We’re hearing a lot of parents wondering what to do about the White Paper SEND proposals. Why aren’t people making a bigger noise? Some are misinterpreting a perceived muted response so far with agreement. It’s not. It’s shock; stunned disbelief that anyone could think this is going to be an improvement. Horror, that people behind closed doors—including “representative” parents—could think gaslighting families that “increased rights” (without accountability) at one level, compensates for wiping them away and raising the access bar where it really counts, along with appeal rights.
Do not mistake what you see above the parapet for lack of action below it. Do not rush to respond before you understand the real ramifications. Our message to you is: We’ve got you. Our Save Our Children’s Rights campaign partners have got you. We’re going to set it all out—the good, as well as the awful. And that starts today.
Why “Specialist Provison Packages” and are not what they may seem
The government and its proxies are presenting the SEND reforms as a gift to families, promising earlier support, easier access to experts, and specialist packages for children with the highest level of needs—or at least those they consider to be ‘complex’.
But the Trojan Horse being rolled out conceals a hidden danger: the shift from individually enforceable rights to crude cohort-based packages.
At the centre of the proposed reforms is a redesign of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). They would remain in name, but in substance, they would operate very differently.
The Department for Education’s (DfE) own Equality Impact Assessment acknowledges that how any changes are implemented—particularly how thresholds are set and applied—will be crucial. It cautions that there is not yet any firm evidence about their full impact. This is important: once access to legally enforceable support depends on meeting new national thresholds, the question of who qualifies (and who does not) becomes central. There is particular concern about the loss of enforceable legal rights for some children, particularly those with moderate, complex or less visible needs.
Specialist Provision Packages
Under the government’s proposed new system, EHCPs would still exist, but they would be built around so-called “Specialist Provision Packages”.
These would be nationally defined ‘bundles’ of provision linked to broad profiles of needs, rather than based on a child’s individual needs, as EHCPs are now. Currently, there are seven different packages being proposed.
The draft package list (which can be found here) is described as “indicative” and “likely to change’, and DfE has acknowledged that further packages or amendments may be needed to capture the full range of complex needs.
What will the Specialist Provision Packages include?
Each of the seven packages outlines the types of education, therapy and health provision associated with a particular ‘one-size-fits-all’ needs profile. The government claims to want to move away from diagnosis-led support, but is instead relying on categorising children in crude and regressive ways. And let’s not forget, these are children with the most ‘complex’ needs, who often require more bespoke arrangements and support.
The packages are said to have been developed by panels of “experts” based on “evidence” (more on this in an upcoming post) and will be “regularly reviewed” (that is, every five years unless evidence presents that suggests an earlier review is needed). This flexibility is presented as a strength, but flexibility cuts both ways.
Access problems
Anyone with lived experience of SEND knows children do not fit neatly into packages. The DfE has acknowledged that children may need to draw on elements from more than one Specialist Provision Package (SPP). However, flexibility across packages does not remove the threshold for accessing specialist provision in the first place, so two separate issues arise:
1. The gateway problem: While children may draw from multiple packages, they must still meet the threshold for access to specialist provision. As we all know, complexity comes in many forms, including children who have multiple low or moderate level needs, which, when taken together, create a significant impact because of the way those needs interact. This is especially the case for children with autism and associated co-occurring conditions. Complexity also relates to the number of complex systems families have to engage with, and this is contextual, as we have previously discussed.
If eligibility is assessed against an individual package criterion rather than overall cumulative impact, children with intersecting moderate needs may fail to cross the threshold in any single category. In that scenario, they risk remaining at a lower tier of support without an EHCP, and potentially without access to the same enforceable rights of appeal.
2. Overlapping needs are not the same as cumulative entitlement: The documents do not state that combining needs across packages automatically strengthens eligibility. In other words, it’s not clear whether a child with moderate needs across three areas would qualify in the same way as a child with severe needs in a single defined profile. This ambiguity matters for children with mixed neurodevelopmental profiles or those with fluctuating needs.
Where does your child fit?
Our team has tried—and failed—to work out which packages our own children would fit into, and of course, we’re the people who know them best. Profiles overlap, needs evolve, and presentation varies depending on context.
The risk is not just standardisation; it’s substitution. These proposals risk replacing needs-led, individually tailored support following professional assessments, with a framework in which entitlement depends on how well you fit a national template.
The DfE has said it will design a shiny new needs assessment process based on the packages. Local authorities, with “expert support”, will determine whether a child meets the threshold for specialist provision and, if so, identify exactly which Specialist Provision Package will be best suited.
