Research and analysis

SEND: old issues, new issues, next steps

Published 16 June 2021

Applies to England

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.^{[footnote 1]} 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^{[footnote 2]} and the subsequent ‘SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years’,^{[footnote 3]} 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.

Successive area SEND inspection reports have commented on a continuing lack of ambition for pupils with SEND. Attendance at school for this group remained below national averages and exclusions were often high. There seemed to be greater opportunities for further education, supported employment, and training for young people with SEND in many areas. However, only a tiny minority ended up in sustained employment.

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.

As recovery from the pandemic begins, we cannot underestimate the importance of good-quality universal services for children and young people with SEND across education, health and wider children’s services, alongside more specialist health or social care support where needed. The availability and effectiveness of these universal services can prevent a child or young person from needing something additional or different. A child or young person should never be labelled as having SEND because of a poor-quality curriculum or ineffective teaching, or weaknesses in universal health or care services. This was something that we saw too frequently in 2010 and, worryingly, something we still too often find. Further reform to the SEND system has become even more urgent than it was before the pandemic.

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,^{[footnote 4]} and almost 30,000 with an EHC plan.^{[footnote 5]} 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,^{[footnote 6]} 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.^{[footnote 7]} 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:^{[footnote 8]}

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,^{[footnote 9]} 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

Under the Children and Families Act 2014, the government placed new duties on local health, care and education services for children and young people with SEND. This led to the SEND code of practice being published. At the same time, the then Minister of State for Children and Families commissioned Ofsted and the CQC to work together to develop and deliver a programme of 152 local area inspections over approximately a 5-year period. Together, the 2 inspectorates designed a new framework focusing on how effectively local areas were fulfilling their duties set out in the code of practice. We began inspecting under this in 2016.

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.}

Most (84%) pupils with SEND in 2019/20 were being educated in state-funded primary and secondary schools. The vast majority (91%) of pupils with SEN support attended state-funded mainstream schools. In contrast, just under half (49%) of pupils with an EHC plan attended state-funded mainstream schools, and 44% attended special schools.

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.

This is not universally the case, however. Our ‘Supporting SEND’ report noted that some of the pupils included in the case studies had not had their needs accurately identified until later in their primary education or even until they reached secondary school.^{[footnote 17]} This was in spite of there being concerns about their development at a young age.

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.}

Even before the pandemic began, pupils with SEND were still absent from school more than their peers, just as we reported they were in 2010. This is illustrated below.^{[footnote 19]}

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.

He has stagnated.

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

The definition of ‘vulnerable children’ did not include those receiving SEND support without an EHC plan. This accounts for approximately 1.1 million children and young people in England. Therefore, many children and young people with SEND were, like others, not able to go to school from 23 March until the start of the autumn term 2020.

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)

^{Based on 1,436 responses.
Figures are rounded and may not add to 100.
View Figure 12 data in table form.}

Clearly, these issues with attendance were not all related to the pandemic. The attendance of pupils with SEND in mainstream schools has been a long-standing issue, as we reported in the first section of this report. However, during our visits to schools in the autumn term 2020, some leaders told us that non-attendance or sporadic attendance seemed to be related to parents’ concerns about COVID-19, including worries about school transport.^{[footnote 26]} In a few special schools and alternative provision settings, some pupils were unable to return to school because their transport – taxi or minibus – was not in place.

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)

^{Based on 879 responses.
Respondents could select multiple responses; therefore, figures do not add to 100.
View Figure 13 data in table form.}

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

As time went on, and restrictions of different kinds remained in place or were put in place again, the difficulties for some children, young people and families continued. In some cases, they became heightened. The longer-term impact of the first few months of the pandemic became more evident. Many of the families we spoke to as part of our area SEND interim visits found told us that coping got harder as time went on:^{[footnote 31]}

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.

The financial pressures on families of children with SEND that had begun during the first national lockdown remained or increased.^{[footnote 32]} During our autumn term visits to schools, leaders reported that some families were newly financially vulnerable, mainly due to job losses or furlough. This suggested that this issue was not going away and could be worsening. Food poverty was negatively affecting pupils in some schools.

