EHCP requests and falling rolls

Have requests for EHCPs passed their peak? It might be expected that where a local authority was starting to witness a shrinking school population that this might also be noticeable in a decline in requests for an EHCP.

I have tested out this these for the London boroughs, based on the DfE’s data on total requests for an EHCP for each year from 2019 (pre-covid) to 2025, (the latest set of annual data published). Release home – Education, health and care plans – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

Column 2 shows the growth in request over the period from 2019 to 2026 (in one case a small decline) Column 3 shows the percentage increase over the period, ranked from smallest percentage increase to the largest. Column 4 is my interpretation of whether the borough is an inner London or an outer London borough

LA2013-2019% increasesubregion
1-3-38%inner
2345%inner
3129%inner
48418%inner
511521%inner
619523%outer
77236%inner
88537%inner
921039%outer
1010041%outer
1117842%outer
1211447%outer
1340055%outer
1429757%outer
1524358%outer
1629865%inner
1727665%outer
1819568%inner
1932172%inner
2035273%outer
2131380%outer
2215786%inner
2314687%outer
2453491%outer
2548895%inner
2629297%outer
27497101%outer
28395101%outer
29392105%outer
30501110%inner
31432115%inner
32345117%outer
33376133%outer

Thirty-two boroughs showed an increase in requests over the period between 2019 and 2025. Increases ranged from less than 10% in each of two inner London boroughs to seven boroughs with increases of more than 100% increase over the period between 2019-2025 (5 outer London boroughs and two inner London boroughs).

In 14 of the boroughs, the number of requests received by the borough in 2025 was not the highest for any years during the period between 2019-2025. Is that enough to suggest a trend? Possibly so, especially if the key point for many requests for an EHCP is around the transfer point form primary to secondary school.

Does the  distribution of the boroughs suggest that inner London boroughs have a smaller percentage of pupils requiring an EHCP, or perhaps a smaller percentage of parents initiating the process of requesting an EHCP? It would be helpful to rerun this exercise for particular types of EHCP and the age of the child at which they were requested. Might this deeper analysis help to explain some of the differences in the percentage increases between boroughs?

It is interesting that some London boroughs with a mix of selective and non-selective schools feature among the boroughs with the highest percentage increase over the period.

If data for individual schools is not available, then measuring the percentage of the borough in each IDACII cell might provide data on any clustering. A simpler way might be to use parliamentary constituencies, but both of these measure of requests suffer from a possible ‘parental choice’ effect. The use of boroughs more closely ties requests linked to residence not to school attended.

If I have a moment, I will look at the data for the top and bottom 20 places regarded by the Children’s Commissioner in her recent report as the best and worst places for children to grow up.

Are Breakfast clubs just a new form of extended school day?

Research published by the DfE Breakfast club early adopters: final report – GOV.UK provides some interesting insights into the government’s early adopters of their plan for a free ‘breakfast club’ in every primary school.

Some of the comments in the Report’s Executive summary suggest that food is not the real benefit to most families of such ‘breakfast clubs’, but an extension of the wrap around care offered by schools.

‘Parent awareness of provision was high (92%), primarily through school newsletters (36%) and apps (19%). The free breakfast club usage reflected family circumstances: 69% of aware parents reported their child attends, with higher rates among full-time employed parents (79%) and lower among free school meal eligible families (66%).

Enabling employment emerged as the primary motivation for use (53%), followed by child enjoyment (43%) and easier drop-offs (35%).

The free breakfast club sits within existing family routines rather than replacing them entirely. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of families report that their child usually has breakfast at home, though breakfast club users are less likely to eat at home than non-users (74% vs 94%). Current before-school arrangements varied considerably: 45% of families used the free breakfast club for childcare, whilst 41% had a parent or carer at home.’

All from the Executive summary, but with some re-ordering.

One comment that really interested me was that ‘Pupils exercised considerable autonomy in choosing what to eat, which activities to pursue, and how to interact socially, distinguishing free breakfast clubs from structured classroom time. Pupils showed strong engagement with both food and activities, although some attended primarily for social interaction and play.’

Clearly, there are some users of the ‘clubs’ that are there for the food. But, does this justify a universal service, especially with primary schools starting at so many different age groups from age 2 to age 5.

