ASNTS_D_14_2009_23.11.09

 

 

 

 

ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

Reference:                              D/14/2009

 

Gender:                                   Male

 

Aged:                                       12

 

Type of Reference:                 Contents of Co-ordinated Support Plan

 

1. The Reference:

 

The Appellant has lodged a reference in accordance with section 18(3)(d)(i) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning)(Scotland) Act 2004 in that she disagrees with the information prepared in the co-ordinated support plan (“CSP”) prepared by the Respondents.

 

2. Decision of the Tribunal:

 

The Tribunal allows the reference and directs the authority under Section 19(4)(b) to make such amendment to the co-ordinated support plan as the Tribunal consider appropriate within 28 days of the issue of this decision and the plan shall be amended as follows:

 

• There should be specific reference to the inclusion of occupational therapy support under the GET SET GO programme (or any other appropriate service to address the need) in relation to fine and gross motor skills.
• It is appropriate that the organisations referred by Social Work of Plus and Befriender are reflected in the CSP as parties engaged in the delivery of support.
• The development of auditory memory should be included as an educational objective potentially involving support from sources other than education such as occupational therapy.
• Transitional arrangements reflecting the child’s move from Primary School to Secondary School should be included in the revised CSP.

 

3. Preliminary Matters

 

The hearing was conjoined with a reference on a placing request in which the parent was represented by other agents.

 

4. Summary of Evidence:

 

The Tribunal had regard to an extensive bundle of papers and the oral evidence of the witnesses.

 

5. Findings in Fact:

 

1. The child is now aged 12.  He lives with his parents.    He has no siblings.  His father works away from home two weeks in every month and one further week he spends away working on a house which he is constructing. His mother is therefore the primary carer and the family home is in rented accommodation.   This is relatively isolated as the child’s parents think that such an environment offers him less opportunity to encounter socialisation problems with his peers.

 

2. The child was formally diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in 2003 but

indicators of this condition were present from a very early age. The diagnosis has a constant impact on how he can interact with others and learn.  He needs to be in an environment which can offer appropriate support to address the barriers to his learning resulting from his autistic difficulties and a high level of adult support.  He has delayed understanding and communication with unusual speech patterns. His speech may be fluent but he speaks obsessively on topics making use of his own language or repeating words. He integrates fantasy stories with his own life experiences. His understanding of language is impaired to the extent that even words he is able to use may have no meaning for him.  He employs avoidant body language and poor eye contact, particularly with strangers. He dislikes crowds and is sensitive to noises.

 

3. His motor skills were noted to be clumsy in the past. His parents sought advice from the Institute for Neuro Physiological Psychology (INPP) which is an independent organisation. INPP gave the child a diagnosis of neuro developmental delay and his parents follow a programme at home, set out by the Institute. There is no carry over of this programme to his primary school.   He plays repetitively on his own and either does not like, or is not able to, engage with others in play.  Although he craves friendship he does not have the skills to interact with his peers in a consistent way.

 

4. The child formerly attended another Primary School. He has attended his current Primary School since August 2005.  His family had moved from out with the area to this vicinity.

 

5. He is very close to his mother as the main adult in his life and there is a history of him becoming much attached to female children in a possessive and emotional way. He has an obsessive attachment to one girl in his year. He is physically mature for his age and although he is still attending primary school he is now of the chronological age to attend secondary school. He has started to take an interest in sexual activity consistent with his age but is unable to process these feelings appropriately.

 

6. He is normally well behaved in school but the frustrations he has experienced in school often break out once he is home and he can be threatening and challenging in his behaviour towards his mother whom he tries to manipulate. He has hit her on occasion when very frustrated. He has recently expressed aggressive thoughts. He has not been observed to act on these thoughts.

 

7. In the past 8 years, 17 children with a diagnosis of ASD have attended the specialist support base in his current Primary School. Since August 2009 the base has been an Autism specific facility. The base has provision for 10 children and at present, 8 of the children attending have a diagnosis of ASD. All teaching staff in the school have received training in working with children with this condition There are also specially trained teaching assistants.

 

8. In January 2006 the family went to the USA to enable the child to engage in the Son Rise programme which claims that it can improve the quality of life for children with ASD beyond conventional expectations. It is based on using eye contact as a first step and forces the child to initiate contact. If the child engages then he is rewarded. The child returned in February 2006. He was kept at home for home schooling with periods in the day when the Son Rise programme was followed. It was a very big undertaking for his mother and she was supported by helpers. Shortly before Christmas 2006 his mother indicated that the child would return to school. This was done on a phased re-entry from February to March 2007 as he was unused to being with peers.

