SEN4You

24/02/2026

Thought for the day - The Impact of SEN REFORM on Educational Settings

The government's proposed reforms will significantly reduce the Local Authority's direct involvement and legal responsibility in supporting children with SEND. EHC Plans (EHCPs) will likely be restricted to only the most complex cases, based on stricter government criteria, meaning many children currently in the "mainstream cohort" won't qualify for one.

As a result, mainstream schools will take centre stage in delivering SEND support. However, if things go wrong, schools will also bear the primary legal risk. Challenges from parents are unlikely to go through the SEND Tribunal (as they do now for EHCPs) and will instead come via judicial review—a more complex and costly route.

For these proposals to succeed, the education sector—especially schools—would need to fully step up and replicate (or replace) the functions currently handled by Local Authorities through EHCPs. In practice, this largely comes down to securing and managing the necessary funding. Also greater to access to specialist services will be essential. Currently, those services are limited and mainly controlled by the Local Authority or the NHS.

Without strong collaboration—particularly among smaller schools—the ambitious vision simply won't be deliverable. Instead, schools could find themselves in direct, adversarial disputes with parents. Unlike the current system, schools will face mandatory legal duties with no Local Authority to shift blame onto when provision falls short. This shift places schools in a much more vulnerable and exposed position.

24/02/2026

Thought for the Day: What’s the actual Plan?

Yesterday, I noted there was no need for immediate panic, and after reviewing the full White Paper and consultation documents, I still believe that's the case. On paper, these proposals are bold and could potentially bring some much-needed structure to a system that often feels chaotic and overwhelmed. That said, they must be properly piloted and tested before full rollout—this process will inevitably take years.

However, several serious concerns stand out and demand closer scrutiny:

1. Legal rights are being significantly diluted. There's no denying it—the ability to challenge an EHC Plan is being curtailed, potentially rendering Tribunal appeals largely ineffective. If these changes go through, I expect appeal numbers to drop sharply.

2. Provision under EHC Plans appears tied to predefined 'Specialist Provision Packages'. We lack details on what these packages entail, who designs them, or what evidence underpins them. Crucially, they won't be tailored to the individual child and it does not look like you can appeal the specific contents of the packages.

3. Eligibility for an EHC Needs Assessment is being rewritten with a much higher bar. The new threshold sounds extremely stringent. All current EHC Plans will enter a transition period and eventually be reassessed against this tougher standard—likely leading to a large-scale withdrawal of plans over time.

4. Local Authorities' role will shrink dramatically. They'll shift toward a commissioner-like function, potentially managing only a few hundred EHC Plans instead of thousands—a huge reduction in scope.

5. The government is placing enormous reliance on schools to deliver. Larger academy trusts or school partnerships might cope, but individual schools are likely to struggle. They lack the budget, staffing, or capacity to effectively take on what has traditionally been LA-level responsibilities. Creating statutory-equivalent Individual Support Plans (which already exist informally) will be a major challenge. The committed funding streams are a drop in the ocean to what is being spent currently.

6. People will soon miss the LAs. Yes, local authorities can be criticised—often fairly—but they provide a clear, accountable point of contact and a known route for challenge. Can schools offer the same level of transparency and recourse? I'm doubtful. Without major curriculum reform, expecting educational settings to handle around 90% of the SEN system is a tall order.

7. Independent and special schools face severe pressure. The apparent government stance—"accept our funding levels or we won't place children with you"—could hit these providers hard.

In summary, while the reforms include some promising ideas, they largely boil down to a top-down directive: "This is the support we'll offer—take it or leave it." With limited rights to challenge, this could have an adverse impact on a generation of children and young people.

24/02/2026

Today, I was questioned about the effectiveness of the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Tribunal as a remedy under the upcoming system. While it retains a function, reports indicate it's facing substantial restrictions. Based on the outlined reforms, here's an overview of appealable matters:

1. Refusal by the local authority to perform a needs assessment: Families can challenge this for a judgment if they contest the denial, akin to existing procedures. The changes seek to define clearer criteria for assessments to minimise conflicts. Therefore, expect a change to the criteria for EHC Needs Assessments.

