SEND reform

Department for Education Consultation: SEND Reform - Putting children and young people first

23 February to 18 May 2026

This consultation was about the Government's proposals to reform the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system to improve support for children and young people aged 0-25. The consultation outlined planned changes and invited views from all interested parties, including children, families, educators, schools, trusts, and stakeholders such as early years and post-16 providers, local authorities, experts, and representative groups. Feedback on all aspects was welcomed, beyond the set questions. The responses will inform the Government's planning for a new system by 2035 where inclusive practice is embedded within mainstream schools with specialist provision/EHCPs for children with the most complex needs; early intervention and family support for parents and children before needs escalate and crisis support available for those who need it.

Norfolk County Council's response was informed by the numerous discussions and engagement sessions with parents and carers and partners across the system in recent weeks and months.

Consultation Questions

We want children, young people and their families to be involved in making better, evidence-based decisions about SEND, both in their local area and across the country. How can we make sure children, young people and their families have a genuine say in these decisions?

Our answer

Meaningful involvement of children, young people and their families is fundamental to effective, evidence‑based decision‑making and should be embedded as a core principle of a person‑centred, relationship‑based SEND system.

Operational considerations:

Participation should be supported through nationally expected structures, including funded Parent Carer Forums (PCFs) and roles such as Participation Officers, with sufficient central funding to ensure consistent delivery across all areas.
Education providers play a key role and should be supported through a revised SEND Code of Practice that sets clear expectations, including that the SENCo is appropriately qualified, part of the Senior Leadership Team, and has sufficient time and authority to fulfil their role effectively.
Decision-making processes should consistently prioritise the views of children, young people and their families, including embedding their voice within Individual Support Plan (ISP) development and review.

This combined approach would help ensure engagement is meaningful, consistent and influences decision-making at both local and national levels.

How can we make sure that high-quality evidence and best practice inform decisions about SEND? Please share examples.

Our answer

High‑quality, fair and transparent SEND decision making depends on a shared, evidence‑based framework linking children's needs to clearly defined provision and measurable outcomes, reducing variation and strengthening confidence.

Operational considerations:

A revised SEND Code of Practice should be supported by statutory guidance to ensure assessments and advice are evidence‑based and consistently applied.
National Inclusion Standards and Specialist Provision Packages should define areas of development, specify provision at Targeted, Targeted Plus and Specialist levels, link to outcomes, and distinguish educational provision from wider support.
Structured decision‑making tools (e.g. similar to the NHS Continuing Healthcare Framework) would improve consistency, alongside a national evidence‑focused body aligned with NICE principles.
Clear expectations of professional practice should ensure advice is within competence and evidence‑based, with the ability to discount advice not meeting standards.
Decisions should draw on moderated, multi‑agency evidence, supported by shared thresholds and quality assurance.
Use of co‑produced frameworks, provision maps and self‑evaluation tools supports proportionate decision making.
Practice should promote independence and self‑management, with attention to disparities and improved use of disaggregated data.

How can we ensure that children are best supported by the Universal offer?

Our answer

A high‑quality Universal offer should be inclusive, accessible and evidence‑based, enabling early identification and support for children and young people while reducing reliance on escalation through strong mainstream provision and partnership working.

Operational considerations:

A tiered model (Universal, Targeted, Specialist) supports earlier identification and needs‑led support, but requires a shared understanding of inclusion across children, families, schools and partners, alongside sufficient workforce capacity and capability to avoid escalation.
Health Visiting and School Nursing play a key role in early identification through mandated reviews (0-5), supporting school readiness and linking with early years settings and Family Hubs, with a continued role in schools to deliver evidence‑based interventions and reduce inequalities.
The Universal offer should be place‑based, open access and easy to navigate, with improved data sharing and targeted information to strengthen confidence in community and school‑based support.
Provision should be co‑produced, accessible and regularly reviewed, with training and guidance grounded in evidence and focused on outcomes.
Tools such as Ordinarily Available Provision (OAP) should clearly set expectations, linking identification of need with inclusive classroom practice and a strong inclusive culture.

How can we ensure that children in the Targeted layer, are best supported?

Our answer

The Targeted layer should provide timely, coherent and needs‑led support that builds on high‑quality Universal provision, ensuring children and young people receive the right help at the right time through consistent, person‑centred planning.

Operational considerations:

Individual Support Plans should be consistently used across services, with national guidance requiring their embedding within service delivery, schools and wider education practice.
Plans should take a holistic approach, addressing all barriers to learning, including those related to family context, school or setting environment, health and wellbeing, as well as practical considerations such as travel to and from education.
The Targeted offer should flow coherently from the Universal layer, informed by robust needs data at child and cohort level, ensuring support is proportionate and responsive.
High‑quality teaching and effective pedagogy should underpin all targeted support, enabling both children, young people and families to be actively involved and supported.
Provision should be co‑produced with families and reviewed regularly, with a clear focus on outcomes and impact.

How can we ensure that children in the Targeted Plus layer, are best supported?

Our answer

The Targeted Plus layer should ensure children and young people can access timely, coordinated, multi‑disciplinary support within mainstream settings, enabling needs to be met without unnecessary escalation to statutory provision.

Operational considerations:

Support should be delivered through an "Experts at Hand" (EAH) model, with multidisciplinary teams attached to schools or groups of schools, proportionate to need, supporting access to an adapted curriculum and learning environment.
Access should be relationship‑based rather than threshold‑driven, enabling direct professional dialogue and shared understanding of needs.
EAH teams should support schools to assess needs, develop and implement provision maps, deliver time‑limited interventions to reduce barriers and support step‑down, maintain classroom access, build staff confidence, and develop effective Individual Support Plans.
Teams should include a range of expertise (e.g. educational psychology, specialist teachers, SALT, youth work and careers advice).
Local authorities and ICBs should hold joint responsibility to ensure equitable access, supported by workforce planning, clarity of roles and guidance on managing differing advice.
EAH input should inform school improvement and inspection, and align with Family Help and safeguarding.
Teams could align with Inclusion Bases and provide outreach, strengthening mainstream practice and local system capacity.

