After welfare humiliation, Starmer has a new headache: Education reforms of Bridget Phillipson

In the wake of a bruising political climbdown over welfare reforms, the Labour government is now navigating yet another politically perilous territory to reform the UK’s Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Send) system. Following public backlash and a parliamentary rebellion over disability benefit proposals, Prime Minister Keir Starmer finds himself again under pressure.

This time, the scrutiny is over Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s planned overhaul of Send provision, a minefield laden with history, emotion and legal obligations.

According to Politico, Labour insiders say they have learned from the problems caused by past welfare changes, where disabled people and their supporters felt left out of important decisions. After that, Starmer admitted his team “didn’t engage in the way that we should have done”. Because of this, government officials now say they are trying to work more closely with others on changes to the Send system. However, even with promises of more discussion and funding, early signs show that more problems could be coming.

Send system: Broken and bankrupt

Few dispute that the Send system in England is under immense strain. With costs spiralling, councils are forking out millions annually to place children in independent special schools, sometimes spending over £100,000 per pupil, Politico reported.

A National Audit Office report labelled the system “financially unsustainable,” pointing to a staggering rise in Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs)—from 240,000 a decade ago to over 638,000 in early 2025, the Daily Mail said.

The system, which legally mandates support for children with complex needs, was designed to guarantee help but has now become overwhelmed. An influx of diagnoses, particularly in autism spectrum disorders, has led to rising demand, longer delays and a contentious atmosphere between parents and local authorities.

The UK’s Minister for Early Education Stephen Morgan conceded the current system is “failing children, it’s failing parents,” while admitting on LBC that “all things [are] in the round” with respect to EHCPs, the Evening Standard reported.

Phillipson’s delicate balancing act

Education Secretary Phillipson, known for taking bold stances such as taxing private school fees, has taken a more measured approach this time. According to Politico, the upcoming white paper, expected this autumn, will not simply be a cost-cutting exercise. To that end, June’s spending review included a £760 million allocation to facilitate reforms.

Notably, Phillipson has encouraged backbench MPs to conduct constituency-level consultations, a move seen as a signal that lessons from the welfare fiasco are being internalised. It is still unclear whether EHCPs will remain legally binding or whether children will retain their current support levels. Instead, they stressed system improvements and greater inclusion within mainstream schools.

Anxiety among parents and MPs

Despite ministerial reassurances, unease is mounting. Parents of children with SEND—many of whom have long histories of fighting for support—fear the reforms could dilute or dismantle existing protections.

As per Politico, Jen Craft, Labour MP for Thurrock and a mother of a child with Down syndrome and hearing loss, said that it often feels like families constantly have to fight. She stressed that any reforms should ease, not worsen, the stress and anxiety already built into the system.

Reform, not retrenchment?

The crux of the issue is whether the reforms will be perceived as an attempt to cut costs under the guise of system efficiency. Phillipson said the current process is “too adversarial” and “too bureaucratic” and that reforms will focus on making support more timely and effective, the Daily Mail reported.

Yet without transparent guarantees, particularly around EHCPs, many fear children could lose access to the very protections that empower families to hold the system accountable.

According to the Evening Standard, Morgan claimed the intention was to “strengthen support” and not withdraw it.

The numbers reflect the gravity of the issue.

In 2024 alone, nearly 98,000 new EHCPs were issued, an increase of over 15 per cent from the previous year. Requests for assessments rose by nearly 12 per cent. Scrapping or narrowing the scope of EHCPs would affect tens of thousands of families, many of whom vote and organise politically.

Starmer’s big political challenge

For Starmer, the stakes could hardly be higher. His landslide victory last year ushered in a new era of expectation, but a year on, his administration is floundering in the polls. Following the welfare reform embarrassment, he cannot afford another misstep that alienates a vocal and determined constituency.

Indeed, the very demographics affected by Send reform — young families, disability advocates, middle class professionals — are part of the coalition that delivered Labour’s victory. Many of the party’s new MPs, like Peter Swallow, a former teacher, are deeply familiar with the system’s failings and the damage of poor communication, Politico said.

The risk is not merely political but deeply human. If reforms are seen as dismantling legal safeguards rather than strengthening support, the emotional blowback could be immense.

Proceeding with caution

Phillipson’s white paper will be a defining moment for Labour’s education agenda. Its success or failure may hinge less on what the reforms propose and more on how the government communicates and consults on them.

After the bruising welfare episode, Starmer’s team is reportedly more sensitive to public and backbench sentiment. But as the Send reform story unfolds, it is clear that many are still waiting for assurances that have not yet come.

Until parents, MPs and campaigners receive unambiguous clarity on the fate of EHCPs and other core protections, this issue will remain a slow-burning headache for the Labour government. And with Send spending now accounting for a significant share of the education budget, Starmer and Phillipson must decide if this is a moment for fiscal prudence or for moral leadership.

Only time and policy details will tell.