EHCP support thread no. 6

Which county you are in? Sounds like 💩 Surrey. I wouldn’t expect much / anything if it’s Surrey.

An Amazing Mp Chris Coghlan if your in his area I’d get the MP on board. Some MP are better than others and can get the ball moving (mine is no good but I’ve seen it with my friends where it helps - depends if they understand sen or not).

Some MPs do amazing advocacy and can help maybe. Which is free. Someone else to fight your corner if the LA is 💩

Also, I’d consider how much cash would it cost for you to buy exactly what you want vs how much cash are you going to “waste” if you don’t receive anything- I’m on the same page now I’m not spending any more money. The pot is empty now. Plus stress of dealing with LA costs mental stress and all the rest of it. Sometimes easier not to deal with any of them useless people (which the latter is not the correct answer but they burn you out) so you can easily spend £k and receive nothing.

So ultimately I’m saying get the mp help in.
complaints just too long and boring and go nowhere
lgo same side as la and take too long (you are looking at 1 yr plus)
want action is pap (which la ignore) then you have to source a solicitor to do a jr. It’s just painful.
Good luck

@SpaceInvader321 if you haven’t already requested an expedited hearing, I would do that.

If provision detailed, specified and quantified in F of the current finalised EHCP isn’t being provided, the route to enforce that is via JR if the LA is ignoring you. The normal timescales of the complaint process take too long to be a suitable remedy. Same for failing to provide s19 provision. If you haven’t tried contacting the Monitoring Officer, you could try that.

As you have appealed, the LGO isn’t going to touch the case, I’m afraid. They will cite section 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1974 even if you claim it is a separate matter. If you go down the JR route, the LGO will say cite s26 about that too.

It's just about half-term and the LA has delivered zero EOTAS provision to DS Y11. I've chased countless times and keep getting either silence or some vague claim of "we're consulting with another provider", all while they ignore the detailed suggestions we made about provision DS can engage with. The last provider they commissioned said they could not deliver the exams DS has been working towards and only offered very long 2-3 hour tutoring sessions, which DS can't do.

I've contacted the Director of Children's Services, and threatened JR and a formal complaint. At the same time, I have to put our WD together (essentially the same amendments I proposed at AR and when reviewing the draft EHCP) for the appeal.

Just wondering what the most sensible next step is. Should I file the complaint first? It would focus on the failures of the LA to deliver any educational provision under both s19 and s42, not replying to our PB request, not engaging with us, etc. We've self-funded resources for DS that the LA should be paying for, so I want to push for reimbursement. I'd be clear that the complaint is not about appealable EHCP content.

Or should we prioritise JR? I was hoping to not have to use a solicitor again because every time I have (for SEN and other reasons) I find I still end up doing the heavy lifting and I'd rather spend the money on educational resources, especially as I'm not able to work ATM.

The WD can wait for another week or two as we're expecting further professional evidence that we'll want to reference.

@Lelivre I would still be extremely careful about looking to remove provision. LAs don’t include over provision. In fact, it is normally them stating required provision is over provision. If your concern is DD wouldn’t manage everything required alongside studying, rather than remove provision, I would look at amending to include flexibility to stretch the support throughout the full year. This is a fairly common adjustment in good EHCPs where there are concerns about physical health, fatigue, pacing, etc.

I appreciate you may have paraphrased for MN, but I would also be looking at the wording. For example, key adult is far too vague.

I am preparing for mediation for my daughters final EHCP. Mainly because I feel the environmental barriers have actually been identified in section B, but not then translated into section F, which was ultimately left us with a placement she cannot access....... we have tried school and myself

My daughters provision in section F though does actually amount to 14 hours per week! So nearly half of the weeks hours will be taken up by check ins and interventions ...... I'm actually not appealing that tbh as we will see if she can do/ does need them and will be discussed at the review. Currently I just need to get my daughter into education again.

Thank you I need to hear this I’m really struggling to get needed professional input within the timeframe.

