Every child achieving and thriving

"If we get it wrong, who's accountable, the school or the LA?"

25 March 2026

As they write their Local SEND Reform Plans, these leaders must navigate a landscape where the government's vision of a less adversarial system collides with the harsh realities of underfunding and workforce shortages.

At pop pop studio, we're helping councils to build a sustainable model for the Universal Offer and Experts at Hand service. Find out more at poppop.studio/belong

When the government unveiled its SEND reforms earlier this year, it framed the shift from Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) to Individual Support Plans (ISPs) as "a radical expansion in rights for children with SEND". The promise was clear: a system that would end the battles families face to secure support, replacing legalistic processes with collaboration and early intervention.

Yet for the families, lawyers, and educators who have spent years navigating the current system, the reforms feel less like a breakthrough and more like a high-stakes experiment, one that could leave the most vulnerable children without the protections they rely on.

A system of rights under pressure

The Department for Education insists that the reforms will ensure "all settings will have a legal duty to provide every child with SEND an Individual Support Plan". But as IPSEA's analysis reveals, the reality is far more complex.

"A plan without enforceable provision is not protection."

Under the new framework, children may lose the right to provision based on their individual assessed needs, as well as the right to secure a specific school placement. For Polly Sweeney of Rook Irwin Sweeney, the lack of consultation on these critical changes is particularly alarming.

"It is of real concern to our client that the consultation omits to include any questions on these important proposals which would appear to significantly weaken legal rights of children and young people with SEND and their parents."

Melissa Hayhurst, a parent whose daughter's case is at the heart of a judicial review, puts it bluntly.

"Decisions of this scale should not be predetermined behind closed doors, without properly engaging the families who rely on these protections every day."

Accountability in question

The government's vision for accountability rests on Ofsted inspections and area SEND reviews. Yet for those on the frontlines, this approach feels woefully inadequate.

"If reform is to rebuild confidence with families, it must strengthen and not strip away the protections that children and young people depend on."

By Matt Keer of Special Needs Jungle. School leaders, too, find themselves in an impossible position.

"We're being asked to take on legal responsibilities without extra resources. If we get it wrong, who's accountable, the school or the LA?"

One headteacher told the BBC.

The human cost of unmet needs

Behind the policy debates and legal challenges lie real children in crisis. Measure What Matters found that one in six families reported their child had experienced suicidal ideation due to unmet SEND needs.

"The system is not broken because the law asked too much. It is broken because those responsible for administering it decided that funding was insufficient, and therefore the consequences of systemic non-compliance with the statutory framework were acceptable."

For parents like those quoted in the report, the reforms offer little comfort.

"My son was excluded, off-rolled, then left without a school for a year. His EHCP was the only thing that gave us leverage. What happens to kids like him under ISPs?"

A crisis of trust

The government claims the reforms were co-produced with stakeholders, but for many parent carers, this rings hollow.

"To be told that some of the most significant changes to the SEND system have effectively already been decided, without meaningful consultation, is deeply concerning. These reforms will have a direct and profound impact on some of the most vulnerable children in our society."

Hayhurst says. For local authority SEND leaders, the reforms present a profound dilemma. How do you implement a system that promises greater inclusion but risks weakening the very protections that families have fought so hard to secure?