The Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) crisis relentlessly dominates headlines. Despite a doubling in investment since 2014 (the high needs budget is reaching £12 billion in 2025-26), outcomes for children with SEND haven’t improved and the system is on the brink of bankruptcy.
But this crisis is also an extraordinary opportunity to reimagine inclusion, not as a bolt-on policy, but at the very heart of our vision for education. This requires a funding system designed to support a universal offer, not to fix a problem.
To do this, we must shift to a “social model” where support is readily available without requiring a formal label or diagnosis, recognising that inclusive education is simply excellent education, not something separate.
This requires a very different approach to funding. Our current funding model incentivises the very opposite of what we want from our schools. It is a reactive, deficit-driven system that rewards failure and penalises success.
That’s because funding is largely tied to individual pupils through Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), leading to an overwhelmed, bureaucratic and adversarial system where specialists’ precious time is consumed by paperwork instead of frontline support.
Pressures on core school funding over recent years have further increased demands on the high needs block to access additional support, giving the illusion of an open-ended budget.
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education research backs this up. It shows that where funding is linked to individual pupils, it can paradoxically lead to less inclusion, more labelling, rising costs and segregation.
The current system rewards failure and penalises success
Pupil-bound budgets are no longer manageable when almost half of the school population has some form of label at some stage in their school career. Instead, financing mechanisms should support a universal design approach from the outset.
It is not about funding a problem that needs to be fixed, but about funding a fully-resourced education system that intentionally meets all learners’ needs.
This would mean increasing the core funding for schools to support a universal offer, while recognising that some students may require additional funding and support beyond what the ordinarily offer can provide. It should also encourage more opportunities to bring specialist expertise into mainstream provision.
International research and emerging practice in England point towards more effective and sustainable hybrid funding models that shift the focus from individual pupils to greater collective responsibility.
One promising model involves school clusters, where groups of schools collectively receive high-needs funding and make decisions without reliance on EHCPs, fostering peer support and equitable resource allocation while being more dynamic and tailored to local contexts.
But reforming SEND funding should not be seen in isolation. It will be crucial to do so as part of strategically-sequencing reforms.
As outlined in my recent paper for the Institute of School Business leadership, funding is just one part of an ecosystem of interrelated factors that include workforce, specialist support, curriculum, assessment, accountability, infrastructure and integrated local provision.
Reform should start with a clear national vision alongside clarified expectations, building capacity, ensuring greater consistency and quality, and increasing school funding.
This foundational work is essential to restore parental confidence and must precede any alterations to EHCPs or accountabilityframeworks. Indeed, a reduction in new EHCPs would come as a natural result of an improved system.
In the meantime, it is paramount to reassure families that parents will retain the crucial safeguard of initiating a needs assessment for an EHCP in cases of significant disagreement, ensuring a vital backstop in the system. This shift is not about cutting support but about improving the quality of education for all.
While initial investment is crucial for building capacity, significant long-term savings are anticipated through a rebalanced, less adversarial system. It will also ensure greater budget stability, allowing longer-term investment in the workforce and proactive early intervention.
Inclusive education should stop being viewed as a cost to be managed, but as a foundational, long-term investment that yields significant educational, economic and social benefits.
Read the full report, The special educational needs crisis in England: Challenges, drivers, and possible ways forward here
Your thoughts