Ensuring the voices of people with lived experience in Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton shape SEND reform

“Being able to come on this call feels so empowering – so often as a parent you feel disempowered.”

Across all discussions there was broad agreement that the current SEND system is under severe pressure and that reform is necessary. However, there was equally strong concern that reform must not simply redesign systems on paper without addressing the realities experienced daily by children, families and professionals.

Ultimately, successful reform must:

Those taking part in conversations repeatedly stressed that inclusion cannot mean expecting children to fit rigid systems; rather, systems must become flexible enough to meet individual needs.

Inclusive SEND provision within mainstream settings

Families and professionals strongly supported the principle that children and young people with SEND should, wherever appropriate, be educated within inclusive mainstream environments while still being able to access specialist support. However, it was emphasised that inclusion must be meaningful rather than tokenistic.

Parents relayed experiences where schools described themselves as “inclusive” while lacking the staffing, training or environmental adaptations necessary to support children effectively.

One parent stated:

“I don’t think schools are fully inclusive. They might use the term, but they don’t know how to be. The foundations aren’t there to offer more bespoke things.”

Participants consistently highlighted that successful inclusion depends upon:

The Rufford model – an example of good practice

A strong example of effective inclusive practice identified during the engagement process was the model currently operating at Rufford Primary School.

It was cited as an example of how mainstream schools can successfully integrate specialist provision, whilst maintaining a strong sense of belonging and inclusion for children with SEND.

Rufford operates a SEND base that is separate from mainstream teaching while remaining fully integrated into wider school life, and admission to the base is contingent on EHCP eligibility.

Children can:

Importantly, pupils remain fully included in the wider identity and culture of the school, with parents highlighting that children within the base continue to participate in:

Parents described the Rufford approach as transformative because it combines specialist support with genuine inclusion.

Benefits identified included:

Parents particularly valued the way the model normalises difference within the school community, and one observation was that all children educated in inclusive environments become more understanding of neurodiversity and disability generally.

Families also emphasised the importance of holiday clubs and after school activities attached to the provision, describing them as providing essential respite and continuity of support.

The model was viewed as evidence that inclusion can work successfully when:

SEND bases/hubs

There was strong support for expanding SEND hubs, resource bases and breakout provisions across mainstream schools. Examples of strong local practice were shared, including specialist Pathway Learning Centres and autism bases operating across several primary schools across the region. Attendees described children thriving in these environments, including one pupil who had progressed from attending school for 30 minutes a day to full time attendance.

This was underpinned by broad agreement that:

One suggestion was that all schools have some form of SEND breakout provision or inclusion hub. One parent gave an example of a card system used at their child’s school where children could produce a card to go to the breakout space, whenever they needed, with no questions asked.

Operational questions regarding bases were raised, and it is important there is some national clarity here to avoid a potential postcode lottery. Key questions included:

One parent warned that some bases remove children from mainstream too often:

“Most of the bases in Dudley are not suitable for him because they take him out of mainstream lessons, which is detrimental to him.”

A strong message throughout the discussion was that support should not depend on a postcode lottery or individual school attitudes. Participants repeatedly highlighted inconsistent experiences across Dudley.

Specialist placement access

Parents repeatedly raised concerns about the process of identifying and accessing specialist provision.

Specific issues included:

Several people described traumatic experiences where children remained in mainstream settings despite clear evidence that needs could not safely be met.

One parent described how their son was refused by nine SEND schools before eventually securing a placement through tribunal.

Another parent reflected:

“The thing that’s worked well for me is when we were finally listened to — however it wasn’t in mainstream. Mainstream was a failure.”

Parents repeatedly emphasised that children need “the right provision”, not simply “a placement”.

 Workforce training

One of the strongest themes throughout the discussions was concern regarding inconsistent SEND knowledge and expertise across the education workforce.

Participants described wide variation between schools, and often within schools, regarding staff confidence and understanding. While it was clear that some staff demonstrated exceptional understanding and compassion, others appeared to lack basic SEND awareness, and, concerningly, some teachers still resist recommended accommodations or do not believe certain neurodivergent conditions exist.

One parent described how their child’s needs were repeatedly dismissed:

“I knew my son had issues from the age of one, but I was dismissed by teachers when he entered primary school. I was told he was just emotional and would grow out of it.”

