An NUT Survey of SENCOs: ‘There is Always More to Do’ (April 2012)
Key Findings: the views of special education needs co-ordinators

Nearly three quarters (74%) of respondents reported that over the last two years the
amount of external support to the school for pupils with SEN had decreased.
SENCOs described the restructuring of SEN support services, staffing cuts in
support services and withdrawal of support to schools.

Not only has the amount of external support to schools decreased in three quarters
of schools in the last two years, but nearly half of SENCOs (47%) reported that
quality has also worsened over this period because of the pressure on support
services and the number of redundancies.

SENCOs are pessimistic about the future. Two out of every three in this sample
(67%) predict that the amount of external support available for pupils with special
educational needs will decrease further from January 2012. The survey also asked
about predicted levels of support for pupils with SEN from within the school. One
third (33%) felt that in-school support would decrease from January 2012 because
of funding issues and reductions in numbers of staff. This included reductions in
posts for teaching assistants working with pupils with SEN.

65% of SENCOs opposed the government’s plans to give parents of pupils with
SEN a legal right to control some of the funding for SEN provision. Only 13% were
in favour of this proposal.

SENCOs do not welcome the government’s proposals to give voluntary and
community groups a role in co-ordinating statements in place of the local authority.
64% said that they disagreed with this. Only 8% said it was a good idea.

78% of respondents receive non contact time for their SEN co-ordination
responsibilities but not all SENCOs have sufficient time to carry out the
responsibilities of the post. Over half of the respondents (55%) identified ‘a lack of
financial resources’ as the greatest obstacle to providing them with sufficient non
contact time.

33% of SENCOs felt that their school’s priorities lie elsewhere and that this made it
hard for them to obtain sufficient non-contact time.

70% of respondents believe that the SEN Code of Practice makes clear the role
expected of a SENCO. A future SEN Code of Practice should therefore retain this
clarity.

SENCOs identified excessive paperwork as a cause of SENCO workload and a
barrier to meeting the needs of children and young people with SEN. The survey
revealed a cohort of professionals working hard to develop inclusive practice in their
schools.

