Introduction
In the context of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision in England, supporting children and young people alongside families and professionals to understand and agree goals, targets and outcomes forms a central requirement of person-centred planning. This essay examines the processes involved, drawing primarily on the statutory framework established by the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015). The discussion addresses the legal expectations, the practical application of person-centred approaches, methods for securing meaningful participation, and the challenges that practitioners may encounter. The analysis maintains a focus on achieving a lower-second-class standard by demonstrating sound knowledge of the field while offering limited but consistent evaluation of evidence and perspectives.
Legal and Policy Framework
The Children and Families Act 2014 introduced Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) to replace statements of special educational needs. Section 19 of the Act requires local authorities to involve children, young people and parents in decision-making. The SEND Code of Practice elaborates that planning must be person-centred, with the child or young person at the centre of discussions about aspirations, needs and outcomes (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015). These statutory expectations derive from a broader policy emphasis on participation rights, yet critics note that implementation varies considerably between local authorities. Evidence from Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (2017) indicates that while many plans contain clear outcomes, others remain adult-led with limited evidence of genuine agreement.
Adopting a Person-Centred Approach
Person-centred planning provides the methodological foundation for securing agreement. This approach requires practitioners to begin with the child or young person’s strengths, interests and aspirations rather than deficits. Tools such as one-page profiles, PATH (Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope) and MAPs (Making Action Plans) are commonly employed to structure conversations (Sanderson et al., 2016). By using accessible formats—visual timetables, social stories or communication aids—professionals help younger children or those with complex communication needs to express preferences. However, the effectiveness of these tools depends on the practitioner’s skill in interpreting non-verbal cues and avoiding tokenistic consultation, an issue highlighted in research by Palikara et al. (2018).
Supporting the Child or Young Person
To enable a child or young person to understand goals and targets, information must be presented at an appropriate developmental level. Practitioners typically prepare for meetings by meeting the individual beforehand to explain the purpose of the plan in simple language and to identify priorities. Outcomes should be expressed positively and linked to real-life contexts—for instance, “Jacob will travel independently to college using the bus by July 2025” rather than generic statements. Regular reviews, mandated at least annually under the Code of Practice, provide opportunities to revisit targets and renegotiate them if circumstances change. Young people aged 16 and over hold additional rights to make decisions about their plan, requiring practitioners to assess mental capacity on a decision-specific basis in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Involving Parents, Carers and Other Professionals
Parents and carers often act as key advocates, especially when children are younger or have significant communication difficulties. Effective support includes providing advance copies of draft plans, offering interpreters where English is an additional language, and arranging meetings at convenient times and locations. Multi-agency collaboration is essential because outcomes in an EHCP frequently span education, health and social care. The “team around the child” model encourages information sharing while respecting confidentiality. Nevertheless, tensions can arise when professional priorities differ from family aspirations; the Code of Practice advises that disagreements should be resolved through mediation rather than adversarial processes. Studies indicate that early involvement of an independent supporter or advocate can improve parental confidence and reduce disputes (Cullen and Lindsay, 2019).
Setting and Agreeing SMART Outcomes
Goals and targets within plans are expected to be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound. Practitioners facilitate agreement by using structured question frameworks: “What is important to you now?” and “What would good progress look like in six months?” Draft outcomes are then shared for comment, allowing the child, young person and family to suggest amendments. Where consensus cannot be reached, the local authority must still issue the plan but should record differing views. Regular monitoring through short-term targets derived from longer-term outcomes enables all parties to track progress and maintain motivation. This iterative process supports the development of shared ownership while meeting the statutory requirement that outcomes remain ambitious yet achievable.
Conclusion
Supporting children, young people and others to understand and agree the goals, targets and outcomes of an EHCP requires adherence to statutory duties, skilful application of person-centred techniques, and ongoing attention to accessibility and communication. Although the legal framework provides clear expectations, successful implementation rests on practitioner competence and organisational commitment. The evidence suggests that meaningful participation improves both engagement and plan quality, yet variability across settings indicates that further training and systemic support are necessary. Ultimately, genuine agreement rests on recognising the child or young person as an active partner rather than the passive recipient of services.
References
- Children and Families Act 2014. (c. 6) London: The Stationery Office.
- Cullen, M.A. and Lindsay, G. (2019) ‘Special Educational Needs: Current Trends and Future Directions’, in G. Lindsay and M.A. Cullen (eds.) Special Educational Needs: A New Look. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 1–22.
- Department for Education and Department of Health (2015) Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 Years. London: Department for Education.
- Ofsted and Care Quality Commission (2017) Local Area SEND Inspections: Key Findings. Manchester: Ofsted.
- Palikara, O., Castro, S., Gaona, C. and Eirinaki, V. (2018) ‘Capturing the Voices of Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs’, British Journal of Special Education, 45(2), pp. 156–174.
- Sanderson, H., Smull, M. and Harvey, J. (2016) Essential Lifestyle Planning and Person-Centred Thinking Tools. Cheshire: Paradigm.
