Spotlight on SEND funding: Education Committee inquiry MPs refuse to be taken in by anti-parent tropes

By Sam Carlisle, SEND Parent, journalist

SNJ Note: The Education Select Committee held its second oral hearing this week in its SEND Inquiry. Significantly more MPs were in attendance than had bothered to show up to hear parental views, including members from two other select committees, to hear from a varied collection of speakers expound on their views. Tania has been out sick for a week so our thanks go to Sam Carlisle, SEND parent and journalist who has amazingly stepped into the breach with no notice whatsoever. She’s produced an excellent, comprehensive summary of the hearing.

Contents

February evenings are usually more about watching Oscar-nominated movies than Parliamentary select committee hearings, which, frankly, lack car chases or chemistry between the main players. But with the Government yet to announce its blockbuster special educational needs reform and with so much at stake for disabled and neurodivergent children, I settled in for 2h 18m of parliamentary drama.

The main feature was the House of Commons’ Education Select Committee’s latest hearing in their Solving The SEND Crisis investigation.

Top billing was Helen Hayes MP as The Chair. Previously Labour’s shadow SEND spokeswoman, Ms Hayes has a detailed knowledge of SEND from her previous role as shadow children’s minister and with her committee is determined to find solutions. Such was the interest in SEND, A-list MPs from the Treasury Select Committee, Public Accounts Committee and the one for Housing Communities and Local Government, rocked up to attend.

Giving evidence, were representatives from schools, teaching unions and local authorities and the independent economics organisation the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

Tribunals and Transport

The nearest we got to high drama occurred when Councillor Kate Foale, Spokesperson for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities at the County Councils Network, replied to Caroline Voaden MP’s question about why councils insist on taking cases as far as Tribunal when they lose 98% of cases.

Ms Foale said: “Because of the way the system is set up parents see that the only way to get the best for their children is by going to tribunal. If parents perceive they won’t get a good deal out of mediation they will go to tribunal.”

Hayes wasn’t having it, she cut the witness short, stressing the word “law” with each repetition.

“Parents would say their child’s entitlement in law is really clear. The Tribunal is part of the legal system there to adjudicate under the law as to whether laws are meeting their strict obligations under the law. Parents would find it really concerning and distasteful to talk about the tribunal system as a way of getting a better deal for their child.”
Helen Hayes MP, Education Select Committe Chair

Ms Foale apologised: “I didn’t mean to offend anyone. You can’t blame parents for wanting the very best for their children but some of the things that get written into EHCPs, councils don’t have the budget for. Mediation can only work if there’s leverage on both sides.”

If there was an Oscar for portraying exasperation, Caroline Voaden would win.

An earlier ‘interpretation’ of the law from Ms Foale had come in answer to Jess Asato MP, who asked about the cost of home/school transport. The councillor suggested bills could be cut by: “Ensuring SEND tribunals don’t rule on cases until there is a full consideration of costs. That’s one of the frustrations if you go to tribunal. They don’t have to consider the financial impact of all this, they kind of, you know, just do it on a legal basis.”

Not that pesky L-word again!

Ms Foale, also a Nottinghamshire Labour Councillor, further offered, “Perhaps consider notional means testing policy where parents above a specified income have to make a contribution. Controversial but worth considering.”

Funding formulas, accountability and ring-fencing

If Ms Foale was the drama, the angst for the session was provided by Phil Haslett, Deputy Chair of the F40 group of local councils – those with the lowest education funding.

When Ms Hayes asked him if the basic £6,000 allocated to schools for each pupil with an EHCP should be ring-fenced, something SNJ is in favour of, he replied: “I see no value in that. It would place another burden on schools in terms of accounting.”

Helen Hayes, “So how would you inject greater accountability?”

Haslett: “What parents exclusively should be focused on is ‘what provision is my child getting? Are my child’s needs being met?’ Not what funding is associated with that.”

Any parent or carer who has ever attended an assessment or EHCP annual review would LOVE to focus on those things, Mr Haslett. But we are constantly being told by—checks script—local authorities, there is no money.

Pushed again by Ms Hayes about accountability, Haslett argued the system is under significant pressure but the statutory mechanisms of the EHCP and Tribunal are the right ones. His main point was the funding formula for local authorities is unfair, with discrepancies as wide as £5,000 per pupil between authorities. He argued that If schools had more flexibility to move funding between budgets they would manage better.

Dr Luke Sibieta, Research Fellow from the IFS, highlighted that the £6,000 notional allocation hasn’t risen with inflation. When the current funding formula was established, EHCPs were stable 2.8% of the school population. However entitlements changed in 2014 and plans have increased to 4.8%, principally, social and emotional mental health, speech and language issues and autism. The funding hasn’t increased to match.

