EHCP support thread no. 5

[Needlenardlenoo]

Another thread is nearly filled so here is a new one for when we need it. I am the original OP but have name-changed due to admin (let's call it spring cleaning). We got our EHCP finally in June last year and are in a state of cautious optimism two terms into the year 7 transition. There has been no contact from the LA at all to us, but perhaps no news is good news, sometimes. The next challenge is going to be the annual review. I am feeling a bit paranoid the LA might try a cease to maintain. Anyway, onwards and upwards and best wishes to all!

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
EHCP support thread no. 4 -
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/special_educational_needs/5197351-ehcp-support-thread-no-4

@JemJam1 as @thatsnotmygarden says, continuation sheets are fine. I used the forms to do a basic summary of what I wanted to say and then said "see continuation sheet" where I wrote enough to give a full picture.

Don't panic. If it helps, think of EHCP as a fundraising application where you are telling an evidenced story in order to achieve something. I found the whole process weirdly similar to doing National Lottery applications back in the day!

My diagnosed ASD/ ADHD teen is struggling in mainstream. School have applied for the EHCP.

When I had a brief chat with the EHCP team at the local authority, I asked for clarity on the entire process. I am very cautious and experience tells me to be so.

The officer leading explained that as part of assessment they'll want to explore whether this is mental health or SEN. My immediate internal reaction was - oh here we go again.

My teen has had a lot of personal stress and a home move to father due to my ill health. He is however Autistic,has ADHD and clearly struggles with too many demands. I've said I'd prefer him to remain where he has friends and a good few TAs if possible but please can the timetable be adapted and accomodations made.

We now have things like chair throwing in class so I see frustrations escalating.

Is it possible and is it advantageous to school/LA to push a mental health/ behaviour narrative as opposed to seeing a SEN problem with accompanying wellbeing/ MH struggles?

It sounded like they were saying if MHealth seen as the problem, then EHCP may not be appropriate. I didn't push this further in discussion.

Why do I feel they will want to do this? I can't answer that. My ex has historically avoided and been very resistant to the reality son is ND. We now don't communicate on this because of it.

I'd like my son to have MH and well-being support and have explicitly said so in my parental statement. I have however been very clear in documenting multiple needs I see based in disability.

@SENhelp50 don’t trust everything the LA tell you. They will tell you what they want you to know and their version of the law. They won’t tell you the actual law. IPSEA and SOSSEN’s websites and the SENCOP are good places to start to begin to understand the process.

DS has SEN. The definition of SEN is set out in section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014. Even if it was ‘just’ MH difficulties, which it isn’t, DS would still meet that definition and an EHCP could be secured. MH difficulties fall under the SEMH broad area of need. Although for many they will be secondary to their ASD.

What week of the EHCP process are you on?

Good news, the tribunal team at the council have agreed to make the necessary changes to the ehcp of ds2 and eotis, as they haven't found a suitable school. My question is around what should be agreed for the tribunal to be avoided. They have said eotis is agreed, but not what the package will be. According to them, this is not part of the tribunal remit and we need to agree it with the council after. Is this correct? We are happy with the ehcp content now, but I just want to make sure about the package content, as if we agree, there is no more tribunal date to hold them to account.

what should be agreed for the tribunal to be avoided. They have said eotis is agreed, but not what the package will be. According to them, this is not part of the tribunal remit and we need to agree it with the council after.

Haha. I bet they did! This is not true. The content of the package must be set out in F. The appeal should not be settled via consent order until when and if the necessary amendments to all the sections under appeal are made. That includes the amendments to F.

We are happy with the ehcp content now, but I just want to make sure about the package content

If the provision making up the package is not in F, you should not be happy with the content of the EHCP.

We've only got 20 messages left on this thread so here's the new one for when we need it:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/special_educational_needs/5484488-ehcp-support-thread-no-6?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Thank you. I mean that we are happy with the words setting out the needs and the type of training and experience the people giving the provision should have. We want a personal budget, as with all the consults the council did for schools and tutors, no one could meet needs. We need a package thst would start with fewer hours and build up over time, as and when ds can cope with it. So should that be added to section F?

We are currently using dla to pay for a tutor for a couple of hours a week, and he attends one morning at a flexi school.

I would like the ehcp to cover more tutoring, some sort of physical activity such as swimming or climbing (lessons are too much of a demand) and we are checking out an art class this week.

Yes, F needs to state the actual content of the package. That includes tuition, physical activity, art and everything else. It should include the full package DS will (hopefully) achieve. Direct and indirect provision. It is normal to build it up slowly. What you don’t want is to include only what DS can access now/in 3 months, then get to 8 months and realise DS needs more, but the wording in F isn’t right.