An interesting finding was that ‘Participation rates are higher among families not eligible for FSM (74%) compared to FSM-eligible families (66%), and among parents in full-time salaried employment (79%). The type of provision accessed varies by family circumstances. Most families (70%) exclusively use free breakfast club provision, whilst 16% combine free and paid provision, and 13% use only paid provision. Parents not currently employed are most likely to solely use the free provision (90%), whilst families with higher incomes are more likely to use paid provision either exclusively or in combination with free offerings.’ (page 48)

Also of interest was the higher take-up by parents of children with SEND

‘Parents of children with SEND demonstrate slightly different usage patterns, being more likely to send their child to breakfast clubs every weekday (49%) compared to parents of children without SEND (42%). This higher frequency of attendance aligns with findings from parent interviews, where parents of children with SEND describe breakfast clubs as particularly valuable for providing calm, structured morning transitions.’ (page 51)

In the interviews with parents, there was little mention of the attraction of the ‘free breakfast, only accounting for 8% of one of the top three choices, leading the report to state that:

‘Interviewed parents recognise the provision serves multiple purposes including providing childcare support, facilitating work routines, offering socialisation opportunities, alleviating financial pressures, helping their children settle into the school environment, and building confidence. This multifaceted nature of the breakfast club makes it valuable to families across diverse circumstances.’ (page 53).

If the aim of the government was to encourage more employment among families with primary aged children, then the pilot seems to have been a success. But are they really ‘breakfast clubs’? The report’s recommendations acknowledge this issues:

‘Strengthen the programme narrative beyond breakfast provision. The evidence demonstrates that free breakfast clubs deliver multiple interconnected benefits that extend beyond food provision. The Department should consider strengthening the programme branding and communication strategy to reflect this broader value proposition. Rather than “breakfast clubs,” consider terminology such as “before-school clubs” or “morning clubs” that better captures the comprehensive nature of the provision. This re-emphasis should emphasise the programme as offering a supported transition into the school day (‘soft start’) that can foster pupils’ social development and cross-age relationship building while providing an opportunity eat a nutritious breakfast. To appeal to parents, it should also focus on the free breakfast club as enabling parental employment and reducing household stress. This positions the free breakfast club as one component of a holistic morning experience. This shift in narrative would help address the 49% of non-users who cite “lack of need” by demonstrating relevance beyond food provision alone’. (page 89)

More concerning to me is the fact that ‘FSM-eligible families (who show lower usage despite potentially greater need)’. Should helping these children to make use of the ‘clubs’ better fulfil the ‘breakfast club’ part of the original mission of such clubs?

The data for this sample was limited, and it was based upon an opt-in approach. I would be concerned if across England children eligible for free school meals were making less use of the free food on offer before school and also not joining in on what now looks more like an extended school day than an initiative to help families with their food bills.

Is the trade-off between extra childcare and more employment possibilities, especially for women worth the cost? I guess the government decided the answer to that question before it set up the pilot programme ahead of a national roll out.

Funding schools for needs not pupil numbers

Following on from yesterday’s post about the report from the Children’s Commissioner on children growing up, I talked this morning to a head teacher about some of the issues which faced them on a daily basis. According to the Children’s Commissioners report, their school is in an advantageous area for growing up. https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/resource/the-childhood-lottery-the-hardest-places-to-grow-up-in-england/

Yesterday’s report worries me because small pockets of deprivation within areas singled out as successful by reports such as that from the Children’s Commissioner may not have the mechanism to deal with their localised problems.

The school whose headteacher I was talking to is part of MAT, along with another school in the same postcode. Across that postcode, are two maintained schools, (one VA/one VC), and schools in three other multi-academy trusts, one with six schools, one with three schools and two MATs with two schools each.

How do you manage strategy for the area in such circumstances. No doubt health and social services can have area boards, but who has the power to bring together schools to work out a common approach to local issues?

Probably not at present the local authorities, both upper and lower tier, although through its Children’s Services the upper tier authoritiy does manage, social services, youth services and youth justice. Should it once again be given strategic powers for local areas? Central government has tried such an approach with ideas ranging from Blair’s Education Action Zones (EAZs) to the Conservative government’s Opportunity Areas policy. Most of these failed to improve education outcomes for the localities where they intervened. Would a more local approach have succeeded? Certainly not without resources.

