1. Only half of schools had all support<\/strong> hours<\/h3>\n\n\n\nIntegrated Care Boards, which organise local healthcare, had commissioned the “required volume of support” – 37.5 hours or more per school – in just 48 per cent of schools. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The reasons behind this include tight implementation timescales, lack of capacity among specialist staff – especially those in health roles – and limited capacity of schools to receive the training and support. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cCreative solutions\u201d were used in some cases to overcome these challenges, but these often \u201crelied on the strength of existing relationships\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Evaluators found schools that received closer to the full hours \u201creported greater improvements\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
More formal commissioning and \u201ca better understanding of local workforce opportunities\u201d would be required in future. <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe main issues the programme sought to address – wellbeing, attendance and behaviour – were the focus of commissioned support in a minority of schools (18 per cent, 12 per cent and 29 per cent respectively). The main focuses were neurodiversity, classroom strategies and sensory. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Four out of five respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that \u201cthe timescales for delivery had been sufficient to implement PINS\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But most schools – 93 per cent – remained \u201cactive\u201d throughout the programme through 2024-25.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. \u2018Perceived\u2019 improvements in pupil outcomes \u2018limited\u2019<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAfter a year of the programme, evaluators said evidence of \u201cperceived improvements\u201d in pupil outcomes was \u201ccurrently limited\u201d. But some teachers and practitioners said these \u201cmay emerge in the longer term\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Evidence from case study schools highlighted some \u201cpositive changes\u201d on wellbeing, attendance, attainment and behaviour. These were attributed \u201cat least in part\u201d to PINS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Evaluators said measurable impacts on pupil outcomes were \u201cnot anticipated at this stage of the evaluation\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was \u201cemerging evidence\u201d of impact on leadership, culture and values, teaching and learning, the school environment, and relationship improvements between schools and parents. There was also \u201cearly signs\u201d of greater understanding of neurodiversity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. \u2018Overloaded\u2019 SENCOs and specialist capacity issues<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBut evaluators said at this stage, it remained \u201cunclear\u201d what lasting impact PINS will have \u201con demand and pressures within the wider system\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They found \u201congoing challenges\u201d related to \u201cthe level and complexity of SEND support needs\u201d and \u201cresource constraints and attrition among staff\u201d doing PINs training, particularly SENCOs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There were concerns about \u201coverloading\u201d SENCOs, who already have teaching responsibility and struggled to find time to pass the learning onto other staff. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Forty-three per cent of schools reported difficulties releasing staff for training. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
When implementing change, some case study schools said a lack of staff had \u201cinhibited the number of pupils who could be supported through small-group work or outside the classroom in dedicated quiet zones”. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cTo compensate, teachers built quiet zones in their classrooms, e.g., tents or wigwams, so they could still supervise the children.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Health boards also struggled. The scheme relied \u201cheavily on strong existing relationships between ICBs and health practitioners and on practitioners goodwill – several examples of practitioners delivering support outside their contracted hours were given.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4. Disagreement over which schools need help <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nSchools were selected through a range of methods, including direct approaches from ICBs, expressions of interest or geographical clusters. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Only 16 per cent of schools identified by the Department for Education with the highest potential need for PINS took part in the programme. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just two-fifths (39 per cent) of schools in the first cohort had above-average proportions of pupils with SEND and FSM eligibility (43 per cent). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Evaluators said it led to concerns about \u201cwhether the programme was reaching the schools that could benefit most.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Two thirds of those involved in the commissioning and design of the programme said they were either unsure (38 per cent) or disagreed (28 per cent) that schools most in need of PINs in their local area received it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cProject team stakeholders occasionally indicated that a more strategic, nationally guided approach to school selection was needed to address this.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5. Only 1 in 5 leaders said training and support \u2018fully\u2019 helped<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nJust 21 per cent of school leaders and SENCOs believed the PINs training and support \u201cfully\u201d addressed their priorities. But 58 per cent reported it met their needs to \u201cto some extent\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Evaluators suggested \u201cthe generic focus\u201d of some training did not address their school\u2019s priorities or take account of their existing practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the support received by schools \u201cwas judged to be of high quality\u201d. Direct access to health practitioners was seen as “particularly impactful\u201d, given \u201cthe challenges schools typically face in accessing these practitioners outside the programme\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The whole-school model – rather than just focusing on individual pupils – was noted as \u201cthe most impactful feature\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
There were \u201cnoticeable positive shifts\u201d in schools meeting the needs of neurodivergent pupils. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPractitioners reported that teachers and support staff were more inclined to apply curiosity and examine the reasons a child might be struggling, thus moving beyond responding to surface behaviours.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result of PINS, more staff reported being committed to making reasonable adjustments to support neurodivergent pupils. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Evaluators highlighted implementation challenges with the \u00a322m programme’s first year in 1,669 schools<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":311127,"featured_media":190469,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[62],"post-theme":[2354],"class_list":["post-238952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-send","post-theme-inclusion"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/schoolsweek.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Screenshot-2025-12-04-at-135610.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n