Discussion Forum

I am hoping to find out how other local authorities address this issues:

You have a child or young person who has been at X school but that school is clearly not suitable and they have not been attending. The LA agrees or Tribunal orders special school to be named as type in the EHCP but no specific setting is identified. As such the LA puts in s.19 provision to ensure the child or young person receives a suitable education while a specific school of the required type is identified. The options appear:

1. Child remains on roll of unsuitable and wrong type school named in EHCP. That school is not named in their ECHP but they are not taken off roll and technically the school still have oversight of the s.19 provision. This is unsatisfactory as the school they are on roll at does not meet the type in Section I and it is illogical that the unsuitable school retains responsibility for putting in suitable provision.

2. The child is off-rolled on the basis they are having suitable education other than at school awaiting the suitable school and has s.19 provision. This does not clearly fit into Regulation 8 of the Pupil Registration Regs 2006 ('PRR') unless the parent states to the school it is EOTAS. The PRR EOTAS is not EOTAS for the purposes of the EHCP and it really does not look like this lines up with CFA 2014. Is it possible to make this distinction in applying EOTAS?

3. If off-rolled and not specifically marked as EOTAS the LA would then list the child as CME which again appears illogical given the LA are providing education under s.19.

Any thoughts or different approaches?