Private Equity and Sovereign Wealth Funds Profit from UK's Special Educational Needs Crisis

At Hilden Park School in Kent, a specialist institution rated "outstanding" by Ofsted, 25 children with complex needs such as autism and learning difficulties receive dedicated support. Yet behind its success lies a contentious reality: annual fees can exceed £100,000, and the school is ultimately owned by Abu Dhabi's sovereign wealth fund.

Hilden Park is not an outlier. It is part of a growing trend where private equity firms and overseas state investors are building lucrative portfolios in the UK's special educational needs (SEND) sector. As councils struggle with a legal duty to provide for children—and a severe shortage of state-funded places—these private providers have become a default, and expensive, solution.

"We are witnessing the financialisation of a crisis," says Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrat education spokesperson. "Investors are benefiting from structural failure, effectively draining public funds away from the core education system."

Data underscores the scale. Council spending on private SEND schools has doubled since the pandemic to £2.2bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The number of children with Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans—legally binding documents outlining support needs—has soared from 256,000 to 639,000 over the past decade.

Behind the numbers are firms like the Witherslack Group, which runs Hilden Park and 38 other schools. Its majority owner is Mubadala, Abu Dhabi's state investment arm chaired by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Witherslack's profits rose 28% last year to £44.6m. Similarly, the Senad Group in the Midlands and Wales is owned by Qatar's sovereign wealth fund, while Dutch private equity firm Waterland controls a large network of schools under the Aspris brand.

"All profits are reinvested into new UK schools due to local authority demand," a Witherslack Group spokesman said, highlighting their "outstanding" ratings and partnerships with over 100 councils.

But critics argue the model is unsustainable. Rachael Wardell of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services states plainly: "There is no good argument for these schools to exist in the private sector at all."

The financial toll is staggering. The Office for Budget Responsibility warns of a potential £20bn gap in public finances linked to SEND spending, with council deficits projected to hit £14bn. "Some providers are making significant profits from state-funded placements. This is wrong when costs to councils continue to soar," says Councillor Amanda Hopgood of the Local Government Association.

In response, the government has pledged to curb "excessive profit-making," and Labour is expected to propose reforms. Yet with demand relentlessly rising, and state capacity lagging, the flow of public money to private investors shows little sign of abating.

Voices from the Community

David Chen, a parent of a child with autism in Manchester: "We fought for years for an EHC plan. The only placement available was a private school two hours away, funded by the council. The care is excellent, but it feels wrong that a foreign wealth fund profits from my child's needs while our local school has no resources."

Eleanor Vance, SEND coordinator at a state secondary school in Bristol: "The system is broken. We're referring more children than ever, but there's nowhere for them to go. Private providers fill the gap, but at an astronomical cost that cripples local budgets. It's a vicious cycle."

Marcus Thorne, former private equity analyst now turned campaigner: "This is predatory capitalism at its worst. These firms see vulnerable children as a guaranteed revenue stream—a 'defensive asset' with inelastic demand. They're not solving a crisis; they're monetising desperation. It's morally bankrupt."

Priya Sharma, a council education officer in the West Midlands: "Our hands are tied. The law says we must provide suitable education. When the only 'suitable' place is a £90,000-a-year school owned by a Gulf sovereign fund, we have to pay. The alternative is failing the child and facing legal action. The entire framework needs urgent reform."