Dr Freya Spicer-White on why we need a smarter, fairer EHCP system, and what it could look like.
The SEND system has long been under significant pressure, challenged by increased need, opaque routes into support, long waiting times for assessment and rising demands on schools and local authorities. Few areas have been as visible in this debate as Education, Health and Care Plans. Too often this conversation becomes polarised, with the debate presented as a choice between increasing or decreasing the number of EHCPs being issued. But families are not calling for fewer EHCPs. They need better EHCPs, created in a system that recognises need earlier, supports schools earlier and provides clear, consistent routes to help, without delay or conflict.
As a clinical psychologist who has worked across health, education and specialist SEND services, I see three key challenges crop up time and time again. The first is excessively long waiting times for assessment, the second is schools feeling unable to intervene earlier due to resourcing constraints, and the third is significant variation between local areas in how EHCPs are assessed, written and delivered. These problems are longstanding but there are practical steps we can take to improve the system, some of which does not rely solely on the political cycle or changing national policy.
One way we could make a meaningful change is to move away from the all-or-nothing system of statutory support we currently have in place. At the moment, an EHCP is often the only reliable route to accessing funded provision. This leaves parents and schools feeling forced into a high-stakes process that can take months or years before help is in place, meaning children receive support only after difficulties have escalated significantly. And for some children, their difficulties have then been exacerbated because of school-based trauma.
A tiered EHCP model could provide a more flexible and humane alternative. By moving from a one threshold to a three-level system, we could offer legally protected support from the point where needs are beginning to emerge right through to the most complex cases. This would allow children to receive personalised support much earlier, without the need for them to reach crisis point, and it would allow schools to implement structured intervention without fear that this could impact later funding decisions. Rather than diluting support, a tiered EHCP model would strengthen the system by improving responsiveness, reducing unnecessary escalation, lowering pressure on tribunals and ultimately bringing down long-term costs.
Another vital shift would be to tackle the stark variation that exists between local areas. Parents and schools frequently describe the EHCP process as confusing, inconsistent or even adversarial and much of this comes down to the postcode lottery of assessment practices in different local authorities. Terminology, thresholds and expectations vary widely, and even the EHCP format itself can differ dramatically depending on where a child lives. This makes it hard for families, schools and clinicians to collaborate effectively as they are often working with different assumptions and frameworks in mind. The solution here is national standardisation. A standard EHCP template, and consistent assessment guidance, would help create a shared language across the country, reduce human subjectivity and support clearer, more confident decision-making by local authorities. A more consistent system would not only be fairer for families but would also enable better communication and collaboration between professionals, as those supporting a child would all be working from the same foundation.
A major barrier to early intervention, for schools, is the pressure on already-stretched resources. Teachers are committed to supporting children with SEND, but effective early intervention requires time, training and access to specialist input. Many mainstream settings feel they must guide families towards an EHCP simply to secure the resources required to support a child. An Inclusion Premium—a ring-fenced SEND budget for schools, similar to the Pupil Premium—would be one way to change this. This would allow schools to buy-in targeted interventions, therapeutic support, reasonable adjustments and specialist training without having to rely on a lengthy, statutory assessment process to access provision. This would give children help earlier, reduce escalation and make mainstream inclusion more sustainable. Alongside this, expanding flexible, specialist SEND units in mainstream schools would create a bridge between universal and specialist provision, making it easier for children to receive the right level of support at the right time without the need for an immediate change in placement.
A final problem with the current system is that it can create strain between families, schools and local authorities. Everyone involved wants to act in the child’s best interests, but long waiting times, inconsistent thresholds and a lack of resources can create frustration, mistrust and conflict. One way to rebuild this trust is through clinically led, multidisciplinary assessment. When psychologists, allied health care professionals, therapists, teachers and families come together to assess a child using a shared, consistent framework, the resulting plan is clearer, more robust and more transparent. This approach helps to remove emotion and geography from the process, ensuring that decisions are made on the basis of clinical evidence and the child’s individual needs, rather than local precedent or ability to advocate.
No matter how SEND policy shifts in the coming months and years, certain things remain essential: early intervention, clarity, consistency and collaboration. A smarter EHCP system would take pressure off local authorities, reduce waiting lists and lessen demand for tribunals, but its most important impact would be on the children themselves. By offering support earlier and more consistently, we can prevent difficulties from escalating, keep young people engaged and help them to thrive.
The ideas I am suggesting here are not theoretical. In my previous role as Clinical Lead at the North-East Wales Neurodevelopmental Service, we built neurodevelopmental services from the ground up. I have also worked with education settings to embed neurodiversity-affirming, strengths-based practice in their inclusion strategies. In my current role, our clinical and education teams work together to support more than 4,500 children across 85 schools and services. This gives us a clear view of what works—timely assessment, personalised intervention and environments which recognise and nurture neurodivergent strengths.
There is no quick or simple fix to the challenges SEND provision is facing, but there is a clear path forward. If we prioritise clarity, collaboration and compassionate early intervention we can build an EHCP system that supports children when they need it—not only once they reach crisis point. We can create a process that families trust, that schools can work with confidently and that reflects what young people need in order to thrive.
Author: Freya Spicer-White
Freya Spicer-White
Dr Freya Spicer-White is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Chief Clinical Officer at Outcomes First Group, specialising in Autism, neurodevelopmental needs and neurodiversity-affirming practice.
Website: outcomesfirstgroup.co.uk
LinkedIn: @freya-spicer-white-ab5147216
