ASNTS_D_06_2010_21.06.10

 

 

 

Section 19(7) states that, in exercising its powers under this section, a Tribunal must take account, so far as relevant, of any code of practice published by the Scottish Ministers under section 27(1). The relevant provisions from the Code of Practice - Supporting Children’s Learning (published 2005) are as follows,

 “15. These additional support needs must also require the provision of significant additional support from an education authority, and either the local authority exercising their functions other than education (e.g. social work services) and/or one or more appropriate agency/agencies within the meaning of the Act and the associated regulations, if a co-ordinated support plan is to be required. One purpose of the co-ordinated support plan is to ensure that support is co-ordinated effectively when at least one service is required from outwith what the education authority provides as part of its educational functions.”

16. The Act does not define what "significant additional support" means. The use of the term "significant" signals that the scale of the support, whether it is in terms of approaches to learning and teaching (e.g. adaptation or elaboration of the curriculum) or personnel or resources, or a combination of these, stands out from the continuum of possible additional support. Judgements about significance have to be made taking account of the frequency, nature and intensity of the support, and the extent to which that support is necessary for the achievement of the educational objectives which will be included in the plan. Full-time placement in a special school or unit would count as significant additional support, as would provision of personnel full-time to support a child or young person in a mainstream school, and provision of specialist aids to communication.

17. Support may be provided by a visiting teacher or a therapist. Where, for example, a physiotherapist provides individual therapy to a child twice a week and the child also receives therapy from a speech and language therapist on a weekly basis, with, in both cases, therapists advising teacher(s) and parents as required, then that support is likely to be significant. Similarly, where a child or young person is living in a residential care home then the support provided there through social work services is likely to be significant. However, it is not possible to generalise as to what should count as significant and consideration has to be given to circumstances in individual cases.”

It was submitted for the respondents that the evidence required in relation to the point in dispute is that there is a continuing requirement for a high level of adaptation or elaboration of the curriculum and learning environment and that the child or young person requires substantial, direct and continuing intervention from another agency/agencies in order to benefit from school education. It is the latter part of the test which is not met in this case.

The Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent noted that SALT input to address the child’s difficulties with expressing and interpreting emotions has been provided in a variety of ways and over a significant period of time but that it still remains a difficulty for him. Her view was (and is) that this enduring need is therefore best supported by school staff and parents and does not require one on one SLT input, group therapy or even any requirement for that service to remain involved in its management.

 

 

 

 

Relevant Case Law

The respondents reviewed the case law to extract anything of relevance to the point at issue.

JT v Stirling Council 2007 SC 783 This court looked at the definition of “significant” and considered that it should be construed as more than “not insignificant”. The additional support is “to be provided” so the emphasis appears to be on the provision rather than the needs which give rise to the provision. The court agreed with the Tribunal that the word significant should be judged by reference to the need for co-ordination. Although additional support for however brief a time could be considered as highly significant for the child as they would expect to benefit from the efficient provision of additional support, they endorsed the approach of the Code of Practice re the frequency, nature, intensity and duration of the support and the extent to which it was necessary for the achievement of the educational objectives which would be included in a CSP. In relation to a short term intervention there was no point in devoting resources to the preparation of a plan for the co-ordination of services which are unlikely to require co-ordination by the time the plan is ready.

WA’S Legal Representative  -v- The Highland Council [2008] CSIH 51  In this case the Court of Session held that the Tribunal had carried out a reasoned analysis of the material before them and were able to establish a number of facts. In particular they were able to establish exactly what involvement the child had with persons not directly engaged by the Education Authority. They scrutinised each activity and concluded that further involvement was either not necessary or could be provided within the setting of the school by the education staff. They accepted the oral testimony from the deputy head teacher and the educational psychologist that WA was “coping well and is receiving additional support appropriate to his need.” They were entitled to accept, as they did expressly, that this was a child with no ongoing physiotherapy, speech and language therapy, social services or occupational therapy input, in the sense of requiring these services at a level beyond that already provided in the school.

