Government's New SEND Plans: A Parent's Guide to What It Really Means for Your Child
By Mark Webster – Parent, SEND Advocate, and Green Party Disability Officer
Let me start with something we can all agree on: the system we've got right now isn't working. If you've got a child with special educational needs, you know this already. You've lived it. The fighting, the waiting, the forms, the feeling that you're banging your head against a brick wall just to get your kid the help they need.
So when the government comes along with a big new plan, promising to fix it all, part of you wants to believe. I get that. I really do.
But here's the thing. I've been doing this long enough – both as a parent and as an advocate helping other families – to know that you have to read between the lines. The government's consultation, published on 23rd February 2026, is full of lovely phrases like "inclusion," "experts at hand," and "rewarding inclusion." They sound great. But what do they actually mean for your child?
Let me break it down in plain English.
The Big Picture: What Are They Proposing?
The government says they want to create a system where children with SEND can go to their local mainstream school and get the support they need there, rather than being sent somewhere else. They want to join up education, health, and care properly. They want to spot problems earlier so children don't have to reach crisis point before getting help.
All of that sounds good. It really does. The problem isn't the vision – it's whether the reality will match up.
They've published two main documents: a White Paper called "Every Child Achieving and Thriving" and a consultation document called "SEND Reform: putting children and young people first." We've got 12 weeks to respond. And believe me, we need to use every single day of that time to understand what's really being proposed.
Because here's the truth: what they're giving with one hand, they're taking away with the other. It's like expecting the child to fit into the shoes given them, and not the shoes chosen to fit the child!
The Most Important Thing You Need to Know: EHCPs vs ISPs
Right now, if your child has significant needs, the gold standard is an Education, Health and Care Plan – an EHCP. This is a legal document. It says, in black and white, what support your child must get. And crucially, if the council doesn't deliver it, you can appeal to a tribunal. You have legal powers to make them act.
The government says they're going to "protect and enhance" EHCPs for children with the most complex needs. That sounds reassuring.
But here's what they're not telling you.
They're replacing the current two-tier system (SEND Support and EHCPs) with a four-tier structure: Universal, Targeted, Targeted Plus, and Specialist. The "Specialist" tier is the only one that will still have EHCPs. Everyone else gets something new called an Individual Support Plan, or ISP.
The government says ISPs will be "legally required."
Now, stop and think about that phrase. "Legally required" sounds official, doesn't it? But it's not the same as "legally enforceable."
Here's the difference. If your child has an ISP and the school doesn't deliver what's in it, where do you go? What do you do? The government hasn't said. And that's because an ISP won't have the same legal weight as an EHCP. You won't be able to appeal to a tribunal. You won't have that same power to force the council to act. You'll be left with school complaints procedures – and we all know how well those work.
So here's the worry. The council and schools might start pushing children who would have got an EHCP under the old system into this new "Targeted Plus" box with an ISP instead. It saves them money. It saves them legal headaches. But it leaves you with a piece of paper that looks nice but doesn't actually give you any power when things go wrong.
Think of it this way. An EHCP is like a fortress. It's solid. You can defend it. The government says the fortress is still there. But they're building a big new town outside the walls called "Targeted Plus" with ISPs, and they're hoping most people will be happy to live there. The question is: are those houses built on solid ground? Or will they collapse the first time there's a problem?
Who Actually Gets an EHCP Now?
This is where it gets really confusing. The government says EHCPs will be for children with the "most severe and complex" needs. But they haven't clearly defined what "complex" means. There's no diagnostic list, no clear thresholds, no functional definition.
Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, has estimated that 7 out of 8 children with current EHCPs would keep them under the new system. But honestly? That doesn't track with what's actually in the documents. The truth is, nobody really knows yet – and that uncertainty is dangerous.
The legal test for an EHCP needs assessment right now isn't based on labels or whether a child is deemed "complex." It's based on whether a child may need provision beyond what a school can reasonably provide. That's a much broader, more sensible test.
But under the new plans, EHCPs would be tied to something called "Specialist Provision Packages" – nationally defined packages of support. That means eligibility for a plan would depend on meeting national criteria, not an individual assessment of your child's needs. That's a fundamental shift, and it's a huge erosion of rights.
Emma (name changed to protect their identity), who's an autistic SENCO (Special Educational Needs Coordinator), put it brilliantly when she pointed out that vague terms don't reduce conflict – they just move it. When terms aren't clearly defined, they get interpreted locally. By councils. By panels. By funding frameworks. And that's when families start hearing things like: "Their needs aren't complex enough," or "This should be met ordinarily," or "They don't meet the threshold."
Clarity protects children. Ambiguity rarely does.
What About the Children Who Are "Coping"?
This is the bit that is keeping me awake at night.
My child is academically doing well. He has a safe space at school he can go to when he's feeling overwhelmed. He leaves lessons early to avoid busy corridors. On paper, that can look "manageable."
What doesn't show up neatly in data tables?
· The daily anger outbursts
· The emotional crash after holding it together all day
· The exhaustion of navigating crowded spaces
· The social confusion
· The constant internal effort
He's not failing. He's functioning. But functioning isn't the same as thriving.
And that's where so many of our children live – in the gap between crisis and coping. The quiet strugglers. The maskers. The kids who are bright enough to hide how hard everything is, but are paying a massive price behind the scenes.
