The Every Child Achieving and Thriving SEND White Paper, published on 23 February 2026, sets out to reform a system widely recognised as strained, adversarial, and financially unsustainable.[i] It proposes structural change, including the move from Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) to Inclusion Support Plans (ISPs).[ii] Its stated intention is greater consistency, earlier intervention, and less bureaucracy.

Those aims matter. For many families, the current system is exhausting.

But across this series I have asked a deeper question. What if the strain within SEND is not only procedural, but cultural? What if the growth in plans, disputes, and escalating needs reflects something about the wider education system itself?

I write as a parent of children with SEND, as a pastor shaped by a theology that takes weakness and dignity seriously, and as a former CEO of a charity serving adults with learning disabilities. From those vantage points, SEND reform cannot be merely technical. It is about what we believe education is for, what kinds of children it rewards, and what kinds it quietly marginalises.

If we retain a system that is fundamentally performance-driven, tightly paced, and relentlessly comparative, we should not be surprised when increasing numbers of children require formal plans in order to cope within it. Changing documentation without interrogating design risks rearranging the chairs while leaving the room intact.

There are countries that have chosen to build differently. In Finland, high-stakes testing is minimal and teacher trust is central to the system’s operation. In Norway, the principle of adapted education requires schools to fit teaching to the child rather than forcing the child to fit the system. In New Zealand, belonging is explicitly embedded within the national curriculum framework.[iii] None of these systems are without challenge. But they demonstrate that educational structures reflect moral choices. When belonging is designed in from the beginning, fewer children are treated as problems to be managed, fewer need rescue packages just to survive school, and fewer are forced to fight to justify their presence.

This is not an argument for importing another nation’s blueprint. It is an argument for honesty about our own.

If reform focuses only on improving SEND processes, we may reduce friction without reducing distress. If belonging becomes foundational rather than remedial, something more significant may follow. The number of children requiring high-level statutory intervention may fall, not because needs disappear, but because fewer children are made unwell by the environment around them.

Disability and neurodiversity do not need erasing. They need space. They need rhythms that allow difference to breathe. They need systems that assume variation rather than treat it as disruption.

The White Paper deserves careful engagement. It may improve coordination. It may reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. But if we confine reform to SEND alone, we will continue asking a small group of children to carry the weight of a system built around narrow definitions of success.

In the opening post I described this series as a manifesto for belonging. That conviction remains.

The question before policymakers, trust leaders, governors, church communities, and families is not simply how to improve SEND administration. It is whether we are willing to shape an education system in which belonging is not an intervention, but the starting point.

Reform worthy of the name will not be measured only by new plans or revised frameworks. It will be recognised when fewer children experience school as something they must survive.

---

[i] HM Government, Every Child Achieving and Thriving: SEND White Paper (London: Department for Education, 23 February 2026), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/every-child-achieving-and-thriving-send-white-paper.

[ii] HM Government, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, section outlining the transition from Education, Health and Care Plans to Inclusion Support Plans, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/every-child-achieving-and-thriving-send-white-paper.

[iii] Finnish National Agency for Education, ‘Finnish Education in a Nutshell’, https://www.oph.fi/en/statistics-and-publications/publications/finnish-education-nutshell; Government of Norway, Education Act (Opplæringslova), adapted education principle, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-education-act/id213315/; New Zealand Ministry of Education, The New Zealand Curriculum, belonging strand, https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz

---

Series Note: This is the final of eight posts exploring SEND reform, creative education, inclusion, and the theology of the Broken Church.