Intro by SNJ:
Last week, the Department for Education’s strange “National SEND Conversation” came to a close. If you needed an accessible version of the 36-question-long survey, it was slid out days before closure, like a second-rate Indiana Jones Hat roll trope. The DfE refused to extend the “conversation”, so anyone who’d been waiting for the accessible versions to participate had barely any time to do so. Some may say this reveals that the DfE doesn’t really care what learning disabled people think, but we couldn’t possibly comment.
The feedback from almost all parents about the online meetings has been dire. Most reported being unable to participate in the chat or to access the question and answer facility. Even though this was fed back many times to the department before Christmas, it wasn’t solved for later events. Those with paid or work Teams accounts had better luck, but even their experience was variable. Most felt it was, at best, a conversation between those sat beside minister, Georgia Gould, rather than those joining from home. Embarassing.
The general conclusion was it was pretty shambolic example of “engagement.” Let’s hope this isn’t going to be a precursor for how the post-publication White Paper consultation is going to go.
The meetings were based around the Five entirely un-cocreated SEND Reform Principles: early, local, fair, effective, and shared, or ELFES, that should perhaps have been left on the shelf…
SEND parent and 40-year veteran advocate, Diana Read, participated in one of the online conversations and has sent us her experience, along with her reflections of why historical context is so important in this discussion
Why is the Government ignoring multiple inquiry findings & voices of experience? By Diana Read, parental advocate
This week, I joined the Department for Education’s ‘Conversation on ‘effective’ SEND reform principle with the Schools Minister’, cunningly timed at 6 pm, maybe to ensure minimal attendance. I use the word ‘joined’ loosely because this wasn’t a normal conversation to which anyone could contribute.
We were spectators sitting and listening to a few people talking while the chat facility was turned off. Before I go any further though, thanks are due to Gareth and Andrew from Autism Dadcast for their valiant, but ultimately fruitless, efforts to extract from the schools minister any indication about the future of EHCPs and legal rights to support. Many questions were asked via the questions icon but only three were answered, or more accurately not answered but waffled around. By the end, some of us had resorted to using it to comment.
A sense of déjà vu
As someone who has been involved in SEND for over forty years as a parent, at times various times a SEND officer and casework manager, and for the last ten plus years as an advocate for local parents, I watched/listened to the evening’s session with a growing sense of frustration and déjà vu. My husband, highly experienced and knowledgeable about SEND both as step-dad to my son and over 30 years working in the system and advocating for parents, left the room after about 20 minutes, muttering that he’d heard it all before. He was right of course.
We’ve had legislation on SEND since the Education Act 1981 was implemented. This Act established a new framework for special educational needs, for the first time giving disabled children a legal right to education and placing a duty on councils to identify, assess and provide for their needs. It introduced statements of SEN as a legally-enforceable method of recording children’s needs and what had to be done to support them.
The Act promoted integration and inclusion in mainstream schools and introduced the concept that disabled children had a right to be educated alongside their peers. Parents were given greater choice through a formal assessment process and rights to appeal LA decisions.
The Education Act, 1996, consolidated and gave further clarification about the duties of local education authorities to assess, identify and provide for SEN, including ensuring placement in mainstream schools where possible. It established a statutory framework for inclusion. It gave parents the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal against LA decisions and extended legal rights to mainstream school placements for those who wanted them for their children.
SEN/D Codes of Practice
The first Code of Practice was published in 1994 and a second one replaced it in 2001. Both provided further detailed guidance on implementing both the letter and the aims of the 1981 and 1996 Acts, including ‘helping schools and LAs obtain the best value from the considerable resources and expertise they invest on helping children with special educational needs’.
The 2001 Code contained chapters on working in partnership with parents, pupil participation, and working in partnership with other agencies, as well as separate chapters on identification, assessment and provision in early education settings, the primary phase, the secondary sector. Does all this sound familiar? Then please read on.