What schools need and early years provision

The emotional heart of the evidence came from Rob Williams, Senior Policy Advisor, at the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT). “I’ve yet to meet a school leader who doesn’t want to intervene early when they identify that a child has special education needs. When they turn for specialist support to unpick what is required for that child, that specialist capacity is not there. We know the complexities of need are becoming more complex so it’s a question of overall quantum as well as how it is distributed. We know the system has to be needs based.”

He described teachers having to offset health and social care costs with schools budgets because those areas were not delivering or being held to account. Big announcements of funding from Government weren’t seen by teachers to be making their way to schools, rather they were paying off council debts.

Mr Willams asked for a clear national definition of “inclusion” not just in mainstream but across the board.

The special schools picture

Claire Dorer, Chief Executive of the National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (NASS), added: “Within our schools there is a huge frustration at children coming into school with high levels of needs. There is a feeling that if intervention had happened earlier we would not have reached this point. Without the heath and therapies infrastructure we can’t make effective early intervention.”

Phil Haslett pointed out that everyone is interested in the early years sector and that is where changes should and could be made, but because that provision is non-statutory it is at risk of cuts rather than investment with perilous budgets.

MPs went hard on the independent schools sector, possibly spotting savings to be made by reducing their use. But they faced a strong performance from Ms Dorer who explained comparing costs of mainstream with specialist isn’t like for like.

“You need to look at what you’re comparing. £23,000 for mainstream is the nominal teaching and learning budget. If you’re looking at the independent school average for £61,000 it can include all therapies, residential provision, support for families….
“We should recognise the independent sector is highly specialist. For 70% of children an independent school is the third placement for a child. For 10% it is at least the fifth school, their needs are high enough that it warrants specialist input.”
Clare Dorer CEO NASS

In conclusion Rob Williams made a plea for working across education, health and social care: “Fundamentally unless we can ensure that each of the sectors involved in this has enough resources and is held accountable for this. We are setting ourselves up to perpetually go around in circles.”

Councils staring into a funding abyss

Crucial to any investigation into solving the SEND crisis is the issue of funding. Sureena Brackenridge, MP for Wolverhampton North East, raised the lack of certainty about the future of the statutory override, the accounting fudge that keeps SEND debt off LA books. 43% of LAs have deficits near or above reserves, with the statutory override ending in March 2026.

Luke Sibieta did not mince his words, “It’s a total farce. One of two things will happen in April 2026. Local authorities will get partly bailed out or the statutory override will continue.”

Phil Haslett was now at his most worried about financial sustainability. “I don’t see how you move forward without legislative change because the system is out of control. In the coming months if we see funding reform, we need a real understanding of what the mainstream inclusion agenda is focusing on and looks like. The 2025/26 funding allocation for mainstream schools was the lowest it’s been for 4/5 years. And what does legislative change look like? Only then you can have a conversation about the deficit. Now is the point where we need to do that or the system will really crash.”

SNJ bellieves legislative change is a slippery slope that threatens hard-won disabled children’s rights.

Promoted

What’s next?

There was a lot of discussion around putting children at the heart of the process, a lot of woeful talk about budgets and the requirement for a needs-based funding system but not an explanation of how that would work or discussion of the solutions the committee was seeking. I suspect Helen Hayes will already be planning a sequel.

If you would like to watch the entire proceedings yourself, you can do so here

About Sam Carlisle

Sam Carlisle is mum to Elvi, 23, who has the rare genetic disorder RCDP. A former national newspaper journalist and magazine columnist, Sam set up Cause Communications in 2018 to provide PR and campaigning advice for charities. Cause’s clients include the Disabled Children’s Partnership.

Sam has written in The Times, Sunday Times, Spectator, Big Issue, Sun and Mail on Sunday about parenting a young person with complex needs. At weekends she can be found pushing Elvi’s wheelchair while on rollerblades, with the accessible skating charity Wheels and Wheelchairs.

She is a trustee of icandance and the Institute of Health Visiting.

Please consider a one-off or regular donation to help SNJ keep going in 2025!

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

Follow SNJ

Special Needs Jungle

Special Needs Jungle at Special Needs Jungle

Special Needs Jungle was founded in 2008 as a personal SEN blog by Tania Tirraoro. It is now a multi-author, award-winning site covering special needs, disability, mental health and rare conditions in children & young people birth-25 years.

Follow SNJ

Latest posts by Special Needs Jungle (see all)