Earlier this year, I stood in Parliament with my son Joshua and spoke directly about the SEND crisis.
I told those in the room something I still believe today:
If we get SEND reform wrong, the consequences for children and families could be enormous.
Nobody I know in the SEND community believes the current system is working well.
Parents wait too long.
Children reach crisis before support arrives.
Schools struggle without sufficient resources.
Families spend years fighting local authorities.
EHCPs can take too long to obtain, and even when a child finally has one, parents can find themselves fighting again to make sure the provision written into it is actually delivered.
The system desperately needs reform.
But reforming a broken system should mean making children’s rights stronger, not reducing some of the protections parents currently rely upon when that system gets things wrong.
And when you look closely at some of the Government’s proposals, there are important changes every SEND parent needs to understand.
The SEND Tribunal could lose an important power
This is one of the proposals that concerns me most.
Under the current system, if a local authority names a school in your child’s EHCP that you believe cannot meet their needs, you can appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
The Tribunal is independent of the local authority.
And importantly, it can order the local authority to change the school named in the EHCP.
That matters enormously.
Because sometimes the dispute isn’t minor.
A parent may believe their child needs a specialist school.
The local authority may believe mainstream can meet their needs.
Or the LA may name one specialist setting while the family has evidence showing that another setting is appropriate.
The Tribunal gives families somewhere independent to put that evidence.
What is the Government proposing instead?
Under the Government’s SEND reform consultation, parents would still have a right of appeal about placement.
That’s important to make clear.
But the Tribunal’s proposed power would change.
If the Tribunal concluded that the local authority’s placement decision was unreasonable, it could quash that decision and require the local authority to reconsider it.
But the Government’s consultation explicitly says:
“the Tribunal will not name the placement for the child.” Consult Education
Think about the practical difference.
Currently, after hearing the evidence, an independent Tribunal can determine that the plan should name a particular placement.
Under the proposal, the Tribunal could instead tell the local authority:
You’ve got this wrong. Go back and reconsider it.
For families who have already spent months or years fighting over placement, that is a significant change.
And parents are entitled to ask:
What happens if the local authority reconsiders and the family still believes the decision is wrong?
Why placement matters so much
For a SEND child, the right school isn’t simply about geography or preference.
The environment itself can determine whether that child can access education.
Think about an autistic child experiencing severe sensory overload in a large mainstream secondary school.
Or a child with significant anxiety who cannot cope with busy corridors and constant transitions.
Or a child who needs specialist communication support throughout their day.
If we misunderstand that child’s needs, we can easily misunderstand what kind of setting they require.
That’s why identifying needs properly matters.
The provision follows the needs.
And the placement needs to be capable of delivering that provision.
The current EHC needs assessment has an important purpose
An EHC needs assessment isn’t supposed to be just another piece of bureaucracy.
It is a legal assessment designed to establish a child’s special educational needs and the provision they require.
Under the current legal test, a local authority must carry out an EHC needs assessment where it considers that the child or young person has or may have SEN and that it may be necessary for special educational provision to be made through an EHCP. Leeds SENDIASS
The assessment can draw together evidence from education, health and other professionals.
Done properly, this can create a detailed picture of the individual child.
What are their needs?
What provision do they require?
How much?
How frequently?
Delivered by whom?
In what environment?
Those details matter.
EHCPs themselves are proposed to change
The Government is not proposing to abolish every EHCP.
That’s an important distinction because there has been a lot of confusing information circulating online.
Instead, the Government proposes introducing nationally defined Specialist Provision Packages for children and young people with the most complex needs.
In future, only children who require the overall support contained within one of these packages would be entitled to an EHCP. Consult Education
For many other children with SEND, support would increasingly be delivered through mainstream provision and a new Individual Support Plan — ISP.
The Government says this will create earlier, more consistent support and reduce the need for families to fight for statutory assessment simply to access help. GOV.UK
Again, the ambition sounds positive.
But parents need to understand what changes.
What is an Individual Support Plan?
An ISP would be produced by the child’s education setting with parents.
It would contain more detailed information about the child’s day-to-day support, including interventions and resources.
Under the proposals, education settings would have a statutory duty to produce them for relevant children. Consult Education
That could absolutely improve accountability for children currently receiving poorly documented SEN Support.
But an ISP is not simply another name for today’s EHCP.
The proposed framework is different.
And that is why SEND families are asking what individual legal protections will exist for children who no longer qualify for an EHCP.
“But parents shouldn’t have to fight tooth and nail”
I completely agree.
Nobody should have to become an amateur SEND lawyer just to educate their child.
Parents shouldn’t have to spend evenings reading legislation.
They shouldn’t need folders containing hundreds of emails.
They shouldn’t have to threaten judicial review simply to get provision delivered.
