Back in July, we covered the ISOS Partnership report, funded by two councils’ bodies, that made a highly dubious case for sweeping reform to the SEND system in favour of (you guessed it) local authorities (LAs). The contents of this report caused a tsunami of anger and anxiety amongst SEND campaigners, for good reason. Special Needs Jungle dissected the report that, among other things, labelled our disabled children an “existential threat” to local authority finances; suggested scrapping the SEND tribunal (despite professional pre-publication advice to remove this section); proposed ending EHCPs at age 20 and so much more. The lead researcher has no experience of working with or raising children with SEND. It was enough to make Baroness Warnock somersault in her grave.
One recommendation, that seemed particularly sinister, stood out to me: the recommendation to redefine special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). “We do not propose to tinker with the statutory definition of SEND, but instead to reframe it completely” the report asserted. Those words scared me witless, and I made a video (embedded below) focussing on it at that time.
Obfuscating the truth
As part of their redefinition of SEND, they created a “matrix”, ranging from universal to exceptional needs. The report claimed there is a “lack of clarity about how SEN and EHCPs are defined”, which is more LA wishful thinking than reality, as the law is very clear about the definition.
However, uninformed media outlets throughout the country regurgitated this report as fact and this narrative took hold in a very real way. The report felt like a turning point, in wholly the wrong direction.
But, I reassured myself, that despite this claiming to be “independent”, it is a completely biased report, funded by councils, started under a previous government. Surely a new Labour government promising change would ignore this transparent attempt to undermine the legal rights of some of the most vulnerable children in the country? Apparently not.
Government statements about plans for SEND increasingly feel lifted directly from this report. Even Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, is quick to blame failure on the system being “too skewed towards specialist provision and over-reliant on EHC plans”. Of course, legitimately improving early intervention and inclusion could reduce the need for both of these things in time, but it’s clear this is more about managing so-called “demand” than improving outcomes.
The quiet part out loud
An LGA statement for the consultation on SEND tribunals took their recommendations a step further: it suggested that to reduce pressure on the tribunal, parents should no longer be allowed to appeal when a local authority refuses to carry out an EHC needs assessment. The fact the LGA feels emboldened to make such an outrageous suggestion publicly, and in writing, should tell you everything you need to know about the current climate. This step would allow local authorities to refuse any and all EHCNA requests, with judicial review being the only remaining recourse.
You might draw conclusions that the narrative we are now seeing is another step in the “hostile environment” that began with immigration and now seems aimed at anyone costing the state money. We’re also seeing it in plans for young benefit recipients.
Responses at the recent Public Accounts Committee SEND session suggested Department for Education (DfE) officials have swallowed the ISOS report whole, with high-level witnesses parroting the LA narrative. Soundbites from government ministers lift language directly from the report, with Schools/SEND Minister, Catherine McKinnell MP, bemoaning the “lack of parental confidence” in the system. While she agrees it’s important that children are “thriving”, there’s the caveat that this should be “alongside peers” in mainstream schools, as if children in special schools don’t make friends with their schoolmates, or they somehow don’t count. If there were any hope the government would be seeking balance to the LA view, it is fading into invisibility.
Redefining SEND (or trying, at least…)
In that Public Accounts Committee session with the DfE, we heard Permanent Secretary, Susan Acland-Hood, giving voice to this “redefinition” as fact. She mangled section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014 into a definition anyone who understands the law knows to be untrue. I covered this in detail in my article on that meeting, but in essence, she claimed SEND only exists relative to what’s available generally in mainstream schools, which is shocking for someone in her position.
It is need, not availability, that determines special educational provision. Special educational provision simply means needing more provision than peers without SEND. For example, you could put a sign language interpreter in every classroom in England, but most children could access their education whether they were there or not. It’s not the availability, it’s the need.
If you’ve ever wondered why DfE schemes seem so fixated on this concept of “ordinarily available provision”, this is why… and it’s a huge problem for disabled children, as we’ll see.
Remember, Wales changed the term from SEND to Additional Learning Needs (ALN) and look how that’s gone. Apparently, SEND was “over-identified” in the past, leading to a 20% drop in the number of children identified as having ALN, despite the legal definition being unchanged. Families and law firms in Wales have repeatedly sounded the alarm over the deterioration in the level of support in Wales, and the Welsh government admits the system is failing. This effort to redefine SEND is not without precedent, and the result has been worse for children and families, so this must be resisted strenuously.
What else are they trying to redefine?
Our columnist, Catriona Moore, recently wrote an excellent blog for IPSEA, where she is Policy Manager, on the prolific use of the term “innovative” when plans are really “unlawful”. Other common terms such as “inclusion” and “mainstream” mean resource bases and units; “specialist” is only for the “most complex needs”; “needs” become “demands”. In this brave new world of SEND “demand management”, the meanings of all of these terms, and many more, are up for grabs.
