Does anyone have experience of EHCPs?

[CheeseBricks]

I’ve posted here as the SEN boards have low traffic.

DS has just turned 11 with autism and ADHD. Following an EHCNA , I’ve just had his report back from the Educational Psychologist.

It states that DS does have SEN and would require close observation to ensure his needs are met. From discussions with the EP at the time of his assessment, she gave the impression that the transition to high school could go either way for DS and that she does not feel his current needs are high enough to support an EHCP.

However, her report says she’d recommend an EHCP simply to ensure his needs are protected by statutory reviews and close observation as she feels he may end up lost on SEN support.

Has anyone else experienced this? I think that we will now get a refusal to issue .

Which bits do you think should be ignored?????

I can’t speak for Frownedupon but perhaps they meant:

and what your local offer is.

Case law shows it is measured against what is available nationally not on the local position.

Some LAs have silly rules like no SALT after KS1 without an EHCP, so kids get them on these technicalities.

Such blanket policies are unlawful, so whilst LAs may try to have such a policy it can be challenged.

The fact you've got as far as getting a needs assessment shows there is additional needs. That's the only test in law you have to pass at this point.

The initial threshold for an EHCNA is a) has or may have SEN, and b) may need SEN provision to be made via an EHCP.

If your child gets the plan, t's very unlikely they will be delivered all the support that's in their plan in senior school.

If the EHCP is specified and quantified the provision must be provided and can be enforced if it isn’t.

@Chuntypops I'm waiting to find out too. A bit useless telling someone to ignore lots of advice without offering your own.

For what it's worth OP, you will get lots of different advice. Every person will have a different experience. Each LA thinks their policies trump the law. And you will get people quoting statute and case law at you. Doesn't change the fact most LAs behave in a very bullying and illegal way. This goes for the EPs and professionals they employ too at times. I'm not saying they're not trying their best, but budgets are finite and it is what it is.
The most important thing that applies to all, is you need a quantified and specified EHCP. It needs to look like a shopping list. Each need outlined in the report should match a quantified and specified provision with a breakdown of how it'll be reviewed and monitored and who it will be delivered by. You'll most likely need to appeal to get to this level of detail. The professional reports feed the EHCP, there is no going around this. If there is no specification in the reports, it's much harder to get that specification into the plan.

@Thatsnotmycar I won't bother going through every point, it's useless. As I've already explained, the law is the law, and LAs behave the way they behave. There is a reason the % of upheld appeals is so high. I'm just trying to give the OP a realistic view of what she can expect before she gets to tribunal. All of these things are correct, but most LAs think their policies trump the law, they bully parents to no end and scare the crap out of them. The vast majority of EHCPs are crap. Not specified and not quantified. Budgeted out of thin air with no meaningful targets.

As to your last point, you must not have been in a school in a while. If the staff isn't there, they aren't there. With the best will in the world, a lot of ehcps are not being met. Good luck finding alternative provision. The best chance the op can give her child, is making sure the plan is specified as far as possible so that the school can get as much cash out of the LA as possible.

They absolutely shouldn’t be passing any comment on it. What if they said they thought an EHCP should be granted but panel didn’t agree? They’d be setting themself up to receive complaints and all sorts.

Doesn't change the fact most LAs behave in a very bullying and illegal way.

No it’s doesn’t, but it does mean parents can challenge LAs and enforce their rights.

If parents aren’t advised that the unlawful practices and policies are unlawful and how to challenge them they accept the LA’s unlawful practices and sadly their DC don’t get as much support. DC whose parents know the law, can advocate for them and enforce their rights get better support. It shouldn’t be that way but it is.

Parents shouldn’t be told incorrect advice as if it was the law. It leads to parents not pursing legal routes to ensure DC get the necessary provision.

As to you explaining away DC unlawfully not receiving provision because schools don’t have funds/staff that isn’t an acceptable excuse. The LA is ultimately responsible for ensuring provision is provided. If the school need more funding in order to provide it that is between them and the LA. If specified and quantified provision isn’t provided parents can begin judicial review proceedings and that will ensure DC receive the provision they are legally entitled to. EHCPs often being vague and woolly is a separate matter.

