Evaluation of the ALN system: local area studies (wave 1 report summary)

The Welsh Government commissioned Arad Research to conduct a four-year formative evaluation of the implementation of the ALN system.

Three reports have already been published as part of the evaluation:

• Evaluation of the Additional Learning Needs system: scoping report (2023)
• Evaluation of the ALN system: survey of practitioners and professionals (2025)
• Evaluation of the Additional Learning Needs system: survey of parents and carers (2025)

This report presents findings from qualitative research with practitioners and professionals in schools, PRUs, early years settings, FEIs, local authorities and local health boards (LHBs). It also presents fieldwork with learners with ALN and parents/carers of learners with ALN (for brevity, the term “parents” is used in this report to describe respondents with parental responsibility i.e. both parents and carers). 

Methodology 

Interview guides for representatives from different sectors, learners and parents were informed by the theory of change for the ALN system, set out in the scoping report for the ALN evaluation.  Six local authority areas were selected for inclusion in the area studies sample, based on various geographic and socio-demographic criteria. 

Across the six areas, fieldwork was carried out between February and December 2024 with a total of 93 practitioners and professionals from schools, early years, PRUs, FEIs, local authorities and LHBs, comprising:

• a total of 35 senior leaders, Additional Learning Needs Coordinators (ALNCos), practitioners and support staff from a total of 16 schools and 3 PRUs 
• 8 senior leaders, ALNCos, practitioners and support staff from 6 FEIs
• 6 practitioners from 6 non-maintained early years providers 
• 27 professionals from 6 local authorities 
• 17 professionals from 5 local health boards

Research participants primarily worked within the six local authorities although some of the research participants worked across more than one local authority area (e.g. those in FEIs and LHBs). 

In June and July 2025, a total of 31 learners in Years 6-14 from 9 settings across 5 of the 6 local authorities selected took part in small group discussions at their setting. Between November 2025 and February 2026, a total of 9 parents across 4 of the 6 local authorities selected took part in interviews.

A thematic approach was taken to the analysis of all interview notes. The findings in this report set out the most frequently occurring themes emerging from the analysis.

Notes on interpretation

The research is based on relatively small samples of participants who agreed to, or expressed interest in, taking part, which means that results are not statistically robust and cannot be generalised to the population. The findings are based on self-reported data and participants’ subjective views, for example of what they considered to be working well or less well in implementing the ALN system, rather than more systematic, objective and validated measures. 

It is also important to consider that not all interviewees commented on all of the issues discussed in the report. This means that, if most interviewees noted that they felt an aspect of the system was working well, it does not necessarily imply that some felt this aspect of the system was not working well. This should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings. 

Across the six local areas, the findings indicate that collaboration between practitioners and professionals in the ALN system, both within and across sectors, was generally considered to be working well. Participants provided examples of this, including multi-agency networks, collaboration between local authorities, FEIs and LHBs and collaboration between ALNCos within and across school clusters.

Person-centred practice was also considered to be working well and having a positive influence on relationships between schools, learners and parents and creating a more inclusive system.

Participants reported that systems to support the implementation of the ALN reforms (e.g. online IDP systems, standardised forms and/or templates, professional learning for staff, regular network or panel meetings) were contributing to improved awareness and understanding of the ALN system.

Pressures on staff and organisational capacity to implement the ALN system were reported by almost all participants. These pressures were mainly attributed to challenges related to funding and increased workloads as a result of implementing the ALN system.

Meeting statutory deadlines was reported to be a challenge in some cases, particularly in securing the input of all relevant practitioners and professionals within the time limits. 

Across the areas and sectors, the PCP approach was generally welcomed as a way to involve learners in discussions about their needs and to ensure their meaningful involvement in the development of IDPs. 

Representatives from all sectors highlighted that IDPs and planning processes had led to substantial additional workload for staff including, but not limited to, ALNCos. 

Engaging health professionals in IDP planning processes and PCP meetings was considered to be a particular challenge across those from all sectors, often due to time constraints and their limited availability. 

Among participants from schools and FEIs, IDPs were considered to play an important role in ensuring that learner needs, intended outcomes and aspirations were meaningfully captured in a holistic way. However, concerns relating to the variability of quality in IDPs were noted by local authority and school representatives. These concerns related mainly to inconsistencies in the identification of ALN, ALP and, in some cases, a lack of information being included in some IDPs on wider-contextual factors that were relevant to learners with more complex needs. 

