Tag Archives: SEND

Should the NHS pay more to support children with SEND?

Posted on by
1

The new index of deprivation, published today by the government, contains an important message about affluent areas such as Oxfordshire.  English indices of deprivation 2025: statistical release – GOV.UK

Oxfordshire ranks highly on three of the four areas I looked at, and especially so on Health and Employment, where the lowest rankings are 65/296 in health and 36/296 in employment, and the highest 8/296 in health and 4/296 in employment.

District CouncilEducationHealthCrimeEmployment
South Oxfordshire258288287292
Vale of White Horse235284283275
West Oxfordshire233279285263
Cherwell155252231260
City of Oxford156231123262
District CouncilEducationHealthCrimeEmployment
South Oxfordshire38894
Vale of White Horse61121321
West Oxfordshire63171133
Cherwell141446536
City of Oxford1406517334

However, the ranking for both Cherwell and City of Oxford districts for education, at 141 and 140/296 compare badly with the ranking elsewhere in the county. Overall, the education ranks are still the lowest ranking scores for all districts, except for the City of Oxford, where the ranking for crime is 173/296, over a hundred places lower than any other district in the county.

The comparison between the education rankings and the health rankings raises an interesting question. Why is education doing so badly in Oxfordshire, especially in the urban areas of Oxford and Banbury? It is difficult to blame the local authority, as all but one of the secondary schools and many primary schools are academies and part of MATs.

Perhaps the formula for education funding is so linked to the county’s rank across all indices that the current funding formula for schools cannot compensate for the needs of Oxfordshire children living in its most deprived communities.

It is clear that there are issues nationally with the formula for the High Needs Block that funds SEND, but again does Oxfordshire lose out more than other areas? After all, it schools are generally highly regarded by ofsted; it has two world class universities, and leading science and technology companies driving the economy.

On the SEND issues, one question is whether the NHS is pulling its weight on supporting children with SEND? Assuming that the overall ranking for the county is not going to see any government be more generous to Oxfordshire with regard to funding, however the present county may be configured post local government reorganisation, then there must be a strong case to require the NHS to spend more resources on supporting children with special needs even if its overall ranking slips a few places as a result. This would reduce the need for the county, and the schools within the county, having to prop up spending on SEND that should really come from the health budget.  

There is no doubt Oxfordshire is not a county with a high degree of deprivation, but what deprivation there is can be concentrated in a few wards in the urban areas abut also spread out across the rural parts of the county. The former is easy to identify, the latter more of a challenge. Both need more funding for education.

Funding SEND – is the current system fair?

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE has just published data that sets the context for the expected White Paper, due this autumn. Looking at the data on the High Needs Block that has been the basic building block for the funding of SEND (special needs and disabilities), I can see why there must have been some very intense discussions between the DfE and the Treasury. Section 251: 2025 to 2026 – GOV.UK

The data on individual special school funding only refers to maintained schools where local authorities are responsible for oversight of the budgets. It would be really helpful to see similar ‘cost per place’ data for academy special schools and alternative provision, including Pupil Referral Units, even though they have a different financial year to maintained schools.    

The data for the municipal financial year of 2025-26 for Oxfordshire was set while I was still the cabinet member for Children’s Services, including maintained schools. The data on funding per place for the three maintained special schools in Oxfordshire is illuminating. There is a total of 522 such schools in England listed in the data. The most expensive costs £8.2 million per place, and judging by its website does a great job educating some very challenged young people from the start of their education journey to adulthood.

Now special schools come in many different forms with clearly different funding needs. A school for pupils with hearing loss and no other disability might need less funding per place than a school for non-verbal young people with physical disabilities in addition

The three Oxfordshire maintained schools were placed 74th, 155th and 170th in the list of 522 schools, with funding per place ranging from £840,000 to £1,2 million. Schools with £2,000,000 per place of more were ranked 373 of higher in the list. Does this mean that Oxfordshire is efficient or under-funded compared with some other local areas? I do wonder.

Even allowing for issues such as higher salary costs in London and surrounding areas, the range of cost per place for similar types of school seems worth looking into more closely, and that is where the academy special schools’ data would be useful in order to allow full consideration of cost per place by local government areas.

The current High Needs block distribution formula clearly isn’t working, and I wonder whether equity of funding is an issue for the team putting together the White Paper? How does anyone judge what is fair in funding levels? Wiser heads than mine will know the answer to that question.

