We submitted our response to the government’s special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) reforms consultation on Monday 18th May 2026. Thank you to every parent carer who shared their views and experiences with us – your feedback directly shaped our response.
Background: The government announced in 2024 plans to reform the SEND system in England. Proposals were published in February 2026 as part of a Schools White Paper and a consultation was launched on the SEND reforms – this is what we have responded to.
It is our view that the SEND reform proposals do not address the systemic issues in the current SEND or education system, and we fear that the proposed changes will make things worse, not better.
The current legal framework is not the problem; it is the lack of implementation of the law which needs addressing.
READ ESPCF FULL RESPONSE (PDF)
Note: We have deliberately repeated some of our key points where relevant across different questions. We did this to ensure that important messages are not lost if the government chooses to analyse responses by separating out the individual questions instead of reviewing submissions as a whole. Our response was submitted by email rather than via the character-limited form, which is why it is on the lengthy side – we wanted to make sure we captured everything.
We highlight the ongoing battles for SEND support and access to services, the gap between families’ legal rights and what happens in reality, and the complex, lengthy, and often adversarial processes.
ESPCF key concerns and priorities about the proposed SEND reforms:
Co-production and voice
Families’ views must genuinely influence decisions, not just be heard. We’re calling for clear statutory co-production requirements, formal roles for families in governance, and independent scrutiny of whether lived experience actually changes outcomes.
Evidence-based decision-making
Lived experience must be treated as core evidence, not anecdotal, alongside professional and system data.
The universal offer and inclusion
A strong universal offer in mainstream schools is important, but we know that it does not always suit every child. Class sizes, curriculum pressures, and workforce shortages are barriers not addressed by the reforms.
The four-layer support model
We’re not convinced that this new structure is significantly different to what exists already and therefore cannot see how it will improve on the current system without proper funding, workforce capacity, and enforceability behind it.
Individual Support Plans (ISPs)
We have serious concerns about the lack of legal enforceability of the provision within the proposed ISPs. Separating ‘enforceable’ provision (in EHCPs) from ‘day-to-day’ provision (in ISPs) would weaken legal protections for children and young people.
Inclusion bases
A key concern is that inclusion bases become internal exclusion or segregation by another name. While for some children they might be the ideal middle-ground, e.g. providing access to smaller environments, specialist support, and gradual integration into mainstream education, they should not be viewed as a universal solution. Some children cannot thrive in mainstream settings regardless of the level of support offered.
Specialist Provision Packages
We have serious concerns that Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs) risk moving the system away from child centred, individualised support towards a more generic model. We strongly oppose any shift away from provision that is based on the specific needs of each child or young person. Children with SEND do not fit neatly into fixed categories. Needs are often overlapping, complex, and change over time. A system built around predefined packages risks oversimplifying this reality.
The SEND Tribunal
We strongly oppose removing the Tribunal’s power to name a specific school or setting, given clear evidence that local authorities frequently get placement decisions wrong. Tribunal data clearly demonstrates that local authorities routinely make incorrect decisions about which setting is suitable for a child or young person. Removing the power of the SEND Tribunal to name a specific school or setting is a backwards and harmful move, and we cannot see any fair, reasonable, or logical reasoning behind it.
Funding, workforce, and accountability
Reforms must be backed by real investment, not just the relabelling of an already stretched system, and with transparent, enforceable accountability and consequence when provision isn’t delivered.
Post-16 transitions
Young people need earlier, better-coordinated transition planning. There must be sufficient and appropriate post-16 placements. Colleges, training providers, and employers need to be adequately funded and trained to support young people with SEND. Preparation for adulthood must also be better considered, including independent living, communication, travel training etc where needed.
Specialist placements
The direction of travel in the proposals will make it harder to access specialist placements. Pathways to specialist placements must be timely, transparent, and needs-led, with clear accountability for decisions, funding, and an independent route for action when provision is delayed or unsuitable. The consequences for children of being in the wrong placement, or having no placement at all, can be severe.
Thank you
Thank you again to everyone who came to our events, sent in emails, chatted to us at school groups and community events, commented on social media posts, or shared feedback in another way. It is all crucial evidence in demonstrating what life is really like for SEND families and what needs to change.
What happens next
We’re not sure how much information the government will be publishing about the consultation responses nationally or if the recent change in prime minister and ministerial positions will have any impact as to what comes next. We suspect not.
Whatever we may think about the direction these reforms are taking, the government does seem to be pressing on with moving ahead regardless, with local areas already being asked to start putting some of the proposed changes into practice, for example ‘Experts at Hand’ is anticipated to be rolled out from September 2026. You may be aware that local areas were asked by the government to submit their local area SEND reform plans which outline how they plan to implement the (‘proposed’) reforms. The deadline for local areas to submit their drafts was about the same time as the consultation closed! We know that being required to develop plans while the consultation was still active makes it very difficult to have confidence in the consultation process and we share this concern.
As a parent carer forum, our role often feels not just like trying to make things better but trying to make things least bad. This is particularly true in times like these, when we don’t necessarily agree with what’s being handed down to us in the first place.
Areas where ESPCF is keen to be most involved include around the ‘Experts at Hand’ model. Whilst we’re honestly not convinced that this will go far enough at all to address the level of need in schools, nor have we seen much yet about how the government plans to grow professional workforces nationally, which worries us, we do of course want any increase in professional support on the ground being used in the best way possible.
Improving experiences for children in mainstream schools, including ‘inclusion bases’, also remains a priority for ESPCF, whilst continuing to reiterate that this isn’t right for every child and that specialist settings must be available for children and young people who need them.
We will keep doing what we can and keep pushing to make sure any changes actually improve day-to-day life for children, young people, and families. Please keep talking to us – hearing from you is what makes our work possible.
We will keep sharing what we know as things unfold.