Ehcp questions

[BiscoffSundae]

Thought I would ask on here as asked this on a Facebook ehcp group but wow they are really unfriendly on there! So dd currently has a ehcp banding level is 3 is this considered high ? I’ve been told by her senco to get into a special school they mostly go on the banding (the group I’m on have said the opposite and said that the banding is irrelevant to parents) but I just wondered if level 3 banding is considered high? They wouldn’t answer that and told me basically it was nothing to do with me even though it’s my daughters ehcp and I’m just trying to understand it as the senco said that she would stand a higher chance the higher the banding is and wants to apply for level 4 banding as she feels she is level 4

The banding system is not used in every local authority and each that does use it, will have their own way of using it. Due to this, it’s hard to say if it’s high or low. The only thing I can be relatively sure of is that whatever the total, it will not cover the level of provision that your daughter actually receives.
At her annual review you can ask where her provision is and for costs but really this won’t change anything as it is only really relevant to school unless you have a personal budget. As long as they are fulfilling everything under the provision section of her EHCP then the costs are largely irrelevant to you.
It sounds like your SENCo has it under control if you want your daughter to go to special school?

The group is right. Don’t focus on the banding, focus on ensuring the provision in F is detailed, specified and quantified then provision must be provided regardless of band or funding, and it will be easier to prove a SS is necessary.

Yes we’ve just gone over her ehcp today to get it amended but she said in her experience the higher the band the more chance of getting into a special school that’s what’s thrown me as she said it does matter? She’s currently in class 25% of the time and I want it in F that she will need smaller class sizes is that something I can have added? She can’t handle the large class sizes and only spends about 10% of each lesson in the class room I’ve been told.

shes not going to a special school mainstream is on her ehcp so in the process of trying to appeal this. The mainstream have said they can’t meet her needs but have still be named.

The group are right.

And it's actually illegal for LAs to have a blanket policy of applying banding for funds. They have a legal responsibility to fund what's needed to meet section F.

So the senco needs to apply for more funding if what she's given dies t cover what it costs to meet dds needs (-£6000 the school must put in first)

They are right in the sense that unfortunately they do look at bands of funding (mine have band 4 and we were told they needed that for a special school) but they shouldn't do this - it should be based on need.,

As itsgettingweird posted, refusing to name a SS purely because of the band is unlawful. It is not a high band is necessary for a place in a SS, more at a population level those with a high band are more likely to have more complex needs thus more likely to be in a SS.

It is possible to get the whole EHCP funded by the LA, not just top up the notional SEN budget. The LA are ultimately responsible for ensuring the provision is provided. But your problem is F doesn’t specify and quantify the provision so is unlikely to be funded and doesn’t have to be provided.

Small class sizes (you would want it quantifying) can be included in F, but unless you have it recommended in a report it is unlikely to be.

I would try to get some help from local parents as the system has weird things depending on where you are in the country. For example where I am, there is no special school provision for children with normal range academic ability so you either have to make do with mainstream, cobble some sort of home ed thing together, ship your child miles and miles away to go to school or accept that they won't learn anything academic and focus on functional skills. It would also be useful to know what year your daughter is in? I assume y6 going into y7?

Yes she’s in year 6 she does ok academically hence why mainstream has been named as apparently being suitable (though she is behind but I’ve been told she isn’t behind enough) she has 30 hour 1:1 and her support is mainly around her social and emotional needs and her anxiety for example today it has taken 3 members of staff half an hour to get her into school (physically), she has a 1:1 all day including at lunch time and play time.

The schools in our borough are for children with SLD so I’ve applied for schools outside of the borough

A Band 4 will mean nothing to anyone outside of your Local Authority as they all use different funding systems.

