Think Piece
Jersey’s Send Crisis – Peter Fekete
Contents
Introduction
Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) refers to children or young people (0-25) who have learning difficulties or disabilities making it significantly harder for them to learn than most peers of the same age. The subject has attracted increasing attention in the UK, Jersey and other jurisdictions over the last few years in the context of rising demand.
This paper analyses developments in the way that Jersey handles children with SEND. It draws on a relevant article by Luke Sibieta and Darcey Snape, England’s SEND crisis: costs, challenges and the case for reform, published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in September 2025.
Summary
Jersey’s SEND system is under significant strain, with rising demand, escalating costs and inconsistent outcomes. The 2025 Island SEND Review found that leadership, organisation and oversight of inclusive education are “not sufficiently effective”, creating inconsistent experiences for children. A reactive, complaint‑driven culture absorbs staff time and prevents timely support, while delays in identifying needs lead to higher long‑term costs. Expertise exists but it is under‑used, and morale across the system is low.
The Review also highlighted that none of the 50 recommendations from the 2021 NASEN report on inclusive education had been effectively implemented, suggesting institutional resistance to change. Parents report inconsistent communication, marginalisation and disrupted learning, including concerns about exclusion from mainstream education.
The Government’s Immediate Priorities Plan (2025–26) focuses on structural reorganisation, but these strategic changes have yet to improve day‑to‑day experiences. The approach mirrors UK reforms, which also emphasise inclusive education and early identification but acknowledge that current systems are “ineffective and inefficient” despite major funding increases.
Demand and costs in Jersey have risen sharply: Records of Need more than doubled between 2017 and 2024, and the SEN budget increased from £17.2 million in 2021 to £37.9 million in 2025.
Current reviews focus on symptoms rather than causes. A systems‑theory approach, combined with practical classroom‑level improvements such as differentiated instruction and individualised interventions, could deliver more immediate benefits. Without such changes, pressures on families, schools and public finances will continue to grow.
Island SEND Review of October 2025
The Island SEND Review of October 2025 was conducted by a team of His Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) in England with extensive SEND expertise and experience. The review found that leadership in relation to inclusive education was “not sufficiently effective”[i]. It also determined that outcomes for Jersey’s children with SEND was “inconsistent”.[ii]
The report indicates a significant number of complaints made by parents, with a consequent evolution of a fire-fighting culture prioritising responses to adult-led complaints.[iii] [iv] This is noted to be ineffective and inefficient.[v] Financial resources are being used to deal with complaints rather than provide additional resources to schools and specialist teams to prevent complaints from arising.[vi] Staff are not adequately trained.[vii] [viii] The needs of children are not met in timely fashion, and, hence, problems and costs of interventions have escalated. Resources are not provided centrally.[ix] Staff are not utilised to their maximum.[x]
Children with SEND may meet the criteria for a Record of Needs (RoN), a document setting out how best to implement additional arrangements to support children with complex SEND. However, this system is also noted to have “acknowledged weaknesses”. The cost of funding has also increased.[xi]
The effect on morale is also a theme of the report:[xii] School leaders were frustrated with ineffective decision-making and poor management processes.[xiii]
The NASEN report
The Island SEND Review arose in the context of the NASEN (National Association for Special Educational Needs) Independent Review of Inclusive Education and Early Years of December 2021, commissioned by the Jersey Government. The NASEN Review made 50 recommendations, none of which had been effectively implemented by the time of the October 2025 Review.[xiv] The SEND Review acknowledged that “the vast scope of that [NASEN] report and its many recommendations has felt overwhelming.”[xv]
Parental experience
The SEND Review also identifies the frustration experienced by some parents of children with SEND needs.[xvi] This is part of a general pattern of confrontational communication.[xvii] Some parents have expressed their concerns to the media. In an article published on the BBC website, one Jersey parent states, “You’re constantly having to push for your child’s most basic rights to be recognised.”[xviii]
In a post by the Jersey Action Group frustration is expressed in respect of “the worrying trend of pushing children out of mainstream education.”[xix] Opportunities for children thus marginalised are signficantly curtailed.[xx] Parents are also concerned about the quality of teaching, once their child is removed from regular classes.[xxi] One parent complains of the de facto use of exclusion in respect of her child.[xxii] This is attributed to the Ready to Learn (RTL) scheme, where children who have been disruptive are sent to a room if they receive two or more warnings from teachers. This invariably leads to suspensions to which the parent attributes her child’s development of anxiety.[xxiii]
CYPES Immediate Priorities Plan
In response to the SEND Review, in December 2025 the Children, Young People, Education and Skills Department (CYPES) published an Immediate Priorities Plan. In it, CYPES set out a broad Vision for Inclusive Education focusing on the review and design of organisation development, policy, funding models, property, workforce and governance and improvements in communication with parents and carers. The immediate priorities have been reorganisation of the central education team (CET), improvement in accountability and quality assurance and “ensuring stability”, in which a response to the “changing demographics on island”[xxiv] is the prime focus. The update to this report of March 2026 indicates progress towards achieving these immediate priorities.