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

In October 2020, we reported on our findings from our visits to 6 local areas, based on the experiences of 28 children and young people with SEND and their families.^{[footnote 34]} In these visits, we found that the working relationships that families, services and practitioners had before March 2020 had affected the support that families received during restrictions. Weaker relationships between families and practitioners did not stand up well to the strain that the pandemic placed on them. Conversely, if these relationships were already good and functioning well, support was more likely to continue and be adapted well to families’ needs. Our October report also noted:

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)

^{Based on 1,473 responses.
Figures are rounded and may not add to 100.
View Figure 14 data in table form.}

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)

^{Based on 1,473 responses.
Figures are rounded and may not add to 100.
View Figure 15 data in table form.}

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.

One factor was the way the local area organised home-to-school transport for pupils. In one local area, for example, pupils were having shorter days in school because of the way social distancing was being implemented on the transport. We also heard in our visits to schools last term of local areas not providing the staff who usually travel on buses and taxis with children and young people with SEND. This led to parents not wanting to send their children to school on the transport provided. The second main factor was the guidance and support given by the government to schools on working with children who need AGPs and the implementation of this guidance in local areas. One parent explained that their child had to shield from March 2020 for many months as they ‘fell under the AGP criteria’. This had caused the family considerable difficulties. During our visits to local areas, we heard similar accounts from parents and carers time after time.

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)

^{Based on 881 responses.
Figures are rounded and may not add to 100.
View Figure 16 data in table form.}

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)

^{Based on 755 responses.
Figures are rounded and may not add to 100.
View Figure 17 data in table form.}

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

The SEND reforms were designed to improve these aspects of services. Over time, we saw evidence through our area SEND inspections that, while some aspects were improving in some areas, in others the reforms were slow to be implemented. They were even slower to have an impact on children and young people with SEND and their families.

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.

In our 2010 review, children and young people with SEND told us that they wanted successful relationships and friendships, and independence. They wanted a choice about who they lived with, choice about what to do with their spare time, and the opportunity to work. During the pandemic, they talked about their loneliness, isolation and a feeling that the next steps for them were limited. Older young people had missed out on preparation for college, training or work. For some, the crucial communication skills that might facilitate friendships had been lost. For others, their mobility had deteriorated. Academic outcomes for children and young people with SEND have always been a concern. The interrupted education – and sometimes complete lack of education – that many experienced during the pandemic amplifies this concern. 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.

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

2019	2020
All pupils	3.1	3.3
Primary	1.6	1.8
Secondary	1.7	1.8

See Figure 1.

Data for Figure 2: Pupils receiving SEN support without an EHC plan

2019	2020
All pupils	11.9	12.1
Primary	12.6	12.8
Secondary	10.8	11.1

See Figure 2.

Data for Figure 3: Pupils with SEND who are eligible for free school meals (FSM)

	2015/16	2019/20
Not SEND	12.1	14.9
SEND without statement	26.3	29.9
SEND with statement or EHC plan	31.6	34.6

See Figure 3.

Data for Figure 4: Rates of permanent exclusion in England, by SEND provision, from 2015/16 to 2018/19

	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
Not SEND	0.05	0.06	0.06	0.06
SEND without statement	0.32	0.35	0.34	0.32
SEND with statement or EHC plan	0.17	0.16	0.16	0.15

See Figure 4.

Data for Figure 5: Rates of fixed-period exclusions in England, by SEN provision, from 2015/16 to 2018/19

	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
Not SEND	2.7	3.1	3.4	3.6
SEND without statement	13.7	14.8	15.1	15.6
SEND with statement or EHC plan	15.0	15.9	16.0	16.1

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

	2015/2016	2016/2017	2017/2018	2018/2019
Not SEND	4.2	4.3	4.4	4.3
SEND without statement	6.2	6.3	6.5	6.5
SEND with statement or EHC plan	7.7	8.2	8.7	8.7

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?’

	Area 1	Area 2	Area 3	Area 4	Area 5	Area 6	Area 7	Area 8	Area 9	Area 10
Yes	29%	29%	46%	40%	26%	37%	34%	26%	22%	50%
No	57%	55%	38%	43%	60%	46%	51%	54%	45%	34%
Don’t know	14%	16%	16%	18%	15%	16%	15%	20%	33%	16%

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?’

	Area 1	Area 2	Area 3	Area 4	Area 5	Area 6	Area 7	Area 8	Area 9	Area 10
Yes	22%	30%	35%	28%	25%	32%	28%	23%	33%	26%
No	70%	50%	57%	60%	68%	57%	65%	72%	42%	59%
Don’t Know	8%	20%	8%	13%	7%	12%	7%	5%	25%	15%

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?’

