Parliamentary Briefings & Consultation Responses

Submission to the GLA Investigation into SEND Provision in London  

Since 2010 the then coalition government and now the Conservative government have taken an ideological decision to prioritise the funding of segregated education over mainstream education for Disabled pupils.


October 2017: ALLFIE has submitted evidence to the Greater London Authority (GLA) review on the current state of play for disabled children and young people in London’s schools. Disabled pupils in London are more likely to face barriers to mainstream, and to end up in segregated education, than those from anywhere else in the UK. ALLFIE is calling on London’s Mayor to government for the full implementation of Article 24.

Submission to the GLA Investigation into SEND Provision in London

Who is ALLFIE?

The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) is a national campaigning and information-sharing network led by Disabled people. We campaign for all Disabled pupils and students to have the right to be included in mainstream education with all necessary support. ALLFIE believes that education should support the development of physical, vocational and academic abilities through mixed-ability tuition in mainstream schools so that all students have the opportunity to build relationships with one another. We believe that a fully inclusive education system will benefit everyone.

ALLFIE has over 25 years’ experience of campaigning at a strategic level for Disabled people’s rights to inclusive education; we have taken a lead on lobbying for legislation such as the Children and Families, Equality and Education Acts to reflect Disabled pupils’ and students’ human rights to inclusive education. ALLFIE played an instrumental role in securing Government’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities including Article 24, the state’s obligation to promote and develop an inclusive education system.

Relevant current statistics on SEND

7% (0.9 million) of children under 16 in the UK are Disabled . 1,492,950 children in English schools have been identified with special education needs . In the capital, 204,000 children and young people have SEN. 41,000 of the capital’s SEN population have high needs and either have an SEN statement or EHCP; 162,800 have low to medium needs and some form of SEN support but will not have a SEN statement or EHCP. Overall, there is a higher percentage of pupils with SEN in the capital than in other regions – 18.3% of pupils in London compared to the national figure of 17.9% . Between 2016 and 2017 the number of pupils with EHCPs grew by 4.2%, around three times the 1.3% growth rate for the general pupil population.

Whilst London has a greater percentage of pupils in mainstream education compared to the mean for all English regions , nevertheless there are worrying statistics suggesting that segregated education for Disabled people in the majority of impairment categories is on the increase.

Numbers of pupils in London special schools by type of need

Type of need 2010 2017 (2010-2017) % change
Autistic Spectrum Disorder 2910 5390 2480 +85%
Severe Learning Difficulties 2540 3154 614 +24%
Profound & Multiple Learning Difficulties 1140 1558 418 +37%
Speech, Language and Communication Needs 680 874 194 +29%
Specific Learning Difficulty 100 214 114 +114%
Multi-Sensory Impairment 40 60 20 +50%
Visual Impairment 220 226 6 +3%
Hearing Impairment 190 182 -8 -4%
Moderate Learning Difficulty 1850 1617 -233 -13%
Physical Disability 680 390 -290 -43%

(from London Councils (Do The Sums September 2017))

Response to the SEND Review Questions

  • How have the reforms brought in by the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA2014) affected SEND provision? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current system? (Local Authorities group question)

The Children and Families Act makes a distinction between disabled children and children with SEN, However, ALLFIE does not make a distinction between disability and special educational needs (SEN); an overwhelming majority of children with SEN would fall under the Equality Act’s definition of a Disabled person. The language of SEN inhibits equality and inclusion because it focuses on the perceived deficits in the child – “what’s wrong” rather than what support is needed to facilitate the child’s participation in learning.

Therefore ALLFIE chooses use the term Disabled pupils to include those with SEN because we take a Social Model of Disability approach . Currently there is little understanding about what Inclusive Education is and what it looks like in practice. Many people use the word inclusion to describe integration or indeed subtle forms of segregation. As a consequence there is much confusion around what we understand to be inclusive education and what constitutes good practice. Special school professionals sometimes describe their schools as inclusive because they admit Disabled children with different impairments and abilities. Such a view can lead to unhelpful misunderstandings and conflicts around the inclusion of Disabled pupils and students in mainstream education. So ALLFIE believes it is necessary to explain clear distinctions between segregation, integration and inclusion.

