Evaluation of the Additional Learning Needs system: survey of practitioners and professionals (summary)

The Welsh Government commissioned Arad Research to conduct a four-year formative evaluation of the implementation of the ALN system.^{[footnote 1]}

This report presents findings from a survey of practitioners and professionals in schools^{[footnote 2]}, pupil referral units (PRUs), Further Education Institutions (FEIs), Independent Special post-16 institutions (ISPIs), local authorities (LAs) and local health boards (LHBs), conducted as part of this evaluation. The survey was carried out in June and July 2024 and examined practitioners’ and professionals’ views on various aspects of implementing the ALN system.

The survey questionnaire was informed by the theory of change for the ALN system outlined in the evaluation scoping report and cognitively tested with ALNCos and stakeholders from the FE, LA and LHB sectors. 

The survey was distributed by email to all schools, PRUs and FEIs in Wales, as well as LA directors of education and LHB Designated Education Clinical Lead Officers (DECLOs). These individuals were asked to pass on the survey to relevant individuals: ALNCos and senior leaders in schools, PRUs and FEIs; and professionals working in the ALN system in LAs and LHBs. The survey was also publicised in the Welsh Government’s Dysg and ALN bulletin newsletters and an article relating to the survey was placed on the Hwb website.

The survey was launched on 14 June 2024 and closed on 26 July 2024. The sample of responses was monitored continuously, and targeted reminders were sent to schools to ensure good representation by sector, language medium, geography, size, and percentage of learners eligible for free school meals.

A total of 603 responses to the survey were received, with the following number in each sector:

• Schools and PRUs – 344 (75% of these were ALNCos).
  • These represented 302 unique schools and PRUs across all 22 LAs.
• FEIs and Independent Specialist Post-16 Institutions^{[footnote 3]} (ISPIs) - 33^{[footnote 4]}.
  • These represented all 13 FEIs as well as 3 ISPIs.
• LAs – 139.
  • These represented 21 out of the 22 LAs.
• LHBs - 87.
  • These represented all 7 LHBs.

Results for each of the above sectors are presented in the report, with noteworthy differences between sectors highlighted. 

The chosen non-probability sampling method and levels of non-response mean that it is not possible to state with confidence the degree to which the findings are generalisable to the population.^{[footnote 5]} Therefore, in analysing the results, and particularly in comparing findings across sectors, it should be noted that the results cannot be considered representative of all practitioners and professionals working in these sectors. The results should therefore be interpreted as being based on a convenience sample of respondents.

Knowledge and understanding

Survey respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements relating to their knowledge and understanding of the ALN system.

A majority of respondents from schools/PRUs, FEIs/ISPIs and LAs, “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they understood how to interpret and apply the definitions of ALN and ALP. Over half of respondents in these sectors also “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that definitions of ALN and ALP were being applied in a consistent way in their organisations. Across all sectors (including LHBs), respondents were less likely to agree that the definitions were being applied in a consistent way by others outside of their organisations.

Over half of respondents from LAs, compared with less than half from schools/PRUs and FEIs/ISPIs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that practitioners in their organisation have the appropriate knowledge and skills to support the delivery of the ALN system.

A majority of LA respondents also “agreed” or “strongly agreed” there was effective knowledge-sharing between practitioners in their organisation to support the implementation of the ALN system, compared with around half of respondents from schools/PRUs, and FEIs/ISPIs.

Overall, responses from LHBs in relation to questions around knowledge and understanding of the ALN system were less positive than other sectors surveyed. 

A small minority of respondents from FEIs and ISPIs (4 out of 32, 12%) and a minority from schools and PRUs (22%) had undertaken the National Professional Learning Pathway for ALN (NPLP ALN) on Hwb. Of those who had, a majority (in both sectors) agreed, at least to an extent, that it had increased their understanding of the ALN system and/or had helped them carry out their role.

There were diverging views among LA and FEI/ISPI respondents regarding duties relating to post-16 learners. Respondents from LAs were less likely than those in FEIs and ISPIs to “strongly agree” or “agree” that they understood the duties on their organisation in relation to this cohort. 

