Information submitted by BATOD to 2026 SEND Reform Consultation (England)
Thank you to our members for the responses that shaped the BATOD submission to the consultation.
“Q1. We want children, young people and their families to be involved in making better, evidence-based decisions about SEND, both in their local area and across the country.
How can we make sure children, young people and their families have a genuine say in these decisions?
BATOD believes decisions should be co-produced at every level, with children, young people (CYP) and families embedded in local SEND partnerships, commissioning and service design, rather than simply consulted.
This requires accessible information and engagement, including plain English, BSL, captioning, interpretation and other communication support. Without this, participation is not genuine and may be discriminatory. Participation should be backed by advocacy, clear feedback, appropriate remuneration, and trusted organisations such as Parent Carer Forums and deaf voluntary sector groups. There should be opportunities to engage in person or online.
Representation should be strengthened through proactive engagement and routine use of equality data, so services hear from a wide range of CYP and families.
•From the point of identification of deafness onwards, families should receive evidence-based, unbiased information to support informed decisions about communication, language and identity.
•Support should be based on need, not limited by audiological labels.
•Decision-making should reflect social, cultural and medical understandings of deafness.
Sources:
•Being Informed on Informed Choices (2026)
•Sharing the News
•Lundy model of participation
For deaf CYP and their families, early specialist input and stronger accountability across health and education are essential to making participation meaningful in practice.
The characteristics, skills and attitudes of Qualified Teachers of Deaf Children and Young People (QToDs), as key supporters of families following identification of a child’s deafness, together with those of their colleagues in audiology and other allied services in the care pathway, can have a huge influence on parents’ opportunities and abilities to make informed choices.
Q2. How can we make sure that high-quality evidence and best practice inform decisions about SEND? Please share examples.
Flexibility risks inconsistency without specialist leadership, workforce expertise, and transparent data. Budget constraints undermine specialist services for deaf CYP. Services should;
-be led by professionals holding QToD/QTVI/QTMSI,
-liaise with national specialist organisations,
-publish local data.
Decisions should be informed by a clear evidence-to-implementation framework. BATOD/NDCS’s Specialist Deaf Curriculum Framework (SDCF) provides an outcomes-based structure, recognising that development extends beyond attainment. The SDCF:
-defines effective practice for deaf CYP (birth –25),
– reflects all deaf education models,
-identifies evidence-informed interventions,
-identifies reasonable adjustments,
-establishes shared outcome measures.
Guidance on workforce training, quality assurance, and review reduces inconsistency. National inclusion standards should explicitly include CYP who are deaf, vision impaired or deafblind.
Best practice should;
-be informed by quantitative evidence and qualitative feedback from deaf CYP and families
-include co-production with specialist parent/carer forums, deaf community organisations and youth advisory groups.
Reform should draw on research into deaf education, strong practice from mainstream settings, deaf resource provisions (RPs), specialist deaf schools and sensory support services.
Sources:
•Being Informed on Informed Choices (2026)
Family-Centred Early Intervention (FCEI) principles
NDCS Quality Standards in Early Years
Quality Standards (QS) for RPs for deaf CYP (BATOD 2026 revision pending publication) – (Previous NatSIP QS)
NDCS Quality Standards for Assistive Listening Technology
Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) and BATOD best practice guidance collaborative working between QToDs and Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs).
Consortium for Research in Deaf Education (CRIDE) reports
Q3. How can we ensure that children are best supported by the Universal offer?
BATOD welcomes alignment with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. To ensure clarity and consistent application, guidance on Equality Act duties should be included in revised statutory guidance.
Equality Act duties include:
•Making reasonable adjustments
•Avoiding substantial disadvantage
•Advancing equality (Public Sector Equality Duty)
ICB commissioning must bridge gaps rather than fragmenting the system and compounding existing workforce challenges.
Ensuring deaf CYP are supported by the Universal offer means providers must meet their Equality Act 2010 duties: make reasonable adjustments, provide auxiliary aids and services, avoid substantial disadvantages, and advance equality. QToDs are central to this offer, providing:
-specialist advice from identification,
-supporting families and settings,
-child-specific training,
-coordinating effective practice across education and health.
The Universal offer should be inclusive and delivered consistently. This means access to specialist support, deaf awareness training, communication-supportive environments, and reasonable adjustments that are not dependent on formal diagnosis. For deaf CYP, this includes;
• optimum classroom acoustics (noting that Building Bulletin 93 is not fit for purpose),
•effective noise management,
•good lighting,
•visual support,
•captioned materials,
•appropriate seating and sightlines,
•effective use of assistive technology,
•timely troubleshooting support.
Sources:
•2026 BATOD Acoustics position statement
• Accessing early support (SEN Code p 82): From birth to two – early identification
• Involving specialists (SEN Code p 183):
• Advice and information for EHC needs assessments (SEN Code p 156)
• Relevant legislation: Section 36 of the Children and Families Act 2014 and Regulations 6, 7, and 8 of the SEND Regulations 2014
Q4. How can we ensure that children in the Targeted layer, are best supported?
It is essential to clarify which support tier gives deaf CYP access to specialist input. The ambiguity around how the ‘Experts at Hand’ model will work in practice, who the targeted layer applies to, the type of support offered by the plans and how these will be enforced, leaves their education at risk.
Commissioning within the Targeted layer, must ensure equitable access, with support determined by need, not geography or setting. For deaf CYP preferring British sign language (BSL), QToDs and support staff must have high levels of BSL. Any CYP identified as having SEND will have a legal entitlement to an Individual Support Plan (ISP). For deaf CYP, targeted support may include;
-language enrichment,
-communication support,
-listening skills,
-self-advocacy,
-family coaching,
-reasonable adjustments,
-exam access arrangements,
-curriculum access,
-social inclusion.
Social and emotional health needs of deaf CYP are a priority. Settings should access deaf specialist services to tailor their trauma informed practice to the needs of deaf CYP including Early Help Assessment pathways. To prevent isolation and academic deprivation all deaf CYP should have access to deaf peers. For CYP who use BSL, an age-appropriate BSL peer group must be accessible. QToD networks make this achievable.
