SEND Reform Update: where things stand and what it means for your child's EHCP

The SEND White Paper proposes the biggest changes to EHCPs since 2014. Your child's plan is protected until at least September 2030. Here is where the reforms stand and what they mean for therapy provision.

The government published its Schools White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, on 23 February 2026. It proposes the biggest changes to SEND support since the Children and Families Act 2014.

The most important point first: nothing has changed. The Children and Families Act 2014 still governs every EHCP decision and every appeal, your rights at Tribunal today are unchanged, and the government has committed to no changes to EHCP support before at least September 2030.

The proposed system

Support would be organised in tiers, from quality-first teaching for all children up to a specialist package for the most complex needs. EHCPs would be retained only at that top tier.

Everyone else would receive an Individual Support Plan. Schools, nurseries and colleges would have a new legal requirement to produce an ISP for any child with SEND, replacing what is currently called SEN support. The government presents this as an expansion of rights, on the basis that over 70 percent of children with additional needs currently have no legally enforceable entitlement at all.

Who would be reassessed, and when

Children keeping an EHCP would be fully reassessed, rather than reviewed, as they move between phases of education: at the end of primary, at the end of secondary, and at the end of post-16.

The first cohort to transition would be those reaching the end of primary, secondary and post-16 in 2029 to 2030, with assessments from September 2029 and moves into the new system from September 2030.

Two protections have been stated. No child holding a special school place when the reforms begin in 2029 would lose it. And children in Year 3 or above at the point of change would keep their EHCP until at least the age of 16. Younger children, currently in Year 2 and below, would be reassessed at the primary to secondary transition point.

Tribunal would lose the power to name a school in Section I, and could only decide whether the local authority's decision was reasonable, quashing it and sending it back rather than directing a placement.

Legislation is expected to come into effect around September 2029.

How ISPs would be funded

This is where parents and schools should look closely, because ISPs are funded differently from EHCPs.

EHCP provision is a hard legal duty on the local authority, and high-needs funding follows the plan. An ISP would be a school document, delivered from the school's own budget with the help of a new Inclusive Mainstream Fund. That fund is 1.6 billion pounds of new money over three years, with 400 million going to mainstream schools in 2026 to 2027, alongside 200 million for staff SEND training.

The concern raised across the sector is that this funding is not ringfenced and could be absorbed into general school budget pressures, particularly after the initial years. A school under financial strain would be holding a legal duty to produce ISPs without protected money attached to delivering what they say. Therapy input, which is expensive and delivered by external professionals, is the kind of provision that gets thinned first when budgets are squeezed.

Colleges and post-16: a gap in the detail

Schools and colleges are funded differently for SEND now, and the reforms have not yet explained how that changes.

Schools hold a notional SEN budget and meet the first portion of a child's additional support from their own funding, with the local authority topping up from high needs where an EHCP requires it. Colleges sit outside the schools funding system. They receive core funding per student through the national post-16 funding route, with the same additional support element, and then local authority top-up.

The Inclusive Mainstream Fund is described as reaching early years settings, schools and colleges. But the detail published so far is school-side. Additional funding for 16 to 19 mainstream provision was left to be confirmed, and at the time of writing it has not been set out.

This matters at scale. NATSPEC reported nearly 88,158 young people with EHCPs in further education in 2025, up 5 percent on the previous year, and post-16 EHCP numbers are expected to keep rising as larger SEND cohorts move through the system.

Young people with complex needs in specialist further education are the group most exposed here: they sit at a reassessment point in the very first transition cohort, in a part of the system whose funding has not yet been described.

What recourse would parents have

Under the current system the answer is clear. If provision in Section F of an EHCP is not delivered, the local authority is in breach of an absolute duty, and parents can appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

For ISPs, the White Paper does not answer the question. It does not confirm whether parents could appeal ISP decisions to Tribunal, or what independent route would replace that. On the face of the proposals, a parent whose child's ISP is not being delivered would go through the school's complaints procedure, then the local authority, with Ofsted inspecting the quality of ISPs as part of routine inspection.

Complaints procedures and inspection are not equivalent to a binding legal remedy. They vary between schools and trusts, they are slower, and they do not produce an enforceable order. IPSEA has said publicly that any new system must ensure support is statutory, enforceable and backed by a clear right of appeal.

What this means for therapy

An EHCP is currently the only mechanism that makes physiotherapy, occupational therapy or speech and language therapy legally enforceable. That is why families fight to get provision quantified in Section F rather than described vaguely.

If a child who would previously have held an EHCP is instead given an ISP, the enforceability of their therapy changes fundamentally. Children with significant physical needs who sit below the specialist threshold are the group most exposed.

What to do now

Nothing about your child's current plan needs to change.

What matters is that the plan you have is specific and quantified. Provision written as access to physiotherapy or opportunities for therapy is unenforceable now and would carry nothing forward later. Provision written with a named profession, a frequency, a duration and defined non-contact time is enforceable now and is far harder to dilute in any transition.

If your child's annual review is coming up, that is the point to get this right. An independent physiotherapy assessment provides the quantified evidence that makes provision stick.

How we can help

We write independent physiotherapy advice for EHCP purposes, assess children ahead of annual reviews, and provide therapy where physiotherapy is named in a plan. We work to the Association of Paediatric Chartered Physiotherapists standards, which means provision is quantified in the form local authorities and Tribunals expect.

If you are preparing for a review, an assessment or an appeal, we would be glad to hear from you.