In Worcestershire meanwhile, the council is offering to move children with “limited SEND” back into mainstream “with parents’ permission” (good luck with that).
Even “disappointment” is reframed, with Ofsted’s 2024 annual report claiming there will never be enough resources for SEND and this will “always leave some families disappointed”. It is not “disappointing” when your child can’t access an effective education, it’s devastating. Life-ruining. Unbearable.
Ofsted cites “inclusion” and “early intervention” without defining either other than the “needs of many children with SEND can and should be met in mainstream schools with high-quality targeted support”. “Can” and “should” are not the same as “is” and it hasn’t been true in many schools for a very long time.
Classifying levels of need
The ISOS matrix places “profound” SEND below “exceptional”, and while many specialist schools are set up for those with “profound” learning disabilities, “exceptional” is not actually a thing.
What do any of these classifications mean? There’s no clarity, which exacerbates the fear of parents. The flexibility and crudity of these terms, the ability to apply them based on the whims of decision-makers and the financial status of a local authority, is what makes this so worrying. If your specialist schools are at capacity and you can classify a child’s needs as profound rather than exceptional to keep them in mainstream, why wouldn’t you do that? As long as it keeps your budget down this year, why worry about the longer-term consequences? When you’re fighting a fire, you’re not going to concern yourself with water damage.
There is a good reason why the legal definition of SEND is broad; it trusts the relevant professionals to assess children’s unique, individual needs (although we know some LAs put pressure on the specialist assessors it employs to be deliberately vague, while refusing to accept independent reports). However, if it becomes national policy that only children with “profound” or “exceptional” needs require specialist placements, and a council can decide what those terms mean, mainstream schools will complain very loudly of imminent collapse.
*Enter our GIVEAWAY: Making Lawful Decisions by Victoria Butler-Cole KC and Steve Broach KC*
Delivering Better Value, not better outcomes, is the priority
The Delivering Better Value in SEND report released recently was full of such manipulation of language. The scheme’s primary aim was to reduce, reduce, reduce—to cut both the number of EHCPs and the number of independent placements by 20%, and the number of specialist placements by 2%. Unsurprisingly, when you start from that point, you will find ways to get there.
From that perspective, DBV has been a roaring success—it’s found you can reduce even further! The report claims “65% of the children and young people reviewed could have had their needs met in a different provision”. And by different, they mean cheaper. They specify as much: 30,000 children with EHCPs don’t need a statutory plan, 35,000 can be moved from maintained specialist placements to mainstream, independent placements can be cut by 75%, and the number of children in mainstream resource bases can be increased by 370%. Such good news… for local authorities. Not so much for children and families or for mainstream schools, that don’t have the capacity or training to manage this massive influx. The supporting information states they were looking for ways to “improve outcomes within the current legislative and operating framework”. Strangely, the direction given to participating LAs to disregard resource and capacity issues while making these determinations hasn’t been included alongside the figures.
As Matt Keer recently explained, the underpinning assumptions of the Delivering Better Value programme are fundamentally flawed. Basing system reform on this and a biased LA-funded report is inherently dishonest. They are not looking to reduce unmet needs, but to reduce near-term costs. That more disabled children will need greater support in adulthood as a result is ignored. Misrepresenting efficacy and not specifying outcomes makes it harder to challenge these findings which, I suspect, is exactly the point.
A smoking gun: what Delivering Better Value really means
Rutland council is part of both the Delivering Better Value and SEND Change Programme. According to the DfE, these schemes are proving hugely beneficial to councils, children and families, and schools. The fact that Rutland Council felt compelled to publicly state that the government have failed to intervene should tell you otherwise.
We’ve long known that schemes like Delivering Better Value and Safety Valve attempt to reframe and redefine various elements of the system, but the DfE is reasonably cautious about its wording. Often, it’s local authority paperwork that reveals the truth, as IPSEA found in its Safety Valve investigation. Papers for Rutland’s children’s scrutiny committee provide a perfect breakdown of how this redefinition works and why we should worry about it. Aside from the alarming suggestion of a new ‘innovative’ process for EHCP annual reviews that will ‘rigorously evaluate’ whether plans should be ceased, there’s a page on Delivering Better Value that perfectly captures the Orwellian nature of these attempted changes.
“The key outcomes of this programme are that:
a) children are assisted to grow and succeed in mainstream school and to get practical help at the right time in the right way which avoids exclusions”
“b) children’s needs are identified and assessed quickly and the graduated response followed”
DBV report
Why specify that the exclusive aim is to support children in mainstream? The underpinning aims of the legislation exist to ensure services are individualised and child-centred. This is not that.
A local authority cannot lawfully insist the “Assess Plan Do Review” of SEN Support is followed before an EHC needs assessment is carried out. But, like many LAs, it seems Rutland intends to use it as a barrier to a child’s legal right to assessment. Why doesn’t it mention the statutory route for identifying and assessing SEND within a statutory timeframe? That becomes clear below…
“c) settings having a greater understanding of unmet needs and the known links to behaviour and learning and therefore are better able to meet most needs within a mainstream environment.”
