Data released yesterday by the Department for Education (DfE) states that more than 1.5 million children in England’s schools were recorded as having special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in the January school census.

The number of children with an education, health and care plan (EHCP) has risen by 9.5 per cent from 2022 and now accounts for 4.3 per cent of the school population.

Meanwhile children and young people recorded as having SEND support without an EHCP has also risen, by 4.7 per cent, to a total of 1,183,384 pupils: 13 per cent of total pupil numbers.

It is vital that we have a clear understanding of the numbers of pupils that schools are working with who require additional support, and how this is changing over time, especially since the pandemic.

However, there is a risk that the data being used for this work is, in some regards, unreliable as “SEND support” is based - at least partially - on subjective interpretations made by special educational needs and disabilities coordinators (Sendcos).

Lack of rigour on SEND support data

EHCPs are issued by local authorities only after a lengthy assessment process involving many stakeholders. Decisions about whether to grant an EHCP, and what level of funding to allocate to support each individual child, are taken by a panel.

To further strengthen the system, there is legal recourse in the event of disagreement, which is clearly necessary. Recent data from the Ministry of Justice showed that SEND appeals increased by 29 per cent in 2021-22 to around 11,000 in total. The tribunal heard 62 per cent of these and ruled in favour of families in 96 per cent of cases.

Clearly the system is far from perfect but there is a process underpinned by moderation, legislation, guidance, structures and law.

Not so with K-coded, or “SEND support” students.

There is no external moderation of school SEND registers, often little or no internal moderation, and the underpinning guidance and legislation is open to vast interpretation by Sendcos.

Given that there are more than 20,000 school Sendcos in England, whether a school has significantly higher or lower than the national average of K-coded students will likely reflect the Sendco’s processes of identification, recording and monitoring rather than the actual student population.

Medical or educational diagnosis?

Part of this confusion arises from the guidance for Sendcos, the SEND Code of Practice (CoP) 2015. This makes no mention of a “SEND register” in its 292 pages, yet in education, it is common parlance for the record that most Sendcos maintain.

The CoP states: “Every school is required to identify and address the SEN of the pupils that they support.” It categorises SEND provision, for children aged two or above, as “additional to or different from that made generally for other children or young people of the same age”.

It is this key phrase - “additional to or different from” - that is so variously interpreted.

Diagnosis is medical; SEND support is educational.

A child may have a diagnosis - for example, of autism or spina bifida - but require no provision in school “additional to or different from” their peers. Diagnosis should not automatically result in being placed on the SEND register.

Similarly, some learners have no formal diagnosis but need significant additional support and will be on the SEND register.

Categorisation problem

This is where things can get confusing from a data collection point of view, as the census data collection is based largely on diagnosis and the medical model, identifying the primary type of need:

• Speech, language and communications needs
• Social, emotional and mental health (SEMH)
• Moderate learning difficulty
• Specific learning difficulty
• Autistic spectrum disorder
• Other difficulty/disability
• Physical disability
• Hearing impairment
• Visual impairment
• Multi-sensory impairment
• Severe learning difficulty
• Profound and multiple learning difficulty.

However, the CoP categorises SEND into “four broad areas of need”:

• Communication and interaction
• Cognition and learning
• SEMH
• Physical and/or sensory needs.

This means, for instance, that autistic children - a distinct category for the census - “are likely to have particular difficulties with social interaction” according to the CoP, and are therefore classified within the “communication and interaction” area of need.

Yet, for some students with autism, there is no need at all to have them on the SEND register as they are not receiving “additional to or different to” support. Others are much more likely to struggle with cognition and learning, or SEMH or sensory needs.

The classification of SEMH is particularly contentious.

According to the CoP: “Children and young people may experience a wide range of social and emotional difficulties which manifest themselves in many ways. These may include becoming withdrawn or isolated, as well as displaying challenging, disruptive or disturbing behaviour. These behaviours may reflect underlying mental health difficulties.”

This remit is potentially vast and, without further clarification, can be interpreted in myriad ways. Should a child be placed on the SEND register and K-coded because they are upset, angry or disruptive for a day, a week, three months, six months?

The SEMH category also encompasses children with “attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder or attachment disorder”, yet many would argue that the needs of pupils with ADD and ADHD in school are more closely aligned with cognition and learning: they require reasonable adjustments rather than counselling.

I suspect that if you put six Sendcos in a room with this as a discussion topic - who then had to make decisions regarding who goes on, stays on and comes off the register - there would be no consensus.

A world of workload difference

The real-world impact of all of this is not hard to see.

For example, I researched all schools within a three-mile radius of a random London postcode, with set criteria: 11-16, state-maintained mainstream, mixed gender, same local authority, no integrated alternative or resourced provision.