ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Reference: d/12/2006
Gender: Male
Age: 15
Type of Reference: Content of CSP
1. Reference:
The mother (“the appellant”) lodged a reference under section 18 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (
2. Decision of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal requires the authority to make amendment of the information contained in the CSP for the child and to make such amendment within four weeks of this written decision all in terms of section 19 (4) (b) of the Act.
The Tribunal considers it appropriate that the authority make amendments to the CSP to:
1. include reference to the child’s family circumstances in the section headed “Factors Giving Rise to Additional Support Needs”;
2. in the section headed “Learning Plan”;
a) include reference, in the subsection headed “Educational Objectives”, to the authority’s Education Services Support Plan
b) include reference, in the subsection headed “Additional Support Required”
i) to the additional support which is provided by Education Services to meet the Educational Objectives listed in the CSP
ii) to the additional support which is provided by the Social Worker to meet the Educational Objectives listed in the CSP and quantification of that additional support in terms of frequency of meetings with the child
iii) to the quantification and detailing of the additional support provided by a Support Worker currently listed in the subsection headed “Persons Providing Additional Support”;
- include reference, in the subsection headed “Persons Providing Additional Support to the Education Services” staff members providing the additional support detailed at 2 b. (i) above;
3. expand the views of the appellant, as expressed at the meeting held on September 2006, in the section headed “Parental Comment”;
4. include the child’s views in the section headed “Child’s/Young Person’s Comments, whose views should be obtained having particular reference to page 127 of the Supporting Children’s Learning Code of Practice (“the Code”) which provides: “ The views, if any, of the child or young person on any aspect of the co-ordinated support plan process as well as the plan itself should be recorded here.”
3. Preliminary Matters:
Three preliminary issues arose prior to the Tribunal. Those were:
1. The appellant, through her representative, made a request for the Secretary to issue a citation to a Senior Occupational Therapist. The Tribunal directed the Secretary to issue such a citation and the Occupational Therapist attended to give evidence.
2. The authority wrote to the Tribunal Administration seeking the postponement of the hearing as it fell within the half term holiday period. Following a request for further information, it became clear that the authority’s representative and the authority’s witnesses were able to attend on 19th February 2007 and, in those circumstances, the postponement request was not granted.
3. The appellant, through her representative, sought the provision of an extra room by the Tribunal Administration for the cited witness. The reason for doing so was that the appellant’s representative was anxious that confidential discussions between her and the appellant would be inhibited by the presence in the appellant’s room of the witness. After careful deliberation it was determined that the provision of a further room was unnecessary owning to the existing facilities at the hearing venue and having regard to the expense of such provision.
The following preliminary issues arose on the morning of the hearing:
1. The Tribunal ascertained that the child’s father, has full parental responsibilities and rights and was aware of the hearing but did not wish to be present.
2. The Tribunal ascertained that mediation has not been offered in the particular circumstances of this case. The authority was seeking guidance on the inclusion of certain information in the CSP as the child’s was one of the first CSPs the authority had written. For the same reasons, the Tribunal ascertained that there was no scope for agreement being reached between the parties without the need for an oral hearing before the Tribunal.
3. The tribunal indicated that its preliminary view was that it was appropriate for the appellant to present her case first and invited the parties to indicate whether that had any objection to that proposed course of action. The parties had no such objection.
4. Summary of Evidence:
The Tribunal considered a substantial bundle of evidence containing, amongst other documents;
- Appellant’s statement
- Authority Case statement
- Occupational Therapy Report dated October 2006
- Call Centre Assessment Report dated January 2007
- Letter from Speech and Language Therapist dated January 2007
- Section 23 Children with Disabilities Assessment dated September 2006
- Local Authority Education Services Support Plan issued October 2006
- Correspondence between the authority and the appellant
- Correspondence between the authority and various agencies
- Education review reports
In addition, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the witnesses who attended, heard from the appellant directly and heard the submissions of the appellant’s representative and the authority’s representative.
5. Findings in Fact:
1. The child is a fifteen year old boy, born in December 1991, who resides with his mother, step-father and siblings. The house is a “tied” house but entitlement is now at an end. The authority’s Housing department is attempting to locate suitable accommodation for the family in the area. To date no suitable accommodation has been identified.
2. The child attends a primary (?, he is 15) school in the area which is operated by the authority. The school provides education for children with additional support needs and is a special school.
3. The child has Tourettes Syndrome with behavioural difficulties. He displays autistic features and has moderate/severe general developmental delay. He suffers from a muscular weakness disorder.
4. The child’s brother has additional support needs. His behaviour has an impact on the child and his ability to remain calm in certain situations. In addition, another brother has recently been excluded from school. The children’s additional support needs and the size of the family make it difficult for the appellant to take part in community activities with the children. As a result the child and the rest of his family are isolated. The additional support currently provided by Social Work Services is assisting the child in accessing community activities. The child sees his support worker as a friend and has responded well to the five hours a week provision currently offered.
5. Respite is very important to the appellant. Residential respite was offered by the authority to the appellant at a hearing of the Tribunal on a previous reference. Following the hearing, the appellant requested an opportunity to visit the location at which the respite was offered. She was informed by those operating the facility that they would be unable to offer her weekend respite. Through no fault on her part, the appellant was unable to visit the respite provision and the offer was withdrawn. Other providers of respite, who are also unable to provide respite at the weekends, have been discussed between the appellant and the authority’s Social Work Services. The appellant has been unable to visit the discussed providers as she does not have contact details for them. Respite which is provided during the week and in school term time would require to be close to their home to enable minimal disruption to the child’s established routine.
