I'm an educational psychologist AMA

[thisisasurvivor]

Hello all

LA EP here

Ask me anything

Additionally the ONLY thing that the LA look at is the costings of the plan and unless your report has in the money shot of specific and quantified provision then the child/school won’t get any funding.

The 2009 paper was part of the catalyst for the shakeup of SEND leading to the 2014 code of practice. The current legislation is of course what guides practice.

The EP role is to describe the needs of the child or young person and identify the outcomes that will lead to a measurable difference for that person. The provision is also described but where you are looking at mainstream TA time this should be based on and informed by the needs and outcomes.

You don't start with "this child needs 15 hours one to one which means they can therefore have X Y and Z interventions."

We start with "this child needs X Y and Z interventions and therefore in order to provide these necessary interventions they will need 15 hours of one to one".

I do wish people would stop assuming they know my job better than me.

Right, so in your world:

• the apparently vast majority of EP reports are woolly, vague, not specified and quantified
• where EPs write this type of report, these are all resulting in schools getting zero funding via EHCPs

Where exactly are you that the vast majority of EHCPs are attracting no funding? Because I don't understand the massive overspend in high needs funding if what you assert is true.

If the outcomes informed the provision then as soon as an outcome is achieved, the provision can be removed. I’ll use my son as an example.

So, Toby has low muscle tone and dyspraxia. His fine and gross motor skills are XYZ - the usual in-depth OT assessments demonstrate he’s on the 3rd centile. He can’t ride a bike, swim or tie his laces. (From section B)

Now if outcomes informed provision, the outcomes could conceivably (and before his tribunal actually were…) Toby will learn to ride a bike, tie his laces and swim. (Section E)

Then provision would be around cycling proficiency, fine motor and swim lessons. (Section F)

Toby can now do all those things. Is he any less dyspraxic or have better muscle tone? No. But according to using this pattern, these outcomes have been met so job done.

Instead the outcomes should be a measure of the success of the provision. And the provision must be related to the needs, which in my example, are dyspraxia and fine and gross motor. So actually what he really needed was intensive OT with a therapist trained in paediatric OT for x hours a week. That provision still stands. He still has the OT, but the outcomes are now different.

If you don’t believe I’m right, have a look at the sen code, it’s quite explicit.

Blatchford et al., 2012 is still relevant, but LAs like to misrepresent it and Sharples et al., 2015. Michael Charles, a well regarded SEN solicitor, once wrote an excellent piece on this. It is on Facebook for anyone who wants to look. I’m not on Facebook but someone once sent it me and I have C&P it below.

“In recent decades we have seen a sharp rise in the argument for the use of teaching assistants (TA's)in SEN cases. Indeed many parents measure the chance of success that a child may make to the number of hours that may be allocated. It is hardly surprising then that most appeals to tribunal will involve an argument over the degree of teaching assistance that a child might receive within their statement or EHCP.A common argument used by local authority expert psychologists tasked with resisting the claim is to quote Blatchford et al 2012. This strategic weapon designed to out manoveure a parental appeal basically advocates that the more support that children get from TAs, the less academic progress they actually make.
Yet this argument is misleading. The study should not be quoted as a basis for refusing teaching assistance but rather a warning against,or in relation to, the way in which TA's have come to be deployed in classes. Blatchford also reported that little training is provided to teachers in how to manage TA's and warned against them being used as a substitute for teachers. Indeed it is not even lawful to do so.
Take this last week. The argument was used against my client that a TA was not needed within a mainstream class. Blatchford was raised again as a kind of secret weapon in the hope that I would fall over and wave a white flag of defeat. "Have you read the research paper?" I asked my opponent. I think you may guess the answer. It was clearly no. It is misleading for an advocate to make a proposition and purport to cite authority for it, if that authority, upon close scrutiny contradicts the claim. Notwithstanding this, In more recent studies (Sharples et al., 2015) research has shown that TAs who are sufficiently trained and used correctly within the classroom – for example, as a supplement to teachers and not a replacement – can have a positive impact on pupil engagement and attainment. Indeed Government guidance issued in 2019 cite this study as authority for its support for the proper use of TA's in the classroom.
In my particular case Blatchford was relevant for me to quote rather than for my opponent. The unit being proposed by the LA for my client was led by a TA such that it was the TA who was in fact doing the day to day teaching according to the evidence. Not only does the research counter the LA argument but the practice that the council sought to endorse contravened the Education (specified work) (England) Regulations 2012 I insisted. The council eventually capitulated but but not first without trying to pursue it's point. I made my point and it was followed by a little victory. The child got what was needed a teacher, supported by a full time TA.”

without clarification of what that time is for was found to be ineffective

Which is why the example you posted on this thread last year is too vague and woolly to be of use. As I posted some months ago, “HLTA” and “specialist literacy teaching qualifications” are not sufficient. In or out of the classroom? What ‘support’ exactly? “Daily literacy support…” doesn’t actually mean it will be direct teaching input which is what I think you intended to say given your subsequent “must be taught in a group…” As it was written it could be someone sat at the child’s table for 20 mins of their English lesson not actually providing that much input.

Ahh because there’s a difference in High Needs Block Funding and the funding per EHCP for the provision specified per child.

