‘It Feels Like a Lottery’: Could SEND Reform Make Migrant and Refugee Families More Vulnerable?
By the ESDEG Research Team
As the Government considers the future of SEND reform, ESDEG’s emerging campaign evidence raises an important question: if more SEND support is delivered through school-level and local systems, what happens to families who already struggle to be heard, believed or supported by those systems?
ESDEG recognises that there are clear positives in developing a system with a much stronger emphasis on early, school-based and local support. Many families should not have to wait until crisis point, or fight through long and stressful processes, before their children receive the help they need. Earlier support, better mainstream inclusion and clearer local pathways could make a real difference.
However, reform around Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) should be approached with caution. EHCPs are not simply administrative documents. For many children and young people with SEND, they represent a framework of individual, enforceable legal rights and duties. For families facing language barriers, digital exclusion, housing insecurity, poverty, racism, migration-related barriers or low trust in statutory services, this legal protection can be especially important.
ESDEG submitted a response to the Government’s SEND reform consultation, which closed on 18 May 2026. This reflection builds on our ongoing campaign work with migrant, refugee and underserved families. It draws on two focus groups with 12 parents/carers held at the end of February 2026, alongside ESDEG’s continued support to over 200 local migrant and refugee families.
These are emerging findings rather than a final research report. More detailed evidence and fuller reflections will follow as the campaign develops. However, the early findings already point to consistent concerns about confusion, inconsistency, school-level variation, mistrust, housing instability and the difficulty of securing children’s SEND rights in practice.
Rights are confusing and hard to access, but still essential
Families, especially those from migrant and refugee backgrounds, already face significant barriers in accessing the current SEND system. Parents described confusion about what support their child was entitled to, who was responsible for providing it, and how to challenge delays when nothing seemed to move forward.
For families who are new to the English education system, or who face language and digital barriers, the SEND process can feel difficult to understand from the very beginning. Parents described not always knowing what questions to ask, what evidence was needed, or whether a school or local authority was responding appropriately.
The current rights-based system is far from easy to navigate. Families may still need to chase, ask for help, and rely on community organisations or advocates, such as ESDEG, to understand and pursue EHCP-related rights. But even when families have to fight for those rights, they are still there as a strong base and reference point. They allow families and those supporting them to say: this child has individual needs, and those needs must be assessed and met.
Of course, a more responsive and better-resourced SEND system would benefit all families. But reform cannot rely on the assumption that school-level or local systems will always respond quickly, fairly or consistently. Community organisations such as ESDEG can help families understand and pursue existing rights, but this support becomes less effective if the legal basis for challenge is weakened.
School-led support can already feel like a lottery
A second concern is that a more school-led SEND system may place too much reliance on schools as fair, consistent and accountable spaces for identifying and responding to children’s needs.
ESDEG’s evidence suggests that parents already experience significant variation between schools. Some families described supportive staff and knew they were ‘lucky’ to meet the right school, teacher or SENCO. Others described delays, unclear communication, feeling dismissed, or being treated unfairly. For some parents, SEND support already feels like a ‘lottery’: something shaped too heavily by the school, teacher or professional a child meets, rather than by a consistent system of educational rights. This uncertainty leaves families feeling insecure about whether their child’s needs will be recognised and supported.
This matters because a more school-led SEND system may place greater responsibility on schools to identify, interpret and respond to children’s needs. That could be positive where schools are well-resourced, inclusive and accountable. But this is not a safe assumption for all families. For vulnerable groups, including migrant, refugee and racialised families, inconsistent school practice can have particularly far-reaching consequences.
In some cases, parents reported that their children’s SEND needs were interpreted as poor behaviour, poor parenting or lack of engagement, rather than as unmet needs requiring support. Some parents also felt that race, refugee background, language barriers or anti-migrant attitudes shaped how schools understood and responded to their child.
If individual entitlements are weakened and more power is placed at school level, families who already experience inconsistent treatment, misunderstanding or mistrust may find it even harder to challenge poor decisions or exclusionary practice. This risks reproducing unequal access, racialised exclusion and existing inequalities, rather than addressing them.
Housing instability may make school-dependent support riskier
We do not yet know exactly how the final SEND reforms will look. However, ESDEG’s evidence suggests that any system which makes support more dependent on school-level processes could create particular risks for children affected by housing instability.
Repeated moves are common among some migrant, refugee and underserved families, particularly where families are affected by temporary accommodation, overcrowding, poverty or wider housing insecurity. These moves can lead to school changes, interrupted assessments, loss of trusted relationships with SENCOs and professionals, and periods where children are between schools.
If SEND support becomes more dependent on school-level systems rather than individual entitlement that follows the child, children affected by housing insecurity may be further penalised for circumstances beyond their control. Families may be forced to restart conversations, re-explain their child’s needs and rebuild professional relationships each time they move.
Support should follow the child. It should not depend on the stability of a family’s housing situation, the capacity of one school, or the goodwill of individual professionals.
What needs to happen
We do not yet know exactly how the final SEND reforms will look. ESDEG recognises the value of earlier support, better mainstream inclusion and clearer local pathways. But if reform weakens individual enforceable rights, or makes children’s support more dependent on school-level systems, migrant, refugee and underserved families may become less protected.
For families already facing language barriers, digital exclusion, housing instability, low trust in statutory services and racialised forms of exclusion, community organisations can help bridge some of the gaps in knowledge, confidence and communication. But this support is not enough if the legal basis for challenge becomes weaker. Community organisations can help families understand and pursue rights, but they cannot replace rights.
A fairer SEND system should not depend on parental confidence, English language ability, digital access, school goodwill or local discretion. Without strong individual entitlements, clear accountability and accessible routes for challenge, reform risks giving families less voice and reproducing the very inequalities it should address.
As reform develops, policymakers must listen carefully to families who are already least able to make the system respond. Earlier support matters, but it must sit alongside enforceable rights that follow the child and protect those whose needs are too often overlooked.