Daughter refused Sen school so upset

[CornflakesCorn]

I’m so upset, I home educate my daughter not through choice as they wouldn’t give her a place in a Sen school. Well I did an annual review with the LA as I’m desperate to get her back into school I can’t cope with her at home anymore I’m seriously losing
My mind. She even had a visit from a Sen school she’s not doing any learning anymore as my mental health can’t cope with it I can’t do this anymore. Well they’ve only gone and said mainstream! Even after the Sen school visited why I feel like crying! They clearly saw how much she struggles she cried the whole time they was there and didn’t engage at all! How on earth has she been given mainstream what do I do now I can’t keep her at home I’m losing the will to live any advice as I can't cope with her at home anymore I can't believe they've said mainstream
For a child that can't even hold a conversation

OP’s DD’s section F is not too detailed, specified and quantified. That is part of the problem. It is vague and woolly without all the provision reasonably required.

LA’s don’t write provision in F that is unnecessary. SEP in F has been judged to be legally reasonably required.

A detailed, specified and quantified section F does not shoot parents in the foot, especially when said parents need to appeal for a special school place. If F is lacking, it is more likely a MS is judged to be able to be legally named even if that isn’t actually appropriate. In cases more generally, just because a school raises concerns when consulted doesn’t mean it meets the legal threshold to not be named. Non-wholly independent schools can be named even if they object.

No LA would go to tribunal defending trying to force a minimally verbal child into a mainstream setting against LA Ed psych advice and parental preference.

They do! Even when said MS states they can’t meet needs. It is about delaying. Particularly important when OP is EHE. Because LAs know it kicks the can down the road and a proportion of parents EHEing will continue to EHE rather than appeal. Just like the OP is considering.

If I agree to the mainstream can I still appeal? I’m worried that would look like I’m ok with her being in mainstream and go against me? I know they won’t cope with her so I will do it if I need to prove it but would it go against me at tribunal?

That depends on the school. If section F is written for a large MS school and OP wants her DD to attend a smaller independent or special school then large parts of section F are frequently irrelevant and off-putting to those schools. The LA cannot force a non-section 41 school to take a student or be named in the EHCP.

Yes, you can still appeal.

The LA cannot force a non-section 41 school to take a student or be named in the EHCP.

Hence saying non-wholly independent… Section F is still not irrelevant for a place in a wholly independent school and the LA still remains responsible for ensuring the provision is provided.

Exactly my point, which is why all of the extra detail in section F needs removing if it's there in the first place and not absolutely required. The LA are responsible for ensuring schools meet need in section F and if this is beyond what smaller schools can commit to then they'll say they can't meet need.

LAs don’t include provision in F where it isn’t absolutely reasonably required.

They do - and they admit it and will apologise for the "unnecessary bloated" section F when they send out consultations.

*unnecessarily

Let me re-phase that then. LAs do not include provision in F that is not legally reasonably required. There may be provision the LA object to/claim isn’t reasonably required that has been Ordered. There may be provision some schools think isn’t reasonably required but has been deemed to be legally reasonably required by others. But if it is detailed, specified and quantified in F it has been deemed to legally be reasonably required.

For a bit of context here, if a parent has pushed for interventions of 'not more than 6 students' to be written into the EHCP when that student is in a class of 8 students then this is a legal requirement which has to be met. The intervention will take place but there will be 8 students, rather than 6. That detail is unnecessary and could potentially put a small independent or special school off, as this would not be possible. Better to write small group intervention as that need could then be met. Instead of that, section F is now frequently full of specifics which some parents have pushed for after taking advice. This would probably be relevant and necessary in a larger MS school, but to reiterate, it very much depends on the setting to which OP wants to send her DD. Hence my advice to look at section F and check whether it's relevant or off-putting to that setting.

For SEP to be included in F, it has to be from evidence it is reasonably required. It isn’t just included because parents push for it. If it was suitable to be delivered in groups up to 8 that is what the professional evidence would have stated. So, yes, the difference between 6 and 8 can be important. It absolutely is not better to make the provision unenforceable by swapping wording to vague wording such as ‘small group’. Though I am sure LAs would love it.

It is a moot point for the OP, anyway. DD’s section F is poor, not watertight.

They do this in the hope you give up. Get an appeal in. If you're entitled to legal aid they can help you.

Provision should be written to meet the child's needs, not to suit the setting.

You don't have to agree or disagree to the EHCP or setting named in section I in order to appeal.

If that's the difference between a suitable school saying they can meet need (and otherwise can) or saying they can't then it's worth looking at. The LAs know this, which is why they advise schools to hold an emergency AR asap and have the irrelevant information removed from section F in order for them to be able to say they can't meet need. They wouldn't advise this otherwise. If SEN parents are unaware of this and are frustrated that a particular school is refusing to be named, then it's not a moot point. For the OP perhaps in this instance, but for other SEN parents reading this thread, they need to be aware.

*say the 'can' meet need!

All of this!

Also do not follow this poor advice

You actually don't need to move straight to tribunal. You already have an EHCP you are requesting an updated Ed psych assessment as her needs have significantly changed. Do that first because if they agree to that it could save a lot of time, effort and bother. Or employ your own EP.

You have a set time in which to appeal. If you do this /\ /\ you'll run out of time. Do you work for a LA @DrRuthGalloway ? Sounds like the rubbish advice they give out to stop parents enforcing their children's legal rights.
^
Also if LAs don't persevere with cases they know they'll lose, how come they lose 98/99% of them at SENDIST?^

@HollyBerryz yes in an ideal world and with an abundance of choice of settings. Unfortunately not currently the case for many...

Not sure how it all works in detail from a parental pov and EHCP, but I'm an EOTAS Tutor and have lots of children on my waiting list.
Has this ever been an option for your daughter?
I teach my students from their homes in the main. 1:1.

Of course there are other reasons why LAs attempt to remove provision. It completely ignores that LAs like to try to water down provision and remove provision for completely unlawful reasons such as funding. Any parent whose LA attempts to unlawfully remove provision e.g. where it has been recently ordered by SENDIST should pursue legal action.

@everychildmatters EOTAS/EOTIS is only legally possible if it is inappropriate for provision to be made in a school. That doesn’t just include MS. To get a comprehensive package is also likely to take an appeal.

No, it's the difference between a suitable or unsuitable school.

They wouldn't advise it otherwise? Of course they will. They want to remove specific provision to save money.

How can anyone possibly know what to remove at an AR if no one even knows where the child is going next?

Why would you remove provision the child NEEDs?

Why are you removing provision with no evidence it's no longer needed?

It's unlawful and this washy washy type of LA nonsense doesn't wash on mumsnet I'm afraid.

My LA tried to remove 1:3 adult ratios in our last appeal. The judge asked why, they had no reason to actually offer cost cutting doesn't wash in Tribunal. Tribunal kept it in because they know LA excuses are exactly that, excuses to dodge appropriate funding to meet needs.

@StrivingForSleep Who makes the decision re a school setting not being suitable?

If it is inappropriate for the SEP to be made in a school, the answer isn’t remove the provision the child legally reasonably requires in order to shoehorn the child into a setting. There are other options such as EOTAS/EOTIS.

@everychildmatters if the parent appeals, SENDIST decide if it is inappropriate for provision to be made in a school (or post 16 institution where that is relevant).

In a non-section 41, the Head and SENCo upon receipt of a consultation from the LA. Based on section F of the EHCP, amongst other things. The real question ought to be 'who writes the EHCPs and although they're evidence-based, following an EP report etc, are they familiar with that particular setting and what that child's needs would be in that setting?'. Therein lies the rub.