In this blog, you will learn:
Why a SEND Case Manager believes digitising EHCPs alone won't fix the SEND system if workforce shortages remain.
Why true inclusion means redesigning the education system around children's needs, rather than expecting children to fit into the system, according to this SEND Case Manager.
How to find and apply for the best local authority SEND jobs.
Digitising EHCPs, expanding inclusion and giving mainstream schools greater responsibility all sound like positive steps, but what happens if the underlying pressures on the SEND system remain unchanged?
We recently spoke to SEND Case Manager Claire about the Schools White Paper and its plans for a more streamlined, inclusive SEND system to support children, families and professionals.
Drawing on years of frontline SEND experience, Claire explores the practical realities behind the Schools White Paper. In this interview, she discusses where the proposals could improve outcomes and where they risk falling short.
The Schools White Paper proposes digitising EHCP processes and creating a more streamlined system. How realistic do you think these proposals are in practice?
Digitisation makes sense in principle. Working in the SEND system can feel fragmented: information is stored in different places, steps get repeated and it’s not always clear what’s happening or where things stand.
Making processes clear and easy to follow is a positive step forward. It improves transparency, especially for families who often feel they have to piece together what’s happening behind the scenes.
The main issues in SEND aren’t administrative and that is where the limitation lies.
Delays are occurring because there aren’t enough qualified professionals to complete assessments, services are already stretched thin and demand remains high.
Digitising the process might make things easier to track and delays more visible, but it doesn't remove the reasons those delays exist in the first place.
What risks and benefits do you foresee if these proposals are implemented?
There’s a risk that digitising EHCP processes will make the system look more efficient without improving how it works.
You can build a clear, well-structured digital process, but if you don’t have enough capacity, delays will still occur at the same points. The difference is that the holdups become easier to spot.
There are benefits if done properly. For example, a more transparent system could help families understand what is happening and when.
It can also improve coordination among professionals when everyone works from the same platform, although this depends on how it is implemented.
If it simply replicates what we already have in a different format, then the impact is likely to be limited.
For me, the question is less about whether the system becomes more streamlined and more about whether there is enough capacity to make it meaningful.
If that doesn’t change, then a clearer system doesn’t necessarily translate into a better one.
Do you think mainstream settings are currently equipped to meet the government's plans to improve inclusion and accessibility? What do you think needs to change?
Not consistently, but that isn’t just about capacity or training; it’s more fundamental than that.
Much of what we currently describe as inclusion still feels like something we try to add onto an existing system rather than something that shaped how that system works in the first place.
In practice, this often means trying to make children fit into a structure, rather than adapting the structure to meet a child's needs.
The proposed expansion of inclusion bases and specialist units has the potential to make a real difference for many children. It can give more children access to groups that provide adult support and a more responsive learning environment.
The recent guidance provides greater clarity by introducing two defined models: support bases and specialist bases.
It also recognises that these provisions operate on a continuum, with some children spending most of their time in mainstream classes and others accessing more specialist provision within the base.
That helps create a clearer shared understanding of what these provisions are intended to be.
However, many of the practical questions that will shape how the system works day to day remain unanswered. Who decides whether a child accesses a support base or a specialist base, and who decides when they move between that provision and the mainstream classroom?
If demand exceeds capacity, how will access be prioritised? What happens when a child needs that level of support but no space is available? Questions around decision-making, accountability, and consistency will ultimately determine whether that ambition translates into practice.
The issue isn’t whether additional provision exists; it’s whether the system relies on that provision to compensate for a core model that hasn’t been designed with inclusion in mind. Inclusion shouldn’t be an afterthought; it should guide the system from the very beginning.
How do you think the Schools White Paper’s ambition for every child to ‘achieve and thrive’ could be realistically achieved in practice?
It is the right ambition and it is what most people working in the system would want to see. At the moment, there’s a clear gap between what we want for children and what the system consistently delivers.
That gap rarely comes from a lack of understanding.
In many cases, people know what would support a child in achieving and engaging. The issue is whether the time, staffing and access to wider services are there to make that happen in a consistent and sustainable way.
For this ambition to be achievable, it needs to reflect the conditions that make it possible. That means manageable class sizes, enough staff, access to specialist support and a flexible curriculum that can meet different needs.
Without these essentials, ‘achieve and thrive’ may sound inspiring but be hard to deliver in practice. It also depends on how we define ‘achieve,’ because it won't look the same for every child.
If the system is built around a narrow definition of progress, then even with the right support, some children will still be working against the structure rather than within it.
What elements of the Schools White Paper surprised you the most?
The most striking part was how much responsibility had shifted to mainstream schools. There is a clear move towards schools taking on more responsibility for identifying need, planning provision and delivering support through Individual Support Plans.
Below the statutory threshold, the local authority plays a less direct role. This is a major change in how the system works in practice and it shifts day-to-day accountability elsewhere.
In principle, it makes sense that the people working with a child every day should have a central role in understanding their needs and shaping the support around them.
It also raises questions about whether schools are being given the conditions needed to carry that level of responsibility consistently.
If more responsibility is being placed at school level, consistency becomes even more important. It’s difficult to achieve consistency when there is variation in staffing, access to external services and available resources.
There is a risk that the system becomes more dependent on what individual schools are able to provide, rather than what the system guarantees.
There are also questions about how that will be monitored and supported in practice.
If most provision is being delivered through school-led plans, how is variation identified and what happens when support isn’t being delivered as intended? Where does accountability sit and how is it acted on?
It isn’t just the shift itself that stands out, but the scale of that shift. It is a structural change that relies heavily on capacity that doesn’t yet consistently exist.
What elements of the Schools White Paper do you think are most at risk of failing?
For me, the biggest risk is ensuring clear accountability and reliable delivery. At the moment, although the system is far from perfect, there is at least a clear point at which provision becomes enforceable through an EHCP.
Even then, it is not always delivered consistently in practice, but there is a defined route to challenge things when they are not working as they should.
That route isn’t quick or easy, but it exists and families rely on it when they feel they have no other option.
What concerns me about the proposed reforms is that they appear to reduce reliance on the level of statutory protection without clearly replacing the function it has come to serve within the system.
If most services are delivered through school-led plans below that threshold, the key question is how schools secure those services in practice.
We are already working within a system where delivery isn’t always consistent, even when provision is clearly specified.
If more responsibility is placed at that level without a corresponding framework for accountability and support, there is a risk that inconsistency will increase rather than decrease.
It also links to how families currently experience the system. The tribunal, although it was never designed to be used this way, has effectively become a mechanism for securing provision when it hasn’t been delivered elsewhere.
It isn’t sustainable, but it does reflect a gap in how the system functions day to day.
Reducing reliance on statutory protection only works if the level below it is strong enough to replace it.
If that route becomes harder to access, but the underlying issues around delivery are not addressed, then there is a risk that the need will still be there but will become harder to act on.
The concern isn’t just about structure, but about what sits underneath it.
If provision is identified but not consistently secured, then the system may look more streamlined, but it won't necessarily work more effectively for the children and families relying on it.
Local authority SEND recruitment specialists
As award-winning SEND recruiters, we support local authority SEND services and private sector providers nationwide with their temporary, interim and permanent staffing needs. Whether you require a single hire, multiple placements or an entire project team, simply request a call back and one of our experienced recruiters will contact you to discuss how we can help.
Looking for your next local authority SEND job? Either search the latest jobs or upload your CV and one of our consultants will be in touch when a suitable opportunity arises.