Ethics, Inclusion and Equalities

What is the context?
The recent update to the DfE’s Working together to improve school attendance guidance has outlined the now statutory coding expectations for recording attendance and absence. The aim of improving the provision of attendance data and support to schools, families and young people is vitally important. However, there are concerning consequences of schools and other settings not being able to code remote education, under specific circumstances, as attendance (not absence). This has been queried across the sector from a range of stakeholders. 

These consequences are felt most keenly by vulnerable groups of learners and the wider community that supports them. They include:

• the potentially discriminatory and unfair effects on protected groups of young people who cannot regularly attend school physically
• the impact on schools' ability to deploy effective, child-centred, inclusion practices
• possible contradictions to other statutory guidance designed to protect students with additional needs
• the lack of recognition of the role of safe, quality-assured technology in building capacity to support vulnerable learners

The ability for schools and other settings to code specific, live, quality-assured remote education within the attendance register is a necessary change. 

ASCL position: ASCL believes that live and supervised remote education should be recognised as attendance.

Why are we saying this? 
Fully recognising remote education would not only create a more inclusive and fair system, that avoids discriminating consequences, but also generate useful data – an aim of the updated guidance.

Enabling schools to code live, remote education as ‘present’ would lead to a more consistent and accurate picture of those students using such provision. This would enable us to identify an ‘addressable cohort’ of students who can be monitored, supported and their experience analysed. 

This could be achieved with an alternation to ‘Code B: Attending any other approved educational activity’ to include remote education. There could be the separation of Code B into the following:

• B1: Physically educated offsite
• B2: Remotely educated offsite by accredited or inspected online providers, in live lessons provided by suitably qualified staff, and monitored by the commissioner

Code B subsection 310, which states that ‘Supervision means the pupil is physically supervised by someone who meets this definition’, would need to be altered in line with the above.

This change would put in place clear benchmarks for what constitutes effective remote education, including monitoring and safeguarding arrangements in line with the current guidance. It is imperative that a high standard is set for approved remote provision; our suggestion would be to use the DfE’s own accreditation or inspection programme for this.


 

What is the context? 
The aim of the DfE’s SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan is to address the demands and challenges that exist within mainstream, special and alternative provision in supporting young people with SEND. 

Its three key objectives are to:

• Deliver better experiences for families
• Improve outcomes for children & young people
• Create a financially sustainable system.

The Change Programme, involving 32 local authorities (LAs), is intended to play an essential implementation role in delivering on these commitments. However, amongst all partners, there is currently a lack of understanding about how it will be rolled out and how it will deliver on its aims. The operational aspects of the Change Programme implementation plan are contingent to a significant degree on strengthening inclusion in mainstream schools. This requires increased workforce capacity, sufficient resourcing, and staff training. 

While LAs in the nine regions where this Programme is being rolled out acknowledge their role and responsibility in convening partnerships to address local SEND challenges, there appears to be an oversimplification of the implementation process and insufficient investment in what is needed to support partnership working and enhance school practice. 

ASCL position
ASCL believes that the theory of change used by the Change Programme is fundamentally flawed and that the levers for change are inadequate. The programme makes unrealistic assumptions about the capacity of LAs to deliver school improvement at scale. The expectation for schools and colleges to increase the breadth of what is ‘Ordinarily Available’, i.e. to do more without increases in core funding, is not feasible. There must be funding to strengthen capacity in classrooms, in addition to the £70 million allocated to administer the programme.

Roles and responsibilities (for LAs, Education and Health) must be clear and achievable. In particular:

• LAs, schools and colleges must have sufficient resource to deliver on the expectations of the Change Programme.
• The expected increase in the breadth of Ordinarily Available Provision must be underpinned by a sustainable funding model that engages all schools and colleges in the local area

Why are we saying this? 
Change is required to address systemic failures that have resulted in the lack of availability of the services needed to support children and young people early in their education journey.

This change requires investment in health, social care and education, and improved accessibility to support services. We do not see any indication that the Change Programme will provide this.