As of March 2026, however, the impact of these developments is likely to have had little direct impact on the experience of students with SEND needs.
An issue not directly addressed by either the SEND Review or by the Priorities Plan is the extent to which an institutional resistance to change exists within the Jersey educational system. The possibility of institutional resistance to change is indicated in the history of the years spanning the NASEN 2021 Report and the SEND 2025 Review – four years elapsed without the NASEN recommendations translating into significant improvements in stakeholder experience. The reasons why the NASEN recommendations were never acted upon in the intervening years since its publication appear not to have been investigated.
The CYPES Immediate Priorities Plan is exclusively preoccupied with strategic decisions – such as reorganisation of CET – rather than tactical improvements – such as tweaking of provisions and student experiences. What comes to mind is the business philosophy of KAIZAN – continuous improvement through small changes. This appears not to have been considered. The approach is top-down rather than bottom-up. A bottom-up approach would be more likely to address the immediate concerns of those stakeholders that are dissatisfied with the current arrangements.
UK 2026 Schools White Paper
A sub-theme of the CYPES Immediate Priorities Plan is “better designed curriculum pathways”.[xxv] These relate to UK Government responses to the equivalent problem of SEND provision within the UK and the 2026 Schools White Paper.[xxvi] There is also the UK government Open consultation – SEND reform: putting children and young people first.[xxvii] The White Paper proposes a personalised, three-tiered approach to prepare learners from early years for adulthood, employment and independence.
Two of its salient features are:
- A preference for inclusive education as opposed to the use of specialist schools, based on evidence of greater employment opportunities and the chance of independent living.[xxviii] The aim is to reverse the trend towards the increase of state funded special schools.[xxix]
- Recognition of the importance of early identification of SEND needs.[xxx]
The Open consultation is explicit about the failure of the existing UK provisions to meet SEND needs. It acknowledges that, for the UK, the current SEND system “is not leading to better educational or life outcomes.”[xxxi] [xxxii] It states that “Overall, the current SEND system is ineffective and inefficient.”[xxxiii]
The Open Consultation observes that “Outcomes for children and young people with SEND remain low despite an 87% rise in high needs funding over the last 6 years.”[xxxiv] Corresponding figures for Jersey appear not to be readily available. For example, the Jersey Children and Young People’s Survey Report, 2024, does not mention them.
The White Paper, like the CYPES Immediate Priorities Plan, is focused on strategic decision-making rather than tactical improvements. As such, it presents a wide-ranging vision of a future enhanced and personalised system to meet SEND needs, while offering little that could be useful to those students with SEND needs who are progressing through the system now, which it acknowledges is poor.[xxxv]
The White Paper is the prototype of the top-down approach to resolving the problem. It starts from the top with a commitment to “introduce new Specialist Provision Packages” that “will offer a full range of support – covering curriculum adaptations, extra services, therapies, and resources”.[xxxvi] [xxxvii] From this we may infer that there is currently no definite concept of what these Packages might contain, and that the current failures of the system will be perpetuated for some time to come.[xxxviii]
This is relevant to Jersey. Whatever Jersey implements is likely to be largely influenced and attend upon like developments in the UK.
