The SEND White Paper: our view

Our specialist education law team responded directly to the consultation and raised three main concerns. 

1. Are decisions clear and transparent?

A central theme in our response was the lack of transparency in how Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) decisions are currently made – and the risk that this may continue under the proposed framework. 

In practice, families often have little visibility of the evidence relied on by local authorities, which schools have been consulted, or how decisions are reached. This can lead to delays, inappropriate placements, and situations where children are left without suitable education. 

More broadly, we see inconsistency in decision making and limited explanation to families about how outcomes are reached. 

Greater transparency in local authority decision making is essential to give a meaningful voice to parents, children and young people. We suggested that authorities could: 

• open up the panel decision making processes
• allow parents or young people to participate more actively (for example through written or video input); and
• share the documents considered by decision-making panels

We also recommended that local authorities should ensure that families can engage effectively by: 

• using advocates where parents or young people have their own learning needs or are neurodivergent; and
• providing interpreters or translators for families with English as an additional language or who are deaf.

We believe that building transparency into the system will result in better decisions. 

2. Will the reforms reduce the ability to challenge decisions?

Another key concern is that some proposals consulted on could weaken independent oversight and make it harder for families to challenge decisions. 

In particular, we raised concerns about proposals which may:

• remove the SEND tribunal’s ability to name a placement in Section I; and
• restrict parental choice by limiting the range of school placements put forward by local authorities

These changes, if implemented, would significantly reduce the role of parents and young people in decisions about their education. 

In practice, we find that many Section I Tribunal appeals are conceded by local authorities shortly before the hearing (often weeks or days beforehand), with the parental preference ultimately being agreed. This demonstrates the important role that parental challenge currently plays in securing appropriate provision. It also shows that decision-making cannot rest solely with local authorities. The tribunal’s ability to name a placement in Section I is therefore critical. If it's only able to quash decisions rather than name placements, there is a risk that unsuitable decisions would simply be remade by the local authority.  

Where local authorities are identifying potential schools, we believe they should:  

• properly consider the views of parents and young people
• assess travel distance and the practical impact on the young person
• take into account consultation responses from schools and professional advice; and
• provide a full and meaningful list of suitable placements 

Families must be able to contact schools directly, visit settings, and make informed choices. They should also retain access to effective routes of challenge, including the SEND tribunal. 

3. Can the system deliver these reforms?

We also questioned whether the current system has the capacity and resources to deliver these changes effectively. 

There is already clear pressure on the system: long waiting times for assessments, limited access to therapeutic support and an over-reliance on stretched local authority and health services. These proposals would shift more responsibility onto schools without providing any clarity about how schools would fund it.  

Teachers are often able to identify needs early but cannot access the specialist support required quickly enough. This delays intervention and allows issues to escalate. For example, proposals for schools to manage Individual Support Plans (ISPs) for all children with SEND will significantly increase workload. Many schools already struggle to complete EHCP applications due to time and resource constraints, and we are concerned that additional administrative demands could become unmanageable.  

Funding is another key issue. The notional budget has remained at £6,000 since 2009, and there is currently limited clarity on whether this will change. 

Without increased capacity and sufficient funding, there is a real risk that these reforms will place further strain on an already stretched system. 

Next steps

The consultation ran from 23 February 2026 to 18 May 2026. The government is now considering the feedback. You can read our summary of the key proposals here. 

The government has also announced that it intends to launch a further consultation on education other than at school in the near future. That detail was missing from the consultation and is an important piece in this jigsaw. 

Support for schools and colleges

Our specialist education law team has considerable expertise acting for school and colleges reviewing the lawfulness of their policies, supporting formal complaints processes, safeguarding issues, defending exclusion and suspensions, as well as disability and discrimination Equality Act 2010 appeals. 

Please contact Ester Salter for more information.

Our newsletters

We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you’d like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.