To think children are being excluded from school too easily?

[RibbyJumper]

Children and their welfare come first in any school - surely?

My DC had an EHCP before DC started reception. The school wanted to refuse DC’s placement. After a fight DC is in the mainstream school with extra funding (9 til 3 daily). DC can do Maths/Reading/Writing, has friends and is no behaviour problem. DC is very quiet and easily overlooked.

I’m so cross that they ever tried to exclude DC before DC had even started school.

DC is now in year 1 and there is no way DC gets his allocated provision. They’ve used it to fund other things.

However I now hear that the school have essentially excluded two other children in Year 1 in the afternoons. They stay for the morning and go home at lunchtime.

This is wrong isn’t it? What the hell is happening in our schools??

@noblegiraffe

To be honest, I’m not entirely sure DC now needs his EHCP.
Speech was very delayed at preschool so I initiated it then. Speech has improved dramatically, except DC is very quiet and tend to hold back rather than put self forward. DC waits for a prompt and comes across as very shy.
I think the school see the funding, and in DC’s last EHCP meeting it really, really sounded like they were exaggerating needs to secure funding.
Plus there is absolutely no way DC gets what is on the map. There is funding for a Therapy Dog on the map - and DC hasn’t seen one for at least 6 months - so where has that funding gone?
The school have gone to the LA for funding for a Therapy Dog, the funding has been provided - but there’s no dog?

The consultation process during the EHCP process isn’t DC being excluded. The process is more nuanced than that and is underpinned by legislation. Non-wholly independent schools can be named against their will, and the bar for legally refusing to name parental preference is higher than you are describing in your posts.

If 1:1 wasn’t required, it wouldn’t be detailed, specified and quantified in F. You should be looking at the provision in F rather than just the school’s provision map or funding attached. If an EHCP wasn’t now needed, the LA would propose to cease to maintain.

I work for my local IAS.

We have children excluded for things like

1. False eyelashes that a child was given a choice of cut them off now or be suspended. Child asked to be able to remove them safely at home that day.
2. Child day dreaming and staring out of the window = defiance.

Even worse than suspensions, PTT and perm exes is the use of internal isolation methods. Some schools are utterly horrific, there is no oversight and often very secretive. Huge scandal waiting to happen.

@Mumofsend

Something does feel very, very off.

I was in a school a couple of weeks ago. It was cold, a child had been dropped off crying who I was asked to comfort. A few of the staff don’t seem to ‘like’ this child or are quite negative towards him.

He is 2 years old and needed a sleep. I was told someone would come to get him soon. They didn’t come.

He was left outside with me in the cold. Intermittently crying.

15 mins past his normal sleep time, still no one came so I took him in. I was almost shouted at and told not to put him in the sleep room because there is a meeting going on. It was certainly a very ‘short’, abrupt annoyance at my decision to bring him inside.

So the conclusion is that this is the child’s fault? He should cope and not cry? Or is the staff fault for not addressing his needs?

I think we are moving towards a highly individualistic society where people don’t consider the needs of others (even children’s) if it inconveniences them. We’ve stopped living communally.

@BrightYellowTrain

But aren’t the LA getting that indication from the school? So if the school state - DC is still very needy, needs a Therapy Dog, please fund it - then the LA provides the funding.

The LA don’t ever see DC, they don’t seem to check on DC’s progress, I’ve never met his case worker. They rely on what the school says.
So if the school want to get the funding, but not spend it on DC, what or who prevents them from doing that?
Therapy Dog is very clearly stated with a weekly cost written next to it.

There is no dog, certainly not since his EHCP was reviewed in June.

Whether it’s in section F or not, it’s still in his EHCP and is misleading to me, the LA and ultimately the child and their outcomes.

But aren’t the LA getting that indication from the school? So if the school state - DC is still very needy, needs a Therapy Dog, please fund it - then the LA provides the funding.

If it was as simple as that, there wouldn’t be quite so many appeals to SENDIST. It is more complex than the school saying the child needs X and the LA amending F to include X and therefore funding it.

