local authorities would be expected to pay the costs of this education from their high needs' budgets. In discharging their duties, the law does not necessarily require local authorities to commission a particular education provider, although decisions about education provision should not unnecessarily disrupt a child or young person's education or treatment.

249: Independent hospital education provision may be funded either as a single service by the local authority in whose area the provision is located, or on the basis of payments for individuals from those authorities where the child or young person normally resides. In both cases, the provider should confirm with the relevant local authority that they are content to commission and fund the education provision.

250: If funding is provided as payments for individual children and young people, the provider should receive such confirmation from the local authority in writing (if possible), before delivering the education provision to the child or young person, and certainly before requesting any funding.

High needs funding: post-16 special circumstances

High needs place funding: local flexibility to allocate differently

251: Mainstream academy and free school sixth forms, including alternative provision (AP) academy sixth forms, and all general further education (FE) colleges, sixth form colleges, independent learning providers (ILPs), and 16 to 19 maintained schools and academies are funded at £6,000 per high needs place (sometimes referred to as element 2). This funding is deducted from the local authority's dedicated schools grant (DSG) and paid to the schools and colleges via ESFA, based on the published data on place numbers from the annual place change notification process. For maintained schools and pupil referral units (PRUs), this funding remains in local authorities' DSG high needs allocations to fund schools direct and local authorities have flexibility to make changes to the place numbers.

252: There remains the flexibility introduced previously, whereby a local authority can reach agreement with any of the types of school or college referred to above, that this element of the institution's funding can be calculated and paid in a different way directly by the local authority, subject to the following requirements:

there should be agreement on the alternative funding approach between the local authority and the school or college involved, and this agreement should be reached by autumn 2021

the alternative arrangement must ensure a continuation of the £6,000 cost threshold for top-up funding, and reflect high needs students attending from other local authorities to maintain consistency in the high needs funding system

in other words, the funding methodology should continue to provide schools and colleges with funds to meet the additional costs of supporting students with special educational needs up to £6,000 per annum, with top-up funding meeting the costs in excess of that threshold

local authorities should be aware that the import/export adjustment will continue to operate as explained above whatever alternative methodology is used

254: The local authority can make such alternative funding arrangements by agreement with its maintained secondary and 16 to 19 schools and PRUs without any formal notification to ESFA.

255: Where an alternative funding methodology is agreed with an academy or college, the local authority should notify ESFA through the place change notification process that the place number is to be reduced. The place number would be zero if the local authority has agreed with the academy or college that the alternative methodology covers the equivalent of all their place funding, including those places filled by students placed by other authorities.

256: In all cases, the deduction from the local authority's high needs allocation would reflect the reduced place number, because the local authority has agreed the change with the academy or college involved and will pay the funding to the academy or college concerned directly.

257: It is important for local authorities to note that no changes will be made to the import/export adjustment in the national funding formula (NFF), because the provider local authority (the local authority area where the school or college is based), will still be expected to meet the costs of all the places in the school or college. This includes those places to be occupied by students for whom other commissioning local authorities are paying the top-up funding.

258: This flexibility encourages local authorities and their schools and colleges to collaborate in making special provision for their students. Examples of alternative approaches could be:

an agreement to fund a college directly a lump sum per year over three years, to provide certainty to the local authority and college on the level of provision; and funding that will be made subject to specified tolerances relating to the actual number of students with high needs receiving support

an agreement that a school sixth form will be funded for its students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) on the basis of similar proxy measures, as are in the local pre-16 funding formula

259: We may collect further information from local authorities about any alternative funding calculations they make.

Post-16 study programmes

260: The majority of young people with high needs attending a school, college or SPI will be subject to an education, health and care (EHC) plan. Local authorities must use the evidence from the EHC plan to make consistent, effective and robust assessments of the support the young person will need to move towards a positive outcome.

261: Local authorities and the schools and colleges offering places for students with high needs should collaborate to agree a suitable study programme for a young person, which must be tailored to their individual aspirations and support needs.

262: A full-time study programme has a minimum duration of 540 hours and there is no set maximum. Neither local authorities nor schools and colleges should set an arbitrary maximum number of hours for a study programme, but instead students should be provided with the number of hours they require to complete the programme. A funding requirement for all programmes is that they meet the condition of funding for maths and English.

