DfE’s word salad response to critical PAC committee report shows lack of urgency in fixing SEND

Contents

In the long-running series, “Why is it so hard to put disabled children first?” comes the Department for Education’s response to the findings of the recent Public Accounts Committee report on SEND. The PAC questioned DfE officials at a hearing last year, but did such a lacklustre job, we did our own version

So, how has the DfE formally responded to the committee? From their answers, with word salad and a lack of urgency, it seems. Or like they gave the task to the intern, who asked AI to help, based on previous responses to previous inquiries (just kidding ;) …) We have taken the liberty of providing translations…

The PAC said: The DfE should find out why the SEND system is “inconsistent and inequitable”

Translated, the PAC found the SEND system is rubbish and parents have no confidence in it so by April 2026, the DfE should work with other government departments and councils to find out why it’s a bit of a postcode lottery, and then identify and share good practice.

Does the DfE agree? How could it not? What’s it going to do? The DfE says it’s already completed “detailed work with local authorities to identify the drivers of [postcode lotteries of provision] and secure improvements in service delivery.” It’s not clear to us if said “detailed work” has been published— it would certainly make interesting reading.

The DfE also banged on about the SEND Improvement Plan and its Change Programme set up by the previous government (Don’t forget, different political masters, same officials). Let’s be fair, there’s some good work here, particularly with programs like ELSEC and PINS (Partnerships for Inclusion of Neurodiversity in Schools). Some of these initiatives were also mentioned by SEND health practitioner experts at this week’s Education Select Committee oral hearing. We’ve sadly not had the capacity to write this up, but you can find the transcript here.

The PAC said: Improve LA decision-making by analysing tribunal decisions.

You’d think that analysing why it lost a court case would be a no-brainer and a routine exercise, but the fact councils only win 1.3% of SEND tribunal cases would suggest otherwise. Some might even suggest LAs don’t fight Tribunals to win, as they know they’re likely to lose; they do it to delay the inevitable cost of providing education to a vulnerable child. The Department accepted the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendation to work on this by next April.

“…the department will continue to work with the Ministry of Justice, the SEND Tribunal and local authorities to better understand why appeal rates continue to rise sharply and address the key reasons why the Tribunal finds in favour of appellants, at least in part, for most appeals.”
Department for Education

Say what? Were officials drunk or suffering from strategic memory loss when they wrote this? If they don’t know by now that it’s government austerity cuts that crippled schools’ and LA’s ability to provide school-based SEND support, so parents have no option but to apply for an EHCP (that the LA is most likely to refuse), then I don’t know what to tell them. It’s almost as if they’re rolling their eyes at the tediousness of answering the PAC, and trolling them by tasking ChatGPT with producing anodyne word-salad answers.

In a further answer to this, the DfE suggests doing more work with IPSEA and the Council for Disabled Children to train LA SEND caseworkers in the law. Why, you might ask, is this not already a routine part of intake training for new case officers? As I write this, my eyebrows are raised so high that industrial-strength Botox couldn’t keep them down.

PAC says: Find out why support needs have increased

“Without fully understanding why demand for support has increased, the Department’s ability to provide value for money is undermined….Within the next six months, the Department must work with the DHSC to better understand the reasons for increasing and changed demand for SEN support, and then set out how it will provide support more efficiently, such as through group support, identifying needs earlier and ensuring special schools reflect value for money.”
PAC

We KNOW why support needs have increased: pandemic, greater survival rates through medical advances, better awareness of SEND conditions, austerity creating greater disadvantage. Or they could just read this from Dr Jo Van Herwegen, who has already looked at this statistically. And “Value for money” depends on what’s being valued – because it ain’t better outcomes for disabled children, that’s for sure

Later in its answers, the DfE opined, “The department agrees that resourcing support for early intervention to help secure the right support for a child or young person without the need for an EHC plan, is crucial to prevent needs escalating”.

The overriding issue here is that (as we’ve said many times) the delegated budget for SEND hasn’t been increased since my children, now in their mid-20s, were in infant school. Meanwhile, costs have skyrocketed.

The DfE continues, “Early intervention is crucial to prevent unmet needs from escalating and to support children.” And they’ve known this since before the 2014 reforms—so why has so little until now been done to make it a reality? It’s time they SHOWED us they understood, instead of using lots of the right words but acting like it’s Opposite Day, every day.

Join us on BlueSky

SNJ WhatsApp Channel

PAC said: what does the DfE mean by inclusive education, and how it will be achieved, funded and trained for?

The PAC also wanted to know about the provision children on SEN support (with no EHCP) should expect— that is, Ordinarily Available Provision in a graduated response.

DfE says: We agree and although there is a “target implementation” by December this year and we know it’s urgent, the department “cannot commit to setting out plans in the next six months, [but] it will set out further detail later this year.”

So not that urgent…

Having said that, it is a good idea for the DfE to await the findings of the current Education Select Committee’s ‘Solving the SEND Crisis” inquiry. Apart from being a very bad look not to, 850 people and organisations took the time to submit to the Education Committee, so the DfE could learn something useful outside of what it hears from the “usual suspects”.

There are rumours, so far unsubstantiated, that the DfE will bring forth reform plans before the summer recess. To do this, they will already have had to forward reasoned costings to the Treasury in time for the Spending Review, which should finish in the next few weeks. But according to the answers here, the DfE isn’t expected to have a costed plan until next April. Not only this, but until the DfE decides what it means by inclusion in mainstream, how can it have a workable plan?

