Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodivergence Bill: consultation analysis

Section 13: Education

Introduction

The consultation document set out the various legislation, frameworks, plans and guidance that are relevant to schools, including those specific to children and young people with Additional Support Needs (ASN), learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence, and those relevant to all pupils. Requirements and provisions for Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and Continued Professional Development (CPD) were also outlined. The document also highlighted the difficulties that children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people continue to have in relation to education. Therefore, it was suggested that the LDAN Bill could consider including the following three proposals:

• Proposal 1: Strategies and Reporting Requirements - create a new requirement for education authorities and schools to include information on how the specific needs of pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils have been considered and are being met within plans and reports which are already produced to meet the requirements of the Standards in Schools etc. Act 2000. The Scottish Government could also consider whether the Children’s Services Plan Annual Reports should include specific consideration of children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people.
• Proposal 2: Mandatory Training for Teachers, Practitioners and Other Educators - feedback was sought on whether the mandatory training requirement for health and social care staff should extended to other public sector areas, and:

a) Whether there is a need to set out anything in legislation regarding the training requirements for student teachers, given the recently updated Standard for Provisional Registration;

b) Whether there is a need to set out anything in legislation regarding the training requirements for student Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) practitioners; and

c) Whether there is a need for a mandatory training requirement for teachers, practitioners and other educators on learning disabilities and neurodivergence as part of their CPD.

• Proposal 3: Data - currently there is disaggregated data available on some conditions (i.e. learning disabilities, autism and dyslexia) but not others (i.e. ADHD, FASD, Dyscalculia and other neurodivergent conditions). To better understand the needs of all neurodivergent children and young people and their experiences and outcomes in relation to education, such data could be collected and published. This would allow for reporting on the attainment gap of these groups, school leavers and positive destinations, and to understand the size of these populations and any trends. There may also be a need for data on the use of part-time timetables.

Main Findings

This section attracted a higher response rate than most other sections at Part 3 of the consultation, with 499 respondents providing feedback. Rather than identifying support for, or disagreement with, or commenting specifically on, the proposals set out, however, many individuals used this section to highlight challenges, problems and shortcomings in the current education and school system for children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people. A wide range of issues were discussed. Some also made suggestions around more practical and more fundamental changes which they thought were necessary.

Where respondents focused on the proposals set out in the consultation document, and identified support or disagreement with these, most indicated that they supported all of the proposals, with mandatory training (i.e. Proposal 2) being identified as the most important/highest priority of the three elements presented. In relation to Proposals 1 and 3, respondents were slightly more supportive of the need for good quality data compared to the need for plans and reporting.

Proposal 1: Strategies and Reporting Requirements

Several respondents felt that a requirement to include specific consideration of learning disabilities and neurodivergent conditions within plans and reports would make schools and local authorities more aware of needs, and ultimately make them more accountable. It was also suggested that this would ensure local authorities are aware of how children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people are being supported across their area, while also allowing comparison of situations across the country. A few also hoped that by reporting on the scale of needs, this could help support future planning, and direct additional funding and resources into the area:

“By requiring that each council’s Annual Reports includes specific consideration of neurodivergent children and young people and children and young people with learning disabilities, it ensures that this community is at the centre of decision making. Supporting councils to reflect on what they are doing to support neurodivergent children and children with learning disabilities ensures forward planning and reinforces good practice.” (LDAN Support/ Representative Organisation - Mixed Conditions)

Respondents noted that it is difficult to measure outcomes and improvement without reporting.

Others, however, felt that reporting alone would not provide accountability. There were concerns that this could become more of a tick-box exercise which has little impact on individuals, rather than it delivering meaningful improvements. Even those who supported reporting requirements cautioned that these would only be useful if the information is acted upon to make improvements: reporting alone would not be impactful.

A few individuals interpreted this proposal as being a requirement to develop a report or action plan on each individual child identified as needing support, rather than summary reporting about the situation across a whole school or authority area. In these cases, respondents were generally in favour of an accurate report being developed to inform and guide support for the child throughout their school career, provided schools are held accountable for any delays or failure to deliver.

A few organisations discussed the need for/use of strategies for autistic and neurodivergent pupils and pupils with learning disabilities in education at this proposal rather than planning and reporting. In all cases respondents were supportive of the development of dedicated strategies for the education sector. However, the same caveats as outlined at the overarching strategy section were repeated - i.e. that this needed to avoid local variations and that legislation or statutory requirements may not be required to achieve this.