Following years of cuts, LAs lack capacity in the strategic roles required to lead on and deliver the aims of the Change Programme. We think that schools are being set up to fail.
 

What is the context?
The draft guidance for the ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children (WTTSC) 2023’ consultation was released in the middle of 2023, paving the way for substantial changes in child protection and safeguarding practices in England. The final document is expected to be released in early to mid-2024.

Schools, in particular, will have a more active role in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children as part of these changes, although the specifics of these new responsibilities are yet to be outlined.

The multi-agency working expectations emphasise the increased involvement of education leaders in local arrangements, and recognise schools as relevant agencies, although not statutory partners. The document discusses the delegation of responsibilities in Local Safeguarding Partnerships (LSP) between strategic and operational leads. 
 
ASCL position
The delegated social care responsibilities outlined in the draft document Working Together to Safeguard Children continue to add expectations of additional roles and responsibilities that exceed professional expertise and capacity of staff. In too many cases DSLs, Pastoral Leaders and SENCOs are already operating beyond capacity. ASCL believes that our schools and colleges should not be asked to take on further delegated responsibilities for children’s social care as these require specialist expertise from social care.
 
Why are we saying this?
The revisions to the statutory guidance are based on the first phase of the government’s policy paper, Stable Homes, Built on Love, published in February 2023. In this paper, the government sets out its vision for reforming children’s social care. The Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023 consultation is more than just another change in documentation; it’s a roadmap to a safer and more secure future for our children. Schools and education providers are at the heart of this major shift but lack any detail on how these additional responsibilities will be resourced. We are also concerned that delegated responsibility for social care sit beyond the skill set of the education professionals expected to take on these roles.

What is the context?
The statutory guidance for RSHE is currently being reviewed after an expert panel has collated evidence and provided recommendations to the government. We expect a consultation on the draft statutory guidance to be announced this term. The schools minister has indicated that placing age limitations on what is appropriate to be taught at certain ages is a change the government is intending to make.
 
ASCL position
ASCL believes that the review of RSHE statutory guidance needs to allow schools to identify needs and meet them supportively. Setting age limits for the coverage of specific RSHE content would be too inflexible an approach. We believe that schools are best placed to understand the contextual experiences of their children and respond appropriately to them. More advice over what should be covered during key stages would be a more helpful approach, with flexibility for leaders to make decisions in the best interests of children where this is necessary to ensure their safety and wellbeing.
 
Why are we saying this?
Four years after the publication of the RSHE statutory guidance, a review process is timely and has been welcomed by the education sector. However, the focus of the review has been shaped by the publicly debated concerns raised by Miriam Cates MP and her organisation, the ‘New Social Covenant Unit’ (2023). In this report, Cates criticises the exposure of children and young people to ‘age inappropriate’ materials in schools, as well as unvetted ‘inappropriate experts’ leading lessons and ‘indoctrinating’ pupils.
 
These claims have fuelled the government’s concern about what RSHE is taught, at what age and how transparent the curriculum is for parents. Whilst ASCL supports sensible steps that help achieve curriculum transparency, we do not believe strict age limitations on what is taught will make children safer. In fact, our concern is that restrictions that remove the agency of teachers and leaders to respond to pupil need and context may place pupils at greater risk.

DfE and statutory Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) research and guidance supports RSHE/PSHE/preventative education starting early and building in complexity as a child progresses through education, via sequenced learning that is appropriate to age and developmental stage. RSHE that’s ‘too little, too late’ places young people at further risk of exploitation.

What is the context?
The DfE’s SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan: Right Support, Right Place, Right time proposes a unified system driven by new national standards. Alongside these standards, the plan sets out a list of laudable intentions that government believes will improve SEND provision.

The current reality for schools is that they do not have the resources to meet the needs of the pupils they are being asked to support. The improvement plan lacks any detail of the financial modelling undertaken by the government to demonstrate where funding is available to implement the plan. 

