Strike at Whitefield School in east London, primarily a Send school (Photo: Guy Smallman)
As a special educational needs and disabilities (Send) teacher working on the front line of mainstream inclusion, I read the government’s latest schools white paper with a sinking feeling.
Once again, politicians congratulate themselves on so-called “transformational reform,” while those of us working directly with children can see exactly what it is.
It is another round of rights-stripping, underfunding and bureaucratic austerity packaged as progress.
The headlines boast of a “truly inclusive” system backed by £4 billion in new spending—sounding impressive. The government claims the new funding will ensure children get support where and when they need it.
It will establish a £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund to support Send provision in mainstream schools, such as small group language support or adaptive teaching styles.
And it will establish a new “Experts at Hand” specialist service. This is a bank of specialists such as Send teachers and speech and language therapists (SALTS) in every local area that schools can draw on.
But the reality beneath the PR gloss is the same crisis we’ve been warning about for years—intensified, not solved.
Education, health and care plans (EHCPs) are legally enforceable plans that lay out the provision that Send children require. The white paper makes clear that these will be limited to only the “most complex needs” by 2035.
Government projections show around one in eight children currently receiving high-level support will be transitioned to weaker plans between 2030 and 2035.
For children with autism, ADHD, or any condition presenting “on a spectrum,” the proposals openly suggest these pupils may no longer qualify for EHCP protection under the new Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs).
And this raises urgent, unanswered questions for those of us teaching these pupils in mainstream classrooms.
Reassessments at transition phases such as leaving primary school are written into the reforms, but there is no workforce to do these assessments.
Are they planning to magic up educational psychologists (EPs) out of thin air? EPs are already operating with year‑long waiting lists and councils can’t recruit them.
The government gives no explanation—only the assumption that already‑overstretched local authorities will somehow cope.
Under the new system, the majority of Send pupils will move onto individual support plans (ISPs), digital “passports” expected to replace EHCPs for most children by 2029.
These ISPs, unlike EHCPs, come with no legal enforceability and no guaranteed provision—just “expectations” that schools will do their best with whatever capacity they have left.
A digital record is not support. It is not provision. And it will not protect a single child when budgets run dry.
The £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund sounds significant—until you divide it across every early years setting, school and college over three years.
Send experts have already pointed out that this amounts to only “thousands of pounds per setting per year,” sometimes equating to just a few hours of teacher time a week.
As a Send teacher, I already see mainstream colleagues stretched to breaking point. “Inclusion” without staffing or specialist provision is simply wishful thinking written into policy. This isn’t inclusion. It is cost‑cutting disguised as ambition.
The government’s £1.8 billion “Experts at Hand” service is a nice idea. But it won’t exist in reality.
It promises teams of Send specialists available on demand. But the plan relies on regional pools of already‑understaffed professionals—educational psychologists, speech therapists, specialist teachers—to meet rising need.
Families have repeatedly told the government that support comes “too late and only after a fight”. Nothing in this white paper changes that basic reality.
Without legal entitlements, schools will be forced to “request” support from a system running on fumes.
Hertfordshire’s situation is a perfect example of national chaos—rising EHCP demand, huge Send transport costs, and a £42 million drop in central grant funding over three years. The council explicitly calls for a “more streamlined approach”—code for rationing and restricting access.
Many councils are in similar positions. The white paper offers no real relief — only more responsibilities and fewer rights.
As a classroom teacher, I can say confidently that Send reform is impossible without confronting the real structural causes of the crisis.
One is the high-stakes assessment system. Until we abandon a curriculum obsessed with Sats, GCSEs and rigid measurement frameworks, inclusion will be impossible.
No amount of money can compensate for a curriculum that punishes difference.
Another is league tables and the Ofsted school inspectorate. Schools are penalised for taking on high‑needs pupils and rewarded for pushing them out. Ofsted inspections fuel fear, narrowing of the curriculum and perverse incentives against inclusion.
A third is off-rolling by academies. Some academies quietly remove Send pupils through “managed moves,” pressure to home educate, or deliberate lack of support. Competition breeds exclusion.
A fourth is dodgy independent Send providers. Private companies profit from desperate councils by offering expensive, often poor quality placements. The marketisation of Send provision is a scandal.
Not one of these root causes is addressed in the white paper.
The government’s plan is not about improving outcomes for children. It is about reducing entitlements, lowering spending and pushing responsibility onto schools already on their knees.
A genuinely inclusive system would require:
The government claims it wants “a better education for every child”. But classroom teachers have watched pupils lose support, staff burn out and families crack under the weight of constant battles.
It is painfully clear that this white paper is not about helping Send children. It is about managing decline and masking austerity under the language of inclusion.
As teachers, parents and communities, we need to fight it—loudly, collectively and unapologetically.
Many of Burnham’s reforms will be welcomed, but he faces the same economic bind as Starmer
The prison system doesn’t rehabilitate people, it criminalises them
Sign the UCU union's motion
Already the prime minister’s early promises ring hollow
