LA panel refused to quantify hours my child needs TA support

[MyHonestRedBiscuit]

I wonder if anyone could help.

My child's EHCP specifies 1 to 1 TA for carrying out all tasks in class. However when issued the LA refused to specify the hours as apparently they don't do this, according to the SEND code of practice they should. They have now had their EHCP for over a year and in the review documents I said this needs to be quantified. My child cannot work independently and needs prompting to keep on task otherwise they will just will not do the work. I realise that 1 to 1 does not mean a full time 1 to 1 but there is one TA for the whole year and they go between my child's year and some other classes when needed. Do I go to appeal or speak with the LA again. The SENCO says the usual, no funding, TA time being cut etc which I know is not the most helpful thing to say but maybe true. Any advice?

Yes appeal.

Although, depending on the exact wording and the exact support required, it may be detailed, specified and quantified enough to enforce now. It depends on exactly how ‘all tasks in class’ is written in the surrounding context and if DC needs 1:1 for things other than tasks &/or things other than in class.

You will need to look at your evidence to see if it is watertight but the LA has watered the wording down in the EHCP or if you need stronger evidence.

1:1 can be full-time 1:1, it depends on the wording.

The EHCP is basically just the Educational Psychologist report copy and pasted which a lot of LA must obviously do. My child is not disruptive but because they are leaving them to work independently they are not learning anything and start crying and say they are angry when they suggest they stay in at break to go through their work. Previously there was a TA in each class but this year is different. What evidence would the tribunal be looking for? They haven't progressed at all and have actually started going backwards.

If the EHCP is only based on the LA’s EP report, you have a problem that is wider than just the wording around 1:1.

SENDIST will consider, and properly consider not pay lip service to considering, all evidence. For example, EP, SALT, OT reports, evidence from the school.

Provision in section F of EHCPs is what is reasonably required to meet the needs in section B. In turn, the content of B&F is based on the evidence.

The only reports I have are educational psychology and speech and language. APDR paperwork I have but this has not demonstrated any improvement. Occupational therapy refused to assess. The school SENCO said we would not get anymore funding so I assume they wouldn't support the appeal.

Standard 💩 delay tactics of LA.
when was the EP report and was it done via the council? As you might need another EP assessment.
You need precise number of hours 1 to 1 for your child specified and does this include lunch and break time. If not, which is likely they are forcing you to a tribunal.
Eg 32.5 hrs of 1 to 1 for child “johnny” which will include full time 1 to 1 support over lunch time and any breaks. Good luck

Focus on the provision in F rather than the funding. If it is detailed, specified and quantified in F, it is enforceable.

Depending on what evidence you already have you may need to seek further evidence, potentially independent assessments.

An appeal can be successful even if the school isn’t supportive. There may be evidence from the school that can still be useful even if they aren’t supportive of the appeal.

OT should not have refused to assess. During the EHCNA, the LA should have sought independent OT advice and information if the NHS wouldn’t provide it.

I assume I need to get independent reports before starting appeal? I have just under 2 months to do this then. If successful who then rewrites the EHCP?

You don’t need independent reports before submitting an appeal.

You have 2 months from the decision letter or 1 month from the mediation certificate, whichever is later, to submit an appeal.

If you appeal the content of the EHCP, during the appeal process you take part in the working document process. This is where you propose the amendments you think are required. The LA does the same. The hope is that you and the LA can agree the content, or at least some of it. Then, any outstanding disputed content is decided by SENDIST.