SEND Reform White Paper: Structural Shift or Substantive Strengthening?

The publication of the SEND reform proposals within the Schools White Paper has triggered understandable anxiety across families, educators and professionals.

When a system that families rely upon for enforceable protection is described as being “rebalanced,” it is natural that concern follows.

However, policy reaction must be grounded in precision. At this stage, we are dealing with proposals and consultation not enacted law. That distinction matters.

This article sets out:

• What is actually being proposed
• What remains unchanged
• The structural risks and unanswered questions
• Where scrutiny must now focus

Context: Why Reform Is Being Proposed

The SEND system is under extraordinary pressure.

• EHCP numbers have risen significantly over the past decade.
• Local authority high needs deficits are substantial.
• Tribunal appeals have increased.
• Workforce shortages exist across educational psychology, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and specialist teaching.
• Many families report adversarial processes and inconsistent implementation.

The government’s position is that the current system incentivises statutory plans as the primary route to guaranteed provision.

In effect, EHCPs have become the mechanism through which enforceability is secured.

Reform, therefore, seeks to reduce reliance on statutory plans by strengthening earlier tiers of support.

That is the structural intention.

What the White Paper Is Proposing

A Reinforced Tiered System

The proposed direction of travel is a clearer tiered structure:

• Universal inclusive practice within mainstream
• A structured school-level plan (often described as an Individual Support Plan)
• EHCPs focused on children whose needs require coordinated specialist provision

Tiered systems are not new. SEND has historically operated within graduated response models. What is new is the suggestion that statutory plans may increasingly attach only to defined specialist “provision packages.”

Specialist Provision Packages

The consultation suggests the development of nationally defined specialist provision pathways.

Only those requiring one of these packages would hold an EHCP.

This represents a potential narrowing of statutory eligibility, not in explicit wording yet, but in structural implication.

Definitions matter here. How “complex need” is defined operationally will determine whether thresholds rise in practice.

Workforce Development and Inclusion

There is emphasis on upskilling mainstream staff, expanding specialist support, and creating a less adversarial system.

In principle, strengthening mainstream capacity is entirely appropriate. Many children should not need to deteriorate before receiving structured help. However, inclusion policy is only as strong as the infrastructure behind it.

Funding – The £4bn Question

The headline figure of £4bn must be interpreted carefully.

It is:

• Spread nationally
• Spanning multiple years
• Intended to address capital build, workforce training, and systemic pressures
• Operating within a context of significant high needs deficits

The key question is whether this funding represents transformation or stabilisation.

Upskilling an entire workforce while addressing specialist shortages is not a marginal adjustment. It is a structural undertaking.

Without sufficient scale, reform risks becoming aspirational rather than operational.

3. What Has Not Changed

Clarity here is essential.

At present:

• The Children and Families Act 2014 remains fully in force.
• The legal test for EHCP assessment remains unchanged.
• Section F must specify and quantify provision.
• Tribunal appeal rights remain intact.
• Local Authorities remain under statutory duty.
• 
  

No statutory protections have been removed.

We are at consultation stage.

4. Where Legitimate Areas of Concern Sit

Reform is not inherently negative. But structural shifts require rigorous scrutiny.

Enforceability

An EHCP is legally enforceable.

If a child’s needs are met via a school level plan:

• Will that plan carry enforceable duties?
• What happens if provision is not delivered?
• Is there a right of challenge?
• Will specification and quantification be required?

A support plan without enforceability risks becoming a statement of intention rather than obligation.

Threshold Definition

If EHCPs attach only to specialist provision packages:

• Who defines complexity?
• What about children who mask?
• What about those whose needs fluctuate?
• What about those “just coping” but not thriving?

Threshold creep is a real risk in any system under financial pressure.

Clarity here will determine equity.

Sufficiency of School Places

Structural reform without place sufficiency creates bottlenecks.

Key questions include:

• How many additional specialist school places will be created?
• What is the regional distribution plan?
• How will Alternative Provision capacity be addressed?
• What about post-16 specialist pathways?
• How will workforce shortages be resolved?

Buildings alone do not create provision. Workforce capacity determines delivery.

Funding Accountability

For years, concerns have existed around the notional SEN budget within mainstream settings.

Reform must address:

• Transparency in allocation
• Provision mapping accountability
• Monitoring mechanisms
• Oversight structures

Relabelling support without strengthening accountability will not change outcomes.

The Efficiency Risk

There is an understandable sector concern that reform could unintentionally reduce enforceable protection in the name of system efficiency.

It is important to state this clearly:

The statutory framework itself is not fundamentally flawed.

When implemented properly, it works.

The most persistent failures have been around:

• Delayed assessment
• Inconsistent implementation
• Under-resourcing
• Workforce shortages

Reform must not conflate implementation failure with structural defect.

Reducing enforceable rights would not resolve capacity deficits.

5. The Consultation Phase – What Must Happen Now

This stage matters.

Constructive consultation responses should focus on:

• Enforceability mechanisms for new plans
• Precise definition of eligibility thresholds
• Appeal routes and oversight
• Funding transparency
• Workforce capacity
• Transition protections for existing EHCP holders

Emotion is understandable.

But structured scrutiny is more effective.

6. A Measured Position

The SEND system does require strengthening.

Earlier intervention is desirable.

Better mainstream capacity is necessary.

Reduced adversarial processes would benefit families and professionals alike.

However:

Ambition must align with legal safeguards.
Inclusion must align with resourcing.
Efficiency must not override enforceability.

The true test of this reform will not be its language, but its legal drafting and funding realism.

Conclusion

We are not witnessing immediate dismantling of statutory protection.

We are witnessing a proposed structural rebalancing.

Whether this becomes a genuine strengthening of the system or a dilution of enforceable safeguards depends entirely on:

• Legislative detail
• Operational definitions
• Funding sufficiency
• Accountability design

The consultation period is the moment to ask precise questions.

Not from panic or  from complacency.

But from informed, measured scrutiny.

That is the responsibility of everyone working within this field.

Read the full White Paper HERE

Engaging With the Consultation – What Happens Next

The consultation is open until 18 May 2026 at 23:59.

This is the window in which responses from parents, professionals, schools and organisations will shape the next stage of policy development before any draft legislation is introduced.

Responses should move beyond general support or opposition and focus on precision.

The most impactful submissions will address enforceability, threshold definition, appeal rights, funding accountability, workforce sufficiency and transition protections.

Policymakers are far more responsive to structured, evidence based critique than to emotive objection.

If we want these reforms to strengthen early support without eroding statutory protection, that must be articulated clearly and consistently during consultation.