The Child on the Ground: What SEND Reform Is Missing

Much of the current discussion around SEND reform focuses on tribunals, appeals, and the rising number of legal challenges. But that is not the real issue. The real issue is trust.

Trust between families and schools. Trust between parents and local authorities. Trust that decisions about a child’s education are genuinely rooted in need, not driven primarily by structure, budget, or administrative convenience.

When trust is strong, disputes reduce naturally. When trust weakens, conflict increases. Litigation is usually a symptom. It is rarely the cause.

The Child on the Ground

Before we discuss policy models or appeal routes, we need to picture the child.

The child who:

• Processes language more slowly than peers.

• Forgets multi-step instructions because of working memory difficulties.

• Becomes anxious when overwhelmed and struggles to articulate why.

• Works exceptionally hard just to maintain pace.

That child does not experience “reform” in abstract terms. They experience whether adults understand them.

They experience whether teachers slow down when needed. Whether instructions are broken into manageable steps. Whether provision is consistent and reliable. Whether someone notices when stress is building. No structural framework, however well designed, replaces that lived experience.

Why Safeguards Matter — Even If They’re Rarely Used

Under the Children and Families Act 2014, the EHCP system established:

• Clearly defined legal duties.

• Specified and quantified provision.

• Access to independent tribunal oversight.

Most families do not want to go to tribunal. That is often misunderstood. But the existence of independent oversight creates stability. It reassures parents that disagreements can be resolved impartially. It encourages decision-makers to evidence their reasoning carefully. It promotes dialogue before escalation.

The presence of procedural safeguards strengthens trust, even when they are rarely invoked.

Structure Is Not the Enemy — But It Is Not Enough

The reform proposals speak of greater consistency, clearer tiers, and structured models of support.

Consistency across areas is important, clarity is important, sustainability is important. However, structure cannot replace individualised understanding.

If decisions about provision become more centralised or more standardised, without preserving meaningful routes for individual challenge, families may begin to feel that decisions are being made about their child rather than with them. That shift, however subtle, can undermine confidence in the system.

Litigation Follows Breakdown, It Does Not Create It

Appeals increase when:

• Parents feel excluded from meaningful discussion.

• Provision in plans is vague or insufficiently specified.

• Reviews do not lead to change when change is needed.

• Communication becomes defensive rather than collaborative.

Appeals reduce when:

• Evidence is transparent.

• Provision is clearly defined.

• Parents feel respected and listened to.

• Professionals and families share a common understanding of need.

Focusing solely on reducing appeal rights risks misunderstanding the problem. If trust is not strengthened at the same time, conflict may simply reappear elsewhere, through complaints, judicial review, discrimination claims, or increased disengagement from the system.

Trust and Mental Health

For many children with social, emotional and mental health needs, the stability of adult relationships around them is critical. When home and school work together constructively, the child feels safer. When conflict becomes adversarial, children often internalise that stress. Reform must therefore consider not only legal architecture, but relational impact.

Procedural safeguards are not merely technical devices. They are confidence-building mechanisms, they signal fairness, and fairness builds trust.

What Should Guide Reform?

The central question should not be:

“How do we reduce tribunal numbers?”

It should be:

“How do we design a system that families trust enough not to need tribunals?”

That means ensuring:

• Decisions remain evidence-based and transparent.

• Individual needs are not lost within generic frameworks.

• Independent oversight remains meaningful.

• Collaboration is prioritised over compliance.

If reform strengthens these foundations, trust can grow. If reform narrows routes for challenge without strengthening confidence elsewhere, distrust may deepen.

SEND has always been more than a legal framework. It is about relationships, it is about understanding, it is about ensuring that the child on the ground feels supported, not processed. As reform progresses, maintaining trust must remain at the centre of the conversation.

If you would like to stay informed as SEND policy develops, please subscribe below to our updates.

Subscribe here