SENDIST won’t deal with the PB, but they absolutely will deal with the content of the package in F. Having the provision in F is essential because the LA is highly unlikely to agree a PB for provision that is not detailed, specified and quantified in F or is not required to fulfil their duty to provide the provision in F or is not part of their duty under s19. I presume when you say you want a PB; you mean you want DPs?

For example, DS3’s includes: “X must receive 14 hours of face to face 1:1 home tuition per week for 39 weeks per year from subject specialists with [list of training/qualifications/experience (this includes QTS otherwise the LA will use someone without because they are cheaper)]. This will include [list of time spent on each subject studied]. Each session will last at least 1 hour and no more than 3 hours.” Most are 2 at most. 3 hours seems a lot, but DS3’s tuition isn’t all sat at a desk. For example, it needs to cover being able to go to the theatre for English. F then goes on to list ways the teachers will support DS3’s learning, modifications to how they teach, etc. It also has wording “…39 weeks provision to be delivered flexibly and responsively over 52 weeks to support continuity, consistency and engagement…”

F also includes the wording “Priority must always be given to those professionals with whom X has an existing trusting relationship…” to stop LA using someone cheaper on a whim.

Another example: “For 39 weeks per year [the 39 weeks he also attends his AP] X must receive 3 sports sessions of his choosing per week with each session lasting at least 1 hour.” The ‘his choosing’ is to stop the LA picking the cheap/free options all the time. He then has the same but 5 times per week for the other 13 weeks per year outside of term time.

Will DS continue to attend the school at all? If so, the school must be named in I even if DS will be flexi-schooling.

You should relook at the wording of the “type of training and experience the people giving the provision should have”. It would be unusual for this to be written to a satisfactory standard without the content of the package actually being included in F.

BTW, DS1&3 have some of their provision at home. At the moment, we are happy to allow that. It works well for DSs. But we can’t be compelled to accept provision at home. If we decided not to allow it, the LA would have to find premises and their EHCPs would need to be amended.

@thatsnotmygarden I have added below what it says in the main part, although some parts have variations on this. He is pda, so we need it to be clear that people can preach him while avoiding demands. We also can't narrow the wording to such an extent that no one would be able to give the provision.

Delivered by an adult with experience of working with young people with autism and demand avoidance profiles.

His tutor and flexi school are brilliant with him, but that's only 4.5 hours per week in total. His flexi school has no punishments or rewards and kids can do self directed learning if they don't want to do the group class. Even then he can only cope with one morning. The swimming lessons we had him in were too much of a demand, but he does like going with us and just splashing around.

Also, it is written in section E

Aspiration is to begin with a shorter period of time based on his needs and then building up to full time learning timetable (to be used flexibly with the different provisions in place).

Originally it said starting with xx hours per day, but I got that changed as otherwise they could use it to say he needs no more than that ever.

@HarryVanderspeigle it doesn’t matter if the school DS is flexi-schooling at will only be for a few hours. If DS is to attend a school at all, it must be named in section I. Legally, section I must not be blank if the CYP is to attend a school. Section F can then set out the provision that will also be provided otherwise than in school.

Delivered by an adult with experience of working with young people with autism and demand avoidance profiles.

What adult? What is their job title? Tutor, teacher, mentor, LSA, TA, HLTA…? Or any random person the LA can pay minimum wage to even if they aren’t suitable?
What experience? One day in a mainstream school? Or something more?
No mention of any training or qualifications, so the person may not have any.

Provision can be detailed, specified and quantified and deliverable and self-directed. But if it is vague and woolly, it is not enforceable.

Section E is for outcomes. It is not for provision. Outcomes are the result of provision. You can’t enforce section E. The LA’s duty is to provide the SEP in F as per section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

That's so helpful, thank you. The application was submitted last week and the reference number initiated then. So basically we're at week 1. I was on the phone straight away to the case officer and hope this will kick things into action.

I have provided a great deal of information to cover almost all areas so I hope that does alot of the job 🙏.

@thatsnotmygarden I do get that anything vague is unenforceable, but at the same time, there aren't any qualifications for working with pda kids. None of the brilliant people working with him now are qualified for pda, but they know how to work with low demand and special interests. I wouldn't want the council to say they can't be part of the package as they aren't qualified.

It's so much easier for my child in a special school! Fitting into a school environment makes everything much easier.

@HarryVanderspeigle there are training and qualifications for PDA. For example, some DC have the PDA for Educators course as a requirement for their staff. Others have PAST’s level 3 PDA in Education as well or instead. Some have more individualised training sessions provided by e.g. PAST, Clare Truman or an EP.