Curriculum and adaptation – the philosophy of “can’t do”
The White Paper also reflects a philosophy prevalent in education; in defending the vision of how “excellent education transforms lives”, the White Paper states, “it is not predestined that parents must invest so much time, money and emotion into proving what their children can’t do, in order to get help.”[xxxix] [My underlining.] While in context, this places an important emphasis on the early and efficient identification of learning delays, it may implicitly suggest an educational philosophy that children who have learning difficulties and “can’t do” now what their peers can do, will also “never do”. This philosophy is strongly represented by the prevalent use of tests of cognitive ability as predictors of future educational attainment. This sometimes forms the sole basis of entry requirements to an institution, as is the case in Jersey at Hautlieu.[xl]
The philosophy of “can’t do” correlates with the teaching methodology of “one size fits all”. By this is indicated the methodology that teaches the same curriculum to every student within a given class. While effective streaming may create some variation of curriculum experience for children, in every classroom there are students with a range of abilities, differentiated learning styles, and differentiated starting points. The “one size fits all” methodology presumes that every child at the outset of a course commences with the sufficient prior knowledge to complete it.
Academic criticism of the “one size fits all” is widespread.[xli]The philosophy of “can’t do” has been challenged. “What any person in the world can learn,” writes educational theorist Benjamin Bloom, “almost all persons can learn if provided with appropriate prior and current conditions of learning.”[xlii] Bloom also introduced the notion of mastery learning: students learn best when they master basic subjects before they tackle more advanced ones.
This leads to the notion of Differentiated instruction (DI). This is a comprehensive teaching approach that intends to maximise the learning outcomes of all students in the classroom and decrease the achievement gap. Langelaan, Gaikhorst, Smets and Oostdam define it “as a proactive approach that incorporates inclusive strategies to create tailored, accessible learning experiences that meet the educational needs of all students within the classroom.”[xliii] [My underlining.] In their meta-review, they state that “the literature provides indications that DI positively impacts students’ learning outcomes.”[xliv] However, this applies to within classroom instruction, and one suggests that such differentiated instruction may be only partially relevant to children with SEND needs, who could benefit from instruction that is wholly differentiated and conducted individually either within the classroom or by being temporarily withdrawn from the classroom.
This is known as Individualised intervention. In the context of mathematics learning delays, Dowker and Morris discuss several intensive interventions concluding that “the findings support the view that individualised interventions in arithmetic, especially those that focus on the particular components with which an individual child has difficulty, can be highly effective.”[xlv] The results are statistically significant. Thus, effective remediation programmes within the domain of mathematics already exist. However, they come at a cost.[xlvi]
Systems theory
The SEND Review, the NASEN Report and the White Paper are all studies of outputs not studies of causation; this is the fundamental reason why these reports shed very little light on what is going wrong and hence invite by way of response a top-down approach to remediation of the outputs. What is required is a systems theory analysis of education.
Systems theory is an interdisciplinary framework for studying complex, organised entities—natural or artificial—as cohesive systems of interrelated, interdependent parts.
While there is some sketchy research of education as a system available,[xlvii] there is nothing sufficiently thorough to qualify as a full-scale application of this holistic approach. What are the inputs and outputs, and what processes take place between these in a school seen as an open, complex system, interacting with other complex systems? What are the transformations, and how are these effected by changes in the system and in the other inputs? Thus, the input-transformation-output model applies to education.[xlviii]
If we accept that our current provision for meeting SEND needs is broken, then it is necessary to find out where in the system the interactions exist that are most detrimental to the output, when it is undesirable: mental ill-heath, incapacity, lack of qualifications, poor life-prospects and delinquency.[xlix]
The cost of SEND provision
In the UK, there is a rising trend of students with SEND needs. In Jersey, students with Records of Needs rose from 212 in 2017 to 500 in 2024.[l] This increased demand is putting pressure on schools’ budgets. In 2024, the combined budget overspend for schools in Jersey was over £2 million.[li] In 2025, the combined budget overspend was over £4.5 million, of which specialist schools accounted for £2.1 million.[lii] In both 2024 and 2025, the Education Minister attributed the deficit to a “sharp increase in the numbers and complexity of special educational needs across primary and secondary schools”.[liii] In this context, further funding for SEND needs has been recommended.
