Imagine, if you will… It’s a Friday afternoon—we’ve all been there. As the weekend looms, you get a late-breaking message from your friendly neighbourhood SEND services sociopath. It usually contains bad news; usually weasel-worded, always too late to get an immediate answer, and always—always—wrecking your weekend.
It now looks like parts of central government have caught the same habit, with Whitehall “insiders” deciding the best way to test the roiling waters of SEND change is by yet more anonymous journalist briefings. Last Friday, two articles with similar SEND content came out. One was in the Financial Times, the other in the iPaper. We don’t know the accuracy of either. But from what they’ve come up with, it seems like the water is circling the plughole.
If the leaks are true, it seems children with SEND are about to embark on a Government-sponsored version of the Hunger Games, where they are forced to compete for scarce resources and only the fittest survive to claim the ultimate prize: an education that meets their needs.
These two paywalled articles may just be kite-flying—people airing deniable ideas in public, to gauge the reaction of MPs and the public. It’s equally possible rival parts of Whitehall are using journalists as a way to get their (terrible) pet ideas adopted, or things they don’t like dropped.
Of course, none of these brave briefers has gone on the record. The articles feature second and third-hand views of unnamed “people familiar with the proposals”, “one of those briefed on the plans,” “sources,” and “an insider.” It’s best to bring a lorryload of salt when listening to what these anonymous heroes have to say.
But still, we have to share these rumours, so we can critically examine them. Because one thing that’s beyond doubt: it is contemptible to treat children, young people, parents, carers, and frontline SEND staff this way. And if Special Needs Jungle do not bring a critical lens to these discussions and bring this critique into the public domain, who will?
So let’s get to it…
Tiers for Fears
Given the spot of carefully choreographed ‘conversation’ with the Department for Education “listening” to parents, you’d think there would be a period of quiet contemplation while these views were considered. Mais non!
The main “proposal” floated is for pupils to be allocated “digital passports” and slotted into a multi-tiered system. (iPaper, 23 January 2026).
According to “sources,” SEN support would first be provided through this series of ‘tiers’, with the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) reserved for pupils “with the most severe needs” either at the top tier, or after “top tier” support has proved inadequate.
It’s suggested there will be three or four tiers of SEN support, depending on which report you read. It appears that, despite the Schools White Paper apparently being imminent, the precise definition of support in each tier is still being worked out. This is unfathomable.
If these reports are true, (and we have heard talk recently of a “ladder of support”) children with SEND could be required to climb (or fall down) a ladder of failure, being forced to struggle at each rung before moving to the next. Under this scheme, children would likely start by receiving “universal” support. If this isn’t enough, children would “move through the tiers until their needs are met.” One of the reports says, “it is understood” this tiered system would only apply to children whose needs “progress over time.” If their needs then top over the highest rung, they would “qualify” for an EHCP. The same report claims children “born with complex needs, such as cerebral palsy,” will get an EHCP “from birth.”
SEND in retrograde
Such a model risks hard‑wiring a rigid, linear interpretation of the existing SEN Support Assess–Plan–Do–Review (APDR) cycle, with no meaningful exit route for children and young people who already have high levels of need, or who are in, or approaching, crisis. It could leave them stuck for years in unsuitable placements without the specialist provision they require, simply because they have not yet “failed” enough times to qualify as ‘severe’ enough for statutory support. It risks turning EHCPs into a last‑resort mechanism rather than a proactive tool for securing the right support at the right time.
In fact, this appears to signal a slide back to the pre‑2014 system of School Action, School Action Plus and Statements, without any recognition that the education landscape has fundamentally changed.
Local authorities no longer have the specialist teams they once relied on, and schools are working with increasingly stretched budgets and too few staff. The staff they have are at breaking point. Meanwhile, post-pandemic, every school has seen a growth in the complexity of children’s needs. It is naïve to assume that reviving an old model will work when the conditions that supported it have all but disappeared.
