EHCP Reception Transfer - Should I List 3 Schools?

[FadedLaurels]

I've got a form from the council to fill in to get a school listed on my daughters existing EHCP in time for starting school in 2023.

It has spots for three schools to be nominated as preferences.

I am 100% sure which school I think she needs to go to (i.e a special maintained down the street from us, we moved here partially for that purpose) as it is designed for people with her disability. I already told the council my preference for this school.

If I fill in other schools would I be making it more likely to not get the school we want? Or would not filling in other schools make it more likely she will be (god forbid) put in a mainstream school?

What would you advise? Thanks everyone.

Legally, with an EHCP you don’t have complete their form and list 3 schools. Some people are of the belief as you legally don’t have to and there are limited circumstances the LA can refuse to name your preference you shouldn’t. Others believe if the LA do refuse to name your preference not completing their form with options could result in them naming a school you particularly don’t want.

I presume that if it came to tribunal that the first preference would constitute the parental preference. Perhaps it would be worth writing a letter stating that your preference in line with legislation is X setting but in light of the request to suggest two other schools these are Y and Z but you do not consider that they can meet needs.

Thank you both. I'm really torn by what to do, but whatever is decided I will do as Rollingupahill suggests and will be writing a letter!

Local authorities are using this tactic more frequently. Obviously it is in their interest to have a range of schools a parent/carer of a DC with an EHCP would be happy with.
In some cases, it may be that there is more than one option someone would be happy with. A friend of mine has listed two special autism provisions on her DC's school application as she would be equally happy with either.

However, as other posters have pointed out, there is no legal obligation for you to play the LA's game.

Ipsea has info on this topic here:

www.ipsea.org.uk/choosing-a-schoolcollege-with-an-ehc-plan

If you have identified the school you know would be the right fit for your DD and it is the only one, then I would just list that setting. That's what I did for my DS. If it's not named then you can appeal.
If she was given another setting, I assume you'd appeal anyway so I'm not sure what benefit naming two other schools would give you?

That's a very good point!

I've found it impossble to get to see many special schools for a viewing as they don't offer open days. Two possibles said we can't visit until March which is way too late! As things stand this is the only school that I am certain will meet her needs. Preference 2 and 3 would have to be based on Ofsted reports and reading their websites which are hardly informative... so if I can avoid mentioning them I'd definitely prefer it! But I also cannot risk her going to mainstream... ARGH! 😫

Have the professionals that assessed your child stated in reports that she requires a SS or else made it v clear by detailing provision that could only be provided in such a setting?

It's not mentioned in the EHCP anywhere that specialist provision is required (there are so many things wrong with the plan 😑). The list of provisions is extensive but I am not expert enough to say whether it can only be provided in a specialist setting. Do you think the council will try to say she can go to mainstream? She is developmentally between 0-2 years of age (depending on the assessment), autistic and is non-verbal. Mainstream would not be able to cope for even an hour with her, and she would never get the help she needs. We had no problem in getting an EHCP issued as her needs are so extensive.

Thank you so much for your time <3

If section F is poor you may have an issue with getting specialist named and may need to appeal. If it’s written in a way that will mean it can be delivered in mainstream it needs amending if you are to secure SS.

You really need to improve section F regardless of whether DD attends MS or SS. Unless section F is detailed, specific and quantified the provision may not be provided and you wouldn’t be able to enforce it. If the provision is detailed, specified and quantified then whether DD is in MS or SS she must receive the provision.

I would hope that the council would place in her a more specialist setting given her needs. Ultimately Section B needs to be detailed and accurate, Section F then flows from.the needs and they must be specific and quantified, and Section I is generally a function of where Section F provision, which rightly or wrongly is what is considered to be required for DC to access education, can be provided. Things like therapies integrated across the curriculum, small class sizes, specialist knowledge of all staff that interact with DC point to SS.

But as JustKeepBuilding says, section f must be specific and quantified as the EHCP is a legal document and can only be enforced by the courts if need be if there is no ambiguity about what dc needs and legal entitlement is. And if you go to tribunal, it is also important because you need to demonstrate that such provision is required public expenditure

Rolling is right. The LA will name the school in I based on DD’s needs and the provision she requires on paper (i.e. section B&F) not on DD herself. So if there is a mismatch and B&F are poor and don’t accurately represent DD herself they need to improve otherwise the LA may well name mainstream.

What provision is DD currently attending?

She's currently in a private nursery - not a special one.

Given what you have said I will be appealing the EHCP, as although section B is (mostly) correct, section F is poor and some of the things for section G were left out.

I feel really screwed over by the system :(

When you say some things aren’t in section G what type of things do you mean? Do you mean anything that ‘educates or trains’? If so, it should be in section F, and therefore legally enforceable. Lots of LAs try to put things like SALT and OT in G when they should actually be in F.

Ipsea has some good info about appealing EHCPs here:

www.ipsea.org.uk/appealing-to-the-send-tribunal

It's sections B, F and I that are legally enforceable so as other people have said, they are the key sections.

