-
11.05 Can transport issues be relevant to choice of placement?
-
11.01 Can an LA be obliged to provide home to school transport?
-
09.30 But surely the LA/FTT can ask whether the requested mainstream placement is suitable/appropriate?
-
09.17 Can the LA/FTT ignore the parental preference?
-
09.14 In looking at the cost of a placement, does it make a difference if parents are prepared to pay the costs of transport?
-
09.15 Can the parental/young person request for a particular placement be refused simply because it will impact on other children/young people?
-
10.02 Can an LA just cease to maintain (i.e. terminate) an EHCP?
-
09.28 Are academies and free schools legally the same as maintained schools when it comes to SEN?
-
Characteristics of a setting
We have an LA who are trying to exclude anything that they deem describes a "setting" from section F provisions, claiming it can only go in Section I. We know this is not true and this is not what section I contains.
We also know that it's common to say e.g. needs a low-sensory environment or e.g. needs toileting facilities of a certain type.
But I can't find reference to this in the case law in the Noddy Guide and the LA just keep repeating it.
Kinds of things they want to exclude: sensory environment relating to classrooms and lunch facilities, type of exams and qualifications a school offers, multi-disciplinary teams (e.g. OT and SALT) holistically delivering to child's needs, and working on skill integration (ie theraputic special school ). All of these defined as needs in Section B.
There's lots of really clear reference to case law showing that health care or social care provision which educates or trains a child can be special educational provision in the Noddy guide (thank you!)
It seems to be a catch-22: we are trying to make provision absolutely specific and quantifiable, but LA are trying to exclude anything that "relates to a setting", so some specific items they will claim can't be in Section F. Is there any precedent here? -
09.24 Can an LA/FTT approach EA1996 s9 on the basis that any extra cost for a parental placement is “unreasonable”?