Plans, Power, and Prejudice: Racialised Barriers to EHCPs in England’s Schools
- inclusionht
- Jul 11
- 16 min read
A critical analysis of how systemic racism and structural inequalities affect access to Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs) for racially marginalised children in England.
About the Author
Frances Akinde (InclusionHT) is an SEN consultant, local authority advisor/inspector, a former special school headteacher, a qualified SENCO, and a parent of neurodivergent children. She has spent over two decades navigating the complexities of the SEND system in England. Her lived experience as a Black educator and parent has shaped her understanding of the intersection between race and SEND, making this work deeply personal.
Frances is currently studying for a postgraduate diploma in Education and Social Justice at Birkbeck University, London, further deepening her critical understanding of the systemic inequalities that shape educational outcomes. She regularly contributes to national policies and research and is also a published author.
This report, Plans, Power, and Prejudice: Racialised Barriers to EHCPs in England’s Schools, explores how systemic racism and structural inequalities affect access to Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs) for racially marginalised children in England. Drawing on national data, historical context, and lived experience, it reveals stark disparities in identification, diagnosis, and support for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
Key findings include:
Black Caribbean heritage pupils are significantly less likely to receive EHCPs despite high levels of need.
Cultural bias and institutional mistrust hinder access for many racially marginalised families.
Misidentification of needs, particularly SLCN as SEMH, is common among Black heritage pupils.
Historical legacies and adultification bias continue to shape perceptions and outcomes.
Families from White British backgrounds, particularly middle-class professional families, are more likely to successfully navigate the EHCP process as they are generally more confident in the system.
The report calls for urgent reforms, including universal baseline assessments, disaggregated data monitoring, anti-racism training, and stronger family engagement. It argues for a more equitable, inclusive education system that recognises and addresses the intersection of race, disability, and socio-economic status.
Introduction
This report explores the disparities in identifying, supporting, and issuing Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs) for children from racially marginalised backgrounds. It critically analyses the systemic barriers that persist and proposes practical, equitable solutions for educators, policymakers, researchers, and families.
Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs) are legally binding documents designed to ensure that children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) receive the support they require to access education and achieve positive outcomes. The EHCP process begins when a child is identified as needing support, which is more than can be met through the standard support available in schools. This identification may come from teachers, parents, health professionals or wider services. It would be interesting to look at this further in terms of where identifications and requests for support come from.
Once the school (or wider support services such as social services) or the parent/carer requests an EHCP assessment, the local authority must decide whether to conduct a formal needs assessment. If agreed, the assessment involves gathering evidence from various professionals, including educational psychologists, teachers, speech and language therapists, and medical practitioners. The child or young person and their family are invited to contribute their views.
If the local authority concludes that an EHCP is necessary, it must issue the plan within 20 weeks of the initial request. The EHCP outlines the child’s needs, the provision required to meet those needs, the outcomes expected, and the educational setting where the support will be delivered. The plan is reviewed annually to ensure it remains appropriate. This process has the potential to add further compounding barriers at each level especially with the overhanging threat that support may be deemed not necessary and taken away.
While EHCPs are a vital mechanism for securing support, the process is often complex, lengthy, and challenging to navigate, particularly for families from racially marginalised backgrounds. Families may face additional barriers such as language differences, lack of access to advocacy, or cultural misunderstandings. such as language differences, lack of access to advocacy, or cultural misunderstandings that may be part of the barriers families from marginalised communities are already facing but the onus must be on institutions and systems to recognise and dismantle these structural inequities to ensure that processes are not only legally compliant but also culturally responsive, accessible and inclusive. This can only be achieved when equity is embedded as a core underlying principle for every decision maker involved in the process.
Why is this report timely?
As of January 2025, the total number of students in all schools across England (including state-funded and independent schools) is approximately 9,032,426 1. This figure reflects a slight decrease of about 59,600 students (0.7%) compared to the previous year.
At the same time, there are over 638,745 pupils with EHCPs in England, a 10.8% increase from the previous year. Additionally, 97,747 new EHCPs were issued in 2024, and 154,489 requests for EHCP assessments were made.
