Unmet Need, Unmet Duties: How SEND Systems Are Failing Children

By Kelly Hutton

Increasing pressures from all sides are failing our children's futures.

School disruption is often discussed as if it is about the individual child who "cannot cope". In reality, much of what we now describe as disruption is the predictable outcome of an education system that repeatedly fails to organise, understand, and deliver the support it is legally required to provide to children, particularly those with additional needs.

We often hear "well, we never had all this in my day", and yet, most of us can name at least one or two children from our own school days who were labelled as disruptive, difficult, or "not academic", and who did not thrive in an academic setting. At the time, these children were rarely understood as struggling. They were managed, excluded, ignored, or written off.

Current research is writing a different narrative. Many children who were previously seen as failing were not struggling because of inherent deficits, but because their needs were unidentified, unsupported, or misunderstood. Difficulties with attention, emotional regulation, anxiety, learning differences, or sensory processing were often present, but the systems around them did not respond early or effectively (Macintyre, 2005). Over the last two decades, my work with families has consistently reflected this evidence: it is a systematic failure, not individual vulnerability, that drives rising levels of anxiety, depression, and educational breakdown. Research shows that delayed identification and lack of appropriate educational support significantly increase the risk of later emotional and mental health difficulties, particularly when children are repeatedly exposed to environments that do not meet their needs or allow for appropriate adjustment (Hill, 2016). This leads to escalating distress, not because children are fragile, but because the demands placed upon them exceed their capacity to cope.

Disruption Is Not Always Loud, Sometimes It Is Scarily Quiet and Invisibly

One family I have worked with had an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) in place. This should mean that the child has adequate provision in place, as agreed between the family and education professionals who are known to the child and who know the child's needs well. In Education, an EHCP is meant to be the gold standard, the passport to a full and relevant education.

Despite there being an EHCP in place, this child spent 18 months on a reduced timetable due to escalating anxiety. Over time, this became increasingly restrictive, until this child was placed alone in an isolated room, completing work on a computer with minimal teacher interaction.

This is a perfect example of systematic failures.

Under the Children and Families Act 2014, provisions specified in an EHCP must be delivered as written. Under the SEND Code of Practice, reduced timetables must be used only in exceptional circumstances, for the shortest possible time, and must be subject to regular review with a clear plan to reintegrate the child into full-time education. Prolonged use of isolation and reduced timetables without meaningful educational access risks breaching the child's right to suitable education under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996.

The research evidence is explicitly clear, prolonged educational isolation and lack of relational teaching support signifcantly increases anxiety and exacerbate mental health difficulties (Hill, 2016; Pollard et al, 2023). What is often framed as "support" in these cases functions instead as containment, with long-term psychological cost.

When EHCPs Exist but Are Not Delivered

Another child, I know, spent two years in a school where their EHCP specified 1:1 support. That support was not reliably provided, and there were days when it was absent altogether. As distress escalated, this child began to self-harm during lessons, in front of classmates and yet not noticed by the teacher.

There was a direct failure to deliver statutory provision, even when EHCPs are legally enforceable documents; failure to implement them constitutes a breach of duty under the Children and Families Act 2014. It also engages safeguarding responsibilities, as unmet needs and escalating distress place children at harm. Evidence of unmet additional needs and prolonged exposure to environments that exceed a child's coping capacity are associated with increased risk of anxiety disorders and maladaptive coping strategies, including self-harm (Hill, 2016). When schools fail to deliver agreed provision, responsibility for distress is often implicitly shifted to the child, rather than recognised as a consequence of system failure.

Inclusion Needs To Be a System Property, Not a Child Trait

I have worked with children who have required no additional support in one school because systems were flexible, inclusive and responsive. Teachers understood differences, reasonable adjustments were embedded, and variation was normalised.

When those same children moved schools, families were told their child "may have additional needs, "may not cope", or "is not suited to mainstream education". There was no change in the child, only a change in the system.

This is reflective of research on inclusive education, which demonstrates that inclusion is not determined by individual characteristics alone, but by the structures, attitudes, and practices of institutions (Rapp & Corral-Grandos, 2024). Where systems are rigid or poorly formed, exclusion is produced through practice, often without formal exclusion even needing to take place.

Such practices do risk breaching the Equality Act 2020, which requires schools to make reasonable adjustments and prohibits policies or practices that place children with additional needs at a substantial disadvantage.

Organisational Changes Without Safeguards

In another case I covered, a school was taken over by an academy trust. Behaviour systems and rules were changed without consultation and abruptly. Previously agreed-upon supports, such as "I need a break" cards, were removed with very little warning or negotiation.

As a result, the child involved had safeguards removed, which resulted in psychosomatic symptoms, including tics and hair-pulling. Anxiety reached such a stage that the child couldn't control their physical symptoms. We wouldn't do this to adults in a work setting.

We know the research tells us that predictability, control and safety are critical protective factors for children (Hill, 2016). So removing these reasonable adjustments without consultation, assessment or planning not only exacerbates distress but also contributes to a failure to meet duties under the Equality Act 2010. Organisational change does not absolve schools of responsibility; duties travel with the child, not the institution. But why do these failures seem to happen so often?

Is One of The Key Failures The SENCo Qualification and Turnover?

One persistent structural issue which runs throughout these cases and the many other cases I have witnessed is often failures in the SENCo role itself. This is not to put the blame on the individual teacher within the SENCo role, but the systematic way in which the SENCo role operates.

In England, SENCOs do not need to be fully qualified in SEND before taking up the post. They are permitted to "learn on the job" and are only required to complete the National Award for SEN Coordination (NASENCo) within three years of appointment.

