ASNTS_D_06_2007_25.10.07

 

 

 

ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

 

 

Reference:              d/06/2007

 

Gender:                   Female

 

Age:                        12

 

Type of Reference: CSP not required

 

 

 

 

1. Reference:

 

The mother lodged a reference dated July 2007 under section 18(1) and (3) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004(the Act) against the decision of the local authority dated July 2007.

 

 

2. Decision of the Tribunal:

 

The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the authority dated July 2007

 

3. Preliminary Matters:

 

In October 2007 the authority had intimated an additional submission, comprising the child’s school additional support plan.  This was lodged without objection and numbered R107.   At the hearing both parties sought to lodge the child’s ASL/supporting learning profile, speech and language therapy section, which was numbered A37 and A38.   The authority had indicated it was calling the service manager for Paediatric speech and language therapy in place of Deputy Head teacher of the child’s local high school, as listed on the attendance form.

 

The representative on behalf of the appellant indicated they had difficulty in reading pages R50 –R53 of the authority’s case statement.  The hearing was adjourned briefly to allow them to read a more legible copy in the principal papers.   The representative also indicated that as there was a change of witnesses from those listed and in particular that there was no witness from the child’s school, they may seek an adjournment.   After a short discussion it was agreed that she would be given time if necessary to prepare for the new witness and that the Tribunal would listen to any motion for adjournment that the representative may wish to make at any stage during the hearing.

 

4. Summary of Evidence:

 

The tribunal considered the following evidence

 

Oral evidence of:

 

The child’s mother

Educational Psychologist

Service Manager for Paediatric (SALT)

 

The papers in the bundle which consisted of

 

1. Copy of reference to Additional Support Needs Tribunal.
2. Sundry correspondence from the ASNTS secretariat to the parties.
3. The appellant’s case statement and submissions pages 1-38 (described further as A1 – A38).
4. The respondent’s case statement and submissions pages 1-107 (described further as R1- R107).

 

5. Findings in Fact:

 

1. The child is aged 12.   She lives with her parents and elder sister.  She is presently a first year pupil at a local high school having started there in August 2007.  She had attended the local primary school until June 2007.  At school the child is achieving at a high level in certain subjects. She is top of the class for English and second top for Mathematics.  The other classes are unstreamed.  She has assistance in those classes from a learning support assistant who is also responsible for one other child.  She goes to the learning support unit at lunch time.  She takes part in PE & games
2. The child has Autistic Spectrum Disorder with speech and language and social and communication difficulties.
3. A draft additional support plan has been prepared by the high school for the child.   This was done the beginning of October 2007.   The additional support plan will be finalised through a review process involving the child, her parents and relevant agencies.   This is to conform to the school’s practice in respect of pupils with identified additional support needs.   The child and her parents will have the opportunity to discuss the plan and to clarify the specific targets.
4. The child attends the eye pavilion annually in connection with her vision.   She attends the community paediatrician annually.  She attends the GP asthma clinic annually.
5. She receives occupational therapy support which includes periods of direct input, assessment of needs, delivering training and advice for teaching staff, monitoring of progress and review programmes in relation to identified targets, and recommendations regarding specialised equipment.   The occupational therapist had assessed her input as high in January 2007, and a re-assessment would be undertaken in respect of the transition to high school, and the OT had not visited the school.  Aids such as a sloping board and Alphasmart were passed from the primary school to the high school for her use.  She has other aids which she uses at home.
6. She receives speech and language therapy support from two sources, firstly, indirect and advisory support from the speech and language therapist and secondly, attendance at a social communication skills group based at a local university.
7. The speech and language therapist provides guidance to school staff on how to implement strategies into classroom routine.   The child attended the social communication skills group for a block of ten weekly sessions from October 2006 to February 2007.   She will benefit from further participation in such a group targeting verbal and non-verbal conversational skills.   She is on the waiting list for a further course of sessions.   She would benefit from attending such a group annually as long as it is considered appropriate.
8. The support referred to in paragraphs 4 to 7 above are all provide by the local NHS board.

 

6. Reasons for Decision:

 

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 this reference.

 

The issue was whether or not the child satisfied the terms of section 2 of the Act and required a coordinated support plan (CSP).

 

Section 2 (1) provides that a child requires a plan for the provision of additional support if:

 

1. an education authority are responsible for the school education of the child ….
2. the child …..has additional support needs arising from-

1. one or more complex factors, or
2. multiple factors,

 

3. those needs are likely to continue for more than 1 year and,
4. those needs require significant additional support to be provided –
   
   1. by the education authority in exercise of any of their other functions as well as in the exercise of their functions relation to education or
   2. by one or more appropriate agencies (within the meaning of section 23(2) as well as the education authority themselves.

 

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) –

(a)   A factor is a complex factor if it has or it likely to have significant adverse effect on the school education of the child

(b)  Multiple factors are which –

(i)          are not themselves complex factors, but

(ii)         taken together, have or are likely to have a significant adverse effect on the school, education of the child.

 

It was accepted by the authority that they were responsible for the child’s school education, that she has additional support needs arising from one or more complex factors, and that these were likely to continue for more than a year.   It was also accepted that the child’s needs required significant additional support by the authority in the exercise of their functions relating to education.  What was in dispute was whether or not subsection (d) (i) or (ii) was satisfied that the child’s needs required significant additional support to be provided by the authority in the exercise of their functions apart from education, or by one or more appropriate agency.

 

Section 23 (2) provides that appropriate agencies include any health board.  The issue in this case was whether the support provided to the child from the NHS, viz from the Community Paediatric Service, the eye pavilion, the asthma clinic, the occupational therapy service and the speech and language therapy service could be considered as significant additional support.