Deaf specialist representation on panels regarding suitability of targeted support for CYP, training to upskill and co-production opportunities with other experts at hand, sharing case studies of good practice such as Sensory Impairment Champions in Social Care in partnership with QToDs, is recommended.
Q5. How can we ensure that children in the Targeted Plus layer, are best supported?
The Targeted Plus layer must be a coordinated, multi-agency provision with clear outcomes, a named lead professional, integrated planning, and streamlined access to progressive specialist services where needed. Effective support includes regular input from QToDs to provide language and communication input, assessment and progress monitoring including SEMH, assistive technology management, planning for exams, assessment arrangements, and transitions.
Specialist roles should be clearly detailed, using BATOD’s ‘Articulating the Specialism series’, within an ISP promoting consistency, accountability and impact.
Effective Targeted Plus provision for deaf CYP depends on sufficient funding, workforce capacity, commissioning arrangements and early identification pathways. There is a significant risk that, under financial pressure, schools may seek to substitute specialist teaching with lower-cost, non-specialist teachers or support staff. This would breach the employment regulations 2003.
The Department for Education must make clear within the National Inclusion Standards, Specialist Provision Packages and the Experts at Hand offer that specialist input for deaf CYP be delivered, or at a minimum overseen, by a QToD. Reforms expanding Targeted Plus should protect and strengthen the mandatory qualification for QToDs as the principal quality-assurance mechanism for specialist, evidence-informed practice.
Support must be child-centred and holistic. SENCos should work closely with QToDs and other professionals across education, health and care. Teaching assistants play a valuable role within Targeted Plus, provided a QToD has governance. Support for deaf CYP must be delivered in fully accessible acoustic and visual environments, using appropriate assistive listening technology, with sufficient funding and specialist oversight to ensure consistent, effective use.
Q6. How can we ensure that children in the Specialist layer are best supported?
BATOD considers provision in the Specialist layer must be timely, needs-led, focussed on outcomes, participation and effective access, not determined by setting. Reliable access to qualified specialist staff, coordination across education, health and care, with clear pathways into specialist provision and regular reviews in partnership with deaf CYP and their families are essential.
Specialist Provision Packages should be discussed with QToDs and allow for individualised, combined packages. Deaf CYP have diverse communication, access and learning needs. Research suggests 40% have co-occurring disabilities/needs, a single standard package will not suffice.
BATOD is concerned that reforms could restrict access to specialist provision through tightened thresholds, inconsistent interpretation, reduced access to EHCPs, particularly where “complex needs” are not clearly defined. DfE must ensure the National Inclusion Standards, Specialist Provision Packages and associated decision-making processes define when specialist provision is required, include transparent criteria, sufficient local capacity and safeguards against gatekeeping.
High-quality provision requires robust quality standards, workforce capacity and flexibility across settings. Deaf-specific bases should use the revised quality standards (pending publication), and all specialist provision should use frameworks such as the SDCF. Investment in workforce is essential so that expansion of specialist provision does not reduce wider availability of QToDs. Flexibility allows support delivery in mainstream settings, specialist bases or specialist deaf schools, according to assessed need and wishes of CYP and families. Statutory arrangements should specify clear provision, accountability and measurable outcomes, and should be backed by appropriate funding, specialist communication and technology support, and timely routes to redress where necessary.
Q7. How do you think early years settings, schools, and college can best support the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people?
The 2026 SEND White Paper decouples clinical diagnosis from education-based support. BATOD supports a whole-setting approach to mental health and wellbeing, recognising that true inclusion means belonging. A family centred early intervention approach characterised by safe environments, anti-bullying practice, and staff able to recognise emerging need, is essential.
CYP have the right to inclusion. Specialist settings can provide spaces where deaf CYP are not disadvantaged by social, physical and educational barriers. Environments that reduce listening fatigue and social isolation can strengthen belonging, while access to deaf peers and deaf role models is vital.
Research suggests deaf CYP are more likely to experience mental health difficulties than hearing peers. Communication barriers, social difficulties, reduced expectations, and challenges managing change can all affect wellbeing. Specialist deaf services should therefore support trauma informed deaf-aware practice.
Mental health services must be accessible, meaning timely access to deaf-aware practitioners, interpretation, captioning, accessible information and appropriate crisis pathways are crucial. QToDs play an important role in understanding the impact of deafness on wellbeing and sharing this with the wider sector. Effective support depends on coordinated working across education, health, care and the voluntary sector, with clear referral routes and reasonable adjustments embedded throughout.
Provision must reflect the diversity of deaf CYP’s needs including multi-disciplinary support for those with co-occurring disabilities or deafblindness/multi-sensory impairment. Signing deaf CYP must be able to access support in their preferred language, through appropriately qualified signing professionals. Non-specialist mental health services must also make reasonable adjustments to ensure wider access to support.
Q8. Do you agree that the refreshed ‘areas of development’ will support educators to understand and address barriers to learning and participation? Please explain your answer.
A shift to areas of development would not significantly alter approaches supporting deaf CYP. However, BATOD is concerned about the reduced emphasis on mental health within the proposed areas. It is vital that mental health needs are clearly and fully embedded within the revised SEND Code of Practice.
The refreshed areas may help educators to better understand barriers to learning and participation, if they explicitly address communication, sensory access and environmental factors, supported by practical examples. BATOD recommends clear reference to deafness, co-occurring disabilities, communication access, and the role of specialist advice, to avoid barriers being misattributed to behaviour or motivation. Implementation should include training and practical tools to support reasonable adjustments and targeted strategies.
The involvement of the QToDs and other specialist deaf education professionals is important in helping staff understand the impact of inaccessible language access and delayed language acquisition rather than attributing difficulties to deafness itself.
Implementation should measure access, participation and belonging, not only attainment or attendance. For deaf CYP, this should include inclusion in extracurricular activities and representation on school council. Measures should also consider whether spoken language and signed information is consistenly accessible, technology is used effectively and listening fatigue and social isolation are addressed.
In safeguarding, QToDs and other specialist professionals can help staff recognise the additional vulnerabilities deaf CYP may experience because of communication barriers and over – reliance on adults, ensuring children’s view are meaningfully included regardless of communication or cognitive needs.
Q9. What arrangements would best support effective joint working between early years providers, Best Start Family Hubs, health, local authorities, and parents for children with SEND in the early years?
