Buckinghamshire Council recently consulted on a proposal to transfer 0.5% of the Schools Block into the High Needs Block to fund early SEND support. The Council’s own modelling showed that almost the entire financial burden would have fallen on the county’s non-selective schools, while the modelling showed grammar schools’ allocations remained unchanged, leaving non-selective schools to absorb almost the entire reduction.

Because non-selective and upper schools educate far higher proportions of disadvantaged pupils and those with SEND, this approach would have intensified long-standing inequalities in a system already shaped by the 11-plus.

Following strong concerns raised at the November Schools Forum, the Council has now paused this proposal. However, the underlying issues highlighted by the consultation remain unresolved. Bucks’ non-selective schools continue to face systemic disadvantage — a problem acknowledged by the Council’s own Growth Board reports.

Below, we share a letter from CF steering group member Derek Berry to Councillor Jackson. Derek sets out the wider challenges facing non-selective schools and calls on the Council to confront the structural impacts of the county’s selective education policies.

Letter from Derek Berry — 24 November 2025

To: Councillor Jackson
Subject: High Needs Funding

Dear Councillor Jackson,

I offer my congratulations and best wishes on your appointment as Cabinet Member for Education.

Following the 17 November Schools Forum meeting, I am glad to see that the High Needs Block funding proposals — as discussed by councillors and education officers at the 21 October Select Committee — have been set aside, with no appeal proposed to the DfE. It was clear that the meeting recognised that the proposals could significantly disadvantage schools with diverse intakes, in particular the non-selective secondary modern schools in the county. It was also clear that the consultation was significantly flawed, both in execution and in analysis.

Despite this decision, the issue of the disadvantage experienced by non-selective schools has yet to be addressed.

The Buckinghamshire Growth Board report, Succeeding as a Place: Achieving our Shared Vision for Buckinghamshire to 2050, acknowledges challenges faced by pupils in non-selective schools — challenges rooted in the County Council’s refusal to implement a comprehensive system. Department for Education data highlights persistent educational deficits in these schools, including:

  • Persistent attainment gaps at Key Stage 4.

  • A history of non-selective schools either closing or being rated by Ofsted as “requires improvement” or worse.

  • Limited curriculum options in non-selective schools.

The selective system in Buckinghamshire does not provide the same educational opportunities as those found in nearby comprehensive schools.

Maintaining selection also incurs costs without educational benefits, including:

  • Approximately £1 million per year in school transport costs for pupils who do not pass the 11+ and must travel further.

  • Expenditure arising from the closure of Burnham School, resulting from parental perceptions of comprehensive schools’ advantages.

  • Staff and resource costs related to school transport appeals and 11+ test challenges.

  • Teaching time used to conduct the 11+ test, and teachers’ time diverted to 11+ test reviews.

Your recent announcement that 37% of pupils passed the test is misleading. In reality, 1,634 out of 5,672 Buckinghamshire pupils passed — just under 29%. This prompts the question: why are there 2,365 grammar school places for only 1,634 successful pupils? The Secondary Transfer Test for Bucks grammar schools has long been recognised as lacking objective credibility in assessing pupils’ attainment or potential.

I urge your committee, as you engage with the Marmot principles, to review secondary education in Buckinghamshire with a focus on the systemic issues arising from selective policies. Without addressing these, the county will face ongoing educational and social costs that impact students’ opportunities and well-being. If the county persists in maintaining selection, for political reasons, then it needs to introduce an Upper Schools Strategy that would address questions of school size, pupil placement, attainment of disadvantaged students, and equality issues.

The Buckinghamshire Level 2 devolution framework agreement includes the following observation:

“Whilst Buckinghamshire has a number of affluent areas, a significant challenge faced by the county is that there are a number of areas where people have significantly reduced outcomes, including in health, work and education.”

As yet, the Council has not addressed these challenges.

I look forward to your response to these points, and to learning how your committee will develop policies and actions to ensure “opportunities for all.”

Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information regarding the contents of this message.

Yours sincerely,
Derek Berry