SEND Reform: Ambition and Unanswered Questions

This thought piece, co-authored by students across the Faculty of Education Health and Wellbeing, offers a critical reflection on the recent Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) White Paper, exploring what the changes could mean for children and young people with SEND, not just in policy terms, but in their everyday experiences of education, support, and belonging.

A White Paper is a government document that sets out proposed policies ahead of legislation.

The new Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) White Paper, ‘Every Child Achieving and Thriving’, was published in February in response to increasingly unsustainable financial pressures on Local Authorities.

The White Paper proposes a more consistent and inclusive system of support and to address the ‘postcode lottery’ style of access to specialist health and education services. The ambition to improve outcomes for children and young people with SEND has been broadly welcomed across the sector, but it is not a faultless document. The government ignores the impossibility of robust measures for inclusion and belonging, claiming political success and neglecting meaningful accountability. They choose to judge schools on attendance, attainment, and behaviour, which tell us very little about whether a child feels included in that space.

The proposed reforms will reshape how difference is understood, how SEND support is delivered, and indeed how responsibility for that support is distributed. The White Paper is not simply an education document; it represents a vision of how we support and education children and young people, and thus the kind of society we seek to build.

Central to the proposals is the introduction of Individual Support Plans (ISPs) for students with SEND – digitally recorded and regularly reviewed plans designed to ensure that support is clear, consistent, and co-produced with students and their families. ISPs stand to replace EHCPs (Education, Health, and Care Plans), which are tailored legal documents outlining SEND support, but it is unclear whether ISPs will have the same requirement to be legally enforced. ISPs will indicate where in the new three-tier approach support will fall: Level 1 (targeted support such as small-group interventions), Level 2 (‘targeted plus’, providing access to specialist professionals such as therapists), or Level 3 (continued specialist provision for students with complex needs and learning disabilities). This creates a stronger emphasis on inclusion in mainstream settings, underpinned by national standards of expectations for schools. The reforms aim to strengthen consistency and accountability through clearer national expectations, enhanced inspection of SEND provision, and a requirement for schools to publish inclusion strategies.

Although these proposals remain at consultation stage and are subject to further development, the direction is clear. The reforms signal a shift away from a system heavily reliant on diagnosis and external provision towards one in which mainstream schools take greater responsibility for meeting a broader range of needs. Schools will be increasingly accountable for the progress and outcomes for students with SEND, including those without EHCPs, turning inclusion from ill-defined concept into a measurable expectation.

Effective implementation of these reforms would require robust systems for identification, monitoring outcomes, deploying support staff, and maintaining transparent communication with families. While the reforms aim to promote earlier intervention and streamline processes, they also risk placing additional pressure on teachers and support staff if these expectations are not matched by sustained investment. The success of the reforms thus rests largely on whether schools are able to embed them as realistic and adequately resourced practice.

Additional training and investment are proposed by the White Paper, to support schools to better meet SEND needs in mainstream classrooms. A more mainstream-centred approach may increase access for some, but also risks isolating children from environments where they feel understood and supported – inclusion framed as placement does not necessarily lead to belonging. The proposals rely heavily on workforces already under considerable strain: teachers, speech and language therapists, nurses, and other professionals face ongoing recruitment and retention challenges. The proposed recruitment of 6,500 specialist staff is welcomed in theory, but the lack of a realistic plan to find and train them raises concerns about the feasibility of delivering the level of support envisaged.

In principle, students with SEND would benefit greatly from more integrated, holistic service provision. The vision of coordinated support across health, education, and social care is compelling – support with an emphasis on earlier identification of need, which has the potential to improve experiences before children enter schools. In practice, perhaps we are introducing a transition of care from before schooling to schools, risking creating fragmentation rather than continuity. Children are entitled to be heard, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Yet their voices, and evidence of their consultation on the potential risks and rewards, are largely absent from the White Paper, making it difficult to identify how the reforms reflect their experiences or preferences.

The White Paper presents a broadly positive and progressive vision for SEND reform, particularly in its emphasis on early intervention and long-term sustainability. Its strength lies in its ambition, but it damages itself by a lack of practical detail, relying on broad statements of intent rather than clearly articulated strategies, measurable outcomes or progress, and a sense of accountability. Parents and stakeholders have expressed concern about how the reforms will translate into practice, particularly in relation to EHCPs. Whilst the current system is undeniably under strain, families worry that changing it will lead to reduced access to legally enforceable support rather than improving provision. Limited detail on how funding reforms will address existing inequalities and gaps in services serves only to heighten concerns. The additional funding could stabilise a system which has been financially eroded, particularly for high needs provision. Rather than creating new capacity or significantly expanding support, much of the funding will fill existing gaps and offset inflation and staffing costs.

The White Paper acknowledges resource limitations and implementation barriers but does not fully explore them. It may be argued that further detail will emerge as the consultation progresses, but the lack of specificity at this stage makes scrutiny challenging and risks undermining confidence in the proposals. Even for those not directly affected by SEND reform, these issues matter. Children with SEND should leave education with opportunities to participate fully in society, including access to employment, like any child. When support fails early, consequences extend beyond individuals or families to public services and wider society.

The question is not whether reform is needed – it is how it will be implemented and whose interests it will ultimately serve. Without clearer definitions, stronger accountability, and meaningful inclusion and consultation of children and families, there is a risk that these SEND reforms will reshape responsibility without delivering the change promised.

Co-authors: Charlotte Bellingham, MA Education; Natalie Dawson, BA (Hons) in Special Educational Needs, Disability, Inclusion and Childhood and Family Studies (SENDIS and CAFS); Tracy Rutter, BA (Hons) in Special Educational Needs, Disability, Inclusion and Childhood and Family Studies (SENDIS and CAFS); Elizabeth Stuart – BNurs (Hons) in Learning Disability Nursing.