by Rachel Filmer, Dr Sharon Smith and Tania Tirraoro
Yesterday, we gave you our first analysis of a chunk of the Education Committee’s SEND Inquiry report, “Solving the SEND Crisis”.
Today we’re looking at either end of SEND: the Early Years and Post 16 recommendations, as well as what the Education Committee wants to see happen to make health services stump up their fair share all round.
SEND in the early years
“SEND support in the early years sector is significantly under-resourced, underfunded, and inconsistently available, resulting in a failure to deliver at a critical stage for the early identification of children’s needs. Investment in early years provision is required to ensure that practitioners are adequately equipped with the skills, resources, and capacity to identify needs promptly, provide appropriate and effective support, where possible, mitigate the escalation of more complex needs in later childhood…”
The early years section in the report highlights something that’s been well known since forever, but how remains as elusive as Bigfoot: early intervention.
As Department for Education (DfE) officials told the Inquiry, “…we know that early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating…getting it right in the early years is essential to supporting children’s development, health and life chances”.
This is unarguable, but will the report’s proposals be effective? The continuing SEND Change Programme launched by the previous government, is having some success in this respect with two initiatives: ELSEC and NELI (they do love their acronyms!) What does the report say about them?
ELSEC and NELI: Positive but Patchy
Both the Early Language Support for Every Child (ELSEC) and the Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) target speech, language and communication needs, the most common primary additional need in early years.
The report notes that local authorities praise ELSEC as a “truly multi-professional approach” that has been “very effective in identifying and meeting needs earlier”. Yet this is a small-scale programme so far, only funded until 2025 and limited to nine areas. It’s being extended, but without national rollout and long-term funding, it risks being another short-lived pilot that helps some children while leaving many others behind.
NELI, by contrast, is already operating on a much larger scale: 11,100 schools are signed up, over 640,000 primary school-aged children have been screened, and the language skills of over 211,700 children have been improved between 2020 and 2024. Evaluation by the Education Endowment Fund showed children gained an extra four months’ progress in language skills on average, with those eligible for free school meals gaining seven months of progress.
“The Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) is a programme for four to five-year-olds. The programme consists of LanguageScreen, an assessment to select children for intervention and monitor individual and whole-class progress, CPD certified training with mentor support and a 20-week intervention delivered by teaching assistants (TAs) or teachers.”
These programmes are carried out by pre-qualified therapy support assistants or TAs, whose roles are paid in inverse proportion to what they’re expected to do.
The recommended universal rollout of these schemes could benefit thousands of children. However, while they are good for fast intervention, it’s crucial they don’t become a hurdle to delay or block specialist referrals for children with clear, significant needs.
The Committee also calls for longer-term funding commitments: “ELSEC and NELI are positive initiatives, but far more must be done… Without ongoing commitment and resources, any gains risk being temporary and insufficient to address long-term needs”. We would want to see clear guidance for when qualified professionals must step in.
SENIF and Disability Access Fund: Further Barriers to Earlier Support
While we’re looking at funding in general in the final article, the lack of it is a thread throughout SEND. The report lays bare the funding barriers to providing inclusive early education. The Special Educational Needs Inclusion Fund (SENIF) is supposed to support children with emerging needs aged two to four. But the reality is “significant variations in how LAs manage EY SEND funding”. Dingley’s Promise, a charity providing early years SEND support, is quoted as saying a “vast range of SENIF processes with no consistent model” for allocating funding. Insufficient SENIF funding is therefore exhausted on children with higher needs, leaving those with emerging difficulties unsupported, thus defeating the purpose of early intervention.
The Disability Access Fund also comes in for criticism. Without this funding, it can be impossible for settings to create an accessible environment for a disabled child. But it’s tied to Disability Living Allowance, so those families who don’t have it cannot access the DAF. Without support, many families cannot navigate complex application forms. As the report notes, ”Tying this funding to Disability Living Allowance creates an unnecessary barrier to eligibility that risks excluding the very children the funding was created to help and shifts the burden of unmet need onto providers and families”
The upshot is that settings may turn away disabled children, deepening inequality and exacerbating the gap in potential future attainment. The report calls for national inclusivity requirements for early years settings, backed by increased funding and for the DAF should not be dependent on a child having Disability Living Allowance.
“The current eligibility criteria act as a barrier for many families, restricting uptake and undermining the fund’s effectiveness. Without these reforms, there is a risk that the system continues to perpetuate inequity and discourage inclusive practice at the earliest stage of education.”
Family Hubs and “Best Start in Life”
Children’s Centres, one of Labour’s most successful policies, were decimated by the Tories. The previous government started to create new “Family Hubs”, which are now being expanded, backed by £1.5 billion under the Best Start in Life strategy. Touted as the solution to myriad issues, the Education Committee recommends that every hub should have its own SENCO, as well as staff trained to spot emerging needs and offer support.
But the report finds, “SEND awareness is not currently sufficiently embedded among all early years staff” and recommends Family Hubs incorporate routine SEND screening and awareness as a core part of their early years services.
