Non-specific provisions in proposed plan

[SinkGirl]

Had a draft meeting last Monday and received my twins draft plans the end of the previous week. Went in saying that the provisions are nowhere near specific enough or are just completely missing in the cases of some needs. I sent a huge document for each twin where I took the plans apart and pointed out where provisions were missing and not specific enough.

LA have just sent the proposed plan for one of them - it’s exactly the same except they’ve added four points into one of the provision sections, which are just as non-specific as the rest of the plan.

Feel like I’m banging my head against a brick wall. How do I get through to them? Obviously I now have to reject the proposed plan. It’s all so completely avoidable and I’m so frustrated.

It’s not even like I’m being overly picky!

Argh, I’ve just typed a huge post and lost it.

Things are just getting worse and worse. They’ve issued DT2’s proposed plan - haven’t seen it yet but from what I can gather they haven’t made anything more specific.

Apparently they’ve consulted with SENDIASS and agreed to insert the following where provisions aren’t specific: “Staff to seek advice from professionals over frequency of recommended interventions. Staff to be attuned to his needs”.

Are they kidding? Am I crazy or isn’t this the point of the entire process - to seek advice from professionals and get the specifics of what provisions are needed? Forget the frequency for a second, many of the needs have no recommended interventions!

How can they allocate funding based on such vague wording? Eg The use of daily intensive interaction is likely to support relationship building and
communication. Okay then, and? Should someone do it, who should it be, when and for how long? Every single provision is like that. Only two things specificy a time (20 mins of SALT work a day but no indication of what this should be, and 30 mins playing outside).

To make matters worse, DT1’s plan includes a report from SALT which has been specifically written for the EHCP process and they’ve used that for the SALT provisions (but conveniently left out the parts about DT1 would benefit from specialist teaching by teachers experienced in working with small classes and with experience with ASD - you know, the part which makes it clear he needs a specialist school).

Anyway, there’s no such report for DT2. I asked the LA where his equivalent report is - they emailed SALT to ask and they replied that the only report SALT have for him is from his initial assessment nearly a year ago. Apparently there isn’t even a report from after his one block of therapy in March. Why haven’t they written one for DT2? My suspicion is that the LA never requested it since SALT sent them nothing for DT2 and I had to scan the one old report and email it to them just before the deadline. Now they’re aware that only one report has been written, why haven’t they asked for a report for the other?

Luckily DT2 starts his next block of therapy tomorrow so I can ask, but I’m beyond annoyed at this point.

The co-ordinator is talking like we will just have a few little amendments to make and that will be it - the whole thing is basically meaningless and doesn’t require much of anything from a school (opportunities to share books with an adult - I’m pretty sure that goes for every preschool aged child!).

Am I going mad here? They’re acting like no one has ever brought up provisions being vague before. It’s bizarre.

Got a call with IPSEA middle of next week and hopefully I’ll have received the second proposed plan (and had time to rip it and the evidence apart) by then.

I honestly feel like I’m losing my mind. Not helped by the fact that everyone in the house but me has an awful stomach bug so I’m dealing with that alone while trying to handle all this too.

I’d feel more positive if there were just a few gaps but i have no idea how to fix this or what I’m even asking for. Do they need to request new assessments from everyone? Can I ask them to do that? If I paid for private reports would they be taken seriously (let’s not get into how much private OT, SALT and Ed Psych reports for two would cost!). I mean how can you have a huge list of sensory areas of need and then not even a single mention of sensory provision, OT etc? I don’t understand it at all.

Argh. Just needed to get it out as it’s all building up in my head. Seeing GP on Monday to get help with my anxiety which is out of control.

Any advice or suggestions or pep talks anyone can give me would be greatly appreciated!

Here are some quotes taken from the sen code of practice (followed by the la) which may help. All of the below can be found on page 166 of this document.

"Provision must be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise, including where this support is secured through a Personal Budget"

"Provision must be specified for each and every need specified in section B. It should be clear how the provision will support achievement of the outcomes"

"There should be clarity as to how advice and information gathered has informed the provision specified. Where the local authority has departed from that advice, they should say so and give reasons for it"

You are absolutely correct that the plan should be specific, quantifiable etc. A wooly ehcp will cause issues later down the line. It should say what provision is required, who will deliver it, how it will be delivered, how often etc. Has a full assessment been completed of each twin? Salt, ot, ed psych etc

Yes private reports can be taken into consideration. We did this with salt. She wrote her own provision which was included in the plan in its entirety.

