EHCP in-year admissions question

[bestsella]

If a school is full to its PAN when it gets an in-year EHCP application, does it have to go over numbers to accept it, or do they just go to the top of the waiting list for when a space comes up?

Also, where are the rules about EHCP admissions defined?

It depends on what is in the EHCP. Is there solid evidence that only this particular school can meet needs? Why does it have to be that school? If there's some specific reason then yes they can go above PAN for that specific child.

If the school is named in section I of the EHCP, they must admit. This is in section 43 of the Children and Families Act 2014. This applies even if it takes them above PAN. DC with EHCPs naming the school do not need to join the normal waiting list.

For schools that are not wholly independent, the reasons the LA can refuse to name your preferred placement are set out in section 39 of the Children and Families Act 2014. However, this doesn’t stop the LA sometimes refusing and forcing parents to appeal.

While it's true that a school can be directed to take a child through the EHCP it has to go to panel first for that school to be included, and that's where you have to justify why it must be that school.

Parents do not have to prove it must be that school or that only that particular school can meet needs. The only lawful reasons for the LA to refuse to name parental preference where the preference is not wholly independent are:
-The setting is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs (“SEN”) of the child or young person; or
-The attendance of the child or young person would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others; or
-The attendance of the child or young person would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources.

LAs like to hide behind ‘panels’. They don’t even always exist when some LAs say that. Where they do exist, it doesn’t change the law.

Exactly. It can't be a school that can't really meet need. That's panel's job, to confirm the choice. You can't have a parent just choose any random school without reason. There needs to be a justification of why that's the right school.

But parents don’t need “solid evidence that only this particular school can meet needs” and don’t have to prove “it must be that school” as per your post.

Parents can have any reason for their preferred school being their preferred school. The law doesn’t say the reasons in my pp are the only lawful reasons the LA can refuse to name the placement unless the parents don’t have an acceptable justification of why that's the right school where they can refuse because the parents don’t have a reasonable justification.

That's panel's job, to confirm the choice.

That depends entirely on your viewpoint. LAs hide behind panels, use them to gatekeep and obfuscate.

That's an interesting opinion.

It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law. The only lawful reasons LAs can refuse to name (non-wholly independent) parental preference in I are set out in section 39 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

Yes I'm aware of that. So there are reasons.

I find your dismissal of panel interesting, having sat on a number of panels.

Yes, there are reasons the LA can lawfully refuse to name parental preference but those reasons don’t mean parents need “solid evidence that only this particular school can meet needs” and they don’t have to prove “it must be that school”.

It is well known in the SEN community that LAs often use panels to hide behind decisions, delay decisions, and generally obfuscate. If you read some of the threads on MN you will see that. For example, on one recent thread about mediation, the LA said the decision had to go back to panel when a decision maker should have attended mediation. There was no need for the decision to go back to panel. Years ago an MN’er caught her LA out with a FOI request which showed the panel they claimed had made a decision about her child didn’t even exist. Even when the panels do exist, LAs often fail to keep records/notes on them. To the point LGO decisions have mentioned the lack of notes/records and found fault.

If on consultation the school can meet need, ehcp don't join waiting lists, the school can go over pan. If they already have a high number of EHCP in that year, it may claim wouldn't be efficient use of resource. LA should name nearest suitable school, if parents choose another, it is parental preference and therefore not normally eligible for transport - this can be where parents have to prove other schools can't meet need.

This article from SENTAS explains what parents can do when LAs refuse to name parental preference because they claim transport costs are incompatible with efficient use of resources or name it as parental preference if parents agree to fund transport. Sometimes LAs do this when they can’t prove incompatibility and parents can challenge it.

Non-wholly independent schools can, and must unless the LA can prove one of the lawful exceptions, be named even if they object when consulted. Schools sometimes object even when the LA can’t meet the threshold for one of the lawful reasons.

It works differently to a standard in year transfer. The LA would need to agree to name this school on the child’s EHCP. If the school is named then the school must accept them. Before naming a school, the LA consult the school about whether they can meet the child’s needs. They can only refuse for a few reasons. But one of those reasons is that accepting this child would be “incompatible with the efficient education of others”. This is sometimes used when schools are full, but not always. If the LA does not agree to name the school then you need to appeal the EHCP. The whole admissions process is different to a child without an EHCP.