Creating Value In Schools
Please enjoy this free content - for more Need To Know articles please consider a subscription
One in 20 pupils in England now has an education, health and care plan (EHCP); approximately half a million in total – double the number in 2016. It’s putting a strain on schools and local authorities, both in terms of finance and resources. In an ISBL paper entitled ‘The special educational needs crisis in England – challenges, drivers, and possible ways forward’, Benedicte Yue outlines current challenges and suggests 12 ways forward for a more sustainable SEND system. These include a more inclusive approach, capacity building, and a move away from individualised funding.
Nearly 20% of the pupil population in England have a recognised SEND need – that’s about one in five children. And high needs funding has increased from £5.2 billion in 2014-15 (when the current system was introduced) to £12 billion in 2025-26. In The special educational needs crisis in England – challenges, drivers, and possible ways forward, Benedicte Yue sets out some of the current issues:
What’s driving the crisis?
The big question is: are EHCPs tenable? In their current form, maybe not. But that’s hugely worrying for parents, who potentially see them as the only way to access SEND support.
However, as noted in Teacher Tapp’s comparative judgement survey around SEND:
When we asked teachers for their thoughts on SEND, several noted that students were being funnelled down diagnostic pathways, not necessarily because they had special educational needs, but because they’d experienced trauma, neglect, or had chaotic home lives. With so few other support services available the EHCP process has become a kind of workaround. If family interventions, counsellors, or trauma-informed care were more accessible, it’s possible more children wouldn’t need an EHCP at all.
The Children’s Commissioner’s report makes a similar point: SEND no longer covers the range of needs pupils are experiencing, and a broader recognition of additional needs and barriers to learning is needed. For example, low attendance, having a parent in prison, or experience of domestic abuse could all impact a pupil’s ability to learn, but don’t fall under the SEND umbrella. (See pages 75-76 of the full report).
A new definition of additional needs should seek to set out key barriers to achieving – including the ongoing importance of poverty and economic disadvantage – but broaden our current understanding and definition. (Full report, page 76)
The special educational needs crisis in England – challenges, drivers, and possible ways forward suggests that a model based on per pupil funding could actually be working against inclusion. International research into ‘input models’ (where funding is allocated per pupil) finds that they:
tend to lead to less inclusion, more labelling and rising costs and more segregation in specialist settings. They are also often linked to costly bureaucratic procedures such as diagnosis, categorisation, appeals and litigation. Overall, it was concluded that those models could create disincentives to inclusion, foster exclusionary strategic behaviours. (Page 8)
So, what could work instead?
And yes, if we are to ‘restore confidence in the mainstream offer by building its capacity and capability, ensuring greater consistency and quality’ (page 13), significant investment will be required.
A White Paper was expected in autumn 2025, setting out an overhaul of the SEND system. It's now been delayed until the new year. It’s anticipated that there will be a focus on improving inclusivity and addressing the funding crisis. We wait and see!
