A Comprehensive Analysis of England's SEND Provision: Mounting Pressures, Proposed Reforms, and the Way Forward

Over the past decade, special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision in England has found itself mired in an ever-deepening crisis. As our understanding of neurodiversity has evolved, coupled with mounting financial pressures on both local authorities and mainstream schools, we witness a system frequently characterised as "neglected," "adversarial," and "on its knees." The consequences have been profound: an unprecedented surge in children requiring dedicated support, devastating financial implications for councils, and tens of thousands of protracted tribunal battles between desperate parents and overwhelmed local government.

Recent developments suggest far-reaching reforms are under active consideration by the government. Sir Keir Starmer has made clear that the status quo cannot persist, indicating new legislation may be needed to reshape special support delivery. Yet parents, campaigners, and experts sound a clear warning: without robust investment, an unwavering commitment to inclusivity, and genuine attention to the systemic roots of the crisis, attempts to streamline provision risk leaving countless children without essential support.

Historical Background: The Rise of EHCPs
The Children and Families Act 2014
In 2014, England embarked upon what was heralded as a transformative journey in educational support for children with additional needs. The Children and Families Act introduced Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) to replace the older "statements" system, marking what many hoped would be a watershed moment in special educational provision. The reforms emerged from a groundswell of frustration with the existing framework, which parents and educators alike had long criticised as fragmented, bureaucratic, and often adversarial.

At its heart, the new legislation aimed to revolutionise how support was conceptualised and delivered. EHCPs were designed to be holistic documents, weaving together educational, health, and social care needs into a single, coherent plan. This represented a significant departure from the narrower focus of statements, which primarily addressed educational provision. Ministers spoke confidently of a system that would put families' voices at its centre, promising swift assessments, clear accountability, and seamless coordination between different services.

The reforms introduced several key innovations. For the first time, young people's rights to support were extended from 16 to 25 years of age, acknowledging the crucial importance of transition into adulthood. Local authorities were required to publish detailed "local offers," setting out the support available in their areas with unprecedented transparency. Perhaps most significantly, the legislation emphasised the importance of co-production—the principle that families should be equal partners in designing their children's support packages.

These changes were underpinned by ambitious promises. Ministers assured Parliament and the public that the new system would eliminate the exhausting battles for resources that had characterised the previous regime. EHCPs would serve as legally binding documents, clearly specifying required provision and ensuring accountability. Local authorities were tasked with completing assessments within 20 weeks, marking an end to the protracted delays that had plagued the old system.

Educational professionals welcomed the emphasis on joined-up thinking and early intervention. Health and social care services were brought more formally into the framework, with a duty to cooperate in assessments and delivery of support. Schools were encouraged to adopt a graduated approach to identifying and meeting special educational needs, with the promise of clearer pathways to accessing additional resources when required.

Yet even as the ink dried on this landmark legislation, warning signs were emerging. Local authorities, already grappling with austerity measures, questioned whether they had sufficient resources to deliver on the act's promises. Some experts cautioned that without substantial investment in mainstream school capacity, the reforms might struggle to achieve their intended impact.

As the system began to embed itself, these early concerns would prove prescient. What followed was an unprecedented surge in demand for support, placing extraordinary pressure on a framework that had barely found its feet.

Rapid Expansion and Mounting Pressures
The statistics tell a stark story, one that reveals the extraordinary pressure now bearing down on England's special needs provision. From roughly 240,000 children and young people with formal documentation of special needs in 2015, that figure has more than doubled to approximately 576,000 by January 2024. Nearly 5% of all pupils in England now hold an EHCP, a dramatic rise from the stable rate of roughly 2.9% maintained between 2000 and 2018. These figures, far from being mere numbers on a spreadsheet, represent a fundamental shift in how special educational needs are being identified and supported within our education system.

The impact of this surge has been seismic. Local authorities' "high-needs" budgets, already stretched thin by years of austerity, now struggle desperately to keep pace with rising demand for specialised placements, transportation, and additional staffing. The financial implications extend far beyond simple staffing costs—each EHCP typically represents a complex package of support that might include specialist teaching assistance, therapeutic interventions, adapted learning materials, and in many cases, transportation to suitable educational settings.

