Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
(3 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I am aware that there have been a number of debates and Questions about education provision recently. I am sure the Minister is also keenly aware of this, especially today. A common theme has emerged that the current provision for supporting children with educational needs and disabilities does not work, with rising numbers, a greater range of need and local authorities unable to fund support. What I find most concerning is that there is a lack of ambition for SEND children. Despite increased levels of funding and higher levels of identification, these are not leading to better educational attainment. We all agree that something must be done, and therefore I make no apologies for bringing this Question for Short Debate to the House to enable us to push the Government on what that something should be.
I refer to my interests as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. Cerebral palsy is a good condition to consider in SEND provision. Everyone with CP is affected differently. It is an umbrella term, so the needs and abilities of people with CP will vary tremendously. Some children with complex CP will need intensive input that can be provided only by special schools, often outside the state sector. Even for these children, gaining an EHCP can be challenging and an adversarial process. Once their level of support has been agreed, it is very difficult to change, despite the potential for needs to change as they grow.
Many children with CP do well in mainstream settings. Cerebral palsy always affects mobility, so physical access and ease of moving around a school can become issues. One in two has a learning disability or sensory processing issues, and may also have other conditions such as epilepsy or autism, so there are challenges in identifying what the right support needs to be. I have had many conversations with adults with CP, some of whom attended special schools and some of whom attended mainstream schools. Some had experience of both. There is no right answer, as there are pros and cons for both, but, looking back, many of these adults did not have a positive experience of education in either setting. What illustrates the need for change most poignantly for me is that, too often, education for SEND children is about just getting through the system, from one placement to the next. No one, it seems, ever asks a disabled child what they want to be when they grow up.
In preparation for this debate, I spoke to many people, including staff at Treloar School and College in Hampshire, who provide an amazing education for some of the most profoundly complex physically disabled children. Their college students started a business venture called “Let Me In”, which offers accessibility audits to local businesses to help them improve access and employment opportunities for disabled people. It is the sort of initiative that positively illustrates the Gatsby benchmarks in action. I love it because, while Treloar takes children from the age of four, ambition and preparing students to lead meaningful adult lives, based on what children can do rather than what they cannot, are at the heart of everything from early years provision all the way up to its college students.
Unfortunately, the SEND system is predicated on what children cannot do, not what they can. To qualify for an EHCP, you need a diagnosis of something, hence the rush to find labels for things and, for those who can, to turn to private consultants to get a label for their child. None of this is helpful in supporting the self-esteem of the child, building relationships with parents or identifying what the best support for the child should be. By looking at deficits at the outset, the system is putting up barriers. It is setting out to be adversarial. Would it not be better to think, “Let Me In”? Let us turn the system on its head and be ambitious for these children.
What happens to children as they wait, sometimes for a whole school year or more, for all these assessments and reviews? They are not at school at all; they are missing out on education and falling even further behind their peers. We are not even monitoring this. In an Answer to my Written Question, the Minister confirmed:
“The department does not hold data on how many children with SEND are currently not able to be placed in a suitable school”.
Surely this is something that she could change.
A diagnosis tells you nothing about the impairment level that a person experiences or how a child could learn in a classroom. As a condition such as cerebral palsy—or any other umbrella condition, such as autism—illustrates, a diagnosis in itself is not the be-all and end-all. It can be challenging to distinguish between some conditions and behavioural issues, or between second language issues and dyslexia. Children may have a number of different conditions and needs. Diagnoses have a tendency to skew the figures. We point to the huge rises in social, emotional and mental health needs, and physical disability is often seen as niche.
Not everything requires additional learning support, but currently we are failing too many of those who need it. Some issues, such as home environment or a lack of family support, are beyond the scope of the school to change, let alone the Department for Education. Other issues will be apparent in pre-school years, for which I believe we need a far more cross-sector approach.
Early identification is key, particularly in the realm of speech and language issues. Speech and language therapists play an essential role not only in supporting communication but in identifying cognitive ability and other issues. Given the very high prevalence of speech and language and communication needs among SEND children, the Government must consider how speech and language services are resourced, how specialist therapists are retained, and ensure a sufficient training pipeline.
Fundamentally, barriers to opportunity will be broken down only if all constituent parts work together—schools, parents, health professionals and local councils. I encourage the Minister to look outside the state sector, as independent schools have taken up the baton where often state schools have been unable to. This does not mean one route is better than the other but that we should look at all the education sector to see what is working, support it, and roll it out as widely as we can, not tax it. Involving the independent sector is part of the solution.
