The Disabled Children’s Partnership responds to consultation on upfront SEND funding for mainstream schools
The Disabled Children’s Partnership has responded to the Department for Education’s consultation on proposals to increase the amount of SEND funding mainstream schools receive upfront.
The Government is exploring changes that would allow local authorities to transfer more funding from their high-needs budgets directly into mainstream school budgets, with the aim of enabling schools to support children with SEND earlier.
DCP supports the principle behind the proposal. Our Fight for Ordinary campaign called for nurseries, schools and colleges to be better equipped to support children with SEND, backed by sufficient funding, training, tools and access to specialist support. We have also previously proposed an “Inclusion Premium” that would give settings dedicated funding to help them meet a national standard of ordinarily available provision.
Getting more funding to mainstream schools earlier could help children receive support when they need it, without having to wait – or effectively “fail” – before additional resources become available.
However, our consultation response identifies four significant concerns with the way the proposals are currently being taken forward:
-
There must be enough funding in the system
The proposal largely changes where existing SEND funding sits rather than adding new investment. Moving funding from high-needs budgets to schools could therefore shift financial pressures rather than solve them.
We are particularly concerned about ensuring sufficient funding remains available for children who need an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), specialist placements and specialist support, including services such as qualified teachers of deaf children and qualified teachers of children with visual impairment.
-
Families and young people must have a voice
Under the proposals, local authorities would be required to consult schools forums about changes to funding thresholds and distribution, but there is no equivalent requirement to consult parents, carers or young people.
We believe decisions about how SEND funding is allocated locally should be co-produced with children, young people and families, including through existing Parent Carer Forums.
-
Funding changes should not get ahead of rights and accountability
The proposals are being tested before important parts of the wider SEND reforms – including National Inclusion Standards and the proposed legal guarantee for SEN support – have been finalised.
Without clarity about what schools will be expected to provide in return for increased core funding, there is a risk that raising the threshold for additional funding could make support harder to access rather than improving what is routinely available.
Crucially, any changes must not restrict children’s existing rights to an EHC needs assessment or the provision set out in an EHCP.
-
We must avoid creating a new SEND postcode lottery
Allowing different local authorities to develop different approaches could increase variation across the country, meaning children with similar needs receive different levels of support depending on where they live.
DCP therefore supports a nationally consistent funding formula, while recognising that it may need to take account of regional differences in costs and access to specialist staff.
Safeguards must be built in
If the Government proceeds with testing the proposals in 2027–28, DCP is calling for strong safeguards, including a nationally consistent funding formula or clear national parameters; a national maximum threshold before schools can access additional funding; transparent reporting of how SEND funding is spent; and independent evaluation of the impact on children in participating and non-participating areas.
We also want ongoing monitoring to ensure the reforms do not, in practice, restrict access to EHC needs assessments for children who need them – something DCP considers a fundamental red line.
Ultimately, getting funding to schools earlier is an important part of creating a more inclusive SEND system. But changing how money moves through the system cannot replace the need to ensure there is enough money in the system in the first place.
As our response concludes, earlier funding will only deliver for children if schools are clear about what they are expected to provide, funding is distributed fairly and transparently wherever a child lives, families and young people have a meaningful voice, and no child’s access to statutory assessment or additional support is narrowed as a result.