Further, the Children and Families Act fails to provides any explanation of what constitutes good inclusive education practice. So for ALLFIE it is vital that there is a clear understanding of what is meant by different terms used to describe and explain various practices that disabled pupils experience in our education system – in this case segregation, integration and inclusive education practice –


Disabled people of all ages and/or pupils and students with ‘Special Educational Needs’ labels being placed in any form of segregated education setting. This tends to force Disabled people to lead separate lives. For example: separate special school or college, separate unit within mainstream school/college or separate segregated courses within mainstream education settings.


Disabled people of all ages and/or pupils and students with ‘Special Educational Needs’ labels being placed in mainstream education settings with some adaptations and resources, but on condition that the Disabled person and/or learner with an SEN label can fit in with pre-existing structures, attitudes and an unaltered environment. For example: the child is required to “fit in” to what already exists in the school.


Disabled people of all ages and/or pupils and students with ‘Special Educational Needs’ labels being educated in mainstream education settings alongside their nonDisabled peers, where there is a commitment to removing all barriers to the full participation of everyone as equally valued and unique individuals. For example Inclusion involves and includes staff attitudes, curriculum approaches and teaching strategies that we take to ensure that no pupils and students are excluded or isolated from the education on offer. In other words, we all work to create a culture where all pupils and students feel welcome, accepted, safe, valued and confident that they will get the right support to assist them to develop their talents and achieve their goals at whatever level.

These definitions are supported by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities who use similar definitions in the recently published UNCRPD General Comment No.4 on Inclusive Education.

One of the biggest strengths of the CFA2014 is the presumption of mainstream education for all Disabled pupils and students regardless of ability. Prior to the CFA2014 Disabled Pupils with SEN without an Education Health & Care Plan (EHCP) had to be properly supported in mainstream schools. However the CFA2014 changed the legal framework and now Disabled pupils & students with SEN without an ECHP can be placed in a special school permanently if a special academy contract with the DFE allows it. Disabled pupils and students with SEN and ECHP must be placed in a mainstream school unless it is incompatible with the parents’ wishes or where no reasonable steps taken by the LA can remove the incompatibility with the efficient education of other pupils.

Whilst in principle there is the presumption of mainstream education in the CFA2014, nevertheless government policies and schools’ practices undermine the effectiveness of this legal provision. From our research, we have found that Disabled pupils living in London face greater challenges in accessing mainstream education than pupils living elsewhere.
London has a very competitive education system even though the overwhelming majority of state funded schools are prohibited from any form of academic or aptitude selection. Market forces, school accountability systems and reputation within the community are having a particular impact upon local authorities’ and schools’ ability to promote inclusive education practice. As a result of national government’s education policies, there has been a steady decline in the number of Disabled pupils entering mainstream schools. At the same time there has been a steady increase of Disabled pupils being moved into special schools, including within 52 residential settings as a consequence of the government’s savage cuts to local services.

Within the capital there has been a reported 23% increase of students in special school provision between 2011 and 2016 . These dire figures were picked up in the recently published Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities who concluded that the government have made insufficient progress in the implementation of Disabled pupils’ and students’ human rights to inclusive education under the UN Convention on Rights for Persons with Disabilities Article 24. Amongst the recommendations, the UK government has been told they should review and amend the Children and Families Act 2014 and the 2010 Equality Act to be more compliant with their Article 24 obligations to work towards a fully inclusive education system that welcomes all pupils and students.

ALLFIE has identified a range of policies that have undermined the CFA2014 presumption of mainstream education, for example:

School Admissions

Increasingly schools and multiple academies trusts are choosing to become their own admissions authorities, allowing head teachers control over their school admissions arrangements. 19 out of 24 London boroughs surveyed had evidence of academies resisting or refusing to admit a Disabled pupils with SEN (London Councils 2017). Furthermore, 13 out of 23 boroughs had come across academies offloading Disabled pupils with SEN inappropriately.

Many schools will use some form of academic assessment test to assist them with recruiting pupils with a range of abilities. Whilst in most cases academies are not allowed to select children by academic ability, nevertheless various schools are using fair banding assessment tests to manipulate their school pupil intake to favour high-achieving pupils; the practice is more common across London than in other regions.

The banding testing system has been reported to disadvantage children of parents from poor socio-economic backgrounds; many of these families will include Disabled children with SEN. Moreover, Disabled pupils will experience additional barriers which will place them at a disadvantage compared to their non-Disabled peer group.

