My child gets 30 hours for his ehcp... I need answers

[613mum]

My child is in a mainstream private school, he is getting 30 hours ehcp, he does not need all those 30 hours but is still high risk and needs shadow's in place incase, the school hasn't put shadows allocated for him because they would be wasting their time, instead they are using the regular classroom assistance as his 'shadows'... we still need the funding because he is still at risk and on a rare occasion will need someone to step in or restrain him.
My question is, the school are getting A LOT of money from this, that aren't showing us where the money is going, we would like the funding to pay towards the school fees, they absolutely refuse saying its not allowed. Is this true? There is literally thousands coming in monthly and its not going to anything for my son

Any advice would be a help

Ps. He does have a lsa the last part of day and it does pay towards therapy and ot but there is still loads more funding

You can’t use funding for specific special educational provision in F of an EHCP to fund school fees. Although the school shouldn’t be using it for other things either.

Is 30 hours of 1:1 detailed, specified and quantified in F of the EHCP or is it vague and woolly with wording such as “access to”, “would benefit from”, “or equivalent”?

What do you see as the difference between needed 1:1 and needing a shadow? If 1:1 isn’t required it is surprising the LA has not removed the provision at the last AR.

Is the school named in section I of the EHCP? Or has the LA come to an arrangement whereby you pay the fees and the LA fund the special educational provision?

Thanks for your reply

The 30 hours is detailed and specified, the la have not removed the lsa funding because they believe he needs it. The school Is named in section I

If the 30 hours is detailed, specified and quantified in F but isn’t being provided, email the Director of Children’s Services at the LA. The LA is ultimately responsible for ensuring the provision is received. If emailing doesn’t work, email again threatening judicial review. Then, if that fails, you will need a pre-action letter.

You should also speak to the school again reminding them the provision is in the EHCP and isn’t optional.

If the school is named in section I, the LA should be paying the fees. Email the LA about this.

I don't know about your specific school, but perhaps the class only has a teaching assistant because of your son. His class need an assistant because his EHCP tells the school that he must have one, and because he needs one. That person is tightly not "velcroed" to your child, but is there when he needs it. This sounds like it could be a perfectly valid use of the provision in his EHCP (obviously I don't know as I've not seen the wording). It does seem surprising, though, if he gets 30 hours of funding when he doesn't need as much. Though in some local authorities I think they pick funding bands out of a hat.

EHCP funding cannot be used for school fees.

Are the 30 hours actually 30hours of 1:1? If so, the TA must be 30 hours 1:1 not used to support the whole class.

Why are you paying school fees when the school is named in Section I of the EHCP?

Would the class have a TA if your DS didn't need one? DD's school only have one between 3 classes (and part time at that). I have something similar with my DD, she needs full time support to deal with when she's getting overwhelmed and to do her movement breaks, OT exercises and sensory circuits. However she needs little help academically, so when her TA would otherwise be twiddling her thumbs she does help the rest of the class while checking DD isn't getting overwhelmed.

If 1:1 is detailed, specified and quantified in F, any school who uses the 1:1 to support other pupils is acting unlawfully and leaving themselves and the LA open to legal action.

It depends how it is detailed and specified and quantified.

1:1 support for five minutes before and five minutes after all transition times
1:1 support during all times of dysregulation

That child would need an adult available at all times. But the adult would not be working directly with the child at all times. I have seen wording such as the above, with funding equivalent to a full time TA salary.

Obviously, if it says 1:1 support in all lessons and recreational times, then that should be what is provided.

Well yes, but the 1:1 wouldn’t be a 1:1 at the times it wasn’t detailed, specified and quantified in F so my post wouldn’t apply. BTW, ‘during all times of dysregulation’ is too vague and woolly. That is not detailed, specified and quantified. Who decides what the times of dysregulation is? How long for?… It wouldn’t actually legally mean an adult had to be available at all times.

I''m well aware of all of the above. As a SENCo, I don't write plans, I just try to deliver the provision in them.

I wish all children with significant needs had parents like you who understand the need for a well-written EHCP. But most of those in our catchment really, really don't.

I must have misunderstood you then because you said it “depends how it is detailed and specified and quantified” but went on to post about cases where the EHCP is poor and not detailed, specified and quantified which therefore didn’t apply to my post which said “If 1:1 is detailed, specified and quantified”.