Analysis of: Phillipson says Send reforms needed ‘even if money were no object’ because current outcomes ‘not good enough’– UK politics live
The Guardian | February 23, 2026
TL;DR
UK government's £4bn SEND reform claims to help disabled children but restructures support to reduce costly care plans by 270,000—shifting burden to underfunded schools. The framing of 'inclusion' masks austerity logic: privatize gains, socialize cuts, and blame parents for fighting a broken system.
Analytical Focus:Class Analysis Contradictions Material Conditions
The UK government's Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) reforms reveal a fundamental contradiction between stated goals and material constraints. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson claims these changes would be necessary 'even if money were no object,' yet the reforms are explicitly designed to reduce Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) by approximately 270,000 children—a reduction that will save local authorities billions while transferring responsibility to already-stretched mainstream schools receiving only £20,000-£70,000 annually in additional funding. The class dynamics are revealing: private equity-owned special schools charging up to £100,000 per pupil with 25% profit margins have been extracting value from public education budgets, while working-class parents must navigate adversarial tribunals (with a 99% success rate, indicating systematic under-provision) to secure basic support. The new system explicitly restricts tribunal access for the new Individual Support Plans, removing legal recourse precisely where it has proven most effective for families. Meanwhile, Keir Starmer's personal narrative about his brother Nick frames systemic failures as individual struggles to 'be seen,' obscuring the material basis of educational inequality. The reform's ideological work is sophisticated: 'inclusion' becomes a vehicle for cost-cutting, while the 'fight' that parents endure is presented as something to be eliminated—not by adequately funding the system, but by lowering the threshold for what constitutes adequate support. The NASUWT's assessment that £1.6 billion over three years is 'barely a drop in the bucket' against years of underfunding exposes the gap between rhetoric and material commitment. This represents a continuation of neoliberal governance logic: present austerity as progressive reform while shifting costs from the state to schools, families, and ultimately to disabled children themselves.
Class Dynamics
Actors: Working-class and middle-class parents of disabled children, Teachers and school staff, Local authority administrators, Private equity firms owning special schools, State bureaucrats (DfE, ministers), Disabled children and young people, Teaching unions (NASUWT, NAHT)
Beneficiaries: Local authorities facing budget pressures, Central government seeking fiscal consolidation, Private providers positioned to offer 'specialist services' to schools, Politicians seeking to appear reformist without fundamental redistribution
Harmed Parties: Children currently receiving or needing EHCPs, Working-class families unable to navigate complex appeals systems, Teachers facing increased workload without adequate support, Disabled young people losing legal protections
The state mediates between capital's demand for fiscal discipline and families' needs for adequate provision. Parents have won 99% of tribunal cases, demonstrating that legal rights can force resource allocation—hence the reform explicitly restricts tribunal access. Private equity extracts surplus from special education provision while the state attempts to redirect children away from these costly placements, not by creating equivalent public provision but by redefining needs downward.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: £6 billion SEND funding hole in local authority finances, Private special school places costing £61,500 vs £23,900 for state equivalents, Private equity profit margins of up to 25% on special education, £4 billion investment over three years insufficient to match historical underfunding
Education functions as both social reproduction—preparing future workers—and as a site of capital accumulation through privatization. The labor of teachers is intensified as SEND responsibilities shift to mainstream schools without proportionate staffing. Parents' unpaid labor navigating bureaucracy represents a hidden subsidy to the system. Private providers extract surplus from public funds while the state attempts to reduce this extraction by narrowing access rather than public provision.
Resources at Stake: Public education budgets, Teacher labor time and conditions, Children's educational outcomes and life chances, Local authority financial viability, Private equity returns on special education investments
Historical Context
Precedents: David Cameron's 2010 inclusion debate revealing long-standing tensions, Post-2010 austerity stripping early intervention services, Tribunal system created as safety valve that parents learned to use effectively, Neoliberal pattern of creating markets in public services then complaining about costs
This represents a characteristic neoliberal reform cycle: public services are underfunded, creating crises; private capital fills gaps at higher cost; the state then 'reforms' by restricting access to the expensive tier while claiming progressive goals. The phase of capitalism—characterized by financialization and austerity—explains why the contradiction emerges now: decades of underinvestment created the EHCP crisis, and financialized capital captured the special school sector precisely because public provision was inadequate.
Contradictions
Primary: The government claims reforms would be necessary 'even if money were no object' while implementing changes explicitly designed to reduce the number of children receiving the most resource-intensive support—revealing that money is precisely the object.
Secondary: 'Inclusion' rhetoric serves exclusion from legal protections and adequate resources, Starmer's personal narrative about his brother frames systemic failure as individual struggle, obscuring material causes, Parents are blamed for 'fighting' a system that provides support only when legally compelled, £4 billion presented as major investment while unions identify it as inadequate to address accumulated underfunding
The removal of tribunal access for ISPs may initially reduce legal challenges, but unmet need will manifest elsewhere: school exclusions, mental health crises, family breakdown. The contradiction between stated inclusion goals and material under-provision will likely produce new flashpoints. Working-class families without resources to navigate the remaining appeals processes will bear disproportionate costs, potentially generating political backlash similar to the PIP reforms U-turn if visible harm accumulates.
Global Interconnections
These reforms exemplify how capitalist states manage the contradiction between social reproduction needs and capital accumulation. Globally, neoliberal governance has privatized profitable aspects of public services while socializing costs and risks. The private equity capture of special education mirrors patterns in healthcare, housing, and elder care across advanced capitalist economies. Trump's tariffs mentioned in the same news cycle illustrate how states face multiple fiscal pressures simultaneously—military spending, trade conflicts, social provision—with welfare consistently sacrificed. The Reform UK positioning in the same article reveals how the far right exploits these contradictions: when social democratic governments implement austerity while claiming progressive values, space opens for nationalist movements to claim they alone will prioritize 'native' working-class interests. The SEND reforms' potential to harm white working-class children—whom Starmer specifically mentions—may prove politically significant if Reform successfully frames Labour as serving 'metropolitan elites' while cutting disabled children's support.
Conclusion
The SEND reforms demonstrate how ideological framing can present austerity as progress. For workers and families, the key lesson is that legal rights matter—the 99% tribunal success rate shows that enforceable entitlements can force resource allocation even within hostile systems. The explicit restriction of tribunal access reveals the state's recognition of this power. Building collective capacity to defend and expand such rights, rather than accepting individualized 'support plans' administered by resource-constrained schools, represents the terrain of struggle. The contradiction between inclusion rhetoric and material reality creates opportunities for organizing that links disability rights, education workers, and working-class families against both austerity and privatization.
Suggested Reading
- Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire (1968) Freire's analysis of how education systems reproduce inequality while claiming to liberate directly illuminates the 'inclusion' rhetoric masking exclusion from resources and legal protections.
- The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's framework for understanding how crises are manufactured and exploited to implement unpopular reforms applies to how years of SEND underfunding created the conditions for restricting children's entitlements.
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of the capitalist state as managing contradictions between classes illuminates how the UK government mediates between fiscal pressures, private capital's interests, and families' needs.