The chancellor’s Spending Review talked a big game on education: more funding for schools than expected, more mental health support, more capital investment and a promise of reforming the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system through a forthcoming White Paper.
But behind the headlines are persistent rumours that the legal rights of children with SEND, particularly those with speech and language challenges, may no longer be guaranteed.
These protections, in place since the Thatcher government, are far from perfect. But removing them for children who “just” need speech and language therapy would be a grave mistake, and a sign that these challenges remain poorly understood in Whitehall.
There are currently 78,000 children who have education, health and care plans (EHCPs) primarily as a result of speech, language and communication needs. These children don’t simply receive speech and language therapy. The vast majority have additional needs, such as autism or mental health conditions, and require a broader package of support: specialist teachers, small class sizes, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and often communication aids. This kind of joined-up support takes careful planning - and that’s exactly what EHCPs are designed to do.
Why we need EHCPs
EHCPs are not just bureaucratic paperwork. They are the mechanism through which support is coordinated, protected and delivered, often across multiple agencies. Without them, it becomes far harder to ensure that the right help gets to the right child at the right time.
Even with EHCPs in place, accessing support is often a battle. I’ve experienced this in my own family. Many children face delays, denials and lengthy appeals. Parents are forced to give up work to navigate a system that drains time, energy and finances.
But instead of the government fixing this broken process, there is growing concern among parents and experts that it may scrap the EHCP system entirely. If EHCPs are removed, that would not be reform. That would be retreat.
Removing EHCPs would mean that children with speech and language challenges would lose access to specialist support. Suggestions that mainstream schools will instead be equipped with more speech and language therapists are welcome, but that’s not enough. This cohort of children doesn’t just need therapy; they need a whole package of support.
There is a much larger group, the 800,000 children with developmental language disorder, who are typically in mainstream schools without EHCPs. With the right investment in therapists and specialist teachers, many of these pupils could thrive without needing a plan. Early intervention could also reduce the risk of mental health problems, exclusion, unemployment and contact with the justice system. It’s not only the right thing to do; it’s economically smart.
So far, the government has made positive noises about increasing the therapy workforce. That’s welcome. Speech and language therapists play a vital role, not just in delivering care but in shaping school curricula, supporting pedagogy and training staff. But therapy alone isn’t enough. We also need more specialist teachers. Children don’t learn the curriculum through therapy. They need skilled teaching, informed by therapeutic expertise.
The government points to programmes like Early Language Support for Every Child (ELSEC) as proof that it is acting. But let’s be honest: ELSEC is designed for early years development and school readiness. It was never meant, and isn’t equipped, to support children with complex or long-term communication needs. For those children, ELSEC will simply highlight their struggles without offering a solution.
EHCPs, by contrast, provide a legal guarantee. They define what a child must receive, who must deliver it and how often. They create accountability. Without that, provision becomes patchy or inconsistent or disappears altogether.
Improving inclusion?
That’s why the upcoming SEND White Paper is so important. The government says it wants to improve inclusion. But unless that ambition is backed by a clear commitment to protect and strengthen EHCPs, it will be a backwards step.
Real inclusion means providing what each child needs to succeed, not just what a school can afford. That includes better training for teachers, more specialist units and, where needed, specialist schools.
But above all, it means protecting the legal rights of children who depend on EHCPs. Without them, too many will fall through the cracks.
The government has a choice to make between now and the autumn: build a genuinely inclusive education system or cut corners and abandon the children who need support the most.
Its decision will speak volumes about whose future this system is designed to serve - and who it’s prepared to leave behind.
Jane Harris is CEO of Speech and Language UK
You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on and on
