The education secretary is unsurprised by criticism of proposed SEND reforms from 鈥渧ested interests鈥 and lawyers who profit from 鈥渆xploiting parents鈥. The government鈥檚 plans will aim to educate more pupils in mainstream schools. The current SEND system is fraught with bureaucracy and often forces parents to turn to lawyers for help in securing education, health and care plans for their child. Under the new system, schools will have to draw up individual support plans for children, with EHCPs reserved for only the most “complex needs”. During a press conference at the ASCL leaders鈥 union annual conference this morning, Bridget Phillipson was asked if her reforms would see fewer lawyers involved in the process. 鈥淚t鈥檚 been little surprise to me that there’s been such vociferous criticism from lawyers about the changes that we’re bringing,鈥 the education secretary said. 鈥淭hey鈥檝e got a vested interest in maintaining the failed status quo. There’s profit to be made. They want the system to remain as it is, because they make a profit, often out of exploiting parents.鈥 ‘Fundamentally unfair’ She added that she didn鈥檛 鈥渇or one second blame parents鈥 for pushing to get what their children need. 鈥淏ut it’s a fundamentally unfair system if parents who’ve got the money to hire lawyers end up getting a better deal than those who don’t.鈥 A survey by charity Sutton Trust found 65 per cent of working class parents spent no money on their EHCP application, compared to only 29 per cent of middle class parents. Also, 11 per cent of middle class parents spent over 拢5,000 on their application, compared to just 1 per cent of working class parents. This is despite the intention of it being cost free. It isn’t just parents who spend large sums on the current system. In 2023, Pro Bono Economics estimated councils “wasted” 拢46 million on tribunal disputes that they almost always lose. ‘Cynical and contrived attack’ Phillipson said her government鈥檚 鈥渟upport to tilt the system to much earlier support, a fairer system of support for all children, is absolutely the right approach, backed up by the evidence supported by the profession. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 little surprise to me that the vested interests and the lawyers are opposed to change, because they’ve got a lot to lose from this.鈥 But Ed Duff of HCB Solicitors said it was a 鈥渃ynical and contrived attack on the legal profession鈥 which 鈥渟eeks to deflect from the specific concerns raised, in an increasingly typical attempt to avoid engaging with the issues鈥. 鈥淭he claim of exploiting parents is sickening. Lawyers have supported parents for decades, and fought hard to ensure that rights are understood and enforced. 鈥淚f the government was concerned about exploitation in representation it would impose governance in SEND representation, as exists in immigration for example, but there is no such suggestion. 鈥淚t is a fundamentally unfair system when a local authority can make decisions that had life-long impact on disabled children, with parents having limited to no ability to challenge it.鈥 Special schools have ‘really important role’ The government announced earlier this year it will wipe 90 per cent of councils鈥 historic SEND deficits. In exchange, town halls will have to put together plans to support government reforms. Schools Week revealed this morning that those plans will be tested against a rating system, with those seeking to minimise the expansion of specialist provision given higher rankings. Responding to the story today, Phillipson said special schools 鈥渉ave a really important role to play in the system, and there is much brilliant expertise. 鈥淚 want that to be spread more widely across the school system as a whole, and we’ve set out our ambition to achieve that in the 鈥淏ut of course, we will work with local authorities, with schools to make sure they’ve got the right provision locally to support children. 鈥淭here鈥檚 record capital investment into creating those places, but I do at the same time want to see more specialist provision in mainstream schools through inclusion bases, so that children don’t have to travel so far to get the education they deserve.鈥 ‘Where councils aren’t delivering we will act’ The government has also warned councils they will face greater scrutiny over SEND provision, and could even have their powers stripped from them and handed to not-for-profit trusts. This morning, Phillipson told Schools Week councils would have a 鈥渃ritical role” in delivering a better SEND system. 鈥淲hilst I do recognise that many of the challenges that they face are because of the system and how it operates, that isn’t adequate to explain the huge variation between local authorities, and there is significant variation in terms of outcomes for children, and where for too long, parents and children have been badly let down. 鈥淚 have high expectations for all children, and I believe that councils should match that. Many councils are doing this well. But where councils are not delivering for children and families, they should be in no doubt that we will act and we will make sure that they deliver what is needed for children.鈥 Deficit write-off ‘not unconditional’ She added that parents 鈥渨ant that reassurance, and I think it is absolutely right, as we reform the system that we make sure that councils are delivering for families in their area, and we won’t hesitate to act if they aren’t. 鈥淭he 90 per cent write off of the deficit is not unconditional, and will require councils to work with us to demonstrate that they are providing the places, the provision and the support for families that aligns with the vision of this government.鈥 The white paper reforms also include curbs on what private special schools can charge for provision, and a plan to give Phillipson the power to veto new institutions or expanding existing provision. Speaking today, the education secretary said: 鈥淲e do have to clamp down on the wholly unacceptable increase that we’ve seen in private equity-backed independent specialist provision, which is sucking money out of the education system.”