The same child was later excluded at age seven following repeated dysregulated behaviour and sensory overload.

Participants overwhelmingly supported mandatory SEND training for all school staff, not just SENDCOs or specialist teachers. This included teachers, teaching assistants, lunchtime supervisors, office staff, senior leadership teams, supply teachers and governors.

Priority areas for training identified included: autism, ADHD, speech and language needs, Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), attachment and trauma, emotional regulation, sensory processing, Emotional Based School Avoidance (EBSA), co-occurring conditions, supporting undiagnosed learners.

It was stressed that SEND training should begin during initial teacher training and continue throughout professional careers, with regular refreshers.

There was also strong support for:

 SENDCO capacity and burnout

The SENDCO role was repeatedly described as near unsustainable under current pressures.

Parents and school leaders highlighted:

One parent shared:

“In the first year my son was in primary school, we didn’t even meet the SENDCO because she had so much teaching.”

Another stated:

“The SENDCO is at burnout and wants to leave, as she has a very high caseload and is a full-time class teacher as well.”

There was extremely strong support for SENDCO becoming a standalone role with protected time.

 The role of Teaching Assistants

Parents and teachers alike strongly valued Teaching Assistants and repeatedly stated that they are critical to successful inclusion within mainstream classroom settings.

Parents commented that:

However, it was clear there is also a need to rethink how TAs are deployed

There was support for TAs leading targeted interventions and better SEND-specific TA training. There were also concerns raised around TAs being utilised in lieu of specialist, targeted SEND support. Where this occurs, there is a potential detrimental effect on all learners. Additionally, numerous people raised the issue of TA pay being low and not reflecting their integral role in the classroom.

Individualised Support Plans

While those we spoke to welcomed the principle of earlier and more individualised support, a number expressed major concerns regarding the proposed move toward Individual Support Plans (ISPs).

Many parents stated that ISPs appear very similar to EHCPs but without equivalent legal protection.

One participant commented:

“The Individual Support Plan sounds very similar to an EHCP but with a different name and not legally binding.”

Another parent added:

“At the moment the EHCP is the only thing making sure children are getting what they need and you can challenge it if needed.”

Parents expressed fears that:

Ultimately, ISPs were the main area of nervousness we identified in conversations – so we’d recommend that communications around what these shall entail are very clear, so as to reassure parents/educators.

 Some parents acknowledged that EHCP demand has increased partly because families feel it is the only route to accessing support.

There was broad agreement that earlier intervention could reduce EHCP demand, and ISPs could support students whilst they await EHCPs. There was also recognition that ISPs could be more fluid that EHCPs, allowing for accommodations to be ‘trialled’ for effectiveness.

Participants also shared with an example of something similar to an ISP that is already in place at one secondary school in the area. The Link Academy in Netherton have pupil passports, which outline their needs and learning preferences. One parent stated that her son getting one of these was the first step in him being more supported, and, subsequently successful in year seven (following a very limited SEN handover from his year six provision.)

Parents strongly supported every child having a personalised profile that includes:

Generally, there was a view that ISPs will work if they:

However, attendees stressed that any ISP system would only work if:

Communication and relationships with families

Communication with families and across agencies, or lack thereof, emerged as a significant theme.

Parents repeatedly described feeling:

One participant summarised this by stating:

“Parents must advocate so strongly for themselves.”

Families consistently highlighted the importance of schools:

Participants stressed that parents know their children best and should be treated as equal partners.

Recommendations included:

One contributor highlighted:

“Teachers need to understand that this is an emotional time for parents.”

There was also concern regarding communication barriers for families where English is not the first language. It’s vital that SEND reform recognises intersectionality and reflects the fact that ESOL learners with SEND might require differing tools for assessment, identification, and subsequent support.

Additionally, educators felt that many families weren’t accessing the support for parents and carers that was available, particularly those families that they identified as needing it the most.

Experts at hand

Limited access to specialist professionals was described as one of the most serious failings within the current system.

Participants reported significant shortages in:

Families described:

There was widespread support for the proposed ‘Experts at Hand’ concept, but deep questioning as to whether workforce capacity currently exists to deliver it meaningfully.

One participant asked:

“Experts at Hand is absolutely necessary… but where are we getting them from?”

