ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

Reference:              d/14/2008

Gender:                   Male

Age:                        11

Type of Reference: Placing Request

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

­­­­­­­­­1. Reference:

The Appellant has referred to a Tribunal a decision of the Education Authority (“the Authority) refusing a placing request made in respect of her son (“the child”). The reference is under section 18 (3) (e) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the Act”).

2. Decision of the Tribunal:

It, having been intimated to the Tribunal that the appellant wished to withdraw the reference, the Tribunal dismisses the reference.

3. Preliminary Matters:

Prior to the hearing, I issued a Direction, in which I directed that the hearing would comprise two parts, Part 1 and Part 2. In Part 1, it would be for the Authority to establish that their reason for refusing the request was founded in fact. In the event that the authority succeeded in so doing, the hearing would then proceed to Part 2, when it would be for the Appellant to persuade the Tribunal that the Tribunal should nevertheless direct the Authority to place the child in the school specified in the placing request.

In the event, the hearing did not reach the end of Part 1 and did not proceed as far as Part 2.

In the course of the hearing, a number of documents were allowed to be lodged late, there being no objection thereto.

4. Summary of Evidence:

The Tribunal had before it 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 Senior Education Officer for the Authority.

As the Appellant agreed, in the course of the hearing, to withdraw the reference, it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to make findings in fact, nor indeed to rehearse all the matters that would have been considered had the hearing proceeded to a conclusion. Parties may find it helpful, though, to have a brief summary of the evidence so far it went.

The child is about the start his final year of primary education.

The child has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and developmental delay. He has a cluster of difficulties involving learning, social interaction and significant difficulties with language. He requires adult supervision and help with skills such as eating and toileting. At times he can become distressed to the extent that school staff are unable to calm him. There have been times when he has slapped or kicked members of staff.

The child has a Co-ordinated support plan. Among other things, it contains reference to guidelines prepared by a learning disability nurse and the Appellant with regard to early indications of increased level of anxiety. The Appellant believes that some members of school staff have failed to pay enough attention to this document. It is accepted on both sides that there has been a deterioration in the relationship between the child’s parents, on the one hand, and some members of school staff, on the other.

In the latter part of 2007, the Appellant and the child’s father made a placing request, asking the Authority to place the child in a specified school. The Authority dealt with that request by giving consideration to the child’s case at meetings of their Joint Admissions Group. The Authority declined the request on the ground that there were no places available in the school, but sought to assure the child’s parents that his case was under constant review by the Joint Admissions Group. The decision to decline the request appears to have been taken at a meeting of the Joint Admissions Group on 22 January 2007 and to have been formally intimated in a letter from the Senior Education Officer to the child’s father dated 10 April 2008.

The specified school is a new school which has been designed to accommodate 80 pupils. The Authority are treating it as having a capacity of 84 in terms of pupil numbers. As at the date of this hearing the number of pupils there was 85. Several pupils are expected to leave in the course of, or at the end of the coming year, but there will be others for whom a place will be sought.

5. Reasons for decision:

After the Senior Education Officer had completed his evidence in chief and had answered questions from the Appellant’s representative and the Tribunal, parties sought a brief adjournment. Thereafter, parties intimated that they had reached agreement on the following terms:

The reference would be withdrawn on the understanding that parties would   engage in mediation, for the following purposes:

1. for the Authority to confirm, or rather re-confirm, the importance of the child’s situation as regards his continuing education;

2. for the Authority to offer the child the first appropriate place in the specified school – the child would be first on the waiting list, but might not be offered the first available place, e.g. if a child came into the area from elsewhere whose need of a place at the specified school was greater than child’s;

3. for the purpose of seeing that greater attention was given by the Authority to communication with the child’s parents and their representatives, e.g. by giving them a report after every meeting of the Authority’s Joint Admissions Group;

4. for the purpose of seeing that detailed discussions were entered into relating to arrangements for the child’s transition to secondary education next year, particularly in the event of movements in and out of relevant schools during the course of the recently commenced school year.

The Authority’s representative intimated that while the Authority could not commit to a firm undertaking at this point, it was understood that there would be a firm offer of a place for the child in the specified school at or before the start of the summer term in 2009.

The Tribunal decided, in view of parties’ agreement, to dismiss the reference. The Tribunal did not think it necessary that the agreement, or any part of it, be incorporated in a formal or written document, when it had been given to the Tribunal in detail at the hearing and is reproduced in this decision. The Tribunal is grateful to parties for their constructive efforts to resolve their differences by mediation and agreement.