263: A supported internship is one type of full-time study programme specifically aimed at young people aged 16 to 25 who have an EHC plan, for whom a move into employment is the next step, but who need extra support to do so. Students on supported internships, who do not require additional support costing more than £6,000, or whose support costs are subsidised by Access to Work funding from the Department for Work and Pensions that brings the residual cost to less than £6,000, must not be regarded as students with high needs, even though they have an EHC plan.

Part-time or part year students: post-16

264: We also consider young people to be high needs students when they are part-time or part-year and their additional support funding would total more than £6,000 if provided over the full academic year, as agreed with the local authority in which the student is resident. See guidance regarding the funding rates and formula used in the funding arrangements for 16 to 19-year-olds for more information.

265: Where a school or college has enrolled, or is considering enrolling, a high needs student who will attend on a part-time or part-year basis, they should hold discussions with the relevant local authority as commissioners of high needs provision. The normal funding approach should then apply, in line with the principles outlined in this guide.

Students aged 19 to 25 with an education health and care (EHC) plan and funding restrictions in schools

266: Students aged 19 to 25 with an EHC plan who are continuing in education may have a range of options, including attending FE colleges, independent learning providers and SPIs. The school funding regulations require that a local authority may not use its high needs budget to fund places, or pay top-up funding, for 19 to 25-year-olds attending a school, for example, a maintained school, academy, a non-maintained special school (NMSS) or an independent school. There is an exception for those 19-year-olds who are completing a secondary education course started before they were 18.

267: In the event that a school considers that it has the appropriate specialist expertise to prepare students aged 19 to 25 with an EHC plan for adult life, including independent living and employment, it will need to establish separate post-16 provision to do so. To receive high needs funding for such young people, a school would have to set up a legally and financially separate entity to provide the appropriate environment for young people of that age group. Such new post-19 specialist provision would normally be set up as a special post-16 institution (SPI). To be eligible to receive high needs place funding from ESFA for the first time, SPIs must have been included in ESFA's annual place change notification process by a local authority and must successfully complete the High needs funding: due diligence process for special post-16 providers. The high needs funding due diligence process for new special post-16 providers guidance contains more information.

268: New SPIs funded high needs place numbers allocations from ESFA are based on those returned by the local authority through the place change notification process.

269: For information on learners aged 19 to 25 without an EHC plan see Annex 4.

Students aged over 25

270: A local authority must keep an EHC plan under review. For a student with an EHC plan when they are 24 years old, the plan normally ceases when the student turns 25, although local authorities have a power to extend an EHC plan until the end of the academic year in which the student turns 25.

271: If a local authority extends the EHC plan until the end of the academic year, the local authority must continue to provide top-up funding to the FE college until that time.

272: If the local authority makes an exceptional decision not to extend the EHC plan to the end of the academic year, it must discuss the transition arrangements for the young person with ESFA. Place funding is allocated to the FE college by ESFA for the full academic year and would not normally be clawed back if the EHC plan is not extended.

273: Local authorities are not responsible for commissioning provision for students with SEND who are 19 to 25 without an EHC plan or who are over the age of 25. Links to the funding arrangements for these students are at Annex 4.

Annex 1: special schools minimum funding guarantee

274: The MFG protection for maintained special schools and special academies in 2022 to 2023 will be set by a condition of grant that applies to local authorities' dedicated schools grant (DSG) and protects schools from seeing a reduction in funding from year to year, assuming that the number and type of places remains the same between the 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 financial years.

275: In 2022 to 2023, the MFG for special schools/academies will remain at 0% of their core budget (place + top-up funding) on a per pupil basis, that is, the top-up funding must be set at a rate to ensure a school's total budget is no less per pupil than in the previous year. The minimum funding guarantee (MFG) calculation must assume that all pupils in the school are placed by the provider local authority and that all top-up rates received by the school are those set by the provider local authority.

276: High needs funding that the school receives in place of the teachers' pay grant (TPG), the teachers' pensions employer contribution grant (TPECG), and the pensions supplementary fund, should be excluded from the MFG calculation. When calculating protection, local authorities should make sure that they are comparing like for like. Adjustments can be made for changes in the nature of the provision. For example, if previous top-up funding rates included an element for a commissioned service which is no longer provided by the school, the value of that element can be discounted when calculating the MFG protected level.