Total annual expenditure on children
with Special Educational Needs (SEN)
| Year | Spend |
| 2021 | £17.2 million |
| 2022 | £19.7 million |
| 2023 | £23.9 million |
| 2024 | £32.9 million |
| 2025 | £37.9 million |
Children with SEN needs and with
a Record of Need (RON)[liv]
| Year | Record of need | SEN Support |
| 2021 | 297 | 1,296 |
| 2022 | 358 | 1,296 |
| 2023 | 382 | 1,396 |
| 2024 | 493 | 1,449 |
| 2025 | 559 | 1,541 |
Funding for SEND needs has been steadily increasing. The Special Educational Needs (SEN) budget for Jersey rose from £17.2 million in 2021 to £39.6 million in 2024 and an estimated £41.3 million in 2025. After adjusting for inflation, the budget for 2024 at 2017 price levels was £27.1 million, representing a real increase of 56%. There is reason to suppose that this spending trend to meet SEND needs will continue. The Education Minister stated: “The scale of this growth reflects demographic changes across the island.”[lv]
The increasing demand for SEND and changes in demographics
We should investigate the extent to which demographic changes do account for the rising numbers of children with SEND needs. The number of births in Jersey peaked at 1,008 in 2016 and has since fallen steadily to 698 in 2025.[lvi] If the relationship between births and children with SEND needs were proportionate, we would expect to see a peak in Year 6 (Age 10). That peak should proceed through the years progressively and thereafter be marked by a decline. The statistics confirm this trend. The number of children in reception classes has fallen from 1,066 in 2020/21 to 841 in 2024/25.
Children of school age in Jersey 2014 to 2030 (projected)[lvii]
| Year | 5-9 | 10-14 | 15-19 | Total |
| 2014 | 5,040 | 4,920 | 5,540 | 15,500 |
| 2019 | 5,400 | 5,200 | 5,120 | 15,720 |
| 2024 | 4,840 | 5,370 | 5,220 | 15,430 |
| 2030 | 4,050 | 4,900 | 5,470 | 14,420 |
If SEND need were constant as a proportion of Jersey’s population, then the number of students requiring a RON or SEND Support would have been approximately the same in 2024/25 as it was in 2020/21, whereas there has been an increase of both by 88.2% and 18.9% respectively.
Net migration may have produced a change in the ethnic distribution of the population. The number of people with rest of the world nationality living in Jersey increased from 1,850 in December 2019 to 5,030 in December 2024.[lviii] Although this represents a 172% increase, it is hard to see how this increase alone could account for the increase in SEND need numbers over the same period.[lix]
A further investigation of the causes of the increase in demand for SEND is warranted. For Jersey, the increase has been attributed to changes in demographics. However, in the UK where a similar pattern is evinced, explanations offered include higher identification rates, heightened awareness of rights and the impact of COVID-19. For the UK, the Institute of Fiscal Studies has published extensive studies.
While the relevant data for Jersey do not appear to be easily accessible, the figure[lx] shows that the increase in demand for SEND is driven by increasing identifications of students with autistic spectrum disorder, speech, language and communication needs and social, emotional and mental health issues. These causes indicate that the rise in numbers is apparent rather than real and would lead one to expect the numbers to plateau.
However, the proffered explanations are not all on a par. A higher identification rate is not a stand-alone cause of increase, but itself must be explained by other causal factors: it is questionable whether heightened awareness of rights and the impact of COVID-19 are sufficient to account for the higher identification. We must consider whether there is a real increase in all these disorders and whether there is a crisis among the youth of the UK, to which Jersey would not be an exception and that the increase could be without limit.
Along these lines, we may quote the conclusion of the IFS regarding the UK:
“EHCPs [Education, Health and Care Plans] are meant to guarantee help. However, you cannot magic quality into existence by writing it on a legal document.
… the quality of current provision is patchy. Many children are pulled out of lessons for support from poorly trained teaching assistants, missing time with qualified teachers. We have almost no way of judging whether the billions in extra funding represent value for money.”[lxi]
Other fiscal considerations
The cost of funding SEND needs should be also put into the context of other fiscal considerations.
- Failure to progress from school into adult life may result in long term incapacity. The individual is unable to work as an adult and must be supported either by family, the State or both.
- Like all other developed countries, Jersey faces the prospect of the need to support an increasingly ageing population. The number of people aged 65 and over grew from 18,400 in December 2019 to 20,600 in December 2024, an increase of 12% over five years.[lxii]
However, in Jersey, total number of claimants of Long-Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) has exhibited only a slight increase from 4,667 in 2021 to 4992 in 2025 and that has been mostly offset by a corresponding decrease in the claims legacy Invalidity Benefit (INV).[lxiii]
Social Benefits Payments rose from £377 million in 2017 to £552 million in 2024, but when these figures are adjusted for inflation, the Social Benefits Payments for 2024 were £395 million at 2017 prices, representing a 5% increase. There was an intervening peak in Social Benefits Payments during the Covid years.[lxiv]
While these figures do not suggest that Jersey’s budget has yet experienced any financial strain arising from the increase in expenditure on SEND, if an increase in numbers with SEND in the years of school age needs translates into adult incapacity the fiscal implications are considerable.
