Dave Clements asks what's behind the rising tide of demand for special-needs education – and what the government can do about it. PLUS: Battle of Ideas debate on neurodiversity and over-diagnosis.
Dave Clements gets somethings right here but fundamentally misapprehends the value of EHCPs. They are 'bureaucratic' and 'oversubscribed' precisely because they are the only thing left for parents that WORK! John Harris gets it right! "...the reason for the massive uptake in EHCPs is that ‘informal special-needs provision in schools has become so unreliable that the only way of having any chance of securing what a child needs is to apply for one’..."
Further, EHCPs can generate the protection of SENDisTribunals where decisions are made with regard to the SEN child's needs NOT to LEA budgets! And LEA professionals involved in assessment are more free to say what they really think about expensive placements since there is "no property in witness" under High Court jurisdictions. So the last thing we need will be 'a radical shake-up' if that means Bridget Phillipson is allowed to pull the rug on them, as now widely rumoured!
If she does this would put the loss of the winter fuel allowance debacle into the status of a minor tweak by comparison. The Pupil Premium scam, based on free school meal numbers failed because schools were not obliged to spend the money on individual pupils taking FSMs! So this closely mirrors what will happen if non-targeted monies go to schools for SENs without EHCPs - it will no doubt help fund Pride flags to fly over non-binary sports fields!?
DC also appears to be at a loss to explain "...Why is it that nearly one in five children have a special educational need? Why are the needs of one in 20 children deemed so significant that they have been issued EHCPs? What’s going on?...". But these proportions expressed as percentiles are very close to the statistical cut offs of 1 and 2 standard deviations from average on the normal distribution scale that the Warnock Report (1978) used in the original definition of SENs and to differentiate them from the far more numerous children with 'additional needs'. These cut-offs offered real transparency to both parents and professionals who could use them as guidance for the significance of their results (expressed in percentiles) obtained on their norm- referenced tests, used in SEN assessments. These definitions were consolidated in the original Ed.Act 1981 which legally established 'Statements' of SENs, the precursor of EHCPs formalised in Part 3 Children's Act 2010.
Just as 'mainstreaming' was used to undermine the utility of 'Statements of SEN' and countered the requests for parental applications, we now see the dogma of "inclusion" being used to pave the way for pulling the demand for EHCPs! It probably also heralds the end of LEAs employing Ed.Psychs. directly as there will no longer be a statutory obligation for them to undertake on behalf of the local authority.
The cancellation of EHCPs will be by far the biggest negative impact of the DEI "Inclusion" bandwagon on the compulsory education enterprise that we have seen so far!
Dr Dave Buck C.Psychol Consultant Educational Psychologist & former OfTED Inspector of SEN.
Thanks for the swift response Dave, and sorry mine is less swift - the holiday period has intervened. First, I am with you on the dogma of inclusion, though it can and should (in my view) work for those children whose needs are not clinical in origin. But I am not with you that EHCPs ‘work’. They are no more than a ticket to support. That’s it. The waste of time and resources is colossal to no apparent end - as outcomes are not measured. Once SEN, always SEN. And once they’re issued, despite all the work of those involved (including Ed Psych’s), they gather dust. Nobody reads them and they’re quickly out of date following all the inter-agency delays and legal wrangling. Our kids needs are constantly changing. The experts need to be much more directly involved in the decision-making and working with children and families - not writing EHCPs. The only time parents see them, in many cases, is when their child is being assessed. Those expertise are not utilised, they are fossilised. The proportions of children with SEN and EHCPs have grown with large rises in diagnoses for neurodiverse and other conditions, etc. But you give the impression that this was all foreseen in 1978, in which case I wonder how and why? As you say, I don’t have all the answers. But you don’t provide any either. Why the increasing volume of referrals, diagnoses, benefit claims etc? Why now?
Sorry Dave I really can’t agree about EHCPs they are the only statutory instruments that protect core principles of SENs and at a pragmatic level are essential ‘hoops’ to access to expensive SN provision, which they do in an unmatched manner with regard to equitable distribution of SN resources. It will be worse than a post code lottery without them, back to a pre 1981 bear market of complete selection control of admissions by head teacher’s of special schools and units with all the bias (and corruption?) of that, which you will be too young to remember?, My 30+ year career and PhD by research are all dependent on them so you might call me biased! Some of my research published on the precursor to EHCPs I.e. SSENs shows that although the statutory assessment system is biased towards cost-saving provision the overall system is of such quality that it is still predictive of the provision that should be made and so such ‘misallocations’ can be identified in a transparent, accountable and as my experience at SENDISTs has shown, challenged in an efffective manner. Not sur if we have got out of sync with each other but do have a look at the three part response (on both Substack & LinkedIn) that I made to your very stimulating article - apologises if I came across as too negative but I know you will agree that with plans afoot to ban EHCPs we need to be very careful we don’t throw them out of the sorely needed SENReview bath water?! Look forward to your comments.
Thanks Dave - this is going to be huge and will put Labour Party’s previous ‘shot in foot’ moments like ‘winter fuel allowance’ debacle into pale insignificance!
Dave Clements gets somethings right here but fundamentally misapprehends the value of EHCPs. They are 'bureaucratic' and 'oversubscribed' precisely because they are the only thing left for parents that WORK! John Harris gets it right! "...the reason for the massive uptake in EHCPs is that ‘informal special-needs provision in schools has become so unreliable that the only way of having any chance of securing what a child needs is to apply for one’..."