SENCOs welcomed and wanted support from their local authority. They valued the
role of local authority SEN experts and wanted advice and guidance about policy
and practical intervention and assessment. SENCOs benefited from networking with
other SENCOs where authorities facilitated such interaction.
1
METHODOLOGY
This report is based on the 187 responses to a survey carried out during November 2011.
During November 2011, an email inviting teachers to complete a SurveyMonkey survey
was disseminated to 417 SENCOs. The NUT possesses contact details for 791 SENCO
members but this includes email information for only 417.
The survey was also emailed to 500 NUT school representatives who were asked to
forward the email to SENCO colleagues, whether or not the SENCO was an NUT member.
PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT RESPONDENTS AND THEIR
SCHOOL
1.
79% of respondents were from England, 15% were from London and 6% from
Wales.
2.
The respondents were largely in maintained schools, although 12% were in
secondary Academies and 2% in primary Academies. Nearly one in ten of the
SENCOs were in special schools, one quarter are working in secondary, a further
one quarter are in primary settings and 44% were in nursery/infant/junior settings.
Table (i): Type of school.
Nursery
Infant
Junior
Primary and Middle deemed primary
Secondary and Middle deemed secondary
Academies
Special
Pupil referral unit
Other
22
28
29
45
46
25
16
5
9
(12%)
(16%)
(16%)
(25%)
(26%)
(14%)
(9%)
(3%)
(5%)
3.
Just over half (52%) of respondents had between 201 and 999 full time equivalent
(FTE) pupils in their schools, 27% had less than 200 FTE pupils and 21% had more
than 1,000. The survey respondents were spread evenly across different size
schools, therefore, with one quarter in small schools, another quarter in large
schools and half in middle size settings.
4.
The overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that their school (96 per cent)
maintains a special needs register.
5.
We asked whether SENCOs shared the responsibility. Nearly three-quarters of
respondents (72%) did not share responsibility for SEN co-ordination with another
member of staff. Within the third (28%) who did share the role, many spoke of
assistant SENCOs or deputy SENCOs.
6.
Many schools have created specific structures, such as one school with a “Strategic
Leader for Inclusion and Alternative Provision” who is a member of the SLT and line
manager of the SENCO. SENCOs in special schools commented that they “share it
2
with everyone”. Some SENCOs have phase SENCOs responsible for each phase.
Some SENCOs job share the role.
7.
SENCOs described their workload, and the expectations on them, as excessive.
Special educational needs co-ordinators display a deeply professional commitment to
the pupils in the school with SEN. SENCOs work countless hours of unpaid overtime
to ensure students’ needs are met.
8.
Over half of respondents (55%) identified that a lack of financial resources is the
greatest obstacle to providing them with sufficient non-contact time. This is likely to
become a greater barrier as funding is reduced and school budgets come under
greater pressure in future years.
9.
The other consistent barrier identified was “other teaching commitments”. This was
the greatest barrier for 45% of SENCOs. Within this group, some SENCOs chose to
continue a teaching commitment, and in some schools it was appropriate for them to
do so given the manageable demands on the SENCO and the number of pupils with
SEN. However, for many within this 45%, the extent of their teaching commitments
was undermining and restricting their ability to carry out the pivotal role of SENCO
provision in their school.
10.
SENCOs who are also head teachers made the point that the head teacher role is
constantly getting bigger and more unreasonable. The other consistent view was that
there is too much paperwork and that the Common Assessment Framework has
exacerbated this rather than providing a solution.
11.
It is a comment about the capacity of schools to progress on developing inclusive
practice that 33% of SENCOs felt that their school’s priorities lie elsewhere and that
this prioritisation made it hard for them to get sufficient non-contact time. This
suggests that the priorities set for schools by national government and the ways in
which schools are judged and measured is not encouraging or enabling heads to
prioritise meeting the needs of pupils with SEN, or giving them the capacity to
prioritise this.
PART 2 – VIEWS ABOUT THE SEN CODE OF PRACTICE
12.
70% of respondents believe the current SEN Code of Practice makes clear the role
expected of a SENCO. 20% felt that the role in the Code is not clear, and 10% were
uncertain. Overwhelmingly, SENCOs perceived that the SEN Code of Practice
underpinned their role and many commented on regularly referring to the SEN
Code of Practice to “get a fuller understanding of what is expected”.
13.
Some of the SENCOs working in special schools commented that the SEN Code of
Practice was not designed with special schools in mind.
14.
Some SENCOs believed that the SEN Code of Practice is very prescriptive whilst
others considered that the framework was capable of application to each context
and to the resources available.
15.
Some SENCOs felt strongly that their presence on the senior leadership team is
essential to ensure that inclusion issues are considered as central to strategic
planning and believed that an SEN champion on the SLT is not enough. Many
3
expressed the view that in order for SEN co-ordination to be truly meaningful the
SENCO should statutorily be a member of the SLT. Some SENCOs reported that
they had “no dealings with money in the role at all”.
16.
Many SENCOs pointed to a variety of practice between schools and believed the
SEN Code of Practice is applied inconsistently. One SENCO reported that “the way
the code is interpreted in my area is a minefield”.
17.
A minority of SENCOs believed that the SEN Code of Practice is out of touch with
current educational policy. Some SENCOs expressed the desire to have a greater
role in accountability and to be able to support colleagues in mainstream lessons to
make sure the needs of students with SEN are met.
18.
One consistent thread was a perception among SENCOs that they end up spending
too much time completing paperwork rather than supporting children. SENCOs
believed they are given too many administrative tasks-such as exam concession
and administration of exams, collation of reports for outside agencies and other
paper-based roles that take the majority of SENCOs’ time. Many wanted the
SENCO role to be more of an advisory and consultative role in relation to teaching
and learning.
19.
Many SENCOs identified that the existing SEN Code of Practice did not reflect the
reality which was that much more time, in practice, is required for supporting and
working with parents and with other agencies. The time needed to liaise with other
agencies was thought to have increased over the period since the SEN Code of
Practice came into effect.
20.
SENCOs believed that they merit greater recognition of their professionalism.
21.
Many of the SENCOs concluded that the role is an impossibly large role and called
for a more “realistic” job description.
22.
Some SENCOs considered the nature of children’s needs to have changed and
argued that behaviour management issues were now predominantly the largest
challenge for their school/colleagues.
PART 3 – AMOUNT OF EXTERNAL SUPPORT TO SCHOOL FROM LOCAL AUTHORITY
23.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents considered that over the last two years the
amount of external support to the school had decreased. 11% felt that it had
increased and 16% thought it had remained the same.
24.
SENCOs told us overwhelmingly that the amount of external support to the school
is decreasing. We asked SENCOs what had happened to the amount of support
external to the school for pupils at School Action and School Action Plus. 74% nearly 3 in every 4 - told us that the amount of support had decreased over the last
two years.
4
25.
A pattern of reduced local authority capacity was described by three quarters of
SENCOs. SENCOs highlighted that local authority re-organisations have reduced
the level of support to schools resulting in:






A rationing of educational psychology time, a decrease in their input and fewer
school visits;
A switch in focus by support agencies to consulting with and advising the
SENCO rather than meeting with, observing and assessing children;
Behaviour support being reduced (many SENCOs said this no longer exists or
has been cut totally in local authority re-organisations);
A greater onus of schools to deliver specific interventions for which SENCOs
feel they and/or colleagues are not trained;
Fewer visits from advisory teachers and longer referral processes;
Cut backs for pupils with ASD; and
Teachers who have already done all they can at School Action are left with
nowhere to turn and feeling that they cannot offer appropriate interventions to
the child.
26.
SENCOs recounted closures of agencies and redundancies of support teachers.
Many SENCOs spoke of restructuring of support services, staffing cuts in support
services and withdrawal of support to schools. This was described by SENCOs as
causing a sharp decrease in the amount of support to schools.
27.
Speech and language therapy services were identified by SENCOs as one service
which had been badly hit by funding cuts.
28.
Some SENCOs reported being required to carry out assessments formerly carried
out by advisory services or educational psychologists.
29.
SENCOs identified that they are under greater demands to provide support
internally because of the reduction in the amount of external support to the school.
30.
Some SENCOs identified specific gaps in provision in their area; a lack of specialist
BESD provision in Gloucestershire; in Norfolk too few support agencies post5
reorganisation to promote early intervention; in Suffolk, a re-organisation which was
said to have significantly decreased input from educational psychologists and
advisory teachers.
31.
Many SENCOs reported that the increasing number of Academies had led to
services locally being cut. Some SENCOs reported that all local schools now had
to ‘buy in’ support but that not all schools were using traded services so classroom
teachers could not access support for the pupils in their classroom with SEN.
Comments included: “Academy status in the area has led to services locally being cut drastically.”
“Due to financial cut-backs & our recent Academy status many outside agencies
are no longer available to us - either because we do not pay for them or because
they have closed down - e.g. Connexions will no longer see non-statemented
children.”
“No support for BESD or Literacy/SPLD students. We can get support for BESD if
we pay into LA package as an academy.”
32.
Overall, therefore, the picture described by SENCOs is one of decreased support
for SENCOs, decreased support for classroom teachers, and decreased support for
pupils with SEN. SENCOs argued that this prohibits early intervention, and that
vital services which they wanted to access to support pupils were disappearing.
33.
Many SENCOs provided detailed reports including the following:“Decreased hugely at the time that the number of pupils and variety severity of need
has sky rocketed. No support for SLN (dyslexia) little Ed Psych hours, minimal
support for HI or VI and recently huge cut backs for our ASD pupils too. We now
also have a limited amount of people (barely anyone)- to go for support or advice on
SEN issues at the LA- eg; statementing, annual reviews etc as they have all been
made redundant. All our Specialist teachers and Ed Psych hours will cease of sept
2012 (I found out today) so we will have no external support from the LA for our
pupils.”
“Earlier this year, the LA restructured in response to govt. cuts and two thirds of the
specialist teachers took redundancy.”
“Very hard to get outside agency advice for as many children as need it.”
“Cuts to all services-very little access to support unless child is statemented.”
“Less Speech and Language Therapy. Long waits for children to be assessed for
ASD. Unable to get statements unless a diagnosis of ASD- whereas previously had
100% success rates with requests now very few get through.”
“Sensory support Service for a boy profound hearing loss went from 4 hrs per week
to 1.”
“EP no longer linked to each school instead a help line is available with specific
times to phone. This is not always convenient when only in schools for two days.”
6
PART 4 - QUALITY OF EXTERNAL SUPPORT TO SCHOOLS FROM LOCAL
AUTHORITY
34.
Not only has the amount of external support to schools decreased in the majority of
schools in the last two years. SENCOs report that the quality of external support
has worsened too. Nearly half of SENCOs (47%) reported that they believe the
quality has decreased over the last two years. Nearly the same amount (45%)
believed the quality has remained the same. In 8% of schools the quality of external
support has increased.
35.
