By Jaysol Doy

23 July 2026

With a new Prime Minister and Education Secretary, what might be next for the planned SEND reforms? The public consultation is over and, if everything continues as planned, we must now wait for the Government’s response to the submissions it received, and the publication of the Education for All Bill later this year.

In our response to the consultation, we argued that this Bill must not reduce vital existing legal entitlements and safeguards. It may be that a new PM and Secretary of State offers an opportunity to ensure this is the case, but with Georgia Gould MP remaining in post as Schools Minister (who has overall responsibility for SEND reform) it is unclear whether there will be in fact be any change in direction.

What kind of reform is needed?

It is clear that action is desperately needed to save a system widely recognised as being at ‘crisis point’. Figures show that over 50% of children must wait for longer than the legal timeframe of 20 weeks to obtain an Education, Health and Care Plan[1], a staggering 99% of cases before the SEND Tribunal are won at least in part by children and young people[2], and families are forced to fight tooth and nail to simply secure what their child is entitled to by law.

These failings are only compounded by socio-economic and regional inequalities: in 2023, for example, Windsor & Maidenhead issued 95% of new EHC plans in 20 weeks, compared to 9.9% in Stockport and 6% in Leicestershire[3].

The system therefore cannot continue in its current form: it needs to be made to work as it should. But the detail of the Government’s proposed reform is concerning because it risks reducing opportunities for families to hold public authorities to account by pigeon-holing children into different ‘packages’ of support, removing key legal duties on local authorities and scaling back the powers of the SEND Tribunal.

Despite this, the Government states that its proposals are about the ‘realisation of children’s rights’[4]. It fails to recognise, however, that rights are only meaningful if there are effective mechanisms to enforce them.

How are a child’s rights enforced in practice currently?

A child’s right to an education suited to their needs has been recognised in English educational policy since, at least, the foundational Warnock Report in 1978 that outlined the term special educational provision to ‘embrace the notion of any form of additional help, wherever it is provided and whenever it is provided […] to overcome educational difficulty’[5].

Subsequently, this underlying philosophy has underpinned all three major legislative frameworks concerning children with SEND: the Education Acts 1981 and 1996, and the Children and Families Act 2014. Each of these frameworks was structured around duties imposed on public authorities to secure the education that each child requires, regardless of the cost[6].

However, this underlying ‘right’ has never been expressly recognised in legislation as a freestanding legal right. Instead, it is given effect through a network of enforceable statutory duties. When these concern an EHC needs assessment or the appropriateness of a child or young person’s EHC plan, the SEND Tribunal’s authority is engaged[7]. In other cases, such as when the provision in an EHC plan is not being made, a claim for judicial review will need to be made in the High Court or a complaint sent to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO)[8].

These remedies offer crucial avenues of resolution for when things go wrong (which will always happen sometimes, even in the best resourced system), allowing children and young people to receive their underlying entitlement to an education suited to their needs. Without them, public authorities face little effective accountability when they fail to comply with the law.

In what way should the government change direction?

It is therefore alarming that the proposed SEND reforms indicate that these remedies will be scaled back considerably. Indeed, in its consultation paper the Government states that it hopes for the SEND Tribunal to be a ‘last resort’ while failing to mention the LGSCO whatsoever.[9]

This attitude stands in stark contrast to the House of Commons Education Select Committee, which identified a ‘critical need for a clear and accessible route of redress’[10]. Following this recommendation would enable the Government to resolve the fragmentation in the present system by clearly setting out the ways children and their families can challenge public authorities when things go wrong.

However, by eliminating many of the existing avenues for challenge and proposing no alternative mechanism for accountability, the Government’s proposals will render any so-called ‘rights’ children have under a new system toothless and as a result seriously undermine access to justice.

For this reason, IPSEA is calling on ministers to commit to four key principles:

1. Protect the existing legal rights for children and young people with and without EHC plans. 
2. Retain legally enforceable provision by ensuring either EHC plans or Individual Support Plans clearly specify the support required and can be enforced when that support is not delivered. 
3. Leave no child behind by ensuring reforms work for children and young people who are unable to attend school, including those receiving Education Otherwise Than In School (EOTIS) packages, as well as those in under-served communities and children in custody. 
4. Preserve access to justice by retaining families' rights of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and extend the powers of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to investigate complaints about SEND provision in schools. 

In his first speech as Prime Minister, Andy Burnham declared that hope is back. We now wait to see whether that promise includes children with SEND and their families, so that we too can hope for a SEND system that ensures every child receives the education they need and to which they are entitled by law. In the meantime, please write to your MP once more and explain that you expect them to communicate this with the new PM and with his ministers.

About the author

Jaysol has been a volunteer on IPSEA’s advice line since 2024 and is undertaking an internship with the policy team this summer. He graduated from Trinity College, University of Cambridge, this summer and has received a scholarship from Lincoln’s Inn to study for the bar course next year. His passion for SEND law is inspired by his brother who has severe autism and is non-verbal. In his spare time, he can normally be found in a theatre (performing and watching!),  reading or drinking wine!