A SENCO in every hub is a welcome recommendation, but the only training route for early years SENCOs is a four-month online Level 3 award that so far has not been rolled out beyond its limited trial area. Is such a short course enough to deliver the training needed?
If implemented fully and consistently, the report’s early years recommendations could make a real difference. But they would require a significant long-term investment in resources and training, plus clear guidance. We think it’s worth it, given that what happens at this stage of a child’s life sets the stage for later achievements.
Service collaboration (or lack thereof)
The 2014 Children and Families Act set out a holistic vision of seamless joint working and commissioning across education, health, and social care. It places a clear legal duty on health commissioners to deliver the healthcare provision set out in an EHC plan. Eleven years later, families are still waiting
No one needs the committee to tell them this has been a dismal failure. Families know it, and there are years of failed Ofsted Area SEND Inspections and reports such as by the National Audit Office, confirming, “misaligned priorities and incentives undermine collaboration and the adoption of a whole system approach”.
Despite a small amount of good practice, health and social care rarely fulfil these statutory responsibilities. EHCPs are routinely missing health advice, social care assessments are rarer than SEND accountability, and unlawful local policies too often block provision from being included.
As one parent told MPs, education, health, and social care services are “completely separate” systems whose professionals “don’t talk to one another” even though social care and education are both provided by the same local authority. The result is children falling through the cracks, needs escalating, and parents carrying the burden of chasing services that should already be joined up. There is a role that should be liaising and coordinating this–that of the Designated Medical/Clinical Officer. But given one officer must navigate constant NHS changes and multiple health boards and LAs per local area, it is clearly an impossible task. Though the report doesn’t look at this, someone should.
SEND is not a health service priority
The inquiry found SEND is not, but must be, a priority for the NHS, with top-tier health bodies fully engaged and senior responsible officers for SEND visible and empowered.
As a case in point, NHS England’s 2024/25 list of 32 priorities contains just two relating to learning disabilities and only one for children under 18. The report is particularly clear and scathing on this specific issue:
“The current failure to embed SEND as a shared priority across government departments is not just a policy oversight, it is a profound injustice to some of the most vulnerable children in our society.”
The National Audit Office told MPs these “different priorities and incentives” are a fundamental obstacle to integration. The Council for Disabled Children added that the sector is “begging for some real leadership from DHSC”. The imbalance leaves schools and LAs carrying responsibilities and costs that should be shared, not only for individual children, but for parent support service SENDIASS.
The Committee called for
- a statutory duty on health services to participate fully in SEND provision, and
- a DHSC SEND lead to drive accountability and workforce planning.
- Joint statutory guidance to set out when and how healthcare tasks can be delegated in schools, with clear training and accountability
But it notes further NHS reorganisation and instability may weaken capacity even more, undermining SEND responsibilities at precisely the time when stronger joint working is needed. Families could hardly be blamed for doubting whether SEND will ever rise up the NHS agenda while ICB budgets are being halved.
Would unique ID numbers help?
The report mentions the idea of a unique identification number, as proposed in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which would follow a child across education, health, and care systems. In theory, this would improve oversight and prevent children becoming “lost” between agencies.
But families are not struggling because children are unidentified. They are struggling because health and social care are underfunded and under-resourced. Giving a child a unique number will not make therapists appear or force health bodies to deliver provision.
Good on paper, but would it work?
On paper, these are some of the strongest recommendations in the report. They would rebalance responsibility, establish national leadership within health, and make health accountable in the same way as education.
But the elephant in the room is the absence of a clear source of funding. Statutory duties already exist, but without the required funding, without legal levers or accountability, they are ignored. Unless families can enforce health and social care duties through the Tribunal, health will remain the weakest link.
What does the Education Committee say about Post-16?
The Post-16 recommendations arguably fail to adequately address many of the specific challenges young people with SEND face, especially those with learning disabilities and more complex needs, who currently have limited options available.
Importantly, it recognises that SEND policy often focuses on schools, and because FE is a ‘distinct and complex sector’ with different funding, policy and catchment areas, it can often be overlooked. The Committee wants targeted attention and investment to address gaps in provision and support, boosting good outcomes. We could not agree more!
On work pathways, the Committee wants to see a genuinely inclusive apprenticeship pathway that supports young people to succeed. They also highlight the potential benefits of supported internship programmes across admin, care, hospitality, customer service and retail sectors.
The Ontario system
We wrote recently about the Ontario system, and the report describes the Committee’s visit to a specialised alternative programme for 14 to 19-year-olds in Toronto. ‘Students Training to Acquire Real Life Skills’ (STARS), a name so forced it sounds like it was cribbed from a motivational fridge magnet, the programme provides confidence and independence-building opportunities. Another school showcased options including carpentry, hair and beauty, and pet care. While these offer practical experience, English students can already get a similar low-aspiration offer, and it fails to present a compelling vision. Crucially, it overlooks the importance of ensuring all learners, including those with SEND, have access to a broad range of accredited pathways that genuinely reflect their interests, skills, achievements, and potential.