Hi, the send system is a nightmare.

ok so if she’s in year 6 now going into year 7 in sep it’s highly unlikely that this will be resolved by then. Start to think about what you will do in Sep, has she had any transition support?

when was your last annual review of her ehcp? The plan cannot be changed without a review or a reassessment of need which I’m guessing hasn’t happened.

following the review you will get a right of appeal to sendist, it’s through this process that most families get the amendments to the plan that they want. This includes placement which is section I.

do you have a special school in mind? They are all really different and not all are suitable for all children eg you may not want her with children with extreme behaviour, different social or academic level or may require certain adaptation to the physical environment etc.

going back to the AR, 2 weeks before you should get reports from everyone involved and you can submit too. This is a legal requirement to give you enough time to digest them and seek clarification if the professional isn’t attending the meeting. Are these reports detailed, specified and quantified? Are they a true representation? Is there anything missing? Do you need to commission your own reports?

at the meeting you could point out that section b and f aren’t quantified and specified and ask for this to be minuted. You could also say that on this basis the ehcp needs to be amended so that it is written as per the cop. 9.69. Get the school to confirm that they are providing the constant 1:1, why they are doing this and ensure it is minuted.

you then get a copy of the minutes within two weeks (this is important as you can check that the above has been documented with any relevant comments from profs) and then a letter from la within a further two weeks saying if they intend to amend, cease or maintain the plan and give you your right to appeal. If they agree to amend great, if not put in for the tribunal and get your own reports and info which supports your choice of school.

I know the above doesn’t sound relevant to banding but I’m guessing your la does the banding of section f. Banding can be included in an ehcp if the provision in section f is detailed and quantified. The la are ultimately responsible for the provision but it is only enforceable if there is no doubt as to what that should be regardless of banding and funding arrangements. Any wording like “may benefit from” or “would be helpful” or “it is recommended” is useless and the provision isn’t enforceable via jr and does not have to be provided.

mainstream schools are cheaper than special and any amount of time that your daughter is on roll there is saving the la money so most LA’s will give you the run around until you start to follow things up legally.

i would also consider having a very frank conversation with the mainstream school that has been named and ask them how exactly they are going to meet your daughters needs. It may also be an idea to do a sar on the current school, the intended school, the la and any professionals or services involved.

ipsea used to have a phone in helpline on a Friday, I’m not sure if they still do but check the website. Sossen are very good and have phone line most days during term time. If you get some help off either of these I would asap.

i should say be careful with banding. The la could have bands a to d in £1000 increments for this year but next year reduce the funding for each band by £500. The plan will still say the same band but the funding will have reduced. This is why the provision has to be specified and quantified as the LA have to provide it regardless of cost which makes 5he banding irrelevant.

as a parent the funding of the provision shouldn’t concern you unless the la cite inefficient use of funds for your choice of school.

OP, there’s more to whether a SS is necessary than academic ability.

The plan cannot be changed without a review or a reassessment of need which I’m guessing hasn’t happened.

It can be. Section 28 SEN regs 2014 says the LA can amend the EHCP at any time without a review or reassessment, but they must follow the same rules e.g. allowing you to make representations, give the right of appeal etc. as if they amended it post AR. The AR then needs to be within 12 months of the original EHCP, not the new amended version.

SS isn’t always cheaper than a properly specified and quantified comprehensive EHCP in MS.

@LargeLegoHaul yes you are right but unusual for that to happen especially with a child in setting.

Where a plan is fully s and q the provision has to be made in both comparrible settings. Base ms cost is always cheaper than ss or at least in 99.999% of cases (I haven't actually seen a ss base cost lower than £16000 and that is a maintained).

Justrealised the pupil may not need the same provision in SS as they do in MS so amendments are often made to provision on the move to SS, which is why SS can sometimes be more expensive than MS. For example, it is not unusual for a pupil who needs a full time 1:1 and maybe occasional 2:1 in MS not to need the same in SS. Or for the child to need less direct therapies than they received in MS because they are embedded into the classroom curriculum.

Sorry. Totally ignore my last post. I am getting mixed up with another thread.

@LargeLegoHaul I don't agree. An ehcp should not be written to suit the provision that a particular school or type of school can give.

Needs should be detailed with the provision required to meet them. That provision should then be provided in the setting, to amend this based on setting rather and ignoring expert advice would be unlawful. The plan should be transferable between settings.

@LargeLegoHaul I do agree that this practice happens but I don't agree that it should happen.

B&F shouldn’t be written to fit the placement in I as that is unlawful, but e.g. not needing as much 1:1 provision isn’t making B&F fit I, it is about the pupil having different needs in a SS. For example, a child who has 1:1 in MS because they are a flight risk often isn’t a flight risk and doesn’t need 1:1 in SS because of the change in environment and secure site. Similar with e.g. MH therapies, if the school is a therapeutic school that delivers therapy as part of the class curriculum less stand alone therapy is often needed.

