England's special educational needs and disabilities (Send) system faces a financial catastrophe that threatens to undermine the education of vulnerable children. The crisis extends far beyond simple funding shortages, creating an adversarial system where families must fight for legally entitled support.
The Conservative Legacy: Unfunded Reforms and Financial Chaos
Tory reforms created massive obligations for local authorities without providing adequate funding, allowing ministers to avoid responsibility while council finances buckled under the strain. The overall overspend on special educational needs and disabilities is predicted to reach a staggering £6.6 billion by next March, with no signs of slowing down.
Children and parents currently endure months and sometimes years battling for support, while schools lack the resources to meet complex needs. Specialist provision remains inadequate across the country, forcing families toward tribunals that local councils almost always lose.
Labour's Ambitious Inclusion Agenda
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson faces the monumental task of rebuilding a broken system while managing expectations. Labour's stated aim involves a significant tilt toward including children with additional needs in mainstream schools, moving away from separate provision where appropriate.
This approach reflects sound social democratic logic, with ministers determined to avoid repeating the mistakes seen in children's social care. In that sector, the hollowing-out of public sector capacity created opportunities for private businesses, some funded by private equity, to capture essential services.
Phillipson deserves credit for progress in children's social care since last year's election, but the Send crisis presents a different scale of challenge. The government rightly insists that private investors should not be setting prices and profiting from education budgets.
The Complexity of Real Reform
The breadth of experiences and needs within the Send category presents enormous challenges. Needs range from physical disabilities to behavioural problems and the growing number of children with autism diagnoses. Not all these requirements can be met in mainstream settings, despite Labour's inclusion ambitions.
The postponed white paper on Send reform, delayed in October, now faces further consultation. Phillipson told MPs she would carefully consider the future of education, health and care plans that outline individual children's entitlements, along with the tribunal system where parents challenge council decisions.
After the government's U-turn on disability benefit cuts, this pause appeared panicked to many observers. If the additional time and the Department for Education's enhanced role lead to stronger policy, it might prove justified. However, trust remains scarce among campaigners who suspect cost-cutting drives the underlying agenda.
Labour must be honest about the time required to embed effective changes. Parents and teachers need confidence that the clock isn't being wound back to an era when provision was broad-brush, basic, and often wholly inadequate.
The Conservatives happily claim credit where school standards have risen but avoid responsibility for changes that didn't suit all pupils and made some schools less inclusive. Ministers justifiably express anger about inheriting problems including Boris Johnson's refusal to fund a pandemic recovery package recommended by experts.
If Labour proves serious about rebuilding a resilient system, they will need support beyond their own benches. Lifting children out of poverty should eventually ease some pressures on schools, but this will take considerable time.
For now, Bridget Phillipson faces a critical battle with the Treasury that she cannot afford to lose. If she hopes to avoid fighting schools and families simultaneously, she must demonstrate clear understanding that there are no quick fixes for the Send crisis - and certainly no cheap ones. Children facing greater challenges than their peers maintain an equal right to proper education, regardless of the political battles being fought over funding.
