What two Sussex councils told the government about SEND, and didn't publish

Written by Amber Windsor

This summer, West Sussex and East Sussex County Councils each sent the Department for Education a Local SEND Reform Plan, setting out how they'll deliver the reforms and what they expect to happen to support for children with SEND over the next few years. Alongside the plans went papers, data and feedback that never made it onto either council's website. I used the Freedom of Information Act to ask for all of it: the plans exactly as submitted, the data the councils gave the DfE, their targets and what the DfE said back.

Both have now replied. I sent the same request to Brighton & Hove City Council, and its reply is due today. The council's response times to Freedom of Information requests were raised at a council meeting earlier this year (Brighton and Hove News), and I'll do a new post with anything relevant from Brighton & Hove once I have it.

What came back shows two councils telling the government things families haven't been told. In a paper left out of its published plan, West Sussex gives a shortage of specialist places as the reason so many disagreements with families end up at mediation or Tribunal, which sits awkwardly with the government's case that the system has simply become too adversarial. The same paper describes the council's role in mediation in a way the law doesn't support. East Sussex's forecast for the DfE expects more families to ask for an assessment every year without completing any more assessments, and has no place at all for some of the children who are out of school. The DfE approved both plans anyway, and is writing off more than £200 million of the two councils' deficits while monitoring them mainly through numbers that can't show whether children are getting what the law says they're owed.

I've used the councils' own words wherever I can, and I've said clearly where something is my reading rather than what they've written. Everything they sent is public on WhatDoTheyKnow, so you can check it for yourself: West Sussex and East Sussex. I've shared these findings with both councils and asked them to respond, and I'll add anything they send.

West Sussex's own explanation for Tribunals

In a supporting paper sent to the DfE with its plan, and left out of the version on the council's website, West Sussex describes how it handles disagreements with families. It says that "many cases still progress to formal mediation or appeal, often due to systemic pressures such as limited access to specialist placements".

That line reaches well beyond West Sussex. The Government's case for reform leans heavily on the idea that the SEND system has become too adversarial, with too many families ending up at Tribunal. Here a council, writing to the DfE, gives a different reason for disagreements reaching appeal: there aren't enough of the places children need. No extra meeting can fix that, and in my view neither can weakening families' rights to challenge decisions.

The same paper describes extra "Way Forward Meetings" that families are typically offered before formal mediation, and admits these aren't consistently recorded, with no dashboard showing what happens to disagreements across the county. So the council can't currently show how disagreements are resolved, or how quickly.

It also says that if families feel their concerns haven't been addressed, "or if mediation is declined by the local authority on the basis that it is unlikely to lead to further progress, they retain the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal."

For decisions that can be appealed to the Tribunal, the law doesn't give a council that choice. These include a refusal to assess, a decision not to issue a plan, what's in a plan and a decision to stop maintaining one, which are the kinds of decisions the paper itself lists. Mediation about those decisions is optional for families, and not for the council: once the mediation adviser tells the council that a parent or young person wants mediation, the council must take part, and the SEND Code of Practice says it must make sure the session takes place within 30 days (paragraphs 11.26 and 11.27). Councils missing the 30 days is common, and in practice the answer to that is a certificate from the mediation adviser, so the family can appeal without waiting. A council deciding not to take part at all is something else, and that's what West Sussex's wording describes. Councils don't have the same duty for disagreements that can't be appealed, so it's possible West Sussex had those in mind, although its paper doesn't say so.

Mediation is often the quickest way to get a decision looked at again, while an appeal can take many months to reach a hearing. A family told the council won't mediate may reasonably think that route is closed, and either face a long wait for the Tribunal or give up on challenging the decision altogether.

What this means if you're in West Sussex: if you've asked for mediation and been told the council won't take part, or been steered into another meeting when you didn't want one, you can point to paragraphs 11.26 and 11.27 of the Code and ask the council, in writing, to confirm when the mediation will take place. If it hasn't happened within 30 days, ask the mediation adviser for your certificate so your time to appeal isn't put at risk, and if the council refuses to take part, you can make a complaint. A Way Forward Meeting can be useful, although it's your choice, and it doesn't replace your right to mediation or pause the time limits for challenging a decision.