Two important questions
There are two crucial points here:
- When will children get a thorough needs assessment? If the current system worked as it’s supposed to, a proper assessment (though not statutory) should happen at the outset of a need being identified. I.e, a concern is raised, parents are involved, evidence is gathered—including external assessments (ed psych, speech, OT, etc). An SEN Support plan is created, monitored, and adjusted over a few months.
However, because of specialists shortages, this vital external input is often missed out. School assessment can focus too much on an academic need, rather than the more complicated profiles of neurodivergent pupils. There is no set number of cycles of APDR, and children with significant needs do not need to go through this cycle. But without a full specialist needs assessment early, how do they know? How would more tiers improve this? It doesn’t need extra tiers; the existing system needs to be complied with. You can do this in schools by:- introducing statutory guidance for Ordinarily Available Provision,
- improving the guidance for SEN Support (Or makinng SEN Support statutory), and
- increasing the number of specialists and support staff.
- Will they try to increase the threshold at which a statutory assessment is triggered? This is deliberately low, and wasn’t changed in the 2014 reforms (below). But by the time an EHCP is needed, we’re way past “may have”— hence the need for this to be applied at the outset alongside statutory SEN Support, ensuring it’s put into action in school classrooms.
The local authority must secure an EHC needs assessment for the child or young person if, after having regard to any views expressed and evidence submitted under subsection (7), the authority is of the opinion that—
(a) the child or young person has or may have special educational needs, and
(b) it may be necessary for special educational provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan.
(section 36(8) of the Children and Families Act 2014).
A loss of rights
But under these purported proposals, most children with SEND could lose the right to individual support, with schools given more leeway over how to support pupils. So instead of support commissioned per child to fulfil their EHCP, schools could be given funding to commission services, such as educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, and provide support for groups of children.
As mentioned, there is a crisis in educational support specialists. Schools cannot commission services that do not exist, and they have no control over workforce capacity, recruitment, or retention. This risks making worse the postcode lottery in which access to specialist input depends on local availability rather than children’s assessed needs.
This is not the early intervention the Government promised, and it is certainly not led by children and young people’s individual needs. It is setting children with SEND and teachers up for failure. If these proposals move forward, they could increase conflict between families and schools, drive greater reliance on the Equality Act 2010, and deepen mistrust in a system that is already under immense strain.
A shift in the direction of accountability
The Financial Times reporting (23 January 2026), adds another deeply troubling dimension to the Government’s emerging SEND plans. Rather than addressing why families are forced to appeal, the reported solution appears to be restricting parents’ legal entitlements to secure specialist help and limiting appeals over local authority decisions. SEND Tribunal appeals have risen from just over 3,000 a decade ago to more than 25,000 last year; ministers are said to be looking for ways to reduce this ever-increasing number.
The direction of travel is unmistakable: instead of fixing a system that repeatedly fails children, the Government seems to be exploring ways to make it harder for families to challenge those failures. This framing treats appeals as an administrative inconvenience rather than a symptom of systemic dysfunction. Removing appeal rights would be punishing families instead of law-breaking councils—a disgusting way for a Labour government to behave—but, it seems, par for the course for this one.
With EHCPs reserved only for those whose needs are judged “severe,”* the vast majority of decisions about provision will be made inside the school, not through a statutory process. Under such a system, families could find themselves with no clear route to challenge decisions about the “tier” their child is placed in, the support allocated, or the adequacy of that support.
The right to appeal currently applies to decisions about EHCPs, refusals to assess, refusals to issue, and the content of plans. But if most support is outside the EHCP framework, most decisions will fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This would leave families reliant on internal school processes, complaints procedures, or the Equality Act, none of which provide the same legal force, independence, or enforceability as the SEND Tribunal. This would represent a significant shift in the balance of accountability within the SEND system.
Weakening the right to appeal would entrench inequality, reduce accountability, and leave children with needs unmet, while councils face even less scrutiny over unlawful decisions. It would weaken the only independent mechanism families currently have to secure lawful provision.