Conclusions
The conclusions presented by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) Green Budget for 2025 (published September 2025), Support for children with disabilities and special educational needs[lxv] regarding implications for the UK financial position may be relevant to Jersey’s own fiscal position. These include:
- Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of children receiving support in schools for special educational needs and through the benefit system for disabilities.
- Spending on educational support for children with high needs has also increased dramatically, putting pressure on local and central government finances.
- Since the cost of provision has exceeded funding provided by central government, local authorities have faced large annual shortfalls.
- Those who receive support for the special educational needs and disabilities as children are likely to be out of work and to receive additional state support when they reach early adulthood.
- There is a strong case for the government to review all systems of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities.[lxvi]
If the trajectory of rising demand for SEND continues, the day-to-day spending must increase correspondingly. This is likely to put pressure on the Jersey economy and public finances and run contrary to the advice presented in the 2025 Annual Report of Jersey’s Fiscal Policy Panel: “The trajectory of day-to-day spending is unsustainable given Jersey’s revenues, and will need to be curtailed in future Budgets. High levels of public spending, especially on services, in a capacity constrained economy is likely to add to existing inflationary pressures.”[lxvii]
On the upside, if the provision for SEND results in a reduction in hours of working-age ill health, that would also be a benefit to the economy and finances of Jersey. The Review of Jersey’s Incapacity Benefits, December 2021[lxviii]estimated “lost productivity from working-age ill health at up to £230 million a year”, with the comment that “This is slightly more than the entire annual budget for Jersey’s healthcare system.” The report states that “Even a modest reduction of 10% of the costs of working-age ill health could benefit the island by up to £23 million a year.”
Biographical note
Peter Fekete, BA, MA(Cantab) MSc, is the director of Black’s Academy Limited, an on-line tutoring platform. He was headmaster of Black’s Academy, formerly a full-time private school in Jersey and prior to that was Head of Sixth Form of Victoria College Jersey.
References
[i] “… the current leadership, organisation, systems, strategies, oversight and accountability arrangements, in relation to inclusive education in Jersey are not sufficiently effective.” Island SEND Review, October 2025, Government of Jersey, p. 1
[ii] “… too great an inconsistency in the experiences and outcomes for Jersey’s children and young people with SEND.” Ibid. p. 1
[iii] “a significant number of parents who are concerned about the quality of SEND provision and approaches across Jersey.” Ibid. p. 1
[iv] “too much priority” is given “to adult-led complaints in relation to pupil provision.” Ibid. p. 2
[v] It has led to “an excessive amount of time is spent responding to complaints,” which “has a direct and negative impact on the central team’s ability to provide ongoing support and guidance to schools.” Ibid. p. 2
[vi] “The absence of coherent and coordinated strategy and oversight impedes the development of specialist schools and Additionally Resourced Provisions (ARPs) within mainstream schools.” Ibid, p.2
[vii] Structures are not developed “for the sustainable delivery of inclusive education. Ibid. p. 2
[viii] “Extensive delays and difficulties in identifying [SEND] needs are reported to be frequent.” Ibid. p. 2
[ix] Schools are “often relying on their own initiatives” and sometimes upon “charity support”. Ibid. p. 2
[x] “There are some expert staff in both the central team and in schools. However, this expertise is not fully ulitised.” Ibid. p. 3
[xi] “there has been an increase in schools applying for RoNs and for higher levels of funding.” Ibid. p. 2
[xii] “Unsurprisingly, staff reported that morale at the centre [CYPES], and in some schools, is low.” Ibid. p. 3
[xiii] “expressed their frustration stemming from what they see as inaction, ineffective decision-making, and/or poor change management processes.” Ibid. p. 3
[xiv] “… the findings have not yet been used to devise and communicate an effective strategic plan to all stakeholders. It is unclear how leaders have prioritized actions or evaluated which aspects of the report to enact.” Ibid. p. 2
[xv] Ibid. p. 4
[xvi] “Communication is inconsistent between schools and parents … some families feel marginalized.” Ibid. p. 3
[xvii] “Parents, carers, school leaders and other stakeholders are not always viewed as partners.” Ibid. p. 3
[xviii] “Other parents in the island with SEND children have also spoken of a “vicious circle” where continuous education has been disrupted.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gej09gy7po
[xix] https://www.facebook.com/JerseyActionGroup/posts/we-told-them-for-yearsparents-of-children-with-special-needs-today-speak-out-in-/1229897289166303/
[xx] Children deemed incapable of taking GCSE are offered exams in functional skills. Data of children who take these exams is not provided on the Jersey government web page, where GCSE and A level results can be found. https://www.gov.je/Education/Schools/ChildLearning/Pages/ExamResults.aspx
[xxi] “That line could have been written about my child and their constant removal from or access to mainstream lessons in favour of isolated, segregated learning, by an unqualified teaching assistant.” Op. cit.