So if the school want to get the funding, but not spend it on DC, what or who prevents them from doing that? Whether it’s in section F or not

If the provision isn’t detailed, specified and quantified in F, it doesn’t have to be provided because DC isn’t legally entitled to the provision. This is why it is important to focus on the SEP detailed, specified and quantified in F, rather than the funding or some other document (e.g. where LAs try to get away with writing 'see separate provision map' or 'see IEP' in F). If SEP detailed, specified and quantified in F isn’t being provided, you can enforce the provision, via JR if necessary.

As far as I can see the provision map is in section F. I’ve just checked. I can see section C and H, but F seems to encompass the last few pages where the provision map is in the EHCP.

Provision maps often aren’t included in F. If your DC’s is, brilliant, but it often isn’t the case.

@BrightYellowTrain

Thank you. I know I’m being grumpy, but your advice is invaluable. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

If SEP detailed, specified and quantified in F isn’t being provided, have you sent the relevant model letter on IPSEA’s website to the LA? It is the LA with ultimate responsibility.

It takes days if not weeks to get this sort of advice from the LA, or lengthy waits/being out on hold on the phone from other agencies.

Thank you @BrightYellowTrain

Don’t take advice from the LA unless you want incorrect and, at times, intentionally misleading ‘advice’.

I haven’t - but that’s great. @BrightYellowTrain
I’ve emailed the LA. No response.
I’ll look up the letter.

Send IPSEA’s model letter to the Director of Children’s Services. If that doesn’t work, you need a pre-action letter, but it is only possible to enforce the provision if F is detailed, specified and quantified.

Brilliant @BrightYellowTrain

I’m just looking through the template letters.

Here’s the link for anyone who is struggling with EHCP/exclusions etc.

www.ipsea.org.uk/template-letters

I think children should be excluded for persistent violent behaviour towards teachers and children.

Therapy dogs are not easy to get. My SEN school has one as one of the OT's kindly agreed for her dog to be trained as a therapy dog. My daughters mainstream school has one, which lives with the headmistress. This is a huge expectation for a school, as a staff member will need to have the dog live with them, so it may not be achievable, but the school should have used that budget to fund another intervention expected to acheive the same outcomes. What was the SMART outcome for the therapy dog?

There are companies who will visit schools with a therapy dog or dogs. Depending on the wording, this may well satisfy the SEP. If the therapy dog is if in F, that is the SEP that is required to be provided, not something else the school decides instead.

@BrightYellowTrain

So today I found out that the school aren’t in possession of the amended EHCP. The meeting for this was held in summer 24.
They sent me the plan for the amended EHCP (including the provision map) apparently this isn’t the final amended EHCP. They asked if I had it, and they haven’t received anything from the LA.

Despite claiming in the meeting that the provision map wouldn’t change, they now say they will change it when they hear back from the LA and it will now be different because he has moved from reception to Yr1.
His class teacher has never seen the provision map.

I’m at a complete loss.

I’ve been trying to contact the LA since mid December and no one has got back to me, because I suspected something was up. I’ve emailed twice and phoned 3 times.

The school seem utterly dismissive, cross and defensive that I’ve even asked what’s going on.

I'm just surprised that someone in their mid-50s has a DS in Year 1!

The school is right. The report following the annual review meeting isn’t an amended EHCP. The school doesn’t amend the EHCP. The LA does.

Following the AR meeting, a report must be circulated within 2 weeks. Then, the LA must inform you if they propose to amend or not (or propose to cease to maintain) within 4 weeks. If the LA propose to amend, they must send the proposed amendments at the same time. And, if the LA is going to amend, they must finalise within a further 8 weeks.

If this hasn’t happened following the last AR meeting, you should send the relevant IPSEA model letter to the Director of Children’s Services. If that doesn’t work, you need a pre-action letter.

Focus on the EHCP rather than the provision map.

Please: qualify as a teacher. Work in a school. Then feel free to comment.

@BrightYellowTrain

Thank you, I shall do that.