Effective joint working in the early years requires a single, coordinated pathway across early years providers, Best Start Family Hubs, health services, local authorities and families. This should include shared referral criteria, clear consent and information-sharing arrangements, a named lead professional for families, and regular multi-agency review. Joint working should also be supported by clear escalation routes, shared training and integrated commissioning to ensure provision is timely, consistent and easier for families to navigate.
Best Start Family Hubs should complement, not replace, existing Sensory Support Service pathways for deaf children and their families. Their role should be to support the QToD role. Hubs provide wider family support, including information on glue ear, early identification of co-occurring needs and awareness of congenital CMV, a leading cause of childhood deafness and disability.
BATOD considers that the Department for Education should provide clear national guidance on expectations for joint working, including informed choice. As early support pathways are often shaped by a medical model of deafness, Family Hubs and SEND professionals should receive training on social and cultural models of deafness to support balanced, evidence- informed decision-making around communication, language development and technology.
The proposed early joint services assessment is welcomed. For deaf children, assessment should be needs-led rather than based solely on audiometric descriptors. QToDs should be recognised as key professionals in early identification pathways, assessment, and ongoing review with the ability to initiate assessment where coordinated support may be required.
Sources
•‘Pre-school family support groups for deaf children research’ (NDCS, 2025)
Q10. How can the early years foundation stage (EYFS) two-year old progress check and the Healthy Child Programme development review be improved so that children’s needs are identified and supported more quickly? Please share examples.
BATOD recommends improving the speed and consistency of identification by aligning the EYFS progress check and Healthy Child Programme review through a shared developmental and communication screen with clear referral triggers. Workforce training should support early recognition of language, listening and interaction needs, including
deafness and fluctuating hearing conditions. Families should receive clear information on next steps and timescales, alongside timely access to specialist assessment and intervention, including sensory support from QToDs.
For deaf children, improvements include developmental and communication indicators that reflect both spoken and signed language, together with clear deaf-specific triggers for escalation and referral. Delayed language, listening difficulties or missed communication milestones should not be regarded as an inevitable consequence of deafness. Informed decision making should be supported at every stage. Assessment tools, (including Success from the Start) should inform decision-making for deaf babies and children, including those who use BSL, and private, voluntary and independent early years settings should be supported to use inclusive communication approaches consistently.
Current guidance and regulations for early years checks reference Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) and health professionals as key contributors. QToDs should also be routinely involved, providing specialist expertise to inform early assessment and support planning. QToDs should form part of integrated reviews and follow-up planning alongside health professionals, speech and language therapists, and early years practitioners. Reviews should sit within a clear, joined-up pathway from identification onwards, supported by effective digital information-sharing across services to reduce duplication, improve continuity, and ensure timely access to specialist assessment and intervention.
Q11. What should the top three priority areas be for building and sharing evidence within the National Inclusion Standards?
National Inclusion Standards should also mirror the planned guidance and tools for schools relating to the Equality Act and reasonable adjustments. BATOD suggests three priority areas:
1) communication, language and interaction, including effective approaches for diverse learners and for deaf CYP.
2) inclusive environments and reasonable adjustments, including acoustics and lighting, assistive technology, communication access, and universal design for learning.
3) workforce capability, including the training, coaching and specialist input that improve outcomes, together with minimum expectations for deaf awareness and specialist teacher capacity.
The evidence base should also include
•implementation guidance and costed models for commissioners
•objective “communication access” to ensure a whole-school mental health lens does not unintentionally overlook the technical and environmental conditions required for access
•practical measures and exemplars for participation, access and belonging (e.g., communication access in lessons and social times, listening fatigue mitigations, and family/CYP feedback), to prevent “inclusion” being inferred solely from attendance or attainment data.The recent Department and the Council for Disabled Children publication lacks the detailed, deaf-specific examples required to fully embed anticipatory reasonable adjustments within school inclusion strategies. Collaboration with NDCS to develop and embed examples and
information within guidance on reasonable adjustments would help ensure that schools are better equipped to meet their duties and support deaf CYP effectively.
A robust and meaningful accountability framework is required.
Resources
2026 BATOD Acoustics position statement, 2026
BATOD’s Specialist Deaf Curriculum Framework (SDCF)
NDCS deaf-friendly teaching resources
Q12. What are the most important issues for national training to cover, to help support children and young people with SEND?
National training should cover inclusive teaching and adaptive practice; identification of need/disability, basic understanding of low-incidence needs e.g. deafness, working with families, co-production; trauma-informed and mental health-informed practice, reasonable adjustments, captioning, assistive technology, accessibility tools, room acoustics and lighting, and effective multi-agency working. It must be accompanied by a funded workforce plan.
There is a knowledge gap due to the lack of detail in approaches for CYP with low-incidence needs, including deafness, in the current Initial Teacher Training (ITT) core content framework. Future revisions should reinstate specific SEND wording.
Alongside universal SEND training, DfE should explicitly protect specialist qualification pathways. For deafness, the mandatory qualification for QToD (employment regulations 2003), provides a nationally recognised standard. QToD training should be funded and centrally supported, akin to the SENCO qualification.
Deaf CYP can be identified outside the Newborn Hearing Screening Programme, therefore educational settings must be equipped to recognise signs of deafness and how to confidently support.
Some deaf CYP require specialised support, via a 1:1 teaching assistant(TA) to access lessons and social times. TAs must have skills to adapt language; spoken, signed, written to the CYP’s level, scaffold understanding, promote independence, and work collaboratively with teachers, QToDs and SALTs. They need access to ongoing specialist training e.g. language and communication development, deaf identity, Deaf culture, and the social and emotional impact of communication barriers is essential.
Resources & training pathways:
NDCS online hub
Mary Hare School Level 3 BTEC (TAs working with deaf CYP)
Signature BSL and Communication Support Worker courses
Q13. What practical actions can help teachers, educators and leaders manage workload whilst implementing these changes?
BATOD considers that workload can be reduced by simplifying documentation, using shared templates, and ensuring that data collected once can be used for multiple purposes. Time should be protected for collaboration and coaching. Centrally produced and quality-assured resources should be made available. For school-based professionals, increased protected (and funded) PPA time would enable training and development while still ensuing suitable cover for classes.
Educational settings as well as LA staff require dedicated time on INSET days which should be designed to include TAs/CSWs involvement.
New requirements should not be introduced without removing or streamlining existing ones. Systems should also be interoperable across education, health and social care in order to reduce duplicate referrals and repeated retelling of family circumstances. Implementation should be phased, with funded training time and access to expert support.
A single accessible point of access for information/ appointments/ professional involvement would reduce duplication of information or a fragmented picture where stakeholders can only see part of the whole picture.
Q14. How should the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) role evolve to better meet the needs of children and young people with SEND?
BATOD considers with the expansion of the role, the increased workload, including responsibilities for assessments alongside the production and reporting of Individual Support Plans (ISPs) that the role should be strengthened through protected time, appropriate seniority, clear competencies, and access to supervision and specialist networks. SENCOs should be enabled to lead whole-school inclusion, data-informed improvement, and the effective use of evidence-based interventions, while coordinating targeted planning for individual learners. They must have time to assess CYP as appropriate, meet with CYP and families, and allied professionals, and manage funding to develop a specialist workforce and resource library.
They must be trained on the proposed new legal duties placed on schools, particularly in relation to the production and implementation of ISPs and the practical application of ISPs in supporting CYP effectively. They should actively promote the use of reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act, ensuring that schools are accessible and that the appropriate layer of support is in place for CYP. For deaf CYP, SENCOs should have clear routes into specialist services (QToDs and other specialists for co-occurring needs) and should understand how to embed communication access, secure technology and establish normal way of working for examination access arrangements.
There is a risk that, without additional capacity, expectations around ISPs and inclusion will not be implemented consistently or sustainably. Consideration should be given to dedicated funding for larger schools to employ SENCo support officers to provide support to qualified lead SENCo undertaking a more senior leadership role.
Resource
NDCS website
Q15. What would provide assurance for families that an Individual Support Plan (ISP) is high-quality and contains the essential information?
BATOD considers that families will have confidence in an ISP where there are clear national expectations for content and quality, and where the plan is specific, co-produced and regularly reviewed. ISPs should clearly describe the CYP’s strengths and needs, identify the outcomes that matter to them and their family, and set out the provision to be made, by whom, how often, and how impact will be monitored. Communication preferences, accessibility requirements and review arrangements should also be recorded explicitly so that families and professionals have a shared understanding of what support will be delivered. For deaf CYP, including those with co-occurring needs, specialist input is critical to quality. QToDs should be involved in co-producing and reviewing ISPs.
Assurance for families also depends on plans containing specific, checkable arrangements rather than broad statements about inclusion, wellbeing or belonging. ISPs should name responsibilities clearly and describe the practical adjustments that will be in place in day-to-day learning.
Quality assurance should include moderation, sampling and audit so that ISPs are needs-led, consistent and of comparable quality across different settings and local areas. There should also be a clear mechanism for family feedback and challenge where plans are too vague or where provision is not being delivered as agreed.
Clear accountability for delivery is essential. Regular review is important, at least annually, with earlier review possible where needs or circumstances change, so that support remains relevant, personalised and effective over time.
Q16: How can we ensure Individual Support Plans are clear, concise and practical for professionals to use?
ISPs must follow a consistent national format centered on a short core plan, with appropriate appendices. Common headings such as strengths and needs, outcomes, provision, roles and responsibilities, review arrangements, and CYP and family views would help professionals identify key information quickly, reduce variation between settings and avoid duplication with other plans.
ISPs should be written in plain language, and be accessible to parents, carers and, ideally, to CYP, as well as to professionals. They should distinguish clearly between universal whole-setting approaches to inclusion and CYP’s individual access arrangements. For deaf CYP, ISPs should describe the functional impact of deafness in everyday learning rather than relying on diagnostic labels. They should identify where access is likely to be difficult, such as whole-class teaching, discussion, practical work, assemblies, trips and unstructured times, and specify the contextual adjustments required.
ISPs should be informed by specialist advice; for deaf CYP by QToD, SALT where relevant, an educational audiologist.
ISPs should describe deliverable provision in specific, observable terms stating what will happen, who is responsible, when it will happen and how it will be reviewed. For deaf CYP,
this may include arrangements for communication support, technology checks, seating, classroom acoustics and lighting, live captioning, support during group work and assessment, and strategies to reduce concentration fatigue. This level of specificity makes the plan easier to implement and accountability easier to monitor.
Planning must be matched by sufficient staffing, specialist advice, technology and workforce training.
Resources:
BATOD/NDCS Specialist Deaf Curriculum Framework
NDCS publications.
Q17: How can we best support transition for young people with SEND, so that they are well supported into post-16 provision and further education, training or employment?
Transition planning should begin from Year 9 or earlier, with clear responsibilities across education, health and careers services, including QToDs for deaf students. Deaf students can have poor experiences when colleges have no access to centrally funded QToDs.
Government guidance should require schools, colleges and QToDs services to collaborate so deaf students receive tailored careers advice in line with the Gatsby Benchmarks.
Key actions:
•clear timescales and routes for redress if needs are not met.
•Government should ensure funding, admissions and course entry arrangements do not restrict deaf CYP to a narrow range of post-16 options, and should require flexible entry routes, bridging support and reasonable adjustments.
•Colleges should identify placement, health or risk assessment requirements early so students are not accepted onto inaccessible courses.
•LAs should provide consistent funded transport and timely transition planning so support is in place before a course begins.
•Schools, colleges and sensory support services should share information early, with consent, so communication support, exam arrangements, captioning and technology are continued seamlessly.
•Schools, colleges, employers and careers services should provide accessible careers guidance, work experience, supported internships and opportunities to meet deaf role models.
•Government should simplify Access to Work for young people and ensure students are supported to use it as part of transition planning.
•Government and local areas should track destinations, retention and outcomes for deaf students and set out plans to reduce the deaf employment gap.
Resources:
BATOD/NDCS Specialist Deaf Curriculum Framework.
Careers and Enterprise Company funded NDCS Deaf Works Everywhere Toolkit
Q18. How can we make sure that every area can meet the full range of the needs of children and young people through Inclusion Bases?
