SECTION I placement anyone tried mediation - ehcp

[246810k]

I understand you don't have to go to mediation if you're purely appealing section I placement of an ehcp but has anyone tried it? Ds 5 got draft which his mainstream school applied for as unable to meet needs, lots of evidence to prove. Case worker already said though we've requested special they most likely won't be naming as they already know ifs full, I'm aware they need to prove but I'm certain which way it's gonna go! I will appeal but obviously the thought of a long wait is frustrating and wondered whether it's worth a try?! Thanks

When the LA finalises the EHCP, if they do not name the SS you want think is necessary you should appeal B&F as well as I. B&F will be written in a way that supports the placement the LA has named in I.

Personally, I wouldn’t bother with mediation. LAs use it as a delaying tactic. If they are going to concede they will do so whether you actively partake in mediation or not.

On its own being ‘full’, which isn’t defined in law, is not enough of a reason to refuse to name your preference.

@SearchingForSolitude thank you. My thoughts with b and f is if I make it top specific then the special school won't accept. For example ds gets 1 to 1 in mainstream but they don't have them in the special school I want they do have far more teachers and teaching assistants per class so I think the way it's currently written would likely be hard for special school to decline? If that makes sense? Maybe I'll just wait for them to name the ms and then go straight to appeal

The LA will have written B&F in a way that supports the placement they have named in I. The placement named in I is the logical conclusion of B&F. If you don’t appeal B&F, there is a far greater risk SENDIST will conclude MS is appropriate. When you have the right of appeal, if you appeal I, I would urge you to appeal B&F as well. That’s not to mention F is probably woollier than you realise.

1:1 can and is given in SS if it is required. If it is detailed, specified and quantified in F, as it should be if it is reasonably required, it must be provided.

Unless the school is wholly independent, the SS can’t just decline. Your preference must be named unless the LA 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.
The bar to do this is higher than LAs admit. Unless the LA can prove this, the school can and must be named even if they object.

We're not quite at this stage yet, but I'm curious about how the LA can prove 'The attendance of the child or young person would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others'.

This is the reason cited by our LA in the draft plans of a couple of other SEN kids we know. It seems to be a knee-jerk response to refuse to name a school for ADHDers, as if they assume these kids are all massively disruptive in the classroom, which isn't the case for these children we know (nor indeed for our ADHD DC). We've asked our school if DC is disruptive and we have been consistently assured that they are not.

@SpaceInvader321 have a look at this. LAs try to rely of this reason far more often than it actually applies. The bar is higher than many LAs admit. It is higher than an “adverse effect”, “impact on” or “prejudicial to”. Unfortunately, LAs still lie, to use it and force parents to appeal.