Among the minority of respondents who provided responses to open-text questions, a commonly raised theme was concern about inconsistencies in the interpretation and/or application of aspects of the ALN system, including definitions of ALN and ALP.

• Schools and PRUs expressed concern about how this impacts the accuracy of ALN records/data collection. Respondents also reflected that they would benefit from additional training or clearer guidance on interpreting and applying definitions of ALN and ALP and requested more practical examples or case studies to help schools implement these definitions.
• FEIs and ISPIs underlined the need for continuous training to equip staff with the required knowledge and skills
• LAs noted a lack of sufficient guidance and clarity regarding post-16 duties,
• LHBs noted concerns about ALN not being identified in a timely way; they also referred to increased demands on health professionals’ time.

Support for the workforce

Overall, respondents from LAs had more positive views than those in other sectors on the availability and sufficiency of support. Respondents from LAs were notably more likely than those from other sectors to report that they had enough support, and were less likely to note that they required further support in relation to specific aspects of the ALN system.

A majority of respondents from LAs and over half of those from schools/PRUs and FEIs/ISPIs, reported that they received sufficient support^{[footnote 6]} from their organisation in relation to the ALN system. A notably lower percentage of respondents from LHBs (less than half) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with this. 

A majority of respondents from FEIs and ISPIs, and more than half of respondents from schools and PRUs indicated^{[footnote 7]} that they required further support in relation to specific aspects of the ALN system. The most common type of support required from respondents in these sectors was “Deciding when a health condition - including mental health conditions - means a pupil has ALN (and therefore requires an IDP)”. More than half of LHB respondents also indicated that they required further support in relation to specific aspects of the ALN system. Among those who did, the most common type of support required was with “Contributing to IDPs”.

Compared with respondents from other sectors, fewer respondents from LAs (less than half) indicated that they required further support in relation to specific aspects of the ALN system. Among those who did, the most common types of support required were “The decision-making process for determining ALN: Deciding whether a learner’s learning difficulty or disability calls for ALP” and “Joint working with external partners”. 

Among the minority of respondents who provided responses to open-text questions, commonly raised themes included the significant additional workload pressures faced by the workforce associated with the implementation of the ALN system. All sectors also highlighted the need for further support to upskill and help professionals better understand and respond to the reforms.

• Schools and PRUs noted inconsistencies and inadequacies in training, expressing concerns that they were not adequately prepared for the changes introduced by the ALN Code. School and PRU respondents also raised concerns about inconsistency in support from LAs, particularly in relation to timely advice and decision-making. Significant funding challenges, which were seen to impact schools' ability to meet the growing and complex needs of learners, were also mentioned.
• LAs tended to provide more positive feedback on the good levels of support provided by local networks, though they also noted that they were keen to receive more support and guidance from Welsh Government.
• LHB respondents acknowledged the valuable support and guidance provided by DECLOs – whilst also noting that they felt there were relatively fewer opportunities for health professionals to access professional learning opportunities.

Schools/PRUs

A majority of the ALNCos from schools and PRUs that responded to the survey reported that they were part of the senior leadership team. Similarly, a majority also reported that they had teaching responsibilities in addition to their ALNCo role and that they had protected time allocated to carry out their role. On average, those ALNCos who indicated that they did have protected time reported they had 1.9 days of protected time allocated per week, with ALNCos in secondary schools reporting having more time on average (3 days) than those in primary schools (1.5 days). 

Around half of the school and PRU ALNCos that responded to the survey “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed”:

• that they were able to effectively manage their ALNCo workload within the hours officially allocated to their ALNCo role (55%)
• that they had sufficient time to fulfil their ALNCo responsibilities (53%)
• that they were able to balance the requirements of their ALNCo role with the requirements of the other roles they undertook (e.g. teaching, headship / leadership) (51%)

In terms of the factors that impact on their role, ALNCos in schools and PRUs cited time constraints, noting that the extensive workload they face means that ALN-related tasks were often completed outside school hours. ALNCos in schools and PRUs also highlighted the difficulty of balancing their duties under the Code with their teaching responsibilities. These respondents noted that they felt that the amount of paperwork had increased under the ALN system compared with the previous system.