2. Rulings tied to the updated criteria for specialised support (resulting in an Education, Health and Care Plan - EHCP): (a) If a child or young person qualifies for one of the new Specialist Provision Packages (thereby eligible for an EHCP). (b) If the support in their package is no longer required, prompting the EHCP to end. (c) If the assigned package offers adequate or appropriate assistance, with the option to advocate for an alternative package.

3. Local authority's choice of educational placement: If parents oppose the specified institution in the EHCP, they can appeal. The Tribunal assesses the reasonableness of the decision; if unreasonable, it can overturn it and mandate a re-evaluation by the authority, though it cannot designate a specific placement directly. (Note: For children/young people requiring a Specialist Provision Package yet capable of following a mainstream curriculum, parental preferences are restricted to mainstream options only.)

Several aspects raise potential issues or require further explanation:

- Appeals are not permitted regarding the Individual Support Plan developed by the school or educational institution.

- It's uncertain if appeals can secure support beyond the defined Special Provision Packages. It appears possible to appeal for a mix of packages instead of the one assigned, but not to alter their contents.

- Tribunals cannot mandate a preferred school; options are confined to those proposed by the Local Authority. The Tribunal's role is limited to directing a reassessment based on the provided choices.

- Availability of Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS)-style provisions remains unclear, as they're not mentioned in the Specialist Provision Package descriptions.

- Therapies like Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) or Sensory Integration are omitted, suggesting therapeutic services may be confined to those outlined in the Special Provision Packages

These proposals are worth monitoring, as it represents a major reduction in the Tribunal's scope and possibly limits advocacy for enhanced specialised support (e.g. personalised support, direct therapies, targeted interventions, or smaller class sizes) if not encompassed within the packages.

My Thoughts

These proposed reforms appear driven by the need to address the escalating financial strain on local authorities, with SEND spending deemed unsustainable amid rising demand and council debts. By introducing standardised "Specialist Provision Packages" and clearer thresholds for EHCPs, the changes could streamline processes, reduce unnecessary appeals, and promote consistency across regions—potentially benefiting families through faster assessments and less adversarial interactions. However, the curtailment of the Tribunal's powers, such as limiting its ability to name specific placements or expand package contents, risks undermining parental rights and leaving many children with moderate needs underserved, as EHCPs would be reserved primarily for the most severe cases.

The ambiguity around EOTAS is particularly concerning, as it might force more children into unsuitable mainstream settings without alternatives.

Overall, if implemented without robust safeguards and input from families, this could lead to more disputes rather than fewer, defeating the stated goals—though delays in the Schools White Paper until 2026 indicate there's still room for adjustments based on feedback. I'd watch for how stakeholder consultations shape the final details, as the balance between efficiency and equity will determine if this truly helps or hinders vulnerable children and young people.

23/02/2026

No one should worry about the planned SEN Reform. It will take years to come into effect, providing it gets through Parliament. What it will do is put pressure on schools/settings. They wont be able to put children on part time timetables, say they cannot meets etc... They are going to be a mini-Local Authority and therefore challengeable and accountable.

19/02/2026

Free Late-Evening SEN Support Surgeries – Every Sunday

We’re running dedicated late-evening appointment slots every Sunday from 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm — ideal for parents and carers once the children are in bed and the house is quieter. Each 30-minute consultation is tailored for families who are facing:

- Major delays in their child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Needs Assessment process, or
- A situation where their child is currently out of school and receiving no education provision.

We can offer up to 4 appointments per Sunday.
The first consultation is provided completely free of charge.
If we assess that your case has solid grounds, we will draft and send a pre-action letter on your behalf at no upfront cost to you.

How to book your slot:
Get in touch via:
Facebook message, or
Email: [email protected]

When contacting us, please include:

- A brief overview of your situation, with key dates (e.g. date of EHC Needs Assessment request, date the Local Authority confirmed receipt, any significant deadlines or responses received)
- Your preferred time slot on Sunday (anytime between 8:00 pm and 10:00 pm)
- Your email address (we’ll send you a secure Microsoft Teams meeting link)

We’re here to help — looking forward to hearing from you.

