ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Reference: d/04/2008
Gender: Male
Age: 5
Type of Reference: Content of CSP
1. Reference:
The father (“the appellant”) lodged a reference dated December 2007 under section 18(1) and (3)(d)(i) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning)(
2. Decision of the Tribunal:
The authority is directed to amend the Coordinated Support Plan by 31 May 2008:
(1) To clarify the factor or factors from which the child’s additional support needs arise to ensure that they are set out accurately and appropriately, to include a clear statement of the barriers to learning;
(2) To include a statement that the individualised education programme prepared and reviewed for the child each term will show objectives which are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timed);
(3) To include specific reference to the need to plan for and adapt the child’s educational objectives and statements of additional support required, in order to meet the demands of the 5-14 Elaborated Curriculum as part of the transition planning process during the last term of session 2007/2008 and during the first term of primary 1, and to specify the persons providing that additional support which may include education staff, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and educational psychologists amongst others.
(4) To include an educational objective to take account of the need to help the child and his anticipated support adapt to the changing demands (educational and social) of his new educational environment.
(5) To remove “OT” from the column “persons providing the additional support” on page 5 of the plan;
(6) Regardless of the date of the amended CSP prepared in accordance with this decision, given the change of circumstances which will pertain, and the authority’s expressed view that it will be appropriate and necessary to review the CSP after the child has been attending primary school for one term (i.e. up to the October break 2008) the Tribunal recommends that the authority carry out a review in terms of section 10(3) of the Act and in doing so, to intimate the review proposal no later than 24 October 2008.
3. Preliminary Matters:
In March 2008 the convener issued directions for a pre-hearing conference call between the convener, the father and the authority solicitor. The call took place and the following directions were made:
(i) To allow the authority to substitute a witness for a named witness, all in terms of Rule 22(2) of the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2006.
(ii) After hearing submissions on the written application for additional documentation made by the father, the convener refused to make an order for the production of this documentation.
(iii) The father to provide further clarification of the issues in dispute to be available at the hearing.
4. Summary of Evidence:
The Tribunal considered the following evidence:
Oral evidence of:-
- The father (the appellant),
- The Psychologist,
- The Head Teacher of the Pre-School Centre where the child attends.
Information was given by the Education Officer.
The papers in the bundle which consisted of:-
- The reference,
- The father’s case statement,
- Documents from the authority,
- The authority case statement,
- The documents lodged by the father at the hearing consisting of a letter dated March 2008 and 6 subsequent pages.
5. Findings in Fact:
1. The child is aged five years. He presently attends a Pre-School Centre, his entry to primary school having been deferred for one year. He will commence primary school in August 2008, and will be placed in
2. The child’s barriers to learning arise from his delayed language development, in both expressive and receptive language; his level of play and social interaction skills, his difficulties with flexibility of thought, his low muscle tone, and his general level of development. He has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder. He attends a consultant Paediatrician twice a year.
3. The Pre-School Centre has a roll of 157 children, 60 of whom have additional support needs. The child has a full-time placement. He spends mornings in an integrated mainstream class of 26 children. There are additional staff to support him and those other children in that class with additional support needs. In the afternoons he is in a small group of 8 children, with one teacher and 2 nursery nurses. The Centre uses a 3 to 5 years curriculum. He has access to a specialist music teacher in a small group setting for one half hour per week. At times the teacher cannot attend. He has access to speech and language therapy. The child is not receiving direct Occupational Therapy at present. Staff have access to Occupational Therapy activity leaflets for use with the child.
4. The 3 to 5 curriculum provided at the Pre-School Centre is an integrated and collaborative approach. It is an appropriate curriculum for the child.
5. When the child moves to primary school the curriculum used will be an Elaborated 5 to 14 curriculum.
6. Because of the child’s additional support needs and developmental stage, it is neither possible nor appropriate at present to quantify specific objectives which may be achieved in a year. It is possible and appropriate to identify shorter term progression milestones which can and should be specified in the child’s individualised education programme.
7. The process of transition planning for the child’s move to primary school has begun. Careful coordination will be required to ensure that the child has appropriate support from education staff, the educational psychologist, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy as required.
8. The Consultant Paediatrician is a person who provides support for the child to achieve his educational objectives.
6. Reasons for decision
(1) The Tribunal considered all the evidence indicated above and were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence available to the Tribunal to reach a fair decision on the reference.
(2) The issue was the content of the Co-ordinated Support Plan (CSP) dated October 2007. The father disagreed about the information contained in the plan, namely the factors from which the child’s additional support needs arise; the educational objectives sought to be achieved taking account of those factors; the type of support required by the child; and the inclusion of the consultant paediatrician as a person providing support.
(3) Section 9(2) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning)(
A co-ordinated support plan … must contain –
(a) a statement of the education authority’s conclusions as to –
(i) the factor or factors from which the additional support needs of the child arise;
(ii) the educational objectives sought to be achieved taking account of that factor or factors;
(iii) the additional support required by the child to achieve those objectives;
(iv) the person by whom the support should be provided.