 

9. From Easter to June 2006 he was managing so well that he was spending time in the classroom. He had become very used to engaging only with adults and needed time to learn to re-engage with other children. Since that time he has attended school moving between the base and the classroom as appropriate.

 

10. A CSP was opened for the child and an Individualised Education Programme (IEP) was drawn up.

 

11. His parents also arranged for him to attend a group called Future Kids. Mainstream contact is important for the child as his peers can provide an acceptable role model and also challenge his behaviour.

 

12. The child copes well in his current primary school. He has one to one teaching in the base for 45 minutes in the morning and then moves into the classroom for a variety of activities based on his learning profile. His needs are met flexibly, for example, he can move back to the base if he needs a quieter environment. He is less disabled by his autism than other children in the base as he is verbal. He occasionally seems tired and this can affect his behaviour. His mother records in his daily diary when he has had sleeping problems. If he is upset he can remain in the base. It is very important to prepare him well in advance for any changes.

 

13. He has an annual review meeting. Only speech and language therapy are actively involved at present. There is a SLT therapist or support worker in the school one and a half days each week. The child is recognised as having the potential to respond to significant SLT input as he has shown a marked improvement in response to this therapy.

 

14. Occupational therapy input will be provided as arranged by the respondents in future. A previous policy meant that where private arrangements were being made, in the child’s case, the INPP programme, no occupational therapy would be put in place in case there was a conflict between the two types of therapy.

 

15. There has been input from Social Work referred services, namely Plus and the Befriender Scheme. In view of communications difficulties between the Appellant and Social Work the full potential of these services has not been realised but they do offer significant and realistic potential support for the child and his family.

 

16. The school does not regard his autism as profoundly rigid. He is in the lower group on the Asperger’s range. He can be engaged on topics of discussion. He is regarded as well integrated locationally. He has a trained peer buddy within his group and he usually accepts this. Even though seating arrangements in the mainstream class rotate each term his buddy is there as a constant.

 

17. Academically he performs at level A of the 5-14 curriculum in most subjects but level B in some. He can read key words and instructions. His numerical work is good but computations are difficult for him. His performance is variable depending on his mood and his learning is not linear. He learns better in small groups or one to one when his attention can be directly engaged.  It is difficult for him to perform well or consistently in a standardised assessment paper. He has matured socially. He may introduce odd or random topics of conversation but no longer talks about Thomas the Tank Engine and interests appropriate to younger children.  At lunchtimes he often likes to be alone and the school staff think he uses this time to de-stress. It can appear that he has difficulty attaching to any peer friendship group.

 

18. The school is satisfied that he is making progress. They use reward stickers when he performs well and this strategy is also used at home. If he misbehaves he will lose time from Golden Time when he can choose what he wants to do. He receives a smiley face if things are going well and his facial expressions often conform to those symbols.

 

19. He copes less well with unstructured time in the playground. It is too long for him to spend with his buddy. The appellant has raised this as an issue with the school. She felt that he was being stressed by this situation. Early in 2009 there was a meeting with the Principal Teacher with responsibility for the base, which was not satisfactory in resolving this issue and the appellant lost confidence with the school after this meeting.

 

20. The child enjoys sports activities. He is good at physical activities and enjoys them. He has good ball skills. He enjoys working with his computer. He is able to Google to find places of interest. He likes trains and stations and can find them searching the internet. He has given a presentation at school on the Japanese bullet train which interests him in particular.

 

21. He has learned that certain phrases provoke reactions from his peers such as “tubby custard”.  He knows if he puts on his “sad face” he can also attract attention. He is able to cope with noisy places such as the school hall at lunchtime as he understands the context and it does not frighten him. He is not unduly hypersensitive to traffic noise.

 

22. There has only been one example of the child becoming physically aggressive at school when he pushed a support for learning assistant when he was very agitated in the period after play time. It was regarded as an isolated incident and was addressed at the time. It took place between Christmas and Easter 2009. There has been no repetition of this behaviour. He sometimes stamps his foot or puts on his “angry face”. His temper is not often in evidence in school.

