Report on Special Educational Needs System and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

An analysis of stakeholder perspectives on the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) framework in England reveals significant misalignments with key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The current system for delivering Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) is reported to be procedurally complex, underfunded, and inequitable. These shortcomings directly challenge the principles of SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), indicating a need for systemic reform to ensure the rights and potential of children with disabilities are upheld.

SDG 4: Quality Education

The current approach to SEND provision presents substantial barriers to achieving inclusive and equitable quality education for all, as mandated by SDG 4.

• Target 4.5 (Equal Access for the Vulnerable): The debate over “inclusion” highlights a critical issue. A rigid interpretation that forces all students into a single mainstream framework, without adequate adaptation or alternative specialised settings, fails to provide an effective education for children with diverse needs, such as autism. True inclusion, aligned with SDG 4, requires respecting and providing for different needs, not enforcing uniformity.
• Target 4.a (Effective Learning Environments): The lack of timely and adequately funded support via EHCPs means many children with disabilities are left in learning environments that are unsuitable and unsupportive. This prevents them from achieving their full academic potential. Conversely, case evidence demonstrates that when appropriate support is secured through an EHCP, students can achieve high levels of academic success, such as a first-class degree.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The process for securing an EHCP systematically fosters inequality, directly contravening the objectives of SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequalities within and among countries.

1. Target 10.2 (Promote Social Inclusion): The EHCP application process is described as an “administrative labyrinth.” It requires a high degree of tenacity, resilience, confidence, and skill to navigate successfully.
2. Target 10.3 (Ensure Equal Opportunity): This complexity creates a discriminatory system that disadvantages families who lack the necessary resources, knowledge, or social capital to challenge local authority decisions. This results in an inequality of outcome, where the neediest children are often the least likely to receive the support to which they are legally entitled.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The operational failures of the EHCP system point to a lack of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions, as called for in SDG 16.

• Target 16.6 (Effective, Accountable Institutions): Local authorities are reportedly unable to meet their statutory duties due to insufficient funding, leading them to resist EHCP applications. This creates an adversarial system rather than a supportive one. The necessity for parents to engage in a formal appeal and tribunal process, often requiring legal expertise, demonstrates a failure of the primary institution to be responsive and accountable.
• Target 16.7 (Responsive and Inclusive Decision-Making): The protracted timeframes for securing a plan are a critical institutional failure. Delays can result in children lacking essential support for crucial multi-year periods of their education, such as the transition from primary to secondary school. This lack of timely intervention undermines the entire purpose of the support system and indicates that current processes are neither responsive nor efficient. A system with such inherent delays requires fundamental replacement to be considered effective.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The entire article focuses on the challenges of providing appropriate and effective education for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). It discusses the need for suitable learning environments, adequate support through Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), and the goal of enabling these children to be “successful” and achieve their potential, such as attaining a “first-class degree.”
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article highlights significant inequalities in the education system. It points out that the complexity of the EHCP process “discriminates against some of the neediest” parents who may lack the skills to navigate it. This creates an unequal system where access to necessary support is not based solely on need, but on a family’s resources and “tenacity.”
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The text describes the process of securing educational rights as a “battle” that often requires legal action, such as an “appeal and tribunal process” and hearings in a “magistrates court.” This points to issues with the accessibility and effectiveness of the institutions responsible for implementing the Children and Families Act 2014 and ensuring children’s rights are met.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.5: “ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities”. The article is fundamentally about the struggle to secure this equal access for autistic children and those with “complex medical needs,” who are often denied the support (EHCPs) required to participate fully in education.
   • Target 4.a: “Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all”. The article directly addresses this by contrasting mainstream schools, which can be an unsuitable “framework” for some children, with the need for specialized SEND settings. It argues that true “inclusion” means providing an “appropriate” environment based on individual needs.
2. Under SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: “empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… disability”. The article advocates for a system that enables children with disabilities to be “successful” and achieve higher education, which is a key aspect of social and future economic inclusion.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… practices”. The article describes the EHCP process as an “administrative labyrinth” that is “almost inaccessible to parents who lack the skills to navigate” it, leading to unequal opportunities for children based on their parents’ capabilities rather than their own needs.
3. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels”. The article illustrates a failure in responsive decision-making, where a local authority initially denied an EHCP despite the need being “clearly defined in the Children and Families Act 2014,” forcing the parent into a lengthy appeal process to participate in and influence the decision about their child’s education.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education)
   • Educational Attainment: The article implies this is a key indicator of success. The author Susan Hailes notes that with an EHCP, her child “was able to go on to achieve a first-class degree,” suggesting that rates of higher education achievement among students with SEND can measure the effectiveness of support systems.
   • Provision of tailored support: The number of children with SEND who successfully acquire an EHCP is an implied indicator. The article frames the “battle to acquire an education, health and care plan” as a central challenge, meaning an increase in successful, timely applications would signify progress.
2. Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)
   • Time to access support: The article explicitly mentions the delay in securing support as a critical problem. It states that the time taken “can be so protracted” that children may lack support for “as much as three years.” Therefore, the average time taken from EHCP application to implementation is a direct, measurable indicator of systemic inequality.
   • Accessibility of administrative processes: The article describes the EHCP system as “almost inaccessible” and a “labyrinth.” A reduction in the number of applications that go to appeal or tribunal would be an indicator of a more accessible and less discriminatory system.
3. Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)
   • Rate of legal challenges: The frequency with which parents must resort to the “appeal and tribunal process” to secure their children’s legal rights is a clear indicator of the responsiveness and justice of the institutions involved. A lower rate of appeals would suggest the system is functioning more effectively and accountably.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theguardian.com