Parents told us from the very start that the Government’s SEND “National Conversation” felt anything but conversational. We wrote about it at the time, describing how parents were left with little sense that their experiences would meaningfully shape policy. Now, researchers from Sheffield Hallam University have confirmed those concerns, showing that the initiative was far more about legitimising pre‑set policy directions than genuinely listening to families. While the research vindicates our own statements at the time, it is also upsetting that families have been treated so carelessly. And, as the research says, it has only served to damage trust further.
We invited the researchers, Emma Sadler, Gill O’Connor, and Jill Pluquailec, to share their findings with SNJ because their analysis echoes what parents have been telling us for years: being “consulted” is not the same as being heard. Their work sheds important light on how the Conversation was framed, who it empowered, and importantly who it left out.
Research questions the framing of the SEND national conversation. By Emma Sadler, Gill O’Connor, and Jill Pluquailec, Sheffield Hallam University
When the Government launched its SEND “National Conversation” in December 2025, it described it as an opportunity to help shape the future of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) reform in England. Ministers called it “the biggest conversation in a generation”, promising that parents, professionals, children and young people would have a chance to influence future policy.
But was it really a conversation in the way most people would understand the term?
Thousands of people took part in the National Conversation. Our recently published research focused on what forms of participation were actually feasible, and what the messaging about the National Conversation both implied and made explicit.
We analysed the government-produced materials surrounding the National Conversation, such as the press release, web pages, event advertising, stakeholder toolkit, and online survey. We focused on how the Government described the exercise, framed the issues, and positioned participants within the process. Consultation and engagement are often presented as evidence that a policy process has involved co-production. Researchers and campaigners have long contended that simply asking for opinions does not equate to having genuine influence over decision-making or input into policy development.
For many parents involved in SEND policy discussions over the years, this issue will likely sound familiar.
Our findings and why they are significant
One important finding from our research is that the National Conversation served as a way to build legitimacy for Government policy directions. In other words, the process helped bolster the appearance of widespread participation, parent involvement, and consensus around the reform proposals, even before a formal consultation began.
This is significant because the National Conversation took place before the publication of the Government’s Schools White Paper and its SEND reform proposals. In our work, we found the language used throughout the National Conversation often framed reform as both necessary and inevitable, narrowing the space for participants to question fundamental assumptions or propose alternative directions.
Our work raises important questions about what people were being invited to do, and whether this was an invitation to shape policy from the ground up, or to comment on a journey where the destination has already been decided.
Parents who have participated in previous SEND consultations and policy development may recognise this concern. As we found in a previous project, many have described feeling they were being listened to without being heard, particularly when long-standing issues continue despite repeated engagement exercises.
When is a conversation not a conversation?
Possibly the most striking finding from our study related to the word at the centre of the initiative itself, ‘conversation’. As a term, ‘conversation’ carries expectations of reciprocity, openness and mutual exchange. A genuine conversation allows participants to influence one another. It can change minds, alter priorities and even reshape outcomes. However, in this case, our study found that the National Conversation was constructed more as a metaphorical conversation than a reciprocal one.
Participants were invited to contribute their experiences and perspectives, but there was limited opportunity for the kind of back-and-forth dialogue that is expected in a conversation. The Government set the agenda, defined the structure and tightly controlled how contributions would be collected.
This finding echoes broader concerns in public policy about the language of participation. Terms such as “engagement”, “co-production” and “conversation” can create expectations that power will be shared, or at the very least, redistributed. When participants later discover their influence was more limited than expected, trust can be damaged. This poses quite a risk when parental trust in the SEND system is already fragile.
How young people were/were not included
Another notable finding concerns the opportunities for children and young people to take part.
Government messages consistently highlighted that children and young people would be at the heart of the National Conversation and that their input was vital for shaping future reforms. Our research found the language used in the material for young people was distinct from the rest of the National Conversation. These different language choices created a sense of personalisation, of the author speaking directly to the reader, and perhaps even a sense of responsibility to engage. However, what we also found was an absence of information on how and where young people could take part. The ‘Explainer for children and young people’ didn’t contain any hyperlinks or specific routes beyond the rather nebulous invitation to share views online and talk to their school or community.
The only place those receiving responses to the initiative would have known a young person was participating was through a box that could be ticked on the online survey declaring that the respondent was under 18.
Given the absence of pathways for young people to actually get involved in the conversation, and the absence of data collected by the government on which responses actually came from young people, the invitation to participate remains performative.
This is important because the SEND Code of Practice, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and years of campaigning and advocacy efforts all highlight how crucial it is to include children and young people in decisions impacting their lives. If their involvement remains merely symbolic rather than meaningful, valuable chances for genuine child-focused policymaking will be missed.
Why this is important
It might seem like analysing the language of Government communications is less important than examining policy outcomes. However, language helps shape how participation is understood, valued and experienced.
This research comes at a time when confidence in the SEND system is low, families continue to experience lengthy waits for assessments, securing support continues to be challenging, and processes are as complex to navigate as ever. Given this context, public involvement in policymaking comes down to trust, rather than merely a case of procedure.
Our findings show that policymakers need to give careful attention to what participation really means. For any SEND reforms, that may be the most important lesson of all. If parents, children, young people, and professionals are invited into a conversation, they need to know that the conversation is capable of influencing something. Because the difference between being consulted and having influence is not just a matter of wording, it’s the key to rebuilding families’ trust in the system, from the ground up.
About the authors
- Emma Sadler is an educator, researcher, and PhD candidate at Sheffield Hallam University.
- Gill O’Connor is a researcher and PhD candidate at Sheffield Hallam University.
- Jill Pluquailec is a Senior Lecturer in Autism in the Sheffield Institute of Education at Sheffield Hallam University.
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.
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
- Researching flexi-schooling: How beneficial is it for children with SEND?
- Research: Social networks in special schools. Friendships, bullying and play
- Research: SEND case officers are LAs’ “human shield” gatekeepers. But parents shouldn’t have to be their own key workers
- Research finds the Government’s SEND National Conversation “performative”, lacking pathways for young people’s inclusion
- Research shows children in special schools report higher self-esteem than those with SEN in mainstream
- Research: Inclusion for neurodivergent pupils needs lived-experience trainers and getting the wider school environment right
- No inclusion without tackling the “serious fault-line” of exclusions, says children’s legal charity, launching a “roadmap for change”
- “Covid babies” and plans for SEND Reforms: Are We Creating a Forgotten Generation?
- Inclusion bases: Can they help solve the SEND crisis?
- Where will all the teaching assistants come from? The research exposing the reality gap in the government SEND plans
- The “enormous burden” of admin and monetary costs to SEND families, supporting a system that should be supporting them
- Evaluating SEND change: Promising prototypes, patchy proof
- “We are living on a knife-edge” SENDCo research sounds the alarm about the high cost of mainstream inclusion
- The complex SEND needs teacher training gap in mainstream schools and how to fix it
- Boost support for children not in school, develop EOTAS guidance, and fund schools to be needs-led, say Ofsted and CQC inspectors
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.