6. The child’s behaviour is difficult to manage and control at times. He has outbursts which can result in periods of very difficult behaviour. The school do not have a specific Behaviour Management Plan for the child. The child is not on the caseload of the recently appointed Behaviour Support Teacher. The school have identified and assisted the child to identify triggers for his behaviour. He would benefit from consistent handling, in terms of his behaviour, by his school, Social Work Services and at home. That could be achieved by greater discussion between the school, his Social Worker and the appellant.
7. The child is at the start of transition from child services to adult services. As part of that transition, the school are eager for the child to attend the local College for one day each week initially, commencing at the start of the school session in August 2007. The child will remain looked after by the Children with Disability Social Work team until he is at least eighteen years old.
8. The child requires additional support to enable him to develop self care skills, skills for independent living and greater independence.
9. The child is sufficiently mature to have a view on matters affecting his life and day to day activities. He is able to express such views and has demonstrated his ability to do so to his Social Worker, an Occupational Therapist and his family.
10. The child would benefit from Occupational Therapy support which would improve his functional skills. The additional support needs which arise from his difficulties across several skills areas will be with him forever. However, he has the potential to improve his functioning if appropriate support is provided. The specific occupational therapy support would be delivered by an Occupational Therapist and indirectly by the Occupational Therapist providing advice and guidance to teaching staff, Social Work staff and the child’s family.
11. The child would benefit from Information Technology resources in school. Some of the resources recommended for him in a Call Centre Assessment report dated January 2007 have already been ordered by the school.
12. The child would benefit from Speech and Language Therapy in the form of exploring the use of symbols to assist him in his emotional communication. Such therapy may be provided both directly and indirectly and would require to be used consistently across Education, Social Work and in the family home to maximise the benefit he would derive therefrom.
13. The CSP was written prior to receipt of various assessments requested by the appellant in relation to the child. Those assessments were requested in her letter of 14 June 2006 to the authority. The assessments requested and their up to date status is as follows:
- Educational Psychology Assessment – still to be completed by the Doctor. In order to ensure coherence, the Doctor is completing the assessment in conjunction with the clinical psychologist and a consultant neurologist. The report is likely to be available around the end of March or the beginning of April.
- Speech and Language Therapy Assessment – a brief assessment was undertaken prior to the Therapist’s departure on maternity leave. A locum Speech and Language Therapist will provide the child with the therapy which has been recommended. Further ongoing assessment may be required.
- Occupational Therapy Assessment – an assessment has been carried out and it has been identified that the child would benefit from appropriate support. The nature, frequency and length of any therapy have not yet been identified.
- Clinical Psychology Assessment – this assessment is underway. The appellant has attended one appointment and further appointments will be fixed.
- Information Communication technology – a Call Centre Assessment report has been produced and the recommendations are being taken forward by the school.
- Ophthalmology Assessment – this was requested by the authority but as the child had no reported difficulties it was not progressed. However an Orthoptist visited the school in January 2007 and saw the child as well as a number of other children. The appellant was not advised of the visit. The Orthoptist was of the view that the child may benefit from differentiation in screen colour to assist him in reading e.g. white type on blue background may be better for him. This may require further investigation through the child’s GP and a further referral.
6. Reasons for decision:
The Tribunal considered all the evidence indicated above.
The Tribunal is concerned that the child’s views were not recorded in the CSP and heard from all witnesses that the child was able to form a view and express it. The Tribunal is also concerned that the appellant’s views were recorded in very short compass. She was able to tell the Tribunal what her views had been at the time of the CSP meeting and it was considered that those views should be incorporated.
The Tribunal considers that the child’s complex family circumstances do contribute to his difficulties and impact on his ability to benefit from school education where they restrict his ability to continue that education in his home and his community. This is especially so where his educational objectives include development of independent living skills which can only be developed through practice in the home and in his community.
The Tribunal is concerned that the role of the educational and school staff in meeting the educational objectives in the CSP is not mentioned in the CSP and in addition that there was no reference to the Education Services Support Plan within the CSP. While duplication is to be avoided, the spirit of the Act is to enable all services providing co-ordinated support to a child to identify the aims and objectives and see easily and clearly what other agencies are providing. This ensures joined up provision and avoids duplication or inconsistency. By including reference in the CSP to other planning documents which are in existence the spirit of the Act is fulfilled. The Education Services Support Plan is one such planning document.
Having regard to the terms of the Code, the Tribunal is of the view that the educational objectives which should be listed in the CSP are those which require the input of an agency other than education. However, the additional support provided by education to meet those objectives should be detailed in the CSP together with quantification and identification of the provider e.g. class teacher or learning support teacher.
In the child’s case, the Tribunal heard from the Head teacher of the child’s school that the school was providing additional support which mirrored and complemented that provided by Social Work Services. That should be detailed in his CSP.
The child’s Social Worker told the Tribunal that her work with the child, at least in part, is consistent with the educational objectives. In those circumstances, the nature of the work with him ought to be detailed together with quantification thereof.
The appellant, through her representative’s submissions, sought amendment of the CSP to reflect conclusions drawn by her regarding the assessments which were requested by her in June 2006. Reference is made to finding in fact 13 above.
Owing to the nature of the progress of the above assignments, and the limited information available to the Tribunal on recommendations made by the professionals who are carrying out those assessments, the Tribunal were unable to form a view as to what, if any, outcomes and recommendations should be included in the CSP. The Tribunal could make no determination as to frequency of such support. An early review of the CSP will be required once all of the requested assessments have resulted in reports and recommendations. The Tribunal has no power to direct the authority to hold such an early review but it appears to be a matter of common sense and reasonableness that the conclusions and recommendations of any reports and incorporated into the CSP where required. The Tribunal understood the authority’s representative to indicate that such an early review would take place on receipt of all the relevant information. For the avoidance of doubt, it appears to the Tribunal to be sensible for such a review to take place once all of the reports are available and not on a piecemeal basis.
