Of course. Here is a professional news article based on the information provided, written from the perspective of a senior financial correspondent.

---

Increase and protect school funding for special needs, MPs urge

LONDON – A cross-party committee of MPs has issued a stark warning that the system for supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) is financially unsustainable and "not fit for purpose," urging the government to implement a long-term funding settlement to avert a deepening crisis for both families and local authority finances.

The Education Select Committee’s report paints a grim picture of a system buckling under the pressure of soaring demand, bureaucratic inefficiency, and a significant funding shortfall, leading to a vicious cycle of legal battles and poor outcomes that carries a steep economic price.

The Big Picture: A Fiscal Black Hole

The financial strain on local government is reaching a breaking point. Councils in England are facing a cumulative deficit in their high-needs budgets—the ring-fenced funding for SEND—that is projected to exceed £3 billion within the next two years.

This isn't just an accounting problem; it's a systemic failure with clear drivers.

• Soaring Demand: The number of children and young people with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), which legally entitles them to support, has surged by over 60% since 2015. This demand has consistently outstripped central government funding increases.

• Funding Disconnect: While core school funding has seen increases, the specialised, high-cost provision required for SEND pupils has not kept pace. Local authorities are legally obligated to provide this support, forcing them to plug budget gaps by drawing from other essential service budgets, including mainstream school funding.

• Inefficient Spending: A key finding from the committee echoes the sentiment of many experts: "There's an enormous amount of money in the system but it's not being spent well." The current structure incentivises costly disputes rather than early, effective intervention.

The Committee's Verdict: An "Adversarial" System

MPs on the committee described a "bureaucratic nightmare" where parents are forced to fight for provisions that their children are legally owed. This adversarial relationship between families and local authorities is not only failing children but is also a significant driver of financial waste.

The report highlights several critical flaws that demand immediate attention.

• Key Finding: Costly Legal Battles: A lack of timely and appropriate support often forces parents to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This legal process is expensive for both families and local authorities, diverting millions of pounds away from frontline services and into administrative and legal fees.

• Key Recommendation: A 10-Year Funding Plan: The committee is calling for more than a simple cash injection. It urges the Treasury and the Department for Education (DfE) to develop a fully-costed, 10-year plan that provides predictable, needs-based funding. This would allow local authorities to invest in long-term strategies rather than lurching from one budget crisis to the next.

• Key Finding: Accountability Deficit: No single government department or agency has ultimate responsibility for SEND outcomes. This fragmented accountability between education, health, and social care departments allows children to fall through the cracks and prevents a coherent, system-wide strategy from taking hold.

The Economic Drag of a Failing System

The consequences of inaction extend far beyond school gates, creating a long-term economic drag on the UK economy. The failure to adequately support SEND children has significant repercussions for workforce participation and future state dependency.

• Workforce Impact: A substantial number of parents, predominantly mothers, are forced to reduce their working hours or leave their jobs entirely to navigate the complex support system and provide care. This directly impacts household incomes, reduces the available labour pool, and lowers tax receipts.

• Long-Term Costs to the State: When children with additional needs do not receive effective early support, their life outcomes are demonstrably poorer. This translates into higher long-term costs for the state, including increased reliance on unemployment benefits, adult social care, and the justice system. Investing in effective SEND provision is not just a social good; it is a sound long-term economic strategy.

The Government Response and What's Next

The Department for Education has acknowledged the challenges, launching its SEND and Alternative Provision (AP) Improvement Plan and injecting billions in additional high-needs funding over recent years. The plan aims to establish new national standards, streamline processes, and create more specialist school places.

However, critics, including the MPs on the committee, argue these measures do not match the scale or urgency of the crisis. The additional funding has largely been absorbed by existing deficits and rising demand, rather than enabling transformative change.

• The Bottom Line: The financial pressure on local government is now acute. Without fundamental reform and a significant, protected funding settlement, councils will face impossible choices, potentially leading to cuts in other statutory services to fulfil their SEND duties.

• Implications for Policy: The committee's report adds significant pressure on the government to move beyond incremental adjustments. The debate is no longer about whether the system is broken, but about the political and financial will to undertake the deep, structural reforms required to fix it.

• The Path Forward: The ultimate test will be whether the Treasury is prepared to sanction the multi-billion-pound, multi-year commitment that experts and MPs insist is necessary. The alternative is to continue patching a system that is failing the nation's most vulnerable children and imposing an unsustainable financial burden on the taxpayer.