Special Educational Needs
The question
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment the Department has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to rights of appeal and enforceable provision on parental and carer confidence in the SEND system; and what steps will be taken to help ensure that families can trust that reforms will deliver appropriate support for their children.
Answered by Georgia Gould
The department recognises the importance of parental and carer confidence in the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system. As part of the consultation on 'SEND reform: putting children and young people first', we are analysing feedback from families and the sector on proposed reforms.
Our aim is to strengthen parent and carer confidence by embedding greater involvement of families in both local delivery and national policy and meeting needs earlier, alongside improving access to clear information, advice and support, including about resolving disputes.
The department intends that greater clarity, consistency and earlier support will reduce the need for escalation, while maintaining appropriate mechanisms for challenge and redress. However, we propose that the SEND Tribunal will remain as an important legal backstop for the most important local authority decisions, including:
• A decision not to carry out a needs assessment for an education, health and care (EHC) plan
• A decision that the child or young person has not met the eligibility criteria for one of the new Specialist Provision Packages, and therefore an EHC plan
• A decision which Specialist Provision Package the child or young person should have
• A decision about the school or setting offered - in these cases, if the Tribunal finds against the local authority, it will be able to order the local authority to retake the decision instead of naming the school or setting itself
• A decision that a child or young person no longer needs the support set out in a package and that an EHC plan should cease.
Verbatim has judged this answer against the question that was actually asked — answered, partly answered, or evaded. Sign in to see the verdict →