Of course, the other key funding issue for SEND, especially outside of the urban areas, is the cost of transport. The Section 251 budget statement for planned expenditure during 2025-26 by Oxfordshire at Line 175092 of the DfE’s spreadsheet suggests expected spending on SEND transport, including for post-16 students of around f£26.4 million. This compares with expected home to school transport costs of just under £21 million for all other pupils entitled to fee transport.

How will the White Paper deal with this cost? Hopefully, it will recognise that such costs should be met by government up to age 18 or even 19 for all such pupils, and not be discretionary beyond age 16. Could a government funded driver scheme for unemployed adults with a driving licence remove the profit element from such expenditure or would the administration costs be more than the saving made by not using private sector firms?

These are not easy issues to grapple with, but starting with some values about the needs of children with SEND would be a good basis for the outcomes in the White Paper. However, as my earlier analysis of Pupil Teacher Ratios demonstrated, funding and values are not common cause in government spending, regardless of the political persuasion of the government in power. Oxford Teacher Services -publications

SEND, fuel duty and the Apprenticeship Levy  

Posted on by
Reply

SEND was identified as one of their 3 top priorities by 60% of a random sample of 100 delegates at the recent Lib Dem Conference. 45% ranked it first and 15% second, often behind funding in general.

This result isn’t a surprise to anyone in education, although falling rolls doesn’t yet seem to have worked its way up the political agenda to be a top priority for councillors and activists. I am sure that will change.

Anyway, as regular readers know, before the summer break I expressed concerns about the SEND deficit many local authorities are facing, only to have the end date for the ‘statutory override’ kicked down the road from March 2026 to March 2028 two days after my blog appeared. I m sure there is no link between the two, just great timing on my part.

So, what might local authorities do. Two suggestions, one possible and one for consideration. Local authorities need to check that they are spending all the Apprenticeship Levy raise by them in its present form. They should not be returning any unspent cash, raised from maintained schools to HM Treasury. Apprenticeships across the SEND landscape can be a good investment, and certainly a better use of the cash than sending it back to Westminster. Hopefully, all local authorities are now making full use of the Levy cash collected.

My second suggestion needs some work. At present, SEND transport is a massive cost to many local authorities. The recent NI hike won’t have helped, and should be recognised in the funding for the High Needs Block. If not, it is a tax on SEND, and indeed education as a whole.

The other tax is Fuel Duty. Unlike VAT, I don’t think it is recoverable by local authorities, despite making up around 50% of the price of fuel at the pump. Assume a taxi does two journeys a day for 190 days a year, and uses a litre of diesel for each journey with a SEND young person. That’s around 380 litres a year. As 400 is an easier number to use, let’s round it up to that number. To compensate, let’s say diesel is £1.30 per litre. This puts the fuel cost at £520 per taxi per year. Ten taxis, £5,200; 100 taxis: £52,000. Now assume 50% fuel duty and the possible saving mount up.

Agriculture has long had a red diesel scheme to cut fuel costs.  Education should not be paying income from the High Needs block back to HM Treasury in tax. Like business rates, a fuel rebate scheme should be in place where local authorities certify fuel purchased, and receive a rebate of the duty.

However, this might incentivise the use of fuel-inefficient vehicles, so the scheme should be predicated on a growing percentage of vehicles being electric, and thus not requiring the rebate. Vehicles could also be required to be less than five years old, and with a minimum miles per litre outcome.

Such a scheme won’t solve the problem, but every little helps, and it might encourage the use of electric taxis that are both cleaner for the environment and, until the government changes the rules, less costly in tax paid by local authorities.

Virtual Schools have a key role

Posted on by
Reply

Do you know what a Virtual School is? I will assume that regular readers of this blog will know, but for the newcomer or casual readers, it is the local authority service that provides support for the education of both Looked After Children, and those children previously looked after. Recently the role of the service has been extended to include all children with a social worker and, even more recently, children in kinship care.

In many respects the virtual school embodies the very essence of local authority Children’s Services, bringing together support for children in need and their education.  In that respect, it is disappointing that too often the Head of the Virtual School is often only a third-tier officer not reporting directly to the Director of Children’s Services.

The extension of the work of virtual schools to include children with a social worker has been the subject of a recent research report looking at the outcomes of extending the role of the virtual school to encompass all children with a social worker.

Evaluation of the Extension of Virtual School Heads’ Duties to Children with a Social Worker Final Report

The report indicated that attendance, and the consequences of challenging behaviour – suspensions and exclusions – have featured significantly in the work of virtual schools with this new group of young people. Improved attainment, has been less of an outcome. The effects of covid-19 on both attendance and exclusions may well have meant less resources for improving attainment of this group; or that improving attainment may just take longer, and be a consequence of improvements in attendance. Either way, I would have liked to see more discussion about the age at which a child is linked to a social worker, and whether it is easier in the primary sector than the secondary schools to improve attainment?

