Poor-quality education, health and care plans (EHCPs) include “copy and paste” elements and some even have the wrong child’s name on, Schools Week has found. Analysis by experts suggests many plans also break the law over requirements that they provide specific and quantifiable support for children with additional needs 鈥 helping councils shirk their legal duty to fully fund provision. The SEND code of practice states provision 鈥渕ust be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise鈥. But analysis by Schools Week of SEND area inspection reports show Ofsted repeatedly flags poor quality of plans, even in the few areas judged to be 鈥減ositive鈥. Ofsted: plans often ‘poor quality’ A December inspection in Lancashire found plans were 鈥渙ften of a poor quality鈥. A July inspection in Hertfordshire added plans lacked 鈥減recision and clarity鈥. Errors pointed out by parents during drafts also made it into final plans. Across the 10 EHCPs obtained from Milton Keynes, the same phrase asking SENCos to 鈥渃ascade the identified strategies and provision to all class teachers and support staff at the start of each half term鈥 appeared 40 times. The whole system is crying out for a review and fresh start In one EHCP from Sunderland, the same paragraphs were listed in the 鈥減rovision required鈥 section of the report for all four 鈥渄esired outcomes鈥. 鈥淓xamples like this suggest there isn鈥檛 always thought about how provision will be enacted in reality by school staff or if it will have a meaningful impact for the pupil,鈥 Anne Heavey said. Phil Humphreys EHCPs are written by councils, but based on advice from professionals involved with the child, including educational psychologists who must assess pupils. Phil Humphreys, director of education at Lift Schools, said their own analysis shows 鈥渋n the most extreme cases, plans are just copied and pasted from other children, and even have name of the child wrong as a result鈥. David Collingwood, president of the Association of Educational Psychologists, said a shortage of EPs and backlogs in assessments are a 鈥渕assive problem鈥, adding there is 鈥渁lways pressure to write advice quicker鈥. But Humphreys added: 鈥淎ll of this amounts to a picture of a system that is badly broken and which all too frequently fails to deliver what it is intended to do. 鈥淭he whole system is crying out for a review and fresh start.鈥 Vagueness: ‘cock-up or conspiracy?’ Consultants from Premier Advisory Group (PAG) have reviewed nearly 400 EHCPs across 20 schools and trusts. They found more than 90 per cent did not comply with the SEND code of practice, with many being too vague. A PAG report for one trust, which looked at about 140 EHCPs, found just five where more than half of the support listed was 鈥渜uantifiable鈥. Thirteen (9 per cent) had no quantifiable support listed at all. Vapid EHCP content suits the local authority For instance, one report said: 鈥淪he will require 1:1 or small group support to enable her to access and complete learning activities.鈥 Matt Keer, a SEND expert who writes for specialist website Special Needs Jungle, said: 鈥淲e give parents a list of weasel words and phrases to look out for (鈥渁ccess to鈥, 鈥渙pportunities for鈥, 鈥渁s required鈥). Read the rest of our special, five-part investigation: Investigation: How EHCPs are failing our most vulnerable children Fidget spinners and learning styles: EHCPs鈥 interventions exposed Schools pick up the pieces of absent health and social care providers Feature: The case for a SEND evidence ‘custodian’ Comment: SEND provision is the last bastion of unevidenced practice 鈥淲hile vapid EHCP content suits the local authority, it often sets families up for conflict with schools.鈥 Gary Aubin, a SEND expert, said plans needed an 鈥渆lement of schools being able to make it work in their context鈥. 鈥淏ut where trust has eroded within our SEND system, stakeholders start believing 鈥 sometimes correctly 鈥 that ‘if it isn’t written down in detail, it either won’t happen or won’t be funded鈥.鈥 Andre Imich, DfE鈥檚 former SEND professional adviser, also said some schools 鈥渨ant quite a bit of flexibility to be able to deal with changing needs鈥. He added too much specificity 鈥渕ay tie people down and may not always be the best thing for a child鈥 – and there is not “universal agreement on what a good plan looks like”. But the PAG report concluded the lack of detail in the 140 EHCPs it analysed meant it was not possible to 鈥渇ully understand the cost of support needed鈥. Forty per cent of plans also had no funding stated. Tom Legge, PAG’s managing director, said the poor quality of EHCPs 鈥渂egs the question as to whether this is cock-up or conspiracy鈥, given they were 鈥渕ore often than not accompanied by funding that, even on the most cursory analysis, is insufficient to meet need鈥. Schools left to pick up funding gaps When schools were consulted on the actual cost of EHCP provision, PAG found widespread underfunding from councils. Analysis of one trust’s EHCPs found its mainstream schools had a gap in funding of between 拢10,000 to 拢30,000 per school. For the special schools in the trust, the funding gap across fewer than 50 EHCPs amounted to nearly 拢3 million. One particular issue, according to the reports, is the quantity of 1:1 support mandated. PAG analysis of EHCPs across mainstream schools at one trust found while few had quantifiable support, 80 per cent of it was 1:1. Another of its reports stated a trust, which ran classes of one qualified teacher and two teaching assistants per eight pupils, would need an extra TA per class to provide the level of 1:1 support mandated. This would cost 拢750,000 extra per year across just two schools. One trust leader told Schools Week it got 拢19,000 top-up funding for a child with complex needs. However, the child required full-time 1:1 support, which cost 拢27,000. This also did not include other mandated interventions, such as at least 40 hours a year of speech therapy. Sir Jon Coles, CEO of United Learning trust which has analysed its schools鈥 EHCPs, said: 鈥淪ometimes, what is proposed seems designed to insulate a child from access to excellent teaching鈥. 鈥淚n some examples, 6 or 7 hours of 1-1 activities are required per week, with no apparent assessment of the costs or benefits of a child being out of class for over a day each week.鈥 鈥淚 am seriously concerned that many billions of pounds are being spent on a system which claims to be bespoke to individual children, but in reality is far from that, and is likely to be having limited benefit to a lot of children 鈥 and perhaps no or negative impact on considerable numbers.鈥 Director and barrister Dean Hulse, from HY Education solicitors, which has an EHCP benchmarking tool, said the 2014 Children and Families Act created a 鈥渉ard edged legal duty鈥 for councils to ensure support in section F is provided. 鈥淵et day in, day out, schools are being asked to deliver this provision without adequate funding.鈥 Keer added, that given a council鈥檚 legal responsibility, a school or family 鈥渟hould be in a powerful position to rectify things鈥. Legge said schools鈥 鈥渄esperation鈥 at the funding situation was 鈥渄riving an increased number to litigate against their home councils 鈥 often as a last resort to draw attention to their plight鈥. A standardised EHCP template is being trialled with some councils under reforms introduced by the Conservative government, but plans are long delayed.