The White Paper talks about making the system less adversarial. Every parent I know would welcome that. But when access to EHCPs narrows, families like mine are left wondering: will schools truly have the capacity to deliver what our children need? Will "earlier support" be robust, or just rebranded rationing? Will quiet strugglers be pushed further into the margins because they're not disruptive enough?
I don't want a fight. I want appropriate provision without needing to become a part-time lawyer.
The Devastating Human Cost of Failure
(Trigger WARNING skip to next bold text to avoid trigger)
Now I need to tell you about something that's really hard to read. But we have to talk about it, because the government's own proposals ignore it completely.
A report called "Measure what Matters," published on the same day as the White Paper, investigated the human cost when SEND support fails. They analysed 1,253 family testimonies and detailed case reviews. The findings are absolutely devastating.
More than one in six families – 204 out of 1,253 – explicitly mentioned suicide, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts by their child.
The report includes 25 detailed case studies of children who died during 2020-2024. Every single child in those detailed case studies was autistic, had ADHD, or both.
These weren't sudden events. They came after prolonged exposure to institutional failure. Families described a consistent pathway:
· Needs visible early but not understood or assessed
· Support denied or heavily delayed
· Behaviour treated as misconduct rather than distress
· Escalating sanctions and exclusion
· Attendance collapsing, social world shrinking
Here's something shocking that most people don't know: when a child with an EHCP dies, there's no automatic mechanism to examine whether the state met its legal duties. Nobody is counting. Nobody is investigating. The system just looks away.
The report's warning about the proposed reforms is stark. The authors argue that removing EHCPs for most children would strip away what was, for many of the children described, their only enforceable legal protection. They write:
"Without these rights, neurodivergent children will be condemned and contained in classrooms and inclusion rooms that cannot meet their needs."
Think about that. One in six families reported their child became suicidal under the current system, with all its flaws. What happens in a system where most children no longer have EHCPs? Where autism and ADHD are treated as "predictable conditions" to be handled in mainstream schools within a fixed budget? Where families' legal rights have been decimated?
A SEND teacher and parent commented on this research, and their words hit me hard:
"As a SEND teacher and a SEND parent I have never once known a parent apply for an EHCP because they wanted their child to 'achieve' more, only if they had a desperately unhappy poorly child frequently at risk of taking their own life. I have met parents who were sad that their dyslexic child was not getting extra input. Those parents felt sad that their child wouldn't meet their potential, but as long as the child was happy or at least not desperately sad they didn't fight for more support. In cases where children are just a bit unhappy and not enjoying school, parents might send a few emails. I have only known parents ask for EHCP when that child really is in crisis."
Parents don't fight this system for fun. They fight because their children are drowning.
Let's Look at the Fancy Phrases They're Using
"Experts at Hand"
This sounds brilliant, doesn't it? Speech therapists, occupational therapists, specialist teachers – all working directly in schools. Imagine being able to get advice there and then, rather than waiting months on an NHS list.
The government has announced £1.8 billion for this "Experts at Hand" service. Councils will commission it, supported by health services, to create a bank of specialists that schools can access on demand.
But here's the catch. Who are these experts? Where are they coming from? We already have massive shortages of educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, and specialist teachers. It takes years to train these professionals. The money is welcome, but you can't magic experts out of thin air.
If it's just the same overstretched NHS therapists trying to cover more schools – and the document is very vague on this – then "Experts at Hand" just means the same experts are now spread even thinner. A speech therapist who visits once a term and leaves a sheet of paper isn't much use to anyone.
I'll believe it when I see it.
"Rewarding Inclusion"
This sounds like they're going to give schools money for being inclusive. Great, right? They've announced a new £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund for early years, schools, and colleges to deliver targeted interventions.
Well, maybe. But £1.6 billion spread across all schools over three years is surprisingly little. As the team at Special Needs Jungle pointed out, it wouldn't meaningfully increase capacity – it wouldn't even pay for a full-time teaching assistant in most schools.
And "rewarding inclusion" can also be a way of saying "we're going to make it harder to get funding for specialist schools." The fear is that councils will pressure parents to accept a mainstream place that isn't right for their child, because the alternative – a special school place – costs too much. The "reward" is for the council's bank balance, not your child's wellbeing.
"Ordinarily Available Provision"
This is a fancy way of saying "the support every school should be able to provide from their own budget." Things like visual timetables, quiet spaces, that kind of thing. The government plans to introduce National Inclusion Standards by 2028 to define what this looks like.
The danger? Schools might start saying "our ordinarily available provision should be enough for your child" as a way of avoiding asking for extra, specialist help. It becomes an excuse to do the bare minimum.
"Inclusion Bases"
They're renaming SEN units and resourced provisions as "Inclusion Bases." Some will be funded by schools, some by the council. This is basically rebranding. It doesn't change what actually happens inside those rooms. And it could create confusion about who's responsible if things go wrong. If your child is in a school-funded "Support Base" and it's not working, the school might say "not our problem" and the council might say "not our problem either." Meanwhile, your child suffers.
What About the 6,500 New Teachers?
You might have seen the headlines about recruiting 6,500 new teachers. That sounds positive. There's also £200 million announced for teacher training in SEND.
But if you're a parent of a SEND child, you need to look a bit deeper.
