Hi
Yes it has to go back to panel. You would need to do an early or emergency annual review and show that the pupils needs have changed are cannot be or are not being met by the current placement. It’s not always plain sailing to change in practice though.
2 examples from this year from me:
Pupil A, in ERS but with needs that would place him in a higher category than the ERS was designed for. Emergency annual review 1: Jan 2019. SEND office promised to investigate alternative placement. Emergency annual review 2: may 2019. Same outcome, no progress. Emergency annual review 3: October 2019, SEND officer suggested perm exclusion as way to move things on (illegally) – but as pupil was a risk to staff and other pupils this was done, pupil has had no school since (risk assessment showed home tuition was too high risk to tutors and suitable outside accommodation not available as church halls, Community centres etc not suitable for needs) and has put massive strain on mum as hurting behaviours are also seen at home – but will be starting in September at new placement (not the one mum asked for). In this case, the child was in the wrong place for far too long.
Pupil B, ERS, currently shielding on medical advice, some weeks after annual review mum phoned and said she felt her needs weren’t being met as during lockdown she’d tried to work with child, and “xx can’t do anything”, and special school would be better. SEND office agreed to take revised annual review to Ops panel but panel decided needs were being met adequately by current (much cheaper!) provision. In this case, I think that’s right and the issue is mum’s perceptions/ acceptance of the child’s needs. On the other hand the ERS is only KS1, and the child will need a special setting for KS2 next year anyway, so it’s a few thousand saved for one year of the rest of child’s school career. In the big scheme, peanuts.