A series of caveats and concerns were raised around the proposed planning and reporting requirement, including:

• Issues around diagnosis of neurodivergent conditions is a significant barrier to accurate reporting;
• Reporting needs to include information on children not currently attending school (either due to being home schooled, school refusal or exclusion);
• It might be unfair to ask schools to report before they have had widespread training, the necessary injection of funding and resources, and the provision of other support in relation to autistic and neurodivergent pupils and pupils with learning disabilities;
• That such planning and reporting may be impractical as schools/staff will not have the capacity to undertake the necessary data collection, analysis and reporting; and
• Concern that reporting would focus on the plans that have been made rather than detailing whether these have been actioned and how consistently the measures have been implemented - e.g. support not being provided because ASN support staff had to cover staff absences or were diverted to other tasks.

Proposal 2: Mandatory Training

As noted above, respondents were particularly in favour of mandatory training within the education sector, with this often said to be the most important proposal. It was felt this was needed to ensure all staff received appropriate training to give them the knowledge, understanding and skills required. Optional training was felt to be far less effective as it could be undertaken as a one-off or avoided entirely throughout someone’s career.

Several individuals and a range of organisations noted that increasing numbers of children were being identified as neurodivergent or potentially neurodivergent. Therefore teachers and other educators needed to have the training and skills to support/teach them:

“Given the anticipated levels of neurodivergent and learning disability populations within schools and classes, this is now core business within every classroom, playroom and educational setting. Every professional should have ongoing mandatory training to meet the needs of all learners.” (Local Authority)

It was stated that training should be neuro-affirmative, child-centred, informed and/or led by those with lived experience, and specific about different conditions. It should be high quality, have consistency across Scotland, and be built into the standard training provision rather than treated as an optional or “add on” element. Some respondents also suggested that regular refresher training needed to be provided on an ongoing basis to ensure up to date information and practices are shared, and so that teachers do not forget what they have learned. Respondents stressed that training should be meaningful and not simply a tick-box exercise. A few suggested that a robust education/training programme, similar to that used for trauma informed practice, would be welcomed. Those advocating for certain conditions also stressed the need for training to address these specifically, e.g. autism, Down’s Syndrome and FASD.

While many individuals and organisations felt that those with lived experience should be involved in developing and/or delivering training, a few organisations identified specific professions that would also be well placed to support training in the education sector. These included educational psychologists, occupational therapists, allied health professionals, and various DPO and other third sector support organisations.

Most respondents who discussed ITE felt that learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence training needed to form a substantial element of the course or be woven throughout the entire course, and should not simply be covered in a standalone short lesson (noted to be no more than a few hours/half day currently, or optional in some cases). A few respondents who identified themselves as teachers stated that they did not feel the ITE had adequately prepared them for teaching pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils and that much more education in this area was required. It was also suggested that trainee ELC practitioners needed mandatory modules/training on supporting children with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children. A few respondents also felt that the Standard for Headship qualification should include training on supporting pupils with learning disabilities and autistic and neurodivergent pupils. Most of those who mentioned CPD tended to agree that training needed to be included as part of such provision. However, there were a handful of education services and local authorities who felt that CPD should remain optional. They suggested that training on this topic should be available but that individual teachers should be allowed to develop their learning via CPD as required and based on need, or that the local authority should identify training needs.

In addition to better equipping teachers to deliver lessons that engage and support all pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils, many argued that training also needed to support teachers and other educators to recognise and identify potential pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils. Further, it was suggested that teachers and other education staff needed to better understand masking, the impact of masking on mental health, intersectionality, and how conditions may present differently in different groups.

“ADHD diagnosis in girls is often missed and dismissed. Teachers and public sector staff working with young girls need to be trained on recognising ADHD and supporting individuals for whom neurodivergence may have a disproportionate effect internally versus expressed behaviour and emotions.” (Neurodivergent Individual and Family/Friend)

It was agreed that mandatory training should include pupil facing teaching staff, including pupil support assistants (PSAs) and classroom and learning assistants. Several respondents felt that mandatory training should extend to all staff in education settings, while others named specific roles/settings where mandatory training should be required. This included:

• Head teachers and other management staff;
• Any staff that may have contact with children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people, such as guidance teachers/staff, administrative, catering, janitorial and other support staff;
• Staff at local authority and private early learning and childcare settings, nurseries and other childcare facilities;
• Staff in local authority education departments;
• Those making decisions about school placements; and
• Those delivering teacher training within ITE.