277: Once the MFG assessment confirms 2022 to 2023 top-up funding rates received by the school are in line with the guarantee, they can then be applied to reflect the actual number and type of places at the school.

278: Where a local reorganisation takes place and there are changes to bandings, for each special school the 2021 to 2022 pupils and their categories of need should be attributed as far as possible to the new bandings for 2022 to 2023, to assess whether any school loses more than the MFG.

279: Where the MFG is breached and the local authority intends to fund one or more schools below the guaranteed level, the authority must request that the relevant condition of grant is disapplied, using the disapplication request proforma accompanied by relevant supporting information/evidence. Local authorities are expected to produce a worked MFG calculation prior to considering a disapplication request - see table 3 below.

280: All disapplication requests from local authorities seeking exceptions to the MFG rule will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and on the basis that each request, will apply for one year only. No prior year approvals will be carried forward.

281: It is important to stress that where a local authority has adjusted the top-up funding across a number of schools, for example, following a review of its top-up funding rates and as a result some schools are gaining funding and some are losing, a disapplication request is only relevant to the schools whose funding would fall below the guaranteed level. Any decision on such a request will relate directly to those schools, and not to the others that might be benefitting from such a reorganisation of the funding levels. Consequently, local authorities should not, through this process, seek endorsement of the entirety of a new top-up funding scheme that they are intending to implement across some or all of their special schools.

282: In devising a new scheme of top-up funding that may result in a breach of the MFG for one or more schools, local authorities should take particular care to ensure that they have considered the financial impact on the schools affected, the quality and sustainability of the provision they will need from those schools, and any transitional protection that would help with the changes.

283: A detailed options appraisal, thorough consultation with the schools affected, particularly with those whose future funding levels might trigger the need for a disapplication request, are important. Information on this appraisal and consultation activity should be included in any subsequent disapplication request. There is also a requirement that high needs funding arrangements are discussed in the local schools forum, so consultation with a wider range of schools and colleges may be necessary.

284: In requesting a disapplication, it is essential that the local authority provides a comprehensive summary of this key information in the disapplication proforma. This should be accompanied with the following supporting information that can be annexed:

financial modelling, in line with the examples provided in this annex - the financial impact on those schools affected by the MFG breach, including the year-on-year change in total funding and/or information about any previously agreed reductions in funding

detailed information about the consultations that have been undertaken with the schools adversely affected, including relevant supporting local contextual information, such as the schools' financial health and current reserves or deficits

any proposals for continuing support to minimise any adverse impact on special schools, to monitor the financial impact and ongoing viability, and to review the implementation of the changes

in line with the 2010 Equality Act, details of the full equality impact assessment undertaken

285: The worked modelling examples below provide two scenarios of how the MFG is calculated for a 100-place special school. The first (table 3) shows the funding in 2021 to 2022, when it was occupied by a total of 90 pupils, 30 in each of 3 different bands. This is considered a baseline and the same number of places, pupils and levels of need should be used for 2022 to 2023. The calculation then highlights the impact of any such changes on top-up amounts or other schools budget funding, whilst offering the same level of provision, the implications of which are summarised below.

Table 3: MFG calculation - a worked modelling baseline example

Table 4: MFG calculation - a worked modelling example where the funding remains above 0% MFG

Table 5: MFG calculation - a worked modelling example where the funding is below 0% MFG

286: In the first modelling scenario (table 4), one of the three top-up funding rates has reduced. Overall, the funding for the school would remain above the 0% MFG level if the number and types of places remained the same. Therefore, 2022 to 2023 top-up funding rates are in line with the guarantee and funding to the special school should reflect these rates (for pupils placed by the provider local authority), the number of students in each band and the actual numbers of places.

287: In the second modelling scenario (table 5), two of the three top-up funding rates have reduced. However, in this case, the funding for the school is below the 0% MFG level; and so, the rates will need further adjustment in order to be compliant with the condition of grant, or a disapplication request would have to be made.

