Policy & regulation
ISF and the 2026 SEND reforms
What the Education Secretary's proposals mean for independent schools considering a transition, and why the distinction between ISF and the provision being targeted matters.
What the government is proposing
In March 2026, the Education Secretary proposed two specific measures: a ministerial veto over new independent special schools, and fee caps on private SEND operators. The context is explicit. A number of private equity-backed providers charge between £63,000 and £100,000 per pupil per year. Several operate through opaque offshore ownership structures. Ministers have described these operators as "sucking money out of the system."
That criticism is warranted. It does not describe ISF.
ISF schools are state-commissioned from day one
Pupils arrive via Education, Health and Care Plans, referred by local authorities. Income is funded from the LA High Needs Block. There is no private fee income, no private equity ownership, and no acquisition debt to service. ISF schools target £55,000–£57,000 per pupil, below every threshold currently under discussion, and below the average fee of the operators ministers are targeting.
The view from the sector
"The independent sector is the only part of the system able to create specialist places quickly and without upfront capital risk to the public purse."
That is not a defence of profiteering. It is an accurate description of what ISF does, and of why the government needs ISF's model to succeed, not in spite of reform, but as a direct result of it.
How ISF projects are structured to be reform-proof
Co-designed against documented need
Every ISF conversion is co-designed against a documented LA SEND sufficiency gap. The commissioning authority is on record identifying the need before any project begins. A veto aimed at speculative openings does not apply to a project filling a published, documented shortfall.
Transparent fee and profit structure
ISF's commercial model is published and benchmarked to state-sector cost. No offshore ownership, no acquisition debt, no PE capital stack to service. This is precisely the transparency ministers are calling for and cannot find in the operators they are targeting.
What this means for your school
The 2026 proposals do not close the door on converting independent school capacity to specialist SEND provision. They close it on profiteering. If anything, they increase the urgency: local authorities under pressure to cut expensive out-of-area placements need cost-effective, locally-commissioned provision now. They cannot wait for new state-built capacity.
ISF is the route to deliver that provision within the policy framework, not in spite of it. Governing bodies considering a transition are not moving toward a regulated risk. They are moving toward the model the government is actively trying to create more of.
Have questions about how this applies to your school?
We are happy to walk through the regulatory landscape with any governing body or leadership team considering a transition.