Current deaf resource provisions must be recognised and protected within the new two-tiered system. There is a concern that the Inclusion Base agenda and the associated increased capital funding will encourage settings to close existing provisions thus reducing the specialist deaf provision options. Current requirements for changing/closing existing units must be reviewed ahead of any changes.
Maintained schools are required to undertake a fully statutory process based in law, School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations) Regulations 2013, with any outcome decided by the Local Authority, or if required by the Schools Adjudicator if not determined or appealed. However, for academies, guidance is non statutory with trusts only required to “have regard” to any consultation process. The law should be changed to require all settings to follow the same process as set out in the 2013 regulations.
Inclusion Bases should be planned strategically through a sufficiency-based approach that maps need, forecasts demand, and commissions bases with a clear purpose, defined entry and exit criteria, reviewed against the BATOD (2026) quality standards (deaf resource provisions). Each base should have embedded co-production multi-disciplinary agency approaches, with specialist workforces, training and links to external specialists. For deaf CYP, this should include communication access options, QToDs and support staff input, embedded ways of working to inform examination arrangements, technology, acoustic and lighting environments, with a clear expectation of knowledge transfer into classrooms.
It should be recognised, when planning provision, that Inclusion Bases may not always be the most appropriate provision for deaf CYP with co-occurring needs.
Q19. How can we make sure that Inclusion Bases help children and young people succeed in mainstream settings?
There must be transparency on decision-making about the designation of any setting’s inclusion base and a consistent approach to service level agreements for all Inclusion Bases supporting deaf CYP. Currently, there are two main models of management for resource provisions: a centrally managed LA model, where QToDs are deployed across the sensory service locally as well as within the resource, and a school-led model, where these specialists are employed directly by individual schools.
There are widespread inconsistencies in how support is delivered across these models. Greater clarity and standardisation would help ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability across services, supporting the delivery of reliable, high-quality provision and more equitable outcomes for deaf CYP and their families. There must be national guidance on how these bases are staffed and operated. This should include expectations around staff qualifications, appropriate staff-to-pupil ratios, and any statutory requirements. For deaf CYP, to deliver high-quality, specialist support, it is essential that the deaf resource provisions quality standards are applied consistently.
Local authorities, schools, and Ofsted should implement the Evaluation Tool as part of their inspection and monitoring processes. Inclusion Bases must be fully included within wider school inspection frameworks and oversight of school performance and budgeting. Success depends on child-centred practice, shared responsibility for outcomes, joint planning between base and mainstream staff, engagement with the specialist deaf curriculum framework, outreach and coaching, measurable targets for child’s sense of belonging, participation and attainment in mainstream lessons and wider school life including representation on school councils, sports/STEM teams.
Q20. Through the Experts at Hand offer, we want to ensure that mainstream settings can get quick specialist support for children and young people.
What arrangements are needed between local area partners (education, health, social care) to deliver this Experts at Hand offer effectively?
To deliver the Experts at Hand offer effectively, there must be clear joint arrangements between education, health and social care, with deaf-specific expertise (QToDs) explicitly built into the model. BATOD welcomes the reference to support from a QToD, but the current description of Experts at Hand is not yet sufficiently clear. As drafted, it risks being interpreted too narrowly as an Allied Health Professionals-led offer.
BATOD supports the role of specialist deaf speech and language therapists (SALTs) and the joint commissioning between local authorities and Integrated Care Boards. This joint commissioning should cover QToD input, communication support and access technology. Local area partners should agree shared eligibility criteria, referral routes, thresholds for involvement, response times and escalation arrangements. There should also be shared outcomes, regular multi-agency review, and data-sharing agreements.
The offer should explicitly include QToDs, and should ensure that mainstream settings can access advice that is tailored to the communication, language, listening, curriculum and social participation needs of deaf CYP. Local partners should set out clearly who is responsible for identifying need, making referrals, advising staff, funding provision, reviewing
support and resolving disagreements. Families and young people should be involved in decision-making throughout.
At present, QToD services are often funded through local authority High Needs arrangements and delivered as centrally managed services that can support both families and settings. BATOD is concerned that, without clear national expectations, wider SEND reform and local changes to funding mechanisms could increase variation in access and weaken specialist capacity. Some members are already reporting movement away from centralised services towards more fragmented school-cluster arrangements.
Q21. What needs to be in place so that children and young people with low incidence, highly complex needs can always access the right specialist placement?
This requires national and regional sufficiency planning, clear placement pathways and funding linked to assessed need. Transparent criteria and cross-border placement arrangements are needed. For low-incidence needs, including deafness with additional complexities, specialist expertise should be sustained through regional networks, minimum workforce standards, and protected specialist provision. Families need clear information, advocacy support, and timely decisions to prevent extended periods out of education. Services must integrate communication access with learning, mobility, health and care needs. Access to specialist placements should be determined by assessed functional needs and outcomes. Parents should also be able to access all the deaf specialist schools that may be named in a plan.
BATOD is concerned that the proposals could restrict access to specialist provision through tighter thresholds, delays, and over-reliance on local capacity or inclusion bases instead of specialist provision. This risk may increase if pooled funding and local SEND changes weaken specialist commissioning. The DFE should require transparent criteria, regional and national sufficiency planning and effective cross border commissioning to prevent postcode variations.
Although cross-border commissioning is encouraged in the SEND Code of Practice, implementation remains inconsistent. The Department for Education should take a stronger role in supporting and directing local authorities to collaborate to secure effective specialist provision for deaf CYP and others with low-incidence needs. This should include clearer expectations, practical support for partnership working, and funding arrangements that do not discourage collaboration across local authority boundaries.
Relevant reference: BATOD, Features of Effective Services, for Heads of Sensory Support Services (2023).
Q22. How can Specialist Provision Packages be designed to effectively support the main types of need we currently recognise?
BATOD is concerned about a potential “not deaf enough” effect if thresholds or package eligibility at the fast track at age 5 are influenced by audiological descriptors rather than functional impact. Specialist Provision Packages must explicitly provide for deaf children with additional disabilities and overlapping profiles so that combined needs are not fragmented across separate pathways. Packages should require joined-up multi-disciplinary input and allow blended/bespoke provision where a child’s needs sit across more than one category.
