Changes to the SEND system: What the Consultation Means in Practice

When the Government published its consultation SEND Reform: Putting Children and Young People First, there was little disagreement between all involved about one thing: the SEND system as it stands is in serious difficulty.  It has long been recognised that there are delays in the process, increasing tribunal appeals, exhausted families, overstretched schools and financially unsustainable local authority budgets. It is clear that the system is no longer working as the Children and Families Act 2014 intended. 

Although this situation has been acknowledged, there is division amongst opinion as to whether the proposed reforms will fix the problems or quietly dismantle hard-won legal protections in the process.

This blog explores how professionals across education, law, health and the voluntary sector are responding to this consultation and how this impacts those involved in the current SEND system.

For more information regarding the proposals, please see our legal update.

A shared diagnosis

Most professionals welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that the current situation is failing children and families. Education leaders, SEND specialists, and local authority officers broadly agree with the consultation’s diagnosis, and there is a general consensus that the reform principles are ambitious, with their focus on early intervention and inclusive mainstream education. However, beyond those high-level ambitions, professional confidence drops sharply.

National standards:  providing clarity or constraint?

The proposal to introduce national SEND standards is one of the most debated aspects of the consultation.

Many professionals see potential benefits in having applicable national standards. This will mean clearer expectations of what mainstream schools should ordinarily provide for their pupils, the standards could reduce the postcode lottery when it comes to support available, and potentially could prevent unnecessary escalation to EHCPs. Schools and trusts, in particular, welcome greater clarity around roles, responsibilities and funding streams. 

The concern is that these national standards could become a ceiling rather than a floor when it comes to support received. The fear is that standardised “packages” of support could replace genuinely individualised provision, particularly for children whose needs do not fit neatly within defined categories and fall in between the gaps of such defined packages.

The concern is not necessarily with the standards themselves, but with how rigidly they may be applied and whether families will still be able to challenge inadequacy and how much flexibility can be applied.

There are still concerns that local variation may persist and to continue to influence the quality of support despite the “National Standards” due to long-standing differences in local capacity.

What would having an EHCP mean under this reform?

The Government has been clear throughout the consultation that EHCPs are not going to be abolished under the new scheme. Instead, EHCPs will be primarily for pupils with the most complex needs. The concern is that there is a lack of definition of what it means to have “complex needs” and what happens to children with significant but not deemed complex needs. It seems the likely outcome of this change will now push disputes to arise earlier in the process, rather than eliminating them, with arguments being more centred around eligibility.

Enforcement

Most of the criticism of the reform centres around legal accountability and enforcement.

The reforms seem to represent a shift away from individual, enforceable rights, towards a discretionary-based provision system based on the capacity of the support available to professionals rather than the need for such provision. 

Even with standardised tiers, actual access to timely intervention hinges on local workforce capacity.

This concern has been sharpened by proposals to alter the powers of the SEND Tribunal, including removing or limiting its role in naming schools in EHCPs. Legal commentators have reacted with alarm, particularly after it emerged that some decisions may already have been taken despite not being meaningfully consulted upon (Source: lawgazette.co.uk, localgover…wyer.co.uk).

For many professionals, the tribunal is not the problem and is a symptom of a system that fails to deliver support early and consistently. Weakening routes to redress without first securing effective provision is widely viewed as putting the cart before the horse.

There is then the issue of accountability, and this is blurred under these proposals. This is because the white paper fails to confirm what happens when things go wrong. The reform does not set out who will be legally answerable when the provision is not delivered. Under the Children and Families Act 2014, it is unambiguous that responsibility for securing EHCP provision rests with the local authority, and the courts have consistently confirmed that this duty is non-delegable, even where delivery is arranged through schools or other bodies. The proposed SEND reforms, however, appear to disperse operational duties across multiple actors, creating a risk of fragmented accountability. For example, schools would be responsible for creating digital Individual Support Plans (ISP), yet it remains unclear who determines the applicable support package, how disputes are resolved, and where legal responsibility lies if provision is not delivered.

Existing SENCOs report already being overstretched, adding new legal duties around ISPs may increase workload and administrative burden.

Funding and workforce

Even supporters of the reform agenda doubt its deliverability without significant investment and workforce development.

School leaders point to chronic shortages of specialist staff, rising complexity of need, and insufficient training in inclusive practice. There is scepticism that mainstream settings can meet expanded SEND duties without sustained funding increases and protected time for training. 

Whilst there is an acknowledgement that there is a need for more Educational Psychologists due to a lack of availability and capacity, there has been no acknowledgement that Educational Psychologists take a long time to train so any reform model that relies on increase Educational Psychologist support and input, which is suggestive by the Experts at Hand proposal,  cannot be a quick fix and there must be realism about workforce supply.  It is not uncommon for it to take around 7-10 years from starting university to qualify as an Educational Psychologist. 

The professional bodies for Speech and Language Therapists and Occupational Therapists have also reported high vacancy rates. It is not clear that the additional funding proposed will be enough to encourage professionals to practice.

There is a real risk that shifting responsibility without shifting resources will cause further problems. For example, if local authorities are relying on Experts at Hand packages but specialists cannot be supplied due to shortages, the system still risks:

– unlawful delays in providing provision in EHCPs

– breach of timescales (e.g., 20-week EHCP duty)

– failure to secure provision under s.42 CFA 2014

Example of a concern

A Year 5 pupil in a mainstream primary school has autism, sensory processing difficulties and significant speech and language needs. He does not display challenging behaviour and is academically capable, but struggles to access learning without regular speech and language therapy, adapted teaching approaches and staff who understand sensory regulation.

Under the proposed national SEND standards, the school is expected to meet his needs through an Individual Support Plan (ISP), drawing on a standardised support package rather than an EHCP. However, the local authority determines that his needs are not “complex” enough to justify statutory provision.

In practice, the school cannot secure regular speech and language therapy due to local workforce shortages, and teaching staff lack specialist training. The ISP sets out intended support, but there is no clear mechanism for enforcement when that support is not delivered. The family is left disputing eligibility at an earlier stage, without clear routes to redress, despite their child falling further behind socially and emotionally.

The verdict so far

Across the sector, the prevailing message is consistent:

• The aspiration of the reforms is welcomed.
• The detail raises serious concerns.
• The risk of weakening enforceable rights is a red line for many professionals.

The consultation, therefore, represents a crucial crossroads. Professionals are not rejecting change, but they are asking the Government to prove that “putting children and young people first” means strengthening, not softening, the safeguards that exist already to protect them.

Our Role and Ongoing Support

Richard Nelson LLP will be responding to the consultation setting out the above concerns.  Anyone who would like to respond to the consultation has until 18 May 2026 to also provide their views. More information can be found here: SEND reform: putting children and young people first – Department for Education – Citizen Space

If you would like more information about the services we offer, or if you require support in navigating the SEND process, please contact our Education Solicitor Team:

T:  0333 888 4040

E:  education@richardnelsonllp.co.uk