EHCP support thread

[Phineyj]

My DD (10) is being assessed for EHCP. The council refused to assess (despite her already being diagnosed with ADHD, ASD, hypermobility and vision problems following eye surgery).

School have been supportive throughout and they are going above and beyond to keep her engaged in education.

She's about to go into year 6 though.

I took the LA to the tribunal and won.

They must produce the plan by 4th August. I think they probably will (they've stuck to deadlines so far...ish...). But I've got all the IPSEA complaint letter templates primed!

The hardest thing about the whole process is that no-one else in my life understands it or what it's like to spend all your free time essentially begging people to document the deficits your child has.

It is also a hard realisation that no-one cares much about your child's education except you.

I am also a teacher so I feel sad on behalf of the SEN DC I teach as I am told little about their needs (I spent a whole day doing DofE with one recently...I don't even know what her EHCP says...)

Join me if you are also grimly trekking through the EHCP jungle!!

@listlesscat there’s nothing in law that mandates the EHCP sections have be set out in a set way. Section B should have all special educational needs. I prefer B/F set out by broad areas of need (sometimes with additional PfA subheading) and have re-written EHCPs before now.

Anyone had any experience of a mainstream school pushing back when challenged to implement their elements of an EHCP, and saying a child's needs cannot be met? (Eg. don't push us beyond quality first teaching or that will result in your child's removal against your/their wishes).

Is it possible to silence families complaining about non-compliance in this way? I cannot begin to comprehend the damage to mental health that this would involve...

It isn’t rare, sadly, but unless the school is wholly independent they can be named against their will and the bar to refuse to name them is high. And a school where the pupil is already on roll cannot just off-roll. The provision in an EHCP must be provided and can be enforced (if written correctly). A school who refuses to provide anything other than QFT leaves themselves and the LA open to legal proceedings. Sometimes it is ‘just’ bluster and scare tactics to put parents off.

Already on roll. Would be devastating to be removed. How would that happen proecdurally? Via an annual review? Presumably one could seek JR?

In the foothills of documenting non-compliance. Has triggered quite a reaction.

If the school raise concerns properly they would raise the matter during the AR/early review process. Following the review if the LA then went on to name another school you would be able to appeal (depending on specifics around the case JR may be possible instead). The LA and school won’t stand a chance if the reason for refusing your preference is because the school don’t want to provide anything above QFT. Sadly, many schools try to off-roll instead which is unlawful. This can be challenged via JR - but getting that far is mostly not required because schools mostly back down from off-rolling when they see parents know the law and will enforce it. If the school is named in section I they must admit/keep on roll. If they refuse you can look at JR.

Thanks @ThomasWasTortured. Have a sense of what might be coming having queried non-delivery of multiple elements.

Should've asked @ThomasWasTortured - if they try and do this by getting the LA to name a different school, is the only way to stop that a JR or SENDIST appeal? (Ironically the appeal could help solve their 'problem' by creating a few hours of dedicated resource).

@MrsLamb if remember rightly you are already appealing B&F?

I should have added a caveat to my pp, in that the school could permanently exclude, but that doesn’t sound like it is your situation and you would be able to challenge it because not wanting to provide anything above QFT isn’t a reason to PEX.

If the LA name another school the only way to solve it would be via SENDIST (JR may be possible in a small minority of cases if the LA acted unlawfully by amending I but really you would need someone who could look at the specifics of your case in-depth to know whether that applied to your case).

Thanks @ThomasWasTortured. Yes I am.

It's the sort of basic provision thousands of autistic kids have in mainstream school - nothing fancy. The LA hasn't given any dedicated resource for it, so quite a bit appears not to be being delivered...

I am worried about the potential to be 'punished' in response to politely querying the non-compliance. Hopefully I may be worrying needlessly...

@MrsLamb if it is standard provision the school won’t get anywhere arguing they can’t possibly deliver it. Ultimately, it is the LA’s responsibility to ensure anything detailed, specified and quantified in F is provided, and enforcement is via JR. Problems arise when the wording is too woolly to enforce. If that applies you won’t be able to enforce it and will need to wait for the appeal - although the school must still make their best endeavours to meet DS’s SEN.

Thank you @ThomasWasTortured.

Just to check. It is 2 months from decision letter or 1 month from mediation certificate(whichever is later), for the appeal deadline right?

ie I got the decision letter on 1st December, recently got the mediation certificate, I have at least until 2nd February, just had a panic!

Sending off soon, just wanted to check!

@Coatsy if you only recently got the mediation certificate the deadline to appeal will be after 2nd Feb so if you will be submitting the appeal soon you don’t need to worry because the deadline will be 30 days from the date of the mediation certificate.

Is it whichever date is later then? ie one month after the mediation certificate OR 2 months after the LA letter? If I got the mediation certificate today for instance, it would be 16th feb?

Thanks!

@Coatsy yes, whichever is later out of 2 months from the date of the letter or 30 days from the date of the mediation certificate. Because there is 31 days in Jan, 30 days from today would be the 15th Feb.

Thank you, that makes sense, going to send it within the next few days but had panic!

