(England) Leaked govt SPED changes suggest less support; $4B to mainstream 60K kids

Jan 26, 2026, Special Needs Jungle: Leaking poorly thought-through plans and cuts to SEND rights will only end in tiers 

https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/leaking-poorly-thought-through-plans-cuts-send-rights-tiers/ 

. . .It now looks like parts of central government have caught the same habit, with Whitehall “insiders” deciding the best way to test the roiling waters of SEND change is by yet more anonymous journalist briefings. Last Friday, two articles with similar SEND content came out. One was in the Financial Times, the other in the iPaper.

We don’t know the accuracy of either. But from what they’ve come up with, it seems like the water is circling the plughole.

If the leaks are true, it seems children with SEND are about to embark on a Government-sponsored version of the Hunger Games, where they are forced to compete for scarce resources and only the fittest survive to claim the ultimate prize: an education that meets their needs.

These two paywalled articles may just be kite-flying—people airing deniable ideas in public, to gauge the reaction of MPs and the public. It’s equally possible rival parts of Whitehall are using journalists as a way to get their (terrible) pet ideas adopted, or things they don’t like dropped.

Of course, none of these brave briefers has gone on the record. The articles feature second and third-hand views of unnamed “people familiar with the proposals”, “one of those briefed on the plans,” “sources,” and “an insider.” It’s best to bring a lorryload of salt when listening to what these anonymous heroes have to say. . . .

The main “proposal” floated is for pupils to be allocated “digital passports” and slotted into a multi-tiered system. (iPaper, 23 January 2026).

According to “sources,” SEN support would first be provided through this series of ‘tiers’, with the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) reserved for pupils “with the most severe needs” either at the top tier, or after “top tier” support has proved inadequate.

It’s suggested there will be three or four tiers of SEN support, depending on which report you read. It appears that, despite the Schools White Paper apparently being imminent, the precise definition of support in each tier is still being worked out. This is unfathomable.

If these reports are true, (and we have heard talk recently of a “ladder of support”) children with SEND could be required to climb (or fall down) a ladder of failure, being forced to struggle at each rung before moving to the next. Under this scheme, children would likely start by receiving “universal” support. If this isn’t enough, children would “move through the tiers until their needs are met.” One of the reports says, “it is understood” this tiered system would only apply to children whose needs “progress over time.” If their needs then top over the highest rung, they would “qualify” for an EHCP. The same report claims children “born with complex needs, such as cerebral palsy,” will get an EHCP “from birth.” . . .

In fact, this appears to signal a slide back to the pre‑2014 system of School Action, School Action Plus and Statements, without any recognition that the education landscape has fundamentally changed.

Local authorities no longer have the specialist teams they once relied on, and schools are working with increasingly stretched budgets and too few staff. The staff they have are at breaking point. Meanwhile, post-pandemic, every school has seen a growth in the complexity of children’s needs. It is naïve to assume that reviving an old model will work when the conditions that supported it have all but disappeared.

There are two crucial points here:

When will children get a thorough needs assessment? If the current system worked as it’s supposed to, a proper assessment (though not statutory) should happen at the outset of a need being identified. I.e, a concern is raised, parents are involved, evidence is gathered—including external assessments (ed psych, speech, OT, etc). An SEN Support plan is created, monitored, and adjusted over a few months.

However, because of specialists shortages, this vital external input is often missed out. School assessment can focus too much on an academic need, rather than the more complicated profiles of neurodivergent pupils. There is no set number of cycles of APDR, and children with significant needs do not need to go through this cycle. But without a full specialist needs assessment early, how do they know? How would more tiers improve this? It doesn’t need extra tiers; the existing system needs to be complied with.  . . .

But under these purported proposals, most children with SEND could lose the right to individual support, with schools given more leeway over how to support pupils. So instead of support commissioned per child to fulfil their EHCP, schools could be given funding to commission services, such as educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, and provide support for groups of children.

As mentioned, there is a crisis in educational support specialists. Schools cannot commission services that do not exist, and they have no control over workforce capacity, recruitment, or retention. This risks making worse the postcode lottery in which access to specialist input depends on local availability rather than children’s assessed needs.