	Area 1	Area 2	Area 3	Area 4	Area 5	Area 6	Area 7	Area 8	Area 9	Area 10
Yes	15%	18%	24%	28%	7%	19%	19%	12%	36%	27%
No	76%	63%	70%	65%	85%	67%	71%	77%	54%	63%
Don’t Know	10%	18%	6%	8%	8%	14%	10%	11%	10%	10%

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

Date	Total number of pupils with an EHC plan attending state-funded schools
23/03/2020	27000
24/03/2020	17000
25/03/2020	14000
26/03/2020	13000
27/03/2020	11000
30/03/2020	10000
31/03/2020	11000
01/04/2020	11000
02/04/2020	11000
03/04/2020	10000
20/04/2020	13000
21/04/2020	15000
22/04/2020	16000
23/04/2020	16000
24/04/2020	15000
27/04/2020	17000
28/04/2020	18000
29/04/2020	19000
30/04/2020	18000
01/05/2020	17000
04/05/2020	19000
05/05/2020	20000
06/05/2020	21000
07/05/2020	21000
08/05/2020	16000
11/05/2020	21000
12/05/2020	22000
13/05/2020	22000
14/05/2020	22000
15/05/2020	21000
18/05/2020	23000
19/05/2020	23000
20/05/2020	24000
21/05/2020	23000
22/05/2020	21000
01/06/2020	33000
02/06/2020	39000
03/06/2020	42000
04/06/2020	42000
05/06/2020	38000
08/06/2020	47000
09/06/2020	51000
10/06/2020	51000
11/06/2020	51000
12/06/2020	46000
15/06/2020	62000
16/06/2020	66000
17/06/2020	63000
18/06/2020	65000
19/06/2020	57000
22/06/2020	67000
23/06/2020	70000
24/06/2020	68000
25/06/2020	67000
26/06/2020	60000
29/06/2020	73000
30/06/2020	77000
01/07/2020	73000
02/07/2020	76000
03/07/2020	68000
06/07/2020	78000
07/07/2020	82000
08/07/2020	79000
09/07/2020	82000
10/07/2020	74000
13/07/2020	83000
14/07/2020	87000
15/07/2020	83000
16/07/2020	84000
17/07/2020	73000

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
11/09/2020	80.9	86.8
14/09/2020	80.7	86.4
15/09/2020	80.5	86.7
16/09/2020	81	87.1
17/09/2020	80.5	87
18/09/2020	78.9	85.7
21/09/2020	80.7	87.2
22/09/2020	81.3	87.4
23/09/2020	81.3	87.8
24/09/2020	81.4	87.9
25/09/2020	80.1	86
28/09/2020	83.2	88.9
29/09/2020	83.5	89.5
30/09/2020	83.8	89.7
01/10/2020	84.4	89.8
02/10/2020	81.6	87.3
05/10/2020	84.7	89.6
06/10/2020	84.9	90.1
07/10/2020	84.6	89.7
08/10/2020	84.5	89.8
09/10/2020	83	88.2
12/10/2020	83	89.6
13/10/2020	83.6	89.7
14/10/2020	83.4	89.4
15/10/2020	84.1	89.2
16/10/2020	81.7	86.7
03/11/2020	82.9	89
04/11/2020	83.9	89.6
05/11/2020	83.3	89.3
06/11/2020	82	88.1
09/11/2020	83.1	88.7
10/11/2020	82.4	88.4
11/11/2020	81.5	87.4
12/11/2020	80.6	86.5
13/11/2020	78.6	84.8
16/11/2020	77.8	83.7
17/11/2020	77.6	83.4
18/11/2020	77.1	83.2
19/11/2020	77	82.9
20/11/2020	75	80.7
23/11/2020	78	83
24/11/2020	78.4	83.4
25/11/2020	78	83.6
26/11/2020	78.2	83.5
27/11/2020	74.1	79.1
30/11/2020	78.6	83.7
01/12/2020	80.1	85.4
02/12/2020	80.4	85.7
03/12/2020	80.3	85.5
04/12/2020	78.2	83.5
07/12/2020	80.6	85.1
08/12/2020	80.1	85
09/12/2020	80.1	85.2
10/12/2020	79.7	84.6
11/12/2020	77.8	83.1
14/12/2020	77	81.8
15/12/2020	76.8	80.9
16/12/2020	75.2	79.2
17/12/2020	73.7	76.9
11/01/2021	33.6	13.4
12/01/2021	34	13.9
13/01/2021	33.9	13.9
14/01/2021	31.8	13
15/01/2021	29.8	11.7
18/01/2021	34.5	13.7
19/01/2021	35.4	14.3
20/01/2021	35.3	14.5
21/01/2021	34.6	14.1
22/01/2021	33.3	13.1
25/01/2021	31.7	12.8
26/01/2021	36	14.8
27/01/2021	36.8	15.2
28/01/2021	36.4	14.9
29/01/2021	34.8	13.8
01/02/2021	37.9	15.3
02/02/2021	35.8	14.7
03/02/2021	38.2	16.1
04/02/2021	38.3	15.9
05/02/2021	36.8	14.7
08/02/2021	34.9	14.8
09/02/2021	36	15.3
10/02/2021	37.5	16
11/02/2021	37.9	15.9
12/02/2021	34.5	14
22/02/2021	40.9	16.5
23/02/2021	44.9	18.3
24/02/2021	45	18.5
25/02/2021	45.1	18.3
26/02/2021	43.1	17.1
01/03/2021	46.2	18.4
02/03/2021	46.8	18.9
03/03/2021	46.8	19.1
04/03/2021	46.7	18.7
05/03/2021	43.1	16.8
08/03/2021	73.5	67.5
09/03/2021	78.4	75.9
10/03/2021	81.8	83.4
11/03/2021	83.9	88.8
12/03/2021	83.5	90.2
15/03/2021	85.2	91.5
16/03/2021	85.3	91.6
17/03/2021	85	91.6
18/03/2021	84.7	91.2
19/03/2021	83.4	90.3
22/03/2021	84.4	90.3
23/03/2021	84.4	90.4
24/03/2021	84.1	90.3
25/03/2021	83.7	90
25/03/2021	83.7	90
26/03/2021	81.2	88

