SEND leads the budget concerns. The next decision needs more than a percentage

01 / What the evidence shows

Concern is widespread in the sample, but it is not a spending measure

NGA's online survey ran from 2 to 30 June, with more than 3,000 people engaging. Participants selected themselves, most were NGA members, and the balance of governance roles differs from the national picture. The report explains these limits. Keep them alongside any figure used in a board paper; they materially affect what the evidence can support.1

The finance responses also describe differing positions rather than one universal crisis. Some respondents report drawing on reserves, while others can balance current income and expenditure. A school's own cash position, reserves policy and recurrent commitments remain decisive. National concern can prompt scrutiny, but cannot replace a reconciled local forecast or establish that a particular trust is financially unsustainable.

Start the discussion with a disciplined distinction: what the survey reports, what the school knows and what remains an assumption. Put the fieldwork date against the research and a separate date against the school's forecast. This prevents new publication from making older responses appear to be a live measure of current costs.

02 / Begin with delivery

Establish whether the funded support is actually available

Ask the SENCO and finance lead to review the same provision plan. For a manageable sample of support arrangements, trace the intended provision to the timetable, responsible staff and actual delivery. Note vacancies, absence cover, training requirements and time spent coordinating external services. The purpose is to understand the operating model, without circulating identifiable pupil details unnecessarily.

A cost heading such as additional support can conceal very different activities. Distinguish classroom teaching, targeted intervention, specialist input and coordination. Where provision is not reaching pupils as intended, establish why before treating the issue as either insufficient money or inefficient practice. A staffing vacancy, unsuitable timetable and unmet training need require different decisions.

EEF's inclusive teaching resources offer evidence-informed questions about teaching and support. Use them to examine the quality and purpose of provision with staff, rather than assuming a more expensive arrangement is automatically better or a cheaper one equivalent. Required support and individual needs remain constraints on the decision, not variables to remove to achieve a target.5

03 / Reconcile the finances

Separate the recurring commitment from the funding that may expire

Build the local picture from complete costs: pay and on-costs, agency cover where used, training, specialist services and necessary resources. Show which costs recur and which establish capacity once. Distinguish budgeted staffing from posts actually filled. The difference can explain an apparent underspend without showing that the school has spare capacity to meet need.

On the income side, distinguish confirmed allocations, expected receipts and disputed or unresolved amounts. Track the timing of top-up payments as well as the annual total. A forecast may look affordable while a delayed receipt creates a cash-flow problem. Give each unresolved assumption an owner and a next contact date, rather than repeatedly rolling the same estimate forward.

Check the inclusive mainstream fund against its conditions and the recipient's strategy. An allocation can support a planned change, but time-limited funding does not by itself finance a permanent commitment. Our earlier coverage examined the delivery budget; this next stage asks what remains affordable when the initial allocation has been spent.34

04 / Test sustainability

Use explicit scenarios instead of one apparently precise forecast

DfE's integrated curriculum and financial planning approach connects educational choices with available resources. Bring inclusion into that discussion, rather than adding its cost after the staffing model is settled. The question is how the proposed curriculum, deployment and support arrangements can be delivered together, with the capacity the school actually has.2

Test a small number of relevant variations: a change in pupil numbers, delayed funding, a hard-to-fill specialist role or the end of a temporary allocation. Label these as planning scenarios, not predictions. Show which assumption changes, what happens to provision and cash, and the point at which leaders would need to act. Avoid combining every adverse possibility into an unexplained headline deficit.

Compare options in educational and financial terms. Training may need release time before it changes practice. Sharing specialist capacity may require travel, supervision and a clear service agreement. A timetable change may shift workload elsewhere. Include these dependencies so that an apparent efficiency is not simply a cost transferred to another team, another budget or a family.

05 / The governance decision

Ask what the proposed change would mean for pupils

A useful approval paper states the problem, current provision, cost, options and expected educational outcome. It should identify the pupils or needs affected without exposing personal information unnecessarily, explain implementation capacity and say how leaders will know whether the change worked. Governors can then challenge the reasoning rather than debate an isolated percentage from a national survey.

Keep decisions about required provision within the applicable statutory and individual arrangements. A financial pressure does not establish that support can be withdrawn. Where the school cannot resolve a funding or placement dependency itself, record the escalation to the responsible body or relevant authority and the interim arrangements. An unanswered request should remain visible until a decision is reached.

06 / A review that changes practice

Return to delivery, learning and affordability after the decision

At the next review, look at whether planned support happened, whether staff could deliver it and what changed for pupils. Use appropriate learning, participation or attendance evidence against a clear starting point; a single improvement does not prove causation. Check actual cost and workload against the assumptions used to approve the plan.

The immediate outcome is a more honest financial and provision picture. Leaders should be able to say which commitments are sustainable, which depend on unresolved income and which delivery gaps need action now. That is a stronger response to the survey than repeating its headline: it turns reported concern into a decision that can be tested in the school.

Leadership questions

Questions that turn the development into a governing conversation.

What we are monitoring next

Publication is the beginning of the watch.

• Any NGA methodological clarification or further breakdown of the survey findings.
• Confirmed funding and local payment decisions, distinguished from proposals and assumptions.
• Relevant recipients' 31 December 2026 inclusion strategy deadline and the subsequent review of delivery.

Continue the evidence trail

How this develops our earlier coverage

• Our earlier review: make the inclusion budget a delivery plan ↗
• The December inclusion strategy: evidence, ownership and review ↗
• Reconcile grant allocations before changing the forecast ↗