How can we ensure that children in the Specialist layer are best supported?

Children and young people in the Specialist layer are best supported through a provision‑led system, where clearly defined provision is matched to need and delivered consistently across settings with strong accountability and transparency.

Operational considerations:

Specialist support should be organised around Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs), delivered in mainstream or special schools as appropriate, with EHCPs securing and reviewing provision.
SPPs should clearly describe inputs, workforce, outcomes and review expectations, providing a shared understanding for families, schools and local authorities, and applied consistently across settings.
Mainstream provision at this level should include clearly defined specialist input, with special schools delivering the same packages in a specialist environment to support consistency and commissioning.
Standardised annual reviews should assess whether the SPP remains appropriate and is being effectively delivered, with decisions based on evidence of impact.
Digital SPPs and Individual Support Plans (ISPs) should provide a consistent framework, with SPPs defining provision and ISPs describing individualisation.
Monitoring should focus on key indicators (e.g. outcomes, appropriateness and distribution) to inform decision making, commissioning and sufficiency.
Funding should align with provision through SPPs rather than placement, supporting equitable and sustainable decision making.

How do you think early years settings, schools, and college can best support the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people?

Our answer

Early years settings, schools and colleges are well placed to promote and protect mental health through inclusive practice, early identification and strong relationships, supported by coordinated multi‑agency working.

Operational considerations:

Embed a whole‑setting approach with strong leadership, clear policies, positive behaviour and an accessible curriculum that builds emotional literacy, belonging and healthy relationships, alongside staff wellbeing and CPD.
Prioritise early identification through observation, screening and consistent graduated approaches, recognising attendance, behaviour and exclusion as indicators of need.
Make inclusion and reasonable adjustments the default, including predictable routines, sensory‑aware environments, trauma‑informed and neuro‑affirming practice and trusted relationships.
Improve access to timely specialist advice (e.g. MHSTs and Experts at Hand) to support consultation and problem solving.
Strengthen partnerships with families through co‑production, accessible information and whole‑family support.
Ensure joined‑up working across services, with clear pathways and links to Family Hubs.
Focus on transitions, workforce capability and use of data to improve practice and reduce inequalities, supported by sustainable funding and shared accountability.

Do you agree that the refreshed 'areas of development' will support educators to understand and address barriers to learning and participation? Please explain your answer.

Our answer

The refreshed areas of development provide a helpful framework for understanding children's needs more holistically, supporting educators to identify underlying barriers to learning rather than focusing solely on presenting behaviours.

Operational considerations:

Evidence shows that children and young people often present with a range of co‑occurring needs, rather than fitting into single categories. A development‑focused approach supports a more accurate understanding of how these needs affect learning and participation in different settings.
The focus on development aligns with Teachers' Standards, which emphasise the importance of understanding how children and young people learn and develop at all stages.
Using the areas of development to inform identification and assessment can support clearer, more consistent planning, both within the classroom and through Individual Support Plans.
This approach helps ensure that support and interventions are better targeted to need, improving outcomes and reducing the likelihood of inappropriate or unnecessary referrals.

What arrangements would best support effective joint working between early years providers, Best Start Family Hubs, health, local authorities, and parents for children with SEND in the early years?

Our answer

Effective joint working in the early years is achieved when families experience a single, coordinated system, with shared responsibility for early identification, timely support and inclusive practice.

Operational considerations:

Provide clear local access routes ("front doors") aligned to Family Hubs, with simple guidance for families and practitioners.
Define roles and coordination across services, with a consistent named contact to support a "team around the family" approach.
Establish regular multi‑agency forums (place‑based MDTs) to triage, problem solve and support providers to implement the graduated approach.
Embed co‑location and outreach through Family Hubs and community venues, including outreach into homes and settings.
Develop shared pathways, thresholds and service standards, with clear timelines and escalation routes.
Align assessment and review points across health and education, ensuring plans follow the child across providers.
Enable effective information sharing through proportionate consent, shared templates ("one plan") and secure systems.
Commission advice and coaching into mainstream settings (e.g. Experts at Hand) to build capability and reduce reliance on referrals.
Embed co‑production and parent participation in governance and decision making.
Invest in joint workforce development and shared training, using shared outcomes, data and accountability to target support and monitor impact.

How can the early years foundation stage (EYFS) two-year old progress check and the Healthy Child Programme development review be improved so that children's needs are identified and supported more quickly? Please share examples.

Our answer

All families in Norfolk are offered a 2-2.5 year development review from Healthy Child Services, with around 91% take‑up, and approximately 75% of children meeting expected development across all areas. Increasing take‑up remains a priority to support more children to start school with a good level of development.

A key focus is improving the join‑up of development review data with eligibility and take‑up data to better target children not meeting milestones to access early education at age 2 (for eligible children) and age 3.

Further work is strengthening links between 2-2.5 year review data and early years settings' assessments, supporting earlier identification of need and more targeted intervention. This data‑led approach is improving understanding of emerging need and informing service planning and delivery.

This is embedded within our Best Start Family Hub model.

The two reviews measure different aspects of development, and improving shared understanding across health and early years settings would be beneficial. National guidance to support greater sharing of review outcomes, and clearer expectations on joint working between health visiting and early years, would further strengthen early identification and support.

What should the top three priority areas be for building and sharing evidence within the National Inclusion Standards?

Our answer

National Inclusion Standards should prioritise evidence that strengthens inclusive practice across all settings, ensuring consistency, early support and improved outcomes through a coherent, system‑wide approach.