Another noted:

“It’s already there in some ways, for example speech and language support exists but schools need to tap into it more.”

Queries around the funding for these experts were also raised:

“If Experts at Hand can be delivered this would be very welcome. Again, am sceptical about the funding being delivered for this to be meaningful.”

Recommendations to ensure ‘Experts at Hands’ can be delivered include:

Mental health support

A major concern throughout discussions was the increasing complexity of mental health needs among children and young people.

Schools and families described:

Families and educators strongly rejected approaches that frame Social Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) purely as behavioural problems.

One recurring theme was that children require therapeutic approaches, not punitive systems.

Schools also highlighted the pressure created by:

There was strong support for:

Additionally, it’s important that SEMH needs are not automatically treated as behavioural issues. Children experiencing EBSA (Emotionally Based School Avoidance) require therapeutic support, not punishment.

One educator told us:

“Schools want reforms to recognise the increasing complexity of SEND needs, particularly severe mental health needs that are often unsupported by specialist professionals.”

Redefining success

Participants repeatedly argued that the current education system measures success too narrowly.

Schools and parents stated that:

Many pointed to the pejorative impact that behaviour management and attendance policies can have on the management of SEND learners and one parent pointed to the impact that this had in terms of suspensions and permanent exclusions.

One school leader stated that reforms should allow schools to:

“Focus on supporting the whole child rather than being judged solely on academic outcomes.”

There was strong support for:

Early identification and transition support

Participants strongly supported earlier identification of SEND needs.

Positive examples included:

However, many families described years of delay before support was acknowledged.

Transitions between settings were repeatedly described as major pressure points, particularly:

Concerns were raised that insufficient understanding exists around foundational developmental skills and early intervention. Disparity between some health visitors being well-versed in SEND and proactive in referrals, and others being extremely dismissive of parent/carer concerns was apparent.

The return of elements of the Sure Start model through Best Start was welcomed, with participants emphasising the importance of skilled Early Years practitioners and family support.

Parents repeatedly raised anxiety about support being lost during transitions:

“Concern about the transition period from primary to high school, that’s where it’s (support) needed even more.”

Participants stressed the importance of keeping support plans “up to date, relevant and current.”

Attendees repeatedly stressed that investing early in SEND support reduces long term pressures on mental health, education, social care and criminal justice systems.

We recommend:

Layers of SEND support

The discussion around the different layers SEND support revealed some uncertainty from parents, schools, and professionals about how the proposed system would work in practice. While some participants recognised potential benefits in creating a more graduated and responsive system, others feared the reforms could reduce accountability, weaken legal protections, and create even more inconsistency across schools and local authorities.

The main concern was the lack of clarity around what the tiers would actually mean, with participants raising the following questions:

Essentially, Universal, Targeted, Targeted Plus and Specialist layers were not sufficiently defined, leaving families unsure how children would qualify for support or progress through the system.

A major theme was whether the new layered system would genuinely improve early intervention or simply become a cost-saving exercise. Concerns were repeatedly raised about funding for the multiple layers.  

There was also discussion about redefining what success should look like within SEND support tiers. Schools argued that attendance and academic outcomes should not be the only measures of progress. Instead, meaningful outcomes might include:

Mental health support also featured heavily in discussions about the tiers. Schools emphasised that many pupils’ needs are increasingly complex and often rooted in trauma and anxiety – something these tiers need to be reflective of. Participants argued, generally, graduated support was important, especially for children who are masking difficulties in school, do not yet meet EHCP thresholds, are waiting for diagnosis and/ or have emerging mental health or neurodivergent needs. Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Curriculum

Attendees felt schools should place greater emphasis on social development, citizenship and life skills, referencing approaches used in countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands. This is particularly critical in early years (Elmfield, locally, follows this approach). There were calls for the curriculum to better reflect children’s diverse strengths and interests, including more vocational opportunities and practical subjects such as food technology. Participants stressed the importance of identifying and nurturing children’s strengths, rather than focusing solely on deficits.

An expanded, more diverse curriculum will also mean schools getting the chance to expand success criteria to encompass more life skills. Many parents pointed to the narrow curriculum meaning that children may be able to do things, such as phonics, from a young age, but lack the socialisation skills meaning they struggle from that point on.