These teachers are mostly being recruited for mainstream secondary schools, to teach subjects like maths and science where there are shortages. That's fine, but it doesn't necessarily help your child. There's no guarantee these new teachers will have any specialist SEND training. A brilliant chemistry teacher might have no idea how to support a child with dyslexia, autism, or sensory issues.
And here's something that really matters. Primary schools and early years are excluded from this target altogether. That's the time when early intervention is most important. If your child is in primary school and struggling, this plan doesn't give you any reassurance that things will improve.
So the 6,500 figure makes a good headline. But for SEND parents, it's largely irrelevant.
The teaching unions have reacted with real skepticism too. The NASUWT warned the funding was "barely a drop in the bucket" of what's necessary, and the NAHT cautioned that "training alone will not be enough."
What About the Teachers Themselves?
They're torn. On one hand, they're relieved the government is finally talking about the problems. On the other, they're worried that "inclusion" will become a new way of saying "you deal with it."
Teachers are already stretched thin. If the new system means they have to fill out more paperwork for "Targeted Plus" children, write Individual Support Plans, and deliver therapy-style interventions without proper training, they'll burn out. And if the promised "experts" don't materialise because there simply aren't enough trained professionals, the teacher is left alone with a child with high needs and 29 other children to teach.
That's not good for anyone – not the teacher, not the SEND child, and not the other children in the class.
The Special School Question
The government seems to view special schools as "failing" because their academic results are lower. But as one commentator pointed out, this completely misses the point: "If they have needs such that they're in a special school, what parent cares about 10 top GCSEs? Just staying alive is a big plus for many – and, as a rule, special schools have thriving communities and children who have friends – often for the first time."
The government wants special schools to provide outreach to mainstream schools – expert training, direct interventions, short-term placements. They're expecting an average of over 160 days per secondary school annually from special schools and alternative provision.
But here's the problem: special schools are already full to bursting and underfunded. Who's going to pay for their time to do this outreach work? The White Paper doesn't say. It's an unfunded mandate on schools that are already struggling.
What's Happening to the Tribunal?
This is one of the most dangerous parts of the proposals, and it's barely made the headlines.
The SEND Tribunal is a key mechanism for parents to hold councils accountable. Councils lose 99% of all appeals because they consistently make unlawful decisions. There's no reason to think this will change under the new system.
But the government wants to remove the Tribunal's power to name a specific school in a child's plan. Instead, the Tribunal would only be able to ask the council to reconsider the placement decision.
Think about what that means. If the council offers a school that's completely wrong for your child, and you win your appeal, the Tribunal can't actually sort it out. They just send it back to the council to have another go. The council that got it wrong in the first place. The council you've probably been fighting for years.
That's not a reform. That's removing the teeth from the only watchdog parents have.
The government is also proposing to make families go through complaints and mediation processes before they can appeal to the Tribunal. For families helping children who are in crisis, for children who are suicidal, for families who've already been failed for years – this is just another delay, another barrier, another chance for the system to grind them down.
What About the Money?
Let's talk about the funding, because the government is making a big noise about £4 billion.
Here's what that's supposed to include:
· £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund over three years
· £1.8 billion "Experts at Hand" service
· Over £200 million for Family Hubs SEND support
· £200 million for teacher training in SEND
· £200 million to help councils transform their SEND services
· Over £3.7 billion for 60,000 new specialist places (though this is partly existing funding)
On the surface, that sounds like a lot of money. But let's be real about what it means.
The £1.6 billion for mainstream inclusion is spread across three years and every school in the country. That's not transformative – it's barely sticking plaster.
The £1.8 billion for "Experts at Hand" is promising in principle, but as I said earlier, the specialists don't exist yet. You can't spend your way out of a workforce crisis overnight.
The £200 million for council transformation is particularly worrying. There was a similar grant between 2014 and 2018, and most of it was spent on temping agencies and consultants, with very little lasting impact. What's different this time?
And here's the really important bit. Councils are already struggling. The SEND budget in Telford & Wrekin, like most councils, is in deficit. The government's plan sounds great, but it requires upfront investment. More staff, more training, more therapists. Councils are supposed to provide this, but the government hasn't said where the ongoing money's coming from. Councillors I've spoken to are terrified that they'll be given a new list of things they must do, but not the money to do them. Then, when it all goes wrong, they'll be the ones getting the blame – not the ministers in Westminster.
So if the speech therapist never arrives, or the "Targeted Plus" support doesn't materialise, it'll be the council you're angry at. But the problem might be that the government never gave them the funds to make it happen.
The Norway Study – A Warning About "Evidence"
I need to tell you about something that really bothered me when I read the White Paper. By page 8, I was already tempted to make a small ceremonial bonfire in my garden.
The government cites research from Norway to support the claim that pupils with SEND educated in mainstream schools are twice as likely to find employment and live independent adult lives compared with those educated in special classes.
That's a very strong claim. So I picked that citation – just one of many – to check it. A quick Google review of the article, not a full academic review. Just a straightforward look at what it actually says.
Here's what I found.
The study is based on the Norwegian education system and Norwegian labour market. It's observational research. It identifies patterns. It does not prove that mainstream placement causes better adult outcomes across all types of need. Nor does it fully eliminate differences in severity, ability, or background between the groups being compared.
Inclusion may well be a legitimate policy aim. But if research is being used to justify reform, it must be represented accurately. A statistic drawn from one country's system should not be presented as though it conclusively proves how the English system will work for every child.
