With remarkable swiftness, the Department for Education has responded to the petition I started to “Retain the legal right to assessment and support in education for children with SEND”. This petition has so far garnered over 85,000 signatures and counting. We need to get to 100k to force a parliamentary debate, so please keep sharing and if you haven’t yet, please sign.
What was the Government’s response?
The government is required to respond once a petition has received 10,000 signatures. The first thing to say is that the response did not in any way actually respond. It is a disappointing, frustrating and tone-deaf statement that completely disregards the point of the petition.
The petition stated:
“Support in education is a vital legal right of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). We ask the government to commit to maintaining the existing law, so that vulnerable children with SEND can access education and achieve their potential. It has been reported that the government is considering making changes to The Children and Families Act 2014, which sets out the legal rights to assessment and statutory support in education for disabled children. We believe that these rights do not only help vulnerable children and their families – they also reduce costs to the state in adulthood. We think that removing statutory obligations on local authorities could mean many children do not get the support they need to reach their potential.”
The government response follows:
“As part of our Plan for Change, we will restore families’ confidence and ensure that children with SEND will get the tailored support they need to achieve and thrive.
Response from Department for Education
Government’s ambition is that all children and young people with SEND or in alternative provision receive the right, tailored support to achieve and thrive in their education and as they move into adult life.
We are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in early years and mainstream settings, as well as ensuring special schools cater to children with the most complex needs. Any changes we make to the system will improve support for children and parents, stop parents from having to fight for support, and protect provision currently in place.
We will strengthen accountability and inclusivity through Ofsted, support the mainstream workforce to increase their SEND expertise, and encourage schools to set up Resourced Provision or SEN units to increase capacity in mainstream schools.
The Department is working closely with experts in convening and engaging with the sector, including leaders, practitioners, children and families on how we can deliver the better system our children need and deserve.
We have also established an expert advisory group for inclusion to improve the mainstream education outcomes and experiences for those with SEND, and a Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group to provide a shared understanding of what provision and support in mainstream educational settings should look like for neurodivergent children and young people within an inclusive system.
This work forms part of the government’s Opportunity Mission, which will break the unfair link between background and opportunity – starting with giving every child, including those with SEND, the best start in life.
We will work with the sector as essential and valued partners to deliver our shared mission and restore parents’ trust.”
What do you think? Does it respond to the purpose of the petition? Let us know in the comments here, or in reply to one of our posts on social media.
Also read: Act now! Sign and Share the Parliamentary Petition to PROTECT SEND RIGHTS!
Petition background
There is a long lead time to get approval for parliamentary petitions, so way back in December 2024, when I originally submitted the petition, the subject was extremely clear. We were asking for a commitment to maintaining the vital existing legal rights of children with SEND.
Initially, the petition was refused because changing the law had not yet been formally proposed. However, it was clear from all the lobbying by local government that this was coming. By the time the petition was processed and refused, leaks about an upcoming white paper abounded. I appealed the Petitions Committee’s decision and in April, it was finally published.
Within a few weeks, comments, by Dame Christine Lenehan, the former champion-in-chief of disabled children at the CDC, turned top government SEND adviser, hit the headlines. Speaking at a schools’ conference, Dame Christine made off-the-cuff remarks about limiting or restricting EHCPs. She also said that most EHCPs only have education, not health and care included, misrepresenting that most LAs do everything they can to avoid including health and care information or getting social care assessments for short breaks etc.
The petition explodes
As a result, we shared the petition again and the number of signatures rocketed from a few thousand to 50,000 within a week. That’s a sure sign that parents are actually quite attached to their children’s legal rights. Imagine that! Since then, the petition has been signed by more than 85,000 people who want the government to state clearly that the legal rights of vulnerable children will not be removed or rolled back.
Not only does this response fail to reassure families that their child’s legal right to the support they need will be maintained, it doesn’t mention the law at all. In effect, it isn’t a response at all. It doesn’t even succeed in its apparent aim to pacify frightened and angry families because we will not be pacified by what looks like a cut and paste collage of “Things we are doing” that don’t involve your legal rights. That’s not to say those things are not welcome, they are just beside the point in this instance.
In addition, there is nothing here to suggest the abysmal funding failures that have tied the hands of schools and local authorities will be addressed.
Could no EHCPs mean more money for schools?
Money for SEND in school and money for high needs are not the same. The funding for schools to provide non-statutory support hasn’t been increased since well before the 2014 reforms. If it had been, we might not be in the situation we are now. The failure is not one of the law, it is a failure of funding, of adequate training, and of culture. None of those will improve by scrapping any aspect of Part 3 of the Children and Families Act.
If the government believed in the plans they detail for more non-statutory support, they’d know there’s no need to limit EHCPs or scrap legal rights. The number of EHCPs and needs assessments would fall naturally.
The DfE talk about “restoring parents’ confidence” in the system. They could improve confidence by giving assurances that rights will be protected. That they haven’t tells you something, doesn’t it?
Is it really happening?
We’re not scaremongering. We’re not new to SEND, we know how things work, and you can have confidence that we will defend your children’s rights in every way we can. We are currently preparing a campaign against what may be yet another assault on disabled people—after all, Labour has a bit of a theme going here, doesnt’ it?
Every one of us would welcome a quicker, more efficient, more inclusive system with better support for children. But we know that any attempt to roll back rights are more about saving money than improving outcomes. The empty platitudes about early intervention, inclusion and their “Opportunity Mission” are not reassuring if they also intend to remove the legal rights that underpin the necessary support.
This isn’t something that will happen overnight. The previous reforms took from 2011 to 2014 to come to fruition. The road to any legislative change would be long and challenging, particularly given how many MPs are resisting the proposed changes to disability benefits. These are MPs who hear from so many families relying on these legal rights to secure support for their children. Use IPSEA’s template to write to your MP.
It is critical that we demonstrate to the government just how many of us oppose any threat to the legal rights of children. Once the petition passes 100,000 signatures, it will be debated in Parliament. We must make it clear now that any attempts to remove rights will be met with fierce opposition, before decisions are made. They will find it is not just parent carers who oppose this, but others who see how problematic it is to start reducing inconvenient rights for the most vulnerable in society.
Additional reporting by Tania Tirraoro
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:
- 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”
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
Since then, Rachel has volunteered supporting local families through the EHCP and appeal process. She is passionate about the legal rights of disabled children and empowering parents to challenge unlawful decision making.
Rachel previously worked in publishing and international events before setting up her own business as an artist and tutor. For the last six years she has worked in co-production, predominantly within maternity and reproductive health, and strongly believes that SEND services should be designed alongside those accessing them.
Rachel founded local campaign group BCP Alliance for Children & Schools (www.BCPACS.uk) bringing together parents, education staff and unions to campaign against funding and service cuts within education. She also started the national Stop Safety Valve campaign
- Focusing on ADHD and autism diagnosis won’t cut costs and wastes money that should be spent on urgent support - December 9, 2025
- ADHD and Autism Right To Choose referrals paused as at least nine NHS areas tell providers to stop booking assessments - November 28, 2025
- Challenging SEND misinformation, one radio interview at a time - November 12, 2025
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am worried that their response does not explicitly confirm that existing legal rights under the Children and Families Act 2014 will remain unchanged. With this absence of
specificity, there is room to introduce change that could weaken statutory protections offered by this Act (especially where assessment rights and Local Authority obligations are concerned). I also agree that the tone of the petition has been entirely missed; the petition is aimed at protecting existing rights, whereas the response focuses on ‘enhancements’ (aka changes).
In summary, it’s vague. I think it might even be AI generated.