SEND & Schools White Paper
The long-awaited Schools and SEND White Paper came out this morning. I've spent the day reading both documents cover to cover. Here are my initial thoughts.
Three Tiers of Support
The new system proposes three layers of support sitting above a strengthened Universal offer. Children can access these from day one, without needing a formal assessment or diagnosis, and can move between layers flexibly as their needs change.
Targeted covers structured interventions within mainstream settings - small group work, pre-teaching, personalised materials - for needs that every mainstream setting should be familiar with and able to respond to. Each child receiving Targeted support will have a digital Individual Support Plan (ISP), developed with parents, recorded and reviewed at least annually. Settings will have a statutory duty to produce ISPs.
Targeted Plus covers less commonly occurring needs that require mainstream settings to work with local government and health partners. It draws on the new 'Experts at Hand' service (speech and language therapists, educational psychologists and other health professionals working directly in schools). Children may access an Inclusion Base within their mainstream setting, and may also have time-limited placements in Alternative Provision to assess and address needs before reintegration.
Specialist is for children with the most complex needs, accessed via a nationally-defined Specialist Provision Package, underpinned by an EHCP. Only children who need a Package will have an EHCP going forward. Mental health interventions should remain with health professionals within these Packages.
Inclusion Bases - a new term replacing "SEN unit," "resourced provision," and "pupil support unit" - will comprise Support Bases (setting/MAT funded, for Targeted support) and Specialist Bases (LA funded, for Specialist support). The government expects every secondary school will eventually have an Inclusion Base, with an equivalent number of places in local primaries.
My thoughts and questions
The flexibility of this model is genuinely appealing - the idea that children can move between layers without a lengthy escalation process addresses one of the most frustrating aspects of the current system. But flexibility without clear definitions creates risk.
The key distinction between Targeted and Targeted Plus - one covering needs schools should handle themselves, the other requiring external partnership - is helpful in principle. In practice, schools and LAs will need to make judgement calls about which layer a child is in, and those judgements will affect resource allocation and, ultimately, whether a child ever reaches the threshold for a Specialist Provision Package and EHCP. Without clear, enforceable criteria, this flexibility could become a mechanism for gatekeeping rather than responsiveness.
The most fundamental unanswered question in the whole document is: what exactly constitutes "complex needs" that qualify for Specialist support? The consultation is candid: "We have not provided a singular definition of this term and recognise that this language can be interpreted in different ways." The Packages themselves are intended to collectively define "complex needs" over time - but that means the threshold question won't be resolved until the Packages are developed. Families navigating the system in the interim face the same gatekeeping uncertainty they do now, just with different language around it.
I also have a deeper question about the Package model itself. Why is support being organised into packages, and how do you decide which package a child needs? The framing risks implying that children with similar diagnoses will require the same provision. Every child is different. Provision must be tailored to individual needs. The documents say packages will be broad and comprehensive enough that any child's needs could be met by a single package - but that assumption needs to be tested rigorously with families and practitioners before it becomes the basis of statutory entitlement.
Proposed Changes to EHCPs
EHCPs will continue to exist for children who need a Specialist Provision Package. However, the process for developing them is being reformed.
Currently, the EHCP is intended to drive provision - it sets out what a child needs, and provision should follow. In the new system, the Specialist Provision Package is identified first (setting out the evidence-based support required for that child's needs profile), the placement is then recommended, and the EHCP is written to reflect and legally guarantee those decisions. The setting will have the legal duty to deliver the educational offer set out in the EHCP.
A standardised, digitised EHCP template - transferable across settings and LAs - will be introduced, to improve consistency and reduce the quality variation that currently causes enormous problems when families move or children transition. The government also commits to reducing the overall time it takes to agree an EHCP.
Approximately seven Specialist Provision Packages are anticipated, linked to a nationally set costing framework. The independent expert panel overseeing the Packages will publish recommendations; DfE will be required to respond publicly to these. The assessment process will be LA-coordinated, drawing on input from any experts who have supported the child, with the responsible health commissioner required to identify and secure relevant health provision.
My thoughts and questions
My key question: Are you just renaming EHCPs rather than actually making reforms?
The government's own projection is that by 2035, the number of children requiring a Specialist Provision Package and therefore an EHCP will return to around today's level.
The standardised, digitised EHCP template is one of the most practically meaningful commitments in the whole document - and something I'm genuinely pleased about. Families who move between LA areas, or whose children transition between phases, often face having to start again from scratch. Standardisation will help.
However, I want to be honest about what the Package model does and doesn't solve. Currently, not every child and family gets access to a professional who will advocate fully for that child's individual needs. Most families get access to an LA-funded professional who is operating under cost pressure. A new framework does not change that structural reality. Genuinely independent, well-resourced assessment - at every layer of the system, not just at the Specialist level - is what would actually make a difference.
Early Intervention
The government is investing heavily in earlier identification and support, across early years and into the school system.
Best Start Family Hubs will act as a single front door for families - offering advice, practical help and evidence-based interventions before school entry and before any formal diagnosis or escalation of need. Every Hub will have a dedicated SEND practitioner, backed by over £200 million over three years. For children under 5 who have been identified as having complex needs, there will be a fast-track route to a Specialist Provision Package and EHCP.