Local authorities are financially strained, leading to higher EHCP eligibility thresholds and assessment delays. These pressures disproportionately affect families who are less able to advocate for their children, often those from disadvantaged groups, particularly those from racially marginalised backgrounds. This creates a two-tiered process in which access to timely and effective support is often based on whether a family has the time, knowledge, and resources ( including access to networks) to be able to advocate for themselves. We know that the process families from racially marginalised and socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are frequently at the back of the queue as they do not have the social and financial capital to be able to push their way to the front, further perpetuating inequality.
The Labour government has declared SEND a priority. This includes reforms to EHCP processes, digitalisation of plans, and a focus on early intervention. However, race and intersectionality are still not adequately addressed in these reforms, making this report a critical contribution to ongoing policy conversations.
In the last 5 years, notably since the COVID-19 pandemic and the public murder of George Floyd, there seemed to be a heightened public and professional appetite for addressing inequities in education. This included a growing recognition of how race, disability, and socio-economic status intersect to shape educational outcomes. However, as political discourses increasingly lean to the right, we are going even further backwards. Equity-focused initiatives are not the priority anymore. Instead, they are being reframed so that the language is now more diluted or even actively contested. The urgent changes needed in order to address deep-rooted disparities must be structural. Children who do not receive the right support to succeed are more likely to be criminalised, experience poor mental and physical health, which leads to a shorter life expectancy. This is systemic neglect. When education, health, and social care systems fail to work together in an equitable and timely manner, the most vulnerable children are let down. Support is not a privilege it is the difference between a child being protected from preventable harm or being victims of outcomes that were entirely avoidable. We should not be part of a system that waits for children to fail before it acts. A fair system intervenes early, equitably and without requiring families to fight for what we know they already need.
The Case For and Against EHCPs
There is growing evidence that the EHCP system in England is not functioning as intended, particularly for the most vulnerable children. Instead, it is creating a tiered system which relies on social and financial capital while actively building inequity. EHCPs provide legal protection, access to resources, and accountability for schools. They are essential for ensuring that children with complex needs receive the required support. However, the process is lengthy, bureaucratic, and often inaccessible to marginalised families if they do not get support from schools.
Over-reliance on EHCPs can lead to neglect of early intervention. Schools often argue that they cannot put support in place without an EHCP, although an EHCP does not necessarily come with additional funding. Bias in decision-making reflects systemic racism and ableism around who is deserving of extra support.
Alternatives and Solutions
Although IEPs (Individual Education Plans) are no longer mandatory nationally, reintroducing them could improve consistency and early intervention for pupils with SEND. IEPs provided a clear, structured way to document needs, plan support, and involve families, especially those who may struggle to navigate the EHCP process.
In addition, baseline assessments offer a standardised, objective method for identifying learning needs early in a pupil’s education. They reduce reliance on subjective teacher referrals, which can be influenced by bias or inconsistent expectations. By establishing clear benchmarks, baseline assessments ensure that all pupils have precise benchmarking data and regular teaching assessments, which are regularly evaluated for fairness and consistency. This supports early intervention, improves access to support services, and enhances educational equity.
Strengths-based assessment and support approaches focus on what’s strong rather than what’s wrong, recognising the whole child and promoting resilience and self-advocacy. Inclusive data practices are essential, with schools and local authorities being required to disaggregate data by ethnicity, gender, and SEND type, monitor conversion rates to EHCPs, and identify patterns of exclusion and underachievement.
Representation and training are also critical. Increasing diversity among teachers, SENCOs, and EPs, providing anti-racism and cultural competency training, and ensuring culturally sensitive assessments will help address systemic biases.
Historical Context
Colonial legacies and systemic discrimination have long shaped the UK education system. The 1944 Butler Education Act introduced the tripartite system, which segregated students based on perceived academic ability through the 11-Plus exam. This disproportionately affected working-class students and students from racially minoritised groups, with the 11-Plus exam designed to funnel them into deliberately under-resourced secondary modern schools.
Educationally Sub-Normal (ESN) schools, established under the same act, segregated children based on perceived intellectual ability. Black Caribbean children were disproportionately placed in these schools, justified by socially and institutionally reproduced assumptions of cultural deprivation and emotional disturbance. Bernard Coard’s 1971 report exposed this practice as a deliberate act of institutional racism.
The Windrush generation faced significant educational barriers, with their contributions undervalued and their children subjected to ongoing disadvantages. The medicalisation of disability was used to justify exclusion rather than accommodation, and racism and ableism manifested in assessment tracking, disciplinary actions, and curriculum biases. These historical injustices continue to influence current practices, contributing to the overrepresentation of Black boys in PRUs (Pupil Referral Units) and their underrepresentation in EHCPs.