“Well, if you are referring to the banded entry tests, it’s a flat test with no provision for needy children’. I said ‘my son is autistic, not needy’ and she said ‘we have a good dyslexia suite’ … I said ‘he’s autistic, not dyslexic’. Bizarre.” (Parent on Mumsnet 2011)

Parents of Disabled children have reported that fair banding test systems can be managed in a manner that manipulates the type of population intake the school wants to recruit. London schools wanting to recruit a favourable “selective” distribution of pupils will skew the proportion of pupils towards those from the average and above average ability range. Such an approach discriminates against Disabled pupils wanting to secure mainstream school placements.

The London Borough of Greenwich fair banding system permitted 20% of pupils from one of five separate ability bands to be allocated a school placement. However, from 2017 the distribution of pupils from various ability bands were changed; 40%, 40% and 20% proportions of pupils who were expected to exceed, attain or work towards achieving at key stage 2 level would be allocated a school placement. (Mumsnet 2017) The changes in the fair banding system have caused concern amongst parents of Disabled children and young people.

“I’m aware of at least three band 3 children, all with identified dyslexia, who’ve missed out on places at Greenwich schools that they could reasonably have expected to get into over the past five or so years. My feeling is that the removal of a standardised test, coupled with an uneven/unrepresentative distribution of places across the bands unreasonably disadvantages children in band 3.” (Mumsnet 2017) Many Disabled pupils would be losing out on a mainstream school across London because their parents have refused to present their Disabled children for testing, for fear of failure or making them more anxious etc.

The BBC recently reported that London schools were more likely than any other region to game on the school performance league tables.

“There is too much emphasis on numbers, particularly improving SATs results, at the expense of a healthy working and learning environment.” (Couxee 2017)

Whilst the government believes having the attainment and Progress 8 targets will encourage schools to focus on the attainment of all their pupils, we have heard the contrary.

“Then they became an academy, and they got a new Head in, who came from a secondary school, and one of the things he said, and that horrified me, well, he looked at the data and he said ‘It looks like our special needs kids will have to shape up or ship out’. And it became a Church of England school. And I felt like writing to the church about that, because I said ‘That is absolutely horrific, for a Head Teacher to come in and take a school that was so inclusive and come out with nonsense, nastiness like that.” (Oliver, NUT, London Borough of Lewisham, evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

Despite the ‘presumption of mainstream education in law, schools are not complying with their legal duties under the CFA2014 because the school admissions and schools accountability system reforms which provide them with opportunities to deny school placements to Disabled pupils.

  • What are the specific challenges to providing access to SEND provision in schools, including capacity and funding issues? (Local Authorities group question)

Since 2010 the then coalition government and now the Conservative government have taken an ideological decision to prioritise the funding of segregated education over mainstream education for Disabled pupils. The government has committed to funding 15 new special schools across the capital. The GLA estimated that 5,250 additional school placements are needed for SEN pupils; according to GLA statistics approximately a third of pupils with SEN on statements / EHCPs across the capital will be educated in special schools (GLA statistics provided during GLA’s Assembly Education Panel meeting 2017).

When new special schools are being funded, the expectation is that LAs will place Disabled children in segregated education which goes against the principle of the presumption of mainstream education for Disabled pupils. The more funding that is ploughed into special schools, the fewer resources are available for Disabled pupils attending mainstream schools across the capital.

Whilst the school funding reforms are having a negative impact upon schools and the educational outcomes of their pupils, research found that the capital’s schools will be particularly affected by budgetary cuts.

ALLFIE does not provide an official advice helpline, however in the last 18 months we have received an increasing number of telephone calls and emails from both parents and Disabled students about cuts to their local SEND support services and/or the decline in the quality of SEND provision and support available in mainstream schools.