This unprecedented growth in EHCPs reflects several concurrent developments within our education system. First, there has been a significant increase in awareness and recognition of neurodevelopmental conditions, particularly autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Improved diagnostic practices and growing understanding of these conditions have led to earlier and more frequent identification of pupils requiring support.

Simultaneously, mainstream schools have faced their own financial pressures, resulting in reduced capacity to support pupils with additional needs through their core budgets. Teaching assistants, once a crucial resource for supporting children with emerging difficulties, have seen their numbers dwindle. Specialist support services, previously available to schools through local authorities, have been scaled back or eliminated entirely. These cutbacks have created a paradoxical situation where schools increasingly feel compelled to pursue EHCPs simply to secure basic support for their pupils.

Perhaps most troublingly, the data reveals growing geographical disparities in EHCP provision. Some local authorities report EHCP rates nearly twice the national average, while others fall significantly below it—suggesting that access to support may depend as much on postcode as on need. This "postcode lottery" has become a source of increasing frustration for families and educators alike, feeding into a wider debate about equality of educational opportunity.

As these pressures mount, political leaders find themselves confronting difficult questions about the sustainability of the current system. The exponential growth in EHCPs has thrust special educational needs provision into the spotlight of national policy debate, demanding urgent attention from government.

Mainstream Inclusion and Earlier Intervention

As the special educational needs crisis deepens and costs spiral, the government has begun sketching out a bold—though controversial—vision for reform. A cornerstone of their emerging strategy centres on fuller integration of children with additional needs into mainstream schools, representing perhaps the most significant shift in SEND policy since the 2014 reforms. This approach, ministers argue, could help address both the mounting financial pressures and the growing segregation of children with special educational needs from their peers.

The vision encompasses several ambitious strands. First, there's a pronounced emphasis on expanded teacher training, ensuring that every classroom teacher possesses the skills and confidence to support diverse learning needs. This professional development goes beyond simple awareness training, diving deep into practical strategies for differentiation, behaviour management, and inclusive teaching methods. Alongside this, the government has promised significant investment in improving school facilities, from sensory rooms and quiet spaces to specialist equipment and adaptive technologies.

Perhaps most significantly, the strategy calls for an increase in specialist units or resource bases embedded within ordinary schools. These "schools within schools" aim to offer the best of both worlds: specialist support and expertise alongside opportunities for integration with mainstream peers when appropriate. Recent announcements, including hundreds of millions of pounds in capital funding, signal an ambitious drive to boost this hybrid capacity, enabling mainstream settings to support students who might otherwise require costly specialist placements.

Early intervention stands as another crucial element in this vision. Officials maintain that by addressing emerging difficulties—particularly around language, communication, and social development—it becomes possible to prevent later crises that necessitate high-cost, high-intensity interventions. The argument is compelling: research consistently shows that early support for struggling learners can significantly reduce the need for more intensive interventions later in their educational journey.

However, this push toward mainstream inclusion has sparked intense debate within the SEND community. Experts emphasise the paramount importance of avoiding hasty cuts disguised as reforms. They warn that any attempt to contain costs by restricting EHCP access for children with "less complex" forms of ASD or ADHD must be weighed carefully against the risk of pushing families to breaking point. Parents' groups particularly worry that the drive toward mainstream inclusion might become a cost-cutting exercise in disguise, leaving children without the specialist support they need.

The success of this mainstream integration strategy will ultimately depend on proper resourcing—a challenge that brings us to the heart of the current crisis. While the government's vision appears sound in principle, its implementation faces a significant obstacle: local authorities are already struggling with unprecedented financial pressures that threaten to undermine even existing provision.

Financial Deficits and an Uncertain Future
Whilst the government contemplates comprehensive reforms, local authorities grapple with soaring high-needs deficits. Some councils face such acute pressure that they risk effective insolvency should these mounting overspends remain on their books after March 2026. The accumulated deficit stands at approximately £3.3bn and is forecast to exceed £5bn in the coming years.

These financial straits often lead councils to ration EHCPs or defend decisions to deny or partially limit support, attempting to manage budget constraints. Yet such approaches frequently prove counterproductive, as families who challenge these decisions at tribunal often succeed, leaving councils to shoulder not only support costs but legal and administrative fees as well.

Escalating Tribunal Battles and Their Costs
The adversarial nature of the current system is laid bare by the growing number of appeals lodged at the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal. Recent reports indicate more than 13,000 tribunal cases registered in a single year—a 24% increase on the previous period. Forecasts suggest this figure will climb higher still, with some estimates pointing to over 20,000 appeals this year.