Operational considerations:

The top three priority areas should be: (1) high‑quality inclusive teaching, (2) early identification and targeted intervention, and (3) inclusive leadership and systems.
These areas should demonstrate a clear "golden thread" of partnership working across schools, trusts, wider services and, critically, with children, young people and families.
A fully integrated Universal offer, aligned with Targeted and Targeted Plus support, requires strong evidence‑based practice, supported by high‑quality training for leaders and staff, and sufficient funding to enable delivery.
Establishing national baselines across early years, schools and post‑16 provision will support consistency, accountability and shared expectations.
Standards should be co‑produced with children, young people, families and professionals, and aligned with inspection frameworks to support sustainable improvement.
These priorities reflect current practice in Norfolk, where evidence is being developed through SEND tools and models that support inclusive mainstream provision.

What are the most important issues for national training to cover, to help support children and young people with SEND?

Our answer

National training should equip the workforce with the knowledge, skills and confidence to deliver inclusive, high‑quality teaching and support, enabling children and young people with SEND to learn, participate and achieve positive outcomes.

Operational considerations:

High quality teaching: adaptive teaching, communication‑ and sensory‑friendly classrooms, trauma‑informed practice, understanding factors affecting learning, and assessment focused on individual progress.
Early identification: understanding development, recognising indicators, using structured tools and ensuring assessment informs support rather than labelling.
Working with families and young people: strengths‑based approaches, person‑centred planning and clear communication.
Evidence based interventions: effective small group approaches, social communication support, cognitive strategies and emotional regulation.
Behaviour, belonging and relationships: relationship‑based approaches, understanding behaviour as communication and promoting belonging.
Training should be accessible, practical and part of ongoing professional development, aligned to national resources.
Impact should be monitored and evaluated to ensure improved outcomes for children and young people.

What practical actions can help teachers, educators and leaders manage workload whilst implementing these changes?

Our answer

Managing workload effectively during SEND reform requires changes to be integrated into existing practice, ensuring that new expectations replace rather than add to current activity, while empowering staff to deliver inclusive education confidently.

Operational considerations:

Review and reduce low‑value tasks as reforms are introduced, ensuring that new expectations replace existing processes rather than increasing workload.
Embed inclusive practice within core curriculum, assessment and behaviour systems, rather than as additional activity.
Support collaboration through shared planning, resources and approaches across schools and partnerships.
Protect SENCO and middle‑leader capacity, and phase implementation carefully to support sustainable change.
Ensure training is purposeful and aligned to existing activity, reducing duplication and focusing on impact.
Enable teachers to lead their environments confidently—physically, relationally and pedagogically—through clear tools and guidance.
Provide practical ways to apply professional knowledge to assessment information and reports, helping staff translate this into effective classroom practice.
Create coherence between assessment information and teaching practice, so educators can deliver high‑quality learning experiences for all children without added complexity.

How should the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) role evolve to better meet the needs of children and young people with SEND?

Our answer

The SENCo role should evolve to provide strategic leadership of inclusion across the whole setting, ensuring that high‑quality teaching and inclusive practice are embedded within curriculum, learning and the wider school culture.

Operational considerations:

The role should move beyond a narrow focus on SEND, bringing together inclusion and SEND responsibilities to support a whole‑setting approach to teaching, learning and assessment.
Clear expectations should position the SENCo as a strategic leader, influencing school culture and strengthening mainstream inclusion.
The SENCo should be part of the senior leadership team, with dedicated time to lead and coordinate inclusive practice.
Responsibilities should include: contributing to curriculum design; shaping teaching and learning approaches; leading whole‑school CPD on inclusive practice; and supporting policy development.
The role should also support meaningful engagement with parents, carers and young people, and promote strong relationships and participation at all levels.
There should be a focus on supporting effective transitions into, within and beyond the setting.
Oversight of inclusive environments and practice across the setting should ensure that all children and young people can access high‑quality learning experiences.

What would provide assurance for families that an Individual Support Plan (ISP) is high-quality and contains the essential information?

Our answer

Families are best assured of high‑quality Individual Support Plans (ISPs) when there is clarity, consistency and accountability across the system, with plans that are transparent, regularly reviewed and clearly linked to wider provision.

Operational considerations:

ISPs should follow a clear, shared framework, setting out needs, provision, responsible professionals, review points and how progress will be measured, supported by common templates and guidance to ensure consistency across settings.
ISPs should sit clearly within the wider system, particularly alongside Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs), describing how provision is personalised without changing the agreed level of support, helping families understand how different elements of support fit together.
Assurance is strengthened when families know how concerns are addressed, through clear, accessible routes for raising issues, escalation and resolution, with transparent and proportionate processes.
Schools should have strong internal quality assurance, including leadership oversight, regular review and clear thresholds for accessing additional support or specialist advice.
ISPs should remain active documents, adapting to changing needs and informing decisions about further support or escalation where required.
System assurance should focus on how ISPs are used in practice, including their clarity, implementation and impact, to identify patterns and support ongoing improvement.

How can we ensure Individual Support Plans are clear, concise and practical for professionals to use?

Our answer

Individual Support Plans (ISPs) should be clear, concise and practical, enabling professionals to translate information into consistent, effective day‑to‑day support for children and young people.

Operational considerations:

ISPs should be co‑produced with professionals, children and families, using accessible formats and readability approaches to ensure clarity.
Plans should be designed as practical working documents, using clear, concise language with structured detail (including what support is provided, by whom, and how often). Limiting length improves usability.
ISPs should align with existing provision mapping processes, avoiding duplication and reducing administrative burden, and be digitally accessible to support regular updates.
Clear system design is needed to define the role of ISPs alongside EHCPs and SPPs, ensuring they complement rather than duplicate or dilute statutory provision.
Each section should guide action, answering: what does the child need and what should be done? Every need should link to a clear action (what, when, who).
A consistent structure (e.g. about the child, needs, strategies, risks, goals and progress) supports clarity across plans.
Co‑production should be meaningful, with time for discussion to reflect what works in practice.
Regular, short reviews ensure plans remain current and responsive, avoiding outdated or overly complex documentation.