The Role of Families and Communities
Parental engagement is a key predictor of positive outcomes. However, families from racially marginalised backgrounds often face language barriers, cultural misunderstandings, and a lack of trust in schools due to both historical and present factors. Schools must do more to build relationships without labelling families as 'hard to reach'. This can be done in several ways, and AI has now made it a lot easier.
This must start by creating safe spaces for dialogue and involving parents/carers in decision-making. Effective parental engagement can lead to four months’ additional progress, according to the Education Endowment Foundation (see bibliography below).
The EHCP Process: A System of Inequity. Disparities in Conversion from SEN Support to EHCPs.
Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, including racially marginalised backgrounds, are less likely to have the resources financially or otherwise to access the legal protections and resources associated with EHCPs, despite being identified with similar or even higher levels of need.
This disparity does not result from a single factor but rather a complex interplay of systemic, cultural, socioeconomic, and institutional influences.
One contributing factor that cannot be denied is the bias of the teachers and SENCO referrals. Behavioural concerns are more likely to be managed through SEN support rather than escalated to formal assessment. We must confront this truth using the data published by the DfE to start this conversation.
At the same time, parental knowledge of the education system plays a critical role in securing statutory support. White middle class British families are often more familiar with the processes and more confident in advocating for their children. In contrast, families from Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller, and racially marginalised communities may face additional barriers, including mistrust of institutions, lack of access to information, or previous negative experiences. While some groups may receive targeted support due to their visibility (for example Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller), disparities in advocacy remain a key factor influencing access to EHCPs.
In some communities, including South Asian and Black African heritage groups, cultural beliefs about disability and mental health can influence whether families seek formal diagnosis. Stigma surrounding developmental conditions may discourage families from pursuing assessments. Language barriers and a lack of culturally literate professionals can also hinder effective communication between families and schools, delaying or preventing access to appropriate support.
That is not to say that pupils from White socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are always more likely to be identified with SEND. Schools in these communities often face resource constraints that limit their ability to pursue statutory assessments.
According to the Office for National Statistics, children in Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage households were the most likely to live in low-income households compared with children living in White British households (see references), therefore confirming that when these socioeconomic challenges intersect with racial and cultural marginalisation, the barriers become even more pronounced.
Some schools may try to manage pupils’ needs internally through SEN support to avoid the administrative burden of EHCP applications. There is also evidence that schools may be more responsive to parental pressure from White British families, leading to unequal access to formal support pathways. This dynamic reinforces existing inequalities in those who receive statutory support.
Local authorities under financial pressure may also apply higher thresholds for EHCP eligibility, meaning that only the most complex cases are approved, disproportionately affecting pupils from minority ethnic groups.
National Statistics on SEND
As of January 2025, approximately 1.7 million pupils in England were identified as requiring support for special educational needs (SEND), representing 14.2% of the school population. This marks an increase from 13.6% in 2024. However, this figure is based on the school census and does not include children who are home educated or those on informal school monitoring registers. When these groups are considered, the actual proportion of school-aged children with SEND is estimated to be closer to 21.3% of the total school-aged population. These figures reflect a growing demand for SEND services and highlight the need for more robust, equitable, and consistent identification mechanisms across all educational settings.
The most common primary need for pupils with an EHCP is Autism (still listed by the DfE as Autistic Spectrum Disorder). In contrast, the most prevalent need for those receiving SEN support is Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN). However, as we will explore further, SLCN is frequently misidentified as a behaviour issue (social, emotional, mental health or SEMH), particularly in marginalised groups.
Disparities in Identification and Support
Although the overall percentage of pupils with an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP) has increased to 5.3% nationally, this figure masks significant disparities across ethnic groups. For example, 24.55% of Black Caribbean pupils are identified with SEND and placed on the SEN support register, substantially higher than the 18.61% of White British pupils and 9.25% of Indian pupils. However, despite this higher level of identification, Black Caribbean pupils have one of the lowest EHCP rates at just 2.46%, compared to the national average of 5.3%.
This discrepancy suggests systemic inequities in access to statutory assessments and formal support. Under-diagnosis of conditions like Autism and speech and language needs in Black and South Asian pupils leads to fewer EHCPs. In contrast, over-identification of behavioural needs results in short-term interventions rather than long-term support. This lack of support and inaccurate identification of underlying needs leads to higher rates of suspensions and permanent exclusions.
