SEND Reforms - our response to the government's consultation

You told us

Across parents, schools and professionals there was strong agreement that involvement must be early, continuous and visible, rather than after key decisions have already been made. Parents described feeling most confident where they were treated as partners, understood how decisions were reached, and could see their views reflected in outcomes. Conversely, there was low confidence where engagement was limited to consultation events without feedback loops. Families also reported fear of challenge where school‑based systems feel unsafe or overly defensive.

What this suggests

Genuine involvement depends on power, transparency and feedback, not just opportunity to comment. Without visible influence, engagement risks reinforcing inequality, privileging families who are already confident or well supported.

What our response to the DfE said

We support strengthening expectations for coproduction, but these must be operationalised rather than aspirational. This should include funded parent participation structures, explicit expectations for pupil voice across planning processes, and routine publication of how views have shaped decisions. Independent advice and advocacy should be embedded, particularly where decisions e.g. in relation to ISPs or EHCPs limit entitlement or involve disagreement, to ensure families can participate confidently and safely. Government should consider how it models this through its approach to ensuring parent carer forums are enabled to be fully involved locally.

You told us

Schools and professionals welcomed the emphasis on evidence, but repeatedly cautioned that evidence must be usable and relevant to real classrooms. Stakeholders valued approaches where research‑informed practice was combined with modelling, observation and follow‑up. Parents expressed concern that “evidence” is sometimes referenced selectively to justify reduced support rather than to improve provision. SENCOs highlighted the gap between written advice and practical delivery without ongoing support.

What this suggests

Evidence only improves outcomes where it is implemented and reviewed in context.

What our response to the DfE said

National frameworks should prioritise evidence that explicitly links needs, provision and outcomes over time. Local authorities should be supported to share exemplars of how evidence informs decision‑making in practice, including quality‑assured case studies. For example, locally we see strongest impact where specialist advice is followed by in‑class modelling and review, rather than standalone reports.  In London, LIIA captures practice spotlights as a resource bank for all authorities. We have contributed examples from our Educational Psychologists and SEN specialist teachers, supported by our SENDIE team.

You told us

Stakeholders were clear that inconsistencies in the universal offer can be a primary driver of escalation into targeted and specialist systems. Parents described children’s needs increasing because universal adjustments were not embedded reliably. Schools highlighted pressures from curriculum pace, accountability measures and staff confidence as barriers to consistent delivery, particularly for communication, regulation and cognition. Parents similarly drew attention to rigidity in the curriculum as a missed opportunity to engage their children’s interests.

What this suggests

A strong universal offer is foundational to the whole system. Where universal provision is weak or uneven, no amount of targeted intervention can compensate.

What our response to the DfE said

Clear national expectations should define what effective universal provision looks like in practice, linked to adaptive teaching, curriculum access and inclusive leadership. These expectations must align with inspection frameworks and national accountability measures, so inclusive practice is actively reinforced rather than unintentionally undermined. Government should ensure that its changes to the curriculum are both ambitious and adaptive so that flexibility maximises children’s interests and strengths. Enhancing the national offer from Oak Academy to increase resources for teachers to support them in adapting teaching.

You told us

Targeted support was valued where it was timely, flexible and closely linked to classroom practice. Schools highlighted the importance of rapid access to advice, particularly for speech, language, sensory regulation and behaviour linked to unmet need. Parents emphasised the importance of consistency and clarity around what targeted support should reasonably include.

What this suggests

Targeted support is most effective when it strengthens mainstream practice rather than operating in isolation.

What our response to the DfE said

Targeted provision should sit within a clear graduated framework, supported by access to specialist advice, shared quality standards and regular review. National guidance should reinforce that targeted intervention is most effective where it is integrated with classroom teaching and adjusted as needs change. Schools facing falling rolls and budget deficits highlighted that without adequate resourcing the expectation of support is unrealistic and unsustainable.

You told us

While professionals broadly welcomed the concept of Targeted Plus, there was concern that without explicit definition it could become a relabelling exercise. Schools expressed anxiety about additional responsibility without additional capacity, clarity on thresholds or protection against escalation in parental dispute.

What this suggests

Targeted Plus must represent a material change in intensity, expertise and oversight, not simply a new category.

What our response to the DfE said

Targeted Plus should be clearly defined nationally, with expectations around access to specialist input, review timelines and funding protection. This layer should include clear mechanisms for stepping support up or down, reducing drift and unnecessary escalation.