(4) Section 19(4) of the Act provides that, in a reference under section 18(3)(d)(i) of the Act, a Tribunal may
(a) confirm the decision; or
(b) require the education authority to make such amendment of the information as the Tribunal considers appropriate by such time as the Tribunal may require.
(5) The Tribunal noted the authority accepted that the section of the CSP dealing with the factor or factors from which the child’s additional support needs arose was not drafted clearly or appropriately. The Tribunal did not accept the submission of the authority solicitor that no amendment should be made. In accordance with section 9(2)(a)(i) it is necessary to amend the CSP to clarify the factors from which the child’s additional support needs arise to ensure that they are set out accurately and appropriately, to include a clear statement of the barriers to learning.
(6) The Tribunal noted the criticisms of the father that the Co-ordinated Support Plan did not set out clear, specific and measurable educational objectives, and agreed that it was not reflective of the guidance within the Code of Practice to which the authority was required to have regard in terms of section 27 of the Act. The position of the authority was that the integrated model used by the Pre-School Centre was not conducive to quantification, and in any event, given the child’s stage of development, it was not possible to set out specific objectives for a twelve month period.
(7) The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the authority that the existing 3 to 5 curriculum was appropriate for the child, and that as a pupil in the Pre-School Centre, he was receiving a pupil centred education which was suitable for him. They accepted the evidence of the psychologist that he fitted within both the 3 to 5 curriculum and the elaborated 5 to 14 curriculum, and from the evidence of the Head Teacher that there were elements of overlap between the two curricula. It was reasonable that whilst at the Pre-School Centre, he follow the 3 to 5 curriculum. They accepted the evidence of the Head Teacher that the integrated and collaborative system used was suitable for the child. This included in house speech therapy provision and, in the very particular setting, where there were two speech therapists on staff, providing a full-time presence, it was not unreasonable to fail to quantify the periods of speech therapy for the purposes of co-ordination.
(8) The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Head Teacher that the teachers and other staff trained and assisted by the in house speech therapy provision were able to set out short term plans, objectives and targets, and that these were set down in the child’s Individualised Education Programme (IEP). They accepted her evidence that she was trained in and understood the SMART analysis and that when setting out the IEP for the child each term she sought to have regard to this.
(9) The evidence of the Head Teacher, the Psychologist and the Education Officer was consistent that it was not possible at the child’s present stage to set out meaningful specific objectives which may be achieved in a year. It is possible and appropriate to identify shorter term progression milestones which can and should be specified in the child’s Individualised Education Programme.
(10) The CSP is a document with statutory effect, whereas an IEP is not. The authority did not dispute the father’s evidence of his understanding that they had issued guidelines for the preparation and content of IEP, and there were no formal policies in place.
(11) Given the evidence of the authority that it was able to specify and measure short-term attainable targets and objectives, but could not set down with any clarity any annual objectives, the Tribunal concluded that to have regard to the Code of Practice, the authority should include within the CSP a statement that that the Individualised Education Programme prepared and reviewed for the child each term will show objectives which are SMART.
(12) It was accepted that transition planning for the child’s move to primary school in August had recently begun. The Tribunal understood from the evidence and submissions of the authority, that the transition planning would proceed, and any supports considered necessary would be set up with the new school. The Tribunal noted that the authority considered that an appropriate time to review the CSP would be at the end of the first term of primary school, after the October break. This would be around the date of annual review, namely 24 October 2008.
(13) From an examination of all the evidence the Tribunal concluded that the CSP required to take into account the transition process, and the anticipated change in curriculum during the period of the CSP by setting out specific educational objectives, and specifying the support needed to achieve these. In the view of the Tribunal it was necessary to include a further educational objectives for the child to take account of the need to help the child and his anticipated support adapt to the changing demands (both educational and social) of his new educational environment and to specify the persons providing that additional support which may include education staff, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and educational psychologists amongst others. Further, in the view of the Tribunal, an important factor to take into account and include in the CSP is the need to plan for and adapt the child’s educational objectives and statements of additional support required, in order to meet the demands of the 5-14 Elaborated Curriculum as part of the transition planning process during the last term of the current session, and during the first term of primary 1.
(14) The Tribunal noted the authority’s expressed view that it will be appropriate and necessary to review the CSP after the child has been attending primary school for one term (i.e. up to the October break 2008). In terms of section 10(2) of the Act, an authority must carry out a review of a CSP on the expiry of 12 months beginning with the date on which the plan was prepared. It is not clear from the legislation whether the date of preparation of a CSP amended by decision of a Tribunal is treated as the date of the original CSP or the amended CSP. In the absence of detailed submissions on this matter, and having regard to their powers under section 19(4) the Tribunal is not prepared to make a ruling on this matter. However, to ensure that the child’s interests are met, and conform to the overriding objective in Rule 3 of the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for
