In recent months, I seem to have been nominated by team SNJ to be their main media commentator. They claim it’s because I have a good grasp of the issues and come across well. I sneakily think it’s more like the interviews are at stupid o’clock and no one else can be bothered. This means LBC radio, based in London, call me fairly often to discuss SEND issues. Generally, you get a couple of hours’ notice and are maybe sent a current article to discuss.
Recently, it was the National Audit Office report on school transport, covered brilliantly for SNJ by Catriona Moore. I incorrectly assumed the presenter or researcher would have read that article, hence the call. You join via Zoom, without really knowing what kind of discussion it’s going to be until you hear the introduction. If you’re one of the thousands who listened to my interview with Ex-PM Boris Johnson’s sister, Rachel Johnson, either live or on social media, you’ll know why the introduction made me nervous.
It encapsulated all of the sensationalist and inaccurate recent headlines surrounding SEND transport. Despite its length, the full interview recording has had a huge response on social media. Many parents were angered by Johnson’s rather confrontational tone and some of her phrasing–such as “these sorts of children” and the familiar nonsense of “over-diagnosis” that can cut deeply, no matter how often we hear it.
The interview started as a familiar experience for parent carers: being spoken about, not listened to. But, as is typically the case, with a thorough explanation of families’ reality, we saw that attitude begin to shift in real time.
Start as you don’t mean to go on
Immediately, Ms Johnson started with a poor comparison: “When I first looked at this story, I said to myself, I had three children, I got them to school and back. Why should these children have a sort of private hire taxi service chauffeured to school and back every day?”
The unfairness of this hit immediately. As I pointed out, most parents of most children choose from a small number of local, easily accessible schools. If there are none, guess what? They get transport too.
SEND parents, on the other hand, don’t have the same options as “most parents”. If your child has an EHCP, their school is chosen by your local authority or by the SEND Tribunal. Even if your child attends a mainstream school, it’s very possibly not the closest to your home. If your child needs a specialist school, the nearest suitable school could be an unbelievable distance away. It might be a two-hour round trip (or more). You may have a job to get to, or other children to get to different schools that start at the same time, or all of the above. Often, it’s just not humanly possible. Some parents move home to be closer to their child’s specialist school, but the ability to do that depends on many factors.
Facts matter
Things deteriorated as Ms Johnson asked if we should “cap off” access to statutory plans and “taxis” to those with the most severe disabilities, as if the system does not already do this. When I tried to dispute this, and her assertion that over half a million under-16s are “so severely in need that they have to have a taxi”, she cut me off before I could explain why this was completely wrong, insisting, “No, that’s the number. It’s half a million. Yes, it is. And 180,000 are home-to-school transported because of their mobility needs. So the rest, so let’s say 300,000, it’s because they are neurodivergent or they’re autistic or another form of neurodivergence.”
This is completely wrong on every level. As Catriona explained in her NAO report article, “While there are over half a million children receiving home-to-school transport, only 180,000 were due to SEND, the rest received transport for other reasons such as distance to the nearest school, poverty, or unsafe routes.” The £2.3 billion Ms Johnson quoted is the cost for all home-to-school transport. SEND transport does account for £1.5 billion of that, but it’s unsurprising that the average cost is higher, given the greater distances and support needs involved.
SEND transport realities
Then, Ms Johnson tried to equate having an EHCP with getting a taxi to school, which is demonstrably untrue. There are now over 600,000 children with an EHCP, but only 180,000 have SEND transport.
It is also wrong to claim SEND transport means private taxis. I explained that my own twins have spent two hours a day on a minibus to school since they were four. A taxi would take about 20 minutes, but they’re not entitled to that because there’s a cheaper alternative, and I’ve never even dreamed of asking. Two children are on that minibus for nearly four hours a day. I asked their mum if she’d ever considered asking for a taxi, given the severity of their needs and the punishing length of their journey. She hadn’t even known she could request this.
For those four hours a day, the bus’s passenger assistant single-handedly supports nine non-verbal children, all of whom get 1:1 support at school. She told the council she’d quit if she didn’t get more help and proper safety harnesses. They gave her seatbelt covers. It was only when the assistant, the school and several parents made the council aware of safeguarding incidents that could have been fatal, that the bus got a second assistant. Suffice to say, this notion that disabled children are chauffeured about like wealthy socialites with individual escorts—or that SEND parents expect this—is very far from reality.
