SEN0455
Written evidence submitted Mr Andy Hyde
The evidence presented in this submission highlights a fundamental flaw in the SEND system: a lack of accountability that allows local authorities (LAs) and schools to evade their statutory responsibilities. Families experience systemic delays, inconsistent application of the SEND Code of Practice, and adversarial approaches from LAs that prioritise “cost-saving” over legal obligations. The result is children being left without appropriate education, forced into inappropriate placements, or excluded due to unmet needs.
At every stage of the process—EHCP assessments, placement, provision delivery, appeals, and school exclusions—there is little consequence for failing to meet statutory duties. Parents, already struggling to secure appropriate support, are forced into endless battles against well-resourced legal teams, while the local government ombudsman’s findings rarely lead to meaningful change-because the incentives scaffold the status quo. This power imbalance must be addressed for the system to function effectively.
A system built on genuine accountability would not only protect children’s rights but would also encourage innovation and problem-solving within local authorities. The current system is broken because priorities, working practices and beliefs have evolved and adopted around the incentive to avoid and reduce. By implementing enforceable penalties and independent oversight, LAs would be motivated to innovate, collaborate and find creative, cost-effective solutions rather than deflect responsibility. This would ensure that the development of processes and practices is guided by the goal of meeting children’s needs, rather than suppressing or minimising them, creating a system that supports both families and the professionals within it.
Further, a system grounded in accountability and genuine support would also restore integrity and professional satisfaction to roles such as LA educational psychologists and school SENCOs. Currently, these professionals face immense pressure from LA bosses to compromise their ethical standards by under-identifying or downplaying needs. The proposed changes would ensure that these roles become attractive, fulfilling careers where professionals are empowered to uphold best practices, deliver meaningful interventions, and make a genuine difference in children's lives—rather than experiencing the job as a constant battle between their professional integrity and the limitations imposed by underfunded, risk-averse institutions. This transformation is critical given the ongoing shortage of and difficulty in recruiting for these roles, which will only worsen if systemic failures continue to drive talented professionals away.
If failing to meet statutory duties resulted in tangible, commensurate penalties—whether financial, reputational, or through mandatory intervention—LAs would have a real incentive to improve service delivery, streamline processes, and invest in sustainable solutions rather than crisis-driven firefighting.
● Binding financial penalties for LAs that fail to meet statutory deadlines for EHCPs, annual reviews, and provision implementation.
● Nationally standardised EHC plan documents, application and review forms and quality assured outputs.
● A tribunal system with expanded powers to enforce both educational and social care provisions.
● Independent oversight ensuring compliance with tribunal rulings, with automatic intervention when LAs fail to act.
● Local authorities incentivised to meet deadlines through additional funding tied to compliance, rather than blanket cost-saving.
● Increased professional training requirements for SEND staff, including mandatory accreditation for SENCOs.
● Establishing specialist resource bases within mainstream schools to reduce reliance on expensive and selective independent special schools.
● Annual publication of SEND performance data at LA and school levels, highlighting compliance rates, appeals and tribunal outcomes, and provision quality.
● A national independent advocacy service to support parents in navigating the system, reducing the need for costly legal battles.
● A dedicated ombudsman function with powers to enforce binding resolutions when LAs repeatedly fail to act.
Without urgent intervention, the system will continue to fail thousands of children each year. The government must act now to implement these accountability structures, ensuring that every child with SEND receives their rightful education and support.
Mr Hyde is a youth worker by profession, running a careers education service for minoritised young people. He is the father of two formerly looked after children with complex SEND. He has taken each child's case to SEND Tribunal twice, and has continuous engagement with CAMHS, SENDIASS, IPSEA, SOS!SEN, Family Futures multi-disciplinary assessment and treatment service, independent educational psychologists, clinical psychologists, child psychotherapists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, and post adoption support agencies, alongside specialist and mainstream schools and local authority teams.
This submission is prepared by Mr Hyde together with (and on behalf of) al group of people with deep experience of the SEND system over recent years based in the South East of England.
Experiences include:
● Parents of children with complex SEND
● Specialist teachers and SENCO
● Advocates and families navigating the EHCP process.
● Child psychotherapist
The group has supported each other in navigating the SEND system. Our insights stem from firsthand challenges faced at every stage of the Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP) process, over many years, as well as observations of broader systemic issues affecting inclusion, accountability, and resourcing.
