The latest schools white paper from the UK government has drawn sharp criticism from educators and advocates in the field of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Many are describing the new policy as a form of “austerity disguised as reform,” with concerns that it will strip away vital rights and funding for children who require additional support in mainstream education.
The government has announced a spending package of £4 billion aimed at creating a “truly inclusive” education system. This includes a significant £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund intended to enhance SEND provisions in mainstream schools. This fund is expected to support initiatives such as small group language assistance and adaptive teaching strategies. Additionally, a new service called “Experts at Hand” is set to provide local schools with access to specialists, including SEND teachers and speech and language therapists.
Yet, many educators, including a SEND teacher from Whitefield School in east London, argue that the proposals fail to address ongoing systemic issues. The white paper outlines a plan to limit Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) to only those children with the “most complex needs” by 2035. Current projections suggest that around one in eight children receiving high-level support may see their plans downgraded to less effective alternatives between 2030 and 2035.
For children diagnosed with conditions like autism and ADHD, the reforms raise significant concerns. The proposed “Specialist Provision Packages” may not provide the necessary legal protections that EHCPs currently offer. This creates uncertainty for students who rely on these plans for essential support.
As reassessments are planned during crucial transition periods like the move from primary to secondary school, the lack of available educational psychologists (EPs) raises questions about the feasibility of these reforms. Many local authorities are already struggling with significant waiting lists, and the government has not provided a clear strategy for addressing this shortfall.
Under the new framework, most SEND pupils are expected to transition to individual support plans (ISPs) by 2029. Unlike EHCPs, ISPs lack legal enforceability and do not guarantee specific provisions. Critics argue that this shift will leave vulnerable children without the necessary safeguards.
While the £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund may appear substantial, experts have pointed out that when divided across schools and early years settings over three years, it equates to only “thousands of pounds per setting per year.” This often translates to just a few hours of additional teacher time each week, which many argue is insufficient.
The proposed “Experts at Hand” service has also drawn scrutiny. Although it promises a team of SEND specialists available on demand, the reality is that it relies on already overstretched professionals. Families have consistently expressed frustration that support often arrives “too late and only after a fight.” This situation is unlikely to change under the new policy framework, which offers no legal entitlements for schools to access necessary support.
Hertfordshire serves as a case study of the challenges facing councils nationwide. With rising demand for EHCPs, increasing costs for SEND transport, and a £42 million decrease in central grant funding over three years, local authorities are overwhelmed. The call for a “more streamlined approach” is seen as a euphemism for rationing resources and limiting access.
The white paper fails to address critical structural issues that contribute to the crisis in SEND provision. These include the high-stakes assessment system, which prioritizes standardized testing over the needs of diverse learners. The pressure from league tables and Ofsted inspections often disincentivizes schools from accepting pupils with high needs, creating a culture of exclusion.
Additionally, the practice of “off-rolling” by some academies, which involves the removal of SEND pupils through means such as “managed moves” or insufficient support, raises further concerns. The involvement of private companies in providing SEND solutions has also drawn criticism, with many arguing that it exploits vulnerable councils.
Advocates for SEND reform emphasize that real progress would require a comprehensive approach. This includes a curriculum that values diverse learners, an expanded workforce of specialists, strong legal protections through EHCPs, adequate funding for local authorities, and a halt to the marketization of education.
Despite the government’s claim of wanting “a better education for every child,” educators are witnessing a decline in support, increased burnout among staff, and families struggling under the weight of ongoing battles for adequate resources. The present reforms, critics argue, are less about improving outcomes and more about managing decline while masking austerity under the guise of inclusion.
As teachers, parents, and communities reflect on these changes, there is a growing call for collective resistance against policies perceived as undermining support for SEND children. The urgency of the situation demands a concerted effort to advocate for genuine reform that prioritizes the rights and needs of vulnerable students.
