Every so often a headline appears that makes teachers across the country quietly mutter “well… yes… obviously.”
This week it was from TES:
“Leaders warn SEND funds may get ‘swallowed’ up.”
For anyone working in schools, particularly those in disadvantaged areas, this won’t come as a shock. It simply confirms what many of us already suspect: new SEND funding risks disappearing somewhere in the system long before it reaches the children who need it.
And that system increasingly runs through multi-academy trusts (MATs).
The SEND Funding Problem: A System Under Pressure
Before we even get into MAT structures, we need to acknowledge the context.
SEND provision in England is already under enormous strain.
According to the National Audit Office:
- The high needs deficit is expected to exceed £4 billion across local authorities.
- Demand for Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) has more than doubled since 2014.
- Schools are increasingly expected to meet complex needs from existing budgets.
The Education Policy Institute has also found that:
- Schools often spend far more on SEND support than they receive in funding.
- Many SEND pupils are supported without formal plans because the system is too slow or overstretched.
So when government announcements promise new funding, teachers understandably hope it will actually reach the frontline.
But that’s where the concern begins.
The MAT Structure: Where the Money Flows
Multi-academy trusts now run over half of all schools in England.
The theory behind them was simple:
- Shared resources
- Centralised expertise
- Economies of scale
But in practice, funding flows through layers of management structures before reaching classrooms.
Typical MAT financial structures include:
| Spending Area | Description |
|---|---|
| Central Trust Services | Finance teams, HR, estates, data teams |
| Executive Leadership | CEOs, deputy CEOs, regional directors |
| School Leadership | Headteachers and local leadership teams |
| Classroom Provision | Teachers, TAs, resources |
SEND funding technically goes to schools — but within MATs budgets are often pooled or centrally controlled.
This is where the phrase “swallowed up” starts to make sense.
Executive Pay vs Classroom Support
One of the most controversial aspects of MAT structures is executive remuneration.
Research from the Sutton Trust and reporting from TES show:
- Over 100 academy trust CEOs earn more than £150,000
- Some lead trusts with fewer than 10 schools
- Pay increases have occurred while school budgets remain under pressure
To put that into perspective:
| Cost | Equivalent SEND Support |
|---|---|
| £150,000 CEO salary | ~5 Teaching Assistants |
| £200,000 executive package | ~6–7 TAs |
| £300,000 leadership structure | Entire SEND department in some schools |
Of course, large organisations need leadership.
But the concern many school leaders raise is simple:
How much of the new SEND funding will actually reach classrooms rather than organisational structures?
What School Leaders Are Actually Warning
The TES article reported concerns from school leaders that:
- New funding may not be ring-fenced
- Trust centralisation may absorb the money
- Schools may still be expected to fund support from existing budgets
In other words, SEND funding risks becoming a balancing tool for trust finances rather than targeted support for pupils.
And if that happens, the consequences are predictable.
What SEND Support Actually Costs
To understand the scale of the issue, consider what effective SEND provision typically requires:
| Support | Approx Cost per Year |
|---|---|
| Teaching Assistant (full time) | £25k–£30k |
| Specialist SEND teacher | £45k–£55k |
| Educational psychologist assessment | £800–£1,200 |
| Speech & language therapy | £2k–£6k |
| Specialist resource base | £100k+ setup |
Now imagine a school with:
- 1200 pupils
- 20–25% SEND population
- Increasing behavioural and mental health needs
The cost adds up very quickly.
And yet schools are frequently told to “be inclusive” while simultaneously stretching shrinking budgets further and further.
The Risk: A Funding Illusion
The real concern behind the TES headline isn’t corruption or wrongdoing.
It’s structural leakage.
When funding passes through multiple layers of management, central services, and organisational budgets, some of it inevitably gets absorbed along the way.
Think of it like pouring water through a series of pipes with small leaks.
By the time it reaches the classroom, there’s far less left than expected.
And SEND support is not something that works well on half measures.
What Teachers Actually See
Ask teachers what SEND funding looks like on the ground and you’ll often hear the same things:
- Teaching assistants shared between multiple pupils
- Long waiting lists for specialist assessments
- SENCOs drowning in paperwork
- Behaviour needs escalating with limited support
Meanwhile, policy announcements promise “record investment.”
Those two realities don’t feel particularly aligned.
The Question That Needs Answering
If government is serious about improving SEND provision, the most important question isn’t:
“How much money are we allocating?”
It’s:
“How much of that money will reach the child?”
Because if the answer isn’t most of it, then the headline from TES will prove to be exactly right.
The funding won’t fix the system.
It will simply get swallowed.
Final Thought
SEND support is not a luxury add-on.
For thousands of children, it is the difference between:
- Access and exclusion
- Progress and stagnation
- Confidence and complete disengagement from education
If funding gets lost in systems rather than reaching classrooms, the people who ultimately pay the price are not schools.
It’s the children the system was supposed to support in the first place.
Leave a comment