The Government’s new SEND strategy - changes are coming

On 23 February 2026 the Government released its new school’s white paper, “Every Child Achieving and Thriving”, setting out its 10-year reform plan for education in England. The white paper sets out significant plans in respect of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

While its primary focus is education, SEND reform, and childhood wellbeing, its implications extend well beyond schools and local authorities. For insurers, claims professionals, and those involved in catastrophic personal injury claims, the white paper signals material changes in risk exposure, rehabilitation funding, and claims strategy.

This article summarises some of the key reforms in respect of funding and eligibility for statutory provision and explores the likely impact on rehabilitation and claims management practice.

Education, Health and Care Plan what is changing?

EHCPs will be for the most complex needs only.

Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) are no longer intended to be the primary route through which children access SEND support. The policy aims to ensure that the majority of children with SEND should receive appropriate intervention without requiring an EHCP, with plans reserved for those whose needs are severe, long‑term and complex, and who require specialist provision. In effect, EHCP are expected to become the exception rather than the starting point.

New national rules for who qualifies for an EHCP

Under the reformed framework, a child will only be issued with an EHCP if they require support provided through a nationally defined Specialist Provision Package. These packages are intended for children with the most complex, severe and enduring SEND needs, such as severe ASD or profound learning difficulties.

Specialist provision may include therapeutic interventions, specialist environments or equipment, or very high levels of adult support. To qualify, the child’s needs must require daily specialist input or continuous supervision as part of a coordinated package.

Where a child’s needs can be met through inclusive mainstream provision, targeted support, or discrete specialist input delivered outside of a formal package, they will not meet the threshold for an EHCP.

Every child with SEND will still have a written plan

Even where a child does not qualify for an EHCP, all children with identified SEND must have an Individual Support Plan (ISP). ISPs are intended to set out the support a child receives on a day‑to‑day basis within their educational setting. They are developed with parental input and are subject to oversight through Ofsted inspection.

Funding changes (the big shift)

More money into schools, before an EHCP

Under the reforms, £1.6 billion over 3 years will go directly into schools through a new Inclusive Mainstream Fund. This funding is intended to support early intervention and address more commonly occurring SEND needs within mainstream settings. The aim is to reduce delays in support, limit escalation of needs, and decrease reliance on statutory processes and tribunal appeals.

More specialists available without an EHCP

A further £1.8 billion will be allocated to fund speech and language therapists, educational psychologists and other SEND specialists to work directly with schools. This is intended to enable schools to access specialist advice and support at an earlier stage, often without the need to wait for a formal assessment or an EHCP. The aim is to promote earlier intervention, reduce bottlenecks in the system, and address emerging needs before they escalate.

Less pressure on EHCP budgets over time

The overarching aim of the reforms is that fewer families will need to apply for an EHCP, fewer cases will proceed to tribunal, and EHCP funding will be concentrated on children who genuinely require specialist provision. An EHCP will continue to exist, but eligibility and funding will be more tightly defined and more narrowly targeted.

What does this mean in practice?

Insurers dealing particularly with paediatric brain injury claims, are likely to face more pressure, not less, to fund rehabilitation and support even though the state is investing more in mainstream SEND provision and changing EHCP eligibility. In practice, the reforms are likely to amplify reliance on insurer‑funded rehabilitation where a child’s needs fall outside narrowed statutory thresholds but remain clinically and functionally significant.

Neurodevelopmental conditions and traumatic brain injury

In terms of EHCP eligibility under the new system, neurodevelopmental conditions such as ASD and ADHD may not necessarily qualify for specialist provision packages. Children with severe neurodevelopmental disorders however are likely to continue to ultimately qualify for an EHCP.

The challenge potentially becomes more pronounced when a traumatic brain injury is part of the picture. TBI-related needs are often variable, evolving, and sometimes ‘invisible’. Children with a traumatic brain injury may initially present with significant needs but, as acute symptoms subside, they may sit just below the new ‘specialist’ threshold. The result being that those children are at a greater risk of falling outside EHCP eligibility, despite real functional impairment. 

EHCP reforms do not remove insurer liability

While it may be hoped that the reforms will result in fewer EHCPs, increased publicly funded support, and a corresponding reduction in requests for funding for education, therapy and supervision, the reality is that EHCP eligibility is being narrowed rather than expanded.

Many children who have sustained a traumatic brain injury may no longer meet the tightened criteria for an EHCP, despite having substantial and ongoing needs, thus creating a gap between need and state provision, a gap that insurers will be asked to bridge.

The central point is that the reforms deliberately concentrate public funding on the most complex and severe needs. Children with traumatic brain injuries who fall just below that threshold, particularly those with fluctuating, evolving or ‘invisible’ impairments, may therefore require more privately funded support, not less.

Risk of increased rehabilitation funding pressure

As a consequence of the reforms, access to an EHCP may be delayed, or refused all together. An ISP does not guarantee the intensity or consistency of therapeutic input, and larger mainstream schools may struggle to meet the specific and complex needs associated with brain injury.

Insurers are therefore likely to see an increase in funding requests made under the Rehabilitation Code, as well as applications for interim payments to support therapy, case management, support workers and other interventions. These requests are likely to be framed as measures to bridge gaps in statutory provision.

Particular difficulty is likely to arise in cases where there are indications of pre-existing or co‑existing neurodevelopmental conditions. In those circumstances, issues of causation may be contested, with insurers being asked to fund assessments for conditions such as ADHD or ASD that may not be accident-related and may previously have fallen within statutory provision.

Where concerns also arise as to recoverability, Claimants may be increasingly driven to seek interim payments. The courts are likely to be receptive to such applications where the needs are neurodevelopmental in nature, delays in intervention risk permanent or long‑term functional loss, and the child remains within a critical recovery or developmental window.

Practical implications for case handlers

Over the next decade, insurers can expect sustained - if not increased - demand for early rehabilitation funding, alongside robust resistance to arguments that statutory provision is sufficient.

Early engagement with appropriate experts to consider how best to deal with these requests will be prudent.  In appropriate cases consideration should be given to front‑loading rehabilitation to mitigate long‑term loss, avoiding over‑reliance on the availability of an EHCP, and closely monitoring how specialist provision packages are ultimately defined and implemented once published.

The SEND reforms are unlikely to shift rehabilitation costs onto the State in cases of childhood brain injury. In many cases, Claimants will be turning to the Defendant to fund this. The arguments being deployed will be to ensure the Claimant has timely access to assessment, therapy and coordinated rehabilitation during critical developmental windows.

Clyde & Co continue to monitor developments and the impact this has upon the industry.

Educational psychologist, Jude Joughin states: 

Hear more from Jude on how this issue impacts paediatric brain injury cases involving neurodiversity issues at our upcoming seminar hosted by Sian Langer and Katie Fox on 21 May in London. 

Register your place here: Click here to RSVP