DE
Reference: D_18_2009
Gender: Male
Aged: 11
Type of Reference: Contents Of CSP
1. The Reference:
(“the Appellant”) lodged a Reference in accordance with Section 18(3)(d)(i) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the Act”) in that she disagrees with the information contained within the Co-ordinated Support Plan (“the CSP”) prepared by (“the Education Authority”) in respect of her son The child born in 1998 (“the child”).
2. Decision of the Tribunal:
In terms of the power contained within Section 19(4)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal Directs the Education Authority to make amendment of the information contained within the child’s Co-ordinated Support Plan (in particular the Plan as further negotiated and agreed between the parties, both in advance of the Tribunal proceedings and throughout the duration of them; which Plan was produced to the Tribunal at the conclusion of the evidence prior to submissions on the morning of Thursday 27 May 2010) within 14 days of the date of issue of this Decision as follows:-
- On page 5 of the Plan within the section entitled “Additional Support Required” reference to the child’s gastrostomy condition will read as:-
“All staff working with The child to have an awareness of his gastrostomy tube condition and to monitor and report any concerns/issues to the head teacher who will in turn inform the parent.”
Correspondingly in the third column detailing “Persons Providing the Additional Support”; this will state:-
“All staff.”
- On page 7 of the Plan within the section entitled “Additional Support Required” the reference to the child’s gastrostomy condition will read as:-
“Termly assessment by the visual impairment specialist teacher in order to plan, monitor and review a sensory curriculum for The child.”
- On page 8 of the Plan within the section entitled “Additional Support Required” the reference to the Occupational Therapist will read as:-
“Occupational therapist will provide direct 1 to 1 therapy, the length and intensity of which will be planned for on a termly basis and will be determined by The child’s clinical need.”
- On page 9 of the Plan within the section entitled “Additional Support Required” the reference to hydrotherapy will read as:-
“The child will access the hydrotherapy pool on a regular basis.”
Correspondingly in the third column detailing “Persons Providing the Additional Support”; this will state:-
“School staff.”
3. Preliminary Matters:
The Hearing was conjoined with a Reference on a Placing Request in which the parent was represented by a solicitor.
Both References were carefully case managed prior to the Oral Hearing in terms of a number of Conference Calls. The scope of the Hearing was focused due to the execution of a Joint Minute of Admissions by all parties to the two References.
4. Summary of Evidence:
The Tribunal had regard to an extensive bundle of papers and the Oral Evidence of the witnesses.
The Tribunal heard oral evidence from:-
Witness A, Head Teacher, School A.
Witness B, Educational Psychologist, The Authority
Witness C, author of the Report comparing the provision at both School A and School B instructed on behalf of the Appellant.
Witness D, Deputy Head Teacher, School B,
The Appellant.
The Appellant also produced to the Tribunal a lengthy handwritten statement, the terms of which have been considered.
5. Findings in Fact:
1. The child is the son of the Appellant. The child was born in 1998. He is 11 years old.
2. The child was born at full term and was a healthy child with normal development. In 2002 The child was struck by a car. The child sustained multiple injuries, including fractured ribs, pneumothorax, fractured pelvis, head injury and consequent obtain damage. The child was 4 years and 1 month old at the date of his injury.
3. The child was registered blind in 2002. Whilst registered blind The child has some sight although severely visually impaired. The child is able to discriminate and differentiate shapes which are more than 4 millimetres in the minimum dimension and of high contrast. The child has multiple physical disability. His visual impairment multiplies the effect of his other disabilities. The child does not have impaired hearing.
4. The child commenced placement at School B and Nursery on 28 April 2003. School B is a non-denominational, co-educational school which caters for children and young people between the ages of 2 and 18 years of age with complex additional needs. He attended the Nursery there until 21 October 2003.
5. The child transferred to a Centre for children with motor impairment on 21 October 2003. It provides day school and outreach services to children from across
6. The child returned to School B on 23 October 2006. There was a phased transition from the Centre to School B between the beginning of September 2006 and 23 October 2006.
7. Whilst at the Centre, The child made good steady progress. Since returning to School B, The child has made little or no progress.
8. The child is currently a pupil within Room 3 of School B. His class teacher is a chartered teacher with 12 years experience of working in additional support needs education. She has an MSc Post-Graduate Qualification in Profound Disability & Sensory Impairment. She has been a teacher at the school since September 2007. She has been The child’s class teacher for 3 years.