Participants felt that the long lead-in time for reviews positively benefitted planning processes.

Across all areas, participants from each sector reported that there were variations and inconsistencies in understandings and interpretations of ALP, including ALP secured by an NHS body. Participants highlighted that this variability could affect approaches to securing appropriate provision and the setting of targets in IDPs. 

Collaboration within clusters and regions to agree consistent approaches to ALP definitions and provision was reported by participants from all sectors. School and FEI representatives noted that guidance to clarify the definition of ALP would be helpful. 

Participants from all local authority areas felt that, in general, there was sufficient ALP to meet most learner needs, although some school representatives noted that funding and time constraints, hindered their ability to deliver ALP that was comprehensive and frequent enough. LHB representatives also noted challenges in providing ALP via CAMHS and therapies due to capacity issues. Challenges in accessing specialist provision for learners requiring more complex ALP and support were reported by local authority and school representatives.

Participants from local authorities, schools and LHBs generally felt there was sufficient knowledge and skills to deliver ALP, with some local authorities designating teams to oversee ALP and investing in professional learning for their staff. 

In terms of barriers to delivering ALP, participants from schools and FEIs referred to increased workloads, a lack of staff capacity, and inadequate physical environments. Challenges were also noted in all sectors regarding securing Welsh-medium specialists to provide ALP, potentially leading to inequity amongst learners. Representatives from early years settings noted their main challenge regarding providing ALP was staff capacity, due to requirements of staff-to-learner ratios.

Participants generally reported that they understood the statutory roles of the ALNCo, early years ALN lead officer (EY ALNLO) and Designated Education Clinical Lead Officer (DECLO) and appreciated that the roles could facilitate collaboration both within and between sectors and settings.

Concerns about the workload of individuals in the statutory roles were raised by participants in all sectors. For ALNCOs and EY ALNLOs, participants noted that the workload was heavily administrative, and that this had a negative effect on their ability to complete other necessary tasks. In some schools/settings, the heavy workload was reported to have led to a high turnover of staff and negative effects on well-being. Some settings had introduced additional ALNCo or EY ALNLO support roles, or created shared roles, to alleviate the burden of a heavy workload on one individual.

Participants indicated that the remit of the DECLO role was too large for one person. 

Collaboration between practitioners and professionals across different sectors was generally reported to be working well by participants across the different sectors and areas. Participants reported that some factors enabled good working relationships between sectors including:

• levels of support provided by local authorities to schools and FEIs
• the introduction of the DECLO role
• early years panels and forums which had supported the early identification of ALN
• opportunities for schools to network with other schools
• post-16 steering groups
• effective online data sharing systems which could help clarify roles, improve the quality of IDPs and aid information flow between and within sectors. 

Conversely, factors that were reported to act as barriers to effective collaboration between sectors included:

• lack of capacity, particularly amongst LHB practitioners, to input into IDPs or attend PCP meetings
• different interpretations of the definition of ALP between sectors
• lack of consistent approaches, across local authorities in particular
• lack of understanding amongst school practitioners around the duties relating to section 20 referrals.

Participants across all sectors reported mixed experiences in relation to disagreements and appeals. Some participants noted that earlier collaboration with families had led to improvements, while others described an increase in formal disputes, appeals, and legal challenges. These cases were reported to be time-consuming and placed pressure on staff and resources, particularly in areas where parents increasingly sought legal representation. 

Schools and settings varied in their experiences, with some resolving disagreements informally, while others faced significant emotional and administrative burdens due to appeals. LHB representatives also reported increasing involvement in tribunal cases, often responding to private healthcare reports. However, many felt it was still too early to identify clear trends in disagreements.

In terms of the causes of disagreements, participants referred to differing interpretations of ALP, rising parental expectations and increased use of legal representation. Disputes commonly centred on decisions about the type or level of ALP, placement in specialist provision, and the content of IDPs. 

Some school representatives expressed concern that fear of tribunal proceedings could lead to agreeing to IDPs unnecessarily. Misunderstandings about what IDPs set out, such as parents’ assumptions around funding or one-to-one support, also contributed to tensions. 

Participants from LHBs raised concerns about the time demands of legal processes and the lack of clarity around their role in appeals. Despite these challenges, there were examples of more collaborative approaches, particularly where PCP approaches had supported early dialogue and helped manage expectations.

