The Schools White Paper grabbed the headlines last week, but the substance on SEND sits in the accompanying consultation. What we are looking at is not a set of minor adjustments. It is a long-term restructuring of England’s SEND system.
Last Wednesday, WA brought together a senior panel with expertise on SEND for rapid analysis of the proposed reforms before an audience of sector providers and practitioners. The panel was comprised of Dani Payne from the Social Market Foundation, Max Kendix from the Times, and WA Communications’ Lee Findell and Jen Gerber, and a series of audience questions inspired a healthy debate on policy and political implications of the DfE’s proposals.
While the immediate political and public reaction has been cautious rather than explosive, as many had expected, the long timeframe of the reform process opens up significant opportunities to influence the final shape of the SEND system.
The key points discussed by the panel were as follows:
This is a system redesign, not a policy tweak
The Government’s direction of travel is clear:
- A decisive shift towards mainstream inclusion
- Narrowed access to EHCPs
- Introduce nationally defined Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs)
- Increase regulation of independent special schools
This redistributes influence away from locally negotiated, individually drafted EHCPs and towards nationally defined entitlements and frameworks. That may reduce variation, but it will also reduce flexibility.
Politically, the decision to invest more money and frame this as an expansion of childrens’ rights will help ministers. But as ever, the final judgement on the reforms will rest in the operational reality on the ground for children, families and school leaders and workforce.
EHCPs remain – but access tightens
EHCPs have not been scrapped. That decision alone lowers the immediate political temperature.
Instead, they will guarantee access to a Specialist Provision Package under a new national threshold. Tribunal rights remain, but disputes are likely to focus on eligibility for a package and placement decisions.
Overall numbers are expected to stabilise rather than collapse. That signals this is not a wholesale removal of support.
However, the battleground shifts. The key questions become:
- Who qualifies for a package?
- How are packages defined – and priced?
- How much discretion exists around them?
Those answers will determine whether families feel protected or constrained.
Specialist Provision Packages are the hinge point
Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs) are the most significant reform for providers of SEND education, and will be decided over the coming years by an expert panel working with the Department for Education.
Nationally defined packages will set out expected staffing, interventions and provision standards. Independent special schools will be required to align with them and face tighter oversight. And despite pre-briefings to the contrary, ministers have shied away from setting out the government’s starting position on the scope, definition and pricing of those packages.
For ministers, this offers consistency and firmer grip on cost. For providers, it standardises what has historically been locally negotiated provision.
But tensions do exist. If packages are too broad, cost pressures persist. If too narrow, children fall through the gaps. The consultation phase will be critical in shaping this balance.
Inclusion is the moral case – funding is the practical test
There is broad recognition that the current system is adversarial, inconsistent and financially unsustainable. The case for reform is strong. There is also a persuasive educational argument for inclusion.
However, the Ofsted rating and league-table dominated incentives for schools, means that high-stakes accountability and attainment measures still dominate school behaviour. If schools are expected to absorb significantly more complex needs, recognition, funding and workforce capacity must follow.
Capital funding for Inclusion Bases and investment in mainstream inclusion are welcome. But once spread across the system, those figures look far less transformative – potentially at only £24,000 per school.
Workforce issues are central:
- Training will roll out over the next few years
- SEND coordinators’ capacity is already stretched
- Specialist teaching assistants are often underpaid relative to their responsibilities
If mainstream expectations rise without visible staffing support, union resistance will grow.
Politically, the landing has been steady – for now
Number 10 was closely involved in managing the formulation of policy and the announcement of the DfE’s plans, determined to avoid a repeat of last year’s backbench rebellion on welfare reform. They did this by carefully framing this as measures to fix a broken system, rather than an attempt to manage costs. The result has been a measured response from the parliamentary Labour Party and other influential stakeholders, rather than an immediate backlash.
But risks remain.
Parent advocacy groups are organised and vocal. Social media scrutiny is already building around SPPs. Teaching unions have flagged funding concerns, and threatened strikes.
The timeline is also politically awkward. Implementation ramps up over the next few years, with new thresholds going live close to the next General Election. That creates the possibility of visible disruption without long-term evidence of success.
Local authorities and transition risk
The reforms shift influence away from locally negotiated EHCP drafting and towards national frameworks. In principle, that reduces postcode variation.
In practice, the transition could be volatile. Bridget Phillipson has made it clear that existing funding deficits will be met centrally only for those local authorities who embrace the direction of reform in the short term, opening up room for contestation.
And in the long term, there is the question of where commissioning will sit if the DfE is planning to increasingly fund SEND support directly via schools.
There is also a behavioural question: if future thresholds tighten, assessment demand may increase in the short term, undermining the Government’s ambition to bring down the costs of the system over time.
Key takeaways
- The direction is set. This is a structural shift towards national standardisation and mainstream inclusion.
- EHCPs remain, but eligibility tightens. The focus moves to thresholds and package design.
- SPPs will define the system’s fairness. Their detail will determine sector confidence.
- Workforce realism is essential. Inclusion without credible staffing and funding will falter.
- Politics is stable – for now. Implementation timing creates risk later in the Parliament.
SEND reform could end up shaping this Government’s education legacy. The opportunity is to reduce conflict, increase consistency and strengthen inclusion. The risk is that fiscal control is perceived to override the needs of children.
The consultation phase will be decisive in determining the specifics of the new system, and these will be essential to making it a success.
To discuss what the Schools White Paper means for your organisation, please contact Lee Findell at leefindell@wacomms.com.