Derbyshire CC v EM and DM (SEN)  UKUT 240 (AAC) This case involved the special educational provision for two sisters with significant disabling conditions. The First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) had decided that as it had made provision for ‘education otherwise than in school’ (“EOTAS”) delivered at home under Section F of the sisters’ education, health and care plans (“EHC plans”), no school or other institution could be named in Section I of the EHC plans, and so left this section blank. The local authority (“LA”) appealed, arguing it was not entitled to do this. The Upper Tribunal (“UT”) confirmed the conclusion in East Sussex County Council v TW  UKUT 528 that a child’s home cannot be named in an EHC plan. However, the UT held that there is no absolute requirement that all EHC plans must specify a school or other institution (or type of either) in Section I. If the LA thinks that no school or other institution (or type of either) would be appropriate for the child, they do not have to name one in an EHC plan. If a child or young person will not be attending a school or institution at all, their EHC plan should clearly describe their special educational provision section F and section I should be left blank. This case emphasises that the law has always anticipated that some children may not be able to attend a school or institution, but that does not mean they cannot have an EHC plan and receive special educational provision. The full case report can be accessed here.