Almost everyone will welcome this week’s SEND reform announcements, which signal a shift from a single, one-size-fits-all EHCP (education health and care plan) model to a more thoughtful three-tiered access route.
Replacing the binary nature of EHCPs with a three-tier model of escalating funding and expertise is a genuine step forward. The old system created perverse incentives: families and providers fought for ‘full-fat EHCPs’ not because they always needed them, but because there was nothing in between. No ‘diet’ version. No faster route to lower-level support. Just all or nothing.
And because there was only the full-fat version, it was deliberately difficult to access. Think of The Gauntlet on Gladiators: a contestant sprinting through a narrow chamber, smashing into five gladiators one by one. That’s the EHCP access route, and the parent is the contestant.
But if you’re an affluent parent, you can pay privately and skip the first two gladiators.
How? Access to funding carries a clinical diagnosis hurdle. State-funded assessment, if obtainable at all, means months or years of waiting because it is expensive and finite. There are only so many clinicians. Private diagnosis removes that wait, and with it, the illusion that access to support is equitable.
The critical question these reforms don’t answer: can learners access targeted or targeted plus support without a formal diagnosis? England already has formally recognised authorities, such as Patoss, a dyslexia charity which independently validates non-diagnostic clinical access routes. These produce the information educators and specialists need to deliver on targeted and targeted Plus expectations, at potentially a fraction of the costs of diagnostics.
If the DfE enables these routes, inclusion becomes something educational leaders can realistically embed into their workflows. If not, we’ve rebuilt the structure but left the biggest barrier to inclusion well-fortified.
There is also an ideological question buried in here: are funding and support programmes only available to public sector providers? Independent training providers and employer providers appear to be ignored entirely. Both are bound by the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. If they carry the same duty, why can’t they access the same help?
Should a learner who has chosen a qualification delivered by a private provider or through their employer be locked out of the ‘experts at hand’ offer? Should their route into education determine the quality of inclusion they receive?
In the era of identity politics, ideology seeps into many political objectives and even legislation. But it must not be allowed to undermine SEND reform, or discriminate against learners based on their choice of provider.
My third point isn’t a challenge to government. It’s a challenge to leadership. The paper forecasts a 50 per cent decrease in EHCPs. But those learners don’t just disappear. The DfE is offloading accountability for that 50 per cent to you.
Look closely at the announced funding: some was already committed in the 2025 budget and has simply been repackaged. The rest ceases after three years.
The only way to meet this change is to shift from a ‘funded specialists’ mindset to an ‘operational infrastructure’ one. To quote one of the greatest educators (Yoda): “You must unlearn what you have learned.”
The EHCP specialist route is unaffordable. Leaders need to rethink how they deliver slightly less complex support services for significantly less money.
There are clues in the paper. References to embedded support and embedded processes point towards processes and technology over specialists. Both are enhancements that survive the funding cliff edge.
There has clearly been significant engagement between the DfE and Ofsted: the threads between their two recent publications are visible and deliberate. Leaders will welcome this. Consistency in requirements simplifies their ability to embed inclusive practices into operations.
I’ve recently been involved in creating the Ofsted Inclusion Framework, which provides actionable guidance for post-16 leaders on meeting the inclusion requirements within Ofsted’s toolkit and includes free software recommendations. The proposed legal duty to produce an annual inclusion strategy lends real urgency to these recommendations, particularly those that help leaders think structurally about embedding inclusion across workflows.
The diagnosis question and the provider question remain unanswered. Don’t be distracted by the funding: it’s a red herring to soften the real message, which is that you’re now accountable for over half of EHCP services. Leaders who redesign around inclusive workflows will meet their new duties cost-effectively. Those who don’t will be caught short.
Your thoughts