Draft EHCP is rubbish. What do I need to do?

[ImOnTheeWay]

We have received DS draft EHCP; whilst it is thorough in identifying his needs , section F is rather bland

Statements such as he should have the “equivalent of a level 3 TA “ for a minimum of 15 hours per week support used flexibly for group work and 1:1. It does not state exactly how many hours and what it would be used for.

There is no mention of the speech therapy he needs in class although this was raised by SaLT .

DH thinks that as this is a draft plan, it will all be sorted out and specified at our next meeting. I think we should ask the LA for alterations and for it to be specified BEFORE our meeting .

Advice ?

Sorry but your DH is deluded. Unfortunately this is not how it works.

When you got your draft plan you should have been informed that you have 15 days to respond to it. You should also be asked to name your preferred school. Information here:

www.ipsea.org.uk/what-to-do-when-you-receive-your-draft-ehc-plan

www.ipsea.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=afd8d11f-5f75-44e0-8f90-e2e7385e55f0

You should have copies of all the reports that have been used to write the EHCP. Presumably you had one from a SALT?

Go through each report you have with two highlighters and highlight all of the needs in one colour and then all the provision to meet the needs in another colour. There should be provision to meet each need highlighted. Then you should cross reference with the plan to ensure all needs identified are in Section B and corresponding provision in Section F.

There should not be anything vague or “woolly” in the reports eg “access to”, “would benefit from”, “a high level of support”, “regular” as this vagueness will subsequently be transferred into the EHC Plan and make it difficult to enforce. Plans need to be detailed, accurate and specific so that all your child’s needs are identified and there is provision specified for each of the needs identified.

These are the references to specificity in the SEND Code of Practice (COP):

www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25

9.51
“The evidence and advice submitted by those providing it should be clear, accessible and specific."
They should provide advice about outcomes relevant for the child or
young person’s age and phase of education and strategies for their achievement.
The local authority may provide guidance about the structure and format of advice
and information to be provided. Professionals should limit their advice to areas in
which they have expertise. They may comment on the amount of provision they
consider a child or young person requires and local authorities should not have
blanket policies which prevent them from doing so.”

9.61
“EHC plans should be clear, concise, understandable and accessible to parents, children, young
people, providers and practitioners. They should be written so they can be understood by professionals in any local authority.”

9.69
Section B ( Page 164)

“All of the child or young person’s identified special educational needs must be specified.”

Section F (Page 166)
“Provision must be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise, including where this support is secured through a Personal Budget

• Provision must be specified for each and every need specified in section B. It should be clear how the provision will support achievement of the outcomes
• Where health or social care provision educates or trains a child or young person, it must appear in this section (see paragraph 9.73)”

Use this model letter to respond to the LA.
www.ipsea.org.uk/responding-to-a-draft-ehc-plan-model-letter-3

And if any of the reports are vague and woolly tell the LA they do not comply with the law, quoting the above reference in the COP and ask them to go back to whoever wrote the report to make it specific.

Whatever you do, don't get into protracted wrangling with the LA sending the plan backwards and forwards as that can waste a huge amount of time. If the LA doesn't change it to what you want after your first response, let them finalise it, as that will then trigger your right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Good luck

I agree with Ellie, DH is being way too trusting. Unless you ask for amendments when you receive the draft the finalised version will be exactly the same. A vague and woolly EHCP isn't worth the paper it is written on. It is much easier to get a detailed, specific and quantified EHCP right from the start than it is trying to tighten one up further down the line.

Did DS have a SALT assessment as part of the needs assessment? If so, is the report detailed, specific and quantified? Provision in the EHCP is taken from the reports, so if the reports are missing, vague or woolly the EHCP will have provision missing &/or vague and woolly. SALT provision must be included in section F.

Everything in section F needs to be detailed, specific and quantified. Nothing should be left for the school to decide. "Flexibly" and "Equivalent of" need removing.

"Group work" needs removing or at the very least tightening up. Otherwise you could find the 15 hours is all whole class group work, and you wouldn't be able to challenge it. Unless the group work is for something specific I would push for the 15 hours to be all 1:1. If group work is to stay the frequency/length of sessions need clarifying, as does the size of the group and what they are doing.