We know that speech, language, and communication needs (SLCN) are among the most common special educational needs in primary-aged children. However, these needs are frequently under-identified and under-supported, particularly for pupils from racially marginalised backgrounds. This is especially true for Black Caribbean pupils, who are disproportionately more likely to be identified with Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) needs as their primary area of need.
Early identification of SLCN relies heavily on access to speech and language therapy services, which are often overstretched and inconsistently available across local authorities. In many cases, children with SLCN do not receive timely assessments or interventions, particularly in schools serving disadvantaged communities.
In addition, standardised assessments may not account for variation in dialect or cultural communication styles. As a result, the language profiles of Black Caribbean pupils are often misdiagnosed as behavioural issues rather than communication difficulties.
These behaviours are often misinterpreted as defiance, inattentiveness, or aggression. This is compounded by adultification bias, where Black children, particularly boys, are perceived as older, more threatening, or more responsible for their actions than their peers.
Key Data Insights
37.32% of pupils receiving SEN support go on to receive a EHCP
Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller of Irish Heritage pupils have higher rates of both SEN support and EHC plans, with conversion rates from SEN support to EHCP of 26.29% and 35.33% respectively making a combined rate of 28.16%.
Even though GRT pupils have higher rates of SEN support and EHCPs overall, they are less likely than average to transition from SEN support to an EHCP.
For SEN support for GRT children, this equates to 24.41% and 27.66 % respectively, and therefore 25.02% combined. For EHCPs Gypsy, Roma and traveller children average an EHCP rate of 7.05%.
White British pupils show an identification rate slightly below the national average, with 18.61% receiving SEN support and an estimated 26.5% of those progressing to an EHC plan resulting in 4.93% eventually being issued with an EHCP, slightly below the national average.
Pupils from Any Other White Background have slightly above-average SEN support rates (16.3%) but lower-than-average EHCP rates (4.2%), suggesting potential barriers in progressing to statutory support.
British Black African heritage pupils have high SEN support rates of 20.0% but lower EHC plan rates, at 4.0%. This suggests potential barriers to formal diagnosis or progression to statutory support.
British Pakistani heritage pupils have support rates of 21.0% whilst EHCP rates are at 5.3% which aligns with national averages.
British Black Caribbean heritage and White British and British Black Caribbean heritage pupils show high SEN support rates (24.55% and 25.0% respectively) but low EHC plan rates, at 2.46% and 8.33%. As the figures show, White British and Black Caribbean heritage (dual heritage) pupils are much more likely to have their needs recognised but not necessarily accurately identified. These patterns may reflect systemic bias or misidentification, particularly in behavioural categories such as SEMH (Social, Emotional and Mental Health).
In contrast, British Indian heritage and British Bangladeshi heritage pupils have consistently low rates of both SEN support (9.25% and 13.2%) and EHC plans (2.79% and 3.06%), which could indicate under-identification or cultural differences in accessing support services.
The Any Other Ethnic Group category includes a wide range of pupils from diverse global backgrounds. Their aggregated data may obscure specific needs, with a conversion rate of 26.7%, well below the national average.
Breakdown Regarding the Type of SEN Status
If we break this down into types of need, we know from data published by the DfE around ethnicity and areas of need, we know that the most common primary types vary across ethnic groups. While national trends show that Autism, listed as Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), is the most common primary need for pupils with EHCPs, and Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN) is most common for those on SEN Support, the distribution differs significantly by ethnicity.
White British pupils: Most commonly identified with Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD) and Autism.
Black Caribbean pupils: Overrepresented in the SEMH (Social, Emotional and Mental Health) category, often due to misidentification of underlying communication or neurodevelopmental needs.
Black African pupils: More likely to be identified with SLCN or MLD but underrepresented in Autism diagnoses compared to White peers.
Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils: Higher rates of SLCN but also under-identified for Autism.
Indian pupils: Lower overall SEND identification rates; when identified, more likely to be categorised under SLCN or Autism.
Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller of Irish Heritage pupils: High rates of identification across multiple categories, particularly MLD and SEMH, often linked to wider social exclusion and educational disengagement.
Chinese pupils: Very low rates of SEND identification overall; when identified, needs are most often categorised under SLCN or Autism, though under-identification is a concern due to cultural stigma or alternative support-seeking behaviours.
