AR and change of setting

[KOKOagainandagain]

DS2 has an EHCP where section I was bespoke with no school named. He is due to go to m/s for year 10 in September and had an AR in June. LA say no amendments to EHCP drawn up when he last attended school (3 years ago) and so no need for a new EHCP even though he will be attending a m/s school he has never attended. They want an early AR when he is there.

IPSEA goggling has not helped. Is this right?

Doesn't it need to be amended prior to him attending otherwise the MS won't be named in section I. Surely other changes are also needed if it was written 3 years ago.

I would be concerned the LA are using this as either a delaying tactic or to try to reduce provision once already there. Or am I being too cynical? If it's amended now and DS needs more/different provision then an early review can be called anyway. And if they aren't going to amend it with the provision DS needs waiting a couple of months delays the appeal.

Now the school is on holiday it may be difficult to get someone to attend an AR though.

As an absolute minimum, section I needs to be changed to name the school.

I would be really surprised if sections B and F were still accurate after three years and a move back into school as well.

When you had the AR meeting did you review the plan and were any changes suggested?

DS2 has been at internet school for the last three years bar a 6 week period at the start of year 7. The internet school more than doubled fees from last September to this year and the LA want him to go the local m/s. He thinks this maybe OK (he has forgotten what a disaster it was leading his GP signing him off for acute anxiety) and the LA are no longer willing to consider alternative placement.

So an (overdue) AR was held via Microsoft office with the SENCO of the proposed school in attendance. It was agreed that there would be no changes to section B, E and F as there was no evidence of progress, his needs have remained an accurate description and there is no evidence to support a reduction in provision. His EHCP was written for provision required in m/s. The only addition was PB for a home tutor for A level maths as he already has GCSE A star.

The LA emailed to say 'no change needed'. I assumed this was for provision and that they would produce an updated EHCP to change just section I. Now they are saying that the old EHCP dated January 2019 naming bespoke placement will do and that we can have another AR to make any adjustments needed to B,E and F and can update I at the same time.

I smell a rat. Especially as the PB panel said that a PB for A level maths would mean that the school would not be able to apply for high needs funding. He has a 32.5 hour EHCP with 1:1 in all lessons. There is no way the school could deliver this without HNF. But they are not named on the old/current EHCP and I am not sure about the status of their saying they can meet need when they are not named and the LA do not intend to name them following this AR but want to wait til he is attending the school.

That maybe January 2018 - I get horribly confused by academic years.

Ignore the final sentence in my pp, I missed that you had had an AR but the LA aren't amending.

I would be wary. If the LA don't hold an early review once DS attending you may be out of time for appealing the amended EHCP and wouldn't have the right of appeal for the refusal to carry out an early review, so I wouldn't wait.

I would also be worried the LA will fight the PB. Surely the school can't get HNF without being named.

Ahh, that might explain why the PB was approved for 3 hours A level maths tuition per week but the email had an inexplicable condition to 'avoid double funding the school couldn't apply for HNF' but this was OK because 1:1 support would be provided by a 'floating TA'.

As placement is named in section I as 'bespoke funded through PB' the Panel approved this but didn't mention that not naming the school meant they couldn't apply for HNF so of course can't provide specified support.

Even if a floating TA was sufficient, the school does not put a TA in top set GCSE classes. Part of the reason DS2 needs 1:1 is because he has been assessed by the LA EP as significantly underperforming (I insisted they do WISC and WIAT) as he is 2e - 99th percentile plus ASD and being assessed for ADHD. The school only puts a TA in 'bottom' set.

I've emailed the LA to say that, of course, I assumed they would issue an amended EHCP naming the m/s even if there was no evidence to amend B or F and they agreed no changes and that I am appealing immediately due to time constraints.

Otherwise the deadline to appeal would pass before DS2 even started. DS2 would need to be there for 2 terms before they could properly assess support that he needed and we could have a meaningful early AR. He needs to start with specified provision if the placement has any chance of succeeding and it is now clear he won't get this unless the school is named.

Given the pressure that Tribunal are under atm I expect the LA will cave or that case management would intervene and rip them a new one as this would be a clear waste of court time and resources.

As DS2 has been at internet school I had forgotten what utter bastards the LA can be while pretending to be all nicey-nicey. I hadn't registered the significance of the apparent throw away comment about it making sense from an admin POV to update placement later.

I had forgotten what utter bastards the LA can be while pretending to be all nicey-nicey.

Take it from me OP absolutely nothing has changed. LAs are still spouting shite, trying to pull the wool over parents' eyes and behaving unlawfully.

Your last post is even more concerning. Is Section F specific and quantified? Particularly the 1:1.

