Education Committee calls for “root and branch transformation” of how mainstream education caters to children and young people with SEND

In its report, published last week (18 September), the Education Committee called for SEND to become an “intrinsic part” of the mainstream education system, rather than an addition to it.

Since the introduction of the Children and Families Act 2014, the number of children and young people identified with SEND has risen from 1.3 million to 1.7 million.

In 2024/25, more than 1.2 million children and young people were receiving SEN support, and nearly half a million had an EHC plan. 

The report noted that there are three, graduated levels of support, moving from inclusive classroom practice to more targeted and specialist interventions: 

• Ordinarily available provision: everyday adjustments that all schools and settings are expected to provide. This level does not require a child to have a formally identified type of SEND. 
• SEN support: more targeted interventions and individualised support. Delivery of SEN support often involves the school's SEN-coordinator and can involve external specialists such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists. 
• EHCPs: a legal document issued by the local authority, and available for those aged 0–25 with complex and long-term needs. The local authority coordinates services set out in the plan, with input from professionals, the school, the family, and the child or young person. 

Through its enquiry, the cross-party committee heard that a failure to provide inclusive education in mainstream schools, largely due to insufficient resources, has fuelled an “unsustainable” growth in applications for EHC plans, when those children’s needs should be met at the two lower levels. 

The report warned that while Government has “stated its intention” to improve the system by enabling the majority of children with SEND to have their needs met in inclusive, mainstream education settings, it does not have a clear definition of what ‘inclusive’ mainstream education means. 

Therefore, the report called on the Government to publish within three months its definition of inclusive education, along with “a clear rationale and examples of good practice”.

Meanwhile, the committee claimed that the current inconsistency in SEN support and ordinarily available provision across England is “unacceptable”, noting that it results in “deeply inequitable experiences, delays in identifying SEN conditions and increases the levels of need for EHC plans.”

The report called for national standards to be introduced to establish “clear, enforceable expectations”, while allowing for local flexibility where appropriate.

Additionally, the committee made the following recommendations:

• The Department should publish statutory requirements detailing the minimum resources, specialist expertise, and equipment that every educational setting must have access to as a part of their offer of SEN support, and in order to deliver an inclusive education. This would establish a clear, enforceable baseline covering staffing, training, physical materials, and assistive technologies.  
• SEN support and ordinarily available provision should be provided before or without the need for an official diagnosis. This would ensure timely intervention that can improve outcomes and prevent escalation of need while a child is waiting for an EHC plan. 

Turning to the issue of the “unsustainable” demand for EHCPs, the committee’s enquiry heard that this is explained not just by the increase in children presenting with complex needs, but because many families are not receiving the support that they should at the SEN support and ordinarily available levels.

The committee noted: “Some are instead seeking EHCPs as they are the only category of support with legal underpinning and which enables parents to hold authorities to account where provision is inadequate.

“[…] Evidence indicates that mainstream schools and multi-academy trusts practicing real inclusivity generate fewer EHC plans, as they meet more students' needs effectively without them.”

On this issue, the report made the following recommendation:

• The SEND Tribunal must remain as a backstop of the accountability process and they must be empowered to issue legally binding recommendations to health services. DfE and the Department of Health and social care (DHSC) must systematically monitor SEND Tribunal outcomes and identify local authorities that repeatedly fail to comply with their statutory duties.

Government guidance on joint commissioning and collaboration between health and education services was published in the 2015 SEND code of practice.

However, the committee heard that SEND isn’t given enough focus by DHSC and NHS services, and that the sector feels “completely separate” from education.

Describing the NHS services as “too passive”, the Education Committee recommended that Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) should be “fully engaged” in local SEND systems, with “clearly defined responsibilities and mechanisms for joint planning and delivery”.

It also called for SEND to be identified as a “priority” across the health system, and for ongoing NHS restructuring to be used as an opportunity to strengthen the role and accountability of health services in supporting children and young people with SEND. 

Education Committee Chair Helen Hayes MP said: “When the Education Committee launched its inquiry, we already knew that the SEND system was broken, long past needing repair, and chronically letting down children, their families and their teachers. Our report presents a vision for how the Government can realise its laudable aim of making mainstream education inclusive to the vast majority of children and young people with SEND, who are present in every classroom. 

“Making sure every child in the country with SEND can attend a local school that meets their needs will require a root and branch transformation. SEND must become the business of every front line professional in educational settings, with in-depth training at the start and throughout the careers of teachers, senior leaders and teaching assistants. 

“The Government must develop a standardised, national framework for the support that children with SEND can expect in school, long before requiring an EHC plan, so that there can be confidence and clear lines of accountability. In the long term, a genuinely inclusive, well-resourced mainstream education system will bring down the desperate struggle to obtain an EHC plan.”

She added: “Some of this Committee’s key recommendations will require investment to embed new practices and bring in new resources. But any piecemeal alternative would mean that we later look back at this period as the moment the Government failed to finally solve the SEND crisis.” 

Responding to the report, Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson said: "This report highlights the deep-rooted issues which have plagued the SEND system for too long.

“I am continuing to listen closely to families, teachers and experts, as we put together plans to transform outcomes for every child with SEND, building on the work we have already started.

“The report rightly highlights the need for actions we’re already taking, to make sure that evidence-based support is available as routine, without a fight, for every child who needs it – from significant investment in places for children with SEND, to improved teacher training, to our Best Start Family Hubs in every local area.”

Also responding to the report, Amerdeep Somal, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “We welcome the Education Committee’s report and its recommendation to extend our powers so we can investigate complaints about the delivery of special educational needs support in schools.

“We know the system is under unprecedented increased demand and intense pressure and needs urgent reform. Securing the ability to investigate complaints about special educational needs support in schools is something we have championed for many years, and the Committee’s recommendations represent a vital step forward. If put into practice, these changes will bridge the gap in accountability in the current system and extend redress for families when things go wrong.”

Lottie Winson