In the latest survey of National Education Union members, conducted ahead of Annual Conference in Harrogate, 12,634 teachers and 3,743 support staff in English state schools told us about the challenges in provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). The findings point to a lack of funding, a lack of resources and a lack of external support.
We found that:
- Workload is a barrier to making schools more inclusive for SEND pupils. 97 per cent of teachers consider it a barrier, with 74 per cent of the total calling it ‘significant’. Among support staff, more than half (51 per cent) consider workload a ‘significant’ barrier, and a further 35 per cent a ‘minor’ barrier.
- School staffing, or rather the lack of staff, is another major barrier. 69 per cent of teacher respondents view it as a ‘significant’ block to better inclusion, while 62 per cent of support staff felt just as strongly.
- Members also point to large class sizes, inappropriate curriculum, a lack of resources, and a lack of external support services.
- A majority of staff have had specific SEND training in the past two years (for example, 76 per cent of teachers and 79 per cent of support staff on autism), but they also tell us that training alone is not enough.
- Two thirds of SEND Co-ordinators (64 per cent) tell us their workload is unmanageable most or all of the time. This rises to 74 per cent in secondary schools.
Barriers to inclusion
It is clear from the findings of this survey that there are no cheap fixes when making schools accessible and inclusive to pupils with SEND.
Workload is a block to effective inclusion in schools, with 97 per cent of teachers viewing it as either a ‘minor’ or ‘significant’ barrier.
At least two thirds of teachers also cited a lack of staff (69 per cent), a lack of resources (66 per cent), and a lack of access to external support (68 per cent) as significant barriers to inclusion.
Teacher respondents in secondary schools are just as likely to be concerned about the impact of assessment/exams and workload on inclusion as their counterparts who work in primary schools. Class sizes are felt to be more of a significant barrier to inclusion in secondary schools (61 per cent) than primary (44 per cent). Inappropriate curriculum is more pronounced in primary (50 per cent) than secondary (36 per cent).
One teacher told us how the “difficulty in recruiting experienced and qualified support staff is a barrier to supporting learners.” Another reported the successful specialist provision in their school for pupils with dyslexia: “The support from that centre is unmatched - the team are fabulous, the support they give students is amazing. However, there is not sufficient staffing to cover the required amount of 1:1s needed, meaning students are not getting the support needed.” Small group sessions are effective ways of tailoring to specific need, but as one teacher told us they are “very time consuming” and demand a “high staff ratio”, given the significant number of SEND children in their setting.
When support staff members were asked the same question, they were less likely than a teacher to view each factor as a ‘significant’ barrier to inclusion. Nonetheless, more than half took that view in several categories:
Support staff also have a keen sense of what is needed to strengthen SEND at their school, especially when need has increased so significantly. After all, teaching assistants play a vital role in providing 1-2-1 attention for pupils. In our survey, 62 per cent felt that insufficient staffing levels are a ‘significant’ barrier to inclusion, and for 29 per cent more they are a ‘minor’ barrier.
Support staff also view as majority ‘significant’ barriers to inclusion: a lack of resources (60 per cent); insufficient staff for pastoral support and care (57 per cent); access to external services (52 per cent); and their own workload (51 per cent).
The vast majority of factors on the list of options provided to respondents are subject to the influence and decision-making of government. Fixing them means investment from Whitehall. Years of underfunding to schools and colleges in the round, as well as SEND support in particular, has resulted in an education system where the will of staff is to support young people but the lack of resource works against that ambition.
It is widely recognised that the waiting times for access to specialist support services are unacceptably long. In last year’s State of Education survey, one in three told us they have no behaviour support team whatsoever at their school setting. A quarter had no educational psychologist, CAMHS support, or speech and language therapists. This leaves many schools entirely dependent on external services. In the absence of a referral or a timely diagnosis, schools are forced to improvise support on behalf of the young people in their care.