This creates a predictable pattern:

• High turnover (often around the three-year mark, as the qualification is a big commitment for a full-time teacher)

• Inconsistent expertise

• Limited Confidence in complex legislation

• Loss of institutional memory

And this applies across both Primary and Secondary education. Within Early Years, the SENDCo does not even have a requirement to complete the NASENCo and can be in the role with no relevant qualifications to SEND at all, bar a basic short course often supplied by the Local Authority.

For children with additional needs, a cohort who relies on consistency, informed advocacy, and system navigation, this instability is profoundly damaging.

The SENCo role is a highly skilled position, requiring deep knowledge of SEND law, funding frameworks, and accountability mechanisms. Without this, SENDCOs are often unable to challenge Local Authorities effectively, or to protect children's entitlements, despite holding nominal responsibility within schools and often being the children and their families' only advocate. This leads to...

Buck-Passing and Legal Misinformation

Yet, another systematic failure lies in this persistent confusion about responsibility.

Under the Children and Families Act 2014, Local Authorities retain ultimate responsibility for ensuring that suitable education and provision are in place for children with SEND. In practice, this responsibility is frequently passed down to the schools, which may lack the expertise or authority to resolve systemic gaps, such as for the child who was on a reduced timetable for a prolonged period of time.

This confusion is compounded by widespread misinformation around the EHCP assessment process. Schools and SENCOs are often told by the Local Authority that multiple cycles of APDR (Assess, Plan, Do, Review) have to be completed before requesting an Education, Health and Care Assessment.

This is not a legal requirement.

The SEND regulations are clear that a request for assessment can be made at any time where a child may have SEND and may require provision beyond what is ordinarily available. Requiring repeated ADPR cycles is often a gatekeeping mechanism which delays support, increases distress, and directly contradicts statutory guidance. In my experience, this gatekeeping mechanism is pressure from above, within the Local Authority, to reduce financial spending.

Delays in assessment and provision are strongly associated with poorer outcomes and increased mental health difficulties (Macintyre, 2005; Pollard et al, 2023), so knowledge around what is actually statutory legislation is incredibly important.

Investment Without Reforms Will Not End Systemic Failures

In December 2025, the government announced a £3 billion investment to "end the postcode lottery for children with SEND" by creating tens of thousands of additional specialist places and expanding tailored support close to home for children with SEND. The Department for Education described this as a "transformational expansion" of calm learning spaces and specialist places in mainstream schools, with the intention that children would no longer need to travel far for the support they require and could learn "alongside their friends" in appropriate settings (Department for Education, 2025).

It all sounds great in a system that's working. At face value, investment on this scale seems welcome, and it is. After years of underfunding and rising demands, an injection of capital to expand specialist capacity is undeniably needed. Many parents and professionals have welcomed the commitment to the additional places and localised provision, noting that long travel distances and a lack of accessible specialist environments are a massive barrier to inclusion.

However, the investment, without structural reforms or without concurrent changes to the systems that organise, interpret, and deliver support, will not on its own end the systemic failures that drive school disruption and distress. The announcement itself acknowledges that further reform will be needed through the forthcoming Schools White Paper, but the core legal and organisational problems remain unaddressed.

Funding does not automatically translate into qualified staff or consistent practice. The additional places and buildings will mean very little without adults who have the requisite expertise in SEND law, inclusive practice, and evidence-based support delivery. SENCOs continue to be appointed without prior SEND qualifications, along with the current requirement for them to complete the NASENCo within three years, perpetuates a cycle of experience and turnover, undermining the consistency for every child most in need of stable support.

Responsibility still lacks clarity. Local authorities hold ultimate statutory accountability for ensuring that education and support are provided in accordance with the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice, yet everyday practice often shifts the responsibility to the school or educational setting and therefore onto the SENCo's who lack the legal training or confidence to advocate for our children. This disconnect persists, despite the legislation's clear duties regarding assessment, provision and review.

Gatekeeping practices continue despite statutory guidance. Many Local Authorities still require iterative cycles of APDR (Assess, Plan, Do and Review) before agreeing to an EHCP assessment, a practice which is not mandated by the SEND regulations and which delays access to statutory support.

Without addressing these systematic issues, the uneven application of statutory duties, the lack of workforce expertise, and the fragmented accountability between schools and local authorities, capital investment just risks simply expanding the capacity of a broken system rather than restructuring it so that support is consistent, lawful and truly inclusive.

The investment matters, but it has to be paired with tangible structural reform that ensures these systemic failures do not continue. Otherwise, we have the same postcode lottery, delays, and inequities will persist, even with more specialist places and quiet, architect-designed, calm rooms in mainstream schools. Buildings and spaces alone cannot substitute for consistent, lawful, expert support everywhere, every day.

What are your thoughts on this? Share them in the comments below.

References

Hill, C. (n.d.). Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents.Unpublished manuscript / PDF provided by author.

Macintyre, C. (2005). Identifying additional learning needs in the early years. London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Pollard, J., Melia, Y., Gordon, L., & Creswell, C. (2023). The multifaceted consequences and economic costs of child anxiety problems: A systematic review. JCPP Advances, 3(1), e12125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12125

Rapp, D., & Corral-Granados, A. (2024). Understanding inclusive education: A theoretical contribution from systems theory and constructionist perspectives. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 82, 101374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101374

Schwartz, A. E., Lincove, J. A., & Johnson, S. R. (2021). The effects of special education on the academic performance of students with disabilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 40(2), 481–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22289

Legislation and Statutory Guidance (UK)

Children and Families Act 2014. (UK). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/contents

Department for Education & Department of Health. (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25

Education Act 1996. (UK). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/contents

Equality Act 2010. (UK). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Government Policy and Announcements

Department for Education. (2025, December 11). £3 billion investment to end postcode lottery for children with SEND. GOV.UK.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/3bn-investment-to-end-postcode-lottery-for-children-with-send