@TescoSpider I'm starting to get the feeling there's a bit of a confusion on this thread in regards to what should happen and what does happen. Those are two very different things in the world of EHCPs and there is a reason why so many go to appeal.
Of course they shouldn't promise anything and they dont. A passing comment that a parent takes to heart means nothing. Why would they get in trouble for it. 'Oh Jimmy's needs are high. In my experience most kids with this level of need have an ehcp'. That means nothing. Half the professionals that saw my DD said she should be in a language unit. Does that mean she ended up in one? No.
It's up to the LA or the appeals panel to decide if an EHCP needs to be given to meet that need.
The best thing an ep can do is very thoroughly write out the needs of the child. This rarely happens with LA EPs.

@Thatsnotmycar where did I say what the LA does in lawful? Where did I say she shouldn't appeal? Where did I say my advice is the law? I have repeatedly said most LAs break the law and listed examples so that OP is prepared.
Of course schools should ask for more money if they can't afford the child's needs. I hope you can find all these TAs that are lining up to work in secondary schools with a EHCP child. All the money in the world won't help if no one applies. That's the current reality.

And actually a lot of the reason parents don't pursue legal action is because they weren't aware that the things their LA was doing is illegal. They paint it in a way that makes the parent scared and makes them feel this is all they can do, and you should be thankful. This is as far as our policy goes. It's very helpful for parents just navigating this, to have examples of what LAs do, so they feel confident to say no, and go and appeal.

What Meadowbreeze said. The key distinction is what the legal position is vs what the LA think they can get away with.

I think Frownedupon and Thatsnotmycar have read your post wrong.

@Chuntypops They must have because I'm very confused why we're essentially arguing whilst making the same point.
I think parents need very real expectations going into this and the law is great on paper, but reality is very different for many parents.

I’m starting to get the feeling there's a bit of a confusion on this thread in regards to what should happen and what does happen.

No confusion here. But parents should be informed of what, legally, should happen and how to challenge it when it doesn’t happen. Not given advice that means they don’t know it’s unlawful so don’t know how and when to challenge it therefore they just accept the LA’s unlawful behaviour.

Where did I say she shouldn't appeal?

I didn’t say you said that, did I? In fact the word appeal hasn’t featured in my last 2 posts at all.

Where did I say my advice is the law?

You posted ”Until the whole needs assessment is done and you have the reports back, it's impossible to know whether his needs will require an ehcp, as it's wholly dependent on what's in these reports and what your local offer is.” Which makes it sound like EHCPs are based on what the local offer is, which isn’t the case. You also posted ”That's the only test in law you have to pass at this point.” which isn’t the case. And ”Some LAs have silly rules like no SALT after KS1 without an EHCP, so kids get them on these technicalities.” which makes it sound like that is what should happen, otherwise why didn’t you say it is unlawful and can be challenged.

I hope you can find all these TAs that are lining up to work in secondary schools with a EHCP child. All the money in the world won't help if no one applies.

More 1:1s will apply if the pay is increased to a sufficient level. And if they don’t apply schools and LAs must look at providing provision in another way. A lack of TAs is not a lawful excuse not to provide provision.

@Thatsnotmycar Yes you're completely right. Good night.

And actually a lot of the reason parents don't pursue legal action is because they weren't aware that the things their LA was doing is illegal.

Which is exactly what I said in my last but one post.

I haven’t read your post wrong at all. You may have meant to say the LA often act unlawfully by doing Y (e.g. by basing the need for EHCPs on what’s available in the local offer) but the law is exactly X (e.g. what is available nationally), but that is not how it came across.

The best thing an ep can do is very thoroughly write out the needs of the child. This rarely happens with LA EPs.

Strange, in my experience it’s the LA EPs who write the 20 page reports while the freelance EPs’ are much shorter!

This is weird. I truly can’t see what you’re arguing about. She isn’t saying that the EHCP is based on the local offer.

Andnthe legal test for assessment is at 36.8 of the CAFA - the child “has or may have a special educational need which may require provision in the form of an education health and care plan.” And that’s what she’s paraphrased.

