Openai/6941a147-f88c-8013-9b9b-6ffd2c253b30

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

gpt-5-2

User: What sort of understanding of special educational needs would be required as priors for this to appear to be a good way…

What sort of understanding of special educational needs would be required as priors for this to appear to be a good way of solving the SEND crisis? I want you to give a character sketch of someone who would write a letter to a newspaper with this idea - whats their background and world view? "Imagine having a specialist school in rural areas within two or three villages away. Imagine, for example, using redundant churches five days a week that are currently only used one day a week. Imagine specialist schools for differently abled children using those churches, reopening churches that have, indeed, been made redundant.”

Assistant: Below is a character sketch plus an analysis of the prior assumptions about SEND that would make this proposal feel not…

Below is a character sketch plus an analysis of the prior assumptions about SEND that would make this proposal feel not only plausible but attractive to its author. I’ll keep it analytical rather than satirical, and aim for charitable clarity rather than caricature.

The Priors About SEND That Make This Seem Like a Good Idea

To find this idea compelling, someone would likely hold several implicit beliefs about special educational needs:

1. SEND is primarily a placement problem, not a systemic one

They see the “SEND crisis” as driven mainly by a shortage of suitable physical spaces rather than:

• underfunding,
• workforce shortages,
• legal accountability pressures,
• complexity and diversity of needs,
• or failures of inclusive mainstream provision.

If space is the bottleneck, then unused buildings look like a solution.

2. SEND pupils are best educated separately and locally, not inclusively

They likely believe that:

• specialist provision is inherently better than mainstream inclusion for most SEND pupils,
• proximity and calm environments matter more than integration with peers,
• and separation is not stigmatising but protective.

This assumes SEND is something to be accommodated away from the mainstream, rather than reshaping the mainstream.

3. “Special needs” are relatively homogeneous and predictable

For churches to seem viable, one must assume:

• needs can be clustered geographically,
• staffing can be generalist rather than highly specialised,
• buildings need not be purpose-built,
• and compliance (safeguarding, accessibility, medical needs) is manageable or secondary.

This flattens the reality that SEND ranges from speech delay to profound medical dependency.

4. SEND provision benefits primarily from moral goodwill and community space, not technical expertise

There’s an assumption that:

• the right spirit (care, calm, community) can compensate for limits in infrastructure,
• and that education is closer to pastoral care than to a highly regulated public service.

This aligns SEND with charity and benevolence rather than rights and entitlements.

5. The crisis is partly caused by modern institutional failure, not historical neglect

They may believe:

• bureaucracy, secularisation, and centralisation have stripped communities of local solutions,
• older, simpler models were more humane,
• and reactivating traditional institutions could repair modern excesses.

SEND becomes another example of “we’ve overcomplicated things.”

Character Sketch: Who Writes This Letter?

Background

• Likely late 50s to 70s
• Educated, articulate, probably middle-class
• Lives in (or recently moved to) a rural or semi-rural area
• Regular churchgoer or culturally Anglican, even if not devout
• Possibly: - a retired teacher (not SEND-specialist), - a GP or allied professional, - a magistrate, vicar, or local councillor, - or a parent of a child with mild-to-moderate SEND several decades ago.

They have seen institutions decline and feel personally pained by it.

Lived Experience of SEND

• May have: - volunteered with a special school, - supported a child with dyslexia, autism, or learning difficulties, - worked alongside “special needs children” in a pastoral or supervisory role.

Crucially:

• they have not navigated modern EHCP processes intensively,
• nor dealt with acute behaviours, complex trauma, or high-risk needs.

Their experience is real, but partial.

Worldview

Community over system They trust small-scale, local, relational solutions more than national policy.

Moral commonsense over professionalisation They suspect that experts and regulators have made things worse, not better.

Continuity over change They value reusing what already exists—buildings, traditions, social roles.

Care framed as benevolence, not rights SEND children are “differently abled,” deserving compassion, calm, and shelter—less often framed as rights-holders with legal entitlements.

Tone of the Letter

• Warm, imaginative, “Why hasn’t anyone thought of this?”
• Uses “Imagine…” repeatedly — signalling moral clarity rather than policy detail
• Appeals to: - waste reduction, - rural revival, - community cohesion, - and quiet dignity.

There is a sense that the solution is obvious once you stop overthinking it.

Why This View Persists

This perspective persists because it:

• responds to real frustrations with SEND provision,
• offers a hopeful, tangible image,
• avoids confronting expensive, politically difficult reforms,
• and feels humane in contrast to bureaucratic failure.

It is not malicious, but it is structurally naïve.

In One Sentence

This idea comes from someone who understands SEND primarily as a problem of care, space, and goodwill, rather than rights, complexity, and capacity—and who believes the moral imagination of local communities can substitute for the hard work of systemic reform.

If you’d like, I can also:

• write the letter itself in that voice,
• write a counter-letter from a SEND professional,
• or map how this worldview clashes with current SEND law and practice.