The "minimum of 15 hours" needs thinking about. Does DS need more than 15 hours? If so, the hours he actually needs should be specified and quantified. Otherwise more than likely he will only receive 15 hours. It needs to specify and quantify the number of hours, delivered by who - with their experience/training/qualifications, doing what, where it will be delivered e.g. in the classroom or individual work outside the class.

SOSSEN have a draft checking service if that's something that you would want.

Make sure the LA finalise within the 20 week timescale. To reiterate Ellie's point, going back and forth is pointless, you are unlikely to get the LA to make amendments by going back and forth, all it does is waste time.

Thank you that’s very helpful. We have not been told to add any comments or amendments to the draft. It appears this is a draft of the draft and when we do get the final draft , we will then be told we have 15 days to ask for amendments .

Is it still worth asking the LA to specify now before our meeting? The meeting is not until the beginning of October so we do have time but I’m concerned it won’t all be raised in the meeting and I’ll then have to query the next draft .

Cross post @10brokengreenbottles

DS was assessed by speech therapy and their report is specific in what he needs , but in Section F , there is no mention of speech therapy at all. I’m very surprised about this as it was one of the main points of his EHCP.

He also needs targeted sensory therapy but again there is no mention of this . It’s all just around “support” but no mention of what that support is.

I am not happy but DH thinks it will be easily resolved at our next meeting.

I’ve highlighters at hand to go through the reports thank you for the tips.

A draft of a draft and the meeting is not until the beginning of October?

When did you apply for the EHC Needs assessment?

There's no such thing as a draft of a draft. Yes, make your views known now. What week are you on? There's no way the LA can finalise within the 20 weeks if they aren't holding a meeting until October. Don't allow the LA to lead you on a merry dance.

The SALT provision should be in section F. Did DS have an OT assessment? This should detail sensory needs and provision, which should also be in section F.

DH needs to wise up to LA tactics. Do not trust the LA.

Thank you so much for the support. It’s such an overwhelming task I’m very grateful

Yes the draft of the draft makes no sense to me but it is why DH wants to wait and raise it then as he thinks we will put across our views in the meeting and it will all be added in. I am sceptical and it seems rightly so.

DS was also assessed by OT , but again, no mention of this in section F.

Section F is mainly around offering flexible support, having a contact DS can go to if he needs help and offering ‘support’ . Nothing to say what that support is and when it will be offered other than for a possible 15 hours per week.

It seems there is no mention of OT in section F as there is no report included from OT in the paperwork. DS was definitely assessed as I received the report myself. Will I also have to tell the LA that information is missing and to re write this back in?

What week are you on? It sounds like the LA are not sticking to the statutory timescales. Yes, the OT report needs including, and the provision putting in section F.

@10brokengreenbottles I’m unsure what week we are on as our LA originally refused to assess. From the date of the tribunal hearing I’d hazard a guess we are on around week 8.

DH wants to wait and raise it then ...

The one piece of advice I would give to any parent of a child with SN is to be wary of 'waiting' for anything; you have to be proactive. Keep a note of who said what, and when, so you can hold them to it, and any meetings you've had - dates, and times and who was there.

Having been through tribunal how can DH still think the LA are going to do the right thing?

When was your tribunal? If you are 8 weeks post tribunal a meeting in October does not comply with the statutory timescales.

The statutory timescales are set out in the SEN regs 44. The date of the Tribunal order becomes week 6. The LA must finalise within 14 weeks of the Tribunal Order. In order to comply with those timescales the LA need to consider the time needed to a) give you 15 days to make representations, then b) consult school(s) and give them 15 days to reply, and then c) send you the finalised EHCP.

Following on from Knittedfaries, don't just keep a note of conversations follow up meetings/phone calls with emails.

OMG please tell your DH to get his head out of the sand. Do not waste time waiting for a meeting in October that I can virtually guarantee will not result in a miraculously specific EHCP.

Quite frankly it sounds like your LA is taking the piss. Is it a southern LA?

The needs identified by the OT and SLT (and all other professionals who have submitted reports)should be in Section B of the EHCP and the provision for each of those needs identified should be in Section F.

And as 10brokengreenbottles says keep a paper trail of all communications.

