Rumours abound that the Government is about to publish a white paper on SEND reform that will change the way that children and young people with SEND are supported. In the meantime, the House of Commons cross-party education select committee continues to hear evidence, optimistically, on ‘Solving the SEND crisis’.
This week’s evidence session focused on accountability (or lack thereof) in SEND decision-making. Lack of accountability has repeatedly been identified as one of the biggest reasons why so many children and young people don’t get the special educational provision and support they need, to which the law entitles them.
The SEND legal advice charity IPSEA (by whom I’m employed as policy manager) has long argued that the SEND system is riddled with gaps where accountability for decisions should be. Georgina Downard, senior solicitor from IPSEA’s legal team, was on the panel of witnesses giving evidence to the select committee this week, alongside Sharon Chappell, assistant ombudsman from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), Adam Sproston Lead SEND specialist Inspector for Ofsted, and Lucy Harte, from the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
The committee is chaired by Helen Hayes MP, who was Labour’s shadow children’s minister when the party was in opposition, so is well-briefed and knowledgeable on SEND matters. She introduced the session by saying, “Accountability is key to ensuring high quality SEND provision” and asked witnesses for their assessment of the effectiveness of the current accountability system for SEND.
Allowing the Ombudsman to investigate school complaints – a no-brainer?
The LGSCO’s Sharon Chappell began by telling MPs the Ombudsman is “extremely robust in holding local authorities to account in terms of SEND failings” through their investigation of SEND complaints.
The main point she wanted to get across was the LGSCO’s lack of jurisdiction over schools – in other words, the Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints about things like school admissions or exclusions. This means there’s no independent route for parents to take if they’re concerned about off-rolling, unofficial exclusions, or the fact that the provision specified in their child’s EHC plan isn’t being delivered. As she put it, the Ombudsman often comes across things going wrong in schools, but investigators “have to stop at the school gates… and can’t hold schools to account”.
This is a familiar argument that has been made many times before. The LGSCO has been ready and willing for many years to take on this extra responsibility, and a previous education select committee made a recommendation to government back in 2019 that it should happen. In Ms Chappell’s view, a more robust approach to accountability for what is provided in schools (including academies and free schools) could also have the effect of reducing the number of requests for EHC needs assessment – something that we know preoccupies policy-makers.
Labour MP Jess Asato asked Sharon Chappell why she thought this extension of powers hadn’t happened yet. Ms Chappell said the Ombudsman didn’t receive a formal response on it from the previous government, and is still waiting for a response from the current government to the LGSCO’s most recent Triennial Review, which strongly made the case for extending its role. It should be a no-brainer.
Zero tolerance for local authorities that fail children and young people
To the surprise of no one who pays attention to IPSEA’s work, Georgina Downard homed in on the central feature of the SEND legal framework, namely the widespread failure to follow it.
Calling for ‘zero tolerance’ of local authorities who repeatedly make unlawful decisions, Ms Downard briskly outlined the changes that IPSEA believes are needed to make the system more accountable:
- Local authorities should be expected to make lawful decisions about assessment and provision for children and young people with SEND and face consequences if they don’t.
- DfE should consult with local authorities about what the local barriers are to applying the law, and proactively review local policies to ensure they are compliant.
- Ofsted inspectors should consider the extent to which schools comply with their duties to be inclusive for children with SEND.
- Area SEND inspections should monitor local areas’ compliance with statutory duties.
- The LGSCO’s jurisdiction should be extended to cover schools, as it has repeatedly requested.
- SEN Support in schools should be made a statutory requirement, accompanied by adequate, ringfenced funding and training.
Chair Helen Hayes asked about the SEND Tribunal and how to prevent the steady year-on-year rise in the number of appeals. Georgina Downard’s response was clear. “…The onus should absolutely not be on parents to have to fight for what their child needs and what they’re entitled to, and to go through lengthy appeals,” she said.
As for the “inherently unfair” situation that Helen Hayes identified, where families don’t have the wherewithal to appeal to the Tribunal lose out, this wouldn’t arise if local authorities routinely made lawful decisions first time.