If we do not adopt a surplus system rather than a deficit system, we are failing not only SEND children but all our children, as too much resource and time is taken up trying to focus on how we keep this creaking system going. I welcome the announcement in the Budget of an extra £1 billion for high-needs provision and the additional capital funding, but I fear it will be quickly swallowed up, especially when I hear about one mainstream secondary that needs £250,000 to mend a broken lift to enable the school to be accessible. Have the Government set out priorities for this extra funding?
Although ensuring that children can physically get into the classroom is important, so is what they do when they get there. I look forward to the Minister telling us more about the Government’s plans to improve outcomes for SEND children. I assure her that we are here to help and support her. I welcome contributions from other noble Lords and thank them for contributing to this short debate.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and I thank her for leading this debate in such a brilliant way.
My brief comments relate to the educational needs of children born prematurely and the challenges faced by parents and children in getting the system to help them. My comments are based solely on evidence received from many parents by the House of Lords Preterm Birth Committee, which I chaired.
Approximately 45,000 pre-term births occur annually in England. For most children who survive the neonatal period, the outcome is good, but for a significant number, particularly those born between 24 and 31 weeks’ gestation, while the incidence of physical disability is low, the most common outcome is a whole spectrum of cognitive impairment that extends into adulthood. Apart from poor hearing and sight, some children also suffer from epilepsy—and we have already heard of the problems that education has with children with epilepsy. Children born prematurely show problems with memory, attention and problem-solving, and social and emotional problems, withdrawn behaviour and communication difficulties. While some will need long-term healthcare, for most it is their educational needs that need greater attention and therefore consume more resources than healthcare does.
Entering school is a stressful time for children born prematurely and their parents—a flashpoint when the cognitive, social and emotional difficulties experienced by children emerge or become exacerbated. Many parents are worried that their child is not mature enough to enter school according to the cut-off point in age to start school. Children born prematurely are more likely to have special educational needs and learning difficulties than children born at term.
Parents reported a lack of understanding and awareness of the needs of children born prematurely and, therefore, a lack of support in educational settings. While the government guidance recognises the option of deferment to school entry, we heard many parents face bureaucratic hurdles and that there is a lack of understanding on the part of local authorities and schools of the educational needs of children born prematurely. Parents asked for help to make it easier to ask for deferring school entry and for schools to be aware of the birth history of the children, for example, by including the information on the school entry form. Parents who gave evidence were pleading for a way forward that recognises the educational needs of children born pre-term and the need of support from schools to take on board the views and experiences of parents, including options to defer entry.
Our committee was unable to find a way forward, except to support the efforts of voluntary programmes, such as the Prem Aware Award scheme, to raise awareness of prematurity in schools. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how the children and the parents of children born prematurely can be helped.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. One of the most rewarding pieces of work in which I was involved when I was on the staff of Lichfield Cathedral about 15 years ago was a partnership with a local school for pupils with SEND to create a bespoke multisensory tour involving water, incense, bells, holding crosses and even, judiciously, fire. At first, the cathedral guides were dubious, having been used to providing school visitors simply with a verbal commentary on the history and architecture of the building, but before long they were the ones advocating that the multisensory interactive components be incorporated into all our school visits. The result was a definite uplift in our overall educational offer—and I shall come back to that at the end, if I may.
The Church of England’s National Society for Education has set out a vision for a future curriculum that combines aspiration and equity to support the flourishing of all pupils. Three areas emerge as essential to this vision: first, investment in high capacity and integrated professional services; secondly, access to a broad curriculum for students with SEND; and, thirdly, the need for flexible metrics to evaluate effective teaching.
First, multiagency professional services must be properly funded to provide holistic support to children with SEND. I have in mind the fields of educational psychology, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and child mental health, all of which have been in decline in recent years. We must ensure an equitable provision for every child, not a postcode lottery wholly reliant on the resources and capacities of overstretched local authorities.
Secondly, we must avoid the assumption that one single approach will suit all students with SEND. The challenges that some experience are cognitive, while others face physical, sensory and social communication barriers. The wide variety of needs and abilities demands in turn a varied curriculum but one that is nevertheless ambitious and in no way dilutes content for students with SEND.
