New research has found school practices, academisation, complex disadvantage, and absences are contributing to a lottery in identifying special educational needs.
A new report published by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) has made 15 recommendations after finding evidence of the inequalities and ”blind spots” that mean children’s SEND needs are missed across England.
The report, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, highlights structural challenges, “…where factors such as the fragmentation of the school system, prolonged school absences, language barriers and living in disadvantaged areas make it difficult for pupils’ needs to be assessed consistently.”
The research analysed schools’ data showing specific groups of children that are less likely to get help at both SEN Support and EHCP levels.
Good school practice is vital in recognising SEND
The school the child attends is the most important factor in determining whether a child is identified with SEND in school.
These differences between schools were stark in the support for Social, Emotional and Mental Health problems (SEMH) and in the variation in which children joined a special school in their secondary years. It also showed the overlap between SEND provision and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).
Looking at trends in SEND identification, the report found inconsistencies in approach to identifying SEND amongst primary and secondary is a major driver in whether a child gets the support they need. This variation between schools accounts for two-thirds of the differences between those identified with SEND and those not identified.
Children whose SEND needs were most likely to be missed or under-recognised included:
- Children living in areas where most schools are academies,
- Those who are often off sick,
- Children who move school,
- The most disadvantaged children already living in areas of high deprivation, and
- girls with emotional disorders, all faced risks of under-recognition.
Researcher, Jo Hutchinson said, “It is time for a renewed focus on the preparation of school staff to understand and support children’s social and emotional needs as well as their academic development.”
Teacher training
The research found large disparities between schools in how they identify SEND. It recommends further research into this, as well as how SEND needs are recorded and how this affects the provision children receive.
Improving teacher training is also recommended, with the report saying, “…training in child development and different types of SEND should be mandatory in initial teacher training and early career development, and prioritised in development for experienced teachers.”
Putting SEND at the heart of teacher training is something we have long called for. Teaching that places wellbeing at the centre with SEND as a golden thread throughout is something that benefits every child. Many children will have some kind of need or adverse experience at some point in their school years that may impact on learning. Being able to spot a need and understand what to do should be a core skill.
Academies missing SEND
“Pupils attending academy schools or living in the most academised areas were less likely to be identified as having SEND compared with other similar pupils. This may be due to under-identification, fewer SEND pupils enrolling in academies, academies meeting needs without formal identification, or delays in EHCP assessments due to reduced local authority capacity.”
Final Report on Special Educational Needs & Disabilities and contact with CAMHS, Education Policy Institute
This will not come as a surprise to many parents, especially those who have been discouraged from putting their SEND child’s name down for a high-performing academy, whose child’s needs have been missed, or whose child has been “managed out” or excluded from an academy.
The report found lower odds of:
- EHCP identification in primary school (but not secondary)
- SEN Support identification in primary or secondary school
- SEMH identification in secondary school (not tested at primary school)
- joining a special school in Years 7-11, and
- being identified with SEND if using CAMHS.
The research posits other possible reasons such as needs being met without being identified as SEND, or LA capacity for assessment. The researchers recommend more research to find out exactly why.
Notably at local authority level, primary children were one-tenth as likely to have an EHCP in areas with high levels of academisation compared with LAs with the lowest proportions of primary academies,. This was true whether an LA school or an academy. The researchers surmised this may be because of less resources in LAs responsible for fewer schools. They recommend targeted government investment ensuring high needs budget allocations to meet needs and for LA SEND staff.
The EPI recommends further research into differences in school identification and recording practices to understand the differences between schools, and the implications of this for the provision children receive. It also says more research should be done “into the causes and consequences of the lower rates of SEND identification for children attending academies”.
Children’s characteristics and environment
The age of a child within the school year, their ethnicity, level of disadvantage, sex and whether they are looked-after (in care) long-term were all important areas for identification of SEND. Looking more closely:
Summer-born children
Every parent of a summer-born child one is aware of the differences in development, including behaviour and ability between them and older children in primary years.
The research found August-born children were twice as likely to be on SEN Support in primary school compared with September-born children. August-born children were 35% more likely in primary to have an EHCP than those born in September.
The researchers recommend that teachers be made more aware of these differences and “the importance of considering the progress children are making over time”
Ethnicity
The research flagged a child’s ethnicity as the biggest factor on the identification of SEND in secondary.