We aim to provide an evidence-based perspective on what is currently failing in the system and propose practical solutions that align with statutory frameworks, including the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice.
At every stage of the EHCP process—assessment, drafting, delivery of provisions, and reviews—families face systemic delays, incompetence, and poor communication, leading to unmet statutory obligations.
● All of us have experienced delays at every stage of the process, with a shared view that the combination of “dither and delay,” incompetence, and lack of resources denies children and parents their rights under the Children and Families Act (2014).
● The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) reports that 99% of upheld SEND complaints involve failures in EHCP delivery, including missed statutory deadlines and delayed access to provisions.
● Parents frequently report having to escalate issues to tribunals or the LGO after exhausting informal channels.
● Delays result in children missing critical support, such as speech therapy or suitable educational placements.
● Families must educate themselves on their rights, gather evidence, and advocate for their children—enduring prolonged stress and financial strain, paying for legal advice and specialist professional support they cannot afford and which is in short supply.
● More and more children are now being home schooled with little or no support to learn or in inappropriate provision which is not meeting their needs.
● Also increasingly an issue with private SEN schools which refuse to take children the LA ask them to take and charge huge fees but do not provide a safe nurturing environment and appropriate learning.
● Parents feeling children are being ‘warehoused’ and not helped to achieve what they can educationally.
● Long-term economic impacts include reduced parental capacity to work and increased financial burdens, as well as the clear impact of children’s education, attainment and wellbeing.
● Minimal consequences for local authorities failing to meet statutory obligations.
● Disproportionate burden on parents to navigate complex systems, fund their own support or rely on charity groups for help
● Disproportionate power held by profitable private SEN schools choosing which children to take.
● Inadequate remedies, with compensation failing to address the harm caused.
● Legislate to reinforce LA obligations
● Introduce statutory frameworks for monitoring EHCP processes with penalties for non-compliance.
● Assess the impact on children and families of non-compliance with statutory guidance.
● Provide accessible guides for parents outlining the SEN process and their statutory rights.
● Reinforce the LGO’s remit to enforce binding remedies.
Teachers, SENCOs, and local authority staff often lack the training necessary to deliver SEND support effectively. Underfunding and resource shortages further hinder the ability of schools and local authorities to meet SEND needs effectively. These factors perpetuate systemic inefficiency, persistent and growing unmet needs, exclusions and other harms disproportionately affecting children with SEND, and is compounded for many children where failings in trauma led approaches meet SEND inadequacies.
● Parents report variability in staff understanding of statutory responsibilities, leading to inconsistent application of the SEND Code of Practice.
● SENCOs are often overwhelmed with administrative tasks and lack capacity for strategic support.
● National data shows children with SEND are three times more likely to be excluded than their peers.
● Early indications of SEND are often mislabelled as behavioural issues, leading to social, emotional and mental health breakdowns.
● Many LAs report long waiting times for EHCP assessments due to a lack of educational psychologists.
● Independent special schools often charge prohibitively high fees and pick and choose who to take.
● Unsafe practice in independent special schools goes unnoticed/unaddressed due to the crisis led ‘firefighting’ in the system as a whole
● Children experience delays in accessing assessments and interventions.
● Resource shortages create inequities, with provision varying across regions.
● Failing to provide effective early intervention leads to a cycle of escalating needs, requiring more extensive and costly provisions in later years.
● Diminished effectiveness of support placing a greater financial burden on the state across various sectors, including education, health, and social care, with care and SEND experienced children over represented in adult psychiatric hospital, criminal justice and homeless populations.
● Gaps in knowledge and training result in delays, insufficient support, and inappropriate placements for children with SEND.
● Exclusions exacerbate mental health challenges, disrupt education, and contribute to long-term disengagement.
● Families face additional burdens advocating for their children, often without knowledgeable professionals to support them.
● Financial pressures force those in power to prioritise budget constraints over the effective delivery of SEND support, creating a systemic misalignment that harms children and families despite statutory guidance and in breach of their rights under the Children and Families Act
● Training for SENCOs and school staff is standardised only for mainstream schools and within three years of appointment.
● Academy schools can and often do sidestep these regulations, creating inconsistencies.