To extract a headline statistic from that body of work and elevate it into an executive summary as though it were settled, universal evidence is not academically robust. It oversimplifies a nuanced evidence base and risks misleading the entire policy discussion.
Placement decisions for children with SEND are complex, individualised, and legally grounded in need. They should not be driven by selective headline statistics.
We owe families a debate grounded in methodological honesty, not policy slogans dressed up as settled science.
What the Experts Are Saying
I'm not alone in my concerns. Some of the country's leading legal experts in SEND rights are deeply worried.
Cerebra, the charity that helps families with legal rights, has issued a stark warning. They point out that there's nothing wrong with the current statutory framework – it's good law. The reason the government wants wholesale change, they believe, is to contain costs. They entirely oppose the removal of any rights for children with special educational needs.
They're particularly concerned about reducing access to special schools for children who need them, and about the reduction in the Tribunal's powers.
Matthew Purchase KC, David Wolfe KC, David Lawson, Charlotte Hadfield, and Dame Kathy August – some of the most respected names in SEND law – are planning to examine the proposals in detail. This isn't a conversation about sentiment, they say. It's a conversation about rights.
Helen Hayes, Chair of the Education Select Committee, has said: "Parents need reassurance their children will still get the right, properly accountable support. I'll be looking for cast-iron guarantees that children's rights will be strengthened, not eroded."
Spoiler alert: they are being eroded.
One commentator put it brilliantly: "What is it that causes people in public office to turn their backs on vulnerable children? Too many parents win. Too many children get the right school. So the answer is to disable the fire alarm because it keeps going off. Cut the powers of the SEND tribunal because it makes too much noise? The problem is not the alarm. It is the fire."
The Bottom Line for Parents
I know this all sounds negative, and I'm sorry about that. I wish I could read this document and say "finally, they're fixing it." But I've been burned too many times.
Here's what I think you need to do.
First, remember this: NOTHING HAS CHANGED YET.
The current law – the Children and Families Act 2014 – is still in force. Your child's EHCP is still legally enforceable. The Tribunal still has its powers. We have a 12-week consultation period to respond, and changes won't fully land until later in the decade. But the direction of travel matters. Culture shifts before legislation does.
If your child has an EHCP now:
Don't panic. The government says they'll protect it. But keep a close eye on any attempts to move your child into these new "Targeted" or "Targeted Plus" categories. If anyone suggests that, ask very directly: "What legal rights will my child lose if we agree to this?"
If you're fighting for an EHCP:
Be aware that the goalposts might move. The council might try to offer you an ISP instead, saying it's quicker and less hassle. It might be quicker. But ask yourself: quicker access to what? If the support isn't enforceable, what's the point?
If your child is in mainstream and doing okay:
These changes still matter to you. Because if the system fails SEND children, it affects everyone. A teacher trying to manage a child in crisis without support isn't teaching your child either. A calm, well-supported classroom benefits all children.
If you're just starting to worry about your child:
Don't wait. The government talks about early support, but until we see the money, assume nothing has changed. Push for help now. Keep records. Ask questions.
What to Watch Out For
Here are the questions you should be asking, whether it's at school meetings, parents' evenings, or when talking to the council:
"If my child gets an Individual Support Plan instead of an EHCP, what are my rights if the support isn't delivered?"
"Where are these 'Experts at Hand' coming from? Are they new staff or existing NHS staff? How often will they actually be in school?"
"What exactly does 'ordinarily available provision' mean at this school? Can you show me the checklist?"
"If my child is in an 'Inclusion Base,' who's legally responsible if things go wrong – the school or the council?"
"How will you ensure that children who are 'coping' but not thriving don't fall through the cracks?"
A Final Word
Look, I'm not saying the government is trying to trick us. I think there are people in Westminster who genuinely want to make things better. But good intentions aren't enough. What matters is the detail. What matters is the money. What matters is whether your child actually gets the help they need, and whether you have any power to make sure that happens.
The fortress of the EHCP still stands. But they're building a big new town outside, and they're hoping most of us will live there. Our job, as parents, is to check whether those new houses are safe. And if they're not, to shout about it until someone listens.
Because at the end of the day, it's our children who pay the price when this stuff goes wrong. And they deserve better.
The system is described as "unsustainable." Costs are rising. Applications are rising. Parents are appealing in record numbers. But instead of asking why families are fighting so hard, this reform seems focused on reducing the number of statutory plans. Instead of fixing the fire alarm, they want to turn down the volume.
We need to keep asking the uncomfortable questions – politely, persistently, and loudly enough to be heard. Because "coping" shouldn't be the benchmark. Functioning isn't the same as thriving. And every child, no matter how complex their needs, deserves an education that sees them, supports them, and helps them flourish.
Make sure your voice is heard. Take part in the consultation. Write to your MP. Share this article with other parents. Join groups like Save Our Children's Rights who are fighting to protect the legal protections we've fought so hard to win.
And if you're a parent in the middle of this right now, fighting for your child – I see you. I know how hard it is. I know the exhaustion, the fear, the constant battle. But your child is worth it. They're all worth it.
Mark Webster is a SEND parent, advocate, and the Disability Officer for Telford & Wrekin Green Party. If you have questions about the SEND reforms, or need help fighting for your child's rights, you can contact him through the local Green Party.