[xxii] “She’s been suspended numerous amounts of times.” Op. cit.
[xxiii] “RTL is 9 til 4 – that always leads to a suspension because she can’t handle being in a room for that amount of time. It was just a vicious cycle … she now suffers with anxiety.” Op. cit.
[xxiv] Island SEND Review, CYPES Immediate Priorities Plan, December 2025, Progress update: March 2026, p. 6
[xxv] They aim to “design, agree and implement” and to “monitor and quality assure the new curriculum pathways.” Ibid. p. 7
[xxvi] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/every-child-achieving-and-thriving
[xxvii] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/send-reform-putting-children-and-young-people-first/send-reform-putting-children-and-young-people-first-html-version
[xxviii] ““Pupils with SEND who are educated in inclusive mainstream schools are twice as likely to find employment and live independent lives compared to those with similar needs in special classes.” Ibid. Executive summary / Our vision
[xxix] The state funded special school population as a % of the total population in the UK has increased from 1.1% in 2024 to 1.9% in 2025. Ibid. Figure 2.
[xxx] “Evidence shows that children with access to Sure Start Children’s Centres were more likely to have their needs recognized at age 5 and less likely to require SEND support between ages 7 and 16.” Ibid. Executive summary / Our plan
[xxxi] Ibid. Footnote 9: See analysis in ISOS, Towards an effective and financially sustainable approach to SEND (2024);
[xxxii] “it leaves too many families fighting for support (often with financial implications with over a quarter reducing their working hours); and too many education and health professionals having to spend their time on bureaucracy rather than on supporting children and young people” Ibid. Footnote 10: The Sutton Trust, Double Disadvantage? (2025)
[xxxiii] Ibid. Executive summary / Case for change
[xxxiv] Ibid. Executive summary / Our plan
[xxxv] “… no clear or consistent approach to identifying and meeting needs, and too much support is poorly evidenced.” Ibid. Executive summary / Our plan
[xxxvi] Ibid. Executive summary / Our plan
[xxxvii] In the manner of a top-down approach, it places emphasis on putting the right people in place to eventually design and deliver the improvements. “The Department for Education (DfE) will appoint an independent expert panel to develop and review these Packages.” Ibid. Executive summary / Our plan
[xxxviii] “These reforms will be introduced gradually, over time …” Ibid. Executive summary / Our plan
[xxxix] Ibid. Foreword – The Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, Secretary of State for Education & The Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
[xl] “A mean Cognitive Ability Test (CAT) score of 109 or more is required as the first criteria to join the school in Year 10.” https://www.hautlieu.co.uk/admissions/14-application/14-entry-criteria-and-application-process/ – Entry criteria.
[xli] “A standardized curriculum typically follows a one-size-fits-all approach … “. On the contrary, argue Zhao, Li & Liu, “It is important to note that students learn at different paces and have different strengths and weaknesses. … Some students may feel overwhelmed or bored if the pace of instruction does not align with their individual learning needs. On the other hand, students who grasp concepts quickly may feel held back if the curriculum moves too slowly.” Yunshan Zhao, Tianzhao Li & Wenfeng Liu, The Benefits and Drawbacks of Standarized Curriculum in Education, Paradigm Academic Press.