13/02/2026

We Specialise In All Aspects Of Special Educational Needs And Disability Law, Guiding Clients Through Every Stage Of The Process. For More Information Regarding Our Services, Get In Contact Today.

19/01/2026

JSC v Cambridgeshire County [2026] has now been handed down by the High Court. We acted for JSC.

The LA's approach to EHC Needs Assessment has been confirmed to have been unlawful. In granting declaratory relief the Court held:

1. The Defendant has acted unlawfully by failing to complete the Claimant’s EHC Needs Assessment and to decide whether to issue an EHC plan within the timescales mandated by the SEND Regulations.

2. The requirements as to deadlines were not just that the Defendant should use their best endeavours, but that they should complete the process at the latest by the deadlines mandated. They did not do so.

3. There were systemic issues which meant that the Defendant regularly failed to meet the mandated timescales set out in the SEND Regulations, and therefore acted unlawfully on a significant number of occasions. Such systemic illegality, in contrast to a one off breach, is not something that should go unmarked.

Do not accept delays in the EHC Needs Assessment process. They can be challenged and judicial review represents an effective remedy.

02/01/2026

Although brief, a recent report in The Times—emerging on New Year's Day and gaining traction as we approach the weekend—suggests that an upcoming government white paper, expected in early January 2026, may propose limiting statutory SEN protections to children with only the most profound needs.

It also reportedly includes plans to shift greater responsibility onto schools and educational settings, while removing certain appeal rights. The aim appears to be curbing escalating costs, with schools potentially taking primary responsibility for supporting children with moderate needs.

These ideas echo the key talking points circulated in the summer of 2025. As such, the promised "conversation" that Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson cited when postponing earlier proposals now seems like little more than a superficial public relations exercise.

Nevertheless, meaningful SEN reform is overdue and could include sensible measures such as:

1. Increasing the threshold for statutory entitlement, while clearly defining who qualifies for support. The current criteria have long been criticised as too low, and raising them appropriately would not be problematic.

2. Requiring schools and educational settings to take greater ownership—including accountability for how they use funding—to identify, assess, and provide for children with SEN. The EHCP process was never meant to serve as the initial point of identification.

3. Streamlining the SEN Tribunal system, where delays of around 12 months currently undermine its effectiveness. More efficient procedures could help ease the backlog.

4. Expecting educational settings to deliver more direct support, rather than immediately deferring full responsibility to local authorities simply because an EHCP is in place. There is little to object to in this shift.

5. Enabling local authorities to streamline administration around assessments and monitoring of EHCPs (or any successor framework), as greater school-level provision could reduce bureaucratic burdens.

6. Legal rights will always be present as this system will generate "public law" rights, with or without the Tribunal. Thus, if the SEN Tribunal is no more, this will just direct people to judicial review.

The core issue with political handling of this topic is the reliance on leaked "soundbites" rather than transparent, formal policy outlines. While EHCPs offer a vital legal safeguard, the current framework is widely viewed as inefficient and is in need of reform to be truly effective for all who require it. A straightforward presentation of the government's reasoning would command greater respect and foster proper public debate. Instead, this drip-feed approach fuels unnecessary alarm and scaremongering.

18/12/2025

The EHC process is one that is carefully defined in law, with timescales at various stages. The timescales are mandatory, which means they must be followed. Sadly, some local authorities are wilfully breaching these timescales with far reaching consequences for children, young people and their families. Often out of education, families unable to work and the stress of "no where to go" when complaints go unresolved. In Cambridgeshire, there are some 1900 children who are 20 weeks beyond the deadline for completing EHC Needs Assessments. News of this illegality has reached Berlin....

The "Fuhrer" hears about Cambridgeshire County Council's delays in carrying out EHC Needs Assessments for children and young people.

12/12/2025

Are you based in Worcestershire? There are currently 210 children who have a school type named in their Education, Health and Care Plan which is not being provided by the Local Authority. This is unlawful and is challengeable by way of judicial review.

If you are in this situation, we can help you to address the situation please feel free to contact us directly, as we may be able to assist.