“We note that in several important areas including routes to redress, governance accountability, and the role of health services, our approach does not fully align with the Committee’s proposals. However, we have a shared aim – to ensure that children and young people with SEND get the support they need when they need it. We recognise the need to continue engaging with parents, carers and the sector on these issues to ensure accountability arrangements are strong enough to rebuild confidence and uphold the rights of children and young people with SEND.”
Department for Education, response to the Education Committee SEND Inquiry
The Education Select Committee has published the long-overdue response from the Government to its Solving The SEND Crisis inquiry. The inquiry report came out last September. Very convenient, as a day later, the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, appeared in person before the Committee to answer a range of education accountability questions. This article looks at both of these together.
The response is, as you probably anticipated, mostly a rehash of everything it has said over the last few months about its SEND proposals, shapeshifting its plans to seem like they fit the inquiry recommendations where even slightly possible.
It does make what may be a slip up: agreeing to the following as part of a bundling of two recommendations:
“…The Department’s SEND reforms must not be based on any withdrawal of statutory entitlements for children and young people with SEND. The Department must instead set out plans for reform which increase accountability across the whole of the SEND system, so that many more parents and carers can be confident that their children’s needs will be met regardless of whether they have a diagnosis or EHC plan…”
DfE: ACCEPT
Government response to the SEND Inquiry report
It doesn’t mean it, of course, because those two sentences are not expanded on in the subsequent paragraphs–not even a whiff of a mention of local authorities, whose unlawful behaviour is directly attributable to a third of this crisis–DfE mismanagement and lack of Government funding being the other two-thirds.
Instead, they position accountability as being for schools–a beefed-up school complaints system, another new SEND inspection framework,
No to Trbunal health accountability measures
In 2018, the SEND Tribunal began to trial powers to make non-binding directions to health and social care services to make provision in EHCPs. This was welcomed by all, and extended in 2019. The Education Committee recommended making these binding. The Government disagrees…
(Recommendation, Paragraph 159) The powers of the SEND Tribunal should be extended to allow it to issue binding recommendations to health services, not just education providers. This would ensure that when a failure to deliver a health provision specified in an EHC plan occurs, health bodies are legally obligated to take corrective action. This should include the introduction of a statutory duty on health services to respond to Tribunal decisions within a defined timeframe, with clear consequences for non-compliance.
NOT TAKEN FORWARD
Their reasoning was that the current non-binding decisions mostly work and when they don’t, they have to set out what they will do instead, if anything. The Government would prefer to allow local health bodies and providers to “plan and manage to meet total population needs, and for NHS providers to prioritise on the basis of clinical need.” This makes no sense—if it’s in an EHCP, there is a clear clinical need backed by evidence. The truth is, the government doesn’t want to give more powers to the Tribunal, it only wants to take them away. And behind that, it wants to limit parent power, which is clearly the entire point of the SEND proposals. Just have “confidence” folks. Just believe!
Needless to say it also turned down the recommendation to give councils the levers to make health services act on provision in EHCPs, saying they already have duties on them (that they ignore). Why should it worry about that when its plans dump all the provision out of an EHCP and into the non-statutory Individual Support Plan (ISP) for which the school is accountable… The EHCP is going to end up as nothing more than a placement document—a placement the LA picks.
No to Ombudsman expanded powers
Another rejected recommendation came for extending the powers of Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to investigate all, not just some LA-run schools, about the delivery of SEND provision. Both this and the Tribunal health recommendation had strong support from families and inquiry respondents in general. We can assume they will have also made an appearance in the DfE’s own consultation responses.
The DfE’s response said if the parent can’t resolve the issue with school they can complain to the DfE itself in certain cases. Beefed-up school complaints handling includes a SEND specialist such as a SENCO (what fun for them!). But we can foresee an increase in school relationships with parents going south—as school governors side with the school, leaving the parent feeling like they have no choice but to remove their child. We’ll be looking at all this in greater detail at some point.
The reponse did not please Education Committee Chair, Helen Hayes MP, who took the Education Secretary to task over this when Bridget Phillipson appeared before the committee on Wednesday (17/6), noting this,
“creates an accountability inconsistency and gap in parts of our education system.. We highlighted the fact that accountability overall is currently unevenly distributed within the SEND system, and that there is a need to address that.
Helen Hayes MP, Oral hearing with Bridget Phillipson Education Secretary 17/6
“That recommendation had strong support from the sector. Given the well-documented strain on accountability and the inconsistencies, how can the Department be confident that the current system and the proposed changes you want to make will have the capacity and expertise to manage the additional pressures that will come from the proposed reforms?
Bridget Phillipson responded, acknowledging “While we did not accept the recommendation of the Committee, it is fair to say that, through the consultation process, this has emerged as a key theme; parents are seeking continued assurance that children’s rights will be well understood, and that accountability and the right outcomes for children will be delivered. I know it is a key area for parents, and when I said that the consultation that we were launching was a genuine one, I meant it. We will be reflecting very seriously on all the areas where parents have identified what they perceive to be gaps within the current system.”