By Mark Webster – Parent, SEND Advocate, and Green Party Disability Officer
Let me start with something we can all agree on: the system we've got right now isn't working. If you've got a child with special educational needs, you know this already. You've lived it. The fighting, the waiting, the forms, the feeling that you're banging your head against a brick wall just to get your kid the help they need.
So when the government comes along with a big new plan, promising to fix it all, part of you wants to believe. I get that. I really do.
But here's the thing. I've been doing this long enough – both as a parent and as an advocate helping other families – to know that you have to read between the lines. The government's consultation, published on 23rd February 2026, is full of lovely phrases like "inclusion," "experts at hand," and "rewarding inclusion." They sound great. But what do they actually mean for your child?
Let me break it down in plain English.
The Big Picture: What Are They Proposing?
The government says they want to create a system where children with SEND can go to their local mainstream school and get the support they need there, rather than being sent somewhere else. They want to join up education, health, and care properly. They want to spot problems earlier so children don't have to reach crisis point before getting help.
All of that sounds good. It really does. The problem isn't the vision – it's whether the reality will match up.
They've published two main documents: a White Paper called "Every Child Achieving and Thriving" and a consultation document called "SEND Reform: putting children and young people first." We've got 12 weeks to respond. And believe me, we need to use every single day of that time to understand what's really being proposed.
Because here's the truth: what they're giving with one hand, they're taking away with the other. It's like expecting the child to fit into the shoes given them, and not the shoes chosen to fit the child!
The Most Important Thing You Need to Know: EHCPs vs ISPs
Right now, if your child has significant needs, the gold standard is an Education, Health and Care Plan – an EHCP. This is a legal document. It says, in black and white, what support your child must get. And crucially, if the council doesn't deliver it, you can appeal to a tribunal. You have legal powers to make them act.
The government says they're going to "protect and enhance" EHCPs for children with the most complex needs. That sounds reassuring.
But here's what they're not telling you.
They're replacing the current two-tier system (SEND Support and EHCPs) with a four-tier structure: Universal, Targeted, Targeted Plus, and Specialist. The "Specialist" tier is the only one that will still have EHCPs. Everyone else gets something new called an Individual Support Plan, or ISP.
The government says ISPs will be "legally required."
Now, stop and think about that phrase. "Legally required" sounds official, doesn't it? But it's not the same as "legally enforceable."
Here's the difference. If your child has an ISP and the school doesn't deliver what's in it, where do you go? What do you do? The government hasn't said. And that's because an ISP won't have the same legal weight as an EHCP. You won't be able to appeal to a tribunal. You won't have that same power to force the council to act. You'll be left with school complaints procedures – and we all know how well those work.
So here's the worry. The council and schools might start pushing children who would have got an EHCP under the old system into this new "Targeted Plus" box with an ISP instead. It saves them money. It saves them legal headaches. But it leaves you with a piece of paper that looks nice but doesn't actually give you any power when things go wrong.
Think of it this way. An EHCP is like a fortress. It's solid. You can defend it. The government says the fortress is still there. But they're building a big new town outside the walls called "Targeted Plus" with ISPs, and they're hoping most people will be happy to live there. The question is: are those houses built on solid ground? Or will they collapse the first time there's a problem?
Who Actually Gets an EHCP Now?
This is where it gets really confusing. The government says EHCPs will be for children with the "most severe and complex" needs. But they haven't clearly defined what "complex" means. There's no diagnostic list, no clear thresholds, no functional definition.
Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, has estimated that 7 out of 8 children with current EHCPs would keep them under the new system. But honestly? That doesn't track with what's actually in the documents. The truth is, nobody really knows yet – and that uncertainty is dangerous.
The legal test for an EHCP needs assessment right now isn't based on labels or whether a child is deemed "complex." It's based on whether a child may need provision beyond what a school can reasonably provide. That's a much broader, more sensible test.
But under the new plans, EHCPs would be tied to something called "Specialist Provision Packages" – nationally defined packages of support. That means eligibility for a plan would depend on meeting national criteria, not an individual assessment of your child's needs. That's a fundamental shift, and it's a huge erosion of rights.
Emma (name changed to protect their identity), who's an autistic SENCO (Special Educational Needs Coordinator), put it brilliantly when she pointed out that vague terms don't reduce conflict – they just move it. When terms aren't clearly defined, they get interpreted locally. By councils. By panels. By funding frameworks. And that's when families start hearing things like: "Their needs aren't complex enough," or "This should be met ordinarily," or "They don't meet the threshold."
Clarity protects children. Ambiguity rarely does.
What About the Children Who Are "Coping"?
This is the bit that is keeping me awake at night.
My child is academically doing well. He has a safe space at school he can go to when he's feeling overwhelmed. He leaves lessons early to avoid busy corridors. On paper, that can look "manageable."
What doesn't show up neatly in data tables?
· The daily anger outbursts
· The emotional crash after holding it together all day
· The exhaustion of navigating crowded spaces
· The social confusion
· The constant internal effort
He's not failing. He's functioning. But functioning isn't the same as thriving.
And that's where so many of our children live – in the gap between crisis and coping. The quiet strugglers. The maskers. The kids who are bright enough to hide how hard everything is, but are paying a massive price behind the scenes.
The White Paper talks about making the system less adversarial. Every parent I know would welcome that. But when access to EHCPs narrows, families like mine are left wondering: will schools truly have the capacity to deliver what our children need? Will "earlier support" be robust, or just rebranded rationing? Will quiet strugglers be pushed further into the margins because they're not disruptive enough?