The Lamb Inquiry 2009
During the early years of the 21st century, parental dissatisfaction grew, at least in part due to increased understanding of their legal rights. The number of appeals to the SEND Tribunal grew correspondingly. Authorities began to panic and in 2008, the government of the day commissioned an inquiry, chaired by Brian Lamb OBE. It included extensive consultation with parents as well as LAs, schools and other practitioners. I attended a meeting for parents at a local school and can confirm that Brian Lamb did indeed talk personally to parents and it was clear he not only listened but HEARD what they were saying. The final report of the enquiry was published in December 2009 (SNJ contemporaneous coverage) and was 102 pages long. 51 recommendations were made and the main areas of focus were:
- Children’s outcomes to be at the heart of the system
- A stronger voice for parents
- A system with a greater focus on children’s needs
- A more accountable system that delivers better services
The foreword highlighted, amongst other issues, the importance of clear and timely communication, the need to identify and respond more quickly to children’s needs and that the development and deployment of staff with the right skills is essential. It addressed the lack of strategic focus on SEND and the need to improve accountability at every level, with better systems of redress for parents. Closer and more effective multi agency working was required if the outcomes for children and young people were to improve.
Under the secretaryship of a certain Mr Ed Balls, the then Labour government’s DfES—Department for Education and Skills—wasn’t exempt from needing to up its game either. Brian Lamb pointed to a need for the Department to make better use of the evidence it collected and to make more use of data from Ofsted, the SEND Tribunal and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in order to understand how the system was working. Interestingly, he didn’t recommend abolishing statements of SEN but made clear they needed to be improved by making them more specific and clearer, with less cutting and pasting and more personalisation.
Children and Families Act 2014
In 2010, a new coalition government of Liberal Democrats and conservatives came into power. Then, in 2011, Lib Dem education minister, Sarah Teather, led the move to publish an SEN Green Paper, ahead of draft legislation for a new Act to better support disabled children.
After extensive pathfinder trialling of the Children & Families Bill, the CFA Act 2014 was born, abolishing statements of SEN, replacing them with Education, Health & Care Plans and extending the right to support in education for young people from what was 5-16, to birth up to the age of 25. Special Needs Jungle tracked the development and implementation of these reforms.
In my then role as an local authority representative, I attended a launch meeting prior to publication of the Act. Three, no doubt well-intentioned, people from the now Department for Education, informed us that the Act would revolutionise support for children and young people with SEND. EHCPs were to be written jointly by LAs, parents, children or young people themselves and involved professionals, who would all meet to discuss what the EHCP would say.
Consequently, there would be no surprises for parents and the number of Tribunals would reduce. Not only that, we were told that professionals from education, health and social care would work closely together to ensure a joined up approach not only for individual children and young people but also at a strategic, local level through a series of boards and committees to ensure that services were tailored to the needs of children and young people in the area.
Buzzwords included co-production, early intervention, high-quality teaching, better transition planning, local offer and better planning for transition to adulthood. It was clear that little or no thought had been given to how all these busy people, parents and other professionals would manage the extra demands on their time, let alone the logistics of getting them together at the same time. And, of course, funding this expanded system.
Little and everything changes
When the Act itself was implemented in September 2014, there was in fact little change in the basic legal duties placed on LAs. A few changes in wording, some good and some not so good. Specialist lawyers told us existing SEND case law would still apply. New duties for health and social care services were identified but not made fully enforceable in law.
The new SEND Code of Practice set out much more detailed guidance on issues such as on cooperation and working together across services, early years and identifying needs early, supporting pupils with or without EHCPs in early years setting, schools and FE college, preparing for adulthood and so on. Having worked in the previous system for several years, it seemed to me that the existing laws and guidance could have been strengthened, the new duties on NHS and social care services added, and a new Code of Practice issued at less cost and with less upheaval for all involved. Instead, it felt like the baby had been thrown out with the bathwater. I still remember reporting back to the office saying, ‘it will all end in tears’.
Back to the present
The frustration I felt listening to the ‘conversation’ this week was because now we’re being asked to explain what’s needed all over again to a Secretary of State and a Department for Education, neither of which appears to be paying much attention, if any. This is obvious from DfE posts on social media and the many comments, virtually all negative, that they provoke.
The Department seems blithely—or deliberately—unaware of the plethora of damning reports and accompanying recommendations published over the last few years from a variety of sources including Parliamentary committees, professional bodies from many disciplines working in SEND, academic institutions, and national and local voluntary organisations. It reminds me of the quote from the 2019 Education Select Committe’s SEND Inquiry that the DfE was presiding“serenely over chaos”
2014 reforms were the right ones
The vast majority of reports I’ve seen concur with the 2019 inquiry’s findings that the 2014 reforms were the right ones, that there should be no watering down of statutory rights, and that there must be robust accountability and funding that matches what’s needed. Oh, and there’s Brian Lamb’s 2012 report too, the recommendations of which remain relevant, but have never been fully implemented.