Most Welsh-medium schools and settings serving areas with large numbers of Welsh-speaking families reported that they had sufficient capacity to be able to deliver ALP in Welsh and meet their learners’ needs. Some challenges were reported, specifically fewer resources to support reading and literacy interventions and resources for learners with dyslexia. 

Local authorities and LHBs described their efforts to ensure that they had sufficient bilingual capacity to meet the needs of learners but did highlight some shortages. A lack of Welsh-speaking staff was reported in some sectors, specifically speech and language therapists and educational psychologists. 

English-medium schools and FEIs noted that they had not received requests for ALP through the medium of Welsh. Some FE representatives reported having academic and support staff in place with the Welsh language skills to be able to offer support to learners with ALN while others noted challenges they had encountered in seeking to recruit Welsh-speaking staff, particularly support staff.

Participants indicated that there were additional costs associated with implementing the ALN system, specifically the costs of appointing staff to administer processes relating to IDPs, new staff roles, online IDP systems and professional learning. Additional costs were reported by schools, early years settings and FEI representatives relating to releasing their ALNCo to undertake activities relating to the administration of IDPs. 

Local authorities and schools had mixed views about the transparency of funding processes, with some reporting that funding mechanisms were unclear to them, while others felt they had become more transparent.

Professional development opportunities had been accessed by participants across all sectors to support them in implementing the ALN system. Participants identified priority areas for future professional learning which included training on definitions of ALN and ALP, writing IDPs and training on specific types of ALN.

Participants reported that some learners with Special Educational Needs (SEN) under the previous system (particularly school action and school action plus) were not defined as having ALN under the new system because schools were now supporting them through provision that could ordinarily be provided (often referred to as ‘universal’ provision, a term not defined in the ALN Act or the ALN Code). 

Local authority, school and early years setting representatives reported that the ALN and curriculum reforms were aligned in terms of their ethos and aims, particularly the focus on individualised learning and learner-centred approaches. However, participants felt that achieving the aims of both reforms was difficult in practice because of a lack of staff capacity.

Learners generally had positive views on their school or college experiences, with most reporting that they enjoyed school or college and felt they were learning new things and making progress in their learning. Secondary learners had more mixed views than those in primary and FE settings but still provided examples of things they enjoyed at school. Learners generally appreciated the help they received from teachers/staff and enjoyed lessons with a more practical focus (e.g. cooking, woodwork, singing, drama, and art).

Learners described receiving a wide range of types of support with their learning, including one-to-one support from a TA, access to quiet spaces, access to staff or spaces to talk about any concerns, learning in smaller classes, regular tailored or targeted learning sessions, outdoor learning, school trips and digital resources. Learners generally felt they received the support they needed in school or college. 

A small number of secondary and college learners could recall a PCP meeting taking place. These learners generally felt they had been listened to, with some recalling that they had received more help after the meeting. A small number of learners had less positive experiences, such as a teacher not attending the meeting as anticipated, or no changes being made following the meeting. Leaners generally reported feeling well-supported and that they had access to staff should they wish to discuss any concerns. 

Parents reported considerable variation in their experiences of the ALN system, ranging from highly positive to very challenging. While some parents described strong relationships with schools and ALNCos, particularly in specialist settings where communication was frequent and planning was consistent, others reported delays in securing IDPs, uncertainty about processes and plans that did not fully capture their child’s needs.

Views on IDP quality and the delivery of ALP were similarly mixed. A number of parents felt that IDPs were vague, insufficiently detailed, or shaped more by the staffing and resource constraints of schools than by the needs of the child. Parents in Welsh‑medium settings also raised concerns about limited access to Welsh‑speaking specialists, with some reporting that support defaulted to English. 

Parents frequently highlighted challenges in communication and coordination, both with schools and across education, health and social care. Several described having to “bridge the gaps” between services, experiencing delays in information sharing, or having to make repeated requests for information. Parents also noted difficulties navigating the ALN system, which was seen as complex and not helped by variable understanding among school staff, and the need to find out information themselves. Several said they had relied on advocacy organisations for guidance and were grateful for the support received.

Further desk-based research and fieldwork is planned during the next stages of the evaluation. A report including findings from a second wave of research with practitioners and professionals in schools, PRUs, early years settings, FEIs, local authorities and local health boards will be published in 2027.

Report Authors: Hefin Thomas, Brett Duggan, Sioned Lewis, Jennifer Lane, Sam McAlister-Wilson, Anest Williams (Arad Research)

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: 52/2026
Digital ISBN: 978-1-83745-358-0

Image