NeuroHub Community Ltd

At the time of writing, there is no officially published Schools or SEND White Paper available via GOV.UK. What exists instead is a constellation of media reports, stakeholder responses, and partial briefings concerning a leaked draft of the government’s forthcoming SEND reform proposals.

This matters.

Not only because SEND reform will shape the lives of millions of children, families, and professionals, but because how information is released shapes reality in its own right. Leaks do not arrive neutrally. They arrive into already fragile ecosystems characterised by long waits, adversarial processes, exhausted families, burnt-out staff, and chronically underfunded services.

NeuroHub Community Ltd exists to advance neurodivergence-competent approaches to support. That means we centre lived experience, relational safety, ecological context, and enforceable rights. From that standpoint, the information currently circulating about SEND reform raises profound concerns.

This article draws on reporting and responses from:

• ITV News
• BBC News
• National Autistic Society
• Contact
• The Disabled Children’s Partnership (via Contact)

Our aim is not to speculate wildly, but to interrogate what is being claimed, what is missing, and what must be present in any legitimate reform process.

1. What the leaked information broadly suggests

Across multiple outlets and stakeholder briefings, several themes appear consistent:

• Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) may be restricted to children described as having the “most complex” or “most severe” needs.
• A new tiered system of support may be introduced for children who do not meet this threshold.
• Children’s support may be reviewed at key transition points, particularly the move from primary to secondary school.
• Schools may be given greater responsibility and potentially ring-fenced budgets to commission or deliver support directly.
• The legal status and enforceability of any new plans below EHCP level is unclear.

Taken together, these suggest an attempt to redesign the architecture of SEND support so that EHCPs are no longer the primary gateway to help.

In principle, reducing reliance on a single, slow, adversarial route is not inherently wrong. The current system is widely acknowledged as broken.
However, architecture alone does not produce justice.
Rights do.

2. The central problem: architecture without enforceable rights

The most alarming feature of the leaked information is not any single structural change, but the absence of clarity about legal enforceability.

EHCPs matter not because they are perfect documents (they are not), but because they create:

• A statutory duty
• A defined entitlement
• A right of appeal

They are imperfect shields, but shields nonetheless.

If new forms of plans or support pathways do not carry equivalent legal force, families move from a position of limited protection to one of discretionary goodwill.
History tells us what happens next.

When provision is discretionary:

• It varies wildly by postcode
• It fluctuates with budgets
• It disappears quietly

This is why organisations have explicitly warned that any reform must not weaken rights to challenge or appeal, and must clearly define what protections attach to new plans.

From a neurodivergence-competent perspective, enforceability is not a bureaucratic detail. It is a safeguarding mechanism.

3. “Most complex needs” is not a neutral category

The phrase “most complex needs” appears repeatedly in reporting. Yet complexity is not a natural property like mass or temperature. It is a social judgement shaped by:

• Diagnostic cultures
• Professional training
• Resource availability
• Institutional “thresholds”

Autistic children, ADHD children, and learning disabled children can have profound support needs even when they:

• Speak fluently
• Achieve academically
• Mask distress
• Appear “settled” in school

Complexity often becomes visible only when systems fail.
If EHCP eligibility is tightened through a poorly defined “complexity” threshold, the predictable outcome is that:

• Children whose distress is internalised
• Children whose needs are relational
• Children whose difficulties fluctuate

will be excluded.

This disproportionately impacts neurodivergent children whose experiences do not conform to narrow, externally obvious models of disability.

NeuroHub Community Ltd rejects any reform framework that treats prevalence or familiarity as a reason to dilute rights.

The validity of one’s needs is not defined by constructed frameworks, often built from the biases of institutional power.

4. Transition reviews: risk concentrated at the worst moment

The leak suggests that support eligibility may be reviewed at the transition from primary to secondary school.

This is deeply concerning.

Transitions are already among the most destabilising periods in a child’s life:

• New environment
• New social rules
• New sensory demands
• New academic expectations

For neurodivergent children, transitions are not minor adjustments. They are neurological, sensory, and relational earthquakes.

Introducing eligibility reviews at this exact moment creates a structural incentive to withdraw support precisely when vulnerability increases.

Even if the stated intention is “right support, right level,” the lived reality is likely to be:

• Increased anxiety
• Heightened school refusal
• Behavioural distress
• Family crisis

Any reform that increases conditionality at transitions is not trauma-informed.

