ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

 

 

Reference:                  d/010/2008

 

Gender:                       Male

 

Age:                             11

 

Type of Reference:     CSP not required

 

 

 

1. Reference:

 

The mother, (“the Appellant”) has referred to a Tribunal a decision of the Education Authority (“the Authority) that her child does not require a Co-ordinated support plan. The reference is under section 18 (3) (b) (i) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the Act”).

 

 

2. Decision of the Tribunal:

 

The Tribunal overturns the decision of the Authority.

 

The Tribunal requires the Authority to take the following action:

 

To treat the letter dated 27 September 2007 from the Appellant and her husband to the Parent and Pupil Support Manager – Additional Support for Learning for the Authority as having been received by the Authority on the date on which this decision is issued to the Authority, and to treat said letter as a request made by the Appellant and her husband under section 6(2) of the Act for the first time on the date last mentioned.

3. Preliminary Matters:

 

At the start of the hearing the Tribunal allowed the Authority to lodge further documents not already lodged as productions. The Appellant did not object to the lodging of these documents.

 

The Tribunal allowed the Appellant to lodge further documents not already lodged as productions. The Authority did not object to the lodging of these documents.

 

The Tribunal decided to hear this reference before hearing a further reference by the Appellant, in which she referred to a Tribunal a decision of the Authority that another of her children did not require a Co-ordinated support plan.

 

Parties agreed that evidence in each reference could, so far as relevant, be treated as evidence in the other.

 

 

4. Summary of Evidence:

 

The Tribunal considered a substantial bundle of evidence containing case statements for both parties and supporting documents, including the further documents lodged at the hearing.

 

The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Appellant, and submissions from the Appellant’s representative and the Authority’s representative.

 

 

5. Findings in Fact:

 

1. The child was born on 24 December 1996. His mother is the Appellant. The child has recently completed primary education and is about to proceed to secondary education.
2. The child has additional support needs. Among the factors giving rise to those needs are dyspraxia, dysgraphia, co-ordination problems, difficulties with memory and perception and some behavioural difficulties. He has a certain amount of additional support in school.

 

3. In the course of the last year or so the child has failed to maintain previous progress and in some respects appears to have regressed.

 

4. The Appellant and her husband wrote to the Authority on 27 September 2007. They asked the Authority to determine whether the child had additional support needs and required a Co-ordinated support plan. They asked the Authority to arrange for the child to be examined and assessed by a number of specified professionals, namely Educational Psychologist, Speech and Language Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Information Communication Technology Specialist, Community Paediatrician, Ophthalmologist, Clinical Psychiatrist and Social Work Department.

 

5. On 1 April 2008 the representative for the Authority wrote to the Appellant. He intimated his decision, for reasons which he stated in his letter, that the child did not require a Co-ordinated support plan.

 

6. In addition, he intimated his decision, for reasons which he stated in his letter, that it was not reasonable to undertake assessments by a Speech and Language Therapist, Occupational therapist, Community Paediatrician, Ophthalmologist, Clinical Psychiatrist or Information Communication Technology Specialist.

 

7. On 1 April 2008 the Appellant wrote to the Authority and stated that it appeared to them that their request for a number of examinations had not been complied with.

 

8. Since 1 April 2008 the child has been seen by a number of professionals who have provided reports.

 

9. In particular, in a report dated 28 May 2008, the Occupation Therapist suggested that the child’s fine and motor skills might have regressed in recent years.

 

10. In a report dated 9 June 2008, the Speech and Language Therapist wrote that the child’s communication skills were significantly impaired and that his profile was puzzling. If his communications skills remained as described, he would need considerable support.

 

11. In a brief, undated letter to the Appellant, the Community Learning Disability Nurse wrote that she visited the child in the family home on 26 June [2008]. She noted that that there were concerns in areas of his learning and living skills, but stated that the child did not meet the criteria for a learning disability. She was pleased to hear that the child had an early appointment to see a Clinical Psychologist from the Child and Family Mental Health Service.

 

12. As at 27 June 2008, the child was on a waiting list for a section 23 social work assessment.

 

13. In a letter dated 10 June 2008, the Associate Specialist Paediatrician referred the child to a Consultant Paediatric Neurologist. She wrote that there were many factors that might be affecting the child’s progress and that a senior colleague felt that fairly urgent neurological opinion was required.