How can we best support transition for young people with SEND, so that they are well supported into post-16 provision and further education, training or employment?

Our answer

Effective transition to post‑16 outcomes for young people with SEND requires an earlier, coordinated, outcomes‑focused approach that brings together education, adult social care, health and employment pathways, aligned to individual needs and aspirations.

Operational considerations:

Begin structured transition planning earlier (from Year 8), including use of vocational profiles (Year 9) and earlier identification and discussion of post‑16 pathways and providers (Year 10), with clear expectations about provision (e.g. 3 vs 5 days).
Build on the Care Act framework to support earlier, flexible access to appropriate provision (potentially from age 16 for some young people with complex needs), based on multi‑agency evidence and outcomes.
Target intensive, tailored support where risk of disengagement is highest, including Transition Panels, practical "handholding" support, and strengthened support during key periods such as the summer holiday.
Strengthen information sharing and coordination between pre‑ and post‑16 providers, supported by local authority oversight and closer links with skills and employment pathways.
Embed transport, rurality and independence (including travel training such as TITAN) into all transition planning to ensure accessibility of provision.
Integrate mental health support into transition planning, recognising anxiety as a key barrier to engagement and the value of sustained, relationship‑based support.

Together, this supports a more flexible, joined‑up and person‑centred approach, improving participation, progression and long‑term outcomes.

How can we make sure that every area can meet the full range of the needs of children and young people through Inclusion Bases?

Our answer

Inclusion Bases should operate as part of a coherent, well‑resourced system, enabling schools to meet a wide range of needs through consistent, evidence‑based practice and strong links to mainstream provision.

Operational considerations:

Local authorities, health partners and schools should work together to ensure bases are consistently resourced, staffed and connected to mainstream classrooms to embed inclusive practice.
Clear national and local definitions are needed to distinguish support and specialist bases, aligned with Specialist Provision Packages, with clarity on purpose, thresholds and outcomes.
Structural distinctions (e.g. catchment‑based and wider area bases) can support flexibility and consistency, including in rural areas.
Workforce capability, including SENCo leadership and multidisciplinary support, is critical.
Bases should sit within a quality‑assured system with consistent approaches to curriculum, assessment and progress tracking, reflected in inspection.
Admissions, purpose and profile should be clearly defined to support family confidence.
Both time‑limited and longer‑term models should be available, focused primarily on high‑incidence needs and linked to wider pathways.
A minimum operating model should set expectations for staffing, expertise and provision.
Capital investment may be required to support inclusive environments.
Access should reflect a flexible continuum of provision and not rely solely on an EHCP where needs can be met through time‑limited or sessional support, supporting early intervention, system responsiveness and reintegration into mainstream provision.

How can we make sure that Inclusion Bases help children and young people succeed in mainstream settings?

Our answer

Inclusion Bases are most effective when they operate as part of a broader inclusive system, supporting flexible pathways in mainstream education and recognising a wider definition of success for children and young people.

Operational considerations:

Success in mainstream should be defined more broadly, recognising progress in independence, functional skills and applied learning as well as academic attainment, reflecting individual starting points and developmental trajectories.
Curriculum and assessment approaches should offer a wider range of pathways, particularly in core subjects, enabling children with SEND to demonstrate meaningful progress.
Inclusion Bases should support alternative pathways within mainstream settings, rather than only providing access to a single curriculum model. School Inclusion Strategies should clearly set out how this supports progression into education, training or employment.
Clear outcome measures (academic, developmental, social and wellbeing) should be agreed at entry, regularly reviewed, and used to inform decisions about support, reintegration or transition where needed.
Inclusion Bases should contribute to a consistent, outcome‑focused approach across the school, ensuring that support is purposeful, measurable and aligned to the needs and aspirations of each child or young person.

Through the Experts at Hand offer, we want to ensure that mainstream settings can get quick specialist support for children and young people. What arrangements are needed between local area partners (education, health, social care) to deliver this Experts at Hand offer effectively?

Our answer

The Experts at Hand model should be delivered through strong, coordinated local partnerships, ensuring timely access to specialist expertise across the system to support children and young people with SEND.

Operational considerations:

Delivery will require robust joint commissioning across education, health and social care, with shared accountability, data and ownership, and clarity on funding, roles and responsibilities.
Workforce capacity must be considered to ensure expectations are achievable across all areas, including rural and coastal contexts.
Experts at Hand should be a system‑wide resource, available across mainstream, specialist settings and alternative provision.
A mix of roles and expertise should be available, supporting advice, assessment and direct intervention, and working alongside education staff and families.
Local arrangements should include shared understanding, clear partnership agreements, secure data systems and joint decision making.
Agreed response timescales and follow‑up processes will support consistency and confidence.
A strengthened duty to cooperate across partners would support delivery.
Implementation should reflect workforce availability, with planning and training pathways to support delivery at scale.
Consideration should also be given to strengthening relationships with families and supporting engagement between home and education settings to improve outcomes.

What needs to be in place so that children and young people with low incidence, highly complex needs can always access the right specialist placement?

Our answer

Children and young people with low‑incidence, highly complex needs require access to a flexible, well‑planned system of specialist provision that balances local availability with regional coordination, ensuring the right support is available at the right time.

Operational considerations:

Not all specialist provision can be provided locally; sufficiency planning must reflect sustainable demand, recognising that some placements will require wider geographic solutions.
Regional approaches may support alignment with care planning, but school‑based provision requires careful consideration of travel, sustainability and community connection.
Local systems should be able to protect capacity for highly complex needs, including reserving specialist places where appropriate, supported by clear frameworks.
Flexible pathways, including Education Otherwise Than in School (EOTISC), should be clearly defined and appropriately used, with strengthened quality and clarity of purpose.
The independent sector plays a role in meeting complex need; consideration should be given to developing similar models within the state sector to support sustainability.
Specialist Provision Packages can support consistent, evidence‑based commissioning and clearer definitions of complex need.
Greater clarity on delivery timelines for additional specialist provision would support planning and provide assurance on future capacity.