Understanding unmet needs and their impact does not mean you can magically meet them. It certainly doesn’t mean that most needs can be met in mainstream schools. This is not about determining which children would benefit from mainstream education and that their needs are met. It’s about shoehorning disabled children into inappropriate settings in the name of cost-savings.
“This will in turn mean that;
d) EHCPs are seldom needed except to support the most complex of needs in mainstream, and only in exceptional cases will a child need an alternative setting other than mainstream.”
DBV
Absolutely not. Flippantly stating that all those without the “most complex of needs” can be supported in mainstream is not based in reality. EHCPs are needed when they are needed. The whole point of a low legal threshold for assessment is to ensure a child who may have SEND, and may need more provision than pupils without SEND, has their needs identified. Then, if necessary, a statutory plan is put in place which is legally enforceable.
SEN support is not enforceable (though it should be) and, when school budgets get tight, can be removed without warning or consequence. This is precisely what has happened over the last decade, and is a clear reason for the increase in the number of children and young people with EHCPs. Even ISOS and the DfE agree there is insufficient non-statutory support and that requesting an assessment in this context is “rational”.
In a system where a child’s needs are properly met without a statutory plan, the number of statutory plans will undoubtedly fall. Does Rutland mention how they’re going to improve non-statutory support while cutting their SEND spending? Of course not.
e) Therefore, through better understanding, training and experience of supporting complex needs, Rutland’s mainstream settings will become specialist in their own right. This will lead to fewer children with SEND being excluded from mainstream education, because these settings are confident that they can meet needs and in cases of behaviours that challenge they are able to de-escalate situations by providing the appropriate support.
DBV
And there it is. The terms “mainstream” and “specialist” have specific meanings in law. The Children and Families Act 2014 defines “mainstream school” as a maintained school or an academy “that is not a specialist school”. A mainstream school cannot “become specialist” in terms of the legal definitions, which must be maintained.
“Confidence” is similarly subject to redefinition. Confidence in the face of contradictory evidence is usually called delusion. “Lack of confidence” is usually used to blame parents for distrusting a system that has failed and often traumatised their children. Increasingly, it’s being used in a new way: the confidence of schools to meet needs.
Aside from “greater understanding”, this document doesn’t list anything that schools will receive to make them feel “confident” in meeting needs. If I were running a school, I’d be asking the government to prove there are sufficient resources before expecting my confidence.
Why does this matter?
For years, SNJ, IPSEA, and other campaigners have been warning of the risks of legislative change, particularly after the SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan was published. A reduction in rights for disabled children, as proposed by local government and their pet researchers, ISOS Partnership, would be devastating, but it would also be a lengthy and complex process. What if you don’t need to change the law at all? What if you only need to stealthily redefine the group of people to whom the law applies? Much easier.
If a child isn’t considered to meet the definition of SEND, then they’re not entitled to an EHC needs assessment and their legal right to statutory support evaporates. Hearing the DfE attempt to warp the legal meaning of SEND in their session with the Public Accounts Committee was beyond disturbing. It seems that significant efforts have been made to reinterpret the legal wording to exclude many disabled children, and they now believe they have succeeded in that aim. Children can (apparently) be removed from that category by making more support “ordinarily available”, but this certainly doesn’t negate the learning difficulties or disabilities as defined in the Children and Families Act 2014.
Muddying the definitions of mainstream and specialist has the same result. If you can call a mainstream school specialist, how can you advocate for your child’s rights under the law?
Legislative change remains an even greater concern, especially now it’s clear the ISOS report has found an audience with the DfE. If you couple these redefinitions with removing or reducing access to an appeal process, we’ll be looking at a generation of lost children. What will happen to children for whom “ordinarily available provision” is inadequate, but who will not be able to get more intensive support or a specialist place? They will be discarded by the education system and will never have the chance to reach their potential. SEND campaigners won’t stand by and let it happen.
Also read:
- Delivering better value in SEND? Much of a new review is based on deep and fatal flaws that may uproot the SEND system
- NAO: The Government has no clear SEND plan and should consider “whole-system reform” to incentivise mainstream inclusion
- Will £740m make mainstream truly accessible? Plus SEND safety valve deals halted—we call that a win!
- Ordinarily Available Provision Part 2: What does it look like and what difference does it make? by Philippa Stobbs OBE
- Ordinarily Available Provision for SEND: Friend or Foe? Part 1 from Philippa Stobbs OBE
- More “bold” reform for SEND and more children in mainstream—but how mainstream is it really?
- Commons committee lets the Department for Education off the hook—so we’ll do the scrutiny instead
- What’s happening with the SEND & AP Change Programme— November 2024 update
- Too many children arrive in AP with no needs assessment—schools need to be more curious about the “why”
- Raising awareness of Developmental Language Disorder to get better access to support
- 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
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.