Highlighting the prevalence of unlawful local policies (i.e “this is how we do things here…”), Ms Downard set out for the committee the sequence of events that leads to local authorities’ decisions being overturned in huge numbers by the Tribunal. A local policy is developed that isn’t in line with what’s in the Children and Families Act 2014. The local authority, relying on its local policy rather than the law, then makes unlawful decisions. These decisions are successfully challenged at the Tribunal, which applies the law. And this happens on repeat.
Ms Downard made the point that charities like IPSEA shouldn’t effectively have to ‘police’ local policies to check they comply with the law on support for children and young people with SEND, and that this should be the Department for Education’s job.
Helen Hayes prefaced a question on what can be done to improve compliance with the law with the observation that “no one accepts non-compliance”. But the inconvenient truth is, it is accepted everywhere. If local authorities knew there would be meaningful consequences—whether financial, reputational, or something else—it’s likely their approach to supporting children and young people with SEND would be quite different.
SEND Tribunal: Isos, and local government got it wrong
The report written last year by the Isos Partnership on making the SEND system “effective and financially sustainable”, commissioned by the Local Government Association (LGA) and County Councils Network (CCN), made an appearance. Referring to it, Jess Asato, Labour MP for Lowestoft, asked what could be done about the fact that “SEND Tribunal rulings do not take into account the financial or resource constraints faced by local authorities”.
Georgina Downard was quick to point out that this statement is simply not true. The Isos report “misrepresents how the Tribunal makes decisions, especially around placements that are named in EHC plans,” she said, explaining the Tribunal’s role, and the role of EHCPs, is not to give any child or young person more than they need. Children and young people are entitled to the school place that’s reasonably required to meet their special educational needs and that’s suitable for them, without impeding others receiving an efficient education, or it being an inefficient use of resources, or unreasonable public expenditure. Further, the Tribunal requires schools and colleges to provide evidence on costs. This is a far cry from the picture of insatiable demands that’s often painted in the media.
“We would refute any suggestion that an appropriate solution… would be for the Tribunal to base its decisions on anything other than the evidence and the existing law.”
Georgina Downard, IPSEA
What difference does inspection make?
Whenever accountability is discussed, the focus tends to be—correctly—on the role of inspectors and regulators. Why can’t they make the system work as it should?
Ofsted and CQC were represented at the select committee by Adam Sproston, Ofsted’s senior inspector for SEND and alternative provision, and Lucy Harte, CQC’s deputy director of multi-agency operations. They had a lot to say about how the current area SEND inspection framework operates, but it wasn’t as clear as it might have been how this is improving anything for anyone.
Darren Paffey, Labour MP for Southampton Itchen, asked them what area inspections currently tell us about the performance of local authorities. Adam Sproston said it had been a “varied picture” since the new area inspection framework was introduced at the start of 2023, but only around a quarter of areas inspected have SEND arrangements that “typically lead to positive outcomes and experiences for children and young people with SEND”.
Lucy Harte said there would be improvements in the information available on what’s happening in local areas, once Ofsted and CQC resume the ‘monitoring visits’ that are a key part of the framework and which have been on ‘pause’ since last year. These visits are supposed to happen 18 months after an area inspection has identified significant concerns, and should check whether a local area partnership is sorting out its weaknesses. Adam Sproston indicated that monitoring visits would restart this summer. And not before time.
As an illuminating aside on what MPs know and understand about the process: There was a moment of bemusement when Caroline Johnson, Conservative MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, informed the room that her local area, Lincolnshire, had been given an ‘outstanding’ grade for SEND services and that “other areas can learn from where Lincolnshire is doing things well”.
Two problems with this. The first is that area inspections don’t work like that – local area partnerships aren’t given a single word judgement in the way as schools and local authority children’s services. The second is that inspectors report that children and young people with SEND in Lincolnshire have inconsistent experiences and outcomes, and the local area partnership needs to make significant improvements. Oops.
Why can’t inspectors inspect compliance with the law?