A few, however, questioned how realistic it would be to provide mandatory training across the entire education sector. Respondents noted the number of different bodies involved and the financial investment that would be required to achieve this.

Several respondents (including both individuals and a wide range of organisations) also stressed that funding and resources would be required in order to deliver mandatory training. It was highlighted that there needed to be budgets and staff cover to allow teachers and other education professionals to be released from classroom duties to attend training. Similarly, high quality evidence based training providers needed to be resourced to deliver increasing levels of training.

While only a handful of respondents explicitly disagreed with the proposal of mandatory training, the reasons were again mixed. One highlighted that some teachers/education professionals are neurodivergent themselves, or have family members who are, and therefore may already be highly effective and not require mandatory training in this area. One simply disagreed with the wording of the proposal rather than the principle, i.e. they wanted all staff to receive mandatory training. One wanted a broader and less reactive approach taken to training. And one disagreed specifically with parts (a) to set out training requirement in legislation and (c) a mandatory training requirement as part of staff’s CPD - they felt legislation was not required and that CPD should remain optional and managed by the individual rather than being prescriptive.

Proposal 3: Data

Respondents who discussed this proposal or data generally, tended to agree there was a need for more robust, accurate and disaggregated data. It was felt that any data must be condition specific, with systems also supporting multiple ASN/ disability categories. Those representing Down’s Syndrome (including parents/ carers and support/representative organisations) also stressed the need to identify this condition specifically within the data. This level of disaggregation was said to be needed to identify any trends and inequalities, and allow appropriate future planning or identification of measures to support specific conditions.

Disaggregated data was also important for measuring outcomes and improvements. In addition, data was seen as helpful for identifying needs, planning services, and identifying challenges, service gaps, or inequalities across schools/ areas. This applied at the individual school level, local authority and national levels:

“We would be keen to extend the disaggregated data we currently collect and use this in a meaningful way to support planning for this cohort of the population. This would provide further information around the attainment gap of these groups, school leavers and positive destinations and to understand the size of these populations and any trends.” (Local Authority)

As well as condition-specific data, respondents also discussed the use of part-time timetables and the data that should be collected in this respect. As well as basic information on the use of part-time timetables, it was argued that data should include how long these have been in use for individual pupils (with respondents highlighting they are often used as a long-term solution rather than a short-term tool to support adjustment), and identify how many affected families support/do not support the use of the part-time timetable. Others suggested that data also needed to be collected (and reported) on the following aspects:

• What pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils are being taught, literacy and numeracy levels, as well as any life skills;
• Any attainment gaps for different groups (although a few noted it was not helpful to measure and compare pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils against neurotypical/mainstream attainment);
• Levels of bullying;
• Absences;
• Exclusions;
• The use of restraint;
• The needs of pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils and the extent to which pupils who need ASL input receive it and levels of unmet need;
• The provision of specialist staff;
• The provision of appropriate training; and
• Whether positive destinations are achieved after school.

As discussed at previous sections, respondents also felt it was important for data to include intersectional information.

Respondents also stressed the need for consistency in the recording of data between schools/local authorities, with a few organisations noting potential inconsistencies around how attendance is currently recorded. Education services suggested it would be necessary to provide clear guidance and parameters/details of which conditions should be included, as well as around any naming conventions and coding requirements in order to provide consistency.

A few respondents were again concerned that, while data was needed, fulfilling this proposal could become a tick-box routine rather than being effective in monitoring needs and driving change.