I should clarify what I mean by too much 1:1 provision.
I’m certainly not referring to individual teaching or academic support, which I absolutely want protected and, where necessary, strengthened.
It’s the sheer number of separate pastoral, mentoring and organisational check-ins in the draft that concerns me. There are daily 40-minute mentoring sessions, twice-daily communication checks, additional key adult support and various weekly sessions covering self-esteem, social interaction, planning and organisation.
There seems to be considerable duplication, and I’m concerned that so many interventions could actually be counterproductive for DC, given her limited energy and need to pace herself.
She’s academically very able and capable of independent study. Her main barrier is her fluctuating physical health and inability to sustain attendance, rather than her ability to learn independently.
What I want to ensure is that she has meaningful access to education when unwell, (or accessing therapeutic interventions) including appropriate teaching, access to missed lessons and academic oversight, without unnecessarily using up her limited energy on multiple check-ins.
I’m not trying to reduce the protection the EHCP offers, quite the opposite. I want the provision to be specific, enforceable and genuinely suited to her needs, rather than simply extensive.

Does that make more sense?

The teaching provision (if she’s absent) is very modest it’s all the wellbeing check-in and planning 1:1s when she’s keeping up with the schedule - they add up to several hours a week.

I appreciate the legal points, the college seems to be getting away with doing what they want from what I can tell.

Apparently the learning support team have made application numerous times for AV1, 1:1, AI scribing of lessons for such students and the faculty have declined.

An application doesn’t need to be made. If this is what the learning support team are telling you about students with EHCPs, they don’t understand EHCPs. If it is required, it must be in F. If it is in F, it must be provided. A further application doesn’t need to be made. The faculty is not the one making the decision. Their opinions are not relevant if the provision is in F.

Would would help is knowing what they will do - rather than what they will not. I don’t know how I can find that out. If I can I can try and get it inserted into the draft.

This is not how EHCPs work. Provision in F is based on the needs in B, not on what a setting can or wants to provide. The provision in F is what must be provided.

There is a lot of 1:1 in the draft. I feel it’s too much actually

It is highly unlikely too much 1:1 is detailed, specified and quantified in the EHCP.

what we need is protected and supported independent study with a professional steer if DC becomes unwell.

If this was the extent of an EHCP, it would be an incredibly poor EHCP.

Apparently the learning support team have made application numerous times for AV1, 1:1, AI scribing of lessons for such students and the faculty have declined. I think it’s related to GDPR/Safeguarding or some other legal type excuse but of course this is commonplace elsewhere. To me I felt the policy was reflective of an institution that touts its attendance % and high achieving A/B and 100% pass on these courses. It’s an ofstead outstanding college. I did quietly raise surprise at how it appeared the courses were geared for academically able and completely well students and wondered where the principles of exclusivity fitted in when it came to unwell and disabled students.

They may be on the wrong side of the law but I’m sort of out of fight. I hope I can find a middle ground that gets her on roll with out losing protection. Would would help is knowing what they will do - rather than what they will not. I don’t know how I can find that out. If I can I can try and get it inserted into the draft.

I will try and get this down as YP’s chosen college and request it’s named in the document.

There is a lot of 1:1 in the draft. I feel it’s too much actually what we need is protected and supported independent study with a professional steer if DC becomes unwell.

@Lelivre you can have underlying provision in F for the times DD is unable to attend college. An oversimplified example, but for example, a YP who can sometimes attend college and sometimes can’t might have the placement in I as normal and all the provision in F as normal but also have an underlying provision in F for 15 hours of home tuition when unable to attend college.

confirmed that neither 1:1 teaching nor remote access to lessons is offered.

Unless they are independent, the college doesn’t get to say this. That isn’t how the law works. 1:1 teaching and remote access is possible. It would need to be included in F, so you would need evidence, but is possible. There can be provision in college when DD is well enough with underlying provision at home, online or via an AV1 robot (if appropriate) written into F for times DD is unable to attend college. If it is provision at home or online, it might not be provided by the college, it might be commissioned by the LA directly or funded by direct payments.

With an EHCP, 2 A levels at a time or 3 A levels spread over 3 years is possible. Don’t worry about the funding. That isn’t your concern.

Learning support advised that a panel would review DC’s application alongside her EHCP and might request that certain provisions be removed before agreeing to admit her.

Unless the college is wholly independent, they are misrepresenting what happens here. The college can raise objections when consulted, but if the college is your/DD’s preference, the LA must name it, regardless of the setting’s objections, unless the LA can prove one of:
-The setting is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs
-Attendance would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others
-Attendance would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources.

The bar to prove one of the above is high. The LA should not remove provision to fit a specific placement at the request of the placement. That is not how EHCPs work.

