SEND reform and unintended consequences: Lessons from the Cobra and Streisand Effects

When good intentions do not lead to good outcomes

Anyone who works in education law learns quite quickly that good intentions do not always lead to good outcomes. As the initial debate following the release of the Government’s white paper begins to settle, what we know, and more importantly what we do not yet know, remains an important point of discussion for professionals working in SEND.

I like to approach situations from a position of positive intent, and it remains my view that most people involved in the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, SEND, system want the same thing: children with additional needs receiving the support they require to access education and thrive. The difficulty is that the path to that goal is rarely straightforward, and sweeping policy changes designed to solve one problem can often create another.

Two ideas help explain this rather well: the Cobra Effect and the Streisand Effect. They are not legal principles, and you will not find them in the Children and Families Act 2014 or mentioned in tribunal decisions. Even so, they are useful ways of thinking about how public policy can sometimes produce the opposite result to what was intended.

As the Government continues to develop proposals to reform the SEND system in England, these ideas are worth keeping in mind. Reform is clearly needed. At the same time, there is growing concern that some proposals could have unintended consequences, particularly the risk that more children could end up outside education altogether.

Understanding the Cobra Effect and the Streisand Effect

Let us start with the Cobra Effect.

The story, which may or may not be true but is still useful as an example, comes from colonial India. At the time, the authorities were worried about the number of poisonous cobras in Delhi, so they offered a reward for every dead cobra that people brought to them.

At first, the plan seemed to work. People started bringing in dead snakes and collecting the reward. But then something predictable happened. Some people began breeding cobras so they could kill them and claim the bounty.

When the Government realised what was happening, the scheme was scrapped. The breeders then released their now worthless snakes into the wild. The result was more cobras than before.

That is the Cobra Effect: a policy designed to solve a problem ends up making it worse because it changes incentives in ways policymakers did not anticipate.

The Streisand Effect is a slightly different idea, but it is equally familiar.

In 2003, Barbra Streisand tried to have aerial photographs of her home removed from a public archive. The legal action attracted widespread media attention, and suddenly millions of people were looking at the very image she had wanted hidden.

Her attempt to suppress the photograph ended up drawing far more attention to it.

This is known as the Streisand Effect. When someone tries to hide or downplay information, the attempt can sometimes attract more attention and make the issue even more visible.

Both of these ideas are surprisingly relevant when thinking about SEND reform.

The SEND system is under enormous pressure

Before discussing the reforms, it is important to acknowledge something on which most practitioners agree: the SEND system is struggling.

Demand has grown dramatically over the past decade. More children are being identified with complex needs, particularly in relation to autism, speech and language difficulties, and social, emotional and mental health needs. At the same time, resources have not kept pace. Local authorities are running significant deficits in their high needs budgets. Schools often feel they do not have the staff or specialist support required to meet the needs of all pupils. Parents regularly face long waits for assessments and provision.

The legal framework itself is not the problem. In theory, the system created by the Children and Families Act 2014 is robust. An Education, Health and Care Plan, or EHCP, is a powerful legal document. It sets out a child’s needs and the provision required to meet them. Crucially, that provision is legally enforceable.

If a local authority fails to secure what is written in an EHCP, parents can challenge that failure through the High Court. If parents are unhappy with the content of an EHCP, including the named school or educational setting, they can challenge it through the First-tier Tribunal, where a specialist panel can step into the shoes of the local authority and make an independent decision.

In practice, the system has become slow, adversarial and expensive. Families often feel they must fight for support. Against that backdrop, the Government has proposed reforms intended to streamline the system and provide support earlier. The ambition is understandable. The detail, though, matters enormously.

EHCPs and the risk of unintended consequences

One of the key ideas behind the proposed reforms is reducing reliance on EHCPs by providing support earlier in mainstream settings. Instead of children needing a formal statutory plan to access help, schools would be expected to meet more needs directly through Individual Support Plans.

On paper, that sounds entirely sensible. In reality, it raises some difficult questions.

EHCPs are not popular with local authorities. They are complex to produce, legally enforceable and expensive to deliver. From a parent’s perspective, though, they provide something invaluable: certainty.

When provision is written into an EHCP, it has legal force. A speech and language therapy programme or specialist teaching support is not simply an aspiration, it is something the authority must secure. If reforms reduce access to EHCPs without creating an equally enforceable alternative, the incentive structure changes.

That is where the Cobra Effect becomes relevant. A reform intended to simplify the system could unintentionally create stronger incentives for conflict and inequality.

The legal risks when children are left without provision

From a legal perspective, one of the most concerning risks is that more children could end up outside the education system, with little or no provision in place. In recent years, practitioners have seen an increase in cases involving children who are effectively out of education. Sometimes this happens because a placement has broken down. Sometimes anxiety or unmet needs make school attendance impossible. Sometimes parents feel forced to withdraw their child because the school cannot meet their needs.

