All references, along with links to further information, are linked at the end of this blog.

Since the publication of the SEND White Paper and consultation document in February 2026, I have been listening, talking, reading, and watching on a repeating loop. There have been many excellent responses, but something has held me back. I think I have been waiting for clarity. Or perhaps for someone else to say it first. Because while the theory of the White Paper seems generally supportive for learners with dyslexia and dyscalculia, there seems to be a gaping hole at its centre. I have asked myself repeatedly: is it just me who sees this?

I have read the White Paper and the consultation document twice, the neurodivergence Task and Finish Group report once, attended webinars, and spoken with colleagues across disciplines. But I still haven’t found what I am looking for. My question remains:

Where are dyslexia and dyscalculia in the 2026 SEND reforms?

Let’s begin with some context.

Recent months have been pivotal in the SEND education landscape. Many of us are understandably overwhelmed. We’ve had: 

• A new Ofsted Framework in November 2025, where schools are now graded on inclusion. 
• The Curriculum and Assessment Review Government final report in February 2026, signalling the need for a broader, richer curriculum. 
• Also February 2026, the DfE White Paper Every Child Thriving and Achieving alongside the proposed SEND reforms and consultation and Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group report

This sits against the backdrop of a SEND system that is not just struggling to stand still but slipping backwards into a chasm. Local authorities face bankruptcy. The cost of SEND legal disputes is now in the hundreds of millions. There is an increasing number of children, often those with SpLD, whose needs could be met in school but are not, because the funding for support on the ground simply isn’t there, tied up instead in legal disputes and endless paperwork.

I regularly speak with amazing SENCOs nationwide who are exhausted, disillusioned, and in many cases contemplating leaving the profession. Teaching assistants are few and far between and there is little or no budget for targeted intervention. Pupils with dyslexia and Maths SpLD often struggle quietly but painfully in our classrooms. The impact is significant: there are unspeakable tolls on later mental health, reduced attainment and increasing frustration. The school to prison pipeline for SpLD is evidenced and real. Most importantly for this discussion, these unmet needs frequently escalate into social, emotional and mental health needs in school. I see this on the ground day in, day out. 

The intention of the DfE is to address a crisis, holding accountability and equity at the centre. I welcome this intention, and I believe there is a genuine aim of putting children and families first. The five principles underpinning the reforms, and what they look like in practice, are as follows:

1. Early (meeting need as soon as it is identified)

Layers of support will be introduced:
• universal (high quality adaptive teaching)
• targeted (structured, evidence-based interventions)
• targeted plus (involvement of specialist professionals)
• specialist (for the most complex needs, delivered through EHCPs)

The needs of most learners with dyslexia and dyscalculia should be met at universal and targeted levels. A smaller minority will, at some point, require targeted plus or, more rarely, specialist support.

2. Local (providing local mainstream education where possible)

Inclusion bases in every secondary school and some primaries will be introduced. These may be funded by the school or the Local Authority, depending on the level of need. The needs of learners with dyslexia and dyscalculia are unlikely to be met within these bases. However, the expertise within them should, if shared well, benefit these learners in mainstream settings.

3. Fair (eliminating the postcode lottery and disadvantage gap)

A new SEND Code of Practice will focus on five areas of development and reduce reliance on diagnostic labels. A needs-led approach will be central, meaning that access to support should not depend on expensive, formal diagnosis, often driven by parents. Notably, “cognition and learning”, one of the four areas in the 2014 Code of Practice, has been removed. The new areas are as follows:

The needs-led approach should, in principle, create more equitable support for dyslexia and Maths SpLD. Parents should not feel they need to pay for private assessments and tuition, because children’s needs will already be met. As a strong believer in equity, I welcome this. 

4. Effective (providing evidence-based strategies and interventions) 

National evidence-based inclusion standards which will be statutory for schools, supported by £15 million investment. Schools will be accountable to Ofsted for their implementation. Investment will be made in government backed training package in SEND using evidence-based approaches, including screening. This should lead to earlier identification of need and better support through universal provision and targeted interventions.

5. Shared (a working partnership between education, health and families)

An “Experts at Hand” Service will provide schools with access to local Educational Psychologists, Occupational Therapists, Speech and Language Therapists and Specialist Teachers without the need for EHCPs or complex referral systems. Individual Support Plans (ISPs) will be mandatory for every child at Targeted level or beyond: these will be co-written with families and digitally centralised, ensuring consistency and supporting transition. Schools will be legally accountable for their implementation. 

So far, so good. These intentions are ambitious and could lead to meaningful, positive change.

I am aware that there are concerns about the legal implications of the reforms, and I would point you to the excellent work of Special Needs Jungle (linked below) for a clear explanation of this. But my question remains:

Where are dyslexia and dyscalculia in the 2026 SEND reforms?

This is the issue. The developmental areas underlying them are not adequately covered within the proposed five areas of development. I’m going to get technical.