[xlii] Benjamin Bloom (1981): All our children learning: a primer for parents, teachers, and other educators, McGraw-Hill
[xliii] Differentiating instruction: Understanding the key elements for successful teacher preparation and development,Langelaan, Gaikhorst, Smets and Oostdam in Vol. 140 of Teaching and Teacher Education, Aprill 2024, Elsevier
[xliv] Ibid. 1.1.1. Research on the impact of DI
[xlv] Targeted interventions for children with difficulties in learning mathematics, Ann Dowker and Peter Morris – Chapter 18 in The Routledge International Handbook of Dyscalculia and Mathematical Learning Difficulties, Ed Steve Chinn, 2005, Routledge, Oxford
[xlvi] One programme involves 30 minutes intensive work daily and “must be delivered by people who have received 60 hours of training.” Ibid.
[xlvii] Systems_Theory_Conceptualised_and_Pasted_to_Teachi.pdf
[xlviii] So far as the student is concerned, the input is not the student per se, but the complex set of characteristics exhibited by that student. For example, let us divide these into four properties: (1) cognition – including knowledge and beliefs (what?), skills (how?) and cognitive style; (2) character – including traits and some measure of maturation; (3) mental health – including emotional state and behaviour; (4) assets – including home environment and qualifications. The school transforms one state of these into another. Would it be possible to follow a student through a day, week and year as he or she passes through the school system and observe the interactions with other inputs (other students, teachers, teaching assistants, managers, resources, buildings etc. and their properties) and examine how each of these transforms that student?
[xlix] If we apply this to the KAIZAN model of continuous improvement – to rescue the current cohort from the current “ineffective” situation, what is needed is, say, three significant, relatively small and cost-effective changes that impact positively and directly on the performance of the system.
[l] https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2025-05-13/find-out-if-your-school-overspent-last-year
[li] https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2025-05-13/find-out-if-your-school-overspent-last-year
[lii] https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2026/01/28/4-5m-overspend-in-schools-driven-by-sharp-increase-in-special-educational-needs/
[liii] Ibid.
[liv] https://statesassembly.je/getmedia/bdf6a834-9d71-4906-9886-a512bf8b6fba/WQ-40-2026.pdf?ext=.pdf
[lv] https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2026/02/24/cost-of-special-educational-needs-support-rises-by-120-over-five-years/
[lvi] https://www.policy.je/papers/early-years/
[lvii]https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/Statistics%20Jersey%20Population%20Projections%202023%20to%202080.pdf
[lviii] R-Population-and-migration-2024-nationality-and-work-permits-SJ20250924.pdf
[lix] More information about the number of children of these ethnic groups attending State schools and the proportion of children meeting the criteria for SEND needs is required.
[lx] https://stats.je/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/R-Population-and-migration-2024-total-population-SJ20250924.pdf
[lxi] “EHCPs are meant to guarantee help. However, you cannot magic quality into existence by writing it on a legal document. Creating high-quality provision requires system-wide efforts to increase the supply of well-trained staff, structured and planned provision within schools, and a system that can provide support in a flexible and timely way. These have not happened. Instead, provision has been increased piecemeal, pupil-by-pupil, with little thought for supply-side capacity or coherence. As a result, the quality of current provision is patchy. Many children are pulled out of lessons for support from poorly trained teaching assistants, missing time with qualified teachers. We have almost no way of judging whether the billions in extra funding represent value for money.” https://ifs.org.uk/articles/government-signals-major-reform-and-extra-funding-send-england / Education, Health and Care Plans – good intentions, bad incentives – written by Luke Sibieta and Darcey Snape, published 12 September 2025
[lxii] https://stats.je/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/R-Population-and-migration-2024-total-population-SJ20250924.pdf / p,8. Population by age
[lxiii] https://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/EmploymentSocialSecurityHousing/
pages/esshstatistics.aspx
[lxiv] Source: States of Jersey Annual Report and Accounts 2017 – 2024
[lxv] https://ifs.org.uk/publications/support-children-disabilities-and-special-educational-needs
[lxvi] https://ifs.org.uk/publications/support-children-disabilities-and-special-educational-needs / Key findings
[lxvii] Jersey’s Public finances, Policy Centre Jersey , p. 14 – Policy Panel analysis and forecast
[lxviii] https://statesassembly.je/publications/assembly-reports/2021/r-189-2021
