What families and professionals shared about SEND reform and high learning potential

Over recent weeks, we invited member families, educators, and professionals to respond to our questionnaire exploring how the proposed SEND reforms could affect children with high learning potential, including those who are dual or multiple exceptional (DME/2E).

A big thank you to everyone who contributed. While the number of responses is modest, the consistency across them is noticeable. Together, they offer a clear and important picture of how the current system is experienced and how the proposed reforms are being understood.

This analysis shares the key themes emerging from your responses. It brings together the patterns in the data and the lived experience of our members.

At A Glance

Most respondents said needs are not recognised at all or only rarely

The majority felt schools are not equipped to support these learners

Most respondents felt negative or uncertain about the proposed reforms

A large proportion expressed concern about Individual Support Plans

Many reported that behaviour systems feel unsafe or only somewhat safe

Experiences of masking in both directions were common

1. A clear message: these children are not well recognised

While every experience is individual, several themes came through consistently. Across responses, there was a strong view that children with high learning potential, particularly those with additional needs, are not well recognised within the current system.

Most respondents reported that these learners are either not recognised at all or only rarely recognised. Similarly, the majority felt that schools are not equipped to identify or respond appropriately to their needs.

“If it isn’t a problem for the teacher then they don’t get support. If it isn’t a problem for the school, it becomes a problem for the child.”

Many families described how academic competence, or simply quiet compliance, can result in needs being overlooked.

“Because my child is doing well academically and is no trouble, as far as the school is concerned, there is no problem to be addressed.”

2. A pattern of misinterpretation: strengths and needs masking one another

A particularly strong theme across the responses was the way in which children’s profiles are misunderstood. Respondents described high ability masking additional needs, additional needs masking high ability or both happening at once. This dual masking emerged as one of the clearest findings in the dataset.

“High academic ability hid autism… eventually leading to burnout and being out of school.”

“Our DME children have to do double masking, leaving them utterly exhausted at the end of the day.”

This pattern contributes to both under-identification and inappropriate support, often over extended periods of time. Families described children being identified late, or only once they had reached significant levels of distress.

3. Academic challenge is part of need

A recurring message across responses was that academic challenge is often treated as optional, when for these children it is essential.

Respondents described children repeating work they had already mastered, being denied access to stretch and being expected to wait for others to catch up.

The impact of this was described as something with real emotional consequences rather than mild frustration.

“The school does not seem to acknowledge the huge negative impact on self-worth and existential anxiety that follows from educational boredom.”

For many families, lack of appropriate challenge was experienced as an unmet need in itself, particularly where it contributes to disengagement, anxiety, or school avoidance.

4. Lack of confidence in reforms

There was little sense of optimism about the proposed reforms as currently understood. Most respondents reported feeling negative or very negative, with others expressing uncertainty. No respondents expressed a clearly positive view.

In particular, there were concerns that support may become more standardised, individual profiles may be oversimplified and accountability could be reduced reflecting a lack of confidence that the proposed mechanisms will improve outcomes.

5. Complex needs must include mismatch, not just diagnosis

When asked what should be included within definitions of complex needs, respondents consistently went beyond clinical or diagnostic criteria. They highlighted:

  • mental health and emotional wellbeing
  • sensory differences
  • social communication differences
  • asynchronous development
  • school disengagement and attendance challenges
  • dual or multiple exceptionality

A particularly important theme was mismatch. Respondents described the impact of a gap between a child’s level of ability and the provision available to them.

“Without stretch, the child’s self-worth and emotional state goes off a cliff.”

This suggests that complexity should include not only intrinsic need, but also the interaction between the child and their environment.

6. Individual Support Plans: concern centres on accountability

While respondents were open to the idea of structured support, there was limited confidence that Individual Support Plans, as currently proposed, would provide meaningful protection. Concerns focused on lack of enforceability, inconsistent implementation, insufficient resourcing and reduced legal clarity compared to existing frameworks.

“At the moment I can say ‘this [EHCP] is legally binding’. Remove that framework and you remove provision.”

Respondents were clear that for plans to feel meaningful they must include:

  • clear accountability
  • named responsibility
  • funding attached to provision
  • regular review
  • parent involvement
  • clear escalation routes

There was also a strong emphasis on recognising both strengths and needs, rather than focusing solely on areas of difficulty.

7. One-size-fits-all approaches are a significant concern

The proposal for Specialist Provision Packages raised particular concern.

Respondents consistently emphasised that:

  • development is uneven and non-linear
  • needs change over time and across contexts
  • support must be responsive and individual

“It is impossible to place DME and SEND children in neat little packages.”

There was a shared concern that standardised approaches, even if well intentioned, may not reflect the complexity of these profiles in practice.

8. Attendance is a needs issue

Responses suggest that current attendance approaches do not adequately reflect the realities many families face.

Most respondents felt that schools do not sufficiently understand distress-based non-attendance, the impact of unmet need, and the role of unsuitable provision.

Families identified the need for:

  • flexible or blended learning
  • gradual reintegration
  • mental health support
  • alternative pathways where appropriate

This points to the need for attendance policy that is needs-led rather than compliance-led.

9. Behaviour systems are not always experienced as safe

A significant number of respondents reported feeling unsafe, or only somewhat safe, in relation to behaviour systems. Concerns included:

  • behaviour linked to need being misinterpreted
  • distress being treated as defiance
  • limited understanding of neurodivergent profiles
  • lack of consideration of behaviour across contexts

This suggests a need for behaviour approaches that are more informed, relational and reflective of underlying need.

10. A systemic issue

Although each response reflects an individual child, the patterns across responses are highly consistent. This suggests that the issues described are not isolated but systemic. Across the consultation there is a shared sense that:

  • understanding is inconsistent
  • provision does not reliably fit
  • families are often required to bridge the gap themselves

11. What HLP and DME children need

“Teach the individual child. Know the individual child.”

Despite the challenges described respondents were clear about what helps:

  • recognition of both strengths and needs
  • appropriate academic challenge alongside support
  • flexibility in provision and pathways
  • calm and low-sensory environments
  • knowledgeable and responsive professionals
  • genuine partnership with families

This consultation presents a consistent and evidence-informed account of lived experience. Families are asking for recognition, individualisation, accountability and safety. They are asking for a system that understands that a child can be both highly capable and highly vulnerable at the same time, and that meeting one need should not come at the expense of the other.

We are grateful to everyone who shared their experiences. These insights will directly inform our organisational response to the SEND reforms and our ongoing work to advocate for children with high learning potential and additional needs.