Our response to the SEND reform consultation

A clear theme was that families must be genuinely involved in SEND decision-making. Consultation must happen early, before decisions are made, and parent-carers must be recognised as experts in their child’s needs.  

Right now, we know that families are feeling left behind by the SEND system in terms of the decisions being made about them, without them. Multiple families reported having to use private services for assessments and reports to be able to secure suitable provision for their children, and some reported that even measures put into their child’s EHCP did not actually happen in practice.  

Our survey revealed that over 80% of families had used complaints, tribunals and legal routes, suggesting that too many families are only heard after things have gone wrong. Access to the SEND Tribunal must not be weakened. Families need plans that are delivered in practice, not just written down. 

We are asking for access to an ‘active offer’ of independent advocacy for children, young people and families. Families told us they are often expected to become experts in law and processes just to secure support. This is not fair – especially for those facing poverty, housing pressures, trauma, or limited access to advocacy, including care-experienced children. All SEND families must be made aware of their right to independent advocacy. This information should be shared consistently – not just once.  

We’ve made it clear that we believe that inclusion must mean more than simply being present in a mainstream classroom. Children are not included if they cannot access friendships, learning, safety, regulation or belonging. 

Large mainstream settings can be overwhelming, and reasonable adjustments written on paper are not always delivered in practice. At our parent-carer forum, one parent described a “safe and quiet space” that was in fact noisy, unsafe and full of stacked chairs. Without a suitable environment, how can we expect children with SEND to be able to learn and participate?  

We have raised significant concerns about the proposed Universal, Targeted, Targeted Plus and Specialist layers. Rigid categories or holding layers can delay necessary access to EHCPs or specialist support. We believe that support must be flexible, personalised and responsive to respond to children’s evolving and fluctuating needs.  

All respondents of our parent-carer survey said mainstream settings could not meet their child or young person’s needs, reinforcing that universal provision alone will never be sufficient for everyone. 

We believe that specialist provision must remain a vital part of the SEND system, as the children who are accessing specialist provision require a specialist response to manage their complex needs. Our specialist education settings provide integrated therapeutic support, communication approaches, mental health support, independence-building and safe peer groups that cannot always be replicated in mainstream settings.  

Reducing specialist capacity would risk worsening mental health, isolation, placement breakdown and long-term costs for social care, health and public services. 

We raised mental health as another major priority. Over 80% of parents in our survey said their child’s mental health needs must be recognised. We are concerned that removing mental health as an explicit SEND area from the SEND Code of Practice risks reframing distress as behaviour and weakens accountability.  

We know that mental health support is already difficult to access and oversubscribed from the perspective of the healthcare system, and we have major concerns about how this change could lead to less support, longer wait times, and children’s needs not being met.  

Removing mental health as an explicit SEND area from the SEND Code of Practice also risks less support for children experiencing emotionally-based school avoidance (EBSA) who need specialist provisions, additional in-school adjustments or EOTAS (education other than at school) packages.  

The government’s proposals include Individual Support Plans, intended to set out the day-to-day support children and young people with SEND should receive. Our response was clear that families need more than a right to a plan. They need confidence that the support written into it will be delivered.  

ISPs must be based on robust assessment, personalised to the child, and include practical strategies, emotional understanding and clear evidence that support is working in everyday life. Families should recognise their child in the plan and see agreed support happening in practice, not just on paper.  

We also stressed the need for clear accountability over who writes, reviews and monitors ISPs, with proper SEND expertise, protected time and multi-agency input. Without enforceability, funding, external oversight and clear routes to challenge, ISPs risk becoming a box-ticking exercise that leaves needs unmet and increases EBSA, attendance gaps, declining mental health and family distress. 

Families face ongoing uncertainty, particularly around how EHCP reviews at transition points may affect continuity of placements, including in all-through specialist settings. 

These groups are underrepresented in the proposals, with little clarity on corporate parenting responsibilities, advocacy, and continuity of support. 

A growing need, especially among neurodivergent children, is not addressed, risking gaps in support, particularly at key transitions. 

The proposals do not explain how provision will be secured for children who cannot attend school, creating a risk of reduced protections. 

There is insufficient reassurance that families will retain access to independent, binding routes such as the SEND Tribunal, or that decisions will prioritise children’s needs over cost. 

Significant barriers faced by families are not addressed, with no commitment to statutory provision aligned to EHCPs up to age 25. 

The proposals do not fully address the wider impact of unmet need on health, social care, and public finances, risking false economies.