ASNTS_D_12_2009_03.12.09

 

ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

 

Reference:                              D/12/2009

 

Gender:                                   Male

 

Aged:                                       17

 

Type of Reference:                 CSP not required disputed

 

 

1. Reference:

 

The Appellant lodged a reference on 11^th June 2009 under and in terms of section 18 (3) (b) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the Act”) in respect of the decision of the Education Authority that the appellant does not require a co-ordinated support plan (“a CSP”).

 

2. Decision of the Tribunal:

 

The Tribunal confirms the decision of the Authority in terms of section 19 (2) (a) of the Act and thereby confirms that the appellant does not require a CSP.

 

3. Preliminary Matters:

 

Prior to the hearing, the President issued a Direction allowing the appellants parents, to attend throughout the Tribunal and represent the appellant during any period when he was unable to attend the Tribunal. The parents were present throughout all three days of the Tribunal.

 

The appellant was present for the majority of two days of the Tribunal and his contribution was invaluable to the Tribunal in understanding the reference before it.

 

Following the hearing of evidence and submissions in October 2009, the Tribunal formed the view that it had insufficient evidence on which to determine the reference and required the authority to instruct, obtain and lodge the following reports in advance of the continued hearing in November 2009:

 

“a/        An Educational Psychologist including assessments specifically relating to the appellant’s transition from school and his memory;

 

b/         A person or organisation with expertise in Information and Communication Technology including an assessment of any technology required to meet the appellant’s needs in his curriculum and in respect of his transition from school; and

 

c/         A clinical psychologist including assessments specifically relating to the appellant’s coping strategies, pain management and his memory.”

 

In November 2009, the following reports were made available:

 

• Report by ICT Support Teacher for Accessibility, dated 30 October 2009
• Report by Educational Psychologist, dated 30 October 2009.

 

No report was available in terms of paragraph (c) above and it was agreed by both the appellant and the authority that such report was required to enable the Tribunal to determine the reference. The Tribunal issued a further direction and continued the hearing to 3 December.

 

In December 2009, the following report was made available:

 

• Report by Consultant Clinical Psychologist dated 25 November 2009

 

Following provision of the above report, together with the evidence lodged and obtained orally, the Tribunal was able to determine the reference.

 

4. Summary of Evidence:

 

The Tribunal heard evidence from the following witnesses:

 

• Depute Head Teacher

 

The Tribunal also heard from the appellant, his parents and the Education Officer.

 

In addition to the oral evidence, the Tribunal heard the submissions on behalf of both the appellant and the authority. Throughout the hearing, the Tribunal had regard to the papers lodged by both the appellant and the authority.

 

5. Findings in Fact

 

1. The appellant became unwell in March 2005 with an illness characterised by constant throbbing pain in the left frontal temporal region of his head and sudden stabbing episodes of severe pain in his head.
2. The appellant was diagnosed in April 2009 with SUNCT syndrome (short lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing).
3. The appellant’s school attendance and his ability to maintain in his classes when he is able to attend is severely affected by his illness. He has below 50% attendance at school.
4. The appellant is in 6^th year at School. He repeated 3^rd year in school due to his non-attendance.
5. The appellant is working towards 3 highers – English, Art and Product Design.
6. The appellant wants to pursue higher education and in particular a course involving his chosen career - art. He is realistic that he will require to complete a further education course in art on leaving school to put him in the position of being able to access higher education.   
7. The appellant has particular difficulties with his memory either as a result of his illness or as a result of his medication. He is required to take medication in differing doses with different medications being trialled by him in an effort to control the level of pain he experiences. To date he has not found a medication regime which achieves pain reduction.
8. The appellant’s parents support him greatly in his efforts to maintain his school education and his choice of subjects. Both the appellant’s mum and dad are required to remind him of various things throughout the day to ensure that the difficulties with his memory do not impact on his medication regime or on his school activity.
1.  The appellant requires assistance with pain management strategies and memory.
10. The appellant requires a medication profile to ensure that any medication he requires during the school day is available to him.
11. The appellant requires an Individualised Education Programme (“IEP”) to ensure that additional support is co-ordinated, organised, followed through and implemented.
50. The IEP requires to be dual focussed on the appellant’s current curriculum and transition to further/higher education.
1000. There has been a failure on the part of the authority to co-ordinate, organise, follow through and implement additional support to the appellant to date.

 

6. Reasons for decision:

 

The Tribunal considered all the evidence indicated above.

 

The appellant meets the criteria in section 2 (1) (a) of the Act in that the authority are responsible for his school education. In terms of section 2 (1) (b), the appellant has additional support needs arising from one or more complex factors. In terms of section 2 (1) (c), his needs are likely to continue for more than a year.

 

The Tribunal’s consideration focussed on whether the appellant requires significant additional support to be provided either by the education authority in exercise of any of their other functions or by an appropriate agency. With some regret, the Tribunal have come to the view that he does not.

 

Neither the authority, in the exercise of their functions other than education, nor any appropriate agency provide significant additional support to the appellant nor are they required to do so to meet the appellant’s additional support needs.

 

As a result thereof, the appellant does not meet the criteria for a CSP.

 

Although the Tribunal has determined the reference by confirming the decision of the authority, the history of the appellant’s additional support needs and the additional support provided to him merits comment by the Tribunal.

 

The authority, in the exercise of its education function, is required to provide significant additional support to the appellant to meet his additional support needs. Since the onset of his illness in 2005, the additional support provided to the appellant has been sporadic, uncoordinated and inconsistent with various suggestions of additional support being made but not then being implemented.

 

The Tribunal’s concern throughout the hearing was that the appellant’s opportunities at school for his additional support needs to be met are limited by his age and stage of education. It is vital that the appellant is given appropriate and co-ordinated support between now and his formal examinations to ensure he is given every opportunity to benefit from school education.

 

To that end, a redrafted IEP was provided to the Tribunal on the last day of the hearing in December 2009. It requires further work to be completed.

 

The conclusions and recommendations of the report of the Educational Psychologist of 30 October 2009 require to be implemented to ensure that the appellant’s additional support needs are met, specifically with reference to the Transition Plan. During the hearing in December 2009, the authority confirmed that the Educational Psychologist would be in a position to provide additional support to the applicant in terms of his report and that contact would be instigated by the Educational Psychologist by telephone call with a view to ongoing support.

 

Recording of lessons has been suggested on various occasions but as at the date of the hearings had not been implemented. During the hearing in December 2009, it was confirmed that audio recordings would commence.

 

An Additional Needs Assistant (“ANA”) has been appointed to the appellant to act as a conduit for information and fulfil additional support to him where required. Time has been allocated in school for the appellant to meet the ANA on a Wednesday afternoon. As one of the appellant’s main additional support needs arises from his inability to maintain school attendance as a result of his illness, a system has been put in place to allow for the ANA to visit the appellant at home when he is not in school for the contact on a Wednesday.

 

E mail communication has been set up between the school and the appellant. The appellant is to complete a mandate which will allow for such communication to be copied to his parents to ensure that they are and he is aware of any e mails sent to the appellant. These will come from his teachers, the ANA and his guidance teacher.

 

The Education Officer gave an undertaking that she would contact further education colleges to obtain information about accessibility and their requirements for the appellant to attend.

 

Consideration is to be given to the appellant’s current curriculum and it is also open to the appellant to consider accessing school education for a further year after this academic year.

 

The Tribunal hopes that, despite the terms of this decision, that the authority will progress the various forms of additional support to be provided to the appellant and that he will be enabled thereby to immediately re-engage with his course at School.