The ‘heartbreaking’ and ‘indefensible’ SEND system and how to fix it
The silence that follows ‘No’
There is a particular silence that enters a home when help is refused. It isn’t peaceful. It’s the silence of a family left alone with fear, risk, and exhaustion, and the sinking realisation that something in the system has fundamentally broken.
As both a SEND parent and a social worker, I’ve seen how the same child, with the same needs, can receive entirely different responses depending on the council responsible for their support.
In support groups on social media, parents compare notes, reassure one another, and try to patch the gaps when services don’t step in. And it is heartbreaking (and frankly indefensible) to see children with almost identical profiles receiving completely different levels of support simply because they fall under different councils.
The current system, with unreturned calls and inconsistent thresholds, leaves families feeling frustrated and helpless, highlighting the urgent need for national standards to ensure equality.
National law, local delivery – and 152 different versions of support
England’s legal framework reads like a promise of consistency. Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014 establishes a needs‑led, rights‑based system for special educational needs and disability (SEND), including the absolute duty on local authorities to secure the special educational provision specified in an EHCP (section 42).
To make this effective nationwide, reforms must include streamlined processes and adequate funding to support local authorities in meeting these duties without overburdening staff or resources.
Disabled children are also expressly within the ambit of Children Act 1989 section 17, which frames the local authority’s general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need – a category that includes disabled children.
Recent case law has repeatedly reaffirmed the non‑delegable, “absolute” nature of section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014: if provision is specified in Section F, the local authority must secure it – staffing shortages, commissioning gaps or school capacity do not excuse non‑delivery.
Yet because national duties are delivered through local structures – local authorities and Integrated Care Boards – the offer varies widely. To address this, we need reforms such as mandatory national frameworks and oversight mechanisms that ensure consistent commissioning and support across all areas.
The government itself acknowledges variability in integration and commissioning arrangements – and is reviewing legal mechanisms (like section 75 pooled budgets) precisely because inconsistent local arrangements create fragmentation.
I have stood on both sides of this divide. In one authority, support was coordinated and extended into homes and communities. A few miles away, the same needs were “not commissioned,” “outside remit,” or “school‑only”.
That is not a misunderstanding; it is structural inequality engineered by the way we organise a supposedly national system.
Commissioning, thresholds and ‘remit’: the quiet gatekeepers
Families quickly learn the vocabulary that decides their fate: “We are not commissioned to provide that.” “This is outside our remit.” “We only work with schools.” “This service does not accept behavioural concerns.” “Your child does not meet the threshold.”
These phrases are presented as neutral facts. In reality, they operate as locked doors – despite a statutory framework that expects needs‑led provision and joint commissioning.
Health‑led therapies (OT, SaLT, CAMHS/NDD) can be especially susceptible to local commissioning boundaries and waiting‑list practices. NHS England’s own materials highlight the need to reduce “unwarranted variation” in children’s mental health and neurodevelopmental services, while national dashboards reveal significant differences in autism and ADHD waiting times across areas
EHCPs: A legal right undermined by local reality
EHCPs were meant to reduce fragmentation and increase accountability. But national data now shows the legal 20‑week deadline is routinely missed. In the 2024 calendar year, fewer than half of new plans were issued within 20 weeks (46 per cent excluding exceptions) — the lowest on record — with over 6,000 plans taking more than 52 weeks.
The Department for Education’s latest statistical release likewise documents timeliness and rising volumes, underscoring systemic strain.
When families appeal, outcomes again expose the gulf between law and delivery. The Ministry of Justice reports record SEND tribunal activity for 2024/25 and extraordinarily high family success rates; specialist analyses place parent‑favour outcomes around 95 to 99 per cent depending on measure – a stark indicator of systemic misalignment rather than isolated errors.
This is not partnership. It is survival.
The hidden human cost
Families navigating daily crises without timely assessments and interventions feel overwhelmed and disillusioned, underscoring the need for systemic change to protect their wellbeing.
Parent communities as a shadow infrastructure
Because statutory support is inconsistent and inaccessible, parent communities have become a parallel system – swapping legal templates, sharing tribunal guidance, and crowdsourcing sensory strategies.