Consistent with concerns around planning and reporting above, respondents were also concerned that diagnosis may be necessary for data recording, with some querying or anxious about how those waiting for an assessment or who were undiagnosed but exhibiting additional support needs would be captured in the data. A few, particularly organisations (including a few educational services), stressed the importance of maintaining a social and needs based model, and not requiring medical diagnosis within education - although they were unclear how a social model could be maintained when data would be required on different conditions rather than needs. One education service organisation was also concerned about the ethics of schools ‘labelling’ children and young people who have not been diagnosed and who perhaps do not want a diagnosis or label, while one local authority was concerned that teachers and educational professionals would be required to provide a diagnosis (even informally), which they are not trained to do. There were also concerns that such identification within the education sector could lead to greater demand for assessment and diagnosis services, which were already said to be stretched and oversubscribed:

“There is also a very practical concern as regards the already considerable pressures experienced by CAMHS and other services in relation to provision of diagnosis. At a time when services are exploring routes for encouraging uptake of support which does not require a diagnosis, introducing another pressure which emphasises the need for diagnosis within education could well be counter-productive.” (Health Service)

Of the education services and local authorities who discussed this proposal, a small number had concerns about how data might be recorded, and noted that current systems/tools made disaggregation difficult. Respondents indicated that these systems would need to be updated to deliver on the proposals. Others, who were more in favour of the data related proposals, sought to avoid duplication, both in terms of double counting individuals and with other data collection requirements.

Caveats, Concerns and Reasons for Disagreeing

One of the main concerns from education services and local authorities, however, was that the proposals were limited to children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people rather than covering all additional support needs (ASN). There were concerns that an unintended consequence could be a perceived hierarchy of needs, which would not be in keeping with the Additional Support for Learning legislation which promotes inclusion and that no particular disability or additional support need is seen as being prioritised over and above another.

While only a very small number of respondents disagreed with all proposals, their reasons tended to be consistent with concerns expressed by others. Generally this was because they felt the proposals were largely bureaucratic, could not be resourced, and/or because they felt the proposals would not address the main problems or issues in education.

Others, including those who agreed and disagreed with the proposals, sought more information around the practicalities, such as who the reports would be aimed at and how they would be used, what type of data would be required and how this would be used, and how mandatory training would be provided, managed, quality assured and monitored.

More Ambitious Changes Needed

Regardless of respondents views around the proposals, many individuals and organisations argued that more radical and fundamental changes were needed across the education system to better meet the needs of children with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children. Indeed, several organisations (including education services) suggested more needed to be done to address the implementation gap, while others felt that an entire “culture change” was required. Many indicated that the proposals were not ambitious enough/did not go far enough to address the needs of children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people, or to improve the education system, and that on their own they were unlikely to result in significant changes:

“As a teacher myself who has experience of supporting ASN pupils, training teachers is NOT enough in order to meet the needs of all children. Only with access to meaningful outside agencies like educational psychologist and Speech and Language, smaller class sizes and an increase in support staff can we actually get it right for all children.” (Carer)

Inclusion and Mainstreaming Issues

One area that elicited much discussion, with respondents often providing lengthy responses, was the principle of mainstreaming. Some individuals argued that the presumption of mainstreaming except in exceptional circumstances was deeply flawed. Several organisations also highlighted that mainstream settings were not always the right environments for children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people. The lack of appropriate curriculum/classroom support was noted, along with wider and more environmental and structural issues which can make mainstream settings unsuitable for some pupils, meaning they cannot effectively access education or achieve their full potential. It was felt this needed to be recognised from the outset of a child’s educational journey rather than an automatic presumption taking precedence:

“The legal presumption that children with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children will be educated in mainstream schools does not always meet the needs of these children and young people, or help them reach their potential in an education setting. In a growing amount of cases, stipulating that mainstream schooling is the preferred option denies certain children the right learning experience and support, disadvantaging them, their quality of life adversely affected and their aspirations unreached.” (Neurodivergent Individual)

Respondents highlighted a wide range of negative experiences for some children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people in mainstream settings. It was suggested that they often:

• Were bullied by their peers;
• Experienced teachers/staff without adequate training and understanding (with some also reporting poor attitudes towards pupils);
• Did not receive the right (or sometimes any) support;
• Were isolated and/or excluded, both from individual lessons and the setting entirely;
• Could not access the curriculum;
• Suffered communication challenges;
• Were overwhelmed by their environment; and
• Experienced negative impacts on their mental health and wellbeing.

It was also noted that academically capable autistic and FASD pupils also struggled in mainstream schools, even where dedicated hubs can be provided. While these pupils may not have difficulty with the curriculum, it was stressed that the environment was problematic and unsuitable, i.e. loud, busy, high volume of people and interactions, size and scale of the buildings, etc.

