Quality Criteria for EHCPs - for parents & carers 030218

EHCP Health Check based on feedback from parents; and discussed with AfC Many parents are receiving draft EHCPs as the process of transferring statements to EHCPs ramps up. We have compiled a health check for parents based on feedback that we have received from parents over the past few months.

If your EHCP has any of these problems, PLEASE contact us at SEND Family Voices as we are keen to monitor whether draft plans issued are of appropriate quality. Please also contact your case worker at AfC and ask them to address the issues you have identified.

T: 07469 746 145 E: sendfamilyvoices@outlook.com W: www.sendfamilyvoices.org

Your draft EHCP should not have any of the following issues…

Not Specific Enough 1. In Section F (Provision) and in professional reports that describe provision there should not be phrases such as “would benefit from”, “should have access to”, “regular”, “up to”, “as appropriate”, etc.

Instead the type of provision, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise of the person providing it must be defined. If a programme is required, the Plan should state who (e.g. teacher, teaching assistant, therapist etc) is to draw up the programme, who is to provide it, what training and supervision they should have, and arrangements for monitoring and amendment. If your draft contains the phrases referred to or requires unspecified programmes, then the provision described is not specific and it will be difficult to know whether it is in fact being provided. Most importantly, you will not be able to enforce it if it is not.

GOOD “Martin will have 2 hours per week of small group (maximum 6 pupils) literacy work provided by a higher level teaching assistant” BAD “Martin will be given access to a literacy programme that enables him to progress towards his literacy targets” In brief: The provision in Section F must be specific 2. Not including the hours of support for a child in section F. It is not sufficient to include a budgetary figure in the box after section F. The hours must be specified, as must the type of profile of the person (or people) providing the support. The plan should also specify what the person providing the support is doing (just writing “1:1 support” is also not helpful). Some plans do not have this included at the moment even where it is clearly specified in the statement In brief: The exact number of hours of support in Section F must be specified 3. Not specifying who will deliver the provision, including the expertise required.

Section F should state who or what type of person, including their qualification, should be delivering the provision (in the “who” column or in the description of the provision).

The code of practice clearly states that the expertise of the person delivering the provision should be specified.

1

[Type here] GOOD: A Health and Care Professionals Council accredited and qualified Occupational Therapist (OT) with expertise in sensory issues BAD: OT will be provided.

In brief: The person and/or service delivering the provision (ie support, therapies etc) must be named 4. Use of the title “Strategies to achieve Outcomes”, which has been appearing in drafts under the Section F. Section F already has a title, which is “Provision to Meet Needs”.

“Strategies to achieve outcomes” suggests that it is appropriate to write more general statements – rather than provide detailed, specific quantified provision (as required by the Code of Practice). This phrase should not appear as it is potentially misleading about what needs to be written in this section.

In brief: The title Provision to Meet Needs fits the Code of Practice; it’s clear and specific.

5. Badly written Outcomes.

An outcome is the benefit or difference made by the provision in F, G and H. Outcomes should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound.

The process should be that needs are formulated, then provision to meet each and every need; outcomes should only be formulated at that point and should focus on what all concerned hope to achieve as a result of giving the child the support required. In far too many cases, vague and generic outcomes are drafted first, then equally vague provision is forced unnaturally into boxes to “fit” the outcomes, rather than being drafted in order to meet needs.

GOOD: [Provision = is the 1:1 reading support, twice a week – which means that the outcome is:] John will be able to read level 4 books, by the end of summer term.

BAD: John will learn to read the same books as his friends In brief: Outcomes should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound.

Not including All Provision and Advice 6. Not including provision that is defined in the statement.

Unless there is a professional report which supersedes the statement and explicitly states that the provision is no longer needed, any provision that is included in the statement must be carried over into the EHCP. In brief: Provision that is included in the statement, must be carried over to the EHCP 7. Not including provision specified in professional reports or arbitrarily changing the frequency or duration specified without explaining why the advice has not been taken.

All provision that is specified in professional reports requested by the SEN team should be included as defined. If there are changes made to the provision defined the Code or Practice requires AfC to specify why. There needs to be a good reason related to the child’s needs: the fact that the provision required is expensive, for example, is not a good reason.

In brief: All provision that is specified in professional reports requested by the SEN team must be included as described by the professional report defined.

030218 page 2

[Type here] 8. Ignoring advice submitted from private therapists or other professionals.

