This page collates all our information about the SEND Review and help to answer it
- The SEND Review was published on Tuesday 29th March 2022. The consultation has been extended until July 22nd because of the late publication of accessible versions (see links below)
- There is a dedicated website with alternative versions, languages and formats here
- The Green Paper is a DISCUSSION document, split into six chapters, with 21 consultation questions.
- We are simplifying how to answer, including easy answer forms
- The consultation can be responded to here but we advise you to read our articles first so you are fully informed
- Read all SNJ posts on the SEND Review, including our analysis articles.
- Find Large print PDF version Order a copy
- Easy read version | British Sign Language (BSL) version | Guide for children and young people
- Can you help support our work?
Help to answer the consultation
Answering the questions in the SEND Review is not straightforward. There are complicated issues to consider if you want to do it properly. If you feel confident that you understand it all find the DfE consultation page here. If you need help, read on.
We have created ponder points and answer forms so you can read below some information to help you understand what's being asked and this will make it easier to give a full answer and you will have time to do it slowly, before the close date on July 1st.
We will collate everything we get securely and submit them all to the Consultation team. Include your name if you want, but we need your email to match your answers to other questions if you answer more than one.*
⬇️ Click the link for the question number to go to the relevant ponder points and answer page ⬇️
- Answer Question 1: What key factors should be considered when developing national standards to ensure they deliver improved outcomes and experiences for children and young people with SEND and their families? This includes how the standards apply across education, health and care in a 0-25 system. (Chapter 2)
- Answer Question 2: How should we develop the proposal for new local SEND partnerships to oversee the effective development of local inclusion plans whilst avoiding placing unnecessary burdens or duplicating current partnerships? (Chapter 2)
- Answer Question 3: What factors would enable local authorities to successfully commission provision for low-incidence high cost need, and further education, across local authority boundaries? (Chapter 2)
- Answer Question 4: What components of the EHCP should we consider reviewing or amending as we move to a standardised and digitised version? (Chapter 2)
- Answer Question 5: How can parents and local authorities most effectively work together to produce a tailored list of placements that is appropriate for their child, and gives parents confidence in the EHCP process? (Chapter 2)
- Answer Question 6: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our overall approach to strengthen redress, including through national standards and mandatory mediation? Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree − If you selected Disagree or Strongly Disagree, please tell us why, specifying the components you disagree with and alternatives or exceptions, particularly to mandatory mediation. (Chapter 2)
- Answer Question 7: Do you consider the current remedies available to the SEND Tribunal for disabled children who have been discriminated against by schools effective in putting children and young people’s education back on track? Please give a reason for your answer with examples, if possible. (Chapter 2)
- Answer Question 8 here: What steps should be taken to strengthen early years practice with regard to conducting the two-year-old progress check and integration with the Healthy Child Programme review? (Chapter 3)
- Answer Question 9 here To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should introduce a new mandatory SENCo NPQ to replace the NASENCo? Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree − If you selected Disagree or Strongly Disagree, please tell us why. (Chapter 3)
- Answer Consultation Question 10 here: To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should strengthen the mandatory SENCo training requirement by requiring that headteachers must be satisfied that the SENCo is in the process of obtaining the relevant qualification when taking on the role?
