EHCP support thread no. 4

@BrightYellowTrain Thank you ❤️

@Phineyj
@BrightYellowTrain

So yesterday I got the draft amended EHCP (again) along with this response from DS’s case worker. I’ve removed names:

LA response in italics

I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify and explain what went wrong last year.
‘SENCO’ forwarded me the Review paperwork on 17/07/2024. It was my duty as Caseworker for ‘school name’ and ‘DS’ to action the review document.
Within 1 month of the review, I had to issue a letter indicating whether the Local Authority were going to amend or not DS’s EHCP. This did not happen, and I apologise unreservedly.
I can assure you that at no point did ‘DS’ miss any provision or funding because of this oversight.
There was an EHCP in place and the Annual Review document is always considered as addendum to this plan. EHCP is always amended at Transition reviews in preparation for key stage transfer.
All the changes we discuss during such transition review are made to the EHCP to ensure it is factual when we consult with schools for the young person transferring to next key stage.”

From this, I’m reading that they believe that DS didn’t miss any provision. He absolutely did, because no one was clear about what provision he was supposed to get last term.
I’ve just had a quick look at the draft EHCP and I can still see the word ‘handicapped’ in there. Section F still doesn’t look right. Why doesn’t it appear as a table? Are there any good section F examples online?

I need to reply so any thoughts would be very, very much appreciated. Thank you X

@Namechangeagain80 yes, explain the provision offered isn’t suitable, why and reference any evidence to support your points. When seeking the LA’s views ask if they agree to seek an earlier hearing since DD is not attending school full time thus not receiving a suitable full-time education. SENDIST may or may not agree but it is worth a shot. I would do this ASAP because an avalanche of content/placement appeals will hit SENDIST shortly.

@BrightYellowTrain Thank you. I might wait to see what the outcome of the LIFT meeting is before I go back to the LA re section 19. So would I just say that I don't think that would be a suitable provision?

The SENCO has spoken about the possibility of seeing if we can get DD in for just afternoons for a couple of weeks and just do an intensive period of 1:1 emotional support intervention, but she was going to seek the views of the LIFT.

Thank you, I had seen mention of the SEND7 form. Would I just go back to the LA and say eg that I would like to put in a request for an expedited hearing due to XX and assume that they had no objections?

@Namechangeagain80 section 19 provision can be as well as part time school where that is appropriate. The provision isn’t limited to one intermediary school. It has to be whatever is suitable. It does not require a referral from the homeschool - although DD’s school should have made a sickness return as per the School Attendance (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2024.

You can try to request an expedited hearing on the basis DD is not in school full time. You can do this via a SEND7 - don’t forget to seek the LA’s views first.

Hi, hope it's okay to join. Had a refusal to assess just before Christmas and I sent in the appeal earlier in the week. Today received official confirmation with dates for hearing of between August and September 🙄

DD9 has ASD, sensory issues and potentially ADHD. Expert masker at school, but we've had difficulty getting her to school for the past two years... (Though we would always manage to eventually get her in every day). This academic year (4), it has however escalated and her attendance is currently 70%, though decreasing every week.

SENCO was a bit hands off before Christmas, though has been a bit more proactive since I sent a strongly-worded, yet diplomatic email to both her and the head, following which we had a meeting with both.

Has put a fair few more interventions in place and is taking DD's case to the Local Inclusion Forum Meeting next week.

I wanted to ask about the S19 provision to provide a suitable full-time education... How would this work if DD is still attending some of the time? Some days she manages to go in from late morning (but misses maths and English), some days she manages most of the day, but others not at all.

I did request this of the LA and they came back with an email to say that what they offer for children with "serious health conditions" is an intermediary school, but they would first need to liaise and get a referral from the home school if they found it to be necessary etc. I looked into this school and there's no guarantee referrals would be accepted anyway.

But also, there's no guarantee this would be suitable and/or she would manage going to a brand new environment...

My previous thread is here if anyone wants more info:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/special_educational_needs/5262238-ehcna-refusal-to-assess-appeal

@SprigatitoYouAndIKnow
“Minimise his ASD and demand avoidance”.
A really useful phrase I’ve kept in mind while ‘annotating’ (or basically rewriting) DS’s EHCP was:
”view the environment - and not the individual - as the barrier to progress”.

Therefore I’d personally want that phrase rewritten as something like “adopting strategies/an environment that supports needs” rather than seeing the child/their needs as a ‘hinderance’.
To me, it’s this mindset that is so important. There seems to be a tendency to jump to the conclusion that it’s the child’s ‘fault’, rather than the adult adapting or questioning the support they are providing.