Marie Tidball, Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, asked whether inspectors “have failed to take a rigorous approach to monitoring local area compliance with the law” and whether area inspections should include metrics such as Tribunal outcomes and complaints upheld by the Ombudsman.
Ms Tidball persisted heroically with questions on whether they monitor legal compliance, but couldn’t get more from Ofsted and CQC than an assurance that inspectors consider “a wide range of data, including Tribunal data” at the start of every inspection, that their focus is on “evaluating the experiences and outcomes of children and young people with SEND”, and they “don’t check compliance with every legal duty”. So that’ll be a ‘no’ then.
We should be proud that children and young people with SEND have the right to an education
As the last moments of the session approached, Georgina Downard took the opportunity to make clear what discussions about reforming the SEND system really boil down to.
“The way to improve accountability is not overhauling the legal framework. I think it’s very important for us to acknowledge that the fact that England’s legal framework is based on children and young people with special educational needs having the right to an education that meets those needs is something we should all be proud of. Any suggestion of diluting that [right] would be a cause of significant national shame.”
Disabled Children’s Rights are Under Attack.
We’re fighting, but we can’t do it alone: we need your help more than ever.
We’re volunteer-run, but costs are rising. To help us keep going, please consider a one-off or, if it’s possible, a regular donation.
Read more about being a regular donor here.
We use Zeffy to fundraise, which doesn’t charge us a fee, so 100% of your donation reaches us.
Also read:
- The Ofsted changes are bad news for SEND accountability
- Inquiries and injustice: the SEND Inquiry hears the parental perspective
- DfE’s word salad response to critical PAC committee report shows lack of urgency in fixing SEND
- Empty spaces and unwanted freedom: When caring comes to an end
- What are powerful council lobbying voices telling the Education Committee they really really want?
- If no news, send rumours: Education Committee scolds DfE over “White Paper” while its SEND Inquiry hears from young people.
- Spotlight on SEND funding: Education Committee inquiry MPs refuse to be taken in by anti-parent tropes
- The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Needs work to be fair to children with SEND
- Law Commission Review: Fixing a ‘bafflingly complex’ disabled children’s social care system
- Parents of disabled children traumatised by the public bodies that should be supporting them
- Beyond EHCPs: Why Inclusion Needs More Than a Document
- The Unacceptable Truth: 20 SEND legal rights at risk from the Government’s SEND reforms
- How health and family support systems are failing children starting school
- WEBINAR RECORDING! The implications for children’s legal rights to EHCPs and EOTAS of the Government’s SEND proposals
- When things go right: Shining a light on SEND Practitioners making a positive impact [Giveaway!]
- From suspicion to support: why the Government’s child protection reforms matter for disabled children
- Have your say on the future of transport for disabled children and young people
- Unison voices major concerns over SEND reform health plans for sick and disabled children out of school in the EOTAS consultation
- Top Tips for the EOTAS & EHCP consultation: Protect your child’s rights to statutory SEND support
- Navigating constraints: Why a former PCF chair thinks the current model is missing the mark for families
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them”
What kind of government is “bold” enough to scrap statutory EHCPs from vulnerable children?May 16, 2025
The SEND reforms in the Schools White Paper reveal rights given, and rights stripped awayFebruary 24, 2026
Don’t miss a thing!
Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.
You can also keep up with us by following our
Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!
SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here
When her younger daughter was diagnosed with Rett Syndrome in 2009 shortly before her second birthday, Catriona found herself dealing in practice with things she’d previously thought she understood in principle.
She juggles her work as policy manager for a national charity with caring and advocating for her daughter. She's passionate about improving the lives of disabled children and their families, and making the systems that should support them work more transparently and equitably.
Catriona writes for Special Needs Jungle in a personal capacity, and all views expressed are her own.
- “Why would anyone in government think that was an okay idea?” #SaveSENDLegalRights - May 12, 2026
- The SEND reform reality check: Why experts’ and policymakers’ concerns are growing under scrutiny - April 15, 2026
- MPs warn “unsustainable” SEND transport system fails families with disabled young people - March 6, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