Annex 2: Responsibility for children and young people who move between local authorities

289: Under the Children and Families Act 2014, local authorities are responsible for children and young people with SEN who are 'wholly or mainly resident' in their area. These duties are based on where the child or young person lives and not on where they are educated. Where a child or young person is educated outside the area of the local authority where they usually live, the local authority in whose area the child normally lives is responsible for conducting the EHC needs assessment and issuing an EHC plan, where necessary, and for securing and funding that provision. Some children and young people may require residential educational placements (particularly those with the most complex needs). In such cases, it is the department's view that the child or young person continues to be considered as living in the area of the local authority that placed them in the residential provision (since a residential school or college placement, even for 52 weeks of the year, is educational provision and not a place where a child or young person lives, i.e. the child or young person will remain resident at their family home) and, therefore, they would continue to have the duty to maintain any EHC plan.

290: The high needs national funding formula (NFF), as well as using data relating to the children and young people resident in the local authority's area, includes a basic entitlement factor and import/export adjustment that together ensure local authorities are appropriately compensated for the high needs place funding for schools and colleges. This funding allocation is paid directly to the schools and colleges either by the local authority that maintains the school or by ESFA in the case of academies, non-maintained special schools (NMSS) and colleges.

291: Where a child or young person moves from the area of one local authority into the area of another (for example, changes where they usually live), the 'new' local authority becomes responsible for meeting the statutory SEN duties (as detailed in the SEND Code of Practice, section 9.157 to 9.162). This may happen where a child's family moves, or in the event that a young person decides to remain living where they have been educated. If the child or young person already has an EHC plan, the 'old' local authority is required to transfer the EHC plan to the 'new' local authority on the day of the move, or within 15 working days of becoming aware of the move. The 'new' local authority then becomes wholly responsible for maintaining the plan and funding the specified educational provision. The 'new' local authority must review the EHC plan within 12 months of the plan being made or being reviewed by the old authority, or within 3 months of the plan being transferred (whichever is later). The 'new' local authority may conduct a new EHC needs assessment, regardless of when the previous EHC needs assessment took place, since local variations may mean that arrangements in the original EHC plan are no longer appropriate.

Looked after children (LAC)

292: Looked after children (LAC) are those who have been taken into care or who are being provided with accommodation by a local authority in its statutory role under the Children Act 1989. More than half of LAC have some form of SEN, and it is likely that a significant proportion of them will have an EHC plan. A significant proportion of LAC live with foster parents or in a children's home and attend schools in a different local authority to the local authority that looks after them. The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review Regulations 2010 distinguish between the "responsible authority" (the local authority that looks after the child) and the 'area authority' (the local authority in which the child is placed). Local authorities who place LAC in another local authority's area (for example with foster parents) need to be aware of that authority's SEN and disabilities local offer if the children have SEN. Where an assessment for an EHC plan has been started, the assessment must be carried out by the authority where the child lives (is wholly or mainly resident), which may not be the same as the authority that looks after the child, as set out in section 10.8 of the SEND Code of Practice. If a disagreement arises, the authority that looks after the child will act as the 'corporate parent' in any disagreement resolution.

293: When a local authority places a LAC with an EHC plan in another local authority's area (for example with foster parents), the local authority where the LAC lives (is wholly or mainly resident) becomes responsible for maintaining their EHC plan (including paying any top-up funding), in the same way as any child or young person who moves from one local authority's area to another.

294: The policy intention behind this is that the local authority where the child lives knows their local schools and educational provision better, so they are better able to assess whether the child needs special educational provision on top of what is ordinarily available.

295: The Inter-authority Recoupment (England) Regulations 2013 permit the local authority where a LAC with an EHC plan lives to recoup the cost of primary or secondary education, which includes additional special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) educational provision (for example, the costs of top-up funding), from the local authority responsible for looking after the child. Recoupment of education costs will not normally be appropriate, however, as from 2018 the high needs funding formula and associated arrangements have been designed to ensure that local authorities' allocations of funding for SEND are based on the characteristics of the children and young people living in their area, including any LAC. In addition, there are adjustments to reflect the costs relating to the movement of pupils and students living in one local authority area who receive their education in another authority area.

296: Inter-authority recoupment may remain appropriate in some circumstances, however, following mutual understanding and agreement on how the costs of educating LAC are funded through the local authorities' respective funding allocations. It should be noted that the recoupment regulations do not provide for recoupment of costs of further education (FE) provision and so costs of additional SEND provision for young people in FE cannot be recouped in this way.

