Send System in Crisis: Readers Debate Proposed Reforms
The government's education white paper outlining changes to provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) has sparked a heated debate among Guardian readers. While some welcome the proposed £4 billion overhaul, others raise critical concerns about funding assumptions, workforce shortages, and the broader philosophy of inclusion.
Funding Misconceptions and Workforce Burnout
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. They praised the white paper as purposeful and comprehensive but highlighted a glaring issue: the assumption that certain interventions are cost-neutral.
The paper suggests that schools can implement immediate, cost-neutral actions like sensory circuits and lunchtime calm clubs with expert advice. However, the coordinator argues these require adult mediation, which is high-cost, and schools lack general support staff. With classes of 30 taught by one teacher and teaching assistant hours fully allocated to legally-bound EHCP provisions, there is no spare capacity for additional initiatives.
Mealtime assistants are employed based on minimum legal ratios, making calm clubs unsustainable. This misconception risks further workforce burnout and could pit parents against schools before reforms even begin.
Structural Shortcomings and Workforce Crisis
Michael Robinson, chair of governors at a large secondary school in Gosport, Hampshire, welcomed objectives like new buildings and increased specialist places but pointed out grave shortcomings. He emphasized that capital investment alone is insufficient without teachers, therapists, equipment, and maintenance.
The workforce crisis is a critical oversight. Specialist staff are in perpetual short supply, and increasing places without investment in recruitment and retention incentives will only shift bottlenecks. Robinson called for transition capital, reasonable phasing, and mandatory local plans accountable to pupil outcomes rather than completed buildings.
Support for Labour's Reforms and Inclusive Vision
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. He argued that too much attention has shifted toward specialist placements and legal disputes, while mainstream schools lack resources.
A greater focus on supporting children within mainstream education, alongside clearer assessment of needs, could reduce conflict and make support more timely. This aligns with a progressive, inclusive approach.
Personal Struggles and Calls for Systemic Change
A parent of an autistic seven-year-old shared their harrowing experience battling for an EHCP, only to find the named mainstream school unable to keep their child safe. Despite eventual tribunal success, the process is adversarial and slow, causing school-based trauma. They support reform to build a better future.
Khas Alaszewski-Khargana, a teenager with ASD in London, highlighted the value of special schools in fostering friendship and independence. They expressed fear that reforms could limit access to such settings, potentially forcing families to seek education abroad.
Rethinking Education Design and Labels
Danny Braverman from Tostock, Suffolk, argued that the term Send embeds a damaging assumption that some children sit outside mainstream learning. He advocated for Universal Design for Learning, which designs education from the outset for diverse ways of engaging, rather than bolting on support after diagnosis.
Retiring deficit-based labels and embedding inclusive design across curricula could move the system from managing difference to designing for it.
Independent Providers and Funding Realities
Stephen Simpson, head of Forestschooling UK CIC, defended independent Send schools, noting their not-for-profit structure and role in filling gaps left by underfunded mainstream systems. High costs reflect necessary adult-to-child ratios and therapeutic input, not profit motives. He urged policymakers to adequately fund mainstream education to reduce reliance on independent providers.
Broader Policy Critiques and Future Aspirations
Abhishek Dhol from London criticized the government's short-term political focus, arguing that reforms fail to address whether children with Send will receive support for ambitious careers or self-advocacy skills. Without clarity, there is a risk of exclusion by another route, and technocratic fiddling does little to help.
Overall, readers call for a holistic approach that addresses funding misconceptions, workforce shortages, and inclusive design to truly transform the Send system.
