Publication - Independent report

Review of additional support for learning implementation: report

Published: 19 June 2020
From: Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills
Directorate: Learning Directorate, +1 more … Children and Families Directorate
Part of: Education
ISBN: 9781839608247

Report from an independent review of the implementation of the additional support for learning legislation which began in September 2019 and concluded with the submission of this report and recommendations to Scottish Ministers and COSLA. Executive summary: https://www.gov.scot/isbn/9781839608254, Young people’s version: https://childreninscotland.org.uk/asl-review/

Supporting documents

Annex A: Desk review – phase one

Introduction

This desk review was completed in August 2019. Its purpose is to summarise the wide-ranging statistical and other currently available evidence to support the independently chaired review of implementation of additional support for learning, including where children learn. Based on the evidence available, the desk review seeks to identify both the strengths and barriers to implementation to inform potential next steps of the review.

Methodology

This desk review was produced by using qualitative and quantitative data on additional support for learning, from a variety of sources. This includes Scottish Government statistical publications and research reports, Scottish Parliament Committee papers, and reports published by third sector or other organisations. A full list of the evidence considered as part of this desk review is set out at Annex A.

The desk review has been structured in three sections, using both quantitative and qualitative information. The quantitative evidence is drawn from statistical sources and considers a range of evidence under four broad headings – pupil information, staffing, outcomes for learning and funding. The qualitative evidence considers broader evidence around the experiences of pupils with additional support needs.

The three sections are:

Section 1, which sets out the quantitative information^[75] on the number of children and young people with additional support needs recorded across Scotland, the type of support they receive, data on attendance and exclusions among children and young people with additional support needs, and their achievements, attainment and destinations. Information is also set out on the type of provision that is available for children and young people across Scotland and the time spent in mainstream classes. Information is also provided about those who support children and young people with additional support needs, including teacher and support staff. Finally, data on funding has also been included.
Section 2 then considers the qualitative evidence, which has been drawn from a range of sources. This includes consultations and research reports commissioned by or carried out by the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. Evidence gathered by Education Scotland on how well schools have performed against Quality Indicator 3.1 (Ensuring wellbeing, equality and inclusion) as set out in the tool How Good is Our School? Evidence has also been considered from a number of reports that have been published by third sector organisations.
Section 3 presents a summary of the conclusions

Background

The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 ("the Act") provides the legal framework for identifying and addressing the additional support needs of children and young people who face a barrier, or barriers, to learning. The framework is based on the idea of additional support needs.

This broad and inclusive term applies to children or young people who, for whatever reason, require additional support, in the long or short term, in order to help them make the most of their school education and to be included fully in their learning. Children or young people may require additional support for a variety of reasons and may include those who:

have motor or sensory impairments;
have low birth weight;
are being bullied;
are children of parents in the Armed Forces;
are particularly able or talented;
have experienced a bereavement;
are affected by imprisonment of a family member;
are interrupted learners;
have a learning disability;
have barriers to learning as a result of a health need, such as foetal alcohol spectrum disorder;
are looked after by a local authority or who have been adopted;
have a learning difficulty, such as dyslexia;
are living with parents who are abusing substances;
are living with parents who have mental health problems;
have English as an additional language;
are not attending school regularly;
have emotional or social difficulties;
are on the child protection register;
are refugees; or
are young carers.
The above list is not exhaustive nor should it be assumed that inclusion in the list inevitably implies that additional support will be necessary. However, the Act automatically deems that all looked after children and young people have additional support needs unless the education authority determine that they do not require additional support in order to benefit from school education.^[76]

Section 1: Information relating to ASN pupils in Scotland

The main quantitative findings at National level are:

Pupil Information

In 2018, there were 693,251 pupils in Scotland's local authority primary, secondary and special schools and grant-aided schools.
In 2018, there were 199,065 pupils reported as having additional support needs, representing 28.7 per cent of all school pupils (a 2.1 percentage point increase on last year). This proportion has increased in every year since 2007 when just 5.3 per cent of pupils were reported as having an additional support need). As a consequence, this increase is reflected in all analysis of data using this data set.
A substantial proportion of these pupils are not on a formal support plan (co-ordinated support plan, Individualised Educational Programme, or Child's Plan) nor have a disability. Instead, they receive support under the 'other' category, a new type of need introduced in 2012. Support in this category is likely to be of short-term duration and not require learning targets.
In 2018, there were 71,900 school pupils that who had a disability^[77] or had a formal support plan (i.e. excluding those in the 'other' category). This represents 10.4 per cent of all school pupils, an increase of 0.9 percentage points on 2017.

Where children and young people learn

In 2018, 190,027 pupils learned in mainstream settings for some or all of their time. This equates to 94.5% of pupils with additional support needs and 27.4% of all pupils. 6,823 pupils learned in special schools. This equates to 3.42% of pupils with additional support needs and 0.98% of all pupils. For some pupils a shared placement is in place, this means that they learn in more than one setting. The table below sets out information on the time children and young people spend learning within and outwith mainstream settings. Some children and young people learn within a unit which is attached to a mainstream school, or an enhanced standalone provision.

Total number of pupils with Additional Support Needs in 2018	199,065
Time spent by pupils in mainstream classes
All the time in mainstream classes	185,791
¾ or more, but less than all time in mainstream classes	1,918
½ or more, but less than ¾ of the time in mainstream classes	1,114
¼ or more but less than ½ of the time in mainstream classes	436
Some time, but less than ¼ of the time in mainstream classes	768
No time in mainstream classes	9,038

The number of pupils who learn in mainstream all or some of their time has increased by 55% between 2012 and 2018. At the same time, the number of pupils who learn in special schools has remained broadly static, with small fluctuations in numbers both increasing and decreasing over the same period.
Table 1, Annex A provides the information to support this. However, it should be noted that it is not possible from the data to determine whether this increase represents a change in the needs of the population or a change in the way in which definitions are interpreted and applied in the context of local practice.
Table 2, Annex A shows that the school estate in Scotland has contracted in size across primary, secondary and special schools across the period 2012-2018, whilst at the same time the pupil population is increasing. In the period 2017-2018, there has been a rise in the number of pupils with additional support needs attending special school provision.

Additional Support Needs – trends

Table 3, Annex A shows that in the period 2012-2018 additional support needs arising from social and emotional behavioural difficulties has consistently been the largest group of children and young people receiving support in each year. In 2018, 44,680 pupils received additional support arising from social and emotional behavioural difficulties, representing almost 22% of the total number of pupils receiving additional support. Pupils receiving support for English as an Additional Language has been the fastest growing category of support rising by 129% from 15,148 to 34, 816 and representing 17% of the total pupils receiving support.
In percentage terms there have been significant increases in pupils receiving additional support as a result of; communication support needs (293% increase), young carers (636% increase), bereavement (300% increase), family issues (353% increase). These increases are welcome as they reflect a wider recognition of additional support needs within the framework of the legislation and recognise needs arising from circumstances beyond health and disability, which would have traditionally been the case.
Whilst the young carers figures have increased significantly, the number of pupils identified as young carers is likely to be a underreporting of those who are young carers, due to the stigma and reluctance of young carers to identify themselves, or to be identified as a young carer.
Similarly, the number of pupils receiving additional support needs as a result of being a care experienced pupil is significantly below the number of pupils who are recorded in national statistics on care experienced pupils. In 2018, 8,677 pupils received additional support. At the same time national statistics recorded that at 31 July 2018, there were an estimated 14,738 looked after children in Scotland^[78] There is significant evidence on the attainment and achievements of looked after children and young people^[79], and whilst this is improving, there is room for further improvement.
There are a number of categories of support that have risen over the period 2012-2018 but do not reflect increases like those above. These include the number of pupils with additional support needs arising from dyslexia, autism, hearing and visual impairments, language or speech disorder, physical or motor impairment, more able pupils, substance misuse and pupils at risk of exclusion. Only one category of additional support need has decreased over the 2012-2018 time period, learning disability. It is expected that this reflects an attempt to be more specific in the recording of the factors giving rise to the additional support need.

Staffing

All school staff have a role to play in supporting pupils with additional support needs, as aligned to the standards for teacher registration. The number of teachers employed has increased over the period 2012-2018 with 51,138 teachers employed in 2018.
Table 5 of Annex A shows that in 2018 there were 2864 teachers with a specific role related to the provision of additional support. These staff have reduced from 3390 in 2012, but the figure increased between 2017 and 2018. In addition, there were 14,547 staff with a role that supported pupils with additional support needs. This has increased from 12,992 in 2012, but there have been fluctuations within that time period.