In many ways, the report makes disappointing reading more than 15 years after the government department at Westminster responsible for education added children’ services to its remit under the last Labour government.

Too often there has been a lack of awareness of the educational needs of these vulnerable young people on the part of schools and social workers, and a real lack of data to allow effective tracking of such young people’s education attainments, partly because of data protection issues.

 I understand that concern, and there is an interesting vignette in the report of child that had a social work for a brief period because of domestic abuse being offered extra maths teaching by their new school because of having been a ‘child in need’ for a brief period. The mother had hoped for a new beginning at a new school. This illustrates the complexity of the challenges in working with these young people and their families.

Many ofsted reviews of Children’s Services highlight challenges with inter-service working, and this report also has concerns. My worry is that in education, the growth of MATs and the downgrading of local authority roles, has made it more challenging for the development of policy around the education for all children with a social worker. The almost total absence of any contribution for elected cabinet members to the review worries my immensely. As with the NHS, local political input is seen as of little effect and not worth considering.

Personally, I think that view is wrong, and a strong local political sense of place in both education and social work with children is vital, as those that have read my demand over the years for Jacob’s Law, and the success of the Clause in the new Bill on in-year admissions will understand.

Serendipity Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

I mentioned in my previous post that yesterday I had been reading a random volume of the TES in a library and had found comments about special needs and the transfer of funding to schools after the 1988 Education Reform Act. I am grateful to the Chief Finance Officer at a leading MAT who straightaway sent me an article about funding of schools in Edmonton, Alberta in 1990. Thanks for the article, and for reading my blog.

In the same volume of the TES, I also discovered, again quite by accident, an article I had written and sent to the TES. I think it was my earliest contribution to the TES, and one I had completely forgotten about.

I have reproduced it here so I once again have it my collection, and also because of the up-coming budget in November that might be one for growth rather than business, and if so,  might the Chancellor risk overlooking any consequences for teachers and other public sector workers in any dash for growth?

Bad business for teaching

Chancellor Lamont’s budget for business is bad news for teachers. Like many public sector workers they will be reflecting that the new share option schemes and the 6p off the basic rate of tax which can now be earned through profit-related pay schemes will benefit their friends in the private sector without offering any incentives to them. However, if these changes help to bring down the level of basic pay settlements in the private sector then they will directly affect the level at which next year’s pay settlement for teachers is fixed; teachers could find themselves losers all round.

As consumers of large amounts of in-service training, teachers might have expected to benefit from the new tax relief on vocational training. But the present proposals only refer to national vocational qualification awards and will be of no use to the many teachers who currently pay for their own studies. This will particularly affect married women seeking to return to teaching who often need to finance further studies before they can regain a teaching post. This clause needs urgent consideration during the passage of the Finance Bill to ensure teachers are not seriously disadvantaged as an occupational group.

Finally, the increase in petrol duty and the associated rise in VAT may well have serious consequences for the already fragile labour market for teachers. Many schools are some distance from public transport, in housing estates or rural villages with only one bus a week. The increase in petrol prices may make it more difficult to attract teachers to work in these schools.

If Kenneth Clarke [then SoS for Education] saw the drift of the budget proposals before last week’s Cabinet meeting then he must accept responsibility for their effect on the teaching profession. Undoubtedly, however, our archaic system of placing the Chancellor on ice for a period before he delivers his budget has probably meant that in their enthusiasm for delivering a ‘budget for business’ the Treasury team has ignored the effect of their changes on those who work in the public sector, and particularly in education.

These days there is much more transparency about possible budget proposals, so fewer rabbits are pulled out of the hat on budget day. However, the bus that ran once a week, probably disappeared many years ago, but petrol duty hasn’t risen in line with inflation, and electric cars now offer an alternative. By the way, how many schools have EV charging points in their car parks, and do MATs offer a salary sacrifice scheme to help with the purchase of an electric vehicle? Is there an electric mini-bus schools can purchase? And I didn’t write the headline.