So any phone calls, follow up with an email confirming exactly what was said by whom and when.

You have to be one step ahead all the time.

@10brokengreenbottles exactly! DH does not seem to understand that the LA will be trying to keep costs down at the cost of our child’s provision.

I will certainly query the timescales.

I have been through the EHCP with highlighters and identified his needs and provision required. It appears to all be included, the issue is that none of it is specific or quantified.

I’ve therefore written a letter to the LA with bullet points for each statement I’m disputing and asking them how, when , for how long and in what way etc will the provision be delivered. I’ve asked them to also specify the exact hours DS will be allocated and how these will be used.

Does that sound right?

@Ellie56 yes very frustrating! We’ve had a few cross words about it as DH just seems to think the LA will magically amend the draft in the meeting. I’ve therefore taken it upon myself to comb through it and ask them to be more specific . Some of it does not make any sense.

“DS will have access to different learning materials…” . I have no idea what these are or why he would have those . I’ve highlighted it and bullet pointed…. “What materials , for what purpose and when will they be available?”.

I’ve done that with all of the points I want to clarify.

Is that what I’m supposed to do?

Don't ASK about timescales, work them out and TELL the LA they have breached (or are at risk of breaching) the statutory timescales and if they do not finalise as a matter of urgency (or if they do breach) you will be forced to begin Judicial Review proceedings as they are (or will be) frustrating your right of appeal.

It's not all there if SALT and OT aren't in section F.

"Access to" is too vague and woolly, it needs removing. With such statements DS may not get any support and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Even if it specifies what you are asking about if "access to" remains it is worthless.

@10brokengreenbottles yes I need to be more assertive I am not great with confrontation even in written form!

OT report is missing and I have queried that. The SaLT report is included but they have not stated in Section F anything about this. SaLT have said DS needs speech therapy daily but this is nowhere in Section F I have pointed this out and asked them to include.

Everything else listed in section B is listed in section F with very vague sentences such as “access to a sensory area”. I’ve asked them to specify where this will be and how DS can use it.

I can’t thank you posters enough for your support

And I’ve asked for “access to” to be removed.

@ImOnTheeWay

It is the reports you need to go through. The EHCP will have been written from the reports.

“DS will have access to different learning materials…” must have come from one of the reports - at a guess, the LA EP?

So if the reports are vague, you need to tell the LA, that the reports are unacceptable and need to be made more specific, quoting 9.51 in the COP (see my first post.)

You also need to go through the SLT and OT reports if they have not been included, and identify all the needs that need to go in Section B and all the provision that needs to go in Section F.

So for example if the SLT report says "DS struggles with social communication," that should be in Section B of the plan. If it is not there, tell the LA it needs to be put in.

There should be provision to meet that need. So if for example the SLT has written " DS requires a Social Skills programme drawn up and delivered for 1 hour per week by a qualified Speech and language therapist who has at least one year's experience of working with children with autism," that needs to go into Section F. Again if this is not in the plan, tell the LA it needs to be put in.

Send the LA a copy of the OT report if it is missing.

And yes, as @10brokengreenbottles says, work out the timescales yourself. When was the date of the Tribunal Order?

Did the OT actually write, "DS requires access to a sensory area" or something else more specific?

@Ellie56 The OT said in the report that DS will need a sensory area to escape to which will have lots of soft furnishings, some sensory boards, books , a darkened atmosphere and is free of strong smells and bright lights.

This was converted in to section F as “DS requires access to a sensory area”. Having read the reports , they do seem to be more specific , it’s the conversion to section F which is much for vague .

I will have DH dig out all of our initial paperwork to get an idea of timescales and where we are currently at .

The wording needs to be exactly as it says in the reports. They have been written by professionals. It is not for the LA to reword them to suit themselves.

The LA is liable to use the excuse that the experts haven't specified and quantified and they can't make up provision that hasn't been recommended by professionals. Tell them they need to go back to the professionals and require them to do their jobs properly by advising in detailed and specific terms so that the LA can comply with the law.

That said, however, frankly the likelihood is that they are not going to pay much attention to you. Be prepared to have to go to tribunal and, if you can, start booking your own independent experts now. Bear in mind that ideally they should have experience of giving evidence for tribunal cases.