Outcomes for Learners

The percentage of school leavers with an ASN from mainstream secondary schools in an initial positive destination is consistently lower than for pupils without an ASN in the years 2012/13 to 2017/18. Table 7, Annex A shows that in 2017/18 89.3% school leavers, including Special School pupils, with additional support needs had a positive initial destination. A 4.9 percentage point increase since 2011/12.
Pupils with an ASN arising from Dyslexia, Other Specific Learning Difficulty, Hearing Impairment, English as An Additional Language and More Able Pupils' all achieve beyond the national average of positive destinations for pupils with ASN.^[80]
The percentage of ASN school leavers, by SCQF level attained is lower at all levels for non-ASN leavers. However, there have been improvements over time. 67.2% of 2017/18 school leavers, including Special School pupils, with additional support needs attained 1 or more qualifications at SCQF Level 5 or better. An increase of 12.0 percentage point increase since 2011/12.
88.0% of 2017/18 school leavers, including Special School pupils, with additional support needs attained 1 or more qualifications at SCQF Level 4 or better. An increase of 2.5 percentage point increase since 2011/12.
Pupils who have additional support needs or English as an additional language tend to perform lower than other pupils, at all stages and in all organisers.^[81] This is confirmed by Table 9, Annex A.
In terms of attendance and absence, national attendance for all pupils is 94.1% whilst for pupils with additional support needs the national figure is 91.2%. Further detail on the breakdown of percentage attendance across settings is set out at Table 10, Annex A.
In 2016/17, there were 18,381 exclusions from school of which 18,376 exclusions were temporary and 5 were removal from the register (sometimes called expulsion).^[82] The vast majority of exclusions were for 1-3 days duration. Further detail on exclusion for pupils with additional support needs is available at Table 11, Annex A,

Funding

Local Government Financial Statistics for 2017-18 showed that local authorities spent £5.22 billion on education in Scotland. This has gone up from £5.07 billion in 2016-17, a 1.0% increase in real terms (3.0% in cash terms).
Of that, £628 million was on additional support for learning, increasing from £610 million in 2016-17, a 0.9% increase in real terms (2.9% in cash terms).

Section 2: Summary of evidence

Included in the Main, Enable Scotland, March 2017:

https://www.enable.org.uk/get-involved/campaigns/our-campaigns/included-in-the-main/

Background

In March 2017, Enable Scotland published the report – #IncludED in the Main?! This report followed their 'national conversation' about the experiences for young people in Scotland who have learning disabilities. The report presents findings from engagement with children and young people with a learning disability, parents and those who work in schools, in addition to a wider survey of young people across Scotland. The report includes 22 recommendations on how to achieve inclusion for children and young people with learning disabilities.

The evidence within the report was taken from three online surveys. 116 responses were received from children and young people aged from 5-26; 503 responses were received from parents of children aged between 2 – 28, from across 28 different local authority areas; and 204 responses were received from education staff working with children and young people with additional support needs. In addition, the report drew on findings from a survey of 1550 young people from secondary schools across Scotland.

Context

It should be noted at the outset that the survey does not, nor was it intended to provide, a representative reflection of all children and young people with learning disabilities in Scotland. The evidence base is relatively small. The responses from children and young people and parents combined equates to 4.5% of the total number of children and young people who are recorded as having a learning disability (ref) and represents 0.3% of the total number of children and young people with an additional support need.^[83] The responses received from the education workforce represent around 0.3% of the total education workforce in Scotland.^[84] The age range of respondents should also be noted with some of those who responded falling outside the scope of additional support for learning implementation. It should be noted that the research could only base its findings on the experiences of those who chose to respond to the survey and while these experiences are very valuable, the conclusions presented within this report must be viewed within this context.

The timing of the report should also be considered when drawing conclusions. The report was published in March 2017, and a range of actions have been undertaken since then to address some of the recommendations made in the report – the most significant of which is the publication of the revised guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming.

The key findings from the survey were:

Over 80% of the education workforce said we are not getting it right for every child through the presumption that all children should be taught in a mainstream setting
60% of young people who have learning disabilities told ENABLE Scotland they feel lonely at school, and 62.5% said: "people don't understand me at school."
More than a quarter of young people who have learning disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorders told us they can't take part in games and sports with other people in their school. 23% told us they don't get to go on school trips. Nearly half (46%) said they don't get the same chances to take part in games in the playground as everyone else in their school.
More than half (51%) of young people who have learning disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorders do not feel they are achieving their full potential at school.
Nearly half (41%) of young people who have learning disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorders told us they did not get support to think about and plan their future when they finish school. 65% are worried about it
22% of parents and carers described their experience of the education system as positive; 50% described it as negative.
When asked which words/phrases they would use to describe their experience of the school system so far the most commonly used words/phrases by parents and carers were: Stressful (77%), Battle (67%), lack of information (57%) and alone (44%).
98% of the education workforce feels that initial teacher training education does not adequately prepare teachers for teaching young people who have additional support for learning needs, including learning disability. 55% said it does not prepare teachers, while 43% said it could be better.
Most education staff (78%), in particular class/subject teachers (86%), said: there are not enough additional support for learning staff in my school to support children and young people who have learning disabilities.
More than half (52%) of children and young people who have learning disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorders feel that they are not getting the right support at school.
40% of (410) parents/carers said their child had been informally excluded from school, 19% said this was happening on a weekly basis.

The report made a number of recommendations to improve the experiences of children and young people accessing mainstream education. Some of these recommendations are broader than the scope of implementation of additional support for learning. In addition, some of the recommendations made have since been delivered on, particularly through the publication of the guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming.

The report recognises the legislative framework as "strong". However, notes that the "the evidence suggests that there is an urgent need for robust guidance, training, and systemic accountability". A key concern in the report is instances of children and young people not being fully included in their school community, whether that is not being allowed to participate fully in the wider life of the school or experiences of informal or unlawful exclusions. Given the strong inclusion focus of the guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming, it could be concluded that some of these concerns have been addressed in the period since this report was published. However, the experiences of reported informal exclusions are a separate issue. Difficulties arise in trying to quantify this information, as there is no statistical evidence available to support or challenge the evidence in the report. However, there is commonality between the evidence presented here and evidence from a range of other sources, most notably 'Not Included, Not Engaged, Not Involved'.

Another key concern within the report is the preparedness of the workforce to support the needs of children and young people in schools and particularly if those supporting children and young people feel they receive adequate training, both during ITE and as part of CLPD to allow them to fully support the needs of children and young people. Again, this evidence is difficult to quantify as the sample size is small. However, the evidence presented as part of a number of other reports including, 'Not Included, Not Engaged, Not Involved' report and the EIS' report 'Exploring the Gap' raises similar concerns.

Another key area is the availability and visibility of information for families on sources of support or advice. Again, this evidence is difficult to quantify as the sample size is small. However, there is obvious correlation between the evidence presented here and those views expressed as part of other evidence considered, including the views within 'Not Included, Not Engaged, Not Involved' and the NPFS' survey on additional support for learning. The report notes "Families have identified 'having access to relevant information' (95%) and 'knowing where to go for support' (90%) as key coping strategies. However, many parents report that they do not have access to this." This is despite the availability and visibility of a dedicated national advice and information service – Enquire – which is funded by the SG and the legal requirement of education authorities to provide information on this service and other relevant services.

Conclusion

While the evidence within this report is qualitative, it is very valuable. There are a number of common themes between the evidence presented here and that which is available elsewhere within the scope of this review. The evidence within the report would indicate that there is a gap between policy and practice, particularly in relation to informal exclusions. The SG guidance on exclusions 'Included, Involved and Engaged part 2 was published following this publication of this report (June 2017). However, conclusions drawn from evidence which is dated after June 2017, could indicate that this guidance has not dissipated the concerns which were initially raised in this report about informal exclusions and that there remains a gap between policy and practice.

It is difficult to quantify the evidence presented within this report about parental experience of the system. However, there are commonalities between the experiences within this report and the experiences outlined as part of the evidence given by parents to Committee (ref) and in parental responses to the consultation on the guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming. It may be helpful to draw in data from Enquire about the number and type of enquires they have received to help quantify the evidence here. However, it may be that while there are suitable vehicles in place to provide information to parents, there needs to be consideration of how information and advice on additional support for learning is embedded within the system.

The small sample size makes it difficult to draw conclusions from the evidence about teacher training from this report alone. However, this theme is one that has also emerged from across a number of sources of evidence that may indicate that these concerns are felt across the system.

How is Additional Support for Learning working in practice? Scottish Parliament Education Committee, May 2017:

https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Education/Reports/ASN_6th_Report_2017.pdf

Background

In March 2017, the Scottish Parliament's Education and Skills Committee undertook a short inquiry into Additional Support for Learning in Scotland's schools. The committee held a roundtable evidence session with the aim of hearing a range of views and opinions on this issue. The committee also spoke with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. As part of their inquiry, the Committee ran focus groups with teaching staff and university lecturers and members of the Committee visited a school to speak to teachers from two mainstream secondary schools about their experiences. The Committee also asked for written views to be submitted and it received responses from academics, organisations and parents and school staff.

Context

The Committee is made up of MSPs from across all political parties. During its consideration of school education, it decided to focus in on additional support for learning. The committee's inquiry and subsequent report is based on the views of those who responded to its call for evidence, those who were invited to participate in the evidence session, and those who were selected to be part of the focus groups. Of the 261 written submissions (ref) received, 143 were from parents and 64 were from teachers and support staff. The Committee's evidence session (ref) heard from 8 individuals or representatives, including parents, Enquire, school and local authority staff, an academic and the Scottish Children's Services Coalition. It is not clear from the report how many people altogether participated in the focus groups. As the committee notes in its report, "it only heard from those who wanted to respond to its call for views, and so naturally comments centre around what needs to improve." The evidence should be considered in this context and should not be taken as the collective view of those groups.

Key findings and recommendations

A lack of resources on the implementation of the Additional Support for Learning policy means that the additional support needs of a large number of children are not being fully met, impacting on their education. In addition, this impacts on other pupils studying in mainstream education and on teaching and support staff, in the context of other work pressures.
Nevertheless, the Committee is encouraged by the figures provided by the Cabinet Secretary on positive outcomes for those with additional support needs and to hear from a number of parents who wanted to tell us what a massive difference effective support from a particular person, school or education authority, in mainstream education, has made to the lives of their children.
The process for establishing the need for support and the process of then receiving support, means parents have to fight for their child to receive support.
Accessing appropriate support – the Committee welcomes the Scottish Governments review of the guidance on mainstreaming and recommends that the review includes a systematic assessment of each element of the process: recognition of an additional support need for a child, availability of support and receiving the correct placement. This should include assessing how resources are impacting on this – resource limitations that are impacting on these processes include:
- The number of trained ASN teachers and ASN assistants
- The availability of specialists including mental health specialists and educational psychologists
- The level of resources supporting the ASN tribunal process and other appeal processes, and
- The availability of spaces in special needs schools
As supporting children with ASN is an important part of closing the attainment gap, the Committee recommends that the Scottish Government analyses the extent to which a process that relies largely on parental involvement to have their child's ASN recognised and supported, could potentially widen the gap.
The Committee also recommends that the Scottish Government increases the provision of advocacy services and looks at how these could be best targeted at raising awareness and supporting parents from areas of deprivation.
Due to the variation in education authority approach, the Committee is concerned that additional support needs are going unrecognised in some education authorities more than others and that the culture of the education authority, and some particular schools within education authorities, is also a factor. The Committee recommends that the findings of the Scottish Government working group, and information from the quality assurance review recommended above, should be used as a basis to explore with individual authorities any inexplicably low percentages of ASN in their area. The Committee asks that, when the Scottish Government has established which education authorities are a cause for concern, that the Government shares this information with the Committee so that the Committee can also seek to hold these authorities to account.
The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government should undertake a financial review to find out the extent to which education authorities are spending in line with the level of need in their area. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government undertakes this review in collaboration with education authorities and that it should be the basis of discussions with education authorities on future funding allocations.
The Committee would welcome further investigation from the Scottish Government on how the education and ultimately the attainment of pupils in general is being impacted upon by insufficient resources being provided to support children with additional support needs.
The Committee recommends that education authorities seek to collaborate more, including in designing and delivering training in order to avoid duplication of effort.
In relation to teacher training, the Committee welcomes the undertaking from the Cabinet Secretary to highlight to the General Teaching Council for Scotland the Committee's concerns that combining post-graduate training with the probationary year will limit further the time available for new teachers to train in additional support needs.

The Committee's report is wide ranging and covers a variety of topics, which is perhaps reflective of the broad scope set out in its call for evidence. The report is supportive of the "inclusive ethos behind" the policy of the presumption of mainstreaming and notes that this was the view of the majority of those who provided their views. However, the report raises concerns about its implementation. Common with other evidence, it cites a reduction in resources as key barrier to successful implementation of inclusion and additional support for learning. The report comments that the "most notable factors are the reduction in the number of specialist staff in classrooms, the reduction in specialist support services and the reduction in special school places." Data available from the Scottish Government in discussed in section 1 above.

The Committee's report recognises that many children and young people with additional support needs are receiving the support that they need to achieve their potential and points to the statistical data available (ref) which shows that children and young people with additional support needs continue to go on to a positive destination following their school years. It also highlights some of the views expressed by parents about the positive impact effective support has made to their children. However, the report is concerned with the experiences of some parents who have described the challenges they have had to overcome to secure appropriate support and provision for their children. This is a common theme across other sources of evidence and some of the language used, for example "fight", "battle", "struggle" is shared. The Committee is concerned that the current position creates a situation whereby "children with informed parents, who press for recognition and support" are "receiving more support than other children". The report notes that some parents are unaware of their rights under the legislation and have to actively seek to find this information out.

The report also comments on the impact that a policy of inclusion has on the workload of teachers and the resulting impact on the learning of all children and young people at school. There are concerns presented in the report about the impact on pupils who do not have additional support needs, both in terms of their experience and their attainment. While it is not possible to draw any conclusions from the anecdotal evidence presented here about the experiences of all children and young people in Scotland, it is worth highlighting that the Scottish Government statistics show that the number of children and young people who have gone onto a positive destination has increased year-on-year from 2009-10.^[85] This trend is similarly reflected for children with additional support needs.

The report notes concerns about training for teachers to allow them to appropriately support children and young people with additional support needs. Due to the nature of some of the evidence received, the report focuses on the training arrangements for a particular local authority. There was concern noted in the report about the arrangements for both ITE and CLPD with the report concluding that "issues undoubtedly exist with a reduction in specialist staff available in school to provide specialist training and the ability of school staff to take time out from other work pressures to train".

Conclusion

The Committee's report is wide-ranging and it makes a number of recommendations for improvement across the system. The inquiry heard evidence in early 2017, and it should be noted that there have been a range of developments since that time, including amendments to the legislation to extend rights to children; publication of a number of guidance documents, including guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming, a refreshed Code of Practice and guidance on school attendance and exclusions; and the development of enhanced resources for teachers and school staff.

It should also be noted that the Committee's findings are based on the experiences of those who responded to its request for their views and cannot be interpreted as representative of the experiences of all those in the system. However, there are a number of themes that emerge from this report that are common across a number of other sources of evidence. This includes general support for the principle of inclusion with a caveat that to succeed this must be properly resourced; concerns from parents about their experiences of securing appropriate support and provision for their children; and concerns about the increase in the number of children and young people with additional support needs in parallel to a reduction in specialist staff, support and services.

Further scrutiny by Scottish Parliament Education and Skills Committee:

https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/103397.aspx

Background

The Committee looked again at additional support for learning in 2019. It initiated a call for evidence, held two evidence sessions and convened a focus group with parents, young people, school staff and others to "establish how their experiences and perspectives on the issues they raised with committee in 2017 had evolved." Evidence was collected during February and March 2019. Following this, the Committee wrote to the Cabinet Secretary in April 2019. A response was provided by the Cabinet Secretary in May 2019.

Context

As with the previous evidence gathered by the Committee, it should be noted that its conclusions are based on those who offered their views to the Committee and is therefore not necessary representative of the views of all those with experiences of additional support for learning.

Key findings/recommendations

The main themes of the Committee's re-examination of its 2017 inquiry are set out in their letter to the Cabinet Secretary of 9 April 2019.^[86] These, taken directly from this letter, are noted below.

1. Mainstreaming and inclusion - policy intentions and policy in practice

Sufficient resources are fundamental to the effective operation in practice of both the presumption to mainstream and additional support for learning policies. Indeed resources are fundamental to the educational experiences of children with additional support needs wherever they are educate. The Committee continues to be supportive of the intentions of these policies but continues to have real concerns about how they function with current resource levels.

2. Experiences of children and young people

In light of the evidence received on seclusion and restraint, part time timetabling, unlawful exclusions and home schooling as a last resort, the Committee considers that the Scottish Government should consider ways of improving data gathering on these approaches be it through random sampling of schools or a wider approach.

3. Experiences of parents

The Committee reiterates its analysis from 2017 on the need for increased awareness raising amongst and support for parents, including the recommendation that the Scottish Government should increase the provision of advocacy services and look at how these could be best targeted at raising awareness and supporting parents from area of deprivation.

4. Experiences of school staff

As previously raised with you, in order to allow for a meaningful assessment of trends in staffing levels it is vital to have statistics that reflect the number of support staff with a specialism in supporting those with additional support needs. Work to standardise the nomenclature used by local authorities is a starting point for making progress in this area.

5. The role of local authorities

The need for a financial review undertaken by the Scottish Government to ascertain the extent to which education authorities are spending in line with the level of need in their area, and identify any authorities that have spends lower than their recognition rates might require; and the need for improvements in the accuracy if data on the recording of incidence of ASN across local authorities including a breakdown by particular ASN, and an analysis of local authorities figures that reflect 'inexplicably low percentages.

6. Co-ordinated support plans

The Committee considers that the depth of evidence received about issues with the implementation of CSPs and the associated impact, including to access the Tribunal, should become a stand-alone piece of work by the Scottish Government

7. Definition of additional support needs

The Committee would welcome the Scottish Government's perspective on the suggestion from Professor Riddell that the definition of what constitutes an additional support need under existing legislation could be reviewed.

The themes presented as part of this evidence are consistent with those which formed part of its report in 2017, and the Committee continue to express concern in a number of areas as noted in the section above. The Committee also drew out from its evidence two new themes - CSPs and definition of additional support needs.

The Committee's report notes that the use of the statutory co-ordinated support plan has declined and it expresses its concern as "access to many of the new rights depend on statutory support being in place." The statistics available on CSPs confirm that the number of children and young people who have a co-ordinated support plan has declined.^[87] However, CSPs are one of a number of plans that can be used to support children in their learning. The purpose of a CSP is to enable support to be planned in co-ordinated way to meet the needs of children and young people who have complex or multiple needs that require significant support from education and another agency or agencies.^[88]

Historically, the statistics show that the number of children and young people with a CSP have been small.^[89] Under the legislation^[90], there is a duty on education authorities to consider whether a children or young person who is care experienced, requires a CSP and there have been concerns raised previously about this issue.^[91] In the response from the Cabinet Secretary^[92], Mr Swinney stated that the SG would take forward a piece of work to review the use of co-ordinated support plans and will consider how to strengthen the guidance and other support available to education authorities on co-ordinated support plans. This could be informed by some of the work that is undertaken by this review.

It may be important to distinguish between the rights of children, which were extended in January 2018, and the CSP and the access that this provides to the Tribunal. As noted in the Cabinet Secretary's response to the Committee:

"I note that the Committee has drawn a correlation between the number of co-ordinated support plans and the ability of parents, carers, young people and children being able to access Tribunals. I am aware that this may have arisen as a result of evidence provided. It may be helpful therefore, for me to set out the wide range of matters which can come before the Additional Support Needs Tribunal, to make clear that these include matters which are not related to a co-ordinated support plan. In addition to considering references relating to co-ordinated support plans the Additional Support Needs Tribunal also hears appeals about certain placing requests, disputes relating to transition planning, and matters of capacity."

Further, the majority of rights of parents, carers, children and young people are not related to the co-ordinated support plan. This includes asking for their own or their child's additional support needs to be identified and planned for, receiving advice and information about their or their child's additional support needs; being part of discussions about the support that they or their child receive at school and accessing dispute resolution procedures to resolve concerns. The Scottish Government provides funding to 'Let's Talk ASN Scotland' and 'My Rights, My Say' to support families to exercise these rights under the Act."

In relation to the definition of additional support needs, the committee has set out that it has heard evidence to indicate that this definition has become too broad which has led to pressure on resources. There is little other evidence to support this position and it is not a theme that has emerged in other evidence. The response from the Cabinet Secretary indicates that the broad definition is "fundamental to the inclusive approach" and it would appear that there is no plans to make this change to the legislation.

Conclusion

The Committee's update to their 2017 inquiry is again wide-ranging and touches on a number of issues. Again, it must be noted that Committee's findings and recommendations are based on the evidence it received and gathered from a small sample of those with experiences of additional support for learning and the evidence it has drawn from other sources such as Not Included, Not Engaged Not Involved. However, a number of themes are again present in this evidence that can be seen in other evidence, particularly around resources and the experiences of children and young people and their parents of accessing appropriate provision and support.

The issue of CSPs is significant and has been recognised by both the Committee and the Scottish Government as requiring further work. While not expressly drawn out in other evidence, views of parents around their experience of the challenges their have faced in accessing appropriate support, and concerns about access to specialist support could be used to correlate this evidence and this link may be worth exploring in greater detail.

Excellence and equity for all - guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming: consultation analysis, Scottish Government June 2018

https://www.gov.scot/publications/excellence-equity-guidance-presumption-mainstreaming-analysis-consultation-responses/

Background

The Scottish Government ran a consultation on Excellence and Equity for all – guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming from 2 November 2017 to 9 February 2018. The consultation received 362 written responses - 87 from organisations and 275 from individuals.

Organisational responses came from the public, independent and third sectors and included local authorities, schools, national bodies, voluntary organisations, parent councils and unions amongst others. Individual respondents included parents, teachers, others working within the education sector and the public. However, identification of respondent type was only possible within a small proportion of responses, so an accurate breakdown of individuals' responses by respondent type is not possible.

Context

The consultation asked for views on the guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming. The guidance seeks "to ensure that local authorities have the guidance required to help their decision making in applying the presumption of mainstreaming and to improve inclusive practice in schools." The questions which made up the consultation were intended to draw out views related to the guidance document specifically and were therefore tailored for this purpose. However, the consultation attracted a wide range of views on inclusion and additional support for learning more broadly. This may have been influenced by the increased scrutiny on inclusion and additional support for learning, particularly in light of the Committee's inquiry and the publication of Included in the Main.

The sample size is relatively small and there is no information provided about the demographics of those who responded. In addition, as some of those who responded commented on the wider issues and some did not, it is not possible to conclude that the views expressed in the consultation are representative of the views and experiences across Scotland.

The key findings of the consultation were:

The majority of those who responded agreed with the vision for inclusive education in Scotland
A large majority of those that responded agreed with the principles that are set out in the guidance.
The majority of those who responded agreed that the expectations set out under each of the principles were the right ones.
The majority of those that responded found the entitlements and options for provisions as set out in the document to be clear.
The majority of respondents found the commentary and reflective questions helpful.
There was a wide range of comments and opinions provided about concerns about the system more generally.
There was a mixed view on the helpfulness of the case studies
The majority of respondents said that they found the guidance helpful.

The majority of those who responded to the consultation agreed with the principles of inclusion. There was a clear distinction made by some between inclusion and mainstreaming and that children and young people should be included, regardless of what setting they attend. Those who did not agree with the principles of inclusion were made up of those who disagreed with the policy and those who felt it was not being implemented properly. Concerns were raised that "the current practice did not meet those aspirations and that if the guidance was to be implemented effectively, practice would have to be strengthened and supports put in place to achieve this." The analysis report notes that "the most common concern reported was resources and this included having sufficient numbers of teachers and support staff, access to specialist supports, specialist provision within local areas and the physical environment of the school". The report also notes that training is key to support the "attitudes and ethos of practitioners".

The responses highlighted the importance of collaborative relationships with partners, including health, social work and third sector organisations. There were also responses that suggested that it was essential that children and young people receive appropriate planning support, particularly at times of transition.

There were concerns raised by respondents about the availability and accessibility of information about the different types of placements that were available and an inconsistency of provision across local authorities. There were comments from respondents about the exemptions that can be applied in the presumption of mainstreaming legislation (ability and aptitude, incompatible with the efficient education of for other children and unreasonable public expenditure) and how these are applied in practice.

Conclusion

The number of respondents to the consultation on the presumption of mainstreaming guidance is limited. In addition, the purpose of the consultation was to seek views on the suitability of the guidance document, rather than experiences of wider implementation issues and the consultation has been structured with this in mind. There are a number of organisations and individuals who responded only to the questions asked, while there are others who provided comments on additional support for learning and inclusion more broadly. It is therefore not possible to draw firm conclusions from this information.

However, there are a number of themes that are consistent with the picture presented elsewhere. As is evident elsewhere, there is broad consensus that the policy of inclusion is right. However, there are again concerns raised about its implementation. These focus on resources, training, parental involvement and relationships with other partners.

Research on the experiences of children and young people receiving support in mainstream and special schools, Research Scotland on behalf of Scottish Government, completed June 2018

https://www.gov.scot/publications/additional-support-learning-research-experience-children-young-people-those-support/

Background

In 2018, the Scottish Government commissioned research to explore the experiences of additional support for learning for children and young people, their families and those who support them. The research took place in 18 schools in six local authority areas across Scotland. The schools were a mix of both primary and secondary schools; mainstream (with and without additional support needs bases or enhanced support) and special schools; and with varied geographies and levels of deprivation. It involved 100 face to face interviews with pupils ranging from P2 to S6. It also involved 54 school staff members (leadership teams, class teachers and support workers) and 39 parents. This research was published in March 2019.

Context

As with other sources considered as part of this evidence review, the conclusions presented as part of this research are not intended to be representative of the experiences of all children and young people with additional support needs, their families or those who support them. It does, however, provide a valuable insight into their experiences and views on certain things. The research was focused on 6 out of 32 local authorities, which were a mix of urban and rural areas. The number of those interviewed as part of this research was relatively small and they were selected by their school to take part. Of the 100 children and young people who took part in the research, 27 of them attended mainstream schools, 52 attended mainstream schools with enhanced provision or bases and 21 attended a special school. It should also be noted that the majority of those interviewed who attended a special school were located within urban areas. The research spoke to children with a broad range of additional support needs. The majority of those interviewed were boys.

