A good ECHP is clear and concise, it should be accessible to the child, their parents/guardians, the educational providers and practitioners.
You may have recently received your child’s draft plan or been provided with a plan for a child at your educational setting. It is important to note that not all EHCPs are drafted equally well and both the period where a plan is in draft form but also the regular reviews provide an opportunity to finesse the drafting and ensure that the EHCP is fit-for-purpose. For the purposes of this article reference is made to child/children but this should be read as children and young people as EHCPs can support individuals aged up to 25 years old.
Does the EHCP detail the Special Educational Needs in sufficient detail.
It is important that an EHCP provides enough detail in Part B (special Educational Needs) so that the this can be effectively linked to the provision provided in Part F. This may be more challenging where a child does not have medical dialogises (N.B. it is not necessary to have a diagnosis to obtain an EHCP as it is focused on the child’s needs).
Is the provision specific enough
The provision part of a plan should be detailed in part F. There can be a tendency in EHCPs to be vague in a provision – for example saying: “child X may benefit from sensory circuits”. This doesn’t tell anyone involved how often and for how long such an activity should be offered. It would be far more meaningful for the EHCP to state “Child A should be offered the option to participate in sensory circuits twice a day for 5 minutes in duration”. Paragraph 9.69 of the SEND Code of Practice states that it should be clear from Part F of the plan “who, what, when and how long in relation to each element of the special education provision listed” [1].
A plan should consider factors such as:
- The necessary staff qualification and experience
- For small group work the size of the group, the frequency and duration of the sessions.
- For 1:1 work the frequency and duration of that work.
- Provision by other professionals (including frequency and duration). It may also be necessary to specify who is going to implement the provision – for example it may be the case that the Speech Therapists train a school staff member to deliver the provision.
Ambiguity in how a provision is described can result in it not being provided as intended or not provided at all. As a general rule of thumb there should be a greater degree of specificity in the plan the less specialist the placement. Therefore at one end of the spectrum (at a special school) you would expect less detail and at the other end of the spectrum (Education otherwise than in School (EOTAS/EOTIS) there should be a high level of detail.
Does it accurately reflect the child’s needs
For example, a plan which states that a 3-year-old is aware of their allergens and can notify adults is likely to be plainly inaccurate. Where a child has needs that are not consistently the same, perhaps because they have a condition that fluctuates, this should also be accurately reflected to highlight both the higher and lower levels of needs that the child experiences.
Is the proposed setting (Part I) suitable for the child’s needs.
The setting that a child is to attend should be detailed in Part I. This may be the named school or school type (such as mainstream). Where a child is to spend time at multiple settings or perhaps a specialist unit attached to a mainstream school this should be made clear from the plan. However, in cases where a child is to receive EOTIS/EOTAS this should not be noted in Part I as being the “setting”.
[1] See also EC v North East Lincolnshire LA [2015] UKUT 0648 (AAC).