Funding further education
There is no dedicated funding for SEN Support in post-16 education, which means many learners with SEND are entering FE without the support they need to succeed. Without clear investment, colleges are left trying to meet diverse needs with limited resources, making it harder for students to access the courses, specialist staff, and reasonable adjustments they need. It’s a gap that undermines inclusion and leaves too many young people without a fair chance to thrive.
In a welcome move, the Committee recommends:
“The Department for Education should introduce a dedicated and ring-fenced funding stream for SEN support beyond the age of 16. This would enable further education providers to recruit and retain specialist staff, provide tailored learning resources, and make the reasonable adjustments necessary to meet the diverse needs of learners with SEND. Such investment is essential to ensuring that mainstream FE provision is genuinely inclusive and that young people with SEND have equitable opportunities to succeed.”
If taken up, this could be the moment where mainstream FE stops offering inclusion as a vague aspiration and starts treating it as a structural necessity. But let’s be clear: this isn’t a silver bullet. It’s the first brick in a foundation that should have been laid decades ago.
Key Content
Home to School Transport
With no statutory duty for provision, transport is a significant issue for 16-19-year-olds with SEND. Some local authorities have tightened post-16 transport policies, raising thresholds and cutting support. Others have simply made the process harder and more stressful to access. Families report being denied transport, or being offered personal budgets that don’t cover costs.
The Committee highlights both the rising costs for LA and the lack of rights for learners in Further Education to get the same transport they had in school. But while they express concern at the discrepancy ‘loophole’ in legislation they don’t go as far as recommending legal reform. Instead, they recommend the DfE reviews the issue and mandate travel training programmes to promote independence and safe travel where it is appropriate. They recommend:
“Statutory transport provision should be guaranteed based on clear criteria such as distance from education settings, level of need, and other relevant factors to ensure no young person is unfairly disadvantaged.”
This is a positive step forward, ensuring the provision of post-16 transport is a statutory duty. But what is needed is a commitment enabling learners to get to college in a way that supports their independence, without their parents having to take them. Without a statutory entitlement for transport for every learner who needs it, transport provision is likely to remain patchy, postcode-dependent, and often out of reach.
Find Part 1 here
Part 3 on Funding coming soon!
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:
- Big ideas belong to everyone: Education, rights and lifelong learning for people with learning disabilities
By Gosia Kwiatkowska, Director, Rix Inclusive Research Institute, University of East London For many families, … - As The Guardian prints our joint campaign’s open letter, it’s clear people with lived experience don’t want to lose SEND rightsChris Packham, Carrie Grant, Sally Phillips, Kellie Bright and many high-profile SEND names and organisations …
- How do you ensure pathways to education, health, and social care support, meet both diagnosis and needs?By Jonathan Beebee, Neurodisability Nurse Consultant Despite what many families are told, the SEND Code …
- Researching flexi-schooling: How beneficial is it for children with SEND?By Jon Paxman, Senior Research Associate at the Relationships Foundation (Cambridge) While the SEND reforms …
- Oops, we did it again… The Government must now listen to more than 100,000 people who do not want to lose SEND rightsWe did it! Again! Yesterday evening, the Save SEND Legal Rights petition started by Tee-Jay, …
- Experts at Hand: When is an occupational therapist also a SEND expert?By Jacqui Brett, LLB (Law), BSc (OT), PG Cert Prof Dev (OT), PG Cert (SI), …
- Could using AI to filter Government consultation responses lead to “algorithmic silencing” of neurodivergent voices?By: An ADHD Mum For the last year, parents have been asked to participate in …
- A council’s “improvement journey”? How determined SEND parents catalogued the trail of their LA’s unlawful behaviourWith Central Bedfordshire SEND Action Group As we continue to campaign against the Government’s plans …
- Research: Social networks in special schools. Friendships, bullying and playBy Dr Lucy Robinson, Cardiff University During her tenure as education secretary, Bridget Phillipson was …
- CrowdJustice SEND accountability: When the law says “must”, local authorities cannot treat it as “maybe”Help Measure what Matters challenge the practices that leave children without education… and families fighting …
- DfE must give its SEND reform Child Rights Impact Assessment a do-over; this time, without marking its own homeworkThe DfE published a Child Rights Impact Assessment on the same day as its Schools …
- Research: SEND case officers are LAs’ “human shield” gatekeepers. But parents shouldn’t have to be their own key workersAs parent carers are all too aware, their relationship with SEND case officers can range …
- WEBINAR RECORDING: Will school SEND funding be ringfenced? Minister Gould said so, but does she understand what that means?
- WEBINAR RECORDING! The legal implications of the Schools White Paper’s SEND Proposals
- SNJ in Conversation with Brian Lamb OBE: Building good parental relationships is the key to fixing SEND
- 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
- How do you ensure pathways to education, health, and social care support, meet both diagnosis and needs? - October 7, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
