Educational Psychology report - EHCP

[SENParentSupport]

We decided to pay for a private EP report as part of our daughters EHCP assessment. We received feedback today that the LA EP has agreed to use the report however wants to remove 2 elements.

The private EP has recommended dog therapy however the LA would like to remove this; they have said if the school want to fund it they can but they won't be. They would also like to reword 2:1 support in class as this will be difficult for the school to implement.

I'm a little confused, isn't the EHCP there to provide funding beyond the schools funding to support the recommended support our daughter needs... that has been advised by professionals?

Are the LA allowed to pick and choose what they like to include from the EP report even though they have said they will accept it?

What happens if we disagree and say we want those elements included as its been recommended to provide to support our daughters need.

Thank you

It isn’t unusual for LAs to cherry pick parts of evidence they like. The LA must consider all evidence. That doesn’t mean they always include every aspect of provision from all evidence. If the LA agrees to issue, you will receive a draft. You will get the opportunity to comment on the draft. As part of that, you can raise the amendments you believe are necessary. The LA may or may not agree. Once the LA finalise the EHCP, you will be able to appeal.

The provision in the EHCP should be based on what DD reasonably requires to meet the needs in B (which should be all special educational needs). Not what is easy for a school to provide. Focus on the provision detailed, specified and quantified in F over funding because if it is detailed, specified and quantified in F, it must be provided and can be enforced. Ultimately, the LA is responsible for ensuring provision in F is provided and that includes ensuring there is sufficient funding.

unfortunately private assessments are of little value on the whole, and if I could show you some of the ones I have seen you would understand why! No LA or school is obliged to read any of them. Basically, they can come from anyone and say anything at all. If the LA is accepting some parts of it, that is more than they have to do

They'd have a hard time justifying not accepting a report from a qualified educational psychologist at tribunal.
Obviously reports by unqualified people can be ignored but evidence can't be ignored purely in the basis that if was obtained privately

It can, and it is. It is up to the LA/school if they choose to read it, they do not have to. I had a student once with around 40 private assessments, for example. I read a few random bits, but reading them all would have taken a week, - and I wouldn't have remembered everything anyway, never mind that they contradicted each other - that is excessive, but it is not unusual for a child to have 2 or 3, or even 4 private assessments done, and they frequently contradict each other, and parents frequently cherrypick which ones they submit. Even if a child only has one done, it doesn't mean that one is more valid than another one they could have got from someone else. It is also not unheard of for a parent to tell an assessor what they want the findings to be, and to be prepared to pay for those findings to be, um, found

2-1 support may be necessary, but dog-therapy funded by the LA - you’re having a laugh.

They can't. They do try to ignore them- but it is unlawful for them to have do so. they don't have to do everything that a report suggests but they do have to consider the findings of the assessment and take that into account. And if it gets to tribunal then the independent reports will be considered because they are valid. (if following nice guidelines. Done by a qualified person of course)
you can't pay for reports to say whatever you want- no educational psychologist would do that wether la funded or privately funded.
you sound like you don't like parents of kids with sen advocating for their children.

Provision is what is ‘ reasonably required’ to meet a child’s needs. Private reports do need to be considered and the LA has to meet all the identified needs - but does not have to accept all the recommendations from a private report.
2adults:1 child is very unusual. 1adult :2children may be replaced with ‘small groups of up to x for core learning’ to be more feasible.
There will be other types of provision to meet the needs relating to the Dog Therapy which will be easier and cheaper for a school to put in place.
There may also be issues re dogs and other pupils being allergic.

No, I am just trying to explain the reality. In real life, it isn't possible to even read all the private reports that are done, and many of them are of such dubious quality to be not worth the reading anyway. That is the reality of it. It would not be possible for it to be imposed on schools and LAs that all private assessments have to be read, unless specific people are appointed just to sit and read all day.

In some settings 2:1 provision across the day may be unworkable due to difficulties with space in classrooms etc. the LA may wish to avoid this issue as it may result in your child's preferred setting simply responding that they can't meet that need. This is a legitimate thing for a placement to do. 2:1, ime, tends only to be in place where the child presents an extremely high level of risk to themselves and others- ie where m positive handling techniques may be needed. If this is not the case for your child, then it is worth considering if this is truly necessary or beneficial- that level of provision can come at quite a cost to social integration.

Yes, in theory.

in practice it’s about what you can enforce. You won’t be able to enforce dog therapy. I presume this is for emotional and social needs, the LA (and school) will likely argue that there are other ways of meeting those needs which are cheaper and don’t need to be risk assessed for other students.

The other consideration is that if the LA did accept this report, schools may be consulted with but refuse to accept your DD due to not being able to meet the provision detailed within the report. Of course, the LA could enforce a place in more extreme circumstances (only at state schools not at independent ones) however by that point you already know that the school would likely struggle to manage. Also depending on age, I’ve seen many a child really struggle to get a high school or college place because the needs outlined in the EHCP have been far too complex, and then parents and LA end up having to rewrite anyway.