297: For a young person aged 19 to 25, the local authority where they live is responsible for conducting any EHC needs assessment, issuing an EHC plan where necessary, and for securing and funding that provision.

298: Children cease to be 'looked after' when they are over the age of 18 (some children will cease to be looked after at 16 or 17 and others will continue to be looked after until their eighteenth birthday). The Inter-authority Recoupment (England) Regulations 2013 apply only to LAC (up to their eighteenth birthday), and so do not apply to those aged 19 or over. Once they are no longer looked after, the recoupment regulations no longer apply. This should not matter as the local authority where the young person lives will have been funded through the high needs funding formula to meet the costs, in the same way as for any other young person who lives in their area.

299: Some care leavers will remain living with their former foster parents past their eighteenth birthday in 'staying put' arrangements, but they are no longer 'looked after'. The local authority which 'looked after' a child remains responsible for meeting their leaving care duties regardless of where the young person may now be living in England or Wales (section 23A(4) of the Children Act 1989).

300: This includes providing the young person with support for the expenses associated with living near where they are seeking work, working, or receiving education or training.

Annex 3: Health and social care costs

302: Where a child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) has relevant health or social care needs, these should be addressed within an integrated education, health and care (EHC) plan. Responsibility for securing the provision specified in the plan sits with the relevant statutory bodies: the local authority for education and social care provision, and either the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) or (in some cases) NHS England for health provision.

305: While independent and non-maintained provision frequently offers integrated education, health and social care provision, only educational costs (including 'deemed' educational costs) should be funded by the DSG. In some cases, the integrated package of support will be costed and charged through a single fee. In such cases, the local authority should charge non-educational costs to the responsible partners. We would expect the relevant partners to have agreed the basis for the placement and its funding before it is confirmed (for example, before a final EHC plan is issued). The social care element of accommodating children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in schools should be charged appropriately.

Annex 4: other information

306: This section provides information that may be useful but is not covered in this guidance.

Support funding through the ESFA adult education budget

307: Support funding is available through ESFA adult funding methodology for learners aged 19 and above without an education, health and care (EHC) plan via the adult education budget (AEB). Support funding (learning and learner support) enables providers to meet the additional needs of learners who may have certain barriers to start or complete their learning goal.

Learning support

308: Learning support is available to meet the cost of putting in place a reasonable adjustment, as set out in the Equality Act 2010, for learners and apprentices who have an identified learning difficulty or disability, to achieve their learning goal.

309: Learning support must not be used to deal with everyday difficulties that are not directly associated with a learner's or apprentice's learning on their programme.

310: All learning support claims must be reported in the ILR. To claim any costs that exceed the fixed monthly rate the earning adjustment statement (EAS) must also be used. There are two exceptions where the entire cost can be claimed through the EAS:

where the learning aim is delivered in less than one calendar month

16 to 18 traineeships without a 16 to 19 study programme

Further information on claiming costs can be found in paragraph 197 of the AEB rules (current published guidance is for 2021 to 2022).

Exceptional learning support claims above £19,000

311: Learners who need significant levels of support to start or continue learning can claim exceptional learning support (ELS) if their support costs more than £19,000 in a funding year.

312: Learners aged 19 to 24 requiring significant levels of support should have an EHC plan provided by their local authority and, therefore, would access funding from them.

313: Providers must submit ELS claims at the beginning of the learner's programme, or when it is identified that the learner requires support costs more than £19,000 in a funding year, by completing and sending the ELS claims document.

314: To claim ELS for a learner aged 19 to 24 confirmation must be provided as to why the individual does not have an EHC plan. This should be a letter or email from the learner's local authority stating the reasons why the individual does not need an EHC plan.

Learner support

315: Learner support is available to provide financial support for learners with a specific financial hardship preventing them from taking part or continuing in learning. Before providers award support to a learner, they must identify their needs within:

316: Further information on ESFA AEB funding and performance rules is available within section 'Who we fund' of the AEB guidance (current published guidance is for 2021 to 2022).

Support funding through the apprenticeships funding methodology

317: Funding support for apprentices (all ages) is met by ESFA through the apprenticeship funding methodology. ESFA provides learning support for apprentices to help with learning that affects their ability to continue and complete their apprenticeship.

