ASNTS_D_02_2008_06.03.08

ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

Reference:              d/02/2008

Gender:                   Male

Age:                        12

Type of Reference: CSP not required

1. Reference:

The mother (“the appellant”) made the reference in respect of the education authority’s decision that the child did not require a coordinated support plan (section 18(3)(b) of the 2004 Act).

2. Decision of the Tribunal:

The child does not require a coordinated support plan.

3. Preliminary Matters:

Due to an administrative difficulty, one member of the Tribunal was not present for the hearing. Parties agreed in terms of Rule 28(5) that the hearing could be conducted by the Convener and the remaining member.

One additional paper was lodged at the hearing: the child’s attendance record.

4. Summary of Evidence:

Papers were lodged by both the appellant and the education authority. We heard oral evidence from

• The Head Teacher of the child’s school
• The appellant
• A Mental Health Support Worker

5. Findings in Fact:

1. The child was born on 16^th March 1995 and lives with his mother and her partner.
2. The child commenced secondary education in August 2007 at a specialised school in Edinburgh. That school and another school have since merged and as a result he now attends that new school.
3. The child’s school is managed by the local council education authority, who are responsible for his education.
4. The child has additional support needs in the form of emotional and behavioural difficulties. He relates poorly to his own age group and his behaviour can be volatile and challenging. He is also vulnerable to victimisation. His behaviour is challenging at home and in the community as well as at school.
5. These needs are complex, have persisted for some time and are likely to continue for more than a year.
6. The child had a record of needs which was still in place when the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 came into effect.
7. The child does not currently receive or require significant additional support from other local authority services or from any other appropriate agency in order to address his additional support needs.
8. In the course of the hearing, the education authority offered to refer the child to the Social Work Department for assessment of his needs. The appellant agreed to a referral being made.
9. The appellant has not been satisfied with the quality and consistency of communication from the school. In the course of the hearing, the head teacher undertook to ensure communications were improved.

6. Reasons for decision:

Parties were agreed that the child met all the criteria for a CSP apart from the requirement for significant additional support from other local authority services or some other appropriate agency, which was disputed by the education authority.

No other agencies are currently involved with the child. There was conflicting evidence about the child’s progress at school. The appellant described a succession of difficulties and informal exclusions, and described being told that the child might require to be referred to a residential school.

The head teacher had only been in post as head teacher of the school for 2 weeks. She said the child had settled very well in the new school and that the school was able to understand and deal with his challenging behaviour. She undertook to ensure that communications with the appellant were improved and confirmed there was no question of referral to a residential school. The child’s needs would be kept under regular review and, in particular, the child’s annual multi-agency review in May would provide an opportunity to take an overview of his progress and future needs.

Our capacity to explore any question of past difficulties in communications was limited because of the change in school and management staff. Nevertheless, we were encouraged by the head teacher’s very clear undertaking to ensure regular communication with the appellant and her welcome to her to come to the school for discussion.

Some discussion took place during the hearing about the possibility of securing a befriender or some other similar service for the child. The Education Officer undertook to make a referral to the Social Work Department for assessment of the child’s needs and the services available to meet them. Following that assessment, it is possible that some need for additional support may be identified that would be relevant to the child’s additional support needs in educational terms. As things stand at present, however, we see no basis for concluding that the child requires significant additional support from outwith education services in order to access the school curriculum.