“Patterns of SEND identification by ethnicity were complex, and there are competing possible explanations for these. However, children with Asian ethnicities were consistently less likely to be identified with SEND than White British children.”
All Asian ethnicities were underrepresented among children identified with SEND in Years 7-11. In particular, being of “Other Asian” ethnicity, (those who are not Chinese, Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi) were 2.6 times less likely to be on SEN Support and 3.5 times less likely to have an EHCP than White British secondary-age children.
White British children were more likely to be identified with SEMH and other needs in secondary school than those from any other ethnicity. White British children were also more likely to move to a special school during secondary years than other communities. Again, while the research couldn’t determine if this was less need or poorer identification, “The reduced prevalence of mental health disorders reported by the CYPMH Survey may suggest a real lower level of need, but it is also possible there are inequalities in the EHCP system for accessing special school places…” The report notes this may because of the challenges of using the SEND Tribunal and complaints system.
Researchers found “a mixed picture” for children with Black ethnicities or of Gypsy/Roma or Irish Traveller Heritage. Each of the Black ethnicities apart from Mixed White and Black Caribbean had lower chances of identification in secondary school than White British children for both SEN Support and EHCPs, and especially for SEMH. For example, in identifying needs, when compared to Black African children, White British children were:
- 1.6 times more likely to be on SEN Support,
- three times more likely to have an EHCP, and
- 1.7 times more likely to have SEMH needs identified secondary school,
This was repeated at secondary but with smaller effects for Black Caribbean children and Black children of other ethnicities.
Levels of deprivation
The report found a large impact of being identified with SEND if a child lived in a deprived neighbourhood. The report found SEND identification is strongly associated with childhood deprivation at the individual, school and neighbourhood levelPrimary-age children living in the most deprived percentage of neighbourhoods were over 300 times more likely to be on SEN Support as those living in the least deprived percentage. However, those in the most deprived areas were 76 times more likely to have an EHCP than their least deprived counterparts.
The researchers considered if this was because of environmental reasons such as poorer food and housing, family stress, hidden costs NHS access, and greater exposure to pollution. They concluded,
“The fact that deprivation was a stronger predictor of identification for SEN Support than for EHCPs, after controlling for […a range of factors…], may indicate real differences in the type and severity of need experienced by disadvantaged children, or alternatively it may indicate some degree of inequality in access to EHCPs, or some combination of the two.”
Children eligible for Free School Meals for most of their primary years were 1.6 times more likely to be placed in a special school for their secondary years or having SEMH needs noted on top of existing SEND, compared to those with less than 20% FSM eligibility.
The researchers found evidence “suggestive of rationed support in primary schools in deprived areas”. Although all children in deprived areas had substantially greater odds of having SEND, this was especially true for the least disadvantaged children in those deprived schools and areas.
In response, the report recommends the government “establishes effective oversight of local Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and joint planning by LAs and Integrated Care Boards to ensure these processes are conducted in line with the SEND Code of Practice.”
The EPI also recommends, “…the government pursues its priority of developing an effective cross-government poverty strategy; this must reduce the level of need in the population by reducing the proportion of children living in poverty.”
Moving schools and absence
The research found that children who moved schools in primary were less likely to be identified for both SEN Support and for an EHCP, than those who didn’t, suggesting moving schools is an obstacle to identification with SEN. The report recommends, “effective information sharing systems between schools and LAs should be established and schools should share the evidence they have gathered in SEND assessments when a child moves.”
Even more worryingly, children off sick the least were three times more likely to receive SEN Support and 10 times more likely to get an EHCP compared to those with the most sickness absence. Higher authorised absence slightly reduced SEN Support chances but made having an EHCP slightly more likely. Children with the least unauthorised absence were 10 times more likely to be identified for SEND at both levels than those with the highest unauthorised absence.
The report recommends when a child is increasingly absent it should be considered if they have unidentified SEND. This suggests frequent absences or school mobility makes a child less visible and lowers their chances of SEND identification. There is statutory guidance on children out of school for medical reasons—this research should perhaps be read with this in mind.
Boys v girls
Girls were less likely than boys to be identified with SEMH needs in secondary school, despite similar chances of having a behavioural or emotional disorder. Over half of children who managed to get access to CAMHS were never identified with SEND, highlighting significant gaps in recognition.
Boys with SEND were twice as likely to have contact with CAMHS than girls. They were also 1.4 times more likely to be moved to specialist provision in their secondary years and to have an SEMH need.