City of Edinburgh Council [2009] CSIH 46 the court approved the approach taken in the case of JT v Stirling Council (above). In this case the test was not whether the EA are providing significant additional support but whether there is significant additional support from another source (either the EA exercising another function or one of the agencies defined in Section 23(2)). The court stated that it was clear from Section 1 of the Act that the purpose of the additional support is to enable the child to benefit from the education being provided to him or her. The nature of support required to benefit from education in a mainstream school was different from that required within a specialist education resource. Where the only relevant additional support is SALT the Tribunal should have distinguished between therapy provided directly by SALT and indirect therapy provided as part of the curriculum i.e. through the guidance by SALT of the teacher or classroom assistant. In the view of the court only the former would amount to significant additional support to satisfy the test in Section 2(1) (d) (ii). In the latter case SALT was being provided to AW by the Appellants in the exercise of their education function, albeit the teachers and classroom assistants received guidance and training from the appropriate agency.

It was further submitted that the Tribunal should be satisfied that the evidence of the respondents’ witnesses and the Appellant  can be accepted as accurate to the extent that this establishes that the child’s needs are being met from his educational placement. The evidence of the respondents’ witnesses and who know the child well is consistent in showing that there is no requirement for significant input from other agencies at this time and, in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Act and the Code of Practice,  there is no requirement for the respondents to put a CSP in place.

 

It was submitted for the respondents that the child’s education continues to be supported by the authority and that if at any point he requires significant input from another agency then a fresh assessment could be carried out and another CSP can then be prepared.

 

Respondents’ Witnesses

 

For the respondents the Tribunal heard evidence from three witnesses.

 

The Education Officer for the Education Authority (EA), spoke of the process for arriving at a Co-ordinated Support Plan (CSP). Although the process for the child had started prior to the Education Officer joining the council in 2007 he had been involved in applying the criteria in order to decide if a CSP was required i.e. was the Council responsible for the child’s education, was the additional support need likely to last for more than twelve months, was significant support provided by the EA and was significant support provided by another agency? The Education Officer explained that the request for a CSP had come from the Appellant and that the EA had requested the assessments and consulted with the school. Ultimately he had made the decision to have a CSP due to the significant input from Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) at the time.

 

The Education Officer also spoke of the Council’s planning process and the proposals to simplify this. He was referred by the Tribunal to the version of the CSP lodged with the Tribunal (at T17) there was no objective in relation to Speech and Language Therapy as by this stage there was no direct input from SALT.  He went on to explain that the CSP had been carried forward at the request of the Appellant as there had been a prospect of more involvement from the Child and Families Clinic (CFC). However there was no further involvement from that service – they had discharged the child. The Education Officer accepted that the CSP was short on multi-agency objectives in this hiatus period between the discharge from SALT and waiting to see if CFC became involved, which did not subsequently happen. The Education Officer also advised that CFC were not involved in the school and that psychiatric services as a rule did not offer direct input.

 

The Education Officer confirmed that ultimately he had made the decision to discontinue the CSP in February 2010. This was following a review at the end of 2009 where it was noted that SALT were not re-involved and CFC had not been involved and had discharged the child. The review was to monitor the objectives of the CSP and there were none. The CSP had been kept open since the end of 2008 at the Appellant’s request. The CFC re-referral was not classed as a priority by CFC and their intervention in the school was unlikely. The Peer Intervention approach to be provided by SALT starting in August 2010 was short term only.

 

The Education Officer also spoke of the re-assessment of the child by The Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent, in March 2010 and her view being that there was no need for on-going direct involvement but that other approaches would be considered. He confirmed that this would be reflected in next year’s Additional Support Plan (ASP).

 

The Education Officer also spoke of the transitional process for the child moving to Secondary School in 2011 and how this fitted in with the EA planning process and he confirmed that the child’s parents would be involved in this.

 

The Education Officer concluded his evidence by stating that if there was significant input from another agency that he would put a new CSP in place to reflect the current objectives.

 

The Depute Head Teacher of the School also gave evidence for the Respondents. She spoke of what would constitute significant input from SALT i.e. specialist training or resources being provided to the school either with the child or as part of a group. She stated that there was no significant input required at this time. She felt that the child had been on a long journey with his education and talked of the Peer Intervention Programme which the child would start next term and how this involved mainstream pupils in a playground intervention. This would be introduced by SALT and if it worked well the school would carry it on. The outcome sought would be that the child would have a successful interaction out in the playground.