You told us

Parents and professionals stressed the need for certainty, stability and sufficiency. There was concern that tightening thresholds for specialist support without parallel investment in provision and workforce capacity risks increased breakdown and adversarial challenge. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of transition planning and avoidance of sudden changes in support.

What this suggests

Specialist provision must be planned strategically and protected from instability created elsewhere in the system.

What our response to the DfE said

Government needs to clarify its definition of specialist more robustly as the current definition of SEN has allowed a post code lottery through the tribunal system. If the intention is for some of the children who currently have EHCPs to be met through targeted plus in future, the definition needs to be clearer to support all stakeholders to understand the change. Reform must ensure that children with complex needs, such as those who are pre-verbal, severely impacted by communication differences or profound levels of need continue to be able to access the most suitable environment for them. And those with the most severe needs access appropriate specialist provision without increased delay or uncertainty. Specialist provision should be commissioned based on clear local and regional need analysis, with robust transition planning, regular review and with transparent and sufficient funding in place.

You told us

Mental health support was identified as one of the most significant gaps in the system. Schools described rising levels of anxiety, non‑attendance and distress, with limited access to CAMHS and other specialist services. Families reported long waits and inconsistent thresholds, with schools left managing complex need without support.

What this suggests

Educational settings cannot meet rising mental health need without strong, accessible specialist input. Schools told us that training needs to be more than one off and recognise starting points of their staff so skilled staff are not simply given basic advice they have already put into practice.

What our response to the DfE said

Mental health must be embedded within SEND reform, with clear expectations for health partners. In‑school and college‑based provision, supported by external expertise, should be prioritised to reduce barriers to access and escalation of need. Schools that cater for the most severe levels of needs must have a differentiated mental health support, at a specialist level, recognising existing skills and knowledge.  Investment in workforce development needs to be iterative to ensure it is embedded.

You told us

Stakeholders welcomed a move away from diagnosis‑led frameworks, but expressed concern about inconsistent interpretation. Without training, there is a risk that needs are either over‑simplified or overlooked, particularly for internalised presentations.

What this suggests

The framework is only effective if educators are supported to apply it consistently and reflectively.

What our response to the DfE said

We support the refreshed areas of development, provided they are accompanied by comprehensive training, shared exemplars and safeguards to ensure equitable identification and response across settings.

You told us

Parents and practitioners described variability in early years support with some families able to talk about the positive impact and other experienced less positive support, with not always understanding where responsibility sits for services. Positive examples existed where Family Hubs and advisory services were proactive, but these were not universal. Some professionals report hubs providing earlier intervention and better joined up support although not all parents and are yet familiar with the hub offer.

What this suggests

Joint working depends on clarity of roles and shared ownership, not informal relationships.

What our response to the DfE said

Best Start Family Hubs, as coordination points rather than signposting services, can offer local pathways to education and early help. These must be supported by aligned health services to provide earlier intervention as well as information. Outreach and training for early years workforce must PVI settings must be embedded within planning. Better promotion nationally of the BSFH offer, including the SEND practitioner offer at each hub, is needed.

You told us

Identification often does not lead to timely support. Parents reported being advised to wait, despite clear concerns. Practitioners described limited alignment between health and education processes and weak feedback loops.

What this suggests

The issue lies less with identification tools and more with what happens next.

What our response to the DfE said

Reviews should be better aligned, with shared indicators, clear escalation routes and explicit follow‑up. Where local areas link early concerns to coordinated action, reliance on later statutory processes reduces. Capacity of the workforce to provide timely support remains an issue.

You told us

Across schools, parents, SENCOs and system leaders there was strong consensus that evidence must support consistency and confidence in day‑to‑day practice, not just strategic intent. Stakeholders prioritised evidence that helps teachers understand what effective inclusive teaching looks like in real classrooms, particularly where children have overlapping needs. Leaders also highlighted the need for evidence around organisational and leadership behaviours that enable inclusion. Parents were clear that evidence should relate to outcomes that matter to children and families, not only academic attainment.

What this suggests

The greatest value lies in evidence that reduces variation in experience between settings and supports professional judgement, rather than evidence that promotes individual programmes in isolation.

What our response to the DfE said

The National Inclusion Standards should prioritise evidence in three areas: effective inclusive classroom practice; leadership and organisational culture that enables inclusion; and practical integration of specialist advice into mainstream teaching. Evidence should be shared through concrete exemplars and case studies that demonstrate impact over time, rather than abstract descriptions of good practice.