● The Equality Act 2010 requires reasonable adjustments, but enforcement is insufficient. Schools prioritise performance metrics over SEND obligations.
● Standardise EHC plan documents and introduce quality assurance measures.
● Make SENCO training statutory within academy schools.
● Fund mandatory training programs, such as ELKLAN, for teaching assistants and school staff, and integrate SEND and trauma informed frameworks.
● Train school nurses to identify early SEND and masking behaviours.
● Prohibit exclusions for behaviours linked to SEND and establish oversight mechanisms to monitor informal exclusions, and improve training on supporting dysregulated students.
● Increase funding for LAs to recruit educational psychologists, and the surrounding disciplines (SALT, OT, Sensory Integration, etc.)
● Implement fee caps or regulation for independent special schools.
Parents navigating the SEND system often report feeling patronised, bullied, dismissed, or gaslit by local authorities, and are left feeling their children are blamed/shamed for their own difficulties, and are ‘unschoolable’, leading to widespread secondary trauma around the family group.
● Parents report their cases being passed to lawyers the moment an appeal is lodged, and parents only receive communication from the legal representative.
● Lawyers adopting an adversarial approach, piling pressure on families to drop their appeal
● Adversarial approach extending to frontline professionals, compromising their position in the system as “independent experts”. Anecdotal evidence from professionals and SENCO’s being “bullied on what they must and mustn’t say”
● Media articles highlight councils scapegoating parents and perpetuating the “golden ticket” myth.
● Surveys show parents frequently encounter hostility and gaslighting.
● Adversarial relationships and breakdown of trust between families and local authorities.
● Power imbalance and system bureaucracy leaves parents “the only ones at fault” as processes and management ensure practitioners are not to blame.
● Resources are wasted on defensive processes rather than meeting children’s needs.
● Longer term needs and positive outcome potential for children getting lost in the process.
● LAs are incentivised to limit EHCPs due to funding constraints.
● Tribunal system is inquisitorial, with LA’s aggressive, adversarial approach deemed irrelevant, leaving families feeling unheard
● There are no mechanisms to address inappropriate behavior by LA staff, or falsehoods presented during the appeals process
●
● Launch a national campaign to reset understanding of EHCPs as legal safeguards.
● Introduce a national service for reporting and addressing bullying by local authorities.
● Establish a statutory framework for monitoring EHCP compliance.
● Legislate to close loopholes in LA obligations.
● Launch national campaigns to train SENCOs and school staff.
● Strengthen LGSCO powers to include binding remedies.
● Increase funding allocations for SEND services.
● Publish annual data on EHCP timelines and exclusion rates.
Addressing this crisis requires a fundamental shift in perspective, relationships, and power dynamics within the SEND system. We propose the following actions:
● Mandatory Consequences: Implement clear and enforceable consequences for local authorities that fail to meet statutory obligations.
● Tribunal Expansion: Extend tribunal authority to enforce health and social care provisions in EHC plans, ensuring compliance across all sectors.
● Accessible Information: Equip families with clear guidance on navigating the SEND system, backed by national standards and quality assurance.
● Independent Advocacy: Provide funded, independent advocates to support families through disputes and decision-making processes.
● Early Identification: Strengthen mandatory screening for sensory and developmental needs within early years education.
● Collaborative Support: Facilitate structured collaboration between teachers, health and care professionals, social workers and therapists to ensure timely interventions.
● Cross-Agency Partnerships: Mandate joint accountability and planning across education, health, and social care to deliver coordinated support.
● Training and Resources: Develop statutory training for SENCOs, teaching assistants, and caseworkers to ensure competence in statutory frameworks and holistic care including understanding trauma.
This submission represents the collective voices of people with expertise and significant lived experience of the SEND system. We have witnessed firsthand the devastating consequences of a system that consistently fails to uphold its legal and moral obligations to children with SEND.
The core issue is a fundamental misalignment of relationships, power, and purpose. Local authorities, facing significant budget pressures and a lack of accountability, are incentivised to deny/delay children and families their rights under statutory guidance and the Children and Families Act 2014. This fosters a culture where families are forced into relentless advocacy, battling for basic support that should be readily available, placing them in opposition with those they are supposed to rely on for expert diagnosis, guidance and support, while children suffer irreparable harm at crucial stages in their education.