The 95% attendance target is a matter of reasonable adjustments, with or without an EHCP. It wouldn’t be lawful to throw a YP off a course simply because they had e.g. 90% attendance because of disability related absences.

If the LA is going to hold a phase transfer review, discussions around post 16 should be part of that, although it is wise to think about it now. However, as you don’t yet have a finalised EHCP, the LA may not intend to hold a phase transfer review meeting.

I think it's a really difficult one @Lelivre.

You're trying to plan for an uncertain future and that's always very difficult.

Do you think it's possible that the college might be able to identify a couple of learners with fluctuating health conditions who've successfully finished year 13 at the college? Maybe even to speak to?

It would also be useful to repost on here maybe in SN Chat asking for post 16 experiences?

I wonder also of your DC is aiming at university, whether you could speak to outreach services at a few universities that are well regarded for this? I hear they are often way more helpful than post 16 providers.

Thank you, this was really helpful and has given me some clarity of thought.
However, I’m still struggling with how to balance supporting DC’s post-16 aspirations with protecting her should her health deteriorate whilst at college.
DC is academically very able, ambitious and determined to attend her preferred mainstream college. She has a chronic health condition which fluctuates, and we’re hopeful that ongoing treatment and careful pacing will improve her baseline. However, flares, medical appointments and periods of reduced attendance remain a realistic possibility.
We’ve previously had difficulties with DC pushing herself beyond her physical limits because of her own academic drive, so appropriate support and flexibility are essential to prevent further deterioration. She is also in denial about her health and needs protecting.
I’ve spoken with the college’s learning support department and was disappointed by what appeared to be a fairly rigid approach. They emphasised a 95% attendance expectation and confirmed that neither 1:1 teaching nor remote access to lessons is offered. They suggested there might be more flexibility if there’s an EHCP and that they might allow two A levels in Years 12 and 13, with the third in Year 14, but it’s a funding issue too and depends on the faculty itself, etc. Not very reassuring!!!
In many respects, the college could be an excellent fit. DC is a strong independent learner, online resources are available, and the timetable and proximity to home (literally two minutes away) should allow her to rest between sessions. We aren’t necessarily seeking routine remote teaching, but we do need reassurance that disability-related absences, including time needed for treatment, pacing or recovery, won’t jeopardise her place or education.
My concern is how to secure this flexibility through the EHCP, particularly in relation to the college’s 95% attendance expectation and the likelihood that they will balk at all the 1:1 provision in the draft and ask for it to be removed, leaving us with little scaffolding.
Learning support advised that a panel would review DC’s application alongside her EHCP and might request that certain provisions be removed before agreeing to admit her. I’m unclear what this would mean in practice, or what the college would actually be prepared to provide.
The college has a strong academic reputation, but I’m concerned that its approach may not adequately accommodate students with fluctuating disabilities. DC is absolutely set on attending, so I’m anxious not to inadvertently create a barrier to admission by requesting provision the college is unwilling to deliver.
My current thinking is to respond to the draft EHCP primarily on the basis of DC’s current Year 11 needs, including support for reintegration from Section 19 provision and the current hybrid approach, with a contingency built in (very little time left now in Year 11), while making clear that her post-16 needs and preferred placement will require further consideration. We hope her health will improve, but cannot safely assume that it will. I think a flare, a course of treatment, or both in Year 12 is likely.
Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to speak with our LA caseworker, despite requesting a discussion. I have asked for an extension to the deadline for responding to the draft.
Can anyone advise on the best way forward? In particular, how do I protect DC’s entitlement to reasonable adjustments and appropriate educational provision without risking the college pushing back against the EHCP or her application?
And should I be addressing the post-16 provision in this draft now, or is that better dealt with through the Year 11 transition review?
I feel rather caught between protecting her health and supporting her ambitions, and would really value some informed advice.
Agh! I thought I was on the home run with this. It’s so challenging! Thanks for the support.
Just to add, I need her drive, hope and optimism to continue, as they’re propelling her forwards into a period of recovery, so I wish to support her aspirations — but we need contingency. I know what the college won’t do; I don’t know what they WOULD do. I’m left guessing — again.

@Lelivre provision in EHCPs should be based on what is reasonably required to meet needs in B, not written to fit a specific placement. In turn, B&F are based on the evidence.

Unless the college is wholly independent, they don’t get to say they are rigid and will do XYZ but will never do ABC.