@SprigatitoYouAndIKnow you only have to consider mediation. You don’t have to partake. Personally, I wouldn’t bother with mediation in your situation. Just get the certificate and submit to SENDIST. The LA is likely to use mediation as a delaying tactic. If the LA is going to concede they can do so whether you actively partake in medication or just get the certificate and submit it SENDIST. Then request an expedited hearing on the basis DS isn’t in school.

We've just realised they said on his ehcp:

Name will be supported using strategies that can minimise his asd, and demand avoidance.

The people who are supposed to be defining his support want to minimise who he is 😢. He is wonderful as he is, he doesn't need to be minimised. He needs to be properly supported, allowed to learn about his special interests and given genuine choices. Anything else would destroy him.

Yes, we are going to go to mediation and then probably tribunal over the whole bloody thing, but this makes me saddest of all.

Hi, I'd like to join if that's ok, currently at assessment stage for DD, aged 14. Hasn't attended school since September, ASD, possibly PDA...she absolutely does not want me to do anything other than let her stay at home, in bed playing animal crossing currently.
Completely overwhelmed by everything...I'll try to read the thread but I don't think I can take much in currently!

the school might be able to get away with saying it can only be provided in school

@SpaceInvader321 leaving aside whether F is enforceable or not (that will depend on the exact wording of each part), it is the LA who is responsible for F, not the school.

LSA/TA/HLTA can deliver provision outside of school, but it will be the LA who is responsible for ensuring that is provided where necessary. I have 2 DSs with EOTAS/EOTIS. As part of their packages, one has an LSA to cover all but the time at an AP he goes to, the other has full time HLTA (the role is actually broken into 3 because the role is too much for 1 person) and a TA.

‘School staff’ definitely needs to go. That could be delivered by the e.g. cleaner or reception staff. Along similar lines ‘key adult’ and ‘trusted adult’ need amending too. And what ‘experience’?

@BrightYellowTrain Thanks. I have already requested s19 provision and the SENCo said they received a medical needs referral form from the AP setting, so something is in motion though details have not been shared with me despite my chasing.

F has issues, so the school might be able to get away with saying it can only be provided in school, especially as most provisions indicate that a teacher, LSA or SENCo will deliver them. Examples of wording: DS 'will be paired with an adult for reading ... 30 minutes/week ... delivered by School staff, Key worker, Teacher' and DS 'will have regular sessions with a familiar, known and trusted adult outside of the classroom to talk about any anxieties he may be having at school. This must be a key adult who has experience working with children with autism and ADHD, and who knows DS well ... delivered by Key adults, overseen by SENCo ... Weekly 20-30 minutes'.

I find it so hard to work out what kind of wording ensures a provision is watertight. In our WD (which the LA still hasn't returned after four months), I've removed all the vague 'school staff' in favour of Learning Support Assistant, Subject Teacher, etc ... but does that create loopholes in the future if DS stopped attending again?

I also asked school if the LSA could deliver thing like DS's mentoring and EF provision over Zoom and was told that 'unfortunately' they've only been trained to deliver the provision in person at school.

Good to know about how funding would work for the new school if we change.

@SpaceInvader321 even if DS can’t attend school, the LA is still responsible for ensuring anything detailed, specified and quantified in F is provided. This duty is absolute and non-delegable. It isn’t true provision can only be delivered in school. But it will depend on how it is worded in F. The LA is responsible, so contact them. Inform them DS is unable to attend school and they need to make arrangements to ensure DS receives a suitable full-time education under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 (this duty is separate to the EHCP) and anything detailed, specified and quantified in F of the EHCP as per their duty under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

Focus on DS rather than asking the school to use the funding for other DC.

What happens if we change school after our tribunal hearing in May and the current school claims to have used up all DC's funding? What would the new school get? (It's likely to be a wholly independent, if we win.)

It doesn’t work like you are imagining. The LA is responsible for the SEP in F and the placement. That includes ensuring there is sufficient funding. If your appeal is successful and DS moves school, the LA will be responsible for the new school funding.

DS is still home with EBSA and autistic burnout. We've been in regular communication with the SENCo about the situation and they know DS cannot attend ATM.

In the past two weeks, we've suddenly received multiple invitations for DS to participate in various interventions at school. We were also told that the LA finally increased his funding (though it's still well below what the SENCo costed out).

I'm worried the school is now using up this additional funding for provisions they know he can't access. Is it reasonable for us to request the school give the intervention places to other children until DS can return and to use his funding when he can access them? He's also timetabled to meet weekly with an ELSA. Can we ask for them to pause all provision? They've said provision in F can only be delivered in school, but DC can't attend. Any specific wording we should use?

What happens if we change school after our tribunal hearing in May and the current school claims to have used up all DC's funding? What would the new school get? (It's likely to be a wholly independent, if we win.)

Cheers, yes am just about to chase (been away for work this week so on slow and silent running, sorry for delayed reply!). SENCO means well I think but everything always takes weeks longer than it should.