The fb group advised correctly. 1) bands aren't standardised so no one can reliably advise as to whether '3' is considered high or low. 2) if you have to appeal and go to tribunal what band you are given won't really be considered as they will look at the provision and cost of that provision not the banding.
If school can't provide the provision within the EHCP with the funding they have then they need to go back to the LA and ask for more funding. But if they are reasonably able to provide what is in the EHCP with the funding already provided then the LA aren't likely to increase the banding. So are your school planning on increasing provision or stating they can't meet needs with the funding provided?

(I need to go to bed so may not reply again or it maybe tomo).

The child's needs do not change with the setting. The needs are the same regardless of setting. If an expert has said that a child requires a secure setting in order to allow them more autonomy within school rather than 1:1 that should be included. If an expert has said a child requires 1:1 to ensure safety then that is what should be included in section f. The la shouldn't be ignoring expert advice.

In regards to therapies there is a big difference between direct and indirect therapy. I wouldn't accept a change like this to my sons ehcp on the basis of class curriculum. If a child requires direct therapy they require direct therapy. If they require therapy embedded into the curriculum then that is what they require also. They are different and not interchangeable as much as LA's and settings like to say they are.

Op, please do call ipsea or sossen and get some advice.

The la shouldn't be ignoring expert advice.

Absolutely nowhere have I said they should. Please quote where I have. Bizarre you think I have.

Of course, sometimes (note, I haven’t said always) needs change in different settings just as they can change over time. Or are you saying all children’s needs are always the same at home as they are at school, clubs, in the community…?

If an expert has said that a child requires a secure setting in order to allow them more autonomy within school rather than 1:1 that should be included. If an expert has said a child requires 1:1 to ensure safety then that is what should be included in section f.

So you acknowledge a pupil who needs 1:1 in MS in a none secure site may not need 1:1 in a secure SS.

Yes, there’s a big difference between direct and indirect therapies but for some pupils, again note I said some pupils just as I previously said sometimes, an increase in indirect embedded therapy or an environment/staff/curriculum that is more therapeutic/less distressing for their MH does mean a pupil needs less direct therapy. Not all DC are the same which is why I said sometimes.

All of which is pointless as the OP doesn’t have any expert reports recommending 30hrs 1:1 and it isn’t specified and quantified in F.

In regards to the ignoring expert advice: the provision in a plan should come from experts by allowing the la to write the provision to suit a setting this is what is happening.

A child/ yp's needs do change over time. The child should be placed in a setting which can meet those needs and make the provision.

If a child has different needs at home or in clubs they should be dealt with in the social care sections again with needs and provision detailed s and qd.

No, I do not agree that a child who needs 1:1 in ms may not need it in ss in those circs. Essentially what you are saying is that locking the child in whether a unit, classroom or building solves the problem. It doesn't, what should be looked at is why the child is leaving; is it sensory? Is it because of poor communication? Are they scared? Do they need movement breaks? Do they want to see their nan? If it is safety awareness then there is a bigger argument for 1:1. Getting to the route of it and working the way back is more helpful. A 1:1 would be better placed to do this.

How it should work:-

Needs identified
Provision detailed to meet the needs
Setting named that can meet needs and make provision.

If a plan is written to suit the setting the risk is that the placement will fail and when moving to a new placement they won't be giving the child what they need as it hasn't been detailed rather what the failed setting can provide has.

If as in your example above with the mh therapy this should be backed by the professionals not on the la or schools say so. As much as it could benefit a child it could really hinder another. All provision detailed should be from experts not based on what the setting can provide or what the la want to write. In this example i would think the child should start with the dedicated therapy and have the bdnefit of all the indirect therapy then when the evidence points to it reduce the direct therapy on the advice of the treating therapist not prior to starting in order to shoe horn the provision to meet need.

You are right it does sound like the op doesn't have the evidence she needs to support the provision the child already recieves which is why I suggested getting the 1:1 detailed in the AR minutes, requesting sar's and thinking about getting other reports all of which would support if she went to tribunal and I would guess flag other needs also . She may also find the ms school has flagged issues themselves.

Sossen and ipsea have trained volunteers who could support her, guide her through the process and help her with the timeframes, letters etc.