红桃影视

Education, health and care plans (EHCPs) should be restricted to pupils 鈥渨hose needs sit across all three sectors鈥�, with other levels of plan created for those with one or two needs, a report from the children鈥檚 commissioner has said.

However, the report from the said 鈥渘o child with an existing plan should lose their plan鈥�, given 鈥渏ust how long and how hard those with existing plans have fought to obtain them鈥�.

The recommendations, set out in a report detailing the outcome of a survey by de Souza鈥檚 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 鈥渕ain 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鈥�.

A ‘children’s plan’

The report called for a new approach to SEND, with all support provided through a 鈥渃hildren鈥檚 plan鈥�.

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 鈥渟ingle national threshold鈥� for assessment of needs, rather than allowing councils to set their own criteria.

EHCPs 鈥渟hould be only for children whose needs span across education, health and care鈥�. But they should be issued automatically for those with life-long, life-limiting or life-determining conditions 鈥渨ithout a long assessment process鈥�.

‘No child should lose their plan’

But in carrying out reform, government should 鈥渞ecognise, however, just how long and how hard those with existing plans have fought to obtain them.

鈥淚n such a low-trust environment, any reform will be met with significant and understandable resistance, and it will be difficult to deliver with consent.

鈥淎s 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.鈥�

As well as being evidenced based, interventions set out in children鈥檚 plans 鈥渟hould not be at profit-making providers. No one should be making a profit from providing services for the most vulnerable children.鈥�

It comes after the government鈥檚 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 鈥渆ffective provision鈥�. As well as potential EHCP changes, how funding works is also likely to be reformed.

Other recommendations include鈥�

• A 鈥渃lear statement of ambition for all children鈥�, with concrete goals to reduce absence and meet every child鈥檚 needs. The new vision 鈥渟hould be backed by clear accountability with school and local level data for attendance, engagement, attainment, and progress being published鈥�
• A 鈥渂roader conception of need based on a new definition of 鈥榓dditional needs鈥欌��. This 鈥渟hould include a broader range of needs, including safety, pastoral, health and learning needs鈥�. A new additional needs framework should detail 鈥渄ifferent levels and types of need and what is expected of schools, and wider services鈥�
• A new funding premium for additional needs and inclusion, giving schools with high levels additional funding. Create a 鈥渃ore offer from all schools鈥�, with funding to access high quality pastoral support and key professionals and services
• Offer children who aren鈥檛 鈥渟chool-ready鈥� by the end of reception a children鈥檚 plan and an additional year in reception
• An 鈥渙verarching framework鈥� for alternative provision which outlines how every child will receive support. 鈥淣o child should be excluded to home. There should be a day one right to alternative provision鈥