SEND Tribunal Working Document Help: What Parents Need to Check
The Working Document is one of the most important parts of an appeal about the contents of an Education, Health and Care Plan.
It records the amendments being sought, the changes the local authority will accept and the precise wording that remains for the SEND Tribunal to decide.
It is not simply an administrative version of the EHCP.
In a placement appeal, the Working Document should establish the chain between:
the special educational needs described in Section B;
the provision required in Section F; and
the school or type of placement required in Section I.
If those sections do not support one another, the placement case can become much harder to establish.
What is a SEND Tribunal Working Document?
The Working Document begins as a copy of the final EHCP under appeal.
The local authority will usually prepare the first version after receiving the Notice of Appeal. It should then be exchanged between the parties so that proposed additions, deletions and agreed changes can be recorded.
The purpose is to show the Tribunal:
the original EHCP wording;
amendments proposed by the parent or young person;
amendments proposed by the local authority;
wording agreed by both parties; and
the issues that still require a decision.
The Working Document should develop throughout the appeal as evidence is obtained and discussions progress.
It should not be left until the final days before the hearing.
Understanding the Working Document key
The Tribunal’s standard key distinguishes between original, agreed and disputed wording.
It normally uses:
normal text for the original EHCP;
underlining for additions agreed by both parties;
strikethrough for deletions agreed by both parties;
bold text for amendments proposed by the parent;
bold strikethrough for deletions proposed by the parent;
italic text for amendments proposed by the local authority; and
italic strikethrough for deletions proposed by the local authority.
The key should remain at the beginning of the document.
Do not accept a clean version of the EHCP until you are satisfied that every change shown as agreed has genuinely been agreed.
Why the Working Document matters in a placement appeal
Parents understandably focus on the school named in Section I.
However, the Tribunal must also understand why that placement is required.
For example, a parent may be seeking a small specialist school because their child requires:
a low-arousal learning environment;
small teaching groups;
a particular staff-to-pupil ratio;
specialist teaching throughout the school day;
an integrated therapeutic approach;
a modified or differentiated curriculum;
support with communication, regulation or sensory needs; or
staff with experience of a particular presentation.
Those requirements should not appear for the first time in an argument about Section I.
The child’s needs should be accurately described in Section B and the corresponding provision should be specified in Section F.
Section I should then identify a placement capable of delivering that provision.
A weak or vague Section F can allow the local authority to argue that its proposed school can meet the EHCP because the EHCP itself requires very little.
Check that Section B describes the actual needs
Section B should provide an accurate account of the child’s special educational needs.
It should not minimise significant difficulties or replace them with vague descriptions such as:
“can become anxious”;
“may need reassurance”;
“sometimes finds change difficult”; or
“benefits from adult support.”
Check the professional evidence.
Does it identify needs relating to communication, cognition, sensory processing, emotional regulation, executive functioning, anxiety, attendance or social interaction that are absent from the EHCP?
Does the wording describe the frequency, severity and educational effect of those needs?
The objective is not to make Section B as negative as possible. It is to ensure that the plan accurately describes the needs for which provision must be made.
Check that Section F answers Section B
Every significant need described in Section B should lead to identifiable provision in Section F.
Provision should be sufficiently clear for a school, parent and local authority to understand what must actually be delivered.
Be cautious about wording such as:
“access to”;
“opportunities for”;
“regular support”;
“as required”;
“where appropriate”;
“small-group work”;
“adult support when needed”; or
“input from appropriately trained staff.”
Ask:
What will be delivered?
Who will deliver it?
How frequently will it happen?
For how long?
Individually or in a group?
What training or expertise is required?
How will its effectiveness be reviewed?
If the provision cannot be identified or measured, it may be difficult to establish whether a proposed placement can deliver it.
Refer proposed amendments to the evidence
Where wording comes from written evidence, include the relevant bundle-page reference alongside the amendment.
The reference should allow the local authority and Tribunal to find the supporting recommendation without searching through the entire bundle.
Do not add every sentence from every professional report.
Use the evidence to propose clear EHCP wording that:
describes the child’s current needs;
identifies the provision required;
removes ambiguity;
resolves contradictions; and
supports the educational outcome being sought.
The strongest amendment is not necessarily the longest. It is the amendment that is precise, relevant and supported by evidence.
Do not lose track of agreed wording
As versions are exchanged, check whether the local authority has:
accepted an amendment completely;
accepted only part of it;
substituted different wording;
moved wording into another section;
deleted an earlier concession; or
marked disputed wording as agreed.
Maintain one master version and use a clear filename for every exchange.
For example:
Working Document V1 – LA;
Working Document V2 – Parent;
Working Document V3 – LA; and
Working Document V4 – Parent.
Avoid circulating several differently edited copies at the same time.
A Section I appeal may also require changes to Sections B and F
Sometimes an appeal begins as a challenge to Section I alone.
As the case develops, it becomes clear that the existing descriptions of needs and provision are not strong enough to support the placement being requested.
Do not assume that adding B and F amendments to the Working Document automatically expands the Tribunal appeal.
It may be necessary to apply to change the appeal using Form SEND7 and obtain the Tribunal’s permission. This should be addressed as early as possible rather than shortly before the hearing.
The Working Document cannot safely be used as a substitute for checking what the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide.
Common Working Document failures
Problems I regularly look for include:
amendments with no evidential support;
vague provision that cannot be measured;
Section B needs with no corresponding Section F provision;
a placement argument that is inconsistent with the EHCP wording;
important deletions being overlooked;
parental wording being marked as agreed when it remains disputed;
several competing versions circulating;
bundle references being omitted or becoming inaccurate;
attempts to introduce issues that are not within the registered appeal; and
negotiations being left until immediately before the hearing.
The Working Document should make the remaining dispute clearer—not create another dispute about what each party is proposing.
When must the Working Document be completed?
Always follow the dates in the Tribunal’s case directions.
Current Tribunal guidance says that the final Working Document should normally reach the Tribunal at least ten working days before the final hearing.
There is no dedicated time at the hearing for the parties to negotiate every outstanding amendment.
If wording changes after the submission deadline, the updated version should be sent to the Tribunal and the other party in accordance with the directions.
What happens if wording is agreed?
Agreed wording should be clearly recorded.
Agreement on parts of Sections B or F does not necessarily resolve the placement dispute. It may instead narrow the issues the Tribunal needs to decide.
Sometimes a carefully prepared Working Document exposes that the local authority’s proposed placement cannot deliver the provision it has now agreed the child requires.
In other cases, the parties agree enough of the plan for the remaining placement issue to be resolved without a final hearing.
The purpose is not disagreement for its own sake. It is to secure an EHCP that accurately describes the child and can work in practice.
Is your Working Document becoming difficult to manage?
If your appeal is registered and the Working Document process has begun, I can review:
the final EHCP;
the current Working Document;
the local authority’s response;
the evidence supporting each amendment;
what has genuinely been agreed;
what should remain disputed; and
whether Sections B, F and I support the placement being sought.
My Working Document service includes preparation of the amendments, evidence references, review of the local authority’s wording and negotiation of the remaining issues.