Specialist Provision Packages should be needs-led, outcomes-focused be both specific and deliverable. This should include staffing competencies, frequency and intensity of provision, environmental requirements, technology, and multi-agency contributions. For deaf learners, packages should address communication approach, specialist teaching input, hearing technology support, access to communication support professionals and sign bilingual education, and measures of language, communication and participation.
BATOD is concerned that a package-based approach restricts to resources available in the region rather than needs led provision, reduces personalisation and weakens enforceability if packages become the default description of provision. To mitigate this, Specialist Provision Packages should be designed as a floor, not a ceiling: they must allow bespoke specification, enable blended provision where needs overlap and ensure access to areas detailed in the SDF. The framework should also ensure that deaf CYP with moderate or fluctuating hearing loss are not excluded from specialist input where functional impact is significant.
To aid effective transition, government departments should actively manage transition to adult services that are often diagnostic led rather than needs-led e.g. PIP, DSA.
Q23. We propose that EHCPs will guarantee educational provision set out in a Specialist Provision Package, with day-to-day provision captured in Individual Support Plans.
What is needed to make these proposals work effectively?
Currently, the content of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) is specific to a child’s needs, following the grounding principles of the Children’s and Families Act that provision follows the needs of the CYP after an assessment. A shift to Specialist Provision Packages, allowing only the support set within them to be included in an EHCP would remove this principle of provision following need as set out in the Children and Families Act.
Clarification is required on the thresholds required to trigger an assessment process for an EHCP, and on the definition of ‘complex needs’.
These proposals may work effectively only if the boundary between EHCP provision and ISP provision is clear, enforceable and well understood by settings and families. ISPs must also be properly resourced, quality-assured, and supported by escalation routes where provision is not delivered. This will require a consistent national template, appropriate training, digital interoperability, and a dispute-resolution route that is accessible and timely.
The family/CYP must have the opportunity to change their minds about communication modes and be able to amend the package without a burdensome process. They should also be supported to make informed choices about the most appropriate type of setting which considers their CYP’s needs, preferences, and communication requirements. Reassurance is needed that a full range of placement options will remain available to deaf children, including mainstream schools, specialist resource bases and deaf specialist schools, and that decisions will not be restricted to only what is available locally.
Q24. We propose creating a more direct route to Specialist Provision Packages and EHCP assessments for children under 5 with complex needs.
How can we make sure this works in practice?
BATOD recommends that the under-5 route be supported through clear criteria, rapid multi-agency assessment timescales, and strong links with early years and health pathways. Families should be offered key worker support, and decisions should be based on functional needs and anticipated outcomes rather than diagnosis alone. For deaf children with complex needs, joint assessment should include sensory support expertise and should place early language and communication planning at the centre of decision-making. The pathway should be piloted, evaluated and scaled alongside appropriate workforce planning.
For children who arrive from abroad, there should be fast track, joint working and clear referral pathways in order to quickly gather information, establish audiological needs, provide hearing equipment, evaluate educational needs, asses functional hearing, language, speech and communication levels and ensure support and provision is in place to prevent long periods before education can be effectively accessed.
Assessment for specialist provision packages should take into account the needs of the whole child. The effect of social/economic disadvantage should be mitigated through provision in the packages and the CYP should not be penalised because e.g. they do not have access to transport or specialist equipment.
Decisions about school placement for deaf CYP and deaf CYP with complex needs should be needs led and LAs should not be penalised for placing CYP in out of area settings if they are the most appropriate setting.
Not penalise LAs on the data on the local dashboard (eg PowerBI) for out-of-area placements for CYP have a profile of deafness
Q25. What would you expect to be considered as part of the needs assessment, for example evidence and expert or professional input?
BATOD considers that a needs assessment should take account of the CYP’s strengths and aspirations, the functional impact of need on learning and participation, communication profile, health and sensory information, and contextual factors such as environment, barriers and required adjustments. Throughout the process, the assessment must place strong emphasis on the views of the CYP and their family.
Evidence should include observations across different contexts, setting-based data, relevant specialist reports (coproduced when possible), including from a QToDs, specialist staff including CSWs, deaf instructors, audiology, speech and language therapy and educational psychology where appropriate, and the CYP’s own perspective in an accessible format. Assessments should provide an accurate and holistic understanding of the child’s needs and identify the provision required to improve outcomes.
Needs assessment should explicitly guard against a “not deaf enough” threshold by requiring assessment of functional listening and communication impact across contexts (classroom, group work, unstructured times, transitions), including concentration fatigue and access to peer interaction. For deaf CYP with additional disabilities, assessment must consider how deafness interacts with other needs and should avoid fragmented reporting, misidentification
or incomplete assessment; a coordinated multi-disciplinary assessment should lead to a single, coherent plan of provision.
There is currently a statutory expectation that Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) are informed by advice from a QToDs This requirement should be retained within any new system, as it ensures that assessments are grounded in specialist knowledge of deafness and its implications for education and wellbeing.
Q26. What factors should LAs take into account in proposing to parents and young people a list of potential settings to name on a plan?
BATOD considers that LAs should take a transparent, evidence-based and child-centered approach when proposing to parents and deaf CYP a list of potential settings. The starting point should be the CYP’s assessed needs, the outcomes sought, and whether a setting can provide appropriate provision to meet those needs effectively.
In developing the list, LAs should consider the availability of specialist expertise and provision locally, regionally and nationally. For deafness, the full range of suitable provision may not be available within every LA. Specialist deaf schools, including non-maintained special schools, should also be recognised within this framework and within LA lists of settings. Given their specialism, non-profit status, and their pre-approval by the Secretary of State under Section 342 of the Education Act 1996, these settings are suited to meet the requirements of Specialist Provision Packages for deaf CYP.
LAs should also take account of parental preference and the individual circumstances of deaf CYP. Relevant factors include communication access, travel time and its impact on wellbeing, continuity of support, opportunities for inclusion and access to an appropriate peer group, and value for money, provided that cost does not override suitability or appropriateness.
LAs should additionally consider whether the setting can provide an accessible communication environment, including appropriate acoustics and lighting, staff with the necessary expertise, confidence with assistive technology, access to specialist teaching and communication support, and a strong track record in supporting language development, attainment and participation. Decisions should be clearly explained and made in partnership with families and CYP.
