20/03/2026
As a SEND advocate, I spend a significant amount of time helping families navigate systems that are already difficult enough without the rules shifting beneath their feet.
What stands out from the Law Society Gazette reporting is not just the substance of the proposed SEND Tribunal changes, but the suggestion that the direction of travel was settled before the consultation process had even run its course.
At that point, we are no longer talking about meaningful engagement. We are talking about process being used to endorse decisions rather than shape them.
That matters, because consultation is not a courtesy it is part of lawful and rational decision making. If it becomes performative, the integrity of the entire framework is called into question.
From where I sit, this is not an isolated issue within SEND. It reflects a broader pattern that is becoming harder to ignore. Across multiple areas of ‘reform’ there is a growing tendency to centralise control, standardise systems, and reduce friction for administration, often at the expense of individual rights and professional discretion.
Collectively, they point towards a shift in how legal protections are valued.
In SEND, the consequences are immediate.
The Tribunal is not just another procedural step it is often the only mechanism through which families can hold local authorities to account.
If access is restricted, narrowed, or made less effective in practice, then the balance of power shifts decisively away from children and towards the state.
We are already seeing what happens when accountability mechanisms weaken, delays in provision, vague and unenforceable EHCPs, and increasing numbers of children out of education altogether.
Reducing the robustness of Tribunal oversight risks entrenching those issues rather than resolving them.
There is also a deeper constitutional concern here. Over time, we have seen incremental changes that have reduced the independence of key legal safeguards and blurred the separation between decision making and oversight.
None of these changes happen in isolation, and their impact is rarely immediate. But cumulatively, they alter the culture of governance.
What is emerging now feels like the next stage of that trajectory where process remains in place outwardly, but its function is quietly hollowed out.
For those of us working directly with families, this is not theoretical. It affects whether a child receives an education, whether support is delivered, and whether parents have any realistic route to challenge decisions that are plainly wrong.
This is why it matters beyond SEND. If it becomes acceptable to predetermine outcomes in one area of law, it becomes easier to do so elsewhere. The precedent is the real issue.
There is still time for scrutiny, but that requires people across the legal, education, and advocacy sectors to recognise what is happening and to say so clearly.
Not just to debate the detail of individual reforms, but to question the process itself.
I don’t wish to scaremonger but this is incredibly concerning and we must call it out as a collective voice.
Position at odds with education secretary's statement that consultation happens 'before any final decisions are made'.
