The promise and practical gaps in the 2026 SEND reforms
A welcome vision for the future of SEND provision in England needs practical, evidence-based tools
Author
Over the past thirty years, international initiatives have increasingly focused on building inclusive education systems that provide equitable learning opportunities for all learners, including those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). On 23 February 2026, the UK government released their vision for reform in the long‑anticipated schools white paper — Every child achieving and thriving, accompanied by Putting children and young people first. These documents outline an ambitious reform programme for the SEND system in England, arriving at a time when the number of pupils with SEND in mainstream settings continues to rise and their educational outcomes persistently lag behind those of their peers. The need for change is undeniable.
Whilst not all aspects of the SEND reforms can be acknowledged in this short piece, some specific proposals deserve recognition. The emphasis on evidence‑based support is especially welcome, as are commitments to increased teacher training, earlier identification of needs, and better collaboration with parents. The planned shift away from broad, somewhat vague categories of SEND toward areas of development also aligns with insights from educational neuroscience.
These promising directions signal a desire to modernise a system long criticised for inconsistency and inefficiency. Yet, as is typical for a white paper, many of these welcome ideas are presented without clear explanations of how they will translate into practice, leaving important questions for the future.
“The reforms say little about what screening tools will be used, who will administer them, or how results will inform day‑to‑day teaching.”
Take early screening, for instance. The government rightly recognises its importance, not only for catching emerging learning difficulties but also for supporting children’s sense of belonging and motivation. Still, the reforms say little about what screening tools will be used, who will administer them, or how results will inform day‑to‑day teaching. Existing tools tend to narrowly assess specific skills, risking misdiagnosis or missed needs.
Teachers need universal, repeatable tools that capture the strengths and difficulties of all children and offer meaningful guidance for early support. Our team is developing such a toolkit for classroom use, aligned with the developmental areas highlighted in the reforms.
“Teachers need universal, repeatable tools that capture the strengths and difficulties of all children and offer meaningful guidance for early support.”
Likewise, the frequent references to “evidence‑based practice” are reassuring but incomplete. Teachers consistently report that there is no central, trusted place to find high‑quality, SEND‑specific evidence. Our MetaSENse evidence and toolkit is the starting point of filling that gap. We are currently developing further evidence on which key component teachers should focus on when providing universal support for all students, but more work is required to develop a useful toolkit that covers all areas of development.
For example, the reform documents also highlight belonging, an essential but often overlooked aspect of SEND provision. Children with SEND are disproportionately at risk of feeling excluded and are more likely to have poor attendance. Yet, despite emphasising this issue, there is little guidance on the evidence‑informed strategies schools can use to foster belonging.
“Children with SEND are disproportionately at risk of feeling excluded and are more likely to have poor attendance.”
The proposed expansion of teacher training is another encouraging step, but the impact will depend entirely on the model. Continuing Professional Development in England is often fragmented and delivered through one‑off workshops, which rarely lead to lasting improvements in inclusive practice. The government must prioritise embedded, ongoing training that strengthens whole‑school capacity rather than offering one-off training opportunities.
Finally, although parent partnerships are repeatedly mentioned, the proposals offer no clear mechanisms for supporting meaningful collaboration. Evidence suggests that the most effective parental involvement interventions are structured, frequent, and involve coordinated work between home and school. Without guidance, schools will be left to interpret these expectations on their own.
In sum, the SEND reforms offer a welcome and overdue vision for change. But unless the next phase of consultation and implementation provides practical, accessible, evidence‑based tools, the burden of translating policy into practice will fall—once again—on schools already stretched to capacity. The government is right that this is a long‑term reform, not a quick fix. However, the important next step is to ensure the system has the practical capacity and resources needed to succeed.
Author