A research report (Hutchinson et al, 2025) reveals that “inconsistencies” in how both primary and secondary schools approach the identification of SEND is a big factor in whether they get the support they need.
Furthermore, the study, which has been published by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) with funding from the Nuffield Foundation, identifies a number of factors that are associated with the likelihood that a student will have some kind of SEND.
Researchers matched the data of pupils in primary and secondary school to analyse variations in SEND identification to uncover which groups of children were most likely to need SEND support or an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
- Absence: Pupils whose needs have been hidden because of absence from school or frequent school moves, were less likely to be recognised as having SEND in primary school. The report states: “Children in the top quarter of pupils with the most sickness absence had chances of receiving an EHCP in primary school that were one-tenth of those with the least sickness absence.”
- EAL: Children who face language barriers because English is not their first language also had a “lesser chance” of being identified with SEND compared with otherwise similar children.
- Suspensions: Children suspended during primary school were “significantly more likely” to be identified as having social emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs in secondary school. The report states: “Students suspended for just one day had four times the chances of being identified with SEMH than those who had never been suspended. For those suspended for 11 or more days, the risk was 14 times higher.”
- Persistent disadvantage: Persistently disadvantaged children had odds of SEND identification that were three times those of more affluent children in primary school, and 1 to 2 times those of other children in years 7 to 11. They were also 1 to 2 times more likely to be identified as having SEMH needs in years 7 to 11, in addition to another type of SEND already identified in the primary phase.
- Gender: Girls were less likely than boys to be identified with SEMH needs in secondary school, despite similar chances of having a behavioural or emotional disorder. The report adds: “More than half of children who accessed CAMHS were never identified with SEND, highlighting significant gaps in recognition.”
- Personal, social, and emotional development (PSED): Children with the lowest PSED scores at age 5 were 100 times more likely to receive an EHCP during primary school. As such, the report finds that PSED is “a critical early indicator for SEND” and calls for national PSED assessments to be introduced in early key stage 2 and early secondary school. The report adds: “Children meeting fewer development goals at age 5, summer-born children, boys, and children looked-after for more than a year all experienced greater odds of being identified with SEND.”
Elsewhere, the report reveals that pupils attending academy schools or living in the most academised areas “were less likely to be identified as having SEND compared with other similar pupils”.
Researchers say that this phenomenon may be due to a number of factors including under-identification, fewer SEND pupils enrolling in academies in the first place, academies meeting needs without formal identification, or delays in EHCP assessments due to reduced local authority capacity.
Ultimately, researchers warn that “inconsistencies among primary and secondary schools in approaches to identifying SEND is a major driver in a child’s chances of receiving support”.
It adds: “This variation between schools accounts for two-thirds of the differences between those identified with SEND and those not identified.”
The report urges the government to prioritise training in child development and different types of SEND, including making it a mandatory part of initial teacher training and early career development.
It also says that further research into differences in school identification and recording practices should be undertaken “to understand the role played by recording practices in the differences between schools, and the implications of this for the provision children receive”.
Other recommendations include the use of “targeted investment” to ensure that local allocations of the high needs budget are sufficient to meet needs – “with particular attention given to highly academised local authorities”.
And researchers are urging the Curriculum and Assessment Review to consider introducing national PSED assessments in early key stage 2 and early secondary school. There is currently no universal national assessment of PSED after age 5.
Finally, the government should ensure that children suspended during key stage 2 have their needs assessed to determine the support they need when transitioning to secondary school. The report adds: “For those not identified with SEND, consideration should be given to whether they have unidentified SEND, and for those already identified with another SEND, whether they also have SEMH.”
Co-author of the study, Jo Hutchinson, director for SEND and additional needs at the EPI, said: “Our research has confirmed the existence of the long-suspected lottery for SEND in primary and secondary schools in England and pinpointed several groups of children who are at elevated risk of missing out on support.
“Children whose needs were less visible in school due to frequent absences or school moves, those living in heavily academised areas, the least-advantaged living in areas of high deprivation, and girls with emotional disorders, all faced risks of under-recognition.
“It is time for a renewed focus on the preparation of school staff to understand and support children’s social and emotional needs as well as their academic development.”
- Hutchinson, Downs & Ford: Identifying SEND: Final report on SEND and contact with CAMHS, EPI, 2025: https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/identifying-send-2/