 

She also spoke of her concerns following the child’s discharge by SALT which had been partly down to her not being familiar with the way that SALT operated in terms of Care Aims. She had spoken to SALT and they had alleviated her concerns following the discharge of a number of children. Her position was that if she required support from SALT then she would take her concerns to the therapist in the school and then to the relevant Manager if necessary. She spoke of being confident with the decisions being taken by SALT and said that she understood that SALT could not keep going over and over the same things if the child was not moving on.

 

The Depute Head Teacher talked of social skills and play skills being part of the curriculum in the school. A lot of what they were doing in class related to speech and language. The school received a lot of advice from SALT. They spoke regularly about the child and other children. The Speech and Language therapist was in school one day per week and the Depute Head Teacher outlined how her time was used.

 

The Depute Head Teacher spoke of the work being carried out by the class teacher and herself with the child. A lot of this was on a one to one basis and was aimed at teaching the child to deal with his over-reactions to situations and was carried out with the use of visual aids and the skills built up in social skills groups and the Aspergers Group (or one to one work on Aspergers which the child preferred). The school were not taking on a SALT role but did have a duty to meet the childrens’ special needs. They used the same resources that SALT might use and set the learning in a social context. She spoke of wanting the child to succeed – to be able to use his strategies to cope with his Aspergers and to be able to engage in mainstream and be happy. She spoke of the child being very self aware of things, especially when he got things “right” and “wrong”.

 

In relation to the pragmatic aspects of language then the Depute Head Teacher stated that this was the golden thread that ran through everything that they did in the school and was built into personal, emotional and social development. They used the Talkabout You, Talkabout Me and Talkabout Relationships resources and also encouraged good conversation skills such as eye contact and sharing the topic with the listener. All of the boys could pick up on using these techniques and reflect to others regarding what they were doing and this could be in any context. Targets from Individual Education Plans would be agreed with SALT and if the child was not progressing then SALT would be contacted.

 

The Depute Head Teacher felt that the child’s progress was good and that his Aspergers was his biggest barrier to academic success. She stated that his classwork was good but that at this time of year he did panic over assessments and that generally he spent a lot of time focussing on “surviving” and on his mental and emotional well-being. One of his strategies was going to the quiet room. She disagreed that he was doing this daily and stated that it was only for three or five minutes at a time and that this should not be taken away from him as his condition needed this.

As far as the CSP was concerned then the Depute Head Teacher stated that if she felt the child met the criteria and required a CSP that we would not have been at Tribunal. She felt that the CSP latterly had become just a piece of paper. It had been left in place for a year at the Appellant’s request and the EA had agreed to review it but there was no significant intervention from other agencies to coordinate at the end of that time. The parents had felt more happy and secure with the CSP being left in place and the EA had seen no harm in doing so at that time. None of the other children in the base had a CSP. None of them had significant additional support from an external agency. She was satisfied that the child did not have nor did he need significant input from another agency. This was despite an incident this year where she had called in an Educational Psychologist for advice. He had received significant support from SALT (Package 4) when he came to the School but this had reduced to Package 2 and he had subsequently been discharged. Although the parents felt that the child’s behaviour had deteriorated when direct SALT input was removed the Depute Head Teacher did not agree and stated that from November 2008 to November 2009 he had been doing very well and that he was happy in school and at home and had a better understanding of his condition. It was only around March 2010 that problems started again. She didn’t agree that this was related to the withdrawal of SALT and mentioned that this had coincided with the child learning more about his Aspergers, that the Tribunal had been brought up at home and also there had been a fatal bus crash at his door.

 

The Depute Head Teacher had asked the child’s views on the Tribunal, with his parents’ permission. He had become distressed when asked about SALT but his views on school were very positive.