I am led to wonder whether the present funding formula for schools is fit for purpose during a period of declining rolls.  Pitting schools against schools to recruit pupils doesn’t guarantee schools the resources necessary to ensure pupils achieve outcomes: some pupils need more resources than others. This was recognised with the Pupil Premium, but seems to have been overlooked in terms of the failure of local decision-making that has resulted from a fractured system of decision-making.

One example quoted to me was how trauma in pupils is addressed. This might arise because a parent was handed down a prison sentence, and the family name appeared in the local paper. How traumatic is that for a nine-year-old. Then, there are those living in overcrowded flats, sometimes in tower blocks. How traumatic is that to a seven-year-old.

All too often the simple administrative solution is to  create an EHCP for the child rather than to work with the school on funding to deal with the in-school issues resulting from the trauma, and to work to reduce exclusions that might result, even with an EHCP, and support better learning outcomes. Of course, all staff in all agencies are working under great pressure, so shortcuts can be an easy solution.

My thesis is that schools in a locality should once again be part of a system that acknowledges their needs, and that across a large administrative area, needs between schools may be different. Money is a help, but also a common set of values is also important.

What worries me is that a high percentage of schools in challenging areas are church or faith-based schools. What part are faith leaders playing in making sure that the schools they are responsible for serve their communities as effectively as possible. In the same vein, what part do local politicians play in ensuring the best outcomes for their residents?

Nationally as the Children’s Commissioner identified in her report, we need funding for targeted areas, but, in addition, we also need vision and the will to effect change on the part of both local and national politicians.  We need to create a school system capable of dealing with the challenges of all our children whether they are growing up in challenging area within a mostly great place to live or one of England’s deprived communities.

Growing up in England: The Children’s Commissioner’s Report

The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, has issued a comprehensive report on growing up in England. ‘The Childhood Lottery: The hardest places to grow up in England’ The Childhood Lottery: The hardest places to grow up in England | Children’s Commissioner for England The data comes from matrixes across the Commissioner’s six pillar of work

Health: health services and outcomes

Care: social care and outcomes

Community; policing, youth justice and services available to children in l where they live

Education: jobs and skills: schools and  post-16 plus educational outcomes

Family: housing, play , poverty and family life

Better world: the environment, children’s voices and citizenship

The data are for the 150+ upper-tier authorities, so London boroughs, metropolitan districts, unitary councils and the remaining shire counties. As a result, the authorities range in size from Rutland to Lancashire and Kent. Some areas are more homogenous than others: some are contiguous with health, police and other non-local government functions, while others are part of larger organisation for policing and health with policies set outside the local authority areas. Some functions are split between upper and lower tier authorities, such as housing and recreation facilities.

Despite these issues, that in some cases make the average for the authority not reflective of its different parts, and highlight some of the issues with dashboards, discussed in a recent post on this blog. Are dashboards useful? | John Howson this is a powerful report bringing together lots of useful data.

There are dangers here. Oxfordshire is ranked equal 11th with York, and the fourth best county to grow up in England. But, tomorrow, I will be at a workshop , initiated by an Oxfordshire-based multi-academy trust, aiming to improve the lives of children in the most challenging part of the county’s urban landscape. (The report classifies Oxfordshire as rural). The issues in this area would have been highlighted if district councils had been used as the data point instead of upper-tier authorities. Parliamentary constituencies, where most of this data is probably kept somewhere for MPs questions, might have been an even better and more equal frame of reference, allowing different between both Tottenham and Highgate within Haringey to have been judged separately.

Rural areas may also have a bit of a raw deal: you can’t count bus data where there are no buses. The data on childcare placement more than 20 miles from their home doesn’t discount kinship care that might be valuable, but not local in a large rural county.

However, it is easy to carp, and one cannot but praise the efforts of the Children’s Commissioner. The survey may also reveal how weakened local government has become. Take youth justice: how many councillors attend local committees to discuss approaches to this vital topic. Do cabinet members for Children’s Services even know that they often have this responsibility?

I was fortunate, when a Cabinet member, to have both a Director of Children’s Services and a Youth Justice lead that kept me informed, and allowed me to understand the importance of this area. On the other hand, the Health and Wellbeing Board was a challenge for me, as it covered so many different areas, and children’s health didn’t have a sub-committee. The fact that Oxfordshire is a Marmot County had nothing to do with me as a cabinet member for children’s services.

There are messages for politicians at all levels in this report, not only about childhood, but also into young adulthood. Sadly, many adults face the same problems, and solving those issues might also help future generations of children and young people growing up in a divided England.