One teacher with access to several resources spoke of the positive effect: “I am fortunate to have access to the staff who specialise in the field. They are the best resource and most informed to learn from, though our school does a lot of whole school training. I have gained confidence in planning and delivering lessons that are suitable and appropriate through the open access we have.”
SENDCOs
SENDCOs are qualified teachers who have additional training to support SEND pupils, and co-ordinate that work in their school setting. There were many survey respondents who took time to praise the SENDCO at their school, but in the same breath highlighted the “stretched budget” and “high increase of SEND children” numbers that make their work more challenging. One noted, “We have the most magnificent SENDCO. However, her workload is unmanageable and I’m so scared she’s going to burn out.”
Of the total respondents to our survey, 625 teachers in English state schools identified themselves as SENDCOs and told us about their workload:
It is immediately obvious that in specialist settings the workload levels for SENDCOs are more manageable, with 40 per cent saying they have difficulties with workload most or all of the time. This rises sharply to 74 per cent in secondary schools, and 66 per cent in primary schools.
In comments, these respondents echoed the concerns of the wider teacher and support staff workforce. One told us that “the current SEND system in education can only be described as criminal.” They see “children waiting two and a half years for [an] autism diagnosis” and called for a far greater effort and staffing resources “to ensure EHCP targets are being worked on.” External support for some pupils, said one SENDCO, only comes “at crisis point – and often that is too late.”
Access to training
This year’s State of Education survey reveals a positive picture of the access teachers and support staff have to specific training designed to make them better able to support SEND pupils.
Access to autism training in the past two years has been broadly similar across all teacher demographics, with a noticeable peak for senior leaders (84 per cent). There was a similar story with social, emotional and mental health problems; 67 per cent of teachers received it, with an uptick among senior leaders of 75 per cent.
In the case of ADHD, two thirds of secondary teachers (66 per cent) reported receiving this training compared to just under half (49 per cent) of primary teachers.
Training to address speech, language and communication problems, was accessed by 52 per cent of primary teachers and 43 per cent of secondary teachers. It was also more likely to be undertaken by teachers working in the most deprived schools (57 per cent) compared to those in the least deprived (42 per cent).
Respondents also highlighted training in the past two years on trauma and adverse childhood experiences, dyslexia, hearing and visual impairment.
Support staff findings were very similar in scope and suggest they were slightly more likely to have received training in recent times.
Quality of Training
In terms of sentiment, most teachers were neutral or positive about the SEND-specific training they had received. It demonstrates their preparedness, but without the resources and support needed the level of good training across the workforce will not solve the SEND crisis in itself.
One told us that “The quality of training is good; we simply haven’t got the funds or staff to put it into place effectively.” Another who had been through training said they now had a better understanding of the needs and how best to support them: “However, I don’t have the resources, time or staff to accurately support their needs. I just do what I can.”
Among the dissenting voices, there was concern that their training “tends to assume you have enough extra support staff and extra time.” Others described it as “relatively surface level” or “irrelevant” as it does not allow for “securing understanding of specific situations for specific children.”
Commenting on the findings of the survey, Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, said:
“After the catastrophic failings of successive Conservative governments, it is vital that we turn the page on SEND provision.
“Schools are highly motivated to do the best by pupils with SEND, but they are hamstrung by the barriers facing them. The chronic lack of funding, staffing and resources has left SENDCOs having to make ends meet rather than deliver what, in an ideal world, would be best for those pupils.
“There are no cheap or easy fixes. It will take commitment, serious investment and a real determination to address rising need after years of neglect and underfunding.”
Editor’s Note
The online survey of National Education Union members was conducted between 28 January – 9 February 2025.
We received responses from teachers, support staff and other members in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This release focuses on the responses from 12,634 teachers and 3,743 support staff in English state schools, reweighted by personal and professional characteristics in line with data from the most recent School Workforce Census.
Deprivation is calculated using IDACI bands, band 1 corresponds to the least deprived schools and band 5 to the most.