Thirdly, there is a danger of an overreliance on formulaic assessments to measure the success of an educational offering. It is short-sighted to seek to incentivise high-quality and consistent teaching by demanding adherence to a single accountability framework or assessment mechanism. Indeed, each of the latest Ofsted reviews on subject knowledge concludes that there is no single approach that guarantees delivery of a high-quality curriculum.
Finally, in a recent debate, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Lincoln—previously lead bishop for education and chair of the National Society—highlighted the potential of Church-based special schools. Bearing in mind the tremendous constraints on mainstream education and the chronically underfunded and overstretched special education sector, I hope that this possibility will be given serious consideration.
A focus on support for children with SEND is obviously worth while, because those children themselves matter to us. If our experience in Lichfield is any guide, such support is capable of generating learning that can enrich the education that we offer all pupils. That is the reason I am so grateful for this short debate and for the opportunity to contribute to it.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate and pay tribute to the fantastic work that she does as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, in addition to her duties in your Lordships’ House. As someone who has spent time in state mainstream and special schools, and also a mainstream independent school, I completely agree with her about the urgent need to address the damaging culture of low aspiration.
My noble friend speaks with great authority; I speak, if not with authority, certainly with the experience of someone who has lived with a disability since birth and, more specifically, as someone who provides proof of the way a mainstream independent education can transform the life chances of a disabled child who does not come from a privileged background. My remarks this evening therefore focus on this crucial question: does the Government’s proposed extension of VAT to private schools support the 99,000 children with SEN and disabilities who do not have an EHCP? Clearly, it does not. Indeed, if the Government proceed as planned, I am afraid that they will begin next year—the 30th anniversary year of the Disability Discrimination Act, or DDA—by in effect discriminating against disabled children.
I had the privilege of working with Labour parliamentary giants such as the late, great, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Morris of Manchester. Labour played a pivotal part in securing the DDA; it was as much to Labour’s credit as to the Major Government’s that the DDA became law. So I am bemused that this Labour Government should be about to mark such a disability rights milestone by failing to take these children’s SEN and disabilities into account and exempt them.
The Minister may say that these are tough choices. I have to say that that would be a wholly inadequate and insensitive response to these children and their families, which serves only to underline the extent to which the Government have lost sight of one simple fact: these are innocent, vulnerable, disabled children, whose education will, because of their disability, quite literally be—as it has been for me—their salvation.
I conclude by pleading with the Minister to urge the Secretary of State and the Chancellor to begin the 30th anniversary year of the DDA not by discriminating against these children but by taking their SEN and disabilities into account and exempting them. They and I look to this Labour Government to show them some understanding and compassion, and to give them hope. Otherwise, some of these innocent, vulnerable children will be facing the worst Christmas of their young lives.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has declared that 75% of five year-olds should have reached a good level of development. This is one of his key goals—I support that fully. I will refer exclusively to deaf children in these few minutes. Nearly 1 million people are born in the UK profoundly deaf. This gives us approximately 50,000 deaf children, as of today. Those children are nearly all put into normal classes, where they have no specialist teaching to help them speak, nor to understand what others are saying; yet speaking and comprehending what others are saying are the essential keys to these children reaching the good level of development to which the Prime Minister refers.
There are only 860 qualified teachers of speech therapy in Britain, so the lack of speech therapy is one of the key problems. Deaf children need to learn to speak in the same way as their family and classmates; and, equally, they need to be able to understand what others are saying. Yet there are 1.9 million children in the queue for speech therapy in the UK today. The likelihood of deaf children getting to the front of that queue is rather small. Deafness, of course, excludes children, not just from speaking and from understanding speech, but from other subjects as well. Even sports, for example, give deaf children problems with balance, since physical deafness means balance is also harmed.
There is another way and I ask the Minister to consider singing teaching. The strength of singing lies in its capacity to create correct articulation; language; the meaning of words and sentences; plus strengthening physical health through breathing and posture. Even better, social participation of all kinds comes when children are in a choir or taught singing individually. Singing and interacting with others through music is an important window out of the loneliness that is a direct result of the disability of deafness in children.
I ask the Minister to make these 50,000 children a top disability educational priority. This could be an easy win that flows right into this Government’s commitment to education for all children, provided that every possible tool is brought into place, including, but not only, music. Might the Minister meet me to discuss the ways in which music brings all children, even those of every disability, right into the harmonious fold with others? I would be grateful.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of the Independent Schools Association, one of the council’s constituent bodies, whose 690 members include many schools, most of them small, which excel in teaching and caring for children with special needs: schools which are loved and cherished by hard-working families of limited means up and down our land. They are far, far removed from the world of the large, expensive, independent schools, once known as public schools—a term that has now largely fallen into abeyance thanks to the current fashion for representing the independent sector as consisting of private schools.