318: Learning support is there to meet costs of putting in place reasonable adjustments for apprentices who:

have a learning difficulty or disability as defined in Section 15ZA(6) Education Act 1996 (as amended by section 41 Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009

as a result of this learning difficulty or disability, require reasonable adjustments in order to be able to complete their apprenticeship, including any reasonable adjustments to complete English and maths requirements and end-point assessment

For all age apprentices, both learning support and learner support follow the apprenticeship funding rules

319: Apprentices (aged 16 to 24) with an EHC plan are able to access learning support and exceptional learning support as detailed in the apprenticeship funding rules. Any apprentice can access learning support (or exceptional learning support); however, an assessment must be undertaken to identify whether an apprentice has a learning difficulty or disability that directly impacts their ability to complete the apprenticeship on which they are enrolled.

320: Additionally, apprentices aged 16 to 18, and apprentices with an EHC plan, or care leavers aged 19 to 24 will qualify for an additional payment of £1,000 towards additional costs associated with training, for both the provider and the employer. They will receive this payment at the start of the apprenticeship if the apprentice is either:

aged between 16 and 18 years old (or 15 years of age if the apprentice's 16th birthday is between the last Friday of June and 31 August)

aged between 19 and 24 years old and has either an EHC plan provided by their local authority or has been in the care of their local authority

Full details are available in the 'additional payments' section of the apprenticeship funding rules.

321: More information on apprenticeships is available within the further education and skills apprenticeships guidance.

Free meals for further education (FE) colleges

322: Further information on free meals for FE colleges can be found in the 16 to 19 education: financial support for students guidance. This includes information on where the cost of meals is sometimes included as part of the package of support that is agreed with local authorities.

Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) code of practice

323: Local authorities, maintained schools and academies, general FE colleges, non-maintained schools and all independent special schools and SPIs on the section 41 approved list must have regard to the department's statutory guidance on the SEND system for children and young people aged 0 to 25.

Welsh students studying in English FE colleges

324: The Welsh Government may consider paying high needs funding for students from Wales studying in English FE colleges. The college should assess the needs of the student and then contact the Welsh Government to discuss payment of high needs place and top-up funding (elements 2 and 3). The funding through the 16 to 19 national funding formula (element 1) will be paid in the usual way direct by ESFA to colleges. 308. Colleges are not expected to recruit students from outside their normal recruitment area and should note that the Welsh government may decide not to make payments of high needs funding for students at an English college where suitable provision is available nearer to their home.

Welsh pupils with high needs attending English schools

325: English and Welsh local authorities continue to have a statutory basis for the recoupment of the costs of certain pupils with high needs who are attending schools across the border from where they live. The Inter-authority Recoupment (England) Regulations 2013 enable local authorities to recover the costs of pupils with EHC plans or an individual development plan (IDP), pupils in special schools, and pupils in hospital education.

326: There are no equivalent statutory arrangements for pupils or students from other countries in the UK or elsewhere. Local authorities, schools and colleges are able to negotiate the recovery of costs as they consider appropriate, taking account of other relevant legislation (such as the Equalities Act 2010.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High needs funding: 2022 to 2023 operational guidance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1: This guide describes how the 2022 to 2023 financial and academic year high needs funding system will work for all types of provision. Unless the context relates specifically to the national funding formula (NFF) allocations and operational processes relating to 2022 to 2023, most of this guidance applies to the current financial year and should therefore be taken into account with immediate effect.

# 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.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

A report about the experiences of children and young people with SEND and their families during the pandemic, in the context of the SEND reforms over the last 10 years.

Applies to England

Documents

Details

The last 10 years have been a period of reform to the way in which the needs of children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities ( SEND) are identified, assessed and met. This report reflects on these reforms and their impact. It also considers what has been working well in the SEND system over time and areas where the reforms have not had the desired impact. It looks at SEND at the start of 2020, when the pandemic began: the number of children and young people who are part of the ' SEND system', their outcomes and experiences at different ages, and their experiences of receiving services. This sets the context for the findings from Ofsted's visits to local areas, where we found out about the experiences of children and young people through the pandemic.

