EHCP support thread no. 4

[Phineyj]

We've nearly filled the thread again, so here's a new one. Welcome everyone: newcomers, people stuck in the process; battle-hardened veterans of many years...

Here are links to previous threads:

EHCP support thread - www.mumsnet.com/talk/special_educational_needs/4834986-ehcp-support-thread

EHCP support thread no. 2 - www.mumsnet.com/talk/special_educational_needs/4989146-ehcp-support-thread-no-2

EHCP support thread no. 3 - www.mumsnet.com/talk/special_educational_needs/5077140-ehcp-support-thread-no-3

@MinnieTruck the LA is responsible for the provision. As the service provider has stated they cannot supply the provision listed, it is for the LA to find alternative provision...
Get their refusal to provide what is listed in the plan in writing and send it to the LA, asking how they intend to supply if not through their usual provider.

@handmademitlove I asked for the person who spoke with the LA to contact me via email to explain that they cannot do what’s stated in the plan. Once I receive the email, I’ll then go back to the LA and see what the next steps are. Annoying but needs must I guess

@MinnieTruck I asked our case worker how they ensured their service level agreements were delivering what they should (after the "not known to service" response!) and she gave me the party line about regular reviews but in reality they don't chase unless they are encouraged to do so - by parents mainly!

If I had a policy at work of only delivering services when people complained, rather than because I am required to do so, I would definitely have questions asked....

@MinnieTruck the LA’s duty to ensure provision detailed, specified and quantified in F is received is non-delegable. This does not change because DD is 0-5. IPSEA has a model letter you can send to the DCS for breach of section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

The wording isn’t the best (e.g. the 12 hours could be delivered ‘over the year’ unevenly with 11 hours in term 3, ‘must recieve’ is better wording than ‘will require’), so you will need to look carefully at the wording as a whole to see if it is enforceable. At the next review, you could pursue more SALT input. DD needs more than 12hrs pa.

@handmademitlove haha yep but we know the LA does whatever they want! I’ll get in touch with them and see what the heck is going on.

@BrightYellowTrain I get what you mean. DD still has SLT appointments every two weeks outside of the nursery so in theory she has way more than 12 hours if you see what I mean. It’ll definitely need to increase when she goes to school as I’m sure the appointments at the health centre will then stop. I’m going to speak with the LA before I sent an email to the DCS just to see what the plan is

@MinnieTruck the SALT should be in the EHCP even if DD was already receiving the support/is receiving support outside of nursery. Is the 12 hours specifically to be delivered in nursery? If not, and DD is receiving more outside of nursery, depending on the wording, the provision may actually be being delivered.

@BrightYellowTrain I don’t have her plan open on my laptop atm but what it basically says is that xyz is to be delivered by the therapist in consultation with staff/parent/carers. It says that specific activities are meant to be carried out x amount of times a week by the teacher who’s had access to advice from the SLT.

So I guess it never says that they need to physically step foot inside of the nursery but then how else are they meant to liaise with the staff on how to support DD? I honestly cannot see a few emails between the SENCO and SLT doing DD’s 1:1’s any justice iyswim

@BrightYellowTrain I'd love to see your posts about your kids' EOTAS packages. Where do I find the the pub thread? Thank you.

I'm guessing we should try to arrange for updates to our private EP reports. Would that best be done ahead of any early review? Really hope our EP will be able to squeeze us in, as I know she is usually booked months in advance.

I think there are also some OT needs that didn't get proper consideration in the NA process. Perhaps we need to look into new assessments for those needs as well.

@MinnieTruck it is all down to the wording. For example, ‘access to’ is too vague and woolly. It does not mean it will actually be provided. It could be fulfilled by the teacher having the SALT’s email. ‘Liaise’ could be via email, telephone or video call. Obviously, DD actually needs direct 1:1 SALT, but the LA only has to provide what is detailed, specified and quantified in F.

@SpaceInvader321 the Goose and Carrot pub thread is on the SN Chat board. The thread is here. All packages are bespoke. Some don’t look anything like my DSs’ packages.

You will need evidence. Updated assessments will be necessary to prove what needs to be in B&F and that it is inappropriate for the provision to be made in a school. Don’t wait for the reports before requesting an early review/requesting to amend the grounds of appeal of the current appeal. For new assessments, anyone good will have a waiting list. If the existing EP reports are otherwise up to date and good enough and the EP is willing to write an addendum, that will be cheaper than a new EP assessment, but again, don’t wait until you have it.

@BrightYellowTrain okay cool I get what you mean. I need to look over it again thoroughly this weekend to see what’s actually stated. A question for the review, how would you push for more hours? Especially if the SLT recommends a certain amount of hours, how would you push for more hours if that’s what you believe they need?

For example within both DD and DS’ EHCNA, their SLT obviously do the report. The co-ordinators from the LA basically just copy what’s written in the report word for word. So how would you get the LA to say they need more hours than what’s recommended by the professional?

@MinnieTruck ultimately, you may have to appeal and seek independent reports.

In the hope of trying to avoid that, you can speak to the SALT about what their advice and information gathered in preparation for the AR will/should include. The SALT clearly thinks DD needs more provision, hence the fortnightly appointments, so the SALT should be putting that in writing.

@BrightYellowTrain thank you!

I have received a email today saying … Update to Special Educational Needs area
A pathway update has been published to against your Special Educational Needs request. To view this update, log into portal. But I can’t find anything new on there, does anyone know what sort of update this would usually be? We are only a week and half into the assessment period

When they get information from paediatrician, nursery etc does this get uploaded to the portal that I can see?

