Every Child Achieving and Thriving: What the white paper means for SEND and home education

What the government’s new education white paper means for SEND families and home educators. The impact explained.

The government has published a new education white paper titled Every Child Achieving and Thriving

It sets out a long-term vision for education in England through the 2030s. On the surface, it speaks of inclusion, enrichment, belonging and high standards. But when read carefully, especially alongside the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, a much clearer direction of travel emerges. This is not just a vision document. It is a structural blueprint. Below is a clear breakdown of what it proposes, and what it may mean in practice for SEND children and home educating families in particular.

The core message of the white paper

The document is built around three headline shifts:

• From narrow to broad

• From sidelined to included

• From withdrawn to engaging

It argues that education must:

• Raise academic standards

• Become more inclusive

• Improve attendance and engagement

• Strengthen early years provision

• Reform SEND

• Bring services together under shared accountability

• Move all schools into trusts

📌 The language is warm and aspirational. The mechanism is increased coordination, oversight and central direction.

From narrow to broad

The government says education has focused too narrowly on exams. It wants:

• A refreshed national curriculum

• A new Year 8 reading assessment

• Greater focus on literacy, oracy and maths

• Citizenship compulsory in primary

• Enrichment as a universal entitlement

• AI and digital tools embedded in schools

This sounds positive. A broad education matters.

However, it also reinforces:

• A stronger nationally defined curriculum

• Additional assessment points

• Enhanced accountability measures

• More system-level monitoring of progress

📌 In practice, this increases central influence over what education looks like and how it is measured.

From sidelined to included

This section focuses heavily on SEND and disadvantage.

The white paper argues:

• Too many SEND children are in specialist settings

• More children are entering home education due to unmet SEND needs

• Mainstream schools must become inclusive again

It proposes:

• £1.6 billion for an Inclusive Mainstream Fund

• A statutory duty to record SEND through Individual Support Plans

• Multi-agency “Experts at Hand” teams

• Nationally defined Specialist Provision Packages

• EHCPs retained only for the most complex needs

• Investment in inclusion bases within mainstream schools

📌 The direction is clear. Mainstream inclusion becomes the default expectation. Specialist provision becomes more tightly defined. National frameworks shape support.

For some children, this may improve access. For others, particularly those whose needs do not fit neatly into standardised categories, it may reduce flexibility and parental leverage.

The phrase “ending the postcode lottery” sounds reassuring. But national standardisation can remove nuance as easily as it removes inconsistency.

From withdrawn to engaging

Rising absence and disengagement are framed as a national problem.

The paper proposes:

• A new pupil engagement framework

• Minimum expectations for home-school partnerships

• Attendance targets rising to 94 percent

• Stronger expectations for parental engagement

• Expanded multi-agency working

📌 The language repeatedly links non-attendance with systemic failure and risk. When combined with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, this becomes significant.

How this links to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

The Bill strengthens:

• Registration requirements

• Data collection

• Local authority monitoring

• The potential for mandatory visits

The white paper strengthens:

• Shared accountability between schools, health and local authorities

• Multi-agency data sharing

• Attendance enforcement

• Nationally defined SEND provision

📌 Together, these policies move in the same direction. Education becomes more centrally directed. Local oversight increases. Data sharing expands. Children outside the school system are more visible within a structured accountability framework.

This alignment is structural, not incidental.

Likely impact on SEND children

Although the white paper uses inclusive language, there are real risks.

Pressure back into mainstream

The paper explicitly states that more children are in specialist settings than at any time in 50 years and links this to unmet need and movement into home education. The policy response is not expansion of diverse provision. It is resetting mainstream as the expected norm.

📌 For some children this may work well. For others, particularly those who left mainstream due to trauma, sensory overwhelm or repeated failure, being pushed back into mainstream environments may not feel like inclusion.

EHCP reform risks

If Specialist Provision Packages become the template for EHCPs:

• Individual tailoring may narrow

• Parental negotiation power may reduce

• Legal clarity may shift towards administrative compliance

📌 Families already report having to fight for support. Structural reform does not automatically reduce conflict. It can simply relocate it.

Expanded data and oversight

With greater multi-agency working comes greater data sharing.

SEND families who choose home education because school environments harmed their child may face:

• Increased scrutiny

• Framing of withdrawal as disengagement

• Pressure justified as safeguarding

📌Support and surveillance can look very similar from the outside.

Likely impact on home educators

Home education is repeatedly referenced in the white paper in connection with:

• Unmet SEND needs

• Disengagement

• Alternative provision

📌The framing matters. If home education is positioned as a symptom of system failure rather than a legitimate educational choice, policy responses will follow that assumption.

Combined with the Bill, the risks include:

• Increased regulation

• Normalisation of oversight

• Stronger justification for visits

• Local accountability systems that treat non-school education as exceptional

📌The language used throughout the white paper emphasises belonging within the school system. But inclusion should not mean uniformity. True inclusion must also recognise diverse educational paths.

The deeper tension

This white paper speaks of:

• Rich childhood

• Enrichment

• Belonging

• High standards and inclusion together

But it also expands:

• Central curriculum direction

• Data tracking

• Attendance enforcement

• Structural consolidation through trusts

📌 Inclusion here appears to mean inclusion only within the state school framework. For families who home educate thoughtfully and responsibly, this raises a fundamental question: Can a system be truly inclusive if it struggles to recognise education beyond its own structures?