You told us

Stakeholders consistently emphasised that training must address practical classroom challenges, particularly around communication, regulation, cognition and learning, and emotional wellbeing. Schools highlighted difficulties translating specialist reports into actionable strategies. There was strong concern that training focused on theory or compliance does not change practice. Parents stressed the importance of staff understanding how children experience school, including sensory environments and unstructured times.

What this suggests

Training is only impactful where it supports educators to apply learning directly and revisit practice over time.

What our response to the DfE said

National training should focus on applied skills, including adaptive teaching, inclusive curriculum design, regulatory support and use of assistive technology. Training must be structured as ongoing professional learning rather than one‑off sessions and should be reinforced through leadership expectations and inspection frameworks so that inclusive practice is sustained.

You told us

Workload was identified as one of the most significant risks to successful implementation. SENCOs and school leaders expressed concern about cumulative administrative burden, particularly in relation to ISPs, funding accountability and expanded expectations for inclusion. Many described pressure already leading to reduced time for direct work with staff and pupils, and warned of impacts on retention.

What this suggests

Without explicit action on workload, reform risks undermining the very roles on which it depends.

What our response to the DfE said

We support the principle of Individual Support Plans as a flexible and dynamic way of recording and reviewing support. However, schools locally have raised concerns about workload and accountability, especially regarding managing complaints given that ISPs will have legal status. There is a risk that ISPs become bureaucratic if not supported by simple digital solutions. We recommend that workload is explicitly addressed to remove the risk that increased workload undermines implementation and limits the impact of reform. Practical actions should include removal of duplication, clear limits on documentation requirements, shared templates and tools, and digital systems that demonstrably reduce workload. Funded time for training and planning is essential. Where new requirements are introduced, existing expectations should be streamlined to avoid net expansion of administrative burden.

You told us

SENCOs welcomed recognition of their importance but were clear that the role is increasingly unsustainable. Many reported spending disproportionate time managing processes rather than leading improvement in practice. Secondary schools in particular highlighted the scale challenge and difficulty of influencing large staff teams without senior leadership status.

What this suggests

The SENCO role must be repositioned as a strategic leadership function, not an administrative catch‑all.

What our response to the DfE said

The SENCO role should be defined nationally as a leadership role with protected time, access to high‑quality training and authority to influence whole‑school practice along with adequately funded in-school support for SEND administration. Expectations must be realistic, particularly in secondary settings, and aligned with workforce capacity and retention considerations. We recommend formal supervision is available through Educational Psychology. We have tried this approach with much success.

You told us

Parents consistently expressed anxiety about ISPs replacing EHCPs without sufficient safeguards. Confidence was highest where plans were clearly written, regularly reviewed and developed collaboratively with families. There was low confidence in systems relying solely on school self‑assessment, particularly where relationships had previously broken down. Professionals also raised concern about variability between schools.

What this suggests

Assurance depends on clarity, consistency and independent oversight, not solely plan format.

What our response to the DfE said

High‑quality ISPs should be underpinned by clear national or locally approved standards, meaningful parental involvement and routine review. Local authorities should have a defined role in quality assurance and support, rather than reliance on inspection cycles alone, to maintain confidence and consistency through their work with parents and the local PCF.

You told us

Schools were clear that overly detailed plans are unlikely to be read or used consistently, particularly in secondary settings. SENCOs expressed concern that under parental pressure ISPs risk becoming mini EHCPs. Teachers emphasised the need for plans that clearly articulate what adults will do differently in the classroom.

What this suggests

Design and usability are critical to ensuring ISPs support practice rather than create additional bureaucracy.

What our response to the DfE said

ISPs should be concise, digital and focused on needs, strategies and review points. Standardised national templates and exemplars are essential to support consistency, while allowing limited flexibility for individual context. Expectations should explicitly discourage duplication of EHCP‑style documentation.

You told us

Transitions were consistently described as rushed, with decisions often made late and under pressure. Families reported limited access to informed careers advice, and professionals highlighted artificial deadlines that do not reflect post‑16 application processes. Mismatches between aspirations and realistic pathways were described as a key source of conflict.

What this suggests

Effective transition depends on earlier planning, honest conversations and clearer accountability.