The research wasn’t able to say whether this was because more boys are more affected by SEND or because they were just easier to identify. However, cross-referencing with the CYMPH Population Survey shows the reason is more likely to be under-recognition. This is a long-standing issue of girls flying under the radar perhaps through masking, which means they get less help in school. Anecdotally, parents will know this often serves to increase mental health problems in later teenage years.
Exclusion and suspension
Annual exclusions data shows children with SEND are more likely to be excluded or suspended from schools at an alarming rate. The EPI research found children suspended during primary school were significantly more likely to be identified as having Social Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) needs in secondary school. Even those suspended for just one day were four times as likely to be identified with SEMH than those who had never been suspended. If a child is suspended for 11 days or more they were a shocking 14 times more likely to have SEMH.
The researchers recommend the government should ensure “…children suspended during Key Stage 2 have their needs assessed to determine the support they need when transitioning to secondary school. For those not identified with SEND, consideration should be given to whether they have unidentified SEND, and for those already identified with another SEND, whether they also have SEMH.”
This is another point we raised in our SEND Inquiry submission — in fact, we think schools shouldn’t be able to exclude without having assessed for SEND.
Personal, Social and Emotional Development (PSED)
The researchers noted the lack of a universal national assessment of PSED after age five. They recommend the National Curriculum Review consider introducing national PSED assessments in early KS2 and early secondary school “to assist timely and consistent identification.”
While communication, language and literacy (CLL) issues are most likely to result in identification for SEN Support, the report points to those with PSED delays being the most likely to get an EHCP during primary years. Children with the lowest PSED scores had 100 times greater chance than those with the highest score to have an EHCP.
Personal, Social and Emotional Development, the researchers say, is as a critical early indicator for SEND.
Of course, this is just a precis — there is much more of interest in the report, which was authored by Jo Hutchinson, Dr Johnny Downs and Professor Tamsin Ford. You can find the whole thing here
Please consider a one-off or regular donation to help SNJ keep going in 2025!
Also read:
- This Education Policy Institute research proves why every teacher MUST be a teacher of SEND (2021)
- Challenging society’s negative narrative to understand the positivity of caring for a child with disabilities
- Research finds unfounded FII accusations cause “devastating and often life-long impact on children and families” and over 80% of allegations dropped
- Inquiries and injustice: the SEND Inquiry hears the parental perspective
- Should “SEN Support” by made a legal duty to make it work children with SEND? And what would that look like?
- PAC SEND report: Slightly pointless when decision-makers don’t know what they value more—money or children’s futures?
- The same but different: Understanding SEND and inclusion in schools today
- SEN Resource Bases and Unit Provision in Secondary—what are they and do they count as inclusion?
- Far-reaching recommendations to boost SEND transition to adulthood as Ofsted/CQC find systemic “longstanding weakness”
- Ordinarily Available Provision Part 2: What does it look like and what difference does it make? by Philippa Stobbs OBE
- Ordinarily Available Provision for SEND: Friend or Foe? Part 1 from Philippa Stobbs OBE
- Commons committee lets the Department for Education off the hook—so we’ll do the scrutiny instead
- Research: SEND case officers are LAs’ “human shield” gatekeepers. But parents shouldn’t have to be their own key workers
- Research finds the Government’s SEND National Conversation “performative”, lacking pathways for young people’s inclusion
- EOTAS: Why the Government must listen to those with lived experience
- Beyond EHCPs: Why Inclusion Needs More Than a Document
- The Unacceptable Truth: 20 SEND legal rights at risk from the Government’s SEND reforms
- How health and family support systems are failing children starting school
- WEBINAR RECORDING! The implications for children’s legal rights to EHCPs and EOTAS of the Government’s SEND proposals
- When things go right: Shining a light on SEND Practitioners making a positive impact [Giveaway!]
- From suspicion to support: why the Government’s child protection reforms matter for disabled children
What kind of government is “bold” enough to scrap statutory EHCPs from vulnerable children?May 16, 2025
The SEND reforms in the Schools White Paper reveal rights given, and rights stripped awayFebruary 24, 2026
Don’t miss a thing!
Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.
You can also keep up with us by following our
Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!
SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here
She is a rare disease & chronic pain patient advocate with Ehlers Danlos syndrome.
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN - August 4, 2026
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them” - July 30, 2026
- EOTAS Consultation: A further assault on children’s SEND rights with cost saving and reintegration to schools at its heart - July 15, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
