When a school may not meet needs in an EHCP consultation

If a school believes it may not be able to meet the needs or provision in a draft EHC plan, it should not simply reply, "We refuse the placement." The school is responding to a consultation. The local authority makes the decision about which school to name.

The response should explain the concern against the statutory tests, supported by evidence and a record of the reasonable steps considered.

This article covers the general position in England. Placement disputes can be fact-specific, so seek specialist advice where necessary.

What the local authority must decide

Where a parent or young person requests a particular school, section 39 of the Children and Families Act 2014 sets out the authority's naming duty and exceptions.

The relevant questions include whether the school is unsuitable for the child or young person's age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs, or whether attendance would be incompatible with the efficient education of others or the efficient use of resources.

The school provides evidence. It does not veto the placement.

Reasons that are not enough on their own

A consultation response is weak if it relies only on statements such as:

• "The school is full."
• "We are over our published admission number."
• "We do not have enough funding."
• "We do not currently employ that specialist."
• "The child's behaviour would be too difficult."

These may describe a practical concern, but they do not automatically establish a statutory exception. The response must explain the resulting effect, the evidence for it and why reasonable steps would not prevent it.

Start with the individual plan

Read Sections B, F and K together.

For each material concern, identify:

1. the need in Section B
2. the supporting professional advice in Section K
3. the provision required by Section F
4. what the school can currently deliver
5. the adjustments or resources that might close the gap
6. the remaining impact if those steps were taken

Avoid arguments based only on diagnosis or on another pupil with a similar profile. The decision concerns this child or young person and this plan.

Show the reasonable steps considered

For mainstream placements, the law and Code place significant weight on reasonable steps. Depending on the facts, these might include:

• different grouping or timetabling
• staff training or specialist supervision
• environmental or sensory adjustments
• additional adult support
• phased transition arrangements
• assistive technology
• changes to break, lunch or movement arrangements
• support requested from the local authority or external services

For every relevant step, record:

• whether it has been tried
• what happened
• whether it could be implemented here
• what it would require
• why it would or would not resolve the identified problem

The stronger question is not "Can we deliver this today?" It is "Could this work after the reasonable steps available to the school and authority have been considered?"

Connect capacity and resources to evidence

If efficient use of resources is relevant, quantify the argument. Identify the actual staffing, space, equipment, training or specialist input required. Explain whether those resources could be shared, commissioned or adjusted, and what effect the proposal would have.

If efficient education of others is relevant, describe the anticipated effect specifically. Include the measures considered to prevent it. Avoid speculative or stigmatising language.

Structure the consultation response

A clear response can use this format:

1. Consultation details: child reference, school, draft version and deadline.
2. Evidence reviewed: plan sections, reports, visits and discussions.
3. School context: only facts relevant to the legal test.
4. Needs and provision analysis: one issue at a time, linked to Sections B, F and K.
5. Reasonable steps: tried, proposed and assessed.
6. Conclusion: the school's view against the statutory test.
7. Further information needed: gaps that prevent a reliable assessment.
8. Attachments: the evidence referred to in the response.

Offer a discussion with the authority where it may clarify provision, transition support or resources.

What if the school is named anyway?

If a school is named in a final EHC plan, section 43 requires it to admit the child or young person. Disagreement with the naming does not by itself remove that duty.

The local authority also has the duty under section 42 to secure the special educational provision specified in Section F.

If the placement or provision is not working, the appropriate response may include:

• immediate discussion with the local-authority SEN team
• an annual review or request for an early review
• updated professional advice
• formal escalation through the routes available to the school
• specialist legal advice where a public-law challenge is being considered

The school should not unilaterally ignore Section F or refuse admission.

Final checklist

• The correct statutory test is identified
• Concerns are linked to this child's plan
• Sections B, F and K are cross-checked
• Reasonable steps are evidenced
• Capacity claims are quantified
• Generic or stigmatising language is removed
• The conclusion belongs to the legal test
• Submission and attachments are retained

Unisen is being developed to help schools organise the plan, evidence and response reasoning in one consultation workflow.

Explore the school workflow.