Q27. What information and support do parents need to make a decision about which setting will be best for their child?
Parents of deaf CYP need clear, unbiased information and support, to make informed decisions about settings. Families should be able to compare options and feel confident their views and those of their CYP’s are respected.
Parents need:
1.Clear information on placement options, including mainstream schools with support, specialist resource provisions, deaf specialist schools, and any appropriate blended
or assessment placements. Families should understand admission criteria, age ranges, place availability, and whether placements require an EHCP.
2.Comparable information on how settings support communication and language, both oral and signed. Can support adapt as needs and preferences change?
3.Information about specialist staffing and expertise including QToD input.
4.Information on communication access and the learning environment, including acoustics, assistive technology, support for hearing aids and captioning/visual support.
5.Evidence on outcomes and quality of provision, including academic and social achievement, language and communication progress, inclusion, and how support is reviewed if a placement is not working effectively.
6.Information on whether settings can meet the needs of CYP with additional needs, language delay, or complex profiles.
7.Opportunities to explore options, through visits, observing practice, asking questions, and allowing their child to experience the environment.
8.Access to independent advice throughout decision-making, with information available in accessible formats including BSL. Families should understand their rights, review processes, and the routes to challenge decisions or unsuitable provision.
Decision-making should be transparent, respectful and centered on the individual child, so choices are informed rather than shaped solely by local availability.
Q28. What do you think is the right maximum length of time for a temporary placement in Alternative Provision (AP) schools? Please explain your rationale.
If a deaf CYP is in an AP school, the focus should be on correct support for the CYP’s needs being put in place to determine the end of the placement, rather than just working on an agreed time scale. It should be determined if the placement has arisen as a result of unmet communication needs within mainstream settings. NDCS highlight this is particularly evident where CYP require a high level of British Sign Language (BSL) support that has not been adequately provided in their setting.
The return to mainstream education should be based on readiness and careful planning, with appropriate support fully in place within the receiving school to ensure that the CYP’s needs can be met effectively. A transition plan should be in place that has been written, agreed and shared with all parties, including parents and the CYP (if appropriate).
Q29. We have set out our plans to regulate Independent Special Schools (ISS) sector.
Do you agree that these proposed changes will lead to suitable placements being available at a fair cost? Please explain why.
National statistics record 386 deaf children attending non-maintained special schools in England. A significant proportion of these children are placed outside their local authority, reflecting the limited number of specialist provisions available locally.
Across England, there are 18 specialist schools for the deaf which cater for low incidence needs that cannot be delivered at local authority level. These schools provide highly specialist teaching environments, including provision through BSL where required. This type of provision is essential for a small cohort of children with complex and specific needs associated with deafness.
Given their specialist role, non-maintained special schools operate as non-profit institutions and have already been subject to approval by the Secretary of State for Education under Section 41 (S41) of the Children and Families Act. BATOD support NDCS’s belief that all non-maintained special schools should be exempt from any future regulatory measures aimed at addressing excessive profits within the independent special school sector.
Furthermore, these schools should be automatically recognised as out-of-borough provision approved by local authorities. As such, they should be included within any local authority’s published list of providers able to deliver Specialist Provision Packages, ensuring that they remain eligible for naming in a child’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
Above all, it is critical to secure assurances that access to specialist provision for deaf children will be maintained under the reformed SEND system. Any broader regulatory changes affecting the independent special school sector must avoid consequences that could restrict access to specialist schools for the deaf.
Q30. How should settings be held accountable for how they spend their Inclusive Mainstream funding?
BATOD considers that education settings should be accountable for how they spend their Inclusive Mainstream funding and other dedicated SEND funding. This reporting should include how the funding within the SEND group has been used for differing needs, to support inclusion bases and the outcomes achieved from this.
Settings should publish a clear statement explaining how the funding is used, linked to their SEND development plan and supported by evidence of outcomes. Light-touch audit, peer moderation and local partnership review would be preferable to burdensome reporting requirements. For deaf learners, schools should be able to demonstrate how funding supports communication access, including technology, training and specialist input, and how progress in language, participation and attainment is monitored.
There should be governance and accountability with clusters, with the LA Reform officer and finance officers, and uniformity in practice across England.
This reporting also needs to be publicly available.
Ofsted inspections should play a role in ensuring that Inclusive Mainstream funding is leading to improved outcomes in schools.
Q31. Do you agree that more SEND funding should sit directly within mainstream budgets? Please explain why.
BATOD does not agree that more SEND funding should be delegated directly to mainstream school budgets without protections for local authority sensory support services and other low-incidence specialist provision. Delegating funding to schools risks damage to specialist services, leaving mainstream schools without the expertise needed to support deaf CYP effectively.
Any shift of resource into mainstream budgets must include safeguards to prevent low-incidence services from being eroded. These protections should sit alongside funding that enables local authorities to maintain Specialist Inclusion Bases and deliver provision set out in Education, Health and Care Plans. This includes protecting QToD capacity, maintaining a strong training pipeline, and ensuring access to communication support and hearing-technology services.
Reforms must also guard against using unqualified staff in place of QToDs breaching employment regulations 2003. Local areas should retain commissioning and quality-assurance expectations so that specialist teaching is delivered by QToDs.
LA specialist services also provide early intervention for families following identification. The consultation does not explain how early-years support for deaf children aged 0–4 will be funded. Reductions in local authority budgets risk poorer language outcomes and increased reliance on Specialist Provision Packages and EHCPs. If schools receive most SEND funding, substantial allocations will still be required for local authorities to deliver specialist services for deaf children.
BATOD supports NDCS in recommending that the Department for Education consider an alternative funding model. A cross-border or national commissioning approach may better meet the needs of deaf CYP and their families and support a 0–25 pathway.
Q32: In relation to pooled funding, we propose that every school becomes part of a local SEND group.
Do you agree that this proposal aligns with our aim for all schools to be part of high-quality, community-based trusts?
BATOD support NDCS’s view that funding for central specialist core shared services and local authority specialist education support services will always be needed, no matter what overall changes and alterations to funding structures are made. Funding for these services must be monitored and protected within the new funding structure, to maintain the levels of service provided.
