I鈥檓 responsible for ensuring children in some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country have the best educational experiences. For years, our trust has taken pride in being inclusive 鈥� keeping children others might exclude, working with families who鈥檝e often lost faith in the system, and absorbing the financial hit that comes with that. I don鈥檛 need the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to tell me that SEND is under pressure; I see it in our budgets, our classrooms and our staffrooms every day. So, when this week鈥檚 coverage screamed that the government faces a huge SEND shortfall and that mainstream school funding could fall by 1.7 per cent per pupil – later corrected by the OBR to 4.9 per cent! – it understandably sent a shiver through the sector. But if we鈥檙e going to protect the children who rely on us most, we have to separate signal from noise. Some of what鈥檚 being said about the Budget, the OBR and SEND is simply not accurate. From a school leader鈥檚 perspective, three points really matter. 1. The OBR is re-scoring deficits, not inventing them The eye-watering numbers partly reflect a technical change, not a sudden new explosion in SEND costs. Until now, the OBR did not explicitly record dedicated schools grant SEND deficits in this way, even though those deficits were already being racked up on council books. In this budget they have fully 鈥渟cored鈥� these deficits in their main tables. That matters. It makes the long-standing problem more visible, but it does not mean ministers have suddenly turned on the spending taps or councils have just discovered a new crisis. This is an accounting change, not a new raid on school budgets. The underlying issue 鈥� high-needs deficits that will keep rising if nothing changes 鈥� is real and serious. But we shouldn鈥檛 confuse better transparency with a sudden deterioration in the position. 2. The budget points to a whole-government solution, not a full raid on school budgets A second misunderstanding is about where these costs will sit. The OBR has modelled a scenario in which, if the whole bill were loaded on to the Department for Education鈥檚 core schools budget, mainstream funding could fall by 4.9 per cent per pupil. But that is a scenario to illustrate the scale of the challenge, not a confirmed plan. The Treasury鈥檚 own budget document is very clear that future SEND costs will be managed across 鈥渙verall government DEL鈥�. Budget 2025: Government faces 拢6bn SEND shortfall once override ends In plain English, across the whole government spending envelope 鈥� not simply by cutting the core schools budget. The suggestion that this automatically means a direct hit on day-to-day school funding is, at best, misleading. School leaders need honesty about trade-offs. What we don鈥檛 need is commentary that treats a modelling example as if it were a signed-off decision to squeeze mainstream schools yet again. 3. The numbers assume 鈥渘o reform鈥� 鈥� but change is聽coming I鈥檓 not an economist; I read these documents the way most heads do 鈥� asking, 鈥淲hat does this really mean for the children in front of me?鈥� One key point is that the OBR鈥檚 projections are based on a world where nothing changes in how SEND works. That is their job: they have to cost what has already been formally announced, not what ministers are still developing. But we know that is not the real world we are heading into. Over the last year, government has already put additional money into SEND 鈥� around 拢1 billion extra in high-needs funding, 拢740 million of capital for more and better SEND places, and further support coming through wider school funding increases agreed at the last Spending Review. The intention is to set out how these pieces fit together in the white paper in the new year -we may not see the impact of that yet, but we will in time. None of this means the problems are solved. Far from it. It does mean that the bleakest readings of the OBR 鈥� as if cuts to mainstream schools are inevitable, and government has done nothing to shore up SEND 鈥� simply don鈥檛 match the full picture. 4. The 3 things leaders need to ask for NOW From where I sit, three things really matter. First, clarity on historic deficits, so councils and schools know there is a serious national plan 鈥� not just another round of local blame. Second, a sustainable long-term settlement for high-needs that backs inclusive mainstream schools early, rather than paying ever-higher bills when things have already broken down. And third, an honest public conversation. The OBR is doing its job by highlighting the risks. Our job is to read what it actually says, alongside the budget, and then argue hard for a SEND system that is fair to children, fair to families and fair to the schools that serve them. As someone who has spent his career trying to turn around schools in difficult places, I know how hard this will be. But talking ourselves into despair helps nobody 鈥� least of all the children whose futures depend on us getting this right.