ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Reference: d/09/2009
Gender: Female
Age: 5
Type of Reference: Timescales - Failure to assess
- Reference:
The Appellant (“the mother”) lodged a reference on 8 June 2009 under section 18(1) and (3) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the Act”) as amended in respect of the failure of the Authority to comply with her request dated 27 May 2008 to assess her daughter as requiring a Coordinated Support Plan and to issue a Coordinated Support Plan.
2. Decision of the Tribunal:
The authority not having resisted the reference, the Tribunal allow the appeal. The authority issued a Coordinated Support Plan on 17 August 2009
3. Preliminary Matters:
On the last date of the case statement period, 31 August 2009, after a request for confirmation of their position from the Tribunal case officer, the authority intimated that it did not oppose the reference. In terms of rule 15 of The Additional Support Needs Tribunals for
4. Summary of Evidence:
The Tribunal had regard to the bundle of papers numbered T1 to T45 and A1 to A7.
5. Findings in Fact:
1. the child is aged 5; her date of birth is 2004. She started school in August 2009. She had previously spent two years at nursery. Her nursery education was a split placement between special needs nursery where she attended Tuesdays to Thursdays, and mainstream nursery where she attended Mondays and Fridays.
2. The criteria in section 2(1) (a) to (d) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (
3. At an annual review meeting held on 27 May 2008 attended by the mother, representatives of the special needs nursery, a school nurse, occupational therapist physiotherapist and speech and language therapist, it was accepted that a Coordinated Support Plan was likely to be necessary and that preparation was "in process". The head teacher obtained the authority of the mother for the assessments to be carried out.
4. At an annual review meeting held on 9 December 2008 attended by the mother, representatives from special needs nursery, mainstream nursery, an educational psychologist, school nurse, occupational therapist, physiotherapist, speech and language therapist, health visitor, pupil support coordinator and an advocacy worker, it was stated that a Coordinated Support Plan was "to be progressed".
5. On 10 December 2008 the mother formally wrote requesting that the child be assessed for a Coordinated Support Plan.
6. A draft Coordinated Support Plan was sent to the mother by letter dated 4 June 2009.
7. A Coordinated Support Plan was produced dated 17 August 2009. This was around thirty five weeks after the written request of 10 December 2008, and around a year and three months since the mother was told that a Coordinated Support Plan would be prepared in respect of the child.
6. Reasons for decision:
Whilst the Tribunal decision is to allow the appeal, the decision is of little or no practical effect as the authority had produced the CSP on 17 August 2009, ten weeks after the reference to the Tribunal was made.
The Tribunal accepted the written evidence of the mother that she was told on 27 May 2008 that a CSP would be prepared, that when she had heard nothing more by the meeting on 9 December she asked about it and was informed by the head teacher that she would deal with it as soon as possible. The mother had sufficient concern at that stage to write a formal letter requesting that the child be assessed for a CSP in terms of the legislation. We accepted her written evidence that she was then told by the head teacher that the CSP would be prepared and available by January 2009.
However it was only after the mother wrote by email on 24 April 2009 to the Parent and Pupil Support Manager – Additional Support for Learning, that the authority seemed to take any action to progress the assessment or prepare the CSP.
On 27 April 2009 the head teacher wrote in response to an email from the child's mother of that date to state that the assessments had been carried out and that she was now arranging to start to draft the CSP.
A draft of a basic CSP was made available on 4 June 2009. The Tribunal was informed that the CSP was completed and dated 17 August 2009.
The Tribunal were astonished at the apparently cavalier attitude of the authority in this matter.
Despite comment in the minutes of the "annual review" meeting of 27 May 2008 that:
"Coordinated Support Plan – may need a special effort because of the split. Now to be progressed.”
Which suggested to the Tribunal that the participants at the meeting were aware of the importance of coordination, support and planning, particularly where the child was in a split placement between the mainstream nursery and special needs nursery, there appears to have been a total lack of concern to ensure that a CSP should be in place.
In response to the mother's reasonable query as to why the assessment was taking so long the head teacher responded on 27 April 2009:
"I had to complete all the CSPs and each one takes a long time as I need to write to all the therapists/agencies involved and wait for replies etc. These are new documents and Head Teachers are having to do them on top of their regular workload”
The Parent and Pupil Support Manager – Additional Support Needs in response to the mother's query about the delay stated:
"The reason for the delay is quite simply the competing pressure of other, more pressing statutory work".
The Education (Additional Support for Learning) Act 2004 came into force on 14 November 2005. It seemed to the Tribunal surprising that in April 2009 those senior employees of the authority dealing with the education of children with additional support needs would not have become familiar with the forms, or more importantly, how to prepare the plans. Further, we were very concerned that the authority appears to regard its statutory duty to an individual child to be in some way less important than other statutory work.
We were concerned at the authority's lack of regard to the process and its apparent disregard of the need timeously to formalise a plan for coordinating and delivering the support required by this child to enable her to benefit from school education. As indicated however, we can do no more than formally allow the appeal.