 

When asked about the targets proposed by the Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant, the Depute Head Teacher stated that there had been no consultation regarding what the school was doing and that measurable and achievable targets were built in to the IEP’s. The suggested targets were not relevant to the child as he could put his hand up and wait his turn and that this was deliverable by a class teacher anyway and in relation to the second target, he could give an outline of his emotions, it was applying them to himself and the sublety of emotion that he had a problem with.

 

Her conclusion was that there was nothing which the child was not receiving that he needs at the moment.

 

The final witness for the Respondents was the Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent. Her evidence was that the assessment for therapy was based on needs. She spoke of the child having had a significant level of SALT for two years and ten months from 2007. Package Four would have involved direct SALT at least once per week. Her view was that this would have been appropriate when he went to the School at first as he was new to the unit and to staff. His package subsequent to April 2008 would have been episodic support of two or three sessions and would not have been weekly. The Speech and Language for the respondents talked of SALT having input into and collaboration with the IEP. The child was discharged from SALT at the end of 2008. This was a clinical decision. SALT at that point transferred the risk for the child’s case to the school and would have to be confident that the school could manage the risk. This would be low in an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) base and higher in a mainstream school. This was on the basis that he could be re-referred at any point.

 

The Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent had seen the child when he was re-referred earlier this year. At this time there was no SALT input in the school and parents were unhappy. All parents were re-referred to SALT at that time. She saw him in school and spoke to school staff and his parents at the health centre and then again to the school staff. She had spoken to another Speech and Language Therapist before coming to the Tribunal about the Peer Intervention Programme which the child would start next term. This was based on the comment at the end of her own report that another Speech and Language Therapist would look at this further. The child was keen to make friends with his peers and this would be structured, on a timescale, with targets for the child and another Speech and Language Therapist would review the intervention. This would be for a short period of time and did not constitute a significant additional input.

 

The Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent felt that direct therapy was not appropriate for the child as the school were in a better position to manage his educational needs. They used the Talkabout resources and there would be input from SALT to set targets. This would be much more effective than SALT coming in to the school to do individual work. She felt that the issues around the child expressing his feelings were best dealt with by the people working most closely with him. The school had taken this on board.

 

Re CFC comment about SALT being appropriate – they did not know what had gone before by way of therapy for the child and there had been two years of therapy with the same focus.

 

For the same reason the Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent disagreed with the independent therapist’s report. She did not know what was in place nor what had gone before. To make a prediction of change you would have to have this information. The issues around pragmatics were a large part of the curriculum at the school. The Depute Head Teacher can talk about the programme and how they measure progress.

 

In the Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent’s view the child does present as having difficulty expressing his feelings and emotions but her decision to discharge the child was based on the interventions that had gone before re expressing emotions. The child had a very heightened over-reaction and she was confident that the school had things in place to deal with this. She talked of visual strategies or even just going for a walk.

 

Regarding the seven outcomes in the Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant’s report she did not agree with number one i.e. assessment for assessment’s sake. There was now a shift away from impairment focus. The National Assessment Tool involved discussion with parents and staff.  Re point two the targets were in the IEP. She agreed with three and four. Re five she did not feel that the child would benefit from this and there was a continuation of work in place. Re six then this had not been taken away. Re seven then everything that was required was in place but there would be an opportunity for this if there was a need. If a case was closed it was made clear to the parents why and also what might trigger a referral back.

 

The targets suggested by the Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant for the child had been in place some time ago. They were reasonable targets for a child on the spectrum but did not relate to the child. What the Depute Head Teacher had in place meets the child’s needs. Weekly therapy sessions would not make any difference to the child at this stage.

 

7. Appellant’s Submissions

 

Appellant’s Witnesses

 

The Tribunal heard from two witnesses for the Appellants.

 

Firstly from the child’s father, The Appellant. He spoke of the difficulties which his son faced and detailed the behaviour which he exhibits at home. He spoke very positively about the child’s schooling and stated that he gets on very well. The Appellant stated that he was proud of the child’s teachers, particularly the Depute head Teacher. The Appellant talked of how he found it upsetting and alarming when they shared their views that SALT would help the child and then the child was discharged by SALT. He fiercely disputed this clinical decision and was going to take it further.