What our response to the DfE said

National guidance should strengthen expectations for earlier transition planning before children reach 14 with clearer timescales and accountable careers advice. Support should focus on realistic pathways, progression and outcomes, with better alignment between education, training and preparation for adulthood, with adult social care and adult health playing a key role.

You told us

Schools highlighted significant variation in capacity, space and workforce to deliver Inclusion Bases. Parents expressed concern that expectations may be placed on schools without the resources to deliver safely or effectively. System leaders warned of the risk of duplication or inequity if development is uncoordinated.

What this suggests

Inclusion Bases require strategic planning and investment, not piecemeal development.

What our response to the DfE said

Clear national expectations should be coupled with capital funding, workforce planning and local oversight. Local authorities should retain responsibility for strategic coordination to ensure inclusion bases are distributed equitably and aligned to local need profiles.

You told us

Success was associated with bases that maintained strong links to mainstream classrooms, clear entry and exit criteria, and skilled leadership. Where bases operated in isolation, parents and professionals reported reduced reintegration and increased risk of permanent segregation within schools.

What this suggests

Inclusion Bases must be designed to support mainstream inclusion, not replace it.

What our response to the DfE said

Inclusion Bases should have a clear purpose, defined pathways back to mainstream learning, and strong outreach elements. Expectations should emphasise outcomes and reintegration, supported by monitoring and review. Ensuring that sufficient, well-trained specialist staff are in place will also be key to help children succeed in mainstream.

You told us

There was strong support for faster access to specialist advice, particularly in speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, educational psychology and behaviour support. However, stakeholders consistently raised concerns about workforce shortages, inconsistent health engagement and unclear accountability. Schools valued models where specialists worked alongside staff rather than offering observation only.

What this suggests

The Experts at Hand offer will only succeed with clear joint governance, realistic workforce planning and accountability for delivery.

What our response to the DfE said

Local arrangements should include joint commissioning, shared governance between education and health, and clarity on expectations for in‑school delivery. Workforce development and retention must be explicitly addressed, given current shortages in these specialist areas. The offer should prioritise practical, in‑context support that builds school capacity over time.

You told us

Parents, SENCOs and system leaders were clear that this group of children requires certainty, stability and specialist expertise that cannot be compromised by system reform. Families described long journeys, repeated reassessment and anxiety where provision is scarce or unstable. Professionals highlighted the difficulty of forecasting demand for low‑incidence needs and the disproportionate impact of placement failure on children and families. There was also concern that assumptions about regional solutions may not account for travel times, workforce availability or local variation in need.

What this suggests

Children with low‑incidence, highly complex needs require explicit safeguards within any reformed system. Market forces alone will not secure appropriate provision.

What our response to the DfE said

Clear national expectations are required on sufficiency planning for low‑incidence needs, including responsibilities for bespoke provision where standard models are not suitable. Regional collaboration may support intelligence and planning, but accountability for securing appropriate placements must remain clear. Transport, journey time and family impact should be recognised explicitly in decision making, alongside sustainability and outcomes.

You told us

Stakeholders expressed concern that packages could oversimplify need if designed around labels rather than learning profiles and lived experience. SENCOs emphasised the importance of clarity about curriculum access, therapeutic input and progression, rather than generalised descriptions. Parents wanted to understand what day‑to‑day education would look like, not just the category of package applied.

What this suggests

Packages must provide meaningful, transparent descriptions of provision, rather than abstract classifications.

What our response to the DfE said

Specialist Provision Packages should be grounded in functional need and learning pathways. They should clearly articulate curriculum delivery, therapeutic input, expected outcomes and progression routes in accessible language. This clarity is essential to support informed parental choice, accountable commissioning and effective placement decisions.

You told us

There was cautious recognition that separating entitlement from delivery could reduce over‑specification. However, there was significant concern about blurred accountability, increased complexity for families and risk of dispute where roles are unclear. Professionals highlighted the risk that poor‑quality ISPs could become the default trigger for escalation back into statutory processes.

What this suggests

This model will only work if roles, thresholds and enforcement mechanisms are explicit and trusted.

What our response to the DfE said

Clear national guidance is required to define the relationship between EHCPs and ISPs, including accountability for delivery, quality assurance routes and escalation where provision is not effective. Safeguards are needed to ensure ISPs support professional judgement without becoming a parallel statutory system.