70 Up

Like many of my generation, I watched 70 Up on TV last night with very mixed feelings. I first came across what was originally an ITV World in Action documentary called ‘7 UP’ when lecturing to trainee teachers at Oxford Polytechnic, as Oxford Brookes University then was, in the 1980s. The film was part of a module called ‘Societal Issues in Education’. The original documentary was about the lives and aspirations of 20 different children selected by the producer from schools across England. Eventually, it became  series, revisiting the group every seven years.

Looking at the first part of 70 UP, the final two-part episode that both recalled the past lives of those willing to participate every seven years, and caught up with them for a final time at age 70, I was struck by what was missing from the series. No child with a visible disability, only a nod to even the possibility of multi-cultural Britian, as it already was becoming in 1964, when the original programme first aired. A group of children both very different from those that might be selected today, but in many ways a group still to be found in many schools today.

We have been privileged to share the lives of this particular group, and one must thank them for taking part in such a public recording of many aspects of their personal lives. Some played to the camera, and obviously enjoyed the experience; others didn’t, and dropped out, while others, while not enjoying the experience still participated.

What is striking, and heartwarming in the first part of 70 UP is the nature of relationships the group formed. Some survived, some didn’t. That’s not surprising, as the past 60 years have seen great changes in both divorce laws and the fluidity of relationships at all ages.

Every participant was a star. For many, the boy from the children’s home that went on to not only make a family with his partner, but also to foster 170 children in care, was a real star. Fostering demands real respect, as I know from my time as a county councillor just how difficult it is to recruit carers. If 70 UP persuades just one family to contact their local authority and offer to become carers it will have been worthwhile.

Not all the episodes were easy to watch, especially those filmed in the 1970s when teenagers were finding their feet. It is worth noting how many went to Oxford University, and that says much about the sampling, especially of the original participants from private schools.

The women in the group joined 7 UP before the equal opportunity’s legislation of the 1970s, and it shows in those that worked rather than had careers. There were also fewer of them, again I suspect a sign of the times and attitudes in the early 1960s, before the sexual revolution and the ‘swinging sixties’.

Next week, there will be the final part of the series. 70 UP had a new producer, the previous, and only other producer, died after 63 UP was produced. Not surprisingly, not all the original participants survived to 70.

Indeed, I worry, that the treatment of the death of one of the original group of participants reveals both the best and worst of television in its mission to entertain; inform and educate its viewers.

Travel, hotels, and senior citizens

In this my final holiday season post, I have reflected on some of my thoughts about hotels and other matters. (This should have appeared in August, but due to flight timings has been delayed until September)

Senior citizens are travelling much more than in the past, and often well into their 80s. For the most part many don’t need accessible rooms, but a few minor adjustments might make the experience more rewarding.

Hotel bathrooms

Firstly, the shower – Can the bottles of shampoo and bodywash be read by those that wear glasses?  I have to use my glasses to find out which bottle is which. Larger lettering or some other form of identification would be helpful

Grab rails and even a built-in seat would be useful when it comes to washing one’s feet. Many senior citizens, myself included, are not as supple as we once were.

Rooms – hotel information should indicate if any rooms are over two floors. It’s great to be rewarded with an upgrade, but not if you have to climb stairs to reach the bedroom. One might certainly think twice before booking such a room.

Light controls near beds should have some form of soft light indicator for ease of switching on at , as many senior citizens may need to use the bathroom during the night, sometimes more than once and fumbling for the light switch is a nuisance

Food and drink

Offering the children’s menu might attract more custom from senior citizens, as some portions are too large for the third meal of the day. The other option is to skip the meal, meaning the hotel can lose money they might have made. Bar meals don’t seem to be a good alternative, as the menu is often restricted and carbohydrate high.

QR codes

Many senior citizens don’t use these, so an alternative might ensure business isn’t lost.

Toilets

Having to read the instruction book before using a Japanese style toilet is an interesting challenge that then requires remembering what each symbol means. Still, it is a better option than long-drop or compost toilets senior citizens encounter on tours to more remote areas.   

Receipts

These are increasingly being offered as emails. A printed version allows for any issues to be picked up straightaway. Of course, if you haven’t bought anything other than a room paid for in advance, not viewing the bill might be a saving in time, especially if checking out at a popular time.