A system that removes or restricts appeal rights is not a needs‑led system. It is a system that relies on trust without offering accountability. That leaves children’s support dependent on local capacity, school culture, and professional availability rather than enforceable rights.
SEND funding to face overhaul
One report says—again quoting “sources”—that the SEND funding system will be “rebuilt from scratch,” with schools expected to get “a lot more money,” but with “significant requirements” attached to that funding.
Without clarity about these requirements, this raises immediate concerns about whether funding will be tied to compliance with the new tiered model, performance metrics, or expectations that schools absorb responsibilities previously held by local authorities or specialist services. More money is meaningless if it is accompanied by obligations that are unrealistic, unworkable, or simply shift pressure from one overstretched part of the system to another.
The proposal to give groups of schools a shared pot of money to commission services such as NHS psychologists or speech and language therapists may sound efficient, but it again ignores that fundamental reality: the national shortage of these professionals. Pooling budgets does not conjure up additional EPs, SaLTs, or OTs, nor does it address the recruitment and retention crisis across the specialist workforce. This will only entrench inequity by leaving children dependent on local availability, rather than assessed need.
Most concerning is the reported shift away from funding attached to individual children via EHCPs. While this would give schools far greater discretion over how to allocate resources, it would also remove the only mechanism that currently guarantees a child’s legal entitlement to provision. Without individualised funding, children with significant needs could be absorbed into generic “group support,” or units/hubs with no enforceable rights and no recourse when provision falls short. This is a profound weakening of the person-centred and co-produced system the Children and Families Act was designed to protect.
Finally, the promise of £3bn to create 60,000 SEND places in mainstream schools raises questions about what these places actually represent, as we have previously discussed. Are they genuinely inclusive, well‑supported placements with the right expertise and therapeutic input? Or are they simply additional seats in buildings, without the infrastructure needed to meet children’s needs?
Taken together, the proposals reported by the iPaper suggest a system moving away from individual rights and towards school‑level discretion, without addressing the structural shortages or accountability mechanisms that currently drive families to fight for support. More money in the system is welcome, but only if it strengthens the legal protections that ensure children and young people receive the educational provision they need.
Missing over 16s
Neither the iNews nor the FT article mentions the rights of young people over 16. What happens post‑16, when young people gain their own legal rights to request assessments, challenge decisions, and appeal to the SEND Tribunal?
Currently, disabled young people aged 16–25 hold independent rights to assessment and appeal. These rights do not disappear simply because they have left compulsory schooling. Yet there is no indication that the Government’s reforms have considered what happens post‑16, let alone post‑18. If the proposed “four‑tier system” is built around school‑led support, it is entirely unclear how it would operate once a young person moves into further education, specialist colleges, apprenticeships or training.
The silence is even more troubling given the reports of possible curbs on appeal rights. Nothing explains whether young people would retain their own rights of appeal, or whether the system effectively ends at 18—despite the current legal entitlement to support up to age 25. If most support is shifted outside the EHCP framework, young people could lose the only enforceable route they have to challenge inadequate provision.
The risk is clear: a school‑based tiered system, combined with reduced access to EHCPs, could leave young people with no statutory protection, no enforceable provision, and no meaningful route to challenge decisions.
And yet more delays…
And what of the claim that implementing changes to SEND will be delayed until after the next election? Both reports say the Schools White Paper with details of these reforms will be published sometime in February. They both claim, without any sourcing at all, that implementation of SEND changes is likely to be delayed until at least the 2029-2030 academic year. In other words, nothing will change until after the next general election.
It’s not totally implausible. Shunting things to the next government to handle is what the Tories did with the 2022-23 SEND and AP Green Paper and Implementation Plan. But it would be morally, administratively and politically deranged.
The SEND system’s been under review for over six years already. Things have deteriorated a lot over that period. These articles suggest that system reform won’t be implemented until September 2029 at the earliest. Things won’t improve with a few more years of chin-stroking and pilot projects—they’re highly likely to get much worse.