And the reference to “silly rules” absolutely doesn’t infer that that’s ok or legal!

As for pay to be increased so people apply - well quite, but the LA have the duty to maintain the Plan, which can’t be delegated so it’s not actually down to the school to bump the wages, the JR would be on the LA to maintain the Plan “taking all reasonable steps.”

I think your comprehension of the wording of the previous posts, has missed the mark, with the greatest respect.

No, you interpreted it wrong.

What has the length of the repot got to do with it? The “money shot” is the EP recommendations - so long as they are specific and quantified the rest of the report is just padding. And THAT is what you pay for.

@TescoSpider yes a 20 page filled in template, not a single page of quantified and specified support. A lot of 'regular support from a trusted adult'. Means nothing. I've seen schools where they've tasked the school receptionist with dyslexia support.

I’m not arguing. You and the poster asked why Frownedupon posted what she did and I responded suggesting why that may be. That isn’t arguing.

She isn’t saying that the EHCP is based on the local offer.

“Until the whole needs assessment is done and you have the reports back, it's impossible to know whether his needs will require an ehcp, as it's wholly dependent on what's in these reports and what your local offer is.” This is saying whether an EHCP is required is partly down what your local offer is. When it isn’t.


Andnthe legal test for assessment is at 36.8 of the CAFA - the child “has or may have a special educational need which may require provision in the form of an education health and care plan.” And that’s what she’s paraphrased.

That isn’t what she paraphrased. What she paraphrased is only the first part of the test. Demonstrating additional needs alone isn’t enough.

And the reference to “silly rules” absolutely doesn’t infer that that’s ok or legal!

I believe it did give the impression. As she didn’t mention it was unlawful or could be challenged in any way.


As for pay to be increased so people apply - well quite, but the LA have the duty to maintain the Plan, which can’t be delegated so it’s not actually down to the school to bump the wages, the JR would be on the LA to maintain the Plan “taking all reasonable steps.”

Which is why I posted “If the school need more funding in order to provide it that is between them and the LA.” I know the JR would be against the LA, I didn’t say otherwise, I said “The LA is ultimately responsible for ensuring provision is provided”.


I think your comprehension of the wording of the previous posts, has missed the mark, with the greatest respect.

No, it hasn’t.

No, I haven’t. The poster posted

“Until the whole needs assessment is done and you have the reports back, it's impossible to know whether his needs will require an ehcp, as it's wholly dependent on what's in these reports and what your local offer is.”

Which is saying whether an EHCP is required is partly down what your local offer is. When it isn’t. Nowhere in that quote does the poster say that that’s not what should happen.

If a local authority can meet the needs of a child, through what's available in the school, that the school can access through their local offer, using the 6k they will need to use first, without an ehcp, and that is the sole need of that child, than no, no LA in this country will grant you an EHCP, nor an appeals panel. The whole point of the plans is to give the child support above and beyond what the school can provide with the 6k.
The plan is not based on the local offer. It's based on the needs of the child. If those needs can be met within the capacity of the school, they don't need a plan. The support the school can provide is largely determined by how the local offer is policed by the LA. So yes, some kids with an identical need may not need a plan in one LA, but do in another. Go and fight them about it.
I'm done arguing now, you seem completely determined to just cut down everything I say and keep quoting the law like no one else can look it up. It would be great if it was that simple in reality.
Op, just do your own research, reach out to IPSEA, SEN jungle, whatever has availability. Good luck

I’m not arguing or cutting down what you say. It’s a discussion forum. I only responded to you because you asked which bits Frownedupon meant, and whilst not speaking for her I suggested points she may have meant.

I am posting about the law because that is what parents should know. Nowhere have I said no one else can look it up. Neither have I said it was simple.

Case law shows that it is what is available nationally that is legally considered, not what is available locally. So saying if something can be accessed via the local offer within £6k an EHCP can’t be secured just isn’t correct. And, yes, I personally know two cases where this is the case and an EHCP has been secured via appeal. LAs may not do this unless forced, which is a separate matter.

👍