The end of the EHC Plan is near. Does a bright new horizon await?
So, after numerous leaks and some not so subtle public comments by DfE advisors, it is now abundantly clear that the Education, Health and Care Plan, introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014 is on its way out. I cannot see any possibility of it being retained unless there is a substantial backbench rebellion. Watching various interviews with Ministers there can be no doubt that a new system is being designed behind the scenes and the EHC Plan is not going to be part of this new process. The SEN Tribunal, looks like its role will be limited, if not taken away altogether.
In the author’s view the current system has not worked. You can blame funding and the administration of the system by local authorities, but the issues are deep rooted. In principle, reform is needed, but does that mean starting again from scratch?
Is this the start of a bright new horizon for the SEND sector?
Overview of Phillipson’s SEND Reform Proposals
In the past week, the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has outlined ambitious plans to reform the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system, with a white paper expected in autumn 2025 to detail the proposed changes. Describing the current system as “broken” and “desperately struggling,” these proposals respond to a system under strain, with 638,745 EHCPs in place in January 2025, a 10.8% increase from the previous year, highlighting growing demand and systemic challenges. Local authorities are also on the verge of bankruptcy, are overrun by complaints, missing deadlines at all stages and are on the end of adverse tribunals. It can take parents a year to challenge a decision before the Tribunal, which in 98% of cases, they will end up “winning”. There can be no argument, the system does not work.
To understand what might be coming, it is important to first explore Phillipson’s approach to education. Phillipson was born into a working-class family in Washington, Tyne and Wear. Living in a run down council house, experiencing life on benefits, and poverty, she has spoken candidly about feeling that her community was “forgotten about, ignored,” with high crime rates and limited opportunities. However, her journey is one from a council estate to Oxford University.
Before entering politics, Phillipson managed Wearside Women in Need, a refuge for women fleeing domestic violence, founded by her mother. It is highly likely that in this role she had first hand experience of the challenges faced by vulnerable families, including those with children who have additional needs. Her work at the refuge, where she connected women to services like Sure Start, deepened her understanding of the importance of integrated support systems. This experience likely informs her emphasis on creating “Best Start Family Hubs” to provide holistic support, including for children with SEND, by bringing together services like health, childcare, and early education. It also reinforced her commitment to social justice, a value rooted in her Catholic upbringing, which she describes as centred on “the value and worth of every individual” and the right to be treated with dignity. This perspective translates into her SEN reform agenda, which prioritises early identification and intervention to ensure that children with SEND can thrive in mainstream settings wherever possible. It is hard to argue with this perspective but is it deliverable?
From what we know about her work with Sure Start, Phillipson has prioritised early years education, announcing £1.5 billion over three years to create 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs and invest in childcare and early years places. These hubs aim to support children with SEND through dedicated professionals, ensuring early identification and intervention—a strategy she believes makes a “big difference.”
The SEND reforms appear to reflect her belief that education should be a transformative force, particularly for those facing disadvantage. Her experience of overcoming socio-economic barriers through education mirrors her purposed goal to ensure SEND children are not left behind. Phillipson knows this all to well. She has spoken openly about the importance of schools fostering a sense of community, a value rooted in her own childhood where community support was vital despite economic hardship. It is no surprise that she has also spoken about trying to restrict Academy freedoms, who she perceives to be operating to their own agenda rather than that of their community.
This brings us on to the likely scope of her SEND reforms. Whilst there are no concrete proposals on the table, the following appear to be on the horizon:
- Systemic Overhaul: It is clear that the government wants to remove Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs), restrict access to special schools and promote mainstream inclusion. None of these will be easy to achieve without having a clear statutory process around them. This is currently provided by the Children and Families Act with the EHC Plan being used to provide additional support and funding to schools. It also opens up access to a range of educational settings both in the state and independent sector. the impact of the legislation took 3.5 years to phase in, but there is no sense that these reforms will be given that length of time.