How can Specialist Provision Packages be designed to effectively support the main types of need we currently recognise?

Our answer

Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs) should be designed using a strong, shared evidence base to ensure provision is clearly defined, consistently applied and focused on improving outcomes for children and young people with SEND.

Operational considerations:

SPPs should be developed collaboratively by professionals contributing to EHC assessments and Experts at Hand roles, drawing on existing practice.
A stronger national evidence base could be developed through analysis of anonymised advice, supported by research and analytical tools to identify effective provision and inform standards.
SPPs should clearly define educational provision, distinguishing it from health or social care, and set out roles and responsibilities for delivery and commissioning.
Provision should be evidence‑based, linked to outcomes, and avoid duplication or inclusion of non‑educational activity.
SPPs should apply across settings, including Education Otherwise Than at School (Section 61) and post‑16 pathways, including vocational and work‑based learning.
Alignment with the SEND Code of Practice and EHCP structure is essential to ensure coherence between need, provision and outcomes.
SPPs should specify delivery requirements (e.g. frequency, duration, responsible professionals) while remaining practical for the workforce.
Clear parameters, outcomes and proportionate review arrangements will support consistency, transparency and effective commissioning.

We propose that EHCPs will guarantee educational provision set out in a Specialist Provision Package, with day-to-day provision captured in Individual Support Plans. What is needed to make these proposals work effectively?

Our answer

For this model to work effectively, there must be clear and consistent roles for EHCPs, Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs) and Individual Support Plans (ISPs), supported by strong system design, shared understanding and robust review processes.

Operational considerations:

The distinct role of each element must be clear: EHCPs secure and guarantee the SPP; SPPs define the level and type of provision; ISPs describe day‑to‑day delivery. This separation supports clarity and avoids unintended changes to provision.
SPPs should be clearly defined, limited in number and consistently applied across settings so families and schools understand what support is available and where it can be delivered.
Provision should be deliverable in different settings where appropriate, enabling flexibility while avoiding assumptions about placement.
A standardised annual review should assess whether the SPP remains appropriate and is being effectively delivered, with decisions on continuation, adjustment or step down based on outcomes.
Care should be taken to avoid creating additional layers or complexity. The impact of reform will depend more on the quality of mainstream practice than on changes to documentation. Introducing new formats or tiers too early risks increasing workload and reducing confidence if not matched by stronger provision. Changes should therefore be phased once support is embedded and trusted.

Together, these elements support a transparent, consistent and outcomes‑focused system that is easier for families and professionals to understand and apply.

We propose creating a more direct route to Specialist Provision Packages and EHCP assessments for children under 5 with complex needs. How can we make sure this works in practice?

Our answer

A more direct route to Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs) and EHCP assessments for children under 5 should combine early identification, clear criteria, strong multi‑agency evidence and sufficient specialist expertise, while retaining statutory safeguards and parental rights.

Operational considerations:

Early Identification Notifications (EINs) should be used consistently across health, early years and specialist services to identify emerging complex need at the earliest stage.
Clear, shared criteria for complex need under 5 should be applied consistently, including when an EIN should trigger a route to an SPP and, where appropriate, an EHCP assessment.
This pathway requires sufficient specialist early years expertise to ensure decisions are timely, proportionate and well evidenced.
SPPs must be clearly defined and deliverable in early years contexts, including specialist settings and enhanced mainstream provision.
Where specialist provision is required, EHCP assessment should proceed without delay, with Section F specifying provision.
Planned review points, including transition to reception, should test whether provision remains appropriate.
Shared training, guidance and clear communication with families will support consistent implementation and confidence in the approach.

What would you expect to be considered as part of the needs assessment, for example evidence and expert or professional input?

Our answer

A high‑quality needs assessment should be graduated, evidence‑led and multi‑agency, showing how needs have been identified and responded to over time across Universal, Targeted and Targeted Plus support, before decisions are made about Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs) or EHCP assessment.

Operational considerations:

Evidence from Universal provision should demonstrate high‑quality teaching, ordinarily available adjustments and whole‑setting approaches, including how practice has adapted and progress monitored.
Where needs persist, assessment should evidence progression through Targeted/Targeted Plus via assess-plan-do-review (APDR), including provision, implementation and impact.
Individual Support Plans (ISPs) should evidence delivery, personalisation and review; ISP quality and school‑led review should inform escalation.
Timely Experts at Hand input should provide purposeful advice to clarify needs and implications for provision, reducing delay and escalation.
Objective information (e.g. developmental, attainment or screening data) should inform judgement, not act as thresholds.
Health and care input should be included where relevant, alongside the views of the child/young person and family.
A key outcome is emerging insight into the likely SPP, tested through review, including whether support can be delivered in mainstream or requires a specialist setting.

What factors should Local Authorities (LAs) take into account in proposing to parents and young people a list of potential settings to name on a plan?

Our answer

Local authorities should propose settings based on a clear, provision‑led understanding of children and young people's needs, ensuring options are transparent, evidence‑based and focused on outcomes.

Operational considerations:

Proposals should be grounded in a robust needs assessment, drawing on graduated support, ISPs and professional advice, identifying the level and type of SPP required.
The focus should be on what provision is needed and where it can be delivered, across mainstream and specialist settings.
Decisions should reflect whether the SPP can be delivered in mainstream or requires a specialist environment, with clear explanation for families.
Key factors should include expertise, workforce capacity, quality, sustainability and inclusion, alongside proximity and peer context where appropriate.
Families should receive clear information on how provision would be delivered to support informed decisions.
Proposals should be consistent and transparent, showing alignment between needs, provision and available settings.
Consultation with settings should consider capacity, context and suitability.
Systems should balance efficiency with meaningful dialogue and coordinated approaches.
Inclusion Bases should be considered within provision‑led systems.