 

23. His parents have visited more than 30 schools with a view to determining if there was a school which could meet his needs better than the provision currently offered or planned. They had previously considered making placing requests for two other residential schools but after initial visits with the child, these did not proceed. They have made a placing request for another school which is a residential facility based on the Rudolph Steiner principles of education.

 

24. The Respondents propose that the child attends Secondary School from August 2010. This school has a base specifically for children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. It has very good facilities, with lots of space and a garden for pupils. Subject teachers work in the base with the children who require this specialist support. The pupils engage with the mainstream curriculum in an individually adapted form. There are 20 children who are attached to the base. The curriculum is adjusted to suit each child so that engagement with the mainstream is variable and infinitely adjustable. There is provision for reverse integration which enables children who do not leave the base to have contact with their mainstream peers.

 

25. The school is situated only 100 metres from a specialist sports facility and includes a swimming pool. All pupils have access to this.

 

26. The Respondents consider that the child has the potential to take access courses in higher education and eventually participate in work experience which the School could arrange. There is also college provision locally which the child could access post school.

 

27. No steps have yet been taken to prepare the way for the child’s transition to Secondary school in view of the current reference. Transition arrangements have commenced for other children who will move to different schools. Two other children from this Primary are going to the School where the appellant has made the placing request in 2010 but their needs are regarded by the respondents as much more extensive than Freddie’s.

 

28. After visiting this school, the child said to his teacher than he liked his current School and would miss his mummy if he went to stay at the other school.

 

29. Children at this school generally have needs at the more severe end of the Autistic Spectrum. It is not an ASD specific facility. There may be a risk that the child would start to copy more extreme behaviours.

 

30. From April 2008 to January 2009 the child’s parents have incurred considerable expenditure in an intensive Applied Behaviour Analysis programme (ABA) to reduce negative behaviours and develop positive behaviours, with particular emphasis for the child on improving on task behaviour. They consider that this may account for the improvement in his literacy skills.

 

31. The child’s recently reported violent ideation, recorded in the report of the Educational psychologist, was unknown to the school. The school is now taking steps to explore this and to carry out a risk assessment.

 

32. It is recognised that the child requires support in transferring his learning from one context to another both in and out of school.

 

33. The parties have endeavoured to reach agreement on the terms of the co-ordinated support plan but have failed to do so in respect of the issues reflected in the above decision.

 

6. Reasons for decision:

 

The Tribunal considered all the evidence and were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence available for the Tribunal to reach a fair decision on the reference. The onus is on the Appellant to establish that the terms of the CSP provided do not conform to the requirements of the legislation as set out in sections 9 and 11 of the Act and in Chapter 4 of the Supporting Children’s Learning: Code of Practice.

 

We were assisted by the preparation of written submissions which are set out in summarised form below.

 

The submission of the Appellant’s representative was as follows:

 

The issue in dispute in this reference was in relation to the Co-ordinated Support Plan (CSP) prepared by the Authority for the child.  The areas of the Co-ordinated Support Plan in dispute identified by the appellant are:-

 

1. Factors Giving Rise to Additional Support Needs

 

      At the meeting on the 6 August 2009 the Authority agreed to make

      amendments to this section which the appellant is in agreement with. The

     Authority has amended the Section as per production R114.

 

2. Educational Objectives, Additional Support Required and Persons Providing the Additional Support Section –

 

Appearing at R129 to R133 is the appellant’s preferred section with an additional column recording the Authority’s comments, and R115 to R117 (The Authority’s proposed amendments).

 

Educational Objectives Section:-  

1. Format  It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that this section would flow better and be more comprehensive if the format was laid out as indicated at R129 to R133 in that main headings were used with appropriate sub headings (bullet points) compared to the Authority’s version. It was submitted that the educational objectives for example - (R115) no .2 and no .4, are about co-operation skills and communication skills with peers and social closeness and rules of social etiquette are one and the same. R115, no. 3, is about using the systems and supports in place within his environment to become an effective communicator and access the curriculum, and R117, no.10 is about continuing to use a visual and sensory approach to learning, an adapted curriculum. It was contended that this would appear to be duplication rather than separate educational objectives.

 

It was further argued that the issue in relation to the child will, or should be, about developing and supporting him. In the view of the appellant, the issue is a sensitive one and use of the word “will” implies if he does not achieve this objective it can be viewed as a failure. It was argued that educational objectives should be written in a way which enables and supports the child to benefit from his education.