Where parents choose to submit advice from private professionals (i.e. they commission the advice themselves rather than it being requested by AfC) the advice of these professionals must be considered.

If the advice relating to needs and provision is disregarded, then AfC should say why they have departed from advice given by these professionals. Again, they are not entitled to ignore such advice merely because the support recommended is more costly, or more extensive and specific, than that suggested in LA reports, or because it comes from reports provided by parents.

In brief: Private advice must be considered and AfC must state why they disregard it (if they do) 9. Not defining provision to meet all needs.

The code of practice clearly states that there must be provision defined for every need. If you review the Provision (section F) and find that there are needs defined in Section B that do not have provision, then this should be rectified.

If the needs (in Section B) have not been specified, then you will not have the needs provided for (provision).

In brief: Section B (needs) should be exhaustive – not a summary

Confusion about Equipment and Therapies 10. Putting all equipment and physio provision in section G. Decisions on whether specialist equipment (walkers/standing frames/hoisting/toileting equipment) as well as Physio, OT and Speech and Language provision are “Educational Provision – Section F” must be decided on an individual basis. If the equipment or provision “educates or trains” the child or young person then it must be included in Section F of the plan even if it is delivered by a health professional.

Likewise, if medical provision is required because otherwise the child’s disability may prevent or hinder them from accessing or making use of educational facilities (e.g mobility aids, provision for epilepsy, diabetes, incontinence, allergies etc), it should be in section F. In brief: Equipment or provision that ‘educates or train, or allows education to be accessed’ the child or young person must be included in Section F

Confusion about Who is Doing What and By When 11. Not discussing/agreeing with the family or young person which professional advice needs to be obtained in order to draft the plan, or not requesting advice from key professionals (e.g. OT / SaLT).

Many families that we talk to seem to be utterly bemused about which information is being requested, who is writing it and why. We strongly recommend that the case worker agrees in writing (by email if possible), with the parents or young person, a list of all the individuals who will be asked to provide reports and who will be contacting them to ask for that advice. The transfer meeting or call is supposed to cover this – but it doesn’t always seem to happen. The Code of Practice has very clear guidelines on which advice must be sought, i.e advice and information from: • You • Medical Advice • An Educational Psychologist.

• Social Services.

• If relevant, specialist in visual or hearing impairment.

• Anyone else they think appropriate.

030218 page 3

[Type here] • •

Anyone you reasonably request they seek advice from.

For pupils in Year 9 and above, advice on preparation for adulthood and independent living.

Advice which may be appropriate and/or which parents may reasonably request includes advice from, for instance, speech and language and occupational therapy services and CAMHS if there are indications that your child has communication, motor or sensory problems, or difficulties such as anxiety, depression, anorexia and school refusal. AfC must obtain such advice irrespective of whether or not your child is already known to the relevant service; if they cannot arrange it in time via NHS sources, they must source it from independent providers.

However, they need not obtain such advice if you and they agree that current information is suitable and adequate to enable all your child’s difficulties to be fully described in any EHC Plan, and to ensure that detailed and specific provision for those difficulties can be set out in the Plan.

In brief: The SEN Team must agree with the family (ideally in writing) which professionals they will ask for reports.

12. Parents being told that the draft must be issued by a date in March (in order to meet the DofE deadline at the end of March).

Parents should be issued a draft plan once all the necessary advice has been obtained and the parent/young person’s views have been adequately taken into account. The DfE has made clear that no child or young person will lose support on 1st April as a result of the deadline. The important thing is the quality of the plan, not the deadline. If parents feel that the draft plan is not adequate then they may request a meeting with their case worker within the 15 day deadline – and normally an extension will be granted and a meeting arranged.

Relevant sections of SEND Code of Practice Paragraph 9.69 in the Code of Practice describes how provision to meet SEN (Section F) should be specified: • 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.

• Where health or social care provision educates or trains a child or young person, it must appear in this section.

• 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.

• The plan should specify any appropriate facilities and equipment, staffing arrangements and curriculum Paragraphs relating to specifying health or social care provision in Section F 9.73 Health or social care provision which educates or trains a child or young person must be treated as special educational provision and included in Section F of the EHC plan.

9.74 Decisions about whether health care provision or social care provision should be treated as special educational provision must be made on an individual basis. Speech and language therapy and other therapy provision can be regarded as either education or health care provision, or both.

It could therefore be included in an EHC plan as either educational or health provision.

030218 page 4