What do you think? If you want DS in mainstream, you have a right to a mainstream education unless it would be incompatible with the efficient education of others and no reasonable steps could be taken to avoid that. If you want SS, do you have a school in mind?
Go through all the evidence with highlighters. Highlight all DS’s special educational needs in one colour and then all the provision to meet the needs in another colour. Each need should have corresponding provision.
Then go through the EHCP and make sure all the highlighted needs are in B and the highlighted provision is in F.
Make a note of anything the LA has omitted from the EHCP, any needs without corresponding provision, any woolly and vague wording, anything the evidence has failed to include, and any evidence the LA has failed to consider.
When you go through F, look out for vague and woolly wording. For example, “access to”, “would benefit from”, “regular”, “up to”, “or equivalent”, “opportunities for”, “as appropriate”, “would be useful/helpful”, “such as”, “e.g.”, “etc.”, “as required”, “as advised”, “key adult(s)”, “small group”. Provision must be detailed, specified and quantified, otherwise the EHCP isn’t worth the paper it is written on and cannot be enforced.
When you find vague and woolly wording, check the evidence to see if they are woolly and vague or whether the LA has watered down provision. If the evidence is vague and woolly, ask the LA to go back to the report writers to make the reports detailed, specified and quantified. If the LA has watered down provision, request the LA stick to the wording in the evidence.
Also make sure any health or social care provision that educates or trains is in F. For example, LAs like to put things like SALT, OT, etc. in G (health care provision) when it belongs in F.
And make sure the LA stick to the timescales. They must finalise the amended EHCP within 8 weeks of sending the amendment notice, and so within a maximum of 12 weeks from the review meeting.