Some of those I have supported have DC who EOB has worked for and some not. The same can be said about most APs, so I wouldn’t read too much into that if you think it can meet DD’s needs.
Unfortunately, the wording you have posted here is far too vague and woolly. It needs to be detailed, specified and quantified. For example, who, what, when, where, how… Flexibility can still be included.
Not an exhausted list, but for example:
“Mentor/key adult” needs amending. Who will it be (key adult could be anyone). What qualifications, training and experience will they have? How frequently, how long for?
“Opportunities for”, “opportunities to” and “access to” don’t mean will receive. It doesn’t say how long for or how frequently or really much about the provision at all.
“e.g.” doesn’t mean those examples will actually be provided. Again, it doesn’t say what will actually be provided - who, what, when, where, how…
What “assistive tech”? Who is going to teach DD to use it? How long will the sessions teaching DD to use it be and how frequently? Will there be training for other staff such as tutors and mentors involved in the package so that they can support DD using the assistive tech on an ongoing basis?
What “structured support”? By who - ‘the setting’ is not enough, frequency, length of session?
What is “regular”?
What is covered by “etc.” again frequency, length of session, who…
What mobility aids?
“As needed” needs amending.
“Option for” needs amending
“personal assistant/mentor” needs amending. There is a big difference between the two. Personally, I would push for mentor.
You should respond to the draft, yes.
Go through all the reports with highlighters. Highlight all DD’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 draft 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 draft, any needs without corresponding provision, any woolly and vague wording, anything the reports have failed to include, and any reports the LA has failed to include.
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”, “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 come across vague and woolly wording, check the reports to see if they are woolly and vague or whether the LA has watered down provision. If the reports are 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 reports.
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, physio, etc. in G (health care provision) when it belongs in F.