Thank you for your feedback

Report a problem with this page

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to main content 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
The impact of further education learning: data tables - GOV.UK (publishing.service.gov.uk)

# data[].attributes.body
Dept for Business, Innovation Research and Skills - Impact of Further Education Learning - 2013

Govt policy Further Education and Training 2010-2015

# data[].attributes.body
The SEND Code of Practice says:

"The purpose of an EHC plan is to make special educational provision to meet the special educational needs of the child or young person, to secure the best possible outcomes for them across education, health and social care and, as they get older, prepare them for adulthood." (9.2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The cookies on legislation.gov.uk do two things: they remember any settings you’ve chosen so you don’t have to choose them on every page, and they help us understand how people browse our website, so we can make improvements and fix problems. We need your consent to use some of these cookies.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.derbyshireiass.co.uk/parents-and-carers/information-and-advice/the-impact-of-the-send-reforms-on-children-and-young-people-with-statements.aspx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How the reforms to the SEND Code of Practice affect children and young people who have statements of special educational need (SEN), and young people in further education and training who have special educational provision through a Section 139A Learning Difficulty Assessment (LDA).

Changes in the law

In September 2014 the Children and Families Act 2014 came into force. A new SEND Code of Practice covers children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities from birth to age 25. One big change is that education, health and care plans (EHC plans) will replace statements of SEN and LDAs.

The SEND Code of Practice says:

"The purpose of an EHC plan is to make special educational provision to meet the special educational needs of the child or young person, to secure the best possible outcomes for them across education, health and social care and, as they get older, prepare them for adulthood." (9.2)

Local authorities must transfer all children and young people who have a statement to the new SEND system by 1 April 2018 unless the statement is no longer necessary.

Every local authority should publish a local transition plan. This explains when and how statements will be transferred to the new system, and gives information for young people in further education and training who receive support through an LDA.

Transferring from a statement of special educational needs

Until 1 April 2018 local authorities must continue to comply with Part IV of the Education Act 1996 (the old law) if the child or young person has a statement. The statement continues and annual reviews will take place until one of the following happens:

the local authority decides to cease the statement

the statement ceases because the young person leaves education

there is a transfer review:

and an EHC plan is agreed

or the local authority decides an EHC plan is not required.

The SEND Code of Practice says:

"During the transition period local authorities will transfer children and young people with statements onto the new system... No-one should lose their statement and not have it replaced with an EHC plan simply because the system is changing." (9.4).

Transition to EHC plans is staggered over the next four years. In each year local authorities must transfer some groups of children and young people with statements, and should give priority to other groups.

Between 1 September 2014 and 1 September 2015

Local authorities must transfer children and young people to EHC plans before they move from school (including school sixth forms) to post 16 education or an apprenticeship.

Local authorities must also transfer children and young people to EHC plans if they received an EHC plan but had no statement before 1 September 2014 (some EHC plans were issued as part of the SEN Pathfinder project but they have no legal force as they were prepared before the new law came into effect).

Local authorities must also transfer young people on request to EHC plans if they have an LDA and will continue in education after August 2016.

Local authorities should give priority to children when they move from:

an early years settings to school

infant to junior school

primary to middle school

primary to secondary school

middle to secondary school

mainstream to special school (or vice versa).

Local authorities should also give priority to those children and young people:

children in Year 6 not included in the list above (including where the child stays at the same institution)

in year 9

in year 11

leaving custody

who had an EHC plan before 1 September 2014 (some EHC plans were issued as part of the SEN Pathfinder project)

who move between one local authority and another

who receive direct payments under the SEN Direct Payments Pilot Scheme.

Between September 2015 and April 2018

In each year, local authorities must transfer children and young people to the new system:

in year 9

before they move between

an early years settings to school

infant to junior school

primary to middle school

primary to secondary school

middle to secondary school

mainstream to special school (or vice versa).

In 2015/16, local authorities must also transfer young people on request to EHC plans if they have an LDA and will continue in education after August 2016.

Between September 2016 and 31 March 2018

In each year, local authorities should give priority to transferring to the new system those children and young people:

children in Year 6 not included in the list above (including where the child stays at the same institution)

in year 11

leaving custody

who have an EHC plan issued before 1 September 2014 (some EHC plans were issued as part of the SEN Pathfinder project)

who move between one local authority and another.

You can find out more about the transition arrangements for particular groups in the Department for Education guidance and in the local authority's transition plan.

The transfer review

A transfer review replaces the annual review in the academic year that the child or young person transfers to the new SEND system. The review must be completed within 12 months of the date the statement was issued or of the previous annual review.