I was able to see all this on the portal yes but download everything - as access disappeared once we got to tribunal stage...

I will email my ehcp officer because I can’t see anything else other than the EHCNA process, I know they have received nursery and paediatricians input for assessment but it doesn’t show it’s been received and I’m not able to see it on the portal, would a pathway update mean they have updated diagnosis?

@Cinnamoncupcake what is uploaded to the portal depends on what LA you live in.

La failed to show for emergency review. What happens now? We are already going to tribunal but is not due to be heard till next June

LAs don’t always attend the meeting. The review process carries on the same as if they did attend.

DC have both missed several days of school in the last few weeks and DD seems burnt out despite a 'reduced' timetable. I've requested a meeting with school and I've asked the LA about the early review process and consulting with other settings, but neither has yet got back to me. I was hoping to have some conversations before formally requesting a review, but I'm guessing I might just have to submit an IPSEA letter. There's no way we can just wait for our tribunal hearings, which are six months away.

Any advice on what details to provide in our early review request? Main factors are the overwhelm from sensory and social demands in a big MS, the inability to focus (been waiting months for DD's ADHD referral), and also that DS is really struggling with the fast pace of learning due to his information processing and working memory/EF difficulties. In addition, very little of their EHCP provision has been delivered, probably because it is poorly written (hence our B & F appeals). All of that is resulting in EBSA and leading us to the conclusion that we need a change of setting (either specialist ASD or online learning/EOTAS).

Is all of that compelling enough to justify an early review?

Can I already ask the LA to consult with other settings?

@SpaceInvader321 if you are going to request an early review, focus on DC being unable to attend. Personally, I wouldn’t mention EOTAS/EOTIS when requesting an early review. LAs don’t like proper EOTAS packages. Parents who want EOTAS are generally more likely to deregister if the LA stalls. Therefore, playing your hand too early may well result in them refusing to hold an early review. LAs do not have to agree to an early review. If they refuse, and they may well do given it has only been a short time since the EHCPs were finalised, there is no right of appeal. They are more likely to refuse if they know you want to pursue a comprehensive EOTAS package.

The LA is unlikely to consult with schools at this point. You will either need to wait for the review process or request to amend the appeal to include section I.

@BrightYellowTrain Good reasons to hold off on mentioning EOTAS, thank you. Our SENCo would very likely support us in asking for the early review and agreeing that they can't meet needs. Would that put pressure on the LA to agree?

Deregistering isn't really an option.

If they refused an early assessment and DC can't attend full time then we could request AP, yes? How much say do families have in what that provision looks like?

@SpaceInvader321 the LA is more likely to hold an early review if the school is on side but it is still not guaranteed.

If DC is unable to attend school, the LA has a duty to ensure they still receive a suitable, full-time education. The provision must be full time. It must be suitable for the DC’s age, aptitude, ability and SEN. It should offer good quality education equivalent to that offered by MS as far as a child’s needs allow (i.e. it shouldn’t just be maths and English). It should consider a child’s pastoral, social and emotional needs. And the child should be involved in decisions. Parents can make requests, but beyond having to be a suitable full-time education, the LA doesn’t have to provide what the parents want.

They must also provide anything detailed, specified and quantified in F.

I wouldn’t deregister anyway. Then the LA has even less incentive to agree to EOTAS or a SS.

Just dropping in for a quick moan as DS’ first draft is a mess. A real mess. You’d think it’s been written by a 5 year old in some places.

It seems that the LA have not only used the reports provided during the EHCNA but they’ve used really old reports which I submitted when first applying. For example, DS is meant to see the Paediatrician twice a year but hasn’t seem them at all this year. The last report I had was from 2023 which I included when applying for an assessment.

In the first draft they’ve written conflicting evidence such as ‘DS last had a seizure when he was 10 months old. His most recent EEG shows no abnormality.’ Then literally a few paragraphs down it says, ‘DS was diagnosed with Epilepsy in the summer.’ It’s like that all over and makes no sense. Why would they not just use the reports written for the assessment as everything is up to date?

Also, as Neurology weren’t able to contribute towards the EHCNA, there isn’t much information about DS’ Epilepsy as it focuses more on his other issues. The nursery isn’t able to make a decision on whether they can offer him a place or not. As DS’ Epilepsy nurse said that she’ll write a seizure plan once he starts nursery, I’ve asked her to complete one now so that I can pass this on to the LA. Once I’ve received it, can they simply incorporate this into the second draft of the plan or is it a long process to have the evidence included?

I’m thinking that if this is included in the plan, it’s backed up legally and the nursery will have a better idea of how to support DS and if they can accommodate him. Not to mention that they’ll probably send the plan back to the panel and ask for more funding like they did with DD. Sorry, I’m waffling now. I just want it written properly fgs

@MinnieTruck drafts are often C&P jobs, which would explain the contradictory out-of-date information. One of my DC’s drafts had 3 different names, 2 different ages, in places he became a she and a preschooler could have numbered it better.

If the Epilepsy nurse writes a report/plan now, the needs/provision from it can be included in the EHCP before it is finalised. That wouldn’t normally be of an individual healthcare plan though. It should be as well as. So you are aware, there is no further requirement for the LA to issue another draft if they aren't going to make any amendments or the amendments made are a result of your representations.