What information and support do parents need to make a decision about which setting will be best for their child?

Our answer

Parents and carers are best supported to make informed decisions when they have clear, accessible and comparable information about settings, alongside opportunities to understand how provision will meet their child's needs in practice.

Operational considerations:

Provide clear information on curriculum, including how learning is adapted, personalised and supports progression and post‑16 pathways.
Offer transparent detail on available support, including how Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs) are delivered and how specialist input is integrated into practice.
Ensure SEN Information Reports are accessible and practical, explaining identification, provision and review processes.
Share information on staff expertise, training and access to specialist professionals.
Provide clarity on environment and structure, including class size, groupings and staffing.
Communicate the setting's approach to inclusion, behaviour and wellbeing.
Support families to interpret and compare options through discussion with professionals.
Enable visits or high‑quality digital content to illustrate provision in practice.
Ensure information is accessible in different formats to support informed decision making.

What do you think is the right maximum length of time for a temporary placement in Alternative Provision (AP) schools? Please explain your rationale.

Our answer

Alternative Provision (AP) should be designed as a flexible and integrated part of the SEND and inclusion system, with clear pathways that support timely intervention, sustained engagement and successful reintegration or progression.

Operational considerations:

Local models should retain flexibility, enabling time limited provision within mainstream settings (e.g. Inclusion Base approaches) alongside specialist AP, rather than relying solely on PRUs or AP Academies.
Time limited placements should be needs led rather than fixed in duration, with differentiated approaches (e.g. shorter assessment focused placements and longer reintegration support).
Effective models may include phased approaches: initial assessment and stabilisation; targeted intervention and review; and planned reintegration, e.g. over 3 terms, maintaining strong links with the home setting.
Transition points (e.g. Year 6 and Year 11) require careful planning to ensure continuity and avoid disruption.
Greater clarity is needed on how different types of AP (time limited and transitional) operate and how they link with Inclusion Bases and specialist provision.
Some young people may require longer term or sustained AP where needs are complex, recognising that social, emotional and environmental factors can impact learning over time.
AP should be recognised as a valid and effective provision, with clear alignment to Specialist Provision Packages and wider system pathways.

We have set out our plans to regulate Independent Special Schools (ISS) sector. Do you agree that these proposed changes will lead to suitable placements being available at a fair cost? Please explain why.

Our answer

The proposed reforms to regulate the ISS sector could improve consistency, quality and value for money, but will require stronger alignment with the SEND system to ensure fairness, transparency and sustainability. While positive, there is a risk that the pace and scope of reform may not fully address current market dynamics. Without faster implementation and stronger levers to manage growth, the sector may continue to expand, with funding moving away from mainstream inclusion. Additional measures may therefore be needed to better shape the market and align public funding with a more inclusive system.

Updating legislation to enable fair and reasonable costs is welcomed, alongside clearer expectations for quality and provision.
Greater alignment between independent and statefunded sectors is needed, including consistency in funding, expectations and accountability.
Differences in admissions, fees and regulation create inconsistency; a more consistent approach would support equity.
Clarity is needed on how Specialist Provision Packages apply within independent settings, ensuring provision is evidence based and outcomes focused.
Safeguards (e.g. admissions, exclusions, complaints) should be strengthened to ensure consistent protections.
Managing supply and demand is critical, particularly where growth is not aligned to local sufficiency planning.
Links to alternative provision should be considered to ensure consistency across the system.

How should settings be held accountable for how they spend their Inclusive Mainstream funding?

Our answer

A strengthened accountability framework is essential to ensure Inclusive Mainstream funding delivers meaningful change in practice. This should include clear, measurable expectations relating to inclusion, progress, participation and outcomes for children and young people with SEND, alongside transparent reporting and review mechanisms.

There is currently an imbalance in the system, where schools may feel more accountable for academic outcomes and financial performance than for inclusive practice. Addressing this will require stronger incentives for inclusion, clearer consequences where inclusive practice is not effective, and alignment with inspection and regulatory frameworks. Without this, efforts to increase mainstream capacity and reduce reliance on specialist provision are unlikely to be realised consistently across the system.

Do you agree that more SEND funding should sit directly within mainstream budgets? Please explain why.

Our answer

Increasing the proportion of SEND funding within mainstream budgets can support earlier intervention and more inclusive practice, provided funding levels are sufficient and aligned to the scale of need.

Operational considerations:

Additional funding for mainstream provision is welcomed, but consideration should be given to whether it is sufficient to enable a meaningful shift in practice across all settings. Greater upfront investment could support earlier intervention and reduce reliance on specialist placements.
Mainstream funding arrangements should reflect wider pressures on schools, including inflation, falling rolls and the operation of Notional SEN, which can affect the ability to invest in inclusive provision.
Funding approaches should ensure schools are supported to meet a broader range of needs without creating unintended financial pressures or reducing capacity for preventative support.

In relation to pooled funding, we propose that every school becomes part of a local SEND group. Do you agree that this proposal aligns with our aim for all schools to be part of high-quality, community-based trusts?

Our answer

Local SEND groups have the potential to strengthen collaboration, improve consistency and support better outcomes when they are well‑designed, with clear governance and shared accountability across partners.

Operational considerations:

Bringing schools together into local partnerships or clusters can support more effective use of resources, shared learning and delivery of evidence‑informed approaches to meeting SEND needs.
A central role for local authorities in convening and supporting these groups can help ensure coordination and alignment with local priorities.
Clear governance arrangements, roles and responsibilities are essential, alongside defined processes for resolving disagreements about provision or funding in a fair and timely way.
Arrangements will need to recognise that trust structures and geographical boundaries do not always align, and should therefore be flexible while maintaining national consistency.
A focus on strong relationships and collaboration is important, but must be supported by consistent expectations and accountability to ensure effectiveness across all areas.
Learning from previous local approaches highlights the need for clear standards to ensure consistent quality and outcomes across different groups.

