Why the SEND Crisis Hasn’t Sparked National Outrage - And Who That Silence Harms Most

Recently, the i Paper published an anonymous opinion piece suggesting that “middle-class parents” are gaming or exploiting the SEND system. It’s a narrative that resurfaces every so often: the idea that some families are taking more than their fair share, placing pressure on services, and diverting resources away from children who “really need it.”

Shortly afterwards, I was invited to write a Perspectives piece offering a counterbalance. Not to defend middle-class families, but to challenge the entire premise of the debate. Because the question of whether certain parents are “taking too much” misses the point so completely that it obscures the real crisis happening in front of us.

When the i Paper later shared my piece across their platforms, it provoked a wave of online conversation. But much of that conversation centred on the headline alone - not the content beneath it. The assumptions people made before reading the article were a stark reminder of something I was arguing within it: that public perception of the SEND crisis is shaped less by facts and more by optics, class stereotypes, and surface level narratives that spread far faster than the truth.

It wasn’t the content people were debating.
It was what they assumed the content would be.

And this - in itself - is the heart of why the SEND crisis has failed to spark national outrage.

Because the real issue is not who is benefitting from the SEND system- it’s who the system is failing - and why we are so quick to misread the suffering of those caught inside it.

Across England, families describe the same landscape:

Requests ignored.
Evidence dismissed.
Assessments delayed or denied.
Statutory timeframes breached as standard.
Provision only delivered if parents fight for it.
Support withdrawn the moment families stop pushing.

This is not a collection of isolated experiences, but a national pattern of behaviour.

Parliament has already identified a “pattern of non-compliance” by local authorities.
More than 1.7 million children have SEND.
Children with SEND are excluded at five times the rate of their peers.
And families, regardless of class, describe the same four-step cycle:

Delay → Deny → Deflect → Exhaust.

The problem isn’t children.
It isn’t parents.
It isn’t “demand.”
The problem is systemic non-compliance.

When the law is followed, the system works.
When it isn’t, families are forced into tribunals simply to secure rights they already hold.

So the question isn’t whether middle-class parents are “taking too much.”
The deeper question is:

Why does accessing a basic legal entitlement require this level of stamina, money, expertise, and emotional labour in the first place?

Here’s where class optics do real damage.

Middle-class families - by virtue of resources, time, or educational background - often become the most visible in SEND battles. They are the ones who (compared to their working class counterparts) find it easier to:

• take time off work
• attend endless meetings
• gather reports
• pay for private assessments
• hire consultants
• navigate tribunals
• put everything else on hold

Visibility, however, is not ease - it is exposure.

Middle-class parents are not bending the system to their will, they are being bent by the system to breaking point.

They are haemorrhaging savings, stalling careers, burning out, and losing their own mental health capacity in the process.

But if even the most resourced families are barely surviving, what does that say about families with far fewer resources?

What about:

• children in care with no consistent advocate
• parents working multiple jobs, unable to attend meetings
• families living in temporary accommodation
• parents with limited English
• families who don’t know their rights exist
• those without Wi-Fi, printers, transport, or support

These families do not appear in comment sections - not because they don’t care, but because the system has made participation structurally impossible.

This is why the SEND crisis hasn’t sparked national outrage.
Not because the suffering isn’t real - it is.
Not because the evidence isn’t overwhelming - it is.
Not because the failures are hidden - they’re not.

But because we are conditioned to misread visible suffering when it comes from families who appear “competent” or “resourced.”

We underestimate middle-class pain because we mistake capability for comfort.
We assume literacy means leverage.
We interpret visibility as privilege, not vulnerability.

And that misunderstanding is incredibly convenient for those in power.

Because once the public is reassured that “pushy parents” are the problem, scrutiny shifts away from the real causes:

• chronic underfunding
• unlawful gatekeeping
• staff shortages
• political indifference
• shrinking provision
• erosion of statutory rights

The class narrative serves a purpose.
It divides families into categories - the fighters and the forgotten - and sets them against one another. It contains public anger within the SEND community instead of directing it upwards, where it belongs.

It also prepares the ground for something darker: managed decline - a future where fewer children receive legally mandated support, and where the public - conditioned to distrust those who ask for help - quietly accepts it.

Middle-class families show us what happens when a system becomes so degraded that even the most advantaged cannot navigate it. And if families with every logistical and social advantage are struggling this visibly, then families with none are experiencing a level of deprivation we rarely see - because the public conversation never reaches them.

When the visible families are drowning, imagine what is happening in the depths we cannot see.

Until we recognise that the SEND crisis is a national failure - not a class issue - the outrage will remain contained, the suffering will remain invisible, and the decline will continue unchecked.

______________________________________

If you’d like to read the i Paper Perspectives piece I was invited to write, you can find it here. The headline sparked a lot of assumptions when it was shared, but the article itself makes the same argument as this blog: that when even well-resourced families are pushed to breaking point, it reveals a system failing everyone - especially those who are least visible.