Educational Psychology report amendments

Thank you for your response to FOI reference 15396842.

Please provide the following additional recorded information.

1) Educational Psychology report amendments

Please provide copies of any recorded information showing amendments requested to EP advice following QA or review, including:

a) anonymised examples of EP advice returned for amendment

b) tracked-change versions of EP advice where amendments were requested

c) written feedback provided to EPs requesting amendments

2) Role of SEND Caseworkers

Please provide any documents, guidance, emails, or internal instructions that describe:

a) the purpose of the SEND Caseworker 'secondary review and sense check'

b) the circumstances in which SEND Caseworkers may request amendments to EP advice

c) whether SEND Caseworkers can request changes to descriptions of need, provision, or outcomes.

3) QA decision records

Please provide any records or logs showing:

a) how often EP reports are returned for amendment

b) the reasons recorded for those amendments.

4) EP independence

Please provide any internal guidance addressing the independence of professional advice under:

* Children and Families Act 2014

* SEND Code of Practice paragraph 9.51.

If the requested information is held within emails, case management systems, or internal messaging systems, please include those records.

1a-b) After careful consideration, we are providing the following response in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR):

• Recorded Information Showing Amendments

• The local authority holds records of feedback and amendments requested to EP reports; however, these contain personal data relating to individual pupils and staff. Under Section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data), we are obliged to withhold information that would identify individuals.

• Anonymised Examples of EP Advice Returned for Amendment We are unable to provide the requested information. Although the request asks for “anonymised” examples, the content of EP reports inherently contains sensitive personal data about pupils, families, and, in some cases, EP staff.

Even with removal of names or identifiers, there remains a risk that individuals could be indirectly identified through the context, descriptions, or combination of details included in the reports.

Under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018, the authority must ensure that the release of personal data does not place individuals at risk of identification. As such, providing examples, even anonymise, would breach the data protection principles of confidentiality and privacy.

• Tracked-Change Versions of EP Advice Tracked-change versions of EP reports are considered internal working documents and also contain personal data. Therefore, these cannot be released in full.

c) Written Feedback Provided to EPs Requesting Amendments Written feedback provided to EPs is generally of an internal professional nature and often references individual pupils. Providing this information in its original form would risk identification of pupils or staff. Examples of written feedback:

• Thank you for submitting your advice. Following the Local Authority’s quality assurance process.

We have reviewed the document and found that it does not fully meet the LA’s standards in its current form. We value your expertise and would like to work collaboratively to refine the advice.

I can offer support in aligning it with LA expectations, including guidance on phrasing outcomes, specifying targeted provision. Therefore, we have provided suggested amendments for your review within the advice. Please let us know if we can help further.

• Thank you for the comprehensive advice provided for XX. Would it be possible to include some additional activities, resources, or practical strategies within the targeted provision? XX's needs come across as quite complex, but the provision appears limited. We would be happy to discuss this further if helpful.

• We have reviewed the report and identified that the targeted provision would benefit from some further development. In particular, there are a small number of identified needs that would benefit from more clearly specified targeted provision. We have suggested some additions and refinements to support this and to ensure alignment between needs and provision.

• The 16-week panel asked me to pass on their compliments regarding your advice. They commented that they are always well presented and provide a comprehensive and holistic overview of the CYP. They are thorough, balanced, and easy to follow.

• Thank you for this advice which offers a clear, cohesive overview of XX strengths and needs, with a strong thread running throughout. It’s a strong piece of work, and we appreciate how you’ve triangulated information from his current EHCP with your own assessment findings, giving a clear picture of XX. We are working closely with EPs to ensure alignment, consistency, and confidence in maintaining high standards.

Section B – Description of Need:

Ensure the impact of the child’s needs on their engagement with learning is clearly articulated, and that this section identifies the underlying need itself rather than describing observations or outlining the support required.

Section E – SMART Outcomes: Focus on creating outcomes that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.

Section F – Provision:

Make the provision specific, detailed, and quantifiable to clearly demonstrate the support being offered.

Avoid using the terms ‘access to’ ‘opportunities for’ ‘requires’ ‘needs’ ‘would benefit from’ as they are not legally enforceable and describe intention rather than action. We hope you find these comments helpful as they are intended to add value to your advice.

Overall, this is excellent work, so keep it up!

2a) SEND Caseworkers carry out a secondary review of EP advice to ensure that reports are:

• Clear, consistent, and in line with statutory requirements

• Factually accurate and free from administrative or procedural errors

• Written in a way that supports effective decision-making for Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plans This review is intended as a quality assurance step and is not a clinical assessment.

The SEND Caseworker’s role is to ensure clarity, consistency, and compliance, rather than to provide professional EP input.

b) SEND Caseworkers may request amendments when:

• Reports contain factual inaccuracies (e.g., errors in pupil details, dates, or procedural information) • Reports are unclear, ambiguous, or could lead to misinterpretation in the context of an EHC plan

•Reports omit essential information required for statutory processes or local authority procedures Requests for amendment are therefore focused on clarity, accuracy, and completeness, not on altering the professional judgement of the EP.

c) SEND Caseworkers cannot request changes to the professional evaluation or clinical opinions of EPs regarding a pupil’s needs, recommended provision, or outcomes.

Any such elements of the report reflect the professional judgement of the EP and remain the EP’s responsibility. Requests for amendment are limited to correcting factual or procedural elements and improving clarity.

3a) In January 2026, 20% of EP advice was returned to the EP with comments for their review.

b) Common themes:

• Broad and Primary Need not included Reports do not consistently identify or clearly state the child or young person’s (CYP’s) broad area of need and primary need, in line with statutory expectations. This can limit clarity for decision-making and provision planning.

• CYP views not included The voice of the child or young person is not always evident. Reports should consistently reflect CYP views, wishes, and feelings, ensuring a person-centred approach and compliance with statutory guidance.

• Evidence of diagnosis not stated Where a diagnosis is referenced, supporting evidence or the source of this information is not always clearly documented. Lack of triangulation Information is not always triangulated across multiple sources (e.g. assessment, observation, school reports, parent views). This can weaken the robustness and defensibility of conclusions and recommendations.

• Outcomes not SMART Outcomes are sometimes too broad or lack clear measures or timescales. All outcomes should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound to support effective monitoring and review.

• Needs described as provision There are instances where needs are written in a way that describes the support required rather than the underlying difficulty, which can reduce clarity in distinguishing assessment from intervention.

• Provision described as needs Conversely, some sections labelled as needs include descriptions of support or strategies, rather than clearly outlining the CYP’s difficulties.

• Provision is not specific or quantified Provision is not always detailed in terms of type, frequency, duration, and who will deliver it. This can make implementation and accountability difficult and may not meet statutory requirements.

4) Please find attached documents

Should you require the attachments mentioned above please contact customerinformationservice@lincolnshire.gov.uk with the below reference number and these can be provided.