Think Tank weighs in on SEND

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Windfall profits and SEND

Posted on by
Reply

There is no doubt that the rise in demand for special school places over the past few years was neither anticipated nor effectively dealt with by the State. One consequence is that large amount of off-balance sheet debt being carried by many local authorities responsible for schooling in England. Another consequence, highlighted by the Liberal Democrats in a press release issued today, is what might be described as the ‘windfall’ profits being made by a few in the SEND sector. Lib Dems demand cap on SEND providers profits as top firms rake in £100m – Liberal Democrats

When the highest paid director of a company operating both care homes for children and special schools is paid over £300,000, or more than twice the salary of a Director of Children’s Services commissioning the use of places in the schools and homes, it seems sensible to question whether such use of public money should continue.

At this point, I must make clear that I am a capitalist. The 40 years I have traded on my own account and through a company, as well as held a portfolio of investments in other companies. However, there are two issues that concern me. Where should the boundary line between services offered by the State and those run by the private sector be drawn? And how should price be determined?

It is interesting, as I have noted before, that in the USA and many other countries, public transportation is just that: a service run by the State. In England it has become a battleground between the State and private enterprise and the differing political opinions. Most would expect SEND to be a public service.

What often seems to be lacking is a mechanism to regulate the costs of suppliers to the State. When the private sector funds its enterprise by borrowing to provide the services and then expects the State to service that debt with a profit element added, it seems to me like time to take the service out of the private sector, and back into public provision.

In the case of SEND school places, national and local government should work together to prove places in state-run schools that would obviate the need for private sector intervention. This means the State, in this case the DfE, being much more interventionalist than has been the case.

The Liberal Democrats, of which I am a member and activist, noted in their press release that

‘Research commissioned by the party and carried out by the House of Commons Library showed that the top handful of profiting companies each took home tens of millions a year. One Group, operators of 28 special schools, turned over just over £200 million a year, making £44 million in profit – a margin of over 20%. That profit is 150% what the company made in 2022.’

How many more teachers might the £44 million have funded? While we wait for the government to produce a White Paper on SEND, perhaps the Local Government Association should set up a taskforce to remove the need to use the private sector.

I am sure that when John Stuart Mill, the nineteenth century philosopher, said that’ it was the duty of the State to see it citizens were educated, not to educate them itself’ he did not expect the cost to the State to be more than a reasonable amount.

NEETS: Why is London so different to the rest of England?

Posted on by
Reply

London seems to be a different world to much of the rest of England when it comes to looking at a range of different indicators about education. The latest one where the statistics raise an interesting question is the percentage of 16- and 17-year-olds that are NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training).

With the raising of the suggested ‘learning leaving age’ to eighteen (the official age is still sixteen) it is expected that almost all students in what is Years 12 and 13 should be in some form of certified education or training. The DfE asks local authorities for data each year bout the percentage participating in education or training and produces scorecards on-line. I wonder how many local authority scrutiny committees ever see this data? Participation in education, training and NEET age 16 to 17 by local authority, Academic year 2024/25 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

The scorecard for Oxfordshire can be found at Oxfordshire_neet_comparator_scorecard.pdf

Looking through the data for all local authorities for both 2019 and 2025 what struck we was there was a definite London effect. 28 London boroughs had higher participation rates in 2025 than in 2019. For the rest of England there were only 37 other local authorities with higher participation rates in 2025 than in 2019.

One explanation is the inclusion of ‘no data’ in the NEETs percentage. As the DfE noted;

 ‘NEET/not known rates at the end of 2024/start of 2025 ranged from 0.0% City of London to 21.5% in Dudley. Dudley’s rate includes 2.4% NEET and 19.1% activity not known.’

So, either London boroughs are better at collecting the data – quite possible, given their relatively small size and close geographical cohesion, or there is something else going on.

On the other hand, only seven ‘shire counties’ had higher participation rates in 2025 than in 2019.  Might the decimation of rural bus services and the effect of a punitive motor tax on those without a no claims bonus be something to do with this change? Could it be that in large counties there are no longer the staff to badger multi-academy trusts (MATs) to provide accurate data about the destination of Year 11 leavers?

I think the DfE data should make clear both the known percentage of NEETs and the percentage of the age group where these is no data available. Perhaps, there might be a scorecard of MATs to identify those that provide high quality data, and those where hard pressed local authorities have to waste time and money chasing the data.

With the job market looking increasingly challenging over the next few years, and fewer incentives for employers to offer jobs with training to school leavers, the percentage of NEETs is an issue that needs more visibility, especially with the rapid growth in EHCPs. Will the significant increase in young people with mental health issues result in more NEETs, and if so, will London be different?