- Silence on the role of the local authority: if you get rid of the EHC Plan what fate befalls that of the local authority. The government have been silent on what role, if any, they would have in a new system. Perhaps we will see a new body come into play or perhaps the school/educational setting will now be ultimately responsible for individual children under its care. The best endeavours duty will be replaced with a specific duty. Local authorities may only be required to support those children with severe and complex special educational needs. When the Children and Families Bill was being mooted, I attended a briefing where it was said that “only children with such needs would be eligible for EHC Plans”. The government backtracked in the face of concern, but it is interesting to hear it said that what has happened in the sector to date, “was not intended”.
- Enhanced mainstream inclusion: A review led by Tom Rees, chairman of the Department for Education’s expert advisory group on inclusion, has already recommended that schools establish three internal tiers of support for pupils with SEND, allowing teachers to quickly adjust support levels based on changing needs. This aims to make mainstream schools more inclusive and reduce reliance on specialist provision. The government has also allocated £740 million in capital funding to adapt classrooms and create specialist facilities, such as SEN units and resourced provisions, within mainstream schools to better support pupils with SEND
- Reducing Bureaucracy: the reforms are clearly targeting the huge deficits being run up by local authorities. If EHC Plans are removed, the deficits will be more capable of being addressed. It is clear that a new process will aim to cut the costly and time-consuming process of creating EHCPs, redirecting savings to bolster support in mainstream settings.
- The role of the independent sector:Again, the government have been silent, but if you curtail the EHC Plan you could also prevent or restrict children being placed in independent schools.
- The end of the SEN Tribunal: Again, the government has given a mixed message about the role of the Tribunal, but it is clear that if you remove the EHC Plan, there is not much you can appeal to the Tribunal about. The government will not want to remove the right to challenge decisions but it will likely be done in a restrictive way, perhaps through local area panels.
Challenges Facing the Reforms
It is clear that Phillipson is a determined character and she will need to be to implement her reforms. Phillipson’s proposals face significant hurdles, both practical and political, that could undermine their success if not addressed carefully. These challenges fall into a number of categories:
1. Concerns Over EHCP Removal
The potential phasing out of EHCPs has already raised alarm among parents and charities, who fear it could weaken legal protections for children with SEND. EHCPs are legally binding documents that ensure personalised support, and their removal could leave families fighting for resources in a system already criticised for forcing parents to “battle” for help.
If EHCPs are removed, it is not clear what would be put in their place and how they would be enforced.
2. Resistance from Stakeholders
Backbench Labour MPs and parents have expressed unease, with some MPs describing meetings with ministers as “unsatisfactory” due to vague assurances about EHCPs. A recent rebellion over welfare reforms, which forced the government to backtrack, signals potential for similar pushback if SEND reforms are perceived as undermining protections. School leaders’ unions, already critical of Ofsted reforms, may also resist if teacher workload increases without adequate support and funding.
3. Resource Constraints
The SEND system is “on its knees,” with councils facing millions in additional costs due to rising EHCP demand. Phillipson’s reforms require significant investment in teacher training, specialist provision, and infrastructure, but recent fiscal decisions, such as the U-turn on welfare reforms, have made future spending decisions “harder.” Balancing cost efficiency with quality support is a delicate challenge, especially as per-pupil funding rises but may not fully address systemic gaps. If Rachel Reeves was crying last week as a result of the U-turn on welfare reform, goodness only knows how she will react to funding Phillipson’s SEN reform.
4. Inconsistent School Readiness
Tom Rees, chair of the Department for Education’s expert advisory group, highlighted “inconsistent” support across schools, with varying frameworks, training, and resources. Schools minister Catherine McKinnell’s assertion that “all teachers” must become SEND teachers underscores the need for widespread professional development, but this risks overwhelming an already stretched workforce grappling with teacher shortages.
There is also a debate to be had as to whether “mainstream education” in its current form is effective for children with SEN. The current outcomes suggest it is not. Therefore, it is difficult to see how SEN reform can be addressed without also making fundamental changes to the curriculum and funding given to schools/settings. The sums currently committed would only scratch the surface.
