consultation<\/a> said families would retain their right to appeal aspects of an EHCP through tribunal, there are no questions directly referencing the changes to legal duties proposed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n55% rise in appeals<\/h3>\n\n\n\n In February public law and human rights firm Rook Irwin Sweeney launched a legal challenge on behalf of pupil Jessica Hayhurst, arguing that the consultation was \u201cunfair and irrational\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The letter initiating the judicial review claim said: \u201cThe proposal to shift the legal duty to secure provision in EHCPs to schools away from local authorities is mentioned in the briefest way possible, by way of a single bullet point in a lengthy list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe consultation does not include any questions inviting participants\u2019 views on these proposals and does not fully explain the implications of these changes, which are referenced only in the most cursory terms.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The number of SEND appeals rose by 55 per cent from less than 14,000 in 2022-23 to 21,000 in 2023-24. Last year, 95 per cent of the cases decided were in favour of parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lawyers’ SEND letter<\/h3>\n\n\n\n A letter sent by the government\u2019s legal department on March 18 said education secretary Bridget Phillipson was \u201cnot consulting\u201d on \u201cthe duty to deliver the educational offer in an EHCP being placed on schools, and as to the tribunal\u2019s powers on an appeal\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The legal letter said that there was \u201cno duty\u201d to consult on matters that had already been decided on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But, when approached by Schools Week<\/em>, the DfE said it was consulting \u201cacross the full set of proposals, seeking views on how the system delivers placements, how decisions are made, how they are challenged, and how we ensure families get the support they need\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe DfE added that the legal response referred to specific legal arguments raised in the letter before claim, but the department failed to explain why the language in the letter appears at odds with their wider response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
‘Urgent explanation’<\/h3>\n\n\n\n Ministers will be hosting events across the country to discuss reforms with parents, campaigners and experts, and no decisions are final until Parliament has considered the legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There will be five online sessions and eight in-person sessions for parents in April and May. There will also be four sector events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The DfE said in an updated release of the SEND consultation: “We welcome and will carefully consider comments and representations on all aspects of the consultation paper and subjects related to the proposed reforms, in addition to the specific consultation questions.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Polly Sweeney, representing those taking legal action, said: \u201cThe DfE\u2019s most recent public position appears to be directly at odds with what is said in the government\u2019s official legal response to our client\u2019s letter before claim. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe have asked for the secretary of state to provide an urgent explanation.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Lawyers ask for an ‘urgent explanation’ after conflicting messages on SEND tribunal<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":315335,"featured_media":243854,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[28,239,62],"post-theme":[2354],"class_list":["post-243891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-dfe","tag-education-policy","tag-send","post-theme-inclusion"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t