Legally, local authorities have duties to ensure suitable education is provided for those children. In practice, though, these situations can become complicated, protracted and adversarial, often resulting in challenges by judicial review. If local authorities see a reduction in SEND Tribunal cases because EHCPs reduce under a new system, but children are not properly supported in school and placements begin to break down, those same authorities may face an increase in High Court challenges for failing to provide suitable education.

It is also worth remembering that the High Court is a costs attracting jurisdiction. If a local authority is unsuccessful, it can face a costs order. That is not the case in the Tribunal, so this risk is far from theoretical.

An EHCP at least provides a clear legal framework for resolving disputes about provision and placement. Without it, responsibility can become diffuse.

If reforms result in fewer children having statutory plans, there is a real risk that some of the most vulnerable pupils will be left in a kind of administrative limbo, too complex for mainstream provision, but without the legal mechanisms needed to secure specialist support. That would be the very opposite of what policymakers intend.

The Streisand Effect in the SEND debate

The Streisand Effect also has a role to play here.

Whenever SEND reform is discussed, ministers are quick to reassure families that support will not disappear. The message is usually that the aim is simply to make the system work better.

But if those assurances are not accompanied by clear legal safeguards, they can have the opposite effect.

Parents who already feel the system is difficult to manage may interpret those reassurances as evidence that rights are being quietly diluted. Campaign groups amplify those concerns. Media coverage follows. Anxiety grows. Attempts to calm the debate can end up intensifying it.

In other words, the Streisand Effect.

From a legal standpoint, the best way to avoid that outcome is transparency. If Individual Support Plans are intended to replace EHCPs for some children, the Government needs to explain exactly how those plans will be enforced and what rights families will have if provision is not delivered. So far, that clarity is missing.

Without it, mistrust in the new system is almost inevitable.

Inclusion in mainstream schools requires proper resourcing

Another important aspect of the reform agenda is the emphasis on inclusion in mainstream schools. Many children with SEND can thrive in mainstream environments when the right support is in place. But inclusion is not simply a policy objective. It requires real resources.

Teachers need training to support diverse learning needs. Schools need access to therapists, educational psychologists and specialist staff. Classrooms may require physical adaptations or assistive technology. Without those things, inclusion risks becoming a slogan rather than a reality.

Again, the Cobra Effect lurks in the background. If mainstream schools are expected to meet increasingly complex needs without additional resources, pressure will inevitably build. Behaviour difficulties may escalate. Exclusions may rise. Relationships between schools and parents may deteriorate.

None of that benefits children.

The SEND reforms make a great many promises around resourcing, but concerns remain. Will funding continue at the proposed level? Where will all the specialists needed for initiatives such as Experts at Hand come from? These are only a couple of the questions raised by the white paper, and at present transparency is lacking.

Why legal certainty matters for children with SEND

One of the strengths of the current SEND framework is that it recognises something important: children with disabilities and additional needs should not have to rely on goodwill alone.

The law provides enforceable rights for a reason.

An EHCP is more than paperwork. It represents a legal commitment to provide specific support. For many families, that certainty is what makes education possible. If reforms weaken that certainty, even unintentionally, the consequences could be profound.

That does not mean change is impossible. The system clearly needs to become faster, more responsive and less adversarial. But any reform must preserve the core principle that children with SEND have enforceable rights to the support they need.

How unintended consequences can be avoided

None of this is to say that SEND reform is misguided. On the contrary, reform is necessary. But if policymakers want to avoid the Cobra Effect, a few safeguards are essential.

Any new support plans must be legally enforceable. Families need a clear route to challenge decisions and ensure provision is delivered.

Tribunal rights must remain accessible. Independent oversight is crucial to maintaining fairness.

Most importantly, reforms must be accompanied by meaningful investment in schools and specialist services. Without that, structural change alone will not solve the underlying problem.

Reflections on SEND reform

Education policy is full of unintended consequences. History is littered with reforms that looked sensible on paper, but produced unexpected results in practice. Change the structure of a system and people will respond in ways policymakers may not anticipate. Trust and transparency matter just as much. When families feel their concerns are being minimised, the debate rarely becomes calmer.

SEND reform has the potential to improve the lives of thousands of children, but it also carries risks. From the perspective of an education solicitor, the most important question is not whether reform should happen. It is whether those reforms will preserve the legal protections that keep vulnerable children within the education system, rather than allowing them to drift outside it.

Because when policy goes wrong in education, the consequences are not theoretical. They are felt by children and families every single day.

Keeping children at the centre of SEND reform

The SEND system clearly needs improvement. Families should not have to fight as hard as they currently do for the support their children need, and schools should not be placed under impossible pressure to meet complex needs without adequate resources.

But reform must be careful, evidence led and transparent. If the legal protections that underpin the current system are weakened without a credible alternative, the result may not be a simpler system. It may simply move disputes into different arenas and create new points of pressure elsewhere.

The real challenge for policymakers is therefore not simply redesigning the structure of the system, but ensuring that reform strengthens the protections that exist today. If the goal is truly to support children earlier and more effectively, clarity, accountability and investment must sit alongside any structural change.

Otherwise, the risk is that well intentioned reforms create consequences no one intended, and that the children the system is meant to support ultimately feel the impact.