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

yet it literally is imposed on them, by law. They must take all evidence into consideration as a pp said.

This is more misinformation you are giving the OP. The process is B+F=I. This means that B and F cannot be tailored to meet a specific setting. That is why you cannot name a setting in a draft plan. Regulated professionals are not supposed to tailor their advice to settings. It is a lawful fact that if the LA accept that a private report is admissible, then they cannot cherry pick from this. No wonder 98% of cases that reach a final hearing are found in the parent/young person’s favour.

“[EPs] are often consulted about setting-specific amendments to their provision at the draft stage.”
really deeply concerning and unlawful behaviour by your LA. Just because you accept this does not mean the OP should. If a professional is willing to change their advice due to pressure from a LA to ensure provision can be delivered in a specific setting, they need reporting to their regulatory body. A tribunal would absolutely tear apart a LA proven to have done this. OP, don’t listen to the nonsense here!

lol by who? Anyone that's had an LA ep report knows full well well they often don't meet the necessary standard, for example quantified and specific provision.

You are right op and ignore those here who have no clue and think the la can Cherry pick or tailor provision to a particular setting. If they refuse to add it you will need to appeal to SENDIST once the plan is finalised. I don't think I've ever had a plan that didn't need appealing because it was so poorly written but unfortunately many people (mainly school/LA staff ime) don't understand the law around EHCPs and swallow up the relentless misinformation and unlawful policies LAs spout at them.

I wouldn't ask for those elements to be removed, it's the professional opinion of and education psychologist so like any professional report you can either accept or not but you can't rewrite.
So I would say to the LA the it's the EPs professional opinion of your childs needs so as such you can't ask them to change it.
If they chose not to include all provision within the finalised EHCP you have a time frame in which to lodge an appeal for it to be included. A tribunal does consider All professional evidence so the LA would have to commission they own EP to contradict the opinion of your EP then the tribunal can decide which EP they go with.
If the LA have no evidence to contradict your professionals report then tribunal are likely to order that the provision is included in the EHCP.
The LA are trying to save money.
I would not ask an EP to change their professional opinion and I doubt they would remove provision they thought was required anyway.
@Lemniscate8@Lemniscate8what you are accusing parents of doing is precisely what the LA are doing in this instance! - asking a professional to change a report to suit their purposes.
This isn't in the child's interests to do this, otherwise what is the point of a professional opinion.

It's bit framed as that- that's the reality

my son had an educational psychology report from the local authority, when writing up the echp they reworded to make it not quantified and specified. Unless we are expected to believe that the local authority don't understand the law regarding how ehcps should be written- then It is safe to say this is intentional to make it unenforceable.
the same happens to pretty much everyone in the same borough and many others.
they also will outright lie to and ignore parents. Denying that this happens is unhelpful

Cheers to pp for the info on animal therapy providers- not sure they are much used in my neck of the woods- which is a shame.
Again, I think it's fair to assume that all posters have a specific area of expertise and are trying to provide the OP with advice they genuinely think will help them. There isn't much benefit to them of asserting that posters don't know what they are talking about- especially since we all know very little about this child's profile of need, each others' roles, or what the parents would consider to be a good outcome of the process in terms of setting and meeting educational goals.
The central point I'm trying to explain- obviously very badly, sorry about that! -is that if parents have a preferred setting or preference for a specific type of provision (eg academically focused mainstream, SEMH-specialist provision, close to home, etc), then making adjustments to provision in consultation with the LA is in their child's best interests at times. This is because the LA are knowledgeable about what providers can actually provide in their area. For example, unlike pp, I have never seen 2:1 provision in a mainstream setting or any school that has a mainstream-resembling curriculum so it seemed a reasonable point from a different pp that the parents might want to consider if they think this would be genuinely helpful/necessary for their child, given the likelihood this would restrict provision and the cost in terms of social inclusion in a setting.
From the OP, it appears they have been asked to consider this adjustment as part of the consultation to the draft and nobody is demanding anything yet, unless I've misread that? Equally, there is nothing wrong or pressured in going back to an EP to ask whether they think a reasonable alternative or adjustment to provision would achieve the same aims for a child- e.g (as a spurious example) an established therapeutic intervention that the child is currently engaged in which they would prefer to animal therapy because the EP wasn't aware this child hates dogs. As such, it seems a bit early to be talking about tribunals and judges. An EP report for an EHCNA, whether private or LA, is not the same as statutory provision- it informs the provision.

to make the EHCP meaningful, I really recommend that you and the SENCO of your placement work together to formulate the wording you want and the provision which is essential. I have had an EHCP go through very quickly where the parent and I wrote it for them alongside large chunks from the LA ed psych who consulted with me and the parents extensively and was brilliant. We have a really good EHCP where I know, as the education provider, the hills that the parents will die on and it reflects much of what was already in place. No, we didn’t provide evidence of plan, do, review cycles but I did make it very clear how well I knew the child and the costings of existing support. Parents were reasonable, we were, pupil couldn’t care less but is attending and making progress but L?a still haven’t coughed up any bloody money! I really recommend SOS!SEN to help. I used them for my son’s specialist placement and we won - had to go to tribunal. The person who said that there are myths surrounding EHCPs is right but working alongside the LA with a clear vision of what you want for your child, is really going to help in the first instance. If you then need to go to tribunal then do contact one of the agencies like Ipsea or Sossen to aid you.