There is insufficient guidance concerning pooled funding to make an informed response. Without further details regarding how pooled funding would be allocated and what services for low incident needs such as deafness would be funded, BATOD is unable to fully support its proposed introduction. We would also require further information and clarity on how such a system would provide specialist support for deaf pre-school children given such a focus on schools allocating pooled funding.
Q33: How should disagreements about membership, provision, or funding in groups of schools for SEND be resolved?
Currently BATOD does not see any mechanisms apart from direct involvement of the Department for Education and direction from the Secretary of State which would address concerns regaining the ability of school groups to fund services for, and support, deaf children/young people and others with low incident needs. At the very minimum, robust and statutory guidance will need to be in place around low incidence and specialist needs.
BATOD support NDCS’s concerns around how a pooled funding approach through schools will meet the needs of deaf children and avoid undermining the viability of specialist education services for deaf children.
Q34: How can we ensure the most effective use of these local partnership groups?
Local plans and partnerships have a role within the proposed SEND system. However, this consultation process has not detailed nor questioned directly related the subject.
There must be strong accountability measures in the new system.
Any introduction of local inclusion plans or partnerships must be designed to take account of the broad range of needs including low incidence needs such as deafness.
Local partnership groups should be fully versed in all the statutory duties related to deaf children and other SEND group and following the SEND Code in all decision-making.
Q35. Which stakeholders are important for the success of local partnership groups, and why?
It is essential that services supporting low-incidence needs are fully represented and actively included, ensuring that the perspectives and requirements of all deaf CYP are considered within local planning and decision-making processes.
Key stakeholders include: school and trust leaders; SENCOs; specialist services (including QToD/sensory support); early years inc PVI and FE; health (audiology, ENT, SLT, CAMHS, DCAMHS, community paediatrics); social care; Youth Advisory Boards (Deaf specific examples include Sign Health and the British Deaf Association)/specialist student councils in sensory support services, Parent Carer Forums; SEND IASS; and relevant voluntary, national and local, sector organisations eg SENSE, NDCS, RNIB, MENCAP, Scope (not an exhaustive list). Their involvement ensures decisions are grounded in lived experience, specialist expertise, and system levers (commissioning, workforce and quality).
Guidance on the composition of local SEND partnerships, as well as the development and content of local inclusion plans, should clearly outline these expectations.
Q36: How can we build stronger collaboration and a culture of improvement through local SEND strategic plans?
No response
Q37. What information, advice and guidance can best support children, young people and their families to ensure greater fairness across the system?
Provide a clear, accessible national and local “SEND offer” that explains rights, routes to support at each tier, expected timescales, and what good provision looks like. Ensure information is accessible (plain English, BSL, captions, translations) and includes specific guidance for sensory needs and communication access. Families benefit from named points of contact, impartial advice services, and simple mechanisms to raise concerns early and resolve issues locally.
Fairness requires that information, advice and guidance is not only comprehensive but also accessible by default (BSL, captions, plain English) and includes practical guidance on day-to-day communication access (e.g., technology use, acoustics and classroom strategies). This helps families identify and address access failures early, before they escalate into disputes.
Q38. Do you agree that a SEND specialist (e.g. a SENCO) should sit on the school complaint panel, when the complaint relates to SEND support and provision? Please explain why.
Including a SEND specialist or SENCO on school complaint panel improves fairness and quality by ensuring panels understand reasonable adjustments, legal duties, and what constitutes suitable provision. For complaints involving deaf CYP, specialist input helps ensure communication access and reasonable adjustments are properly considered. The specialist should be independent of the case, trained in impartial decision-making, and supported by guidance on evidence requirements and timescales.
The absence of a duty to fulfil Individual Support Plans, combined with limited routes for redress, risks reinforcing the belief among many families that the system is not meeting the needs of children with SEND.
While there is a proposed statutory duty on schools to record and monitor provision set out in an Individual Support Plan, there is no corresponding duty regarding the content or delivery of those plans. This creates a significant gap in accountability. A requirement to produce a plan, without a clear obligation to implement it, is unlikely to lead to meaningful improvements in support for children.
To support a more effective system, school leadership teams and governing bodies must have a stronger understanding of SEND law and the SEND Code of Practice.
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman should be given the power to investigate complaints against schools and academy trusts where there are breaches of SEND-related duties (more detail in our response to q39). This would help address concerns about weak accountability within the current proposals for Individual Support Plans and provide families with a more independent avenue for redress.
Q39. This consultation outlines a series of measures intended to reform the SEND system. Some of these measures have already been finalised, and this is clearly indicated within the document.
With this in mind, is there anything further you would like to contribute to help inform the remaining proposals that are still under consideration?
SEND reforms must align with existing legal duties. Taken together, these create a clear expectation that deaf children must have full and equitable access to communication, language and education, including BSL where appropriate.
BATOD recognises “The intention is to make the system work more effectively for everyone”.
Children have the right to feel included in their environment and for some that will be in specialist settings within which they do not feel disabled by the social, physical and educational space. Inclusive design guidance will play an important role in supporting access to education for deaf children. Effective acoustic design is essential for all learners, as it helps ensure low background noise and minimal reverberation within learning environments. However, these factors are particularly critical for deaf children.
Poor acoustics can present significant barriers, making it difficult for deaf children to use hearing aids and cochlear implants effectively, as these devices amplify all sounds in the environment. Research has demonstrated a clear link between good acoustic conditions and improved attainment for both deaf and hearing pupils. This is especially important in early years settings, where deaf children are still developing language and communication, and may find it difficult to compensate for missed auditory information.
Within the proposed inclusive design guidance, reference should be made to the acoustic design of school’s performance standards BB93. The performance standards should also play a role in the wider Education Estates Strategy.
Reference should also be made to other resources available to schools to help improve acoustics such as the British Association of Teachers of Deaf Children and Young People (BATOD) 2026 Acoustics position statement, National Deaf Children’s Society advice on acoustics and learning from case studies such as that undertaken by Essex County Council.
Given the strong evidence base demonstrating the importance of good acoustics, investment in improving school environments should be supported through the high needs capital funding system and other targeted funding streams. This will be key to ensuring that all children, including those who are deaf, can access learning in environments that support their communication and development.