Provision in college when well enough with underlying provision at home or online (or via an AV1 robot if appropriate) can be written into F. If the college can’t directly provide the provision, they can buy in provision or the LA can provide it directly or it can be via a PB.

I know you have paraphrased for MN but “access to an appropriately qualified adult” couldn’t get much vaguer. ‘Access to’ doesn’t mean it will be provided. ‘Appropriately qualified’ in what? What ‘adult’?

I would be very careful about stripping provision from the EHCP. At the moment, DD has the back up of s19 provision if she can’t attend school. Post 16, the LA does not have this duty. While they have the power to make provision, they don’t have the same duty, so in the vast majority of cases don’t. The EHCP becomes even more important in these cases. Without provision in the EHCP, DD could end up receiving nothing/very little and you needing to request an early review if DD is unable to attend.

Personally, I would ensure the provision DD actually needs is in the EHCP. Not a watered down version and not one open to interpretation which may see DD receive nothing or inadequate provision when unable to physically attend.

Don’t take advice on what should be in the EHCP from the college or caseworker. They will tell you what they want you to know and what suits them.

I would also suggest you go back through the draft. I suspect it isn’t as good as you think it is. Initial drafts are rarely ‘broadly OK’.

The content of the EHCP now may not be the same as the content of the EHCP naming the post 16 placement.

I’ve had some wonderful support on these threads, thank you. We are thankfully now nearing the end of the EHCP journey and have received DC’s draft.

It’s broadly okay, but my concern is that we are almost at the end of school now. By the time the EHCP is finalised, we will be applying for college, so I’m trying to make sure we don’t agree something that works for Year 11 but inadvertently causes problems with her preferred college.

DC has chronic, fluctuating health difficulties. She is a very able and ambitious student and a strong independent learner, but her health can sometimes significantly affect her physical attendance.

Her preferred college doesn’t offer online/remote tutoring. They do post work online, which may actually be sufficient during periods when she is too unwell to attend, provided they can be flexible about disability-related absence and she has access to an appropriately qualified adult who can check in with her, help identify priorities and make sure she isn’t developing gaps. I think they can provide this.

She may also need assistive technology in lessons, which the college seems quite comfortable with.

Otherwise, though, they appear fairly rigid.

My worry is that if we make Section F too prescriptive around the provision she currently receives — particularly remote/online teaching — the college could say they cannot deliver the EHCP. DC would be devastated as this is very much where she wants to go. The only other college she would seriously consider is extremely selective (exam and 1:1 assessment plus interview is probably stress we don’t need) and doesn’t offer all the preferred courses.

Equally, I obviously don’t want to water down her EHCP simply to suit a college and then discover that we have removed important protection.

I’ve asked our caseworker for a telephone appointment before responding to the draft. I’ve also spoken to the college SEN department and we’re attending their open evening this week, so I’m trying to gather as much information as possible first.
For those who know EHCPs/post-16 transition well, how would you approach this?
Would you try to get Section F written around the underlying need access to education during periods when disability prevents physical attendance, appropriate qualified oversight/check-ins, flexibility around attendance and assistive technology rather than specifying remote tutoring as the means of delivering it?

And is there anything in particular I should be asking the college or caseworker at this stage to protect DC’s preferred placement without weakening the EHCP?

I’m finding this tricky! Thank you. At this time DC has sec 19 provision and partial in-school learning which is temporary whilst she has some health interventions.

@Runningshoes99 sorry, I was distracted earlier. Of course, you won’t have the registration documents yet, you haven’t submitted your appeal! Apologies. You can see the practice directions here. When the LA submits their response to the appeal, they have to include various bits including any information they relied on when making their decision that you haven’t already sent.

I think the whole point, surely, is selecting and collating the evidence that best supports your case? You're advocating for your child here.

@Runningshoes99 it is worth you reading your registration documents and the practice directions. Not everything you list is included within your 100 page evidence limit. You don’t have to include all the LA’s evidence.

You submitting your appeal doesn’t mean you can’t have representation later. For example, some decide to only seek help when the final evidence deadline is approaching, some only seek help for a position statement, some only seek help as the hearing is approaching. Not getting representation now, doesn’t mean you can’t further on in the process.

I would definitely apply, can do it yourself.

My daughter has just been awarded EHCP and dhe just started year 9. She was okay in primary but secondary she just can't cope with.