The high rates of absence, formal and informal exclusion (including perceived illegal instances), and use of part-time timetables were regularly cited as evidence of the failure of the current implementation of the mainstreaming model. Several respondents argued that children and young people should not be forced to ‘fail’ or to reach crisis point in mainstream schools before being considered for a placement in specialist provision.

However, individuals and support organisations noted that special school provision and capacity was limited, was very difficult to access, and that there was unequal provision across the country. It was also suggested that the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required for eligibility were not clearly defined and that requirements were often set too high. The lack of capacity meant that many children and young people who would benefit/be more suited to a specialist school could not access them and so had no choice but to attend mainstream schools.

The same problems were also noted with ELC settings, where mainstream provision was noted to be busy and noisy with inflexible spaces, making them overwhelming, distressing and unsuitable for some children. Again, there was noted to be a lack of specialist or smaller and more suitable settings available.

Even where individuals and organisations were supportive or neutral about the policy of mainstreaming, many stressed that schools were not currently inclusive enough to support and meet the needs of pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils. In particular, it was suggested that teaching methods, systems and infrastructure were not flexible enough to allow pupils to access the curriculum and achieve their full potential. It was argued that mainstream schools/settings needed to be fully updated to support the needs of pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils.

A wide range of issues which create barriers were outlined, as well as changes and supports that needed to be implemented across the mainstream education system. Some of the more common aspects are discussed below (i.e. a need for additional staffing, infrastructure issues, and funding/ resourcing). Other aspects identified by more than one respondent included:

• Smaller class sizes were needed and would make a significant difference;
• Bullying needed to be prevented, and tackled quickly and effectively where it occurred;
• Movement breaks and quiet spaces were needed;
• Strict uniform rules were problematic for pupils with sensory issues;
• Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) should be available to all in schools;
• Clear guidance and procedures in relation to reasonable adjustments and accessing specialist equipment was needed;
• Support plans must be actioned;
• Greater and more flexible support was needed; and
• Exams were not felt to be the best way to allow pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils to evidence their learning or capabilities. Different ways of gaining qualifications needed to be explored, along with greater promotion and recognition of non-academic and vocational programmes and achievements.

It was noted that neurotypical children and young people would also benefit from many of the changes needed to make the education system more accessible.

A few individuals, including a person with Down’s Syndrome, as well as several organisations (across a range of sectors) supported the principle of children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people attending mainstream schools.

Increased Provision of ASN/ASL Staff

Several respondents stressed the need for an overall increase in the numbers of school staff, and in particular, more dedicated and trained Additional Support for Learning (ASL) or Additional Support Needs (ASN) staff to be available within schools. It was felt this sector was “vastly underfunded, under-resourced and under-trained”, but crucial in ensuring pupils have access to education.

A few also noted that an increase in educational psychologists was needed, as well as greater access to, and input from, speech and language therapy.

Infrastructure

Some respondents also noted that the design of education settings and the physical infrastructure needed to be considered in order to best support and include pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils. It was stressed that open plan environments are not suitable; that lighting and sound needs to be considered; and quiet spaces need to be provided:

“What is needed, is for planners, architects, HR departments and heads of education to listen to people with lived experience to hear what the need and what works well. For example, open plan schools with hand driers and no doors provides the perfect recipe for over stimulation and massive meltdowns. Teacher and parents have fed this back for decades yet architect's seem to find more ways of reducing the functionality of buildings in order to make them look pretty. Schools are also being 'supersized'. Many autistics struggle with large numbers of people. Supersizing is a sensory hell. GIRFEC fails because the people who plan the schools refuse to listen.” (Neurodivergent Individual and Family/Friend/Carer)

Respondents suggested that those with lived experience should be involved in the design of any new facilities or refurbishment of existing settings.

More Funding and Resources Needed

Another common topic discussed by respondents was the need for more funding and resources in the education sector.

Many felt that the current education system was not suitable, and that already existing legislation could not be implemented and delivered due to a lack of funding and resources and the current climate of budget cuts. Increased funding and resources were considered to be necessary to deliver on current requirements, to provide sufficient capacity in specialist schools, and to make mainstream schools more inclusive for pupils with learning disabilities and neurodivergent pupils. Funding was seen as critical to build and staff suitable infrastructure, to design suitable spaces, to increase staffing and facilitate training, to provide smaller class sizes, to develop or purchase additional resources, etc.

