Key facts
- Campaigners led by Chris Packham have written to the prime minister urging a rethink of SEND reforms.
- The proposed reforms would replace legally enforceable EHCPs with ISPs.
- Parents would lose the right to independent legal appeal for ISPs.
- Schools would administer ISPs instead of local authorities.
- The government aims to curb rising costs associated with EHCPs.
- Campaigners want to retain existing legal rights for children with SEND.
Campaigners, including broadcaster Chris Packham, have penned a letter to the prime minister urging a significant revision of proposed reforms to special educational needs (SEND) provision. The group argues that the planned changes would diminish the legal rights of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), particularly concerning enforceable education, health and care plans (EHCPs), parental choice of educational settings, and independent routes of appeal.
The reforms, initially announced by former education secretary Bridget Phillipson and predecessor Keir Starmer, aim to curb the increasing number of legally mandated EHCPs and reduce long-term costs. Under the proposed system, millions of pupils would receive individual support plans (ISPs) instead of EHCPs. These ISPs would be agreed between parents and schools but would not be subject to independent legal appeal, with parents instead appealing to the school.
Schools are slated to receive increased resources to support SEND children, but the overall package is intended to address a projected £6 billion financial deficit faced by councils in England. However, concerns have been raised that a potential influx of new EHCP applications before the new system is implemented could undermine projected savings.
The campaigners are advocating for the retention of current EHCP thresholds, the preservation of independent tribunal appeals, and the scrapping of the proposed assessment system for ISPs. While ministers are consulting on the measures, sources suggest that the new education secretary, Lucy Powell, and Prime Minister Andy Burnham are more likely to implement minor adjustments to bolster legal protections rather than enact the wholesale changes demanded by the campaign group.