ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Reference: d/016/2008
Gender: Male
Age: 15
Type of Reference: Content of CSP
1. Reference
The child’s mother (hereinafter “the Appellant”) lodged a reference dated 8th April 2008 under section 18(1) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (
2. Decision of the Tribunal
The Tribunal find in favour of the Appellant and require the Respondent, the Education Authority (EA) to make the amendments to the CSP referred to herewith, within four weeks of this written decision, all in terms of s19(4)(b) of the Act.
3. Preliminary Matters
This case in respect of the contents of the CSP was earlier conjoined with a case concerning a placing request for the child. Please refer to Decision D/017/2008. The cases were to be heard together. However, after discussion and agreement of the parties, the Tribunal decided to consider the issue of the contents of the CSP on the first day of the four days set down for a hearing of the conjoined cases. The Tribunal was thus able to issue a verbal decision in respect of the contents of the CSP on the morning of the second day of the conjoined hearing.
On the morning of the first day of the hearing the Tribunal was provided with several documents by both parties, clearly well after the case statement period had ended.
These were:-
i/ a document showing how the Appellant wished the CSP to read (on behalf of the Appellant in the contents case)
ii/ a psychologists report and three OFSTED reports (on behalf of the Appellant in the placing request case) and
iii/ a report by a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT), a report by another Speech and Language Therapist, a letter by Occupational Therapist and various OFSTED reports (on behalf of the Respondent in the placing request case.)
Parties sought to lodge these documents late. The parties were asked to state their position in relation to the documents that the other sought to lodge. Objection was taken by Counsel for the Respondent to the draft CSP which the Appellant sought to lodge in relation to the contents case only. No objection was made to the other documents being lodged late. The Tribunal had to consider whether to allow the late lodging of these documents.
Having had regard to Rule 34 of The Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2006, in respect of the papers, the late lodging of which the other party did not oppose, the Tribunal allowed those (Documents A235-270 and R138-191, all in relation to the placing request), being satisfied that, in all the circumstances it would be fair and just to do so.
Thereafter the Tribunal considered the submissions made in respect of the “proposed CSP”. For the Respondent, lodging of this was opposed on the basis that it introduced a whole raft of new proposals to the content of the CSP, about which no previous notice had been given to the Respondents and it was something which could have been lodged much earlier. On behalf of the Appellant, it was stated that the purpose of the document was to give guidance as to the changes that the Appellant wished to see. It was lodged late as the Appellant’s representative had had a chance to meet with her only the day before and it should be allowed as providing further specification of the Appellant’s case.
After considering the matter carefully the Tribunal decided the proposed CSP came too late in the day and could present difficulties to the Respondents and refused to allow it to be lodged late.
4. Summary of Evidence
The Tribunal considered the papers in the bundle which consisted of:
1. Copy reference to Additional Support Needs Tribunal for
2. The Respondent’s case statement and submissions,
3. The Appellant’s case statement and submissions,
4. The oral submissions made by both parties on 5th August 2008.
5. Findings in Fact
Please see Decision D/017/2008 for the Findings in Fact for this case.
6. Reasons for Decision
The Tribunal considered all of the evidence indicated above and the oral evidence of the Educational Psychologist. The Tribunal was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence available to it to reach a fair decision on the reference.
The submission on behalf of the Appellant was that she felt the CSP was inadequate. A report obtained in respect of the child from the school specified in the placing request had made a number of recommendations in respect of his processing skills and planning for these needed to be included in the CSP. The OT had highlighted sensory integration and fine motor skill difficulties. A79 referred to equipment that the child needs. The child had praxic difficulties that were also affecting his education. A report in the Appellant’s case statement stated that the child was at a higher risk of developing mental health problems. That was something that should be monitored.
The Appellant wished to see a reference to the child’s cognitive abilities in the “factors” section of the CSP. She wished further specification in the “Educational Objectives” section. In particular there should be reference to the child’s language difficulties as these affected every area of his life. Sensory difficulties were another area that should be mentioned in this section. In addition there should be reference to social and emotional aspects, independent living skills and independent travel, as well as transition from school to college or elsewhere.
The information in “Additional Support Required” should refer to teaching and other staff arrangements, extra time and scribes for exams, adult to pupil ratio, SALT doing a specialist programme and so on. In the section describing “Persons providing Additional Support” there should also be the addition of individuals such as social work, learning assistants, care staff and parents.
On behalf of the Respondent the Tribunal was asked to confirm the information currently in the CSP. Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the Act is a statute dealing with school education and is directed towards developing the fullest potential for a child at school. The CSP had to be seen in that context. Where the Act refers to whether additional support is “significant”, “significant” relates to the extent of the provision and not to the effect on a child.
The Tribunal was told that the duration of any support is an important factor as, if the duration is of little matter, then it does not need to be specified in the CSP e.g. Child and Adult Mental Health Services (CAMHS) stated in a report that they needed to have no input meantime. This meant that CAMHS would not be included in the CSP. In addition a high level of therapy over a short period of time would not be something that needed to be included in the CSP.
It was further submitted that it was professionals who should be making decisions in respect of CSPs and not parents who were not qualified to do so. From the evidence of the Area Principal Educational Psychologist, the only additional support being received by the child was SALT. It was submitted that OT was rarely considered an educational need in
In deciding matters the Tribunal, broadly speaking, preferred the submissions of Counsel for the Respondent. However, the Tribunal did consider that there was a lack of specification in two areas of the CSP (page T16) and decided to amend the CSP to deal with this in terms of s19 (4) (b) of the Act.
Accordingly the Tribunal decided to add a bullet point to the “Educational Objectives” column of the CSP which should state: “To develop and support his language comprehension, expressive language and word retrieval skills.” In addition the first word (“regular”) of the “Additional Support Required” column should be deleted.
13th October 2008
