EHCP support thread no. 6

@KeepItSpinning unfortunately not, the whole plan needs a re vamp via appeal. We are going to home educate in the mean time (but not de register) until we can sort out the appeal.

@SpaceInvader321 anything detailed, specified and quantified in F is ultimately the responsibility of the LA. That duty is non-delegable.

Sometimes provision in F is (solely or jointly) funded by health &/or social care, often after having been discussed at the tripartite panel, but that doesn’t mean the LA isn’t ultimately responsible. Although it would be uncommon for such funding arrangements to be the case for gaming provision.

X-post with your edit.

BTW, a good EHCP would have something in C, D, G and H too.

Our school has asked for DC's gaming therapy provision to be extended. LA replied that this is funded through health and social care, not through the SEN team. It's outlined in section F -- doesn't that mean it is the LA's responsibility? We don't have anything written in under health and social care.

I see that IPSEA says: Under Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014, local authorities (LAs) have an absolute, statutory duty to secure and fund all special educational provision specified in Section F of an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).

If you haven’t yet requested an early review of the EHCP, you are unlikely to get a hearing this year, particularly if the LA amends.

In the meantime, is there any provision detailed, specified and quantified in F? Or is it all vague and woolly?

Does anyone know how long priority appeals are taking at the moment? DD is out of college and I’ll need to appeal for a package. I’m planning to ask for an early review so by the time I get my appeal rights it’s going to be Summer.

If it’s prioritised, will it still be this year for a hearing?

@Needlenardlenoo and @KeepItSpinning I thought that may be it. I’ll need to do some research for an eotis setup. thanks.

@SENDMeHelp section 19 of the Education Act 1996 only applies to compulsory school aged DC, so while the LA has the power to make provision, they don’t have a duty to under section 19. Because they don’t have the same duty to, most of the time LAs do not provide provision.

However, because DD has an EHCP, the LA still has a duty under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to ensure the provision in F of the EHCP is provided. Is there anything detailed, specified and quantified in F? Or is it all vague and woolly?

If it is inappropriate for provision to be made in a school or college, you can still secure EOTAS/EOTIS/C via the EHCP as per section 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014. That still applies post 16. You should request an early review of the EHCP, and look at pursuing an EOTAS/EOTIS/C package. To get a proper package, it is likely an appeal will be needed.

Jumping in here with a question if anyone can help?

Does section 19 provision apply to post 16 school leavers? DD moved to college in September last year, predictably, it hasn’t gone well and she now has no placement and no education.

She has an ehcp, can I ask for section 19 and does it legally need to be provided in the same way as pre 16?

Are there any alternatives I am missing? DD is bright but accessibility has always been a huge problem.

Unfortunately, if the MH provision isn’t detailed, specified and quantified in F, it doesn’t have to be provided. An EHCP would only make a difference if the provision was in F. You are unlikely to get a PB for provision that isn’t detailed, specified and quantified (or otherwise required to fulfil their duty to provide the provision that is).

I appreciate you may decide not to, but if you want to, you could look at a pre-action letter and JR if necessary to force the LA to provide AP. As you have found, the normal complaints process isn’t a suitable realistic remedy for that type of thing.

Mental health support is a limited resource so they won't offer it to a child with low attendance as it's potentially a waste of resources apparently. They said no when his attendance was around 45%, it's now around 10%. His attendance won't be good enough to qualify at any point this year now. EHCP doesn't make any difference apparently. I think we will ask for a budget to get this externally but I expect they will refuse.

EHCP is too vague on all points, it's unenforceable. No alternative provision no, its been refused other than one hour a week 'inclusion support', I complained, they've closed my complaint because I accepted a teams meeting about the complaint so I have to complain again. I don't have the energy to keep fighting the school and the LEA and the section 19 people (two different departments of the council and no they don't talk to each other or agree on anything!) I also work full time and have another child who actually has more significant SEN, he just actually goes to school so no-one is interested.

@narrowrailroad personally, I wouldn’t bother with actively taking part in mediation. Just get the certificate and submit to SENDIST.

so vague and includes provision for mental health support the school have already said they won't actually deliver as attendance won't be high enough to be allowed to have the sessions

Is the MH provision detailed, specified and quantified in F? Or is that part of the vague wording? If the former, email the LA reminding them under section 42 of Children and Families Act 2014 they are responsible for ensuring the provision in F is provided. This duty is non-delegable and applies even if DC isn’t attending school full-time.

Alongside this if the school is a state MS, remind the school in writing the EHCP is a legal document, the provision in F must be provided and the school they have a duty under section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014, to make their best endeavours to meet DC’s SEN. To not do so leaves the school and LA open to legal action.

If that doesn’t work, you can look at a pre-action letter, then JR proceedings if necessary. However, if the provision is part of the vague wording, it doesn’t have to be provided and can’t be enforced.

If DC is unable to attend school full time, is alternative provision in place?

We now have an EHCP for my child but its pretty much a waste of paper - so vague and includes provision for mental health support the school have already said they won't actually deliver as attendance won't be high enough to be allowed to have the sessions. I am totally fed up with SENDIAS etc just quoting the law at me, without apparently understanding that what the law says is irrelevant if the school and LEA don't follow it, which they don't on any point. So now we are going to mediation, but so far even the administration for the mediation is appalling. It's just all designed to wear you down.