- Rewards 21
Questions [2]
Questions they have asked
-
Would ‘broad and balanced curriculum’ in section F mean my son has access to the full curriculum
We have EOTIS Section F states for tutoring included teaching in core education curriculum. He would be in year 7, my concern here is that it’s limited to maths, English and science. He is pda and we have already identified learning needs to be around his interests the one thing he has always continued to access is computing (working towards the curriculum) and cooking. I put in a PB request for computing but “not reasonable required under section F” I will be appealing but I’m just wondering what core curriculum needs to be reworded to so he has access to the full curriculum. Additional where the EP recommendations that were tailored to my son included the use of examples, the LA have stated these are examples so cooking is mentioned twice under learning provision and again under sensory but it won’t be included as “not reasonably required under section F”
-
Can I request the EP as an expert witness in my EHCP appeal, or could this backfire?
Our Educational Psychologist (a 2nd-year trainee) wrote a vague Section F provision with many examples rather than specific, quantified provisions. I have emailed three times requesting that it be made legally compliant, but the response I received stated:
"EP reports are written with the intention of enabling education staff to plan and deliver a personalised curriculum within a school or other educational setting. The additional examples that are included within advice help educators to incorporate recommendations/approaches into their lesson planning without limiting their creativity and flexibility, allowing staff to interpret the essence of the recommendation and plan to best effect."
I assume this aligns with LA policy, but my concern is that the vagueness makes the provision unenforceable. My son has an EOTAS package (recently agreed in final/nothing in place), and the LA is only organising tuition for the core curriculum. This means the examples listed in the EP report linking learning to interest (especially computing, which he accesses privately and consistently) are not included in his provision.
I agree with the essence of what she has written within F but due to the lack of detail I am appealing Sections B and F, and I’m wondering whether I should request the EP as an expert witness to clarify her recommendations—or whether this could backfire if she aligns with the LA's stance.
Answers [0]
Questions they have answered