David Buck: On SEN, Phillipson has become the Secretary of State for re-fried bean counters
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
Dr David Buck C.Psychol AFBPsS is an Independent Consultant Educational Psychologist and a former SEN Ofsted Inspector.
Bridget Phillipson’s latest announcement on Special Educational Needs (SENs) is being billed as bold reform.
In reality, it is a weary rehash of old ideas dressed up as a “once in a generation opportunity”. The Education Secretary’s central claim is that spiraling demand for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) must be curbed by reserving them for children with the most “complex” needs. Yet EHCPs are now the only robust legal protection for SEN provision beyond the discretion of schools and local authorities. To shrink access to them is not reform. It is retrenchment.
Her language of “over-demand” from parents and schools will be familiar to anyone who has followed this debate over the past four decades. So, too, will her rhetoric of “inclusion”.
Inclusion is not new
The push to integrate children with SEN into mainstream schools did not begin in 2026. It began in earnest with the Warnock Report 1978, which reshaped the language and philosophy of special needs provision. It drew upon American developments such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which mandated special education in the “least restrictive environment” signed off in 1975 it somewhat pre-dates Phillipson’s current enthusiasm for “inclusion”. All her proposals are presented as novel whilst successive British statutes have already embedded the principles: The Education Act 1981 introduced the concept of special educational needs and the Statementing process, with a preference for mainstream schooling wherever possible. The Education Act 1993 created SEN coordinators (SENCOs) and a Tribunal system. The Education Act 1996 consolidated earlier provisions. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 strengthened the right to ‘mainstream’ education and extended disability discrimination law to schools. The Equality Act 2010 required “reasonable adjustments” for disabled pupils. Finally, the Children and Families Act 2014 replaced Statements of SEN (SSEN) with EHCPs and extended support to age 25, mandating cooperation between education, health and social care services.
“Inclusion” is therefore not an innovation. It is already deeply embedded in law. The suggestion that today’s difficulties stem from a failure to embrace it is implausible. The problem is not philosophy but funding.
More troubling still is the new emphasis on “complexity” as the gatekeeper for legal protection. Complexity is not a reliable proxy for severity or urgency. A profoundly deaf child, a pupil with severe ADHD, or one with acute language disorder may have only a single, clearly defined need — but an urgent one, nevertheless. To imply that only the multiply …
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
Dr David Buck C.Psychol AFBPsS is an Independent Consultant Educational Psychologist and a former SEN Ofsted Inspector.
Bridget Phillipson’s latest announcement on Special Educational Needs (SENs) is being billed as bold reform.
In reality, it is a weary rehash of old ideas dressed up as a “once in a generation opportunity”. The Education Secretary’s central claim is that spiraling demand for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) must be curbed by reserving them for children with the most “complex” needs. Yet EHCPs are now the only robust legal protection for SEN provision beyond the discretion of schools and local authorities. To shrink access to them is not reform. It is retrenchment.
Her language of “over-demand” from parents and schools will be familiar to anyone who has followed this debate over the past four decades. So, too, will her rhetoric of “inclusion”.
Inclusion is not new
The push to integrate children with SEN into mainstream schools did not begin in 2026. It began in earnest with the Warnock Report 1978, which reshaped the language and philosophy of special needs provision. It drew upon American developments such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which mandated special education in the “least restrictive environment” signed off in 1975 it somewhat pre-dates Phillipson’s current enthusiasm for “inclusion”. All her proposals are presented as novel whilst successive British statutes have already embedded the principles: The Education Act 1981 introduced the concept of special educational needs and the Statementing process, with a preference for mainstream schooling wherever possible. The Education Act 1993 created SEN coordinators (SENCOs) and a Tribunal system. The Education Act 1996 consolidated earlier provisions. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 strengthened the right to ‘mainstream’ education and extended disability discrimination law to schools. The Equality Act 2010 required “reasonable adjustments” for disabled pupils. Finally, the Children and Families Act 2014 replaced Statements of SEN (SSEN) with EHCPs and extended support to age 25, mandating cooperation between education, health and social care services.
“Inclusion” is therefore not an innovation. It is already deeply embedded in law. The suggestion that today’s difficulties stem from a failure to embrace it is implausible. The problem is not philosophy but funding.
More troubling still is the new emphasis on “complexity” as the gatekeeper for legal protection. Complexity is not a reliable proxy for severity or urgency. A profoundly deaf child, a pupil with severe ADHD, or one with acute language disorder may have only a single, clearly defined need — but an urgent one, nevertheless. To imply that only the multiply …
David Buck: On SEN, Phillipson has become the Secretary of State for re-fried bean counters
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
Dr David Buck C.Psychol AFBPsS is an Independent Consultant Educational Psychologist and a former SEN Ofsted Inspector.
Bridget Phillipson’s latest announcement on Special Educational Needs (SENs) is being billed as bold reform.
In reality, it is a weary rehash of old ideas dressed up as a “once in a generation opportunity”. The Education Secretary’s central claim is that spiraling demand for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) must be curbed by reserving them for children with the most “complex” needs. Yet EHCPs are now the only robust legal protection for SEN provision beyond the discretion of schools and local authorities. To shrink access to them is not reform. It is retrenchment.
Her language of “over-demand” from parents and schools will be familiar to anyone who has followed this debate over the past four decades. So, too, will her rhetoric of “inclusion”.
Inclusion is not new
The push to integrate children with SEN into mainstream schools did not begin in 2026. It began in earnest with the Warnock Report 1978, which reshaped the language and philosophy of special needs provision. It drew upon American developments such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which mandated special education in the “least restrictive environment” signed off in 1975 it somewhat pre-dates Phillipson’s current enthusiasm for “inclusion”. All her proposals are presented as novel whilst successive British statutes have already embedded the principles: The Education Act 1981 introduced the concept of special educational needs and the Statementing process, with a preference for mainstream schooling wherever possible. The Education Act 1993 created SEN coordinators (SENCOs) and a Tribunal system. The Education Act 1996 consolidated earlier provisions. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 strengthened the right to ‘mainstream’ education and extended disability discrimination law to schools. The Equality Act 2010 required “reasonable adjustments” for disabled pupils. Finally, the Children and Families Act 2014 replaced Statements of SEN (SSEN) with EHCPs and extended support to age 25, mandating cooperation between education, health and social care services.
“Inclusion” is therefore not an innovation. It is already deeply embedded in law. The suggestion that today’s difficulties stem from a failure to embrace it is implausible. The problem is not philosophy but funding.
More troubling still is the new emphasis on “complexity” as the gatekeeper for legal protection. Complexity is not a reliable proxy for severity or urgency. A profoundly deaf child, a pupil with severe ADHD, or one with acute language disorder may have only a single, clearly defined need — but an urgent one, nevertheless. To imply that only the multiply …
0 Comments
0 Shares
32 Views
0 Reviews
