A recent analysis by Tes has revealed a stark reality facing England’s education system: academy trusts serving higher proportions of pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) are experiencing substantially greater financial pressures than those serving more advantaged communities. The study found that trusts with above-average levels of SEND and FSM pupils recorded cumulative deficits of £756 per pupil over three years compared with £436 per pupil in trusts serving lower levels of need, representing a difference of almost 75% (Ahmed, 2026).

While school funding debates often focus on budgets, staffing, and organisational sustainability, the real significance of these findings lies in their implications for children. Schools are increasingly expected to provide not only education but also extensive pastoral support, safeguarding interventions, mental health provision, family assistance, and specialist SEND services. When funding fails to keep pace with need, the consequences are felt most acutely by the pupils who rely most heavily upon school support systems.

This article explores the implications of these findings for SEND pupils, disadvantaged learners, and low-income families. It argues that current funding arrangements risk exacerbating educational inequalities and widening existing attainment gaps unless significant reforms are undertaken at both policy and practice levels.

The Growing Financial Pressure on Schools Serving SEND Pupils

The Tes investigation identified SEND-related costs as one of the most frequently cited causes of sustained deficits among academy trusts. Many trusts reported substantial funding shortfalls associated with SEND provision, delays in receiving Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) funding, and increasing numbers of pupils requiring specialist support (Ahmed, 2026).

For example, St Thomas Aquinas Catholic Multi-Academy Trust reported a SEND funding shortfall exceeding £1 million, despite attempting to meet the needs of pupils requiring additional support (Ahmed, 2026).

These findings are unsurprising when considered alongside national trends. The Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care (2015) state that schools have a statutory duty to identify, assess, and support pupils with SEND through a graduated approach. However, fulfilling these obligations often requires significant investment in:

• Specialist teachers.
• Teaching assistants.
• Educational psychologists.
• Speech and language therapists.
• Occupational therapists.
• Assistive technology.
• Alternative curriculum pathways.
• Mental health support.

As the number and complexity of pupils requiring support continues to rise, many schools are struggling to reconcile their legal responsibilities with available resources (National Audit Office, 2024).

The Impact on SEND Pupils

Reduced Access to Early Intervention

One of the most significant risks arising from financial pressures is the reduction of early intervention provision.

The Education Endowment Foundation (2024) highlights that early intervention is one of the most effective methods of improving outcomes for pupils with SEND. Timely support can prevent difficulties from escalating and reduce the need for more intensive interventions later.

However, when schools face budget deficits, early intervention programmes are often vulnerable because they require upfront investment. Schools may delay assessments, reduce intervention staffing, or limit access to specialist support in an effort to balance budgets.

This creates a paradox in which short-term savings generate greater long-term costs.

Without early intervention, difficulties in literacy, communication, social interaction, emotional regulation, and executive functioning can become increasingly entrenched, making future support both more complex and more expensive (Education Endowment Foundation, 2024).

Increased Risk of Exclusion

Research consistently demonstrates a strong relationship between unmet SEND needs and school exclusion (Department for Education, 2024).

When pupils do not receive appropriate support, they are more likely to experience:

• Frustration.
• Anxiety.
• Emotional dysregulation.
• School avoidance.
• Challenging behaviour.

The SEND Code of Practice emphasises that schools should make reasonable adjustments and implement graduated support before behaviour difficulties escalate (DfE & DHSC, 2015).

However, financial constraints may limit schools’ ability to provide:

• Behaviour support programmes.
• Therapeutic interventions.
• Nurture provision.
• Additional staffing.

Consequently, SEND pupils may become increasingly vulnerable to suspension, exclusion, or placement breakdown.

This is particularly concerning given longstanding evidence that excluded pupils experience significantly poorer educational, employment, and health outcomes later in life (Department for Education, 2024).

Mental Health Consequences

The relationship between SEND and mental health is well established.

Children with SEND experience disproportionately high levels of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and social isolation compared with their peers (Crenshaw, Green & Patel, 2022).

