What is causing the increase in SEND numbers?
‘There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they are falling in.’ Desmond Tutu
We’re seeing huge amounts in the media just now about the unsustainability of the SEND bills that local authorities are running up. We’ve also got worry from parents and professionals about the upcoming government white paper and, presumably restrictions on SEND spending. The debate seems mostly to be talking about how to restructure the system and funding to be more inclusive at a lower cost. To keep with the analogy, it seems that most of the conversation is about how we change the lifeguards and rescuers in order to pull people out of the river more effectively and economically.
What seems key to me though is that someone needs to be thinking, and strategically acting to stop young people falling in. Isn’t the real question that needs addressing – why are our SEND numbers rising so quickly? Something is causing this increase in need, something or things are rapidly increasing the needs of young people and the prevalence of, particularly, ASD, ADHD and SEMH needs. Whatever we do to restructure the system is insignificant unless the root causes are dealt with.
The media debate that seems to be ignoring a massive elephant in the room – we’re trying to tailor our response to a crisis not trying to understand how to stop or reverse the crisis in the first place. Yes, some of the increase is just better diagnosis and more awareness but talk to schools and APs and you’ll find the level of need they see in their young people is increasing, everywhere. It isn’t just original needs being recognised better or more parents pushing for EHCPs it is a genuine increase in struggling young people.
The Guardian added another article this week to the long list of media interest in the SEN funding crisis. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/feb/05/send-costs-bankrupt-english-local-authorities They suggested that LA deficits from SEND spending would reach £14 billion in 2 year’s time. The IFS has Central government funding for high needs at nearly £11 billion a year, having risen 59%, more than doubled between 2015–16 and 2024–25. Even with this substantial rise, funding has not kept pace with the increase in pupils with EHCPs. As a result, per-EHCP funding has fallen by around a third in real terms over this period.
We’re seeing government moving to increase inclusion in mainstream and may yet see some changes to EHCP’s to reduce costs. Most of the debate in the sector seems to be around whether these are realistic plans and (understandably) about protecting the rights of those young people with EHCPs. I think this is a little bit like debating the quality of flood defences or drought resistant crops in the light of climate change without trying to reduce the output of greenhouse gases. The debates are really useful for dealing with the symptoms of the issue, but real change and sustainability will only come when we look at the root cause. Maybe I’m stuck in my own echo-chamber of social media but I’m not coming across anyone who is asking that type of question.
Why are we seeing such a rise in needs in our young people?
What strategies do we need to put in place to slow or reverse this rise?
It’s worrying to look at the rate of increase of EHCP’s over the last few years. The DfE’s figures show the total number of EHCPs reached about 640,000 children and young people in January, up 10.8% in a single year. That 10% increase is about on par for the last few years and if it continues then we’ll be at a million young people with EHCP’s in England by 2030.
I have the pleasure of visiting and working with settings all over the country, mostly those who work with disadvantaged or struggling young people. What I’m seeing and I’m sure is echoed in your settings is that schools are coping with needs and behaviours in mainstream classrooms they never used to. I’m seeing primary school using alternative provision and setting up units for struggling children for the first time. I’m seeing specialist provisions and alternative provisions taking students with progressively higher needs and having to work to change and develop their curriculum and support to accommodate this.
I understand the current system is unsustainable but if our only response is tighter EHCP thresholds and stricter gatekeeping, we’re just going to end up with more unmet need in mainstream settings and more young people at crisis point. Mainstream budgets are stretched and staffing is short; schools are already acting as frontline social support for families. The strategic question is whether we can reduce the level of need at source. The only way to that is to truly understand the problem.
A bit of a health warning here. I’m not an SEND expert or an academic, I’m just suggesting some things that come to mind. As always with my articles I just want to prompt thinking and more questions. People brighter and more informed than me need to be contributing to this debate and working ‘up river’ to change long-term outcomes. I’m sure there are other factors but here’s a few just for my contribution to the debate.
I’m aware that increases in need isn’t just signalled by EHCP numbers. There are other markers, all of which signal a growing number of struggling young people: attendance and persistent absence levels, increases in suspensions and exclusions and the mental health epidemic are just some examples.
1) Better understanding and diagnosis.
This is the only factor that I think is positive. Some of the rise in EHCP is definitely down to better detection and changing diagnostic practice. One reason that Autism diagnoses have increased is that the definition of autism has broadened to include a wider “spectrum”, screening and professional awareness has increased, and public knowledge has meant more families have looked to get assessment.
