Bright Start: 1:1 Case Study

The system is a frustrating one, without a doubt. We know this, we are used to this, but we still find the tiresome failings of some Local Authorities manage to take our breath away.  

Recently I had the pleasure of supporting a family with their appeal. Their situation was that their son was settled into a specialist school already who were providing him with an exceptional level of support. Sadly, this level of support was above and beyond what was outlined as necessary provision within his EHCP. He needed 1:1. Despite the smaller class sizes and the nurturing, sensory aware environment of a specialist school he undoubtedly needed a full time 1:1 to support him throughout all aspects of his day to ensure he could follow the learning and, importantly, always access the learning.

Covid has been a turbulent and difficult time for many families, and this family was no exception, however with being placed in the impossible situation of having to home-school George through the pandemic they saw improvements with his attainment they previously had not thought possible.

  It was evidence that the 1:1 guiding support, the constant reassurance and re-directing of his wandering attention, was not only preferable but necessary for George to achieve his potential.

  As I mentioned previously, his school were exceptional in what they were able to provide for George and they quickly agreed to trial this 1:1 for a fixed period due to budgetary restrictions. Immediately, George flourished.

 Evidence of this had been presented to the LA and all professionals within George’s school were of the same opinion that this provision was entirely necessary for George, and without it he would simply be unable to engage with education effectively and potentially regress. Through the proper channels the school requested the additional funding to ensure they could continue to provide this full time 1:1 level of support that they had already put in place. The family requested that full time 1:1 support was written in to Section F of the EHCP, based on this evidence. Their request was rejected.

How can a family and the educational professionals working with the young person’s voices not be enough to be heard above the white noise of ‘panels’ and internal ‘policies’ within Local Authorities?

 Thankfully we were able to take the reins for the family and spearhead their appeal. I began compiling evidence from all the professionals and the family sought the advice of an independent EP; the unanimous support for the necessity of the 1:1 provision was deafening. However, sadly, it seemed it didn’t quite reach the Local Authority.

 Tirelessly, they continued opposing the appeal despite having zero evidence to counter our argument. Their argument hinged on a report from one of their Educational Psychologists who, upon first meeting George, completely agreed with the recommendations from the school that full time 1:1 support was indeed necessary to meet George’s complex needs. However, that same Educational Psychologist had miraculously taken a U-turn with her suggestions and within three months produced a renewed report which felt to us to have been the result of pressure from the Local Authority as it indicated there was no need for 1:1.

 Realistically their argument was weak and full of holes. They indicated in one of their statements that they agreed George required 20 hours of 1:1 support and were providing funding for it. Therefore, they could not disagree that there was a range of legitimate specialist educational needs which were the basis of the provision and the argument as to why it was necessary. They were, in essence, dragging this ordeal out for the family for the sake of a further 10 hours a week.

 For the Final Evidence submission, we submitted a well thought out, clear and concise argument that was bolstered by our knowledge of SEN law and the statutory requirements the Local Authority must adhere to. This, combined with the rest of the evidence, made for a watertight case. As a result, the Tribunal ordered the Local Authority to make our proposed amendments to the EHCP following the paper hearing. We had secured the right result for our family.

 That should be the end of it, surely? Sadly not. The Tribunal’s instruction gave the Local Authority five weeks from the date of the order to finalise the EHCP with the agreed amendments and issue it with the family. The provision had been granted by the Tribunal, the Local Authority were aware they now were instructed to include the specific timing of ‘at least 30 hours per week’ within George’s EHCP, but still they dragged their feet.

 The family got in contact to say they had not received the finalised EHCP and, worse than that, the Local Authority were explaining they were taking the decision to panel. Just to clarify, once a Tribunal has ordered something there is no further decision to be made—they have been instructed how to act. Because of their attempt to further thwart the course of justice we worked with the family to issue them with a pre-action letter. This should not have been necessary, to remind them of their duties and timeframes to legally abide by. However, it was, and it worked. Following on from that the family received the finalised EHCP with the correct amendments made so George can now receive his dedicated 1:1 support in school. A fantastic result, for a fantastic family.