Someone, clearly, was not prepared to wait for Monday’s expected reveal of the Schools White Paper, with its feared SEND section in whatever form that will be.
Yesterday, The Times leaked Government proposals for changing special educational needs support that supposedly make up part of the Schools White Paper. These proposals have been roundly condemned by campaigners and some charities–unless you happen to be one of those in the Government’s inner circle, either by funding or ambition. And of course, silence from local authorities, who seem to be getting off pretty much free of responsibilities.
What’s most striking about these leaks is not just the content, but the manner of their arrival. Families have spent months in limbo, waiting for clarity about reforms that will shape their children’s futures. To have key elements drip‑fed through anonymous briefings is yet another reminder of how little regard is shown for the people most affected. Disabled children should never be the subject of policy‑by‑leak.
What was leaked?
This article is not going to look in depth at the leaked proposals– we’d rather wait until the actual proposals are here before we comment. However, here are a few of the lowlights, without our response, that were trailed. As a health warning, we don’t know how accurate these are, but they have sent families into a panic– a look at the comments on our Facebook page will tell you that.
- Review children’s legal right to SEND support at transition to secondary (age ~11) under stricter criteria
- Scale back “rigid” statutory requirements in SEND system
- Remove EHCP eligibility for “less complex/serious needs” (incl many autistic/ADHD children)
- Introduce 3-tier system; EHCPs only for highest tier
- Replace EHCPs for lower tiers with “individual support plans” decided/provided by schools
- Reassess existing EHCPs at end of each phase from 2029–30 (primary→secondary, leaving at 16, etc.)
- National “specialist provision packages” panel defines who qualifies for highest tier
- Distinguish “predictable” vs “exceptional” needs; only “exceptional” justify top tier
- Reform SEND funding so schools (not councils) cover the entire cost of meeting pupils’ needs (no extra subsidy)
- Give extra funding to “train and hire staff” incl £40m/3yrs for EPs + SLTs
- Cap independent special school fees at ~£60k per pupil
- Expand “inclusion bases” / mainstream units and “tens of thousands of new places”
- White paper + 12-week consultation
These proposals clearly drive a cart and horses through the Children and Families Act 2014– legislation that NO ONE has identified as being bad law. No one.
It’s increasingly clear that the SEND part of the White Paper, again leaked as to be more like a Green “discussion” paper, is there purely and simply as a cost-saving measure. None of the ideas above are based on evidence–not even the “Inclusion bases” that Minister Georgia Gould said they would “build an evidence base for”—whether that will be sooner or later than the arrival of the non-statutory guidance that is being created is highly doubtful.
Also highly doubtful is whether the accessible versions of the White Paper and Consultation response routes will be out on the same day. We can live in hope, but if they aren’t, there is no greater sign that the Department for Education does not care about the responses of disabled people than that.
What will SNJ be doing?
When the WP is published, the team at SNJ will try to give you a fast overnight initial response. We’re not a big full-time team, but our unsung volunteer heroes will use the best of their knowledge and experience to analyse what we can, so you can have an overview.
Then, over the next couple of weeks, we will break down the constituent parts of the documents to help you to respond to the 12-week consultation.
If you think you have something to offer here in support, let us know. If you would like to help us by making a donation, we would be delighted; we just can’t keep doing this for free, but without SNJ, who will tell you the unvarnished truth?
What happened to the “National SEND Conversation”?
As we said at the time, the performative shambles of a one-sided conversation wasted everyone’s time and money. Do you really think that, after truly understanding what parents said about legal guarantees, they would have come up with what was trailed yesterday– if indeed it’s accurate?
If ministers are basing these reforms on months of ‘conversations’ with their SEND Development Group and hand‑picked stakeholders, then those involved now have a responsibility to be transparent about what they said, what they challenged, and what they endorse. Families deserve to know how their “representatives” contributed to discussions that may reshape their children’s rights. There may have been an understandable need to maintain confidentiality then; there isn’t now.
If these leaked plans reflect what was discussed behind closed doors, then accountability is essential. If they do not reflect those discussions, then families need to hear that too—clearly and publicly.
For years, the government has insisted SEND reform would be co‑produced or co-created with families and the sector. If the final outcome is to propose a dilution of rights, those around the table must be prepared to explain how their involvement has been used, and whether they pushed back. Silence now would only deepen the mistrust created by these leaks.
When will they respond to the Education Committee?
