The government’s recent announcement of new SEND funding and reform has been welcomed in principle across much of the education sector. The ambition to strengthen early support, increase specialist expertise and improve inclusion in mainstream classrooms represents an important policy direction.
However, aspiration alone does not create operational capacity. Without fully funded reform, there is a risk that these proposals will function more as structural adjustment than genuine system transformation.
The scale of the challenge
Across England, more than 1.7 million pupils are identified as having special educational needs, representing approximately one in five school children.
Of these, around 5% have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), while roughly 14% receive SEN support without a formal plan.
The North East experiences higher than average levels of SEND identification compared to national figures.
Some local authority areas in the region, such as Durham, report SEND identification rates exceeding 21% of school-aged children. While local variation exists across the region, these figures illustrate the scale of demand facing parts of the North East education system.
These are not abstract statistics. They represent children in classrooms, staff managing complex needs, and schools attempting to balance inclusion with safety and educational effectiveness.
It is important to state clearly that the challenge is not the children themselves.
Children with SEND are not the problem. They are children who deserve dignity, opportunity and appropriate educational support.
The challenge lies in a system design that has not kept pace with the growth in need.
Schools are increasingly expected to retain children in mainstream settings wherever possible. While inclusion is both morally and educationally justified, it must be supported by the staffing and financial resources required to make it work safely.
In some high-need settings, multiple adults may be required to support a single child during parts of the school day.
Teaching assistants often work in highly challenging environments where physical aggression can occur. These professionals demonstrate extraordinary commitment to pupils, but workforce dedication should not be treated as a substitute for adequate resourcing or safety assurance.
What are the profession’s trade unions saying?
Professional education and support staff unions have expressed broadly consistent views.
The National Education Union has welcomed the ambition behind reform but cautioned that the funding level may be insufficient to make inclusion work in practice.
The NASUWT has described the package as “a drop in the bucket” relative to system pressures.
Unison, representing many teaching assistants, has supported reform in principle but questioned whether funding will reach frontline provision.
The National Association of Head Teachers has emphasised that the detailed structure of revenue funding will ultimately determine whether reform is transformational or largely rhetorical.
These perspectives reflect professional experience rather than ideological disagreement.
The funding package is incomplete
Capital investment to expand specialist provision is important in the long term but does not directly resolve immediate operational pressures within mainstream schools.
Training programmes are valuable but do not replace the additional adults required to maintain safe supervision ratios.
Access to specialist expertise supports decision-making but does not address day-to-day staffing capacity in classrooms where complex needs are concentrated.
Without revenue funding that scales directly with pupil need, there is a risk that schools will be expected to carry greater responsibility without corresponding resource.
The issue has been known for a long time and is only increasing in scale and in need of address. Why has this taken so long?
It is reasonable to ask why a system widely recognised as under pressure has taken more than a year following the 2024 election to reach this stage of reform.
SEND provision has long been identified as one of the most significant cost and delivery challenges facing local authorities and schools.
Since the government was elected in July 2024, more than a year has passed before substantive reform proposals were presented.
Given the scale of demand already visible across the education system, this raises legitimate questions about whether the pace of policy development has matched the urgency of the challenge.
Education as a core public responsibility
The provision of high-quality education for every child should be treated as a fundamental public service obligation.
This includes:
- Fair and sustainable remuneration for teachers and teaching assistants
- Recognition that support staff are essential members of the education workforce
- Funding models that reflect the complexity of modern classrooms
Workforce sustainability is central to educational quality, pupil safety and staff wellbeing.
A case for system redesign
When nearly one in five pupils nationally require additional educational support, SEND provision can no longer be treated as a specialist policy issue.
It is a core public service challenge
The scale of need has been well documented across schools, local authorities and professional organisations for many years.
The key question is therefore not whether reform is needed, but whether the speed and scale of reform match the urgency of the challenge.
I support reform of the SEND system.
But reform must move beyond structural redesign and be supported by fully funded operational delivery.
Without sufficient revenue investment, there is a risk that the package will be remembered not as transformation but as missed opportunity.
Children deserve meaningful support. Staff deserve safety and professional recognition. Schools deserve a funding system that allows inclusion to be more than an aspiration.
Inclusion must be treated as a core funded public responsibility rather than an expectation placed upon schools without matching capacity.