I don't want a fight. I want appropriate provision without needing to become a part-time lawyer.
The Devastating Human Cost of Failure
(Trigger WARNING skip to next bold text to avoid trigger)
Now I need to tell you about something that's really hard to read. But we have to talk about it, because the government's own proposals ignore it completely.
A report called "Measure what Matters," published on the same day as the White Paper, investigated the human cost when SEND support fails. They analysed 1,253 family testimonies and detailed case reviews. The findings are absolutely devastating.
More than one in six families – 204 out of 1,253 – explicitly mentioned suicide, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts by their child.
The report includes 25 detailed case studies of children who died during 2020-2024. Every single child in those detailed case studies was autistic, had ADHD, or both.
These weren't sudden events. They came after prolonged exposure to institutional failure. Families described a consistent pathway:
· Needs visible early but not understood or assessed
· Support denied or heavily delayed
· Behaviour treated as misconduct rather than distress
· Escalating sanctions and exclusion
· Attendance collapsing, social world shrinking
Here's something shocking that most people don't know: when a child with an EHCP dies, there's no automatic mechanism to examine whether the state met its legal duties. Nobody is counting. Nobody is investigating. The system just looks away.
The report's warning about the proposed reforms is stark. The authors argue that removing EHCPs for most children would strip away what was, for many of the children described, their only enforceable legal protection. They write:
"Without these rights, neurodivergent children will be condemned and contained in classrooms and inclusion rooms that cannot meet their needs."
Think about that. One in six families reported their child became suicidal under the current system, with all its flaws. What happens in a system where most children no longer have EHCPs? Where autism and ADHD are treated as "predictable conditions" to be handled in mainstream schools within a fixed budget? Where families' legal rights have been decimated?
A SEND teacher and parent commented on this research, and their words hit me hard:
"As a SEND teacher and a SEND parent I have never once known a parent apply for an EHCP because they wanted their child to 'achieve' more, only if they had a desperately unhappy poorly child frequently at risk of taking their own life. I have met parents who were sad that their dyslexic child was not getting extra input. Those parents felt sad that their child wouldn't meet their potential, but as long as the child was happy or at least not desperately sad they didn't fight for more support. In cases where children are just a bit unhappy and not enjoying school, parents might send a few emails. I have only known parents ask for EHCP when that child really is in crisis."
Parents don't fight this system for fun. They fight because their children are drowning.
Let's Look at the Fancy Phrases They're Using
"Experts at Hand"
This sounds brilliant, doesn't it? Speech therapists, occupational therapists, specialist teachers – all working directly in schools. Imagine being able to get advice there and then, rather than waiting months on an NHS list.
The government has announced £1.8 billion for this "Experts at Hand" service. Councils will commission it, supported by health services, to create a bank of specialists that schools can access on demand.
But here's the catch. Who are these experts? Where are they coming from? We already have massive shortages of educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, and specialist teachers. It takes years to train these professionals. The money is welcome, but you can't magic experts out of thin air.
If it's just the same overstretched NHS therapists trying to cover more schools – and the document is very vague on this – then "Experts at Hand" just means the same experts are now spread even thinner. A speech therapist who visits once a term and leaves a sheet of paper isn't much use to anyone.
I'll believe it when I see it.
"Rewarding Inclusion"
This sounds like they're going to give schools money for being inclusive. Great, right? They've announced a new £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund for early years, schools, and colleges to deliver targeted interventions.
Well, maybe. But £1.6 billion spread across all schools over three years is surprisingly little. As the team at Special Needs Jungle pointed out, it wouldn't meaningfully increase capacity – it wouldn't even pay for a full-time teaching assistant in most schools.
And "rewarding inclusion" can also be a way of saying "we're going to make it harder to get funding for specialist schools." The fear is that councils will pressure parents to accept a mainstream place that isn't right for their child, because the alternative – a special school place – costs too much. The "reward" is for the council's bank balance, not your child's wellbeing.
"Ordinarily Available Provision"
This is a fancy way of saying "the support every school should be able to provide from their own budget." Things like visual timetables, quiet spaces, that kind of thing. The government plans to introduce National Inclusion Standards by 2028 to define what this looks like.
The danger? Schools might start saying "our ordinarily available provision should be enough for your child" as a way of avoiding asking for extra, specialist help. It becomes an excuse to do the bare minimum.
"Inclusion Bases"
They're renaming SEN units and resourced provisions as "Inclusion Bases." Some will be funded by schools, some by the council. This is basically rebranding. It doesn't change what actually happens inside those rooms. And it could create confusion about who's responsible if things go wrong. If your child is in a school-funded "Support Base" and it's not working, the school might say "not our problem" and the council might say "not our problem either." Meanwhile, your child suffers.
What About the 6,500 New Teachers?
You might have seen the headlines about recruiting 6,500 new teachers. That sounds positive. There's also £200 million announced for teacher training in SEND.
But if you're a parent of a SEND child, you need to look a bit deeper.
These teachers are mostly being recruited for mainstream secondary schools, to teach subjects like maths and science where there are shortages. That's fine, but it doesn't necessarily help your child. There's no guarantee these new teachers will have any specialist SEND training. A brilliant chemistry teacher might have no idea how to support a child with dyslexia, autism, or sensory issues.