I’m incredibly surprised that you have had to commission an EP report where the report has recommended 2:1 support. Basically, if 2:1 support is necessary it’s as a result of a severe physical impairment of where the pupil’s behaviour is so challenging that they would regularly harm others or themselves. In either case, schools would have been well aware of this and pushed an EHCP through rapidly.
Dog therapy though? That’s never going to be written into an EHCP for myriad reasons unless your child meets the criteria for a VI assistance dog. Did you tell the EP that you wanted dog therapy for your DD?
EDIT - GOD KNOW WHERE THE GIF CAME FROM, I can’t delete it!

Animal-assisted therapy is used across the country. It is just LAs don’t like it, so parents often have to appeal.

Posters may be trying to help, but it isn’t helpful to provide information that is unlawful.

Again, provision is based on needs, not written to fit a setting. Just because an LA says something isn’t possible or doesn’t happen in their LA doesn’t mean it isn’t actually possible (the law is the same across England) or that it doesn’t actually happen. Provision isn’t based on what the LA typically provides or wants to provide.

It would be a very poor EP recommending animal-assisted therapy in a report without knowing if the child likes animals or is in fact allergic to some animals is.

It is never too early to know the law and process for challenging LA decisions.

Just like I would be careful with SENDIASS because whilst some are good too many repeat the LA’s unlawful policies, I would also be careful with relying on the SENCO. Some don’t understand the actual law and believe the LA’s unlawful policies.

Dog therapy though? That’s never going to be written into an EHCP for myriad reasons unless your child meets the criteria for a VI assistance dog.

This is wrong. Animal-assisted therapy is not the same as having an assistance dog. It can and is written into EHCPs.

Just because a school pushes for an EHCP doesn’t mean the LA EP report is good quality detailing, specifying and quantifying all the SEP reasonably required. LA reports are often vague and woolly to one extent or another.

I’m amazed anyone is recommending a mainstream school. This level of support is beyond a special school. Frankly a bit ridiculous. We need a rethink of the law!

I have seen dozens of EHCPs which include animal therapy. I have also seen many many EHCPs which stipulate 2:1 and not necessarily for CYP with physical needs.

Just because you may never have seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist!

the advice to write an EHCP with the senco is not good advice - they won’t necessarily understand the law, they may try to tailor the plan for a specific setting. Remember you know your child best.

“An EP report for an EHCNA, whether private or LA, is not the same as statutory provision- it informs the provision.”
eh what?? If it’s in section F the LA has a legal duty to secure the provision. No ifs, no buts, no cherry picking or deciding something may be cost effective or better for social skills. That’s why EHCPs are based on professional and evidenced reports, otherwise CYP with SEND would get what some bureaucrat without direct experience has decided is ‘best’. Best for whom..?

I’ve never seen an EHCP with such provision. It would be interesting to see an example.
Out of curiosity, do you think a school should be forced to provide pet therapy for a child via an EHCP?

the right to a mainstream education is enshrined in law. The level of provision described could very easily be administered in a mainstream setting.

I have seen dozens of EHCPs which include animal therapy
I’ve never seen one! How is it worded and how is it managed?

The school wouldn’t be ‘forced’. The LA has a legal duty to secure it, and just because you’ve never seen this doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen nationwide every school day 🤷‍♀️

If that is what the OP wants, there is a right to a mainstream education unless it would be incompatible with the efficient education of others* *and no reasonable steps could be taken to avoid that.

2:1 and AAT isn’t beyond the provision that can be provided in SS or with the child attending SS but with the AAT provided elsewhere. If it is OP’s preference it can also be provided in MS or again with the child attending MS but with the AAT provided elsewhere.
.

’managed’ the same way as other provision is. X hours of equine therapy per week. Genuinely, it’s really not as bizarre as you’re making out.

Just because you haven’t seen it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I have seen many with it. They aren’t my DC so I obviously can’t share the EHCP.

Not only is animal-assisted therapy (either a specific animal or animals in general) sometimes included in EHCPs, so is animal-assisted learning/animal AP/dog training/assistance dog programmes (and not just for VI DC).

Sorry to answer about the managed. Just like other provision. Some is delivered in schools - sometimes via the school and sometimes via an outside provider. Some aren’t provided in schools even if the child attends a school. The LA is ultimately responsible.

"eh what?? If it’s in section F the LA has a legal duty to secure the provision". An EP report for an EHCNA informs the provision in section F, which is finalised after the draft process is completed, alongside the provision in reports from other professionals, if commissioned. Sometimes different professionals may write provision which overlaps but differs in small details. This is discussed and consulted- with the parents too as part of the draft process. It then becomes statutory after the draft consultation is completed.

Exactly. Once in section F the LA has a duty to secure it. And parents are consulted on draft, but the LA do not have to agree before finalising. This is why I and other posters are telling the OP that tribunal is likely. Because the LA cannot pick and choose which parts of a report they like. It’s either all of it or none of it. And if re LA choose not to commission specific support that a regulated professional has recommended this will not end well for them! The report itself is part of the EHCP-it is part of section K. It doesn’t just ‘inform’ it; it is part of it.

@Buscake Not from what I’ve seen. 2:1? It’s about time we had a rethink.

Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t/can’t happen. It can and it does.

Section k is the appendices to an EHCP which includes all the relevant information which informed the provision.