10 false claims about EHCPs: Here are the facts

• LAs have made the system bureaucratic through delays, poor decision-making forcing appeals, and failure to carry out legal provision.
• Bureaucracy, cost and appeals could be cut by assessing all applicants, supporting parental involvement, and creating suitable provision quickly. This removes a whole tier of the process, and it quickly becomes clear who needs specialist provision.
• EHCP at fault? NO

Whose fault is it?

• LAs for having high churn rates in SEND staff, losing knowledge, using agency staff and not training or paying new recruits properly. Schools can take a long time to submit applications, causing further delays.. ​​
• Government: lack of robust accountability measures

• EHCPs are not complex; they should set out a child’s needs, the provision to meet them (what, by whom and how much), and the outcomes aimed for.
• EHCPs are legally enforceable, which is crucial with patchy or inconsistent local provision. They give families and professionals a clear plan, shared goals, and a commitment to deliver.
• Disabled children can have complex needs with different sources of provision. One document to contribute to is less bureaucratic than many separate ones.
• The complexity is when LAs add unlawful obstacles parents then have to surmount–which is time-consuming for parents and staff alike. This is why many parents give up–it is the LA’s intention.

EHCP at fault? NO

Whose fault is it?

• LAs/schools: Not understanding or complying with legal duties. School leadership without the right ethos. SENCOs with too many other responsibilities, or one for several schools.
• Government: Schools require more funding, ringfenced, at SEN Support level. Insufficient educational psychologists training places (400 is not enough)
• LAs: Not enough specialists to carry out timely assessments. Failing to plan ahead to ensure enough available provision for disabled children
• LAs/NHS: Lack of joined-up working means departments and systems don’t work well together.

• COST: In essence, they mean it costs too much to give a child the support they need to access education. The rising numbers reflect unmet need, not overuse.
• Blaming EHCPs for excessive cost shifts focus from the real issue: a lack of properly funded, inclusive mainstream & specialist provision, and a lack of accountability when the law isn’t followed.
• No parent wants to endure the EHCP process unless their child’s needs are unmet. Even then, they may reluctant for many reasons. The school may deter them, or they think it’s the school that applies.

EHCP at fault? NO

Whose fault is it?

• LAs: It’s the support, not the EHCP, that “costs too much” as there is no suitable state special provision. LAs often don’t use data properly to determine what is needed, where, and don’t work with neighbour LAs on shared provision, so must rely on expensive independent schools.
• Government: Previous governments restricted LAs’ opening new schools and allowed academies too much autonomy.
• Scrapping legal provision only saves money if you intend to remove or not put in place the support required—or you could build the actual provision needed, not generic units

• The EHCP system only becomes hard to navigate when LAs put unlawful obstacles in the way that aren’t there in the law.
• Multiple EHCP formats in different LAs make it hard for NHS specialists with patients nationwide to complete. As with the NHS, these should be on a centralised online system, one form. There has been a standard template in process for several years. Where is it?

EHCP at fault? NO

Whose fault is it?

• LAs: Creating their own policies with unlawful requirements, delaying tactics, overloaded staff not responding to contacts. Streamlining the process shouldn’t mean weakening protections—it should mean making the system work better for children, not just cheaper or quicker for LAs.
• Schools/LAs: Navigating the system would be easier if schools and LAs supported parents and young people to coproduce from an early stage, as they should.

• Parents don’t decide if their child gets an EHCP; the LA or Tribunal does, after a lengthy assessment process.
• There are more likely to be far more children who need them, but whose school hasn’t acted or whose parents don’t know they can apply or don’t have the capacity to fight.
• We would like to see evidence of children with unneeded EHCPs–LAs who are grumpy about tribunal defeats isn’t evidence. Likewise, schools claiming some pupils achieve worse than those with EHCPs should reflect on why those children are being let down.

EHCP at fault? NO

Whose fault is it?

• It’s no one organisation’s fault– needs are rising globally because of a lack of provision, the pandemic, medical advances saving more sick children, poverty and disadvantage. The increase also often reflects better awareness, earlier identification, and a system that has failed to meet needs through ordinary school SEN support.
• Instead of asking, “Are there too many EHCPs?”, we should ask: “What’s wrong with our education system that means so many children need EHCPs?”

• It’s unlikely the government would let a council cease operating, but if those who complain think these pupils shouldn’t be educated, they should be brave enough to come out into the open and say so.
• If SEND provision isn’t commissioned and delivered locally, children will have to travel even further for what they need or more will end up out of school. 

EHCP at fault? NO

Whose fault is it?

• Government: As before, the fault lies with previous Government’s political ideology to stop LAs to create local specialist provision.
• The 2014 reforms did not fund the expanded age entitlements to statutory provision. 
• Framing disabled children as a financial burden is morally and legally wrong. Every child’s right to education doesn’t disappear because a council is broke. Need should drive provision, not cost alone.
• LAs: LAs for failing to convince government of their funding case.
• NHS: Local commissioning failures for lack of adequate CAMHS and neurodiversity services. 

• If annual reviews were properly conducted and in a timely way, this would not be an issue. 
• The bigger issue is provision not being delivered, rather than too much provision. Claiming provision is “unnecessary” can be a cover for cost-cutting. Additionally, just because a child is doing well with a certain support in place doesn’t mean it’s no longer needed–removing it too soon can lead to setbacks, distress, or decline—especially for children with autism, learning disabilities, or fluctuating conditions. Plans should aim for long-term progress and independence, not quick “fixes.” 

EHCP at fault? NO

Whose fault is it?

• LAs for understaffing, lack of training.
• Government for underfunding
• Schools: poor communication with parents. An early review is always a possibility if needed. 

• Where is ANY evidence to support this claim either?
• A very small percentage of children have an independent placement. EHCPs are not a mechanism to apply for a school place; they allow families and schools to apply for support that meets their child’s needs. The LA makes the final decision, not the parent. If there is a cheaper school that can meet needs, then that will be named.

EHCP at fault? NO

Whose fault is it?

• LAs: This claim is a scurrilous, though long-standing, trope aimed at those “sharp-elbowed, middle-class parents.” The real problem is the lack of suitable local provision. This narrative fuels distrust and stigma. 
• Independent doesn’t mean “luxury”, it means “specialist” with highly trained staff, smaller class sizes, and therapeutic support. 

• This is what LAs want you to believe. Everything in Section F of an EHCP (the provision) must be delivered by law.
• When provision is missing, the EHCP gives families the power to act by judicial review. The real question is, WHY isn’t it being delivered? Let’s fix the holes instead of throwing out the safety net. 

EHCP at fault? NO

Whose fault is it?

• LAs/NHS ICBs/Schools: If provision isn’t happening, it’s a failure of the public body to comply with the EHCP. Without the EHCP, there’s no legal leverage to challenge that failure, and who do you think that benefits? This narrative also shifts blame away from those responsible for delivery—local authorities, health bodies, and schools—and instead (not so) subtly blames the EHCP process or the family for expecting too much.
• Government: Lack of robust accountability measures—we should strengthen accountability, not abandon legal protection.