The schools white paper and what it's got to do with social work

The much-anticipated schools white paper Every Child Achieving and Thriving has a lot riding on it. On the one hand, it marks an attempt to fix a dysfunctional SEND system that drives parents to despair and threatens to bankrupt local authorities.

On the other, it’s also an attempt to reform the schools system to be more inclusive and engaging for all children and young people.

If successful it could end up as one of the lasting legacies of Keir Starmer’s government.

Why it matters to social work

By the time they reach the age of 15, children in the UK are the unhappiest when compared to those in 27 European countries. 

Too many are disengaged from school, suspensions and permanent exclusions are rising (up 21 per cent and 16 per cent in the 2023/24 academic year), and one in five children misses a day every fortnight.

Background too often determines outcomes, says the government, and disadvantaged children and those with SEND are under-achieving.

As a result, home schooling has increased, presenting safeguarding concerns. Disengaged children are more at risk of exclusion and can fall prey to gangs, knife crime, criminal exploitation and reduced life outcomes.

Social justice lies at the heart of these reforms. The white paper describes schools as “incredible agents for change: a universal public service that can reach every child and every family”.

What does the white paper aim to do?

It aims to position schools as “an anchor” in communities supported by a network of services. It seeks to rebuild an infrastructure of professionals such as speech and educational therapists to intervene as and when needed. 

The white paper states: “This will require schools, trusts, local authorities and health services to work together in ways that have become unfamiliar over the past decade.”

The government says these reforms should be seen as part of wider public sector reforms, including the rollout of family hubs providing universal one-stop shop and community-based support to families.

A new “enriched” curriculum is also a key part of the wider reforms.

Why is so much of the focus on SEND?

The white paper talks about creating more inclusive school environments for all those “whose needs are often sidelined by the wider system” including white working-class children and those with care experience.

But getting it right for SEND children has been the biggest issue for education secretary Bridget Phillipson. So much so that she pushed back publication of the paper, which was initially planned for the end of last year.

It’s also the reform most anticipated both by so-called “warrior parents” weary of battling an adversarial system and local government struggling with the cost of spiralling demand.

How is SEND being reformed?

Instead of families battling for costly individualised support through education, health and care plans (EHCPs) the intention is to provide universal support in all schools with three "layers of support" – targeted, targeted plus, and specialist.

The white paper outlines a raft of measures backed by £4 billion to achieve this. They include: 

• £1.6 million for “targeted small group interventions” for early signs of additional needs in children
• £1.8 billion for an ‘Experts at Hand’ service of speech and language therapists, educational psychologists and wider professionals
• £200 million for a SEND support in family hubs
• £200 million to train every teacher in SEND and evidence-based training for all school and college staff
• 60,000 new places for children with SEND within mainstream schools backed by £3.7 billion to build new classrooms
• A duty on schools and colleges to co-produce 'Individual Support Plans' for every SEND child following a national framework outlining needs and support
• Nationally defined ‘Specialist Provision Packages’ for children with the most complex needs
• A £1.6 billion ‘Inclusive Mainstream Fund’ to support mainstream schools to develop support for SEND children

EHCPs will still exist, linked to the top 'specialist' layer of support, but only for the most complex needs accessed through Specialist Provision Packages. Campaign group Special Needs Jungle in its analysis of the reforms raises concern that support will be watered down and thresholds shifted to fit packages.

Most children will have their needs met through Individual Support Plans which though legally binding some fear will not have the same enforceability as EHCPs.

Mediation will be offered to parents unhappy with local authority decisions to cut down on tribunals, which were up 18 per cent last year to a record high of 25,000. Most (at least 95 per cent) ruled in favour of parents.

Another controversial change is the introduction of reviews to EHCPs when children transfer to secondary school, sparking fears that support could be withrawn at that point.

The reforms also aim to reduce increasing reliance on expensive private special schools due to a “failure to deliver mainstream inclusion”. Some of these are shareholder-owned and motivated by profit. 

Fees they charge will be capped. The focus on universal inclusion in mainstream schools is also expected to reduce dependency on special schools except for children with the most complex needs.

When will the changes happen?

The white paper describes this as a “decade-long reform programme” with new legislation not expected to come into effect until September 2029. 

However, the investment outlined above will begin next year. The government says it expects inclusive practice to be embedded into mainstream schools by 2035.

Reaction

Ausra Zenkeviciute-Mileris, social worker and mother of a child with complex needs

I really appreciate the ambition behind the reforms. But I have to be honest: a lot of what’s proposed raises some pretty serious worries for me.

One of my biggest concerns is the new tiered support model. On paper, it sounds like early intervention. In practice, it could easily become a kind of filter – fewer children getting through to statutory support, and EHCPs only being available at the very top level. 

The fact that every child with an EHCP will be reassessed at each transition point really troubles me. If a child has relied on an EHCP for years, I worry that the new, nationally defined criteria could see them downgraded just as their needs get more complex.

I’m also really uneasy about the heavy emphasis on attendance and behaviour. While I completely agree that calm, safe classrooms matter, in reality, schools already tend to manage behaviour pressures by pulling SEND children out of class – whether that’s through reduced timetables, repeated time in isolation, internal suspensions, managed moves, or “informal” exclusions that never show in the data. 

The white paper itself acknowledges rising suspensions, concerns about off‑rolling, and the disproportionate impact on SEND pupils, but doesn’t really offer protections against those practices.

I can so easily imagine my own child being quietly moved out of the way for the sake of maintaining “calm” instead of being supported. As a social worker, I see how often reduced timetables become long‑term, unmonitored arrangements that aren’t in the child’s best interests. 

Another issue is capacity. There are lots of promising ideas – Experts at Hand, inclusion bases, national standards, additional training – but most of these are years away, reliant on workforce growth, and unevenly delivered. 

In the meantime, mainstream schools will be expected to meet far more complex needs without the specialist support to back them. The white paper itself acknowledges inconsistent access to educational psychologists and therapists, rising demand for specialist placements, and the mismatch between expectations and real capacity. That gap is where exclusionary practices tend to grow.

I’m also thinking about safeguarding. When behaviour expectations tighten, but support doesn’t arrive quickly enough, children with SEND are the first to be informally excluded – and those patterns (reduced timetables, repeated isolation, sudden “managed moves”) are often the early signs that a child is sliding out of education altogether. 

I hope the consultation phase takes an honest look at the potential unintended consequences – especially for children with SEND, disadvantaged families, and those already at the margins of the system. 

The risk is that these children end up with less support under the language of inclusion, not more.

Amy Eyers, social worker and safeguarding consultant

I think the real test will be implementation. We’ve had major SEND reform before. What will make the difference this time is whether the funding, workforce and accountability mechanisms genuinely follow through at local level. Without that, it risks becoming another well-intentioned restructure that families don’t feel on the ground. 

I also feel that managing expectations will be important as even if the direction is right, meaningful impact on waiting times and specialist provision is unlikely to be immediate. 

The timelines suggest benefits will emerge gradually, which means this reform sits across an electoral cycle. That inevitably raises questions about continuity and political appetite to sustain it. 

Phillip Wood, SEND lawyer at specialist law firm Browne Jacobson

The proposal to increase provision in mainstream schools is inevitably crucial if we want a truly inclusive system, but sufficiently funding these developments is of paramount importance.

While many in the sector would like to see more special schools, the government clearly feels that bolting on SEND units to mainstream sites is the most cost-effective way forward.

Raising the bar for awarding the replacement to an EHCP and creating a new school-led individual support plan for children with less complex needs may well receive opposition from parents. 

They could view this new package as watered down support from what is currently available to those with an EHCP, which provides a legal right to specific provision.