SEND reform this autumn: what is starting, what remains proposed and what schools must still do

Schools starting the September term need two SEND plans: one for the responsibilities they already hold, and another for developments they should track. Treating every reform announcement as a new duty creates unnecessary work and can confuse families. Treating everything as distant consultation would miss support that is beginning to arrive. This briefing sets out the position checked on 7 September 2026, followed by Schoolgle’s practical recommendations.

The main consultation has closed; that is not a new Code

DfE published SEND reform: putting children and young people first on 23 February 2026. The official consultation portal records that it closed on 18 May. At this review, the publication remains labelled a closed consultation; we found no published final response on its official page. A submission deadline passing does not itself amend schools’ responsibilities.

The consultation proposals include Individual Support Plans, National Inclusion Standards and Specialist Provision Packages. These names describe the proposed future framework, not a replacement statutory checklist for this term. The document envisages phased reform and legislation. Schools should avoid telling parents that an existing entitlement has already been replaced by a proposed arrangement.

What schools must continue doing

The government still publishes the SEND Code of Practice as statutory guidance. Its listing was last updated on 12 September 2024; the linked main Code is the January 2015 document. These dates should not be presented as a newly issued “2026 Code”.

The Code’s school and EHC-plan chapters explain the existing framework: mainstream schools must use their best endeavours to secure the provision a pupil’s special educational needs require; teachers remain responsible for pupils’ progress, including when support staff are involved. SEN support follows a graduated assessment, planning, delivery and review process. Where an EHC plan is maintained, the local authority’s responsibility for securing its specified special educational provision continues, subject to the statutory exceptions. Reform publicity is not a reason to pause provision or ordinary review arrangements.

One change to investigate now: Experts at Hand

DfE’s Experts at Hand delivery guidance, published on 5 June 2026, says initial delivery begins in September 2026, with the offer expanding thereafter. It describes specialist support developed through local partnerships, rather than a promise that every school immediately receives an identical service. Crucially, this support must supplement, not substitute for, provision in an EHC plan. The guidance also says a diagnosis must not be a prerequisite for access.

Our interpretation for school leaders is to ask the local authority how the first-year offer can be accessed, which settings and needs it initially prioritises, and who will communicate referral decisions. Do not announce a particular specialist, response time or allocation until the local arrangements are confirmed. Record what is available, what has been requested and what remains unresolved.

A separate consultation still needs attention

The EOTAS consultation information for families, updated on 14 July, gives a closing date of 18 September 2026. It covers education otherwise than at school, health-related absence and online alternative provision. DfE says decisions have not been made and that any changes would start from September 2030 at the earliest, subject to Parliament. Do not confuse this continuing exercise with an outcome from the broader consultation that closed in May.

Schoolgle’s editorial recommendation: make the transition understandable

Give the SENCO, headteacher and relevant governor a shared one-page change log. Use three headings: current responsibilities, confirmed local implementation, and proposals awaiting decisions. Each entry needs an owner, a dated source and the next review point. A national announcement belongs in a different category from written confirmation that a service is available to your school.

For a practical example, imagine a pupil who finds multi-step classroom instructions difficult. The useful record is the barrier observed, the adaptation agreed with the family and pupil, who will use it, and what will be reviewed. “Referred for support” is an action, not evidence that the child can now participate more confidently. Ask staff to bring a small sample of work or a specific observation to the review, rather than creating another lengthy narrative.

For governors, separate delivery from aspiration. Ask whether agreed support happened, whether families understand the next step and whether unresolved gaps have a named escalation route. Keep case-level details within appropriate confidential channels. The immediate opportunity is better coordination around actual children; the longer-term task is to prepare for reforms without presenting proposals as settled rights, guarantees or duties.