(England) Special schools worried about high-needs funding loss to mainstream schools

May 26, 2026, SEND reforms: Special schools raise funding fears | Tes 

Special-school leaders are warning that government plans to redirect more high-needs funding towards mainstream schools must not come at the expense of the specialist sector.

The National Network of Special Schools for School Business Professionals (NNoSS) has also raised doubts over the government’s forecast for the number of pupils with education, health and care plans (EHCPs) and is calling for a national plan for how the sector will cope with rising demand for places.

The NNoSS makes these points in its response to the government’s consultation on planned reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system, which has now closed.

The Department for Education is proposing to create a new system with three tiers of support for pupils with SEND: targeted, targeted plus and specialist.

It also wants to create a more inclusive mainstream system and is expecting all secondary schools to open up inclusion bases.

And it wants specialist schools to play a role in providing expertise and outreach support to mainstream schools.

Concerns over SEND reforms

The NNoSS, which represents finance and operational professionals at 400 special schools, alternative provision settings and hospital schools across more than 100 local authority areas, raises a series of concerns in its consultation response.

In its plans, the government set out that it would “start to rebalance funding so that mainstream settings receive more funding in their core budgets”. The DfE said this will allow it to deliver more flexible, direct and timely support, and will incentivise early intervention and inclusive practice.

But the NNoSS, in its consultation response, says: “The proposed rebalance of funding into mainstream budgets must be additional, not redistributive. Our members are clear that more SEND funding in mainstream settings is needed to enable inclusion, but only if this is additional money.

“Diverting funding from the high-needs block at a time when specialist demand is rising will destabilise special schools and [alternative provision] serving the most complex children”.

‘Deep scepticism’ about EHCP prediction

The DfE has said that it forecasts a rise in the number of EHCPs until 2030, before the figure returns to current levels by 2035.

But the NNoSS says its members are “deeply sceptical of this timeline”.

Its submission adds: “Demand is rising now, faster than the reforms can take effect, and there is no strategic plan for the bulge of need that will arrive between now and the point at which mainstream inclusion measures take effect.”

Under the government’s plans for a three-tiered system, only pupils in the specialist tier will receive an EHCP in the future. Provision for these students will be underpinned by a series of specialist provision packages, which will set out what interventions and resources are needed.

The NNoSS raises concerns that these packages will not be adequately funded.

It says: “Confidence amongst members is currently low that national specialist provision package (SPP) banding will fully reflect the true cost of provision.”

It highlights large variations in the top-up funding provided for pupils in different local authorities, and adds: “Members fear under-weighting of the highest-cost drivers: staffing ratios, therapy, medical/nursing input, building adaptations and assistive technology.”

A Tes investigation earlier this month revealed fears that these packages could lead to children falling through the gaps.

Meanwhile, a report from the National Association of Special Schools (NASS), which formed part of its own response to the government consultation, says that one strength of the current system is that each EHCP is “tailored to the specific needs of each child or young person”.

NASS, which represents independent and state schools, says it is “concerned about the proposal to reduce this rich, bespoke framework for support to only seven categories of specialist provision packages”.

‘Lack of essential operational detail’

NASS also raises concerns about the DfE’s plan for a three-tier support system.

It says: “The proposed three-tier model aims to provide a clearer, graduated response to need. However, as currently described, it risks replacing one opaque and inconsistent system with another, without addressing the root causes of delay, inequity and fragmentation

“The tiers are framed in broad, aspirational terms but lack essential operational detail. There is insufficient clarity on what each tier entails, how children move between tiers, who determines placement, and what rights and entitlements apply at each level.”

It adds: “Without this detail, the model risks functioning as a mechanism for rationing support rather than enabling timely intervention.”

NASS also voices doubts about the government’s plan to move to a new system where all pupils with SEND have an individual support plan (ISP) and students on the specialist tier also have an EHCP.

‘Significant omission’

The NASS response says: “It is disappointing that the consultation does not provide a specific question that allows respondents to critically consider whether ISPs are the right mechanism, the principles underpinning them or how they are intended to operate [EHCPs] and individual healthcare plans [often known as IHPs]. We believe this is a significant omission, given the systemic implications of introducing a new planning framework.”

In its consultation response, Liberty Academy Trust, which runs three special schools for autistic pupils, says that while there is strong intent to ground reform in evidence, there is also “a risk of overreliance on a narrow evidence base and under-use of existing system expertise”.

It calls for the “experts at hand” model, designed to provide expert external support for mainstream schools, to extend beyond educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists, to include a wider range of specialists, such as trauma-informed practitioners and counsellors.