East Sussex: more families asking, no more assessments

Alongside its plan, every council filled in a data template for the DfE, giving its current figures and its forecasts up to 2029. East Sussex's template, which was released to me under FOI and isn't part of the published plan, shows requests for EHC needs assessments going up a little every year, from about 1,200 in 2025 to nearly 1,400 by 2029. The number of assessments it expects to complete each year stays almost exactly the same, at around 720, and so does the number it expects to end with a plan.

These figures aren't an agreement rate: the assessments counted in a year include ones agreed after a family challenged a refusal or the Tribunal ordered one, and they don't line up neatly with the requests made in that year. The template also doesn't say why the line is flat. It could mean the council expects to agree to a smaller share of requests, or expects more families to be left waiting, or doesn't expect to have the staff to complete more assessments.

East Sussex's own documents point towards that last one. Its self-assessment says EHCP timeliness "has decreased with the rise in demand and delays in advice from statutory partners", and its notes in the data template record that the NHS provider of its speech and language therapy has reported a cut of around a sixth in therapist time from 2026. My reading is that a flat line looks far more like a limit on what the system can do than a fall in what children need, and for families that's likely to mean more refusals to challenge, longer waits, or both.

The law on when a council must assess hasn't changed, whatever its forecast says. A council has to carry out an assessment where a child or young person may have special educational needs and may need provision through an EHCP. It must tell you whether it will assess within six weeks of your request, and the whole process, up to a final plan, should take no more than 20 weeks.

What this means if you're in East Sussex: put everything you can into your request the first time, keep a note of the dates, and if the answer is no, remember you can challenge it, through mediation, a reconsideration or an appeal to the Tribunal. A refusal says nothing final about your child's needs.

The children East Sussex's forecast can't see

The same template asks each council where its children with EHCPs are now, and where it expects them to be each year up to 2029. In East Sussex's return, three groups appear in 2025 and then vanish: around 300 children receiving education otherwise than at school (EOTAS), more than 80 in home education, and more than 250 in an "other" group, which the council's notes say covers young people not in education, employment or training, children missing education and children waiting for a placement. For every year from 2026, all three groups are recorded as zero.

I don't read this as East Sussex expecting those children to disappear, or planning to end EOTAS or home education, and I don't think anyone should present it that way. The council's notes explain that its forecasting model only predicts five broad types of placement, such as mainstream schools and special schools, and none of these three groups is one of the five, so the model has nowhere to put them. Think of a household budget with columns only for rent, food and bills: if you also pay for childcare, the budget shows childcare as nothing, even though the money is still going out every month. The same template shows exactly that here, with the council's spending on EOTAS nearly doubling in a year and still rising, while the number of children forecast to receive it is zero.

What makes this more than a spreadsheet quirk is what the template is for. It's the data the DfE will use to monitor East Sussex every quarter, and the DfE's feedback described it as "completed", with baseline data and projections, before approving the plan. So the official picture of East Sussex's progress has no line for some of the children the system finds hardest to place, and the DfE's own checks didn't pick that up. A group that isn't counted is harder to plan places, staff and money for, and harder for anyone to notice if it grows. I wrote about this pattern more generally in What gets counted, and who gets missed.

What this means for families: children who are out of school, waiting for a place or receiving EOTAS are exactly the ones who need to be counted, so if your child is one of them, keep a written record of what's been offered and when. If your child isn't receiving the education they're entitled to while you wait, the council has duties to them under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 and, where they have an EHCP, to secure the provision in it.

West Sussex: waiting for places, reviewing by cost

The same West Sussex supporting paper says that in March 2025, 202 children and young people needed a specialist placement and were waiting for one, and that by May 2026 the number had more than doubled, to 410. That figure isn't in the published plan. The council puts it down to rising demand and more complex needs, and to not having enough local specialist places.

