Q:
Interim Provision
The YP has been out of school for two years and the LA have not provided any educational provision. The Tribunal has been adjourned for the third time and the LA are supposed to provide suitable interim provision in the meantime. The YP has ADHD and the LA are proposing online learning which he cannot engage in. His assessments and EHCP note he struggles to remain seated for longer than 10 minutes and cannot concentrate for more than 2-3 minutes. A practical course that allows for movement is recommended. The YP wants a construction course (14-16 years) with functional skills maths and English. A local learning provider have offered a place using their own funding for the YP up to the date of the Tribunal providing an interim measure for the YP. The parent would like to accept this but the LA have cited section 42 (5)
The parent is not however suggesting that they wish to electively home educate at any point - in fact quite the opposite. They want to use this as an interim measure up to Tribunal where the placement is to be defined as sections B F and I are disputed and under appeal. The LA proposal for online learning does not meet need or provide the current provision listed in the EHCP and to date the LA have failed to provide any provision at all since June 2022. If the parent sends the child to the construction course in the interim given that there is no provision in place from the LA making it clear that this is simply an interim arrangement just until Tribunal and not elective home education can the LA cute section 42(5). Please consider that they are failing under section 42(2)
A: SenseCheck
- 0 Yes
- 0 No
- 1 Other
- 09 Apr 2024
-
Other
Simple
Can't answer yes or no.:
Ms. Watson,
The situation appears rather chaotic. It's troubling that the young person (YP) seems to have been and continues to be disregarded.
You mentioned that the parent has appealed to the FtT and the hearing has been adjourned. However, it's unclear whether the Tribunal has made any order regarding interim provision, and if so, what it says. That said, please refrain from disclosing specifics of any such order, as offering legal advice is beyond our remit.
The age of the YP isn't clear, though it may be that they are a child, though this detail isn't crucial.
That being said, and speaking more broadly, perhaps the following options could be considered:
a) If the Local Authority (LA) is required to provide "suitable interim provision” and this isn't being fulfilled, perhaps the parent should email the Tribunal to highlight this deficiency. This could serve as an opportunity to clarify the situation, articulate why it's unsatisfactory, and underscore that the parent/YP isn't opting for home education.
b) Considering this matter will return to the Tribunal, what are the risks of accepting the cost free (to the parent) interim provision offered by the local provider, given that the parent can clearly articulate what has transpired when next before the Tribunal?
These options perhaps complement each other, and I trust the parents can evaluate whether they align with the specifics of their appeal.
One way to approach this matter maybe would be to prioritise what's best for the child/YP and avoid getting entangled in disputes with the LA if they seem unresponsive and unproductive and this results in inertia. It's hard to envision a Tribunal that wouldn't empathise with this approach.
That said, this is a very pragmatic approach, and it is accepted that others may offer different perspectives and, if they do, I look forward to reading them.
Best wishes
Sean Kennedy
Sean Kennedy
Talem Law
|
2 Comments