Staff

As with so many other areas in life, a few words with staff often pays dividends. Saying hello to housekeeping staff when you see them in the corridor might just ensure your room has extra attention to it even where you have stuck the wooded eco-friendly label about cleaning on the door.

Travel

Senior citizens now benefit from free travel in some cities. Certainly, tap on and tap off, using a credit card, has made using local travel so much easier, even though it means no human contact. However, timetables are often difficult to read and being replaced by the dreaded QR codes in some places.

Some coaches and minibuses have very limited legroom. It is worth checking before booking a tour or asking you travel agent to check. Five hours coach travel with less legroom than on an economy airflight is no joke.  

Not back to normal, and once again posts about education

Pay tuition fees of trainee teachers

The House of Commons Treasury (Select) Committee today published its report into university tuition fees. One of its conclusions was that;

2. 3. 4. The student loans system is complex. The terms and conditions of loans must be examined within the context of the entire system. The overall level of subsidy provided by the state to the individual is the defining factor in how the loan then operates. (Conclusion, Paragraph 17) Although the government claimed that its subsidy is in the region of 30% to 40%, we saw evidence indicating that individual contributions from students graduating today could be as high as 95%. That was not what the government or Parliament intended, when Parliament agreed the Plan 2 legislation. Society benefits from individuals going to university. Therefore, society should contribute to the cost of an individual’s higher education. We agree with Sir Philip Augar that the split between state and individual should be around 50:50. Terms and conditions matter. Even a very clever system that strikes a generally acceptable balance between the taxpayer and individual contributions will not be sustainable in the long term, if individual terms and conditions within that system are deemed economically or politically intolerable by stakeholders or loan holders. (Conclusion, Paragraph 18)

Student loans: Broken and unfair? My highlighting in bold

Reading that conclusion made me wonder how much should someone wanting to be a teacher expect to pay in tuition fees and interest on the loan in order to enter the profession?

Does it matter that a twenty two year old will pay far more in tuition fee repayments, due to interest costs, than someone entering teacher training in their thirties from a high paying job in London with their original undergraduate loan paid off? The twenty two year old will likely be paying interest on their combined undergraduate and ITT tuition fees for their whole teaching career.

Does it matter that if you are on Teach First, a graduate teaching apprenticeship, or some other route that pays a salary, you will incur no extra student debt training to become a teacher? Should there be equity between routes into teaching?

Yesterday, in my post about teachers’ pay, I revealed how poorly teachers were paid compared with many other graduate professions. Are teachers paid a fair wage for being a graduate? | John Howson

Now for a bit of history. When the Labour government took power in the summer of 1997, and decided to introduce tuition fees for courses including postgraduate ITT courses, I was still working at the then Teacher Training Agency, as its Chief Professional Adviser on Teacher Supply.

Frank Dobson, as Secretary of State for Health was adamant that trainee nurses should not pay tuition fees, although I need to remind myself whether or not he took the same line about the professions allied to medicine and for trainee doctors.

David Blunkett, as Secretary of State for Education, took the line that undergraduate trainees should pay tuition fees, but that the State would effectively pay the fees of those on approved postgraduate courses leading to QTS. One consequence of this decision, a decision that I recall discussing with a senior civil servant at the Department, was the decline in undergraduate ITT, especially for secondary subjects: it still lingers on for would-be primary school teachers.

One of the more pernicious and short-sighted decisions of the coalition government that emerged after the 2010 general election was to remove the payment of tuition fees by the government for postgraduate ITT courses.

I have always opposed that decision. A better solution would have been to rebate the tuition fee once a teacher started working for the State. To make it fair, it would have been necessary to ensure all those gaining QTS, and having paid tuition fees, were offered a teaching or other government funded post. Those working for private school or outside teaching would still have had to repay their loans.

In the light of today’s Treasury Committee’s conclusion that they, ‘saw evidence indicating that individual contributions from students graduating today could be as high as 95%.’, I believe that the current Secretary of State should either revert to the pre-2010 situation or find some other way of relieving trainee teachers of the burden of tuition fee debt.

Sadly, I think there is little that can be done for previous generations of teachers still weighed down with tuition fee debt, except perhaps a deal with mortgage companies to allow the debt to be transferred to extend a mortgage to repay the capital and allow the remaining debt to be paid at a lower rate of interest than the government charges.