You told us

There was broad support for earlier access for children with clearly complex needs, but concern about rushed assessment and reliance on diagnosis at very young ages. Early years professionals emphasised the value of observing children over time in appropriate settings and using existing evidence, rather than repeating assessments.

What this suggests

Speed must not come at the expense of quality, accuracy or proportionality.

What our response to the DfE said

Direct routes should build on existing evidence and professional judgement, including placement‑led assessment where appropriate. Early years providers, including PVI settings, must be supported to contribute meaningfully to assessment. Clear thresholds and safeguards are required to avoid unnecessary reassessment and delay. Supporting successful transition into primary mainstream or primary specialist provision locally will also be crucial.

You told us

Stakeholders strongly emphasised that needs assessment should focus on functional impact rather than diagnosis alone. Professionals highlighted the importance of understanding context, including communication, regulation, learning environment and social factors. Concerns were raised about bias, particularly where internalised needs are less visible.

What this suggests

Needs assessment must be holistic, evidence‑based and equitable.

What our response to the DfE said

Needs assessments should draw on multi‑agency evidence, observational information and contextual factors, with explicit safeguards to ensure consistent interpretation. Frameworks should support professional judgement while addressing known sources of bias.

You told us

Parents wanted placement lists to be meaningful and interpretable, rather than generic. Schools and officers highlighted the importance of matching placements to curriculum pathways and outcomes, not just availability. Transport implications and sibling arrangements were also raised as significant considerations for families.

What this suggests

Placement lists play a critical role in trust and informed decision making.

What our response to the DfE said

Placement lists should include clear information on curriculum offer, standards, recent Ofsted inspection outcomes, progression routes, qualifications, typical outcomes for children with SEN and practical considerations such as transport. Information must be presented accessibly to support families to make informed choices.

You told us

Parents consistently valued relational support and trusted advice over large volumes of written information. Many described difficulty interpreting professional language and a lack of advocacy at key decision points, particularly where options were constrained.

What this suggests

Fair decision making depends on accessible information and independent support, not complexity.

What our response to the DfE said

Parents should have access to clear, plain‑language information supported by independent advice and advocacy. This is particularly important where decisions involve complex trade‑offs or reduced entitlement standards, recent Ofsted inspection outcomes.

You told us

AP was seen as an intervention rather than a destination. Professionals highlighted the risk of drift where placements are not time‑limited, particularly at Key Stage 4. Parents expressed concern about loss of curriculum access and future options when placements are prolonged without clear planning.

What this suggests

Time limits must be linked to purpose and progression, not arbitrary thresholds.

What our response to the DfE said

Temporary AP placements should have a clearly defined purpose, review points and planned next steps from the outset. Duration should be proportionate to need and phase, with particular caution at key qualification points.

You told us

There was broad support for stronger regulation of the ISS sector, given concerns about cost, variation in quality and market behaviour. Stakeholders were cautiously optimistic but emphasised that impact depends on enforceability. Parents stressed the need for quality to be protected alongside affordability.

What this suggests

Regulation is necessary but not sufficient without robust enforcement and transparency.

What our response to the DfE said

We support stronger regulation of the ISS sector, including price transparency and alignment with national standards. Successful reform depends on enforceability, oversight and sustained attention to quality as well as cost.

You told us

Schools, SENCOs and parents consistently raised concerns about funding being absorbed into wider budget pressures without clear safeguards. There was strong support for flexibility, but only where accompanied by transparency and accountability. Parents expressed low confidence without visible assurance.

What this suggests

Accountability is essential to trust in funding reform.

What our response to the DfE said

Clear national expectations should require transparency, reporting and audit of Inclusive Mainstream funding. Accountability arrangements must be proportionate and supportive, enabling early intervention while safeguarding public confidence. How the funding is spent should be published on the school website.

You told us

Schools and SENCOs broadly supported the principle of earlier, more flexible use of funding, particularly where this enables support to be put in place without waiting for statutory processes. However, this support was strongly conditional. Stakeholders repeatedly raised concern that without ring‑fencing and clear accountability, SEND funding risks being absorbed into wider financial pressures facing schools. Parents echoed this concern, expressing low confidence that funding would reliably reach children without visible assurance.

What this suggests

Funding reform will only build confidence if flexibility is matched with protection, transparency and accountability.

What our response to the DfE said

We support the principle of directing funding closer to the point of delivery, provided it is accompanied by robust safeguards. This should include clear national expectations on permissible use, transparency requirements and proportionate assurance mechanisms, so that funding intended for SEND delivers tangible benefit for children and young people.