If you have reports which state recommendations such as small class sizes, specialist teachers, you absolutely want it put in the plan!

Do not accept the plan till you are happy! Fixing it later isn't impossible but far more difficult.

I hope this helps, sorry if i missed bits. x

Thank you. I had confirmation today from SALT that they never received a request for DT2. I’ve informed the case worker at the LA of this today.

The Ed Psych reports are vague so the provisions are vague. It’s clear to me they don’t have enough specific advice and I need to try and convince them to get it because the plans as they stand don’t remotely comply with the code.

I asked for OT assessments for both twins as part of the process - neither are currently under OT unfortunately, although they were seen by one as part of the ASD diagnosis process. The LA said they couldn’t do that.

I also asked for DT2 to be assessed by Vision Support Services as he has a visual impairment. Again they said they couldn’t, but have since found out the code states they must seek this advice.

Having spoken to SALT today she will be writing a report for DT2 which says the same things (about him needing small class sizes and specialist teaching) - wonder if they’ll try to leave it out of his too?!

The whole thing is so ridiculous - the case worker confirmed in an email that the provisions do need to be specific, but then expects me to accept some random phrase about how the school can take advice from professionals on frequency of interventions - if the LA haven’t managed to get this advice I don’t know how the school are supposed to!

No you are not going mad OP. This is unfortunately how a lot of LAs operate.

A woolly EHCP is not worth the paper it is written on, as nothing can be enforced.Leaving things vague and omitting the things that clearly relate to special schools suits LAs as they can then refuse to name a special school in the final plan.You do right to reject it.

You need to go through all the reports and highlight all the needs that should be in Section B and have been omitted. Then for each of those needs there should be specific quantifiable provision detailed in Section F. You absolutely can insist on OT reports as it is a reasonable request. Were the EP reports done by the LA? I would request new ones if they are not fit for purpose.

I sympathise as we had all this crap to deal with. Our solicitor recommended getting private reports as they were more detailed, and yes the LA do have to accept them.

Some advice here:
www.ipsea.org.uk/what-an-ehc-plan-contains

www.ipsea.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=afd8d11f-5f75-44e0-8f90-e2e7385e55f0

However if you find you are wasting a lot of time trying to get things changed and the LA are dragging their feet, it may be quicker in the long run to ask them to finalise the plans, however crap they are, then appeal them straight away.

Good luck OP. This isn't how it should be at all.

Thanks Ellie. I really don’t understand how they can argue it with people (I can understand arguments about subjective issues but I don’t understand how they can write a plan which doesn’t comply with the code and then refuse to change it).

Just waiting for the second proposed plan to turn up so I can rip that apart too.

Have a call with IPSEA on Wednesday then will schedule a meeting to feel out their stance.

From what I’ve read already I have three options really:

• Ask then to get new reports now before finalising and appeal if they don’t
• Ask then to request new reports, finalise the plan now and add in the new advice as amendments when received
• Tell them to finalise, pay for our own reports and appeal

It is do frustrating. Our LA were just as bad. You would think none of them had even heard of the CAFA or the Code of Practice! It can take ages to get a tribunal date so I wouldn't hang around too long waiting for them to do things. We appealed in April last year and got a September date. From what I gather the situation hasn't got any better.

This is why I want to try and avoid taking it to a tribunal. My boys really can’t afford that kind of delay, I’m sure yours couldn’t either but what options do we have?

I need to see what they say. I don’t understand how they can possibly argue against what I’m asking for - the needs have all been identified and included in section B, the entire point of making the plan is to put specific provisions on section F. They’d have more of an argument if we were disagreeing over their needs or had a difference of opinion over the provisions needed - but there really are no specific provisions at all. It’s utterly bizarre that they think this is sufficient.

Second proposed plan still hasn’t arrived, my requests for digital copies has been ignored and have now found out the caseworker is out of the office again. I’m about to explode I’m so annoyed.

@SinkGirl Can I ask how it turned out? Did you reject the EHCP or go to tribunal? We're in the same situation now, ridiculously vague draft EHCP.

Same here - any news @sinkgirl?

Awaiting meeting with our LA in Feb.

I know this is too late for OP, but I'd just like to clarify the the LA doesn't have to accept private reports. It has to consider them, but LAs can (and almost invariably do) decide that they prefer their own report which just happen to suggest much cheaper and much more vague and waffly provision. Really the only option is to sort things out through the tribunal, which will normally take independent reports seriously.