ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

 

 

Reference:              d/03/2008

 

Gender:                   Female

 

Age:                        16

 

Type of Reference: Content of CSP

 

 

 

 

 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Please note that Appendixes A and B have not been included in the anonymised version of the decision as they contain highly personal information which could not be edited.

 

 

 

1. Reference:

 

The mother (“the appellant”) has referred to the Tribunal information contained in the co-ordinated support plan prepared by the Education Authority (“the authority”) for her daughter (“the child”). The reference is under section 18 (3) (d) (i) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the Act”).

 

This was the second of two references, which were lodged by the appellant on the same day.

 

At the conclusion of a hearing held in January 2008, the convener ordered that the first reference be struck out, i.e. dismissed, on the ground that the reference was not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

 

 

2. Decision of the Tribunal:

 

 

The Tribunal considers it appropriate that the authority make amendments to the co-ordinated support plan.

 

The amendments which the Tribunal considers it appropriate should be made are incorporated in the document set out in Appendix B.

 

The Tribunal therefore requires the authority to amend the information contained within the said co-ordinated support plan accordingly; and to do so within a period of two weeks from the date on which this decision is issued to parties.

 

 

 

 

3. Preliminary Matters:

 

 

As explained above, this was the second of two references lodged by the appellant on the same day. The appellant lodged a statement of case and other papers in both references at the same time, without providing any clear indication as to which reference they related to. Accordingly, some papers of relevance to one reference appeared in the bundle relating to the other. One such document, on which the appellant placed particular reliance was a letter included with the papers for the first reference. Parties had no objection to papers in either bundle being regarded as evidence before the hearing.

 

At the start of the first day of the hearing in January 2008, the Tribunal agreed to allow further documents for the appellant to be lodged. In the course of the hearing that day the Tribunal agreed to receive an additional document, “the appellant’s preferred version.” On the third day of the hearing the Tribunal agreed to receive a further document, “the authority’s revised version.” When the hearing resumed in February 2008 the Tribunal had before it another document, “the authority’s final revised version.” On that date, the Tribunal agreed to allow both parties to lodge further documents.

 

 

4. Summary of Evidence:

 

The Tribunal considered a substantial bundle of evidence comprising a number of documents which included case statements lodged by both parties. The Tribunal also considered the further documents referred to in the paragraph headed “Preliminary Matters”.

 

The following persons gave oral evidence: the social worker; the appellant; and the Head Teacher of the child’s school. 

 

 

5. Findings in Fact:

 

 

1. The child was born in October 1992. Her mother is the appellant. She and the appellant live together in Aberdeen. She has virtually no contact with her father.

 

2. The appellant is the child’s sole carer. The appellant has no support networks and has had virtually no respite other than that recently arranged for her by a social worker (provided by agencies in the area). It is uncertain to what extent, if any, that support will continue to be available.

 

3. The child has moderate learning difficulties bordering on severe learning difficulties. She has a history of seizure disorder, although she has not recently suffered fits. She is diagnosed as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, for which she is prescribed Ritalin, and features of an Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

 

4. The child attends a local authority special school. Her reading age is less than six years. She has significant language difficulties. She is currently working towards a range of S.Q.A. units at Access level 1 or 2.

 

5. It is difficult for the child to express herself and understand what others are saying to her. She has limited understanding of other people’s feelings and lacks the skills needed to solve problems with which she is confronted. Her self care skills are limited and she requires constant monitoring.

 

6. The child finds it particularly difficult to form or maintain any kind of relationship with youngsters of her own age.

 

7. Her behaviour, in and out of school, is frequently anxious, challenging, or more than challenging, and angry. She has been excluded from school from time to time. At home, she has oppositional outbursts that can last for hours. She has sometimes been physically violent to the appellant. She refuses to sleep alone.

 

8. The child dislikes school. She was absent from school for a lengthy period during 2007. Relationships between the school and the appellant are not good.

 

9. In endeavours to afford the appellant some respite, and to enable some of the child’s difficulties to be addressed, the child’s social worker arranged for support from agencies and specific projects in the area.

 

10. Despite her difficulties, the child is often lively, happy, friendly and co-operative. She can and does relate positively to those she knows well and is helpful and supportive to younger children. She enjoys swimming.

 

11. In April 2007 the appellant formally requested the authority to assess her daughter for a co-ordinated support plan

 

12. In October 2007 the authority issued a final co-ordinated support plan for the child.

 

13. In April 2007 the appellant made a request to the authority to place the child in a private school.

 

14. The appellant’s placing request was refused on in June 2007.  She appealed to the authority’s Education Appeals Committee. In August 2007 they intimated their decision to confirm the authority’s refusal of the appellant’s placing request. The appellant appealed that decision to the sheriff. The appeal to the sheriff has not yet been determined.