I wouldn't let DS2 start with a "floating TA". IMO starting later but adequately supported is better than DS2 starting unsupported in September. That would risk the placement breaking before it's even started, especially if the school decide he needs to go into the sets with TA support already. Placement breakdown would be a risk to his MH.

And, as you say, DS2 needs time to settle before anyone is going to get an accurate picture of his needs in the school.

I am not certain the school can't apply for HNF if not named, but surely a pupil needs to be on roll and have it named in their EHCP for them to be able to. If not it is open to abuse.

I am cynical, but my LA would definitely play this sort of game if left unchallenged.

And this is why the system is so adversarial. I need to stop thinking they will play fair and that they really think 'every child matters'.

Time to dust off my Robo-Mum suit. 'This time it's personal' (or is that Jaws?). How about Ripley from Alien 'did IQ's drop sharply while I was away?' (or did you just think mine did?).

I need to stop thinking they will play fair and that they really think 'every child matters'.

Yep. That was my mistake. I kept waiting for the LA to do the right thing. They were never going to do the right thing. And as a result our son spent a year out of education.

Section F is specified and quantified, especially the 1:1. Simpson Millar attended the meeting.

But despite this DS2's placement failed after 6 weeks. I suspect that the school deliberately didn't give provision and pushed him over the edge. Didn't record work, had no ICT, didn't record homework and then punished. Head said he had to learn. His MH was damaged and it has taken years to put him back together.

Now he is healed and can't really remember. He is back to being his beautiful self - exasperating but biddable like a giant toddler - he is nearly 6 feet tall but has personal hygiene skills of a 5 year old.

The LA don't get asynchronous development.

He thinks he will now be fine, largely because he thinks he has the social sorted because of VR chat. But he was telling me yesterday about how he created a paradox in V.R. and is Schrödinger's goose. I might as well paint a target on his back (but that is negative).

Tbh none of this would be an issue if his internet school where he has been for the last three years had not jacked up fees and demanded the LA pay up.

But I have had to be unpaid LSA for three years so I am OK with it not being sorted by September and there is no way he is starting til it is all sorted and recorded.

@KeepOnKeepingOnAgainandAgain

If the EHCP dated January 2019 names "bespoke placement" isn't that the internet school?

This sounds all kinds of dodgy to me. They shouldn't be able to take away his internet school if that's working well. You do right to appeal.Have you actually been able to visit and consider the MS school or have you just been railroaded into it by the LA?

I have it from a very reliable source that parents are getting December dates for hearings although once your appeal is registered you could ask for an expedited appeal, given the potential disruption to your son's education.

Are you able to seek advice from a solicitor again?

The PB is not directly to pay fees of the internet school (SENCOP specifically says PB is not pay fee) and the internet school is not authorised to be directly named. We could work around this when £4K a year for the cost of educational services as part of EHCP provision but the internet school can't meet all needs and so the LA have refused to pay £11k purely for access to online lessons.

It's hard to imagine how we could have grounds to argue the internet school could meet needs - it's more that needs in an online environment with free parental LSA are totally different to needs in a brick school.

Interhigh might be an option as they charge much less.

The PB is not directly to pay fees of the internet school (SENCOP specifically says PB is not pay school fees) and the internet school is not authorised to be directly named.

The LA does not officially accept that m/s is unsuitable and agree to fund alternative provision of named online indi school. They agreed to PB after he had tried brick school but was signed off. Prior to this he was classed as EHE and received no PB. They were willing to pay 4K a year for the cost of educational services as part of EHCP provision but the internet school can't deliver all provision and so the LA have refused to pay a large increase in fees purely for access to online lessons. DS2 lost his place because they wanted the money in full within 7 days.

The LA knew the deadline and just waited for it to pass. The school have said they would let him back now having originally said that his place had gone to someone else of the waiting list and saying that they'll accept £7K rather than the £11K they initially wanted, but in the meantime the LA called AR, invited the local m/s etc. Besides which the LA keep repeating that DS2 wants to go. I've obviously tried to talk to him about what he wants but he avoids thinking about things in advance of them actually happening so he just says he doesn't know and starts talking about V.R. or manga

It's hard to imagine how we could have grounds to argue the internet school could meet all needs - it's more that needs in an online school are just access to the curriculum because parents have to meet needs relating to attention, organisation and the social. The LA view has always been that only a brick school can provide the skills needed to 'fit in' and COVID has strengthened belief that being out of school is inherently damaging. Plus the fact that the school hugely increased fees for the same provision and their behaviour calls their suitability into question.

I will have to force DS2 to engage before I put in an appeal to tribunal requesting the LA name the local m/s because it might be better to keep bespoke in section I and switch online provider. I believe interhigh feeds are still around £4K for year 10.