Send reforms: government’s battle over special educational needs – The Week

Report on Proposed Reforms to Special Needs Education in England and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction

The government of England is preparing for significant reforms to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system. This initiative has generated considerable debate among politicians, parents, and advocacy groups regarding its potential impact on the rights and educational outcomes of children with disabilities. This report analyzes the proposed changes, the state of the current system, and the implications for the United Kingdom’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Current State of the SEND System: A Crisis of Inclusivity and Resources

Systemic Failures and Contradiction with SDG 4 (Quality Education)

There is a broad consensus that the existing SEND system is no longer fit for purpose, failing to deliver on the promise of inclusive and equitable quality education for all (SDG 4). The system’s crisis is evidenced by a near-tripling of complaints to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman over the past five years. These issues point to a systemic failure to provide effective and accessible learning environments as outlined in SDG Target 4.a.

• Endemic delays in assessment and provision of support.
• Significant funding and resource allocation challenges.
• Difficulties for families in accessing necessary services.

Financial Pressures and Rising Demand

The SEND system supports nearly two million young people at an annual cost of £10.7 billion. A sharp increase in the number of children diagnosed with conditions such as ADHD and autism has placed an unsustainable strain on local education and health services. This highlights the intersection of educational needs with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), as the system must accommodate a growing need for integrated health and educational support.

The Role of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) in Upholding SDGs

A Framework for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

Currently, approximately 630,000 children with the most significant needs are supported by Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). These legally binding plans are a critical mechanism for advancing SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by ensuring children with disabilities receive the tailored support required to access education on an equal basis with others.

Key provisions of EHCPs that promote equality include:

• Dedicated one-to-one assistance.
• Specialist equipment and learning aids.
• Access to speech and language therapy.
• Subsidised travel to and from educational facilities.

Analysis of Proposed Government Reforms

The Proposal: Mainstream Units vs. Individual Plans

While full details remain undisclosed, the government’s proposal reportedly involves increasing the number of SEND units within mainstream schools. The long-term objective is to phase out the need for individual EHCPs for all but those with the most complex needs. In principle, this could support the goal of inclusive education (SDG 4), but stakeholders have raised significant concerns.

Stakeholder Concerns and Risks to SDG Commitments

Parents, charities, and advocacy groups have expressed alarm that the reforms may undermine existing commitments to the SDGs.

1. Erosion of Rights and Support: There is widespread fear that replacing statutory, individualized EHCPs with standardized “units” is primarily a cost-cutting exercise that will dilute the quality and accessibility of support. This would directly contravene the principles of SDG 4 and SDG 10.
2. Threat to Inclusive Education: Over 100 special needs charities and campaigners have warned that without the statutory protection afforded by EHCPs, the goal of helping children with SEND thrive in mainstream education is unlikely to be achieved.
3. Lack of Transparency and Participation (SDG 16): The absence of a detailed reform package has created uncertainty and concern, highlighting a potential deficit in the transparent and participatory decision-making called for in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Conclusion: Balancing Reform with SDG Principles

The proposed overhaul of the SEND system in England presents a fundamental conflict between the need for a financially sustainable system and the imperative to uphold the rights of vulnerable children. Any reform must be carefully scrutinized to ensure it strengthens, rather than weakens, the UK’s progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Protecting the statutory right to tailored support is essential for ensuring quality education (SDG 4), reducing inequalities (SDG 10), and promoting the well-being (SDG 3) of all children.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 4: Quality Education

The article’s central theme is the reform of special educational needs and disabilities (Send) in England. It directly addresses the challenges and proposed changes to ensure children with physical, emotional, and behavioural difficulties receive an appropriate education. The discussion revolves around providing inclusive and equitable learning environments, which is the core mission of SDG 4.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The article focuses on a vulnerable group: children with disabilities. The debate over funding, the provision of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), and access to mainstream schooling highlights the systemic inequalities this group faces. The article explicitly mentions the fear of “taking money away from disabled adults” and “disabled kids,” framing the issue as one of potential discrimination and a failure to ensure equal opportunities.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The article connects education with health by mentioning that Send covers children with conditions like autism and ADHD. The support plans (EHCPs) include “health and care” components, such as “speech and language therapy.” The description of the current system causing “trauma, expense, and delays” for families also directly relates to their mental and emotional well-being.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The effectiveness and accountability of public institutions are questioned throughout the article. It states that the “current Send system is no longer fit for purpose” and is in “complete crisis.” The mention of a near-tripling of complaints to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman points to a failure of institutional processes and justice for the affected families. The EHCPs themselves are described as providing “statutory certainty,” highlighting the role of legal frameworks in protecting rights.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.5: “By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities…” The article is entirely focused on the educational system’s ability to provide for children with disabilities.
   • Target 4.a: “Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.” The government’s proposal to increase the “number of places in Send units at mainstream schools” is a direct attempt to modify educational facilities to be more inclusive for children with Send.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… disability…” The debate over whether children with Send are best supported through individual plans or integrated units is a debate about how to best achieve their social inclusion within the education system.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices…” The concern that overhauling the system is a “cost-cutting exercise” and that removing EHCPs will harm children suggests a fear that new policies could increase inequalities of outcome for people with disabilities.

3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.8: “Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services…” The article mentions that EHCPs provide access to essential services like “speech and language therapy.” The system’s annual cost of £10.7 billion and the funding debate relate to the financial aspect of providing this coverage.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The article’s assertion that the system is in “complete crisis,” evidenced by “endemic assessment delays” and a tripling of official complaints, points directly to a failure to maintain effective and accountable institutions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 4 (Quality Education)

   • Number of children with high needs supported by EHCPs: The article states that “roughly 630,000 of those with the highest needs” are supported by these plans. A change in this number would indicate a shift in policy and access.
   • Number of Send units in mainstream schools: The government’s proposal is to increase this number. Tracking the creation of these units would be a direct measure of progress towards Target 4.a.
   • Proportion of children with Send in mainstream education: The article notes that some pupils have been “folded into mainstream schools with success.” The proportion of students with Send who are successfully integrated is a key indicator of an inclusive system.

2. For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Annual budget for Send support: The article specifies the current cost is “£10.7 billion a year.” Changes to this budget can indicate the level of financial commitment to supporting this vulnerable group and reducing inequality.
   • Number of young people diagnosed with ADHD and autism: The article mentions a “sharp rise” in diagnoses. This data helps to understand the scale of the population requiring inclusive policies and support.

3. For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

   • Number of complaints to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman: The article explicitly states that complaints have “nearly tripled over the past five years.” This is a direct, quantifiable indicator of institutional failure and public dissatisfaction.
   • Assessment waiting times: The mention of “endemic assessment delays” implies that the time taken to process applications for support is a key performance indicator for the system’s effectiveness.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: theweek.com