 

6. Reasons for decision:

 

1. The Appellant’s representative pointed out that when the Appellant asked the Authority to determine whether the child required a Co-ordinated support plan they also requested that a number of different professionals should be asked to undertake assessments. The Appellant was entitled to make that request where the Authority proposed to establish whether the child required a Co-ordinated support plan. The Authority had a duty to comply with that request unless it was unreasonable: section 8 of the Act. In the event, it appeared that only one of these professionals, the Educational Psychologist, furnished an assessment prior to the Authority’s decision.

 

2. It appeared that the Authority had relied almost entirely on the report from the Educational Psychologist. His report had referred to information received earlier from some of the professionals listed by the Appellant, but there did not seem to have been any serious attempt to ask those professionals to supply up-dated information. His report did not address the question of whether or not the child met the criteria for a Co-ordinated support plan. The Authority’s conclusion, according to their letter, was that on the information provided in this report it was not reasonable to undertake the assessments requested. In the Appellant’s representative’s submission, this simply showed that the Appellant’s requests had not been taken seriously. Since the Authority has taken their decision without obtaining the assessments requested, unreasonably, their decision that the child did not require a Co-ordinated support plan was fundamentally flawed and ought not to be confirmed. 

 

3. Since the date on which the Authority intimated its decision, a number of other assessments had taken place and reports had become available. The child was awaiting further appointments with a Clinical Psychologist and a Consultant Neurologist and a Social Work assessment was outstanding. It was clear that each of these professionals had a contribution to make to the question of whether or not the child required a Co-ordinated support plan.

 

4. In his reply, the representative for the Authority made reference to paragraph 3.2 of the Code of Practice under the Act and to values and principles that involved among other things “adopting the least intrusive and most effective course of action affecting the lives of children, young people and families.”  The Authority’s practice was for the schools themselves to make assessments and to call upon other agencies for advice if and when it was appropriate to do so. In this case, at the time the decision that the child did not require a Co-ordinated support plan was made, the other agencies specified by the Appellant were in no position to proffer advice, as they had no ongoing involvement.

 

5. The representative for the Authority went on to suggest that there were no substantial differences of view between the school and the Appellant though there were possibly differences of perception. The information that had come to hand since the Authority’s decision, and the information that might flow from the ongoing investigations, e.g. by the Consultant Neurologist, might yet reveal a need for the kind of additional support that would justify the making of a Co-ordinated support plan.  He concluded by submitting that the decision not to seek the assessments sought, other than of the Educational Psychologist, was reasonable and that the decision was sound. He intimated, however, that if the Tribunal were to hold that the decision or the failure to undertake assessment was unreasonable the Authority would be willing to re-commence the process of establishing whether or not the child required a Co-ordinated support plan. In that connection, the Authority would have regard to the new information that had become available since their decision letter of 1 April 2008.

 

6. After an adjournment, parties intimated that they were now agreed that in the light of the information now available the Authority would re-commence the process of establishing whether or not the child required a Co-ordinated support plan. The representative for the Authority intimated that the Authority would now comply with all of the requests for assessments made in the letter of 27 September 2007, with the exception of the request that an Educational Psychologist undertake an examination (that having already been done).

 

7. In the result, therefore, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to decide which of the parties’ competing contentions are to be preferred. The Authority has now agreed to re-commence the process from the beginning and to obtain the assessments from the specified professionals. In the light of that agreement, which seems reasonable in the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the appropriate course for it to follow is to overturn the Authority’s decision and to require the Authority to treat the appellant’s letter of 27 September 2007 as having been received by the Authority on the date on which this decision is issued to the to the authority.

 

8. In relation to the further reference by the Appellant (D/011/2006) in which she referred to a Tribunal a decision of the Authority, that another of her children did not require a Co-ordinated support plan, there will be a similar result, it having been intimated that in that case also that the Authority had agreed to re-commence the process of establishing whether or not that child required a Co-ordinated support plan. It was similarly agreed that the Authority would now comply with all of the requests for assessments made in the letter of 27 September 2007 relating to that child, with the exception of the request that an Educational Psychologist undertake an examination (that having already been done).

 

9. In view of the agreement between parties, the Tribunal has not made detailed findings in relation to many of the matters referred to in the evidence before it. The Tribunal does not consider it appropriate at this stage to state any view on whether either of the children requires a Co-ordinated support plan.

 

14 July 2008