The core issue lies in the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). This legally binding individual support plan mandates local governments to provide specified services once approved. Over the past decade, the number of students with EHCPs has surged from approximately 240,000 to over 570,000. Funding for these high-cost cases, known as the High Needs Block, has exceeded £10 billion, resulting in significant deficits for many councils.
The rising demand has its context, but the system simultaneously creates perverse incentives. Mainstream schools face financial pressures; if they absorb the support costs themselves, the burden falls entirely on them. However, if a student secures an EHCP, part of the expenditure can be covered by the High Needs Block. Consequently, referrals become a rational choice, leading to an increasing number of statutory cases.
Legal procedures further exacerbate conflicts. If parents disagree with the arrangements, they can appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The success rate for these appeals has long hovered around 90%. As a result, local governments tend to resist, while parents are inclined to fight for their rights, leading to resource consumption in assessments and litigation rather than in teaching itself. Those who are more familiar with the system gain the upper hand.
The supply side is equally imbalanced. There is a shortage of public special schools, forcing local governments to purchase places from private institutions, with some charging between £60,000 and £100,000 per student annually. Cross-district placements are common, which increases transportation costs. Some students require one-on-one taxi services, which can cost up to £20,000 per year. A portion of the education budget is effectively spent on transportation.
Early support has been cut, resulting in problems accumulating until an EHCP application is necessary for resolution. The budgets for health, education, and social welfare are siloed, each operating independently. Population mobility further exacerbates pressures in certain areas.
Overall, there is a mismatch of incentives. Schools have a referral incentive, parents have an appeal incentive, providers have a price increase incentive, and local governments have a delay incentive. Each party acts rationally, yet the outcome is costly and inefficient.
To enact change, discussions cannot solely focus on increasing funding or cutting budgets. It is essential to address the root causes.
