to ask about the EHCP thresholds

[iwonderwhatisusedtobe]

Looking for some insight on what a child's needs are to meet threshold to get an EHCP. I've read quite a bit about children who have managed to achieve good A-levels etc while on an EHCP either at mainstream or special school which is fantastic - as it should be. And I know that ECHPs can be given to support emotional needs as well as academic.

My DS has ASD, is doing poorly academically and is under CAMHs for his anxiety levels/mental health difficulties and yet I've been told by the school that they don't think he needs an EHCP. To be fair to the school they have made various adjustments for him and access to some interventions. But DS has a lot of anxiety and is not performing well academically. At the current rate I would image he will get a couple of 4s at gcse and the rest well below this. He masks however, so his attendance is good and the the fall out is at home after school.

I know the school is the best judge as they have the best measure of what need merits an EHCP. But it would be good to hear from others who are are in a similar situation and how they have been supported, or those whose child has an EHCP and understand better the difference in need, or any teachers. I really don't want to cause any offence with this question as I do fully appreciate that many children's needs will be far greater than my sons.

Generally, the issue isn't the schools. It's the LAs advising the schools using their unlawful criteria. Of course a school is going to say "You have to spend X amount of funding before an EHCNA" if that's exactly what the LA has told them and the reason they have rejected their applications in the past. Even in cases where the SENDCo is well-informed around the legalities of it all, he/she can't push back against the LA decision in the same blunt force way that a parent can. All that narrative does is drive a wedge between the school and the parents. That's exactly what the LA wants because then they can't work together effectively to secure the EHCP and the right provision.

What schools need to start doing is teaching parents how to bypass the LA's unlawful criteria and supporting them in doing so. That's the most effective way to get what is needed for the child.

Schools also need to start a more strategic push back against the LA when children with existing EHCPs apply to them. Rather than just saying "We can't meet need" (which lots of schools feel forced to say at the moment due to underfunded EHCPs with sometimes over-stated levels of provision), they need to push for accepting the child with conditions that the LA support the enhanced provision needed and fund it properly.

We need to actively avoid turning this into a parents vs schools thing. That narrative only serves to help the LA. It needs to be parents and schools working together and pushing back against the LA when needed.

Thank you again 💐 this is so helpful to know.
Thank you too @FloatingBean

To be fair to the schools, they've often had 'training' and have been told the LA's criteria for assessment, which is a continual rinse and repeat of interventions, adjustments, more interventions, etc. They aren't told that the criteria is actually very simple and mandated by law.

The Assistant Head who dealt with us said that the SENCO had refused to apply because DD2 'Wouldn't meet the threshold'. I turned to DD2 and said "You absolutely do meet the threshold."

I think they were probably quite surprised when the needs assessment was granted first time, then the EHCP issued, etc.

The school were still trying to review her Sen plan after she'd left and I had to send them proof that she was deregistered from their setting because they hadn't seen the EHCP so thought she was still at the PRU, and were insistent that she was dual registered.

School budgets are so stretched that often SENCOs are trying to juggle the role alongside a teaching role.

Generally, the issue isn't the schools. It's the LAs advising the schools using their unlawful criteria.

Any decent school would be aware of the legal thresholds and any other test being unlawful. The well informed SENCO, and not all are well informed, may not feel able to push back on the LA in the same way parents can, but that doesn’t excuse them giving incorrect information to parents. Schools who perpetuate the unlawful myths and policies are part of the problem. Many parents know no different but to trust their advice. LAs are also a problem but it doesn’t help parents to pretend sometimes schools are also the problem.

Section 41 independent schools are not wholly independent and are treated like any other state or non-maintained special school. The LA must name your preference unless the LA can prove:
-The setting is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs (“SEN”) of the child or young person; or
-The attendance of the child or young person would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others; or
-The attendance of the child or young person would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources.
Unless the LA can prove one of these they can and must name the school even if the school objects.

Whereas if the school is wholly independent you need an offer of a place and to prove the LA’s proposed school(s) can’t meet needs &/or it isn’t unreasonable public expenditure.

Thanks for this @FloatingBean
I mistakenly thought it was wholly independent as it’s a Quaker school but then looked it up on Gov.U.K. and saw that it’s S.41. Everyday is a school day, especially when you’re a parent in this process!!
It’s great to have help like this. 2nd Panel is soon and so I need to be ready.

There's an irony here. You expect the SENDCo, who has had no legal training at any point as part of becoming SENDCo, to be fully knowledgeable about the LA's unlawful practices and not trust what the LA is telling them, even though they have no reason to distrust them. However, you don't expect the parents of the child to know anything and that it's alright and even expected that they fully trust what the school is telling them.

It's not about whether a school is decent or not. It's about whether the SENDCo and/or parent have knowledge about the two legal criteria for an EHCNA and have awareness that the LA is misinforming them and unlawfully setting higher criteria for assessment. If you have a SENDCo who has only ever been trained or informed by the LA and only ever linked with SENDCos who have been trained and informed by the LA then they won't know that the LA is manipulating and lying to them.

Yes, I expect the SENCO to not perpetuate unlawful myths and practices. If they know so little about the SEN system that they don’t know the legal thresholds for EHCNAs and EHCPs then they aren’t competent enough to do their job. At the very least a SENCO should have read the SENCOP and have basic knowledge of the CAFA 2014 and SEND regs 2014.