FEIs ^{[footnote 8]}

Akin to school and PRU respondents, a majority of the FEI ALNCos that responded to the survey noted that they had ‘protected’ time allocated to carry out their ALNCo role. However, in contrast to school/PRU respondents, a majority of ALNCos in FEIs noted that they did not have teaching responsibilities in addition to their ALNCo role.

In FEIs, 4 out of 10 (40%) of ALNCos noted that they “agreed to an extent” that they were able to effectively manage their ALNCo workload within the hours officially allocated to their role, a further 3 out of 10 (30%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with this. Furthermore, 4 out of 10 (40%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed”, that they had sufficient time to fulfil their ALNCo responsibilities with a further 40% noting they “agreed to an extent “with this.

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with a series of statements relating to the identification of ALN. A majority of respondents from schools/PRUs, FEIs/ISPIs and LAs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that processes in place in their organisation helped ensure the timely identification of ALN and that parents and carers were actively involved in these processes.

Responses from LHB participants were more mixed. Less than half of respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that processes in their LHB help support the timely identification of ALN in children of below Compulsory school age.

Among the minority of respondents who provided responses to open-text questions, commonly raised themes included challenges for practitioners and professionals relating to the processes involved in identifying ALN. This included difficulties in engaging with parents and some learners during Person Centred Planning (PCP) meetings; limited capacity to contribute to processes or provide information in response to requests.

A majority of respondents from schools and PRUs, FEIs and ISPIs, and LAs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that processes in place in their organisation to support the preparation of IDPs were clear, and that person-centred approaches were taken during meetings about ALN and IDPs. However, when asked to what extent they agreed that they have sufficient time and capacity to support the preparation of IDPs, participants in these sectors were less likely to agree. Around half of respondents from FEIs and ISPIs and less than half from LAs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they have sufficient capacity to support the preparation of IDPs, while a third of respondents in schools and PRUs (the largest proportion of respondents) “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed”.   

Around half of respondents from LHBs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that processes in place in their LHB for contributing to the preparation of IDPs are clear. However, akin to respondents from other sectors, LHB participants were less likely to agree that they have sufficient time and capacity to support the preparation of IDPs; 45% “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed” with this. Similarly, 42% of LHB respondents “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed” that they get sufficient notice to contribute to IDPs (e.g. attending meetings, preparing evidence).

Among the minority of respondents who provided responses to open-text questions, commonly raised themes included challenges in meeting statutory timescales, particularly given the pressures on workload and capacity. 

• School and PRU Respondents also reported that, while consideration was given to preparing IDPs and providing ALP in Welsh, there was a shortage of resources, and additional support would be needed for those with limited Welsh language knowledge.
• LHB professionals noted that they were often not given sufficient notice to be able to attend PCP meetings.

The findings indicate that respondents in all sectors perceive there are challenges relating to the availability of resources to meet the needs of learners with ALN. 

A minority of respondents in each sector “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that, within their organisation, sufficient resources were available to plan for and provide effective provision to meet the needs of learners with ALN. A third of respondents in LHBs and LAs, as well as 42% in schools/PRUs and 26% (8 out of 31) in FEIs/ISPIs “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed with this statement”.

Four out of the eight (50%) Early Years Additional Learning Needs Lead Officers (EY ALNLOs) that responded to the survey “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed” that within their LA, there are sufficient resources^{[footnote 9]} in place to deal promptly with referrals for the ALNLO cohort^{[footnote 10]} (a further two respondents “disagreed to an extent”).

Around half of respondents from FEIs/ISPIs and LAs, and (44%) from schools and PRUs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that where necessary, services work together effectively to provide coordinated support for learners with ALN. LHB respondents were the least likely to “agree” or “strongly agree” with this statement (29% “agreed” or “strongly agreed”, and a further 27% “agreed to an extent” with this).

A majority of respondents from Welsh-medium and bilingual schools, and over half of respondents from LAs, “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that ALP was available in Welsh where needed.

A majority of respondents from FEIs and ISPIs (24 out of 31, 77%) and around half of respondents from schools and PRUs (52%) and LAs (50%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that children and young people were enabled to participate fully in decisions about ALP. Conversely, a minority of respondents from LHBs (19%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with this, and 24% “agreed to an extent” (29% “neither agreed nor disagreed”).

