Welcome back to the start of a school year, which will mean different things for different families. Today we're featuring an interview with co-founder of Let Us Learn Too - Hayley Harding. Let Us Learn Too is a campaign by parents and carers of disabled children to stop the fight families face trying to get their children access to education. It's known for pairing rigorous national data analysis with the lived reality of families navigating a system that too often puts barriers in their way. Through Let Us Learn Too, Hayley exposes the widening gap between what the law promises and what children actually receive, from chronic underfunding and weak accountability to the cultural failures that leave parents feeling dismissed or blamed. All themes SOS!SEN sees time and time again with the families we support.
Thank you Hayley for your time; it was wonderful to chat and to see how SOS!SEN's work intertwines with your own.
Let Us Learn Too often exposes the gap between what the law requires and what families actually experience. Why do you think this gap persists, and what structural changes are needed to close it?
I think there are three main reasons.
First, mainstream SEND funding has never kept pace with inflation or rising levels of need since the current system was introduced in 2014. As a result, schools simply cannot provide the level of support they once could. Families are increasingly forced into seeking an EHCP for support that should be available without one, which was never the intention of the legislation. This has to change and I’ve been pleased to see some of the proposals that are looking to address this.
Second, many local authorities have failed to plan strategically. Rather than creating sufficient specialist provision and investing in inclusive mainstream support, they have relied on short-term decisions. That leaves families with little option but to appeal to the Tribunal to secure an appropriate placement, often in an independent specialist school at far greater cost. It creates a cycle that is financially and practically unsustainable.
Third, there has been a cultural failure. Instead of being honest with the government about the fact that funding and processes were no longer working, too many local authorities have spent the last decade restricting access to support and placing unnecessary barriers in front of disabled children and their families. This feels cowardly and is the part I find hardest to understand. If I were expected to repeatedly deny disabled children the support they needed simply to save money, I couldn't do that job.
You analyse national SEND data in depth. What trends or patterns worry you most right now, and what do they reveal about the state of SEND provision in England?
The most concerning trend is the sheer volume of SEND Tribunal appeals. The Tribunal should be a safeguard when things go wrong, not a routine part of accessing support. Increasingly, it feels as though families have to plan for an appeal from the very beginning because they expect the right decision won't be made first time.
Many families describe feeling gaslit or dismissed by professionals. From your perspective, what forms of institutional bias or narrative-shaping most harm parents seeking support?
Unfortunately, this is something I’ve heard repeatedly and experienced myself. There remains an underlying assumption in some parts of the system that parents asking for support are being unreasonable or asking for too much, when in reality most are simply asking for the help their child needs to access education.
I also think there is a lack of understanding about the impact of the educational environment itself, particularly for neurodivergent children. EHCPs tend to focus on therapies and direct interventions, but often overlook how factors such as noise, class size, sensory demands, transitions and the overall school environment affect a child's ability to learn. If we don't recognise the impact of the setting, we're only addressing part of the problem.
Your work often challenges the idea that SEND failures are caused by 'parental behaviour'. How can we shift public and professional narratives away from parent-blaming and towards evidence-based accountability?
We need to continue being constructive, evidence-led and solutions-focused. Lasting change comes from presenting clear evidence of what's happening, explaining why it's happening, and offering practical solutions.
Parents simply want their child to be happy, safe and able to attend school. By continuing to highlight the evidence and the real-life consequences when systems fail, it becomes increasingly difficult for decision-makers to ignore the need for change.
What does a lawful, child-centred EHCP process actually look like, and how far are we from achieving that in practice across local authorities?
Unfortunately, we're still a long way from a genuinely child-centred process.
Too often, EHCPs are written by people who have never met the child they are making life-changing decisions about. A truly child-centred process means understanding the child as an individual, not simply completing paperwork.
Parents also need to be involved at every stage of decision-making. One of the reasons I highlighted Ontario's approach to Helen Hayes when she was Shadow Education Minister was because parents are included throughout the process, including panel discussions there. That transparency builds trust and ensures decisions are based on accurate information rather than assumptions. If we genuinely want a child-centred system, parents must be recognised as equal partners throughout.
If you could redesign the SEND system from the ground up, what three changes would have the biggest impact on fairness, legality and children's long-term wellbeing?
The first would be meaningful accountability. At the moment, accountability is simply too weak. When I began campaigning in Sutton in 2020, we repeatedly showed the local authority where it was failing, yet very little changed because there were no meaningful consequences for failing to comply with the law. Without proper accountability, reform will always be limited.
The second would be ensuring that children receive effective support before an EHCP is needed. Strengthening ordinarily available provision in schools, backed by sustainable funding, would transform outcomes for thousands of children through earlier intervention and reduce unnecessary demand for statutory plans.
The third is for fairness. A child's future should never depend on how confident, knowledgeable or persistent their parents are. I would extend the right to challenge decisions beyond parents. Teachers and social workers, who know the child well and have professional responsibility for their education and wellbeing, should also be able to appeal decisions where they believe a child's needs are not being met and an LA has incorrectly refused support.
What do you wish every parent knew before entering the EHCP process?
That you are not alone.
The process is long, exhausting and often overwhelming, but there are thousands of parents who have been through exactly the same experience and many are willing to help others. There is support available, and there are organisations like yourselves and communities that genuinely understand what you're going through.
Be persistent, take things one step at a time, and don't be afraid to ask for help. It can feel impossible at times, but many families do get through the process successfully.
How can charities like SOS!SEN and initiatives like Let Us Learn Too work together to amplify lawful practice and challenge misinformation?
By working together constructively. It's important that we continue to challenge government where necessary, but it's equally important that we engage whenever opportunities arise to help shape policy. When they invite us in we have to accept.
Organisations like SOS!SEN bring exceptional legal expertise and direct support for families, while Let Us Learn Too focuses on evidence, policy and systemic change. Together, we can combine frontline experience with national campaigning to promote lawful practice, challenge misinformation and ensure the voices of families are heard where decisions are actually being made.