Yes, that’s right—the very same LAs that make unlawful decisions in 99% of appealed cases will be responsible for making life-changing decisions about how children and young people with SEND will be categorised. And just to sweeten the deal: children would have fewer legal rights at this level than they do now.
But never fear, because the DfE assures us plucky “government agencies” will leap to the rescue and hold local authorities to account with their almost non-existent duties. Continuity is important, after all, especially when it comes to the systemic maladministration they already excel at.
So where do EHCPs—and funding—fit?
It also seems likely these packages will be matched with corresponding national funding bands, which presumably could be cut across the board at any time, meaning that even at the specialist level, children and young people’s support could be rationed to suit the budget of whichever political party is in government. Do you trust the likes of Farage et al to do the right thing for your child? It risks throwing disabled children to the wolves.
If a child’s needs align with a particular defined package, for example, profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD), their EHCP would then be developed with the setting, in consultation with parents, along these lines. Bizarrely, this would happen after the Specialist Provision Package and placement decisions have been made.
Under the current EHCP system:
- The legal test is based on individual need.
- Provision must be specified and quantified.
- If there is a dispute, the tribunal considers what this child requires.
Under the proposed direction:
- Enforceable support is mediated through national categories.
- Provision is framed through package descriptors.
- Day to day provision will be ‘specified’ in the Individual Support Plan, rather than in the EHCP
- Eligibility depends on meeting a defined threshold within that framework.
A step back from personalisation
This represents a structural shift away from child-centred, needs-led assessment that asks, “What does this child need?” towards a model that asks, “Which nationally defined package best fits this child?” In practical terms, that is a move from legally enforceable, individually specified support, to a package-based system built around standardised models of support and narrow legal entitlements.
And what about the ever elusive health and care elements of EHCPs? The new SEND proposals retain health and social care within EHCPs, but as ever, these seem to be an afterthought. The proposals seem to suggest there will be a statutory entitlement to health provision, though what provision is anyone’s guess, but that perhaps social care provision will be treated differently (“Not known to social care” anyone?). Given the long-term reorganisation the NHS is already undergoing, injecting further chaos does not bode well.
Fewer provision reviews
If EHCPs are only updated at key transitions rather than annually, and day-to-day support is managed through school level Individual Support Plans (ISPs), there is a real risk that health and care provision becomes out of date, insufficient, or inconsistently delivered. As a result, children are likely to experience even worse gaps in therapy, medical support or social care, creating potential safeguarding risks.
If the proposals do go ahead, children and young people with an existing EHCP would begin the transition to the new system from 2030. This would happen as children move between primary and secondary school, or from secondary school to college. That creates another serious risk; one of losing vital support at these crucial transition points, at the very time when children and young people with SEND need more support, not less.
Moving goalposts?
If access to a legally enforceable EHCP depends on meeting the criteria for one or more packages, then it follows that how they’re designed, described and interpreted (by LAs), becomes critically important.
The draft document makes it clear the package criteria is “indicative” and subject to review. This does not explicitly mean thresholds will rise, but it does mean tightening the criteria could mean reducing access. Therefore, eligibility becomes a moving goalpost, depending on budgets or political whim—without the need to further adjust legislation.
This means a child who qualifies under one version may not under the next; not because their needs have changed, but because the rules have. How on earth are families expected to fight that? This will leave families living in perpetual anxiety, not knowing if or when eligibility and access to support will change.
SPPs in mainstream, specialist or “inclusion bases”?
Children who meet the threshold for a Specialist Provision Package (SPP) would, in theory, be able to receive provision in either mainstream or specialist settings.
However, the SEND consultation document makes it clear children with SPPs will be expected to be “mainly” in “specialist settings”. Just to be clear, this could mean a special school or it could mean a specialist place in a mainstream “inclusion base”.
Under the proposed SEND reforms, inclusion bases are the new name for mainstream units and resourced provision. They seem to be targeted as becoming a central mechanism for delivering locally commissioned SPPs, while calling it “inclusion”. The government has pursued this policy despite a lack of evidence and has ignored the concerns of families (even going so far as to close a survey on units earlier because they didn’t like what people were saying). And as we’re said, the guidance for this will be non-statutory-which is another way of saying “optional”.