I wish I’d had time to ask Ms Johnson, or any parent listening, if they’d trade places with us, just to avoid the school run. Would they give up aspects of their child’s health or their abilities, their prospects as adults, or any of the myriad options and choices that will never be available to us, in exchange for a minibus seat, or even a daily taxi? The implication that parents seek transport as a “convenience” or “luxury” ignores the reality: we would gladly swap a school run for better lives for our children.
Key Content
Why is it so expensive—and what’s the alternative?
£1.5bn a year on SEND transport does indeed sound eye-watering, and too many people believe it’s a frivolous and unnecessary expenditure. Yet this cost only exists because of failures to invest that money elsewhere.
Ms Johnson and I discussed the tension between building more specialist schools and paying for longer distance transport. I explained that the money has to be spent “either building more schools and creating more places closer to people’s homes, or transporting those children to schools that are very far away. It would cost a lot of money to build the schools, and it costs a lot of money to transport them to schools further away.” There is no version of educating our children that’s cheap, unless you plan to not educate them at all—though I’m sure plenty of people of Ms Johnson’s ilk would prefer that. The rest of us would far rather the money is spent creating well-resourced special schools and high-quality mainstream specialist units close to home. Or who knows, maybe even making mainstream schools inclusive to all. Though you can be sure there’d be many who’d complain about their kids sharing a classroom with several children with a high level of additional needs!
Someone’s making money from SEND…
Let’s not forget that while SEND is expensive for LAs, it’s a very lucrative industry for others. In this era of public service cuts, provision is increasingly outsourced to the private sector, from therapy services to independent special schools (some run by private equity firms), to transport providers. Lots of transport firms have been established purely to provide SEND travel services to councils without their own in-house option. LAs then have to pay whatever the firm wants to charge. It’s this outsourcing, not disabled children, that’s draining SEND budgets. Beleaguered parents bear the brunt of the blame while private companies reap the financial rewards of the SEND crisis.
Currently, government rules mostly prevent councils from building their own special schools, but the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill changes this, giving LAs more control over who to invite to build a new school (instead of just academies as at present) or to create their own—if they can get the money to do so.
Are units the answer?
Ms Johnson seemed convinced that mainstream units are the solution (like many others in local and national government, but without evidence). However, this misunderstands what specialist schools do. For starters, children in specialist schools usually receive all their therapies—from speech and language to physio and everything in between—at school. Often, these therapists are employed by the school. There simply aren’t enough therapists to replicate this in units, so where will these prospective pupils access therapy? Or is the plan that they simply won’t?
It also ignores that specialist schools specialise. If you place every disabled child within a catchment area into one SEND unit, you could have children with profound and multiple learning disabilities, physical disabilities, autism, ADHD, sensory impairments and more in one classroom (or a portakabin classroom in the car park). This already happens, so the unit has to manage conflicting needs, and children learning at a different level and needing different provision. In this situation, someone(s) miss out on what they need. Isn’t the government also keen to improve outcomes for children and young people with SEND so they’re less reliant on the state?
Host attitudes
This interview with Johnson wasn’t even close to my most staggering. That honour goes to Nick Ferrari, who, straight-faced, asked why my non-verbal, profoundly learning delayed twins couldn’t do online school instead to save the cost of transport. This question alone perfectly encapsulates the misunderstanding of specialist education.
At other times, I’ve been met with compassion. LBC’s Ben Kentish talked to me about the tragedy of the unrealised potential of disabled children. Iain Dale listened and asked thoughtful questions about the impact of the broken SEND system on our families. At the end, he said: “I’ve talked to you for eight minutes longer than I was supposed to, so you can tell how interesting I found the conversation, and I hope our listeners have too.”
Why it matters
Interviews like this aren’t about winning an argument. They’re about countering the narrative for listeners, whose only knowledge of SEND is a few misrepresentative headlines. We must remain calm and factual, even in the face of misinformation or outright hostility. And while, in general, it’s hard for reporters and interviewers to have a grasp of complex issues with little notice, it should be their duty to be curious: “Tell me about…” gets a much more interesting response, and you look less like a dick.