You told us

There was broad support for greater collaboration between schools and shared responsibility for inclusion. However, schools raised concerns about governance, decision‑making authority and fairness, particularly where school capacity and confidence varies. SENCOs highlighted the risk that inclusive schools could be disproportionately relied upon unless expectations are shared equitably.

What this suggests

Pooling funding has potential benefits but introduces significant system risks if not clearly governed. Local SEND groups can support inclusion, but only where roles, accountability and safeguards are clearly defined.

What our response to the DfE said

We support local SEND groups as a mechanism for collaboration and shared learning, provided participation is meaningful and underpinned by clear governance. Expectations should explicitly address equity between schools, transparency of decision making and local authority oversight to avoid unintended consequences. Clear national guidance is needed.

You told us

Stakeholders warned that without clear dispute resolution routes, disagreements could escalate rapidly and damage trust between schools and families. There was limited appetite for relying on informal resolution where stakes are high and resources constrained.

What this suggests

Effective collaboration requires clear, trusted escalation mechanisms.

What our response to the DfE said

Disagreement resolution processes should be defined nationally, providing clear steps from local discussion through to independent mediation where required. Local authorities should retain a clear role in oversight and resolution to support fairness and consistency.

You told us

Groups were seen as most effective where they focused on improvement, peer learning and practical problem‑solving, rather than compliance or allocation alone. SENCOs cautioned against creating additional forums without protected time or clarity of purpose.

What this suggests

Impact depends on focus, capacity and clarity, not structure alone.

What our response to the DfE said

Local partnership groups should have a defined remit focused on quality improvement, shared learning and system coherence. Expectations should include protected time, leadership engagement and alignment with local SEND strategic priorities to ensure sustained impact.

You told us

Parents, schools, local authorities and health partners were all identified as essential, with each bringing distinct perspectives. Exclusion or marginalisation of any partner was seen as weakening legitimacy and effectiveness.

What this suggests

Partnership groups must reflect shared ownership across the SEND system.

What our response to the DfE said

Successful groups should include representation from school leaders, SENCOs, parents and carers, local authorities and health partners, with clarity about roles and decision‑making. Leadership accountability is critical to ensure participation translates into action.

You told us

Strategic plans were valued where they were co‑produced and actively used to guide decisions. Stakeholders were sceptical of plans that exist as compliance documents without clear links to funding, workforce development and accountability.

What this suggests

SEND plans are effective only when they drive action and behaviour.

What our response to the DfE said

Local SEND strategic plans should be treated as living documents, developed through coproduction and explicitly aligned to commissioning, workforce planning and quality assurance. National expectations should reinforce this alignment and reduce duplication.

You told us

Families consistently valued clear, plain‑language information supported by trusted advice. Many described difficulty navigating complex systems and professional terminology, particularly at moments of dispute or transition. Independent advice and advocacy were seen as critical to fairness.

What this suggests

Fairness depends on access to understanding and support, not information volume.

What our response to the DfE said

Investment in information, advice and advocacy services is essential to support equity. Guidance should be accessible, consistent and supported by human contact, particularly where decisions are complex or contested.

You told us

Parents strongly supported the inclusion of SEND expertise on complaint panels as a means of improving understanding, confidence and fairness. Professionals agreed that specialist input can improve the quality of decision making, provided independence is protected.

What this suggests

SEND‑related complaints require specialist knowledge and impartiality.

What our response to the DfE said

We agree that a SEND specialist should sit on complaint panels for SEND‑related issues. This should be accompanied by clear expectations around independence, training and accountability to ensure confidence in the process.

You told us

Across all engagement there was broad support for the direction of reform, coupled with strong caution about delivery risks. The most consistent message was that reform must improve lived experience, not simply reconfigure structures. Stakeholders highlighted funding sufficiency, workforce capacity, health accountability and implementation sequencing as decisive factors.

What this suggests

The success of SEND reform depends less on policy design and more on conditions for implementation.

What our response to the DfE said

We support the ambition of reform and are committed to delivering it, however there is a long lead in for implementing the changes whilst business as usual pressures mount. Success depends on sustainable funding, realistic workforce planning, clear accountability across education and health, and phased implementation. Without these enablers, there is a significant risk that reform increases pressure without improving outcomes for children and families.