麻豆淫院

This blog post focuses on children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in young offender institutions (YOIs). The proposed outlined in the introduce significant structural changes to the SEND system. Evidence from shows that the rights of children in YOIs are often overlooked and yet these reforms, which are intended to have a strong focus on children’s rights, do not address the challenges of implementing them in custodial settings. There is also no evidence that children in YOIs have been consulted on the proposals.

Education inequality for young offenders in custody

Evidence shows that the quality of education in YOIs is poor. A systematic review found that 50 per cent of children in YOIs have literacy levels significantly below their chronological age, there is an increased prevalence of mental ill-health, and learning environments are often not suitable for neurodiverse learners (see Thomas & Glazzard, 2025).

Central to these proposals are the introduction of statutory Individual Support Plans (ISPs) and the ‘Experts at Hand’ model. Digital Individual Support Plans, codesigned with families, will set out clearly a child’s needs and provide information about the type of support that they require. These will remain with the child through each phase of their education. Experts at Hand is a national offer which will wrap specialist services around mainstream schools.

Under the reforms, ISPs will replace the current non-statutory SEN support documentation and become compulsory for all pupils with identified SEND. These digital plans are designed to detail day‑to‑day support and outline tiered interventions including targeted and targeted‑plus support, the latter linked to professional involvement through the Experts at Hand scheme. ISPs carry weaker statutory guarantees than education, health and care plans (EHCPs), leaving room for inconsistency and variable provision across institutions. For young offenders – many of whom have experienced disrupted education, unstable home environments and high levels of trauma – reliable, rights‑based SEND support is crucial.

‘For young offenders – many of whom have experienced disrupted education, unstable home environments and high levels of trauma – reliable, rights‑based SEND support is crucial.’

Without the ability to legally challenge inadequate provision, there is a risk that young people in custody may receive minimal support that does not adequately address their learning, behavioural or therapeutic needs.

The introduction of Experts at Hand, which is intended to provide schools with access to education, health and therapeutic professionals, is problematic when applied to custodial settings. This model has been designed with mainstream schools in mind and does not adequately respond to the complexities of secure estates. Logistical challenges, security constraints and fragmented communication systems often hinder external specialist involvement in young offender institutions. The model, which aims to provide onsite access to specialist professionals, including speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and educational psychologists, may not translate into meaningful support for young people in custody.

This shift has serious implications for young offenders in custodial environments. Research consistently shows disproportionately high levels of SEND within youth justice populations, including undiagnosed learning disabilities, speech and language needs and neurodevelopmental conditions. The rigid environment of secure training centres, young offender institutions and secure schools requires structured, specialist and legally enforceable support, elements that the proposed ISPs do not guarantee. The weakening of statutory protections means that young offenders may face increased barriers in accessing high‑level interventions that historically would have required an EHCP.

The SEND reforms also position early intervention as a core principle, emphasising universal and targeted provision in mainstream settings. While this approach aligns with long‑term inclusion goals, it fails to account for the reality that many young offenders experience late diagnosis and unmet needs throughout childhood, precisely because earlier systems did not intervene effectively. Consequently, by the time young people enter custody, their needs are often more severe and require intensive, specialist intervention rather than the lower‑tier support prioritised in the reforms.

Conclusion

In summary, while the government’s ambition to simplify and modernise SEND provision is clear, the proposed reforms risk widening existing inequalities for young offenders in custodial environments. The replacement of EHCPs for most learners, the limited statutory power of ISPs and the impracticality of implementing Experts at Hand within secure institutions collectively demonstrate that the system is not adequately designed to meet the acute, complex needs of this population.

Without targeted adaptations and stronger legal protections, the reforms could leave young offenders increasingly marginalised within an education system already struggling to meet their needs. It is vital that the government reviews the impact of the reforms on this group of learners through systematically evaluating the barriers to, and enablers of, inclusion in YOIs. Additionally, the government should review the impact of the reforms on long-term outcomes for young offenders with SEND, including educational engagement, achievement and desistance.

References

Thomas, S., & Glazzard, J. (2025). Special educational needs and disabilities of children in custody: A systematic review of international research. Review of Education, 13, article e70081.