The government should be clear about the trade-offs involved in SEND reform

Children’s legal rights are centre stage in discussions about reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system. Parents, charities and MPs are seeking cast-iron assurances that ministers won’t dilute children’s entitlements to support, nor families’ rights to appeal SEND decisions, in their upcoming reform plans. ¹⁰ Richard A, ‘New campaign urges Starmer not to diminish legal rights of Send children’, The Guardian, 12 January 2026, retrieved 22 January 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jan/12/new-campaign-urges-starmer-not-to-diminish-legal-rights-of-send-children

That vigilance is understandable. In a system this broken, legal routes are often the only way for families to secure additional support – and even then they must fight tooth and nail.

But legal rights are only as good as the provision to which they entitle you. While this focus reflects real pressures in the system, it may not always translate into better outcomes for children and young people with SEND.  

The focus on legal rights is a symptom of system failure

It is no secret that the SEND system has been swamped by acute demand, with the number of education, health and care plans (or EHCPs, the highest tier of SEND provision) more than doubling over the last nine years. To cope, resource has been diverted away from lower-tier support, including the everyday help offered in a classroom. With those lower rungs missing, children and young people’s demand for EHCPs has escalated, perpetuating a vicious cycle. Ultimately, we have arrived at a system in which EHCPs are one of the only ways parents can access additional support for their child. ¹¹ House of Commons Education Committee, Solving the SEND Crisis: Fifth report of session 2024-25 (HC 492), The Stationery Office, 2025

EHCPs, and the legal entitlement to support that they entail, are so valued precisely because the system is failing – there is no “credible alternative” in seeking support. ¹² House of Commons Education Committee, Solving the SEND Crisis: Fifth report of session 2024-25 (HC 492), The Stationery Office, 2025, p. 37

Similar doom loops have torn through other public services over the last decade. But the SEND system is particularly vulnerable to the problem. Its legal framework is focused primarily on inputs (‘is this child eligible for an EHCP and are they getting what it says they should?’) rather than outcomes (‘how well is this child being supported?’). That prescriptive approach leaves bodies little room to find better and more cost-efficient ways to deliver services, cementing the link between the increase in acute demand and the diversion of resources away from lower-tier support.

Individual rights are not an effective way to hold a system to account

The SEND system’s legal framework means parents can challenge decisions on a case-by-case basis, whether about a particular child’s eligibility for an EHCP, or the adequacy of the support they are receiving under a plan. While it is important for there to be a robust and independent way to deal with disputes, these mechanisms should be safeguards, not the primary means of accountability.

Case-by-case accountability is highly resource intensive. The onus to challenge decisions, which can be incredibly time consuming and stressful, should not land so squarely on parents and carers. And taking such a piecemeal and adversarial approach means that public bodies spend more time and money defending a failing system, rather than improving it.

Appeals to individual rights are also not set up to deliver meaningful system-level change. They only address failings after they happen, for children whose parents have the time and means to fight. Considering cases in isolation provides little opportunity to understand systemic problems and their solutions. Moreover, zeroing in on a small part of the legislation that the relevant public bodies are subject to – as any claim to an individual right is bound to – does not allow a constructive conversation about which responsibilities should be prioritised.  

Local authorities are also under legal duties to, for example, safeguard children who face a significant risk of harm, to house people experiencing homelessness, and to meet adults’ need for care and support – all with an increasingly insufficient pot of money. In some cases, services have been rationed. Councils need to be able to make deliberate decisions about any such trade-offs if they are to deliver the best possible outcomes for local areas.

The legal framework sets the parameters for SEND reform

Although legal rights are a much-relied-upon safeguard, they can at times sit in tension with efforts to improve outcomes for children with SEND.

For example, the government wants to make schools more inclusive, building support into settings more seamlessly rather than as add-ons to the standard offer. And school leaders have told us that it would be beneficial – often both financially and for the children themselves – to pool resources and support for children with similar needs. Both aspirations are hindered by the rigidity of current individual entitlements, which promote piecemeal additions to provision.  

The government should openly acknowledge this tension – between well-established safeguards and a more preventative, inclusive system – and weigh it carefully in conversation with parents and other system stakeholders.