The LA ed psyche service is usually the one that’s trusted. The head or nursery has input too. Just paying for reports should not queue jump or resources just follow dc of rich parents and LAs need to be aware of this.

Although LAs often say they don’t accept independent reports, it isn’t lawful for LAs to have such a blanket policy. They must consider all evidence as per the Regs. Although, as I said, this doesn’t always mean they include all the provision in the EHCP and they often cherry pick parts of the report (or water down the provision). If the parents appeal, SENDIST will consider all evidence, not just LA evidence.

Not all independent assessments are brilliant, but then neither are many LA reports. Many LA reports are vague and woolly with unenforceable wording.

Animal-assisted therapy (either general or animal specific) can be included in F. If it is detailed, specked and quantified in F, it must be provided and can be enforced. Although many have to appeal to get the provision detailed, specified and quantified in F. It isn’t always provided via the school. There isn’t always a suitable cheaper alternative to animal-assisted therapy. If there was no-one would have it in EHCPs and that isn’t the case. Provision in EHCPs should be based on what the child reasonably requires to meet their needs, not to fit a placement.

It isn’t only state schools that can be named even if they object. Section 41 independent schools and NMSS can be too. Only wholly independent schools need the school to agree to being named. It isn’t just extreme cases where non-wholly independent schools can (and if they are the parent’s preferred school, must be named unless the LA can prove one of the exceptions set out in law) be named against their will.

The point about placement tends to apply where there is already a settled placement, moving the child to a different placement would be disruptive or difficult, and would severely restrict the type of placement available. The type of placement that would be able to meet the needs of a child with 2:1 provision would not necessarily offer a broad academic- centred curriculum, so parents might need to be aware that there would be compromises involved or, potentially, a very long commute indeed or long wait for a suitable place. Most other placements other than highly specialised high needs provisions, including independent, would be very cautious when considering if they can meet need.
I'm curious also about what 'detailed, specific, and quantified' might look like in the case of a therapy animal in school. This would tend to be a useful provision on a needs-led basis for emotional support rather than, (to give an arbitrary example) provided on Tuesdays at 11am for half an hour. It is helpful for parents to be aware that quantified and specific provision can (not always- sometimes this can be really helpful) be limiting and enforce rigid rules around interventions which are fundamentally unhelpful for their child, especially when these refer to SEMH needs for regulation. You'd possibly specify the provision of adult support and the accredited training of the dog- but possibly are right that this is not a helpful provision if other forms of therapeutic support can work. Apart from the risk assessment for other children, you are effectively asking a member of school staff to care for and house that dog outside of school hours.

Unless it was specifically required in a particular case, detailed, specified and quantified animal-assisted therapy wouldn’t say the day or time. But it would give the length of the session, frequency of sessions, ratio, who (as in the job role and training/experience/qualifications, not the specific provider because the specific provider should not be named in F)…

Wording that is not detailed, specified and quantified is not enforceable. Correctly worded, detailed, specified and quantified provision is not limiting. ‘Adult support’ is far too vague and woolly to be enforceable.

If the SEP is unhelpful, it wouldn’t be in F of an EHCP because it wouldn’t be reasonably required to meet the DC’s SEN.

2:1 in and of itself would not necessarily severely restrict the type of placement. 2:1 is not common but does sometimes happen, including sometimes in mainstream.

you are effectively asking a member of school staff to care for and house that dog outside of school hours.

That isn’t the necessarily the case. There are providers who can deliver animal-assisted therapy either at a school or otherwise than at/in school.

Do you already have a placement? As someone who does EHCP applications from the school side, you have to cost out everything and you get an LA costing list so specialist teacher is £50 per hour, HLTA is £16 per hour. The problem is that these costs do not take into account the on costs such as NI, pension, employment costs, possible travel expenses. The most you get is around £12,000 and then getting the money out of the LA is horrendous. The money really doesn’t go far. If you have a placement and they are already having to provide 2 to 1 (which is going to cost a fortune) and the dog then fine but, if you don’t have a placement, they will be sending the EHCP round schools who may well refuse to accept based on the fact that they cannot provide that level of support and providing that support and accepting your child provides a substantial risk to others’ educational provision. A private school won’t touch this with a barge pole. What do you want your child to receive and why? Do they really need 2 to 1. Are they a safety risk to themselves and others? This would be the main justification for this level of provision or extensive and complicated medical needs. Would a specialist provision, rather than mainstream be better for them where there is a greater level of therapeutic support and more likely to have regular visitations from therapy dogs, etc. you have to think sensibly - there is a finite pot of money so if the LA agree to 35 hours of fully funded one to one rather then that is a huge win. What does your child actually NEED. If they really have to have the 2 to 1 to keep them safe then battle for that - you will need proof of occasions that one to one isn’t enough. Frankly, I’d let the dog thing go as there seems to be little justification for that. Don’t just take what the EP says as gospel - they often put in things that are a ‘nice to have’ but not essential. These two things make your child a real headache for appropriate placement. Think strategically and what is needed for your child to thrive educationally.