Alternatively, schools, MATs and local authorities might look at ways of taking over the debt at a lower interest rate.

I think it says something about the teaching profession, and its professional associations that the issue of the burden of tuition fees for teachers has not been a higher priority.

Perhaps the present evidence from the STRB and Treasury Reports might persuade the professional assoiations into action on behalf of their members.

Action from the Liberal Democrats, my Party, and a participant in the 2010 decision to make trainee teachers pay fees, would also be welcome; I am not holding my breath.

Celebrating 100,000 Blog Visitors: A Thank You to Readers

Yesterday evening this blog received its 100,000 visitor, according to WordPress statistics. I would like to say a very big thank you to everyone that has read a post on this blog since I started it, way back in early 2013. According to Chat GPT, only 5% of blogs started in that year still survive. This blog not only survives, but is also thriving.

From time to time, WordPress suggest I make a charge to visitors to read previous posts. I have steadfastly ignored those blandishments in favour of open access for all. I am sure that policy has helped gain me extra visitors.

However, writing a blog does take time and effort, and if you know a library that might like to book of the 2013 posts, some of which WordPress no longer allows access to, please suggest they buy the book either as a e-book from Amazon or as a paperback from myself through the email at: dataforeducation@gmail.com

Once this book has covered its costs, I will publish another on the 100 most read posts – with a bit of commentary as to why they might have received so much attention. To date, posts about teachers’ holiday entitlements lead by a long way. It seems like the myth of long holidays is deeply engrained in the public’s psyche.

As someone that failed their English Language examination at age 16, I never thought that I would write a column for the TES between 1997 and 2010, and this blog since 2013. Sub-editors taught me a lot, and on-line software has helped. Interestingly, I have experimented recently with turning the text of a blog post into a webinar conversation. If you ae interested, I will leave you to search the 2026 posts for an example.   

In the past, comments were more frequent that they are these days, although ‘likes’ still seem to crop up from time to time. My thanks to those that ‘like’ every post I write. I am not used to having such a fan base.

My especially thanks to, Janet D, Frank S and Sue B for their many comments. Along with teachingbattleground, they make up the most frequent commentators over the years on my posts. Frank was at school with me, and I still remember his part in TCS plays.

Where now for the blog? Well, I hope to keep it going for some time yet, as there is certainly plenty of material to write about. My special field is the labour market for teachers and, especially, headteachers, where I have more than 40 years of data from my research. Later today, I will post, as my next blog post, about how my findings compare with a report that was published yesterday. AI can do some things, but it still has much to be taught to make it even more useful as a research tool.

So, once again, thank you to my audience, whether you have just read one post, have delved into the archive as part of research for a project, or are one of the small number of regular readers.  

30th April update

A, my thanks to you, the readers for the best April ever for the blog. 2,000 readers over the courses of the month!

Thank you.

NEETs: A North East crisis?

There is no doubt that although higher than they could be, NEET percentages are lower than before the raising of the learning leaving age in 2013.

However, NEET rates are nowhere near uniform across the country. In Quarter 4 of 2025, the quarter after 16 year olds have decided whether to stay in education, find an apprenticeship or become economically inactive, NEET rate in the North East of England were more than twice the rate of the of those in the South West, according to the government’s Labour Force Survey.

‘NEET and NET Estimates from the LFS’ for 16 to 24 and Q4 for 2025

Q4
EnglandNorth EastNorth WestYorkshire and The HumberEast MidlandsWest MidlandsEast of EnglandLondonSouth EastSouth West
16 to 24Percentage of population NEET13.3%21.0%14.0%15.6%16.5%13.5%11.7%12.0%11.5%9.9%
Confidence interval (95%) for the percentage NEET0.9%4.6%2.7%2.9%3.3%2.8%2.5%2.6%2.1%2.4%

Footnotes

  1. LFS data has been reweighted from January 2019 onwards. There is a discontinuity in the timeseries at this point and comparisons to earlier data should be considered with caution.
  2. All estimates should be viewed alongside associated 95% confidence intervals as shown in the underlying data. Create your own tables on neet age 16 to 24 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

It seems likely that the rate for males is higher than that for females, although the recent government decisions that have made working in retail and hospitality more of a challenge than before the tax changes may well be pushing up the female rate of NEETs.

It would be interesting to see whether the move from school to a college is seen as more of a challenge for males than females?