That such infrastructure is necessary at all reflects a national framework that promises rights while tolerating geographic rationing.
For short breaks alone, national regulations require local authorities to provide a range of day, evening, weekend and overnight options and to publish a Short Breaks Statement – duties that are implemented very unevenly.
Inspection without parity is not accountability
Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission now inspect local area SEND partnerships under a revised framework, but inspections are still calibrated to the local context rather than to national parity of offer. A local area can be commended for leadership even if entire layers of provision aren’t commissioned locally.
The framework’s purpose is to evaluate effectiveness, not to ensure that a child in one county can access the same categories of support as a child in another. Ofsted itself acknowledges a “broken” system in its review commentary and is refining the framework – but parity of offer remains outside the current inspection judgments.
Reform is coming – it must not entrench inequality
Government policy points to national standards for SEND, digital EHCP reforms, and strengthened accountabilities. Some standards were slated to be published and tested by the end of 2025, with updates to the Code of Practice to follow. The direction of travel matters: reforms that merely constrain EHCP access or push more responsibility onto mainstream settings without guaranteed therapeutic provision risk baking the postcode lottery into official policy.
What England needs now: from warm words to structural guarantees
1) A national eligibility threshold for disabled children’s social care
Mirror the clarity in adult social care by setting a national threshold that prevents local inflation and crisis‑only access for disabled children, consistent with the Children Act Section 17 framework and the specific duties that bite once needs are assessed.
2) A National minimum offer of core support (non‑negotiable, geography‑blind)
Every area should provide, at minimum:
- Sensory‑informed, functional occupational therapy
- Speech and language therapy based on assessed need
- Behaviour support available across home, school and community
- CAMHS/NDD pathways that don’t exclude neurodivergent distress
- Preventative short breaks, including overnight options
- This is consistent with the Code of Practice’s joint‑commissioning intent and with existing Short Breaks duties requiring a range of services and a published local offer – obligations that should be enforced nationally for parity.
3) EHCP accountability based on delivery, not paper compliance
Section 42 is an absolute duty. Where local areas fail to secure provision, swift national intervention must follow – as recent High Court rulings have underlined.
4) Inspections that assess parity across England
Add a parity lens: can children access the same categories of support irrespective of postcode? Inspection should evaluate not just processes, but the existence and deliverability of core provision against national standards.
5) A System measured by falling tribunal volumes
The success metric for reform should be fewer appeals because lawful provision is delivered earlier and consistently – not because routes of redress are narrowed. Current tribunal volumes and family win rates are a red warning light.
A final word: my child is not a budget line
My child is not a cost pressure to be managed when budgets run tight, nor a line on a financial spreadsheet that can be shifted or minimised to make the figures look tidy.
He is not a commissioning decision that can be postponed, reshuffled, or quietly pushed aside when services feel overstretched or unwilling to engage.
He is a human being whose whole system does not wait politely for working hours, who does not stop struggling or hurting because the school day has ended or because a service has decided that his needs fall “outside remit.”
His distress does not pause to accommodate administrative boundaries, and his development does not adjust itself to the limitations of local commissioning.
He is a whole child – complex, sensitive, bright, vulnerable, and entirely deserving of the dignity and support every child should be able to rely on without having to fight for it.
No parent should ever be made to feel that their child’s worth is determined by thresholds, budgets, or what their particular postcode happens to offer.
His life, safety, and future are not negotiable, and he deserves a system that sees him as a human being before anything else.
If a national legal framework cannot guarantee national delivery, then it is not truly a framework of rights; it becomes an illusion of equality that conceals deep structural injustice.
We can choose to change this, and we already know what is required: national thresholds, a national minimum offer, and national accountability that prevents any child from being failed because of where they live.
Without these changes, families will continue to be left alone in that heavy, frightening silence that follows when support is refused and there is nowhere left to turn.
Author’s note: These views are my own, written in a personal capacity. As both a social worker and a SEND parent, I remain mindful of professional conduct and do not comment on individual colleagues or local authorities, but on the wider national system