Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
EHCP question(13 Posts)
Does anyone know which part of the EHCP forms the statutory obligation of the LEA. In the way that part 3 of the statement was. We fought so hard to get SALT quantified and in part 3 that I want to make sure it's in the right place and not in the health section.
Any tips about EHCPs in general would be appreciated.
Yes, Section F is the Provision section and what you can hold the LA to account for. As is Section B (Needs), which must be accurate and comprehensive. And once Needs have been specified, Provision needs to be made to meet them.
The Placement section (Section I) is also obviously the other section you can go to tribunal over.
A lot of LA's want to put SALT in Health (Section G), but yes, make sure it is put in F, or they can wriggle out.
Other tips - get resources from IPSEA - they do a checklist of what should be in each section, plus get an Independent Supporter if you can to check it over. They will have seen load of the plans before so can offer advice.
Other tips - don't get your hopes up too high for a holistic approach - LA's are being very slow to get their heads round this.
Think of Outcomes (Section E) that YOU want, and then ask the people giving evidence for the EHCP to back you in those Outcomes and specify provision to meet them. Outcomes are not 'Harry has a one-to-one for 15 hours a week'. They should be more like 'Harry has two friends by the end of reception' or 'Harry can take part in afterschool clubs of his choosing by the end of Spring Term 2016'. The provision should then be that 'Harry is given an ASC-trained TA to facilitate play activities every break and lunch between Harry and selected children from his class, with support to be discrete and scaffolded to be reduced as Harry's ability to intiate and maintain social relationships grows. To be reviewed on a monthly basis'. Not a great example, but writing this is an hurry, sorry!
Thanks! The format of it in my authority is that they have put sections E and F together.
I really dislike the first 'all about me' section and the way it is in first person. My daughter does not communicate on that level so I think it would look misleading and also too informal for a legal document.
The independent supporters appear to be paid by the local authority here so I'm not sure how independent they actually are. Parent partnership were useless and not independent when we used them many years ago.
Oh, that sounds erm, not right! The law sets out each section and what should go in it. I've not heard of a LA trying to combine the two sections. I would ask the LA to separate them out (quote the SEND CoP if you need to).
The 'all about me' section doesn't have to be written in the first person - in many LAs it isn't. If you don't think it is helpful to your child for it to be written that way, then ask for it to be written in the third party.
Lastly, independent supporters are funded by a separate pot of money from central government. They aren't paid by LA's directly, to maintain their independent status. Parent Partnerships can be part of LA's, and can be good, or a bit rubbish.
Which LA are we talking about?
They have combined them in the pro forma I was given today. They call it 'outcomes and educational provision to meet the outcomes' it is then further divided into, cognition and learning, social emotional and mental health difficulties, sensory/physical, communication and interaction and independence and self help.
The divisions (cog and learning etc) sound fine and fairly typical, but combining Sections E and F is not. Is it clear what is provsion and what is outcome? I would still ask for them to be separated out.
Lots of LAs are combining section E with the other sections, because they fixate on the fact that provision is supposed to help the child achieve outcomes. Some of them are going in for incredibly complicated tables which are totally unhelpful, and because they try to force the list of provision into slots on the table that correspond with outcomes it all gets ludicrously artificial and/or repetitive. You can have the same provision listed several times over because it's supposed to meet different outcomes.
What they forget is that, first and foremost, provision is supposed to meet needs: outcomes are essentially what everyone hopes to achieve as a result of putting the provision in place. So trying to make provision fit outcomes is putting the cart before the horse.
Yes, InimitableJeeves, it would make more sense to combine provision with needs and not outcomes.
I want my daughter to go to specialist college at 19 when her school ends, any tips on what we need in the EHCP to achieve this? She currently sees the Salt twice each week at school and this is quantified and in her statement so I'll make sure that is in.
Basically the decision whether the EHCP continues past 19 depends on whether there is an educational need for it, and whether the outcomes have been met. Therefore you want outcomes that are properly long term and which say, for example, that she will get the qualifications she needs to go to college, and that she will achieve further education qualifications that will assist her in obtaining a job/living independently etc. If it's not a college that works towards qualifications, then it would be something like she will have learnt skills to enable her to live independently or in supported accommodation. You could also have an outcome which is directly related to her having reached a level of communication which she needs for normal purposes, or whatever is realistic.
Is the specialist college residential? If so, it's a good idea now to start looking at social care provision. Lots of LAs are trying to push young people of 16 or 18 into local further education colleges on the assumption that they will continue to live at home indefinitely, which is the cheapest option for them. However, at that age there is obviously a benefit in beginning to learn to live independently. Therefore if you make it clear to the LA that that is what you and DD want, and that she won't be staying at home for evermore, the reality is that social services would have to pick up the tab for supported accommodation. The cost of that is likely to be at least as much as a residential school so it could well persuade the LA to agree it.
No, we don't want her to go to a residential specialist college but we do want her to start using respite and ultimately live in supported housing.
She has had the transition to adult service assessment and we should get an increase in the direct payment support we currently get when she is 18 to pay for respite. One of the colleges we are seeing next week is residential although we live near enough for her not to be residential, but she could also have respite there and they have adult supported living for the future.
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.