A recent article on special needs provision stated that
“private schools have become part of the safety net for children”,
adding that the
“government should have recognised how the independent sector has become the backstop for a broken system”.
These words were written by a senior Labour Member of Parliament—long regarded as being on the left of the party—who has come to recognise the value of the wide and diverse provision for children with SEND in the independent sector, which has such a long tradition of excellence in this sphere. Almost 30% of independent schools are special needs schools.
Others too recognise the great importance of the independent sector in supplementing and reinforcing the state sector in this crucial area in a spirit of partnership: a principle fostered by the last Labour Government. A special needs co-ordinator who has worked at a state school for 40 years has written to tell me that “many private schools have been formed specifically to cater for special needs. They provide centres of excellence, often where there is a deficit regionally. Why risk losing them?”. It is a risk no Government should take but, sadly, this Government are taking it.
The Government say they will grant exemption from their education tax only to children with education, health and care plans. As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin has pointed out, nearly 100,000 children in independent schools do not have these hard-to-come-by plans, which parents often have to fight hard to acquire. Last year, over 13,000 SEND tribunal cases cost councils over £45 million. Even as this debate progresses today, families will be wondering how they are going to afford Labour’s education tax; many will decide that they cannot.
Labour says that schools themselves can cover much of their tax. That is wrong. The small schools, of which the sector largely consists, have to raise each year the means by which to meet their costs. Demand for EHC plans will rise. Demand for places in state schools will rise. State schools will struggle to provide them at the same level of care and support as in the independent sector. Good independent special needs schools will shut.
The right course—in the interests of education—is obvious: some clear guiding principles should be laid down. First, all pupils with diagnosed SEND and all those eligible for disability living allowance should be exempt from the education tax. Secondly, a tax threshold should be set—based on the number of pupils—to protect smaller special schools from closure. Thirdly, an independent review should be conducted after six months to provide proper factual evidence of how the education tax—launched hurriedly without full consultation—is affecting the most vulnerable children who look to our education system to meet their special needs. That is what a responsible Government would do.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. I thank my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie for securing this important debate.
I make no apologies for the fact that my contribution is going to be based around the education tax. The Government’s impact assessment on levying VAT on private education noted that state schools have statutory duties to provide the correct level of support for SEN pupils. How do the Government propose to do this, given that many of the schools are in financial deficit with stretched resources? As I understand it, the £740 million announced two weeks ago will mostly be for buildings and accessibility in mainstream schools. But what about people with learning disabilities? Who will recruit and train the teachers? Where would we find the speech and language therapists, the occupational therapists and the educational psychologists?
What will happen to the large number of pupils with SEN and without EHCPs who attend private schools and who—I agree with my noble friend Lord Shinkwin—will no longer be able to afford the fees? Many of those pupils have migrated from the state sector for smaller class sizes and to avoid the overwhelming impact of noise and chaos in school corridors.
We are not talking about rich parents; we are talking about parents who can see the difference this makes to their children, and who have found a lack of individual support and teaching assistant capacity in the state sector. We are talking about families where both parents are working in order to pay the fees—parents who have made enormous sacrifices to create the best possible opportunities for their children.
An example of this is a school close to us in east Sussex, which both my daughters attended. It has a pupil on the autistic spectrum who does not have an EHCP. He also needs an individual learning assistant. His parents cannot afford the VAT and the assistant. They are having to pull their son out of the school where he has thrived. They are going to home-school him. They do not consider this a choice; they have no choice. All they want to do is what is best for their son.
I have heard that parents will be making cutbacks and compromises in their budgeting on holidays, the weekly food shop and clothing rather than give up on such private education. Again, many of those people have come from the state sector because it could not cope with their children’s needs. This will lead to further pastoral concern for the well-being of these young people and their families. As Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, has written:
“When I heard of parents remortgaging their homes and working three minimum-wage jobs to access an environment which the child could engage, placing VAT on fees was a step too far … private schools have become … the safety net for children struggling, melting and breaking”.
