In April, my office held a forum for parents of SEND children, professionals and teachers to share their views and feed into the Government’s consultation on the SEND reform proposals.
This followed from the SEND forum I held last year in May, which led to the publication of my SEND in Norwich North report – you can read it here. I hear from many local people about the way the broken SEND system has been letting them down, and I’m pleased that Government is making necessary changes to improve provision and support for young people and families.
Following my most recent forum, I have written to Bridget Philipson, the Secretary of State for Education with the feedback received from local people to ensure my constituents voices are heard at the heart of government.
Read the full letter below…
Rt Hon Bridget Philipson MP
Secretary of State for Education
Department for Education
Sanctuary Buildings
20 Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT
Monday 18th May 2026
Dear Secretary of State,
Re: SEND Reforms – Perspectives from Norwich North
I am delighted to see that the Department of Education are reforming the broken SEND system that has, for far too long, let families down. I’ve heard heart breaking stories from families across Norwich about children getting support far too late, not getting support at all, or having to travel miles to specialist schools. The current system is adversarial, meaning families are fighting to get basic support their kids deserve.
I am hopeful that the proposed reforms will begin tackling some of the root causes of the failed system, repair confidence amongst families, and provide teachers with the additional support they have long needed, particularly through the Experts at Hand initiative.
In order to understand how these proposed reforms have been felt on the ground and ensure my constituents had a chance to offer their feedback, my office held a consultation evening on the 18th of April. Both parents of children with SEND and professionals shared their thoughts and concerns about the proposed changes. My office promised to collate the key themes from the discussion and share them with you, which is the purpose of my letter today. I know that your department is actively listening to feedback and I want to ensure my constituents voices are heard at the heart of government.
EHCPs and the Legal System
Parents discussed the proposed changes to EHCPs, some concerns were raised about gaps not being addressed in the proposals. Key points raised included:
- The importance of ensuring EHCPs are reviewed, updated and adapted over time.
- EHCP law is clear but not consistently applied. Vague wording can create legal loopholes that mean parents do not receive expected support, emphasising the importance of language.
- Many families are unaware that EHCPs must be specific and enforceable.
- Parents are frequently forced into mediation or tribunal simply to secure support already justified by professional evidence.
- Parents were clear that the problem is not the legal framework itself, but the gap between law and practice. EHCPs are one of the few mechanisms families have to secure support.
Experts At Hand
Parents welcomed the ambition behind “Experts at Hand” but stressed that expertise should not be restricted to a narrow set of statutory roles. While access to educational psychology, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and Teachers of the Deaf should be standard, families emphasised the value of wider specialist input.
Parents felt that enabling schools to draw flexibly on local and non-traditional expertise, alongside statutory professionals, could improve outcomes and reduce pressure on overstretched services.
Practical questions raised included:
- Where will experts be sourced given existing shortages?
- How will support be allocated fairly across schools?
- Will access be through referral systems or direct contact?
- How will funding be protected and monitored?
Individual Support Plans (ISPs)
The room discussed the shift towards ISPs, which invited several questions and concerns. These included:
- Whether ISPs could realistically replace EHCPs without clear legal enforceability, defined national thresholds and independent oversight.
- Schools holding sole responsibility for drafting ISPs, particularly in cases of disagreement. Parents feared this could: damage relationships between families and schools, leave parents without meaningful routes of challenge and result in children going without necessary support
- How “the most complex needs” would be defined and where children with significant, but not easily categorised, needs would fall.
Workforce Capacity
Concerns were raised that SEND reforms risk placing greater responsibility on teachers and SENDCOs without addressing recruitment, retention, workload, or training. In particular:
- Parents questioned how mainstream schools can meet increased expectations without greater Teaching Assistant capacity, particularly given examples of academy trusts reducing TA numbers across multiple schools.
- Families described situations where a single SENDCO covers several schools and is only present on site one day a week. Parents questioned how meaningful support, coordination with specialists, and parental engagement can occur under this model.
Early Intervention
Parents unanimously supported the emphasis on early intervention highlighted in the White Paper. However, they warned that identifying needs earlier is only meaningful if support can be delivered
Accountability
Parents broadly agreed that SEND tribunals should be a last resort. However, they stressed that tribunals currently function as a necessary safeguard against inconsistent decision‑making by local authorities. They cautioned against:
- Reducing tribunal access without addressing the causes of dispute.
- Increasing Local Authority control without strengthening accountability, particularly given the inherent conflict between decision‑making and budget responsibility.
What Does Success Look Like in Ten Years’ Time?
Participants identified success as:
- Fewer tribunals because needs are met early and consistently.
- More children genuinely supported in mainstream schools.
- Early years identification matched with timely intervention.
- EHCPs in place before secondary school, not at crisis point.
- Sufficient staffing to assess, deliver, and review support.
- Health services fully embedded in SEND pathways.
- Annual ISP and EHCP reviews carried out meaningfully with parents.
- A system based on rights, clarity, and collaboration rather than conflict.
Conclusion
Families in Norwich North want SEND reform to succeed. They are clear that the current system does not work, instead describing it as adversarial, exhausting, and harmful to family wellbeing. Parents reported sleepless nights, preparing legal paperwork, and navigating complex systems while caring for children with significant needs. However, parents were apprehensive about the proposed reforms to the SEND system, and there remains some work to be done to ensure concerns are addressed and we hold their confidence.
The message from parents and professionals at the forum was not that the current system gives families too many rights, but that too often that these rights are important safeguards against poor and inconsistent practice. We must therefore ensure that reforms deliver consistent application of the law, enforceable and clearly drafted support, sufficient workforce capacity, and meaningful accountability.
If done well, these reforms have the potential to reduce conflict, improve trust, and ensure children receive the support they need at the right time. I urge the Department to continue keeping the voices of families and professionals central as these proposals are developed, so that the reformed system is based on partnership, clarity, and confidence.
I look forward to seeing the government’s response to the consultation.
Kind regards,
Alice