A majority of respondents from schools and PRUs (76%) and FEIs/ISPIs (22 out of 31, 71%) and over half of those from LAs (68%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that parents and carers were actively involved, where appropriate, in decisions relating to ALP. In comparison, less than half of respondents from LHBs (41%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with this statement.

In response to open-text questions, survey respondents^{[footnote 11]} across all sectors noted that budgetary pressures or reductions were impacting negatively on the provision of support for ALN learners. This included a reduction in one-to-one support and more limited access to specialist resources. Open-text responses from respondents in schools/PRUs and LAs also expressed concern that insufficient provision was available to support ALP through the medium of Welsh.

The vast majority of respondents from schools and PRUs, FEIs and ISPIs and LAs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they understood the requirements set out in the ALN Code for review and revision of IDPs and that parents and carers, where appropriate, were actively involved in review processes. The majority of respondents also “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that review processes were being delivered effectively in their organisation.

Among the minority of respondents who provided responses to open-text questions, commonly raised themes included challenges in ensuring parents and children attend review meetings. Respondents from schools and PRUs indicated that the IDP review process was viewed as being time-consuming, requiring considerable input from various staff members.

Survey respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements relating to the effectiveness of transition processes (e.g. between different phases of education and types of setting) in ensuring the continuity of provision for learners with ALN.

Respondents from schools and PRUs were most positive about transitions between primary and secondary phases: over half “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that these were effective. Schools and PRUs respondents were least positive about transitions between schools/PRUs and settings in different LAs.

In terms of post-16 transition, around half of respondents from FEIs and ISPIs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that transition arrangements between secondary schools and FE colleges were effective in ensuring continuity of provision for learners with ALN.

Respondents from LAs were most positive about the effectiveness of transition processes between nursery and primary settings, and between primary and secondary phases, with over half of respondents “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that transition arrangements between these settings were effective in ensuring continuity of provision for learners with ALN. Akin to respondents from schools and PRU’s, LA Respondents were least likely to “strongly agree” or “agree” that transition arrangements between schools/PRUs and settings in different LAswere effective. 

A minority of respondents also provided additional comments in which challenges relating to transition were highlighted:

• School and PRU respondents referred to challenges with early years to primary transitions, including a lack of prior identification of ALN with examples of learners with ‘complex needs’ transitioning between early years settings or arriving at school nursery classes without being known to relevant services beforehand and without an IDP. Respondents also highlighted that Information sharing and communication varies across transition stages, with participants noting that that this was especially difficult when learners moved between LA areas or from England. The quality of the transition, and the experience for learners was also felt to vary widely.
• FEIs Respondents explained that they experienced varying levels of engagement from mainstream secondary schools.
• LA respondents felt the support they provided was effective and helped transition arrangements between settings, though respondents also noted that there were sometimes more gaps in provision for older learners as they transitioned into secondary schools.

The vast majority of respondents in schools and PRUs, FEIs and ISPIs, and LAs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that effective working relationships had been developed with learners and practitioners in their own organisations. Furthermore, the vast majority of respondents from schools and PRUs, and a majority in FEIs and ISPIs and LAs also “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that effective working relationships had been developed with parents and carers. 

Over half of respondents from LHBs also “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that, when supporting learners with ALN, effective working relationships had been developed with practitioners within their LHB, parents and carers, and learners.

However, overall, when reflecting on the effectiveness of working relationships developed with other organisations when supporting learners with ALN, participants views were more mixed. 

LA Respondents who were EY ALNLOs (N=8) were also asked to what extent they agreed that there was effective collaboration and information sharing between the LA and other organisations in relation to the ALNLO cohort^{[footnote 13]}. EY ALNLOs were most likely to “strongly agree” or “agree” that there was effective collaboration and information sharing between the LA and ALNCos of maintained schools that children in the ALNLO cohort might go on to attend. When asked about the effectiveness of collaboration and information sharing between the LA’s programmes and services, a majority of the eight EY ALNLOs that responded to the survey “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that these were effective.