How long ago was your DD's EHCP issued? When was her annual review? There are specific timeframes about when you can appeal the EHCP. However, when the Local Authority names her school in Section I and if you're not happy with it, this will trigger your right of appeal. At this point, you can also appeal both the school and sections B and F at the same time.

What I would do is go through all the reports that fed into your DD's EHCP. I assume she was seen by an EP, SALT and an OT? Go through them with a highlighter (this is what I did to get my DS into specialist provision). Underline any wording that could help your argument that a mainstream school is unlikely to be able to meet her needs. Eg in my DS's SALT report it says he needs daily speech and language therapy. Do the same with her EHCP (that way you can also see if there are any recommendations in the reports that have 'somehow' been left out...).

You will need to do the above anyway if it comes to appeal.

Your DD's application for a specialist placement will go to a panel held by the local authority. The more evidence you can obtain to show she needs a specialist placement the better. Would her nursery be prepared to write something? Your DD's case worker at your local authority will be able to tell you when the deadlines are.
What was said at her annual review about school placement?

Are you in a position to be able to finance independent reports? Or are you entitled to legal aid? If you are able to fund reports, I would start researching EPs, Speech and Language specialists etc now. Many are booked up for months - there's no harm contacting a few to see what their waiting lists (and costs) are like.

I know it can all seem overwhelming - and unfortunately 'the system' seems set up to make it as hard as possible for parents/carers but it can be done. It sounds like you're on the ball: getting an EHCP for your DD before she even starts school is no mean feat.

If you need independent assessments but can’t afford them and aren’t eligible for legal aid Parents in Need can sometimes help.

Toomanyminifigs it’s interesting you mention panels. They don’t always exist. Several years ago a MN’er caught their LA out with a FOI request which proved there wasn’t a ‘panel’. Some LAs say there is so they can hide behind it.

Ha! Yes. The imaginary 'panel' is something I have also heard about. Without being too 'outing' I also know of someone who went to the council ombudsman to investigate an issue and it turns out no 'panel' took place despite the council claiming it did.

It is definitely worth being aware of this so that the OP could request to see the decision-making process as part of their appeal. The LA website should lay out how places at specialist settings are decided. The LA caseworker should also know.

When you say some things aren’t in section G what type of things do you mean?

Her paediatrician in his assessment wrote under section G some things including that she would need 1:1 care, but this was not included in the final EHCP.

How long ago was your DD's EHCP issued? When was her annual review?

Her EHCP was issues about three weeks ago, it is her first one.

What I would do is go through all the reports that fed into your DD's EHCP. I assume she was seen by an EP, SALT and an OT? Go through them with a highlighter.

I've known items from the assessments were missing, but having done as you suggested there is a lot more missing than I thought! So not only is the wording pretty wooly but it's also missing content from the assessments! I should say that she wasn't ever seen by an OT for assessment even though we requested one (she has occupational therapy at nursery and at home so we thought it would be important to include it!).

What was said at her annual review about school placement?

We were only told that the transition team would be in touch to talk about our preferences (which they have been) but that's all we know.

Are you in a position to be able to finance independent reports?

I hope we will be able to yes. I will definitely start looking around for experts immediately. Do you have any advice on what I should be looking for? Expertise in EHCPs/Appeals/Tribunals etc?

---

Thank you all again so much, I am so overwhelmed by it all but you are making my way much clearer! Even reading IPSEA and SOSSEN hasn't been as enlightening as you are <3 Thank you, thank you, thank you!

It sounds like, at least some of, the paediatrician’s recommendations should be in F, not G. If the 1:1 is for in school it should be in F.

Is the wording in the assessments detailed, specified and quantified? EHCP provision is taken from the reports so if they are vague and woolly it is no wonder section F is. It is better to focus on appealing now, but in future if reports are vague and woolly ask the LA to go back to the report writer to make them detailed, specific and quantified. And if assessments are missing email the Director of Children’s Services reminding them of their duties.

You need professionals that have Tribunal experience. If DD hasn’t had an OT assessment I would start with that. If you want a sensory OT assessment you want an advanced practitioner/model 4 or equivalent of the Sensory Integration Network Postgraduate Modules. Did DD have a SALT assessment?

Toomanyminifigs that doesn’t surprise me, as far of the LA are concerned obfuscation is the order of the day.

Yes she was SALT assessed... sort of. The SALT never even saw our daughter and wasn't even based in the same region as us! Just a phone call to ask us questions. We actually did get back to him after his first attempt at the report to tell him it wasn't good enough. He said he agreed with us but his hands were tied by his superiors and that he basically had a very short list of things he was allowed to put in any child's section F 😮

All of our complaints throughout this whole EHCP process fell on deaf ears and they just ticked down the timer until they issued the plan without regard for what we said.

As the SALT was commissioned by the LA you needed to go back to the LA (by emailing the Director of Children’s Services) to tell them they needed to go back to the report writer to make it detailed, specified and quantified.

Now you have the finalised EHCP it is better to just focus on appealing.