If you don’t want that, that’s fine, but be aware it may result in the LA using any old person.

Hi, I’m just wondering after waiting forever the initial tribunal was cancelled on the day of the tribunal as the LA officer was away. Now 2 weeks prior to a tribunal I get the email to state that the tribunal is vacated and a CHR will run instead. I have been waiting for this date for practically 2 years. Why is this allowed. B and F is rubbish although “I “ is agreed.

Is there anything I can do? Honestly I am literally shaking at this. I wanted to go to tribunal. It’s not fair what they have done (provided nothing)

Anything I can do? Are there any “rules” for this?

Thank you x

Hi, SENDIST has granted an extension to our final evidence deadline until May to cover the EP assessment and report being done next month. They state that the new final evidence deadline for both parties is 22 May, we need to do revised case review forms and that the LA needs to provide the new bundle by 6 June.

However, I have other additional evidence that I am about to submit. I was going to do an additional SEND7 form. Is that now no longer necessary as there is a new evidence deadline?

@Namechangeagain80 no need for a SEND7 now.

@Toomuchrain12 sorry to hear the hearing has been vacated. Is the case ready to be heard? Or not and that is the need for a CRH? When you say section I has been agreed, was the settlement of I very recent? If so, sometimes hearings are vacated once I is agreed, because this can sometimes be the trigger for LAs to seriously consider also resolving some or all of the outstanding disputed content in B&F. Unfortunately, some cases that are ready to be heard are being vacated because of a lack of court time. I have an upcoming HD for DS2’s contents appeal that was vacated last year.

@thatsnotmygarden the LA have been messing around for practically 2 years realised there are no schools and a couple of weeks ago declared eotis. However still haven't received any education etc in the 2 years CME (It was frustrating as they only declared eotis maybe 3/4 weeks ago (just dragging on time so the LA didn't look like idiots at the tribunal). However like everything they are reluctant to change B and also F so that's the reason for the CRH as it need to be agreed "between the parties"

However, I am a strong believer that this really isn't correct mortally. To wait / waste 2 years of someone's life. Equally nothing has changed since the last adjournment 6 months ago and the LA have no information on us.

Or is that is how it happens and you have to just carry on? No rules or no complaints etc? I suppose if the LA was playing "fair" then none of this rubbish would even of had to go anywhere near a tribunal and it would of all been dealt with via a case worker etc and we could of been in a better place 2 years ago. It just seems wrong in my eyes!

Thank you for your help really appreciate it (equally I was reading on ipsea and then I was thinking omg this can go on and on via JADR and potentially ending back up in a tribunal but I know I have not properly understood it all) so hopefully after this CRH it will be all ok if they are willing to change B and F plus if the LA even action any of it! thank you

@Toomuchrain12 since the LA has recently conceded section I, SENDIST will be hoping parties can now resolve some of the outstanding disputed content in B&F. SENDIST will want to focus on that to either get to a point where there is agreement to settle the case or get the case ready to be heard. That is why there will be a CRH. Yes, that happens.

You won’t have a JADR hearing if I is agreed and B&F are outstanding. They aren’t used for that.

I take it section 19 provision isn’t in place? Have you requested that? And looked at enforcement if necessary?

Hello all, DS's EHCP covers 2 sessions/week of MindJam "up
to the end of Spring term 2026 subject to ongoing review based on the evolutionary nature of his relationship with staff at his new school".

Staff at the new school are pretty well attuned to ND needs but DS still struggles to attend, especially on days when he has teachers he's not crazy about. There are a couple of LSAs and teachers that he likes, but I wouldn't say anyone has evolved into a key contact for him with regular sessions of any kind.

I would really like to extend his MindJam provision, though I suspect it will be near impossible to get the LA to agree. Any thoughts on how I might be able to argue the case? Who is responsible for the "ongoing review"? (Woolly, I know.)

I would speak to the school as well as the LA. The school may agree to fund it.

If DS isn’t attending full-time, you could ask the LA to fund it under s19 provision.

Unfortunately, you may need to request an AR to improve the wording. F shouldn’t leave it open to future review so vaguely like that. At the next AR, you could to include wording such as “Until attendance at school is full-time and the placement is secure…”

Thanks @thatsnotmygarden. I'll start with the school, who are very supportive, and see if they can approach the LA about it. AR is scheduled for May.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/special_educational_needs/5484488-ehcp-support-thread-no-6?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share shiny new thread! See you all on there.

In the midst of all the depressing school news, a bit of positivity: DH and I met with the KS3 SENCO about some issues a week or two back and she was very helpful and has already fixed several of them.