It is inconceivable that the statistics from Tribunals upholding parental appeals, or the LGSCO upholding parental complaints are a result of decision making by LA’s in good faith.
The lack of consequences for non-compliance with statutory obligations perpetuates systemic failure. Families seeking recourse via the Ombudsman, or Judicial Review must collate years of complex evidence and endure lengthy, arduous processes that rarely provides compensation commensurate with the losses and harms caused. This cycle leaves lives irrevocably altered and futures compromised, often yielding little more than an apology, a promise to improve, or modest compensation.
The short-term savings achieved by denying or delaying essential support result in exponentially higher costs to the public purse in the long term. Escalating needs and missed opportunities drive up expenses in education, health, and social care, creating a flawed cost-benefit analysis that not only fails children and families but misallocates public resources.
Policymakers must take bold action to overhaul the SEND system. Incremental changes are no longer sufficient. We urge the government to act decisively to create a system built on justice, compassion, and accountability—a system that truly supports all children and families.
A is a former headteacher, a volunteer parent supporter, and an advocate with over 20 years of SEN tribunal experience. Over the years, A has observed that while SEN law has evolved, awareness of its requirements among educators has not kept pace.
The SEN Code of Practice 0–25 remains a “mystery” to many class teachers, SENCOs, and headteachers. This is particularly evident during Annual Reviews (ARs). The Code (Chapter 9) provides clear guidance on the timing, collection, and dissemination of reports, the purpose and conduct of the meeting, and the timeline for submitting the final AR report to the local authority (LA). However, A frequently encounters poor adherence to these processes.
● Schools and colleges often fail to collect and circulate all relevant reports 14 days in advance.
● Meetings are often attended only by the SENCO, a class teacher, and the parent, with LA case officers rarely present.
● Parents’ views are frequently requested on the day of the meeting or not at all.
● AR reports often lack structure and fail to meet Code requirements, leading to significant delays and conflicts.
A recalls supporting parents at ARs where processes were so poorly managed that the meetings resulted in confusion, unresolved issues, and delays in progressing proposed amendments to EHCPs. In one instance, a primary school scheduled an AR with just two weeks' notice, canceled it, and later rescheduled for the next day without proper preparation. Parents felt patronized and isolated throughout the process.
● Parents report feeling dismissed and patronized, with staff addressing them as “Mum” or “Dad” instead of using their names.
● Inadequate AR management results in delays or LA stalling tactics, further frustrating families.
● Standardise AR documentation and processes across schools and LAs.
● Ensure all relevant reports and views are collected and circulated in advance.
● Mandate proper training for school staff on the SEN Code of Practice, especially Chapter 9.
E, a single parent, has a son, A, with relatively high-functioning ASD. A is now in Year 8 at a specialist ASD school. Despite speaking good English and working part-time, E encountered significant barriers navigating the SEND system.
● Autumn 2021: The LA proposed placing A in a mainstream school in a neighboring borough. Later, the placement fell through, and E was offered two unsuitable options: an ASD special school for children with learning difficulties or an ASD resource provision within a mainstream secondary school. E agreed to the mainstream placement after being advised the special school was not appropriate for A’s cognitive abilities.
● September 2022: A joined the mainstream school but found it overwhelming. By Christmas, the placement began breaking down due to bullying and the lack of Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) he had previously received.
● January 2023: E discovered she only had a September 2021 version of A’s EHCP. The LA sent her the same outdated document after claiming an updated version had been emailed—an error caused by an incorrect email address.
● March 2023: An Annual Review was held but poorly managed. The LA officer failed to attend, and delays in processing the report further compounded issues.
● June 2023: A was permanently excluded from the school due to escalating dysregulation. Temporary tutoring was arranged while the EHCP was amended.
● February 2024: After two years of delays, the LA conceded, and A started at a new, suitable school.
● E lost the opportunity to appeal to SENDIST due to the LA’s administrative errors, delaying appropriate placement by over a year.
● A’s unmet needs exacerbated his mental health challenges, leading to exclusion and educational disruption.
● The family endured prolonged stress, financial strain, and feelings of disempowerment.
● Ensure EHCPs are sent promptly and accurately to parents, with clear documentation of receipt.
● Improve accountability for LA case officers, including mandatory attendance at Annual Reviews.
● Reduce administrative errors through regular audits and streamlined communication protocols.
