Education, health and care plans (EHCPs) should be restricted to pupils “whose needs sit across all three sectors”, with other levels of plan created for those with one or two needs, a report from the children’s commissioner has said.
However, the report from the office of Dame Rachel de Souza said “no child with an existing plan should lose their plan”, given “just how long and how hard those with existing plans have fought to obtain them”.
The recommendations, set out in a report detailing the outcome of a survey by de Souza’s office of most schools in England, come as the government is finalising its plans to reform the system of support for special educational needs and disabilities.
The survey found the experiences and progress of children with SEND was a top concern for 53 per cent of primary schools and 40 per cent of secondary schools.
For implementing EHCPs, the “main barrier in both primary (69 per cent) and secondary schools (72 per cent) was funding not matching need, with a lack of specialist staffing cited as the second biggest barrier”.
A ‘children’s plan’
The report called for a new approach to SEND, with all support provided through a “children’s plan”.
Children who need specialist support to engage in education, over and above a core school offer would receive an education plan.
Those with both health and education needs would receive an education and health plan (EHP) and those with care needs an education and care plan (ECP).
This should be supported by a “single national threshold” for assessment of needs, rather than allowing councils to set their own criteria.
EHCPs “should be only for children whose needs span across education, health and care”. But they should be issued automatically for those with life-long, life-limiting or life-determining conditions “without a long assessment process”.
‘No child should lose their plan’
But in carrying out reform, government should “recognise, however, just how long and how hard those with existing plans have fought to obtain them.
“In such a low-trust environment, any reform will be met with significant and understandable resistance, and it will be difficult to deliver with consent.
“As such, the vision for this system set out in our recommendations is a longer-term one. No child with an existing plan should lose their plan. No child should have to move school. We need more support, not less, more easily, more locally.”
As well as being evidenced based, interventions set out in children’s plans “should not be at profit-making providers. No one should be making a profit from providing services for the most vulnerable children.”
It comes after the government’s strategic SEND adviser, Dame Christine Lenehan, told Schools Week earlier this year that officials were considering a shake up of the education, health and care plan system that would likely lead to a narrowing or new structure of support.
The government has since softened its tone and said it will not remove “effective provision”. As well as potential EHCP changes, how funding works is also likely to be reformed.
Other recommendations include…
- A “clear statement of ambition for all children”, with concrete goals to reduce absence and meet every child’s needs. The new vision “should be backed by clear accountability with school and local level data for attendance, engagement, attainment, and progress being published”
- A “broader conception of need based on a new definition of ‘additional needs’”. This “should include a broader range of needs, including safety, pastoral, health and learning needs”. A new additional needs framework should detail “different levels and types of need and what is expected of schools, and wider services”
- A new funding premium for additional needs and inclusion, giving schools with high levels additional funding. Create a “core offer from all schools”, with funding to access high quality pastoral support and key professionals and services
- Offer children who aren’t “school-ready” by the end of reception a children’s plan and an additional year in reception
- An “overarching framework” for alternative provision which outlines how every child will receive support. “No child should be excluded to home. There should be a day one right to alternative provision”
Your thoughts