As you were asking for assessment, I don't think the wording could reasonably be interpreted any other way than meaning that you consented to a new assessment if necessary. If a request for an EHCNA was limited to requiring the LA to act solely on already-existing data, parents would certainly have cause to complain because the assessment could not possibly be adequate.

Children are individuals and deserve to be treated as such, and with care and respect, by the professionals who work with them. To practice safely, professionals need to work within the standards set out by their professional bodies.

a) Consent: from a professional ethics perspective, psychologists need to establish informed consent is in place. EHCNA guidelines require them to contact parents prior to an assessment. Informed consent requires the subject of an assessment (and in this situation, their parents) to be aware of the possible consequences of a course of action. This cannot be 'obtained' by virtue of someone putting a tick in a box, as no form can codify the information that enables consent to be informed (there will be different considerations, for different individuals, and their comprehension and communications needs will also be different).

b) Avoidance of harm: one of the possible consequences of assessment, for some children, is harm. For example, if a child with mental health problems who has experienced trauma is questioned about their history insensitively or intrusively, there is the potential for traumatic memories to be retriggered or for them to feel shamed. And where trauma relates to clinical situations, particular care is needed, as the act of assessment itself may result in retraumatisation. A practitioner needs to establish this sort of context prior to assessment, as they may need to modify the approach to assessment. Parents hold key information.

c) Identifying adjustments that may be needed in an assessment: a practitioner would want to understand a child's communications needs/preferences prior to commencing an assessment. One of the key goals is to understand a child's view of their situation. If, for example, a child cannot tolerate direct questions, and the family have refined techniques that help a child to engage when meeting new professionals, the practitioner would want to know about these, so they can consider adapting their own approach accordingly. Without this, children's voices may not be heard within assessent.

Honestly, you aren’t going to get anywhere arguing that wording only meant existing information. And any such argument is more harmful than helpful since LAs already try to unlawfully wriggle out of seeking advice and information from services not already involved by claiming it is not reasonable or ‘not known to the service’ is acceptable.

When local authorities undertaken an EHC NA, they are supposed to gather sufficient advice and information about the child's needs to ensure that they are able to make a properly informed decision about whether to issue an EHCP, and to enable them to comply with the duty to describe all the child's needs in sections B, C and D of the EHCP, and prescribe specific and detailed provision for each and every one of those needs in sections F, G and H. Therefore when a parent asks for a needs assessment they are consenting to the LA obtaining that information. Where it is necessary for one or more full assessments to be done to enable that to happen, parents are also consenting to that. That has been accepted as the law going back at the very least to the days of statementing and continuing ever since.

If parents were only consenting to LAs using existing evidence, there would be no need to allow 6 weeks for the process of gathering it, and I shudder to think how utterly useless the end product would be in the vast majority of cases.

Obviously all professionals are expected to comply with professional standards in terms of adjusting how they carry out assessments and avoiding harm, but putting extra hoops to get through in the consent process doesn't make any difference to that.

As matters stand, we have enough problems caused by LAs that don't comply with those duties without handing them yet another excuse.

@ThomasWasTortured - yes, I take your point and am not talking about the LA question. I am talking much more narrowly to a point about safe professional practice.

That's not an extra hoop, @Anisette, it's the status quo. It's a question about compliance. A psychologist conducting an assessment has an obligation to establish informed consent is in place. Professional guidance already requires that:

3.3 Consent, capacity, confidentiality and safeguarding are key ethical considerations

● EPs must consider what constitutes ’informed consent’, ensuring CYP and their
parents/carers understand the role of the EP and the nature/purpose of any
work done, as well as an appreciation of the possible implications of decisions
arising from the EHCNA process. If there is any doubt about consent, then an EP
should seek appropriate professional advice before agreeing to any
involvement. The understanding and significance of ‘informed consent’ may be
understood differently by different parties involved in the EHCNA process. It is
essential that this is clarified within any local procedures agreed between LA
commissioners and EPs

And also:

6.2 Informed consent with children and young people

All children and young people, whatever their age or status, have a right to express their views freely and be involved in any decision-making that affects their lives, which includes judicial and administrative proceedings. Therefore, psychologists who seek to work with children or young people must gain their informed consent. This applies whether the child or young person or another agent with legitimate responsibility for the child or young person has made the request for involvement...

Every psychologist should consider how they can:

• provide an accessible explanation to the child or young person about their work as a psychologist;
• offer a clear reason for their possible involvement;
• provide an opportunity for the child or young person to talk about what working with the psychologist might involve.
• discuss and agree how information is recorded and possibly shared with others with an awareness that young people who are ‘Gillick competent’ can consent to information not being shared with parents;
• discuss how the child or young person will be kept safe;
• ensure that the child or young person has understood the psychologist’s role and has given their informed consent;
• ensure the child or young person understands they can withdraw their consent at any point;
• ensure their practice acknowledges and respects the culture, community and context of the child or young person.

LAs would make it an extra hoop, they need no encouragement.

The simple fact is that the request for assessment is accepted by professional bodies as consent, otherwise you would see scores of EPs and other specialists being disciplined on a regular basis. In general, as required, this is "clarified within any local procedures agreed between LA commissioners and EPs".