Labour's Special Needs Revolution Faces Mounting Criticism
As the Labour government prepares to unveil its long-awaited education white paper, fears are escalating over its plans for sweeping reform of England's provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, commonly known as Send. This document is set to reveal not only the government's strategy for overhauling the system but also broader questions about Labour's stance on disability, human difference, and the dynamic between families and the state.
Inclusion Ambitions Meet Financial Realities
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and her team are pushing to increase the number of Send children taught in mainstream schools, driven by a commitment to the ideal of "inclusion." However, this move is also motivated by the practical need to reduce spending on costly special school placements and associated transport expenses for thousands of children traveling long distances to scarce facilities.
Over the next decade, the government has allocated £3.7 billion for building and facility upgrades in mainstream secondary schools. These funds are intended to create "inclusion bases" where children with specific needs can receive additional support. Yet, the government aims to go further by implementing what it calls "the most ambitious and comprehensive Send training offer ever seen by the English schools system," designed to ensure every teacher receives training to support pupils in both new facilities and standard classrooms.
Funding Gaps and Unaddressed Issues
Despite these lofty goals, a significant funding shortfall threatens to undermine the initiative. Only £200 million has been earmarked for training, which must cover nearly 470,000 teachers in England, along with support staff, further education college employees, and early-years workers. Even under the most optimistic estimates, this amounts to no more than a couple of hundred pounds per person, raising doubts about the feasibility of effective training.
Moreover, critical issues remain unaddressed. There has been no discussion about improving the pay and status of teaching assistants, who are essential for existing Send support and any expanded provision. Similarly, the dire shortage of speech and occupational therapists, crucial for the government's transformation vision, has been largely ignored. The conversation also neglects post-18 provision, despite current Send support extending up to age 25, leaving many to wonder if the focus is overly narrow.
Legal Rights and Accountability Under Threat
A major concern among parents and MPs revolves around the potential erosion of legal rights and accountability mechanisms. Currently, 638,000 children and young people in England have education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which outline their needs and support as legally enforceable rights. These plans have become increasingly vital due to the decline in ad hoc Send assistance.
For many families, EHCPs and the Send tribunal—where parents can appeal council decisions—serve as crucial pillars of accountability. However, ministers have spent the past year refusing to deny rumors that EHCPs might be phased out for most families, while also declining to clarify their plans. This informational vacuum has been filled by anonymous briefings, including suggestions that the government may "cut the tribunal off at the knees" by limiting its scope, such as removing refusals to assess children from its purview or restricting appeals to procedural matters rather than substantive content.
Underlying Vision and Political Implications
The government's approach appears to favor a top-down system where families receive predetermined support, moving away from personalized assistance. This shift is justified in some Westminster circles by targeting so-called "pushy" parents, who are unfairly blamed for exploiting Send privileges. Recent research showing that wealthier areas have seen larger increases in Send spending than poorer ones has likely encouraged this narrative, framing accountability as a bourgeois sham rather than advocating for more accessible systems.
If these proposals misfire, the fragile Labour administration could find itself in a nightmare scenario similar to the backlash over disability benefit cuts, potentially consuming the government in chaos. The underlying vision reflects an old-fashioned mistrust of redress, choice, and accountability, siding with officials over families. At a time when Labour is warned against retreating into ideological comfort zones, this approach risks testing the faith of supporters to breaking point, challenging the party's perceived alignment with vulnerable communities.