It’s also impossible to ignore how far these leaked plans appear to drift from the Education Committee’s recommendations. After months of evidence‑gathering, Helen Hayes’ Committee called for stability, proper funding, and a rights‑led system built on trust. Instead, what families are seeing bears little resemblance to that roadmap. If the government ignores the findings and doesn’t respond in full, as they have a legal duty to do, it owes the sector a clear explanation of why that expert scrutiny has been disregarded.
After the 2019 Education Committee SEND Inquiry the Government of the day responded by launching the SEND Review–a way to take away focus from the inquiry and its findings. This seems to be a similar gambit–responding by not responding but pretending to do so. It’s appalling. Because all they’ll get now is:
- SEND Inquiry recommendation 1: Response: The Government is launching the biggest revolution in SEND blah blah.
- SEND Inquiry recommendation 2: Response: The Government is launching the biggest revolution in SEND blah blah.
- Etc etc
Why the leaks?
Other pertinent questions are, who is leaking, why, and why hasn’t the DfE stopped it before now? Either they have:
- Very disloyal staff who want to damage the DfE and/or Government
- The leaker is aghast at the proposals and wants to get the news out to drum up opposition; or…
- The leaker has the approval of the DfE to do this, to get the outrage out of the way, so the outcry won’t distract from their “big reveal” of the other policies in the White Paper. Those pesky parents, eh?
None of these reflects well on the Department, the ministers, or the Government as a whole. And our outrage will not be “got out of the way” that easily.
Funding Independent Special Schools—or not
A few hours after these leaks, the Department for Education desperately scraped together issued a press release, embargoed until 10:30pm last night, announcing they would be setting new national price bands and statutory SEND-specific standards for independent special schools, with “full cost transparency.”
The stated aim is to “clamp down on spiralling independent special school fees,” claiming—without a clear chain of reasoning—this will mean “thousands more children with SEND will get the support that helps them achieve and thrive.”
The DfE didn’t:
- Specify the value of the new price bands,
- Specify the nature or strength of the standards
- State how they would work out the value of the price bands.
- State whether the bands would include residential and social care costs.
- State whether non-maintained special schools would fall into this category, or when the new arrangements would apply.
- They also didn’t clarify whether “full cost transparency” will also apply to state provision.
The DfE announcement also claimed that “new research shows that children with SEND in mainstream perform half a grade better at GCSE than their peers in special schools.”
The DfE chose not to provide a link to (or sources) for this research, a silent, but eloquent, comment on their own stated commitment to place evidence “at the heart” of the SEND reforms.
It’s also a line that makes it painfully obvious how little they understand parents. Many families end up seeking special school provision simply so that their kids can survive, let alone thrive. The number of us in this boat who give a toss about half a marginal GCSE grade? Tiny, especially if the downside risk is our kids becoming broken and lonely humans. Why are these people being allowed to develop policy that will make or break our children and their futures?
Beware those inconvenient, unintended consequences
No one here is going to shed any tears about private equity profits being choked off. But policy design is often about avoiding unexpected landmines. Skilled policymakers will have foreseen the very obvious risk here: that profit-seeking locusts leave the sector very quickly and at no notice, leaving tens of thousands of kids with the most complex needs without an education and with nowhere else to go that can meet need. It’s why they’re rich—they don’t waste a single thought on the “little people” left without.
Skilled policymakers would have mitigated this risk through timely investment in extra therapeutic capacity (one of the main reasons for the sector cost differential), adding this resource to state schools well in advance of telegraphing this policy change, and giving state specialist settings sufficient financial and place headroom to deal with the changes.
Given the policy and comms disaster-class of the last 12 months, is anyone willing to bet that there are skilled policymakers at the helm of SEND reform?
Where’s the evidence–and the staff?
We mentioned evidence earlier. Evidence-based practice is something that’s talked about a lot in education. We would like to see the evidence for each of the policy proposals clearly set out, if any such evidence exists. It’s not good enough to suggest that a particular policy works elsewhere in the world–there needs to be proof of concept for children in this country, living lives in this education system.
One more thing that we have not seen hinted anywhere, is where they will get the vast increase in teachers and support staff needed to support all these children arriving in mainstream, freshly turfed from their special schools. And from where are the hordes of specialist staff for the mainstream bases arriving? If anything, these plans are most likely to create or accelerate an exodus of experienced teachers from mainstream schools.
