A new report, Double Disadvantage, shows children with special educational needs (SEN) from low-income families are “facing major inequalities in access to support”. While this is obviously deeply unfair, it isn’t news— earlier reports, especially this 2021 one from the Education Policy Institute had similar findings, that getting support was “a roll of the dice”. That report found that if you were a child from a poor family, you had a better chance of getting support if you lived in a more wealthy area with higher expectations than if you lived in a disadvantaged area.
This new report from The Sutton Trust, a social mobility charity, has similar findings. It says children from poorer homes are less likely to get an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) or a special school placement, and have lower Key Stage 4 outcomes than SEND pupils from better-off backgrounds. So, while it isn’t “revealing” massive inequalities in accessing the SEND system, it is restating what we already know. The more important question is, what is the government going to do about it?
Please resist the urge to parent-blame
A danger of reports like these is they’re used to blame “more affluent” parents for being able to navigate the system as it is set out, to fund private assessments, or use the SEND tribunal system successfully. The report itself doesn’t blame better-off parents, indeed, in a press release, Charlotte O’Regan, of the Sutton Trust is quoted saying,
“Parents who pay to access better support are a symptom of this broken system, not its cause.…it’s only natural that parents with sufficient means would go to a private service to help their children. The system shouldn’t force parents to pay to get the support their children need.”
But the upshot is that some reading it (including the “anonymous teacher” who’s already stuck the boot in this week), will say it shows some parents are ‘gaming the system’, not simply using it as it is set up to be used. This makes SEND parents justifiably incandescent, considering just how long and how arduous it can be to get their child the right support.
Of course, using the resources you have to help your child thrive is your right, and is the same across every aspect of education. Only instead of private reports, the financially secure Telegraph-reading families fund their child to attend private school, pay for tutors, after-school and weekend activities, expensive school skiing trips and fun experiences etc. If their child needed it, you can be sure they, too, would pay for private reports and therapists. The difference is, most SEND parents branded “affluent” are quite likely to have foregone holidays, taken out loans or borrowed from family to have enough to pay £1000+ for a private educational psychology report or child psychiatrist.
None of this helps those who can’t pay—and that’s the point of this report.
What does the report detail?
The Sutton Trust surveyed 4,008 parents of school-aged children, of whom 1,273 parents reported having at least one child of school age with identified or suspected SEND. It used the responses to “consider how different families utilise their resources to navigate the SEND system and the impact of this on their child’s education.”
Its headlines are:
- Disadvantaged children are more likely to have SEND and less likely to get specialist support.
- Children from poorer homes are less likely to secure an EHCP, less likely to get a special school place, and their families are less likely to be happy with the support their children are receiving.
- Children with SEND who are eligible for free school meals suffer a double disadvantage, with lower outcomes at age 16.
So, the real questions this report raises are, why are national and local governments and schools allowing this to happen?
Children with SEND on FSM have lower outcomes
The report’s data outlines that,
- While only 26% of children get free school meals (FSM), they account for 44% of those with EHCPs, and 39% of those on SEND support but without an EHCP.
- Children eligible for free school meals are over-represented in every category of SEND, most notably in ‘Moderate Learning Difficulties’, ‘Severe Learning Difficulties’ and ‘Social, Emotional and Mental Health’.
- Children on FSM with SEND have lower outcomes at Key Stage 4 than their better-off peers with SEND
It concludes that “This means pupils from low-income families are disproportionately more likely to have special needs that require extra support.”
But it’s not that simple. There are other reasons:
Children who live in more wealthy areas are likely to go to better-performing schools, with better staffing levels and teachers who get more opportunities for professional development. Their families don’t have to worry about whether to heat or eat, they don’t live in damp, insecure housing, and they don’t rely on a phone as their only internet access. Their schools have higher expectations of them, and more resources—often sourced from parents who have more time to help fundraise—hence the findings mentioned earlier from the EPI report.
Conversely, if a school has more children who are poor, coming to school hungry, in need of nurture, with a less stable home life, or whose families do not speak English, they are less ready to learn at the same pace. Therefore, more support, and at a higher level, is needed. There are more families like this in the school, so more strain is placed on the available resources. Schools may then apply for EHC assessments themselves because the parents don’t have the capacity to do it. But if the school is already firefighting, few SENCOs have the time to do this other than for the most urgent cases. And, given the LA backlogs with EHC needs assessments, this can take a year to progress, putting the child at an even greater disadvantage.
