Ehcp

[Kir1987]

Hi all so I've got my daughters review in September for her ehcp and she's had a 1-1 for 4 years now, they've currently said in September she's to share with another boy and states its because she doesn't get the £6000 top up she gets £4000 and people who I've shown section f to shows it doesn't say 1-1 in section f yet does state 1-1 in the ehcp I don't know why it isn't in section f if it states she needs it

Being pedantic, it doesn't state she needs 1:1 all the time that she is in school. Might that be affecting it ?
If her funding band is £4k over the £6K, then it won't pay for full time 1:1

I mean, obviously I don't know your dd, and I don't know when that text was written (as in, was it when the EHCP was applied for, or at a more recent assessment?). I don't know if it is felt she has moved on in her ability to be able to participate in learning at some part of some lessons ?

Section F provision should meet the needs in Section B. I assume that the extract you have uploaded is from Section B. It does say that she cannot work independently but sharing a TA is arguably not being required to work independently. The terms 1:1 basis and high level of adult input are also ambiguous - it could just say she requires 1:1 support in order to be able to access education and this should be demonstrated by detailing the type of provision required from that 1:1 support person (to show that level of support is required)

Ultimately I suspect that the EHCP is not specified and specific enough, and probably needs are not sufficiently well understood. As a result, unfortunately, you will probably need to appeal the plan to Tribunal following the Annual Review in order to get the required support. If you haven't already, I would suggest speaking to IPSEA or SOSSEN

To add if they are proposing this change now and are you sufficiently concerned, you could request an emergency annual review or a reassessment of needs. But both, I believe, are at the LA discretion. When was her previous annual review held?

Sadly this is what happens when the EHCP isn’t watertight. All provision should be detailed, specified and quantified in F. If it doesn’t say 1:1 in F then DD doesn’t have to be given any 1:1 and you cannot enforce that. Even if that screenshot was in F it would be useless, the wording is vague - the 1:1 isn’t quantified and “a high level” is too woolly.

So, unfortunately, you can’t enforce the provision. Instead you need to try to tighten the wording up by asking for an early review. If the LA refuse an early review there’s no right of appeal, you would have to wait for the AR or ask for a reassessment of needs which does come with the right of appeal if refused

Don’t worry about funding, that isn’t your concern, focus on getting section F detailed, specified and quantified. Then the provision must be provided and if it isn’t you can enforce it.