See Figure 11.

Data for Figure 12: Participant responses to the question ‘Has your child attended their education setting since September 2020?’ (in percentages)

	Percentage	Number of responses	Total responses
Yes, every day	36%	521	1,436
Yes, but not every day	57%	823	1,436
No, they have not attended at all	4%	58	1,436
No, I home-educate my child	2%	34	1,436

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)

	Percentage	Number of responses
They had COVID-19	5%	44
They had a non-COVID-19 related illness	11%	93
We were/are shielding	15%	131
My child’s COVID-19 bubble was sent home	34%	300
I or my child are worried about COVID-19	13%	116
Their school, college or university is or was closed or only provides remote learning	47%	411
Their school, college or university cannot or could not support their special educational needs and/or disabilities	8%	73
Other (please specify):	24%	212

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.’

	Percentage	Number of responses
Yes	42%	617
No but they are meant to be	15%	227
No	40%	592
Not sure	3%	37

See Figure 14.

Data for Figure 15: Participant responses to the question ‘Can you currently access short breaks or holiday schemes?’

	Percentage	Number of responses
Yes	8%	115
No but I should be	8%	112
No	67%	986
Not sure	18%	260

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?’

	Percentage	Number of responses
Yes	86%	755
No	14%	126

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.’

	Percentage	Number of responses
Strongly agree	14%	105
Agree	31%	232
Neither agree or disagree	16%	118
Disagree	22%	163
Strongly disagree	18%	137

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.

1. Lamb Inquiry, ‘Special educational needs and parental confidence’, Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2009, quote on page 2. ↩

2. The Children and Families Act 2014. ↩

3. ‘SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years’, Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, June 2014. ↩

4. Number of pupils with SEN support in all schools (including independent schools and general hospital schools) at January 2020. This is based on data from school censuses: ‘Special educational needs in England, academic year 2019/20’, Department for Education, July 2020. ↩

5. Number of children and young people (aged 0–25) with an EHC plan maintained by the local authority at January 2020. This is based on local authority level data collected through the SEN2 data collection: ‘Education, health and care plans, reporting year 2020’, Department for Education, May 2020. ↩

6. ‘Ofsted COVID-19 series’, Ofsted, 2020. ↩

7. See ‘Education and skills – third report’, House of Commons, June 2006, and ‘Education and skills – tenth report’, House of Commons, October 2007. ↩

8. B Lamb, ‘Report to the Secretary of State on the Lamb Inquiry Review of SEN and disability information’, April 2009, quote on page 2. ↩

9. Lamb Inquiry, ‘Special educational needs and parental confidence’, Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2009. ↩