As much as LAs would like you to believe, EHCP funding is not limited to £12k per year. The LA is ultimately responsible for SEP detailed, specified and quantified in F. That includes ensuring there is sufficient funding. But they won’t do so unless forced. SEP in F is not based on funding, but on what is reasonably required to meet DC’s needs set out in B.

Im not sure the LA 'want you to believe' anything of the sort. They tend, in my experience, to find life easier if you are well-informed, as parents, and able to work positively with a range of professionals in order to provide the support your child needs. I appreciate this can be a difficult and stressful process for families- but I'm wondering who it benefits if this process is framed for parents as a battleground and everyone else working on provision as an enemy determined to deprive children and young people of their rights.

I disagree. LAs often want parents to believe a myriad of untrue things - from ‘DC need to be 2+ years behind for an EHCNA’ to ‘DC need to have had 2+ APDR cycles before requesting an EHCNA’ to ‘we don’t include that (e.g. SALT, OT, physio, CBT, 1:1…) in F here’ to ‘we don’t accept independent reports here’ to untruths about funding (for example, band Y worth £x is the highest band and that is the maximum funding available, or £x is the maximum amount that can be attached to an EHCP here, and a myriad of other incorrect things about funding LAs want parents to believe).

I haven’t posted anything about seeing ‘everyone else working on provision as an enemy determined to deprive children and young people of their rights.’ I haven’t said anyone is the ‘enemy’. What I have done is counter the incorrect local policies perpetuated by many LAs.

You’re getting some really bad and incorrect advice on this thread. Some facts for you:

• the LA cannot cherry pick what provision they put in place. If they accept a private report, they accept it full stop
• if they are being dicks about this, the previous posters are correct - a tribunal judge will absolutely uphold this and ensure that all provision from the report is included
• you don’t need to worry about costing ever. This is for the LA and the school to argue between themselves.

I know IAS/SENDIAS services get a lot of flak but please speak to your local one to put your mind at rest and to ensure you fully understand your rights and your child’s rights. The posters above who are sounding off like they know it all, don’t. Genuinely you are being told unlawful and incorrect information by them - don’t let it get into your head.

I took that from your framing of 'the LA' as consistently misrepresenting the reality of variations in SEND support provision and having to be 'forced' to appropriately meet need, so apologies if that sense of people working for LAs as the enemy isn't a position that represents your views. I'd be interested in hearing some of your more positive experiences, as the parents in this case might find it useful to hear that balance. Otherwise it can seem like they will potentially be insisting on provision from a private report that might not really be in the child's best interest when enacted 'on the ground'

It also looks like you have different experience to me of what a therapy animal intervention or provision in schools would look like. I'd be interested in learning more about the sort of providers you mention if you are happy to share links.

BTW I didn’t mean it was acceptable for the LA to cherry pick what they want, just that that is what they often do, which is why I mentioned about being able to appeal once the LA finalise if they don’t make the necessary amendments after you have commented on the draft and the SENDIST would consider all evidence.

'the LA' as consistently misrepresenting the reality of variations in SEND support provision and having to be 'forced' to appropriately meet need

LAs are! Otherwise there wouldn’t be so many parents having to appeal and have their appeal upheld. Neither would there be so many successful complaints to the LGO. And there wouldn’t be so many looking to enforce provision via the pre-action letter/JR process. That doesn’t mean I have called anyone ‘the enemy’.

Of course people have positive experiences. For example, today I received an email from a parent who I have been supporting telling me their LA has finalised the EHCP with all the amendments proposed in response to the draft and naming a mainstream independent. I just didn’t mention them when posting about the actual law because it wasn’t relevant to my posts.

• the LA cannot cherry pick what provision they put in place. If they accept a private report, they accept it full stop

This isn't the case if the report is still at draft stage. The LA, like the parents and providers, are at the point of negotiating and considering what will work best in a preferred or named setting (which is usually nominated by parents). EPs do not write setting-specific provision (purposely avoid it, as it's unhelpful and likely to change) and are often consulted about setting-specific amendments to their provision at the draft stage. From my perspective so far, I think it's fair to say that all posters are providing good advice from their specific area of expertise and experience. All these points are useful for the OP to gain an informed opinion of what they should do- even if they don't concur.

Sorry I missed your previous post. I had already started typing my previous post and didn’t scroll back. One example of a provider of animal-assisted therapy that I have recently put in an EOTIS proposal is this one. They support in schools too - mainly SS but they can do MS. Although even for a child who attends a school, they don’t have to receive the AAT at/in the school. So you could look for a provider like this and have it delivered away from the school. There are lots of providers. Some animal specific, some not. Some delivered by HCPs, some by practitioners.

Provision in EHCPs should be based on what is reasonably required to meet needs, not written to fit a setting.