Catch-all categories of SEND
Interestingly, the report notes that children with SEND who have free school meals are most likely to be categorised as having ‘Moderate Learning Difficulties’, ‘Severe Learning Difficulties’ and ‘Social, Emotional and Mental Health’. These are not specific diagnoses—in many cases, they may be the categories chosen by the school because a child hasn’t had a thorough medical (or any) assessment. Nevertheless, support is supposed to target needs, not follow a diagnosis, so it’s likely these are the categories plumped for on the school SEND register.
Long waiting lists aside, for some parents, CAMHS and the NHS in general are just as tricky and time-consuming to navigate as the SEND system and perhaps more likely to be dismissive of less confident parents.
The report also notes some parents may have had bad experiences of school themselves and so be less willing to engage. Again, this is already a well known issue and where a dedicated, highly-trained SENCO is vital. It’s also why SENCOs shouldn’t be weighed down with many other responsbilities so they have the time to forge those relationships, reassure nervous parents that the school is on their side and that they are fundamental partners in their child’s learning. The best schools welcome engaged parents; they don’t roll eyes when a parent asks for support or raises a concern.
Who gets special school places?
“Better off families were also more likely to secure special school places for their children with SEND. 41% reported securing a special school place, compared to just 25% of low-income parents. 12% of parents in special schools had spent over £5,000 on their EHCP compared to 1% of those in mainstream schools.”
Double Disadvantage, The Sutton Trust
The report finds, “These differences highlight a broken system, with a clear economic divide among those who can secure the support their children need.” This is because when a child gets an EHCP, the LA will undoubtedly recommend the local mainstream school, and the parent will not appeal without support. If the child’s needs are so significant an EHCP alone cannot suffice, they are more likely to end up excluded and in alternative provision than in a special school—and are almost certainly not going to be in an independent special school.
“22% of more affluent parents successfully used the tribunal system after an initial EHCP rejection, compared to just 15% of lower-income parents. And independent special school places secured through EHCPs were twice as likely to result from a tribunal or appeal, compared to state special school places.”
Given 98.3% of parents prevail at the tribunal, it’s more likely that parents from disadvantaged backgrounds do not navigate the system at all—and that’s for many reasons such as time, capacity, and understanding that they can appeal and that free help is available to do so.
But the education system isn’t broken—it’s designed that way. If we want children to get the same opportunities wherever they are, it must be embedded into it how it is set up.
The report also finds,
“There may be a relationship between spending money on an EHCP application and securing a special school place. 12% of parents in special schools had spent over £5,000 on their EHCP compared to 1% of those in mainstream schools.”
Government-funded SENDIASS free support services were supposed to be the answer to expensive solicitors. But SENDIASS are overwhelmed, as are SEND legal support charities IPSEA and SOS!SEN. Meanwhile, SEND specialist lawyers have never been busier.
The 2014 reforms intended to make it unnecessary for parents to shell out for medical reports or solicitors. But the shortage of LA educational psychologists and therapists, and extreme CAMHS waiting lists, mean anyone who can afford to skip the wait, does. After this, it’s often necessary for families to opt back into the NHS when their child reaches the top of the waiting list to avoid unaffordable ongoing costs—and it’s quite possible the consultant is the same person, just in their NHS role.
One interesting finding is that, across the socio-economic spectrum, more parents found the EHCP system was fair than unfair. That’s because the SEND system as set out in law does work: it’s the people and entities operating it, and the funding ensuring it works smoothly who have failed.
Having a child with SEND is life-changing
“Regardless of income status, the report also shows the heavy financial impact that having a child with SEND can have on families. 16% of parents reported leaving employment to support their child. 16% reported changing their job, and 27% reduced their working hours. 14% of families reported going into debt to pay for the resources their child needed.”
Again, for families in our SEND community, this is not news; it’s an occupational hazard. Many of us have had to give up thriving careers, go part-time, second mortgage homes. And it’s not just financial costs. A while ago, I asked parents what they would have done if they hadn’t had a disabled child they had to fight for.