They shouldn’t have to reach Tribunal repeatedly.
But the reason parents currently use legal remedies isn’t because they enjoy fighting.
It’s because sometimes the system gets things wrong.
That’s the crucial distinction.
The answer to parents having to fight shouldn’t simply be:
remove some of the mechanisms they use to fight.
The answer should be:
build a system that gets decisions right earlier — while retaining meaningful independent protection when it doesn’t.
What about “Experts at Hand”?
This is another major part of the Government’s answer.
Experts at Hand is intended to bring professionals including educational psychologists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and specialist teachers closer to mainstream education.
The aim is to identify needs earlier and put evidence-based support in place without children necessarily needing to wait for a diagnosis first. GOV.UK
Again:
I support that principle.
We desperately need earlier intervention.
But there is an obvious question.
Where are all these experts coming from?
If my child cannot cope in a classroom, I don’t simply need somebody to suggest another generic strategy.
I need somebody capable of understanding why they cannot cope.
Is it sensory processing?
Communication?
Anxiety?
Executive functioning?
Autistic burnout?
Learning needs?
The environment?
Or several of those things interacting?
The quality and availability of those professionals will therefore be crucial.
Because a system called Experts at Hand only works if genuine expertise is actually at hand.
We shouldn’t have to choose
This is what frustrates me most about the SEND debate.
It sometimes feels as though parents are being offered a choice between:
Earlier intervention
or
strong legal rights.
Why?
We should demand both.
Give schools more resources.
Train teachers properly.
Put occupational therapists into the system earlier.
Increase speech and language provision.
Train more educational psychologists.
Intervene before school attendance collapses.
Stop children reaching crisis before somebody takes their needs seriously.
Absolutely.
But retain meaningful legal safeguards for those occasions when the system still gets it wrong.
Because it will.
No national standard will eliminate every disagreement.
No package will perfectly describe every child.
No professional will make the right decision every time.
SEND children are individuals.
And when a decision profoundly affects an individual child’s education, families need an effective way of challenging it.
The Government says children’s rights will remain important
It’s important to represent the Government’s position accurately.
The Government says the reforms will provide earlier support, stronger legal duties and nationally consistent provision.
It argues that EHCPs will continue providing statutory entitlements for children with complex needs through Specialist Provision Packages. GOV.UK
It has also proposed transitional protections intended to prevent children losing effective support while the system changes. Education Hub
Those commitments matter.
But parents are entitled to scrutinise whether the detailed legal framework ultimately delivers them.
Because promises and enforceable rights are not necessarily the same thing.
Why I’m speaking about this now
When I stood in Parliament with Joshua, I wasn’t arguing that everything should stay exactly as it is.
Quite the opposite.
Our family knows how badly the existing SEND system can fail children.
I want reform.
I want early intervention.
I want properly funded schools.
I want professionals involved before children reach crisis.
I want parents to stop having to fight tooth and nail.
But I also know something else from our own journey:
when the system gets your child wrong, independent legal protection matters.
That’s why I remain deeply concerned about reforms that could change how individual needs are assessed, who qualifies for an EHCP and what an independent Tribunal can ultimately order regarding placement.
We shouldn’t discover whether those protections were important after they’re gone.
The question I want every SEND parent to ask
Forget the political arguments for a moment.
Ask yourself something very simple:
If the new system gets my child’s needs or placement wrong, what power do I have to put it right?
That is the test.
Not whether the new terminology sounds better.
Not whether a government graphic looks impressive.
Not whether we’re promised earlier intervention.
What happens when the system gets it wrong?
Because that is precisely when rights matter most.
SEND reform must leave children better protected, not less
The existing SEND system needs radical improvement.
But we cannot solve one crisis by creating another.
Earlier intervention and legal protection are not opposites.
National standards and individual needs are not opposites.
Expert support and parental rights are not opposites.
We can — and should — demand all of them.
My message to Government remains the same:
Fix what is broken.
Fund what is missing.
Get genuine expertise to children earlier.
But when a child’s future depends upon a decision made by the system:
don’t weaken the family’s ability to challenge that decision when it’s wrong.
Because SEND reform should mean more support, earlier intervention and stronger outcomes for children.
Not fewer ways to protect them.
Please support the Save Our Children’s Rights campaign
If you haven’t already signed the Save Our Children’s Rights petition, please do.
The campaign is asking for children’s legal rights and protections to remain at the heart of SEND reform.
Whatever happens next, parents need to make sure decision-makers understand that SEND families aren’t resisting change.
We’re asking them to get the change right.
Sign the Save Our Children’s Rights petition
Please sign it, share it with friends and family, and encourage others to understand what’s being proposed.
Our children need SEND reform.
But they also need us to make sure reform doesn’t leave them with fewer protections when the system fails.
Leave a Reply