And here's something that really matters. Primary schools and early years are excluded from this target altogether. That's the time when early intervention is most important. If your child is in primary school and struggling, this plan doesn't give you any reassurance that things will improve.
So the 6,500 figure makes a good headline. But for SEND parents, it's largely irrelevant.
The teaching unions have reacted with real skepticism too. The NASUWT warned the funding was "barely a drop in the bucket" of what's necessary, and the NAHT cautioned that "training alone will not be enough."
What About the Teachers Themselves?
They're torn. On one hand, they're relieved the government is finally talking about the problems. On the other, they're worried that "inclusion" will become a new way of saying "you deal with it."
Teachers are already stretched thin. If the new system means they have to fill out more paperwork for "Targeted Plus" children, write Individual Support Plans, and deliver therapy-style interventions without proper training, they'll burn out. And if the promised "experts" don't materialise because there simply aren't enough trained professionals, the teacher is left alone with a child with high needs and 29 other children to teach.
That's not good for anyone – not the teacher, not the SEND child, and not the other children in the class.
The Special School Question
The government seems to view special schools as "failing" because their academic results are lower. But as one commentator pointed out, this completely misses the point: "If they have needs such that they're in a special school, what parent cares about 10 top GCSEs? Just staying alive is a big plus for many – and, as a rule, special schools have thriving communities and children who have friends – often for the first time."
The government wants special schools to provide outreach to mainstream schools – expert training, direct interventions, short-term placements. They're expecting an average of over 160 days per secondary school annually from special schools and alternative provision.
But here's the problem: special schools are already full to bursting and underfunded. Who's going to pay for their time to do this outreach work? The White Paper doesn't say. It's an unfunded mandate on schools that are already struggling.
What's Happening to the Tribunal?
This is one of the most dangerous parts of the proposals, and it's barely made the headlines.
The SEND Tribunal is a key mechanism for parents to hold councils accountable. Councils lose 99% of all appeals because they consistently make unlawful decisions. There's no reason to think this will change under the new system.
But the government wants to remove the Tribunal's power to name a specific school in a child's plan. Instead, the Tribunal would only be able to ask the council to reconsider the placement decision.
Think about what that means. If the council offers a school that's completely wrong for your child, and you win your appeal, the Tribunal can't actually sort it out. They just send it back to the council to have another go. The council that got it wrong in the first place. The council you've probably been fighting for years.
That's not a reform. That's removing the teeth from the only watchdog parents have.
The government is also proposing to make families go through complaints and mediation processes before they can appeal to the Tribunal. For families helping children who are in crisis, for children who are suicidal, for families who've already been failed for years – this is just another delay, another barrier, another chance for the system to grind them down.
What About the Money?
Let's talk about the funding, because the government is making a big noise about £4 billion.
Here's what that's supposed to include:
· £1.6 billion Inclusive Mainstream Fund over three years
· £1.8 billion "Experts at Hand" service
· Over £200 million for Family Hubs SEND support
· £200 million for teacher training in SEND
· £200 million to help councils transform their SEND services
· Over £3.7 billion for 60,000 new specialist places (though this is partly existing funding)
On the surface, that sounds like a lot of money. But let's be real about what it means.
The £1.6 billion for mainstream inclusion is spread across three years and every school in the country. That's not transformative – it's barely sticking plaster.
The £1.8 billion for "Experts at Hand" is promising in principle, but as I said earlier, the specialists don't exist yet. You can't spend your way out of a workforce crisis overnight.
The £200 million for council transformation is particularly worrying. There was a similar grant between 2014 and 2018, and most of it was spent on temping agencies and consultants, with very little lasting impact. What's different this time?
And here's the really important bit. Councils are already struggling. The SEND budget in Telford & Wrekin, like most councils, is in deficit. The government's plan sounds great, but it requires upfront investment. More staff, more training, more therapists. Councils are supposed to provide this, but the government hasn't said where the ongoing money's coming from. Councillors I've spoken to are terrified that they'll be given a new list of things they must do, but not the money to do them. Then, when it all goes wrong, they'll be the ones getting the blame – not the ministers in Westminster.
So if the speech therapist never arrives, or the "Targeted Plus" support doesn't materialise, it'll be the council you're angry at. But the problem might be that the government never gave them the funds to make it happen.
The Norway Study – A Warning About "Evidence"
I need to tell you about something that really bothered me when I read the White Paper. By page 8, I was already tempted to make a small ceremonial bonfire in my garden.
The government cites research from Norway to support the claim that pupils with SEND educated in mainstream schools are twice as likely to find employment and live independent adult lives compared with those educated in special classes.
That's a very strong claim. So I picked that citation – just one of many – to check it. A quick Google review of the article, not a full academic review. Just a straightforward look at what it actually says.
Here's what I found.
The study is based on the Norwegian education system and Norwegian labour market. It's observational research. It identifies patterns. It does not prove that mainstream placement causes better adult outcomes across all types of need. Nor does it fully eliminate differences in severity, ability, or background between the groups being compared.
Inclusion may well be a legitimate policy aim. But if research is being used to justify reform, it must be represented accurately. A statistic drawn from one country's system should not be presented as though it conclusively proves how the English system will work for every child.
To extract a headline statistic from that body of work and elevate it into an executive summary as though it were settled, universal evidence is not academically robust. It oversimplifies a nuanced evidence base and risks misleading the entire policy discussion.