Doesn’t really sound like it to me, does it to you?
Make it better but don’t trash the Tribunal backstop
In the oral session, Helen Hayes MP also made the point that we and our SOCR colleagues have repeatedly made– it’s one thing to improve support so people don’t need to seek redress, something that we can all get behind. It’s quite another to remove existing protections that are there that act as a backstop when things go wrong.
BP did not want to go there. Yes the Tribunal will still exist, yes there will be EHCPs. But that they will look completely unrecognisable was ignored because she wanted to direct the conversation to some more of her wonderful plans instead,
She emphasised that a new system wouldn’t happen until 2029, so “we have the time and the space not just to invest up front as we are doing, but to make that big, deeper cultural change in how we support children and families.”
But by then, laws will have been changed, so if things don’t go as swimmingly as she thinks, what then? And this is the crux–BP, no more than any of us, can see into the future. She doesn’t know who will form the next government or which political parties will run any of the new councils that will take shape. That is why strong legal protections must remain, and why her job is to make sure that not only are they not needed as much, but that the laws that govern the system are respected.
“Restoring parent trust and confidence”
“We fully agree with the Committee’s strong and sustained focus on restoring trust and confidence among parents and carers. Building meaningful partnerships with families is essential to creating a fair, accountable and effective SEND system and so we’re pleased to accept and reflect many of the Committee’s recommendations, particularly those strengthening engagement, advocacy, transparency and inspection practice.”
DfE Inquiry Response
Ms Phillipson seems to think that friction with parents is just from lack of appropriate support. This is woefully ignorant. Parental discord is because, instead of being supported, children are punished for not meeting strict behavioural policies, and parents are gaslit about the level of support needed. They are subjected to unlawful refusal of assessments, given EHCPs that say next to nothing, told mainstream will do when they have already been traumatised. Trying to minimise why parents are angry just makes us even more angry.
And in any case, parents being happy is not the goal. It comes as a result of their children having their needs met-that’s the goal. And she should stop thinking of “parents” as an amorphous whole, angry or not. The litmus test is whether a child can have their needs identified and properly met without their parents or carers having to morph into a SEND warrior. Because most don’t have the capacity to advocate or the desire to attend a consultation event or a protest. They, like everyone, just want to be a parent.
Which set of responses will the DfE really listen to?
The Committee’s recommendations were derived from the responses to its own inquiry—probably from many of the same people who submitted responses to the DfE’s consultation. However, the DfE’s questions were based on ideas plucked from the ISOS report, and included none about the proposed legal changes (still the subject of legal proceedings). Therefore, the Committee’s responses are far more likely to contain what people actually think, and so should have had a better response than this.
The start of the DfE’s response notes they have heard parents say the system isn’t working. But what parents are also saying is that it’s not the law that’s at fault–so why is it the law that they are targeting rather than the real culprits? If they ignore the very loud messages they have been sent by protests, petitions, MP letters and the undoubted consultation responses, how can we believe that they care what families think?
Questioning Bridget Phillipson, Helen Hayes MP asked, can the Department be confident the current system and the proposed changes will have the capacity and expertise to manage the additional pressures that will come from the proposed reforms?
Ms Phillipson did not answer either of these issues. She acknowledged accountability was a high priority for parents, insisting that they,
“…will be reflecting very seriously on all the areas where parents have identified what they perceive to be gaps within the current system. Given the level of trust that parents have at the moment, and given the failures and problems that we have all experienced as Members of Parliament, I do understand the nervousness that parents will feel, but I believe that the vision we have set out of a system that is more inclusive—one that will allow for more children to go to their local school, with their friends, and achieving better outcomes—is the right vision.”
I’m not sure “nervousness” is the right word. Terror may be better.
Helen Hayes also pushed the Education Secretary on how seriously the DfE will be taking parental feedback over concerns about accountability, to EHCP limitations, and the Tribunal changes. Ignoring the fact that the SEND consultation omitted questions on any of these, Bridget Phillipson insisted she wanted to hear views on “every aspect”
“I am clear that we need a system that protects and actually strengthens children’s rights. The delivery of individual support plans will see a broadening of rights to a much bigger group of children than is the case right now, but I recognise the importance of redress—of opportunities to put things right where things do go wrong. But, over time, we want to see a reduction in the adversarial system that too many parents experience at the moment.”
Well, we all do, but setting it up so there are fewer ways to get redress is not the way to do it. But it IS a good way to get parents never to trust you—and Bridget is doing very well there—well done you!