How the needs criteria within each SPPs have been grouped seem aligned to expectations about placement. The three overall headings for the specialist support packages are:
- Packages based around heavily adapted content of the curriculum
This includes these packages:- Profound and multiple learning difficulties,
- Significant executive function,
- Complex executive function and communication
Are these the children the government’s “experts” think “belong” in special schools? What happens if special schools don’t have capacity? What if they want to be fully included in mainstream schools (and not in a separate “inclusion base”)? Would there be a route to individualised support to do this?
- Packages based around adapted delivery of the curriculum, including providing a different environment
This includes these packages:- Social and emotional development focused on externalising behaviour,
- Social and emotional development focused on internalising behaviour
Are these the children the government’s “experts” think “belong” in so-called “inclusion bases”? Perhaps the first group in local authority “specialist bases” and the second in school “support bases” (the ones with coloured pens, paper and fidget toys that have featured heavily in the DfE advertising campaign).
- Packages based around the provision needed to enable access to the curriculum
This includes these packages:- Sensory impairment,
- Physical disability
Are these the children the government’s “experts” think belong in vanilla mainstream schools once all those lovely adaptations have been made? Or for those with low incidence needs in jointly-commissioned specialist bases?
This is just a theory and we would be really interested in your thoughts, so please do comment and let us know.
A SEND Tribunal without teeth
Under this proposed new system, local authorities would be responsible for providing a list of settings they deem capable of delivering the package they determine best suits the child. Families would be able to express a preference.
If the family disagrees with the named setting, they would be able to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. BUT (and this is a big BUT) the Tribunal would no longer be able to name a placement. They would only be able to tell the local authority to reconsider their decision.
If this thought fills you with abject terror, you are not alone. This is no longer the child and family-centred system envisaged by the Children and Families Act, that was never given the chance to flourish. It’s akin to local authoritarianism.
Who might miss out on the new EHCPs ?
If a child is inconvenient enough not to slip neatly into a pre-defined SPP, then they can whistle for an EHCP. So for them, here comes an Individual Support Plan (ISP), a school-level “statutory plan” trumpeted as ‘the massive expansion of rights’, but which in reality, lacks legal weight.
The government’s Equality Impact assessment has already identified groups of children who could be disadvantaged under the proposed new system. That should concern everyone, because the children most likely affected are those whose needs are harder to categorise or quantify.
We have quickly identified some categories of needs (and still maintain that this is the wrong approach!) where we think children could be at high risk of falling below a tightened threshold or their needs not being properly considered. Please let us know if you think we’ve missed any or got anything wrong. We’re not government “experts” and these are just first thoughts.
- Moderate learning disability
- Autistic children and young people without a significant learning disability
- Children and young people with high cognitive ability and significant SEND needs
- ADHD
- Mixed neurodevelopmental profiles
- Undiagnosed, rare and late-diagnosed conditions
- Emerging but not yet diagnosable neurodevelopmental conditions
- Masking or internalising presentations
- Mental health needs
- Young people aged 16+
- Early years children
- Trauma-affected children and young people
- Care experienced children and young people with SEND
- Developmental language disorder
- Children and young people with acquired disabilities
- Children and young people with chronic health conditions and no significant learning disability.
- Children and young people with fluctuating conditions.
- Children and young people with less visible needs
- Children on EOTAS (Education Other Than at School)
- Children and young people experiencing severe school trauma and system induced anxiety
- Children and young people in youth justice settings
- Children and young people without a suitable placement
- Cultural, linguistic, minority or intersectional groups
- Children and young people with complex family, socio-environmental or contextual factors that compound SEND
Many of these are not rare cases, and taken together they represent a significant proportion of the SEND population, and include the most marginalised children and those whose needs are less well understood.
The EHCP/ISP pantomime horse
Under the proposals, it seems local authorities would retain overall “ownership” of EHCPs, but settings would have the legal duty to deliver the educational offer. In addition to an EHCP, children would have an Individual Support Plans (ISP) – a school-level document that sets out day-to-day provision.
At this point the Trojan Horse starts to look more like a pantomime horse, with the LA controlling the head and schools controlling the rear end where all the manure comes out. It risks even more arguments about who is responsible for provision. So much for a less complex and bureaucratic system!
This change is significant, as the division between ISPs and EHCPs makes a difference. If detailed provision, such as therapy hours, specialist teaching time, staffing ratios or assistive technology is migrated over to ISPs rather than being clearly quantified and specified within the EHCP itself, then what happens when families are trying to make sure the provision is actually delivered?
