@SavedHistory SOSSEN has a reasonably priced draft checking service if that is something you would be interested in.
The EHCP should cover all needs and provision required. Go through all the reports with highlighters. Highlight all DS’s special educational needs in one colour and all the provision to meet the needs in another colour. Each need should have corresponding provision.
Then go through the draft and make sure all the highlighted needs are in B and the highlighted provision is in F. Make a note of anything the LA have omitted from the draft, any needs without corresponding provision, any woolly and vague wording, and anything the reports have failed to include.
When you go through F, look out for vague and woolly wording. For example, “access to”, “would benefit from”, “regular”, “up to”, “or equivalent”, “opportunities for”, “as appropriate”, “would be useful/helpful”, “such as”, “e.g.”, “etc.”, “as required”, “as advised”, “key adult(s)”, “small group”. Provision must be detailed, specified and quantified, otherwise the EHCP isn’t worth the paper it is written on and cannot be enforced.
Your screen shots are too vague and woolly. To give you some examples of what I mean:
‘For example’, ‘such as’, ’etc.’ need removing
‘High level of pre-teaching…’ needs amending - what is a high level?
‘High adult:child ratio’ needs amending - what is a high ratio?
‘Is available’ doesn’t mean DS will get it.
What ‘training’?
How long will the 10 SLT sessions be (20-45 mins is too large a range? DS could get 20 mins exactly each time.) and at what interval? What is ‘guidance’ (personally I would be pursuing a removal of SLTA).
‘Consist of…’ means they could all be purely observation in class.
What is a ‘small group’?
‘School staff’ - who exactly? The receptionist, cleaner?
LSA - what training, experience, qualifications?
When you come across vague and woolly wording, check the reports to see if they are woolly and vague or if the LA has watered down provision. If the reports are vague and woolly, ask the LA to go back to the report writer(s) to make the reports detailed, specified and quantified. Provision (including who provides it) in EHCPs is taken from the reports, so if the reports are vague and woolly, the EHCP will be too. If the LA has watered down provision, make sure to request the LA sticks to the wording in the reports.
Then make sure any health or social care provision that educates or trains is in F. For example, LAs like to put therapies like SALT and OT in G (health care provision) when it belongs in F.
Request all the required amendments. However, if the LA refuses to amend when you make representations, don’t get drawn into a prolonged back and forth (which LAs can sometimes drag out for months - 18 months in one case I have come across recently) with the LA that delays finalising. That does not mean not checking and cross referencing the reports/evidence/EHCP, and it does not mean not making those representations where you highlight and explain what amendments are needed, and you can still try to work with the LA to settle the outstanding disputes. What it does mean is potentially months and months aren’t wasted without any provision and without submitting an appeal if necessary. If the LA drags out finalising an initial EHCP, the provision in the draft does not legally have to be provided. It isn’t finalised. And when LAs get involved in a prolonged back and forth, an appeal is still sometimes needed anyway. Going back and forth means delaying submitting any potential appeal for the time going back and forth (because you can’t submit an appeal without the right of appeal, which you get on finalisation).
EHCPs are reviewed at least annually. The EHCP can be amended as part of this annual review process. However, there is no guarantee the LA will agree to amend following the annual review. They may force you to appeal. If when the LA finalise the initial EHCP, it needs amendments the LA is not willing to make, you can appeal.