H is a single parent with a son, X, in Year 7 at a maintained secondary school. X has high-functioning ASD and receives some support in mainstream classes. H works as a school nurse with additional training and experience in mental health issues, serving a highly multicultural London borough with significant income disparities.
As a nurse with a strong understanding of medically diagnosed disabilities, H notes that many teaching and support staff in mainstream schools lack the training to recognise that behaviors often dismissed as “badly behaved” are symptoms of unrecognised or inadequately supported SEND.
● Children exhibiting frustration, confusion, and low self-esteem due to unrecognized SEND are often unfairly excluded, sent to pupil referral units (PRUs), or transferred to other schools within multi-academy trusts designated for “troubled children.”
● Behaviors such as throwing furniture, swearing, or fighting often stem from social and emotional difficulties caused by lack of awareness or training among staff. This can lead to escalating mental health problems if left unaddressed.
H emphasises that inadequate training is not the fault of individual staff but highlights systemic failures to equip schools to identify and support SEND effectively. She also notes that even school nurses sometimes lack understanding of SEND, leading to unnecessary exclusions and long-term consequences for children’s mental health and self-esteem.
● Children with unrecognised SEND face significant exclusion, resulting in academic underachievement, low self-esteem, and social isolation.
● Families experience increased stress and frustration as they navigate a system ill-equipped to meet their children’s needs.
● Improve training for teaching and support staff to recognize SEND-related behaviors.
● Provide mandatory SEND-specific training for school nurses.
● Establish robust referral pathways to medical professionals for children with suspected SEND, reducing the risk of mental health issues and exclusion.
L and C are adoptive parents to two incredible 8-year-old girls, L and L. They should have every opportunity to thrive, but systemic failures have denied them a full-time education for most of their school years. Both girls have developmental trauma, school-based trauma, and attachment difficulties. Despite securing support on paper, barriers in the education system, local authority failings, and limited access to post-adoption funding have left them without the help they desperately need.
● Sept 2020: L and L start mainstream primary school. Pupil Premium Plus funding is available but unused, as the school claims it’s unnecessary.
● March 2021: Both girls experience severe school anxiety, dysregulation, and withdrawal from learning, spending most of their time in a fight/flight/freeze state. No adequate SEND support is in place.
● July 2022: EHCPs recommend specialist provision, but no places are available. The girls are removed from their mainstream school, which had failed to keep them safe or educate them.
● July 2022 – Sept 2023: No school provision. The LA fails to secure specialist placements and does not challenge schools that refuse to admit them. From November 2023, they receive only 15 hours of alternative provision per week, with no formal education.
● Sept 2023 – March 2024: L and L attend a specialist SEMH school, but unmanaged violence within the school forces them to leave, re-traumatising them.
● March 2024 – June 2024: No provision at all.
● June 2024 – January 2025: Just 12 hours per week at an alternative provision. In September 2024, 15 schools were consulted—none offered a place. The LA took no action to challenge this.
● Lack of SEND knowledge in schools – Behaviour is often misunderstood rather than seen as an expression of unmet needs.
● Serious safeguarding failures – Schools lack robust safeguarding for vulnerable children, and investigations into concerns are inadequate.
● Understaffed and under-skilled LA SEND teams – Decisions prioritise ticking boxes over genuine advocacy. Schools reject consultations without follow-up or challenge.
● Severe underfunding of specialist SEND provision – Lack of places forces LAs to rely on expensive, less regulated independent schools that can refuse complex cases.
● A broken system leaves children uneducated for years – Children with SEND are desperate for education, yet systemic failures deny them their right to learn.
● One parent had to quit work – C, a senior paediatric nurse, left her job because the girls weren’t in school and lacked the support they needed. This has caused significant financial and emotional strain.
● Unbearable stress navigating the system – Parents are forced into endless battles to secure basic educational rights for their children.
● Isolation – Without school, L and L miss out on peer interactions. Their parents feel equally isolated, constantly blocked from accessing the help their children need.
● Increase specialist school places with proper safeguards – The government must prioritise LA-run provisions.
● Expand resource units within mainstream schools – Specialist classrooms with trained staff can provide a faster, scalable solution for SEND children.
● Properly fund LA SEND departments – Staffing levels and expertise must improve to stop firefighting and start delivering real support.
January 2025