Ehcp letdown

[Tigerbread11]

It's taken years of hardly any support in school, my dd's needs going unmet and trying to get an ehcp in place, we finally get one for dd and I still have to accept that she won't be fully supported. I'm so fed up!

It has taken 40+ weeks to get through the process. I had high hopes as everything I wanted was included and I thought all the support she needed would finally be put in place. My dd is due to go to a new school who can't/won't meet all that's in the plan and I've been told basically I have no choice but to accept what they can offer as that's all that is available as there are no other suitable schools.

I feel so disillusioned about what an ehcp would mean.

@Tigerbread11

Some questions:

Is the support DD needs actually detailed, specified and quantified in Section F of the plan, for example, in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise?

Eg "DD requires a social skills programme devised and delivered by a qualified Speech and Language Therapist for 2 hours each week."

Or is it more generic and vague with phraseology such as "would benefit from", "opportunities for", "regular", "access to" etc ?

When was the plan finalised?

Is the school named the one you requested when sending back your representations about the draft plan?

@Ellie56 yes it is specific and it hasn't been finalised yet but will be in a week or two. Yes it is the school we wanted named. Seems the only option was to accept less support as they can't meet her needs otherwise. There aren't any other alternatives as she wouldn't qualify for any local specialist provision and some of them have 2 year wait lists apparently as there's a send crisis in our county. Other mainstreams would say the same and she is less likely to cope with other schools anyway.

Once the plan is finalised the LA has a legal duty to secure all of the provision specified in Section F. If the school can't provide what is required the LA will have to provide it some other way.

Why is the school saying they can't meet all her needs anyway? Is it to do with funding?

@Ellie56 They don't have 1:1 TAs and some of the provision required is what a 1:1 would provide. For example encouragement to use sensory strategies when disregulated as the TA in each class will have all the other ehcp students and those that need support without ehcps so can't keep looking over etc or leave class with dd to support her.

I'm so upset as my daughter has been sharing a TA who has been her key worker in her current school and has made so much progress with this in place.

If 1:1 support is actually specified in her plan then the LA has a legal duty to provide it. If the school cannot provide a 1:1 TA then the LA must give them the funding to appoint one.

If the EHCP is in draft form it should not have any school named. This is when you name your preference.

Why has it taken 40 weeks? Unless you have had to appeal the LA have acted unlawfully and you could have gone down the Judicial Review route.

Ellie’s posts are, as always, helpful. Are you sure the draft is specified and quantified? If 1:1 is specified and quantified it must be provided regardless of what the school normally provide and whether they have 1:1 TAs or not. If it isn’t provided complain to the Director of Children’s Services at the LA and threaten Judicial Review to enforce the provision. However, your example could be provided by general class TAs, and unless specified is unlikely to be provided by a 1:1. What is the exact wording?

Seems the only option was to accept less support as they can't meet her needs otherwise. There aren't any other alternatives as she wouldn't qualify for any local specialist provision and some of them have 2 year wait lists apparently as there's a send crisis in our county. Other mainstreams would say the same and she is less likely to cope with other schools anyway.

No, don’t do this. It is not the case. Unless wholly independent the LA can only refuse to name your preference if they can prove:

• 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.

If they can’t prove one of the exceptions they can, and must, name the school regardless of the school’s objections. The bar for proving the school cannot meet needs is high. Who told you DD wouldn’t qualify for SS? Sounds like the LA have fed you a line to put you off. Have you looked at all SS in travelling distance, including out of area and independent and non-maintained SS?

Places with EHCPs do not work the same as ordinary admissions. They do not have waiting lists. Being full is not defined in law, and on its own being ‘full’ is not enough of a reason to refuse to name your preference. The LA has to prove the school is so full admitting DC is incompatible. The bar is high, higher than an “adverse effect”, “impact on” or “prejudicial to”.