The Education Committee has been busy, juggling its ongoing SEND inquiry with its first deep dive into FE and Skills. Over the past month, funding has been a recurring theme, whether it’s the financial strain on local authorities managing EHCPs or the complexity of vocational education post-16. Meanwhile, murmurs of an upcoming government White Paper suggest major reforms could be on the way—but will they align with the evidence being presented to the Committee? Here’s what you need to know.
Education Committee SEND evidence
The Education Committee’s SEND inquiry is rolling on, and in its second evidence session, funding took centre stage, with two representatives from local authority groups, the IFS, The National Association of Head Teachers and National Association of Specialist Schools (NASS) all present. The session covered mounting financial pressures faced by local authorities, the end of the statutory override, the rising costs of transport, outdated funding formulas and explored how accountability could be improved.
The session also tackled contentious areas, including council representatives responding to criticism about the rising number of EHCP cases reaching Tribunal, which was nicely summarised by the SNJ. Councils also expressed frustration over the financial burden of transport costs on top of placements, recommending means-testing as a solution for sustainable funding.
Independent specialist settings were a key focus, with both Education Committee members and witnesses arguing that they are less cost-effective than mainstream alternatives. Claire Dorer, Chief Executive of NASS, pushed back on this claim, highlighting that independent specialist settings have arisen to address the increasing demand. She also noted that the frequently cited cost of £60,000 per student in independent settings versus £23,000 in mainstream settings doesn’t compare like with like or account for the extra support provided, such as therapy, residential provision and family services, thus making the comparison unfair.
The third evidence session focused on hearing from young people with SEND as well as analysing the full education spectrum from early years through to FE, with Natspec’s own Clare Howard appearing in front of the Committee alongside representatives from the National Association for Special Education Needs, the Association of School and College Leaders and Dingley’s Promise. The session covered the importance of early years support, inclusion training and the need for better funding and support for FE. Ultimately, policy imitated practice as the Committee ran out of time for its planned FE questions (which we instead answered in writing). Despite this, Clare managed to maintain the focus on FE throughout and covered key points, including issues around the national funding formula, the urgent need for better financial support for colleges and the risks to provision without a proper rethink of funding. She also highlighted the challenges of SEND policy, with young people often falling through the gaps between FE, skills, and school policies. She emphasised the need for a more inclusive, system-wide approach that acknowledges the full journey of SEND learners—from early years through to FE—while also valuing pathways beyond just academic achievement and employment.
Across the evidence sessions, several themes have consistently emerged, with the Committee showing a strong interest in increasing accountability associated with funding, clarifying the definition of inclusion, and exploring the potential of making SEND support statutory (though opinions on whether this is a good idea have varied).
FE and Skills inquiry evidence
The Committee juggled its SEND inquiry evidence sessions with its first evidence session for the FE and Skills inquiry. Here, they heard concerns around post-16 education, particularly the complexity of vocational pathways, with a lack of clear branding and multiple changes over the years creating ‘an alphabet soup’ of qualifications. Panellists stressed that true parity between academic and vocational routes in FE will only come with equal funding, clearer pathways, and fairer staff pay. There was also some limited discussion on SEND provision, with calls for greater flexibility and assessment diversity to ensure inclusivity beyond just employment preparation.
Natspec’s evidence to the FE and Skills inquiry can be found here. The next evidence session for the FE inquiry will be taking place at the end of April. The Committee is still in the process of uploading the evidence for the SEND inquiry and as such Natspec’s has yet to be published. All other evidence for the SEND inquiry can be found here.
An incoming White Paper?
As the Education Committee gathered evidence on improving SEND support and strengthening provision, reports emerged of a government White Paper that may take a different approach. The Guardian and the i Paper both released articles suggesting ministers were preparing a White Paper for spring that would recalibrate the SEND system, with the government considering ‘legal changes to the criteria for EHCPs… in a move that could result in more (learners) being educated in mainstream schools’ and Bridget Phillipson suggesting that parents need to ‘think differently’ about SEND support. This comes off the back of widespread local authority lobbying for improved inclusion in mainstream schools and reduced legal guidelines around the provision of EHCPs and the Tribunal system.
Helen Hayes responded by writing a letter to Schools Minister, Catherine McKinnell, stating that the Education Committee was ‘grateful for the written evidence that (the Education) Department submitted to our inquiry into SEND’ but that their evidence ‘made no reference to an upcoming White Paper or other major policy announcements.’ The government has signalled its intent to reform the SEND system, recently launching a call for evidence to identify best practices in inclusion in mainstream schools. However, the details and timeline for these reforms remain unclear. It also remains to be seen whether any proposed changes – particularly those affecting the rights of children and young people and their parents – will reflect the extensive evidence presented to the Education Committee and the voices of those working in the sector.
The Spring Statement and disability benefit cuts
At the end of the month, Rachel Reeves unveiled her spring statement, designed to keep the government within the fiscal rules set out in the autumn budget. This has led to cuts in the welfare budget, with the OBR forecasting savings of £4.8 billion by 2029-30, largely driven by efforts to encourage young people into work. However, official assessments indicate that those receiving disability benefits will be most affected, with an estimated 3.2 million families facing an average annual loss of £1,720.
Interim report on the Curriculum and Assessment Review
The interim report on the Curriculum and Assessment Review was published in March, providing a measured summary of the evidence gathered so far. It acknowledged that while the current system works well for most learners, it fails to meet the needs of all. Notably, the report recognised the pressures that high-stakes exams place on students’ mental wellbeing – an encouraging development, particularly in relation to post-16 English and maths. This is a key issue for FE, where rigid assessment structures often hold students back.
That said, the report’s findings and recommendations were very cautious and anyone hoping for a radical rethink of the current curriculum or public exams system is likely to feel disappointed. As we look ahead to the final report in autumn 2025, we hope to see more concrete proposals for expanding vocational learning at KS4 and a more flexible approach to post-16 English and maths. Without more ambitious thinking in these areas, it will be increasingly difficult to create a system that works well for all.