London Councils and the City of London estimate that 70% of the 1,500 schools within the capital will experience a reduction in their school budgets; London schools will face the brunt of the cuts as National Funding Formula (NFF) funding does not adequately reflect the additional costs associated with working, living and running a school within the capital.
“Resources that Local Authorities have under ‘Achieving for Children’ are very tight.” (Inclusion London evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

The London Councils’ Talking Heads report found that the impact of the school budget cuts will affect Disabled pupils more than any other group of pupils. For instance:

“70% of primary schools have already reduced their numbers of Teaching Assistants, impacting especially on children with Special Educational Needs…”

This is unsurprising as Disabled pupils and students with SEN are more likely to rely upon the additional support and pastoral care provided by non-teaching staff. There has been substantial cuts to teaching assistants, speech and language therapy, literacy specialists, counselling services, family support and SENCOs across London. Robert Primary School sums up the dire situation for mainstream schools with an inclusive ethos in which school budget cuts have affected educational outcomes for Disabled pupils.

“A special needs worker, who spent more than 15 years at the school before quitting last year, said: ‘I had a lengthy service at the school, and I’m not opposed to change, but I’m upset that the work that’s been done [in the past] is not being respected… There’s hardly any special needs provision anymore, teachers are coming and going, teaching assistants are leaving – it’s ripped the heart out of the school.” (Islington Tribune 28th April 2017)

The cuts are also having an adverse effect upon the inclusivity and quality of support that Disabled pupils and students can expect to receive whilst in mainstream education.

“A huge impact … While the teacher works with everybody, the TA will generally work, more concentratedly, with individuals one to one who need that extra support. And in many schools in Lewisham, they’re just getting rid of them, making them redundant, because of cuts. And really, it’s quite horrifying. They’re saying, in some schools, yes, you’ll have interventions still going on, but the children will be withdrawn from the class, and that’s not a good thing. It won’t be done with their usual class TA under the direction of the teacher, it will be them doing some intervention that maybe they don’t need to do. It could be that in some schools they’re only getting an intervention once a week, and it’s not going to be tailored to an individual child’s needs, or even to half the group. They may only get like one hour, perhaps, a week.” (Owen, NUT, London Borough of Lewisham, evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

The impact of TA cuts affects the quality of interventions and support that Disabled pupils and students need to access mainstream education. In some instances, pupils and students are being taken out of mainstream lessons in order to participate in group based interventions such as social skills or phonics without sufficient attention given towards the individual pupil’s needs and their educational outcomes.

The impact of cuts to London’s schools will adversely affect educational outcomes for Disabled pupils and students and their general wellbeing and future life chances.

“More worryingly, children will be included in mainstream but with little or none of the support they need. I think it is even more damaging to put the child into a setting without having thought through what they need. Simply securing an EHCP doesn’t mean it will happen – you have, as a parent, to sit on top of the situation and monitor this day by day.” (Inclusion London evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

Disabled pupils are at a disadvantage compared to their peers outside London in terms of accessing not only SEN support, but also local health and social care services and other support services that would facilitate their inclusion into mainstream schools. Accessing nursery education can be challenging. Margaret sent her daughter Kim to a mainstream nursery attached to a church. The problems arose when the nursery refused to accommodate her needs as an autistic child:

“Staff refused to allow my daughter to settle into the nursery over a longer period of time with my support. This led to my daughter crying hysterically until we picked her up from nursery. The nursery complained that my daughter was taking up too much of the teacher assistant’s time and she’d just have to get used to it. I decided that she needed help from a SENCO. To my utter amazement and disgust, it was the woman in charge who had refused to be in any way flexible or understanding. I refused to send my daughter back to this nursery. She then attended a special nursery, not out of choice.” (parent, evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

Cuts to school budgets have placed extra pressure on local authorities’ high needs funding. Various SEN provision that would have been provided for SEN pupils within the school’s overall dedicated budget is no longer possible without additional funding to make up the shortfall through the pupil’s SEN statement or EHCP.

Parents increasingly face barriers in securing EHCP assessments and plans in a timely manner. Carmel McDermott, SEN helpline advisor at Contact a Family (London), reported that parents are routinely told that

“They will have to wait for professionals such as educational psychologists or speech and language therapists to carry out assessments and observations at school until funding is available.” (Contact For Families with Disabled Children 2016)

Schools are reporting similar problems in getting the professional health and social care support they need in a timely manner, particularly for pupils with social and emotional difficulties associated with their impairment or mental health condition. Without early and timely professional intervention to facilitate children with behavioural difficulties, schools feel they can do no more, other than to exclude them permanently.