Any Other White Background: A diverse group including Eastern and Southern European pupils, often identified with SLCN or MLD; language barriers and cultural differences may influence patterns of need and access.
Any Other Ethnic Group: A highly heterogeneous category including Latin American, Middle Eastern (non-Arab), and Central Asian pupils; needs vary widely, but SLCN and SEMH are common, with under-identification likely due to aggregation and lack of culturally specific assessment tools.
Recommendations for Schools, Policy Makers and Community Groups
To move closer towards equity and away from systemic bias, the following actions are recommended:
Implement universal baseline assessments for all pupils on entry so that an individual child's needs are identified earlier.
Reintroduce mandatory structured support plans to provide consistency and gather accurate evidence before considering EHCP plans.
Monitor and publish ethnicity-based data on SEND identification and EHCPs at the government, local authority, trust and school levels.
Better funded early intervention services, especially in speech and language to support early identification.
Diversify the workforce in education and broader services.
Reform the EHCP process to reduce gatekeeping and bias.
Invest in anti-racism and cultural competency training for all education professionals, including SENCOs and senior leaders (including headteachers).
Strengthen family engagement, particularly with marginalised communities.
Consider race, disability and socio-economic status together in all SEND reforms.
Build networks for peer advocacy.
Challenge stigma around disability, neurodiversity, including mental health, within communities to enable early identification and support.
Conclusion
The double discrimination faced due to the intersection of race and SEND is not a new issue, but it remains an urgent one. The disparities in identification, support, and EHCP provision are symptoms of a system not designed with all children in mind. As educators, policymakers, researchers, and families, we ensure every child receives the support they need to succeed. We must dismantle the structures perpetuating inequality and rebuild an education system rooted in justice, inclusion, and care. One that prioritises a holistic approach and ensures that school is the foundation of opportunity, belonging, and empowerment for every child, so that they are more likely to grow up to be adults who are confident, compassionate, and equipped to contribute meaningfully to a more just and inclusive society and reach their full potential.
To do this, we must analyse all data through an equitable lens. Data must be disaggregated and used meaningfully to expose and address inequities. Families must be seen as partners, not problems. And the workforce must reflect the diversity of our communities, with training that goes beyond awareness to embed anti-racist, anti-ableist practice at every level. We must work collectively to achieve this by ensuring that we intentionally include the voices of children and families from marginalised groups without being reminded to do so.
References
Akinde, F. (2022). The Intersectionality Between RACE and SEND in Education.
Akinde, F. (2023). RACE & SEND Teaching Times Article.
Double Jeopardy: When Race Meets Special Educational Needs - TeachingTimes
Akinde, F (2024). Analysing data through an equitable lens to explore intersectionality: race and SEND, chapter in Bartram, D., & Packer, N. (2024). Beyond Boundaries: Leading Great SEND Provision across a Trust.
Akinde, F (2025). Baseline Assessments for Equitable SEND Identification.
Akinde, F (2025). Intersecting Oppressions: A Critical Analysis of Power Dynamics in the UK Education System through DisCrit and Postcolonial Frameworks.
Coard, B. (1971). How the West Indian Child is Made Educationally Subnormal in the British School System.
Department for Education (2025). Special Educational Needs in England: January 2025.
Department for Education (2025). Special Educational Needs in England: January 2025. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/special-educational-needs-in-England
Department for Education (2025). Children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND): an analysis by ethnicity- data set.
FSM, Ethnicity and Language, by type of SEN provision and type of need - 2016 to 2025, Data set from Special educational needs in England - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK
Education Endowment Foundation (2022). Parental Engagement.
Office for National Statistics (2020). Child poverty and education outcomes by ethnicity.
Phoenix, A. (2018). What is Intersectionality? British Academy.
What is intersectionality? | The British Academy
Special Needs Jungle (2022). Race and SEND Survey.
Race-and-SEND-Survey_Final_170322.pdf
Rollock, Gillborn, Vincent & Ball (2015) The Colour of Class: The Educational Strategies of the Black middle classes. Routledge
Strand, S. & Lindorff, A. (2021). Ethnic Disproportionality in the Identification of High-Incidence Special Educational Needs.
Wallace, D. (2023). The Culture Trap: Ethnic Expectations and Unequal Schooling for Black Youth. Oxford University Press.
Comments