草莓传媒

Summary

This meeting brought together sector experts and policy stakeholders to discuss proposed SEND reforms, with particular attention to inclusion, dyslexia, workforce development, and the legal framework underpinning support for children and young people with special educational needs.

Daniel Stavrou, Associate Director, Council for Disabled Children

Daniel Stavrou began by welcoming the overarching direction of the reforms, particularly their ambition to strengthen inclusion within mainstream education. He emphasised that, for most children with dyslexia, needs should be met effectively at the universal level, making system-wide inclusion a central priority.

He identified the current curriculum and assessment system as a major constraint on inclusion. Rigid age-related expectations and a strong reliance on high-stakes examinations limit teachers鈥� ability to adapt teaching approaches, which is particularly problematic for dyslexic learners.

He also raised concerns and opportunities around the proposed National Inclusion Standards. While he supported the aim of improving consistency across schools, he warned against unintended drift towards a medicalised model of SEND. He stressed the importance of ensuring the standards reflect not only formal categories of need but also relational and behavioural aspects of schooling, such as school culture and attendance practices.

On workforce development, he highlighted the need for ongoing professional learning rather than one-off training, alongside protected time for reflective practice. He also suggested a shift in how teaching assistants are deployed, moving away from individual pupil allocation towards more flexible, expertise-led models that better support inclusion.

Finally, he welcomed the proposed 鈥渆xperts at hand鈥� model, noting its potential to improve access to specialist support. However, he emphasised that specialist input should influence whole-class and whole-school practice, not just individual interventions.

听

Louise Selby 鈥� Specialist Dyslexia Teacher and Assessor, chair of the network of specialist SpLD teachers working in local authorities听

Louise Selby focused on the risk that dyslexia and literacy-related needs may become systemically under-recognised within the proposed framework. She argued that unmet literacy needs are frequently misidentified as social, emotional, or behavioural issues, creating a cycle in which the underlying cause is not addressed.

Drawing on case examples from practice, she described how children with clear literacy difficulties are often prioritised for emotional or behavioural support while their reading and writing needs remain insufficiently addressed. This can lead to escalating disengagement and compounding difficulties over time.

A central concern was the proposed framework鈥檚 failure to explicitly include the cognitive foundations of literacy (such as phonological awareness, memory, and processing speed). She argued that although the proposed categories of need are broad and important, they do not directly capture the mechanisms underlying dyslexia. As a result, literacy needs risk becoming less visible in policy, training, and funding decisions.

She also raised concerns about inequality of access, noting that reliance on private assessments is already creating a two-tier system in which families with financial means are more likely to secure diagnosis and support.

Despite these concerns, she strongly supported the move towards a needs-led system, provided that cognitive literacy needs are explicitly recognised. She emphasised that when these needs are properly identified and addressed, outcomes improve significantly across behaviour, engagement, and attainment.

听

Catriona Moore, Policy Manager, IPSEA

Catriona Moore provided a legal perspective, acknowledging that while the current SEND system is not delivering effectively for many families, it is underpinned by important enforceable statutory rights.

She explained that existing legislation ensures children are entitled to needs assessment, specified provision, and appropriate educational placement, with legal mechanisms available if these entitlements are not met. These rights ensure that provision is based on individual need rather than available resources.

Her primary concern was that the proposed introduction of Individual Support Plans (ISPs) may weaken this enforceability. While ISPs would require schools to outline expected support, they would not carry the same legal force as existing Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). This raises concerns about what recourse families would have if agreed support is not delivered.

She also highlighted the risk that moving towards more standardised, nationally defined provision could reduce flexibility and weaken individual entitlements. While she supported the ambition to improve inclusion and early intervention, she argued that these goals can be achieved without removing or weakening statutory rights.

She concluded that legal enforceability should remain a backstop rather than a primary mechanism, but one that is essential when systems fail. Without it, families may lose meaningful routes to challenge unmet need.

听

Claire Burton,听Director, SEND and Alternative Provision, Department for Education

Claire Burton set out the government鈥檚 rationale for the SEND reforms, framing them as a response to widespread evidence that the current system is not delivering consistently for children and families. She highlighted issues such as long waiting times for assessments, inequities in access to support, and the burden on parents who often have to 鈥渇ight鈥� to secure provision. Despite increased investment, outcomes for children with SEND have not significantly improved, reinforcing the need for systemic change.

She explained that the central ambition of the reforms is to create a system where inclusion is built in 鈥渂y design鈥�, rather than relying on reactive or fragmented support. This is intended to operate across a 0鈥�25 framework, with a strong emphasis on early intervention, including in early years settings.

To achieve this, she outlined a layered model of provision:

• At the universal level, all settings would be expected to deliver a consistent baseline of inclusive practice, supported by workforce training and the introduction of National Inclusion Standards. These standards are intended to define what families should expect from any school or provider.
• The targeted layer would provide additional support within settings, such as adapted teaching approaches, small group interventions, and access to appropriate resources.
• The 鈥渢argeted plus鈥� layer would introduce more direct access to specialist expertise鈥攖hrough the proposed 鈥渆xperts at hand鈥� model鈥攂ringing services into schools to support delivery at the frontline rather than operating externally.
• Alongside this, a specialist layer would remain for children with more complex needs, with EHCPs continuing as part of the system.听

Claire emphasised that the National Inclusion Standards are not intended to reinforce a medical model of SEND, but rather to support a more consistent, socially-informed approach to inclusion. She acknowledged, however, that the framework must accurately reflect the full range of needs, including those raised in relation to dyslexia and cognition, and indicated that this is an area under active review with input from experts.

She also recognised concerns around accountability, particularly in relation to Individual Support Plans and how provision will be monitored and enforced. She noted that the Department is actively seeking feedback on how to ensure confidence in the system, including how schools are held accountable for delivering the support set out in the standards.

听

Overall discussion themes

After the speakers鈥� initial remarks, there were questions from attendees and a general debate about the themes and questions that were raised by their contributions.

These included:

• Strong shared support for greater inclusion in mainstream education.
• Broad agreement that the current SEND system is not consistently delivering for children and families.
• Significant concern that dyslexia and literacy needs may be under-recognised within the proposed framework.
• Emphasis on the importance of workforce development, reflective practice, and specialist access.
• Ongoing tension between:
  • A more standardised, inclusion-by-design system, and
  • The need to maintain individual enforceable rights and accountability mechanisms.
• Shared recognition of the risk of inequality, particularly where access to private assessment influences support pathways.