No, there won’t be ring-fencing of SEND
In our webinar in May, SEND Minister, Georgia Gould, repeated several times that there would be ring-fencing of school SEND funding. This DfE response to the Inquiry recommendation about Post-16 funding contradicts this and one has to assume it goes across the board:
“We do not believe that introducing ring fences for SEND funding is the right approach. As set out in the consultation, ring fenced funding brings significant administrative burdens, reduces flexibility, and risks fragmenting provision in ways that do not support the holistic, responsive support we want for young people with SEND and other young people with wider needs.”
However, in response to the recommendation about increasing—and ringfencing—the school’s SEND notional budget the DfE did indicate there would be closer scrutiny of how this funding is spent.
Staffing issues
Remember the much heralded plan for 6,500 new “expert” teachers? Ms Phillipson reasoned that none of these would be for primary, because of falling rolls (a global trend of people having fewer babies). But this reveals astonishing levels of short-sighted thinking.
Who will be staffing all those sparkly new “inclusion bases”? Who will be backfilling the special school teachers popping over to lend their expertise to a mainstream setting? Who will be arriving to teach the children who may have gone into a specialist setting, but will then have to make do with non-statutory support in mainstream?
On teaching assistants, during the Education Committee hearing, Caroline Voaden MP noted that 70% of school leaders reported that budget restraints had led to a reduction in teaching assistants in the last year, while almost half had reduced their support staff. She echoed our recent article on this issue, asking, “What is your Department doing to improve …retention and pay for teaching assistants? If we are going to move to a more inclusive SEND model of education, these teaching and classroom assistants are absolutely vital to the success of that shift. If schools are losing them, it is going to be even harder for them to meet the requirements of the new system.”
BP had no answer but waffled on regardless, before suddenly recalling that recent figures showed a small rise in TA numbers. But that isn’t enough to make up for the long-term decline in numbers, or the additional numbers that will be needed by all the anticipated new inclusion bases.
The scripted ideological problem
The Government’s arguments for these reforms are scripted, rehearsed, and ideological. They pretend to listen, but if their response to the SEND Inquiry is anything to go by, its own consultation response will be along similar lines, answering what it wants to answer, including what suits its plans, downplaying or ignoring what doesn’t.
For example, MP, Manuela Perteghella asked in the oral hearing, if the SEND Tribunal won’t be able to name a specific placement or setting, how these disputes will be resolved?
BP’s response was to parrot the exact same line Georgia Gould has previously uttered, that they had heard “many people” say “sometimes the tribunal would name a school place in a particular setting even when that school is heavily oversubscribed and does not feel safely able to deliver that provision.” She followed up by saying LAs needed more specialist provision (not special schools) and inclusion bases.
Neither of those answers makes any sense at all. “Sometimes” a school being oversubscribed is not sufficient evidence to lead to a legal shift away from independent redress, handing more power to the same LA that’s forced the parent to Tribunal—because it clearly does NOT have suitable provision of its own. Then, relying on a potential future policy that may or may not provide a suitable local (and evidence-light) inclusion base is utter madness. These are not the evidence-based reforms they promised.
Chair, Helen Hayes wasn’t satisfied with the Education Secretary’s reply, but despite pressing for a more relevant answer, BP simply changed the frequency of the Tribunal allegedly naming unsuitable placements from “sometimes” to “often”. Because evidence can expand to fit, didn’t you know? And we would very much like to see this evidence, please. Show us, of all the placement decisions made by the SEND Tribunal, how often does this happen? If it was a thing, it would be more generally known, not somehow turning up conveniently to suit an ideological plan.
That’s the problem with ideology, isn’t it? it needs to block its ears and blinker its eyes to logic and realities that don’t fit the narrative.
If you like what we do and want us to keep doing it, a small donation really helps.
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”
Key Content
- The Unacceptable Truth: 20 SEND legal rights at risk from the Government’s SEND reforms
- The relentless march of SEND reform only hears views that fit the narrative
- DfE backtracks over consulting on planned SEND legal changes. Parents MUST respond to the consultation to say Not in Our Name!
- Where will all the teaching assistants come from? The research exposing the reality gap in the government SEND plans
- SEND changes will be “co-created”. Which means what, exactly? asks the Education Select Committee
- SEND Inquiry report 3: How does the Education Committee want to fix SEND funding?
- SEND Inquiry Report 2: Force the NHS to pay its fair share, plus fixing early years and post-16 education
- SEND Inquiry Report 1: Strengthen inclusion—but don’t dilute SEND legal entitlements the Education Committee tells the Government
- SEND Minister refuses to guarantee keeping SEND legal rights in Schools White Paper
- Plans for SEND delayed to Autumn, but Spending Review doesn’t include enough for widescale change
- SNJ’s 80 practical recommendations to solve the SEND Emergency
- What kind of government is “bold” enough to scrap statutory EHCPs from vulnerable 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
She is a rare disease & chronic pain patient advocate with Ehlers Danlos syndrome.
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN - August 4, 2026
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them” - July 30, 2026
- EOTAS Consultation: A further assault on children’s SEND rights with cost saving and reintegration to schools at its heart - July 15, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