In the vast majority of decided cases—exceeding 99% in some data sets—the family's appeal either succeeds fully or partially, revealing a systemic mismatch between council determinations and children's legal entitlements. This mismatch extracts a steep cost: research indicates councils spend thousands of pounds per appeal in staff time and legal fees, accumulating to well over £60m in a single year. When factoring in associated expenses such as government tribunal fees, total costs can surpass £100m.

Debates Over Autism, ADHD, and "Pushy Parents"

The broadening scope of neurodivergent diagnoses, particularly relating to autism and ADHD, has fuelled a parallel debate in the public sphere. Some commentators allege that many of these diagnoses are exaggerated or opportunistically pursued by "pushy parents" seeking a so-called "golden ticket" of additional funding and services. Such sentiments have been linked to claims by certain political figures and opinion writers who question whether some children currently labelled with neurodevelopmental conditions merely exhibit difficult behaviour that ought to be tackled through discipline.

This perspective stands at odds with a robust body of clinical and psychological research indicating that ASD and ADHD are commonly underdiagnosed, especially among certain demographics (for instance, in girls and women). Mainstream acceptance of neurodiversity has broadened over the last decade, and experts consistently argue that children struggling with attention and communication issues are better served by carefully tailored educational interventions rather than blanket scepticism of their diagnoses.

Implications for Children and Families
Beyond sensational headlines, many families stress that their difficulties are real and often complex. They point to the need for speech and language therapies, sensory adjustments, pastoral care, and teaching strategies adapted to different learning profiles. The notion that children with "lighter" diagnoses can simply "buck up" is widely considered reductive, given the documented link between unaddressed SEN and later mental health issues, social exclusion, and poor academic outcomes.

The Erosion of Universal Support
Education commentators, including former and current officials in children's services, emphasise that mainstream capacity to handle low- and medium-level needs has been eroded over the past decade. Budget constraints in local government have led to a drastic reduction in early-years services, such as Sure Start centres, as well as in-school support staff and pastoral provision.

A vicious cycle emerges when the support that might have prevented or moderated special needs is no longer readily available. Families observing their children struggling often conclude that the only reliable route to obtain adequate support is through the EHCP process, effectively escalating the demand that local authorities find unsustainable. The end result is a system that lurches from crisis to crisis, with children's needs becoming more complex—and consequently more expensive—by the time they receive intervention.

Calls for a More Inclusive Mainstream Environment

One of the aspirations of the government's ongoing reforms is to restore confidence in mainstream schooling by shoring up staff capacity, fostering a culture of inclusivity, and developing on-site provision. The aim is to end the practice of funnelling children with moderate or borderline needs into separate (and often highly expensive) specialist schools.

Yet this ambition necessitates significant investment of time and resources. Upgraded facilities, comprehensive teacher training, and smaller class sizes or targeted support groups are all widely cited as essential components for success. Without these measures, attempts to "push" more children into mainstream schools risk repeating the cycle of unmet need that triggered EHCP reliance in the first place.

Stress and Complexity for Parents
For parents, fighting for an EHCP can be emotionally harrowing and financially draining—particularly when tribunals stretch over many months or even years. Appeals to tribunal often become all-consuming, leaving families in a fraught state of limbo whilst their children's education stalls.

Professionals from charities providing free legal advice note that families who have the time and resources to press on with appeals typically succeed. But numerous others, worn down by the process or lacking the necessary support, may reluctantly accept insufficient provision or withdraw from the fight altogether. This dynamic creates a system that effectively discriminates against those who cannot afford lengthy disputes.

Wasted Public Funds
The economic ramifications are striking. Analysis indicates that defending appeals which have little prospect of success may cost councils millions each year. When these funds are spent on legal fees and staff time, they are unavailable for constructive investments in early interventions or expansion of in-class support. Government representatives have periodically acknowledged that fighting unwinnable cases is a poor use of public money, but the tribunal system remains inundated with disputes.

Tiered Assessment Approaches
One concept currently circulating is the notion of creating multiple tiers of assessment, so that only the most significant or complex needs receive a fully comprehensive EHCP. Children on a lower tier would be entitled to simpler, more targeted interventions—potentially bypassing the protracted bureaucratic processes that lead to tribunals.