Some SENCOs identified that it is challenging to get support for particular groups of
children in their authority, such as pupils with MLD or SPLD.
36.
Many SENCOs recognised that colleagues employed in educational psychologists
services, and other support services, were working very hard in difficult
circumstances and under the constant threat of redundancies. SENCOs appeared
keen to make allowances and understood that the quality and quantity of support
was reducing because of funding cuts. SENCOs were anxious about the loss of
expertise arising from specialist teachers taking redundancies. Continuity of support
was seen to be jeopardised by funding pressures.
37.
Not a single SENCO articulated that they did not need support services. Many
SENCOs provided written comments which recognised their value and argued for
greater access, more continuity of support, a lower threshold for referrals and more
advice about early intervention and specific interventions to meet needs.
“The Ed Psychs have too many schools to cover each, the Specialist teacher
services have tried so hard to implement new strategies and services but then they
get made redundant, the ones left are so stretched that pupils that were on their
'books' have now been discharged as their needs are no longer considered to be
severe enough”
“external services are depleted due to restructuring and resources are stretched or
no longer available”
“I have little confidence in the support given. Speech and language/ occupational
therapists etc increase teachers’ workload significantly by passing on packs to be
delivered by TAs who then require extra training. This impacts on everyone”
“LA redundancies - staff spread too thin”
“Better links because of children's centre activities e.g. therapy groups run onsite.
Though often not adequate speech and language therapy provision as maternity
leaves not covered. Shutting down of specialist behaviour support service a
disaster. Less EP time available due to cuts.”
7
PART 5 - PREDICTIONS ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN FROM JANUARY 2012
38.
From January 2012, the amount of external support to the school for pupils is
expected to decrease for two-thirds of schools (66%), remain the same for 32% and
increase for just 2%. SENCOs are pessimistic about the future – 2 out of 3 predict
that there will be less external support available to them and their colleagues to
meet the needs of pupils with SEN from January 2012 onwards.
39.
One in three of the SENCOs (33%) believed that from January 2012, the amount of
support for pupils would decrease. This was expressed to be because of pressure
on budgets. Teachers reported that budgets are being cut and that staffare not
being replaced, and that there is no budget for recruiting staff.
40.
SENCOs reported that 2012/3 budgets were tight and comments ranged from
‘budget is dire’ and ‘not enough money in the budgets’ to ‘our funding has been
totally slashed and therefore we will not have the financial resources we had
previously’. Some SENCOs felt anxious and pessimistic about the budget cuts-‘no
money to do more!’ or ‘if budgets are cut then it will be difficult to provide the level of
support needed’. Some made it clear that the outcome would be that SENCOs and
classroom teachers would have to work harder to compensate; ‘its difficult-we’ll do
our best’ and ‘we have more pupils than previously so we are having to work harder
to support all’ were typical comments.
41.
Out of the 57% of SENCOs who believed support for pupils from January 2012
would remain the same, many predicted that funding in the next academic year was
going to be a problem.
42.
The most common consequences reported by SENCOs of budget reductions was
pressure to cut staffing linked to supporting pupils, and that staff who left could not
be replaced. In many cases, staffing linked to SEN pupils had already been cut.
Comments included:
“The budget is being cut and there is no money to employ more staff.”
“Staff have not been replaced and further reduction will occur if others leave.”
“The school has already made one teacher and TA redundant.”
8
“Already under pressure to cut staffing at school action level.”
“TA posts will go if staff find jobs elsewhere.”
“Further reduction in staffing very likely.”
PART 6 - RIGHT FOR PARENTS TO HAVE DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR SEN PROVISION
43.
65% of respondents opposed Government plans to give parents of SEN pupils a
legal right by 2014 to control some of the funding for their child's special education
needs. 13% were in favour of the proposals and 24% were uncertain.
44.
The majority of SENCOs (65%) were wary of allowing parents to control funding for
SEN provision.
45.
Only 13% had confidence that this was a positive or welcome change to the
system. Concerns included the following issues:






the proposed new system would waste money in administration costs;
parents are not education specialists;
professionals can make an objective view about how to spend the money;
the funding might not be spent in the best way for the child and in pursuit of best
outcomes;
this undermines the status of professional qualifications and professional
standing of teachers;
parents are not the best people to identify what educational provision is most
appropriate;
direct payments would not deliver value for money;
9


many parents will not possess the skills and confidence to be able to utilise the
option; and
the provision identified by the parents might not be the most appropriate
intervention for the child.
46.
SENCOs called for appropriate checks and balances to be put in place to ensure
quality of provision and rigorous evaluation.
47.
Some SENCOs predicted that, far from supporting home-school links as intended,
this Government proposal could create tensions between schools and parents.
Parents can have conflicting ideas about assessment of need and provision. It was
felt that this proposal could cause more tension and friction between parents and
teachers than is worth it for any benefits that might be gained. One of the most
common examples cited was where parents might favour withdrawal for their child
whereas the school was aiming for a balance of group work and one-on-one
support.
48.
SENCOs did not realise that, under the government’s current proposal, schools
would have a right of veto about whether they become involved where a parent
wanted a direct payment to be made.
49.
Consternation was expressed about the employment relationships and whole
school implications if professionals were to be working on the school site who were
employed directly by parents.
50.
Throughout their responses, SENCOs reflected the view that parents are crucial
partners in education and that their views must be heard but-on balance-they did
not believe this was the way to accomplish it. Many believe this created the illusion
that parents would have greater control-whereas in fact they would have a small
slice of a reduced budget.
PART 7 - INCREASING THE ROLE OF THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR
51.
SENCOs did not welcome the government’s proposals to give voluntary and
community groups the right to co-ordinate statements in place of the local authority.
64% said that they disagreed with this principle. Nearly one third of respondents
said that they did not know whether they agreed with the proposal – largely
because they had not heard enough about the concept and wanted more
information. Only 8% said that it was a good idea.
52.
SENCOs concerns about the proposals fell into the categories below:





a system which excluded or circumvented LAs would be undemocratic;
local authorities provided the statementing process with experienced officers
who have built up their expertise and in-depth knowledge over time;
voluntary and community groups do not have the appropriate expertise and do
not understand the way systems run in schools;
the expertise and experience that is within the local authority will be lost, and
concerns about consistency, accountability and fairness and the monitoring.
10
53.
Many SENCOs queried whether voluntary and community groups have the relevant
training knowledge, skills and expertise. Local authorities were described as being
so stretched that they can barely keep up with statementing and annual reviews –
so it was believed to be unrealistic to imagine that voluntary groups would have
time or money to do a better job. A consistent theme was SENCOs concern that
unqualified people in organisations were not knowledgeable enough about the
education system and cautioned that “special interest groups” would not have the
necessary holistic overview of education and teaching and learning.
54.
Many SENCOs argued that this would lead to the system being too fractured and
would reduce accountability and make quality assurance difficult.
55.
Many SENCOs expressed their opposition to privatisation of provision. This was
believed to be an attack on the professionalism of teachers and SENCOs felt that
this proposal was insulting to teachers.
56.
The proposal was believed to be flawed because so many voluntary organisations
had received funding cuts and it was noted that individuals outside of the school
environment will focus only on the needs of certain pupils, not taking into account
the duty of care owed by teachers to all the population of the school.
CONCLUSIONS
Special educational needs co-ordinators can only be effective if they are valued and
empowered in what is a vital and complex role. Many SENCOs were worried about
proposals from government which could undermine their status as professionals.
With the right support, SENCOs secure high quality teaching and learning and the
effective deployment of resources to meet the educational needs of children and young
people with SEN.
11
SENCOs possess a great deal of knowledge about SEN provision, about what needs to
change and about what must be safeguarded and preserved. 70% believe the current
Code of Practice makes the role expected of a SENCO clear. However, this survey reveals
the barriers which these teachers face in carrying out the envisioned role. These barriers
included a reducing level of support from local authority services and, in one third of
schools, the fact that the school’s priorities ‘lie elsewhere’. These are issues which central
government must resolve.
Many SENCOs were pessimistic about the future: most worried about funding, about new
and growing pressures on schools; and about proposals from government which
undermined their status as professionals. Only 13% were in favour of giving parents
personal budgets, for example, and only 8% thought it a good idea to give voluntary and
community groups a role in co-ordinating statements in place of the local authority.
Three quarters of special educational needs co-ordinators told us the amount of support to
their schools from local authority services has decreased in the last two years. Only a
handful had stories to tell of replacement systems or funding arrangements which were
plugging the gap or generating new approaches for meeting children’s needs.
SENCOs were anxious about the closure of central services and redundancies of SEN
experts. Many identified that teachers are under greater pressure to provide support
internally because of the reduction in the amount of external support to the school. Some
SENCOs are being required to carry out assessments previously carried out by advisory
services or educational psychologists. Although government has claimed that giving
schools freedom will enable them to purchase or commission the right support for pupils
with SEN, this is not borne out by what is happening in practice. In fact, over the last two
years, 39% said the amount of support available for pupils within the school had
decreased.
There has been no increased capacity within schools to replace the loss of centrally
employed specialists. Only 11% of SENCOs felt that in-school support for SEN pupils
would increase from January 2012. A third of respondents anticipated that the amount of
support from within the school for pupils with SEN would decrease from January 2012.
SENCOs identified learning support assistants and teaching assistants as invaluable in
ensuring that students with SEN make good progress but reported that they are under
paid, under valued and subject to unreasonable expectations. The most common
consequence of school budget reductions was pressure to cut staffing linked to supporting
pupils, and that staff who left would not be replaced. In many cases, staffing linked to SEN
pupils had already been cut. Reduction in staff numbers and to support levels for pupils
was linked to a rise in the number of exclusions of pupils with special educational needs in
some schools.
SENCOs are teachers with significant expertise about meeting the special educational
needs of pupils. They support many of the aspirations in the SEN Green Paper but
opposed many of the suggested proposals for achieving these aims. The government
needs to think carefully about the impact on children with special educational needs of the
Academies programme; of the decimation of SEN specialist services within local
authorities; of weakening the role of local authorities in SEN provision and of radically
reduced budgets for education services.
S:\SEN\SENCOS\survey 2011\Annual Conference 2012 launch\Press copy- SENCO survey.doc
12