 

2. R129 to R133 compared to R115 to R117

 

• R129 – The Appellant argues that the Authority’s comments are incorrect. The child’s IEP (T94 to T99) only has long and short term targets addressing - Language, Maths and Communication with the class teacher, LST, SLA and Speech and Language Therapist as the persons delivering. However, it is contended that it became apparent throughout the hearing that an occupational therapist will be involved in delivering direct therapy, providing a programme to be carried out by school staff. Under the GET SET GO programme a different Occupational therapist/physiotherapist will assess, monitor and review the relevance of this programme.

 

Social Work, and particularly the agencies Plus and the Befriender,  will need to be aware and understand the educational objectives and the strategies employed particularly in relation to communication, social and emotional, independent living skills and behavioural issues. The appellant envisages both these services feeding back information on how successful, or not, the strategies employed in school are when transferred into different environments.

 

It was further submitted that the description of how IEP targets should be delivered, one to one and high staff to pupil ratio, is relevant as per Chapter 4 of the Code of Practice No 55 and that a description of the peer group for the child is also relevant. Evidence was led from the Authority and the appellant’s representative on the peer group within all three schools. Furthermore, experienced and trained staff who specialise in ASD should be specified.

 

We also feel it is important to include the third bullet point in the Additional Support Required Section of R129, as evidence was led that advice, support, materials and training to teaching staff would be provided by speech and language therapist. The final bullet point - it is accepted that the child is not working on the elaborated curriculum but a modified one.

 

However, as the Authority points out in the last column of R129, the ICT resources are itemised in the IEP.  The Code of Practice, page 64 no. 55 states “including information communication technology”. Therefore we believe this should be stated in the CSP.

 

Page 130 – We agree that the child does not require Sign along. However this version and wording is preferred by the appellant. The Authority’s version at R115 to R116, particularly under the Additional Support required for the Speech and Language Therapist in relation to specification and quantification is inconsistent.

 

R131- We do not agree with the 1^st statement made by the Authority in relation to the learning approaches described under the Additional Support Required and I refer the Tribunal members to the Code of Practice page 64 no. 55 “ and any particular approaches to learning and teaching”.

 

The second educational objective on this page – to develop and support auditory memory is relevant. The specialist teacher and the speech and language therapist do not think there is evidence to support this objective. The INPP report, page A71, has the findings of the Auditory examination they carried out on the child and the impact this could have on his learning.

 

Fine and Gross Motor Skills – Page 131 to 132 – The appellant feels it is important that INPP are included in the CSP as the appellant will continue to fund this work. Evidence was led that the school and the Authority had no knowledge of the report produced by INPP. This is disputed by the appellant.

 

The Occupational Therapist report dated 4 June 2009, at R67, states that she “is unable to provide while the child is still receiving other therapeutic services and the child will be discharged from occupational therapy”  However, this appears to have been rescinded and the Occupational Therapist will be providing a service as described at R116 no 5.

 

The Authority state at R132, first box “taking account of INPP assessment”. Therefore the appellant feels it is extremely important that liaison with and advice from INPP be incorporated into the CSP in order that co-ordination between INPP, Occupational Therapist  and school staff are consistent in strategies and approaches to supporting and developing the child’s fine and gross motor skills.

 

R133- The first educational objective in relation to the child transferring what he is taught in the class into every day situations is essential for the child. We do not accept the Authority’s statement that it “continues to be part of basic good teaching”. For the child it is an area which needs to be targeted, and we believe should be an educational objective. For example, the child needs to learn how to communicate and act socially in different environments, and in order to do this, strategies employed need to go across all environments. 

 

It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Tribunal should uphold the Appellant’s reference as indicated above and direct the Respondent to amend the Co-ordinated Support Plan for the child in terms of the submission received.

 

In response to the written submission of the Appellant the Respondent contended as follows:

 

1. The Respondent’s submission is that the information contained in the CSP is appropriate given the guidance contained in the Code of Practice.

 

2. The Respondent identified 7 outstanding issues from the correspondence from the Appellant’s representative which are outlined below.

 

3. Outstanding issue 1 The appellant would prefer the layout in her draft discussion CSP which gives headings and sub headings under each section.  It is also felt that educational objectives should be about developing and supporting the child and not stating “the child will”.

