When I am out walking with my dog, I often get asked what breed she is. She is a collie/beagle cross but she does not look like a collie or a beagle, so it is not immediately clear. When I am in meetings representing specialist colleges, I often end up having to explain what they are too. Misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions are common. HM Treasury inadvertently included some of them in the definition of private schools in the VAT on fees policy, some Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) auditors confuse them with private training providers and safety valve agreements have mistakenly compared independent provision in schools with placements in specialist colleges.
The government has said that it wants to solve the Special Educational Needs (SEND) crisis by creating ‘an inclusive mainstream’ with a role for specialist providers ‘for those with the most complex needs’. But if policy makers and funding organisations do not even recognise specialist further education (FE) colleges for what they are, how can they play their part effectively in the SEND system?
What if they were properly recognised, understood, supported and seen as part of the solution?
I suppose it is not too surprising that there is confusion. FE is a notoriously complex sector and specialist FE colleges come in all shapes and sizes, and like my dog, may not be immediately recognisable. Around one third of them do not use the word “college” in their name. They do not all have college-type buildings or campuses – they can be found in shops, business parks, hotels, water sports centres, or on farms. They range in size from less than 20 students to over 300 and there is a variety of legal types: community interest companies, not-for-profit companies, registered charities, or publicly funded private organisations.
With all this confusion, what exactly are they? Specialist FE colleges are entirely state funded and play an essential, statutory role. Unlike in the school sector, there is no state-maintained special equivalent in the FE sector, so they are the only organisations nationally funded to cater exclusively for the small proportion of young people whose needs cannot be met in mainstream FE. They are subject to inspection by Ofsted (Estyn in Wales), and to contractual conditions and financial audit by the Department for Education (DfE) and local authorities.
They are specialist SEND further education providers. All students have Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and are funded through the high needs funding system. Some colleges specialise in supporting students with a particular type of need, others have vocational specialisms, others are specialist in terms of their approach, facilities, resources or environment. Staff have specialist qualifications, and through a multi-disciplinary approach they aim to deliver a high-quality destination focussed curriculum.
If their status was understood, it would then be possible to define what they are for and a well-defined role within the FE sector and the wider SEND system. Government has not yet clearly defined this role and too often it is implied that young people who require specialist provision are a problem because of the cost of meeting their needs.
To define the role of specialist colleges, let’s firstly examine the government’s aim of specialist provision supporting ‘an inclusive mainstream’.
Using an entirely place-based definition of inclusion, it may look like we already have an ‘inclusive mainstream’.
Local authorities currently place 90% of the 83,781 FE students aged 16 to 25 with EHCPs into ‘mainstream’ FE (providers that cater for those with and without SEND). 80% are in general FE and other colleges, and 10% in independent learning providers. The remaining 10% are placed in specialist FE colleges, a proportion that has hardly changed since 2013.
This creates a very different starting point than for schools, where the split of EHCP holders is closer to 50/50 between mainstream and special schools.
But does this narrow definition risk an inaccurate understanding of what happens outside the mainstream? Rather than relying solely on a narrow place-based definition of inclusion, we need to recognise all the aspects of an inclusive system. This means equality of access, learners having their voice heard and feeling a sense of belonging, and providers fully meeting the needs of young people, supporting them to achieve ambitious outcomes.
FE should prepare all learners for their adult lives, so inclusive FE means learners are and will be fully included in wider society, both whilst at college and post-college. It is clear from talking to students themselves that these are the things that make them feel included. This applies whether they are placed on mainstream courses such as BTECs, A Levels, T Levels or apprenticeships, or placed in one of the specialist SEND-specific programmes in general FE colleges, or in a specialist FE college.
Therefore the first important role for specialist FE colleges is the responsibility to deliver inclusive education and inclusive outcomes for the small minority of EHCP holders placed directly with them. This should remain at about 10% of all EHCP holders, currently around 8,000 students who need specialist facilities, resources, expertise, and individualised holistic programmes. Some have a strong preference for being educated alongside peers with similar needs, and a small number also require residential education to support their independence, work towards a supported living destination or because their complex needs cannot be met without it.
When they are seen as part of the solution, there is also huge potential for specialist FE colleges to work with general FEs to develop the right mix and balance for SEND students. We have examples of specialist colleges delivering programmes for general FE students on their sites, specialist colleges located on general FE campuses, work experience opportunities and other partnership working projects.
Finally, specialist FE colleges can provide sub-contracted specialist or advisory services and can play their part in training and upskilling FE professionals across the sector. DfE currently funds Natspec and its member colleges as a Centre for Excellence in SEND, with a brief to share specialist knowledge, skills, and experience with mainstream FE settings, but there is no guarantee this funding will continue and it only touches the tip of the iceberg in terms of reach.
So specialist FE colleges have a vital role, but they cannot fulfil this if they are not recognised or included in the thinking of local and national government. The FE sector cannot help solve the SEND crisis if both types of FE provider are not recognised as equally valuable parts of the same system. The potential of FE providers – and their learners – cannot be realised if LAs and others treat specialist FE colleges completely differently in terms of support, commissioning, planning and access to capital funding compared with separate, SEND specific specialist provision provided by a general FE college – even when costs are comparable. Neither GFEs nor specialist colleges are maintained by the local authority, both are subject to national and local inspection, audit and compliance regimes, both are state funded. And yet there are examples of LAs aiming for 0% placements at specialist colleges, even when their own analysis determines there are gaps in post-16 provision. It makes no sense and has serious consequences for learners.
Both mainstream SEND provision and specialist SEND provision are essential within an inclusive FE system. So, what if specialist colleges were included in DfE and local authority policies, funding streams and support? What if they were recognised for what they are, if they were defined by what they do and who they are for – rather than by how they are governed or their legal status? In that case, they would be able to support the government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity within an inclusive system. Just like I love my dog for who she is – not for her pedigree.
You can simply fill out this form to share your views with us. We will be collating responses to each article and sharing a summary with readers. And if there is appetite for it, we plan to hold an online symposium to talk through any differences of opinion. If you would like to be alerted as articles in this series are published, please send your email address to Will.Marshall@natspec.org.uk.