- Sarah said, “I’d have spent more time with my children and less time researching, writing emails, being stressed and worrying if we had the funds left for it all.”
- Carole would have been able to keep her job,
- Gaynor said she could have been, “..making fun memories with my family and enjoying life.”
- Kathryn said her house wouldn’t be falling down around her ears.
- Sue had just finished retraining but couldn’t go on to have a career, have holidays, weekends away, or a social life. “What most people want, basically,” she said.
- Lisa would have “spent soooo much time with our two younger siblings, who have been robbed.”
- Jacqueline would have spent £40k (and still rising) on quality family time building memories. She said, “It makes me angry how much time it’s taken me away from just doing normal family things. They will all be too old and want to do other things by the time these battles are done!”
What does the Sutton Trust want?
“…It’s unacceptable that a child’s background can dictate whether they get the help they need to thrive and be happy at school. This is a major barrier to their opportunities and can profoundly impact their long-term prospects.
Nick Harrison, CEO of the Sutton Trust
“Right now, disadvantaged kids with SEND are being failed by a system beset with inconsistency and mind-boggling bureaucracy. Getting the right support for a child shouldn’t be about a parent’s ability to pay. We need urgent action to make the system work better for everyone.”
Rather than recommendations, the report makes observations on the “implications for SEND reform”. It calls for policymakers to:
- Acknowledge the relationship and “double disadvantage” between poverty and SEND policies to tackle poverty may also lessen some kinds of SEND [by this we assume they mean those not from a medical condition, but from lack of nutrition, nurture, home difficulties etc]
- Improve resources for children on SEN Support without an EHCP.
- Work to cut the backlog and waiting times for diagnostic assessment so the correct “targeted support” can be offered. “Schools should continue to support children who are waiting for their diagnosis, providing support based on need rather than label.”
- Work to improve consistency within and between schools for identifying SEND “to minimise socio-economic disparities in identification and support.”
- Prioritise work to ensure accessing support for SEND is easier for all
- Help schools to “create calm, consistent learning environments that are conducive to learning for all pupils”.
- Consider “how to increase capacity in mainstream schools so that they can better support all pupils.” The report mentions effective partnership working or introducing school SEND Hubs
- Boost early years training and provision so pre-school staff can better identify and support children with SEND.
These seem like sensible suggestions. But we would caution against creating mainstream capacity by the indiscriminate introduction of generic mainstream units that segregate children with SEND, taught by non-specialist staff or teaching assistants. We would also urge schools to resist overly strict, potentially discriminatory behaviour policies that children with SEND find much more difficult to comply with without reasonable adjustments.
For schools without resources to fund training, there are plenty of options, not least those funded by the Department for Education from Whole School SEND, and their ELSEC and PINS programmes— we were promised articles from the DfE about ELSEC and PINS quite a few months ago, but they have not yet appeared. Here is a list of these resources
- What are reasonable adjustments and how do they help disabled pupils at school?
- Universal SEND Services (Whole School SEND)
- The NELI programme
- ELSEC: Early Language Support for Every Child
- Partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools (PINS) programme
- CDC guides to the disability duties in the Equality Act
The Sutton Trust report can be found here
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”
- Beyond EHCPs: Why Inclusion Needs More Than a Document
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them”
- Philippa Stobbs OBE: Reform plans must have a clear line of sight from children and young people with SEND to better outcomes.
- Inclusion bases: Can they help solve the SEND crisis?
- Shutting down debate: The Government’s use of ‘Experts’ for SEND reform
- Inclusion bases: a new label, a big ambition, same unanswered questions
What kind of government is “bold” enough to scrap statutory EHCPs from vulnerable children?May 16, 2025
The SEND reforms in the Schools White Paper reveal rights given, and rights stripped awayFebruary 24, 2026
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
She is a rare disease & chronic pain patient advocate with Ehlers Danlos syndrome.
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN - August 4, 2026
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them” - July 30, 2026
- EOTAS Consultation: A further assault on children’s SEND rights with cost saving and reintegration to schools at its heart - July 15, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