Funding concerns

Participants raised significant concerns about the growing financial pressures facing schools and trusts in relation to SEND provision, with some describing substantial levels of underfunding that are limiting the support available to children and young people. Attendees noted that financial constraints have led to the loss of soft interventions and early support measures, despite these being viewed as essential in preventing needs from escalating. There were also calls for fairer and more consistent funding arrangements across different areas to reduce disparities in provision and outcomes. In addition, frustration was expressed regarding lengthy SEND waiting times in Dudley, alongside concerns that communities experiencing higher levels of socio-economic disadvantage are not receiving equitable levels of investment and support.

Further, a consistent message throughout the consultation events was that reform without funding will fail.

Schools described:

Participants repeatedly questioned:

There was strong support for:

Conclusion

The conversations held across Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton reflect both deep frustration and cautious optimism.

Families and professionals consistently stated that inclusive education can work, but early intervention, relationship, communication, and the provision of specialist support are all key to this.

However, participants also made clear that the current system is under severe strain and that reform cannot succeed without:

It’s clear that children and young people with SEND can thrive when systems are adequately funded, and built around understanding, flexibility, dignity and belonging.

As one parent reflected:

“Positive experiences happen when you have the right people, in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills.”

The findings point to a SEND system that is too inconsistent and insufficiently equipped to meet the needs of children and families effectively. A recurring concern was the lack of specialist expertise within decision making roles, which was seen as contributing to delays, inconsistent support, and a lack of confidence among families. Parents and professionals also emphasised the considerable emotional burden placed on families, with charities and peer led organisations frequently stepping in to provide essential support where statutory services fall short. Experiences across schools varied significantly, with some settings demonstrating proactive and inclusive practice, while others struggled to identify and respond appropriately to SEND needs. Across all discussions, there was strong consensus that support should be centred on the individual child, tailored to their specific strengths and needs rather than determined solely by diagnosis or standardised packages of provision.

In conclusion, our engagement on this consultation, as well as conversations and case work prior to this, demonstrate both the immense challenges facing children and young people with SEND, and the extraordinary commitment of families, schools, professionals and community organisations working tirelessly to support them.

Parents and carers repeatedly spoke about the difference that compassionate staff, collaborative schools, timely intervention and genuinely inclusive environments can make — not only to educational outcomes, but to wellbeing, confidence, independence and family life as a whole.

Discussions also highlighted the strength of practice already taking place across Stourbridge. Models such as the Rufford approach to inclusive SEND provision, the development of hubs, early intervention work, and multi agency collaboration provide important examples of what can be achieved when support is flexible, relational and child centred. However, participants were equally clear that meaningful reform cannot happen without proper investment, workforce development and transparency. Families and schools continue to face significant pressures including inconsistent provision, long waiting times, overstretched services, workforce shortages, rising mental health needs, and uncertainty around future SEND reforms. There is a strong desire for systems that are easier to navigate, more joined up, and built around genuine partnership with children, families and professionals.

The discussions demonstrated overwhelming support for:

Importantly, participants emphasised that inclusion should never mean forcing children to fit rigid systems. Instead, successful inclusion was described as adapting environments, teaching approaches and support structures so that every child has the opportunity to feel safe, valued and able to succeed in a way that reflects their individual strengths and needs. Additionally, it’s important that an intersectional approach is adopted, and that there is recognition that some SEND learners may find the system works against them more than others – for example, through our constituency casework, we get a large number of adopted children. Here’s also where a multi agency approach is paramount.

Overall, there was a strong sense of hope throughout the consultation. Parents described feeling empowered simply by being listened to, while schools and professionals expressed a genuine willingness to work collaboratively to improve outcomes for children and young people. The lived experiences shared through this process provided invaluable insight into both the barriers families continue to face and the opportunities that exist to create a more compassionate, responsive and effective SEND system.

As reforms continue to develop, it is vital that the voices of children, young people, parents, carers, schools and frontline professionals remain central to decision making. Lasting change will only be achieved through genuine co production, sustained investment, and a shared commitment to building a system that recognises every child’s potential and provides the right support, at the right time, in the right place. I look forward to continuing to work with the Department to make sure that these reforms suitable, timely and effective.

Cat Eccles MP 

Tagged , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *