This is so depressing. I am not a SENCO. That was in a former life. I now help parents with appeals to Tribunal. I was a specialist member on the SEND Tribunal. Here are a few thoughts which might assist.
Firstly EHCPs must have provision which is detailed and specific and should normally be quantified in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise.
Provision must be specified for each and every need specified in Section B. It should be clear how the provision will support the achievement of the outcomes. Words such as ‘frequent’ ‘occasional’ ‘regular’ and ‘access’ are all unlawful . The parent should be in no doubt as to what is being delivered, how often, when, and by whom and this would include level of expertise/knowledge. The problem lies, in many cases, that EHCPs are no more that a narrative of what should be being provided. And why is this? Largely because when the final EHCP is issued parents are unaware (and indeed some schools) that these EHCPs can be appealed if they are not quantified or specific. For me it is unfortunate that the school cannot appeal especially on a refusal to carry out an EHCNA. I know both schools and LAs have serious budgetary difficulties. This said if the EHCP is quantified and specific you can approach your SLT and say you are lawfully required to deliver what is now clearly laid out. If for whatever reason this cannot be delivered the parent can appeal as follows.
Where the parent is concerned that the provision in the EHCP is not being delivered the parent, having following the LA complaints procedure, can then if still dissatisfied, lodge a complaint with the local government and social care ombudsman. The problem is however if the EHCP is vague this will compromise the outcome. If the parent does succeed the LA will have to remedy the situation which might include compensation for lost SEN hours of support. David