The Schools White Paper – our six big questions

It's been three weeks since the publication of the Schools White Paper and we’ve been going over the proposals carefully. There was a lot to read but despite the volume of data released, we still have a lot of unanswered questions, and we are waiting for more details in many areas.  

We will be judging the reforms against our five key principles which I set out in my previous blog. We want the proposals to create a properly resourced and joined up SEND system that has an inclusive culture and is relentlessly focused on positive outcomes. We know this can only be achieved by involving autistic young people and their families in decision-making at every level.  

Following our first in-depth read of the White Paper, I’ve outlined six key questions we have about the proposals and how they stack up against our reform principles.

Will the plan to make mainstream schools more inclusive actually work?  

The ambition to make mainstream schools more inclusive is welcome. But families have heard ambitious promises before and many remain undelivered. Reading through the White Paper, we have been struck by the tight timeframe to deliver big improvements in mainstream schools. The new system will be phased in from 2029, but some of the proposed reforms, such as the expansion of inclusion bases and national training, remain undefined and untested at scale. It is also unclear if funding for these reforms will continue after 2030.  

The timeframe is worrying because we need real evidence that these reforms are working and mainstream education is becoming more inclusive before access to EHC plans is reduced. Confidence will not be rebuilt through aspiration alone. It will be rebuilt through evidence and delivery.

Will Individual Support Plans work in practice?  

The consultation proposes that many children currently supported through EHC plans would instead receive support through school-based Individual Support Plans (ISPs) developed by education settings rather than through statutory plans issued by local authorities.

Settings will have a legal duty to produce digital ISPs for children and young people with identified SEND. However, there's still significant concern that ISPs may not carry the same legal enforceability as EHC plans. The consultation is clearer about a duty to record and monitor provision than a duty to deliver it, raising concerns about an erosion of statutory protections.

Because ISPs would sit outside the statutory EHC plan framework, the consultation raises important questions about how provision will be guaranteed and enforced when support is delivered through non-statutory plans. Tribunals would focus primarily on eligibility for Specialist Provision Packages and placement decisions, while disputes relating to support delivered through ISPs are expected to be addressed through complaints procedures, mediation and local resolution mechanisms. The model also assumes a level of capability and capacity in mainstream schools that does not yet exist and may not successfully be built. What’s more, there are also indications that ISPs may end after further education, whereas EHC plans currently extend to age 25.

Whose needs count as ‘complex’?

The White Paper signals that EHC plans may be reserved for those described as having ‘complex needs’, yet no clear definition of ‘complex’ is offered. The Government is proposing seven broad categories or ‘packages’ which would legally entitle pupils to extra support. This is a shift away from the current system which provides support based on the individual needs of each pupil.

Over half of autistic pupils currently have an EHC plan so any shift in thresholds will disproportionately affect them. If provision is defined primarily through standardised packages, there is a risk that autistic pupils are subsumed within broader categories of need without the level of personalisation that effective support requires.  

Complexity is not always visible. A child may be academically able but unable to access education safely without structured specialist support. Sensory overwhelm or anxiety can make mainstream environments profoundly inaccessible.

Moving to a ‘most complex’ test risks replacing a needs-based system with a hierarchy of perceived ‘severity’. If thresholds rise, need does not disappear, but support at school could vanish. This will shift pressure onto families.  

The system must retain the flexibility to tailor support around the individual child, rather than expecting children to fit the structure of the system.

What role will specialist education play?

The White Paper recognises the vital role specialist schools and colleges play in supporting children and young people with the highest levels of need. Indeed, the partnership between our own Ambitious College and West Thame College is highlighted as an example of best practice.  

But it also signals significant changes to how specialist provision will operate. Under the proposals, specialist placements are likely to be reserved primarily for children whose needs are considered ‘complex’. At the same time, support in specialist settings would be defined through new Specialist Provision Packages, which are still being developed, and specialist schools and colleges will be expected to play a much larger role in supporting mainstream schools through outreach and expertise.

This recognition of specialist expertise matters. Specialist providers offer tailored learning environments, therapeutic support and highly trained staff that many children rely on to access education safely.

Specialist settings must have the capacity and resources to deliver a significantly expanded outreach role, while continuing to support the children already in their care.

Are the risks being fully considered?  

The White Paper recognises that the system is broken. Yet aspects of the proposals would concentrate greater power in local authorities, including changes that could weaken parents’ ability to secure a specific placement through independent tribunal oversight.

Families currently succeed in the overwhelming majority of tribunal appeals. That should prompt reflection on decision-making quality - not justification for reducing safeguards.

Reform of this scale requires robust risk management. Changes to legal protections may have unintended consequences if the system is not ready. For example, reducing access to tribunal oversight could increase other forms of legal challenge, such as judicial reviews or complaints processes. Questions also remain about whether there is sufficient specialist school capacity, and whether mainstream schools currently have the culture, workforce and expertise needed to transform at the pace envisaged. These risks must be openly addressed if reforms are to succeed.

Is there enough money to make these reforms a reality?

There have been lots of funding announcements attached to the proposals in the White Paper. So far funding announcements have included:  

• £7 billion additional investment in SEND support over the next four years.  
• £200 million for national SEND Training programme over three years.  
• £1.6 billion fund over three years on Inclusive Mainstream Fund
• £3.7 billion capital investment to 2030 to support the creation of tens of thousands of new places in Inclusion Bases within mainstream schools, building on £740 million committed in 2025
• £15 million by 2028 to strengthen the evidence base underpinning the development of new National Inclusion Standards

However, it is still unclear whether this funding is enough and crucially what funding will continue to be available from 2030. Questions also remain about funding for specialist settings. If they are expected to support the wider system, they must be properly resourced. Questions remain about funding levels, post-19 provision and whether capacity will be protected.

We must learn from past planning failures. For some families, mainstream works when properly supported. For others, specialist provision is the difference between coping and collapse. Narrowing options without building sustainable specialist capacity will not create inclusion - it will force children back into environments that have already failed them.

Next steps

The White Paper marks the start of a critical consultation period. We will respond in full, working constructively with Government and alongside autistic young people and families to ensure reforms protect rights, strengthen inclusion and ensure every autistic young person has the chance to learn, thrive and achieve.

If you’d like to take action, add your name to our Absence Notes campaign and help make those voices impossible to ignore.

About the author

Jolanta Lasota is Chief Executive of Ambitious about Autism