Key findings

Additional support for learning provision

All local authority officers involved in the research said their authority had a clear ethos around meeting the needs of children with ASN, which was in line with the presumption of mainstreaming.
Overall, most local authority officers felt that the balance of additional support for learning provision was improving in their area, becoming more flexible and individualised. However, most felt that there was still more to do to improve the balance of provision, including developing the resources available in mainstream schools, and being able to recruit skilled teachers and support staff. In some areas, there was a clear feeling from local authority officers and school staff that there were not enough resources to meet needs – particularly in mainstream schools.

School experiences of children and young people

Many pupils at mainstream primary schools liked their friends and teachers. A few said they liked everything and would not change anything.
Many secondary school pupils said that they liked the range of subjects and the support they received at school. However, some secondary school pupils said they did not like anything about their school at all. Some said they hated school and did not want to be there, and some said they did not like their teachers.
Pupils at special schools said they liked playing outside, learning life skills, and topics such as sport, music and art. Many said that there was nothing they did not like, and their dislikes were very diverse and included noise, school work, friends, safety and not being allowed to be independent.
Pupils at mainstream and special schools, generally felt positive about their experience, and were positive across SHANARRI indicators. However:
- In terms of safety, some mainstream school pupils said that they felt – or had previously felt – very unsafe due to bullying. Half of all secondary school girls had experienced bullying, with two having moved schools due to bullying. A few pupils at special schools said that pupils were violent or aggressive towards them and wanted more help with feeling safe.
- In terms of achieving, a few pupils at mainstream schools felt they could achieve better in small group or ASN base activity, rather than in the whole class. A few pupils at special schools said they were covering work they had already done and were ready to be more challenged.
- In terms of inclusion, most pupils at mainstream schools felt they had lots of friends and that it was easy to make friends, and they were included in the life of the school. However, a few pupils in ASN bases in mainstream schools said they did not always feel involved in the life of the school beyond the base. Around half of pupils at special schools said they had lots of friends, but some (at two schools in particular) found it quite hard to make friends.
Overall, almost all pupils at mainstream schools and special schools felt their needs were well met.
A few primary pupils said that they wanted more help, and a few didn't like going out of the class to get support as they felt they missed things. Secondary pupils often enjoyed going to a targeted support session and enjoyed the quiet space. However, two secondary pupils felt they did not get the help they needed.

Parental views on school experiences

Parents and carers were broadly positive about their child's experience of school across all of the SHANARRI indicators. Overall, most parents felt that their child's school was doing well in terms of meeting the needs of their child. Parents and carers valued when communication with the school was good; enhanced support was available; and their children were comfortable at the school.
Most parents of children at mainstream schools had something they would like to improve about the school – including some concerns about resources, staff and buildings and high staff turnover. A few secondary school parents had concerns about the busy school environment, the challenges ensuring all teachers had the information they needed about their child, and ongoing concerns about bullying.
Parents with children at special schools liked the small size of the school and classes, the good ratio of adults to children and the access to physical space both indoors and outdoors. While a few felt their child was achieving more than at mainstream school, a few had concerns about academic challenge. A few on split placements felt that their child's needs were better met in the special school than the mainstream school.
Almost all parents were very positive about the relationship and level of communication with teachers and support staff at their child's school. However, a few felt that they had to push to improve communication.
For many parents it had taken a long time to get their child to the right environment. The challenges included a lack of understanding from staff in mainstream schools; experiences of bullying; long assessment and diagnosis periods; having to push for extra support or spaces at special schools or ASN units; and being moved between schools with little notice.

Involving young people and families in decision making

Pupils at primary mainstream schools and special schools generally felt well listened to by teachers, and gave examples of being able to learn in a way that suited them.
While most pupils at mainstream secondary school did feel listened to, a few did not. A few felt that teachers didn't make the adjustments they needed.
Almost all parents felt that they were involved in decision making relating to their child's education. However, some did not feel involved in choices about which school their child went to, or what support their child received at school.
Almost all school staff felt that children were able to express their views and have these heard at school. Involvement was felt to work best if it was ongoing and genuine, with flexibility in engaging young people and parents, and meeting their needs.

Conclusion

While many of the children and young people who took part in the research had a number of positives things to say about their experiences, the research highlights that the experience of children and young people within their school communities is absolutely individual to them and positive or negative experiences can hinge on a range of factors and circumstances. This makes it difficult to quantify the views expressed by children and young people as part of this research.

The sample size is relatively small, however, there are a number of themes that emerge from this research which are common across a number of other sources of evidence. This includes a positive perception of the principle of the presumption of mainstreaming, but equally a recognition that appropriate resources are necessary to ensure successful implementation. There are some concerns expressed in the report by both parents and staff about there being a need for additional resource, particularly in mainstream settings, a view which frequently appears across a number of other sources of evidence.

Parents who took part in this research were broadly positive about the relationship and communication they had with their child's school although some parents expressed that they had had to "push" to improve communication. In addition, parents spoke about the challenges that they had experienced in securing the appropriate support and provision for their children and the length of time that this took. These views appear to be consistent with some views expressed by parents across a number of other sources of evidence who have described their experiences using language such as "fight", "battle", etc.

Not Included, Not Engaged, Not Involved – September 2018

https://childreninscotland.org.uk/not-included-not-engaged-not-involved-survey-finds-autistic-children-are-missing-out-on-education/

Background

In September 2018, Children in Scotland, Scottish Autism and the National Autistic Society, published a report about the experiences of children with autism missing education. The organisations carried out research with parents of autistic children who had missed school within the last two years. A total of 1,417 responses to the survey commissioned as part of the report were received. Responses were received from every local authority in Scotland, with the majority of responses from Glasgow and the fewest from Western Isles. Based on the evidence gathered as part of the survey, the report makes nine calls to action and several recommendations for further work.

Context

It should be noted at the outset that the survey does not, nor was it intended to provide, a representative reflection of all children and young people with autism in Scotland. The 1,417 responses represents 8% of the total number of children and young people with autism in 2018, and 0.7% of the total number of all children and young people with additional support needs.^[93] The survey intends to offer insight into the experiences of families of children and young people with autism, and the barriers that they may experience in accessing education. The report provides a very valuable insight into these families' experiences. However, it should be noted that the findings are based on the experiences of those who chose to respond to the survey. The survey was advertised online for a period of three weeks in early 2018 and was promoted by each individual organisation, through their contact with individual parents and support groups. While the experiences of these families are incredibly valuable, the conclusions presented within this report must be viewed within this context.

The key findings from the survey were:

185 parents (13%) reported that their children had been formally excluded from school in the last two years.
478 parents (34%) reported that their child had been unlawfully excluded (ref) in the previous two years.
394 parents (28%) reported that their child had been placed on a part-time timetable in the last two years.
1,004 parents (71%) reported that their child had missed school for reasons other than common childhood illness in the last two years.
50% of parents reported that their child had experienced more than one of these types of absence. 7% of parents reported that their children had experienced all four of the kinds of absence described in this report.
Regardless of the type of absence, it was reported that 85% of children did not receive support to catch up on work they had missed.
72% of respondents reported that staff having a better understanding of how their child's autism affects them, including their communication needs, would have made a difference to their child. Other popular responses were: adequate support for their child at school (68%); adjustments for a child's sensory needs (57%); and other pupils having a better understanding of autism (56%).

The report recognises the Scottish Government's vision for education in Scotland and acknowledges the significant programme of work that is being undertaken to achieve this. The report notes that "Scotland's approach to policy and legislation is one of inclusion and equality". This would indicate that the evidence gathered as part of the survey did not include concerns about the policy approach or principles of inclusion or additional support for learning. However, it also notes that "these laudable principles are not reflected in the educational experiences of many autistic children."

The primary concern presented in the report is the exclusion of children and young people with autism, either formally or informally. The calls for action made in the report are focused on how these instances of exclusion can be prevented through a range of action both in day to day practice and at a more strategic level.

Further consideration – Scottish Government statistical perspective on exclusion

There is a correlation between the experiences set out in the report and the statistics available on exclusion from school among children and young people with additional support needs. The statistics show that in 2016/17, there were 11,352 instances where children and young people with additional support needs were temporarily excluded from school.^[94] This represents 62% of all instances of exclusions recorded in that period. This indicates that children and young people with additional support needs are five times more likely to be excluded than their peers. Within this, there is a lower exclusion rate of primary school children who spent all of their time in in mainstream classes (3.2%), compared with those children who spend some (8.6%) or all (6.8%) of their time within a special provision. In secondary, exclusions are highest amongst those children who spend some time in special classes and some time in mainstream classes (16%), compared to 10.4% in mainstream classes.^[95]

Statistics indicate that the duration of the vast majority of all exclusions was between 1-2 days.^[96] During the period of exclusion, the data indicates that for a significant majority, no educational provision was made. There are wide variations across local authorities in relation to the instances of children and young people being excluded.

One of the other main themes of the report is unlawful exclusion and the use of reduced timetables (ref). While the report recognises that the Scottish Government guidance^[97] is clear on the law around exclusions and what constitutes an unlawful exclusion, its findings would indicate that there remain instances of "unlawful exclusions", including where parents are asked to collect children early from school, children are only attending for part days or exclusions are not formally recorded as such.