![“We recommend that when the Government makes changes to address these challenges, it should avoid the temptation to address the problems within the system by weakening or watering down duties or making fundamental changes to the law.” [Para 18] “Nobody benefits when Departments avoid accountability and try and pass the buck. The Department for Education, together with the Department for Health and Social Care, should develop mutually beneficial options for cost- and burden-sharing with the health and social care sector.” [Para 25]](https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SEND-INQUIRY-QUOTES_2-04-600x314.jpg)
Strangely enough, the only voices blaming “the system” for the current situation seem to come from councils, local government representative bodies and reports written by consultants they have commissioned. Starved of cash, they chose to blame parents and the law, more than successive governments, where the blame really lies. In turn, it’s clear the Government is favouring these council narratives far more than reflecting on the source of the crisis—itself.
Same old tropes
There is nothing new in the questions the Department is asking, apart perhaps from about its own new SEND hubs in all schools but that’s a whole article in itself, already covered here.
The current SEND Code of Practice sets out in detail what LAs, schools, colleges, early years settings, health and social care services are required to do in order to deliver the aims of the Children & Families Act. Why not simply update it where needed, add more detail where necessary, and instead make sure it’s complied with and funded realistically?
It’s hardly surprising that when I completed the very lengthy and often naively worded questionnaire intended to inform the National SEND Conversation, I repeatedly found myself referring the Department to its very own legislation, SEND Code of Practice and other pieces of guidance— and I know I am far from the only person to do this. We can only hope that somehow, somewhere along the line, we will find that the Ministers and the Department have been listening all the time and will agree that the current legal rights of our children and young people must be protected but I’m not betting on it. The evidence is so far, that they prefer to listen to “real parents” often those newer to SEND who may not have a deep understanding of the law and its context. This gives ministers the chance to tilt their heads, nod sympathetically, and speak of “what I’ve been hearing parents say,” as if it’s something new, rather than the same distressing stories those who’ve been in the system longer and are more cynical, but just as “real” have spoken of for a decade.
Fear and worry, but hope?
It may be that there will be something new and positive in the forthcoming White Paper. At the moment the opposite feels more likely. Are we in danger of throwing that poor baby out with the bath water again? We shall see but to my mind one thing seems certain. Nothing much is going to improve any time soon.
SNJ’s perspective, post “conversation”
“The national conversation has been a masterclass in government gaslighting and ventriloquism, with the views of parents and carers being misrepresented and distorted to fit the government’s agenda.
“It’s clear the Schools White Paper was written long ago and that disabled children’s rights are in the firing line, particularly those in mainstream schools or who the Government consider to have “less severe” needs (whatever that means). In the last week, both Georgia Gould and Bridget Phillipson have been asked direct questions about retaining rights. Georgia Gould laughed and bluntly refused to answer, while Bridget Phillipson dodged the question.
“The government’s SEND advisors bizarrelly claim the term “SEND” means nothing and want to retire it. We can help: It’s an acronym for special educational needs and disabilities—its meaning is clear. And changing definitions doesn’t change children’s needs, it just makes it harder for them to get the support they require.
“The Easy Read explanation of the national SEND conversation came out after most of the so-called conversations had already taken place and only a week before the written questionnaire closed. It’s a damning indication that DfE and the government don’t care about young people’s views and don’t understand even the basic principles of inclusion. The questionnaire itself was long, highly leading, and inaccessible to most young people, parents and carers, particularly those who are disabled. There was no opportunity to contribute answers orally and no Easy Read questionnaire. In the online conversations, parents were on mute, the chat switched off and most couldn’t access the Q&A. If they can’t get the basics of inclusion right here, how can we possibly trust them with large scale (unnecessary) changes?
“We started the year as we mean to go on, with a renewed campaign and a trip to Downing Street, Will you join us in the fight to save disabled children’s rights?”
Gill Doherty, Co-Director, Special Needs Jungle
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:
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”
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
- Should “highly valued” EHCP Independent Supporters return to help parents navigate the SEND jungle? - May 22, 2026
- Why the Government’s “SEND conversation” fell flat with parents: It’s failing to learn from voices of past experience - January 19, 2026
- An essential Guide to SEND Transport - February 15, 2022
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