A transfer review requires an EHC needs assessment to decide what needs, outcomes and provision should be included in the EHC plan. This should include education, health and social care needs. In many cases the assessment information in existing statements will be used. In fact the local authority must not ask for further advice if the information it has already is sufficient. You can disagree if you do not think it is and then the authority will have to get new advice.

Before existing advice is used, the person who provided the advice, the local authority, the child's parents or the young person must all be satisfied that the advice is sufficient for the purposes of an EHC needs assessment.

You, your child or the young person must be invited to a meeting as part of the transfer review, and be given two weeks' notice of that meeting.

A transfer review ends when the local authority sends you (or the young person) a copy of the final EHC plan, or when it informs you (or the young person) that an EHC plan will not be issued. The local authority must finalise the EHC plan, where one is needed, within 14 weeks of you being told that they are carrying out the transfer review or an EHC needs assessment.

For moves between school stages there are particular deadlines for the issue of EHC plans. These are:

31 May 2015 if the child or young person will transfer from secondary school to a post 16 institutions on 1 September 2015. In subsequent years the deadline will be 31 March in the calendar year that the child or young person transfers from secondary school to post 16 institution.

15 February in the calendar year of the child's transfer in any other case.

Once the transfer process starts, your rights to appeal to the special educational needs and disability tribunal under the Children and Families Act 2014 replace those you had under the Education Act 1996.

Key differences from statements

Every local authority can decide how to set out the EHC plan, but it must include 12 specific sections.

Key differences compared to statements should include:

a greater focus on outcomes

more emphasis on the involvement of parents, children and young people

improved integration of health and social care provision

continuation, where appropriate, to age 25

more rights for young people.

Affects on those with learning difficulties assessments

Local authorities must continue to have regard to the statutory learning difficulty assessment guidance until 1 September 2016. If a young people with an LDA requests it, the local authority must transfer them to an EHC plan by 1 September 2016 if they are staying in further education or training after that date.

If you don't agree with the local authority

The first step is to contact the local authority to discuss your concerns.

We offer impartial advice and support and can explain your options, including your rights to request reassessment and to appeal.

More information, advice or support

Every authority has a transition plan that sets out the local arrangements.

We can also give you:

information about the local transition arrangements, and advice on how they might affect you or your child

information and advice about transfer reviews

advice and support during the transition process and in transfer reviews

details of other organisations, support groups and information services that could help

information, advice and support about your rights to make a complaint, seek independent disagreement resolution or mediation and appeal to the SEND tribunal.

Contact us if you need further help or advice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The impact of the SEND reforms on children and young people with statements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How the reforms to the SEND Code of Practice affect children and young people who have statements of special educational need (SEN), and young people in further education and training who have special educational provision through a Section 139A Learning Difficulty Assessment (LDA). In September 2014 the Children and Families Act 2014 came into force.

# data[].attributes.headline
New Forest School cohort is made up of students who have a whole range of needs. A large section are in care, some have EHCP’s and others behavioural. 

# data[].attributes.subject
New Forest School cohort is made up of students who have a whole range of needs. A large section are in care, some have EHCP’s and others behavioural. 

# data[].attributes.body
Guidance is kept under review and updated if/when needed. A lot of the guidance was passed in 2014. For example disability regulations act 2014

# data[].attributes.headline
SEND Code of practice works across education/health/care jointly

# data[].attributes.subject
SEND Code of practice works across education/health/care jointly

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-further-education-and-training/2010-to-2015-government-policy-further-education-and-training

# 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

Guidance on the special educational needs and disability (SEND) system for children and young people aged 0 to 25, from 1 September 2014.

Applies to England

Documents

Details

This statutory code contains:

details of legal requirements that you must follow without exception

statutory guidance that you must follow by law unless there's a good reason not to

It explains the duties of local authorities, health bodies, schools and colleges to provide for those with special educational needs under part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

The code, which applies to England, is for:

headteachers and principals

governing bodies

school and college staff

special educational needs (SEN) co-ordinators

early years providers

other education settings

local authorities

health and social services staff

Other SEND guides are also available.

Thank you for your feedback

Report a problem with this page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guidance on the special educational needs and disability (SEND) system for children and young people aged 0 to 25, from 1 September 2014.