10. ‘Special educational needs and disability review’, Ofsted, September 2010. ↩

11. ‘Local area SEND inspections: one year on’, Ofsted and Care Quality Commission, September 2017. ↩

12. ‘Local area SEND inspections: one year on’, Ofsted and Care Quality Commission, September 2017, quote on page 5. ↩

13. ‘Special educational needs in England, academic year 2019/20’, Department for Education, July 2020. ↩

14. Jo Hutchison, ‘Identifying pupils with special educational needs and disabilities’, Education Policy Institute and Nuffield Foundation, March 2021, quote on page 7. ↩

15. ‘Support for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in England’, Department for Education and National Audit Office, September 2019, quote on page 29. ↩

16. Between 2013–14 and 2017–18, the DfE increased high-needs block funding by £349 million (7.2%) in real terms. This rise was larger than the 2.3% real-terms increase in schools block funding for mainstream schools, meaning that the DfE has shifted the balance of funding towards high needs. However, because of a 10.0% rise in the number of pupils in special schools and those with EHC plans in mainstream schools, high needs funding per pupil fell by 2.6% in real terms, from £19,600 to £19,100. Per pupil funding in the schools block also reduced over the same period, despite a £754 million real-terms increase in total funding (see ‘Support for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in England’, Department for Education and National Audit Office, September 2019, paragraph 2.9). ↩

17. ‘Supporting SEND’, Ofsted, May 2021. ↩

18. ‘Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England: 2018 to 2019’, Department for Education, July 2020. ↩

19. ‘Pupil absence in schools in England: 2015 to 2016’, Department for Education, March 2017; ‘Pupil absence in schools in England: 2016 to 2017’, Department for Education, March 2018; ‘Pupil absence in schools in England: 2017 to 2018’, Department for Education, March 2019; ‘Pupil absence in schools in England: 2018 to 2019’, Department for Education, March 2020. ↩

20. Annual Report 2019/20, Ofsted, December 2020. ↩

21. B Lamb, ‘Report to the Secretary of State on the Lamb Inquiry Review of SEN and disability information’, April 2009, quote on page 2. ↩

22. ‘Support and aspiration: a new approach to special educational needs and disability’, Department for Education, March 2011. ↩

23. COVID-19 series: briefing on local areas’ special educational needs and disabilities provision, Ofsted, November 2020. ↩

24. ‘COVID-19 series: briefing on local areas’ SEND provision, October 2020’, Ofsted, November 2020. ↩

25. ‘Left in lockdown’, Disabled Children’s Partnership, 2020, quote on page 1. ↩

26. ‘COVID-19 series: briefing on schools, October 2020’, Ofsted, November 2020, quote on page 3. ↩

27. ‘COVID-19 series: briefing on schools, October 2020’, Ofsted, November 2020. ↩

28. ‘The return to school for disabled children after lockdown’, Disabled Children’s Partnership, quote on page 1. ↩

29. ‘COVID-19 series: briefing on schools, November 2020’, Ofsted, December 2020. ↩

30. ‘COVID-19 and SEND education survey’, Special Needs Jungle, February 2021. ↩

31. ‘COVID-19 series: briefing on local areas’ special educational needs and disabilities provision, October 2020’, Ofsted, November 2020, quote on page 2. ↩

32. The Disabled Children’s Partnership report ‘Left in lockdown’ found that this was because of a reduction in income, increased costs, or both. Some of this was related to parents shielding in order to protect their children. Additional costs were related to providing education at home, and the reduction in, or loss of, therapies, short breaks and specialist equipment. A fifth of the survey’s respondents anticipated that they would go into debt as a result. ↩

33. ‘COVID-19 series: briefing on further education and skills, October 2020’, Ofsted, November 2020. ↩

34. ‘COVID-19 series: briefing on local areas’ special educational needs and disabilities provision, October 2020’, Ofsted, November 2020, quote on page 2. ↩

35. ‘The return to school for disabled children after lockdown’, Disabled Children’s Partnership, December 2020. ↩

36. ‘COVID-19 series: briefing on schools, October 2020’, Ofsted, November 2020. ↩

37. B Lamb, ‘Report to the Secretary of State on the Lamb Inquiry Review of SEN and disability information’, April 2009, quote on page 2. ↩

38. ‘Early years inspection handbook’, Ofsted, May 2019; ‘School inspection handbook’, Ofsted, May 2019; ‘Further education and skills inspection handbook’. ↩