5. Inclusion rhetoric versus inclusion reality

Many reports frame the reforms as promoting inclusion in mainstream schools, reducing reliance on expensive specialist placements, and strengthening in-school provision.

We agree with the principle that children should, wherever possible, be supported close to home and within their communities.

However, inclusion is not a slogan. Inclusion is a material condition. It requires:

• Adequate staffing
• Specialist knowledge across the whole workforce
• Time for relational work
• Access to therapies
• Sensory-considerate environments

Currently, many schools are struggling to meet the needs of existing pupils with SEND.
Without a transparent, costed, and binding workforce strategy, “inclusion” risks becoming a euphemism for cheaper containment.

NeuroHub Community Ltd supports mainstream inclusion only where it is accompanied by:

• Mandatory training in neurodivergence-competent support
• Ongoing supervision and support
• Protected time for collaboration
• Clear accountability structures

Otherwise, inclusion becomes another word for abandonment.

6. The leak itself is doing harm

Both the National Autistic Society and Contact have explicitly stated that leaking partial information causes distress and anxiety for families.

This cannot be overstated.

Families already exist in a state of hypervigilance due to:

• Long assessment waits
• Tribunal battles
• Inconsistent provision
• Fear of losing what little support they have

Leaks add a new layer of uncertainty:

“Will my child lose their plan?”

“Should I rush to apply?”

“Is everything about to change?”

Policy-making by rumour corrodes trust.

If the government wishes to claim a commitment to co-production and transparency, it must stop allowing life-altering reforms to surface first as press leaks.

7. What a legitimate SEND White Paper must contain

From a neurodivergence-competent standpoint, any credible reform document must explicitly answer the following:

7.1 Legal status

• What legal rights attach to each form of plan or support pathway?
• Are these rights enforceable?
• What statutory duties apply?

7.2 Appeals and challenge

• What routes exist to challenge decisions?
• Are they independent?
• Are they free and accessible?

7.3 Definitions

• How is “most complex needs” defined?
• Who decides?
• Is there a national framework?

7.4 Workforce strategy

• How will staff be trained?
• Who funds this?
• What are the timelines?

7.5 Transitional safeguards

• What protections prevent cliff edges at school transitions?

7.6 Co-production

• How have disabled people, parents, and young people shaped the design?
• How will they shape implementation?

Without clear answers to these questions, structural reform is meaningless.

8. A working theory of government intent (clearly labelled as theory)

It appears plausible that the government is attempting to:

• Reduce adversarial conflict around EHCPs
• Create earlier, broader support offers with less bespoke elements
• Control spiralling costs by making access to support more complicated

Aside from the obvious truth that this reform has.more to do with budgets than equality, there is a fatal flaw in many technocratic reform efforts:

They attempt to fix relational and political problems with administrative tools.

The SEND crisis is not fundamentally caused by inefficient paperwork.

It is caused by:

• Chronic underfunding
• Workforce shortages
• Ableist assumptions about productivity and worth
• A refusal to treat disabled children’s flourishing as a societal priority

No amount of tiered planning will solve that.

9. NeuroHub Community Ltd’s position

NeuroHub Community Ltd supports reform only if it:

1. Expands, rather than contracts, enforceable rights
2. Guarantees legal protection for all children with SEND
3. Is co-produced with disabled people and families
4. Is backed by serious, long-term investment
5. Embeds neurodivergence competence across education, health, and social care

We do not support any reform that reduces statutory protection for children under the guise of flexibility.

We do not support any system that makes support conditional on being “complex enough”.

We do not support any framework that treats disabled children as budgetary problems to be managed.

10. What families and professionals can do now

Remember: SEND law has not changed yet.

Continue to use existing legal routes.

Document everything.

Engage with consultations when they formally open.

Challenge narratives that frame rights as obstacles.

Collective voice matters.

History shows that the most harmful policy changes thrive in silence.

Closing statement

The leaked SEND reform proposals, as currently understood, raise the possibility of a future where fewer children have legally protected support, where eligibility is narrowed through vague thresholds, and where inclusion is promised without being resourced.

That future is not inevitable.

But it will become inevitable if disabled people, families, and allies are excluded from shaping what comes next.

NeuroHub Community Ltd stands with families, with neurodivergent children, and with all those demanding a SEND system rooted in dignity, rights, and relational care.

Not tiered hope.

Not conditional inclusion.

Rights.