 

4. The Principal Teacher’s evidence was that the objectives set out in the child’s CSP are specific and measurable and are appropriate for purpose.  The Respondent’s submission is that the inclusion of headings and sub heading is more appropriate for the Individualised Education Plan (“IEP”) than the CSP.  The CSP provides why the Respondent is undertaking the particular objective and the IEP covers what is being done and how.  The guidance contained in the Code of Practice at paragraph 54 provides that “the starting point should be to establish what is reasonable to expect the child to achieve over the course of the next year.”  The Respondent’s submission is that the CSP as currently drafted does establish what is reasonable for the child to achieve over the next year.

 

5. The Code of Practice also states that the CSP should be “described in terms specific enough to enable the education authority and the other agencies involved in supporting the child to monitor and review progress over time”.  The Respondent’s submission is that in order to monitor and review progress over time the objectives must be drafted on the basis that the child will achieve the objective.  Therefore, the educational objectives should be drafted to reflect this.  Accordingly, it is appropriate for the education objectives to state “the child will”. 

 

6. Outstanding Issue 2 Bullet points 2,3, and 11 appear to be about the child’s developing skills to be used in specific environments and the appellant believes he requires these skills across all environments

 

7. The Principal Teacher stated in her evidence that the Respondent’s approach was an appropriate way to approach the child’s development.  The Principal Teacher acknowledged that skills developed in specific environments would be used in other environments but that it was necessary to develop them in a controlled environment first.  The Principal Teacher explained that the best approach to ensure the transfer of skills was to practise them in an environment the child was comfortable with.  Once he had learned them in one environment he could then learn to develop them in other areas.  The Respondent submits that these educational objectives are appropriate as the child needs to build his skills on a step by step basis.  To draft an educational objective where these skills are to be developed into all environments sets up the child to fail.  The objectives are designed to be achievable and using skills in all areas is considered by the Respondent to be unrealistic.

 

8. Outstanding Issue 3 Some educational objectives have attached the additional support required which seems inappropriate – example- the second bullet point to do with bi-lateral and hand eye co-ordination.

 

9. The Respondent’s submission is that all the educational objectives and additional support required are appropriate.

 

10. Outstanding Issue 4 Other educational objectives appear to have two different objectives – example-final page first bullet point talks about curriculum and independent living skills.

 

11. The Respondent’s submission is that this educational objective is not two separate objectives but that is relates to the way in which the child has access to the approaches to his learning and independent living skills.

 

12. Outstanding Issue 5 Not all the educational objectives contained in the appellant’s draft have been included in the authority re-draft.

 

13. The Respondent acknowledges that not all the educational objectives contained in the appellant’s redraft have been included in the Respondent’s redraft. The Principal Teacher stated that she felt the meaningful objectives have been included in the redraft of the CSP.

 

14. Outstanding Issue 6 Additional Support Required- This section does not include experience and training of staff, assessment, monitoring or evaluation by therapist, learning environment, peer group, materials such as boardmaker, ICT or INPP.

 

15. The Respondent submits that there is no requirement to include the experience and training of staff to be included in the CSP.  Assessment and monitoring occurs on an ongoing basis and to include this in the CSP would be unreasonable.

 

16. The Respondent submits that the inclusion of INPP is inappropriate.  This element of the reference relates to the use of appropriate agencies.  The relevant provisions for Co-ordinated Support Plans are contained in section 2 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.  The relevant provision is contained at section 2(d)(ii) in that a child or young person requires a plan…for the provision of additional support if those needs require significant additional support to be provided by one or more appropriate agencies (within the meaning of section 23(2)) as well as by the education authority themselves.

 

17. Section 23(2) provides that “For the purposes of this Act, each of the following is, in relation to any education authority, an appropriate agency, namely-

 

1. 1. Any other local authority,
   2. Any Health Board, and
   3. Any person or a person of an description specified for the purposes of this subsection in an order made by the Scottish Minsters.

 

The Respondent submits that as INPP is not an appropriate agency there is no obligation on the Respondent to include them in the CSP.  Furthermore, as INPP is not an appropriate agency the Respondent would be unable to hold such a body accountable for the services they provide.  Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to include INPP in the CSP.

 

18. Outstanding Issue 7 It is felt that PLUS staff, befriender and social worker should be included under other educational objectives such as curriculum, language and independent livings skills etc

 

19. The Respondent submits that the individuals specified in the section headed “Persons Providing the Additional Support” are the key people who are accountable for the delivery of the educational objectives and are appropriate in the circumstances.