The published plan has more to say about annual reviews than I think has been noticed. West Sussex plans a "more risk-based approach" to overseeing placements, "ensuring that provision remains appropriate, effective, and cost-efficient", and one of its first-year milestones is that annual reviews will be prioritised according to factors that include "high placement cost" and known packages of independent alternative provision. It describes the increased use of unregulated alternative provision and EOTAS packages as "often at high cost and with variable outcomes", plans closer oversight of them, and mentions a new "banded funding approach for EHCPs".

Put these together and the pressure point is clear. West Sussex says it doesn't have enough local specialist places, and the number of children waiting for one has doubled, while its plan prioritises reviewing the most expensive placements. If a review looks at moving a child to a cheaper or more local setting, the council's own figures suggest that setting may not exist yet.

Reviewing placements properly is part of what annual reviews are for, and doesn't have to mean anything bad for a child. The law on annual reviews hasn't changed, though: a review is about whether the plan still meets your child's needs, the provision in Section F must still be specific and based on those needs whatever funding band sits behind it, and any change to Section F or to the setting named in Section I has to go through the formal amendment process, which comes with the right to challenge it.

What this means if you're in West Sussex: if your child is in an independent or specialist placement, or has an EOTAS package, expect your next annual review to look closely at cost. Go in with up-to-date evidence of your child's needs and how the current provision is meeting them, put your views in writing beforehand, and check any proposed changes against the evidence rather than the budget. If your child is one of those waiting for a place, the council still has to secure the provision in their plan while they wait.

What they say, and what their own figures show

Both plans speak warmly about families. West Sussex describes its co-production as "intentional and structured" and lists "strong Parent Carer Forum engagement" among its strengths. East Sussex's self-assessment points to its co-production charter, while also noting that "Parental confidence of the SEND system is inconsistent across the county." West Sussex's own baseline, in its published plan, is that just 5% of parents are confident there are no gaps in services, with a target of 25% by 2029. Even if that target is met, three in four parents still won't be.

The targets themselves tell you what the plans are built to show. The headline target metrics in West Sussex's plan are about slowing growth: in the number of EHCPs, in requests for assessment, and in places at independent special schools. When West Sussex listed the risk of demand rising faster than it can manage, one of its answers was "clear eligibility criteria", and the plan aims at "reducing the need for statutory assessments". East Sussex's self-assessment talks about "reducing reliance on EHCPs". None of that is unlawful in itself, and earlier support in schools is something families want. My concern is that when the measure of success is slower growth in numbers and costs, the pressure to hit it lands on decisions about individual children, and those decisions are still governed by the law as it stands.

Set that against what isn't being measured. West Sussex told the DfE it can't yet show how disagreements are resolved or how quickly, and the DfE suggested East Sussex should add the same figures. East Sussex's forecast has no line for children receiving EOTAS, in home education or out of school. So the figures the DfE will be watching are good at showing slower growth in requests, plans and costs, and much weaker at showing whether the children who are refused, waiting or out of school are getting what the law says they should.

Approved, with reservations

The DfE approved both plans in letters dated 2 October 2026, which means both councils will have most of their high needs deficits written off through the new High Needs Stability Grant: around £182.7 million for West Sussex and around £17.9 million for East Sussex, with payments expected at the end of November.

The same letters are noticeably cool about the councils' readiness. The DfE told West Sussex its partnership "remains at an early stage of development" and "has not yet demonstrated the maturity, grip or assurance" needed to deliver reform at pace. East Sussex was told its partnership is "still developing" and has not yet consistently shown "the maturity, grip and assurance" it will need. Both letters say future help with deficits "will not be unlimited", and the East Sussex letter says it will take into account how well the council delivers its plan. Both councils will now report to the DfE every quarter.

East Sussex's feedback, released to me under FOI, also offers a glimpse of how the assessment was done. Partway through, it still contains an unfilled instruction from what looks like a standard template: "[strengthening – add for those were plan not approved]". It's a small thing, although alongside a data return with whole groups of children recorded as zero and described as "completed", it doesn't suggest a close reading of each plan.