 

The Appellant advised that he had to request the CSP originally and that he had found the process extremely emotional and felt that it had been dragged out. The CSP had been requested when the child was at his previous school. It was the provision of SALT at the current School which had been one of the attractions to the Appellant when he took the decision to move the child there. He had understood that the child would receive more SALT at his current School. On obtaining the child’s file from the NHS he had discovered that the child had received only 18 hours of direct SALT input at his current School in three years.

 

The Appellant stated that prior to the child being discharged by SALT he had been advised by a Speech and Language Therapist that it was not having a positive impact on the child and that they should try a period without it. He felt confident working with SALT and that it was satisfactory with them working with themselves (the parents) and the teachers. He had wanted the CSP to be kept open pending any involvement from CFC and felt that this had been discontinued prematurely.

 

The Clinical Psychologist from CFC had worked with the family and had gone to the school and spoken to them. The Appellant felt that her support had been helpful but that she did not fully understand the child.

 

The Appellant’s position was that direct SALT was essential for the child and that this required a targetted approach and assessment with the parents involved. He felt that the child was progressing at school but that part of the jigsaw was missing.  If something was not done the Appellant felt that the child possibly posed a risk in society. He felt that speech and language therapy was critical to supporting a child like his son.

 

The Appellant was not happy with the Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent’s assessment of the child in March 2010. He stated that this was not an assessment and was only a report and that this had prompted him to get a second opinion from the Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant and that he had been “heartbroken” by her report.

 

The Appellant’s position was that the child needed significant support but that he was not getting it. He accepted that there could be a level of SALT input which was not significant support and did not require a CSP but he didn’t think that this would be sufficient in the child’s case. He did not agree that the child’s needs could be met indirectly. He felt that it needed someone who was qualified to assess the child’s needs and provide therapy. He agreed that the child had responded to one to one work with the Depute Head Teacher and that one to one seemed to work better with the child. He thought it was great that the Depute head Teacher was doing something but felt that it was more complicated than “a few lines on a piece of paper.”

 

The Appellant seemed to accept that his comments were very negative and it was pointed out that the child was progressing really well and felt well supported in school. Mr Atwood’s response was to ask compared to what and to state that with the right support he could progress really really well and could be more supported.

 

The Appellant stated that he had been told that all the targets were in the IEP but he felt that while he had achieved these targets that there were overarching problems which belonged in the CSP with longer term targets. He did state in response to questions about the proposal to put all targets in a new ASP that he would be happy to have no plan if targets could be achieved for the child. He seemed to indicate that the child needed a CSP so that he could fight for more SALT.

 

For the Appellants the Tribunal also heard from the independent Speech and Language therapist for the Appellant, by way of conference call. She confirmed that she had completed her report without reference to the school or the NHS Speech and Language therapist. She had suggested to her client that it would be good practice to do this. She felt that the SALT report of 15 December 2009 was contradictory as on the one hand the child had achieved in terms of his last six week SLT block but on the other hand he was to be discharged as SALT was not having a positive impact at that time. It was accepted that it can still be appropriate to have interventions which are short in duration but which do not amount to significant additional support.

 

The issues which the Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant talked about with the child i.e. difficulties with conversation, difficulties changing topic, lack of awareness in turn taking and his eye contact being variable are all issues which the Depute Head Teacher addressed in her evidence as being dealt with as part of the curriculum.

 

The Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant spoke about her experince being in delivering SALT in mainstream schools which is quite different from in a Unit such as the ASD base at the current School. She felt that the child required oversight by a language therapist but had not spoken with the school and did not appreciate that there was a therapist available in school. She felt that an annual assessment was required which is the opposite view to the Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent who stated that there was move away from the impairment focus and from “assessment for assessment sake”. The Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant was not familiar with the clinical approach taken in terms of Care Aims and the collaborative assessment involving child, parents and teachers. 

 

The Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant felt that there were no clear targets for the child but she had not had sight of his ASP or IEP which the Respondents witnesses had all spoken of as containing targets. She did admit that targets could be in an IEP and that a therapist could be involved in drawing these up.