All these cuts to services will not only have a negative impact upon the Disabled child’s outcomes but also the efficient education of other pupils. Without the ready availability of support services, Disabled pupils’ behaviour and learning deteriorates, which will have a negative impact upon the efficient education of other pupils. As LAs are not under a legal duty to provide the full range of support services that all Disabled pupils require to flourish in mainstream education, they can rely upon the C&F Act’s inefficient education of other pupils to place children with SEN into segregated education if engaged in the ECH process.
Families are left in situations where they can no longer facilitate their child’s inclusion in their local schools and wider community. Parents do not actively choose residential special schools and colleges. On the contrary research indicates many parents (up to 84%) want their child to be educated with appropriate support in a local school whilst living at home.
NASS research in 2012 highlighted that in fact:

“Placements are generally made when the placing Local Authority has been unable to meet the needs of the child or young person through their own (local) provision.”

London has a higher proportion of children with SEND educated in independent provision than the rest of England, which accounts for 9.2% of all SEND places in London compared to 6.6% nationally (Do the Maths London Councils 2017 p 31). The cost of placements in independent provision is placing significant pressure on high needs budgets in London. Although the DfE is spending more on children with SEND in London, the report also indicated that the allocation of Basic Needs funding for mainstream schools is insufficient to include specialist and flexible provision which promotes inclusion in mainstream schools (Do the Maths 2015). Such financial pressures are having an impact upon families wanting to secure mainstream education provision. This experience is supported by Scope:

“Families were often forced to make difficult choices, in some instances be apart so that they could receive all the support they needed. I decided on RSS for Mark because unfortunately there was no other choice for him. No local school would accept him or be able to meet his needs.” (Julie, parent, London Borough of Lambeth)

“We were told that, for children like our son, with severe learning disabilities and non-verbal, inclusion was not ‘meaningful’, that there were no options and that he would have to go to a special school, even if we didn’t want it. How could a little boy go from living at home with his loving family and attending his local primary school to being sent away to a residential school?” (Jane (not real name), London Borough of Wandsworth, evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

Disabled children who have attended residential special schools are more likely to experience severe mental health problems, requiring in-patient psychiatric treatment under section according to the Mental Health Act 1983. Whilst Lenehan (2017) reported an increased trend of institutionalised care provided for Disabled pupils across the UK, Brodie London Councils 2014) noted that London boroughs are more likely than other regions to be placing Disabled pupils with complex needs in independent residential institutional provision provided by large service providers.

The Children and Families Act is weak on promoting Disabled pupils’ civil and human rights to inclusive education. Currently the law does not give Disabled pupils an absolute right to mainstream education; it is conditional, that the child’s education does not impede the efficient education of other pupils and where no reasonable steps can be taken to remove the incompatibility. With shrinking budgets, resources and lack of services, what is considered reasonable becomes determined by the size and availability of the budgets and funding of resources and service infrastructure. As a consequence, many of these children are left unsupported which has an impact upon their wellbeing in mainstream education. Too often, the mainstream school placement breaks down and families struggling to get the support their child needs often leads to LAs only offering a special school placement. The CFA2014 allows LAs the right to place children with SEN into special schools against the wishes of the child and parents which is incompatible with UNCRPD Article 24 obligations.
Overall since London as a region and the individual London Boroughs lost overall control over the planning of school placements, provision and admissions we have noticed an absence of strategic oversight on inclusive education, particularly as a consequence of government removing the statutory Inclusive Education Guidance. Individual schools are now more autonomous, competing against each other for pupils and with reduced funding, and this has had a dire impact upon the progress we would have liked to see in improving the capacity of mainstream schools as a whole to deliver on inclusive education practice. Such a state of affairs has weakened the LA’s and parents’ ability to secure great inclusive education provision within a local area and across all schools.

  • Are there any examples of particularly good support we should be made aware of? (Parents Group Question)

Too often Disabled pupils’ inclusion is determined by the good will of the individual authority, education institution or service provider. Current education legislation and policy does not foster a consistent and coherent approach to supporting Disabled pupils into mainstream education. For instance Frank (not his real name), a parent of a Disabled child with learning difficulties and physical impairments, talked about the very good support that he received from the Hackney Learning Trust before a 48% reduction in the early years support services.