To remove this safety net from parents who face exhausting struggles daily to provide the best opportunities for their children demonstrates a lamentable ignorance and a failure to think deeply enough about what life is like as a parent of a disabled child. If the Government would like more enlightenment, I would be only too happy to help.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie for this important debate. The current SEND system does not work. This is the third debate on SEND that I have been involved in in my short time in this House, and there seems to be a remarkable level of agreement on the issues and the solutions. There have been a number of task forces and consultations on this, also with a good degree of consensus on the issues and the solutions. The recent October NAO report made plain the issues we see in SEND: increasing expenditure and higher numbers but no consistent improvement in outcomes, and frustration for families, children and those working in the system.
The DfE spends more than £10.7 billion on SEND and a significant sum is spent by councils. We have 1.9 million pupils with SEND. EHCP numbers are up 140% since 2015, and 31% of SEND inspections in the past year or so noted widespread or systematic failings. The number of tribunals has gone up by 50% since 2018. Families lack confidence in the system. There is a shortage of specialist state school places, requiring councils to commission high-cost private placements. There is significant variation in access across the country and by the season of birth. On top of that, there is a major issue with school transport. The system is simply not financially viable, and councils risk going bust over this.
We need to change the system. There are multiple reports to this effect. We need to move from an adversarial to an inclusive system, with support available when it is needed and early assessment and diagnosis. We need to align incentives so that all parts of the system work together, with clear guidance on what level of support is available for a given need and moving away from the adversarial tribunals system. Ofsted needs to hold schools to account for their inclusivity and the support they give those with SEND. Those not with SEND also need the right level of support, but schools also need funding for these. We need more staff—various Members have mentioned educational psychologists, SENCOs and mental health and speech and language therapists.
Finally, as has been pointed out by several noble Lords, ambition is important for our children. We need a system that is focused on improving outcomes for children, not one that focuses on what children cannot do, and the right levels of provision; we need a focus on what could be done. The system is simply not sustainable; we need to use the resources to deliver an excellent system, not prop up a failing one. Government and other stakeholders need to have the willingness to act. While that will be difficult because of a lack of trust in the current system, particularly from parents, to not act would condemn more children to a failing system that is financially unstainable. I say to the Minister: be bold and ambitious for our children.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as set out in the register.
Something that has run through everything we have said about special educational needs is that there is a series of hurdles to get through. The first is to be recognised and the second is to access the help that is required. I will concentrate my few minutes on the first.
If you do not get an identification, everything else is doomed. Oddly, if you have a physical disability that is obvious to anyone, that would probably be slightly less of a problem. If you are on the neurodiverse spectrum—the one that I know best—and you have a dramatic failure, you are much more likely to be identified. The problem is that most people are not in those categories. We need somebody within the school structure who can spot developmental problems, whether it is in very early years or further along.
One-off systems will not work, because virtually everything we have been talking about here comes under the heading of a spectrum. The diversity within spectrums means that people will have different levels in the manifestation of their problems with the education system in front of them. If they do not have a problem with it, we do not worry. Will the Government take the first steps to make sure that there are more people who can spot these problems within the school system? If we do that, we stand a chance of getting that person, their parents and the system to come round and say, “Yes, let’s work differently”.
Once the person has been identified—I am probably again clinging back to nurse and my own group first, but it is applicable—if the school does not have the relevant knowledge, it tends to suddenly says, “Oh, we’ll give you extra help”. If you are a dyslexic with a bad short-term memory and bad language processing skills, and you fail on the work that everybody else is doing in the classroom, you will simply fail some more if you are given more of the work that you failed at. The same will be true of other conditions.
What is needed is somebody who will temper that work to the individual needs of the person. That requires knowledge and, above all, flexibility. Do you have the capacity in the school system not to say what should be being done but to ask what the best result we can get is? If you do not, you are, in effect, condemning more people to fail—and to fail in a way that will probably be disruptive to others around them.
When she comes to reply, will the Minister say what plans the Government have for better identification throughout the school system? There is so much that can be done from this good start, including the accurate engagement of parents. I have heard it said that special educational needs are for posh kids, because they are the ones who can fight through and get the identification. If the Minister wants to leave with one great claim to fame at the end of her time in office or her Government’s, it should be to get the schools to say, “Your child has a problem. Here’s a solution”. Parents should not have to go banging on doors, asking, “Why is my child not succeeding? I have spoken to an expert”. Change that and you change everything.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Fraser for securing this debate, bringing her expertise to your Lordships’ House, and making sure that the issues affecting children with special educational needs and disabilities stay on the agenda, with a real focus on ambition.