 

She felt that his teachers did not have time to make assessments nor to tease out complexities but she had never contacted or visited the school to ascertain if this were the case. She admitted that she was not familiar with the Base at the School. She did talk of having experience of National Autistic Society schools where SALT worked in partnership with the school which seemed to me to be the approach described by the Depute head Teacher and the Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent.

 

Without having spoken to the school or the child’s therapist or having seen the child’s ASP or IEP or any of the teachers’ forward planning information the Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant criticised the approach to the child as being “scattergun” i.e. try anything to see if it works. This was inconsistent with the evidence given by the Depute head Teacher and the Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent. However even at its most generous reading the Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant’s evidence was scarcely supportive of the level of input from SALT necessary to revive the CSP.

 

Her report at page 31 expressed the view that the child requires a significant degree of support from Speech and Language Therapy. More specifically she stated “ The child would benefit from direct work, either in a  group or individually, with a Speech and Language Therapist to target his significantly immature pragmatic skills. Skills covered in therapy sessions should be reinforced by the child’s teachers in class and by his parents at home. The child’s teachers will continue to benefit from the advice of a Speech and Language Therapist in setting his overall targetts, since language is embedded in every aspect of the curriculum and also underlies the child’s mental health and welfare.”

 

It was argued for the appellant that the Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant’s recommendations should be preferred. It is submitted that the decision to discontinue the CSP is both unwarranted and premature given that there is to be further support from outside agencies which might indeed, it is submitted, prove to satisfy the criteria of being significant.

 

8. Reasons for decision:

 

The issue before the Tribunal was a straightforward one. Does the support the child currently receives meet the criteria for a CSP, or could he meet the criteria for a CSP if more appropriate supports were put in place?

 

The Appellant is clearly a concerned parent who wants the best for his son but he seems to focus on the child’s impairments rather than his achievements and he is unable to accept the views of the experts from the NHS and EA who are dealing with the child. He has a view that the clinical decision to discharge the child from SALT is incorrect and he wants the ASN Tribunal to order the EA to prepare a CSP in the mistaken assumption that this will enable him to get direct SALT for the child. The Appellant does appreciate that the respondents are only obliged to have a CSP where this is required to co-ordinate services in order to meet the child’s educational needs and it is his perception that the child’s progress is dependent on receiving more intense SLT input. The respondents’ position is that all the child’s needs are being met. They relied on the SLT discharge letter from the Speech and Language Therapist dated 15 December 2008. At that time the child had just completed a six week block of therapy and the evaluation was that this had not had a positive impact on the child leading to the decision to discharge with the proviso that he could be re-referred at any time in the future.

 

We paid careful regard to the evidence of the appellant’s independent SALT witness. The Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant’s opinion was based on a two hour meeting with the child at home. She did not visit the school and accepted that school staff knew him very well. She correctly observed that the Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent did not know him much better from her direct assessment more than she did as direct contact was so limited. However it is noted that the Speech and Language Therapist for the respondent had access to the child’s NHS file, his former therapist, his teachers and his parents as well as seeing him at school. The Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant indicated that she considered that one to one therapy would certainly be indicated if the child was not attending a special school. Within the context of his current School although her report recommends directly delivered SLT she accepted that the teachers would generally be able to deliver the strategies to address the child’s wider communication needs. She accepted that teachers present in the school would require to address his emotional difficulties as and when they arose and this could not await the arrival of an SLT on perhaps a weekly basis. The Speech and Language Therapist for the Appellant did not, in her report or orally, state for how long direct SLT which she recommended should endure if re-instated and she was not pressed on this point. Even in 2008 the input had been in a  block of six weeks.

 

A recurring issue was the extent to which educational objectives were sufficiently specific and understood. The documents underpinning this were written in extremely general terms.

 

Some of the specific SALT targets and strategies are incorporated in the Individual Education Plan (IEP) at A45 to A52  for the year 2009/10.  They are not included in the Language and Communication Section of the IEP, which is blank despite the child's documented difficulties with the pragmatic aspects of language,  but are found within the Personal, Emotional and Social development Section A46-A50.

