How the Schools White Paper misses the point: what families of neurodivergent children need you to know

I had only reached the second paragraph of the foreword when my frustration began to rise.

“Today, too many children and families have withdrawn, no longer believing that education is their route to a better life.”

This framing is simply not accurate. Families of neurodivergent children have not lost faith in education. We understand its value deeply. That is why we advocate so persistently. The issue is not a lack of belief. The issue is that many children do not experience school as a place where they feel safe, understood or supported. Until safety and belonging are central, engagement will remain fragile. 

A little later, in paragraphs three and five, the foreword presents a contradictory narrative.

“From which the consequences have been clear: rising school absence” 

“We have driven down persistent absence” 

These two statements appear within a few lines of each other. They cannot both be true. And neither reflects the lived experience of families whose children are unable to attend because their needs are not met. Persistent absence is a result of an environment where children like ours don’t always feel safe.

When the School’s White Paper talks about “stretching every child,” it misses a fundamental truth. My child does not need stretching. She needs safety. She’s been stretched too far already by her secondary school, which made her mask to such an unhealthy level that she broke.

The phrase don’t run until you can walk comes to mind. Stretch can’t come until confidence is established and maintained.

Then comes the paragraph that really got to me. Here’s what they’re aiming for:

“Children and families who have withdrawn become engaged, believing in education once again. Children attending school every day and participating actively once there. Parents backing schools and taking an active role in supporting their children’s learning at home, believing again that their children’s success in school is their work and achievement too.” 

This framing places responsibility on families rather than on the system. It subtly implies that families have stepped away or failed to engage, when the reality is that many have been pushed to the edge by a system that does not meet their child’s needs.

So what are my takeaways from this?

1. Blaming “withdrawn families” misses the true picture

Families do not withdraw because they lack belief in education. They withdraw because their children have encountered repeated barriers: unmet needs, exclusionary practices, unaddressed distress, and environments that do not feel safe. Calling this “withdrawal” shifts accountability away from structural issues and onto parents.

2. Silence on structural SEND failures is damaging

The White Paper discusses inclusion but avoids naming the systemic issues families face every day: unlawful gatekeeping, long delays in assessments, high tribunal rates and unmet statutory duties. Without acknowledging these realities, the White Paper risks painting an overly optimistic picture that does not match lived experience.

3. Existing duties are presented as new ideas

Early intervention, inclusion and family support are already legal requirements under the Children and Families Act. Reframing them as new commitments hides the fact that these duties have not been consistently delivered. It creates the impression of progress, without guaranteeing improvements in practice or accountability.

4. Over reliance on mainstream schools without capacity

The White Paper assumes mainstream settings can meet the needs of most neurodivergent children. In principle this is positive. But true inclusion requires sufficient staffing, training, funding and time. Sector organisations stress that inclusion cannot be achieved through aspiration alone. Delivery must be supported with real capacity.

Without this, we risk repeating the harms of previous reforms: children placed in environments not equipped to support them.

5. ISPs risk becoming a cheaper alternative to EHCPs

Legally recognised Individual Support Plans could help schools intervene earlier. But they could also become a route for diverting families away from statutory assessments. ISPs are faster and less costly than EHCPs. Without firm safeguards, families may find themselves offered an ISP instead of the statutory protection their child needs. 

6. The ongoing burden placed on families is ignored

The White Paper speaks of families needing to “back schools,” but does not acknowledge parental burnout, trauma or the emotional labour of navigating the system. Many parents are already exhausted from years of advocating, documenting, attending meetings, chasing professionals and managing crises at home. Their invisible labour is what keeps many children afloat. This deserves recognition, not assumptions of disengagement.

What a meaningful White Paper would say.

A plan worthy of rebuilding trust would acknowledge the real challenges and offer real solutions.

It would say:

• Safety first. No child can learn without feeling safe.

• We recognise the failures. And here is how we will fix them with timelines and accountability.

• Inclusion will be funded properly. Not in theory, but in daily classroom practice.

• Statutory rights will be protected and will be accessible without the need for a battle.

• ISPs will complement, not replace, EHCPs.

• Families will be supported, not judged. Their wellbeing matters. Their advocacy is not a problem to solve. It is a strength to work alongside.

• Families do not need reminders to believe in education. We already do.

• What we need is a system that believes in our children enough to make education work for them.