The developmental areas associated with dyslexia are captured under the umbrella term “phonological processing”. This includes three core areas of difficulty (SpLD Standards Committee, 2025):

1. phonological awareness (identifying, discriminating and manipulating separate sounds in words)
2. phonological memory (accurately identifying, retaining briefly, and repeating sequences of speech sounds)
3. phonological processing speed (carrying out simple, repetitive cognitive tasks quickly and accurately)

Other contributory, but not defining, areas include:

4. orthographic processing (forming, storing and accessing word representations)
5. verbal working memory (maintaining and manipulating verbal information to complete tasks)

For dyscalculia, the key developmental area is numerical magnitude processing. This is the ability to represent and compare quantities, both non-symbolic (for example dot patterns) and symbolic (numerals). Mathematical language is also important, alongside executive function, particularly working memory and flexibility in applying strategies.

In my view, the five proposed developmental areas do not adequately capture these. Executive function touches on working memory, but not specifically verbal working memory. SLCN does not account for phonological processing, and for some learners with dyslexia, SLCN is actually a strength rather than a difficulty. And where is numerical magnitude?

This may sound theoretical or academic. It is not. Surely schools would just identify need, and literacy and maths difficulties would be high on the list of priorities, whatever the developmental labels are?

But my concern, and that of other specialists in this field, is that they won’t.

Dyslexia and dyscalculia are already low priorities in funding and training. I chair a national network of Local Authority advisory teachers for Cognition and Learning/SpLD and hear repeatedly that literacy and numeracy are among the least prioritised areas when it comes to allocation of SEND resources. Schools are willing, but often under-resourced and under-trained. I work with children whose literacy needs have escalated because intervention came too late, or not at all. Most heart-breakingly for me, I see the disadvantage gap widen as a result. Parents who can afford it pay for private assessment or even private schooling out of desperation.

My concern is that what currently happens informally, the overlooking of dyslexia and dyscalculia, could become formalised if the reforms go through unchanged.

When categories of need, drive funding, training, provision and accountability, anything not clearly represented becomes harder to prioritise, harder to fund, and more likely to be overlooked.

I do not see this changing unless it is explicit and intentional.

The likely consequences are:

1. Funding will follow the framework. If a need sits clearly within one of the 5 categories, it is easier to justify support. 
2. Provision will be built around the 5 categories. This includes interventions, staffing, timetabling and internal SEND organisations.
3. Training from DfE, Local Authorities and Academy trusts will align to the 5 categories and understanding of Maths and English difficulties will remain fragmented. 
4. Assessment and screening will align to the categories, leaving those with dyslexia and dyscalculia vulnerable to remaining unidentified.
5. Inclusion standards, whereby schools are held accountable, will prioritise the 5 areas, with less focus on literacy and maths difficulties. 

Maybe I am wrong. I hope so! But my fear is that, instead of creating an equitable system, where expensive diagnostic labels are no longer gatekeepers for support, we may see an increase in parents seeking private diagnosis, a widening disadvantage gap and growing pressure on schools as the number of complaints rises.

How have we got here, and what should we do?

There is a lot of noise around dyslexia on social media, and it is no surprise that people are confused about what it is. Some say it doesn’t exist. Some link it to visual problems, which it is not. Others promote the “dyslexic thinking” or “superpower” narrative. None of this is helpful, and much of it is not grounded in evidence.

I do wonder whether, if we spoke with more clarity, more unity and a stronger evidence base, there would be greater understanding and a stronger drive to support these learners in our schools, and whether we might be facing a different situation now.

I don’t have all the answers, but here are some steps you could take:

1. Please respond to the consultation by 23:59 on May 18th. You do not need to answer every question.
2. Consider submitting a collective response if you are part of a school or team.
3. In all your discussions about dyslexia and dyscalculia, be clear about evidence-based definitions. They are important! My books, All About Dyslexia are a good place to start.
4. Talk to your professional bodies and ask for their position. Encourage them to continue to engage.
5. Have a go at my CPD task with colleagues, considering the developmental areas associated with dyslexia in the light of a lesson. (
6. Respond with knowledge. Read the documents if you can, and don’t rely on responses you read.

Dyslexia and persistent maths difficulties are not going away. Neither should our focus on them. 

LINKS

Ofsted Framework 2025

Curriculum & Assessment Review

DfE White Paper Every Child Thriving and Achieving Feb 2026

SEND Reforms and consultation Feb 2026

Neurodivergence Task and Finish Report Feb 2026

Specialist Assessment Standards Committee, including definitions

Dyscalculia Network, including definition

British Dyslexia Association

Patoss Dyslexia Charity

Fixing a Broken System, Dale Pickles and The SENDCast

SEND Reform White Paper: What it means for SENCOs and Schools

Special Needs Jungle articles and recordings