Therapy for all — but not necessarily the right therapy for your child.

Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) is not an optional extra in the SEND system. For many children, it is the foundation of learning, regulation, social connection and long-term independence. The proposed SEND reforms signal a shift away from what the government describes as “lengthy and bureaucratic individual assessment processes” toward support based on a child’s observed “areas of development.” That shift has major implications for how SaLT is accessed, specified and delivered.

Will children still receive individual assessments?

The answer depends on the level of support.

Targeted and Targeted Plus (mainstream layers) The reform proposals indicate that children may receive access to professionals such as SaLTs and Educational Psychologists without requiring a full statutory assessment or diagnosis. Schools would identify needs using structured developmental frameworks and National Inclusion Standards, with the intention of intervening earlier.

Earlier support is welcome. However, the removal of detailed, individualised assessment at this level raises a question: how precisely will language needs be identified, differentiated and monitored without formalised diagnostic profiling?

Specialist Support (EHCP level) A statutory needs assessment process is expected to remain. However, its function may shift. Instead of producing a fully bespoke plan driven by individual therapeutic recommendations, assessment would determine whether a child meets criteria for one of a limited number of nationally defined Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs). Those packages would form the legal framework of the EHCP. This represents a move from individually specified provision toward nationally standardised categories.

The risk for children with “spiky” language profiles

Speech and language needs are rarely linear. Many children present with uneven profiles:

• Strong verbal reasoning but weak processing speed

• Good vocabulary but poor inference

• Age-appropriate decoding but severe comprehension gaps

• Functional speech but significant pragmatic difficulties

Standardised packages are intended to be broad enough to cover need. However, consultation materials acknowledge that work is ongoing to test whether a small number of packages can truly accommodate the full diversity of SEND profiles.

To address this, reforms propose an Individual Support Plan (ISP) as a “living” document capturing day-to-day detail and evolving need. ISPs are expected to be co-designed with parents.

The crucial distinction, however, is legal status.

An EHCP is enforceable. An ISP, as currently described, would not carry the same statutory protections. For children whose needs fluctuate, mask, or sit just below specialist thresholds, there is a risk that they remain within Targeted Plus support without the legal safeguards that currently protect quantified SaLT provision.

Independent SaLT reports: will they still matter?

The reform proposals clearly state an intention to reduce reliance on parents funding private assessments in order to secure provision. The introduction of “Experts at Hand”, embedding therapists within school partnerships, is designed to make state expertise more routinely accessible. In principle, this could improve equity.

However:

• There is no indication that parents will be prevented from commissioning independent reports.

• The SEND Tribunal is expected to remain the legal backstop for disputes.

• Tribunal processes rely on evidence.

  
  

Where disagreements arise about thresholds, package allocation, or sufficiency of provision, independent expert evidence may remain highly relevant. The proposals also do not explicitly require schools to facilitate access for privately instructed therapists to observe within school settings. While reforms emphasise partnership and co-design, operational practice may vary.

The central tension

The reforms aim to improve consistency across postcodes and reduce adversarial processes. That is a legitimate policy objective. But SaLT provision is inherently individual. Language underpins cognition, behaviour, literacy, friendships and mental health. A child’s speech and language profile cannot always be captured by broad developmental descriptors. If assessment becomes lighter and packages become standardised, then three safeguards become critical:

1. Clear thresholds and transparent criteria

2. Robust monitoring and review mechanisms

3. Genuine enforceability where provision is required

   
   

Without these, we risk moving from:

“Therapy only if you fight for it”

to:

“Therapy for all — but not necessarily the right therapy for your child.”

For children with complex, subtle or spiky communication needs, that distinction matters profoundly.

Thoughtful analysis. Occasional emails. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Subscribe here