What Lib Dems want for SEND pupils and their families

Posted on by
Reply

I was delighted to see the Liberal Democrats weighing in on the SEND debate by writing to the Prime minister and setting out five key principles behind any reform of the SEND system. This is what their letter to the Prime minister said:

Our five principles and priorities for SEND reform are as follows:

  1. Putting children and families first Children’s rights to SEND assessment and support must be maintained and the voices of children and young people with SEND and of their families and carers must be at the centre of the reform process.
  2. Boosting specialist capacity and improving mainstream provision Capacity in state special provision must be increased, alongside improvements to inclusive mainstream provision, with investment in both new school buildings and staff training.
  3. Supporting local government Local authorities must be supported better to fund SEND services, including through:
    1. The extension of the profit cap in children’s social care to private SEND provision, where many of the same private equity backed companies are active, and
    2. National government funding to support any child whose assessed needs exceed a specific cost.
  4. Early identification and shorter waiting lists Early identification and intervention must be improved, with waiting times for diagnosis, support and therapies cut.
  5. Fair funding The SEND funding system must properly incentivise schools both to accept SEND pupils and to train their staff in best practice for integrated teaching and pastoral care. Our five principles for SEND reform – Liberal Democrats

These principles come from a motion debated at last year’s Party conference and represent a check list against which specific policies can be measured, such as increasing the supply of educational psychologists to deal with both the annual reviews and initial assessments of EHCPs.

If there is anything missing from the list, it is the role of the NHS, and specifically around mental health and education. This is the area of need where the system has really broken down. Many of the other issues are cost related due to inflation and more young people living longer as well as increased demands from an age range of support than can now reach up to the age of 25. The issue of mental health has swamped the system and the NHS must play a part in helping define what is needed.

With the main opposition at Westminster disinterested in the issues of education that are facing most families, the Lib Dems should be leading from the front. This letter should have been sent at least a week ago.

As my earlier posts of today have shown, the Lib Dems next education campaign can be around securing enough teachers for schools in our more deprived areas. Such a campaign can take on both labour councils and Reform voters to show there is a radical alternative in the Liberal democrats.

Education may not feature very high in polling about issue in elections, but on a day-to-day basis it isn’t far away from the conversations in many households. From mobile phone to AI, funding for school meals to citizenship, Liberal Democrats should be calling the government to account.  

SEND parents need support now

Posted on by
Reply

I have written three posts about SEND since I restarted this blog in May, on the override; EOTAs and more generally. As a result, I was going to sit out the present debate about what might happen in the autumn without making any further comments. However, I thought this paragraph by John Crace in the Guardian was the best summary I had seen about where we are one year into this government. Labour picks on kids as Farage reaches for his human punchbag

‘Now, Send is not perfect. The bill is getting bigger by the year, thanks both to better diagnosis and to some parents gaming the system. But it is essential for many children who benefit from education, health and care plans, and parents are worried sick they might lose out. In the absence of any clear direction from the Department for Education, many disability campaigners are fearing the worst. That children will be treated as cost centres to be downsized. That children diagnosed in the future won’t be entitled to the same benefits as children with the same level of disability are now. This one will now run and run well into the autumn.’

It is going to be a worrying summer for many parents, and that isn’t fair on them. I am all for looking at how the system is being gamed – see my blog about EOTAS – in some ways by a few parents, but most parents are genuinely worried. SEND is the only issue I ever saw a parent cry in a cabinet meeting when trying to prevent a reduction in the spending on transport. These parents have a heavy burden of love to bear, and the State should remember that.

However, the elephant in the room, and one John Crace doesn’t mention is the NHS. Afterall EHCPs replaced Statements of SEN Need. One big difference was the addition of the letter ‘H’ for health. So far, all the attention has been on local authorities, and the NHS rarely receives a mention.

Now I think that as soon as it is obvious that a child will need an EHCP, the NHS, whether maternity unit or GP surgery, should always start the process. It should not be left to a primary school headteacher to so often have to begin the process of applying for the EHCP.

At the same time, the NHS might want to look at early screening for conditions affecting early learning, and put in place a much stronger programme than at present.  

SEND is also an area of life where we need to be clear about what we want from the Early Years Sector. The sector has a part to play in early identification of issues in learning, and surely staff need better training to both observe and report these early learning issues. Much has been taken about the transfer from primary to secondary school, but hardly anything about the knowledge transfer into the school system from early years. Of course, where the school has a nursery class, transfer should be straightforward. But what of other children, and especially those that spend most of their early years in the care of relatives or live in isolated in rural areas?

The government seems to like leaks, so how about some positive leaks around SEND? The government must not go on holiday leaving these parents to suffer over the summer.