It is difficult to quantify the information presented in the report, as there is little statistical evidence available to either support or challenge it. The report notes that there is little guidance for schools and authorities on the use of part-time or reduced timetables. However, this conclusion appears to be at odds with the policy position and guidance on attendance and exclusions – Included, Engaged and Involved part one and part two, which makes clear the circumstances of appropriate use of part-time timetables.

The report narrates the impact that both these instances can have on children and young people themselves in addition to the wider impact on the family. There is evidence elsewhere of the benefits of a flexible approach to supporting children and young people with additional support needs who face barriers, which could impact on their attendance. However, this report would indicate that these benefits must be carefully weighed against any potential barriers that such approaches may create.

The survey asked parents to indicate what they felt would make a difference for their child. The responses show a mixed picture of what measures parents felt could be taken to improve experiences for their children. This is not unexpected given the subjectiveness of the question and the clear premise that support should be tailored to the individual needs of children and young people. However, the responses suggest that parents feel there is a need to change both day to day practice and also the strategic approach of the school or education authority, both when deciding the most appropriate provision and also the approach and individual support to the child or young person.

Conclusion

The available SG statistical data would appear to support the evidence outlined in the report about formal exclusions. There is other similarly anecdotal evidence to support the findings the report makes in relation to unlawful exclusions and the use of part-time timetables. The evidence provided in this report would indicate that there is a conflict between practice and the Scottish Government policy position set out in the guidance on attendance and exclusions. However, the limitations of this evidence, as set out under the context heading must also be considered. Given these limitations, it is not possible to conclude if the experiences set out within this report are a true representation of the current position for children and young people with autism or additional support needs. However, it must also be noted that these experiences are not limited to this report and are present in a number of other pieces of evidence.

The evidence presented in the report related to a requirement for school staff to have a greater understanding and awareness about how autism affects children and young people and identifying the support that they require, is also demonstrated in other sources of evidence related to additional support needs more broadly.

Education Scotland evidence from inspection

Background

Education Scotland is the national body in Scotland for supporting quality and improvement in learning and teaching. Part of their remit is to evaluate how well a school is performing in a range of key areas. To support this, inspectors use quality indicators from How good is our school? (4th edition). Inspectors use a six-point scale to evaluate how well a school is performing against these quality indicators.

Quality indicator 3.1 considers "the impact of the school's approach to wellbeing which underpins children and young people's ability to achieve success. It highlights the need for policies and practices to be well grounded in current legislation and a shared understanding of the value of every individual. A clear focus on ensuring wellbeing entitlements and protected characteristics supports all learners to maximise their successes and achievements".^[98]

In April 2018, in Scotland, there were 2,016 primary schools, 358 secondary schools and 126 special schools.^[99] In addition, there are 2,544 early learning and childcare centres.^[100] Each year, Education Scotland undertake inspections across all settings in Scotland.

All inspection reports are published on Education Scotland's website. During academic session 2017/18, 259 inspection reports were published following inspections undertaken in primary, secondary and special schools and early learning and childcare settings. In academic session 2018/19, 190 inspection reports have been published following inspections undertaken in primary, secondary and special schools and early learning and childcare settings. It should be noted that this is based on the inspection reports available up until up to 23 August 2019 with some inspections undertaken in 2018/19 academic year yet to be published.

Key findings

Of the 106 primary schools inspected in 2017/18, 95 schools (90%) were evaluated as excellent, very good, good or satisfactory against Q.I. 3.1; 11 schools (10%) were evaluated as weak.
Of the 75 reports published relating to inspections in primary schools in 2018/19, 68 schools (91%) were evaluated as excellent, very good, good or satisfactory against Q.I. 3.1; 7 schools (9%) were evaluated as weak.
Of the 19 secondary schools inspected in 2017/18, 18 schools (95%) were evaluated as excellent, very good, good or satisfactory against Q.I. 3.1; 1 school (5%) was evaluated as weak.
Of the 19 reports published relating to inspections in secondary schools in 2018/19, 18 schools (95%) were evaluated as excellent, very good, good or satisfactory against Q.I. 3.1; 1 school (5%) was evaluated as weak.
Of the 11 special schools inspected in 2017/18, 10 schools (91%) were evaluated as excellent, very good, good or satisfactory against Q.I. 3.1; 1 school (9%) was evaluated as weak.
Of the 9 reports published relating to 2018/19, 7 schools (78%) were evaluated as excellent, very good, good or satisfactory against Q.I. 3.1; 1 school (11%) was evaluated as weak and 1 school (11%) was evaluated as unsatisfactory.
Of the 123 ELC settings inspected in 2017/18, 113 settings (92%) were evaluated as excellent, very good, good or satisfactory against Q.I. 3.1; 10 settings (8%) were evaluated as weak.
Of the 87 reports published relating to 2018/19, 80 settings (92%) were evaluated as excellent, very good, good or satisfactory against Q.I. 3.1; 6 settings (7%) were evaluated as weak and 1 setting (1%) was evaluated as unsatisfactory.

Conclusion

The evidence from inspections undertaken in 2017/18 and 2018/19 across primary, secondary and special schools and early years settings, shows that the vast majority of the schools and settings inspected performed well against Quality Indicator 3.1. The evidence shows a broadly consistent picture from 2017/18 to 2018-19. However, it is not possible to directly compare these findings. It should also be noted that the inspection evidence is a sample of all schools and early years settings in Scotland and this evidence is only drawn from those schools and settings which were inspected in that year.

EIS – Additional Support for Learning in Scottish school education: Exploring the gap between promise and practice

https://www.eis.org.uk/Content/images/education/ASN/ExploringTheGap.pdf

Background

In May 2019, the Education Institute of Scotland (EIS) published a report on additional support for learning. The purpose of this report was to "restate EIS support in principle for inclusion education; highlight current EIS concerns about the implementation of existing additional support for learning policy; restate our recommendations for enhancing ASL in Scotland." The report partly draws on responses to a survey of 12,250 members. The report considers what is working well within additional support for learning, what is not working well, the impact of this on both staff and pupils, and makes recommendations on how to address the concerns.

Context

When considering the report as evidence, it is important to be mindful of the wider context, not least the impact of the pay negotiations between the SG, local authorities and the unions which were concluded in April 2019. The survey gathered responses from over 12,250 of its members between 3rd December and 17th December 2018. This represents around 24% of the teacher workforce. In addition to the survey of its members, the EIS also undertook a survey of local authorities seeking to explore the variation in provision across Scotland.^[101]

Key Findings

The report is broadly supportive of the principles of inclusive education. However, it comments that there is a "substantial gap between policy and practice." This view is one which is presented within other sources of evidence, including the Scottish Parliament's Education and Skills' Committee report and it is evident in a proportion of responses to the consultation on the presumption of mainstreaming guidance and experiential research.

The report notes that "many children and young people are having their needs met in school" and recognises the range of strategies and approaches that are in place to support the "diversity of need in the classroom". It also welcomes the developments around mental health which were announced in September 2018^[102] and the investment in the training of educational psychologists.^[103] However, the report raises concerns about whether this is enough to reverse the "damage caused by many years of austerity".

The report cites lack of resource as the key barrier to implementation of additional support for learning. It draws on the responses received as part of its survey which concluded that "under-resourcing of ASL implementation was the third most pressing concern of members". This is a concern which is present in a number of other sources of evidence considered as part of this review.

The report summarises the "problems in ASL provision" into four broad categories:

1. Undervaluing

The report raises concerns about the undervaluing of specialism within the system. It draws on anecdotal evidence which suggests that ASN teaching staff are often used as short term cover which it notes impacts not only on the support provided to children and young people but also on the ability of those staff to further develop their skills. In addition, the report is concerned about the reduction in specialist units and the impact this has on children and young people who are unable to manage in mainstream provision and cautions against undervaluing the role of specialist provision. The report refers to SG published statistics noting that the number of special schools has fallen from 193 in 2008 to 114 in 2018, while the number of pupils in special schools remained largely the same. The statistics do record this drop, however, it should be noted that the statistics now only record special schools with at least one pupil, whereas prior to 2018, all special schools were recorded, regardless of whether it was providing education to children and therefore these figures do not provide a direct year-on-year comparison.

Further, the report notes that the role of ASN teachers and assistants has been undervalued and concluded that this is linked to a "societal undervaluing of work which is predominately carried out by women".

2. Under-investing

The report raises concerns about an underinvestment in both the workforce and specialist services. It notes that there has been a decrease in the number of additional support for learning teachers (SG stats ref) and this has in turn lead to an increase in the workload of teachers who have to spend additional time supporting children and young people with additional support needs. The report comments that teachers have reported "moving to a crisis-led role", with less time for preparation and planning.

The report also raises concerns about a reduction in the number of support staff and the variation of these numbers across local authorities.

