The tale of two policy announcements: disability-related expectations and SEND system reform

This blog was kindly authored by Dr Mark Pulsford, Associate Professor in the School of Education, Learning and Communication Sciences, and convenor of the institution-wide Disabled Student Champions Network, at the University of Warwick.

At the end of February, two policy statements – one for schools and colleges, the other for universities – were released. Together, these could represent a pivotal moment in how higher education institutions support disabled students as they promise system reform, improved information sharing and mainstreaming of inclusive expectations.

The Department for Education’s (DfE) white paper Every child achieving and thriving outlined the Government’s plans to reform schools and SEND systems in England. It proposes a re-shaping of the special educational needs and disability (SEND) system, with a move to a universal inclusive offer with layers of additional, graduated provision. The paper reaches into post-16 provision, but not higher education. Nevertheless, there are some key policy developments that could affect how universities support disabled students’ transition into and success within higher education. Significantly, in the same week as that white paper was published, the Office for Students (OfS) announced its intention to develop a ‘statement of expectations relating to disability’ from 2027, and says it will monitor whether universities meet these expectations – with the potential that not doing so could be seen as a breach of registration conditions.

The OfS cite concerns that despite growing understanding of disabled students’ experiences in higher education, and increasing guidance and support on effective practice, disabled students:

• continue to have a poorer experience than their non-disabled peers;
• are less likely to continue on their course of study (especially those with a mental health condition); and
• are more likely to complain to the OIA (the independent complaints body for higher education in England and Wales).

The OfS highlight inadequate senior leadership commitment to ensuring legal duties are met. A core issue is that information sharing between central disability teams, other support services, and academic departments remains a challenge, and the burden of administration and advocacy often falls to disabled students themselves.

These stubborn issues become more stark in the face of rising numbers of students entering university with a diagnosed disability or long term health condition, a trend that is set to continue: the prevalence of reported disability among 16-24 year olds more than doubled in the 10 years to 23/24.

The growing number of young people with ‘special educational needs’ is also the context for Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s policy paper on schools and SEND reform. While commentators have noted a sense of déjà vu and ongoing debates grapple with assuring disabled children’s rights versus funding deficits, the proposed policy reforms indicate a future where all pupils identified as having SEND will receive an Individual Support Plan (ISP), there will be better transition planning and support, and mainstream inclusive education will be underpinned by ‘national inclusion standards’. These standards are described as evidence-based guidance to inform ‘what all children and families should be able to expect from their school’; the language of expectations, frameworks and monitoring – in short, greater accountability – unite the white paper and OfS’ announcement.

The proposed school reforms could be important for universities because they aim to reshape inclusive educational cultures and systems. I outline below some possible implications.

A key development is the introduction of Individual Support Plans (ISPs). These will be a legal requirement to record a child’s needs and reasonable adjustments, the day-to-day support they receive and its intended outcomes. As digital documents, these will, according to the DfE, ensure ‘support remains responsive throughout a child’s education’ and facilitate ‘smooth transitions’. If such a digital document becomes typical and remains with a young person beyond compulsory schooling, this could be an answer to the issues of information sharing that universities perennially struggle with: can you imagine students arriving at university with disability-related support information in a standard and user-friendly format that could be updated and shared on demand?

Second, ‘national inclusion standards’. The proposal is for a Government-curated evidence base, standards developed by an expert panel, and training packages for teachers backed by a £200million investment over three years. Here, the intention is to train teaching staff to ‘adjust their methods to bring out the best in every child’. Mainstream settings will, the DfE say, become ‘truly inclusive’ and ‘resourced to meet commonly occurring needs’. Whilst ambition and reality are of course hard to align (and these plans are subject to extensive and reasoned critique), there is the prospect that more young people with disabilities and long-term conditions will be enabled to succeed in ways that outstrip the pedagogic norms and pastoral support systems on offer in sluggish universities. If achieved, the plans should raise incoming students’ expectations of the quality of educational provision they can access, but it presents a risk to universities if benchmarks for inclusive education do improve and higher education reform in this area doesn’t pick up pace.

Finally, schools and colleges will have a duty to develop ‘personalised transition packages’ for pupils identified as having SEND, beginning 12 months before leaving. In seeking to avoid the ‘cliff edge’ that many disabled young people experience after leaving compulsory education, the policy proposals represent a renewed opportunity for higher education institutions to proactively engage with schools and colleges and shape prospective students’ transitions into higher study. This chimes with imperatives in the DfE’s 2025 post-16 education and skills white paper to develop stronger relationships between regional institutions that enhance young people’s transition to Level 4 courses, especially those at risk of falling between the gaps of education and employment.

Yet in the proposals we also see the chance of increased ambiguity for students and universities, since a feature of the white paper is the reassessment of SEND support that pupils receive at key transition points – getting support at one stage of education is not a guarantee of it continuing. Such an approach may build further barriers to higher education entry if the perception is that universities might not acknowledge previously enshrined support. This may be the cruel optimism of the new ISPs. Rather than creating coherence across disabled students’ educational journey, the uncertainty involved in advocating for their needs prior to university entry would not improve confidence in receiving appropriate and timely support during their degree studies.

Universities currently emphasise their Equality Act duties and seek to reassure incoming students about the adjustments available, but confidence is already weak in this area – and that’s before the notion of ‘reassessment’ is introduced with all its bureaucratic and gatekeeping connotations. Whether these proposals materialise or not, there will be work for universities to do in assuring students of their commitment to building inclusive environments and anticipating the needs of disabled students as the foundation on which tailored individual support is built. The OfS’ statement of expectations around disability becomes the lever for action here.

The prospect of reform to school SEND systems suggests there are new challenges but also possibilities on the horizon for universities, all requiring sector-wide thinking and whole-institution approaches. The OfS’ intention to establish and monitor disability-related expectations of universities needs to be read in the context of wider educational policy developments that could reshape the terrain of inclusive education, creating new forms of accountability and practice in the face of growing need but finite resources.