The EYFS two-year progress check and the Healthy Child Programme development review will be used more effectively as early identification tools. The government is funding a £4 million UKRI research project to develop and roll out improved approaches for early identification and strengths and needs assessment by 2028.
All early years settings will also be able to draw on education and health professionals through the new Experts at Hand offer, and will receive funding from the new Inclusive Early Years Fund from 2026-27.
My thoughts and questions
The evidence on early intervention is strong, and the commitment to building it into every community through Best Start Family Hubs is the right direction. The Sure Start evidence the document cites is compelling - children who had access to Sure Start Children's Centres were more likely to have their needs recognised at age 5 and less likely to require SEND support between ages 7 and 16.
A dedicated SEND practitioner in every Hub is a meaningful commitment - but how will we ensure that practitioner has the right training, time, and access to specialist advice to actually identify and support the full range of children's needs?
Changes to Areas of Need
The current four 'areas of need' in the SEND Code of Practice - Communication and Interaction; Cognition and Learning; Social, Emotional and Mental Health; and Sensory and/or Physical - are being replaced with new 'areas of development':
Executive Function; Motor and Physical; Sensory; Speech, Language and Communication; Social and Emotional.
The consultation also explicitly acknowledges that framing ADHD as primarily a Social, Emotional and Mental Health need is a classification error, because many of those children's needs relate more closely to cognition and learning.
New guidance will make clear that children do not need a diagnosis to receive support or reasonable adjustments. Practical examples include early access to the dinner hall to reduce sensory overload, adaptive learning materials, and cotton alternatives to synthetic uniform fabrics.
My thoughts and questions
I've been saying the ADHD/SEMH classification issue for a long time, and I'm really pleased it's been acknowledged. I'd add the nuance that many people with ADHD do also have SEMH needs alongside cognition and learning needs - the new framework needs to hold that complexity rather than simply swapping one reductive categorisation for another.
The new areas of development are far more rooted in how children actually develop than the current four areas, which practitioners widely report as unclear and inconsistently applied. The shift also supports the evidence-based, whole-setting approach the document is trying to embed.
The statement that educational support must not be dependent on diagnosis is important and correct. Backing this with practical guidance and new reasonable adjustments examples is a meaningful step.
Changes to the SEND Code of Practice
The SEND Code of Practice will be updated to clarify responsibilities for education settings and local partners, replace 'areas of need' with the new 'areas of development,' and make the guidance easier to use and navigate.
There will be a new requirement in the Code for all settings to ensure staff receive training on SEND and inclusion, and to signpost government-funded training.
Importantly, the Code update will be subject to its own separate, full public consultation, launching after the government responds to this consultation. This will ensure children, young people, parents, education professionals, local authorities and health partners are properly consulted.
My thoughts and questions
Don't overlook this. The Code of Practice shapes day-to-day practice in schools, early years settings and local authorities more directly than anything else in the White Paper. What the Code says about roles, responsibilities, and what settings must do is what practitioners actually reach for when navigating real situations with real families.
The separate consultation on the Code is an opportunity for the sector to shape the detail of how these reforms actually work in practice. It will matter as much as, if not more than, this consultation. Please respond to it when it comes.
Funding
Inclusive Mainstream Fund - £1.6 billion over three years from 2026-27, going directly into mainstream budgets rather than being routed inefficiently through high needs budgets. Schools, colleges and early years settings will use this to deliver the Universal, Targeted and Targeted Plus offer.
Experts at Hand - £1.8 billion over three years: £1 billion for expert professionals (SaLTs, EPs, others) working directly with mainstream settings without requiring assessment or referral; £800 million for specialist settings to build the capacity of mainstream schools through outreach. By 2028-29, a typical primary school could benefit from the equivalent of 40 days of annual support; 160 days for a typical secondary.
Capital investment - £3.7 billion (2025-2030) to create 50,000 new specialist places in Inclusion Bases in mainstream settings, make buildings accessible, and create new special school places.
SEND training - £200 million+ from September 2026, available to all staff across early years, schools and Post-16 settings.
Best Start Family Hubs - £200 million+ over three years for a dedicated SEND offer in every Hub.
EP and SaLT workforce - £40 million over three years, training 200+ additional educational psychologists per year from 2026 and expanding the speech and language therapy workforce. Currently over 64,000 children are waiting to see a SaLT; 88% of LA principal educational psychologists report difficulties recruiting staff.
National Inclusion Standards - £15 million by 2028, setting out for the first time what support should be available in every mainstream setting.
Mental Health Support Teams to cover 60% of pupils by April 2026 and all schools and colleges by 2029-30.
My thoughts and questions
The headline figures are significant. But the NEU has done the maths on the Inclusive Mainstream Fund: £1.6 billion over three years equates to roughly a part-time teaching assistant for the average primary school, and two teaching assistants for an average secondary school. The NEU welcomed the investment but was clear: "it is too small... this is not enough to make schools more inclusive."