This approach supports the development of collaborative, locally responsive systems aligned with wider ambitions for strong, community‑based education partnerships.

How should disagreements about membership, provision, or funding in groups of schools for SEND be resolved?

Our answer

Local Authorities can, in the first instance, seek to support groups of schools to resolve disagreements through a mediated approach. Where disagreements cannot be resolved through such an approach, there needs to be an escalation route to the relevant responsible body / DfE.

How can we ensure the most effective use of these local partnership groups?

Our answer

Incentivising engagement in Local Partnership Groups could support their delivery. This could be undertaken in supporting the delegation of resources locally which the partnership oversees, such as access to training and skills resource, or facilitating statutory duties within partnerships (such as fair access, direction off-site, managed moves etc). Governors could be charged with monitoring engagement in local partnerships, as could the inspectorate when considering judgements concerning inclusion.

The opportunity to benchmark, moderate, inform local delivery and share best practice are key components that the partnership should consider. Accordingly, to deliver this, a local partnership plan owned by members could be an approach that helps facilitate local delivery, skills development, which collectively respond to common themes amongst schools own self-evaluations of provision.

Which stakeholders are important for the success of local partnership groups, and why?

Our answer

Effective local SEND partnership groups depend on strong collaboration across key partners, with clear roles, shared purpose and meaningful co‑production to improve outcomes for children and young people with SEND.

Operational considerations:

Key stakeholders should include education settings, local authorities, health providers (including ICBs), and parent/carer representatives, ensuring a balanced and inclusive partnership approach.
Engagement with early years providers and Best Start Family Hubs is important to strengthen early identification, support and continuity for children and families.
A clear national vision and shared understanding of purpose is essential to guide local partnership working and ensure consistency across areas.
Local SEND strategies should set out how partners will work together to improve outcomes through shared priorities, joint planning and collective accountability across education, health and care.
Strong governance arrangements and clear responsibilities for each partner are needed to support effective decision‑making and delivery.
Co‑production with children, young people and families should be embedded at all levels, ensuring their voices shape both individual support and system development.
Updated guidance, including within the SEND Code of Practice, should clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of partners to support more effective collaboration.

This approach supports coordinated, transparent and outcomes‑focused partnership working across the SEND system.

How can we build stronger collaboration and a culture of improvement through local SEND strategic plans?

Our answer

Co-production and ownership across all partners will increase collaboration and a culture of improvement, including

Shared priorities and outcomes that all partners can align with
Ensuring each partner commits resources and has defined responsibilities
Clear leadership for delivery of each priority, shared across the partnership
Defined measurable outcomes for children, not organisational outputs
Establishing multi-agency groups to deliver key priorities
Identifying clear KPIs, data and review points with regular evaluation and iterative refinement of actions
Using governance to provide both system support and peer challenge, integrating external scrutiny and advice to strengthen local approaches
Commitment to share data and progress openly across partners and to use feedback to drive improvements
Setting clear milestones and ensuring progress tracked, with timely action where needed

What information, advice and guidance can best support children, young people and their families to ensure greater fairness across the system?

Our answer

Fairness across the SEND system is strengthened when information, advice and guidance (IAG) is clear, consistent, evidence‑based and accessible, enabling children, young people and families to understand and navigate support with confidence.

Operational considerations:

A revised SEND Code of Practice should be grounded in inclusive principles, strengths‑based approaches and a broad view of development, supporting tailored, positively framed guidance that reflects individual needs and circumstances.
Consistency and clarity across statutory duties are important, reducing variation and supporting a system that is easier for families to understand and navigate.
IAG should be impartial and evidence‑based, with services such as SENDIASS providing independent, legally‑informed support, alongside accessible Local Offer information.
Information should be communicated in ways that are accessible and trusted by families, recognising that many will also seek information through peer networks and community channels.
Approaches such as peer mentors or ambassadors can support understanding, while ensuring families' views are heard and reflected in ongoing improvements.
Ongoing engagement with families is essential, building relationships and trust, which in turn supports partnership working and more equitable experiences across the system.

Do you agree that a SEND specialist (e.g. a SENCO) should sit on the school complaint panel, when the complaint relates to SEND support and provision? Please explain why.

Including a SEND specialist on school complaints panels can strengthen confidence, consistency and fairness, provided the role is clearly defined and operates with independence and expertise.

Operational considerations:

The SEND specialist should be independent of the setting and operate impartially, ensuring families have confidence in the objectivity of the process.
There is value in this role being fulfilled through local authority expertise, supporting consistency and credibility across schools, particularly where complaints may precede statutory processes.
Clear guidance should define the role, including how it contributes to panel decisions, the scope of issues considered, and how professional input informs outcomes.
The specialist's views should be clearly recorded, with the ability to recommend both immediate actions and wider improvements where appropriate.
The role should carry appropriate weight, supported by strong understanding of SEND practice and statutory duties.
Wider system arrangements could be strengthened through clearer pathways for disagreement resolution and consideration of how oversight bodies (e.g. Ombudsman) interact with existing routes.
Schools and trusts should have access to independent disagreement resolution services, with clearer alignment between complaints and resolution processes.

This approach supports fair, transparent and proportionate resolution of concerns relating to SEND provision.

This consultation outlines a series of measures intended to reform the SEND system. Some of these measures have already been finalised, and this is clearly indicated within the document. With this in mind, is there anything further you would like to contribute to help inform the remaining proposals that are still under consideration?

Further reform should strengthen alignment across the SEND system to ensure clarity of responsibility, consistent pathways and a focus on outcomes. While proposed changes to placement and tribunal processes are positive, it is not clear they will materially change outcomes. Families are likely to retain a legal route where confidence in mainstream provision is limited, meaning tribunals may continue to direct specialist placements. Greater emphasis is needed on evidencing high‑quality, costed support in mainstream and how this is reflected in tribunal processes.