Put together, the picture is this. The government is writing off councils' debts now, with further help depending on how well they deliver plans measured mainly by slower growth in assessments, EHCPs and costs. The councils' own papers say the pressure comes from a shortage of places and staff, and the figures the DfE will be watching can't see some of the children most affected. That leaves a system with every reason to look like it's working, and very little that would show if it wasn't. Families are often the first to notice what those figures leave out.

What families still can't see

Not everything I asked for has arrived. West Sussex's plan, as submitted, embeds several documents its response didn't include, among them the completed data template, a costings spreadsheet for its Experts at Hand offer, its partnership self-assessment, a workforce model and its governance papers, and three of the files it did send are currently hidden on WhatDoTheyKnow. I've gone back to the council for them. East Sussex sent its data template and self-assessment without any difficulty, which shows these documents can be released.

These are the documents that show how a council reached its targets and what it plans to spend, and they're part of what the DfE looked at before approving the plan and releasing the money. Families living with the results should be able to see them too. I've also asked the DfE how it assessed these plans: the criteria and checklists it used, what its assessors were told, whether they were asked to check plans against the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND Regulations 2014, including plans with targets to reduce assessments, EHCPs, specialist placements or EOTAS, and how many plans it challenged or sent back for changes. Its reply is due today. I'm also waiting on a separate request to East Sussex about SEND appeals and mediation, and I'll share what comes back from both.

Questions that need answers

  • West Sussex: will you correct the statement that mediation may be declined by the council, and confirm to families that you will take part in mediation on any decision they can appeal? When will you publish figures on how disagreements are resolved, including what happens after Way Forward Meetings?

  • East Sussex: in October I asked, through a local MP, how the council will tell whether fewer assessment requests reflect support that's working rather than families being discouraged or refused, and asked it to publish how many children are on reduced timetables, without a school place or waiting for a placement. There's been no reply yet. Its own data template now makes those questions sharper: why do you expect the number of assessments to stay flat while requests rise, and what does that mean for the share of requests you expect to agree? How will children receiving EOTAS, in home education or out of education be counted in your returns to the DfE?

  • Both councils: will you publish everything you submitted to the DfE, including the data templates, alongside the plans on your websites?

  • The DfE: did anyone check whether plans with targets to reduce assessments, EHCPs or specialist placements fit with the law as it stands? How will you monitor the children who aren't in councils' forecasts, and what weight will you give to whether disagreements are resolved fairly, rather than simply reduced? I've put the first of these to the DfE under Freedom of Information.

Both councils have been sent these findings and asked to respond. I'll also be sharing these questions with local MPs, county councillors and the Parent Carer Forums in both counties. If you live in West Sussex or East Sussex, you can help by sending them to your own county councillor and MP, and asking them to raise them with the council. You can find your county councillor on your council's website, and your MP on the UK Parliament website.

What you can do now

The law hasn't changed. Children's rights under the Children and Families Act 2014 are the same today as they were before these plans were written, and councils still have to follow them, whatever their targets say. That makes it all the more important to know those rights, use them, and keep a written record of what you've asked for and what you've been told, because the council's own figures may not show what's happening to your child.

My free toolkits cover the steps mentioned in this post, including challenging a refusal to assess (with mediation as its main focus), getting the EHCP right from draft to final, EOTAS, and Section 19 of the Education Act 1996. You'll find them all in the Canary SEND toolkit library.

If you'd like to see what your own council told the DfE, start with the plan on its website or Local Offer, then check WhatDoTheyKnow to see whether anyone has already asked. If not, you can make a free request there asking for the plan as submitted, including any annexes and embedded documents, the completed SEND Reform data template, and the DfE's outcome letter and feedback.

This post is general information based on the councils' own documents and my reading of them, and isn't legal advice about any individual situation.

Sources

Amber Windsor
Next

The autism divide: how rationed support turns families against each other