Also of interest, but not identifiable from the data, are whether the rate of NEETs for 16-17 year olds is higher in rural areas with poor transport than in urban areas with excellent public transport to college or workplace?

My hunch is that transport costs play a part in some young people becoming NEETs. I have written elsewhere about the punitive effect of motor insurance tax on young people with no possibility of a no-claims bonus. Perhaps, the tax should not be imposed on those under 18 forced to use their own transport because of where they live?

Raising the age for free transport to school and college from 16 to 18 might also encourage more participation, and would be a small cost to pay, as it would just mean more students on existing transport.

Finally, it would be interesting to see the rate of NEETs for those with EHCPs? Do special schools do a good job for their post-16 students when compared with those with EHCPs in mainstream schools? Are those with an EHCP more likely to become a NEET if they attend an 11-16 or an 11-18 school?

These are interesting questions where it is challenging to find the data to answer the questions that will affect policy decisions.

Think Tank weighs in on SEND

Policy Exchange, the Think Tank that describes itself as ‘the UK’s leading think tank’, and ‘an independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy.’ Has published a new report on SEND, with a foreword by a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The report contains a great deal of interesting evidence, much of which will already be know to anyone that has been involved with the emerging crisis in SEND that was already apparent from well before the covid crisis hit in 2020. Policy Exchange – Out of Control

A telling paragraph in the report lays bare the need for action

The SEND system established by the Children and Families Act 2014 and the 2015 SEND Code of Practice is inefficient, ineffective and has failed to deliver improved outcomes for children with SEND. Fundamental flaws have created perverse incentives for actors in the system. The current SEND regime was designed to support a much smaller number of acute cases. It has failed to adapt to changing social definitions of SEND that have widened demand. Instead, the concentration of resources and bespoke support at the top end of the spectrum has prompted an escalation of needs which has overwhelmed the system and undermined its long term sustainability. (Page 66).

The paragraph leaves one wondering why the Conservative government that was responsible for the 2014 Act didn’t take action to deal with the problem when in office?

In December 2018, I wrote a blog SEND on the agenda again | John Howson drawing attention to a report from the Local Government Association. There was already concern in local government circles about what was happening in SEND. It is worth repeating the key points from the LGA report.

Addressing the points raised in paragraph 17 of the Report would go a long way to creating a sustainable and successful system for young people with SEND.

  1. To create a more sustainable funding settlement going forward there may be merit in considering some key questions around how incentives in the system might be better aligned to support inclusion, meet needs within the local community of schools, and corral partners to use the high needs block to support all young people with SEND as a collective endeavour. These might include
  2. setting much clearer national expectations for mainstream schools;
  3. rethinking how high stakes accountability measures reflect the achievements of schools which make good progress with children and young people with SEND or at risk of exclusion;
  4. correcting the perverse funding incentives that mean that it can be cheaper to pass the cost of an EHCP or a permanent exclusion onto the high needs block than making good quality preventative support available in-school;
  5. looking again at the focus and content of EHCPs to afford greater flexibility to schools in how they arrange and deliver the support needed;
  6. providing ring-fenced investment from government designed explicitly to support new and evidence-based approaches to early intervention and prevention at scale;
  7. providing additional capital investment and flexibility about how that can be deployed by local government;
  8. issuing a national call for evidence in what works for educating children and young people with these needs, backed up by sufficient funding to then take successful approaches to scale and a new focus for teacher training and ongoing professional development;
  9. more specific advice for Tribunals, parents and local authorities on how the test on efficient use of resources can be applied fairly when comparing state and non-state special school placements; and
  10. reaffirming the principle around the equitable sharing of costs between health and education where these are driven by the health needs of the child or young person.   

https://www.local.gov.uk/have-we-reached-tipping-point-trends-spending-children-and-young-people-send-england

Failures by the conservative government up to 2024 to provide enough educational psychologists to meet the growing demand, and to not index-link the basic grant to schools helped produced a system where the explosion in demand broke the system.

While any report with an analysis of the problem and suggestions for how to tackle it, ahead of the present government’s White Paper, is welcome, we should not have reached the current position.  

One final point, the report seems light on the issue of training for all staff from TAs to teachers to school leaders. The lack of an appreciation of the needs of those that work in schools has been another feature of the long period of Conservative government.

I look forward to see what the Labour government’s White Paper will suggest when it appears.