Among the minority of respondents who provided responses to open-text questions, commonly raised themes across all sectors revealed a desire on the part of partners to work together effectively to support learners and the families. However, recurring themes were limited time and a lack of capacity to be able to collaborate fully. Open-text responses from schools highlighted the long waiting lists for some LHB-delivered services, which could hinder the provision of support for learners. School respondents also suggested a need for improved training for practitioners around how and when to involve external partners to support ALN processes. Respondents from LAs and LHBs referred to inadequate information-sharing – with IT systems cited as a particular barrier.

A summary of the findings relating to the involvement of parents and carers, children and young people in the ALN system is set out below. These findings are drawn from sections 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the main report. 

Involvement of parents, carers, children and young people in processes to identify ALN

Over half of respondents in schools and PRUs (61%) and LAs (68%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that learners were enabled to participate appropriately in processes to identify their ALN; this was notably higher than the corresponding percentage for those in LHBs (30%). The vast majority (27 out of 31, 87%) of respondents in FEIs and ISPIs also “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with this statement.

The vast majority of respondents in schools and PRUs (84%) and a majority in LAs (76%) and FEIs/ISPIs (22 out of 31, 71%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that parents and carers were actively involved, where appropriate, in decisions relating to the identification of ALN; this was notably higher than the corresponding percentage for those in LHBs (48%). 

Involvement of parents, carers, children and young people in decisions relating to ALP

A majority of respondents from FEIs and ISPIs (24 out of 31, 77%) and around half of respondents from schools and PRUs (52%) and LAs (50%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that children and young people were enabled to participate fully in decisions about ALP. Conversely, a minority of respondents from LHBs (19%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with this (24% “agreed to an extent” and 29% “neither agreed nor disagreed”).

A majority of respondents from schools and PRUs (76%), FEIs/ISPIs (22 out of 31, 71%) and over half of those from LAs (68%), compared with less than half of respondents from LHBs (41%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that parents and carers were actively involved, where appropriate, in decisions relating to ALP.

Involvement of parents, carers, children and young people in review processes

The vast majority of respondents from FEIs and ISPIs (21 out of 23, 91%), a majority of those from schools and PRUs (76%) and over half of those from LAs (69%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that children and young people/learners were enabled to participate fully in review processes.

The vast majority of respondents in each sector also “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that parents and carers were actively involved in review processes, where appropriate.

Effective working relationships with parents, carers, children and young people

The vast majority of respondents from schools and PRUs, FEIs and ISPIs and LAs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that effective working relationships had been developed with learners.

The vast majority of respondents from schools and PRUs, and a majority in FEIs/ISPIs and LAs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that effective working relationships had been developed with parents and carers. 

Anticipated outcomes of the ALN system

When asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements relating to the anticipated outcomes of the ALN system, school and PRU participants were most likely to “strongly agree” or “agree” that the ALN system would lead to better experiences for families and least likely to agree that the ALN system would lead to higher-quality provision.

In the case of FEIs and ISPIs, respondents were most likely to “strongly agree” or “agree” that the ALN system will lead to better identification processes, where needs are identified at the earliest opportunity and least likely to “strongly agree” or “agree” that the ALN system would lead to improved multi-agency working and improved resolution of disputes. 

Overall, respondents from LAs were more likely than those in schools and PRUs and LHBs to “strongly agree” or “agree” that the ALN system would lead to improvements in a number of outcomes^{[footnote 14]}. Respondents from LAs were most likely to “agree” or “strongly agree” that the ALN system will lead to better identification processes, where needs are identified at the earliest opportunity. Akin to school and PRU respondents’ participants from LAs were least likely to “strongly agree” or “agree” that the ALN system would lead to higher quality provision.

Finally, respondents from LHBs were most likely to “agree” or “strongly agree” that the ALN system would lead to better identification processes, where needs are identified at the earliest opportunity. LHB respondents were least likely to “strongly agree” or “agree” that the ALN system would lead to improved resolution of disputes and higher quality provision. 

