1. Not all children and young people with SEND are achieving high quality outcomes - e.g. attainment gap persists, employment gap persists
1.1. Many settings are ill-equipped to cater for the needs of CYP with SEND
1.2. Lack of support for CYP to move into employment post 16/19?
1.3. Significant focus on academic qualifications that is not suitable for all CYP with SEND
1.3.1. Curriculum
1.3.2. Qualifications
1.4. Large local variation in outcomes
1.4.1. Local variation in support available
1.4.1.1. Variation in commissioning
1.4.1.2. Variation in budget management
1.4.1.3. Variation in support schools offer
1.4.1.3.1. Variation in special school provision which doesn't match need
1.5. Lack of places in state-funded special schools for those that genuinely need them
1.5.1. LAs not able influence where new special schools are built?
1.5.2. More places being occupied by those with lower level needs who used to be in mainstream settings
2. The system is unsustainable based on current funding
2.1. More CYP are accessing specialist provision, including more CYP accessing independent specialist provision
2.1.1. Getting an EHCP starts a slide towards specialist provision??
2.1.1.1. Limited LA levers/ability to challenge desire for more specialist provision
2.1.2. Parents lack confidence that mainstream settings can meet their child's needs
2.2. More parents/schools are seeking EHCPs and using these to mandate more support
2.2.1. Mainstream settings do not feel that they have the ability to support CYP with SEND
2.2.1.1. Lack of workforce confidence in their ability on supporting CYP with SEND
2.2.1.1.1. Lack of focus on SEND in workforce skills development
2.2.1.1.2. SENCO role not fully effective
2.2.1.1.3. High workload means limits on time to focus on individual needs (e.g. in lesson planning, monitoring progress, building relationships with families)
2.2.1.2. Mainstream schools not incentivised to cater for CYP with SEND
2.2.1.2.1. Accountability incentives
2.2.1.2.2. Funding incentives
2.2.2. Settings do not feel that they can support CYP with SEND without accessing top up funding from the high needs budget
2.2.2.1. (Perception?) that notional SEND budget is not sufficient and £6k threshold is too high
2.2.2.2. Lack of access to wider resources needed to support CYP with SEND
2.2.2.2.1. Limited access to LA commissioned specialist services e.g. speech and language
2.2.3. Lack of clarity about threshold for an EHCP
2.2.3.1. Large degree of variation in local decision making on this
2.2.4. LAs have limited levers to push back against desire for an EHCP/influence provider behaviour
2.2.4.1. Lack of LA resource to prepare for assessments and tribunal cases?
2.2.4.2. Tribunal system gives significant weight to parental views
2.2.4.2.1. Legislation gives significant weight to parental views
2.2.4.3. Limited LA influence over academies
2.2.5. Parents do not trust that their child will get appropriate support without an EHCP
2.2.5.1. Parents lack clarity about what support their child should receive (relating to need)
2.2.5.2. Parents lack clarity about how the process will work
2.2.6. Few incentives to stop having an EHCP once you have one
2.3. Increasing numbers of CYP being identified with some types of SEND
2.3.1. Low level issues not being addressed early on and escalating?? E.g. SEMH
2.3.1.1. Issues not being addressed in a joined up way between education, health and social care
2.3.2. Lack of clarity about definitions of different types of need/criteria for identification?
2.4. Increasing numbers of EHCPs post-19?
2.4.1. EHCP is the most effective way of ensuring a young person gets some kind of support post 19?