Further, EHCPs can generate the protection of SENDisTribunals where decisions are made with regard to the SEN child's needs NOT to LEA budgets! And LEA professionals involved in assessment are more free to say what they really think about expensive placements since there is "no property in witness" under High Court jurisdictions. So the last thing we need will be 'a radical shake-up' if that means Bridget Phillipson is allowed to pull the rug on them, as now widely rumoured!
If she does this would put the loss of the winter fuel allowance debacle into the status of a minor tweak by comparison. The Pupil Premium scam, based on free school meal numbers failed because schools were not obliged to spend the money on individual pupils taking FSMs! So this closely mirrors what will happen if non-targeted monies go to schools for SENs without EHCPs - it will no doubt help fund Pride flags to fly over non-binary sports fields!?
DC also appears to be at a loss to explain "...Why is it that nearly one in five children have a special educational need? Why are the needs of one in 20 children deemed so significant that they have been issued EHCPs? What’s going on?...". But these proportions expressed as percentiles are very close to the statistical cut offs of 1 and 2 standard deviations from average on the normal distribution scale that the Warnock Report (1978) used in the original definition of SENs and to differentiate them from the far more numerous children with 'additional needs'. These cut-offs offered real transparency to both parents and professionals who could use them as guidance for the significance of their results (expressed in percentiles) obtained on their norm- referenced tests, used in SEN assessments. These definitions were consolidated in the original Ed.Act 1981 which legally established 'Statements' of SENs, the precursor of EHCPs formalised in Part 3 Children's Act 2010.
Just as 'mainstreaming' was used to undermine the utility of 'Statements of SEN' and countered the requests for parental applications, we now see the dogma of "inclusion" being used to pave the way for pulling the demand for EHCPs! It probably also heralds the end of LEAs employing Ed.Psychs. directly as there will no longer be a statutory obligation for them to undertake on behalf of the local authority.
The cancellation of EHCPs will be by far the biggest negative impact of the DEI "Inclusion" bandwagon on the compulsory education enterprise that we have seen so far!
Dr Dave Buck C.Psychol Consultant Educational Psychologist & former OfTED Inspector of SEN.
https://www.academyofideas.uk/p/can-we-solve-the-special-needs-crisis?r=5dlg3q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/12/poorest-children-grades-pupil-premium-centre-social-justice/
https://dbuck.substack.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-david-buck-b6a79747/details/publications/
Thanks for the swift response Dave, and sorry mine is less swift - the holiday period has intervened. First, I am with you on the dogma of inclusion, though it can and should (in my view) work for those children whose needs are not clinical in origin. But I am not with you that EHCPs ‘work’. They are no more than a ticket to support. That’s it. The waste of time and resources is colossal to no apparent end - as outcomes are not measured. Once SEN, always SEN. And once they’re issued, despite all the work of those involved (including Ed Psych’s), they gather dust. Nobody reads them and they’re quickly out of date following all the inter-agency delays and legal wrangling. Our kids needs are constantly changing. The experts need to be much more directly involved in the decision-making and working with children and families - not writing EHCPs. The only time parents see them, in many cases, is when their child is being assessed. Those expertise are not utilised, they are fossilised. The proportions of children with SEN and EHCPs have grown with large rises in diagnoses for neurodiverse and other conditions, etc. But you give the impression that this was all foreseen in 1978, in which case I wonder how and why? As you say, I don’t have all the answers. But you don’t provide any either. Why the increasing volume of referrals, diagnoses, benefit claims etc? Why now?
Sorry Dave I really can’t agree about EHCPs they are the only statutory instruments that protect core principles of SENs and at a pragmatic level are essential ‘hoops’ to access to expensive SN provision, which they do in an unmatched manner with regard to equitable distribution of SN resources. It will be worse than a post code lottery without them, back to a pre 1981 bear market of complete selection control of admissions by head teacher’s of special schools and units with all the bias (and corruption?) of that, which you will be too young to remember?, My 30+ year career and PhD by research are all dependent on them so you might call me biased! Some of my research published on the precursor to EHCPs I.e. SSENs shows that although the statutory assessment system is biased towards cost-saving provision the overall system is of such quality that it is still predictive of the provision that should be made and so such ‘misallocations’ can be identified in a transparent, accountable and as my experience at SENDISTs has shown, challenged in an efffective manner. Not sur if we have got out of sync with each other but do have a look at the three part response (on both Substack & LinkedIn) that I made to your very stimulating article - apologises if I came across as too negative but I know you will agree that with plans afoot to ban EHCPs we need to be very careful we don’t throw them out of the sorely needed SENReview bath water?! Look forward to your comments.
Sorry Dave - I didn't see your response pieces. Reposting here so others can see.
Part 1: https://dbuck.substack.com/p/dei-is-coming-for-send-kids-in-a
Part 2: https://dbuck.substack.com/p/dei-is-coming-for-send-kids-ehcps
Part 3: https://dbuck.substack.com/p/dei-is-coming-for-send-kids-ehcps-353
Thanks Dave - this is going to be huge and will put Labour Party’s previous ‘shot in foot’ moments like ‘winter fuel allowance’ debacle into pale insignificance!