Reflective conversations on: Future opportunities and challenges in SEND

On 5 November 2024, delegates from colleges around the country joined Stone King Partner and SEND specialist Roger Inman – along with David Holloway, Senior Policy Manager for SEND at the Association of Colleges (AoC), and Jeremy Lloyd, Assistant Principal for SEND & Designated Safeguarding Lead at Cambridge Regional College (CRC) – for an enlightening discussion around the future opportunities and challenges surrounding SEND in colleges.

The session began with a brief introduction from Roger, during which he shared a number of reports on the state of SEND provision across the UK currently, including: AoC’s Opportunity England: Special educational needs and disabilities; a report by ISOS Partnership, commissioned by the County Councils Network and the Local Government Association, Towards an Effective and Financially Sustainable Approach to SEND in England; the findings from Phase One of the DBV programme; and the National Audit Office’s Support for children and young people with special educational needs.

The tone of these reports varies, although the overall impression is of a system that is struggling, with ISOS Partnership’s report even beginning with the phrase: “The SEND system is broken.” This statement was a recuring theme throughout the session.

Roger asked David and Jeremy about their views on this statement, to which David replied that it seems to have become almost fashionable to say that the SEND system is broken, but what that statement actually means is dependent on who is saying it. Parents, for example, may be referring to the fact that they feel their child requires more support and more funding. Local governments, on the other hand, could be saying the same thing, while meaning the opposite, namely that they feel they are spending too much on SEND and the system has become a financial threat to local authorities.

Jeremy disagreed with the blanket statement that the SEND system is broken. He admitted that there are, of course, challenges faced by colleges when it comes to SEND provision, but that, on the ground, he witnesses every day the important work that general further education colleges are doing with local governments to provide the support needed by children and young people with SEND.

Whether the entire system is broken or not, David and Roger were in agreement that improvement is needed. David referenced the Change Programme, introduced by the previous Government and currently continuing under the new Labour Government, which shows signs that improvements in place planning are possible. The scheme is being piloted in 32 colleges across the country, and one of the reforms included is the creation of local area inclusion plans. The widespread introduction of these plans would enhance colleges’ numbers planning, so they would know how many children with SEND they will be receiving before they receive the consultation forms. 

This led the group onto a discussion of sufficiency planning, and its importance for all children with SEND, not just those with EHCPs. Both David and Jeremy agreed that local authorities often do not give colleges enough notice to properly prepare for children with additional needs. Jeremy shared that, even in November, CRC is still receiving EHCP consultations for the year 24/25. However, his feelings were that colleges generally feel able to say when they simply cannot provide the level of support required by a child with SEND. He thinks that the colleges need to be seen as the specialists in this area and listened to as such.

Roger picked up on this latter point and posited that many colleges find it difficult to turn down a child with SEND but, he asked, when they do, do local authorities tend to respect their wishes? Jeremy’s feelings on this point were mixed, as CRC has over 600 pupils with EHCPs so, while many processes have been smooth, he has also experienced some friction between the college and local authority. He did, however, add that, in most cases, he believes local authorities are doing the best they can and a lot is being asked of them. David added to this that colleges are exceptionally good at meeting the needs of individual children with SEND once they are at college, which may lead local authorities to believe that they can meet any needs, even though this is often not the case. 

Aside from the role of local authorities in the EHCP process, Jeremy put forward the idea that strong relationships and communication between secondary schools and colleges are key, especially when a child has SEND but no EHCP. It was agreed, however, that a lack of EHCP does not necessarily mean less information is shared, as many EHCPs are not hugely informative, and they are not the only way for information about issues with mental health and anxiety, which is up after the pandemic a few years ago, to be shared.

David then brought the conversation around to funding, particularly that pertaining to children with SEND but without an EHCP, which is widely deemed to be insufficient. Currently, just under 30% of children in colleges have SEND, and this proportion is steadily rising. Jeremy agreed with David here, stating that colleges should not have to jump over hurdles to acquire extra funding for children without EHCPs, which currently seems to be the case; the code of practice came in 10 years ago, and so much has changed since then that it needs to be updated. Jeremy added that he remains hopeful.

Still on the topic of funding, David mentioned that, in the most recent capital funding injection, 98% of that for high needs went to schools.

It was concluded, after such as lively and engaging discussion, that neither Roger, Jeremy, nor David believe the SEND system to be truly broken, though there are certainly challenges and the tone in the education sector is generally one of pessimism. David called for the SEND system to be fully recognised as including 0-25 year olds, as true inclusion precedes and extends past school-based education. It was with this, a general feeling of cautious optimism, and a remark from Roger dubbing SEND work in colleges “under-funded heroism”, that the session came to an end.