Poor Ds is stuffed isn't he?

[Mainlyfair]

He's already spent a year NEET as he didn't get on with A levels (undiagnosed dyslexia). Now he's had an accident and spent weeks off college have started afresh this year. They want him to defer but as he's 18 now, he won't be eligible for the second year will he?

He's fucked isn't he?

I thought FE colleges were for any age but 16-19s were funded (and up to 25 with an EHCP) but students could be older if they paid.
I was 17 when I did a mix of a City and Guilds and A-levels at my local FE college. The vast majority of those on the course were adults - as in over 21.
(this wasn't night classes - just a regular college course).

I suspect they are using 'safeguarding' as a get out if it is a college not a school.

As I said earlier, my DD is now 20 and is on a vocational course at college mixing with people who have just done gcses this year.

However fighting the system is exhausting and not for everyone.

Things are different now.

Yep they stipulate some vocational courses are ok.

So how can safeguarding be ok for vocational but not A levels?

Safeguarding concerns apparently disappearing on certain courses is part of the reason why the college’s (and LA since it is them rather than the college finalising EHCPs) claims wouldn’t stand up in court.

I am wondering if it’s because they’re more highly staffed. Dd has been doing one and they have a lot of support staff. I don’t make the rules though.🤷‍♀️We have one FE college which has a very good Sen reputation and another that has a shite Sen repuatation. They both have the same rule. They offer 3 years of Alevels then Access for uni from 19 as an alternative to Alevels. There is no leeway even if you have an EHCP.

If staffing was the concern, an EHCP can include additional staffing, so that wouldn’t stand up in court either.

Standing up in court. Let’s be realistic. My dd wants to be in education, not continuing to fight an education system. Anytjing heard in court is going to take time .Getting and maintain her EHCP was/is enough. And actually Access is easier and better than Alevels for many with SEn. Going by the absence of EHCP older students on Alevel courses she isn’t alone.

@R3dBridg3 out of curiosity I just looked at the website for my old college.
It has a different name now and is part of a group along with other colleges in the county and next county over.
It has funded courses for 16 - 19 year olds and paid courses for adults (over 19). Some of the adult ones are on-site during regular daytime college hours (it doesn't say adults can't be in the same classes as 16 year olds - I assume they can).
But you can definitely have 16 year olds and adults at the college at the same time.

Same as ours.But not on the same courses.

Appealing an EHCP then enforcing it is realistic. It does not take years as you seem to imagine, and EHCPs last until 25 or 26 in some cases. Many parents up and down the country do exactly that. Some, like you, decide not to. That is a perfectly valid choice but it is not the only choice.

Access courses work well for some. A levels work well for some. There isn’t a blanket generalisation about what is right for all with SEN.

@R3dBridg3 I just added an edit.
The prospectus doesn't specifically say that fee paying over 19s can't be in a class with under 19s.

Oh come on anything to do with EHCPs is hardly a quick process, how long are you suggesting?When you have been NEET for best part of 2 years and had countless meetings in board rooms arguing with the head of safeguarding, the independent county representative and the head of the college alongside yearly reviews to maintain your EHCP you have to accept you’re on a hiding to nothing particularly when it has been reported in the local media that others have been equally unsuccessful and when the college is offering an alternative with the same outcome- qualifications for uni with all the provision and support stipulated on the EHCP

Yes it wasn’t in our prospectus but it was in the admissions terms and conditions.

@R3dBridg3 to be fair the current prospects is quite badly written 😂😂

For someone like you whose DC already had an EHCP and presumably the right of appeal following the EHCP naming the placement being finalised, you would currently be looking at just over a year for a Tribunal hearing. Although you can request an expedited hearing for those out of education, which could be heard in as little as half the time. Then there would be a couple of weeks for the Order, 5 weeks for the amended EHCP to be finalised. So even without an expedited hearing it doesn’t take ‘years’.

If enforcement action is then needed. That doesn’t take years either. See this SOSSEN page under ‘isn’t JR slow’.

when the college is offering an alternative with the same outcome- qualifications for uni with all the provision and support stipulated on the EHCP

As I posted previously, this can be resolved by F being written correctly. If F was written correctly (for someone who wanted to do A levels rather than being happy with an Access course) it would prevent being placed on an access course where A levels were appropriate and wanted. Access courses and A levels are different. Whilst the former can suit some, they don’t suit all, and the college cannot fail to provide F just because they think it has the same end result.

Well they can because they are and others have tried and failed to appeal the rule. Also an Access has no exams so I’m not sure why Alevels with rigorous exams would suit students better. You’d think it would be the other way round.

Not all pupils are the same. What suits some, doesn’t suit all. A levels suit some, not all. Access courses suit some, not all.

As I said, people can enforce the law is they want to. They don’t have to, but it is a choice.

The third year can be funded at 75% for the college and depending on them and extenuating circumstances they can chose whether or not to do this.

If he's gotten to 18 without you knowing what a ehcp is and school not bringing it up, then maybe he's never needed it

So what is the law and where is it stipulated that a college still offering a place and a course that would facilitate the aims on an EhCP is breaking the law?

Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 places a duty on the LA to ensure the SEP in F is provided. This is an absolute duty to provide the actual provision detailed, specified and quantified in F, not whatever provision the LA or setting wants to provide even if they think it has the same outcome.

The ultimate duty to ensure it happens is on the LA but the college can be named as an interested party in any legal proceedings. A college is also required to make their best endeavours to meet a young person’s SEN, that includes making their best endeavours to provide the SEP in F of an EHCP, under Section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014. And the college would also leave themselves open to a Disability Discrimination case under the Equality Act 2010.

It is the provision in F that is legally enforceable which is why I said it was important F is written correctly. If it is written correctly (for those who want A levels rather than an Access course) an access course would not the SEP in F.

EHCPs don’t contain aims. They contain outcomes. A target is an aim. An outcome is the result of provision. Many LAs don’t understand the difference and many are EHCPs are poorly written.

Isn’t provision support and stategies that help a young person attain an outcome not a specified course . Also if after consultation it was deemed that a college is unsuitable for the young person due to age surely the local authority can offer alternative provision eg online courses along with specified support and strategies .

EOTAS/EOTIS is only legally possible if it is inappropriate for provision to be made in an school or college. This is set out in Section 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

It is not legally for cases where the young person could attend the college if the LA/college didn’t fob parents off using safeguarding as an excuse when such young people are on other courses within the college. If the concern is staffing they would be expected to detail, specify and quantify, and thus fund, additional staff. Safeguarding in the way you describe would not meet the legal threshold to be able to legally prove the setting is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs of the child or young person so the LA didn’t have to name the college under Section 39(4) of the Children and Families Act 2014.

As I posted, if written in the correct way, the SEP in F would be written in a way that an access course wouldn’t fulfil the provision. Obviously, for those where A levels were suitable/wanted. It doesn’t apply where an access course is wanted because in those cases young people/parents wouldn’t pursue such SEP in F and the evidence wouldn’t support such wording either.