The report presents concerns about access to support, such as educational psychologists, mental health services or other specific support services. It notes that a delay in accessing these services can impact on the identification of need and lead to a delay in appropriate support being put in place. It also reports concerns about perceived changing criteria for accessing support and what it sees as those with complex needs being prioritised for specialist intervention with class teachers being required to meet the needs of other children and young people.

Another area the report is concerned with is access to professional learning for teachers. This theme is common among a number of sources of evidence with some requesting specific training related to specific additional support needs in both ITE and CLPD. The report recognises the resources that are available, such as the Autism Toolbox and the Dyslexia Toolkit, however, indicates that these are not a substitute for high quality professional learning. It is difficult to quantify these concerns without having access to further information about the type and frequency that teachers are able to access as part of their CLPD.

3. Rising need

The report notes there has been an increase in the number of children with additional support needs and the rise in instances of challenging behaviour. The issues presented here about the increase in the number of children and young people is consistent with the data that is available from the SG statistics. This is discussed as part of section one above.

4. Broader educational issues

The report notes concerns about the narrative around achievement and attainment and comments that the system should be set up to recognise the particular achievements of children and young people which goes beyond SQA qualifications. The report also notes concerns about difficulties in accessing alternative assessment arrangements for children and young people with additional support needs.

The report concludes that these factors are impacting negatively on the wellbeing of both teachers and young people and on the educational experience of young people. It makes a number of recommendations and urges all those who are involved in Scottish education to come together to agree a response to address these concerns. Some of these recommendations are focused on how to attract and retain more teachers and support staff, address issues of workload and morale and support high quality training opportunities. In addition, it makes recommendations around supporting other agencies, addressing challenges within the school environment and broadening the dialogue around achievement and attainment.

Conclusion

The report provides a helpful insight into the views of some teachers about what works within the system and some of the challenges that exist. There is a focus in the report on issues around resource and many of the recommendations are made on this basis. There is supportive commentary of the principles of inclusion and the additional support for learning framework. However, the report notes that there is a gap between policy and practice. There are a number of themes within the report that are common across a number of other sources of evidence. This includes, in addition to resources, access to professional development and access to specialist teachers, provision and services.

National Parent Forum Scotland– Additional Support for Learning Survey Results 2018

https://www.npfs.org.uk/2018/11/survey-results-additional-support-needs-additional-support-for-learning/

Background

Between August and October 2018, the National Parent Forum Scotland (NPFS) conducted a survey of parents across Scotland on additional support needs and additional support for learning. The survey received responses from 594 parents from 31 of the 32 local authorities.

Context

It should be noted that the survey does not, nor was it intended to provide, a representative reflection of the experiences of all parents of children and young people with additional support needs in Scotland. While the evidence base is relatively small, responses have been received from almost all authorities in Scotland. Although no further information is provided on the demographics of respondents. The findings presented within the report are only based on the experiences of those who chose to respond to the survey and while these experiences are very valuable, the conclusions presented within this report must be viewed within this context.

Key Findings

The key findings from the survey are:

36% of respondents know what additional support their child is entitled to. Respondents often described difficulties in finding this information:
71% of respondents were involved in the discussions surrounding their child's ASL needs and some of these parents found this useful and beneficial to their child. However, a very common theme was that the parents did not feel their views were taken into account.
Almost a third (31%) of respondents agreed (strongly or slightly) that the ASL resources and support in their child's school meet their individual child's needs - this is down 14% from the 45% in 2015. For the sample of respondents that agreed strongly, this is down 9% (34% compared to 25% in 2015).
Over half respondents (54% compared to 38% in 2015) say their child has been directly or partly affected by changes to ASL provision in their school, with 29% unsure. Only 9% of the parents who responded were consulted about this change in provision and, of these, only 37% found this discussion useful.
85% of parents were not signposted to services, such as Enquire, by their school or local authority.
53% do not think their child's written report clearly explains the progress they have made and the level of learning they have achieved or are working towards.
51% do not think their child has the same opportunities as other pupils in the school.

Suggestions to promote good communication and schools in relation to ASL were plentiful and varied but included:

more regular face to face meetings
more information
realistic expectations being laid out
greater transparency
more honesty and openness.

Other themes raised:

Respondents feel more special schools are required; mainstreaming is not working for their child.
The staff shortage in Scottish schools is negatively impacting on students with ASN.
More consistency in support across the country is desired.
Teachers need more training.
There were also instances of children who are without a school placement at all or on part time timetables as there is no suitable school placement in the area.

Conclusion

Despite the small number of respondents, many of the issues raised in this survey are consistent with evidence available elsewhere. Again difficulties in accessing information and support was raised as an issue, a theme which has emerged from a number of sources including 'Not Included, Not Engaged, Not Involved', responses to Committee and to the consultation on the guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming. In addition, the survey notes concerns about how additional support for learning is resourced and the variance in this provision across the country. This is consistent with a range of other evidence that has been considered as part of this review. Another common issue is the availability of training and support for teachers and support staff, a theme raised in other evidence.

Summary of Conclusions

The desk review of current evidence has identified a number of common themes about what the strengths and challenges of implementation of additional support for learning are.

The qualitative evidence overwhelmingly suggests that there is a positive perception of the principle of inclusion.

There are a number of themes which have emerged from the evidence considered which focus on the challenges of implementation of additional support for learning. The most common of these are:

Resources;
Training;
Exclusions;
Parental involvement – accessibility and visibility of information;
Type and access to provision;
Access to specialist services and support from other agencies;
The importance of partnership working in accessing CSPs, and in identification and assessment;
Variation in approach across local authorities.

As has been noted throughout, the themes that are drawn from the qualitative evidence are only based on the views of those who contributed. It is important that the strengths and challenges noted above are viewed in this context.

Annex 1: Quantitative Evidence

Table 1: Number of pupils with additional support needs learning some or all of their time in mainstream schools, and no of pupils learning in special schools 2012-2018
Year	No of Pupils with some or all time in mainstream	No of pupils in Special Schools
2018	185,791	6,823
2017	183491	6,654
2016	170,329	6,668
2015	153,192	6,871
2014	140,542	6,940
2013	131,621	6,956
2012	118,034	6,953

Source: Supplementary statistics Pupil Census 2012-2018

Notes: The legislative definition has remained unchanged since the Act was established in 2004 and came into force in 2005. Prior to 2010, only pupils with Co-ordinated Support Plans, Individualised Educational Programmes or who were attending a special school were recorded as having additional support needs within the national statistical collection. In 2010, the collection was extended to include anyone receiving additional support, in any setting. This has led to a large increase in the number of pupils recorded with additional support needs since 2010, and therefore accounts for some of the rise in pupils recorded as having additional support needs.

Table 2: School Estate 2012-2018
Schools	Primary	Secondary	Special	Total	Total Pupil Population
2012⁽¹⁾	2,064	365	155	2,584	671,195
2013⁽¹⁾	2,056	364	149	2,569	673,502
2014⁽¹⁾	2,048	362	145	2,555	676,914
2015⁽¹⁾	2,039	361	144	2,544	679,958
2016⁽¹⁾	2,031	359	141	2,531	684,348
2017	2,019	360	135	2,514	688,959
2018⁽²⁾	2,012	357	114	2,483	693,251

Source https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/dspupcensus/dspupcensus18

Table 3: Additional Support Needs Over time
	Total	Total	Total	Total	Total	Total	Total
Pupils for whom reason for support is reported	198,935	183,257	170,372	153,106	140,472	131,527	117,755
Learning disability	13,665	14,200	14,608	15,324	15,600	15,859	15,979
Dyslexia	21,663	19,877	18,471	17,034	15,877	15,368	13,497
Other specific learning difficulty (e.g. numeric)	23,058	21,868	19,672	17,552	15,328	13,689	10,858
Other moderate learning difficulty	29,272	27,922	25,635	23,228	21,268	19,864	17,834
Visual impairment	4,574	4,331	4,177	3,839	3,544	3,373	3,028
Hearing impairment	3,332	3,097	2,965	2,738	2,534	2,441	2,253
Deafblind	59	56	51	47	42	45	47
Physical or motor impairment	8,222	8,058	7,847	7,528	7,289	7,029	6,530
Language or speech disorder	17,272	16,654	15,848	14,704	13,697	12,708	11,367
Autistic spectrum disorder	17,393	14,973	13,434	11,722	10,805	9,946	8,650
Social, emotional and behavioural difficulty	43,680	39,642	36,041	31,684	28,354	26,715	23,485
Physical health problem	13,045	11,627	10,508	9,059	7,942	7,398	6,562
Mental health problem	4,419	3,330	2,842	2,338	1,870	1,553	1,254
Interrupted learning	4,236	3,509	3,106	2,669	2,342	2,068	1,731
English as an additional language	34,816	30,135	26,921	21,997	19,475	17,547	15,148
Looked after	8,677	8,335	8,108	7,530	7,215	6,578	5,630
More able pupil	3,189	3,274	3,270	3,123	2,706	2,244	2,408
Communication support needs	7,464	6,701	5,959	4,894	4,184	3,380	1,896
Young carer	3,248	2,500	2,044	1,653	1,188	842	441
Bereavement	2,603	2,045	1,728	1,304	1,082	898	650
Substance misuse	423	360	319	221	228	194	170
Family issues	16,486	13,973	11,968	9,700	7,770	6,038	3,636
Risk of exclusion	1,336	1,139	1,065	925	904	833	692
Other	17,844	15,959	15,225	14,156	12,836	12,442	11,838