The high needs block has increased by £2 billion in the first two years of the current spending review period (2022 – 2025). However, significant sums are needed to meet debt recovery commitments (Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value SEND programmes). It is unclear how much of the additional funding is available for investment necessary to make the system improvements that children and young people with SEND so desperately need.

ASCL position: ASCL is very concerned about the lack of identifiable funding assigned to implement the DfE’s SEND Improvement Plan. Funding allocated to high needs is disappearing into the black hole of high needs block deficit recovery and is not getting to the frontline where it can make a difference and meet need. 

ASCL calls on the government to 

• provide a fully costed implementation plan that clearly identifies the quantifiable funding streams available to deliver all aspects of the SEND Improvement Plan
• review and uplift the commissioned place funding factor value, which has been £10,000 since 2013, and as a result of inflation is now wholly inadequate

Why are we saying this?
The system must demonstrate good value for money, but any debt management scheme must deliver on both reducing debt and also supporting children and young people to improve. 

ASCL members highlight the tension that exists between additional funding received into the high needs block at local authority level, and the requirement to use this to plug existing deficits, service Safety Valve agreements or support a Delivering Better Value programme. This money is not always getting to the front line.

Members also highlight the insufficiency of the £10,000 place funding, and in particular, the lack of review of this amount over many years. We are hearing that special schools are concerned about maintaining safe pupil to adult ratios. This tends to arise from a combination of insufficient funding (they cannot afford to keep current support staff numbers in post) and a recruitment and retention issue within the teaching and TA workforce.

Schools are using reserves to plug year-end deficits caused by unfunded pay awards in 2022/23, when special schools had to fund 5% pay rises for teachers and up to 10% for support staff. This is not sustainable.

What is the context? 
An Ofsted rapid review investigation in 2021, immediately after the Covid-19 lockdowns, raised serious concerns that schools were underestimating the impact of online gender-based and sexual harassment and violence on children and young people, especially girls and young women. A recent survey by the NASUWT showed a significant culture of sexual harassment and misogyny in classrooms, with almost 60% of those who participated saying they had experienced misogyny from pupils, and seven in 10 female teachers reporting having been victims of misogyny in school. Teachers reported serious concerns about the influence of online misogynistic communities and the term ‘incel’ on teenage boys as influencing cultures of hate and inequality.  

Earlier this month the independent review into the government’s Prevent strategy failed to highlight the need for changes in awareness raising, training and the prevention of misogynistic cultures that are having an impact on the behaviour of young people and on school cultures. 

ASCL position: ASCL is deeply concerned about the rising incidence of misogynistic material in circulation and the influence on young people of a culture of toxic masculinity. Schools and colleges continue to have a vital role to play in educating young people and being alert to signs of extremist and dangerous views, alongside other well-resourced external support, but they cannot fight this battle alone. ASCL calls on the government and its agencies to provide more resources and expert support on this matter, and on extremist ideologies in general, to support schools and colleges in this vital work.

Why are we are saying this?
We are deeply concerned that the independent review of Prevent has failed to address these issues at a policy level. This was an opportunity for the government to galvanise national and local partnerships in response to this very real threat to young people and their safety. Failure to act will leave schools less able to generate the support needed from external agencies, and ill-equipped financially to adopt a strong national, long-term approach to addressing toxic subcultures of hate. 

 
 

What is the context? 
Any alternative provision (AP) setting which provides full-time education to five or more pupils should be registered. If a school is using an AP provider, even on a limited basis for a small number of students, part of its due diligence should be to check the registration status of the provider. If the provider meets the expected criteria but is unregistered, it is classed as an illegal school. 

ASCL position: ASCL believes that alternative provision should as a general rule be registered and subject to inspection. Where this is not the case, because of the practicalities involved for small providers supplying essential support, then local authorities must ensure that it is clear that schools should carry out their own due diligence. Schools must have sufficient resources to enable them to carry out this process and commission this provision.