Operational considerations:

Greater clarity is needed for children outside registered settings (e.g. EHE and EOTAS), aligned to inclusion aims.
A review of Section 19 should clarify responsibilities, including schools' role for pupils on roll.
Legislative clarity is needed on education, health and care interfaces (e.g. Section 21(5)).
Reform of parental preference should balance rights and sustainability.
Clearer delivery detail is needed, including EHCP, SPP and ISP interfaces, review and workforce capacity.
Timely guidance and funding clarity will support implementation.
The wider financial context, including deficits and funding transfers, should be recognised.
National funding should reflect variation in need.

SEND reform

Department for Education Consultation: SEND Reform - Putting children and young people first

Consultation Questions

We want children, young people and their families to be involved in making better, evidence-based decisions about SEND, both in their local area and across the country. How can we make sure children, young people and their families have a genuine say in these decisions?

How can we make sure that high-quality evidence and best practice inform decisions about SEND? Please share examples.

How can we ensure that children are best supported by the Universal offer?

How can we ensure that children in the Targeted layer, are best supported?

How can we ensure that children in the Targeted Plus layer, are best supported?

How can we ensure that children in the Specialist layer are best supported?

How do you think early years settings, schools, and college can best support the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people?

Do you agree that the refreshed 'areas of development' will support educators to understand and address barriers to learning and participation? Please explain your answer.

What arrangements would best support effective joint working between early years providers, Best Start Family Hubs, health, local authorities, and parents for children with SEND in the early years?

How can the early years foundation stage (EYFS) two-year old progress check and the Healthy Child Programme development review be improved so that children's needs are identified and supported more quickly? Please share examples.

What should the top three priority areas be for building and sharing evidence within the National Inclusion Standards?

What are the most important issues for national training to cover, to help support children and young people with SEND?

What practical actions can help teachers, educators and leaders manage workload whilst implementing these changes?

How should the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) role evolve to better meet the needs of children and young people with SEND?

What would provide assurance for families that an Individual Support Plan (ISP) is high-quality and contains the essential information?

How can we ensure Individual Support Plans are clear, concise and practical for professionals to use?

How can we best support transition for young people with SEND, so that they are well supported into post-16 provision and further education, training or employment?

How can we make sure that every area can meet the full range of the needs of children and young people through Inclusion Bases?

How can we make sure that Inclusion Bases help children and young people succeed in mainstream settings?

Through the Experts at Hand offer, we want to ensure that mainstream settings can get quick specialist support for children and young people. What arrangements are needed between local area partners (education, health, social care) to deliver this Experts at Hand offer effectively?

What needs to be in place so that children and young people with low incidence, highly complex needs can always access the right specialist placement?

How can Specialist Provision Packages be designed to effectively support the main types of need we currently recognise?

We propose that EHCPs will guarantee educational provision set out in a Specialist Provision Package, with day-to-day provision captured in Individual Support Plans. What is needed to make these proposals work effectively?

We propose creating a more direct route to Specialist Provision Packages and EHCP assessments for children under 5 with complex needs. How can we make sure this works in practice?

What would you expect to be considered as part of the needs assessment, for example evidence and expert or professional input?

What factors should Local Authorities (LAs) take into account in proposing to parents and young people a list of potential settings to name on a plan?

What information and support do parents need to make a decision about which setting will be best for their child?

What do you think is the right maximum length of time for a temporary placement in Alternative Provision (AP) schools? Please explain your rationale.

We have set out our plans to regulate Independent Special Schools (ISS) sector. Do you agree that these proposed changes will lead to suitable placements being available at a fair cost? Please explain why.

How should settings be held accountable for how they spend their Inclusive Mainstream funding?

Do you agree that more SEND funding should sit directly within mainstream budgets? Please explain why.

In relation to pooled funding, we propose that every school becomes part of a local SEND group. Do you agree that this proposal aligns with our aim for all schools to be part of high-quality, community-based trusts?

How should disagreements about membership, provision, or funding in groups of schools for SEND be resolved?

How can we ensure the most effective use of these local partnership groups?

Which stakeholders are important for the success of local partnership groups, and why?

How can we build stronger collaboration and a culture of improvement through local SEND strategic plans?

What information, advice and guidance can best support children, young people and their families to ensure greater fairness across the system?

Do you agree that a SEND specialist (e.g. a SENCO) should sit on the school complaint panel, when the complaint relates to SEND support and provision? Please explain why.

We want children, young people and their families to be involved in making better, evidence-based decisions about SEND, both in their local area and across the country. How can we make sure children, young people and their families have a genuine say in these decisions?

How can we make sure that high-quality evidence and best practice inform decisions about SEND? Please share examples.

What arrangements would best support effective joint working between early years providers, Best Start Family Hubs, health, local authorities, and parents for children with SEND in the early years?

What are the most important issues for national training to cover, to help support children and young people with SEND?

How should the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) role evolve to better meet the needs of children and young people with SEND?

How can we best support transition for young people with SEND, so that they are well supported into post-16 provision and further education, training or employment?

We propose creating a more direct route to Specialist Provision Packages and EHCP assessments for children under 5 with complex needs. How can we make sure this works in practice?

Do you agree that more SEND funding should sit directly within mainstream budgets? Please explain why.

In relation to pooled funding, we propose that every school becomes part of a local SEND group. Do you agree that this proposal aligns with our aim for all schools to be part of high-quality, community-based trusts?

How should disagreements about membership, provision, or funding in groups of schools for SEND be resolved?

How can we build stronger collaboration and a culture of improvement through local SEND strategic plans?

Do you agree that a SEND specialist (e.g. a SENCO) should sit on the school complaint panel, when the complaint relates to SEND support and provision? Please explain why.