The special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) crisis has suddenly taken centre stage in national discourse.

From BBC’s Woman’s Hour to parliamentary debates, it seems the country has finally woken up to the challenges that educators have been highlighting for years, particularly the inherent flaws in the government’s one-size-fits-all approach to SEND policy.

A new, and glaring, example of this misalignment is the new statutory Sendco National Professional Qualification (NPQ), set to launch next month.

This new qualification will replace the National Award for SEN Coordination (NASENCo) and will be mandatory for all practising Sendcos within three years of taking up their role.

Funding shortfalls

However, just weeks before the courses are due to begin, a serious funding shortfall has surfaced, leaving many school leaders unable to access the training.

Data gathered by the Association of School and College Leaders reveals that, in some areas, demand for scholarship-funded places exceeds supply by more than 600 per cent.

How can we expect this qualification to help address the SEND crisis when access to it is hampered by such an ill-conceived funding model? It’s as though the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, and it exemplifies how policy continues to be designed without equity in mind - a reality with dire consequences for vulnerable students.

The solution isn’t always about throwing more money at the problem. A well-thought-out plan for the Sendco workforce, one that could significantly improve the situation for families in crisis, wouldn’t necessarily require substantially more funding.

Instead, it’s about reallocating resources for professional development and reconsidering priorities.

Like many of you, I advocate for a whole-school approach to SEND, where all school leaders play a role in delivering inclusive education.

Central to this is the Sendco role - not just in planning and ensuring appropriate SEND provision but also in empowering the entire school community to improve outcomes for children and young people with SEND, as well as their families.

Schools struggling to recruit and retain Sendco’s welcome access to this new training. Bath Spa University reports that nearly 70 per cent of Sendco’s plan to leave their roles within five years.

This alarming figure should have prompted the Department for Education to ensure that the new qualification is widely available to as many providers and candidates as possible.

A scramble for funding

After all, the transition from NASENCo to the NPQ has not been without its critics. While an update to the qualification was overdue, NASENCo remains a respected qualification, supported by recent research from the University of Wolverhampton.

Critics of the NPQ have voiced concerns over the reduced hours of study and the lack of engagement at the master’s level. Additionally, many schools delayed applying for NASENCo in anticipation of the new qualification.

Despite these concerns, the previous administration committed to funding the NPQ, and schools were encouraged to enrol.

In March last year, the new funding conditions for NPQs were announced. Three NPQs would be fully funded for all schools: Headship, Sendco and Leading Primary Maths. For the other NPQs, only schools with high levels of disadvantage would be eligible for scholarships.

Then in the summer, the funding narrative changed. Lead providers were allocated caps on the three supposedly fully-funded NPQs, leaving the local partners delivering the programmes with such paltry numbers of places that some threw in the towel on NPQs altogether.

Disconnect between allocation and demand

The shift also left many schools scrambling to reorganise their professional development options.

Schools that hadn’t signed up early were left high and dry, regardless of who had the greatest local SEND needs. It is a disconnect between resource allocation and actual demand.

This is symptomatic of a broader issue: siloed policymaking. Applying a cap on Sendco NPQ places regardless of demand, when it is a statutory requirement and a means to address the SEND challenges facing the sector, is problematic enough.

But allowing a first-come, first-served approach to SEND provision decisions without considering the contextual challenges schools face seems nonsensical.

The current situation is untenable. It represents a missed opportunity to invest in an area that is crucial - not only for addressing SEND issues but also for improving school attendance, managing behaviour, and enhancing the job satisfaction and retention of education professionals.

Matching rhetoric with reality

The new government has placed SEND policy under the remit of the schools group within the DfE, presumably to address these insular, short-sighted decisions and promote joined-up planning. It is imperative that this new structure is used to align policy with practice.

As one school leader aptly put it: “Surely this is one of the most important areas for DfE funding, given the shortfalls linked to SEND, attendance and behaviour. Not to mention the fact that job satisfaction improves when staff feel they are making an impact, leading to better retention.”

It’s time for the government to align its rhetoric with reality. By adjusting the funding model and ensuring equitable access to the Sendco NPQ, we can begin to make meaningful progress in addressing the SEND crisis and securing an inclusive, fair education system for all.

Margaret Mulholland is the special educational needs and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders

For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter