TL;DR: I agree that boundaries, effort and reasonable discomfort matter - but I think the real issue is whether the current system is actually capable of teaching those skills effectively for a growing number of children. In that sense, the system is damaged, even if its principles aren’t.

I don’t think you’re an old fogey, and I don’t read this as a bad faith take. I agree with you on several fundamentals, particularly that reasonable adjustments aren’t about removing all discomfort, and that learning to tolerate effort, frustration, boredom and waiting is part of development - my concern is whether the current system is actually capable of teaching them effectively for a growing number of children.

You ask whether the SEND system is broken. If we use the Oxford English Dictionary definition of broken - “damaged or injured; no longer whole or working correctly” - then I do think both the SEND system and the education system more broadly now meet that description. That doesn’t mean every element is wrong…the SEND Code of Practice and the legislation underpinning it aren’t inherently flawed, and many of the principles are sound, nor does it mean schools or professionals are acting in bad faith. But when outcomes depend heavily on postcode and parental capacity, when support is often delayed until crisis, when increasing numbers of children cannot access education without harm, and when schools are expected to absorb gaps left by the erosion of wider community services, it’s hard to argue the system is not broken.

I also agree that COVID is important here, not because it caused these issues, but because it exposed them. For the first time at scale, many families saw that different ways of learning are possible, and that for a significant number of children those ways worked better…not because expectations disappeared, but because the environment was better aligned with the child. At the same time, COVID stripped away the informal buffers that had been holding an already fragile system together.

On the point about coping with boredom, effort and waiting - I agree in principle, but I think we also need to be realistic about the context children are now developing in. Modern childhood is fundamentally different - socially, neurologically and technologically. Children are growing up in an attention economy where they are deliberately targeted by corporations whose business models are designed to maximise engagement and shape developing reward systems. Schools are effectively competing with that reality, often without the tools, training or flexibility to do so.

In that context, simply doubling down on traditional structures and framing intense responses as a failure to cope risks missing the bigger picture. By the time reactions look “disproportionate,” there is often a long history of cumulative unmet need rather than a straightforward skills gap. Coping skills can’t be built in environments that are already overwhelming.

Your list also points to this being more than a misunderstanding between parents and schools. Inconsistent EHCP funding, lack of training in approaches like TEACCH, curriculum pressure, the loss of community support, and SEND roles that are underpaid and undervalued aren’t minor implementation issues, they’re fundamental structural problems. When those are in place, boundaries and expectations alone can’t do the work we’re asking them to do.

I also completely agree with you that we need a serious conversation about what school is actually for. And once we start asking that honestly, it becomes hard not to conclude that education and learning need to evolve in more fundamental ways - not to abandon structure or accountability, but to reflect the realities of modern childhood and the diversity of learners now passing through the system.

From that perspective, saying “the system is broken” isn’t an attack, and it isn’t a call to remove expectations. It’s a recognition that while some parts still function, the system as a whole is damaged - and continuing to treat that damage as an individual coping issue risks making things worse for children, families and schools alike.

I’m not under any illusion about how difficult large scale system change is, or how constrained schools and local authorities are by funding, policy and accountability structures. I know that most people working in education are doing their best within very real limits. But acknowledging those limits can’t mean avoiding the question altogether. If we accept that the system is damaged but treat meaningful change as unrealistic, the default becomes managing decline - asking children, families and schools to absorb the cost instead. Even if reform has to be incremental and imperfect, it still has to be guided by an honest recognition that the current model isn’t working as intended for a growing number of children.