政府資金如何扭曲市場：英國特殊教育的困局

 政府資金如何扭曲市場：英國特殊教育的困局

當政府向體制注入鉅額資金，初衷往往是改善公平與質素，但英國的特殊教育制度卻顯示，資金錯置反而可能扭曲誘因，使問題更加根深蒂固。

核心問題在於具有法律效力的教育、健康與照顧計劃（EHCP）。過去十年，持有 EHCP 的學生人數由約 24 萬增至逾 57 萬。專責支付此類高成本個案的**「高需求預算」**已突破 100 億英鎊，令不少地方議會陷入赤字。

誘因扭曲使數字膨脹。財政緊張的主流學校若自行負擔支援成本，壓力極大；反之，若學生取得 EHCP，部分支出可由中央高需求預算分擔，於是轉介成為理性選擇。同樣，家長若對安排不滿便可上訴，而上訴成功率長期接近 九成，使雙方陷入一場制度競賽。資源遂被導向評估與訴訟，而非課室或早期介入。

供應端亦失衡。公營特殊學校不足，地方政府被迫向私營機構購買學位，每名學生每年成本動輒 6 萬至 10 萬英鎊。由於跨區安置普遍，交通開支隨之暴增，有學生甚至需每日一對一出租車接送，成本高達數萬英鎊。

與此同時，早期支援計劃連年削減，令家庭被迫申請 EHCP 才能獲得協助。醫療、教育與社福預算各自為政，進一步削弱效率。結果是：「人人理性，體制失靈」——學校傾向轉介、家長傾向上訴、供應商傾向抬價、地方政府傾向拖延。

要改革，不在於單純加錢或減錢，而在於重塑誘因——讓早期支援值得投資，合作比對抗划算，效能與質素取代官僚程序，才是重回正軌之路。

---

How Government Money Twisted the Market: The UK’s Special Education Dilemma

 How Government Money Twisted the Market: The UK’s Special Education Dilemma

When governments inject vast sums of money into a system, they often hope to improve equity and quality. Yet, the UK’s special education framework shows how funding can distort incentives instead of solving underlying problems.

At the heart of the issue lies the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP)—a legally binding document guaranteeing special support for children with additional needs. Over the past decade, the number of EHCPs has more than doubled from around 240,000 to over 570,000. The High Needs Block, a section of the local education budget that funds these high-cost cases, now exceeds £10 billion, pushing many councils into deep deficit.

Why the rapid growth? The funding mechanism itself encourages it. Ordinary schools, under financial strain, find it rational to refer students for EHCPs since doing so shifts part of the cost to the central high-needs budget. Parents, seeing the same logic, find it rational to appeal when support is denied—especially since nearly 90% of appeals succeed. The result: a procedural battlefield where money flows into assessments and legal processes rather than classrooms or early intervention.

On the supply side, public special schools are scarce, so councils rely on expensive private placements—many costing £60,000 to £100,000 per student per year. Transport costs inflate further as students are placed across districts, with some requiring one-to-one taxi services costing tens of thousands annually.

Meanwhile, preventive and early support programs have been cut, forcing families to escalate to EHCPs as the only route to get help. Fragmented budgets between education, health, and social care deepen inefficiency. Everyone acts rationally, yet collectively the system becomes irrational: schools pass costs upward, parents lawyer up, suppliers raise prices, and councils delay to stay solvent.

Fixing this requires more than just adding or cutting funds—it demands redesigning incentives so that early support is rewarded, collaboration is cheaper than conflict, and quality—not bureaucracy—drives outcomes.