There is a dispute over therapies and whether these should be classed as educational provision in an EHCP (and therefore in Section F).
The LEA conclude that as a teenage child is attending school each day, there is no impact on learning and therefore the therapies cannot be determined as special educational provision and will not be added in to Section F. The LEA also conclude that all items in Section F must be completed during school hours.
The parent concludes that the teenage child only attends school due to the unhealthy, dependent routines the child has instilled on the family in order to cope with going to school. The child needs excessive support and needs parents to engage in obsessive, affirming behaviours every day to enable the child to cope. If the parent declines or is unable to support the child in this way, the child would not be able to attend school at all. The situation is known only to the parents as the child appears fine once at school.
The therapies needed will address the dependent behaviours and teach the child how to manage their reliance on obsessive behaviours and adult support. However, due to the complex nature of the child’s emotional state, the child is unable to access therapies within the school environment and needs to be supported after school, away from the school building.
If the parents were to appeal and could supply evidence of the severity of the support needed to get the child to school, would the parent have a case to argue that the therapies will help the child to access learning more independently and therefore should be added to Section F?
Or are the LEA correct in their conclusion and an appeal would be futile?