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.
Again, I haven’t said otherwise, please quote where I have. You can’t, because I haven’t. Not once have I posted any amendments should be made on the LA’s whim without evidence. I know full well how it should work. I’m not the one posting incorrect information such as the EHCP can only be amended following review, which as posted up thread the SEN Regs say otherwise.
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.
Yes, and plenty of DC have needs that change around the time they move from MS to SS and some are reassessed which is why provision is often amended around the same time. I know needs outside school are often social care needs, you have completely missed the point. I was highlighting how needs and provision needed can be different in different settings since you seem to think a child’s needs and the necessary provision are always the same.
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.
No, I am not. Please do not put words into my mouth. I didn’t expand further than a couple of sentences because it’s not relevant to the thread but there are plenty of reason why a pupil might be a flight risk in MS but not in a secure SS that have nothing to do with being locked in. Many experts, even those undertaking independent reports, do see that some DC do not need 1:1 in SS like they do in MS. Otherwise you would see everyone who appeals with 1:1 in MS be awarded 1:1 in SS via Tribunal and you don’t.
If a plan is written to suit the setting
Again, you are misrepresenting what I have posted. I explicitly said to you previously I was not meaning B&F should be written to fit I.
not on the la or schools say so.
Again, nowhere have I said it should be, please quote where I said none of this done on school or La say so and without reassessment. Many DC are reassessed prior to/just after starting SS where recommendations change.
As much as it could benefit a child it could really hinder another.
Please re read my posts. I did post some and sometimes and posted not all.
All provision detailed should be from experts not based on what the setting can provide or what the la want to write.
I haven’t said otherwise.
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.
For some DC that expert evidence will be there from the start. Please stop twisting what I post, I have not said provision should be shoehorned to meet need.
getting the 1:1 detailed in the AR minutes, requesting sar's and thinking about getting other reports
All of which have been previously suggested to OP in other threads under this name and previous names. OP has already spoken to IPSEA.