- Answer Consultation Question 11: To what extent do you agree or disagree that both specialist and mixed MATs should coexist in the fully trust-led future? This would allow current local authority maintained special schools and alternative provision settings to join either type of MAT. (Chapter 3)
- Answer Consultation Question 12: What more can be done by employers, providers and government to ensure that those young people with SEND can access, participate in and be supported to achieve an apprenticeship, including through access routes like traineeships? (Chapter 3)
- Answer Consultation Question 13 To what extent do you agree or disagree that this new vision for alternative provision will result in improved outcomes for children and young people? Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree − If you selected Disagree or Strongly Disagree, please tell us why (Chapter 4)
- Answer Consultation Question 14 What needs to be in place in order to distribute existing funding more effectively to alternative provision schools, to ensure they have the financial stability required to deliver our vision for more early intervention and re-integration? (Chapter 4)
- Answer Consultation Question 15 To what extent do you agree or disagree that introducing a bespoke alternative provision performance framework, based on these 5 outcomes, will improve the quality of alternative provision? Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree − If you selected Disagree or Strongly Disagree, please tell us why (Chapter 4)
- Answer Consultation Question 16 To what extent do you agree or disagree that a statutory framework for pupil movements will improve oversight and transparency of placements into and out of alternative provision? Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree − If you selected Disagree or Strongly Disagree, please tell us why (Chapter 4)
- Answer Question 17: What are the key metrics we should capture and use to measure local and national performance? Please explain why you have selected these. (Chapter 5)
- Answer Question 18: How can we best develop a national framework for funding bands and tariffs to achieve our objectives and mitigate unintended consequences and risks? (Chapter 5)
- Answer Question 19: How can the National SEND Delivery Board work most effectively with local partnerships to ensure the proposals are implemented successfully? (Chapter 6)
- Answer Question 20: What will make the biggest difference to successful implementation of these proposals? What do you see as the barriers to and enablers of success? (Chapter 6)
- Answer Question 21: What support do local systems and delivery partners need to successfully transition and deliver the new national system? (Chapter 6)
- Answer Question 22 Is there anything else you would like to say about the proposals in the green paper? (Chapter 6)
SNJ Posts on the SEND Review
How can the #SENDReview implement new changes while avoiding the same mistakes of the last reforms? Matt Keer May 5, 2022
#SENDReview: A vision for Alternative Provision, but where’s the evidence? Special Needs Jungle May 4, 2022
#SENDReview: Downgrading SENCO training is a mistake but protected time must be mandatory Tania Tirraoro April 26, 2022
#SENDReview: What is excellent SEND provision from early years to adulthood? Tania Tirraoro April 22, 2022
Déjà vu: How will the #SENDReview end the over-promising and under-delivering cycle of support for disabled children? Susan Lenihan April 20, 2022
#SENDReview: Why mandatory mediation in SEND appeals isn’t wanted–or needed Special Needs Jungle April 14, 2022
#SENDReview Chapter 2 under the microscope: National standards, EHCP changes, and limiting choice Catriona Moore April 12, 2022
What does the #SENDReview Green Paper say about funding the future of SEND? Matt Keer April 8, 2022
Post 16: What’s in the #SENDReview Green paper for 16-25-year-old disabled young people? Special Needs Jungle April 6, 2022
#SENDReview Chapter 5 (part 1): The missing accountability question Matt Keer April 4, 2022
#SENDReview: Defining Alternative Provision and… how about an apology? Tania Tirraoro April 1, 2022
Publication day: Your first look at what’s in the SEND Review Green Paper. Matt Keer March 29, 2022
Schools White Paper: what are the implications for SEND? Tania Tirraoro March 28, 2022
“Impowering” the future of SEND where parents and SENCOs just need to be less “demanding” Matt Keer March 15, 2022
LAs: SEND failings are everyone’s fault but ours and it’s too easy to get an EHCP Tania Tirraoro March 11, 2022
We don’t need ”fundamental SEND reform”. Just sharpen the teeth of the legal system we already have. Catriona Moore March 10, 2022
PRE-SEND REVIEW Webinar with Will Quince MP Renata Blower March 7, 2022
Brian Lamb: Will the SEND Review Green Paper deliver lasting improvements for disabled children and families?￼￼ Prof. Brian Lamb OBE March 1, 2022
£93 million more in SEND funding for respite, supported internships and making LAs do what they’re supposed to Tania Tirraoro February 2, 2022
* Your email won't be used for anything else other than this consultation. It won't be passed to the DfE and we won't retain it after we have submitted the consultation.