Placement decisions for children with SEND are complex, individualised, and legally grounded in need. They should not be driven by selective headline statistics.
We owe families a debate grounded in methodological honesty, not policy slogans dressed up as settled science.
What the Experts Are Saying
I'm not alone in my concerns. Some of the country's leading legal experts in SEND rights are deeply worried.
Cerebra, the charity that helps families with legal rights, has issued a stark warning. They point out that there's nothing wrong with the current statutory framework – it's good law. The reason the government wants wholesale change, they believe, is to contain costs. They entirely oppose the removal of any rights for children with special educational needs.
They're particularly concerned about reducing access to special schools for children who need them, and about the reduction in the Tribunal's powers.
Matthew Purchase KC, David Wolfe KC, David Lawson, Charlotte Hadfield, and Dame Kathy August – some of the most respected names in SEND law – are planning to examine the proposals in detail. This isn't a conversation about sentiment, they say. It's a conversation about rights.
Helen Hayes, Chair of the Education Select Committee, has said: "Parents need reassurance their children will still get the right, properly accountable support. I'll be looking for cast-iron guarantees that children's rights will be strengthened, not eroded."
Spoiler alert: they are being eroded.
One commentator put it brilliantly: "What is it that causes people in public office to turn their backs on vulnerable children? Too many parents win. Too many children get the right school. So the answer is to disable the fire alarm because it keeps going off. Cut the powers of the SEND tribunal because it makes too much noise? The problem is not the alarm. It is the fire."
The Bottom Line for Parents
I know this all sounds negative, and I'm sorry about that. I wish I could read this document and say "finally, they're fixing it." But I've been burned too many times.
Here's what I think you need to do.
First, remember this: NOTHING HAS CHANGED YET.
The current law – the Children and Families Act 2014 – is still in force. Your child's EHCP is still legally enforceable. The Tribunal still has its powers. We have a 12-week consultation period to respond, and changes won't fully land until later in the decade. But the direction of travel matters. Culture shifts before legislation does.
If your child has an EHCP now:
Don't panic. The government says they'll protect it. But keep a close eye on any attempts to move your child into these new "Targeted" or "Targeted Plus" categories. If anyone suggests that, ask very directly: "What legal rights will my child lose if we agree to this?"
If you're fighting for an EHCP:
Be aware that the goalposts might move. The council might try to offer you an ISP instead, saying it's quicker and less hassle. It might be quicker. But ask yourself: quicker access to what? If the support isn't enforceable, what's the point?
If your child is in mainstream and doing okay:
These changes still matter to you. Because if the system fails SEND children, it affects everyone. A teacher trying to manage a child in crisis without support isn't teaching your child either. A calm, well-supported classroom benefits all children.
If you're just starting to worry about your child:
Don't wait. The government talks about early support, but until we see the money, assume nothing has changed. Push for help now. Keep records. Ask questions.
What to Watch Out For
Here are the questions you should be asking, whether it's at school meetings, parents' evenings, or when talking to the council:
"If my child gets an Individual Support Plan instead of an EHCP, what are my rights if the support isn't delivered?"
"Where are these 'Experts at Hand' coming from? Are they new staff or existing NHS staff? How often will they actually be in school?"
"What exactly does 'ordinarily available provision' mean at this school? Can you show me the checklist?"
"If my child is in an 'Inclusion Base,' who's legally responsible if things go wrong – the school or the council?"
"How will you ensure that children who are 'coping' but not thriving don't fall through the cracks?"
A Final Word
Look, I'm not saying the government is trying to trick us. I think there are people in Westminster who genuinely want to make things better. But good intentions aren't enough. What matters is the detail. What matters is the money. What matters is whether your child actually gets the help they need, and whether you have any power to make sure that happens.
The fortress of the EHCP still stands. But they're building a big new town outside, and they're hoping most of us will live there. Our job, as parents, is to check whether those new houses are safe. And if they're not, to shout about it until someone listens.
Because at the end of the day, it's our children who pay the price when this stuff goes wrong. And they deserve better.
The system is described as "unsustainable." Costs are rising. Applications are rising. Parents are appealing in record numbers. But instead of asking why families are fighting so hard, this reform seems focused on reducing the number of statutory plans. Instead of fixing the fire alarm, they want to turn down the volume.
We need to keep asking the uncomfortable questions – politely, persistently, and loudly enough to be heard. Because "coping" shouldn't be the benchmark. Functioning isn't the same as thriving. And every child, no matter how complex their needs, deserves an education that sees them, supports them, and helps them flourish.
Make sure your voice is heard. Take part in the consultation. Write to your MP. Share this article with other parents. Join groups like Save Our Children's Rights who are fighting to protect the legal protections we've fought so hard to win.
And if you're a parent in the middle of this right now, fighting for your child – I see you. I know how hard it is. I know the exhaustion, the fear, the constant battle. But your child is worth it. They're all worth it.
Mark Webster is a SEND parent, advocate, and the Disability Officer for Telford & Wrekin Green Party. If you have questions about the SEND reforms, or need help fighting for your child's rights, you can contact him through the local Green Party.
Write to:
Shaun Davies MP if you live in the Telford constituency -
shaun.davies.mp@parliament.uk
Or
Mark Pritchard MP if you live in The Wrekin constituency
mark.pritchard.mp@parliament.uk
Comments
Post a Comment