Evaluating the quality of outcomes defined for children with Education Health and Care plans in England: A local picture with global implications.

Castro et al. (2019) read 135 Education, Health and Care plans from five English councils. They scored each outcome for how useful it was in real life. Two raters marked goals as functional, non-functional, or unclear.

The team also noted the child’s school type and which council wrote the plan. They wanted to see if outcomes changed from place to place.

Most goals were too vague to guide teaching. Only a handful focused on daily skills like asking for help or joining a game.

Plans from different councils looked like different teams wrote them. Some used clear, measurable steps. Others listed wishes such as “feel more confident.”

Palikara et al. (2022) adds the child’s voice problem. They found that only 7.7 % of EHCPs quoted the pupil’s own words. Together, the two audits show English plans miss both function and self-direction.

Whaling et al. (2025) built a new Spanish tool that tracks eight quality-of-life areas in primary pupils. Their scale could fix the English gap by giving teams ready-made, participation-focused goals.

Studies from Slovenia (B et al., 2011) and Malaysia (M et al., 2012) echo the same story: families value life areas highly but see few chances to reach them. The English data now prove the plans themselves are part of the barrier.

If you write or review EHC plans, swap one vague goal for a functional, child-chosen target this week. Ask the pupil what matters to them, write the step so anyone could see progress, and use the Spanish QoLI-PE items as a quick menu. One clear, self-selected goal beats a page of wishes.