Where several LAs have come unstuck in that they decided that they would deliberately not put specific and quantified provision in their plans and would delegate the funding down to a lower level, and then the schools in the area would essentially fight it out. This meant that children who would ordinarily have had probably quite intensive support in class were left out and the schools had to make do as best they could. Derbyshire and Hertfordshire are the two that spring to mind.

What happened then was it appeared that the spending on SEN was artificially surpressed so literally the only way to get an individual child’s provision delivered was to ensure that the provision was specific and quantified in section F which meant that the LA had to pay out, after tribunal usually. What it also meant was that the EHCP applications in the areas that had embraced Delegated Funding absolutely rocketed once the word spread that this was the only way to get anything done.

Hi @Ourdearoldqueen what outcomes would you have for Toby in this example?

(Edit to add) Also, when you say: ‘according to using this pattern, these outcomes have been met so job done,’ at this point I would hope that there would be a re-assessment and rather than provision being removed as the initial outcomes were achieved, new outcomes would be set?

It’s hard to convey tone on here but I really am reading (and reflecting) with interest. Thank you 😊

Absolutely that is what happens in some LA’s mine included. Until recently a lot of EHCP’s came with no funding, they then adopted illegal banding and even with Specialist banding it barely scratches the surface of what is needed. That is why so many of us end up un tribunal.

Thankyou - I’m hoping to convey a respectful and friendly tone!

Regardlung reassessment, I have only ever seen that happen twice and both times the parent applied for a full reassessment of the entire plan AND challenged at tribunal when this was rejected.

As for EP reassessment, certainly in some counties, they don’t have enough EPs to do even the first assessments. Essex for example are routinely writing to parents to say they’re not going to meet their 20 week deadline because they don’t have EP capacity. And these are really obvious cases too - children out of school but can’t be placed until the EHCP is issued, and the LA won’t issue because they don’t have an EP. It’s disgraceful and is just a way to kick the problems down the road. They absolutely refuse to commission private EP but the parents can, if they have deep enough pockets and often that’s the only way to actually get things moving. It really is appalling.

Regarding “job done” the LA whenever it reviews a plan must make a decision to maintain, cease or amend the plan. They can cease if the outcomes have been met, which is another reason to proceed with caution.

The LA shouldn’t cease just because outcomes have been met.

Even for YP over 18 where section 45(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014 says “when determining whether a young person aged over 18 no longer requires the special educational provision specified in his or her EHC plan, a local authority must have regard to whether the educational or training outcomes specified in the plan have been achieved”, case law is clear that doesn’t always equal where the outcomes have been met maintaining the EHCP is not necessary.

That’s v interesting, thankyou

@Ourdearoldqueen ceasing to maintain is another area where LAs often act unlawfully and use a range of unlawful reasons.

@Ourdearoldqueenits not that LA’s are refusing to commission private reports, it’s that there aren’t enough EP’s to meet the demand. I get at least 4/5 phone calls a week from recruiters trying to get me to do locum statutory work for a lot of money. I’ve had calls regarding Essex. I don’t have capacity and neither do any of my EP friends.

its not that LA’s are refusing to commission private reports

In some cases, it absolutely is a case of LAs refusing to commission independent assessments.

@BrumToTheRescue
it might be the case that they’re refusing for a specific child at a specific time because they have 50 in front of that child who has been waiting longer. But ime from working with a lot of LA’s it’s not because they don’t want to. It’s a capacity issue.

Again, in some cases, it absolutely is a case of the LA not wanting to. (And then being forced to when parents pursue enforcement action.)

You think that autism is contagious?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

There would be capacity if so many EPs didn’t qualify and immediately go to work abroad, but that’s another thread! We need to make LA work more attractive but again that’s another thread…

I'd love to qualify as an Ed psych but if have to do full time at a uni over an hour away so not feesible. I even went to meet local Ed Psych team etc but this isn't going to be possible for many parents wanting to requalify (say ex teachers) as it's an hour on a good day, plus traffic, parking etc could easily be 3-4 hours commuting a day before thinking about placements.

So sadly not an option.

@HungryWombat it’s not easy but I did it with kids and there were a few others in my class who also had kids. 2hr there and 1.5 back, mix of walking and then train. Most people had commutes like that due to the location of the unis. It was only 3 days in uni in the first year then 2nd and 3rd a local placement with a day or two a month in uni. First year was hard but it was mostly term time so good breaks (though the breaks from uni were study time).
if you can get a train / bus it’s a good way to get a lot of work done.

Yep, particularly galling that just London has several doctorate choices whereas the whole North has Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle. Makes it very hard for folk to train in some areas of the country.

However placement can usually be organised close to home and this is the majority of y2 and y3.

Hi, we had an inde EP report a few years ago for tribunal for my son. We've been advised to get a learning disability dx for transfer to adult services. I'll put the wisc v scores below. Would you think a ld dx is required/ relevant please?

I don't want to chase one if it isn't appropriate. Many thanks

Not sure why they have failed to quote a FSIQ there but yes, that assessment would fall below 2nd centile overall and therefore meet criteria for learning disability.

I asked this at the time and they said it was because his results ranged from 0.1 to 9th percentile so had too much of a gap. Thank you for replying.