9. The child is severely impaired in all areas and is totally dependent on others for all aspects of daily living. He uses a wheelchair. He uses a standing frame for periods. He communicates by use of facial expression. He is also capable of further communicating his feelings, wants and needs by use of his left index finger to point at objects. He uses micro-technology based switch systems. The child uses a piece of equipment known as a “Slim Armstrong”. This is a mounting system which facilitates access to a single switch. The child uses an arm support for his left arm to enable him to access the switch.
10. The child underwent major spinal surgery to correct curvature of the spine in or about April 2008. He was consequently absent from school between April and August 2008.
11. Dr J, Clinical Psychologist was asked by the Appellant’s representative to examine The child in relation to his cognitive ability in the context of his school placement. Dr J produced a Report pursuant to the examination on 11 March 2010. The terms of the Report and findings therein are agreed between the parties. A copy of the Report is found at A67.
12. On a Monday morning at School B, The child and his classmates, with their teacher, share news from the weekend. This is communicated by use of home diaries and switch technology communication. The child will then have a morning snack. Every third Monday afternoon, The child and his classmates go on educational outings in the school minibus.
13. The child also receives physical education on a Monday morning working towards individualised targets. The child is then allowed to choose from a range of activities. The child usually chooses music. The child also has a visual awareness lesson on a Monday afternoon.
14. On a Tuesday afternoon and a Wednesday and Thursday morning, physiotherapy is provided in the class, including some 1 to 1 therapy with pupils within the class. The therapist is a highly specialist Paediatric Physiotherapist, NHS Trust.
15. On a Wednesday afternoon Speech & Language Therapy is provided to the pupils within the class, including some 1 to 1 therapy with pupils in the class. The Speech & Language Therapist is, NHS Trust.
16. On a Thursday afternoon physiotherapy is again provided to the class, including some 1 to 1 therapy with pupils within the class. Occupational therapy is also provided every Thursday by, Senior Paediatric Occupational Therapist, NHS Trust.
17. School B has a hydrotherapy pool. The pool was defective and out of use for a substantial period until November 2009. The pool is now functional. The pool aims to provide use of this facility to 34 pupils enrolled. A number of the pupils, including The child have been assessed as requiring the use of the pool for therapeutic (as opposed to purely recreational) purposes. Training for staff and health and safety assessments still require to be undertaken. It is not known when the hydrotherapy pool can be utilised by The child. He will be able to access the pool there more than once every 5 weeks. The child would benefit from hydrotherapy on a regular basis.
18. School B offer and deliver a sensory curriculum designed to meet the needs of children’s cognitive abilities from around 12 months to 3 years. The child is likely to function cognitively beyond 3 years in some aspects of his learning. The staff at School B do not accept this.
19. The child’s cognitive level must not be overestimated. Equally The child’s cognitive level must not be underestimated.
20. School B was the subject of a HMIe Inspection in December 2006. Its findings are at R3. This records that staff expectations of pupils’ work needed to be higher. One proposal as a result of the inspection was to ensure pupils individualised educational programmes provide a more coherent, better co-ordinated approach to meeting pupils needs. Notwithstanding this The child’s IEP lacks specification in respect of targets and evaluation.
21. The Vision Profile (R80) held by School B in respect of The child is defective in that the detail of his functional vision lacks specification and fails to convey to those working directly with The child his abilities and needs.
22. In March 2008, Dr M, Consultant Community Paediatrician on behalf of the Functional Vision Assessment Team recommended that an ongoing functional vision assessment be carried out in respect of The child by the Visual Impairment Specialist Teacher. No such ongoing functional vision assessments have been carried out.
23. On 23 January 2009, The child was examined by Professor D, Consultant Ophthalmologist. Professor D estimated The child’s cognitive development around a mental age of 3 to 4 years.
24. On 21 May 2009, The child was examined by Dr D, Consultant Neuropsychologist. Dr D estimated The child’s cognitive development around a mental age of 3 to 4 years.
25. The child requires hand splints. There have been a series of difficulties in meeting The child’s needs in this respect at School B since or about October 2009. Satisfactory hand splints have not yet been provided. No timescale could be specified by School B as to when this will be rectified.
26. The child is not toileted at School B. The child is toileted successfully at home. The child controls his bowel movements and does not have a bowel movement at school. To date, School B have only changed his incontinence pad once daily. The child regularly returns home soiled with urine. School B are unprepared to attempt to toilet The child throughout the school day even on a trial basis.
27. The child benefits from access to augmentative and alternative communication technology. School B have failed to supply any such technology. The Appellant obtained a DynaVox System from PAMIS (Profound and Multiple Learning Disability Network
28. School B have failed to communicate appropriately with the Appellant. This includes the lack of intimation to her that School B receives QTVI (Qualified Teacher of the Visually Impaired) support from the Visual Impairment Team of The Authority Sensory Support Service. She has accordingly had no opportunity to relay information to them in order to maximise any potential benefit to be given to The child.