This is clearly a very long-standing issue. The Green Paper from 2011 identified many of the issues that your Lordships have raised this evening, and clearly it gives me no pleasure to recognise that. Despite everyone’s best efforts—those in schools, parents and children—the system is not working, and there is real inconsistency in the identification of SEND geographically, by school within regions, and by characteristic. For example, 50% of summer-born boys will be given a SEND identification during their time at primary. I do not think any of us can really believe that to be an accurate reflection of the situation.
Most importantly, the system is not working for children, whether that is in the classroom, where they have been described as being in it but not of it, or in relation to the results that they achieve. There is the risk that expectations are lowered for children with a label, and research suggests strongly that this is exactly what plays out in practice: parents fight for a label and then it backfires on their child.
We have seen an explosion in the identification of autism, ADHD, social, emotional and mental health problems, and speech and language issues. I would like to spend just a moment on those. Nearly every parent tries to make sure that their children are ready for school, but it seems that we need to do more to make sure that everyone understands the importance of early emotional development and language acquisition.
The Minister will be aware of the research showing the link between a family’s screen use and a child’s language environment, with the average toddler missing out on hearing more than 1,000 words a day due to screen time. Given the incredible rise in speech and language delays identified at school, surely the Government need to act on this. Similarly, in the other areas of rapid increase in identification, the evidence is growing about the harmful effects of screens on children with symptoms of ADHD and social, emotional and mental health problems in potentially both creating and exacerbating their symptoms. Will the Government look seriously at the impact of having smartphones in schools on the well-being of our children, particularly those with special educational needs?
The previous Government’s SEND and AP implementation plan recommended the introduction of national standards. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the Government’s plan for those. This Government recently announced that they were not continuing with the Safety Valve programme, which provided funding to create local capacity. I wonder if she could expand on what will happen instead. Earlier today, I mentioned the Employment Rights Bill. Given the importance of teaching assistants and other support staff for children with special educational needs, I hope the Minister will ensure that it will not represent a ceiling on what trusts are able to offer their staff.
I end where my noble friend started: we must make sure that we ask children with disabilities what their dreams are and that we all work to help fulfil them.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as others have, I start by expressing my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, for opening this important debate. Notwithstanding that this is my third appearance at the Dispatch Box today, and not the first time I have addressed this issue from it, I think that identifies its importance for all Members of your Lordships’ House, and in particular for the noble Baroness. I know that she is a champion for those with cerebral palsy and that the organisation she supports plays a key role in helping children, young people and adults to build skills, knowledge, confidence and relationships.
We have heard a range of perspectives today from across the House, emphasising personal experiences and our understanding of how those shape our special educational needs and the SEND system, which so many rely on across the country. I was particularly interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the impact on premature children. I will have to undertake to look further at the committee report that he identified. We are aware of the challenges in the SEND system, where outcomes for children are often poor and in a system that can be adversarial for parents and carers to navigate. We understand how urgently we need to address these issues. We have the ambition that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, urged on us. However, these are complex issues. We will need a considered approach to deliver sustainable changes, because we know that the current system needs to do so much more to meet the needs of children with SEND. We face significant challenges in the sufficiency of provision and public confidence. The outcomes for children and young people with SEND are often disappointing. Here I wholeheartedly support, as all noble Lords have, the aspiration that we should expect the highest possible standards for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We should start with the question: “What do they want to be and how can we support them to achieve that?”
As recent reports from Isos and the National Audit Office have identified, there is a crisis in the system—a system that has been neglected and failed to meet the needs of children and families for too long. Improving the SEND system is a priority for this Government. We want all children, regardless of where they are in the country, to receive the right support to succeed in their education and lead happy, healthy and productive adult lives.
The noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Lexden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, raised the issue of VAT on private school fees, another issue that I have discussed on several occasions from this Dispatch Box. In sharing the view of noble Lords that we need the highest possible aspirations for our children, I re-emphasise that we need the highest possible aspirations for our children, whichever type of school they are in. Clearly, what is happening in our state sector is not good enough for the 93% of children educated there. Notwithstanding that, we are committed to ensuring that pupils whose needs necessitate a place at a private school are not impacted by the policy. Where children have their place identified as part of the education, health and care plan, they will of course not be impacted by the changes that are being made to VAT.