Cautions and Considerations
However, concerns abound that a two- or three-tier system, if poorly funded, might simply deny some children the level of help they require. Families, already wary of local authorities' fiscal pressures, fear that criteria for the highest tier of EHCP support may be tightened too severely, excluding many who cannot cope with mainstream provision.

The Need for Wholesale Change
A growing consensus spanning parents' groups, third-sector organisations, local authorities, and the National Audit Office is that tweaks at the margins will not suffice. The scale of financial deficits, as well as the bitter antagonism that has become integral to the EHCP process, calls for wide-ranging reform. A parliamentary inquiry has been launched to explore meaningful solutions, focusing on precisely how mainstream schools might be better supported and how new legislation could bring greater clarity to all parties involved.

A Turning Point or More of the Same?
The political stakes surrounding SEND reform transcend ordinary policy debates, touching on fundamental questions about educational equity, social justice, and the role of the state in supporting society's most vulnerable children. Local authorities teeter under the financial weight of high-needs overspends, whilst the government finds itself fielding criticism from all sides for its failure to stem the tide of discontent. Starmer's claim that SEND services have been "neglected to the point of complete crisis" underscores not merely political rhetoric, but a profound truth about a system that has lost its way.

At its heart, this crisis reveals a deeper contradiction in our approach to special educational needs. On one hand, we have made remarkable progress in understanding and identifying neurodiversity, recognising the unique ways different children learn and develop. This growing awareness, coupled with stronger parental advocacy and rights, has led to increased demand for support—a positive development that reflects our evolving understanding of inclusive education. Yet on the other hand, we have failed to build a system capable of sustainably meeting these needs, creating an impossible tension between legal entitlements and practical delivery.

The challenge facing policymakers is therefore far more complex than simply finding additional funding, though resources are undoubtedly crucial. It requires fundamentally reimagining how we conceptualise and deliver special educational support. The current binary system—where children either have an EHCP with robust legal protections or struggle to access basic support—has created perverse incentives that drive up costs while often failing to meet children's needs in a timely manner.

Implementing changes of the magnitude required will test not only the resolve of policymakers but also our collective commitment to inclusive education. The temptation to recalibrate EHCP thresholds and limit entitlements for certain groups of children may prove strong, particularly given the financial pressures. Yet such approaches risk creating false economies, potentially saving money in the short term while storing up greater human and financial costs for the future.

The real challenge lies in crafting reforms that can simultaneously address systemic inefficiencies while strengthening, rather than diluting, support for children with special educational needs. This demands a delicate balance: maintaining legal protections that ensure children receive appropriate support while creating more flexible, responsive systems for delivering that support. It requires investing in mainstream school capacity while preserving specialist provision for those who need it. Above all, it calls for reforms that place children's needs—not system convenience or cost containment—at their heart.

As we move toward the conclusion of this analysis, it becomes clear that the path forward requires more than piecemeal changes or funding adjustments. What's needed is a fundamental reimagining of how we support children with special educational needs—one that combines the legal protections of the current system with more flexible, responsive delivery models.

Conclusion: Toward a Sustainable and Inclusive Vision

England's SEND system stands at a watershed moment. What began as a promise of simplicity and empowerment through EHCPs has evolved into both a critical lifeline for families in desperate need and a source of financial crisis for local authorities. The complex interplay of rising neurodivergent diagnoses, insufficient mainstream support, budgetary shortfalls, and endless tribunal battles has created an atmosphere thick with tension and mistrust.

The stakes could not be higher. For hundreds of thousands of children, the risk of falling through the cracks carries profound personal and societal costs. Yet amidst this crisis lies opportunity: if reforms are crafted with wisdom, funded adequately, and implemented with sensitivity to the lived experiences of families and professionals, England could forge a path beyond the current impasse toward a system where all children truly have the opportunity to thrive. Only through reimagining our approach—building a collaborative framework that honours both individual needs and collective responsibilities—can we hope to break free from the entrenched cycle of unmet needs, spiralling deficits, and fractious legal battles to deliver the inclusive future that was once promised.

William Gomes, a British-Bangladeshi anti-racism campaigner, advocate for the rights of displaced people, and a contributor to various publications. He can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes, on X at https://twitter.com/Wnicholasgomes, and visit his website at https://www.williamnicholasgomes.com.