“The support I got from Hackney Learning Trust was amazing. I had support that was kind and tender which help me accept my son’s disability and helped me through the Education, Health and Care assessment and planning process. The HLT went into the mainstream nursery to show the staff how to communicate and integrate my son into play activities with his non-Disabled peers. The staff taught my son play-skills. HLT also helped the family so that we knew how to communicate using Makaton signs, and play with him. In addition, my son received on-going speech and language and occupational therapy support. Now my son is settling into a mainstream primary school.” (evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

From ALLFIE’s experience good practice is often determined by aspirational individuals with a commitment to inclusive education despite the legislation. ALLFIE highlights a wide range of good practice within mainstream schools and supported by LAs across the country in our Inclusion Now magazine. Each edition of the magazine includes an example of good practice in London schools such as Eastlea Secondary School (London Borough of Newham Inclusion Now Issue 45) and Wroxham Primary School (London Borough of Barnet Inclusion Now Issue 44)

  • Do you see any role for the Mayor to play in helping to provide adequate SEND provision in London? (E.g. lobbying, convening etc.) (Local Authorities group question)

Whilst ALLFIE is pleased to read that promoting inclusive education is part of the Mayor of London’s ‘Vision for a Diverse and Inclusive City’ nevertheless the focus is very narrow. The Mayor’s focus on Disabled children and young people’s educational outcomes appears to look solely at academic achievement and the gaps in GCSE attainment.

Whilst ALLFIE recognises that academic attainment is an important measure, we believe the central goal of education is to promote inclusivity of achievement – and the promotion of multiple ways for pupils and students to demonstrate their learning and progress. It is only when pupils play, learn, work and relate together that London will become a world class city that welcomes all regardless of ability and background.

In order to achieve an inclusive education system it is necessary that the Mayor of London, London Assembly and Greater London Authority consider measures and targets which are more far-reaching than whether individual Disabled pupils will or will not achieve academic benchmarks. For many Disabled pupils, such as those with profound learning difficulties, they will not attain academic standards set for non-Disabled pupils. However, regardless of ability, all Disabled pupils have an unqualified human right to be taught alongside their non-Disabled peer group in mainstream schools as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Article 24.

We see a role for the Mayor of London in promoting inclusive education practice. We believe that the Mayor could develop an inclusive education strategic plan to support the development and sharing of great inclusive education practice across the capital. The Mayor of London has already signed up to the London Disabled People’s Manifesto Key Asks for education, which are:

The Mayor of London and GLA to oversee a London Inclusive Education challenge, a school improvement programme with the aim of championing inclusive education practice by:

  • Bringing together London Councils, LAs, schools and Disabled people’s organisations to work together to develop an inclusive education plan which includes identification of barriers and solutions to access to mainstream education across the capital for Disabled pupils and students as part of a London inclusive education policy.
  • Coordinating and publishing an inclusive education good practice assessment guide which includes evidence-based measures that will help education providers develop inclusive education practice across the capital. Coordinating GLA-funded education led initiatives (i.e. London Curriculum content) ensuring these are accessible for and inclusive of Disabled people.
  • Requiring that GLA land can only be used for educational purposes if free schools abide by inclusive building standards and inclusive education practice.
  • Coordinating capacity building resources (such as ‘Continuing Professional Development’ training) focused on inclusion and equality across the education sector.

ALLFIE recognises that the Mayor of London has limited power to develop a well-resourced fully inclusive education system across the capital. However, we believe the role of the Mayor should be to champion inclusive education and challenge government legislation and policy which undermine Disabled pupils’ rights to participate in mainstream education in line with the UNCRPD Article 24. We would like the Mayor to lobby for:

  • Government to implement the UNCRPD Committee’s Concluding Observations recommendation that Education and Equality Legislation must comply with the UNCRPD Article 24 standard.
  • All SEN capital funding to be invested in providing more mainstream school placements for Disabled pupils & students with SEN across the capital.
  • London funding agreements to reflect the real cost of providing sustainable inclusive education provision across London, as well as securing appropriate settlement levels that London councils can not only provide local services but also the securing of estate.

We would also like the Mayor to take on a London-wide strategic statutory role to fund and work with councils to develop inclusive education, with the aim of developing all schools’ capacity to promote inclusive education.

For further information please contact:

Tara Flood, Director of ALLFIE

or Simone Aspis, Campaigns & Policy Coordinator at ALLFIE