By the end of this interview, Ms Johnson’s tone had softened: “I came to the subject thinking, you know, I’m going to get hot under the collar about the billions of pounds spent on sending children in taxis. But it is so much more complicated and nuanced than that. And you’ve really set that out.” That shift, as small as it may seem, demonstrates that it is possible to counter misinformation and challenge assumptions. The hosts have outsized power to shape public perception, but so do their guests, if given the opportunity.
I can see from social media comments that this interview resonated with so many of you, far beyond the outrage over some of the initial comments. I personally found it strangely hopeful. If a presenter can start to rethink their views in the space of ten minutes when presented with factual information, the general public can too.
Every time a presenter or listener understands just a little more, we move further from blame and knee-jerk reactions, and closer to an equitable system. That is why I will keep answering the phone when LBC call, calmly challenging the narrative, presenting the facts, and showing the human reality behind the headlines. Watch the interview below
Disabled Children’s Rights are Under Attack.
We’re fighting, but we can’t do it alone: we need your help more than ever.
We’re volunteer-run, but costs are rising. To help us keep going, please consider a one-off or, if it’s possible, a regular donation.
Read more about being a regular donor here.
We use Zeffy to fundraise, which doesn’t charge us a fee, so 100% of your donation reaches us.
Also read:
- Beyond EHCPs: Why Inclusion Needs More Than a Document
- The Unacceptable Truth: 20 SEND legal rights at risk from the Government’s SEND reforms
- How health and family support systems are failing children starting school
- WEBINAR RECORDING! The implications for children’s legal rights to EHCPs and EOTAS of the Government’s SEND proposals
- When things go right: Shining a light on SEND Practitioners making a positive impact [Giveaway!]
- From suspicion to support: why the Government’s child protection reforms matter for disabled children
- Have your say on the future of transport for disabled children and young people
- Unison voices major concerns over SEND reform health plans for sick and disabled children out of school in the EOTAS consultation
- Top Tips for the EOTAS & EHCP consultation: Protect your child’s rights to statutory SEND support
- Navigating constraints: Why a former PCF chair thinks the current model is missing the mark for families
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them”
- Why my daughter’s SEND experience means we’ll take this consultation judicial review fight wherever it needs to go
- Legal challenge launched against government SEND proposals that “significantly weaken the legal rights of children and young people”
- The law on SEND HAS NOT changed! But restricting EHCPs would be legally-sanctioned gatekeeping and a decimation of rights
- Why the Human Rights Act matters when advocating for your child with SEND
- Why legal aid may now be available for SEND families challenging school exclusions
- When the LA wants to cease to maintain an EHCP: The law and some top tips
The toxic culture of obstruction that's taken root inside England's council SEND services is not only unchecked, it's encouragedJuly 3, 2026Measure What Matters
Inclusion Bases Guidance published. Take it or leave it, it’s non-statutoryJune 25, 2026Inclusion Base
EHCPs 2026: A relentless rise, but who's surprised? Plus SNJ's annual LA Hall of ShameJune 27, 2026About Matt
Let's write the true narrative of the SEND reform proposals: We want your unfiltered-by-AI viewsJune 23, 2026Co-production
Don’t miss a thing!
Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.
You can also keep up with us by following our
Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!
SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here
Since then, Rachel has volunteered supporting local families through the EHCP and appeal process. She is passionate about the legal rights of disabled children and empowering parents to challenge unlawful decision making.
Rachel previously worked in publishing and international events before setting up her own business as an artist and tutor. For the last six years she has worked in co-production, predominantly within maternity and reproductive health, and strongly believes that SEND services should be designed alongside those accessing them.
Rachel founded local campaign group BCP Alliance for Children & Schools (www.BCPACS.uk) bringing together parents, education staff and unions to campaign against funding and service cuts within education. She also started the national Stop Safety Valve campaign
- Focusing on ADHD and autism diagnosis won’t cut costs and wastes money that should be spent on urgent support - December 9, 2025
- ADHD and Autism Right To Choose referrals paused as at least nine NHS areas tell providers to stop booking assessments - November 28, 2025
- Challenging SEND misinformation, one radio interview at a time - November 12, 2025
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