Table 4: Teacher numbers, pupil numbers and pupil- teacher ratio
	total excluding ELC	pupils	pupil teacher ratio
2012⁽¹⁾	49,867	671,218	13.5
2013	49,790	673,530	13.5
2014⁽²⁾	49,521	676,955	13.7
2015⁽³⁾	49,679	680,007	13.7
2016	49,985	684,415	13.7
2017	50,592	688,959	13.6
2018	51,138	693,251	13.6

Source https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/teachcenssuppdata/teasup2018

Table 5 – Additional Support Needs Teaching and Support Staff 2018
Teachers employed in schools by main subject
Main subject	Primary	Secondary	Special	Central	Total per need
Main subject	2018
Learning support	363	836	40	211	1,449
Additional support needs general	63	132	147	22	364
Additional support needs : behavioural support	19	74	60	57	208
Additional support needs : learning difficulties	76	168	300	54	598
Additional support needs : physical disabilities	0	7	11	17	34
Hearing impairment	2	27	7	25	60
Visual impairment	1	8	3	32	44
ESOL	2	6	1	97	106
Individual total per school sector	525	1,256	569	514	2,864
Total per year	2,864
Support Staff in schools
Pupil support assistant	8,643	2,985	1,997		13,626
Additional support needs auxiliary or care assistant	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Behaviour Support	18	55	50		122
Classroom assistant	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Home-school link worker	73	84	15	184	356
School nurse or other medical	11	37	8	19	75
Educational Psychologist				368	368
Individual total per school sector
Total per year	14,547
Total	17,412

Table 6: Percentage of school leavers in a positive initial destination, by pupil characteristic, 2012/13 to 2017/18
	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18
ASN leavers	82.5	84.3	85.7	84.7	87.1	87.9
Non-ASN leavers	92.0	93.3	93.6	93.4	94.9	95.3
All leavers	90.4	91.7	92.0	91.4	92.9	93.2

Source: Summary Statistics for attainment, leaver destinations and healthy living – June 2018

Table 7: Percentage of school leavers in mainstream and special schools initial destination 2018
Reason for Support	Positive Destinations	Higher Education	Further Education	Training	Employment	Voluntary Work	Activity Agreement²	Unemployed Seeking	Unemployed Not Seeking	Unknown	Number of Leavers
No Additional Support need	96.0	48.1	21.9	1.5	23.3	0.7	0.6	2.9	0.8	0.4	35,414
Any Additional Support need	89.3	22.8	38.6	3.9	20.4	0.7	2.9	6.4	3.7	0.7	15,070

Source: https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/leavedestla

Table 8: Percentage of secondary and special school leavers from publicly funded schools by total qualifications achieved and Additional Support Need in 2017/18
Reason for Support	1+ at SCQF Level 2 or better	1+ at SCQF Level 3 or better	1+ at SCQF Level 4 or better	1+ at SCQF Level 5 or better	1+ at SCQF Level 6 or better	1+ at SCQF Level 7	Number of Leavers¹
No Additional Support need	*	*	98.2	92.2	71.3	24.0	35,414
Any Additional Support need	*	*	88.0	67.2	37.6	10.1	15,070

Source: https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/leavedestla

Table 9: Percentage of P1, P4, P7 and S3 achieving expected Curriculum for Excellence levels in literacy and numeracy, by ASN status
Stage	ASN pupil status	Reading	Writing	Listening and talking	Literacy	Numeracy
Early level	ASN	60	54	64	49	66
	Non-ASN	84	82	90	79	87
	Unknown	58	56	65	54	65
	All	81	78	87	75	85
first level	ASN	53	46	65	42	53
	Non-ASN	86	81	91	78	84
	Unknown	58	51	61	49	58
	All	77	72	85	69	76
second level	ASN	55	47	65	43	51
	Non-ASN	89	84	92	82	85
	Unknown	58	53	59	52	63
	All	79	73	84	70	75
third level	ASN	79	77	81	74	76
	Non-ASN	95	95	96	93	95
	Unknown	72	71	73	69	81
	All	90	89	91	87	89

Qualitative evidence considered

Included in the Main, Enable Scotland, March 2017:
https://www.enable.org.uk/get-involved/campaigns/our-campaigns/included-in-the-main/

How is Additional Support for Learning working in practice? Scottish Parliament Education Committee, May 2017:
https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Education/Reports/ASN_6th_Report_2017.pdf

Further scrutiny by Scottish Parliament Education and Skills Committee:
https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/103397.aspx

Excellence and equity for all - guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming: consultation analysis, Scottish Government June 2018:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/excellence-equity-guidance-presumption-mainstreaming-analysis-consultation-responses/

Research on the experiences of children and young people receiving support in mainstream and special schools, Research Scotland on behalf of Scottish Government, completed June 2018 not yet published:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/additional-support-learning-research-experience-children-young-people-those-support/

Not Included, Not Engaged, Not Involved, Children In Scotland, National Autistic Society and Scottish Autism, September 2018:
https://childreninscotland.org.uk/not-included-not-engaged-not-involved-survey-finds-autistic-children-are-missing-out-on-education/

Education Scotland evidence from inspection and other engagement. This will include an analysis of the strengths and areas for improvement gathered through inspection, focusing on HGIOS4 quality indicator 3.1 on Ensuring Wellbeing, Equality and Inclusion. This indicator is evaluated in all inspections and is part of the evidence base for the National Improvement Framework.

National Parent Forum – Additional Support for Learning Survey Results
https://www.npfs.org.uk/2018/11/survey-results-additional-support-needs-additional-support-for-learning/

EIS – Additional Support for Learning in Scottish school education: Exploring the gap between promise and practice:
https://www.eis.org.uk/Content/images/education/ASN/ExploringTheGap.pdf

Summary of inspection findings of Quality Indicator 3.1 – ensuring wellbeing, equality and inclusion

Academic years

2017/18
2018/19 (reports published to 23 August 2019)

Primary Inspections Summary

2017/18

3.1 Ensuring wellbeing, equality and inclusion
	Excellent	Very Good	Good	Satisfactory	Weak	Unsatisfactory	No Response	Total
Number	6	26	40	23	11	0	0	106
Percentage	6%	25%	38%	22%	10%	0%	N/A

2018/19

3.1 Ensuring wellbeing, equality and inclusion
	Excellent	Very Good	Good	Satisfactory	Weak	Unsatisfactory	No Response	Total
Number	2	20	28	18	7	0	0	75
Percentage	3%	27%	37%	24%	9%	0%	N/A

Special Inspections Summary

2017/18

3.1 Ensuring wellbeing, equality and inclusion
	Excellent	Very Good	Good	Satisfactory	Weak	Unsatisfactory	No Response	Total
Number	0	4	2	4	1	0	0	11
Percentage	0%	36%	18%	36%	9%	0%	N/A

2018/19

3.1 Ensuring wellbeing, equality and inclusion
	Excellent	Very Good	Good	Satisfactory	Weak	Unsatisfactory	No Response	Total
Number	0	0	5	2	1	1	0	9
Percentage	0%	0%	56%	22%	11%	11%	N/A

Secondary Inspections Summary

2017/18

3.1 Ensuring wellbeing, equality and inclusion
	Excellent	Very Good	Good	Satisfactory	Weak	Unsatisfactory	No Response	Total
Number	0	5	7	6	1	0	0	19
Percentage	0%	26%	37%	32%	5%	0%	N/A

2018/19

3.1 Ensuring wellbeing, equality and inclusion
	Excellent	Very Good	Good	Satisfactory	Weak	Unsatisfactory	No Response	Total
Number	0	6	8	4	1	0	0	19
Percentage	0%	32%	42%	21%	5%	0%	N/A

ELC Inspections Summary

2017/18

3.1 Ensuring wellbeing, equality and inclusion
	Excellent	Very Good	Good	Satisfactory	Weak	Unsatisfactory	No Response	Total
Number	1	34	55	23	10	0	0	123
Percentage	1%	28%	45%	19%	8%	0%	N/A

2018/19

3.1 Ensuring wellbeing, equality and inclusion
	Excellent	Very Good	Good	Satisfactory	Weak	Unsatisfactory	No Response	Total
Number	0	15	45	20	6	1	0	87
Percentage	0%	17%	52%	23%	7%	1%	N/A

Contact

Email: supportinglearners@gov.scot

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Was this helpful?

Yes

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Yes, but

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.