The DfE then went on to name some of the things it’s doing. Basically, look, we’re working on it, okay? Again, it seems its response was AI-generated by the new intern. Example:

“Mainstream schools are expected to welcome pupils from their entire community, including those needing additional support. Schools have a duty to support children and young people with SEND and cooperate with local partners. The department collaborates with Ofsted to ensure that schools are held accountable for their inclusion practices, ensuring all children receive the high-quality support they need to achieve and thrive.”

Yes, we know that’s what is supposed to happen, but it very often doesn’t — why not just admit that and say how you’re going to tackle it?

PAC says: Lack of health expertise is a significant barrier to identifying and supporting SEN needs.

The PAC wants the Department of Health and Social Care to explain how local health Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) are, within six months, going to make SEND more of a priority, including skills shortages and cutting waiting lists. We’ve already seen how some are doing this — by placing barriers in the way of children joining waiting lists in the first place, which is wholly the wrong thing..

Earlier this week, the Education Select Committee evidence hearing asked SEND health experts how a government 50% cut in the budget for local lntegrated care systems (ICS), a 50% reduction in capacity across NHS England and the Department for Health, and the abolition of NHS England itself would impact on improving SEND provision. Sarah Walter, of the NHS Confederation, admitted it was “inevitable” there would be a “a great degree of instability”. She said, “Integrated care boards have existed for less than three years and have already had a 30% reduction in their running cost allowance and now are subject to this 50% cut. It is unsurprising perhaps that that has been a hindrance to some of the attempts to develop greater collaboration and partnership across local government with schools and other partners.”

How on earth is better SEND collaboration from health supposed to happen when local health boards are in chaos and no one knows what they’ll look like soon?

PAC said: DfE doesn’t seem to have any solution to LA SEND debts. What are you going to do about that?

The PAC had recommended the government urgently work with councils on the March 2026 ending of the statutory override—the accounting hack that stops LA balance sheets sliding off a cliff. The Government agreed with this but, despite recognising “the strain” of rising SEND costs and the urgency thereof, it was unable to set out plans by March 2025.

Well, that’s helpful, isn’t it? Yes, it’s urgent, but we have no solution. Or, in civil service speak:

“The government intends to set out plans for reforming the SEND system in further detail in 2025. This will include details of how the government will support local authorities to deal with their historic and accruing deficits and any transition period from the current SEND system to the reformed system. This will inform any decision to remove the statutory override. It will be underpinned by our objective to ensure local authorities can deliver high-quality services for children and young people with SEND in a financially sustainable way. It will continue to work with the sector on the detail of our approach.”
DfE

Is the new DfE intern called Humphrey Appleby Jr?

The DfE also says it’s started collecting council forecasts on how many children are likely to have an EHCP and specialist provision. So we can be pretty sure they will have completely under-estimated this figure, given many LAs are stepping up their refusals to conduct an assessment for an ECHP (cue Tribunal). Indeed, one of local government’s proposals is to ban appeals on Refusal to Assess decisions altogether. Who needs a specialist place? No one! Problem solved!

Promoted

How is the DfE working with families and the sector?

It ends with saying “The government will work closely with parents, teachers and local authorities to take forward this work.”

But a recent information release shows in the last part of 2024, DfE senior officials had eight SEND meetings about SEND with local government bodies, and zero with SEND parent groups. Make of that what you will.

It also needs to work with the wider SEND sector, including specialists’ associations, charities, unions, and a wider range of parent groups, especially those from marginalised communities whose children are, as our research showed, more frequently excluded and have their SEND needs misunderstood and overlooked.

Funding is a barrier to support, say teachers

But while all this talking goes on, schools are still buckling under the strain with children in inappropriate (or no) placements. The lack of funding is more acutely felt here, every day, in schools.

The DfE’s own School and College Voice survey shows 95% of Primary school leaders, 86% of secondary leaders and 76% of special school heads say a lack of funding is a barrier to supporting children with SEND.

Despite this, almost all special schools surveyed, 60% of primaries and 72% of secondaries agreed they could effectively support their learners with SEND. But this is in stark contrast to an NAHT snap poll at its conference this month that showed 98% per cent of mainstream headteachers said they don’t have the resources to meet the needs of all the pupils with SEND in their school. The NAHT poll shows 82% of respondents said there are pupils in their school for whom specialist provision has been agreed in their EHCP, but who are stuck in mainstream through a lack of specialist places. 94% of mainstream school respondents said it was harder to meet SEND pupils’ needs this year than last year.

In all, it does seem that the DfE hasn’t moved on much from the conclusion the 2019 SEND Inquiry that found, “The distance between young people’s lived experience, their families’ struggles and Ministers’ desks is just too far.”

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.

DONATE TO HELP
KEEP SNJ ONLINE!

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

WhatsApp Channel!

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

About
Latest Posts

Tania Tirraoro

Founder, Co-Director at Special Needs Jungle

Founder & co-director of Special Needs Jungle. (She/Her) Autistic parent of two young autistic adults Devoted Grandma. National SEND advisor, journalist & author. Tania also runs a PR, web & social media consultancy, SocialOro Media.
She is a rare disease & chronic pain patient advocate with Ehlers Danlos syndrome.

Latest posts by Tania Tirraoro (see all)