Our focus on rights—and on helping you
Disabled children and their families have waited years for a stable, lawful, properly funded SEND system. They deserve clarity, honesty, and meaningful involvement, not uncertainty created by leaks. Whatever reforms are being proposed in the White Paper, SNJ will continue to scrutinise them through one lens only: children’s rights. And that’ll be framed by how we can support parents.
When we do see the actual documents, please do not despair. These proposals are far from a foregone conclusion, even once they reach Parliament after a consultation. What has been leaked so far may well be far from the total picture. Let’s hope so.
Special Needs Jungle will be with you every step, as will our partners at Save Our Children’s Rights.
Our advice for the time being
Do not feel pressured into responding to the consultation immediately. Take your time, use the resources we will be putting out. Take as long as you need. 12 weeks takes us almost to the May half-term. There is no rush. We will certainly not be rushing. You may not have been here before, but we have—several times. We’ve got you.
You’ve given SNJ your time and trust for 18 years, and we’re grateful for that. We won’t let you down now. We have perspective, experience, and knowledge, and we will share it with you.
What you CAN do now is two things:
- subscribe above or follow on our WhatsApp Channel so you can share our White Paper articles when they’re out, and
- Make your views known to your MP about the proposed changes once the White Paper is published, and throughout the parliamentary scrutiny process. Every MP needs to know what their constituents think before voting, and to understand the strength of opposition. Urge them to hold open meetings to hear your views. Tell them about our campaign. Tell them to get in touch with us. IPSEA has a template letter here.
The most important message for now
For now, the most important message for families is simple: nothing has changed.
- EHCPs remain in force.
- Legal duties remain in force.
- Local authorities and schools cannot lawfully downgrade, remove, or refuse support because of leaked or published proposals.
Legislative change won’t be happening this year or next year, whatever anyone tries to tell you. Read our article on that here, and palace share it,
Children’s existing rights stand. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!
SNJ Directors speaking about the leak yesterday
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:
- Big ideas belong to everyone: Education, rights and lifelong learning for people with learning disabilities
- As The Guardian prints our joint campaign’s open letter, it’s clear people with lived experience don’t want to lose SEND rights
- How do you ensure pathways to education, health, and social care support, meet both diagnosis and needs?
- Researching flexi-schooling: How beneficial is it for children with SEND?
- Oops, we did it again… The Government must now listen to more than 100,000 people who do not want to lose SEND rights
- Experts at Hand: When is an occupational therapist also a SEND expert?
- Could using AI to filter Government consultation responses lead to “algorithmic silencing” of neurodivergent voices?
- A council’s “improvement journey”? How determined SEND parents catalogued the trail of their LA’s unlawful behaviour
- Research: Social networks in special schools. Friendships, bullying and play
- CrowdJustice SEND accountability: When the law says “must”, local authorities cannot treat it as “maybe”
- DfE must give its SEND reform Child Rights Impact Assessment a do-over; this time, without marking its own homework
- Research: SEND case officers are LAs’ “human shield” gatekeepers. But parents shouldn’t have to be their own key workers
- Not in our name: How manufacturing consent for proposed SEND reforms has broken the social contract.
- Part 2: The Testimonies. Children died; the system looked away. Will government SEND reforms make this scandal even worse?
- Children died. The system looked away. Today, the Government is calling the human cost of cutting rights, “reform” [Part 1]
- Evaluating SEND change: Promising prototypes, patchy proof
- Down Syndrome Act Guidance Consultation: Why you should care (even if you don’t have Down’s syndrome)
- EXCLUSIVE: Plans for digital, standardised EHCPs ditched. Does Labour want to kill off statutory SEND provision completely?
- What kind of government is “bold” enough to scrap statutory EHCPs from vulnerable children?
- DfE’s word salad response to critical PAC committee report shows lack of urgency in fixing SEND
- How Plymouth is approaching “Ordinarily Available Provision” for pupils with SEND
- SNJ’s advice and prompts for submitting evidence to the 2025 Education Select Committee’s SEND Inquiry
- 55% rise in 2024 SEND Tribunal appeals. LAs’ 1.3% success rate cost £153m. The cost to families? Incalculable
- Language matters: Why the definition of SEND is shifting, and why we should be worried
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
- Big ideas belong to everyone: Education, rights and lifelong learning for people with learning disabilities - October 12, 2026
- As The Guardian prints our joint campaign’s open letter, it’s clear people with lived experience don’t want to lose SEND rights - October 9, 2026
- How do you ensure pathways to education, health, and social care support, meet both diagnosis and needs? - October 7, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