Similarly, it was argued that, for the LDAN Bill and associated proposals to be achievable with regards to education, they would need to be fully funded and resourced.

Those who were unsupportive of the proposals tended to argue that this additional burden (for reporting, training and data collection) on schools and teachers was unrealistic and unfair given current resourcing issues. Several of those who supported the proposals in principle also noted that they were unlikely to be effective if funding and resourcing are not addressed.

Other Comments and Considerations

Child Plans and Co-ordinated Support Plans (CSPs)

Both individuals and third sector support/representative organisations suggested that parents and families do not know or are not suitably or accurately informed about their rights in relation to education.

It was also noted that the requirements in the ASL Act meant it was difficult or impossible for children and families to get a Co-ordinated Support Plan (CSP). Respondents suggested that very few parents/carers knew about CSPs and that few were in place, with local authorities opting to use non-statutory Child Plans instead. It was also noted that parents often think CSPs are optional and that schools determine whether they are appropriate or not. Further, a few respondents also highlighted that the need for other services to be involved was difficult to achieve given the stretched nature of these services, and that the terminology used in the Act was vague and can result in “impossibly high” thresholds being applied by individual local authorities:

“Parents do not seem to know what a CSP is despite it being the primary means of securing enforceable support… No one seems aware that they can bring discrimination claims to the ASN Tribunal… We need to make it easier for parents to access their rights and the rights of their children.” (Neurodivergent Individual and Family/Friend/Carer)

Several individuals also suggested that Child Plans were not effective. They indicated that they were “routinely ignored”, experienced implementation delays and failures, and that review dates were missed. It was felt there was little accountability around the implementation of these plans, and no consequences for failing to deliver the plan or support. As such, respondents wanted to see real consequences where Child Plans are not followed.

Issues with Diagnosis

Waiting times for assessments and diagnosis were again flagged as problematic for education, with earlier access to assessments said to be needed to avoid distress, absence and exclusions among children and young people, and enable earlier access to support. Delays in accessing a diagnosis were also said to be likely to impact on both data recording, planning and reporting. For this reason several respondents stressed the importance of basing all proposals and requirements on need rather than diagnosis.

Again, gender based inequalities in diagnosis were highlighted. It was noted that girls (and women) were typically identified and diagnosed later, which can impact educational experiences, with many girls not receiving the right support across their entire educational career.

Lived Experience and Parent/Carer Involvement

Children and young people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent children and young people, parents/carers/families, and support organisations need to be much more involved in education and their voices heard and listened to. Several respondents felt these groups needed to be involved in the development of educational policies, structures and processes generally. Others stressed the need for greater joint working between parents/carers and schools, with parents/carers being encouraged to be more actively involved in strategies and adjustments for their own child, to receive better communication and more updates about their specific child, and being believed and supported when there are issues at home which do not present in the classroom (due to masking).

Several respondents also felt that more support needed to be provided to parents/ carers and families.

Other Issues

A wide range of other issues were discussed or flagged by respondents as requiring further consideration. These included:

• Greater accountability and consequences needed when schools/local authorities do not meet the required legislative standards, and when tribunal decisions are not implemented in a timely manner;
• Earlier access to independent advocacy is needed;
• Flexi-schooling and virtual classes need to be made more available/ accessible;
• Much more formal support needed for families to home educate their child where the school environment is not suitable. Home schooling also needed to be acknowledged and included in the proposals/LDAN Bill;
• That Positive Behaviour Support (PBS), Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) should be banned as they can be ableist and harmful;
• Schools were perceived to be using part-time timetables due to a lack of resources, and/or a lack of appropriate knowledge, understanding and support combined with unsuitable infrastructure, rather than being used as a transitional tool or because these are in the best interests of the pupil;
• Greater education and awareness raising is needed for all pupils to ensure understanding, accepting of difference and to reduce stigma;
• Alternative communication skills (e.g. Makaton) should be taught, both for teachers and pupils;
• Greater early years provision, holiday and wrap-around childcare is needed for children with learning disabilities, neurodivergent children, children with ASN, and children with Down’s Syndrome; and
• Any legislation and requirements related to education needs to include private schools and cover further and higher education and lifelong learning - a few respondents also suggested that more lifelong learning opportunities were needed for young people and adults and that this should provide meaningful skills and qualifications.