SIL will not agree to a part time timetable for ASD/ADHD niece

[freshfesias97]

My niece is 5 and diagnosed ASD/ADHD with very violent behaviours. She was permanently excluded from 1 nursery - she does now have an ECHP and has been approved for specialist but there are no spaces in our area.

She has had a nightmare start to reception and cannot cope with a class of 30 so she constantly lashes out and hits children - they have tried giving her a room of her own with an ipad and a 1-1 so she is totally away from other children but she just runs away - she loves running and being free. If there is another child near her she will just lash out - school have suggested a part time timetable but SIL is refusing it as she doesn't want her at home as she can't cope with her either and when she is at school it is the only break she gets from her.

She was excluded for the 3rd time yesterday but SIL refused to pick her up, so she spent all afternoon on the playground with her 1-1 TA as she is a danger to the other children.

I am on the emergency contact list but SIL has asked me to not pick up phone to the school because there is no way she can have her at home. She says school are obliged to keep her there all day from 830-3pm and they can't insist on a part time timetable, - I can see her issue but niece cannot cope at school but she can't cope at home either she is violent whether at home or school. Exclusions and suspensions probably wouldn't happen if she could agree to a part time timetable. My question is she isn't going to agree to a part time timetable so what happens next?

SIL is right. The school should not be suggesting a part-time timetable. The statutory suspension and exclusion guidance is explicitly clear part-time timetables should not be used to manage behaviour. When they are used for other reasons, they should be short term and aimed at reintegration. After this, DC should be in school full time or alternative provision should be made.

Unless the suspension was a formal suspension, SIL was right to refuse to collect, too. Informal suspensions must not happen and are unlawful. DN is entitled to attend school full time unless formally suspended. Ensuring the suspensions are formal is important for multiple reasons.

It doesn’t sound like it is the case, but if SIL believes DN cannot attend school full time, she can request alternative provision. IPSEA has a model letter she can use.

she does now have an ECHP and has been approved for specialist but there are no spaces in our area.

What do you mean by this? Because that isn’t how the law with EHCPs works. Has SIL appealed to SENDIST if the EHCP has been finalised without naming a special school in section I?

Unless the school is wholly independent, the LA must name the parental preference 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 many LAs admit. Being full is not defined in law, and on its own being ‘full’ is not enough of a reason to refuse to name the parental preference. The LA has to prove the school is so full admitting DN is incompatible. Unless the school is wholly independent, the LA can, and must, name the school regardless of the school’s objections unless the LA can prove one of the above.

Another vote for your SIL's approach. It's all too easy for parents to get trapped/guilted into homeschooling.

Thank you some good info there. My child also attends the same school as my niece and I hate hearing the gossiping and bitching that goes on about her BUT as a parent I can also see where they are coming from as she is hurting children daily - my DD is in year 6 and helps with reading down in reception and she has requested to stop doing it as she gets really nervous when she witnesses her cousin hurting others. The only way she doesn't hurt is when she is on her own with a TA but the SLT are all for inclusion and will not have her kept apart from her peers but funnily enough have no qualms in excluding her totally by sending her home. BUT the other side of the coin if I was the parent of a child that was hurt by her I would be fuming that this is allowed to happen. Her TA is wonderful apparently but as soon as TA takes her in the class or near other children she just attacks.

Excuse my ignorance on ECHP terms as I don't know much about how they work but I know they went to panel and panel have approved specialist provision but that there is a 2 yr waiting list for a space but they can start looking around for a school they like and then name this school officially but there will be no space available until at least year 2. There portage worker ?? (I think) has told them they basically have 2 choices 1. keep her in mainstream until a place becomes available 2. homeschool neither which are really sustainable at present.

The LA is stringing SIL along. Waiting lists don’t exist in the same way as they do without an EHCP.

they basically have 2 choices 1. keep her in mainstream until a place becomes available 2. homeschool.

These are not the only choices!

Option 3 is appeal to SENDIST. If SIL still has the right of appeal, she should appeal. If not, she should request an early review of the EHCP - IPSEA has a model letter for this. She could also request for leave to appeal out of time, but this may not be agreed, especially if the right of appeal lapsed a while ago.

Option 4 is alternative provision under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 if DN is unable to attend school.

I would suggest SIL reads up on the EHCP process and the law further. Starting with IPSEA and SOSSEN’s websites. She could also post on here.

SIL should not deregister and EHE. The LA has no incentive to name SS then. And the LA is not responsible for providing an education or any of the provision in F.