 

20. The Respondents submission is that the CSP as currently drafted complies with paragraph 55 of Chapter 4 of the Code of Practice in that it describes the additional support required to achieve the educational objectives stated.  It covers teaching and other staffing arrangements, appropriate facilities and resources, including information and communications technology ad any particular approaches to learning and teaching. Then Respondent further submits that the level of specification is appropriate in the circumstances.

 

The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence heard and the parties’ submissions on the matter in dispute. Much of the oral evidence at the hearing specifically addressed the suitability of the school identified in the placing request reference but some of this evidence was also relevant to the terms of the CSP.

 

Having regard to the above submissions the Tribunal has concluded in respect of the issues raised as follows:

 

1. Format. It is not agreed that the format requires to be amended since we are not able to conclude that the format adopted is in breach of the Code of Practice. It is incumbent on the Tribunal that in reaching any decision under section 19 of the Act, and section 19(7) provides

“In exercising its powers under this section, a Tribunal must take account, so far as relevant, of any code of practice published by the Scottish Ministers under section 27(1).”

 

The view of the Tribunal is that it is not sufficient to make directions to amend a CSP merely on the grounds that the CSP might be expressed differently or in the format preferred by the Appellant. Accordingly the directions to amend the CSP must be identified as being in breach of the provisions of the Code of Practice.

 

2. Occupational therapy input in relation to fine and gross motor skills. It is appropriate that the CSP be amended to include occupational therapy input under the GET SET GO programme. It was conceded at the hearing that it was now possible due to policy changes to incorporate this into the CSP even where there might be a private arrangement for delivery of similar services.

 

3. Social Work input.  It is appropriate that the agencies of Plus and Befriender are aware of and understand the educational objectives and strategies involved so that there can be the highest degree of consistency in the strategies used by all those who have close contact with the child in order to support his learning in school. Failure to do so may result in confused messages and undermine the progress which the child has made to date.   Inclusion of these organisations arranged by social work into the CSP can support the child‘s classroom based learning in view of the importance of a sustained curriculum approach.

 

4. Information communication technology. The evidence available to the Tribunal did not indicate that any information communication technology had been identified as appropriate to the child’s needs and we are not persuaded that the CSP requires to be amended to include any reference to this.

 

5. Development of expressive language skill. This section at R131 is appropriate.

 

6. Auditory memory. It is appropriate that there be inserted a reference in the CSP to the importance of the development of auditory memory as this is clearly indicated at the INPP report at A71 and the content of that report was not disputed by the Respondents in evidence.

 

7. Educational objective of transfer of classroom teaching into life skills.                                   We do not agree that it is necessary that educational objectives should be incorporated into the CSP. We accept the Respondents’ submission that an educational objective should be SMART compliant and therefore more suitable for incorporation into the IEP rather than the CSP. It would not be wrong of the authority to incorporate educational objectives if this was agreed to be helpful but we cannot be persuaded that the omission of educational objectives requires to be made mandatory by a Tribunal direction to this effect. Whilst the weight of the evidence was that it was particularly important to enable the child to engage in a meaningful skills transfer and this was not disputed by the Respondents, it appears to be a clear enough objective for inclusion in an IEP and consistent with the guidance set out in the Code of Practice. However the Respondents’ position that to set this up as an objective is to set up a situation in which the objective will not be met is not tenable. A CSP should not be framed in such a way that all objectives will always be met within the timescale of one year and it is sometimes appropriate to have aspirational objectives which can be worked towards even if these are not invariably achieved.

 

8. Transitional arrangements. As time has moved on since the CSP was drafted it is important now that the revised CSP should include specification of the transitional arrangements which will be out in place to prepare and support Freddie in his move to Secondary School.

 

In reaching this decision allowing the Appellant’s appeal in respect of the content of the CSP, we are conscious of the considerable discretion which exists to include different elements within the CSP. It is not necessarily a criticism of the authority that the above amendments are found to be appropriate particularly in a fluid situation where a parent is seeking a placing request and where engagement with the school and some support services has not been as close or consistent as may be desirable for the objectives to be achieved.

 

In view of the decision in the related Placing Request reference it is important that the supports which will now, and in future be available to the child are those which most effectively support all his learning objectives to the best possible degree. In coming to this decision we are have taken into account the very high degree of commitment demonstrated by the child’s parents in trying the achieve the best possible outcomes for their son. It is hoped that notwithstanding their disappointment that the placing request reference has not been allowed, the respondents and the parents can move forward in relation to the identified supports included in the CSP.