Under the current system, EHCPs must clearly specify and quantify the provision a child will receive. This level of detail strengthens enforceability and ensures there is a clear legal process for reviewing, updating and appealing decisions when necessary. If, as proposed under the new system, that level of specificity shifts from EHCPs to ISPs, accountability could be significantly weakened; not through further legislative changes, but through administrative design.
ISPs would be updated more frequently as children’s needs change. While this may offer greater flexibility, it may also reduce oversight and legal protection. What safeguards would prevent schools from reducing or removing support if the specialist provision funding package is insufficient to deliver it?
It is concerning that, when questioned about ISPs on Woman’s Hour, the Minister for School Standards, Georgia Gould, didn’t seem to have the faintest idea how they would work.
As far as we can tell, if EHCPs become more framework-based and schools have the duty to deliver provision, disputes will likely start shifting from being a ‘failure to secure Section F provision’ to a disagreement about the implementation of ISP-level support. And ISPs do not, under the current proposals, carry the same clear tribunal route as EHCP content.
Torture by design
The DfE’s proposed accountability process for schools sounds like bureaucratic waterboarding, designed to torture families to the point of exhaustion. If you don’t “feel” the setting is providing the right support, you will be able to wade through school complaints processes, local authority dispute resolution services and mediation. You may be able to submit a Disability Discrimination claim to the SEND Tribunal. But perhaps it would be better to skip straight to judicial review (although they are unlikely to tell you about this).
There are still many important unanswered questions about what the landscape might look like if ISPs become the default for all children with SEND. We’ll be looking at ISPs for those without EHCPs in a separate post and will be seeking legal input on the issues we’ve tentatively discussed above (disclaimer: we are not lawyers, though we do wonder whether DfE have consulted any with SEND expertise). In the meantime, send us your burning questions and we’ll try to get some answers.
Remember this is still a consultation
While we don’t think the DfE’s ambitions of consistent national standards and clearer pathways are in themselves negative goals, we do believe that it is perfectly possible to achieve them without narrowing access to legally enforceable rights, or decimating the existing law.
But REMEMBER: these proposals are still in draft form and the consultation will remain open until 11:59 pm on 18 May 2026. All the links are on our updated SEND Politics page
But don’t rush to respond. Take your time to get it right. We will be providing information to support you to respond, so make sure you are signed up for post alerts as we continue to break down what these reforms might look like for our families over the coming days and weeks.
The language of the consultation suggests the government has set its course and that only strong, organised opposition can force a change of direction. That’s where you come in.
If you’re feeling frustrated or despondent, take heart: our voices can make a difference, and we encourage you to join our joint Save Our Children’s Rights campaign.
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”
What kind of government is “bold” enough to scrap statutory EHCPs from vulnerable children?May 16, 2025
The SEND reforms in the Schools White Paper reveal rights given, and rights stripped awayFebruary 24, 2026
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
- WEBINAR RECORDING! The implications for children’s legal rights to EHCPs and EOTAS of the Government’s SEND proposals - September 3, 2026
- From suspicion to support: why the Government’s child protection reforms matter for disabled children - August 28, 2026
- Have your say on the future of transport for disabled children and young people - August 25, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This thankfully won’t affect my daughter till she transitions to post 16 in 2030, but using her needs profile to test the proposals, for similar children who come after her:
She is Autistic with ADHD and has significant sensory processing and SEMH problems and cannot cope with busy settings, but is academically capable, kind, funny and an engaged and curious learner whenever she feels safe enough. Mainstream harmed her mental health (dysregulation, self harm, disruptive and aggressive behaviour) and she regressed 3 years academically and was deregistered from SATs. She is now thriving in an independent special school.
She would qualify for one of the SPPs, so in the new world, her provision would be a “support base” in a mainstream school. She wouldn’t be able to walk to school like her mainstream peers as she has no road safety awareness, so would still need transport. She would not be able to join the mainstream environment at any points of the school day because it would be too overwhelming and unsafe, so her entire school experience would be in whatever room(s) were available solely for the SPP cohort. No science lab, no art room, no canteen, no facilities to help her achieve. Just a separate room to stay in.
That is NOT inclusion, it is NOT thriving and it would NOT meet her needs. It would, however, be cheaper.
I feel the government are being deliberately vague and misleading about these SPPs, to let people think there’s a top rung of support akin to our current special schools, but there is no mention of any investment to create these places and no detail on which settings would provide them. People are assuming SPPs mean a special school placement, but I think they’re going to bundle it all in with mainstream, which for autistic children who can’t cope in such settings would be horrendously harmful and isolating.