 

 

The Tribunal had regard to the Code of Practice in term of section 19 (7) of the 2004 Act, in particular chapter 4 paragraphs 15-18.

 

The mother described the difficulties experienced by the child, particularly her social use of language and social skills and communication.  She requires considerable attention at home with personal care.  She needs help with practical tasks.   The mother was concerned at the lack of communication from the school.  Initially the child had not been informed that she could use the library or the learning support unit at lunchtimes rather than going outside.   The mother had to email the school. She had not had any reply and only knew that the child was accessing the unit some days later when the child mentioned it.   However, whilst she is now spending lunchtimes with other vulnerable children, there is no real encouragement for her social skills.   The mother felt she needed more access to speech and language therapy and social skills, as well as practical classes such as cookery and CDT.

 

The area principal psychologist has been qualified as an Educational psychologist for eight years.   He is personally responsible for the high school the child attends and attends there once a week.   He had direct knowledge of the child at school and had also known her for a period in the past when he had been the educational psychologist for the primary school.

 

He had described a particular interest in and experience of children within the autistic spectrum.   He had been involved with training teachers at the local schools regarding children with autism.  He explained that the speech and language therapist had been in contact with the school regarding the content of the Additional Support Plan.  The plan mirrored that fact that there was a need for monitoring rather than direct input by a speech and language therapist with the child.

 

The service manager of paediatric speech and language therapy for the NHS has held that position for about 6 years and has 35 years experience in speech and language therapy (SALT).

 

She confirmed the SALT input as monitoring and giving guidance to school staff to implement suggested strategies into classroom routine as set out in the ASL/supporting learning profile, page A37 and A38.   The speech and language therapist had been in touch with the school and had spoken with the learning support unit and other staff to discuss what was needed.  She would be invited to review meetings.

 

The social communications group was useful for the child.   It was quite important to have the block of weekly meetings and then a break to allow for a consolidation process rather than to have continual weekly meetings.   It was necessary to arrange a group with a matching peer group.  It was hoped that a new group would be starting soon. A report would be provided at the end of the block to the school and to the speech and language therapist. The speech and language therapist would hope that the child would experience a block of the social communication skills group on a yearly basis.

 

If this was not possible, additional advice would be offered to the school and staff.  If there were enough pupils with similar needs there may be a possibility of setting up some form of assistance with social communication skills in the school.

 

Documents R68 to R 70 were the co-ordinated support plan guidance for health professionals.   These were revised copies of previous guidelines brought in after the implementation of the 2004 Act. R74/75 was the revised form CSP1A.  These forms began to be used after the summer holidays this year.  R84 was an example of the previous version of the form CSP1A.  A difference was the categories standard, intermediate and significant rather than the original version standard, medium, high and significant.  R63 set out the criteria for each category.

 

The speech and language therapy service did not consider there was a need for direct one-to-one work with the child in connection with her difficulties, for example the use of complex sentence structure and formulating sentences, but instead to support teaching staff dealing with her.

 

The paediatric speech therapy manager had spoken with the speech and language therapist, the occupational therapist, and her manager, and the community paediatrician who had all completed forms CSP1A.  Advice was taken from the health service additional support for learning team.   The categories set out in forms CSP1A at pages R83 to R85 were appropriate.  The child’s needs fell into the medium category.

 

For the mother, the representative submitted that the child required therapy input from both the occupational therapist and the speech and language therapist as set out on forms R83 and R84.  The therapists had to consult with staff, deliver training, advise staff and monitor how the child was getting on throughout her academic career.  Equipment was supplied for her use by the OT.   Her primary school head teacher had thought that the child required a coordinated support plan, and had instigated the process.  The child was an exceptionally bright child and a lack of therapy input would have a significant impact on her education and ability to fulfil her potential.  It was necessary particularly now that the child was in secondary school, that all the teaching staff, support staff, the educational psychologist  and the health service provision for the child including OT and SALT as well as the community paediatrician, acted in a coordinated way.  With a CSP it would be ensured that all services would be working together

 

For the authority, the education officer submitted that it was agreed that the child needed and would benefit from the OT and SALT set out in R83 and R85 and the authority accepted the recommendations of those health professionals.  However he submitted that the support individually and collectively did not amount to a significant level of support as defined in the Act.  There was no evidence that the child’s primary head teacher considered that the child required a CSP.   It appeared that she had indicated that there may be grounds to consider and initiate the process, which had been set in train and information ingathered by the authority to conform with the code of practice.

 

Having done so, the view of the authority was that the criteria for the CSP had not been met.   The education officer submitted that having regard to the code of practice the flow chart at page 53 and the decision of the extra division of the Inner House of the Court of Session in JT as legal Guardian or KT v Stirling Council (unreported) 21 June 2007, there was not the required substantial direct and continuing support at a level commensurate with a coordinated support plan

 

The Tribunal considered the extent of the provision of all the additional support from the NHS and the need for coordination.  The occupational therapy has been described as high for the transition period, but this having been achieved on the facts found by the Tribunal, the support has been reduced.   The speech and language therapy provided is mainly monitoring.  For around ten weeks a year the child would be receiving direct support in the form of the social communication skills group.  This could be considered to be intense, but only for a short duration, and only periodic 

 

Having regard to the scale of the support  from all the various services and the frequency, nature, intensity and duration of the support, the Tribunal concluded that the additional support that the child required and received could not be considered to be significant.  It would relate to the category of intermediate within the NHS CSP guidance at page R63.