Why are we are saying this?
This would encourage confidence and best practice in commissioning AP. It would ensure school leaders have clear information from their local authority, and that schools/trusts have the funding capacity to regularly undertake suitable and consistent quality assurance checks on all the AP they use. This would help to ensure they have oversight of the quality of education young people receive, and their safety. 
 

What is the context? 
Evidence collected by ASCL clearly shows that unrestrained energy price rises are unaffordable and, together with the pressure of unfunded pay awards, will result in schools and colleges facing deep in-year financial deficits, with a severe impact on educational provision. 

ASCL position: ASCL is particularly concerned about the impact of the education funding crisis on children and young people with special educational needs because the higher staffing and specialist support needed for this vital provision has become increasingly unaffordable. The government’s green paper reforms are too far off in the future to make any immediate difference and the funding element of these reforms is, in any case, unclear. The government must provide immediate emergency support to high needs budgets with assurance that necessary funding will be allocated to schools.

Why are we saying this?
Increasing numbers of ASCL members are telling us that they can no longer afford to offer the quality of provision needed to support children with additional needs at their school. Schools and trusts cannot consistently afford to fund the full statutory EHCP provisions expected for each child with an EHCP. There is increasing evidence that children and young people on the SEND support register are also being affected, as schools are losing support staff and other resources needed to make the reasonable adjustments required to support curriculum, social and emotional access for children who are struggling to engage at school. 
 

What is the context? 
The SEND green paper proposes strengthening Early Years practice with regard to conducting the two-year-old progress check by supporting the Early Years workforce to identify needs earl and expediating the right support so that children can progress. It is suggested that this should be done through joined-up working across education, health and care for all children.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that health professionals must have a mandatory role in an interconnected relationship. The two-year-old health check must be a joint undertaking between Early Years practitioners and health visitors, and not an assessment solely undertaken by Early Years practitioners.

Why are we are saying this?
Children between the ages of two and three can display behaviours and learning which may indicate need but may also be appropriate to their stage of development. Health visitors are best placed to support any nuanced assessment and assist Early Years practitioners to build effective relationships with families, enabling any need to be identified and shared sensitively and productively with families at what could be a time of heightened anxiety for parents.

 

What is the context? 
There are increasing concerns about the emotional well-being and mental health of our children and young people. These need to be considered alongside recent concerns around attendance, behaviour and SEND, and the requirement to promote attachment awareness in schools under the extended role of the virtual head (DfE, 2021). 

ASCL position: ASCL believes that these issues are best addressed at school level by leaders who empower their staff to develop their own solutions, supported by a national policy framework. This framework, along with the necessary training for school-based leaders, should develop awareness of attachment and trauma-informed practice. It should also ensure there is sufficient capacity in schools along with appropriately resourced external support.

Why are we are saying this?
In every school there are children with a variety of vulnerabilities, including children in care, those with social work involvement, those who have suffered significant trauma, or who have unmet emotional and attachment needs. Those children are more likely to suffer from poor mental health, less likely to reach their full potential, more likely to be excluded and more likely to be at risk of exploitation.

 

What is the context?
Our previous statement on mental health (from January 2021) stated that we are witnessing a mental health crisis amongst children and young people. Over the intervening ten months the situation has become even more acute, with schools and colleges expected to provide ever greater levels of support. 

ASCL position: ASCL believes that there should be clear clinical thresholds that determine when it is appropriate for schools to provide mental health support to pupils, and when cases need to be referred to other agencies.

Why are we saying this?
Schools and colleges are increasingly being called upon to provide mental health support for which they are unlikely to have adequate expertise or experience. We need a clear, shared understanding of what support school and college staff can be expected to provide, and when they must be able to refer children and young people for more specialist support. 
 

What is the context?
The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED) was a UK government commission supported by the Race Disparity Unit of the Cabinet Office. It was established in 2020 to investigate race and ethnic disparities in the UK, in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd. Important questions about race relations and disparities warranted a thorough examination of why so many disparities persist, and what needs to be done to eliminate or mitigate them.

