Special needs support in England faces ‘total collapse’, councils warn – BBC

Report on the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) System Crisis in England

An Assessment of Alignment with UN Sustainable Development Goals

This report analyses the current state of the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system for children in England. It highlights a system facing imminent collapse due to financial deficits and escalating demand, placing the United Kingdom in direct conflict with its commitments to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Systemic Failures and Contradiction of SDG 4 (Quality Education)

The core principles of SDG 4, which call for inclusive and equitable quality education for all, are being fundamentally undermined by the current SEND crisis. The system’s inability to cope with demand prevents equal access to education for children with disabilities.

Key Indicators of Systemic Stress

• Rising Demand for Support: The number of Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), which legally entitle children to support, reached 638,745 in January 2025, a 10.8% increase from the previous year.
• Increase in New Plans: The number of new EHCPs initiated in 2024 rose by 15.8% to 97,747.
• Shift to Segregated Education: A record 194,000 pupils are now in special schools, a significant increase from 109,000 in 2014/15, indicating a failure of mainstream inclusion as promoted by SDG 4.

Financial Unsustainability and Institutional Weakness (SDG 16)

The financial model underpinning the SEND system is unsustainable, pointing to a failure of effective and accountable institutions as outlined in SDG 16. This fiscal instability directly threatens the provision of essential educational services.

• Projected Deficits: The County Councils Network (CCN) projects that council deficits for SEND provision will reach £4.4 billion annually by 2029.
• Spiralling Costs: Spending on special school placements is projected to reach £8 billion by the end of the decade, driven by an over-reliance on expensive private and special provisions.
• Call for Intervention: Council leaders are calling for existing deficits to be written off by the government to prevent the total collapse of the system.

Socio-Economic Impact: A Challenge to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 3 (Good Health)

The systemic failures create significant inequalities and adverse health outcomes for families, directly opposing the aims of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Barriers to Equal Opportunity

Families face a protracted and adversarial process to secure legally mandated support for their children, creating a system where outcomes are often determined by a family’s financial resources.

• Financial Burden: Parents report spending thousands of pounds on legal fees (at rates of approximately £200 per hour) and private assessments to validate their children’s needs.
• Legal Battles: The process to secure an EHCP is described as a “real fight and a real battle,” often culminating in court proceedings that can take over a year.
• Systemic Disadvantage: This process disproportionately disadvantages lower-income families, exacerbating inequalities and violating the principle of equal access to justice and support.

Adverse Effects on Health and Well-being

The immense stress of navigating the system has a severe impact on the mental and emotional health of families.

• Mental Health Decline: Parents report significant negative impacts on their mental health due to the overwhelming paperwork and confrontational nature of securing support.
• Family Strain: The struggle leads to the loss of friendships, financial stability, and valuable time, affecting the well-being of the entire family unit.

Policy Landscape and Proposed Reforms

The government has acknowledged the need for reform, yet delays and political contention surrounding the nature of these changes have created further uncertainty and anxiety for families. A successful reform must be aligned with SDG principles to be effective and equitable.

Government Approach and Political Debate

1. Delayed Reforms: A planned white paper outlining government reforms to the SEND system has been delayed until the following year.
2. Focus on Inclusion: The proposed government strategy favours earlier intervention and establishing more specialist provision within mainstream schools, which aligns with the inclusionary goals of SDG 4.
3. Contention over EHCPs: There is significant political pressure and campaigning against any potential watering down or abolition of EHCPs, which provide the only legal guarantee of support for children. Campaigners warn that such a move would be “catastrophic.”
4. Resource Allocation Concerns: MPs and campaigners have warned that reforms will fail if they are primarily a cost-saving measure rather than a genuine effort to improve the system. Adequate funding for schools, councils, and specialist roles (e.g., speech therapists, physiotherapists) is deemed essential for success.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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 crisis in the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system in England. It directly addresses the challenges in providing inclusive and equitable quality education for children with disabilities, a core principle of SDG 4.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article highlights the systemic barriers and struggles faced by children with disabilities and their families in accessing necessary support. This struggle for equal opportunity and inclusion within the education system is a key concern of SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequalities for vulnerable groups.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The profound stress and mental health challenges faced by parents navigating the complex and often adversarial system are explicitly mentioned. One parent states, “My mental health took a hit,” linking the systemic failures directly to the well-being of families, which is a focus of SDG 3.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article discusses the legal framework (EHCPs), the role of government and local councils, and the potential collapse of the system due to financial unsustainability and delayed reforms. This relates to SDG 16’s emphasis on developing effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions and ensuring access to justice for all.

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

• Target 4.5: Ensure equal access to all levels of education for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities.

  The entire article revolves around this target. The increasing number of Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and the “long fight” families endure to secure support for their children, as described by Amanda Quick, demonstrate the ongoing challenge of ensuring equal access to education 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 article points to this target by discussing the need for better inclusion in mainstream schools and the record number of pupils in special schools. The government’s stated goal to “improve mainstream inclusion” and set up “more specialist provision in mainstream schools” directly addresses the need for appropriate and effective learning environments.

• Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… disability.

  The difficulties in obtaining an EHCP, which is the legal document for support, represents a failure of inclusion. The article describes the process as a “real fight and a real battle,” indicating that children with disabilities are not being seamlessly included in the system designed to support them.

• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices.

  The debate over reforming or scrapping EHCPs is central to this target. Campaigners’ fears that watering down these legal protections would be “catastrophic” highlight that the EHCP is seen as a crucial policy for ensuring equal opportunity for children with special educational needs.

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

  The article describes a system facing “total collapse,” with councils running deficits that “will reach £4.4bn a year.” The government’s delay in publishing its reform white paper and the lack of a clear solution point to challenges in the effectiveness and accountability of the institutions responsible for SEND provision.

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

• Indicator for Target 4.5: Number of children receiving formal educational support.

  The article provides specific data that can be used as an indicator: “There were 638,745 EHCPs in place in January 2025, up 10.8% on the same point last year.” The growth in new plans, “up by 15.8% on the previous year, to 97,747,” also serves as a direct measure of demand and provision.

• Indicator for Target 4.a: Proportion of students with disabilities in mainstream vs. specialized institutions.

  The article implies this indicator by stating, “There are now record numbers of pupils in special schools. In England, there are around 194,000 pupils, compared with 109,000 in 2014/15.” This data tracks the trend towards or away from inclusive mainstream education.

• Indicator for Target 16.6: Public budget allocated to essential services.

  The financial data presented serves as an indicator of institutional sustainability. The article notes that council deficits from SEND provision will reach “£4.4bn a year by the end of this parliament” and that councils could be spending “£8bn on these placements by the end of the decade.” These figures measure the financial viability and effectiveness of the current system.

• Indicator for Target 10.3/16.7: Time and cost for individuals to access justice.

  The article implies this through personal testimonies. The statements, “I ended up getting a solicitor, which is about £200 an hour,” and “We ended up having to go to court which took us over a year,” provide qualitative and quantitative data points on the accessibility and efficiency of the legal process for families seeking support.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bbc.com