Sort

• 31 Jul 2024

• Other

  Simple

  Too fact specific, I can't generalise.:

  Chapter 9 of the Noddy Guide addresses in detail the processes that need to be followed when naming a placement in Section I. That said, it is the LA that is responsible for deciding the contents of an EHCP which means that they can draft or amend the document as they see fit, although the scenario you have asked about is not good practice. Should a parent or young person disagree with the contents of an EHCP, they should consider and possibly participate in mediation. If this is not successful, and they want to challenge the contents, they would appeal to the FtT, which would stand in the shoes of the LA.

  With regards to the issue of the year group, it is not clear if you are speaking about a child or young person, and whether it is a school or post-16 provision. In any event, the issue of ‘back classing’ (as it is often called) is addressed for children and young people in the Noddy Guide here:

   https://supportsendkids.org/question/1644848534723

  Hence, back classing is special educational provision and should be included in Section F. It follows that it will be addressing an identified educational need or needs in Section B.

  In the scenario you mentioned, this does not seem to be the case. Rather, the back classing seems to be based on placement availability, not on special educational needs.

  If this is the case, you may wish to challenge this with the LA and point out the contents of the Noddy Guide. In terms of the options for challenging this, you could consider making a formal complaint to the LA and, if necessary, going to The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. There may be other options which others may wish to suggest. If they do, I certainly look forward to reading them.

  Sean Kennedy

  

  Sean Kennedy
  Talem Law

0 This is helpful

|

1 Comment

Post