The reforms that families need and deserve will take time, but the Government have already taken action to support the system. First, all teachers are teachers of special educational needs and disabilities. To ensure that teachers have the skills to support all pupils to succeed, including those with SEND, we are implementing a range of teacher-training reforms which begins with initial teacher training and continues into early career teaching, through to middle and senior leadership.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, quite rightly made the point that we need to start early to identify and support children. Early years will be part of the wider SEND reforms. We are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in all mainstream settings as well as ensuring that special schools cater for those with the most complex needs. To support this, we have launched new training resources for early educators to help them to support children with developmental differences. We have also funded training for up to 7,000 early years special educational needs co-ordinators.
High-quality teaching is central to ensuring that all children are given the best possible opportunity to achieve in their education. That is why we are recruiting an additional 6,500 teachers and have implemented a range of teacher training reforms, as I have outlined. On 1 September 2024, the Government introduced a new mandatory leadership level national professional qualification for SENCOs. We have also launched an independent curriculum assessment review to look closely at the key challenges to attainment that children and young people face, particularly those with SEND.
In reference to the calls from several noble Lords for investment in the professionals, who are so important, I say that we are also investing over £21 million to train 400 new educational psychologists, but we need additional funding in our broader school funding system. To improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children and ensure that the system is financially sustainable, we are providing almost £1 billion more for high-needs budgets in 2025-26, bringing total high-needs funding to £11.9 billion. This more consistent and widespread approach will be more important than the safety valve system that the noble Baroness referenced, which, of course, by definition was able to cope only with those local authorities in extreme situations. All local authorities need support and that is our reason for the approach that we have taken. This funding will help local authorities and schools with the increasing costs of supporting children and young people with complex SEND.
Last week, we also announced an additional £740 million for high-needs capital in 2025-26. This new funding can be used to adapt classrooms to be more accessible for children with SEND, and to create specialist facilities within mainstream schools that can deliver more intensive support adapted to suit the pupils’ needs, alongside continuing to support pupils in special schools with the most complex needs.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, also raised the important point about speech and language therapists. We know that continuing to build the pipeline of speech and language therapists is essential. That is why the speech and language degree apprenticeship was introduced, which is now in its third year of delivery and offers an alternative pathway into a successful career as a speech and language therapist. In addition, working with NHS England, the funding for the Early Language and Support for Every Child pathfinders will continue until at least 2025. It is trialling new ways of working to better identify and support children with speech and language issues in early years and primary school settings.
I am very attracted to the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, for more use of music not only with respect to students with special educational needs but broadly across our curriculum. As per our recent announcement, we expect all music hubs to have an inclusion strategy and lead to ensure that music education is fully inclusive in mainstream and special schools. We recently announced £5.8 million for the Music Opportunities pilot over four years to help support disadvantaged and SEND pupils.
Obviously, there is more to be done. The Government will bring a new focus on improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream education settings, where most children with special educational needs and disabilities are taught and where most children’s needs are identified. We are moving to an approach rooted in partnership, creating certainty for all children, parents and teachers, in a core offer of education. To transform the outcomes of all young people with SEND, children need to feel that they belong in school. We will support professionals who work with children and young people with SEND to increase their SEND expertise.
We will also encourage mainstream schools to set up resourced provision or special educational needs units to increase capacity so that more children and young people with SEND can benefit from mainstream education. We will strengthen accountability to ensure that mainstream schools are as inclusive as possible. As part of this, we are working closely with Ofsted to develop proposals for how inspections could operate in future and how outcomes could be reported within a new report card system. All our work will be guided by what families, experts, leaders and front-line professionals tell us. We can get this right only if we listen and work together on solutions.
This work has already begun with the appointment of Tom Rees, chief executive of Ormiston Academies Trust, to lead a group of experts to help us drive forward work on inclusion in mainstream education settings, and with the appointment of Dame Christine Lenehan as strategic adviser for SEND. She will play a key role in convening and engaging with the sector, including leaders, practitioners, children and families, and will support work to engage parliamentarians as we refine and deliver our SEND reform. To drive support for neurodivergent children and young people in mainstream education, we have appointed Professor Karen Guldberg as chair of a new group bringing together neurodiversity experts and those with lived experience.
Together, we can restore trust in the system and improve it so that more and more children and young people get the support they need to succeed in their education and later in life. As we heard today, many noble Lords have considerable experience and expertise in SEND. I look forward to working and collaborating with noble Lords to realise this vision, which I know Members of this House will share.