The Commission published its report in March 2021 to considerable controversy. The report concluded that “the claim the country is still institutionally racist is not borne out by the evidence”. However, some experts complained that the report misrepresented evidence, and that recommendations from contributors from ethnic minority groups were ignored.  

ASCL position: ASCL believes that the report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities is fundamentally flawed, to the extent that we must reject it in its entirety.

Why are we saying it?
The report has been widely discredited for its selective use of evidence. The Commission emphasised the ‘agency’ of people from racial and ethnic minority groups, explaining away racial inequalities based on the choices of certain groups, or in favour of other social factors such as class, geography and family influence. 

Multiple prior reports have highlighted the damaging impact of institutional racism and deep-rooted inequities in areas such as health, education, employment, housing, ‘stop and search’ practices, and the criminal justice system in the UK.

We need to do more to improve the life chances of those children and young people who are disadvantaged as a result of their ethnic background. In education, we also need to recognise and address explicitly the underrepresentation of teachers and leaders from ethnic minority communities. 

We will continue to progress our own programme of work on equalities, diversity and inclusion (EDI), including our network for BAME members, our extensive support for members with protected characteristics, and our growing bank of EDI-focused advice and guidance for school and college leaders.  

We believe the government needs to do more to demonstrate its commitment to EDI in schools and colleges. The Department for Education has made a start with the establishment of their new Equalities Division. We look forward to working with them on key EDI issues, including those related to recruitment, retention, leadership, CPD and the need for a more diverse curriculum.  

 

What is the context?
During this current period of national lockdown, schools, alternative provision, special schools and colleges may only allow vulnerable pupils and the children of critical workers to attend. 

All pupils who are not eligible to be in school should be marked in attendance registers as Code X. As vulnerable children are still expected to attend school full-time, they should only be marked as Code X if they are shielding, self-isolating or quarantining. Any parent may choose for their child not to attend the school setting, be they key worker or vulnerable. Schools and colleges however should encourage vulnerable children to attend. The DfE has directed schools to grant applications for leave of absence given the exceptional circumstances. This should be recorded as code C (leave of absence authorised by the school) unless another authorised absence code is more applicable. This however only appertains to vulnerable children and not those of critical workers.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that the attendance coding system should be reviewed to recognise that families of vulnerable children have the same rights and responsibilities as other families in terms of remote learning. The C code (leave of absence authorised by the school) should either be replaced or have a second definition to ensure that there is no negative assumption about a family’s choice to remotely educate their child.

ASCL also feels that the DfEent should clearly outline what the attendance data for all groups of children will be used for and how it will enable leaders to further support the learning of its pupils. 

Why are we saying it?
ASCL fully supports the collation of attendance data if it is used to ensure the needs of all children are tracked and analysed to enable effective support to be given. However, we feel that by granting leave of absence to this one group of children, school leaders are regarding their absence from school as a deficit even though many vulnerable children, especially if effective risk assessments are undertaken, are receiving impactful remote education.  

ASCL is also concerned that by granting a leave of absence to any child during such a volatile period, parents, carers and school leaders may be seen as discriminating and not treating families consistently, equitably and fairly. It would seem sensible to remove the fear that different coding may be viewed as something that parents and schools might be held accountable for negative circumstances that may impact families.
 

What is the context?
We are witnessing a mental health crisis amongst children and young people. An already worrying situation has been exacerbated by Covid-19. Ofsted’s second report into the impact of the pandemic across educational settings highlighted the extent to which children are showing signs of mental health issues such as eating disorders and self-harm. 

The government’s proposed national intervention, Wellbeing for Education Return (WER), is intended to provide training to a representative from every school and college. However, this training intended to support return in September is only now reaching schools. In addition to this, ASCL has learnt that the government strategy and funding to put a Senior Mental Health Lead in each school is paused. 


