The special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system has been under sustained pressure for years.

Rising levels of need, long waiting times for assessment, a growing number of tribunal cases and stretched school and local authority resources have all contributed to a system that too often feels adversarial rather than supportive.

Nowhere are these pressures more visible than in the debate around education, health and care plans (EHCPs).

Much of the public and political conversation has become polarised, framed as a question of whether there should be more EHCPs or fewer.

This misses the point. Families are not calling for fewer plans, they are calling for better plans, delivered earlier, more consistently and without the delays and conflict currently categorising the system.

As a clinical psychologist who has worked across health, education and specialist SEND services, I see the same problems repeated across the country, and I also see clear, practical opportunities for reform.

As parents, schools and the public await the government’s schools White Paper, there are three changes that I believe could meaningfully fix the EHCP system.

SEND: Improving the EHCP system

1. Move to tiered, early statutory support

The current system is a blunt instrument.

For many children, an EHCP is the only reliable route to funded support, which means families and schools are pushing into a high-stakes process before help is available.

Assessments can take months or years, during which time children’s needs often escalate. By the time support arrives, difficulties may be more entrenched and school experiences may have already become traumatic.

The White Paper should move us away from this “all or nothing” approach by introducing a tiered EHCP assessment model.

Instead of having a single threshold, statutory support should be available at different levels of complexity, reflecting the reality that needs exist on a continuum.

At the earliest level, schools should be supported to identify emerging needs using standardised tools, with legally protected adjustments put in place quickly.

A second tier would provide mainstream provision with specialist adaptations; for example, through Sendco-led interventions, speech and language therapy or blended provision, with only the most complex cases requiring a full EHCP.

This approach would allow children to receive personalised support much earlier, without having to reach crisis point. It would give schools confidence to intervene without fear of jeopardising future funding and would reduce unnecessary escalation into formal processes.

Far from diluting support, a tiered system would strengthen it, improving responsiveness, reducing risk of tribunals and lowering long-term costs.

2. Introduce a national EHCP template

One of the most striking features of the current EHCP system is how inconsistent it is. Terminology, thresholds, expectations, word count and even the structure of plans vary widely between local authorities.

In practice, this means that a child’s access to support can depend as much on geography as need. We are currently analysing over 4,000 EHCPs across our schools, and the level of variation is stark.

This inconsistency makes collaboration harder, creates confusion for families and professionals, and introduces unnecessary subjectivity into decision making around the required level of support.

The single solution is national standardisation: a single national EHCP template, supported by consistent assessment guidance and shared terminology. This would create common language across education, health and care.

It would reduce bias, support clearer decision making by local authorities and make it far easier for schools and clinicians to work together and make the system fairer for families, wherever they live.

3. Embed multidisciplinary, clinically led assessment and joined-up systems

The final challenge is the strain that the current system places on relationships.

Long delays, inconsistent thresholds and fragmented services can create frustration and mistrust between families, schools and local authorities, even though everyone involved is trying to act in the child’s best interests.

One way to rebuild trust back into the system is through clinically led, multidisciplinary assessments. When psychologists, allied healthcare professionals, teachers and families work together using a shared framework, plans are clearer and more robust.

Decisions are then based on evidence and need, rather than local precedent or a family’s ability to navigate the system.

This approach should be supported by modern, integrated infrastructure.

Having digital EHCPs linked to NHS systems with unique child identifiers would allow professionals to work more effectively across service boundaries with shared standards, integrated funding and clear statutory frameworks that would reduce duplication and ensure continuity of support.

The EHCP system doesn’t need to be abolished. What it needs is earlier intervention, greater consistency and genuine collaboration.

If the White Paper focuses on these three priorities, it could move the SEND system away from crisis management and towards a model that truly provides children, families and schools with the support they so rightly need.

Dr Freya Spicer-White is chief clinical officer at Outcomes First Group

You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android