When the ask is for mainstream settings to support significantly more children with complex needs - many of whom have previously been in or would previously have qualified for specialist provision - a part-time TA is not a structural solution. The investment in the EP and SaLT workforce is particularly welcome given the waiting list and recruitment crisis figures the document itself cites. But the scale of that workforce problem suggests £40 million, spread across both professions over three years, will not be enough to resolve it.
The rebalancing of funding directly into mainstream core budgets is structurally important and the right direction. Will the core budget funding actually be sufficient for schools to meet needs without resorting to seeking Specialist Provision Packages?
Legal Framework
Tribunal rights are retained. Families can appeal to the Tribunal if the LA refuses a needs assessment. The Tribunal will also hear appeals on: whether a child meets the threshold for a Specialist Provision Package and therefore an EHCP; whether an EHCP should cease; whether the correct Package has been identified; and whether the placement decision is appropriate. Disability discrimination appeals to the Tribunal are also retained.
Presumption to mainstream is maintained. Where a parent or young person with an EHCP indicates a preference for a mainstream setting, there will be strong legal duties on LAs to make this happen (subject to existing exceptions where a mainstream placement would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children).
Parents and young people will have the right to choose from a list of settings able to deliver the relevant Specialist Provision Package, or to express a preference for an alternative. However, children and young people whose Package is designed to support a mainstream curriculum will only be able to express a preference for a mainstream setting.
If the Tribunal finds against an LA's placement decision, it can order the LA to reconsider - but the Tribunal will not itself name the placement.
Complaints panels for SEND disputes must include an independent SENCO, inclusion lead or senior school leader with SEND experience, independent of the school and trust.
Independent special schools (ISS): duties will be aligned with maintained special schools to ensure fair admissions, high-quality support, financial transparency and better value for money. Legislation will be brought forward to ensure LAs can pay a reasonable price for ISS placements.
Transition: Legislation is not expected until September 2029. The current system - with all existing duties, rights and funding routes - remains fully in place until then. Children with EHCPs at the point legislation commences will keep them until the end of their current phase of education, or until they choose to move to the new system. All children in special school placements in September 2029 can remain until the end of their education unless they choose to move. No child will be asked to leave a special school.
My thoughts and questions
The retention of Tribunal rights is essential and I'm glad it's explicit. But there is a significant unresolved legal gap that I think needs to be addressed before legislation is finalised.
If the Tribunal finds against an LA's placement decision, it can quash the decision and order the LA to reconsider - but it cannot itself name the placement. So what happens if the LA reconsiders and still does not name the parental preference? The document is silent on this. For families who have already been through the Tribunal once, the prospect of returning to the same process is exhausting and re-traumatising. A determined LA could, in theory, repeatedly reconsider and reach the same conclusion. That loop needs to be closed explicitly.
There is also a question about rights below EHCP level that needs much greater precision. The ISP complaints route, even with an independent SENCO on the panel, is not equivalent to the Tribunal.
What if the setting has the legal duty to deliver the educational offer in the EHCP, but cannot fund it within the nationally set costing framework? The document is also silent on this.
Role of the SENCO
The government proposes to review the SENCO role so that it becomes more strategic and less administrative. Digital ISPs and clearer expectations for all staff are intended to reduce the routine administration burden that currently falls on SENCOs, freeing them to focus on strategic leadership and high-quality practice.
The National Professional Qualifications frameworks are under review to consider how SEND and inclusion leadership can be better reflected. There will also be a new requirement in the Code of Practice for all settings to ensure that all staff - not just the SENCO - receive training on SEND and inclusion.
The document explicitly states that responsibility for inclusive practice and understanding how to support children with SEND should not be the responsibility of just one person - it should be the responsibility of all staff.
My thoughts and questions
Yes - and I cannot say this strongly enough. The current situation, where the SENCO carries the weight of a whole school's SEND provision largely alone, is not sustainable and is not good for children, families or SENCOs. The cultural shift to whole-staff responsibility for inclusion is the change that will actually make a difference to children's daily experience of school.
But what will this look like in practice? This needs concrete worked examples and implementation support, not just a stated principle.
The Bottom Line
This is serious, evidenced reform with genuine ambition behind it. The direction - early identification, diagnosis-free access to support, all-staff responsibility for inclusion, workforce investment, standardised processes, flexibility without lengthy escalation - is right. Several commitments are genuinely meaningful: the standardised EHCP template, the new areas of development, the reasonable adjustments guidance, and the shift of funding directly into mainstream budgets.
But the questions that matter most remain open:
What does "complex needs" mean?
What families can actually do when decisions go wrong below EHCP level?
Does the Tribunal's inability to name placements creates a loop that determined LAs can exploit?
Are the resources and funding proportionate to what's being asked of mainstream settings?
Consultation
The consultation closes at 11:59pm on 18 May 2026. You can respond here: https://consult.education.gov.uk/send-strategy-division/send-reform-putting-children-and-young-people-firs/
If you work in SEND, education, health or with families - or if you are a family navigating this system right now - your response matters. And watch for the separate Code of Practice consultation that will follow.