 

 

 

6. Reasons for decision:

 

 

The appellant’s position, prior to the hearing, was set out in the reasons attached to the reference. As the authority noted in their case statement, it was not entirely clear what it was that the appellant wanted the co-ordinated support plan to say. As the hearing progressed, however, the issues in the case became clearer.

 

The Tribunal found it helpful to have before them, towards the end of the first day of evidence, the paper prepared by the appellant’s representative setting out her proposals for the parts of the co-ordinated support plan headed “Educational objectives”, “Additional support required” and “Persons providing the additional support”. This was the appellant’s preferred version of the information the co-ordinated support plan should contain. The solicitor for the authority, having consulted those instructing him, further assisted the Tribunal by lodging the authority’s revised version of these parts of the co-ordinated support plan, which contained amendments to the original co-ordinated support plan, and which indicated the extent to which the authority was prepared to agree the appellant’s proposals. He did so on the morning of the second day of the hearing. The document was then commented on by the appellant’s representative, who suggested further amendments, some of which were agreed, some not. The hearing was then adjourned from late January until late February 2008. Between those dates, the Tribunal received the authority’s final revised version. Submissions on the final day of the hearing were mainly focussed on further proposed changes to the authority’s final revised version.

 

Having considered parties’ submissions and the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal decided unanimously that the authority should make further amendments to their final revised version.

 

The amendments to the authority’s final revised version which the Tribunal considers it appropriate should be made are shown as tracked changes in Appendix A. The amendments which the Tribunal considers it appropriate should be made to the original co-ordinated support plan are incorporated in the document set out in Appendix B. The pages of the document set out in Appendix B should therefore replace the corresponding pages in the original co-ordinated support plan.

 

The Tribunal does not consider it necessary to give detailed reasons for its decision to accept the proposed changes that were accepted and agreed as the hearing proceeded. The Tribunal appreciated that a co-ordinated support plan is designed to enable children or young people to work towards achieving their educational objectives, must describe the additional support required to achieve the educational objectives stated, and must state the “persons” who should be providing the support. With all of that in mind, the Tribunal are satisfied that all of the agreed changes helped to make the co-ordinated support plan better for the child.

The Tribunal can and does state its reasons for the further amendments shown in Appendix A.

 

The Tribunal considered that it would be helpful if the child’s current medication was mentioned in paragraph 4 of the list of factors giving rise to additional support needs.

The Tribunal considered it appropriate to add a new paragraph 8 to the list of factors. The appellant gave a certain amount of detailed evidence about her relationship with the school. The social worker painted a fairly stark picture of difficulties between home and school, which in her professional opinion were having an adverse effect on the child and her behaviour in school.  The Head Teacher acknowledged that if parents and school were at loggerheads that would not help a child. Her final position was that she was not opposed to a reference to the home-school relationship in the child’s co-ordinated support plan. The representative for the authority argued that the educational benefits of good relationships between parents and school was “a given” and therefore not something that need be stated in a co-ordinated support plan. The Tribunal agreed that that would normally be so, but decided that in this particular case there was a need for the nature of this relationship to be specifically addressed in the context of measures to meet the child’s additional support needs. The appellant has been to a Tribunal, an appeal committee and a court in her endeavours to obtain what she believes is best for her daughter. It seemed to the Tribunal that the child’s co-ordinated support plan should contain provisions that could help resolve the differences between parent and school. Hence the addition of the new paragraph 8 to the list of factors.

 

The appellant wanted the list of factors to contain a statement that the child had a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome. The child psychiatrist gave her that diagnosis in a letter of April 2007 and endeavoured to clarify that matter in a letter to the educational psychologist, in May 2007. In her report for the co-ordinated support plan dated August 2007, the child psychiatrist states that the child has social communication and associated difficulties which fulfil a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. She does not mention Asperger’s syndrome. The Tribunal understood from the appellant’s representative that the psychiatrist’s schedule made it impossible for her to give oral evidence to the Tribunal and sent the appellant’s representative a letter dated February 2008 in response to a request for clarification of the diagnosis she had given the child. The wording of the letter is somewhat obscure, but what is clear is that despite confirming the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder it says nothing about a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome. The Head Teacher’s position was that Asperger’s syndrome was not mentioned in the co-ordinated support plan because it wasn’t mentioned by the psychiatrist in her assessment report for the CSP. The Tribunal decided that there was no satisfactory evidence that the child has such a diagnosis, and noted the queries raised by the educational psychologist in her letter to the psychiatrist dated May 2007.

