- 29 Mar 2023
No. The requirement is that Section I specify the school the child “attends”: Regs2014 r12. This means the institution the CYP is “to be present at”: NN v Cheshire East Council (SEN)  UKUT 220 (AAC) #43. If attending for at least part of the time, the school or type of school must be specified in Section I; this includes where a CYP attends provision provided by a school as will a bespoke package outside a conventional classroom setting: NN #47(f).
If the child does not attend a school or other institution at all, section I should be left blank: Derbyshire CC v EM and DM  UKUT 240 (AAC) #15-24. Note that previous case law had come to a different view. It had been considered that where a “home programme” is identified (e.g. Lovaas) that should be described in section F (previously Part 3) and can also be described in section I (previously Part 4): Wandsworth v K  EWHC 1424 (Admin) #14. In M & M v West Sussex CC (SEN)  UKUT 347 (AAC) #68, the UT decided that there remained a requirement to specify a type of school in section I, which can be met by specifying the type of school which is the ultimate aim to become appropriate for the child; or where part of the overall package is at a school, that type of school. However, in Derbyshire the UT found that M & M is wrong on this point and that the duties in section 39(5) and section 40(2) on the LA to name an “appropriate” school do not arise where it has decided a child should have education otherwise than at school and therefore it would be inappropriate for the provision to be made at school.
What is specified in Section I must be strictly limited to the name and type of school or other educational institution. Any approved home tuition is not put into Section I: East Sussex CC v TW  UKUT 528 (AAC)#33. Anything specified in additional to the name and type of school is likely to be an error of law: NN #46, #47(g).
1 This is helpful