Can you not see why some parents trust what schools as professionals and in particular SENCOs tell them? And how that is vastly different to professionals in schools believing LAs unquestionably and not having adequate knowledge of the SEN system?

Are you sure the school is a s.41 school? And not either a non-maintained special school or wholly independent?

I absolutely agree that SENDCos need to be well-informed and better trained. That's one of the reasons why I'm glad of the work that Garry Freeman is doing in delivering clear legal training to SENDCos across the country.

However, there any many people doing that job who have, for years, had every application denied time and time again, because the LA says "Nope, not enough funding spent yet," or "Nope, you haven't tried x or y or z yet." The issue there is that, whilst the thresholds for assessment are low, the LA can legally set a higher bar for actually granting the EHCP. Whilst it can't be some crappy generic "you must spent £10,000 before an EHCP is needed" as has been said frequently for the last 6 or 7 years, it can absolutely be "We believe that this may work without an EHCP being needed if we work with you on developing X, Y and Z within your existing provision. You can then apply again if the provision still doesn't meet need."

With that, the unlawful practices get mixed in with the lawful ones and it becomes very difficult for a SENDCo who hasn't had the right training to identify the differences.

One of the major issues currently is that the landscape of SEND has changed significantly and there are more children with specific and varied needs than every before yet the nature of the SENDCo role hasn't changed. It's still something tagged on to a regular classroom teacher and a role that they are given, roughly, 5 hours a week to fulfill. That just doesn't match up and it needs to change.

Iv dc in high school with one. The school are brilliant and have so many structures in place - not because of his ehcp but becuase they are a good school for sen kids

The only thing the plan offers is that he has an adult support assistant to help him read/write and take him out of lessons to do work in quiet place if overwhelmed. Problem the school has is recruiting assistants as its so poorly paid and term time only.

I am not saying the problem isn’t also LAs, of course they too are at fault and there are many problems within the SEN system, but none of that excuses schools perpetuating unlawful myths.

Personally, I don’t think it is ever acceptable for schools to perpetuate the LA’s unlawful myths, policies and practices either intentionally or through ignorance. Ignorance is never an acceptable defence. Neither LAs or schools should be excused without challenge.

Support DC receive should not be based on parental ability to navigate the system and know professionals who they expect to be able to trust are giving them incorrect information. Otherwise the most vulnerable are disadvantaged.

I need to check this. My first instinct was that it was wholly independent. Checking the gov website I saw S.41 approved but nothing underneath this (as it turns out that this is a header) so it is unclear…..absolutely worth me looking into obviously.
It feels overwhelming and an absolute minefield.

The list of section 41 schools is here. If it isn’t there, as I suspect it isn’t, it is either wholly independent or a non-maintained special school. You can see the type of school it is by searching here.

I find the idea the SENDCOs wouldn't be well acquainted with the SEN CoP and other related pieces of legislation like the Equality Act actually quite shocking as they have a legal duty to follow the SEN Code of Practice and everyone in school has responsibility to behave lawfully, including in respect of the Equality Act and the Public Sector Equality Duty. Ignorance is no defence.

Getting misleading steers as to how to interpret and apply regs is a slightly different question.

I agree wedges between anyone are a bad thing and would love the system to come together around my child and his needs as the law requires. In practice, there is dialogue between the LA and School to explore if/how evidence of needs might be rebutted, in order to reduce costs. I know there are good reasons why this happens (no money in system).

Look on your LAs support grid. That should give you a good idea as to whether they’ll meet the criteria.

not rtft but to add my own experience. there's so much misinformation about when an ehcp is appropriate. your child doesn't have to be 'not meeting expectations' in order to be given one, in fact how ableist it is to assume they are doing OK, so we'll accept that, what about how well they could be doing with some adjustments to their environment.
I applied for my DC's and got the right school setting after an absolute battle with the LA. The school my DC went to at the time I applied were supportive but that was luck rather than any sort of guarantee that each school/senco are best placed to advise. In lots of cases they gatekeep and try and dissuade parents from applying. There is also further pressure from LAs who are frankly in crisis measures and just cannot cope with the processing of new applications and the time and money they are wasting defending their poor quality decisions at tribunal.

As an aside, it's worth checking that any person commissioned to do an assessment by your LA as part of the process is actually familiar with the EHCP process. When I challenged a very poor Speech and Language assessment, the SALT said that I was 'setting her up to fail' because DD2 didn't have a school that she could advise (she was currently out of school because of EBSA). I told her that it didn't work like that, and that she should be assessing DD2's needs, after which the LA would identify a setting that could meet them. Eventually, I asked her if she had read the SENCoP. She replied "Who publishes that?" and I said "The Government."

She didn't even know it existed, yet she was giving an assessment that the LA would rely on to determine if DD2 needed an EHCP and what provision would be needed!

Firstly, as others have said, you definitely can apply yourself and ipsea has lots of info about how to do so.

secondly, and I mean this with absolute kindness, how do you think an EHCP would help? I’ve met lots of people who think things will change ‘with an EHCP’, but really, it only changes if you (or the school, or an Ed psych) can identify what will actually help your child. For us, an EHCP (applied for ourselves) has meant a named person at school, some 1-2-1 support on practical lessons, etc. for others, it has led to SALT input or similar. If the school isn’t that supportive to start with, the EHCP might not be worth much.

@Meandfour what is the LA support grid and where do I find it? Thanks