 

The appellant also wanted reference to be made in the list of factors to problems the child might have with fine and gross motor difficulties and sensory awareness. She gave evidence about difficulties her daughter had with her knife and fork, for example, although there was no other evidence to support that and the Head Teacher seemed quite unaware of any such problems. The Tribunal was informed that the school doctor has been asked to arrange for an occupational therapist’s assessment of the child with these possible difficulties particularly in mind. It therefore appeared to the Tribunal that while there was insufficient evidence for it to hold that the child had such difficulties, the results of the occupational therapist’s assessment would be likely to be of assistance when her co-ordinated support plan was next reviewed.

 

In relation to the “Educational objectives” in the co-ordinated support plan, there was no dispute over the substitution of “support” for “promote” in Learning and Curriculum 3. The educational objective inserted under “Relationships between home and school” was considered by the Tribunal to be suitable under this heading.

 

In relation to the detailed Additional Support Required in the child’s co-ordinated support plan, the Tribunal was not happy with the reference, in Learning and Curriculum 1, to the 5-14 curriculum, and was relieved to be informed, during final submissions, that the Head Teacher had indicated that the child was now on the 14-18 curriculum. The Tribunal also considered that there should be specific reference under this heading to ongoing assessment, advice, liaison and monitoring, as it seemed to the Tribunal that each of these elements had to play a part to facilitate the child’s access to an appropriately adapted curriculum. The Tribunal noted the emphasis on these elements in the speech and language therapist’s report of October 2007.

 

On the last day of the hearing, the Tribunal learned from emails from the social worker, that her funding application for a continuation of the child’s current package of support had not been approved and that she had been instructed to explore more cost effective options. As a result, she had had to end the services provided by current agencies. The Tribunal was very disappointed to hear this, as it had reached a view, on the evidence, that this provision was extremely important for the child. The fact that these services have had to be discontinued, for cost reasons, does not mean that the provision is no longer necessary for the child. For this reason, the Tribunal was not prepared to accept that the detail relating to the services provided until recently by these agencies should be removed from the specification of the additional support required. It may be that more cost effective options can be found, but in the Tribunal’s view the least that is required is equivalent provision by equivalent providers. Hence the alterations to this part of the co-ordinated support plan.

 

Under Language and Communication 1, additional support required, the 2^nd bullet point should be amended to include specific reference to the method of signing in use in the child’s school, as suggested in the speech and language therapist’s report. There was no dispute about this.

 

Under Social and emotional 2, it appeared to the Tribunal to be sufficient to specify “advice and guidance”, when the persons providing that additional support are specified in the next heading. Hence the deletion under Additional support required.

 

The Tribunal considered that the additional support needed to attain the educational objective under Relationships between home and school should be that co-operation between school and parent, a willingness on the part of each to resolve differences and possibly, if necessary, some form of mediation.

 

Finally, in relation to the Co-ordinated support plan, the Tribunal considered that there should be some amendment to the part of the Co-ordinated support plan headed “Persons providing the additional support”.

 

The authority wanted the references to “SALT”, i.e. speech and language therapist, restricted to Learning and Curriculum 4 and Language and Communication 1 and 2. They argued that in relation to other sections of the plan the professionals listed would know to consult speech and language therapist if necessary. The Tribunal considered that “SALT” should also be included at Learning and Curriculum 1, particularly in the light to the addition of “ongoing assessment, advice, liaison and monitoring”, as suggested in the speech and language therapist’s report of October 2007.

 

There was some disagreement between the parties in relation to the social work contribution to “Persons providing the additional support”. In view of the question mark over the services provided by the current agencies, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate to include “Social work support services” in Learning and Curriculum 2 and 4 and Language and Communication 1 and 2. In deciding that reference to social work support services was appropriate in these places, the Tribunal had in mind the social worker’s evidence that she went into school to spend time with the child and also took her out. The Tribunal also bore in mind the statement in the speech and language therapist’s report that it was important that the child’s language and communication needs were supported by all the school staff, family and other professionals involved. The social worker herself suggested “Social work” should be added to Language and Communication 2 (as well as Social and Emotional 1 and 2). The Tribunal accepted her suggestion as far as the Social and Emotional sections were concerned. The Tribunal agreed with the authority that there was no need to include Social work or Social work support under Learning and the Curriculum 3.

 

The Tribunal considered that the persons providing the additional support to be provided under “Relationships between home and school” should be the school, the parent and mediation services.

 

As stated above, the amendments which the Tribunal considers it appropriate should be made are incorporated in the document set out in Appendix B. The authority will have to issue an amended co-ordinated support plan in which the relevant parts are as set out in Appendix B. The appellant was quite content with these alterations or additions. The Tribunal therefore expects them to be in the version of the plan to be issued within two weeks of the decision. The date when the co-ordinated support plan was made, remains the same, but the date of amendment will be the date on which the amended plan is signed and issued by the authority.