ASCL position: ASCL agrees with the approach laid out in the Mental Health Green Paper to recruit and operate Mental Health Support Teams in every region alongside identifying and training a Mental Health Lead in every school. However, if this roll out is to be delayed/paused, ASCL asks that the local experts trained for the Wellbeing for Education Return (WER) initiative are made available directly to schools as a resource to support staff and pupils for the next 12 months, while we wait for the planned strategy to be rolled out. 

ASCL also asks that the funding identified for mental health training be channeled directly to schools in the interim. At the moment in particular, schools  are best suited to determine locally designed interventions and ensure they can offer a quick response to pupils with the most immediate and urgent needs. 

Why are we saying it?
The government’s current approach does not go far enough, move quickly enough or last long enough to meet the mental health and wellbeing of our children, post-Covid-19. Targeted and sustained support for pupil well-being is essential to meet their growing and complex needs post pandemic. Growing wellbeing and mental health issues are acting as a significant barrier against learning engagement and development across all school phases. These are continuing problems which require ongoing effective funding and support.

What is the context?
Two thirds of local authorities have seen a significant rise in elective home education post-lockdown. The UK has one of the lowest thresholds for regulation and monitoring of home educators in Europe. Nearly 30,000 children were home educated between 2016-17, a doubling since 2011. In 2018 it hit 60,000. The 2020 spike highlights the need for more effective local monitoring to ensure children don't go missing within the system. 

ASCL position: ASCL believes the recent increase in elective home education requires a rapid response from DfE. This response must include:

• the commissioning of research to identify the reasons behind this increase
• an enhanced home education infrastructure, including a national register of home educators and additional financial resource to support for local monitoring, advice, and regular review. 

In addition, in the 2020/21 academic year, DfE should make provision for discrepancies in the census caused by the increase in elective home education. Where children return to school part way through the academic year, schools should be compensated in-year and not have to wait for the 2021 census. This will enable schools to provide core education and additional support where needed.

Why are we saying it?
Many children who are educated at home thrive. However, we are concerned that the rapid increase in the number of home-educated children may be driven by factors other than carefully considered parental choice, including concerns related to the pandemic and, in a small number of cases, off-rolling. 

It is crucial that we understand what is driving this increase in numbers, that an appropriate infrastructure is put in place to identify and monitor children being taught at home, and that sufficient funding is provided both to home-educating families and to schools which welcome back previously home-educated children. 
 

What is the context?
Accountability measures and the ambition to lead inclusive schools appear to be at odds with each other. Whether Progress 8 or Ofsted, the primary assessment focus is on academic attainment whilst research tells us that disadvantage pupils are statistically less likely to achieve compared to their peers. The current educational landscape has therefore established perverse incentives where schools see a negative ‘cost’ to supporting young people who face multiple disadvantage. 

ASCL position:
Current accountability measures disincentivise schools from supporting children who experience multiple disadvantages.   These children are unfairly judged as statistically negative contributors towards these measures. ASCL believes schools must be incentivised, appropriately resourced and recognised for taking effective responsibility for these children.

Why are we saying it?
Headteachers tell us they feel penalised for being inclusive. That the performance measures used to inform the system actively disincentivise schools from welcoming and retaining young people who are experiencing difficulty; difficulties that impact on their academic performance.  A school’s Progress 8 score is the mean average of its pupils’ Progress 8 scores. For all mainstream pupils nationally, the average Progress 8 score will be zero. Low attaining pupils fall below that average even where they are making progress. This makes it less attractive for schools to accept or retain pupils whose circumstances place them at a disadvantage. We believe a system that puts an actual negative value on any child is fundamentally flawed and risks contravening the Equalities Act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and in particular Articles 24, 31 and 33, which requires countries to develop an inclusive education system for all children.

What is the context?
Children who are looked after need further recognition and support. A report from the children’s commissioner on Dec 24th 2019 called Pass the Parcel highlighted the continuing issues faced by children in care. It highlights particular concern for the 30,000 living ‘out of area’ who are at increased risk of violence, gangs and grooming. Recent reports relating to exclusions and mental health highlight the need to improve our understanding of what interventions are most effective for young people with dual or multiple needs. ASCL will co-opt a virtual head to sit on the EIE Committee.

