There really isn’t much new under the sun (Special educational needs bill in England hits record £10bn a year, 24 October). As a senior local authority education officer in the 1990s, I worked with schools on what was then a problem of the costs of statements of special education needs (the forerunner of education, health and care plans) spiralling out of control. The problem, then as now, is that a funding system that links additional resources to specific needs of individual children rapidly runs into overdrive if the basic funding for all children is not covering the great majority of needs, special or otherwise. The number of statements was rising at a rate that seemed exponential, promising a situation where all children would be funded through statements and basic funding would become irrelevant. The logical approach was to incorporate money for most special needs into basic budgets, reserving additional support for those in greatest need. That helped, but as soon as basic funding fails to keep up, the demand for specific additions increases. It’s a bit like employing agency staff to cover gaps: much better to recruit, train and motivate your own staff. It’s not rocket science – it’s much more complex – but the fundamental point is that the bedrock services need to have the resources to meet needs confidently and rapidly. Andrew Seber Winchester Spending on special needs costs could be reduced at a stroke if local authorities were compelled to pay parents’ costs when the authority loses a tribunal case. You report that Special Needs Jungle estimates that councils have spent £99m in the last year on defending cases, 98% of which they lost (Thursday briefing, 24 October). This amply demonstrates what I have seen through work with hundreds of families: that councils pursue vexatious cases as a tactic to make a lot of parents give up. There is no risk to councils in this strategy, as they spend the public purse on doomed cases. Because parents do not recoup their costs when they win a tribunal, it means that largely only those with deep enough pockets to pay costs running into the tens of thousands have a fair chance at a tribunal case. While there are charities doing sterling work in supporting those without this financial strength, they only have the resources to help a small proportion. If local authorities had to cover parents’ costs, it would also remove this ugly inequality. Bernadette John Director, Schools Advice Service John Harris speaks of “the kind of deep systemic repairs that would eventually remove the need for constant emergency funding” to support the special educational needs and disabilities (Send) system (Labour can find money for the great god of infrastructure – but what about actual people?, 27 October). I endorse the examples given and would suggest some others. Mainstream schools should be evaluated by Ofsted on their success in educating all their pupils, including those with Send elements. Student teachers should have more training in this area and ongoing input should be provided for school staff. The special educational needs coordinator should be a member of the school senior management team. These measures would benefit the whole school community and the successful inclusion of pupils with Send. Alison Bush Bristol