Is the government removing my son's right to an education? Thoughts on the SEND White Paper

On February 23rd the government published the SEND white paper - SEND Reform: Putting Children and Young People First. This is meant to be the start of a consultation on reform of the SEND system in the UK. It will have wide-reaching implications for anyone that has SEND. And on the current timeline my son is due to be in the first cohort moving to the new system

I think there’s a real chance my son will be forced out of education.

So what’s the main problem? My son has a presentation of autism that is very spiky. On some days he might be able to go to school and somewhat engage in lessons and look like he’s learning. On other days he might go to school and not spend a minute in the classroom. He has an EHCP that partially funds one-to-one support. And frankly the school gives him a lot more one-to-one support than he is funded for. We had to fight for that EHCP, as everyone does. But without getting very detailed, clear, professional reports and pushing to get these reports done well, there is a chance the local authority could have decided that his needs should be met through the schools standard offering.

For my son to maintain an EHCP he would need to fit some definition of complex needs. It will be the same local authority that didn’t want to give him an EHCP in the first place that will decide whether he meets that definition of complex needs. With limited ability to appeal that decision, and frankly if you ask me if his needs are complex, I would probably say no they’re not complex; it’s very specific.

For the children that do have complex needs they have to fit into one of seven or possibly more pre-defined specialist provision packages. In the draft packages there are two that are marked as being suitable for autistic children: “Social and Emotional Development – Externalising Behaviour” and “Social and Emotional Development – Internalising Behaviour” packages, plus potentially “Significant Learning Disability”. My son’s presentation of autism does not tend to match most other children’s presentation. Because he is so highly PDA a lot of the interventions that work for most autistic children do not work for him and even if he does meet the package definition, will it provide the right education for him? He is somebody that is very capable of learning and highly intelligent in some subjects more advanced than his peers. But he is also somewhat unteachable at the moment which leaves him behind his peers in other subjects. This worry around SPPs is shared by the PDA Society.

Based on the current system my assumption is if you qualify for the specialist provision package you are likely to end up in an education where you are not allowed to be an academic achiever.

So without an EHCP, what happens to my son? The local authority chooses where he will go, again, with very limited right of appeal. I could go to tribunal and the most they could say is ask the local authority to choose again but it will be a budget-driven decision not a needs-driven decision. This is controversial enough that legal challenges are already being raised at this stage. It will also be up to the school to give him the level of support he needs. Again it is very spiky and very highly likely that he will crash out as a lot of his needs are anxiety-driven and once he’s out he may not be getting back in, especially as it appears that, at least in name, mental health responsibility is being taken away from schools to rely on a health service that is already underwater in dealing with children’s mental health issues. This is particularly concerning when it is precisely the school environment that is the main cause of mental health problems for children like my son.

Systemic problems

I don’t think anyone is defending the current system. It is terrible and creates an adversarial relationship between parents and their local authority. But at least it is a known system. It encourages the parents and school to work together against the local authority to get the best outcome for the child. And there are backstops in place that mean as long as you are persistent, you can often get the right result.

The new system creates an adversarial relationship between the parent and the school with no power remaining on the parents if the education provided is wholly unsuitable

Who are the experts?

There’s also a lot of emphasis on the SEND packages being designed by panels of experts. But it doesn’t in any way define who an expert is. In this case, there is nobody more expert in their child’s development and education than the parent.

An expert panel appointed by government, with no mechanism for challenge, will design packages that determine what education my son receives. The white paper doesn’t define who qualifies as an expert or whether they work to deliver the best outcomes for children or a budget. There are many so-called experts that also have huge blind spots.

The recent article by Uta Frith in the TES - “Why I no longer think autism is a spectrum” highlights somebody who contributed enormously to autism research and is widely regarded as an expert, but whose recent arguments risk creating barriers for autistic girls in particular in what is a suspiciously timed article. In fact, Frith appears to be arguing for a more diagnosis led approach, rather than needs led, which is a worrying thought as to how SPPs could end up. Dr Sue Franklin provides a great rebuttal, but who gets to choose whether it’s a Frith or a Franklin designing the SPPs?.

The inclusion lie

The driving force of this reform seems to come from inclusion at any cost. Mary Warnock introduced the presumption of mainstream, but she promoted inclusion where it was right for the child. The white paper heads down a path she herself expressed discomfort with. Key to Warnock’s recommendations were that the parents and educational settings should be in agreement that the child’s needs are capable of being met in a mainstream school, and that non-mainstream settings should exist for those children where it is not the right option.

The idea that inclusion is the best outcome is not backed up by research. The white paper cites [footnote 4] as evidence that inclusive education leads to better employment outcomes. I read the cited paper - The Road to Work for Former Students with Special Educational Needs: Different Paths for Young Men and Young Women? – Finn Ove Båtevik, Jon Olav Myklebust. It does not say what the government claims. The factors driving employment outcomes were having lower support needs, achieving academic qualifications, having a driving licence, and having a parent in work – not the inclusive setting itself. The government is using this research to justify a policy of inclusion at any cost, when the research actually supports giving children like my son the best possible academic outcomes in whatever setting achieves that.

The best education for my son may well be a non-inclusive setting where he can be academically challenged and that would not counter that research at all. Inclusion at any cost is purely a cost-driven exercise. If the government were honest about that then we could actually have an honest conversation about how to make that work. Instead we’re left with a situation where many children are going to get excluded from education.

What next?

While technically this is the start of a consultation period, the white paper clearly sets out what the Government’s agenda is. Schools Week has reported that the DfE’s quality assessment framework for council reform plans awards the highest rating to councils that propose little to no expansion of special school places – and threatens to strip SEND powers from councils that don’t comply. This is happening while the consultation is still open. It should be assumed that the end result of the consultation will be something close to what has been published.

Even though this feels somewhat like a bad-faith exercise, there is still time for people to respond to the consultation. It closes on 18th May 2026. You should also be contacting your local MPs to tell them what you think – I’m off to a coffee morning with mine in a couple of weeks.