On the phone the EP also said the 1:1 ‘Velcro’ model is not the best approach

@Ponche ^this misrepresents the research. A common tactic LAs use. A good TA, sufficiently trained and deployed correctly (e.g. not replacing the role of the teacher) can have a positive effect and do not lead to dependence. See Sharples et al. (2015) and Blatchford et al. (2009). Both of which also form the basis of the government’s Deployment of TAs in schools report. Michael Charles wrote a piece on this at some point in the past.

referred to psychometric testing as ‘archaic’ when I mentioned the lack of formal testing in the report.

Only if your aim is to save money and not undertake a comprehensive assessment.

SENCOP 9.51 and 9.69 (section F) will be useful for you to read. It is also helpful to read the guidance for EPs here. Particularly pages 9-14.

Could you afford an independent assessment if you could find someone with availability?

Depending on exactly how the report is written, you could also ask SENDIST to direct the LA to provide evidence as to how much 1:1 is required, but be aware SENDIST doesn’t always agree to do this and it may not result in the amount you think is required.

@BrightYellowTrain thanks for clarifying, I will contact the MO and see what they say. The hearing is mid-June 2025.

Please could you signpost me to where in the SENCOP I can find that information so I can include some quotes. Thanks a lot.

The neighbouring LA thing came up as on the phone the EP team were insisting EPs do not specify 1:1 hours in that way and I said I am aware that some do and gave the example of the neighbouring LA. So I asked if this was a local policy issue.

On the phone the EP also said the 1:1 ‘Velcro’ model is not the best approach and referred to psychometric testing as ‘archaic’ when I mentioned the lack of formal testing in the report. She was saying DD wouldn’t get a 1:1 in a special school and I said some children do and also she might not need one as the environment and ratios would be different.

@ponche SENDIST will consider all evidence.

Commenting on professional time is within the EP’s remit. Yes, other professionals may (should!) include recommendations about professional time too, but that doesn’t mean the EP can’t comment that full-time 1:1 is needed if it is required.

What a neighbouring LA does or doesn’t do is irrelevant. The SENCOP is clear the LA shouldn’t have blanket policies preventing the EP from commenting on the amount of provision. You have nothing to lose by contacting the MO. However, at this point, it probably won't result in amendment.

When is your hearing?

Hi @BrightYellowTrain , the EP team got back to me and said the following re my request for the quantification of the 1:1 hours as full-time.

The EHCP ‘is an accumulation of the provision outlined by more than just the EP and therefore the EP would not be commenting on hours totalling support as the EP is writing about the provision they have identified as one professional and the frequency and duration of this which contributes to a holistic picture of what is needed’.

In reference to the neighbouring borough quantifying hours in a different way, this is what they wrote: the EP ‘explained the [neighbouring LA] system and explained that the number of hours would be described as ‘no less than 19, 22 or 25’ and this would include SENCO planning time. The funding associated with this would reflect this.’

Do I have a ‘case’ to take this up with the monitoring officer? My concern is that there should be no X system, no Y system depending on your postcode. Not sure what I’m hoping to achieve but something seems amiss. In terms of the 1:1 support being quantified appropriately, I am just hoping the tribunal will consider the other evidence instead as it’s clear the EP will not budge.

Hi, on my portal it shows a decision has been made, how long after this should I expect to hear if they are going to issues a draft ehcp or not?

@BrightYellowTrain

Thank you x

@RibbyJumper I thought the IPSEA template letters were the ‘pre’ bit before taking things further - or that I have to follow a certain protocol.

IPSEA’s model letters are a warning shot. They are not pre-action letters. Pre-action protocol letters are formal legal letters before action. You shouldn’t try to do them yourself unless you know what you are doing. Even if you know what you are doing, LAs increasingly pay little attention because the LA knows if they ignore it, the parent still has to find someone with a legal aid contract to take the case on.

So SENDIST and JR are different things.
Timescales are JR.
Inadequate section F is SENDIST.

Yes.

The LA said they’d have the finalised EHCP to be this week, and the reason for the delay was phase transfers.

And this is an excuse. The latest excuse in a list of excuses. Don’t fall for it. Phase transfer deadlines come around at the same time every year. It isn’t a shock to the LA. They are fobbing you off. After the phase transfer deadline, which is the 15th Feb, there may well be a new excuse. Just like a few weeks ago the LA was blaming the school. It is all delaying tactics.

Im so confused! @BrightYellowTrain

I thought the IPSEA template letters were the ‘pre’ bit before taking things further - or that I have to follow a certain protocol.

So SENDIST and JR are different things.

Timescales are JR.

Inadequate section F is SENDIST.

I feel like a flowchart would be helpful!

The LA said they’d have the finalised EHCP to be this week, and the reason for the delay was phase transfers.