ASCL position: Children who are looked after are some of the most vulnerable in our care. They deserve consistent support and provision. There must be a unified national strategy to ensure that these children’s lives are made as stable as possible. This strategy must include Virtual Headteachers acting as consistent advocates to incentivise schools to take on vulnerable children.

Why are we saying it? Looked after children experience multiple vulnerabilities. Currently the quality of provision and practice for these children relates to the local area support and young people’s experience can be a postcode lottery; consistent, good quality provision is required. The issue of intersectionality (several overlapping and interlocking disadvantages) warrants better recognition in our schools and ASCL supports strengthening the role of Virtual Heads to advocate, working proactively with their network of local heads to prioritise the needs of these young people. 
 

What is the context? In October 2018, ASCL launched an independent Commission of Inquiry to look into how to improve the prospects of the ‘forgotten third’ of young people who do not achieve at least a grade 4 pass in GCSE English and maths at the end of twelve years of schooling. 

In September 2019, the Commission published its final report. The report included fourteen recommendations to help address this issue, covering early years, curriculum and pedagogy, teacher education, and the qualifications system. 

These recommendations included calls for a long-term review both of the English curriculum from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage and of the GCSE exam system as a whole. The Commission also recommended a new approach to end-of-primary assessment and accountability, and the replacement of GCSE English Language with a Passport in English, to be taken by all pupils at the point of readiness between the ages of 15 and 19.

ASCL position: ASCL thanks the Forgotten Third Commission of Inquiry for the expertise and commitment they brought to the question of how we can improve the prospects of the ‘Forgotten Third’.

ASCL fully supports the recommendations in the Commission’s final report, and adopts these as policy.

Why are we saying it? We must do more to improve the life chances of those children and young people, disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, for whom the current education system simply isn’t working. We must also find better ways to recognise the achievements of all young people. We believe that acting on the recommendations in this report would make a significant and positive impact on these young people’s lives and futures. 
 

What is the context? Statutory Relationships and Health Education for all schools comes into force in September 2020. Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) will be statutory in all secondary schools.

The government’s guidance on Relationships Education in primary schools says that schools must teach about different types of families. The guidance uses LGBT parents as one example of a family type, but fails to clarify that there is a requirement for primary schools to teach that some children are growing up with same-sex parents.

ASCL position: Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (PSHE), including Relationships Health and Sex Education (RSE), is an important and necessary part of all pupils’ education. PSHE (including RSE) should be a statutory, but not prescriptive, part of children’s learning.

It is right that, from September 2020, there will be a requirement for all children to receive Relationship Education and, in secondary schools, Sex Education. We welcome the flexibility for schools to deliver these subjects, which meets the needs of all their communities. We consider it unnecessary for the government to provide standardised frameworks or programmes of study. 

ASCL calls urgently for a clear statement from government that, within Relationships Education in primary schools, children must be taught that there are many types of family, including those with LGBT parents.

Why are we saying it? School leaders must not be used as a shield by the government on this particularly emotive issue. By just including LGBT families as an ‘example’ of the different types of family primary schools might talk about, it becomes an individual headteacher’s decision whether or not to use that particular example.

Government needs to step in and provide clarity by making it clear that primary schools must talk about LGBT families. This will help create an environment where all children feel acceptance and a sense of belonging, and take some of the pressure away from individual headteachers.

What is the context? Recently published reports (from the National Audit Office and the Education Policy Institute) state that 1,041,500 pupils (79.4% of pupils with SEND) did not have EHCPs but had been identified as needing some additional support at school. The vast majority of these children (91.6%) attended mainstream settings. 

Some pupils with SEND are receiving high quality support that meets their needs, whether they attend mainstream schools or special schools. However, recent system reviews indicate that many other pupils are not being supported effectively, and that pupils with SEND who do not have EHCPs are particularly exposed.

