School placement tribunal

[gezelligheid]

Hi guys, my son is due to start school in September. I wanted a specialist school for him and the LA have named a mainstream school.

My son is 3 with an autism diagnosis, profound sensory processing difficulties, bites himself and has distressed behaviours a lot in nursery (he's only there 1.5 days), amongst other needs. Reports state he needs a high adult to child ratio, class sizes of max 8 children, a low-arousal total communication environment with OT and SALT embedded into the daily curriculum. Staff also need to be trained in co-regulation techniques.

I've received the full consultation responses today in a SAR and the school they've named (mainstream) have said even with extra funding they will not be able to meet my child's needs due to them not being able to change the fact that the environment would cause my son a great level of distress and will block my child's access to learning. The LA responded saying they do not accept their response and will be naming that school in section I.

The LA emailed me and told me the mainstream said they can meet need and that the LA is satisfied with their response and they believe his EHCP will be delivered in full there. Which is clearly a lie which was uncovered in the SAR.

I'm guessing this will help towards my tribunal evidence?

We submitted an appeal of B, F and I in mid February and our tribunal is in May so we don't have much time left and I really want to get this right.

Yes, you can use it as evidence.

You should look at the wording of the reports carefully and consider if you need independent assessments. The wording needs to be detailed, specified and quantified. Look out for wording such as “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”. For example, in your post “high adult to child ratio”. What ratio exactly? Which adult?

The reports need to be detailed, specified and quantified. Otherwise, the EHCP won’t be detailed, specified and quantified, won’t be worth the paper it is written on, and will not be enforceable. And there is an increased risk your preferred placement will not be named. This is because the placement named in section I is the logical conclusion of B&F. B + F = I. So if B and F are lacking, the risk of I not being suitable increases.