School wouldn't apply for it as like you they said there are children with higher needs who haven't got one amd they don't think she would be successful. My daughter does mask alot though, but as time went on EBSA started, severe anxiety and loads more.

I applied for needs assessment LA said no, I went to mediation they agreed to assess then. That was March if this year, got draft EHCP 3rd July, and final EHCP 3rd september.

Bow it isn't over for us I am going to mediate again sections B,F and nosy definitely I....... BUT considering everyone kept telling me no she doesn't need one, and now it has been determined she actually does. Now it's been a brutal battle that isn't over don't get me wrong. But I would tell anyone if your child is struggling apply

Thanks so much for your advice. Yes it's an appeal following refusal to issue. I know what you mean about the 100 page limit but I'm struggling to see how I can avoid it - the combination of the Local authority's documents relating to the needs assessment (their EP report, OT report, SALT report and their draft EHCP) totals 54 pages, and obviously I feel I can't omit any of that evidence as it would be seen as cherry picking the bits that suit our case, but obviously what supports our case more is our private ep report, SALT and OT (15 pages each), our supportive statement from the school and from her specialist teacher. Combined with our 'reasons for appeal' document setting out our case it easily reaches 100 pages.

Is there not a risk that if we get legal representation at a later stage then it's sort of pointless as our case has already been made? Or does it not work like that?

@Runningshoes99 you don’t need to pay someone, and if you do want to, you don’t need to pay £2k. No, you don’t need to decide about representation now.

100 pages of evidence - I think this is a refusal to issue? Look at your evidence carefully. Are all 100 pages truly relevant? The page limit shouldn’t be seen as a target. You may also want to add new/updated evidence at a later date. While it is possible to go over the page limit in some cases, SENDIST is stricter than they used to be over the page limit and you may find not all 100 pages are actually relevant/needed/helpful.

Hey all, wondering if I could possibly ask for a bit more advice. My DD had refusal to issue in August. We tried for mediation but LA couldn't/ wouldn't give us a date in time, so now going to appeal. Have until October 3. I have everything ready but suddenly having a wobble and wondering to get some legal advice. Been quoted about £2000 for them to look over our 100 pages of evidence, my 'reasons for appeal', and then give us a one hour call and written advice. It feels like a lot of money especially after all the money we've already paid for assessments and her support etc but then, maybe it's worth investing in to get it over the line? Another question: do we need to decide about legal representation now, before we submit the appeal (as that's the most beneficial time to ensure our appeal is as strong as possible on submission), or would we potentially be able to amend our appeal/ documentation at a later date if we decided to get a lawyer involved later down the line? Grateful for any advice.

Totally agree with this. Things started to go south with my dd around this time last year too (Y7), and I had to really push to get school to take me seriously at first. I had to meet with the Y7 transition coordinator first, then Head of Year and then finally got a response from the SENDCO after a couple of months when I submitted our EHCNA. I will say that the school did support us well once they understood what was going on, but it took a lot of advocating from my side to get there. I do think when you don’t have an EHCP they like to fob you off to the non-specialist staff first so keep pushing to speak to them as much as possible.

@BreakfastClub don’t rely on the school being proactive. As well as requesting a meeting with the SENCO, if you have (or can work out) their email address, email DD’s form tutor and subject teachers. Don’t rely on the school passing information on.

@KeepItSpinning
thank you so much for this.

i have not met the SENCO yet. They have not contacted me, all I know is they requested I info from DCs primary school.
i sent an email to them today requesting a meeting to discuss support offered and what we can expect from them etc.

DC had the transition day and it went well.
i
I think the big change form school to large school and the seriousness has hit DC.

she was given extra support at primary school once we had the SEN plan. My worry is she won’t receive as much help in secondary.

@Phineyj
I will wait after application, but obviously no guarantee we will get the EHCP

I’m annoyed her school put us off and they never mentioned the chance of appealing.

@BreakfastClub It’s not too late for an EHCP. You can get an EHCP in secondary (and even older). On this website, IPSEA has a model letter you can use to request an EHCNA. Unfortunately, some schools and professionals incorrectly tell parents their child won’t get &/or doesn’t need an EHCP. Other DC in the school having SEN aren’t relevant to you.

Like Phiney, I would avoid moving until you either have an EHCP or you have has a refusal and you appeal.

Have you met with the SENCO at the current school? What support are they providing? Did DD do transition visits before Y7? If so, how did they go?