29. Following The child’s return to School A in October 2006 a Review was held on 23 May 2007 by the Education Authority. It was agreed that a Co-ordinated Support Plan would be drawn up for The child.
30. On 18 September 2007 the Respondent wrote to The child’s parents confirming their view that a Co-ordinated Support Plan was required for The child.
31. On 12 December 2007 the Respondent wrote to the Appellant enclosing a copy of the proposed Co-ordinated Support Plan.
32. A final version of the Co-ordinated Support Plan was issued by the Education Authority on 22 October 2009. The Appellant is challenging the contents of that Co-ordinated Support Plan. As yet its contents have not been agreed between the parties.
6. Reasons for Decision:
The Tribunal considered all of the evidence and were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence available to reach a fair decision on the Reference. The Tribunal had regard to Chapter 4 of the Supporting Children’s Learning: Code of Practice.
Ultimately there were only four matters of dispute between the parties regarding the terms of the Co-ordinated Support Plan. As a result of the Reference being lodged the terms of the original Plan issued by the Education Authority have been substantially re-written following negotiations between the parties. The substantial agreement however had only taken place in a brief period in the lead up to the Oral Hearing and indeed throughout the duration of the Oral Hearing. This is notwithstanding that the Reference was lodged in early November 2009 and that the parties had been encouraged and directed throughout the course of a number of pre-Hearing Conference Calls to focus the dispute between them. The fact that it took until the morning of the submissions being made following the Oral Hearing for the Tribunal to be fully appraised with regards to the outstanding matters between the parties was a matter of significant disappointment. There was in fact little direct evidence heard regarding the disputed contents of the Plan. The leading of evidence had not substantially assisted parties in their further discussions but rather it was simply that the parties had had the opportunity throughout the week of the Oral Hearing to have direct discussions. This is, of course, not the purpose of any Oral Hearing. The Tribunal considers that both parties are equally responsible for this regretful situation arising.
The terms of the amendments required to be made as a result of this Decision reflect, in the main, the proposals which had been made by the Education Authority in relation to the specific outstanding matters in dispute.
The Reference to The child’s gastrostomy tube condition within the Co-ordinated Support Plan is an important issue. The Appellant sought for there to be an obligation placed upon the school nurse to liaise with community nurses regarding this. This does not appear necessary on an ongoing basis. The commonsense approach is for all staff working with The child to have an awareness of his condition, to monitor it and to report any concerns or issues in order that The child’s parents are ultimately informed. A responsibility is placed upon all staff.
The dispute between the parties regarding assessment by the Visual Impairment Specialist Teacher in order to plan, monitor and review a sensory curriculum for The child was ultimately a dispute over the ongoing frequency of such assessments. The Appellant sought that there be an obligation for these assessments to be twice termly and the Respondent wishes such assessments to be termly. Witness C made reference to the fact that such assessments should be ongoing. The Tribunal considers that termly assessments would be appropriate and reflect the same frequency by which The child’s individualised educational programme will be reviewed.
The Tribunal did not hear any direct oral evidence regarding the frequency or nature of Occupational Therapy Report which The child currently requires. The amendment required as a result of this Decision provides a basis for direct 1 to 1 therapy to be undertaken in accordance with what will be determined by The child’s clinical need.
The issue of hydrotherapy was a major issue throughout the course of the Oral Hearing. Despite this there was no direct relevant oral evidence regarding the frequency which The child requires hydrotherapy. Only after the evidence had concluded, on the morning of the submissions, did the Education Authority seek to lodge a Report on The child’s hydrotherapy needs which had been prepared by a Highly Specialist Paediatric Physiotherapist. This was dated the day before. This was received although late and consideration was given to it. This confirmed that in her professional opinion, The child does not require weekly hydrotherapy sessions. The Appellant’s main desire was to place an obligation upon the Education Authority to ensure that The child received weekly hydrotherapy. On the basis of all of the evidence heard there is no doubt that regular access to the hydrotherapy pool will greatly benefit The child. Ultimately the Education Authority indicated in their submissions on this point that they could commit to hydrotherapy once every 5 weeks but frankly on the basis of the evidence the Tribunal were not confident that this frequency level would in actual fact be fulfilled. It seemed inappropriate to the Tribunal to specify the frequency in all of these circumstances.
In view of the Decision on the relating Placing Request Reference it is anticipated that The child will be the subject of a multidisciplinary baseline assessment upon placement at School B. This will no doubt further inform those reviewing the Co-ordinated Support Plan as to its specific terms.