Schools often provide essential emotional support through:

• Pastoral teams.
• Counselling services.
• Emotional literacy programmes.
• Mental health interventions.

Yet such services are frequently among the first areas affected by budget pressures.

The result is that some of the most vulnerable pupils lose access to the very support mechanisms designed to protect their wellbeing.

Delays in EHCP Support

The Tes article highlights the financial strain experienced by schools while awaiting EHCP funding (Ahmed, 2026).

This issue has become increasingly common nationally.

Schools often begin supporting pupils long before formal funding arrangements are secured. During this period they may be required to fund additional staffing, interventions, and resources from already stretched budgets.

The National Audit Office (2024) has repeatedly identified delays within the SEND system as a significant challenge affecting both schools and families.

For children, these delays can mean prolonged periods without adequate support, reducing opportunities to access the curriculum effectively and participate fully in school life.

The Impact on FSM Pupils and Disadvantaged Learners

While SEND pressures dominate much of the discussion, the Tes analysis also demonstrates that schools serving disadvantaged communities face greater financial challenges.

Trusts with higher-than-average FSM eligibility recorded larger cumulative deficits than those serving more affluent populations (Ahmed, 2026).

This is significant because socioeconomic disadvantage remains one of the strongest predictors of educational outcomes in England (Sutton Trust, 2025).

Widening the Disadvantage Gap

The Sutton Trust (2025) argues that despite decades of policy initiatives, disadvantaged pupils continue to achieve lower educational outcomes than their more affluent peers.

Schools serving disadvantaged communities often require additional resources to address:

• Lower literacy levels.
• Attendance challenges.
• Digital exclusion.
• Food insecurity.
• Mental health needs.
• Safeguarding concerns.

When these schools experience greater financial pressure, their capacity to deliver targeted interventions is reduced.

As Charlotte O’Regan of the Sutton Trust argues, reversing the erosion of pupil premium funding is essential if the government wishes to reduce educational inequality (Ahmed, 2026).

Without adequate funding, existing attainment gaps are likely to widen further.

The Rise of “Invisible Disadvantage”

The Tes report references growing concerns around “invisible disadvantage” (Ahmed, 2026).

Invisible disadvantage may include:

• Housing instability.
• Parental unemployment.
• Caring responsibilities.
• Poor mental health.
• Digital poverty.
• Domestic adversity.

These factors often remain hidden but have profound effects on educational engagement.

Schools increasingly act as frontline social support services, yet funding mechanisms frequently fail to account adequately for these additional responsibilities (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2025).

The Impact on Low-Income Families

The consequences of school funding pressures extend beyond school gates.

For many low-income families, schools provide a crucial source of stability and support.

Increased Financial Burden

Where schools are unable to provide sufficient support, families may feel compelled to seek alternatives through:

• Private tutoring.
• Independent assessments.
• Specialist therapies.
• Educational resources.

Such options are often inaccessible to low-income households.

This creates a system in which access to support becomes increasingly linked to family income rather than educational need.

From a social justice perspective, this represents a significant challenge to the principle of equitable education.

Increased Family Stress

Families of children with SEND already report significantly higher levels of stress than families of non-SEND children (Contact, 2024).

Long waiting lists, delayed assessments, funding disputes, and difficulties accessing services can place considerable emotional and financial pressure on parents.

When schools themselves are operating under financial strain, families may experience additional uncertainty regarding the support their children will receive.

Reduced Social Mobility

Educational attainment remains one of the strongest predictors of future employment and income.

Consequently, when schools serving disadvantaged communities are unable to access sufficient resources, the effects extend beyond education and into wider issues of social mobility.

The Sutton Trust (2025) argues that reducing educational inequality is essential if future generations are to experience greater opportunities than previous ones.

Without targeted investment, educational disadvantage risks becoming increasingly entrenched and intergenerational.

