The £6,000 SEND line may start moving by postcode

01 / What the line means

The £6,000 figure is not a pupil-level pot.

Mainstream schools’ core budgets are expected to cover additional SEN support costs up to £6,000 per pupil each year; top-up funding contributes above that point. The notional SEN budget is an indicative component of the wider budget, not a separately ring-fenced sum.4

The distinction matters. Raising the threshold would increase the costs a school is expected to manage before seeking top-up, but the proposal is designed to send compensating funding upfront. Whether that compensation matches an individual school’s actual cohort is the central question.234

02 / Why move it

The threshold has lost more than half its real value.

The threshold has not changed in cash terms since 2013 and was based on 2009 costs. The Department for Education says its real value has fallen by more than 50%, increasing reliance on top-up applications and tying support to formal processes.2

The intended gain is earlier, cohort-level support with greater staffing certainty and less delay. That goal sits against rapidly increasing demand: active EHC plans reached 718,838 in January 2026, up 12.5% in one year.25

03 / Postcode variation

Local experimentation creates a new boundary effect.

An approved authority would choose how far above £6,000 to set its threshold and how much high-needs funding to transfer. It would then distribute funding through a separate local SEND inclusion factor using permitted local-formula factors, following consultation with its schools forum.23

That creates deliberate local experimentation. Two otherwise similar schools on opposite sides of an authority boundary could face different thresholds and allocation rules. The Department for Education acknowledges the risk of unnecessary local variation and says it will consider it when reviewing applications.123

04 / The proxy gap

A formula proxy is not the pupil cohort.

Existing formula factors include low prior attainment, deprivation and pupil numbers, which correlate with SEND need. The Department for Education proposes continuing to use proxies rather than directly funding identified need, partly because identification practices vary.2

The department also recognises that a pure formula may not match actual need. Schools with unusually high or complex SEND cohorts may require discretionary targeted protection, especially where current top-ups are far above what pupil characteristics predict.234

05 / Proof of delivery

The test is support delivered, not simply money moved.

Authorities expressing interest must do so by 18 September, consult their schools forum and submit a formal application by 30 October. Approved changes would appear as a distinct budget line, and schools would report inclusion activity through their annual inclusion strategy.13

Transparent labelling is useful, but it does not by itself show whether support arrived earlier or became more effective. School Connection infers that the first phase should be treated as an evaluation: trace allocation, staffing, time to support, top-up applications and pupil participation together.23

Leadership questions

Questions that turn the development into a governing conversation.

School Connection intelligence lens

What the national Observatory can add, and where it must stop.

For every participating authority, the Observatory should hold the pupil cohort constant and model each school under two systems: current notional SEN plus top-ups, and proposed local-factor allocation plus retained discretionary or top-up funding. It should publish the cash and percentage change, per-pupil change and threshold assumed.234

The exact stress test should compare formula-predicted need with actual SEN-support prevalence, EHC-plan prevalence, current top-up value and available complexity indicators. It should flag schools with a large positive need residual and a real-terms resource reduction, then track top-up applications per 1,000 pupils, time from identified need to provision, EHC-assessment requests, attendance and suspension rates.245

Public-safe reporting must exclude individual pupil costs and suppress small cohorts. Allocation should be kept separate from expenditure and delivered provision. Comparisons with non-participating authorities must be labelled descriptive because participation is self-selected; the Observatory should not claim a causal effect without a credible evaluation design.123

What we are monitoring next

Publication is the beginning of the watch.

• Consultation responses and expressions of interest by 18 September 2026.
• Formal local-authority applications by 30 October and subsequent Department for Education decisions.
• Published thresholds, formula factors, school-level allocations and 2027/28 implementation evaluations.