Send System Overhaul Sparks Debate: Experts Warn of Funding and Workforce Gaps
The government's recent white paper on reforming the special educational needs and disabilities (Send) system in England has ignited a robust debate among educators, parents, and professionals. While the proposed changes aim to overhaul provision with a £4bn investment, responses from Guardian readers reveal deep-seated concerns about practical implementation, funding misconceptions, and systemic issues.
Cost-Neutral Claims Questioned by Frontline Educators
A Send coordinator in a mainstream primary school, who also serves as a governor at a special school and has two children with education, health and care plans (EHCPs), expressed mixed feelings about the reforms. While praising the white paper as purposeful and comprehensive, they highlighted a critical flaw: the assumption that initiatives like sensory circuits and lunchtime calm clubs are cost-neutral. In reality, these require adult mediation, which is high-cost, and schools often lack general support staff due to stripped resources. With classes of 30 children taught by one teacher and teaching assistant hours fully allocated to legally-bound EHCP provisions, there is no spare capacity for additional activities. This misconception risks workforce burnout and could pit parents against schools prematurely.
Structural Shortcomings and Workforce Crisis
Michael Robinson, chair of governors at a large secondary school in Gosport, Hampshire, welcomed the objectives of new buildings and increased specialist places but pointed out grave shortcomings. He argued that capital investment alone is insufficient without addressing the workforce crisis. Specialist staff are in perpetual short supply, and without incentives like bursaries and pay increases, increasing places will only shift bottlenecks. Robinson also called for transition capital, reasonable phasing, and mandatory local plans tied to pupil outcomes rather than completed buildings.
Support for Labour's Reforms Amid Systemic Failures
Dr. Jonathan Broad, a paediatrician from London, voiced strong support for Labour's proposed reforms, noting that the current EHCP system, introduced in 2014, is slow, adversarial, and overwhelmed. Families often wait years for support, and professionals spend excessive time on bureaucracy. He emphasized that a greater focus on supporting children within mainstream state education, alongside clearer assessment methods, could reduce conflict and make support more timely. This approach aims to build a more inclusive system that works better for children and families.
Personal Struggles and Calls for Inclusive Design
A parent shared a harrowing experience of battling to secure an EHCP for their autistic seven-year-old son, only to find that the mainstream school named in the plan cannot keep him safe. Despite eventual tribunal success, the adversarial and slow process highlights systemic flaws. Meanwhile, Danny Braverman from Tostock, Suffolk, argued for a fundamental redesign of education, moving away from deficit-based labels like Send. He advocated for Universal Design for Learning, which designs education from the outset for diverse ways of learning, rather than bolting on support after diagnosis. This approach could foster genuine inclusion and reduce reliance on categorisation.
Independent Providers and Funding Realities
Stephen Simpson, head of Forestschooling UK CIC, defended independent Send schools against claims of being profit-driven. As a not-for-profit Community Interest Company, their provision fills critical gaps for children with complex needs, offering high adult-to-child ratios and specialist therapeutic input. He stressed that until the mainstream system is adequately funded, families and local councils will continue to seek alternatives. The surge in demand for services coupled with chronic underinvestment underscores the need for realistic funding solutions.
Broader Implications and Future Directions
Abhishek Dhol from London criticized the government's short-term political priorities, arguing that the reforms lack clarity on whether they will empower children with Send to pursue ambitious careers or develop essential self-advocacy skills. Without addressing these deeper issues, there is a risk of exclusion by another route. The debate underscores the need for a holistic approach that listens to stakeholders and prioritizes long-term, inclusive solutions over technocratic adjustments.
As the Send reform moves forward, these perspectives highlight the urgent need to address funding gaps, workforce shortages, and cultural shifts in education to ensure that all children receive the support they deserve.