Solutions to Address the Challenges
The next few months could prove to be a political “hot potato” for Phillipson and judging by the advice and PR given to Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall, it does not look like it will end well for her. To ensure the success of Phillipson’s SEND reforms, the government must adopt a strategic, inclusive, and transparent approach. The current “non-committal” approach helps no one in this particular sector and Phillipson would be wise to adopt a more family focussed and upfront approach.
Below are proposed solutions to tackle the identified challenges.
1. Preserve and Adapt EHCPs
There can be no doubt that EHC Plans are a problem and in their current format they are not working. However, they need refinement not abolition and the government has paid the price for not introducing an SEN TOOLKIT when introducing them. This was available under the system governing the Statement of Special Educational Needs.
The government could make changes by :
- raising the eligibility criteria for both EHC Needs Assessments and EHC Plans;
- increase the legal duties on educational settings and establish specialist provision in them;
- require local authorities to devolve the majority of funding to schools. Thus, reducing the need for either an EHC Needs Assessment or an EHC Plan; and
- tightening the criteria for children needing specialist provision.
Bureaucracy could also be tackled “head on”. Rather than scrapping EHCPs, the government could streamline their creation and administration while preserving their legal weight. For example, introducing digital platforms to simplify EHCP applications and reviews could reduce bureaucracy without compromising protections.
Additionally, reforms could focus on “dynamic decision-making” in schools, allowing for flexible, needs-based support that complements EHCPs for less complex cases. The EHCP should not be seen as a “golden ticket” but an extension of existing support.
2. Engage Stakeholders Early and Transparently
To mitigate resistance, Phillipson should expand engagement with MPs, parents, and school leaders. Regular, detailed updates on reform progress, coupled with public consultations, can address concerns and incorporate feedback. The government’s early outreach to backbenchers is a positive step, but ministers must provide concrete assurances about protections rather than vague promises. Collaborating with unions to address workload concerns could build trust and credibility, particularly with educational settings being at the forefront of a new system.
3. Invest Strategically in Resources
To address resource constraints, the government should prioritise targeted investments. Phillipson’s suggestion to repurpose closed school buildings for SEND provision is innovative and could expand specialist capacity. Allocating funds from the recent Spending Review to enhance teacher training programs, particularly in SEND-specific pedagogy, would equip mainstream schools for inclusivity. Partnerships with local authorities to set clear, measurable targets for school readiness, as proposed in Phillipson’s regional improvement plans, could ensure equitable resource distribution.
4. Enhance Teacher Training and Support
To address inconsistent school readiness, the government should implement a national SEND training framework for teachers, emphasising evidence-based practices and needs-focused support, as recommended by Tom Rees. Offering incentives, such as the £4,500 proposed for nursery teachers in disadvantaged areas, could attract and retain SEND specialists. Flexible workload policies and additional teaching assistants could alleviate pressure on educators, ensuring they are equipped to handle diverse needs without burnout.
5. Build Trust Through Communication and Outcomes
Restoring parental trust requires a transparent timeline for reforms and measurable outcomes. The white paper should include specific, child-centred metrics, such as improved academic progress or parental satisfaction rates, to demonstrate impact. Regular progress reports, shared via platforms like X, where Phillipson has actively communicated her commitment (@bphillipsonMP), could keep families informed. Highlighting early successes, such as the delivery of 300 nurseries within primary schools, can reinforce the government’s dedication to tangible change.
Conclusion
Bridget Phillipson’s SEND reform proposals are a bold attempt to fix a broken system, driven by her personal conviction that education can transform lives. Her journey from a council estate to the halls of Westminster fuels her determination to ensure no child is left behind, particularly those with SEND. While her focus on inclusivity, early intervention, and workforce support aligns with her own experiences of overcoming disadvantage, the success of these reforms will depend on navigating financial, logistical, and political challenges. The forthcoming white paper in autumn 2025 will be a critical test of Phillipson’s ability to balance ambition with pragmatism, ensuring that every child with SEND has the opportunity to achieve and thrive.
As she stated at the Confederation of School Trusts, “A future in which our children achieve great things – and they are happy as they do it. It’s within our power.” For the sake of SEND children and their families, let’s hope her vision becomes reality. Only time will tell if this is a bright new horizon. Let’s hope so.