Recommendations for Government

Reform the National Funding Formula

The current funding system must more accurately reflect the following:

• Levels of deprivation.
• SEND prevalence.
• Community need.
• Safeguarding demands.

The evidence presented by Tes suggests that schools serving higher levels of need are carrying disproportionate financial burdens (Ahmed, 2026). Funding should therefore be weighted more heavily towards schools serving vulnerable populations.

Increase High-Needs Funding

Government should:

• Increase High Needs Block funding.
• Reduce EHCP delays.
• Introduce interim funding arrangements.
• Ensure funding follows need more rapidly.

The repeated references to SEND-related deficits suggest current arrangements are insufficient to meet rising levels of demand (Ahmed, 2026).

Protect Pupil Premium Funding

Pupil premium funding should be restored to its previous real-terms value and linked to inflation. This would help schools maintain interventions aimed at narrowing the disadvantage gap (Sutton Trust, 2025).

Reform Accountability Systems

Jon Andrews of the Education Policy Institute argues that accountability systems may inadvertently disadvantage schools serving vulnerable communities because these schools face additional challenges not adequately recognised within performance measures (Ahmed, 2026).

Future accountability frameworks should place greater emphasis on inclusion, progress, and contextual factors.

Recommendations for Schools and Trusts

Schools cannot solve funding problems alone, but they can maximise the impact of available resources. Trusts should:

• Prioritise evidence-informed interventions.
• Conduct SEND provision audits.
• Strengthen multi-agency partnerships.
• Develop preventative approaches to attendance and behaviour.
• Invest in family engagement programmes.

Research consistently demonstrates that preventative approaches are more cost-effective than reactive interventions (Education Endowment Foundation, 2024).

Recommendations for Teachers

Teachers remain central to improving outcomes despite financial challenges. They should continue to implement:

• Adaptive teaching approaches.
• Explicit vocabulary instruction.
• Reading fluency interventions.
• Metacognitive strategies.
• Inclusive classroom practices.

The Education Endowment Foundation (2024) identifies high-quality teaching as the most powerful lever available for improving outcomes for disadvantaged and SEND pupils.

Recommendations for Families

Families should be supported to become active partners in education. Strategies include:

• Promoting home reading.
• Maintaining communication with schools.
• Accessing SENDIASS services.
• Joining parent support networks.
• Seeking early support when concerns arise.

Parental engagement remains one of the strongest predictors of educational success across all socioeconomic groups (Education Endowment Foundation, 2024).

Conclusion

The findings presented by Tes reveal a funding system under significant strain. Trusts serving the highest concentrations of SEND pupils and disadvantaged learners are experiencing substantially greater financial deficits than those serving more advantaged communities (Ahmed, 2026).

The implications are profound. SEND pupils face reduced access to specialist support, increased exclusion risks, delayed interventions, and poorer mental health outcomes. Disadvantaged pupils risk falling further behind academically, while low-income families face growing pressures in securing support for their children.

Ultimately, this is not simply a funding issue. It is an issue of educational equity, social justice, and inclusion. Unless funding systems, accountability measures, and SEND provision are reformed to reflect the realities of modern educational need, England risks creating a system in which the children requiring the greatest support are educated in the schools least able to provide it.

References

• Ahmed, J. (2026) Trusts with Higher Disadvantage and SEND Face 75% Bigger Deficits. Tes, 5 June 2026.
• Contact (2024) The Financial and Emotional Impact of Raising a Child with SEND. London: Contact.
• Crenshaw, D., Green, J. and Patel, R. (2022) ‘Mental Health and SEND: Educational Implications’, Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(3), pp. 201–218.
• Department for Education (2024) Suspensions and Permanent Exclusions in England. London: DfE.
• Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care (2015) Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0–25 Years. London: DfE.
• Education Endowment Foundation (2024) Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools Guidance Report. London: EEF.
• Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2025) UK Poverty Report. York: JRF.
• National Audit Office (2024) Support for Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs. London: NAO.
• Sutton Trust (2025) Closing the Attainment Gap. London: Sutton Trust.