Hidden in a footnote in the National Audit Office (NAO) report on support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) is an admission that DfE does not know how many young people aged 20 to 25 with SEN but without EHCPs are receiving SEN support funding.
This admission is an example of how little government understands about SEND in FE and the needs of those aged 16 to 25 within the system.
FE is overlooked
Throughout the NAO report, data is analysed and conclusions are drawn from schools and local authorities relating to the 5 to 16 age group. Just like the 2019 NAO report, the 2022 SEND Green Paper, the 2023 Improvement Plan and the July 2024 LGA/CCN report, this report is yet another missed opportunity to address the entire 0-25 SEND system, as it is almost exclusively focused on schools, with hardly any reference to early years or further education.
There are over 150,000 young people aged 16 to 25 with Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), over 26% of the total, yet this age group, and the issues faced by the further education (FE) providers that support them, have once again been overlooked. There is no recognition of the lack of strategic planning for post-16, the large numbers of young people with EHCPs in GFE colleges who are not supported by the high needs budgets, the lack of capital investment in specialist colleges, or the staffing crisis which is more acute in colleges due to the significant pay gap between colleges and schools.
The report rightly identifies that the current system is not delivering for children and young people, is financially unsustainable and is in urgent need of reform. We welcome the recommendations to build a more integrated system, address local authority deficits, and develop a fully costed long term plan.
It is also pleasing that the report draws attention to the increased pressure of rising numbers, the impact of “widespread and systemic failings” in 31% of local areas inspected by Ofsted and CQC, and financial pressure on local authorities. All these things are having a significant effect on colleges as well as schools.
What are we measuring?
However, any assessment of value for money needs to be based on appropriate metrics. Costs are undoubtedly rising, but citing the increased numbers of children in independent special schools, where cost per place is £61,500 compared with £23,900 in state special schools as evidence of “poor value for money” ignores the range and variation in the complexity of needs between those attending different types of school and the impact this has on cost per place.
The report also notes that despite a rise in the overall spend, there has been a 35% real terms drop in funding per EHCP, meaning individual schools and colleges are dealing with a real term cut in funding. Overall, there is very little understanding in the report (or indeed by government) of how much places should cost, given the complexity of need and the level of support required.
Similarly, the only measure used to conclude that “there has been no consistent improvement in outcomes” is the proportion of young people who are in sustained destinations after leaving 16 to 18 education (69% compared with 85% for those without SEN). The data collected, however, is drawn from mainstream providers. It does not capture positive outcomes for the small minority of learners for whom this narrow set of destinations is not realistic and does not represent their desired post-education outcomes. Many of these young people are served very well by the specialist FE sector which has enabled them to increase autonomy, develop communication skills, make and sustain friendships and social connections, lead healthy lives and become active citizens in their own communities.
So what needs to happen now?
The NAO report rightly highlights the opportunity for reform with a new government. That reform must take a whole-system approach, considering the entire 0-25 SEND landscape. The government needs to develop much more detailed plans for achieving the overall aims, with costings attached and funding dedicated to achieving them. These plans need to be far more cohesive than the long list of actions focused on specific features that fell out of the last government’s SEND & AP Improvement Plan, and there must be rapid progress and sustained momentum in delivering the necessary changes.
A clear vision
The government must set out a clear vision for what a more inclusive mainstream, at the heart of its proposals, would look like. They could usefully start by defining the term ‘inclusive’, something the NAO report rightly notes they have not yet done, before going on to set out some expectations about proportions of learners in mainstream and specialist, and in what circumstances specialist settings would be the more appropriate place for learners. We would advise government to think in terms of creating an ‘inclusive system’ based on a clear understanding of the specific and complementary roles that each provider type plays. Natspec has already described its own vision of an inclusive FE system, with learners being optimally placed in the setting best able to meet need and most likely to lead to positive outcomes. This type of thinking could be usefully applied across the full 0-25 system.
More and relevant FE SEND data needed
In our submission to the NAO, we asked for a recognition of the different context between schools and colleges and the fact that different solutions are needed for FE. We specifically pointed out that the urgent need for mainstream schools to become more inclusive is not mirrored in the FE sector where 90% of those with EHCPs are already in a mainstream college. Sadly, the report has not delivered in this regard. This may be in part because the richness of the data on school-aged children available to the NAO is not matched in terms of FE data. We would urge government to collect and analyse FE SEND data more systematically, and for all young people with SEND, not only those working at specific levels or working towards employment outcomes, so that it is in a much better position to understand the FE context going forward.
Urgent actions
In parallel with the systemic long-term reform, there is an urgent need to address some critical issues faced by colleges right now. Colleges are being asked to work with increasing numbers of learners with more complex needs – at a lower rate per learner. The report references a 35% real-terms drop in funding per EHC plan, and its analysis of LA spending shows that those aged 16+ who are not in school sixth forms are allocated only 13% of the mainstream budget and less than 10% of the high needs budget. It is now urgent that the disproportionately low level of spending on FE is addressed. The pressure is especially acute in specialist colleges, with funding per place consistently decreasing and no access to capital funding. These colleges are supporting learners with the most complex needs, but with fewer resources and fewer staff to meet these demands.
It’s not all about money
Not all the changes needed require additional funding from government. We need a focus on spending existing funding more effectively and identifying where policy changes, in terms of commissioning or sub-contracting arrangements for example, would lead to more effective provision. More support to enable partnerships between different types of college, greater involvement of both mainstream and specialist colleges in provision planning with local authorities and combined authorities, more effective approaches to establishing new provision, and further research on invest-to-save models could all make a significant difference without increasing demand on the public purse.
Critically we need government to acknowledge the essential role of post-16 education for learners with SEND and focus its reforms at this end of the system on enabling mainstream and specialist FE settings to collaborate to achieve better outcomes and a more sustainable financial system overall.
Rethinking SEND, our blog series written in partnership with AoC, explores further how SEND provision can be improved for 16 to 25 year olds in FE.