This is not the early intervention the Government promised, and it is certainly not led by children and young people’s individual needs. It is setting children with SEND and teachers up for failure. If these proposals move forward, they could increase conflict between families and schools, drive greater reliance on the Equality Act 2010, and deepen mistrust in a system that is already under immense strain.

A shift in the direction of accountability

The Financial Times reporting (23 January 2026), adds another deeply troubling dimension to the Government’s emerging SEND plans. Rather than addressing why families are forced to appeal, the reported solution appears to be restricting parents’ legal entitlements to secure specialist help and limiting appeals over local authority decisions. SEND Tribunal appeals have risen from just over 3,000 a decade ago to more than 25,000 last year; ministers are said to be looking for ways to reduce this ever-increasing number.

The direction of travel is unmistakable: instead of fixing a system that repeatedly fails children, the Government seems to be exploring ways to make it harder for families to challenge those failures. This framing treats appeals as an administrative inconvenience rather than a symptom of systemic dysfunction. Removing appeal rights would be punishing families instead of law-breaking councils—a disgusting way for a Labour government to behave—but, it seems, par for the course for this one.

With EHCPs reserved only for those whose needs are judged “severe,”* the vast majority of decisions about provision will be made inside the school, not through a statutory process.

Under such a system, families could find themselves with no clear route to challenge decisions about the “tier” their child is placed in, the support allocated, or the adequacy of that support. . . .

One report says—again quoting “sources”—that the SEND funding system will be “rebuilt from scratch,” with schools expected to get “a lot more money,”  but with “significant requirements” attached to that funding.

Without clarity about these requirements, this raises immediate concerns about whether funding will be tied to compliance with the new tiered model, performance metrics, or expectations that schools absorb responsibilities previously held by local authorities or specialist services. More money is meaningless if it is accompanied by obligations that are unrealistic, unworkable, or simply shift pressure from one overstretched part of the system to another. . . .

Finally, the promise of £3bn [$4B] to create 60,000 SEND places in mainstream schools raises questions about what these places actually represent, as we have previously discussed. Are they genuinely inclusive, well‑supported placements with the right expertise and therapeutic input? Or are they simply additional seats in buildings, without the infrastructure needed to meet children’s needs?

Taken together, the proposals reported by the iPaper suggest a system moving away from individual rights and towards school‑level discretion, without addressing the structural shortages or accountability mechanisms that currently drive families to fight for support. More money in the system is welcome, but only if it strengthens the legal protections that ensure children and young people receive the educational provision they need.

Missing over 16s

Neither the iNews nor the FT article mentions the rights of young people over 16. What happens post‑16, when young people gain their own legal rights to request assessments, challenge decisions, and appeal to the SEND Tribunal?

Currently, disabled young people aged 16–25 hold independent rights to assessment and appeal. These rights do not disappear simply because they have left compulsory schooling. Yet there is no indication that the Government’s reforms have considered what happens post‑16, let alone post‑18. If the proposed “four‑tier system” is built around school‑led support, it is entirely unclear how it would operate once a young person moves into further education, specialist colleges, apprenticeships or training. . . .

The risk is clear: a school‑based tiered system, combined with reduced access to EHCPs, could leave young people with no statutory protection, no enforceable provision, and no meaningful route to challenge decisions.

And yet more delays...

And what of the claim that implementing changes to SEND will be delayed until after the next election? Both reports say the Schools White Paper with details of these reforms will be published sometime in February. They both claim, without any sourcing at all, that implementation of SEND changes is likely to be delayed until at least the 2029-2030 academic year. In other words, nothing will change until after the next general election.

It’s not totally implausible. Shunting things to the next government to handle is what the Tories did with the 2022-23 SEND and AP Green Paper and Implementation Plan. But it would be morally, administratively and politically deranged.

The SEND system’s been under review for over six years already. Things have deteriorated a lot over that period. These articles suggest that system reform won’t be implemented until September 2029 at the earliest. Things won’t improve with a few more years of chin-stroking and pilot projects—they’re highly likely to get much worse. . . .