Participants were also asked how confident they were that a series of outcomes relating to the ALN system would be realised.  Overall, there were mixed views among respondents from all sectors in relation to these questions, though respondents in LAs were more confident than those in schools and PRUs and LHBs that the reforms to the ALN system would: 

• contribute to an education system that meets the needs of all learners
• contribute to an education system that was equitable for all learners
• contribute to the creation of an education system that was inclusive for all learners
• support improved aspirations for all learners
• support improved progress and attainment for all learners

Open-text responses^{[footnote 15]} from across all sectors revealed commitment among practitioners and professionals to the aims and aspirations of the reforms notably improved learner outcomes. There was support, in particular, for person-centred approaches. However, there was also repeated reference to the difficulties associated with implementing the ALN system in a context of budget and staffing pressures faced by schools, LAs and LHBs. The system was reported to be complex and bureaucratic. Inconsistencies in interpreting and applying aspects of the Code – notably linked to definitions of ALN and ALP – were seen as problematic. Respondents noted the variability across the system and that the outcomes for learners with ALN could depend on a range of factors, including how proactive schools and external agencies were in securing access to support for learners; how early a child’s needs were identified; and the effectiveness of collaboration between schools, LAs and health professionals.

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they believed was working well to date as part of the implementation of the ALN system, noting any factors enabling implementation and any unforeseen benefits that have arisen. Responses to these open-text questions identified the following as key enablers of implementation:

• Collaboration and Communication: Improved inter-agency collaboration among schools, LAs, and health professionals, helping to build a unified approach to ALN support.
• PCP approach to IDP meetings have led to more and better involvement of parents and learners in decision-making processes.
• Positive feedback on training and resources contributing to greater awareness among staff generally of ALN.

When asked about the factors that hinder the implementation of the ALN system, responses commonly referred to the following themes:

• Funding limitations and budget cuts impacting the capacity of schools and health services to support ALN effectively.
• Inconsistent approaches and definitions across LAs and schools leading to variability in practice and delivery.
• High workloads.
• Strain on NHS resources, particularly in delivering speech and language therapy, impacting participation in planning meetings and overall support for learners.

[1] The phrase ‘ALN system’ is used to describe the ALN Act, the regulations made under the Act, the ALN Code and associated duties.

[2] Includes all-through (3 to 16/18) schools and special schools 

[3] Currently the Welsh government funds placements in ISPIs under the SEN system. Responsibility for making decisions and securing placements for young people at ISPIs will transfer fully to LAs from 1 September 2025. It should be noted that ISPIs are not required to have regard to the ALN Code though guidance and information in the Code may be useful to inform their understanding of the ALN system and the part they might play in ensuring the best outcomes for learners with ALN.

[4] Results for FEIs and ISPIs are based on a small sample (33) within a relatively small population of respondents and therefore should be considered as being indicative of this sample rather than noteworthy when comparing with other sectors. 

[5] The census distribution method to schools and PRUs and the reliance on ‘gatekeeper’ stakeholder organisations and newsletters to distribute to all audiences means it is challenging to identify the level of non-response (i.e. it is not known how many ALNCos and senior leaders were passed the invitation).

[6] E.g. professional learning, guidance

[7] “agreed”, “strongly agreed”, or “agreed to an extent” that they required further support in relation to specific aspects of the ALN system as it relates to their role

[8] No ISPI respondents reported their role as ALNCo. Hence this section refers to FEIs only.

[9] (i.e. financial resources, workforce capacity)

[10] In the ALN Code, children under compulsory school age who are not attending a maintained school are referred to as the “ALNLO cohort”.

[11] When interpreting these findings, it is important to note that fewer respondents completed the open-text questions compared to the closed survey questions.

[12] Respondents in LHBs were not asked questions relating to review processes

[13] In the ALN Code, children under compulsory school age who are not attending a maintained school are referred to as the “ALNLO cohort”.

[14] Relating to the identification of ALN, earlier intervention, improved planning, higher quality provision, improved multi-agency working, improved resolution of disputes, better outcomes for learners and better experiences for families.

[15] When interpreting these findings, it is important to note that fewer respondents completed the open-text questions compared to the closed survey questions.

Report authors: Thomas, H; Lane, J; Lewis, S; Duggan, B; McAlister-Wilson, S; Williams, S (2025)

Views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government.

For further information please contact:
Schools Research Branch
Social Research and Information Division, Knowledge and Analytical Services
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Email: SchoolsResearch@gov.wales

Social research number: 28/2025
Digital ISBN: 978-1-83715-475-3