ASCL position: We need a broader recognition of the fact that the EHCP process is not the only mechanism for supporting children with SEND. School leaders need to be able to use resources more flexibly in order intervene in an effective and timely manner. 

Why are we saying this? Pupils with SEND are among the most vulnerable in the school system. The quality of support they receive affects their well-being, educational attainment, likelihood of subsequent employment, and long-term life prospects. More needs to be done at a system level to support schools to effectively meet the needs and support the progress of pupils who are identified as requiring SEN support, in ways that are most appropriate to each individual case. 
 

What is the context? The government substantially changed the system for supporting children and young people with SEND in September 2014, under the Children and Families Act 2014. The aims of the reforms were to enable children’s needs to be identified earlier; families to be more involved in decisions affecting them; education, health and social care services to be better integrated; and support to remain in place up to the age of 25 where appropriate.

ASCL position: ASCL calls for a consistent, transparent and high-quality Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) process. 

Why are we saying this? We are concerned about the variability of the process of applying for an EHCP across the country. There needs to be greater consistency and accountability for quality. Clear expectations and consideration by the Department, and a standard EHCP template, would help schools cut down on bureaucracy and support better outcomes for young people with SEND.
 

What is the context? This statement is an expansion of our previous position that all schools in an area should take collective responsibility for exclusions. It was prompted by recommendations made by the Timpson Review that schools should work closely with each other, and with local authorities, to jointly commission high quality alternative provision (AP).

Some areas, such as Tower Hamlets, are already using this model successfully, though it must be noted that this is an area with significantly higher funding than most parts of the country.

ASCL position: School and college leaders should create a culture of inclusivity through ethical leadership.

We believe that all schools need to take collective responsibility for all children and young people living in their local area, including an expectation of regional or local coordination for leading and collaborating on all managed moves, exclusions and the planning and funding of local high-quality alternative provision.

All schools need to reflect on the process they use prior to exclusion; well-informed practice will lead to decisions made in the best interests of children.

Why are we saying it? We believe that schools taking collective responsibility for all local children will help to ensure that children are educated in high quality provision that is most suitable to their needs.

We are concerned about the inconsistency in the funding, quality, availability and type of AP across the country. We are also concerned about inconsistency in the way in which mainstream schools work with each other and with local AP, and the way in which they refer children to AP.

We prefer to talk about collective ‘responsibility’ rather than ‘accountability’, because this implies that the schools are collectively taking ownership for the education of all local children, regardless of which school they started in.

What is the context? The use of online technology, including social media, has grown at great speed. Teachers, parents, policy makers and children do not always fully understand the implications of this for young people’s relationships, safety, mental health and wellbeing. Neither do we know how the vast amounts of data being gathered on young people may be accessed and used, now or in the future. ASCL members want government and technology companies to do more to protect young people and to help them to develop and maintain good digital health.

ASCL position: Schools and colleges have a central role in teaching children and young people about positive digital health. We believe there is a need for a clear strategy to mitigate against the negative impacts of digital content and social media. These effects can be around wellbeing, mental health, safeguarding and privacy, both now and in the longer term.  

ASCL members believe that technology companies should be subject to minimum standards of age-appropriate design, with a mandatory code backed by an independent regulator.

Why are we saying this? ASCL surveyed 460 secondary school headteachers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in state and independent schools in January 2018. They were asked about the impact on pupils of social media use over the past 12 months. The results were stark and unequivocal, and included the following statistics:

• 95% felt that the mental health and wellbeing of a proportion of their pupils had suffered as a result of social media use.
• Almost all (459/460) had received reports of pupils being bullied on social media.
• Almost all (457/460) had received reports of pupils encountering upsetting material on social media, such as sexual content, self-harm, bullying, or hate speech.
• 89% had received reports of pupils being approached by strangers on social media sites.
• 93% had received reports of pupils experiencing low self-esteem as a result of seeing idealised images and experiences on social media.
• 96% had received reports of pupils missing out on sleep as a result of social media use.
• 93% said that new laws and regulation should be introduced to ensure social media sites keep children safe