Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) carry statutory responsibilities under the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice. These include coordinating SEND provision, liaising with parents and external agencies, overseeing EHCPs, training staff, and ensuring legal compliance. Yet many SENCOs are paid inconsistently, sometimes underpaid (or not paid for the role at all), or given unsuitable allowances due to misconceptions. I have seen this time and time again within my SENCo networks – and yet it continues to be ignored.

This post reviews what current pay/allowances look like, where the misunderstandings lie, and what fair practice should be — plus a petition you can sign to support change.

👉 Sign the petition here

What Does the Law & Guidance Say?

1. School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD)
   • Sets out minimum and maximum values for TLR payments and SEN allowances. Schools must follow statutory criteria when awarding them. National Education Union+2National Education Union+2
   • TLR payments are for “sustained additional responsibility” beyond classroom teaching. They are not temporary unless the role itself is temporary. NASUWT+1
   • SEN allowance must be paid to teachers in special schools or SEN/ALN posts requiring a mandatory qualification, or in special classes/units, and to those whose post is “analogous” to such settings and meets criteria. National Education Union+1

Common Misconceptions & Mis-uses in Pay

Despite the guidance, many schools apply pay incorrectly, often due to misunderstanding. Here are some of the key issues:

• Misusing SEN Allowance instead of TLR
  Some schools award a SEN allowance when the duties clearly align with what TLR payments are designed for (whole-school coordination, legal accountability, EHCP oversight, etc.). SEN allowances are meant for teaching roles with high proportions of SEND students or for specialist classes/units—not coordination roles. National Education Union+2The Key Leaders+2
• Assuming that being on ULPS / UPS replaces leadership / responsibility pay
  UPS (Upper Pay Scale) recognises experience and classroom teaching excellence. It does not take the place of TLR payments when the role includes sustained, additional responsibilities. Some SENCOs are told they get “enough” by being on UPS, and so do not receive TLRs even when their job clearly meets the criteria.
• Confusion about SLT status vs leadership pay spine
  Being part of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) can help ensure that SENCOs have influence and are part of strategic decision-making. But SLT status does not automatically mean a SENCO is paid on the leadership pay spine. It is possible (and sometimes necessary) for a SENCO to be on SLT without being on a leadership scale — but what must follow is that the job description, responsibilities, and pay reflect the level of responsibility.
• Variation between schools
  Because STPCD gives ranges but leaves much discretion, schools vary in how they interpret “substantial responsibility”, “analogous to special unit”, etc. Budget pressures also mean some schools under-award or delay awarding proper TLR or allowances.

What Fair Pay for SENCOs Should Look Like

Drawing together current evidence and best practice, here are what fair standards should look like:

Suggested Fair Payment Examples (Based on Current Ranges)

Using the 2024-25 STPCD / union pay scales:

• A SENCO with full school-wide responsibility (EHCP oversight, external agencies, staff training, coordination) should expect TLR1 plus UPS if eligible.
• A SENCO with substantial responsibilities but without leadership-scale duties (e.g. no major line management) should expect TLR2 plus UPS.
• If a SENCO’s duties are mostly teaching with some SEND coordination, and if they meet criteria for SEN allowance, then the SEN allowance might be appropriate — but only in addition to appropriate base/UPS and only if duties align.

For very small schools, where the SENCO role may involve a lighter caseload and fewer EHCPs, pay still needs to reflect the statutory nature of the role. Even if the number of pupils is low, the legal responsibilities do not change — so a reduced allowance or no TLR is not justified. In these contexts, schools should still award at least a TLR2, alongside appropriate protected time, to recognise the sustained whole-school responsibility.

Why This Matters Now

• SEND caseloads and complexity are rising; EHCPs and legal accountability are increasingly under scrutiny.
• Budget pressures can push schools toward under-awarding SENCO roles, but that has serious consequences: delays, poorer outcomes, risk of tribunal, burnout, staff turnover.
• Clarifying and enforcing correct pay supports retention of SENCOs, helps ensure sufficient time and capacity to do the role justice, and improves outcomes for pupils.

Why SENCO Funding Should Be Ring-Fenced

One of the biggest barriers to fair pay and conditions for SENCOs is that funding for the role is not ring-fenced. At present, the cost of SENCO time and responsibilities comes out of a school’s general staffing budget. This often leads to erosion of the role — SENCO time gets redirected to cover lessons, TLR payments are squeezed, or the SENCO is asked to take on multiple unrelated duties just to “justify” their salary.

But SENCO is a statutory role under the Children and Families Act (2014) and the SEND Code of Practice (2015). Every school must have one, so funding for it should never be optional. Ring-fenced funding would work in the same way as Pupil Premium or sports grants, ensuring the money can only be used to provide the SENCO with protected time and appropriate pay.

This approach would also bring parity with other statutory priorities in schools. Just as schools must account for how they spend Pupil Premium, they should be required to show how they allocate SENCO time and funding. Without ring-fencing, SEND coordination will always be vulnerable to budget pressures, and children with additional needs will continue to lose out.

---

How You Can Help: Support the Petition

If you believe SENCOs need clarity, fairness, and correct compensation — including TLRs when responsibility demands, SEN allowance used correctly, and UPS plus TLR rather than substitution — please sign our petition:

👉 Sign the petition here

---

Conclusion

There is enough evidence in the STPCD, union guidance, and HR practice to show:

• SEN allowances were not designed for leadership or overall coordination roles;
• UPS does not replace TLRs when additional responsibilities exist;
• Being part of SLT is best practice, but pay should match the role’s responsibility, not just the title.
• Ringfenced funding for appropriate pay would stop the erosion of the role.

SENCOs deserve consistent standards, clear policies, and fair remuneration matching the role they perform. If you support that, your signature on the petition matters.

Please also refer to:

Thanks for your support

Lynn