Diversity in children’s strengths and needs is an inherent part of human development – yet schools policy and wider social policy have consistently failed to recognise and plan for this reality. This has been true since the Warnock Report of 1978 and the Education Act 1981 which integrated disabled children into mainstream schools. But over the past decade and a half, the consequences of this gap between policy and need have intensified.
Longstanding pressures on school funding and increasing instability in the education workforce have coincided with rising childhood needs, driven by poverty, stress, and the erosion of public services. At the same time, our awareness of neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism has grown, along with recognition that these needs can be masked, or present themselves differently, among girls and children with ethnic minority heritage.
Sweeping reforms to the national curriculum, assessments and qualifications, school accountability and teacher training after 2010 have further reduced the system’s flexibility to respond to children’s diverse needs. More visibly, they have also contributed to a substantial rise in the proportion of children identified as having special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), particularly those whose needs cannot be met within increasingly stretched mainstream school budgets.
These trends reflect a pattern of policy choices that have over‑prioritised narrow academic goals while giving too little weight to children’s wellbeing, participation, and broader preparation for meaningful adult lives. Because SEND is defined as having needs that cannot be met through standard mainstream provision, setting expectations that are out of reach for many children, by definition, draws more of them into SEND groups.
To give an example of how this happens in primary schooling: we currently define success, and failure, in learning to read according to expectations that children have made substantial progress in phonic decoding by age six. In most developed countries, six is the age at which reading is first introduced. The one in five children who do not pass the Phonics Screening Check in Year 1 are likely to be assessed for SEND, and yet by age seven, half of these will have reached the assessment standard, with an extra year’s development making this more comparable with curricular phasing in other jurisdictions.
Conversely, at the upper end of the system, disabled children must wait until their post-16 study begins before they can access qualification courses that explicitly prepare them for independence and meaningful participation in society. Why? Because courses deemed to be ‘good enough’ to attract credit for schools are determined according to how much young people with those qualifications earn, and using data from cohort studies which likely have increased attrition among disabled young participants. This is likely to have biased the approved list against qualifications of greatest importance and value to disabled young people.
What we know about the state of SEND
Our landmark research on SEND identification revealed a postcode lottery when it comes to securing support – a child’s chances depend heavily on which school they attend. School admissions are much more consequential for children with SEND than for children in general. Deprivation is a critical predictor of identification at child level and, at a school level, whether the child is in an academy or local authority-maintained school is also a prominent factor in whether they are identified as having SEND. Children who are otherwise very similar are much less likely to have SEND identified if they attend an academy or live in an area with many academies.
Beneath this headline picture of inconsistent and unequal SEND identification, there are many specific problems and challenges for reforms to overcome – these include:
- In contrast with the current categorical approach that records a primary need type and optionally a secondary need type, the latest research from EPI and partners demonstrates that social, emotional and cognitive development are deeply intertwined, such that it makes no sense to think of practice and policy for one type of SEND separately from another. The same children often experience different needs over time, as one need frequently leads to another
- The current system results in schools being most likely to identify children as having SEND if their language and literacy development is behind expectations, because schools are held accountable for this. But in contrast, it is children with lower personal, social and emotional development that are most likely to later require a statutory support plan (EHCP) from their local authority
- This complexity in SEND needs is mirrored in broader circumstances that affect learning. Children often have needs based on combinations of poverty; neglect, abuse or separation from their families; physical or psychological traumas due to accidents, illness, crime, overseas war or natural disasters; and/or genetics, or birth accidents.
- Identification could be improved by considering certain risk factors as automatic triggers for assessing children’s needs. SEND is under-identified in many vulnerable groups. Our research found later identification among children with social workers, children looked-after, and children already experiencing suspensions during primary school, despite these being clear warning signs.
- Children with less visible needs were at risk of not having their needs identified if they were persistently absent from school, had moved between schools frequently, spoke English as an Additional Language, or had ‘internalising’ mental health needs such as depression and anxiety.
- Girls often miss out on SEND support because their emotional needs are less likely to negatively affect others – and get noticed for that reason. This was true even though the children were unwell enough to receive NHS CAMHS care. Other research shows that emotional disorders are associated with attainment loss over time, indicating a clear need for support in school.
What can be done to improve things for children with SEND?
The earlier there is an effective response to a child’s needs, the less those needs are likely to escalate and proliferate. A stitch in time really can save nine, but cost-effective does not mean cost-free. We must “invest to save” in our school system. Of course, we recognise the fiscal constraints faced by the government, and therefore we recommend a strategic approach prioritising key visible improvements to the experience of children and their families. These are not cost-free. But doing nothing and just passing the challenge on to schools will cost progressively more, the longer things are left.
School leaders are generally very resourceful people who will try to fix problems wherever they can, sometimes going to extraordinary lengths to try to make up for service failures outside of education. But they are not magicians. What could be offered at modest cost that would help them to meet more children’s needs must include substantially better access to specialists – particularly educational psychologists, and speech and language therapists. Both are in severe shortage but are comparatively small workforces, even if expanded significantly.
Secondly, we can replace our artificially narrow teacher development content frameworks, which are out-of-step with virtually all other advanced nations in that they do not address foundational knowledge of child development, nor how to respond to atypical development, particularly among children with neurodevelopmental conditions. The current focus on adaptive teaching is a complement and not a substitute for this.
England is not an exception to what is scientifically true in other countries. This is true of teacher development, and true of the national curriculum, assessment and qualification systems, and the school accountability system. By making ourselves an outlier in pursuit of ‘standards’, we have not become ‘world-beating’; instead, we have ended up with rising numbers of young people not in education, employment or training, particularly those with poor health; and increasing propensity to require disability-related benefits. Not to mention the 43 percent of local authorities at risk of section 114 budget crises, and a deepening teacher retention problem.
We must face facts and pay attention to international norms. The good news is that changing our thinking and policies can help, in addition to targeted spending. What is needed is greater flexibility in what counts as success in school through access to qualifications with value to disabled children; and recognising that different abilities and life destinations require different numbers and types of qualifications. This does not represent lower ambition if it enables us to improve standards in other equally important life determinants with greater attention to children’s health and personal, social and emotional development, and a more balanced approach to accountability.
The voice of children, young people and families can help us to learn about how well schools are supporting overall development. This could be extended to teachers and other school staff to create a holistic and humanised school improvement system. While initiatives such as the newly announced £200m scheme for training courses on teaching pupils with special educational needs and disabilities are welcome, we must ensure that their content covers child health, development and learning.
This is not to say that it will be easy, but systematic engagement with young people, families and professionals can start us in the right direction. Sequencing is critical to whether families are on board with, or opposed to, reforms. Pulling the rug out from under children with EHCPs (or who would have them in future) with promises of better support in school in some distant tomorrow won’t cut it. Improved support must arrive first. If we build it – a stronger team around the child that doesn’t require an EHCP – they will come, and EHCPs will gradually revert to being a less frequently required backstop.
Finally, over a longer timeframe, it will also be necessary for other departments to pull their weight for children; much as the NHS faces a Herculean task in dealing with older people’s health, it can no longer be tolerated that children’s health is permanently de-prioritised. We must plan for adequately resourced Children and Adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) and paediatric services as part of the team around the child. The government cannot expect to achieve its opportunity and growth missions, otherwise.