There is literally no one who would benefit from delaying things until 2029. No one.
The real “perverse incentive”
Policy wonks like to talk about perverse incentives. The government has already made two pledges:
- it won’t remove ‘effective’ SEND provision from kids that already have it, and
- it will pick up the tab for SEND spending deficits from 2028 onwards.
If the details in these articles are legit, then mainstream schools and families can expect entitlement to EHCPs to get cut in a few years, but potentially not for those already with plans. From 2028, it’ll be Whitehall that picks up the tab if high-needs budgets get blown.
If this is the future, it’ll incentivise schools, colleges and families to apply for EHC needs assessments for children and young people on an even larger scale than now. LAs might resist this hard, at least initially, but in a couple of years, it’ll be Whitehall that picks up the extra billions of pounds of spending.
Legislative timetables and long grass
Does it even make sense politically to implement things in 2029? It’s hard to see how. The SEND changes that are being hinted at would require changes to the law. If the current government decides to activate new SEND legislation in 2029—after the next general election—that won’t spare them much political pain.
If that was to happen in September 2029, it would have to go through Parliament in 2028 and early 2029. In this scenario, the gory details of what the government is planning couldn’t be hidden behind anonymous briefings. In the run-up to the next election, the government’s plans would be very, very clear—and very, very exploitable by any rival political party. Facing this sort of pressure, it’s hard to see vulnerable Labour MPs with small majorities and irate constituents waving the reforms through—especially given many have already voiced their opposition to cutting rights.
Education funding reform could happen separately, and potentially could happen before the election. This might appear less like a frontal assault on children’s rights. But SEND funding is so complex and deeply broken that rebuilding it “from scratch” will cause immense damage and upheaval. So if the plan is to delay SEND reform until after the next election, there’s a strong chance that we won’t see it at all.
In the meantime, the party continues for SEND insiders. A DfE drinks reception last week, and in a couple of months’ time, there’s this year’s What Works in SEND Awards, which inadvertently sum up the spirit of things right now. More on that to come…
Come what may*
Tomorrow, we’ll be looking in more detail at what the government means when it repeatedly bangs on about “complex” and “severe” needs. There is no more of an accepted definition for these than there is for “inclusion” so we’ll be examining what the DfE’s narrative is referring to.
Once again, this is all based on two articles in two national newspapers. But the articles’ claims were quite similar, which is both the smoke and the sparks of a fire. It does seem that this Government likes to throw out ridiculous and damaging proposals by leak, only to walk them back or disown them when they get hit in the face by major opposition, as well as the glaringly obvious drawbacks to their proposals they hadn’t considered. That’s what happens when the people advising you don’t understand the law and the implications of tinkering with it.
In case it needs to be reiterated, our Save Our Children’s Rights campaign will oppose vigorously proposals such as these. Our campaign is growing by the day. If you want to find out more visit the website or join up to help here
Stand by for Part 2
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:
Key Content
Also read:
- What makes an autism assessment report genuinely useful to a school?
- 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
- CrowdJustice SEND accountability: When the law says “must”, local authorities cannot treat it as “maybe”
- Book Giveaway! Double Discrimination and why we need to focus on SEND children and young people of colour
- Why my daughter’s SEND experience means we’ll take this consultation judicial review fight wherever it needs to go
- Legal challenge launched against government SEND proposals that “significantly weaken the legal rights of children and young people”
- The law on SEND HAS NOT changed! But restricting EHCPs would be legally-sanctioned gatekeeping and a decimation of rights
- Down Syndrome Act Guidance Consultation: Why you should care (even if you don’t have Down’s syndrome)
- #SpecialistFEWorksforMe: Help celebrate the importance of specialist further education!
- Why the Human Rights Act matters when advocating for your child with SEND
- Why legal aid may now be available for SEND families challenging school exclusions
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
- What makes an autism assessment report genuinely useful to a school? - October 14, 2026
- 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
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