If this was the main driver of increased EHCP numbers, we would presume that these needs were already present in young people but not recognised. Talk to education professionals and you’ll hear story after story of increased need, of higher thresholds for specialist support than ever before and of more extreme behaviours being the norm. This situation is not just us labelling something that was already there although that is definitely a partial factor particularly for young people with an ASD or ADHD diagnosis.
2) The mainstream school system
We currently have a very ‘tight’ academic approach to mainstream education. Progress 8 and the EBAC have driven a drop in vocational courses and an increase in a ‘one size fits all’ knowledge-based curriculum. We’ve also seen the rise of uniform lesson structures and pedagogy in the name of maximising outcomes and high expectations. Across mainstream there has been a push for ‘zero tolerance’ behaviourist approaches. As the tolerance for behavioural differences decreases and support capacity falls (with budget cuts) we’re seeing more students struggle with the system and demonstrate that struggle through disruptive behaviour, school avoidance or anxiety.
3) Decreasing Mental health
There is strong evidence of a deterioration in childhood mental health across recent years. The Centre for Mental Health’s UK briefing (Nov 2024) says that young people’s mental health has been deteriorating across the UK that it was compounded by Covid-19 and the cost-of-living crisis and rising inequality; it also summarises that in England about one in five children and young people aged 8–25 experience mental health difficulties.
4) Poverty and inequality
There is a strong socioeconomic influence on SEMH needs. People on lower incomes are more likely to develop and experience mental health problems. The Mental Health Foundation shares evidence that children and adults in the lowest income bracket are around 2–3 times more likely to develop mental health problems than those in the highest income bracket. A UK Millennium Cohort Study analysis found that lower family income is associated with poorer child mental health across development, and that parental stress factors link to a large chunk of that association.
The UK government made a parliamentary briefing (“A Dual Crisis”, July 2024) which described poverty and children’s mental health worsening “in tandem”.
Poverty and inequality can cause chronic stress for both parents and children. Stress affects emotional regulation and behaviour. A lack of financial resources means families have a lack of access to some of the activities that help alleviate stress and regulate, less clubs, sports and enrichment. Poverty also means more exposure to crime, to unsafe neighbourhoods, and more instability.
5) Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), trauma, and family stress
This links in with the other factors above but is worth a note on its own. Poverty, inequality and family stress mean children are more likely to experience ACE’s (adverse childhood experiences). Having at least one ACE is associated (on average) with persistently worse mental health and wellbeing from childhood. Experiencing two or more ACEs is linked (on average) with over three times higher risk of high depression/anxiety symptoms in adulthood. Children who are born into poverty have up to nine times higher risk of experiencing multiple adversities. Trauma and chronic stress are seen in schools as a whole load of different symptoms including anxiety, withdrawal, emotional dysregulation, aggression and poor concentration – often leading to SEMH diagnoses.
6) Covid-19 disruption and “Covid trauma
Covid isn’t responsible for all our problems and presumably its effects will diminish over time. It did, however, add a big change to our normal way of life and, for a time, removed a lot of the protective structures for children and young people. They lost school routines, peer contact, and wider-family support, the chances of a family receiving Early Help with problems was reduced.
If your family was already under strain then factors were exacerbated, although, to some extent all children and young people were more likely to experience social isolation and loneliness, disrupted learning, bereavement and health anxiety and a reduced access to safeguarding and mental health support.
7) Early tech use / early screen exposure
I’m sure most people with young kids have used the technique of giving them a screen for a while to keep them entertained and quiet. Sometimes it feels like it gives you space to breath as a parent. Lots of studies associate high screen exposure in early childhood with attention difficulties though results are mixed. Bidirectional effects are common – sometimes children with emerging attention difficulties may be given more screens. Screens can also worsen attention by displacing sleep or play or interactions with others. So early screens may be one factor increasing risk, especially through sleep displacement and reduced adult-child interactions.
8) Stretch in the system
The level of need is rising in an under-funded and resourced system. That means that early intervention is harder, there are longer waiting lists for CAHMS and Educational Psychologists and other support services and therefore the needs of young people are higher before they get positive support. The needs then look bigger because support is weaker
Even if the underlying number of neurodevelopmental differences were the same, the level of difficulty schools are seeing would rise because family resilience and resources are stretched, early help is delayed, waiting lists mean children spend longer struggling without adaptations and schools have less capacity to provide consistent relational support.
These are only a few suggestions of factors contributing to the rise of need in education. I’m not claiming expertise, just to throw in some ideas as a challenge to others, with more knowledge than me, to take on. Whilst the debate about how support is structured and funded going forward is important let’s not lose sight of the fact that we need to be looking up-river and working to stop the increases at source. At the bare minimum it’s about funding and resourcing early help, reducing inequality, increasing the safety and security of childhood and securing our knowledge about the impact of screens.
