• No results found

Characteristics associated with more positive or negative process experiences

5. Perceptions of the quality of the EHC plan

5.2. Meeting specific EHC plan requirements

Parents and young people were also asked some more specific questions about the content of their EHC plan: whether their EHC plan named the nursery, school or college that parents and young people asked for during the process of drafting the EHC plan, and the extent to which it included preparations for the child/young person’s next move in life.

The Children and Families Act 2014 outlined that parents/young people have the right to request a particular school, college or other institution to be named in their EHC plan, and that their local authority must comply with this preference unless the education institution is unsuitable for the child/young person or if their attendance would be

Base: All parents and young people (13,643) 3%

8% 11% 50% 24%

3%1%

Your child's EHC plan is easy for you to understand

14% 22% 17% 20% 7% 16%

5%

Your EHC plan is easy for you (the child/young person) to understand

12% 17% 14% 26% 10% 16%

4%

You/your child understands what the EHC plan is for

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither / nor Agree Strongly Agree Don't Know Prefer not to say

Base: All parents (10,675)

Agree: 36% Disagree: 29% Agree: 74% Disagree: 12% Agree: 26% Disagree: 36%

122

incompatible with the efficient education of others or the efficient use of resources.

Previous qualitative research conducted for the Department for Education80 identified this can be a source of tension within parents’ experiences of the process.

For the majority of parents and young people the nursery, school or college named in the EHC plan was the institution that they asked for during the process of drafting the EHC plan (78%, see Table 5.2). Just under one in 10 reported that the nursery, school or college named in their child’s EHC plan was not one that they asked for (9%) – more specifically:

• 4 per cent reported that the institution was not one they wanted at all, • 3 per cent agreed another option,

• 2 per cent reported the education setting was their second or third choice, and • Less than 1 per cent of parents decided that the best option was for their child to

be educated at home.

Table 5.2: Whether the nursery, school or college named in the EHC plan was the one asked for during the drafting process

%

Base: All parents and young people (13,643)

Yes 78

No, it was the second or third choice 2

No, the named education institution was not wanted 4

No, and another option was agreed 3

No, and it was decided that the best option was for the child/young

person to be educated at home *

Don’t know 11

Prefer not to say 2

Where the child/young person was attending a specialist education setting, parents and young people were more likely to report that the EHC plan did not name the education provider that they asked for (11% compared with 6% in a mainstream setting and 9% in mixed provision).

80Skipp & Hopwood (2016) Mapping user experience of the Education, Health and Care plan process: a qualitative study.

123

There were certain characteristics associated with the EHC plan not naming the nursery, school or college that the parent or young person had asked for during the drafting process. This was more common where the parent or young person:

• Had made more than one request to get the EHC plan (15% compared with 10% of those who did not);

• Reported that the process of getting the EHC plan took more than 10 months compared with those where the length of process took up to 20-weeks (15% compared with 7%); and/or

• Had not been told about or received information, advice and support during the process of getting their EHC plan compared to parents who did (14% compared with 7%).

These parents were also slightly more likely to be in a local authority with more than five SEND Tribunal appeals per 10,000 of the 0-18 population than the overall population (11% compared with 9%).

Conversely, in cases where the EHC plan named the nursery, school or college asked for during the drafting process, parents and young people were more likely to agree that the help/support described in the EHC plan will achieve the outcomes agreed (67% versus 44%); and more likely to be satisfied with the whole experience of getting the EHC plan (71% versus 43%).

124

5.2.1.

Preparations for the future

Another key requirement of EHC plans is that they are forward looking and include preparation for important transition points in the child/young person’s life.The local authority is expected to ensure that every EHC plan review at Year 9 and thereafter includes a focus on preparing for adulthood81.

Three-fifths of parents and young people agreed that the EHC plan included preparations for the child/young person’s next move in life (e.g. to secondary school, college,

apprenticeship or work) (60%), whilst 17 per cent disagreed (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3: Extent to which EHC plan includes preparations for the child/young person’s next move in life

Agreement was higher where the child/young person was aged 11-15 or 16-25 years old, compared to where the child was aged 5-10 (64% for 11-15 and 63% for 16-25 year olds compared with 55%). There were also a number of other notable subgroup differences:

• Agreement was higher where the child/young person had a Statement of SEN in place previously compared to those that did not have a SEN Statement (63% compared with 53%);

81The SEND Code of Practice: 0-25 years

5%12% 11% 38% 22% 9%

3%

The EHC plan includes preparations for your/your child's next move in life (e.g. to

college, apprenticeship or work)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither / nor Agree Strongly Agree Don't Know Prefer not to say

Base: All parents and young people (13,643) Agree: 60%

125

• Those with EHC plans covering education, health and care needs were more likely to agree than those with EHC plans covering education needs only (70%

compared with 54%);

• Parents and young people in the 20 per cent most deprived neighbourhoods were more likely to agree, with the rate of agreement decreasing consistently with levels of deprivation (65% compared with 56% in the 20 per cent least deprived

neighbourhoods).