 

In addition to this document the Additional Support Plan (ASP) for June 2009/10 at A52 to A59 included some repetition and a reference to the involvement of Child and Family Clinic as another agency at A53 with no SLT identified. The difficulties achieving emotional expression and developing social skills are set out at pages A55 to A56. The home behaviour support is recorded at A57.

 

The Education Officer conceded in his evidence that practices within the authority has led to a situation where there is not in existence a comprehensive education plan for the child containing SMART objectives nor identifying properly what the child’s precise needs are and how they are best met. In relation to the provision of the CSP for the child it was accepted by the Education Officer that the child did, at the time it was prepared, meet the eligibility criteria. He advised that it was for the Authority to decide if a CSP was required and that the process of preparation etc. took place within education and not in the context of a wider scrutiny group. The Education Officer said that the IEP was the plan used to measure educational attainment and that although the CSP was in place little was done to include SMART objectives and to ensure the correct level of co-ordination required between agencies existed. The relatively early withdrawal of direct SALT was a factor here. The Education Officer explained that language objectives were objectives in the ASP rather than the CSP.

 

As to the decision to discontinue the CSP evidence was given that this was after a period of over a year when the CSP was kept open during which time there was no significant support being given from outside agencies on the request of the Appellant to allow time for child and family clinics to become involved. The evidence was that during that period teachers in the school had support from SALT but delivery was indirect through education. The Education Officer and the Depute Head Teacher stated in their evidence that the peer intervention programme was to be short term only.

 

We were not persuaded by the appellant’s submission the decision to discontinue the CSP is both unwarranted and premature given that there is to be further support from outside agencies which might indeed it is submitted, prove to satisfy the criteria of being significant. The weight of the evidence was that far from being premature the discontinuance of the plan was somewhat tardy but the respondents had awaited the annual review to reach the decision rather than carrying out a review within a shorter time frame.

 

The Tribunal themselves were confused at the multiplicity and overlap between the plans and reports which did not appear to provide adequate explanation about the success or otherwise of the inputs in relation to the objectives. We noted that the planning process and the documentation is currently under review. A more coherent process and better quality, more meaningful plans with clear obejctives with SMART targets, should enable parents to have more confidence in the system. What ever the shortcomings of the documentation, a CSP is not a plan which is issued on parental request. The decision on whether to open a plan is for the authority after carrying out whatever assessments are indicated. This reference, the Appellant expressed concern that the SLT opinion from the respondents did not appear to be based on any robust assessment techniques. It was evidence that the SLT providers were confident that teachers at the current School were themselves able to make an assessment of the child’s needs  over a period of time in the classroom environment without having to resort to formal testing which might be appropriate in a time limit clinical context. We considered that such an approach was sound and proportionate where testing for children with an ASD diagnosis can be very variable and do not always disclose a linear development. An objective may be met one day and not the next so it was always the underlying trend which needed to be considered.  We were also conscious that during the coming school year the child will approach his transition to secondary education where it would be prudent to review his needs. It is not necessary for the child to have  a co-ordinated support plan to enable this process to take place meaningfully and the school may decide it is appropriate to engage the parents in discussing these transitions at an early stage to re-assure them that adequate attention is being directed to this process.

 

In reaching the decision recorded above we were persuaded by the respondents that they had grounds on which to discontinue the CSP in February 2010 and further, that we were unable to identify additional directly delivered supports from CFS or from SALT which could, or would be likely to, meet the statutory criteria for the re-opening of such a plan.

 

Although we cannot allow this appeal for the legal reasons set out above, we consider it important to stress that the existence of a co-ordinated support plan does not, and should not, create a hierarchy of children whose needs are only met where such a plan exists. Indeed it is part of the anomaly of this statutory scheme that some children with the greatest needs do not require such a plan as their needs are being met solely from within education and the inputs provided to not meet the necessary criteria to open a plan designed to ensure co-ordination. This does not mean that the quality of education and support delivered within the school, in this case by  specialist teachers, is in any way inferior to that received by a child with a CSP. 

 

Finally we would wish to record our thanks to the parties’ representatives whose approach to the proceedings was consistent with the non-confrontational and enabling ethos and also to the parents who are clearly caring and deeply committed to their son’s best interests.